[
Replying to tam]
No. I posted this bible passage to counter your claim that one apostle (such as Peter) was appointed leader by Christ, over the other apostles.
Then you would still be wrong and still completely missing the meaning of that passage. If that passage means what you think it means, then God would be contradicting Himself, because throughout Scripture we see God appointing individual men as leaders, whom He gave authority, and whom we were expected to listen to. This didn’t mean these men were perfect, but He still used them. It also didn’t mean using these men usurped His own power and authority. It also didn’t mean these appointed ones were superior to the rest of us. This passage was not saying Christ did not put Peter or His Church in charge. This passage was warning against getting caught up, exactly like you seem to be doing, in titles and positions of power. Those God appointed are our servants. They need to make sure their authority does not go to their head. They need to make sure they don’t think they are better than everyone else. Here again are the passages that prove your interpretation is incorrect, because it contradicts the following passages . . . I bolded the parts that show what the passage you cited actually means. It was not in reference to Peter – LOL! It was not suggesting that Peter was not in charge, nor was it suggesting Christ’s Church does not have authority. And the very last paragraph posted clearly shows Paul himself did not take Jesus’ words to mean what you suggest they do. Paul refers to himself as father, clearly showing Jesus did not have a problem with titles or hierarchical positions. He simply did not want any of those He put in charge to be proud and abuse their position.
********************************
Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).
For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).
The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."
So What Did Jesus Mean?
Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.
He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.
Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
https://www.catholic.com/tract/call-no-man-father
Quote:
“But you shall not be called “Rabbi�, for One is your Rabbi, but you are all brothers. And you should not call yourselves “Father�, in the earth, for one is your Father who is in Heaven. And you will not be called Leaders, because one is your Leader, The Messiah.�
He is speaking to His apostles, and He is telling them, point-blank, that they have ONE leader. Christ, Himself.
Exactly! There is one Messiah – Jesus Christ Himself -- and He is emphasizing that appointing others and expecting us to listen to them does not negate that fact – it does not undermine His authority. They all point back to Him. Jesus’ commands, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven� would make no sense if those they were spoken to were not authoritative leaders, teachers, our fathers. You don’t get to cherry pick one passage and apply it as you like. A comprehensive understanding of Scripture as a whole must be applied.
And again if your beef is you think Christ did not established His Church as our earthly authoritative institution with men in a hierarchical leadership positions, that passage you cite is NOT about that – obviously, since we see in Scripture a hierarchical structure with appointed leaders IS exactly the form Christ’s Church took. And if your beef is that Peter was not “higher� in ranking than the others, you would be wrong about that as well. I have previously, and can do again, provided evidence from Scripture showing Peter alone was singled act, given a name change (very significant in Scripture), and the others all turned to Peter as their leader. Scripture goes on to show seeing Peter as the leader was exactly what the first Christians did. We also have tons of evidence in this from the writings of the early Christians and early church fathers. We also see this carried out as part of Sacred Tradition. But again, not sure why this bothers you, if you follow Christ’s advice – we shouldn’t be hung up on the title/position. It isn’t about the title. We all have different roles. Peter was not better or more deserving than the other Apostles, but He was chosen for this role.
***************
in Matthew 16:13-20 Jesus asked the question, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The Apostles responded, "Some say John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Our Lord then turned to them and point-blank asked them, "And you, who do you say that I am?"
St. Peter, still officially known as Simon, replied, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Our Lord recognized that this answer was grace-motivated: "No mere man has revealed this to you, but My heavenly Father."
Because of this response, our Lord said to St. Peter, "You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The name change itself from Simon to Peter indicates the Apostle being called to a special role of leadership; recall how Abram's name was changed to Abraham, or Jacob's to Israel, or Saul's to Paul, when each of them was called to assume a special role of leadership among God's people.
no one except God was called specifically "rock," nor was it ever used as a proper name except for God. To give the name "rock" to St. Peter indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority
"The gates of hell" is also an interesting Semitic expression. The heaviest forces were positioned at gates; so this expression captures the greatest war-making power of a nation. Here this expression refers to the powers opposed to what our Lord is establishing—the Church. (A similar expression is used in reference to our Lord in Acts 2:24: "God freed Him from the bitter pangs of hell, however, and raised Him up again, for it was impossible that death should keep its hold on Him.") Jesus associated St. Peter and his office so closely with Himself that He became a visible force protecting the Church and keeping back the power of hell.
Second, Jesus says, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the Old Testament, the "number two" person in the Kingdom literally held the keys. In Isaiah 22: 19-22 we find a reference to Eliakim, the master of the palace of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:17ff) and keeper of the keys. As a sign of his position, the one who held the keys represented the king, acted with his authority and had to act in accord with the king's mind. Therefore, St. Peter and each of his successors represent our Lord on this earth as His Vicar and lead the faithful flock of the Church to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Finally, Jesus says, "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is rabbinic terminology. A rabbi could bind, declaring an act forbidden or excommunicating a person for serious sin; or a rabbi could loose, declaring an act permissible or reconciling an excommunicated sinner to the community.
Here, Christ entrusted a special authority to St. Peter to preserve, interpret and teach His truth. In all, this understanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestant leaders wanted to legitimize their rejection of papal authority and the office of the pope. Even the Orthodox Churches recognize the pope as the successor of St. Peter
St. Peter's role in the New Testament further substantiates the Catholic belief concerning the papacy and what Jesus said in Matthew 16. St. Peter held a preeminent position among the Apostles. He is always listed first (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-1 5; Acts 1:13) and is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk. 9:32). He speaks for the Apostles (Mt. 18:21; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 12:41; Jn. 6:69).
When our Lord selects a group of three for some special event, such as the Transfiguration, St. Peter is in the first position. Our Lord chose to teach from St. Peter's boat. At Pentecost St. Peter preached to the crowds and told of the mission of the Church (Acts 2;14-40). He performed the first miraculous healing (Acts 3:6-7). St. Peter also received the revelation that the Gentiles were to be baptized (Acts 10:9-48) and sided with St. Paul against the need for circumcision (Acts 15)
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PETPOPE.HTM
Read Acts 15. This gives an account of the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem. Called at the request of St. Paul, this council met to decide whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ. Notice that there was much discussion among the Apostles and presbyters. However, after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent.
Read the first twelve chapters of Acts, which describe the early Church in Jerusalem. Every chapter (except 6 and 7, which describe Stephen’s martyrdom) shows St. Peter in a leadership position
The early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 AD, the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John the Apostle), stresses that Christians must be united to the Church of Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition. He then lists all the bishops of Rome up to his time. St. Irenaeus presents this teaching as something taken for granted by orthodox Christians. For 250 years the Roman Emperors tried to destroy Christianity through persecution. In the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope but one was martyred; the Romans certainly knew who was the head of the Church!
http://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/p ... al-office/
Nope. You did not. You posted a link, a distraction from the truth; and you did not respond to that or to the questions I asked you in post 55.
You clearly must not even have a rudimentary understanding of the time period or the origin of inquisitions so it was necessary to explain it to you, but you simply keep repeating this:
That the popes and bishops and so-called 'teaching authority' did not teach the truth.
This is simply not true. What you mean to say is you believe since there have been some Popes and Bishops who sinned, made mistakes, and screwed up, they couldn’t have been appointed by God, which is utterly false. There are examples throughout Scripture showing yes, even God’s chosen ones have screwed up. Men screwing up does not negate them as God’s authoritative leaders. So, your argument is meaningless.
Some examples . . .
King David. God used King David to lead His people. He was appointed by God and the people were expected to listen to David, despite the fact David broke half of the 10 Commandments.
Moses. God used Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. God spoke thru Moses and put him in charge, but even Moses himself did not get to see the promised land because he screwed up. Of course, at no time were God’s people supposed to ignore Moses because they knew he wasn’t perfect.
Peter. Peter denied knowing Christ, but despite this major screw up, we were to see him as our leader and listen to him, “He who hears you, hears me�
Jonah. The people of Nineva were supposed to listen to Jonah even though Jonah himself refused to do what God asked him.
If the so-called "Church" refused to speak and teach the truth just as Christ taught us, what good was it? What good IS it to anyone SEEKING to KNOW the truth? To anyone seeking to know Christ?
Gee, if the scribes and Pharisees were often hypocrites and didn’t even understand many of the teachings themselves, did that mean God’s Church was unimportant and unnecessary? Of course not. They were the governing body put in charge to make sure God’s people heard the Scripture. They were where you were to go. Otherwise, there was no unity, not ONE Church. There would have been multiple groups/churches all teaching different things. Of course, as you suggest, they would all insist they are “following Christ� and doing exactly what Christ wants them to do – they would all claim they are speaking the truth, but how would we know? So, the question you ask is pointed more toward your own beliefs – What good IS it to anyone SEEKINK to KNOW the truth to have a non authoritative “body of believers� without a centralized, united, authoritative, infallible, visible, earthly organization?
Those seeking to know God – to know truth would have been expected to get their information from where God designated. As Jesus said, “Do as they say, not as they do� He did not say, “Don’t listen to those guys.� He did not say. “My Church is corrupt and you can take it or leave it.� No instead what He expected was to inform us this was the way He set things up. It is for our own good. He doesn’t really care if there are personalities we don’t like. He didn’t care if we liked those He chose, or if we would rather belong to a group that had a beautiful choir, or if we felt more comfortable hiding behind our own rationalization that we believe in Him but are anti-religion. He knew that would simply become a very convenient way to NOT follow Him rather to follow whatever it is we justified. He rebuked such notions. We were still expected to obey His Church, as they have been put in charge to safeguard Sacred Scripture. He sent forth those He appointed to be our leaders and our teachers. He will protect us, if we remain with those He appointed. If however we leave, we are on our own. We are no longer following the word of God, but the word of Tam, or fill in the blank.
What do you suppose would have happened if the Popes and the Bishops had stood up and spoken the truth instead of participating in those un-christ-like tribunals and persecutions
I’m sure some of them did. In fact, like was explained, but you ignored, was the original purpose of the inquisitions were to give people a say/a fair trial and not just allow the state to chop their heads off like the state would have preferred. It was once again the Church attempting to look out for her people. Unfortunately, many within the Church at that time were still looking at the world through the eyes of the barbaric culture they were a part of. I tried to give an example of someone’s great, great grandfather being a slave owner to help you understand, but you ignored that too.
(giving approval to them, albeit a 'less unfair' version of them)? What do you suppose would have happened if they announced that Christians (the Body of Christ) do NOT persecute or punish or judge and condemn anyone? What if they, in no uncertain terms, taught what Christ taught instead? Did as Christ did instead?
Uuummmm . . . have you read Deuteronomy? The book in the OT full of rules about how God’s people were to treat their slaves and their wives. Some of these rules included stoning to death. Why? Was God in favor of stoning and slavery? Of course not. But we as a people were not there yet. We were a barbaric, uncivilized nation. God knew baby steps were required. A people that had just been praying to statues and sun and moon gods and who treated women like property, were not ready for all that God desires for us in the long run. They simply wouldn’t have gotten it. We are all on a journey. Scripture is the story of man’s journey. You are expecting more of these people than God does, because you do not have God’s wisdom. You sit in judgment about what you seem to know little about.
From Wikipedia on Deuteronomy . . .
Chapters 4–11: After a second introduction at 4:44–49 the events at Mount Horeb are recalled, with the giving of the Ten Commandments. Heads of families are urged to instruct those under their care in the law, warnings are made against serving gods other than Yahweh, the land promised to Israel is praised, and the people are urged to obedience.
Chapters 12–26, the Deuteronomic code: Laws governing Israel's worship (chapters 12–16a), the appointment and regulation of community and religious leaders (16b–18), social regulation (19–25), and confession of identity and loyalty (26).
Chapters 27–28: Blessings and curses for those who keep and break the law.
Deuteronomy stresses the uniqueness of God, the need for drastic centralisation of worship, and a concern for the position of the poor and disadvantaged.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Deuteronomy
And yet it is the OT that atheists love to use to suggest they could never worship or believe in God, because they see Him as a monster and an unjust ruler who had rules like:
The worship of Canaanite gods is forbidden and the order is given to destroy their places of worship. (12:29–31)
Regulations for the treatment of sex-slaves taken in war (21:10-14)
Various laws concerning adultery and rape are given. (22:22–29)
Sounds very similar to your criticism of Christ’s Church. Since she was involved in inquisitions, she clearly must not be Christ’s Church. Obviously, things like Deuteronomy prove your argument doesn’t follow. Unless you are suggesting God was not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were all taught to destroy the worship places of their enemies, were all slave owners, etc . . .
(And you are acting like the secular authorities are completely separate from the religious authorities. How is THAT possible? How do you suppose the so-called secular authorities got their idea on what was deemed heretical, except from the RCC?)
Honestly, I encourage you to read about this time in our history. I am not acting like they were separate. In fact, I stated the opposite -- there was no separation of church and state. The lines were blurred regarding authority/religion/truth. Those whose allegiance was to the state didn’t care what people believed – they just wanted to keep people in line. Whereas, the Church saw her role as protecting Truth/guarding Sacred Scripture. As far as the state was concerned, any one who got out of line was a heretic. They only cared if someone were teaching something contrary to Sacred Scripture if it disrupted the peace and unity. The Church was concerned about the individual’s soul and his/her ability to corrupt the souls of others. Obviously a combined religion/government created a tricky situation. And as we know now one fraught with problems. Less than ideal situations create less than ideal outcomes.
Quote:
Quote:
Did Christ ever do those things or instruct His apostles to do those things?
Quote:
Can you explain this?
Did God ever tell the Israelites to have slaves and stone people to death? Yet in Scripture we see . . .
.
these so-called representatives of God and of Christ did not teach the truth; and disobeyed the very command that Christ gave them "Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you."
Actually, they did not. They were probably sincere in their efforts to go and make disciples of all nations . . . but, like human beings are apt to do, they didn’t get it all right. Just because we don’t all always do exactly what God would want us to do, does not mean we aren’t Christians. And just because Christ’s Church is full of fallible human beings does not still mean it was not the means He intended to be our authoritative guide on earth. It isn’t that difficult to believe, because we see similar examples throughout Scripture.
Quote:
It is the Church who speaks out against oppression throughout the world. It is the Church who has always fought for those who do not have a voice. It is the Church who protects the most vulnerable among us
You cannot be serious.
I am serious. You once again think Christ’s Church can’t be Christ’s Church because sometimes human beings get it wrong. Now it’s my turn – you can’t be serious.
I am sorry, RR, but the RCC is not from Christ.
Yes, she is. This would be like saying, “I’m sorry Moses, you are not God’s leader and messenger. Those 10 commandments you are holding do not come from God. How do we know? Because you are an ordinary man who has sinned� Even though the fact that God intended to speak thru Moses can be confirmed from history, the miracles God did thru Moses, and the fruits we see that came from Moses’ leadership all prove Moses was sent by God for His people to hear.
He is not her leader. She does not listen to Him.
Yes He is and yes she does.
Her fruit and her actions and her teachings reveal this.
Her fruit and teachings reveal she is Christ’s Church on earth. No one else could meet the requirements of how we can know Christ’s Church – certainly not your
Body of Believers. But how convenient that you don’t even claim your
Body of Believers[/i] to be One, Holy, Apostolic, or authoritative. Since you deny your church is even a religion, no one can show you all her sins. Your “fruits� can be claimed as whatever you like them to be allowing you to distance yourself from the bad fruit your worldview is responsible for.
She is not herself Babylon the Great, but she is one of Babylon the Great's many daughters.
Age old unfounded anti-Catholic Protestant hatred.
Christ is calling His people out of her,
I know you actually believe that, but you are sadly mistaken. There is a great deal you misunderstand. I have provided much evidence showing my position regarding Christ’s Church makes the most sense. Evidence from Scripture, history, Tradition, and reason! Your position is illogical and unscriptural. To simply claim the church is the Body of Believers who “follow� Christ is a generic useless convenient ideology. Tina from Detroit uses Scripture to show we have to wash each others feet every day if we want to be saved as Jesus instructed the Apostles. Ben from Atlanta uses Scripture to support polygamy and justify his having multiple wives. Ken from Chicago swears he has read Scripture and has been inspired by the Holy Spirit and believes baptism is only valid if we use pure Spring water from the alps. Madge from Texas believes the Trinity is a falsehood. Tim from Rhode Island believes the Trinity is true. Julie believes in hell. Shawn believes hell does not exist. They ALL claim to be followers of Christ. They all have tested what they believe. They all are sincere truth seekers. And THAT is what your notion of the church gives us – NOTHING.
And I really don’t say this to be mean. I say it to make you think. I say it to draw your belief to its logical conclusion and when we do, it is rendered meaningless. IT MAKES NO SENSE!