Discussion:
Protestants and Catholics working together
(too old to reply)
robin hood
2007-02-13 02:49:10 UTC
Permalink
A firm AMEN to the prospect of Catholics and Protestants working
together, uniting in prayer:

"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in
the midst."
robert
2007-02-14 03:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by robin hood
A firm AMEN to the prospect of Catholics and Protestants working
"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in
the midst."
What is "in my name" ? What is the name?


Robert
robin hood
2007-03-01 02:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by robert
Post by robin hood
A firm AMEN to the prospect of Catholics and Protestants working
"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in
the midst."
What is "in my name" ? What is the name?
Robert
Hi Robert, I enjoy a measure of give and take. I grew up in an area
where many folk held age-old fears and divisions. History casts a long
shadow, said the Irish (atheist) James Joyce.

I know you might think me looney, but I mean no disrespect to you, or
to fundamentalism at all. The gnostics might seem like atheists to
some of the more theological (doctrinaire), but if we don't care about
labels, and can overlook our divisions, forgive my humble origins,
then be willing to hear what the spirit saith to the churches.
Sometimes that means looking outside the box. No, not heresy. Ask and
it shall be given you, Seek and ye shall find .....

http://www.geocities.com/cott1388/native-words.html

Kierkegaard, a Christian and an existentialist, said:

Destroy your primitivity, and you will most probably get along well in
the world, maybe achieve great success-but Eternity will reject you.
Follow up your primitivity, and you will be shipwrecked in
temporality, but accepted by Eternity.

Something to think about.
l***@hotmail.com
2007-03-06 03:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by robin hood
A firm AMEN to the prospect of Catholics and Protestants working
"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in
the midst."
Obviously you did not first study the context of this verse. It is in
the context of judgment of error or heresy. The Ephesian Church is
commended in Rev 2 for not tollerating false teachers or false
doctrine. So the issue is that of orthodoxy. Truthfully, the RCC in
pretense of V2 offered an olive branch, so to speak, to the Protestant
Church. However, upon careful study, in reality V2 once again stuck it
to Protestantism.

There will be no unification of these two systems until after the
Rapture of the True Universal Church of God. At that time the RCC will
have the position of strength being largely uneffected by the
departure of the Bride of Christ.
b***@dodo.com.au
2007-03-09 05:41:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by robin hood
A firm AMEN to the prospect of Catholics and Protestants working
"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in
the midst."
Obviously you did not first study the context of this verse. It is in
the context of judgment of error or heresy. The Ephesian Church is
commended in Rev 2 for not tollerating false teachers or false
doctrine. So the issue is that of orthodoxy. Truthfully, the RCC in
pretense of V2 offered an olive branch, so to speak, to the Protestant
Church. However, upon careful study, in reality V2 once again stuck it
to Protestantism.
There will be no unification of these two systems until after the
Rapture of the True Universal Church of God. At that time the RCC will
have the position of strength being largely uneffected by the
departure of the Bride of Christ.
As a former Protestant, now Catholic, and with first hand experience
in regards to some of the nonsense Protestantism sometimes says about
the Roman Catholic Church, I'll pick the issue that is at the core of
Protestant objections - the office of the Pope.

For a start it's based on Scripture, and most of the statements I'll
use in this are derived from a booklet "Catholic answers to 'Bible'
Christians" by Paul Stenhouse Ph. D.

The scripture is the well known one of Matthew 16 - 13-19, in which
Christ appointed Peter as the Rock on which He would found His church.

The following comments in quotes are extracted from the booklet ...

"At the outset, it should be made clear that up until the Protestant
Reformation the fact that Peter was the Rock was never disputed ...
and to him had been given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven...In the
heat of debate at the time of the Reformation it became important to
demolish the authority of the Popes, and the 400 year old polemic
which we are seeing revived today, resulted."

By the way that consensus held with most of the early church once
Peter's role was recognised.

"In a letter to Pope Damasus (304 -384 AD), St. Jerome (347 - 420 AD)
the translator of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin, who was
assigned this task by Pope Damasus two years before the Pope's death,
wrote thus: "I speak with the succssor of the fisherman." "(Ad
Damasum).
Post by l***@hotmail.com
From the same Jerome ... "Though I acknowledge none as first except
Christ, I am joined in communion with Your Holiness, that is to say,
in communion with the Chair of Peter. I know that it is upon the Rock
that the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this
house, is profane. Whoever is not in the Ark of Noah (when the flood
comes) will perish. I do not know Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I do
not know Paulinus. Whoever does not gather with you, scatters. (Ep.
37)"

St. Augustine also declared his understanding that Peter was the Rock.


Then there is the Primacy of Peter ...

Peter appears 195 times in the New Testament, the next closest is John
at 29 times. Of the 4 lists of the apostles in Matthew, Mark and
Acts, Peter always apppears first.

"It was Peter to whom Christ gave the Kyes of the Kingdom of Heaven
(Mt. 16, 19).

"It was to Peter that Christ said, "Whatever you bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven." (Mt. 16, 19). An example is excommunication and it's
subsequent lifting on confession and repentance.

"It was to Peter that Christ said, "Confirm your brethren" (Lk.
22,33)

"It was Peter who conducted the election at which Matthias was chosen
to replace Judas." (Acts 1,25)

"It was Peter who first preached first to the Jews in Jerusalem" (Acts
1.25).

"It was Peter who when 'there had been much disputing' in the Council
of Jerusalem (Acts 15) rose up, and said the word that caused "all the
multitudes" to hold their peace".

"It was Peter who was the judge in the case of Ananias and
Saphira" (Acts 5).

"It was Peter to whom Christ entrusted the care of his whole flock,
lambs and sheep" (Jn 21, 15,17)

"It was Peter who performed the first miracle when, in the name of
Jesus Christ of Nazareth he commanded the lame beggar at the Temple
gate, "to get up and walk" (Acts 3).

"It was to Peter as Chief that Paul went after his conversion and
stayed with him for fifteen days." (Gal 1,18)

"It was from Peter's boat that Christ taught the multitudes". (Lk
5,3).

"It was Peter whom, Jesus called to come over the water from his
boat." (Mt. 14, 28-29).

"It was to Peter that the angel sent a special message announcing the
resurrection of our Lord" (Mk 16,7).

"It was Peter, to whom the risen Christ first appeared." (Lk. 14,34)

"It was Peter who replied to the Sanhedrin in the name of all the
apostles". (Acts 4).

I could go on, but I'll first point out that every single one of these
evidences of Peter's Primacy is in the Gospels.

Christ was setting up an office. And 2000 years later the Church is
still going, despite being divided twice internally, the second time
with enormous bloodshed, as much the guilt of Protestants as
Catholics, and being opposed continually by external forces.. "The
proud gates of Hell will not prevail against it".

If you countermand with the claim some Popes were corrupt, then so
were 8.25 percent of the disciples chosen personally by Christ. The
office is not the same thing as the man who currently occupies it.
And as you would be aware, Peter went to Rome and tradition has it he
was crucified upside down.

I could go on with other Catholic claims, all of which are based on
some point in Scripture. Take Mary for example ... In John she
appears only twice, but with salutary effect. At the wedding at Cana,
she tells us "Do whatever he (Jesus) tells you", and at the cross
Jesus addresses all disciples via John, "Behold! Your mother!".

By the way in Revelation 12, there is a portent in heaven, a woman
with 12 stars around her head, and the sun and moon etc. Immediately
afterwards we read "Woe to you who live on the earth and sea. ... for
the devil knows his time is short".

Now you're probably not aware of Fatima, Garabandl, or Medgujorge, but
Mary, the woman with the 12 stars, and the sun and the moon etc. has
been appearing and giving us dire warnings. One of the signs that
there is something strange going on is that the sun appears to spin,
jump all over the sky, give off streaming colours, and can be looked
at without hurting one's eyes. Even communist and atheist journalists
at Fatima reported this to the newspapers of the time.

So, because we're so disobedient to Christ's demand for unity, and as
a result have tossed out some quite explicit teachings, God has been
sending us dire warnings, and we're not even taking any notice.
Incidentally the Rapture is unbiblical.

I remember the wisest, if sometimes discouraging, man I've ever met,
my first Protestant pastor making the comment to me in his office,
"Protestants tell a lot of lies about Catholics and the Catholic
Church".
Helmut Richter
2007-03-11 21:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
As a former Protestant, now Catholic, and with first hand experience
in regards to some of the nonsense Protestantism sometimes says about
the Roman Catholic Church, I'll pick the issue that is at the core of
Protestant objections - the office of the Pope.
For a start it's based on Scripture, [...]
I will not respond to this long essay, much of which is uncontestable
anyway. What could be debated is whether all conclusions are cogent, for
instance that the role of Peter is automatically transferred to all the
local bishops of Rome. But this is not the point.

The real question is how the ministry of the Pope is understood. Is it a
position of power ("because of my position which is backed up by Scripture
and Tradition, I am the boss and those not accepting me as the boss cannot
rightfully be counted as belonging to the Body of Christ") or is it a
position of service ("the Lord himself has given me the task of feeding
his sheep, and this is what I have to do")? In reality, of course, this is
not an either--or but both positions emerge. Particularly John XXIII has
seen his ministry as a service to the entire Body of Christ, and he has
had a great impact on all his successors, even on those who have written
encyclicas like "Dominus Iesus" in which the claim to papal power and the
necessity of surrender under this power is emphasised.

When I used the term "Body of Christ" I do not mean any particular
organisation, for instance those in a particularly close connexion to the
Catholic bishop of Rome. Rather, there are good criteria given in the
Bible whether to accept someone as brethren: whether they have been
bestowed with the Holy Spirit just as we were (Ac.15:8), whether they
acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (1Jo.4:2). It is
*not* a criterion whether they agree with us in important doctrinal
questions (Ro.14).

I happen to belong to a Protestant Church, but I happily acknowledge
that these days many important impulses have come from Catholics like
John XXIII, Chiara Lubich, Raniero Cantalamessa and many others who
were and are committed to this joint work with non-Catholic
Christians. This is not the cheap ecumenism which regards all
differences as neglegible; the barriers are still visible, and this
the more so as some of them are at the core of everyone's faith. None
of the above have ever denied their Catholic spirituality, and it
would have been a disservice to the others had they done it. The
non-Catholics are in dire need of their specific contribution as
Catholics, and vice versa.

There have been different phases of ecumenism in the last half century.
I am reporting from a European perspective; in other continents, the
situation may be different. We as Europeans would be happy if a movement
towards unity could emerge from the continent from which disunity has also
originated.

One phase was "hierarchical" with mutual consultation at the leadership
level of the churches, with a culmination at the 2nd Vatican council, and
a rapid decay after the death of John XXIII because his successors were
not interested in that process. I am not sure that this attempt at
community would have been successful, had it remained at the leadership
level.

A later phase was "democratic" with ordinary people in ordinary parishes
of all denominations discovering that they had much more faith in common
than the church leaders - who were always debating what separates - would
admit. Many activities have started which have their rightful place in
life of the parishes: sharing of the Bible and common services (albeit
without Eucharist) are perfectly feasible on this level. This approach
has, however, also its limitations as it tends to simply ignore the
separating issues.

Since the end of the 1990ies, we observe a third "communal" phase, in
which neither entire churches nor individual members take the initiative,
but communities like the Focolare Movement, Syndesmos, Sant'Egidio, Pro
Christ, the Taize Community, or Youth with a Mission, just to name a few
out of more than hundred. The difference to the previous phase is that
there is already a deeper commitment of the individual members to their
communities, and thus also to its spirituality which mostly has a
background of a single church tradition. The different spiritualities are
no longer perceived as separating (as in the first phase) nor as
neglegible (as in the second phase) but rather as a source for mutual
edification.

In this process, the bishop of Rome has played an important role by
reinforcing such movements:

-- quote from an invitation leaflet to a ecumenical service in 2001 --

It was an event without precedent in Church history when for Pentecost of
1998, the Pope had invited all new spiritual movements in the Catholic
Church to meet with one another and with him. John Paul II regards the new
movements as "the answer of the Holy Spirit to the challenges of our
time". This is why since then several such movements cultivate their
community with one another. Among them are: the Charismatic Renewal,
Cursillo, the Focolar and the Schoenstatt Movement.

In Germany's Evangelical environment there has been a similar community of
leaders of congregations, communities, and movements for more than thirty
years now. During the past two years, we, some movements from Catholic and
from Evangelical background, have made commonn experiences which we want
to share with as many as possible.

We are convinced that the Holy Spirit is at work in this common history -
and will continue.

We get together in order to
- thank God for the abundance of his gifts
- recognise and enjoy each other with the diversity of our charismata
- make the Kingdom of God visible in its diversity and beauty among the
new movements.

-- end of quote from the leaflet --

Since 2001, this community of communities has expanded a lot, with a
congress in 2004 and an upcoming congress in 2007. It is, however, not a
new organisation of any kind, but rather a forum where communities and
their members discovers the richness of the gifts the Holy Spirit has
given to the others. It is of utmost importance that church leaders have
joined in, without trying to take precedence, so that the shortcomings of
the previous "democratic" phase can be avoided.

For more information on the upcoming congress see www.europ2007.org .
--
Helmut Richter
b***@dodo.com.au
2007-03-11 21:41:59 UTC
Permalink
I might add to my post, mainly in regard to Fatima, where in 1917 Mary
appeared to three (illiterate), poor Catholic Portuguese children ("I
thank you Father, that you have hidden these things from the wise and
learned, and revealed them to children"). He didn't send Mary to
Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson or Kaiser Wilhelm, or even the Pope,
Orthodox leaders or Protestant heads of churches.

WIthin two years two of the children were dead, victims of the Spanish
Influenza plague of 1919 / 20. I suppose the devil made use of that
event to get rid of two out of three inconvenient witnesses. The sole
remaining child became Sister Lucia dos Santos. It is from her that
most of the subsequent testimony has come.

Incidentally I've cheated a bit and cut and pasted most of the
following from a publication put out by the "Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith", entitled "The Message of Fatime". I've
mentioned this for reasons of copyright. The full text can be read
at

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfa=
ith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

***************************************************************************=
***************************************************************************=
*****************

Quote No. 1 "The twentieth century was one of the most crucial in
human history, with its tragic and cruel events culminating in the
assassination attempt on the "sweet Christ on earth". Now a veil is
drawn back on a series of events which make history and interpret it
in depth, in a spiritual perspective alien to present-day attitudes,
often tainted with rationalism.

Throughout history there have been supernatural apparitions and signs
which go to the heart of human events and which, to the surprise of
believers and non-believers alike, play their part in the unfolding of
history. These manifestations can never contradict the content of
faith, and must therefore have their focus in the core of Christ's
proclamation: the Father's love which leads men and women to
conversion and bestows the grace required to abandon oneself to him
with filial devotion. This too is the message of Fatima which, with
its urgent call to conversion and penance, draws us to the heart of
the Gospel.

Fatima is undoubtedly the most prophetic of modern apparitions. The
first and second parts of the "secret"-which are here published in
sequence so as to complete the documentation-refer especially to the
frightening vision of hell, devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
the Second World War, and finally the prediction of the immense damage
that Russia would do to humanity by abandoning the Christian faith and
embracing Communist totalitarianism.

In 1917 no one could have imagined all this: the three pastorinhos of
Fatima see, listen and remember, and Lucia, the surviving witness,
commits it all to paper when ordered to do so by the Bishop of Leiria
and with Our Lady's permission. "

Quote No 2.

"Well, the secret is made up of three distinct parts, two of which I
am now going to reveal.

The first part is the vision of hell.

Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the
earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like
transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze,
floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the
flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds
of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire,
without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and
despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons
could be distinguished by their terrifying and repulsive likeness to
frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent. This vision
lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind
heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the
first Apparition, to take us to heaven. Otherwise, I think we would
have died of fear and terror.

We then looked up at Our Lady, who said to us so kindly and so sadly:

"You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them,
God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart.
If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will
be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease
offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of
Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that
this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the
world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the
Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask
for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the
Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are
heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she
will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and
persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father
will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the
end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate
Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will
be granted to the world".(7)"

<<My comment - Note the accurate predictions - the war (World War I)
is going to end, a worse war will break out during the Pontificate of
Pius XI (World War II), a night illumened by an unknown light (about 2
years before WWII, the northern aurora was so bright people outside
London thought it was on fire - a couple of years later it really was
on fire during the Blitz), Russia turned Boshevik the very same year
Mary appeared in 1917, and we know the story of suffering that
brought. Do you think a 10 year old uneducated, illiterate girl would
have these sorts of insights naturally?>>


Quote No. 2

"After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of
Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in
his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they
would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the
splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand:
pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a
loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense
light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror
when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the
impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men
and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which
there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the
bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city
half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with
pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his
way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot
of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired
bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after
another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and
various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two
arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal
aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the
Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to
God. "

This part is less easily understood. The Catholic Church believes the
third part reached it's culmination in the attempted assassination of
Pope John Paul by a young Turk under orders by Communist authorities
(the would be assassin has become a Christian incidentally, largely
through the Pope's example of forgiveness. He visited him in his jail
cell.). Whilst the Pope wasn't killed, he came close, and there were
an immense number of martyrs in the 20th century. A few years after
the assassination attempt, and what might be called the culmination of
the third secret, the Soviet Union collapsed.


Quote No. 3 - "Public Revelation and private revelations - their
theological status

Before attempting an interpretation, the main lines of which can be
found in the statement read by Cardinal Sodano on 13 May of this year
at the end of the Mass celebrated by the Holy Father in Fatima, there
is a need for some basic clarification of the way in which, according
to Church teaching, phenomena such as Fatima are to be understood
within the life of faith. The teaching of the Church distinguishes
between "public Revelation" and "private revelations". The two
realities differ not only in degree but also in essence. The term
"public Revelation" refers to the revealing action of God directed to
humanity as a whole and which finds its literary expression in the two
parts of the Bible: the Old and New Testaments. It is called
"Revelation" because in it God gradually made himself known to men, to
the point of becoming man himself, in order to draw to himself the
whole world and unite it with himself through his Incarnate Son, Jesus
Christ. It is not a matter therefore of intellectual communication,
but of a life-giving process in which God comes to meet man. At the
same time this process naturally produces data pertaining to the mind
and to the understanding of the mystery of God. It is a process which
involves man in his entirety and therefore reason as well, but not
reason alone. Because God is one, history, which he shares with
humanity, is also one. It is valid for all time, and it has reached
its fulfilment in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In
Christ, God has said everything, that is, he has revealed himself
completely, and therefore Revelation came to an end with the
fulfilment of the mystery of Christ as enunciated in the New
Testament. To explain the finality and completeness of Revelation, the
Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes a text of Saint John of the
Cross: "In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no
other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word-and he has
no more to say... because what he spoke before to the prophets in
parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His
Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation
would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending
him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with
the desire for some other novelty" (No. 65; Saint John of the
Cross,The Ascent of Mount Carmel, II, 22).

Because the single Revelation of God addressed to all peoples comes to
completion with Christ and the witness borne to him in the books of
the New Testament, the Church is tied to this unique event of sacred
history and to the word of the Bible, which guarantees and interprets
it. But this does not mean that the Church can now look only to the
past and that she is condemned to sterile repetition. The Catechism of
the Catholic Church says in this regard: "...even if Revelation is
already complete, it has not been made fully explicit; it remains for
Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the
course of the centuries" (No. 66). The way in which the Church is
bound to both the uniqueness of the event and progress in
understanding it is very well illustrated in the farewell discourse of
the Lord when, taking leave of his disciples, he says: "I have yet
many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the
Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he
will not speak on his own authority... He will glorify me, for he will
take what is mine and declare it to you" (Jn 16:12-14). On the one
hand, the Spirit acts as a guide who discloses a knowledge previously
unreachable because the premise was missing-this is the boundless
breadth and depth of Christian faith. On the other hand, to be guided
by the Spirit is also "to draw from" the riches of Jesus Christ
himself, the inexhaustible depths of which appear in the way the
Spirit leads. In this regard, the Catechism cites profound words of
Pope Gregory the Great: "The sacred Scriptures grow with the one who
reads them" (No. 94; Gregory the Great,Homilia in Ezechielem I, 7, 8).
The Second Vatican Council notes three essential ways in which the
Spirit guides in the Church, and therefore three ways in which "the
word grows": through the meditation and study of the faithful, through
the deep understanding which comes from spiritual experience, and
through the preaching of "those who, in the succession of the
episcopate, have received the sure charism of truth" (Dei Verbum, 8).

In this context, it now becomes possible to understand rightly the
concept of "private revelation", which refers to all the visions and
revelations which have taken place since the completion of the New
Testament. This is the category to which we must assign the message of
Fatima. In this respect, let us listen once again to the Catechism of
the Catholic Church: "Throughout the ages, there have been so-called
'private' revelations, some of which have been recognized by the
authority of the Church... It is not their role to complete Christ's
definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain
period of history" (No. 67). This clarifies two things:

1=2E The authority of private revelations is essentially different from
that of the definitive public Revelation. The latter demands faith; in
it in fact God himself speaks to us through human words and the
mediation of the living community of the Church. Faith in God and in
his word is different from any other human faith, trust or opinion.
The certainty that it is God who is speaking gives me the assurance
that I am in touch with truth itself. It gives me a certitude which is
beyond verification by any human way of knowing. It is the certitude
upon which I build my life and to which I entrust myself in dying.

2=2E Private revelation is a help to this faith, and shows its
credibility precisely by leading me back to the definitive public
Revelation. In this regard, Cardinal Prospero Lambertini, the future
Pope Benedict XIV, says in his classic treatise, which later became
normative for beatifications and canonizations: "An assent of Catholic
faith is not due to revelations approved in this way; it is not even
possible. These revelations seek rather an assent of human faith in
keeping with the requirements of prudence, which puts them before us
as probable and credible to piety". The Flemish theologian E. Dhanis,
an eminent scholar in this field, states succinctly that
ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation has three elements:
the message contains nothing contrary to faith or morals; it is lawful
to make it public; and the faithful are authorized to accept it with
prudence (E. Dhanis,Sguardo su Fatima e bilancio di una discussione,
in La Civilt=E0 Cattolica 104 [1953], II, 392-406, in particular 397).
Such a message can be a genuine help in understanding the Gospel and
living it better at a particular moment in time; therefore it should
not be disregarded. It is a help which is offered, but which one is
not obliged to use.

The criterion for the truth and value of a private revelation is
therefore its orientation to Christ himself. When it leads us away
from him, when it becomes independent of him or even presents itself
as another and better plan of salvation, more important than the
Gospel, then it certainly does not come from the Holy Spirit, who
guides us more deeply into the Gospel and not away from it. This does
not mean that a private revelation will not offer new emphases or give
rise to new devotional forms, or deepen and spread older forms. But in
all of this there must be a nurturing of faith, hope and love, which
are the unchanging path to salvation for everyone. We might add that
private revelations often spring from popular piety and leave their
stamp on it, giving it a new impulse and opening the way for new forms
of it. Nor does this exclude that they will have an effect even on the
liturgy, as we see for instance in the feasts of Corpus Christi and of
the Sacred Heart of Jesus. From one point of view, the relationship
between Revelation and private revelations appears in the relationship
between the liturgy and popular piety: the liturgy is the criterion,
it is the living form of the Church as a whole, fed directly by the
Gospel. Popular piety is a sign that the faith is spreading its roots
into the heart of a people in such a way that it reaches into daily
life. Popular religiosity is the first and fundamental mode of
"inculturation" of the faith. While it must always take its lead and
direction from the liturgy, it in turn enriches the faith by involving
the heart.

We have thus moved from the somewhat negative clarifications,
initially needed, to a positive definition of private revelations. How
can they be classified correctly in relation to Scripture? To which
theological category do they belong? The oldest letter of Saint Paul
which has been preserved, perhaps the oldest of the New Testament
texts, the First Letter to the Thessalonians, seems to me to point the
way. The Apostle says: "Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise
prophesying, but test everything, holding fast to what is
good" (5:19-21). In every age the Church has received the charism of
prophecy, which must be scrutinized but not scorned. On this point, it
should be kept in mind that prophecy in the biblical sense does not
mean to predict the future but to explain the will of God for the
present, and therefore show the right path to take for the future. A
person who foretells what is going to happen responds to the curiosity
of the mind, which wants to draw back the veil on the future. The
prophet speaks to the blindness of will and of reason, and declares
the will of God as an indication and demand for the present time. In
this case, prediction of the future is of secondary importance. What
is essential is the actualization of the definitive Revelation, which
concerns me at the deepest level. The prophetic word is a warning or a
consolation, or both together. In this sense there is a link between
the charism of prophecy and the category of "the signs of the times",
which Vatican II brought to light anew: "You know how to interpret the
appearance of earth and sky; why then do you not know how to interpret
the present time?" (Lk 12:56). In this saying of Jesus, the "signs of
the times" must be understood as the path he was taking, indeed it
must be understood as Jesus himself. To interpret the signs of the
times in the light of faith means to recognize the presence of Christ
in every age. In the private revelations approved by the Church-and
therefore also in Fatima-this is the point: they help us to understand
the signs of the times and to respond to them rightly in faith."



Quote No. 4 - This time from "The Final Hour", by Michael Brown, a
Catholic Journalist and author.

"While this was happening a disc of some sort moved in front of the
sun and for ten minutes the sun danced like the firewheels in
Ezekiel. Spinning and throwing off stupendous rays of crimson,
causing reflections of green, red, orange, blue and violet on the
faces below, it gyrated at least three times, shuddered, and began to
plunge downward in a zig-zag fashion, as if to destroy all the earth.

"We're going to die" people screamed. "It's the end of the world!"

Then the sun returned to it's normal position and to the crowd's
amazement their clothes, dampened by hours of rain, were instantly
dry.

As Avenino de Almeida reported in the newspaper 'O Seculo' "Before the
astonished eyes of the people,whose attitude carries us back to
biblical times and who, full of terror, heads uncovered, gaze into the
blue of the sky, the sun has trembled, and the sun has made some
brusque movements, unprecedented and outside of all cosmic laws ....""


Quote No. 5. - This time from Bishop Fulton Sheen, one time television
spokesman for the Catholic Faith, and who wrote a few books. You are
probably aware of Islam's resurgence at this time. There is another
aspect to Fatima not many people know about. This extract is from
"The World's Firist Love" in a chapter entitled "Mary and the
Moslems". It was also published in 1952, 55 years ago, so his insight
into today's confrontation between Islam and the West was salutary.

"At the present time, the hatred of the Moslem countries against the
West is becoming a hatred against Christianity itself. Although the
statesmen have not taken it into account (in 1952), there is still
grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return (!!), and,
with it, a menace that it may shake off a West that has ceased to be
Christian and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world power.....

It is our belief that this (conversion) will not happen through the
direct teaching of Christianity ..... which so far has been on the
surface, a failure ...but through a summoning of the Moslems to a
veneration of the Mother of God. This is the line of argument:

The Koran ... has many passages concerning the Blessed Virgin. First
of all, the Koran believes in her Immaculate Conception and also in
her Virgin Birth ....

Mary, then, is for the Moslems the true Sayyida, or Lady. The only
possible serious rival to her in their creed would be Fatima, the
daughter of Mohammed herself.....

The brings us to our second point, namely, why the Blessed Mother, in
this twentieth century, should have revealed herself in the
insignificant village of Fatima, so that to all future generations she
would be known as Our Lady of Fatima. SInce nothing ever happens out
of Heaven except with a finesse of all details, I believe that the
Blessed Virgin chose to be known as "Our Lady Of Fatima" as a pledge
and a sign of hope to the Moslem people and as an assurance that they,
who show her so much respect, will one day accept her Divine Son, too.

Evidence to support these views is found in the historical fact that
the Moslems occupied Portugal for centuries. At the time when they
were finally driven out, the last Moslem chief had a beautiful
daughter by the name of Fatima. A Catholic boy fell in love with her,
and for him she not only stayed behind, but even embraced the Faith.
The young husband was so much in love with her that he changed the
name of the town where he lived to Fatima. Thus, the very place where
Our Lady appeared in 1917 bears an historical connection to Fatima the
daughter of Mohammed......"

**************************************

End of quotes.

Now I'll tell you why God has been sending Mary. First of all He
indicated to John (of Revelation fame) that He was going to send a
portent in the heavens, in Rev. 12 "A great portent appeared in
heaven: a woman clothed with the the sun, with the moon under her
feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars..."

Not long after He warned us through John that at that time "Woe to the
the earth and the sea, for the devil has come down to you with great
wrath, for he knows that his time is short!"

So first of all God is simply doing what He indicated to John would
happen.

Secondly He would have been well aware that Islam would still be a
viable and powerful religion, but He cares for all people.

Third, He's sending Mary as a JUDGEMENT against a disobediently,
divided church. You see, we're so busy continuing our stupid four
hundred year old bun fight and picking out the bits of scripture that
suit our preconceived notions, that God can give us very blunt
warnings that we're in deep trouble, and we have hardly taken the
slightest bit of notice.

I wouldn't depend on the Rapture to bail you out by the way, because
there isn't going to be one.

Catholicism is a heresy, is it. I suggest you think again. For, you
see, we take the entire Scripture, and not just the bits and pieces
which suit our particular brand of theology. Or to put it another
way, there is only one Roman Catholic Church, and thousands of
different Protestant sects, some of which even share the same name,
but which cannot even agree with each other.

Who are you to tell us what to believe?





"
Matthew Johnson
2007-03-11 21:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by robin hood
A firm AMEN to the prospect of Catholics and Protestants working
[snip]
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
As a former Protestant, now Catholic, and with first hand experience
in regards to some of the nonsense Protestantism sometimes says about
the Roman Catholic Church, I'll pick the issue that is at the core of
Protestant objections - the office of the Pope.
For a start it's based on Scripture,
No, it is not. How can it be, when the notion of 'Pope' has changed so
much since even just the 4th century?
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
and most of the statements I'll use in this are derived from a
booklet "Catholic answers to 'Bible' Christians" by Paul Stenhouse
Ph. D.
The scripture is the well known one of Matthew 16 - 13-19, in which
Christ appointed Peter as the Rock on which He would found His church.
The following comments in quotes are extracted from the booklet ...
"At the outset, it should be made clear that up until the Protestant
Reformation the fact that Peter was the Rock was never disputed ...
This is not true. In the 11th century commentary on this verse by
Theophylact, we can read that he called Peter's _confession of faith_
the 'rock'.

The relevant sentence reads:

Peter confessed Him to be the Son of God; "this confession, which you
have confessed", He says to Peter, "shall even be the foundation of
the faithful".
[fm http://pagez.ru/lsn/0113.php#16]
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
and to him had been given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven...
And in that same source, we read the following about those keys:

Understand 'keys' as referring to the remission of sins, or the
binding of sins; for everyone who like Peter, is worthy of episcopal
grace has the authority to forgive and to bind. Although "I shall give
you" was said only to Peter, it was given to all the Apostles. When?
When the Lord said to them "whatever sins you forgive, are forgiven
(Joh 20:23)".
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
In the heat of debate at the time of the Reformation it became
important to demolish the authority of the Popes, and the 400 year
old polemic which we are seeing revived today, resulted."
Apparently your source forgot that there were other groups of
Christians who saw the need to oppose the Pope's exaggerated claims to
authority long before the Protestants saw it.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
By the way that consensus held with most of the early church once
Peter's role was recognised.
Not true.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
"In a letter to Pope Damasus (304 -384 AD), St. Jerome (347 - 420 AD)
the translator of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin, who was
assigned this task by Pope Damasus two years before the Pope's death,
wrote thus: "I speak with the succssor of the fisherman." "(Ad
Damasum).
This in no way recognizes the Pope as having authority over other
bishops.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Post by l***@hotmail.com
From the same Jerome ... "Though I acknowledge none as first except
Christ, I am joined in communion with Your Holiness, that is to say,
in communion with the Chair of Peter. I know that it is upon the
Rock that the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside
this house, is profane. Whoever is not in the Ark of Noah (when the
flood comes) will perish. I do not know Vitalis; I reject Meletius;
I do not know Paulinus. Whoever does not gather with you,
scatters. (Ep. 37)"
This too in no way recognizes the Pope as having authority over other
bishops. Rather, it recognizes that since _at that time_ Rome was
still a beacon of Orthodoxy, anyone who opposes the Orthodox teaching
of the Roman Church is fighting against the Church itself, and
therefore against God Himself. Such were Vitalis, Meletius and
Paulinus.

But after Pope Honorius, Christians in the East were _far_ more
reluctant to voice such unconditional endorsements of the Pope. For
this Pope was condemned and anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical
Council for teaching the heresy of Monothelitism -- an embarassing
fact Rome has tried to cover up ever since.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
St. Augustine also declared his understanding that Peter was the Rock.
Where?
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Then there is the Primacy of Peter ...
Peter appears 195 times in the New Testament, the next closest is
John at 29 times. Of the 4 lists of the apostles in Matthew, Mark
and Acts, Peter always apppears first.
"It was Peter to whom Christ gave the Kyes of the Kingdom of Heaven
(Mt. 16, 19).
But this authority was later given to all the Apostles.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
"It was to Peter that Christ said, "Whatever you bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven." (Mt. 16, 19). An example is excommunication and it's
subsequent lifting on confession and repentance.
But this authority was also later given to all the Apostles.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
"It was to Peter that Christ said, "Confirm your brethren" (Lk.
22,33)
This points out the special role of Peter among Apostles, but implies
nothing about any similar such role for "the successor to the
fisherman".

In fact, the same could be said of most of your other citations.

[snip]
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Christ was setting up an office.
That does not follow from anything you have said in this post.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
And 2000 years later the Church is still going, despite being divided
twice internally, the second time with enormous bloodshed, as much
the guilt of Protestants as Catholics, and being opposed continually
by external forces.. "The proud gates of Hell will not prevail
against it".
[snip]
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Now you're probably not aware of Fatima, Garabandl, or Medgujorge,
And now to really take the wind out of your sails: the reason so many
in Yugoslavia did _not_ believe the appearances at Medgujorge were
genuine is because Catholics in that part of the world claimed Her
support for pogroms against the Orthodox. That is, they claimed
similar such visions before, and then said that She told them to go
kill the Orthodox. And the Croats did it with gusto!

That is enough to disprove _that_ claim to genuine visions of Mary, and
cast much doubt on Medgujorge itself as well.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
but Mary, the woman with the 12 stars, and the sun and the moon
etc. has been appearing and giving us dire warnings. One of the
signs that there is something strange going on is that the sun
appears to spin, jump all over the sky, give off streaming colours,
and can be looked at without hurting one's eyes. Even communist and
atheist journalists at Fatima reported this to the newspapers of the
time.
So, because we're so disobedient to Christ's demand for unity,
Rome can have unity when it stops teaching heresy. It really is that
simple. Drop the Filioque, and the exaggerated claims to Papal
supremacy that follow from it. Every other obstacle to union is small
and easy to overcome after these two are dropped.

[snip]
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
l***@hotmail.com
2007-03-11 21:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
As a former Protestant, now Catholic, and with first hand experience
in regards to some of the nonsense Protestantism sometimes says about
the Roman Catholic Church, I'll pick the issue that is at the core of
Protestant objections - the office of the Pope.
Apostolic succession is only one objection. In fact, the history of
the Protestation did not resolve around Popery. The primary issue
revolves around salvation which itself resolves around authority. Is
the final authoritarian the "church" or is it "tradition" or is it the
pope or is it scripture or a combination there of.

The issue of apostolic succession is easily resolved by the
evidence of scripture who's time line does not grant Peter
sufficient time to travel to Rome and back for the Jerusalem
council. I've posted on this before. The interpretation of
"Babylon" in:

1 Pet. 5:13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you,
sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark.

is best interpreted literally, not figuratively representing Rome.
Rome was not so spoken of until later in the century. Also
there is the fact that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles
while Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Paul specifically
states that he would not build upon another's work. Paul,
in his epistle to Roman, makes no mention of Peter which
would be a strange thing if Peter were the 1st bishop of
that city as the RCC insists. Literal Babylon is the better
interpretation due to the historical fact that there were
a great many Jews that remained in Babylon after the
captivity who never did return to Israel.

But again, the primary protest centers around the issue
of sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura which the RCC
necessarily denies. RCism is a synthetic system and
it readily admits this. Again, I have quoted at length
in the past from RC source stating this fact without any
equivocation. A quick trip into Mexico or any Latin
country with grant you clear evidence that RCism did
not seek to replace cultural paganism but rather to
synthesize that paganism into its brand of Christianity.
The evidences for this are both evidenced by the historical
record as well as the RCC's own admission.
l***@hotmail.com
2007-03-13 00:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
The scripture is the well known one of Matthew 16 - 13-19, in which
Christ appointed Peter as the Rock on which He would found His church.
And here we have the pressure point upon which the entire inverted
pyramid of RC theology is resting. If there was ever any verse in the
Bible which needed context or supporting scripture to determine its
interpretation, this one would be one at the top of the list.

However, there is OT and NT passages which simply deny the RC
interpretation. Here are but a few passages which deny the RC
position including Peter's testimony.

Deut. 32:4 "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just;
a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is
He.
Deut. 32:18 "You neglected the Rock who begot you, and forgot the God
who gave you birth.
Deut. 32:31 "Indeed their rock is not like our Rock, Eeven our enemies
themselves judge this.
2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my
deliverer;
2 Sam. 23:3 "The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me,
'He who rules over men righteously, Who rules in the fear of God,
Ps. 18:2 The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, My God,
my rock, in whom I take refuge; My shield and the horn of my
salvation, my stronghold.
Is. 26:4 "Trust in the Lord forever, for in God the Lord, we have an
everlasting Rock.
1 Cor. 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were
drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was
Christ.
1 Pet. 2:8 and, " A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense"; for
they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this
doom they were also appointed.


It is most interesting what Peter did not write. Why did he not refer
to himself if, as the RCC insists, he was the rock of Christ's
comments?
The Rock is Christ and none other. The Church is founded upon Him
and Him alone. Also, "the Church" is not synonymous with the RCC.
In point of fact, when one reads Rec 2:20-23, one wonders if this is
not
a direct statement against the RCism. Thyatira seems to foreshadow
the
RCC of the Middle (Dark) Ages -preceeding the Reformation protests.
It was corrupt. It was combining pagan philosophy and religious rites
from the pagan mystery religions. It exalted Mary to the level of a
paga female deity through whom it was taught that intercession to God
should be made and apart from whose favor there could be no
salvation. The prominence of the female prophetess in Rev 2:20ff
anticipates the prominence of the unscriptural exaltation of Mary in
the CC's.

One thing is for sure, pasages or references such a 1 Tim 4:14 would
not
have been written if Paul had been establishing churches the likes of
the
RCC or the EOC. There would have been no need.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
and to him had been given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven...
The Key Master is revealed in in Rev 1:18.

If you would like to take a historical trek into where the RC keys
came from, I'd be more than willing to take you down that road. But
that's been expressed many times before on SRC. This includes that
which occured concerning "Peter's chair." Take a gander at Bower's
"Lives of the Popes" vol 1. the first 20 or so pages. There were
\a lot of red faces when Lady Morgan's "Italy" was published in the
early 1800's. Read vol 3 starting at page 79.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
"In a letter to Pope Damasus (304 -384 AD), St. Jerome (347 - 420 AD)
the translator of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin, who was
assigned this task by Pope Damasus two years before the Pope's death,
wrote thus: "I speak with the succssor of the fisherman." "(Ad
Damasum).
But this is contrary to Rev 2 and 3. It is also contrary to pastoral
epistles. There was no central church let alone central bishop. If
there had been any thought of this sort, it would have been with
reference to Jerusalem, not Rome.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
St. Augustine also declared his understanding that Peter was the Rock.
Funny, I've never run across any such reference.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Then there is the Primacy of Peter ...
Peter appears 195 times in the New Testament, the next closest is
John at 29 times. Of the 4 lists of the apostles in Matthew, Mark
and Acts, Peter always apppears first.
Interesting that when rebuffed by Paul, Peter did not spout forthing
anything about having the keys or being the "rock" or having, as you
put it, "primacy." Peter even expressed difficulty in understanding
the "hard things" which Paul's gospel entailed. Primacy? If he was
called to the Jews, what was he doing in Rome anyway seeing as how
they had been chased out of Rome? Rather, he visited literal, not
figurative Babylon where there was a large population of Jews.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
And 2000 years later the Church is still going, despite being divided
twice internally, the second time with enormous bloodshed, as much
the guilt of Protestants as Catholics, and being opposed continually
by external forces.. "The proud gates of Hell will not prevail
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
against it".
"The Church" meaning the RCC? It is the shrub which grew out of
proportion into a large tree of which the black birds came to roost
in.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
but Mary, the woman with the 12 stars, and the sun and the moon
And this about sums up RC interpretive skills.

Gen. 37:9 Now he had still another dream, and related it to his
brothers, and said, "Lo, I have had still another dream; and behold,
the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me."

The 12 stars are the 12 tribes of Israel mentioned in Rev 7. Proper
exegesis looks for scripture to interpret scripture. The woman is not
Mary, but Israel, the wife of YHVH. The "woman" no more represents
Mary than it does Christ or the Church. The matrix of God is Israel
especially in Rev 6-18. This mentioning takes place during what
Christ
called "The Great Tribulation," what Jeremiah called, "The Time of
Jacob's Trouble," what Daniel refered to as being "The Time of
Distress," all of which occurs in the last half of Daniel's 70th wk.

I'm sorry, Bob, but what is that on your bib? Crow perhaps?
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
I wouldn't depend on the Rapture to bail you out by the way, because
there isn't going to be one.
Well this is where I call in the doctrine of pan-rapturism. You
are raptured according to your doctrinal statement. And you are
correct. Cism not going any where because it is the whore upon
which the Beast sits. The symbolism of Rev 17 is does not concern
paganism, but rather spiritual adultery of those who claim to know
God. This is the apostate church who has alligned itself with
either political or economic powers. Who is it that likes to dress
up in the ecclesiastical pmp of purple and scarlet, decked out
in gold and gems but the ecclessiastical heirarchy of the
Catholic churches. I've seen the Pope so heavily ladden in
gold and jewlry that he needed help to stand up right. I've
seen the idols Mary clothes in garb worth hundreds of
'thousands of dollars. Hardly anything like:

1 Tim. 2:9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper
clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or
pearls or costly garments;
1 Tim. 2:10 but rather by means of good works, as befits women making
a claim to godliness.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Catholicism is a heresy, is it. I suggest you think again. For, you
see, we take the entire Scripture,
and add your traditions of men even as the Jews did. RCism is simply
a poor copy of apostate Israel. It established an unscriptural
priesthood,
sacrfices an unscriptural recrucifixion of Christ, it celebrates a
mass
which the ancient mystery religions establish millennia before it.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
and not just the bits and pieces
which suit our particular brand of theology. Or to put it another
way, there is only one Roman Catholic Church, and thousands of
different Protestant sects, some of which even share the same name,
but which cannot even agree with each other.
We are those whom Christ speaks of:

Rev. 2:2 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that
you cannot endure evil men, and you put to the test those who call
themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;

Remember, the remnant is always small.
b***@dodo.com.au
2007-03-13 00:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
A quick trip into Mexico or any Latin
country with grant you clear evidence that RCism did
not seek to replace cultural paganism but rather to
synthesize that paganism into its brand of Christianity.
The evidences for this are both evidenced by the historical
record as well as the RCC's own admission.
Granted the debate between Catholicism and Protestantism is too big to
cover in one forum.

However on you last paragraph, I assume you are aware that our
Christmas festival is a takeover of an old pagan festival, which the
church managed to supplant with the celebration of Christ's birth.

Since then the festival of Christmas as it is now is a synthesis of
paganism into the Christian religion, are you going to put your faith
where you pen is and stop celebrating Christmas?

---

[Even if what you say is true (and it's only a guess), scheduling a
holiday at the same time as a pagan holiday to give Christians
something Christian to do then is hardly making a synthesis. --clh]
b***@dodo.com.au
2007-03-13 00:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
As a former Protestant, now Catholic, and with first hand experience
in regards to some of the nonsense Protestantism sometimes says about
the Roman Catholic Church, I'll pick the issue that is at the core of
Protestant objections - the office of the Pope.
Apostolic succession is only one objection. =C2=A0In fact, the history of
the Protestation did not resolve around Popery. =C2=A0The primary issue
revolves around salvation which itself resolves around authority. =C2=A0Is
the final authoritarian the "church" or is it "tradition" or is it the
pope or is it scripture or a combination there of.
The issue of apostolic succession is easily resolved by the
evidence of scripture who's time line does not grant Peter
sufficient time to travel to Rome and back for the=E2=82=AC Jerusalem
council. =C2=A0I've posted on this before.
Who said he travelled back to Jerusalem from Rome for the Jerusalem
council? This is the very first time I've ever heard of it. Unless
you've got some extrabiblical evidence, I can find nothing to support
your claim.

A quick glance at Acts tells me "he went here and there among among
all the believers" (Chapter 9:32) in Jerusalem to begin with, then
Samaria, Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea, and he then is involved in the
Jerusalem Council. At that stage neither Peter nor Paul had been to
Rome. Your time-line is invalid. Where did you get it from?

=C2=A0The interpretation of
1 Pet. 5:13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you,
sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark.
is best interpreted literally, not figuratively representing Rome.
Rome was not so spoken of until later in the century. =C2=A0Also
there is the fact that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles
while Peter was the apostle to the Jews. =C2=A0Paul specifically
states that he would not build upon another's work. =C2=A0Paul,
in his epistle to Roman, makes no mention of Peter which
would be a strange thing if Peter were the 1st bishop of
that city as the RCC insists. =C2=A0Literal Babylon is =C2=A0the better
interpretation due to the historical fact that there were
a great many Jews that remained in Babylon after the
captivity who never did r
My understanding is that Babylon did not even exist at that time, but
had become a place of eerie ruins, as earlier commentators made
clear. As far as I'm concerned, "Babylon" was a literary device
representing imperial, pagan Rome, which was hardly at that time
Catholic or Christian. This is one of the problems with individual
Protestant biblical interpretation - it leads to a lot of individual
errors.
But again, the primary protest centers around the issue
of sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura which the RCC
necessarily denies.
From "The Collegeville Bible Commentary" (A Catholic Commentary) -
"INSPIRATION AND TRUTH - When one claims that God is the author of
the Bible, one is thereby making a statement about it's truthfulness.
Surely the word of God is trustworthy. God would not deceive the
community, nor would God allow the community to be led astray by
either the ignorance or the limited perspectives of the human
authors. In following this train of thought, many people have
insisted the Bible is inerrant, or free from all error. Such a claim
raises difficult questions.

How does one explain differing and even contradictory traditions?
(Human beings were created after the plants and animals appeared -
Gen. 1:12,21,25,27. Human beings were created while the earth was
still uninhabited - Gen 2:5,9). Must one adhere to a perception of
the universe which is contrary to scientific findings? (Light itself
was created before the heavenly bodies that give off light - Gen
1:3,16). Can one reconcile conflicting chronology in the Gospel story?
(Jesus cleansed the temple at the beginning of his ministry during one
of his several visits to Jerusalem - John 2:13-17. The cleansing
occurred during his only visit, which took place just before his death
- Matt 21:12-17, Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48).

And again from Stenhouse's publication, "Catholic Answers to 'Bible'
Christians - A Light on Biblical Fundamentalism" - "If I try to
demonstrate that the sum of the angles of a triangle is greater than a
right angle, and I end up proving it to be greater than two right
angles, then my demonstration is shown to be useless for arriving at
the truth.

If one enunciates a principle like 'each individual has a right to be
led by the Spirit of God' in interpreting the Bible, and the
individuals concerned arrive at mutually exclusive doctrines, then we
know the principle to be false: for the Spirit of God is not a Spirit
of confusion, falsehood or contradiction."
b***@dodo.com.au
2007-03-13 00:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
1 Pet. 5:13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you,
sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark.
is best interpreted literally, not figuratively representing Rome.
Rome was not so spoken of until later in the century. Also
there is the fact that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles
while Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Paul specifically
states that he would not build upon another's work. Paul,
in his epistle to Roman, makes no mention of Peter which
would be a strange thing if Peter were the 1st bishop of
that city as the RCC insists. Literal Babylon is the better
interpretation due to the historical fact that there were
a great many Jews that remained in Babylon after the
captivity who never did return to Israel.
To add another post, I lifted this from Wikipedia, the internet
encyclopedia. You'll note that by 141 BC, the city was virtually
empty.

Incidentally it took me a while to track down a simple history of
Babylon. I had to wade through a lot of fundamentalist tripe
regarding the futuristic fall of Babylon before I could get the simple
history I was after. The futuristic prophecies interest me, since by
their personal Biblical interpretation, they've managed to put a fall
of Babylon for a city that died over 2000 years ago.

If I had to point to a symbolic Babylon today, I'm afraid it would be
the home of Christian fundamentalism, I'm sorry to say.

Anyway here's the extract ...

"Hellenistic Period -

In 331 BC, Darius III was defeated by the forces of the Macedonian
ruler Alexander the Great at the Battle of Gaugamela, and in October,
Babylon fell to the young conqueror. A native account of this invasion
notes a ruling by Alexander not to enter the homes of its inhabitants.

Under Alexander, Babylon again flourished as a centre of learning and
commerce. But following Alexander's death in 323 BC in the palace of
Nebuchadnezzar, his empire was divided amongst his generals, and
decades of fighting soon began, with Babylon once again caught in the
middle.

The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet
dated 275 BC states that the inhabitants of Babylon were transported
to Seleucia, where a palace was built, as well as a temple given the
ancient name of E-Saggila. With this deportation, the history of
Babylon comes practically to an end, though more than a century later,
it was found that sacrifices were still performed in its old
sanctuary. By 141 BC, when the Parthian Empire took over the region,
Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity."

***************

You'd better have another shot at defining "Babylon".
l***@hotmail.com
2007-03-15 02:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Since then the festival of Christmas as it is now is a synthesis of
paganism into the Christian religion, are you going to put your faith
where you pen is and stop celebrating Christmas?
Well, that's not much of a concession. I'm almost there anyhoo. That
said, are you willing to give up Easter and all references to the egg?
How about throwing away all those mitres, a historically verified
symbolism of Dagon, the fish god. How about Ash Wed? Lent?

But all of these are secondary issues. Are you willing to subjugate
all Papal edicts to Scripture, even ex cathedra declarations? And
while we're at it, are willing to accept the scriptural teaching that
justification preceeds sanctification and this justification is an
act of Divine imputation of Christ's righteousness and not some
synthetic infussion which in turn adds works to faith?
l***@hotmail.com
2007-03-15 02:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Who said he travelled back to Jerusalem from Rome for the Jerusalem
council? This is the very first time I've ever heard of it. Unless
you've got some extrabiblical evidence, I can find nothing to support
your claim.
Read what has already been posted:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/browse_frm/thread/66f857c06625f410/063776cab924532e?lnk=gst&q=Peter+in+Rome&rnum=1&hl=en#063776cab924532e
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Post by l***@hotmail.com
1 Pet. 5:13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you,
sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark.
is best interpreted literally, not figuratively representing Rome.
Rome was not so spoken of until later in the century. =C2=A0Also
there is the fact that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles
while Peter was the apostle to the Jews. =C2=A0Paul specifically
states that he would not build upon another's work. =C2=A0Paul,
in his epistle to Roman, makes no mention of Peter which
would be a strange thing if Peter were the 1st bishop of
that city as the RCC insists. =C2=A0Literal Babylon is =C2=A0the better
interpretation due to the historical fact that there were
a great many Jews that remained in Babylon after the
captivity who never did r
My understanding is that Babylon did not even exist at that time, but
had become a place of eerie ruins, as earlier commentators made
clear.
So much for your "understanding." Perhaps a little investigation
of the facts would aid your "understanding."
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
As far as I'm concerned, "Babylon" was a literary device
representing imperial, pagan Rome, which was hardly at that time
Catholic or Christian.
Again, you will not find it so used at the time of Peter's
epistle either in the scriptures themselves nor in contemporary
works. It wasn't until later in the century.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
This is one of the problems with individual
Protestant biblical interpretation - it leads to a lot of individual
errors.
As you have illustrated. Again, take a look at unbiased
historical accounts.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Post by l***@hotmail.com
But again, the primary protest centers around the issue
of sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura which the RCC
necessarily denies.
From "The Collegeville Bible Commentary" (A Catholic Commentary) -
"INSPIRATION AND TRUTH - When one claims that God is the author of
the Bible, one is thereby making a statement about it's truthfulness.
Surely the word of God is trustworthy. God would not deceive the
community, nor would God allow the community to be led astray by
either the ignorance or the limited perspectives of the human
authors. In following this train of thought, many people have
insisted the Bible is inerrant, or free from all error. Such a claim
raises difficult questions.
And all those "difficult questions" have reasonable resolutions. But
even in truly difficult passages, one must accept the fact that
Christianity is all about "faith." The bumper sticker, "God said it, I
believe it, that settles it!" is wrong, but not by much. If it read,
"God said it, that settles it!", then it would be a true Christian
statement. It doesn't matter one wit whether I or you or anyone else
believes it. It's truth settles upon the providential work of God. You
believe that He is a God of confusion when He declares that He created
the uni-verse (single-spoken sentence) in six literal days. The recent
RCC declaration of allignment with the evolutionary theory, separates
itself from the literal interpretation of the Decalogue, the 4th
commandment in particular.

Scripture is of a necessity, inerrant other wise it opens everything
to subjectivism and relativism. If you maintain that there are some
errant passages, then who, may I ask, has the authority to dictate
such a thing? Are we to place our faith in that contrary authority
or in Scripture which declares itself to be the Word of God? Read
Jere 36. Where is there any allowance for error in Scripture? Did
not the early church exclusively search "the Scriptures" to verify
the gospel message and the apostles who were declaring this
new work of grace?
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
How does one explain differing and even contradictory traditions?
(Human beings were created after the plants and animals appeared -
Gen. 1:12,21,25,27. Human beings were created while the earth was
still uninhabited - Gen 2:5,9).
I think you need to study your bible a bit closer.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Must one adhere to a perception of
the universe which is contrary to scientific findings? (Light itself
was created before the heavenly bodies that give off light - Gen
1:3,16).
So? What is light -exactly? Also, who is doing the creating?
Is anything too difficult for God? If God is Himself light, then
what does it matter if He created the waves before He created
the generators? Also, you here reveal your presupposition of
uniformitarianism. You claim Peter as your 1st Pope yet you
take no heed to his condemnation of uniformitarianism in
2 Pet 3:4ff.
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Can one reconcile conflicting chronology in the Gospel story?
(Jesus cleansed the temple at the beginning of his ministry during one
of his several visits to Jerusalem - John 2:13-17. The cleansing
occurred during his only visit, which took place just before his death
- Matt 21:12-17, Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48).
Minor arguments. There are better ones. But if you were
serious in your inquiry, you would have already read the
multitudinous publications that print the resolves.

What about 2 Chron 4:2?

Or what about 2 Sam 24:24 compared to 1 Chron 21:24, 25?
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
If one enunciates a principle like 'each individual has a right to be
led by the Spirit of God' in interpreting the Bible, and the
individuals concerned arrive at mutually exclusive doctrines, then we
know the principle to be false: for the Spirit of God is not a Spirit
of confusion, falsehood or contradiction."
This is NOT what inerrancy involves. It is a totally incorrect
assessment of the Protestant interpretative. Protestantism
states that the gospel record as revealed in the Scriptures
is plain enough, by the enlightening ministry of the Spirit,
that any one can come to a true faith in its message. It does
not teach, as you presume, that there are, to quote your
1st Pope, no things "hard to understand." 2 Pet 3:16. How
often are the faithful called to mine, i.e. labor, strive, pursue,
the deeper things?

My argument is never with RC's. It is always with the
system of RCism. Like all the other religions of the world
of man, it has man striving to merit favor with God. Biblical
Christianity stands in contrast to this by declaring that
Christ has done it all for the believer. This is the point
made by the author of Hebrews.

Heb. 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering
of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb. 10:11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time
after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
Heb. 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time,
sat down at the right hand of God,

RCism, contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture,
"stands daily ministering and offering time after time the
same sacrifices," "since they again crucify to themselves
the Son of God, and put Him to open shame."
l***@hotmail.com
2007-03-15 02:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Post by l***@hotmail.com
1 Pet. 5:13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you,
sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark.
To add another post, I lifted this from Wikipedia, the internet
encyclopedia. You'll note that by 141 BC, the city was virtually
empty.
Well I'm not going to defend this all over again. You can let your
fingers do the walking and search out what has been written here
over the last 15 yrs.

I will leave you with this thought, however. If you persist in
declaring 1 Pet 5's reference to Babylon meaning symbolically,
the church at Rome, then you must also accept its denunciation
in Revelation. "City of seven hills?" Historically this has been
interpreted to mean Rome. The "whore" speaks of an entity
which declares itself a representative of YHVH but who in
reality is a spiritual adulterer. So which is it? Literal or
figurative. Either way, you lose.
Chris Smith
2007-03-15 02:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
And here we have the pressure point upon which the entire inverted
pyramid of RC theology is resting. If there was ever any verse in the
Bible which needed context or supporting scripture to determine its
interpretation, this one would be one at the top of the list.
[snip uses of "rock" as metaphors for God]

Before looking for "context" from other books of scripture, you might
first consider the context from the verse you're reading. The verse
itself, textually, precludes the interpretation you argue. One might
argue whether Christ truly meant that He would found his church on Peter
as a person, or on the faith as embodied by Peter, or some other
equivocation; but to argue that Jesus' "rock" had nothing to do with
Peter is silly. It is equivalent to saying that Jesus intentionally
mislead his listeners, who surely noticed that he: (a) called Peter the
rock, and then immediately (b) stated that he would found his Church on
that rock. Do you really think no one drew the connection?
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is most interesting what Peter did not write. Why did he not refer
to himself if, as the RCC insists, he was the rock of Christ's
comments?
Uh, because it was a metaphor. Use of a metaphor on any one occasion
does not require that others continue to use the same metaphor
indefinitely into the future. On the other hand, the distinguished
place of Peter among the disciples of Christ, and the way he spoke on
behalf of all of the disciples, is clear to even the most casual reader
of the Gospels; so all evidence is in favor of everyone having accepted
the idea that Jesus used the metaphor to express.

[snip unsupported accusations of the Catholic Church being various
things prophesied against in scripture]
Post by l***@hotmail.com
One thing is for sure, pasages or references such a 1 Tim 4:14 would
not have been written if Paul had been establishing churches the
likes of the RCC or the EOC.
I don't follow. I could certainly see the need to give that advice to a
newly ordained priest who was going to be responsible for a newly formed
local church and had not had the chance to grow into the role. It seems
quite wise advice indeed.

Perhaps if you explained your ideas more, they would make more sense.
Or perhaps not. It appears that your are accusing Catholic and Orthodox
theology with the strength of the organization support behind them.
Certainly the early churches had to make do with far less organizational
support.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
If you would like to take a historical trek into where the RC keys
came from, I'd be more than willing to take you down that road. But
that's been expressed many times before on SRC. This includes that
which occured concerning "Peter's chair." Take a gander at Bower's
"Lives of the Popes" vol 1. the first 20 or so pages.
I haven't read these particular pages because I don't have the books
nearby... but I can guess at what they say. There have been poor popes.
This is news to no one. The interesting point is that God has preserved
the Church nevertheless, albeit with its failings in terms of schism and
lost direction.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
But this is contrary to Rev 2 and 3. It is also contrary to pastoral
epistles. There was no central church let alone central bishop.
Unless you disbelieve the Gospels, there was certainly a figurehead for
the disciples. Unless you disbelieve most of the early Christians and
the preponderance of historical evidence (such as that which you didn't
quite answer here) there was certainly a local church, in Rome that was
honored as the see of the successor of that figurehead.

There was certainly no early Church that could claim absolute power to
command the obedience of other Churches. I will be the first to
complain that the Roman church acts too far in that direction today, as
I'm sure you will agree. (I suspect Matthew will even join in the
agreement on this matter!) That, of course, does not preclude that one
local church acted as a figurehead for the universal Church, or that it
was Rome, or that is was so treated because the bishop of Rome was seen
as the successor of Peter. All of this latter bit is, so far as I can
interpret the evidence, almost surely true.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Interesting that when rebuffed by Paul, Peter did not spout forthing
anything about having the keys or being the "rock" or having, as you
put it, "primacy."
Perhaps this was because Peter didn't misinterpret his position as being
one of absolute command over the other churches. Perhaps it's because
he had the humility to recognize that Paul was correct.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Primacy? If he was
called to the Jews, what was he doing in Rome anyway seeing as how
they had been chased out of Rome?
Peter was, I am sure, called to many things over the course of his
bishopric. In any case, I am not aware of any significant source
supporting the idea that there were no Jews in Rome. If you have one,
feel free to point it out.

I didn't see much new in the remainder of your post.
--
Chris Smith
l***@hotmail.com
2007-03-16 01:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Smith
Post by l***@hotmail.com
And here we have the pressure point upon which the entire inverted
pyramid of RC theology is resting. If there was ever any verse in the
Bible which needed context or supporting scripture to determine its
interpretation, this one would be one at the top of the list.
[snip uses of "rock" as metaphors for God]
Before looking for "context" from other books of scripture, you might
first consider the context from the verse you're reading. The verse
itself, textually, precludes the interpretation you argue. One might
argue whether Christ truly meant that He would found his church on Peter
as a person, or on the faith as embodied by Peter, or some other
equivocation; but to argue that Jesus' "rock" had nothing to do with
Peter is silly. It is equivalent to saying that Jesus intentionally
mislead his listeners, who surely noticed that he: (a) called Peter the
rock, and then immediately (b) stated that he would found his Church on
that rock. Do you really think no one drew the connection?
There are few here who are not familiar with the controversy over the
meaning of the statement,

Matt. 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this
rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not
overpower it. [NASB]

. . .particularly over the identity of "this rock." In the view of the
RCC Peter as the first bishop of Rome is that rock, and therefore no
church without a Petrine foundation can have any claim to legitimacy.
The RCC regards Peter as the first bishop of Rome and the following
bishops of Rome (i.e., Popes) as Peter's historical successors. From
its interpretation of verses 18 and 19 the RCC concludes that (a) it
is the only legitimate church, since it alone can trace its lineage
back to Peter, and (b) verse 19 establishes the infallibility of the
Pope and the Church.

Matt. 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and
whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [NASB]

Now the Protestant reaction to the RC claim, is to assert that the
rock has nothing to do with Peter and is in fact Peter's confession.
Others reject both views by appealing to those passages that affirm
that Christ is the foundation. For example, in 1 Cor 3:11, Paul
asserts that "no one can lay any foundation other than the one already
laid, which is Jesus Christ" (NIV). But no one of these three
solutions is entirely satisfying . There appears to be an element of
truth in each of the three explanations.

First, it must be pointed out that the conclusions which the RCC draws
from the identification of Peter as the rock on which the church is
built are not supported by either biblical or historical evidence.

1) There is no historical documented evidence that Peter was ever even
in Rome, let alone granted the title as being the "bishop of Rome.".
2) Simply put, the text states nothing about Peter's successors. In
fact, the entire idea of an apostolic succession is a contradiction in
terms. An apostle is defined in Acts 1:21-22 as one who had been with
Jesus since the beginning of His ministry and who had been an
eyewitness of the resurrection. Therefore in that sense the apostles
did not, and could not, have any successors.
3) There is no evidence that Jesus, or the remaining apostles, or
anyone else for that matter regarded Peter as infallible. In fact, in
the following paragraph, Jesus rebukes Peter in the strongest terms
(Mt. 16:23). Paul did the same thing in their dispute about the
evangelization of the Gentiles (Gal. 2:11).

Yet beyond these worthy objections, with qualification, the RC view is
correct in identifying Peter as the rock in verse 18 upon which the
church is built -with qualification. Everywhere it is recognized that
Jesus was using a pun in that verse. Unfortunately for us, the pun
cannot easily be translated into English. The language Jesus spoke
was Aramaic, the Semitic language of Palestine at that time, in which
the words for Peter and rock are identical. That word is kepha. So
Jesus' assertion is "You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my
church."

Kepha was not Peter's name. His name was Simon. Kepha was a nickname
given to him by Jesus (Jn 1:42). In Mt 16:18 Jesus is using Simon's
nickname in a pun. We can attempt to convey the sense of this pun
into English by translating Kepha as "Rocky." "You are Rocky, and upon
this rock I will build my church."

The NT was written in Greek in which it is equally difficult to
translate this pun. The Greek word for "rock" is petra, which is
feminine and therefore cannot be used as a masculine name, so Matthew
translates the first Kepha as Petros, the masculine form of petra.
But petros means stone, not rock, and was not used as a name at that
time. In fact, each occurrence of Petros in the NT refers to Simon's
nickname (that is, Peter, or Kepha, or Rocky).

So it seems that Jesus intended to identify Peter as the rock.
However, there is considerable truth in the Protestant reaction to the
claims of the RCC. After all, Peter was hardly a rock-like person.
He was unstable, wavering, and impetuous, and when understood in the
Jewish context of the rabbi / telmead relationship, his denying Jesus
as his rabbi exhibits extreme weakness. No true telmead ever denied
his rabbi. However, in this we gain the understanding of the context
of v 18 which informs us that the rock is not Peter the unstable
person, but Peter the confessor of Jesus as the Messiah. The rock on
which the church is built is not Peter the unsteady person who denied
the Lord, but Peter who affirmed that Jesus was the Christ the Son of
the living God. As FF Bruce observes, "what matters is not the
stature of the confessor but the truth of the confession."

So how do we interpret those passages which refer to Christ as the
foundation of the church? Jesus describes Himself as the chief
cornerstone (Mt. 21:42, Mk. 12:10) and Peter confirms that
identification (1 Pet. 2:7). Such passages do not contradict Jesus'
description of Peter as the foundation of the church in Mt 16:18.
Biblical metaphors are used in a variety of ways and they have to be
interpreted in their specific context. For example, in Mt 16 Jesus is
the builder, but in 1 Cor 3, Paul is an "expert builder." In the
former context, Peter is the rock on which the church is built,
whereas in the latter, Christ is the foundation. In still another
context (Eph. 2:20), Paul states that the church is built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, as we will discuss below.

But these different ways of describing the foundation of the church
are neither logically nor mutually exclusive. In one sense the person
and work of the Christ remains the foundation of the church. But in
another sense Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah is the basis
for the existence of the church. When Paul states in Eph 2:20 that
the church is built upon "the foundation of the apostles and
prophets," he is not implying that the apostles and prophets
constitute a different foundation from Christ. But the apostles
exercised the authority of Christ, and it is on that basis that their
work was foundational. For example, the doctrinal foundation of the
church is the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42). What the apostles
taught has the imprimatur of Christ and reflected His delegated
authority.

Like the apostles, prophets in the NT received distinct gifts which
permitted them to perform their ministry of prediction and
proclamation. The purpose of the prophetic mission was the
edification, exhortation, and consolation of the church (1 Cor.
14:3). There is evidence that in the NT prophets sometimes received
special revelation from God, which they in turn conveyed to the
church. However after the establishment of the NT canon, the need for
such gifts disappeared. The prophetic gift still exists today but as
understood exclussively in it biblical "9 times out of 10" distinction
meaning "forth-telling" not "fore-telling."

We could review a history of the church in regards to this dilemma,
but it would only show that the teachings of apostolic succession,
eccumentical unification and the like are all outside of the first and
second century church. The spectrum of RCC doctrine establishing
preeminence is outside of the apostolic record and outside of the
historical record of the early church. In fact, when one takes a hard
look at the sequence of events, it proves clear that the rise came
from individuals seeking to establish their own little kingdoms which
in turn lead to idea of ecclesiastical preeminence. Following the NT
discription of the early church, there would have been numerous
individual assemblies in Rome. How one particular denomination came
to be established in beyond the scope of this post. Let it only be
said that it was not established by Christ nor a precipate of
apostolic teaching. It was purely self serving. It was the
establishment of "religion," not what Christ had emphasized by the
"strong" Peter.

There are few here who are not familiar with the controversy over the
meaning of the statement,

Matt. 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this
rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not
overpower it. [NASB]

. . .particularly over the identity of "this rock." In the view of the
RCC Peter as the first bishop of Rome is that rock, and therefore no
church without a Petrine foundation can have any claim to legitimacy.
The RCC regards Peter as the first bishop of Rome and the following
bishops of Rome (i.e., Popes) as Peter's historical successors. From
its interpretation of verses 18 and 19 the RCC concludes that (a) it
is the only legitimate church, since it alone can trace its lineage
back to Peter, and (b) verse 19 establishes the infallibility of the
Pope and the Church.

Matt. 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and
whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [NASB]

Now the Protestant reaction to the RC claim, is to assert that the
rock has nothing to do with Peter and is in fact Peter's confession.
Others reject both views by appealing to those passages that affirm
that Christ is the foundation. For example, in 1 Cor 3:11, Paul
asserts that "no one can lay any foundation other than the one already
laid, which is Jesus Christ" (NIV). But no one of these three
solutions is entirely satisfying . There appears to be an element of
truth in each of the three explanations.

First, it must be pointed out that the conclusions which the RCC draws
from the identification of Peter as the rock on which the church is
built are not supported by either biblical or historical evidence.

1) There is no historical documented evidence that Peter was ever even
in Rome, let alone granted the title as being the "bishop of Rome.".
2) Simply put, the text states nothing about Peter's successors. In
fact, the entire idea of an apostolic succession is a contradiction in
terms. An apostle is defined in Acts 1:21-22 as one who had been with
Jesus since the beginning of His ministry and who had been an
eyewitness of the resurrection. Therefore in that sense the apostles
did not, and could not, have any successors.
3) There is no evidence that Jesus, or the remaining apostles, or
anyone else for that matter regarded Peter as infallible. In fact, in
the following paragraph, Jesus rebukes Peter in the strongest terms
(Mt. 16:23). Paul did the same thing in their dispute about the
evangelization of the Gentiles (Gal. 2:11).

Yet beyond these worthy objections, with qualification, the RC view is
correct in identifying Peter as the rock in verse 18 upon which the
church is built -with qualification. Everywhere it is recognized that
Jesus was using a pun in that verse. Unfortunately for us, the pun
cannot easily be translated into English. The language Jesus spoke
was Aramaic, the Semitic language of Palestine at that time, in which
the words for Peter and rock are identical. That word is kepha. So
Jesus' assertion is "You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my
church."

Kepha was not Peter's name. His name was Simon. Kepha was a nickname
given to him by Jesus (Jn 1:42). In Mt 16:18 Jesus is using Simon's
nickname in a pun. We can attempt to convey the sense of this pun
into English by translating Kepha as "Rocky." "You are Rocky, and upon
this rock I will build my church."

The NT was written in Greek in which it is equally difficult to
translate this pun. The Greek word for "rock" is petra, which is
feminine and therefore cannot be used as a masculine name, so Matthew
translates the first Kepha as Petros, the masculine form of petra.
But petros means stone, not rock, and was not used as a name at that
time. In fact, each occurrence of Petros in the NT refers to Simon's
nickname (that is, Peter, or Kepha, or Rocky).

So it seems that Jesus intended to identify Peter as the rock.
However, there is considerable truth in the Protestant reaction to the
claims of the RCC. After all, Peter was hardly a rock-like person.
He was unstable, wavering, and impetuous, and when understood in the
Jewish context of the rabbi / telmead relationship, his denying Jesus
as his rabbi exhibits extreme weakness. No true telmead ever denied
his rabbi. However, in this we gain the understanding of the context
of v 18 which informs us that the rock is not Peter the unstable
person, but Peter the confessor of Jesus as the Messiah. The rock on
which the church is built is not Peter the unsteady person who denied
the Lord, but Peter who affirmed that Jesus was the Christ the Son of
the living God. As FF Bruce observes, "what matters is not the
stature of the confessor but the truth of the confession."

So how do we interpret those passages which refer to Christ as the
foundation of the church? Jesus describes Himself as the chief
cornerstone (Mt. 21:42, Mk. 12:10) and Peter confirms that
identification (1 Pet. 2:7). Such passages do not contradict Jesus'
description of Peter as the foundation of the church in Mt 16:18.
Biblical metaphors are used in a variety of ways and they have to be
interpreted in their specific context. For example, in Mt 16 Jesus is
the builder, but in 1 Cor 3, Paul is an "expert builder." In the
former context, Peter is the rock on which the church is built,
whereas in the latter, Christ is the foundation. In still another
context (Eph. 2:20), Paul states that the church is built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, as we will discuss below.

But these different ways of describing the foundation of the church
are neither logically nor mutually exclusive. In one sense the person
and work of the Christ remains the foundation of the church. But in
another sense Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah is the basis
for the existence of the church. When Paul states in Eph 2:20 that
the church is built upon "the foundation of the apostles and
prophets," he is not implying that the apostles and prophets
constitute a different foundation from Christ. But the apostles
exercised the authority of Christ, and it is on that basis that their
work was foundational. For example, the doctrinal foundation of the
church is the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42). What the apostles
taught has the imprimatur of Christ and reflected His delegated
authority.

Like the apostles, prophets in the NT received distinct gifts which
permitted them to perform their ministry of prediction and
proclamation. The purpose of the prophetic mission was the
edification, exhortation, and consolation of the church (1 Cor.
14:3). There is evidence that in the NT prophets sometimes received
special revelation from God, which they in turn conveyed to the
church. However after the establishment of the NT canon, the need for
such gifts disappeared. The prophetic gift still exists today but as
understood exclussively in it biblical "9 times out of 10" distinction
meaning "forth-telling" not "fore-telling."

We could review a history of the church in regards to this dilemma,
but it would only show that the teachings of apostolic succession,
eccumentical unification and the like are all outside of the first and
second century church. The spectrum of RCC doctrine establishing
preeminence is outside of the apostolic record and outside of the
historical record of the early church. In fact, when one takes a hard
look at the sequence of events, it proves clear that the rise came
from individuals seeking to establish their own little kingdoms which
in turn lead to idea of ecclesiastical preeminence. Following the NT
discription of the early church, there would have been numerous
individual assemblies in Rome. How one particular denomination came
to be established in beyond the scope of this post. Let it only be
said that it was not established by Christ nor a precipate of
apostolic teaching. It was purely self serving. It was the
establishment of "religion," not what Christ had emphasized by the
"strong" Peter.
b***@dodo.com.au
2007-03-16 01:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Rather than repeat all the above points, I'll just do a big <snip> and
start with a clean slate.

It's a pity "Isend" hasn't attended a mass. When the priest hold up
the cup and the bread, the actual words we say as part of our response
are "I am not worthy to receive this, but just say the word and I
shall be healed". That's a clear reference to both the saving grace
of Christ's sacrifice and the realisation that we know full well we
can't earn salvation. But we also recognise we'll be judged on what
we do with our life, and particularly the service of others,
regardless of our "saved" state, a salvation which can be lost
incidentally.

"Babylon" was a carryover from Jewish usage as a place of bondage. In
early Christian times, Rome, the PAGAN imperial city, came to be
referred to as "Babylon". It also has a general connotation as any
place that persecutes Christians and the Church. Russian Christians
in the 20th century could, had they wanted to, have referred to the
Soviet Union as Babylon. I sometimes wonder what American Christians
will call their own country if the full weight of the law is thrown
behind something like the Verichip, satellite tracking, Wall Street in
a city of "many waters", inordinate disparity between rich and poor,
abortion on demand, Star Wars with national immunity to outside
attack, a nuclear arsenal which can reach any point on the globe, a
home grown sect like Mormonism for example being defined as the only
acceptable church (which, by the way, if I had to nominate a 'false
church', close enough to be attractive, but useless for salvation,
would be it, or as one former Mormon wrote "One Nation Under Gods"),
and so many divided denominations, held together only by their
antagonism to the RCC.

One thing I will say - this bitter antagonism of the RCC by
Protestants can have only one of two ultimate sources - God or the
devil. I wonder which one it is.

I also reject any possibility that any epistles were written from
Babylon. It did not exist at that time - full stop.

Again from Stenhouse's booklet, "There is clear testimony to Peter's
stay in Rome in the first Epistle, which is certainly authentic, of
Peter himself. At the end of this epistle, written in 64AD to the
Christian communities of Asia Minor, Peter sends the following
greetings to the faithful: "The community of the elect in Babylon
<figuratively imperial Rome> send you greetings: so does my son, Mark.

...It is a well known fact. easily verifiable, that in the early
Christian centuries, there was a widespread custom of calling Imperial
Rome 'Babylon'. This custom was part of a movement hostile towards
Rome which took its origins in the Jewish community. By the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD hostility would turn to implacable
hatred, and Jews (Peter among them) would have been familiar with this
usage..."
From "A Lion Handbook - The History of Christianity" (a Protestant
publication I believe), made the comment about Peter "After Jesus
ascended, Peter took the initiative .... Peter and John took the lead
in the early days of the church ... taking a special interest in the
mission of Samaria.

Later, Peter had a vision which launched the mission to take the
gospel to the Gentiles... (later) Peter welcomed Paul's work among the
Gentiles, and gave it his full support at the council of Jerusalem
(which welcomed Gentile converts without imposing on them all the
rigours of the Jewish law). ..... Peter was imprisoned by King Herod
Agrippa but miraculously escaped the night before he was due to be
executed.

Peter's later career is obscure. He may have worked in Asia Minor,
perhaps visited Corinth, but ultimately settled in Rome. ... Peter is
believed to have been martyred in Rome during Nero's persecution of
Christians, around AD 64".

I wonder where your correspondent who seems to know when Peter lived
in Rome almost to the day got his dates from. My reading of Acts
gives me the distinct impression Peter went nowhere near Rome before
the time of the Jerusalem Council. Was Luke unaware of Peter's
movements, despite being the historian we depend on for the acts of
the earliest church? So unless you've got some extrabiblical evidence
that Peter lived in Rome before the Jerusalem Council, then there is
no evidence whatsoever that Peter lived in Rome before the Jerusalem
Council.
Matthew Johnson
2007-03-16 01:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by b***@dodo.com.au
Since then the festival of Christmas as it is now is a synthesis of
paganism into the Christian religion, are you going to put your faith
where you pen is and stop celebrating Christmas?
Well, that's not much of a concession. I'm almost there anyhoo.
And I am surprised Bob didn't think of that before posting that 'rejoinder'.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
That
said, are you willing to give up Easter and all references to the egg?
Why would Bob do that?
Post by l***@hotmail.com
How about throwing away all those mitres, a historically verified
symbolism of Dagon, the fish god.
Despite yoru claim, this is NOT "historically verified". Why, I wouldn't be too
srurpised if the only "historical verification" you can offer for this is one of
those out of date, vitriolic 19th century publications you have cited so often
before in this NG.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
How about Ash Wed? Lent?
Nothing peculiarly Lent; of course, it _really_ on the preceding Sunday evening.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
But all of these are secondary issues. Are you willing to subjugate
all Papal edicts to Scripture, even ex cathedra declarations?
And why would he do this? This is a peculiarly _Protestant_ demand. It is not
required by fundamental Christianity at all.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
And
while we're at it, are willing to accept the scriptural teaching that
justification preceeds sanctification
This, of course, is another "loaded question". Why _should_ he accept it? It
isn't the "scriptural teaching" in the first place.

[snip]
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2007-03-16 01:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Smith
Post by l***@hotmail.com
And here we have the pressure point upon which the entire inverted
pyramid of RC theology is resting. If there was ever any verse in the
Bible which needed context or supporting scripture to determine its
interpretation, this one would be one at the top of the list.
[snip uses of "rock" as metaphors for God]
Before looking for "context" from other books of scripture, you might
first consider the context from the verse you're reading.
He certainly should. But don't be too surprised if he runs away from this
necessity.


[snip]
Post by Chris Smith
Post by l***@hotmail.com
But this is contrary to Rev 2 and 3. It is also contrary to pastoral
epistles. There was no central church let alone central bishop.
Unless you disbelieve the Gospels, there was certainly a figurehead for
the disciples. Unless you disbelieve most of the early Christians and
the preponderance of historical evidence (such as that which you didn't
quite answer here) there was certainly a local church, in Rome that was
honored as the see of the successor of that figurehead.
Even more important, Loren refuses to understand that wherever the congregation
gathers with the bishop (or priest) around one altar table, the entire Church is
present. So there _is_ a central church in that sense, which is the important
sense.
Post by Chris Smith
There was certainly no early Church that could claim absolute power to
command the obedience of other Churches. I will be the first to
complain that the Roman church acts too far in that direction today, as
I'm sure you will agree. (I suspect Matthew will even join in the
agreement on this matter!)
Right you are!
Post by Chris Smith
That, of course, does not preclude that one
local church acted as a figurehead for the universal Church, or that it
was Rome, or that is was so treated because the bishop of Rome was seen
as the successor of Peter. All of this latter bit is, so far as I can
interpret the evidence, almost surely true.
Ah, but now you would have to clarify what you mean by 'figurehead', and just
what the "treatment because ... successor Peter" really was. This is not so easy
to do, and is where the dispute between Rome and the East lies. For we do not
deny a special role for both Peter and the Orthodox Roman Popes in his
succession, we simply do not agree with Rome (since about the 9th century)
concerning what that role is.

[snip]
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Loading...