Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: daniel1212
It was indeed a Reformation, albeit as yet imperfect and incomplete, and a necessitated rebellion against the rebellious Catholic church.

This is the problem; there were no Prophets or Apostles in this re-formation, re-construction, or re-creation of the faith once delivered to the saints. It was done by men of different convictions and split, and continues to split, into different denominations, sects, most of which do not hold the same faith as their fathers. This is in direction contradiction to the following:

The Messiah said He would build His church on πέτρα (this rock), after naming the Apostle Peter Κηφας (Cephas in Aramaic, which is how the Greek transliterates it, again meaning "rock."

The Messiah said the gates of hell would not prevail against this Church.

The Messiah said He would give the Apostle Peter the keys of the kingdom and that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven (authority to make binding rulings on the people of God passing from rabbis and scribes to the Apostle(s)).

The Apostle Paul wrote that the one body (one holy catholic and apostolic Church) was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with the Messiah Himself being the chief cornerstone.

Thus, it is reasonable to assume it was a rebellion against the Messiah. It did lead to a series of horrible wars.
68 posted on 08/13/2018 4:51:53 AM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: af_vet_1981
This is the problem; there were no Prophets or Apostles in this re-formation, re-construction, or re-creation of the faith once delivered to the saints

This is the problem; there were no Biblical Prophets or Apostles in your Catholic de-formation, re-construction, or re-creation of the faith once delivered to the saints

The Messiah said He would build His church on πέτρα (this rock), after naming the Apostle Peter Κηφας (Cephas in Aramaic, which is how the Greek transliterates it, again meaning "rock."

The belief that Peter was the rock of Mt. 16:18, and thus that the church looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church (esp. from Rome) is not what we see manifest in the record of the NT church (and which even Catholic researchers, among others, provide testimony against , and is contrary to it. In contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

And rather than the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church, we see no exalted reverence of Peter as in Roman Catholicism, with not even one exhortation in any of the letters to the churches to look to or submit to Peter as their supreme head. For good (the norm) or for bad, Peter is street-level leader among the 11, and lead pastor of the first church, and the first to use the keys to the kingdom of God, that being the evangelical gospel. (Acts 2; 10; 15:7-9; Col. 1:13) As such, unlike Paul, (Acts 20:17) he does not call any council and charge preachers, but exhorts the assembled elders to treat the Gentiles consistent with the gospel of grace, God having "purifying their heart by faith," (Acts 15:9) while consistent with this, it is James who issues the concluding Scripturally substantiated judgment as to what should be done. (Acts 15)

Peter is also listed after James in Gal. 2 as one of those who appeared to be pillars, and who (contrary to his overall holy character) lead souls astray by his example, resulting in him being publicly rebuked by Paul, who stated "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing," (2 Corinthians 12:11) but who of his own accord sought to make manifest his sanction by those who seemed to be pillars.

After in contrast to the focus and centrality ascribed to the pope in Catholicism,Acts 15 Peter is left out of any mention in the last 13 chapters of Acts, the narrative focusing on the labors of Paul, who only mentions Peter (sometimes as Cephas) in two of his 13 letters of instruction, nor is Peter mentioned in Hebrews, James, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. And while Peters own 2 letters convey a general pastoral sense, what is lacking is any reference to him as a supreme head ("a servant," "an apostle," "an elder") or anything distinctively Catholic. Instead, Peter refers to Scripture as "a more sure word of prophecy," distinctively attesting to its Divine inspiration. (Note also that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" is not referring to interpretation of Scripture, which Catholics wrongly interpret it as forbidding, but of how prophecy was given by Divine inspiration, so that the prophets did not know "what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." - 1 Peter 1:11)

The Messiah said the gates of hell would not prevail against this Church.

And your false church has sadly become as the gates of Hell for multitudes. In contrast, the body of Christ, (Colossians 1:18) is the one true church to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) for it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

The degree that a church retains and preaches the convicting gospel of grace, of salvation by grave thru heart-purifying, justifying faith, then they are part of the church which the Lord promised would overcome the gates of Hell, that being

The Messiah said He would give the Apostle Peter the keys of the kingdom and that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven (authority to make binding rulings on the people of God passing from rabbis and scribes to the Apostle(s)).

Nowhere did Peter do so (James issued the definitive judgment in Acts 15, confirmatory of Peter and Paul), but the key issue is that of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

The power of binding loosing, like that of the promise "whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do," (John 14:13,14)" is not an autocratic power, one that can add to the word of God such as inventing ordained church offices, but such is subject to the will of God, and conformity with Scripture. This applies to the church and it also did to the Scribes and Pharisees. Who, though they sat in the seat of Moses, were reproved by the Lord from Scripture for teaching as doctrines the traditions of men. Based on Catholic logic, they had that power, however, the Lord makes it clear they were not above Scripture. (Mark 7:2-16)

The power of binding loosing actually flows from the OT, judicially to bind or loose one from guilt, (Dt. 17:8-13) and even civil courts have that power (Matthew 18:34) as well as husbands or fathers to bind or loose a wife or daughter to her vow. (Numbers 30:1-15) Yet formal judicial actions by the church are executed under leadership, not autocratically but in union with all the church. (Matthew 18:16-18; which text in context deals with personal disputes). The formal corporate judicial binding and loosing is seen in action in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5. Likewise is the corporate nature of forgiveness by the body that was harmed by public sin. (2 Corinthians 2:10-11)

But as seen in Matthew 18:19-20 and James 5:16-18, the spiritual power of binding and loosing are is not restricted to clergy, but as many of Elijah-type righteousness and fervent prayer (Elijah bound and loosed the heavens), though that is sadly not me.

The Apostle Paul wrote that the one body (one holy catholic and apostolic Church) was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with the Messiah Himself being the chief cornerstone.

And the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. In which Catholic distinctives are not manifest, and thus it cannot be "the faith once delivered to the saints," (Jude 1:3) but it largely contrary to it. Just the facts.

Thus, it is reasonable to assume it was a rebellion against the Messiah. It did lead to a series of horrible wars.

Thus, it is reason-able to conclude the Catholic deformation was a progressive rebellion against the Messiah. And it did lead to a series of horrible years of the use of the sword of men for theological beliefs, as required by heretical papacy.

So much for your parroted propaganda.

71 posted on 08/13/2018 6:58:29 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

To: af_vet_1981
The Messiah said He would build His church on πέτρα (this rock), after naming the Apostle Peter Κηφας (Cephas in Aramaic, which is how the Greek transliterates it, again meaning "rock."

Still pushing this; even after being SHOWN countless times that you are disagreeing with some very well known Catholic leaders.

Oh well; if ya can diss the pope; I'd guess that anything else is permissible; too.


As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following Early Church Fathers promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:

 • Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:

'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.

Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:

You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].

Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:

'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455

Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:

Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)

Cyril of Alexandria:

When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.

Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):

“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'

“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)

Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):

Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.

75 posted on 08/13/2018 2:19:29 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

To: af_vet_1981
The Messiah said He would build His church on (this rock), after naming the Apostle Peter …

OH??


 


NIV Matthew 4:18-19
 18.  As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
 19.  "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."
 
NIV Matthew 8:14
  When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.
 
NIV Matthew 10:1-2
 1.  He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil  spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
 2.  These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
 
NIV Matthew 14:28-31
 28.  "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
 29.  "Come," he said.   Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
 30.  But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
 31.  Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"
 
NIV Matthew 15:13-16
 13.  He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
 14.  Leave them; they are blind guides.  If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
 15.  Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
 16.  "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
 

As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
BEFORE the following verses came along.....


NIV Matthew 16:13-18
 13.  When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
 14.  They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
 15.  "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
 16.  Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,  the Son of the living God."
 17.  Jesus replied, "
Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
 18.  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades  will not overcome it.
 19.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be  bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

76 posted on 08/13/2018 2:24:30 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

To: af_vet_1981
 
How TODAY's Catechism of the Catholic Church” now describes the “Petrine succession”:

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

Sure different than what Augustine and many OTHER Early Church Fathers taught; isn't it!!

77 posted on 08/13/2018 2:26:17 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

To: af_vet_1981
It was done by men of different convictions and split, and continues to split, into different denominations, sects, most of which do not hold the same faith as their fathers.

Yep; after the Eastern Catholics SPLIT from Rome; there HAVE been many other Catholic groups that seem to differ from what today's Rome preaches.

78 posted on 08/13/2018 2:28:03 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson