| St. Peter and Rome |
 |
| 11/15/04 |
Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
| St. Peter and Rome |
|
| 11/15/04 |
Read Acts 1 about Jesus spending 40 days before his ascension speaking of things pertaining to the the kingdom of God. And when they all assembled together, they all asked the same question: "Wilt thou at this time restore the KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?" And Jesus's answer was that the time when that will happen is in the Father's hands not His. He did not rebuke them for asking a dumb question. He said it is not for now but for some time later and he gave the apostles a job to do in the meantime.
Read again that third verse you quoted. That is what is happening now or will shortly happen. He is sitting at his right hand until the Father makes his enemies his footstool.
Acts 15:14-17 is perfectly clear. After God visits the nations to take out of them a people for his name [the church], He will return and build the tabernacle of David which is fallen down so that the residue of men might seek after the Lord . . . ".
Replacement Theology is wood, hay and stubble. Why don't you read the prophets. They will tell you, particularly Zechariah.
1Th 2:12 that you should walk worthy of God, who has called you to His kingdom and glory.
INDEED.
THX.
Yours comes from men who have dedicated their lives to upholding the primacy of the Catholic church, men who are corruptible and dedicated to a preconditioned idea of what scripture needs to say, much separated from the actual events, and, of guidance of the Holy Ghost, there is no evidence but self proclamation and witness of those whose interests coincide.
Sorry. There is too much missed stitches in the seam. I don't trust it.
It also has authority and structure described in the gospels.
The Gospels authorizes churches as I described, which description must hold up when each individual can dive within to the kingdom and reach God through Christ, to have all their material and spiritual needs met by His grace and promises. All we need do is love Him, and to love Him, He says to obey His commandments. To be saved, believe and have faith.
If everyone has a car, what use are taxis, but for only times one's car breaks down? I agree the Catholic church has the authority to humbly serve those moving to God and to maintain a support group, which is, scripturally, what the many churches did.
You can bump into a judge on your trip to the market and get in an argument over parking space. He will have no more authority than you in that argument. However, he will have authority over you in court. That would be the power of his office, even though his office has no life or soul or independent existence. Court has authority. So does the Church.
The authority of man and his government esteems one above another and is a respecter of persons, which is the foundation of the flow of authority you describe. God is neither. Such a condition would have to exist to give a body the authority you describe.
One person, like the Pope or the judge, must exercise that authority for the entity and its members, which exalts him about all others, and the lesser exalted persons, like bishops so on down, above all others.
How can one be exalted above all others when each single individual has the total and complete access to God and all His blessing, material and spiritual, access to His rest and after death, His presence? In other words, every possible attainment any soul on Earth can expect to reach?
Your analogy would be accurate if you added the ability of each, who might come before the court, to immediately access the highest court available before appearance.
Sure, they were still seeking an earthly kingdom. The Holy Spirit had not fallen on them to bring them to understand that the kingdom is not of this world. It wasn't a dumb question because they didn't understand.
Jesus had just spent 40 days with them speaking with them about the Kingdom that he was going to restore to Israel. They weren't discussing needlepoint. He was telling them what the Kingdom would be like when restored to Israel. And by the way they already had the Holy Spirit [John 20:22] And Luke is quite clear. And they understood his words quite clearly.
BTW Where will the Kingdom of the New Jerusalem come from? And where will it come to?
The thinking you are proposing shifts our faith from Christ and places it in legalism.
Our priority is with faith through Christ prior to any other. Additionally, anything added to that faith voids that faith.
The rock of Peter was his faith, not his person.
Rather than arguments, a better use of time is for us to study beneath our respective pastor-teachers, continually thinking the doctrines of Scripture, remaining in fellowship with God through faith in Him and in that fellowship allowing Him to further sanctify us as His body.
The winnah! Er... no, really, my list was meant to indicate the position of Peter as "prince of the Apostles" ---not "prince" in the sense of being heir of a blood dynasty, but in the older sense of "princeps" from "principio," the first.
Peter is always mentioned first in lists of the Twelve; he's often mentioned in place of the others ("Peter and the others"), and he often serves as spokesman for the others. That, and the fact that he is named way more than the other Eleven combined, justifies this title of "Princeps" (first) of the Apostles.
Princeps does not equal Pope in and of itself --- I don't claim that it does --- but it strengthens the status given him by Christ Himself in the giving of the keys:
Matt.16:18-19: "And I also say to you that you are Peter...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."
No, what we have here is law, not legalism. And if you have a problem with law, your argument is not with me, but with Christ. He made this law of "binding and loosing." I sure didn't.
I do welcome your fellowship as a Christian. We can all benefit from correction: even Peter, prone to misstep as he was; and if he had missteps, I can certainly expect to have pratfalls.
So pray fo rme, as I will for you!
When you speak of "the right of the one who sits on it to sit on it", are you speaking of the second Person of the Trinity, or some other Christ?
So you have the issue of trust, not the Church. But the Church has no secrets form you. You have the scripture, and you have the patristic view on them. If you think you know Greek and the antiquity better, show me. So far, no one was able to prove his reading of the scripture in the historical and the linguistic context to be superior to the reading of the Church. And you paranoiah has no foundation.. The Orthodox Church has every interest to rpove the Pope and the Catholics wrong. They have not: on virtually everything (excepting some fine points of the papacy doctrine) the two apostolic Churches read the scripture identically, and condemn Luther's reading.
Gospels authorizes churches as I described
You "described" That is not good enough. The scripture is in front of you (for most part). Show me "churches". I showed you The Church, in the words of Christ and of St. Paul, and I explained why: Christ has one body, not 22,000 bodies.
r analogy would be accurate if you added the ability of each, who might come before the court, to immediately access the highest court available
My analogy was there merely to explain that bodies of authority exist in real life and the Church is one of them. A court is another. Incidentally, the jurisdiction doe go from local to highest in the Church also.
I'm sorry, I must have overlooked your post. The answer to your question: The second person of the Trinity, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Son of His Heavenly Father, and the Son of David through his mother's lineage that went back to Nathan, but also crossing over at Zerubabbel into the royal line and back to Solomon. He had right through both the royal lineage from Solomon and the surviving Davidic lineage back to Nathan, either of which would give Him the right and only Him the right to sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem.
The prophets teach that this throne will be established at the end of the age in Jerusalem right here on earth [Jeremiah 3:16-18] and [Zechariah 14:9] when Jesus returns physically to Jerusalem. It is consistent with what Jesus taught to his disciples in the 40 days before his Ascension, and Peter in Acts 2:29-30, and at the Council of Jerusalem, through James in Acts 15:14-17. And do not forget the last written words of Peter to the whole church, Jewish and Gentile alike:
"This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you, in both of which I stir up your minds by way of pure remembrance, that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Saviour; knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, saying 'where is the promise of His coming'."
These scoffers were disciples of Simon Magus who was already spreading the lie that Jesus was not coming back to earth physically. John in his epistles tells us that those who were saying such things were disciples of the anti-christ, probably referring directly to Simon the Magician, head anti-christ and his disciples as the other anti-christs.
The early Ante-Nicene Fathers identify Menander, Saturnius, Basilides, Valentinius, and others who were spewing the same song of Simon Magus but a different verse. But the most notorious one was Marcion who Ignatius called the "Son of Satan", and Irenaeus identifies as the Father of what has been passed down to us today as Replacement Theology, which Irenaeus alludes to as the great apostasy being spread by his disciples.
Regarding the Harlot in Revelation Chapter 17: When Simon Magus came to Rome circa 42 AD, he brought with him a "harlot" whom he called Helen of Troy, Mother of All, and other names. He had a statue made of her and made his disciples worship her image.
The ecclesiastical structure of Simon Magus at its full maturity is what John is seeing there and telling us about, for at the time of his writing of this book, five of the succeeding bishops from Simon Magus that had ruled over this ecclesiastical "so-called Christian" institution had died, the sixth was ruling as John was writing, and the seventh was yet to come. The eighth of which John speaks [Rev 17:11] was probably Marcion who many Ante-Nicenes identified as either the reincarnation of Simon Magus or his Son, the Father of Replacement Theology.
I hope this helps.
Yes. And He IS in the process of restoring the kingdom to Israel. WE (Christians) are Israel.
Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace [be] on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
This is really a reply to all posters on this thread: I appreciate the arguments and cnitations. Thanks for letting me "listen in" - I enjoy early church history and RC theology.
As an aside, I have always wondered why Jesus didn't tell the twelve beforehand that he would, in the future, bring Paul into the fold? I know it's an odd hypothetical question, but I've always had an itch at the back of my mind about how Paul took the ball and ran with it (the percetpion I got as a kid from reading Acts on through the end of the NT).
Irenaeus says that those who allegorized the Scriptures to prove their doctrine were disciples if Simon Magus.
This isn't a allegory but a fact. Abraham would be the first to admit it. He sent Ismael away. He went and rescued Lot. Ismael wasn't a believer. Lot was.
The only thing that awaits unbelievers is wrath, not blessings, and that's a promise.
After he had the blinging-light incident, he went off to the desert for 3 years, as I understand it, and then came back and lived with Peter for 15 days. Fast learner, too, I take it. And later had the nerve to confront Peter "to his face" when Peter was in the wrong, like St. Catherine of Siena confronting some mediocre Avignon pope!
What can I say about God's quirky grace? Other than that it's wonderful! Anybody else want to chime in on this one?
I think the Catholic idea of relics is one of veneration and reverence, as one would have towards a keepsake of a dear old Grandmother who has passed away. Something is "holy" if it is set apart from the "profane" or ordinary. Thus, with this understanding in mind, perhaps you can see our view regarding relics. They are not holy in the sense that they are God or from God, but rather, a keepsake of a particularly favorable instrument used by God while that saint was alive. By the way, what probably forms such cults of veneration (cult not meaning in a derogatory fashion) is the evidence of the miraculous, thus, verifying God's work through that saint.
How is Holy Water different from tap water?
Good question. It goes back to a key word in understanding Catholicism - sacramentalism. We believe that God works THROUGH the visible in an invisible manner. Thus, God works through saints, through water, through bread, and so forth - so as to grant His graces. The human mind sees the visible object, holy water, and calls to mind the various applications on how God worked through water in the past. Thus, when we bless ourselves with the holy water, we call to mind our Baptism and how God worked invisibly to send the Spirit to us. Physically, the water is no different than tap water. But we realize that God works through ordinary water. It is called "holy" water because it is "set aside" for a religious purpose and has been previously blessed by the Church. This blessing is a means by which God chooses to give grace to properly disposed individuals - or, to ward off "improperly disposed" individuals, like Satan!
Yes, the differences are mostly spiritual, as the physical charecteristics of sacraments do not change. But the SPIRITUAL is ALSO a reality, Dr. Eckleburg. That is something that many people in our day and age forget... The spritual world is just as real as the visible physical world.
Regards
Can you provide a full context quote of this? Realizing how you have interpreted the Fathers previously, I have doubts on the above statement without evidence.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
In Romans 9:4 Paul tells us who he means when he uses the word "Israel". He defines the word "Israel" for all of us. Jewish believers in the Church generally always kept their own identity and tended to more deeply revere the words of their fathers on their side of the Book, but they were still Christians.
The Gentiles and the Jews shared the same faith in their father Abraham but different promises, the one to be blessed with the gift of salvation along with the other, but Jewish believers were also to inherit the Land of Israel as the Abrahamic Covenant clearly promised.
Right.
post tenebras lux,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.