Posted on 10/14/2007 8:25:58 PM PDT by Salvation
Keys ...... being "the chair of Peter".
129 posted on 10/15/2007 5:09:51 PM MDT by Missey_Lucy_Goosey
Matthew 16:19 & Revelation 1:18. Addressing The citation in Revelation one where the chapter is about the titles and attributes of Yah'shua. It is clear that Yah'shua has not yet given the keys to the church, but instead they areWhen I search the Word of G-d for "Keys" I only find two citations
shalom b'shem Yah'shua
promised as a wedding gift to the church in Revelation 19 for use during the Seventh day:
the millennium
Thanks, almost everyone here, for derailing this thread. I sure would have enjoyed a discussion of St. Malachi and his prophecies, but this is nothing more than the squabbling of immature, undisciplined children.
Now I remember why I never go to the religion threads—even the ones that sound interesting.
Incidently, I don’t see anyone here who has any right to represent him or herself as a Christian. This is the worst I’ve seen in a while. Most of you act as though your intention is to give Christians a bad name. Frankly, you have succeeded here.
24:7 no doubt. No wonder they're sleepless in Seattle.
If St. Malachy was totally wrong, is that enough for you to give up your faith?
If anyone should say that the true Church is not one body in itself, but consists of varied and diverse societies of Christian name, and is spread out among them, or that various societies disagreeing among themselves in profession of faith and separated by communion, constitute, as members or parts, the one and universal Church of Christ, let him be anathema. --First Vatican Council, Canon IV
Vatican II and the "Dominus Iesus" now says we are "separated brethren", contradicting the previous dogmatic declaration of Vatican I.
I've seen that opinion expressed numerous times in this very forum.
So much for Roman Catholicism being the unified monolith it purports itself to be, eh?
Sleep? I’ve heard of that.
Of that I have no doubt, Madrid is a post Vatican II Modernist who subscribes to the new, novel redefinition of "Viva Voce". He is free to disagree. I would not expect otherwise.
I think he's probably a more cogent authority on Catholic doctrine than you are.
That could be true, or it could not be.
Here is exactly what Trent says in the 4th session.
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.
Yet Rome itself interprets Matthew 16:18 in violation of it's own stated principle. As is already noted, two early church fathers, of whom they belong to the overwhelming majority in their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 disagree with Rome's later interpretation, and contradict Rome with an overwhelming majority voice.
Seems that Rome has been doing a lot of defining of terms and dogmatic declarations.
Thank you for that post, Sominick. Name calling like that is prohibited.
When you mention another FReeper’s name, in this case, nanetteclaret, it is FReeper proper etiquette to also ping that person to your post. Please go with the rules and manners of Free Republic.
Remember that Jesus came for the sinners who were sick. The ones who are well did not need a physcian.
I didn’t realize that you had accepted some of my theories on several threads about the code words and imageries used in the Book of Revelation.
I do think John was referring to the ‘Rome’ of that day when there were executions, martyrs galore. Not the Catholic Church.
But it appears that you are transferring that interpretation to the Catholic Church. That was not the image intended by John. Am I correct in my judgment about your post here?
As I said, give some proof. You are the one who challenges it, it is up to you to show your side. You just want to say what’s right and what’s wrong without offering any proof whatsoever.
YOPIOS, and if you see this Alex, don’t even bother to respond because I don’t play by your rules either.
1 [1-6] Babylon, the symbolic name (Rev 17:5) of Rome, is graphically described as "the great harlot."
2 [17:1-19:10] The punishment of Babylon is now described as a past event and, metaphorically, under the image of the great harlot who leads people astray into idolatry.
3 [2] Intercourse . . . harlotry: see the note on Rev 14:4. The pagan kings subject to Rome adopted the cult of the emperor.
4 [3] Scarlet beast: see the note on Rev 13:1-10. Blasphemous names: divine titles assumed by the Roman emperors; see the note on Rev 13:5-6.
5 [6] Reference to the great wealth and idolatrous cults of Rome.
6 [6b-18] An interpretation of the vision is here given.
7 [8] Allusion to the belief that the dead Nero would return to power (Rev 17:11); see the note on Rev 13:3.
8 [9] Here is a clue: literally, "Here a mind that has wisdom." Seven hills: of Rome.
9 [10] There is little agreement as to the identity of the Roman emperors alluded to here. The number seven (Rev 17:9) suggests that all the emperors are meant; see the note on Rev 1:4.
10 [11] The beast: Nero; see the note on Rev 17:8.
11 [12-13] Ten kings who have not yet been crowned: perhaps Parthian satraps who are to accompany the revived Nero (the beast) in his march on Rome to regain power; see the note on Rev 13:3. In Rev 19:11-21, the Lamb and his companions will conquer them.
12 [16-18] The ten horns: the ten pagan kings (Rev 17:12) who unwittingly fulfill God's will against harlot Rome, the great city; cf Ezekiel 16:37.
**Cincinnati is also a 7 hilled city, but it doesnt rule over the kings of the earth.
Neither does Jerusalem.**
Neither does the Rome of today.
Please name them and supply links to the posts.
**There’s only one Truth **
The
One
Holy
Catholic
and
Apostolic
Church.
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.