Former Protestant Minister Pursues Priesthood

WVKayaker:

Well, In my first post I tried to avoid polemics and you want to turn this into a theological discussion. Fair enough. The criticisms in your previous post are in fact an implicit heresy with respect to failing to completely grasp the implications of the Incarnation. The Incarnation in readers digest language is the orthodox doctrine that the eternal son of God assumed a complete human nature and was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, as Our Sunday’s Visitors Catholic Encyclopedia (p. 530) states “The union of the divine and human natures in Christ is a permanent and abiding one. In addition, a fundamental soteriological conviction is at stake in the doctrine: Whatever is not assumed is not saved. According to the scriptures, the Incarnation has the salvific purpose that embraces both the restoration of the image of God in us through the cross of Christ and the foretaste of the perfect union with God that is our destiny in Christ.”

Catholics meditate on the Incarnation constantly, as evidenced by the Annunciation being part of the Rosary and the Church requirement that the Faithful are obliged to attend the Christmas Liturgy regardless of which day it falls. More importantly, and I think this gets more into the crux of the matter, while Protestants accept the doctrine of the Incarnation, the implications for Protestants with respect to the Incarnation creates problems for their doctrines of justification. Lets take the mere fact that Christ loved our bodies (i.e. Human nature) enough to take a body himself). Since all the Creeds confess the orthodox doctrine of the “resurrection of the body” (Apostles Creed) and “We look for resurrection of the dead” (Nicene Creed), the Doctrine of the Incarnation is important and related to these statements as we will continue to have our bodies in heaven, albeit in a glorified form consistent with Christ’s Glorified body

No Catholic doctrine can be separated from the Incarnation as it can’t be separated from the person of Jesus Christ. In criticizing Catholics for having a corpus on the Cross, Protestants are implicitly embracing Gnosticism as many Protestant confessions have an anti-physical bias.

For example, Protestant doctrines about justification which say that God imputes his Grace, which amounts to a covering of the human person, is in opposition of the Catholic position which in readers digest language “God’s Grace restores us unto God’s image and is a foretaste of the perfect union with the Trinity.” The failure to contemplate the full implications of the Incarnation impacts how most Protestants view the Sacraments, as the Protestant understanding of Sacraments has the anti-physical bias which thus prevents them from understanding the orthodox understanding of the Eucharist and Baptism as they are taught in Scripture.

In a similar fashion, your picture of a Cross [without Christ on it] does not in fact make a theological statement about the resurrection, as there were two other individuals crucified with Christ. If you want to make a statement about the resurrection, perhaps you should have an “empty tomb” and do away with the Cross all together. Again, one can hypothesize that you believe in a Christianity and thus Christ, without the Cross. Christ himself stated that we all would have to pick up our own Crosses and follow him (Mk 16:24)

Catholics have a corpus on the Cross because once again, it points to the reality of the “Incarnation”. The Cross and Resurrection of Christ and through God’s Grace results in the fact that are bodies are restored to a glorifed state, what is referred to as “Theosis”, which is rooted in Incarnational Theology, and this doctrine was explicitly taught as far back as St. Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 170-175), who I might add again, was writing against “The Gnostics”, hmmm, hmmm.

Again, as I alluded to earlier, Catholic soteriology is grounded in the orthodox doctrine of Christ’s Incarnation. Thomas Howard, in Evangelical is Not Enough (p. 36) writes: “The Incarnation took all that properly belongs to our humanity and delivered it back to us, redeemed. All of our inclinations and appetites and capacities and yearnings and proclivities are purified and gathered up and glorified by Christ.”

One of the biggest problems with Protesant doctrine of soteriology is that it separates Incarnation from Cross, which is again Gnostic heresy. As I alluded to earlier, the Catholic Doctrine, all of it, connects the Doctrine of Incarnation with the Doctrine of the Cross. Sacraments are tied to both Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery (Passion, Death, Resurrection, etc). Again, Pope Benedict’s great quote from his book Jesus of Nazareth where the Pope links Incarnation and Cross Together will suffice to illustrate this point:

Pope Benedict states “ In this Chapter the theology of Incarnation and the Theology of the Cross come together; the two cannot be separated. There are thus no grounds for setting up and opposition between Easter theology of the Synoptics and St. Paul, on one hand, and St. John’s supposedly purely incarnational theology, on the other. For the goal of the Word’s becoming-flesh spoken of by the prologue is precisely the offering of his body on the Cross, which the sacrament makes accessible to us”

So the Catholic Church sees that through the Incarnation and Cross/Resurrection/Ascension, God has given us access to his Mercy and Love and by his Grace, which God gives us through the Sacraments, the inner person becomes renewed and transformed by Grace and through that Grace we become United to God and thus like God by Grace which of course God is by nature. In other words, Christ trough his Grace allows us to “partake in the Divine Nature” (c.f. 2 Peter 2:4). So through the incarnation of Christ, God is now really accessible to us and wants us to be in “communion with him”.

St. Paul in Acts 17-28-29 (he quotes some pagan poets here) states “For in him we live and move and have our being, as even some of your poets have said, for we too are his offspring. Since we therefore are the offspring of God, we ought to not think that the divinity is like an image fashioned from gold, silver or stone by human imagination.” Later on St. Paul talks about “a man who has been appointed, and he provided confirmation by raising him from the dead” (c.f. Acts 17:30). So, St. Paul speaks of living and moving with God and links it to Christ, who became incarnate.

St. Paul in Ephesians speaks of the concept of “Theosis” again where he states “who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens, as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, ‘to be holy and without blemish before him’” (c.f. Eph: 1:3-5). He writes “and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the Fullness of God” (c.f. Eph 3:19), and coming to “mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ” (c.f. Eph 4:13).
St. Paul in Chapter 6 of Romans takes up this theme here as well. In verses 1 to 4, he mentions Baptism then he states “For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection” (c.f. Rom 6:5). Later St. Paul writes about being “conformed to the image of his Son” (c.f. Rom 8:29), which Catholics and Orthodox believe happens at Baptism (going back to Romans 6) and restores what was loss before the fall when Man and Woman was created in the Image of God (c.f. Gen 1:26-27).

So Catholic Theology, and The Eastern Orthodox Theology, has much more Theological depth than just being saved by God covering us with Grace, while still seeing us as filthy and Depraved (One of Calvin’s 5 Points of TULIP). While we distorted our Image (Divine Image, as we were originally created in God’s Image) as a result of Adam and Eve’s Sin (The Fall), through Christ, God is going to not only restore our True Image, but through his Grace, bring us into communion with the Holy Trinity, which is Love itself, and thus partake in the Divine Nature.

St Paul further writes “that you should put away the old self of your former way of life, corrupted through deceitful desires, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new self, created in God’s way in righteousness and holiness of truth” (c.f. Eph 4:22-23). St Paul writes “to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God…Do not conform yourself to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect” (c.f. Rom 12-1-2).

St Paul speaks of May the God of peace himself make our perfectly holy an may you entirely, spirit, soul and body, be preserved blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (c.f. 1 Thes. 5:23) and why we are called which was “for obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (c.f. 2 Thes 2:14). St. John states whoever remains in God’s Love remains in God and God in Him. In this love brought to perfection among us we have confidence on the day of judgment because as he is, so are we in this world” (c.f. 1 John 4:16-17).

Two other passages point to the connection between Incarnational theology and the Cross/Resurrection. In 1 John 3:2 we read: “We know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” and St. Paul’s letter to the Philippians where he states: Christ will “transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body.” (c.f. Phil 3:21). Note here that St. Paul still uses the term “body” albeit one with a different form (glorified) similar to the body Christ has at the Transfiguration (c.f. Mt 17:1-13; Mk 9: 2-13; Lk 9: 28-36)

So, through Christ’s Incarnation, he joined our humanity and glorified it Himself and by the Paschal mystery [passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension, one unified salvific act of God], we are to be united with God in a communion of Love, and to live for all eternity.

In summary, to separate the Incarnation from the paschal mystery, is nothing short of a repeat of the Gnostic heresies of the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the Church.

Regards

In summary, to separate the Incarnation from the paschal mystery, is nothing short of a repeat of the Gnostic heresies of the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the Church.

Sorry, but I do not hold with your organization's reasoning. It places the necessity for works, and for membership in the RC organization, as criteria for salvation.

The Scriptures have no limitations along those lines.

You are welcome to fellowship with your brethren. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Thanks for the visit. Neither of us will be persuaded with rhetoric. It takes the Holy Spirit. He can pierce the veil!

Good night...

WVKayaker:

I agree, I will not be persuaded by your interpretations of scripture. On the other hand, the Catholic Church’s doctrine is entirely consistent with all of the Great Church Fathers down through the 2nd, 3rd and 4th century, the same ones who rejected the various heresies of those centuries (Gnosticism, Subordinationism, Modalism, Montanists, Arians, etc, etc) and in rejecting those heresies, helped the Catholic Church set the biblical canon which you accept.

The Canon itself was not finally settled until the end of the 4th century. The Council in Rome in 382 led by Pope Damasus, along with St. Jerome, listed the 46 books of the OT and 27 NT that are in the Catholic Bible today. While there is some historical disputes as to what was actually in Pope Damasus’s Decree, it is also clear that Jerome’s completed Latin Vulgate Translation consisted of all the books that are in the Catholic Canon today. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage, 393 and 397 AD, respectively are consistent with Rome in 382.

In closing, the Doctrines I alluded to in my previous post are consistently supported by the Church Fathers, who were the same ones who rejected all the Heresies that I mentioned above and where the ones who over the period from 144 AD, when the Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Gnostic Heretic Marcion till the end of the 4th century, helped the Church [under the guidance of the Holy Spirit] determine the canon which you quote from.

So if it is a debate between a 21st century Protestant, such as yourself, or St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Marytr, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Hippoltyus of Rome, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, etc, etc, etc, I think I will go with those guys.

Regards and Good night to you as well

I don’t have a clue how many politicians are pro-abortion—regardless of (or lack of) religion.

I don't dispute the history of the rc organization. I don't agree with it's exclusivity, and the Scriptures are clear on that matter. It's claims are usurption, and lay additional burdens on God's children

You can fool a lot of people with smells and bells!

God is not mocked...

Only Anglican converts are ordained under the Pastoral Provision. Other married Protestant ministers who convert and are ordained are done so with a dispensation from the discipline of celibacy. All married Anglican and Protestant ministers who convert and seek ordination must agree, prior to ordination, that if their spouse precedes them in death the will then adopt the discipline of celibacy for the remainder of their life.

In addition, 21 of the 22 Churches sui juris which comprise the Catholic Church, ordain, as a norm, married men.

Some of St Paul's authority that you have chosen to conveniently ignore. Nice try but no cigar.

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." 1 Corinthians 1:23-24

"For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until He come." 1 Corinthians 11:26

I haven’t overlooked anything, FRiend. I never denied the crucifixion, I emphasized the fact that our hope isn’t in His death, but is in His resurrection. Maybe you missed that...

As for the RC claims, here is Paul, again...

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

1 Corinthians 3 (New International Version)

1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?

5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

16Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”[a]; 20and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”[b] 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas[c] or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

Actually, I think the late Fr. Richard John Nehaus was also ordained under pastoral provision and he was a Lutheran. I also am fully aware of the 21 Sui juris (self governing) Eastern Catholic Churches which are in Full Communion with Rome, among which inclue the Maronite Catholic Church, which has always been in communion with Rome as well as the Italo-Byzantine Catholic Church, another Eastern Church that has never broke communion.

Implicitly, Pastoral Provision also covers Non-Anglican clergy who are ordained, although I am aware that it is the theological confusion of the 1970’s within the Anglican COmmunion that brought about the Pastoral Provision signed by the late Pope John Paul II. For example, here is the Pastoral Provision website which is maintained by the Director Msg. William Stetson. If you go to the news section of the website, you will see that in February of 2008, 7 men applied for Pastoral Provision, including 1 Lutheran.

Regards

http://www.pastoralprovision.org/News/News.html

WVkayaker:

Can you tell me what scriptures you are referring to. If you believe that the Church is just an indivisible body of believers, then that again is implicity “Gnostic” Christ is a Divine Person and is “True God” and “True Man”. The Church is referred to as Christ’s body (1 Cor 12: 12-14) but using your theology, The Church as purely an invisible body is not really a body and again distorts the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation. The Church, as Christ’s body is both visible and invisible just as Christ has a fully Divine and human nature.

The Catholic Church is not fooling anyone and its doctrine of the Church is in reality the theologically correct understanding of the Church as the body of Christ, as it flows ontologically from the understanding of Christ as a Divine person with a fully Divine Nature and Human nature [doctrines fully defined at the Council of Nicea 325 AD, Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD].

Regards

Can you tell me what you said? I lost you after WVK...

Colossians 1

1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

2To the holy and faithful[a] brothers in Christ at Colosse:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father.[b]

3We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 4because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints— 5the faith and love that spring from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you have already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel 6that has come to you. All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God’s grace in all its truth. 7You learned it from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant, who is a faithful minister of Christ on our[c] behalf, 8and who also told us of your love in the Spirit.

9For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. 10And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, 11being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully 12giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you[d] to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. 13For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14in whom we have redemption,[e] the forgiveness of sins.

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of[f] your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

24Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. 25I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— 26the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. 27To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

28We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. 29To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me.

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

1 Timothy 1

1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

2To Timothy my true son in the faith:

Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

(Warning Against False Teachers of the Law)

3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me...

WVKayaker:

I can quote the same passage. So what does it mean? And whatever you say it means means nothing in the context of Traditional Christianity. In other words, anything you state ultimately results to your opinion, i.e. the individual and thus what we get with a “scripture paste game” is just that, a game. In your world view, Christianity becomes what “I think it is”. Again, what I wrote is consistent with the Church Fathers, the ones who determine the canon of scripture and wrote against all of the heresies that were present through the 5th century.

Regards

Yeah. Must be that pesky “Gospel” thing those Protestants are so keen on.

...Again, what I wrote is consistent with the Church Fathers, the ones who determine the canon of scripture and wrote against all of the heresies that were present through the 5th century.

You can make all the claims you wish. You are an apologist for the RC realm. I am an apologist for Scriptural Christianity. We disagree with each other. Your organization claims that it holds all the keys. Neither I, nor Paul agree. You can parse all you want. We can even go "greek", but it will not open your eyes. i will rely on the Holy Spirit.

What you wrote is indeed consistent with your organization's position. That does not make it so...

*******

Mark 3:31Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."

33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.

34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."..

He is risen...

And just what “Scriptural CHristianity” might that be. It is clear that I am a Catholic, but what Confession among the thousands of Protestant Traditions/Confessions do you belong to? And of course, many of those hold to “sola scriptura” Christianity [which is not the Scripture] and don’t agree on Doctrine across the board.

As for your pitting St. Peter against St. Paul, that itself is heretical nonsense. And again, the writings of the Church Fathers confirm that both of them were martyred (Together) in Rome during the reign of Nero.

St. Iqnatius of Antioch [ca 105 AD] in his letter to the Church of Rome states “Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you”. Consistent with the scriptures, note that St. Ignatius lists Peter first, which if you look at the NT, Peter is always listed first among the Apostles, also the statement not as Peter and Paul “did” is a clear reference to both of them being in Rome togher.

Eusebius, the First great Church History Scholar in the Church, records in his work (Book 2 Chapter 25) [A.D 305-325 AD] a quote from St.Dionysius of Corinth, who was the Bishop of the Church of Corinth in 165-175 AD [some of his letters have come down to are times]

Eusebius writes: That both[Peter and Pau] suffered martydom at the same time is affirmed as follows by Dionysius , Bishop of Corinth, when writing to the Romans: “You have also by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planed in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martydom at the same time.”

And finally, there is beautiful quote by St. Ireneaus of Lyons, the great orthodox Church Father who defened Apostolic Tradition against the Gnostic heretics, who similar to you, had problems with the reality and implications of the incarnation. St Irenaus of Lyons, who lived ca 140 to 202 AD writes around the time of 185 AD:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2).”

In closing, the writings of the Church Fathers in the 2nd century clearly indicate that Peter and Paul not only worked together, but also, both died together in Rome. Thus, your continuing to pit St. Peter and Paul against each other is nonsense.

Your attacks are duly noted. You are quite a historian. How about we use Scripture instead...

After all, anybody can write anything, and become a religion, a bigggggg religion, with bigggggg organizations! They will even resort to intimidation to insure their "faith". They will lie and do anything to make sure you can't expect truth elsewhere...

WVKayaker:

You know, in my first post, I was actually defending your position as you as a Protestant should not have been pinged. I have had this happen to me before as well. You turned this into a polemical debate. And the Same Church Fathers you criticize were the ones who defined what the NT canon of scripture was, which was not until the end of the 4th century.

You are the one attacking, as in one of your posts, you used the terms idolatry, and of course, your use of terroist in your previous post says alot about you.

Again, I still don’t know what Protestant confession among thousands you go to.

As for Scripture and Tradition, that is is expressed in the Church Fathers are both from the same source, the Apostles and thus Christ and the Church Fathers, who defended orthodox Christiantiy against heretical movements, and their interpretation of scriptures and the doctrines in their writings confirm what the early Church belived, and it was Catholic in the fullest extend, i.e. Both the Latin West and Greek East.

And nothing in my post was an attack. I stand by my post that you pitting St. Peter against St. Paul makes no sense. Your statement “Lets use scripture” use scripture for what? I assume you are still trying to defend your argument that St. Paul’s writings contradicted St. Peter and thus those two partied ways and formed separate Churches.

The New Testament clearly indicates that Christ gave Peter a special role among the 12 apostles. For example, in MT: 16:16-19 Christ is addressing the Apostles (e.g. The Twelve) as the parallel texts support (c.f. Mark 8: 27-30; Luke 9:18-21). In these passages, we see that every Christian does not have the power to “bind and loose”. This was given only to the Apostles. So, after Judas betrayal and death, Peter called the Apostles together and quoted the Psalms and said “may another take his office” (c.f. Acts 2:20). In Acts 2:26, Mathias was counted with the eleven other apostles and we now have a reconstituted twelve apostles. So again, the power to bind and loose is given to all the Apostles (not every Christian) but St. Peter alone is named the “rock” given the keys (c.f. Mt 16:19)
.
Two points, St. Paul states “you are members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets with Christ as the capstone” (c.f. Eph 2:20) and the “keys” [Mt. 16:19]are a typological sign that is found in the OT and is an OT symbol of authority (c.f. Isaiah 22: 15-23) and prefigures the role Christ gave to St. Peter.

Other important texts consistent with Peter having a leadership role among the Apostles can be found in the Gospels. For example, Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles (c.f.. Luke 22:31-32). After asking Peter 3 times do you love me [to fully atone for the 3-fold denial at Christ’s trial] Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep., which in this context means both the fellow Apostles and all of the Christian people. (c.f. John 21:15-17). In two resurrection narratives, St. John arrives first to the tomb but waits for St. Peter to arrive, who then enters the tomb first (c.f. Lk 24:12; John 20-4-6).

As noted in the Acts 1, we see St. Peter taking the role in re-establishing the 12 Apostles. After Pentecost, it is St. Peter who preaches the Gospel first (c.f. Acts 2:14), it is St. Peter who works the first miracle (c.f. Acts 3:6-7), it is St. Peter who issues the first excommunication against Ananias and Sapphira (c.f. Acts 5: 3). St. Peter resolves the doctrinal issues of dietary laws for the gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem (c.f. Acts 15: 6-12).

Also, we see in 1 Peter 5:13 “The Chosen one at Bablyon sends you greetings, as does my son Mark” [NAB translation.] The RSV, my personal favorite, as it is the most accurate according to most Catholic scholars, translates 1 Peter 5:13 as “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings and so does my son Mark”. This passage indicates the underlying concept that the Church of Rome was elected/chosen, etc. and St. Peter was the leader there.

With respect to Gal 2:11-16, the dispute between St. Peter and St. Paul, there was not doctrine at stake here. St. Peter can perhaps be guilty of the sin of bigotry, but again there was no issue of Faith and Morals at stake. St. Paul clearly recognized St. Peter as the head of the Church as he went to visit him for some time as demonstrated in Gal 1:18. St. Paul was correcte in challenging St. Peter on a matter of custom and practice, but again, no question of Faith or morals were at issue.

In closing, Christ prayed that the Church would be one (c.f John 17: 21) and nothing in scriptures indicates that that Apostles broke communion with each other and the early Church Fathers confirm that not only did St. Peter and Paul preach and teach together in Rome, they were both martyed there.

Regards

I posted a pic of terrorists because it is represents a long portion of your organizations history. I posted the pic of the Mormon Temple to illustrate there are others who claim exclusivity. I post pictures of an empty cross to reveal another aspect of your organizations hypocrisy and idolatry. You can justify them all you wish.

Your organization has lots of explanations for lots of stuff, but that is it's job, to obfuscate and confuse. If it can succeed in laying the law back on you, with some earthly help needed for your salvation, it can be in control. The use of Latin was so the priests of your organization could control God's word. It was NOT the common language.

There are surely devout followers of Christ within the roles of the RC organization, but to say it is THE church, is an affront to the Blood of Christ. Christ made it clear that there is only one church on earth, and it wasn't to be in Rome. It still isn't in Rome., regardless of your claims to the contrary. Nowhere does Scripture provide for it.

There is NO role for your pope in Jesus' realm. God is head of the church. Mary has no special distinction, and is no special intercessor. Mary is one of us, just another sinner. Jesus is the ONLY Intercessor. The usage of Saints are another product of your organization's vanity. Their treasure is already stored in it's appropriate location.

...and Jesus is Risen. Take Him down.

He is far-removed from the cross.

Did I forget to remind you?

Jesus is risen!

You wrote:

I posted a pic of terrorists because it is represents a long portion of your organizations history. I posted the pic of the Mormon Temple to illustrate there are others who claim exclusivity. I post pictures of an empty cross to reveal another aspect of your organizations hypocrisy and idolatry. You can justify them all you wish.

My response:

Specifically, what aspect of Terroism are you talking about. I am well aware that others claim exclusivity, you seem to be very confident of your “own personal interpretation”, which is consistently refuted the early CHurch Fathers. But, hey that is your business.

Your separation of the Incarnation, the life of Christ, the passion, death, from the resurrection is a theology that does not understand the totality of the person of Christ and is not in line with any of the Creeds of Church (Apostles and Nicene), which link all of these together, nor is it in conformity with the Sacred Scriptures.

With respect to Christ and the Crucifixion, as you seem to only take St. Paul as an authority. So I will St. Paul to make my point. He did not separate the Crucifixion from the other aspects of Christ life and fully incorporated into his theology. For example, in the opening chapter of Corinthians, St. Paul writes “For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified…”(c.f. 1 Cor 1:23). Later, Paul writes “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (c.f. 1 Cor 2:2). Later, St. Paul links the entire paschal mystery [passion, death and resurrection into one salvific act] as he writes “For I have delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4). St. Paul also connected the celebration of the eucharist to Christ’s crucifixion. St. Paul describes the tradition of the eucharist in 1 Cor 11: 23-25, then he writes “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes again”. He goes on to say, “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord” (c.f 1 Cor 11:27).

In these passages, St. Paul is clearly not advocating a theology of the resurrection, that is totally separate from the incarnation, life of Christ, and his passion and death. In addition, St. Paul is clearly linking the celebration of the eucharist to the passion, death and resurrection of Christ.

You wrote:

Your organization has lots of explanations for lots of stuff, but that is it’s job, to obfuscate and confuse. If it can succeed in laying the law back on you, with some earthly help needed for your salvation, it can be in control. The use of Latin was so the priests of your organization could control God’s word. It was NOT the common language.

My response to this and the rest of your statement:

The use of Latin allows the Church to trace its worship, doctrine, the Scriptures themselves down to the 4th century, and thus it prevents the passage of time to allow for those with deconstructionist ideology to change the meaing of doctrines as they were believed back during the period of the Great defenders of the faith. And, Latin was in fact the common language of the Roman empire and was the languate of the political and educated classes throughout the first millenium of the Church [at least in the West, Greek was in the East]

As for Rome, you are correct, the Church is not in Rome only, it is Universal, i.e. Catholic consistent with Christ’s command to go all over the world and preach the Gospel (c.f. Mt 28:19). In addition, St. Ignatius of Antioch [a follower of ST. John the Apostle] refers to the Catholic CHurch when he writes “Wherever the Bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Church at Smyrnaeans 110AD). And with St. Ignatius, who again new St. John the Apostle, you will find the doctrines of 3-tiered ministry (Bishop, priest, deacon), you will find the primacy of the Church of Rome, you will find a strong doctrine of the real presence of the eucharist, as well and as I mentioned before, a clear reference that both ST. Peter and St. Paul built up the Church of Rome.

With respect to Mary, I welcome the opportunity to defend her.

The OT calls Eve the Mother of the Living (Gen 3:20). However, we also know that threw Adam and her sin, death came to all her descendants. In the second century, Church Fathers began to see that the Eve-Mary parallel which suggests that Mary and a role in salvation history in relation to Christ, just has Eve had a role in the fall of the human race in relation to Adam. St. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho is the first to actually propose the Doctrine of Mary as the New Eve. Fr. Luigi Lamberto in his work Mary and the Fathers of the Church, published by Ignatius Press notes that Justin wanted to show how the Lord had decided to accomplish the salvation of man by following the same procedure by which sin had been committed and caused the downfall of man (p. 47). He points out that the Eve-Mary parallel had its foundation in the Pauline doctrine of Christ as the second Adam (1 Cor 15: 21-22). St. Justin Martyr writes

“The Son of God became man through a Virgin, so that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way it begun. For Eve, who was virgin and undefiled, gave birth to disobedience and death after listening to the serpent’s words. But the Virgin Mary conceived faith and joy; for what the Angel Gabriel brought her the glad tidings that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, so that the Holy One born of her would be the Son of God, she answered, ‘Let it be done to me according to your word’ (Lk 1:38). Thus was born of her the Child about whom so many Scriptures speak, as we have shown. Through him, God crushed the serpent along with those angels and men who had become like the serpent.” (Dialogue with Trypho 100)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, the great defender of orthodoxy against the Gnostic Heretics of the 2nd century, further develops the idea of Mary as the New Eve, which St. Justin Martyr began to develop in 155. Fr. Matero notes that St. Irenaeus first recapitulated salvation history in Christ by appealing back to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans 5: 12, where it states the whole human race fell into sin because of the man Adam, and then it was necessary that God’s son should become man and thus become the foundation of a new humanity. He then provides the following two quotes from Irenaeus, 1) that recapitulates Christ as the new Adam and 2) that recapitulates Mary as the new Eve.

(1) Irenaeus writes “When the Son of God took flesh and became man; he recapitulated in himself the long history of men, procuring for us the reward of salvation, so that in Christ Jesus we might recover what we had lost in Adam, namely, the image and likeness of God. For since it was not possible for man, once wounded and broken by disobedience, to be refashioned and to obtain the victor’s palm, and since it was equally impossible for him to receive salvation, as he had fallen under the power of sin, the Son of God accomplished both of those tasks. He God’s Word, came down from the Father and became flesh; he abased himself even unto death and brought the economy of our salvation to its completion.” (Against Heresies 3, 18)

(2) After recapitulating Christ as the new Adam, Irenaeus writes “Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin….By disobeying, she became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way, Mary, though she also had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race…The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience. What Eve bound through her unbelief, Mary loosened by faith.” (Against Heresies 3: 22)

St. Irenaeus further writes and points out that only the Gnostic Heretics ignore God’s economy of salvation, in which Mary had a unique role in playing since she gave birth to Christ, the word made flesh. Irenaeus writes:

“Eve was seduced by the word of the [fallen] angel and transgressed God’ s word, so that she fled from him. In the same way, [Mary] was evangelized by the word of an angel and obeyed God’s word, so that she carried him [within her]. And while the former was seduced into disobeying God, the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And just has the human race was bound to death because of a virgin, so it was set free from death by a Virgin, since the disobedience of one virgin was counterbalanced by the Virgin’s obedience.
If then, the first-made man’s sin was mended by the right conduct of the firstborn Son [of God], and if the serpent’s cunning was bested by the simplicity of the dove [Mary], and if the chains that held us bound to death have been broken, then the heretics are fools; they are ignorant of God’s economy, and they are unaware of his economy for [the salvation of’ man.’ (Against Heresies 5: 19)

Finally, St. Irenaeus develops the recapitulation theme to its fulfillment when he writes:

“Adam had to be recapitulated in Christ, so that death might be swallowed up in immortality, and Eve [had to be recapitulated] in Mary, so that the Virgin, having become another virgin’s advocate, might destroy and abolish one virgin’s disobedience by the obedience of another virgin.” (Proof of Apostolic Preaching 33)

In summary, there was a well developed doctrine of Mary’s unique role in salvation history way before the New Testament Canon was settled in the 4th century Church Councils at Hippo and Carthage, 393 and 397, respectively. The second century testimony of two of the greatest orthodox Church Fathers, Justin and Irenaeus support the position that Mary was chosen by God to be the means through which the word became flesh and made his dwelling among us (c.f. John 1:14).

Finally, the doctrine of the “Communion of Saints” is clearly stated in the Apostles Creed, which goes back to the 2nd century. Those in heaven are with Christ, thus if we on earth are with Christ, we are all united in Christ, Thus, the Saints in heaven can and do pray for us and have concern for us. For example, in Luke 15:7,10 we see that the angels and saints celebrate the repentance of sinners on earth, consistent with the doctrine of communion of saints. In Hebrews 12:1 we read that we are “surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses”, which is reference to the saints surrounding us. The passages (Eph 2:19; Col 1:12; 2 Thes 1:10; Rev 5:8; Rev 8:3-4; Rev 13:10) all refer the saints in heaven. Numerous passages also refer to the saints on earth [c.f. Acts 9:13,32,41; 26:10; 1 Cor. 6:1-2; Rom. 8:27; 12:23;; Eph. 1:1,15,18; Rev 19:8] . So, the Church, as consists of all the baptized, both in heaven [saints there] and on earth, which refers back to the doctrine of the Communion of saints referred to in the Apostles Creed.

In the Sacred Scriptures, you will see many examples of the Church to pray for each other. As for intercessory prayer, In John’s Gospel 2:3-11, we see that Christ’s first miracle was performed at the request of his Mother Mary. ST. Paul asked the Church at Rome to pray for him to God on his behalf (Rom 15:30). So, clearly ST. Paul believed in the power of intercessory prayer. Are you going to call him a heretic? Again, St. Paul writes “as you help us with prayer, so that thanks may be given by many on our behalf for the gift granted through the prayers of many” (c.f. 2 Cor 1:11). Numerous other passages in ST. Paul speak of praying for each other (2 Cor 13: 7-9; Eph 6:18-19; Phil 1:19; Cor 1:3; Cor 1:9; 1 Thess 5: 11; 5:17; 5:25; 2 Thess 1:11; 3:1, and 1 Tim 2:1-3].

So why pray for each other at all, if Christ is the only intercessor. Clearly, St. Paul argued that we should all pray for each other [intercessory prayer] which does not detract from Christ as the sole mediator for man before God.