Mary and Intercessory Prayer

Ave Mary ^ | 6/21/09 | Shoy Thomas

[bdeaner]

Matthew 16: 17-20:
And I tell you that you are Peter,c and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hadesd will not overcome it.e 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bef bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beg loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Look at the context. He says YOU are Peter (Kepha) and on this rock ( this Kepha) I will build my Church. Kepha refers both to Peter and to the foundation of the Church Christ is to build.

This becomes more obvious with the context, when the Lord goes on to tell Peter, "I will give YOU the keys..." and that "whatever YOU bind on earth..." The pronoun is second-person singular, YOU. Not first-person "I". Not collective pronoun "you" meaning all the apostles. You singular. You Kepha/Peter. Period.

[Petronski]

Yeah, because the word “rock” can only be used in one way in the entire Bible.

[Iscool]

The Book of Revelation shows us glimpses of the heavenly liturgy – Jesus Christ’s once and for all sacrifice eternally present in heaven. This is why the Church has always incorporated the elements that John saw in the heavenly liturgy into her earthly liturgy, for they are one and the same liturgical action of Jesus Christ our High Priest.

It's fascinating that over the years how your church has put all of this stuff together so that a Catholic never has to open a bible...

A person can glimpse a scripture or hear part of a scripture and then find your modern religion has made available to 'cut and paste' IT'S view on any given religious topic...There is no need to even open a bible...And is sure looks religious...

But let's examine just the first statement...Since you guys generally cut and paste so much junk at one time it's impossible to respond to all of it...Maybe that's the intention, eh???

Rev. 1:6, 20:6 - heaven's identification of the priesthood of the faithful is the same as the Church's identification on earth.

Oh really??? Let's look at the references you give...

Rev 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

So your priests are a representation of the priests in Revelation??? Who are your kings??? Or as usual you just pick a single word and create a doctrine out of it???

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Quite clear here that the priests you claim are Catholic priests are not that at all...The priests are ALL Christians that go thru the First Resurrection...

AND THEN, the verse talks about Christians being priests which will reign with God for 1000 years...

Now you guys admittedly don't believe that...You don't believe in a thousand year reign...But yet you want to pull the word 'priest' out of the verse, add a bunch of junk to it as God says not to do, and use the word and your new definition to justify your religious practice...

And the rest of the examples you cite are the same stuff...

Your first example isn't any where near close and neither are most of the rest of them...

[Ditter]

May God Bless you too.

[bdeaner]

1 Cor. 10:4 is a totally different metaphor than the metaphor used in Matt. 16:18. In 1 Cor, the metaphor is in reference to the water flowing from the rock struck by Moses in Exodus. Christ is the rock. The water is the spirit. Christ is the source, therefore, which produces the spiritual water. In Matt. 16:18, the metaphor is about building a structure, not taking a drink from water flowing out a rock, and it makes no reference to Exodus. The building represents the Church, Peter the foundation stone, and Christ both the builder and the cornerstone. All building metaphors.

[Petronski]

A person can glimpse a scripture or hear part of a scripture and then find your modern religion has made available to 'cut and paste' IT'S view on any given religious topic...There is no need to even open a bible...And is sure looks religious...

What a deliciously concise description of the "Deal-a-Meal" approach to Scripture displayed by so many anti-Catholic bigots.

[Petronski]

The priests are ALL Christians that go thru the First Resurrection...

But they will not ALL partake of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Those who DO are Catholic Priests.

[bdeaner]

Us Catholics get to the point where we cut and paste because people keep making the same silly mistakes when it comes to interpreting Scripture. It's easier to cut and paste than to keep saying the same things over and over again, often to the same people, time and again -- kind of like beating your head against a wall because it feels so good when you stop. But we can cut and paste fairly easily. It's easier to do that when you belong to the Church that has one unified and coherent system of belief, rather than a bunch of heretics attempting to reinvent the wheel and going off in wild tangents, inventing interpretations of scripture as they go, without much regard for logic, history, tradition, or common sense. I highly recommend it. As for Revelations...

Rev. 1:6
and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Yes, we are all priests in eternity, yoking our own redemptive suffering to Christ's, the High Priest we emulate. The Catholic Mass mirrors this same structure, with each attendant of the Mass a priest and the pastor/priest, who acts in persona Christi Capitis, taking on the role of High Priest.

As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ."

Next...

Rev 20:6:
6Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

Again, absolutely, we are all priests. A priest or presbyter is one who makes a sacrifice for the Lord. Christ is High Priest in that He is both priest -- the one who performs the sacrifice -- and victim -- the one who is sacrificed. That's why at the Last Supper, He offers His OWN Body and Blood. By participating in that sacrifice through the Eucharist, we each become subordinate priests, yoked to his sacrifice and therefore saved from death. We participate as priests in the sacrifice by partaking of the hidden manna also discussed in Revelations. This is all consistent with Catholic teaching.

What about the 1000 years? I've already debunked premillenialism earlier in this thread -- using Scripture from Revelations which directly contradict this false doctrine --, so go back and read that.

I did not address the "1000 years" reference in Revelations, however, so I will do that here. Since premillenialism has shown to be false, obviously the 1000 years is not to be taken literally, like many other references to time in the Bible. John did not mean a literal 1000 years when he wrote this in Revelations. This becomes clear when you take a look at other books of the Bible, such as Jeremiah and Daniel, for example,

Daniel is a perfect example to use, because it contains two of only a few examples in the Bible where very clear and specific prophecies about time in the Bible can be independently and accurately verified to determine whether they literally occurred. In Daniel 8:14, a period of "twenty-three hundred days" is foretold. No serious scholars of Scripture pretent that history fulfills this prophecy in exatly 2300 days.

Something similar happens when Jermiah and Daniel discuss the prediction of a 70 year captivity of the Jews -- in Jeremiah 29:10 and Daniel 9:2, "the desolation of Jerusalem would last 70 years." Even literal premillenialists such as Walvoord, in Daniel, the Key to Prophetic Revelation, admit that those 70 years were not literally 70 years. The closest anyone seems able to get is 68 years or 71 years.

Obviously God was aware of the exact time, so why the error? No, it's not a mistake. It's simply that the culture at that time had a different perception of numbers, and used them in different ways than we do today. Numbers in the Bible have interpretations that are more important than their literal meanig. In Daniel, the 70 is the result of multiplying 10 and 7. These are both symbolic numbers that signify perfection and completion. The captivity of Daniel and his fellow Jews was not exactly 7- years, but it certainly was "perfectly complete." That fact was more important in Biblical prophecy than the exact number of years. Symbolism took precedence over literalism.

Also in Daniel 8:14, the 2300 days are primarily symbolic. Take the number of days and they add up to about 6 years and four months. Seven years would be a prophetically ideal time for judgment. So 2300 days symbolize a shortened period of divine judgment, indicative of God's mercy.

The same goes for Revelations. 1000 is a result of 10 x 10. Ten cubed. Ten is the number of completion of perfecton. Ten years cubed symbolizes God's Kingdowm lasting until it was perfectly completed.

This same use of the number 1000 can be found elsehwere, in Psalm 50:10, "He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, the wealth in every minute."

When the numbers of understood in this way, it is consistent with the Catholic, amillennial view. It means there will be a very long time until the end of time. That's it. Not a literal 1000 years until the end of time, just as much as there is neither a literal reference to 1000 hills in Psalm 50:10--just a lot of them.

[Iscool]

The water is the spirit. Christ is the source, therefore, which produces the spiritual water. In Matt. 16:18, the metaphor is about building a structure,

Sorry...The church is not a physical structure...The Body of Christ is a Spiritual Body...It is NOT a physical body...

The building represents the Church, Peter the foundation stone, and Christ both the builder and the cornerstone. All building metaphors.

No metaphors there at all...Peter is not a foundation stone...The whole thing is Spiritual...It's a Spiritual church with a Spiritual corner stone and a Spiritual foundation...And it's real...

[Iscool]

rather than a bunch of heretics attempting to reinvent the wheel and going off in wild tangents, inventing interpretations of scripture as they go, without much regard for logic, history, tradition, or common sense.

I always try to avoid these things as much as possible...Logic and common sense are for people that don't know anything...Tradition is meaningless and there is always more than one side to History...

But you forgot the main ones you guys rely on...Philosophy and intellectualism...

But yes, that is your religion...Logic, common sense, (your) history, (your) tradition, philosophy and a superior intellect, with very little regard for scripture...

I try to stick 100% with scripture...That's why you guys and I agree on nothing...

Something similar happens when Jermiah and Daniel discuss the prediction of a 70 year captivity of the Jews -- in Jeremiah 29:10 and Daniel 9:2, "the desolation of Jerusalem would last 70 years." Even literal premillenialists such as Walvoord, in Daniel, the Key to Prophetic Revelation, admit that those 70 years were not literally 70 years. The closest anyone seems able to get is 68 years or 71 years.

Before you start trashing God's prophets, perhaps you should pay more attention to what they say...

Dan 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

70 years in the desolation of Israel...

Jer 29:10 For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.

After 70 years...Jeremiah is quoting what God told him...After 70 years...Maybe 70 years and 4 months...Maybe 11 months...

Daniel is remembering what he read in the books of Jeremiah...So he doesn't quote word for word...He's going by memory...He's pretty darn close...

And who give a flip about the opinion of someone named Walvoord??? God says after 70 years...If Walvoord doesn't agree with God, Walvoord is wrong...

Daniel is a perfect example to use, because it contains two of only a few examples in the Bible where very clear and specific prophecies about time in the Bible can be independently and accurately verified to determine whether they literally occurred.

Hogwash...The coming of Jesus and his death, burial and resurrection was prophesied in the OT and was witnessed by over 500 eyewitnesses and recorded in scripture...That's more than sufficient proof of fulfilled prophecy and there are over two hundred of those...

In Daniel 8:14, a period of "twenty-three hundred days" is foretold. No serious scholars of Scripture pretent that history fulfills this prophecy in exatly 2300 days.

When the numbers of understood in this way, it is consistent with the Catholic, amillennial view. It means there will be a very long time until the end of time. That's it. Not a literal 1000 years until the end of time, just as much as there is neither a literal reference to 1000 hills in Psalm 50:10--just a lot of them.

So you guys pick 4 or 5 verses out of over 30,000 to prove that A millenialism is true, God doesn't mean what He says when He says it...

Real bible students have located hundreds of scripture in the OT that show there will be a physical reign of Jesus Christ on this earth for a real 1000 years with the Throne being in the City of Jerusalem...And all you have is one verse in Psalms and a lot of logic...

[Petronski]

Logic and common sense are for people that don't know anything...

Amazing.

[Iscool]

Amazing.

No it isn't really...Once you learn some facts, your common sense about the matter becomes meaningless...Common sense is only your best guess...Besides, YOUR common sense may not make much sense to anyone else...Just because it's YOUR common sense, doesn't mean it's right...

Like they say, common sense isn't all that common...

[Petronski]

Oh, it’s quite amazing. You rebuke your own God-given gift of discernment, what we know as logic and common sense.

[bdeaner]

You think you know scripture, but you don't, because you do not avail yourself of history and the early fathers, who understood its cultural and historical context better than we do. If you did, you'd be Catholic.

But YOU DO rely on tradition -- the tradition of evangelical Protestantism, and you adhere to all of its dogmas without question. You buy into every single of it's suppositions. So much so it's actually very predictable how you will respond to any given question. I used to be like you, following the same man-made tradition you are following, and I also thought it was grounded purely in Scripture, but that frankly is false. I've been conversing with you long enough to make this fairly obvious. So please don't pretend you have a reading of the Bible that is without suppositions. No one buys it.

Basically you admit this when you call tradition "YOUR tradition" (meaning "MY tradition"). No, it's not MY tradition. Remember, I was an Evangelical. I left the Protestant tradition, and returned in full communion with the Church that Chirst established, because I came to reject the blind faith of Protestants to their own suppositions (based on very recent TRADITION) that not only are not grounded in early Christianity and a deep understanding of Jewish custom, but in many cases contains doctrines that are relatively recent aberrations that have ABSOLUTELY NO precendence in Christian history until the last couple hundred years. PREMILLENIALISM is a perfect example of a cultish belief system that has no precendence in Christian history and, as of now, is primarily confined to a relatively small group of fundamentalist Protestants in the United States -- and EVEN THEY CAN'T SEEM TO AGREE about what they are talking about. So it is deeply ironic when you speak as if you are interpreting the Bible without suppositions when you follow the party line of YOUR tradition, your RECENT tradition, and completely reject the tradition of CHRIST and the EARLY CHURCH that he founded, well before Trent was ever thought of.

Indeed, it is obvious, as you state, that logic and common sense means nothing to you. I'm glad you are at least honest about it.

With that said, your argument falls flat, because I already demonstrated, aside from the "1000 years" argument, that premillenialism does not fit with Scripture and cited three verses that demolish it. That is the earlier post I referred to. And no, the 1000 years must not literally refer to a millenium, any more than the seven days in Genesis refers to a literal seven days, or the Psalm literally refers to 1000 hills -- and it can't, because the other verses do not fit a literal interpretation, and scripture does not contradict itself. Numbers in the Bible are often used for their symbolic import. This is something I don't expect you to accept or understand, because that would require an understanding of some history and common sense, and you've already rejected those resources as valid sources for Biblical hermeneutics. So, this is just for those who happen to be reading over our shoulder, who might be tempted to believe YOUR heretical tradition and reject THE tradition.

[Religion Moderator]

You think you know scripture, but you don't

Do not read the mind of another Freeper. That is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[bdeaner]

Let me re-phrase it this way, which is in line with the intention of the original post:

Iscool, you claim to know scripture, but your arguments do not bear out this claim, because you do not avail yourself of history and the early fathers, who understood its cultural and historical context better than we do....

[kassie]

Bumping for future reading.

[Iscool]

You think you know scripture, but you don't, because you do not avail yourself of history and the early fathers, who understood its cultural and historical context better than we do. If you did, you'd be Catholic.

Couple of problems with your assessment here...First, let's not confuse the Apostles with your early church fathers...It was your early church father, Origen, about 350 AD or so who convinced your religion that most of the bible wasn't real, it doesn't mean what it says...He apparently was suggesting the Apostles were playing word games with the scriptures...

And secondly, you are wrong about my knowledge of your religious fathers...I don't know it all but I know enough that your church has been caught corrupting the writings of some of your church fathers so that the authenticity of any one of them may be in question...

And thirdly and most importantly, the scriptures are just as valid now as they were when the Apostles wrote them...No one wandering the desert who may stumble across a bible has any need to know your church history, or any history or anyone's culture to have that bible come to life...

The Bible is a Spiritual book for Spiritual people...Absolutely no one needs your church father's bent on what they think the scriptures mean...

If you couldn't figure out the scriptures while you called yourself a Protestant, maybe you rejected what the Holy Spirit tried to show you...

Oh, and BTW,

And no, the 1000 years must not literally refer to a millenium, any more than the seven days in Genesis refers to a literal seven days, or the Psalm literally refers to 1000 hills

The fella in Psalms said 1000 hills...There is absolutely no reason in the world to suspect he didn't see a thousand hills in his mind when he said it...Maybe he was speaking in jest, but he saw a thousand hills...

1000 years and millennium are used interchangeably in the scriptures...1000 years means millennium...Millennium means 1000...

Did God say He created the earth in 7 days??? He sure did...Whatsa matter, too illogical for you??? Doesn't fit with your common sense???

God tells Peter that a day to Him is a thousand years to Peter...But that doesn't jive with your intellect, eh???

The mistake is not God's...it's your for not believing Him...

And that's for anyone looking over your shoulder...

[bdeaner]

My comments were not merely regarding the Early Fathers of the Church. It also applies to Jewish tradition and custom both in the Old Testament and at the time of Christ, including their use of ritual and symbolism. Much of this information is not directly available in scripture, and yet when understood, provides a context within which scripture can be read more accurately. Protestants are not usually opposed to using maps -- an outside source of information -- to better understand the events in the OT and NT. One must also avail themselves of other tools available to understand the place and culture of the times.

Secondly, you mention Origen, and the first thing you should notice is that no one in the Church refers to him as St. Origen. That's because he was declared a heretic. For example, he had some heretical views such as the preexistence of souls, universal salvation and a hierarchical concept of the Trinity, and these ideas caught on among a group of heretical followers of Origen, who were not as wedded to the Church's authority than even Origen himself. At Constantinople in 545, Origen's views were declared anathema.

There have been many heresies over the ages, and the Church has always prevailed in eradicating them. The sects of Protestantism are only merely the more recent ones, and the Church will prevail over these as well, including premillenialism.

The Early Fathers should never be read as if they are infallible. They were not protected, as is the Church, from error. They must be read in context, and with a critical eye. But when there is ambiguity in the way scripture should be understood, because it can be potentially interpreted in more than one way, the Fathers of the early Church, when they have a consensus on the matter, is a strong form of validation that is difficult to deny.

With regard to your comments on numbers. God may have created the universe in seven days, or not. The number need not be taken literally. I do not believe the seven days in Genesis should be taken literally. Seven is almost always a symbolic number in scripture.

God and reason are not in conflict. The more I have understood the sciences, and the physical universe, the more it has deepened my faith. The physical sciences leave a person who is open with no doubt that there is a Creator. There is no other, serious alternative explanation that makes sense. At the same time, it's clear that the aspects of the universe described in Genesis took longer than seven consecutive 24-hour days. "Seven" rather is a number that represents completion and wholeness, as "1000" merely means "many" or "a lot" in much Scripture.

And yes, that's based on reason and logic, our God-given gifts of discernment, as Petronski pointed out so clearly just earlier.

[diamond6]

Excellent answer!