Posted on 05/10/2013 7:36:49 PM PDT by boatbums
You mean a man titled "priest" (hiereus) which the Holy Spirit never referred to NT pastors distinctively as, nor made distinctions btwn bishops (overseers) and elders?
Apparently, unless the unequivocal statements have asterisks, which negates their argument. Waiting for the answer.
Good post.
It is a difficult topic to discuss, because we are so scarred in soulish thinking, instead of walking by the Spirit.
The common arguments posed to support the authority of the RCC are rational in nature instead of spiritual. Even Matt 16:17-18 is frequently interpreted rationally from flesh and blood, rather than by the call of the Father.
The definitions of Dogma, relate back to PISTIS, but when identified independent of faith through Christ, fall back to flesh and blood.
By name? Or are you only assured that you will be Judged by Jesus?
This is an interpretation of what 'first among equals' means. I believe that it was an attempt to bring the schism with the East to an end - which is fast approaching, by the way. The Orthodox traffic to and from the Vatican has never in history been so great.
Sigh. More use of unrelated OT verses to trump the actual teachings of Jesus re: the rock.
By his use of the term ‘little rock’ as applied to Peter, this signifies (I know, Protestants have little use of Christ’s linguistic and teaching capabilities) that Christ has given Peter the status of ‘a chip off the old block’. In other words, the authority of Christ.
Liberal? I'm not even left enough to be called Republican.
Which Catholics think that the authority of the Pope is supreme? Name some.
You mean the Nicene Creed - the declaration of Christian Faith from a worldwide Church Council in 325 AD? Are you even Christian?
Christians do not irritate me. Not even televangelists. When the jihadis storm the redoubt, I reckon the difference between a Methodist, a Lutheran, a Baptist, or a Roman Catholic won't make too much difference.(Although being prejudiced, I would keep a close eye on those Orthodox characters!)
IMNVHO, major problems many people, including Catholics, have with the Roman Catholic Church are perhaps because it is ... ah ... so ... well ... Roman. That is, Jewish Christianity was affected by the Greco-Roman world in which it took root, and in which it became the state religion, East and West. Duh.
Those who wish to distance themselves from that easily demonstrable connection to the classical world and return to an original Christ, without pagan-inspired ritual or even beliefs, definitely have a good point, as the success of the Reformation might well prove. But, all of those wonderful people who were converted from worship of Diana of Ephesus, Tyche, or Isis didn't necessarily drop everything when they joined up and were baptized. That's not a good thing, nor necessarily a bad thing. It's a human thing.
PS
Many were saved,
just like today's snake-fondling congregations and those marching in Seville's Holy Week procession.
This is for anyone to answer (I’m not sure how to reply without using your name boatbums):
Why don’t Protestants ever look to the Orthodox? Although the Orthodox Church disagrees with the Catholic Church on some things they are the closest to the Catholic Church and have taught and believed many of the same things as the Catholic Church teaches and believes. Both were unified for hundreds of years!
So, when a Protestant decides that they are right, that their interpretation of Scripture is right, they are actually turning away from teachings that *all* Christians believed and followed for hundreds of years...not just the “dreaded” Catholic Church.
Or do Protestants even know about the Orthodox Church? The fact that these two denominations agree on so many things that the Protestants disagree with should make them stop and think about how “right” they are.
OTOH, Ignatius, with a better claim on apostolicity than anyone you mention, clearly teaches the Catholic doctrine.
So does Augustine of Hippo, who's supposedly "the first Protestant", or so we're told.
Of course it's clearly taught in Scripture as well, which is why there were no significant challenges to it until the 8th century.
Why are you making this about me? Naughty-naughty. Stick to the subject.
Funny how you've asked two Catholics this same question and gotten the same response.
When I check *View Replies*, I see ..... nothing from them.
Excellent as usual.
Thanks bb.
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek for the idea that Jesus meant Peter to be that which He was going to build His church on. The nouns are not the same as one is feminine and the other masculine and denote different objects.
The Holy Spirit does it.
Ephesians 1:15-21 15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, 16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
That is such a hypocritical statement.
EVERYONE uses their own personal interpretation of Scripture.
Those Catholics who claim they don't but follow the church teachings on Scripture are still making their own decision of what interpretation of Scripture to follow. So it is still essentially their own personal interpretation because it is still their own personal decision of what is correct or not.
Sure. Ignore the Greek where the words are different and have different meaning.
That’s the way to interpret Scripture.....
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.