Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
For those first Christians, the Bible - the book I loved above all - was incomprehensible apart from the event that today's Catholics called "the Mass."
= = =
Guess Christ must have made a mistake choosing a simple fisherman like Peter. Someone should set Him straight on His error.
When our Lord was speaking to Paul [Acts 9:3-9] he never mentioned the word "rock".
I have a little painful truth or fact for you. Your tagline says that is your desire for everyone and I am assuming you include yourself in the mix.
The Catechism is 688 pages long. The last paragraph,which explains the "Amen" found at the end of the "Our Father",is numbered 2865. That paragraph consists of two lines BTW.
For the record,there is a glossary,index and list of citations at the very end but it still does not even come close to your numbers.
Amen. Isn't that beautiful?
That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God." -- Ezekiel 11:19-20"And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
Excellent research. Apparently there's a diploma in this for some lucky guy, and so far, you're ahead by a couple of lengths. 8~)
Doc.....you're makin' me blush!
That is why the last chapter of John,21:17,containing the words Jesus said to Peter,""Feed my sheep." is so incredibly significant.
Jesus came down to find the lost sheep of the tribes of Israel,who had heard the voice of God,yet they had gotten lost. Jesus knew without a visible Church and visible leaders other new sheep would also get lost from the fold. To prevent "deja vu" (all over again)He gave Peter the responsibility and the means to guide us all back to Him,Who Is.
That is why the last chapter of John,21:17,containing the words Jesus said to Peter,""Feed my sheep." is so incredibly significant.
Jesus came down to find the lost sheep of the tribes of Israel,who had heard the voice of God,yet they had gotten lost. Jesus knew without a visible Church and visible leaders other new sheep would also get lost from the fold. To prevent "deja vu" (all over again)He gave Peter the responsibility and the means to guide us all back to Him,Who Is.
Neither was it mentioned by in the book of Mark (8:27-30)after Peter answered "You are the Christ.". No mention of any "rock".
Oh, Luke's account of the same conversation (9:18-20), no "rock" .. only "The Christ of God".
I read these over and over again, and the ONLY common thing in all three gospels, is that JESUS is THE CHRIST .. Son of the living God. Could it be that THAT is the "rock" upon which He built His church: The fact that He is Jesus, Our Christ, Son of the Living God??
That seems to be the theme through the whole NT. One head, Christ Jesus.
See my comment #1643. Facts that are not facts only serve the "evil one".
He knew exactly where they were.....and that is why he sent the "Twelve" to them [Matthew 10:5-6].
Peter, writing from Babylon [I Peter 1:1-2] to the Israelites along the shores of the Black Sea....those with the foreknowledge of God even lists them in Geographical order....from east to west....and back. This shows that indeed the letter was sent from Babylon in the east....not Rome in the west!
The Northern Kingdom of Israel had been carried into captivity (721 B.C. to Assyria [II Kings 17:6] and the southern shore of the Black Sea was part of that old territory...and many Israelites still lived there in the first century. The Assyrian empire of 700 B.C. encompassed a lot of ground....including Babylon where many people were transplanted from.... to Samaria (previous location of Northern Kingdom of Israel) [II Kings 17:24].
These folks were not Gentile.....they were Israelites! Paul, being an Apostle to the Gentiles....was told to stay out of there [Acts 16:6-8].
What you have there is a competing dissertation, and, I must confess, I am a little jealous because your list of EVIDENCE is longer than ours at this point. I almost wish that we could change the topic of our dissertation to the AGAINST side because there is such slim pickens at this point on the FOR side. But the future "Dr A8" can attest to the fact that the Magisterium does not like to change, to change its mind, and for its doctoral candidates to change their theses just because they can't find any information to go on. They like creative candidates --- those who can pull things out thin air if they have to, rhetorically speaking, of course.
You have 10 points already for your thesis, and we have, uhhhh none --- but it's early in the process and we're only in the Book of Acts. And anyway I have great confidence in my research partner. Mine is only the first half. Wait until you see what he comes up with for his half of the project. He is a great finisher and his part of the thesis should prove to be quite substantial, because he knows the writings of "the Fathers" like few others, and that is where our thesis will begin to take off [I hope]. I appreciate you posting that information "AGAINST" Peter in Rome because it now helps me narrow our search "FOR" evidence of Peter in Rome even further.
Perhaps we should have dueling theses --- ours FOR and yours AGAINST --- and we will see whose thesis is the longest and most substantial.
What you have there is a competing dissertation, and, I must confess, I am a little jealous because your list of EVIDENCE is longer than ours at this point. I almost wish that we could change the topic of our dissertation to the AGAINST side because there is such slim pickens at this point on the FOR side. But the future "Dr A8" can attest to the fact that the Magisterium does not like to change, to change its mind, and for its doctoral candidates to change their theses just because they can't find any information to go on. They like creative candidates --- those who can pull things out thin air if they have to, rhetorically speaking, of course.
You have 10 points already for your thesis, and we have, uhhhh none --- but it's early in the process and we're only in the Book of Acts. And anyway I have great confidence in my research partner. Mine is only the first half. Wait until you see what he comes up with for his half of the project. He is a great finisher and his part of the thesis should prove to be quite substantial, because he knows the writings of "the Fathers" like few others, and that is where our thesis will begin to take off [I hope]. I appreciate you posting that information "AGAINST" Peter in Rome because it now helps me narrow our search "FOR" evidence of Peter in Rome even further.
Perhaps we should have dueling theses --- ours FOR and yours AGAINST --- and we will see whose thesis is the longest and most substantial.
Not in my construction on reality.
I did grow to the stage where I could understand how SOME folks were enriched in their relationship with God in the Mass.
Shoot, I even attended an Episcopal cathedral for a time--and it was NOT Charismatic.
I have certainly been to Mass in the Roman church. As I've noted, my step-mother and her kids were all Roman--at least nominally--that is, they attended Mass whenever they all got up early enough; bothered to get dressed and survive all the arguments about getting ready etc. enough to actually get out the door and get there.
And, it was all tidy and in order. Not sure they found much of God there. But they felt they'd done their Roman due for the week or more likely the month.
I thought the services were usually quite tidy, inoffensive to virtually one and all; no doubt quite orthodox in terms of organizational expectations . . . There were Scriptures, to be sure. And hymns. Most quite solemn. There were elements of pontifical tones and attitudes.
There was certainly plenty of ritual. I can see how folks really do the Roman thing on "autopilot." I wonder if their minds or spirits ever engage God at all in such goings on.
Watching the other congregants . . . I'd guess there was a rather small minority there who actually came to worship and draw closer to God.
Of course, the same is true in plenty of Protestant congregations.
It is certainly a DIFFERENT way of doing things. I'm utterly unconvinced it is the least bit more spiritual, holy or orthodox from God's stand point.
I understand, Dear Heart.
But we need your perspective and personal flavor on more than one or two occasions! At least we enjoy it and your personal flavor!
I don't really see your point.
Perhaps the 3,000 pages depends on how the screen pagination is set.
It doesn't strike me as a monumentally eternal issue.
You nailed it!
Mat 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Mat 16:23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."
Jesus renames Peter, then says He is going to build his church upon a rock, then He calls Peter Satan. By your logic Jesus just said He is going to build His church on Satan.
Right next to the word 'Sabbatarian'. :-)
Sabbatarian is an adjective describing a return to Biblical Truth. The root, Sabbath, is found over 60 times in the NT alone. Magesterium is not a term found in scripture.
All the Scriptures and commands of God come to us through the Magisterium.
Odd, I thought they came through the Prophets and the Apostles. And then there are the 10 Commandments God spoke Himself.
Bishop of Lyons, c. 180 AD. You can read more about him here.
And he is relevant to an argument about scripture how, exactly?
The Magisterium does *not* say that the sum of Scripture is "trust the church, not the Word of God". It would most definitely reject such a statement. One does not have to choose between trusting the Magisterium and trusting the Word of God. Only by trusting the Magisterium can we trust that we have the Word of God. The two necessarily go together.
FRiend, you have much to learn about your new faith.
Does the power of the keys give the Catholic Church the power to change God's Law?
Post 1619 ended this debate.
I have point #1 for you:
If Peter wasn't ever in Rome, a whole lot of people are really screwed.
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.