Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)

Ignatius Insight ^ | 2005 | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

[DouglasKC]

It was to make the point that we don't need men to mediate between God and men.
Then why did the Apostles appoint bishops in every city?

The modern office of "bishop", as defined by the Catholic church, is undoubtedly not an equivelent role to "episkopos" as used in the bible.

[Petronski]

Douay-Rheims comes directly from the Latin vulgate. And it includes the books Luther tried to burn.

[PleaseNoMore]

#718 is intended for marajade.

[unspun]

People are putting all kinds of language in the Bible that wasn't meant to be there...

...which is the reason for the NASB.

[Zuriel]

http://www.aljc.org/

ask and ye shall receive

[Diego1618]

Who cares who Matthew was referencing. Is not Matthew the inspired Word of God?

Yup! You can bet your bottom dollar! And Matthew was referencing the prophecy in Jeremiah.....not Zechariah as others would have us believe.

[Petronski]

Based on your words, it was clear who you meant.

[Religion Moderator]

KNOCK IT OFF!

Discuss the issues and do NOT make it personal.

[kerryusama04]

If Catholics are right about the authority of the Magesterium, then non-Catholics do not have the authority to determine which doctrines are orthodox (i.e. "spot on") and which are heterodox. My point is that the issue of the authority of the Magesterium is fundamental to all the rest. They all stand or fall on this.

The point in listing that stuff is to illustrate that a church so far removed from the actual writings of those who absolutely had the power of the keys said church claims, simply cannot possess that power.

[FJ290]

I didn't say Rome wasn't mentioned in Revelation - it comes a little later :) Have you ever wondered why Paul writes to the Church at Rome instead of Peter?

Uh-oh! I see I can see it coming now! Come on, show us the word R-O-M-E in Revelation.

Here you go, from an online Concordance the word Rome is NEVER mentioned in Revelation:

1 1Ma 1: 11| who had been a hostage at Rome: and he reigned in the hundred 2 1Ma 7: 1| departed from the city of Rome, and came up with a few 3 1Ma 8: 17| Eleazar, and he sent them to Rome to make a league of amity 4 1Ma 8: 19| 19 And they went to Rome, a very long journey, and 5 1Ma 12: 1| certain men and sent them to Rome, to confirm and to renew 6 1Ma 12: 3| 3 And they went to Rome, and entered into the senate 7 1Ma 14: 16| 16 And it was heard at Rome, and as far as Sparta, that 8 1Ma 14: 24| this Simon sent Numenius to Rome, with a great shield of 9 1Ma 14: 24| And when the people of Rome had heard ~ 10 1Ma 15: 15| him, came from the city of Rome, having letters written 11 2Ma 4: 11| who went ambassador to Rome to make amity and alliance, 12 Mark | Peter himself, wrote at Rome a brief Gospel at the request 13 Act 2: 10| Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, ~ 14 Act 18: 2| all Jews to depart from Rome,) he came to them. ~ 15 Act 19: 21| have been there, I must see Rome also. ~ 16 Act 23: 11| thou bear witness also at Rome. ~ 17 Act 28: 14| days: and so we went to Rome. ~ 18 Act 28: 16| And when we were come to Rome, Paul was suffered to dwell 19 Rom 1: 7| 7 To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called 20 Rom 1: 15| to you also that are at Rome. ~ 21 2Ti 1: 17| But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me,

[adiaireton8]

The modern office of "bishop", as defined by the Catholic church, is undoubtedly not an equivelent role to "episkopos" as used in the bible.

Undoubtedly? Have you read the fathers? Have you read the epistles of Ignatius, whose life long overlapped that of the Apostles? The role we see for the bishops in Ignatius is the same role we see for the bishops in the Catholic Church today. If only more Catholics today gave bishops the respect and submission appropriate to the office as Ignatius describes it in 107 AD.

-A8

[marajade]

"Separated from full communion with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."

Thanks.

[adiaireton8]

The point in listing that stuff is to illustrate that a church so far removed from the actual writings of those who absolutely had the power of the keys said church claims, simply cannot possess that power.

The argument you give here is a question-begging argument in that it assumes that the Catholic Church's interpretation is "so far removed" from the orthodox interpretation, rather than assuming that it is your own interpretation that is so far removed from the orthodox interpretation. If the Catholic bishops have Magesterial authority, then they are the ones who determine what is the orthodox interpretation, not you. That's why your argument is question-begging; it assumes what you are trying to prove, i.e. that Catholic bishops do not have the authority to determine the orthodox interpretation of Scripture.

-A8

[unspun]

Two questions, for my fellow, beloved and respected priests in Christ:

A. How can Roman Catholics (or Christians of any other denomination) possibly justify their exaltation of any of the clergy (to say nothing with there being a unique "vicar") with the following?:

Matthew 23
1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
8"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
9"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
10"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.
11" But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
12" Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

B. Where in the New Testament, is "priest" related as an office of the church? (Instead, the Holy Word teaches that all Christians are priests, under our High Priest and Lamb of God. Period.)

[Religion Moderator]

I am removing posts which are directed personally - either reading the minds of other posters, thumbing noses at other posters, etc.

If this keeps up, I'll do more than remove posts.

[Pyro7480]

Read the epistles of Paul. That is the simplest answer.