Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
“Which is why I’ve argued that Matthew affirms Christ gave Peter the following:
1, authority over the other Apostles,
2, the power to bind and loose.”
Peter was in fact, historically the first to proclaim the truth that Jesus was the Christ; the play on words could be interpreted as Christ would build “my church” on Peter/The Rock. Not the Roman Catholic Church. The Church Universal — ALL who believe on Jesus as their Lord and Savior. But, nowhere in that passage does he set up Peter as a Pope; nor, is there any reference to apolstolic/papal succession. Were you to be fair, you would admit that there is no evidence for what you claim. And, in fairness, we do interpret scripture differently. Protestants attempt to interpret what the scripture says; Roman Catholics who are “vested” with the authority to interpret it seek to interpret it to fit the Roman Catholic Church’s traditions. Along the way, they do get some things right (to be fair).
As for Mary, your cite is absolutely farcical! “All generations hereafter will call you blessed.” Not repeated in scripture? Try the perennial favorite of Roman Catholicism (that I just referenced above) Matthew 16....
Matthew 16:17:
“ 17 And Jesus answered him, e“Blessed are you, fSimon Bar-Jonah! For gflesh and blood has not revealed this to you, hbut my Father who is in heaven.”
So blessedness=sinlessness? By your logic, Peter would have been sinless also; odd, this passage occurs at the start of Jesus’ ministry, before the thrice denial of Christ BY Peter! How could this be???
Also, how about Matthew 5?
2 and he began to teach them.
He said:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
So: the poor in spirit, the mourners, the meek, those hungry/thirsty for righteousness, etc. are ALL SINLESS. Without sin. They are blessed; Jesus said so!
I believe your reasoning falls flat on this. Your last sentence is sent packing. Mary was sinful; she offered a sin offering; she referred to her son as her savior. Can’t you take God’s Word for truth?
And, by the way — did you ever apologize to roamer_1 and admit to him that you were disingenuous in your attempt to put words in his mouth? I haven’t checked the posts in a while.
Hoss
Those are SO MUCH FUN! For years, Hubby and I did the local parish Christmas Story. We had one young fellow (narrator) reading the gospel, and then the others acted out the shepherds, wise men and holy family. Congregation and choir sang the hymns that went with each part. Then big party downstairs with a santa.
Very small rural parish but lots of love and laughter.
ROTFLOL! Amen! Great post.
All authoritarian tyrannies are the same top-down hierarchy that divide into only two classes - the elevated ruling class (priests) and everyone else below.
You are wrong as usual. Thirteen years of catholic education - under the nuns, brothers and priests.
Yep. Just like my husband. You former papists really know your stuff. Thank God for His merciful guidance -- "Post tenebras lux" (After darkness, light" - for those who are unfamiliar with the well-known phrase [see post 1,096])
I wasn’t “reading your mind.”
I was agreeing with you.
And yet you STILL took exception to my post.
Fascinating.
What do you think we should do about posters’ “inscrutable” Latin names, like Deo Volente?
>>Very small rural parish but lots of love and laughter.<<
That’s what makes it all special.
I know I won’t get a seat for mass, but for years I have had these great big grown boys tell me how much fun it was to be a shepherd.
It’s a blast!
What papal evidence? The earliest writings about it are NON Christian? Have you ever read the Transitus by Pseudo Melito? It is a Gnostic or Collyridian fable sounding more like myths of King Arthur than anything Christian.
R.P.C. Hanson gives the following summation of the teaching of the Assumption, emphasizing the lack of patristic and Scriptural support for it and affirming that it originated not with the Church but with Gnosticism:
This dogma has no serious connection with the Bible at all, and its defenders scarcely pretend that it has. It cannot honestly be said to have any solid ground in patristic theology either, because it is frist known among Catholic Christians in even its crudest form only at the beginning of the fifth century, and then among Copts in Egypt whose associations with Gnostic heresy are suspiciously strong; indeed it can be shown to be a doctrine which manifestly had its origin among Gnostic heretics. The only argument by which it is defended is that if the Church has at any time believed it and does now believe it, then it must be orthodox, whatever its origins, because the final standard of orthodoxy is what the Church believes. The fact that this belief is presumably supposed to have some basis on historical fact analogous to the belief of all Christians in the resurrection of our Lord makes its registration as a dogma de fide more bewilderingly incomprehensible, for it is wholly devoid of any historical evidence to support it. In short, the latest example of the Roman Catholic theory of doctrinal development appears to be a reductio ad absurdum expressly designed to discredit the whole structure (R.P.C. Hanson, The Bible as a Norm of Faith (University of Durham, 1963), Inaugral Lecture of the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity delivered in the Appleby Lecture Theatre on 12 March, 1963, p. 14).
Dr. E.: “Wow. So sorry. I guess I over-estimated RC apologists’ knowledge of a fairly-common phrase...”
Here we go:
_____________________________________________
And NO MORE LATIN - what part of obedience to rules is repellent to you?
1,018 posted on Sunday, December 19, 2010 8:50:26 PM by presently no screen name
______________________________________________________
It isn’t the Catholics who have the problem with latin, clearly.
“What papal evidence? The earliest writings about it are NON Christian? Have you ever read the Transitus by Pseudo Melito? It is a Gnostic or Collyridian fable sounding more like myths of King Arthur than anything Christian.”
If your assertion has basis we would have seen some Papal reference thereof. Seeing as you would have quoted said Papal evidence if you knew it existed I can only conclude two things.
One, you are unaware of any Papal statement that confirms what you have stated here, or:
Two, such a Papal statement doesn’t exist because your assertion is entirely false.
We as Catholics aren’t bound to accept any of your citation. We are, however bound to accept the proclamation from the Pope. So until you have Papal evidence to confirm your statement, you are wasting your time. Except of course, to preach to the choir.
etc., etc., etc.
Problem?
Sure.
"Marian worship in the ecclesial community...is based on the will of Christ..."Mary is the path that leads to Christ..." - pope John Paul II, (Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997)
“Peter was in fact, historically the first to proclaim the truth that Jesus was the Christ; the play on words ;could be interpreted; as Christ would build “my church” on Peter/The Rock.”
The issue therefore isn’t *lack* of biblical evidence, but that your interpretation of said evidence differs.
“But, nowhere in that passage does he set up Peter as a Pope; nor, is there any reference to apolstolic/papal succession.”
That is an entirely different claim. Correct. I am not arguing that the passage explicitly defines apostolic succession. I am arguing that the passage argues that Peter had primacy over the rest of the apostles.
The argument FOR apostolic succession is a bit more involved. What does Christ mean when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”. Scripture traditionally records that this office is passed on from one officeholder to the next. Ergo, it makes sense that when Christ hands the keys to Peter, that they are given to his office and expected to be passed down through the generations proceeding.
“Were you to be fair, you would admit that there is no evidence for what you claim.”
The fair analysis is that you interpret the evidence in a different fashion, not that the evidence is lacking.
“So blessedness=sinlessness?”
Never said this was so. ‘All generations shall call you blessed’, is different.
Where does that statement confirm that the origin of devotion to the blessed mary is to the document referenced?
JA, ignore the words and pass out the well wishes.
When someone must belittle another to build themselves up, they need our prayers more than our bullseyes.
A Merry Christmas and a Joyous New Year to both of you Christians! Our Lord’s Love shine on you and may you be kept safe and healthy thoughout 2011.
In Jesus’ name, Amen!
He’s not attempting to read your mind; he’s making a basic statement. He said, “the minds of some posters will never be swayed...”
He didn’t say, “WrightWings will never change his mind.”
BIG difference.
Hoss
Further, the only time the words "Queen of heaven" are used in Scripture, it is to describe an idol.
How to papists miss that? Do they read the Bible?
And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?" -- Jeremiah 44:18-19 "But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.
And even further, do Roman Catholics read Hebrews?
"(Jesus Christ) being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" -- Hebrews 1:3
"When He had BY HIMSELF purged our sins..."
Mary does not "share in the work of salvation with her Son" as your popes and your catechism "proclaim."
"Flee from idolatry."
Do you need the Latin phrase "etc., etc." to be translated for you?
Dr. E is a “she”.
And not a “Dr.”
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.