Posted on 02/08/2011 11:08:38 AM PST by Gamecock
The other link is official, and allows one to search the same document.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
It’s all so convenient and simple!
.
.
.
.
.
Thank you, Father, Son and Holy Spirit for Your Church and the Catechism that is a sure guide to help us in understanding Your Word as You inspire us to do.
Thank You for giving us the gift of mother Church.
Thank You for loving us so much that you graciously provided us - we who are weak and imperfect - a firm rock to assist us in knowing You more fully that so that one day we can know You completely in Your heavenly Kingdom.
The prior Vatican link is official, and this one is not official, but allows you to search the same document.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
It’s all so convenient and simple!
.
.
.
.
.
Thank you, Father, Son and Holy Spirit for Your Church and the Catechism that is a sure guide to help us in understanding Your Word as You inspire us to do.
Thank You for giving us the gift of mother Church.
Thank You for loving us so much that you graciously provided us - we who are weak and imperfect - a firm rock to assist us in knowing You more fully that so that one day we can know You completely in Your heavenly Kingdom.
Game. Set. Match.
Next question.
You have done a wonderful job here and I hesitate to make any criticism, but I must correct your use of the American Catholic church. There is no such thing. It is the Catholic Church in America.
I haven’t seen your sobriquet here before but I am greatly impressed with the contributions you have made here and look forward to seeing more.
You make a good point and I’ll endeavor to be more careful with my words. Thank you for your compliments. May my efforts be to God’s Glory. Amen.
Ah, CynicalBear, you have just inadvertently made the case for Peter as the first pope. Jesus is speaking to ALL OF THEM, and it is Peter that responds for ALL OF THEM. Then Jesus affirms that the TRUTH that Peter has just spoken for ALL OF THEM, has been revealed by the Father, revealed to PETER and not to ALL OF THEM.
You have admitted that Peter spoke for all of them, that Jesus affirmed what he said as truth, and revealed to those for whom Peter spoke, that it was the Father that revealed it to him.
It is a point of irritation for me since I believe that Catholic politicians who would support abortion and gay marriage believe in the American Catholic Church. It is this nonexistent church which allows them to support those things that are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching under the “belief” that there is a distinction which pertains to the Church in America because of the liberties granted Americans in the constitution.
They thus refuse to acknowledge that Christ’s Church is the same the world over and they are indeed subject to her no matter their place of birth.
Ah, Jvette I thought Catholics were against personal interpretations but you just added your own version of what those verses mean. You assume things that are not explicitly stated in the verses.
“...revealed to PETER and not to ALL OF THEM.” The verses do not state that only Peter believes that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. You are assuming that because Peter’s answer is recorded that he is the only one to believe that fact then and later on. Nowhere in the verses does is state that because Peter was the disciple that professed faith in Christ he would have authority over the other disciples.
In fact, as has been pointed out in the thread, the Bible points out the Paul publicly challenged Peter and considered himself equal with Peter. James also made the final decision for the disciples during their conference with Paul.
There simply isn’t any Biblical basis for having Peter as a pope.
You want me to search for your Apostolic traditions??? Why's that, because you can't find them either???
There aren't any Apostolic traditions as your religion claims and we all know it...
LOL I know you want it to be so but alas you would be in error. You want it so badly that you didn’t read the rest of the post, or dismissed it out of hand.
Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. Then after acknowledging who Peter was as Peter had acknowledged that Jesus was the Son of the living God, Jesus says that it’s on this Rock (The living God) that He would build His church. There is sufficient evidence in God’s own words who the Rock is as I have shown in my previous post.
What you have seen was an erroneous article.. the man who did it counted every Baptist church and every non denominational or independent church as a separate denomination
Eric Svendsen notes" twenty-one Protestant denominations and sixteen Roman Catholic denominations represents a much more realistic calculation." So do not get to comfortable :)
BTW - the saved are in the Church, not outside. Acts 2:47.
The saved ARE the church of God ... You need to read that verse again ..
Young's Literal Translation
Acts 2:47 praising God, and having favour with all the people, and the Lord was adding those being saved every day to the assembly.
The word church MEANS an assembly of BELIEVERS NOT A BUILDING OR DENOMINATION.. The early NT church was composed of only the saved.
Now who do you think came up with those numbers? An independent group or a Roman apologist??LOL
, Barrett later compares Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism, which is a considerably smaller subset of Protestantism (so far as the number of denominations is concerned), and which is really the true category for those who hold to sola Scriptura (most Protestant denominations today, being liberal denominations and thereby dismissing the authority of the Bible, do not hold to sola Scriptura, except perhaps as a formality).
Any comparison that the Roman Catholic apologist would like to make between sola Scriptura as the guiding principle of authority, and Rome as the guiding principle of authority (which we have demonstrated earlier is a false comparison in any case), needs to compare true sola Scriptura churches (i.e., Evangelicals) to Rome, rather than all Protestant churches to Rome.
An Evangelical, as defined by Barrett, is someone who is characterized by (1) a personal conversion experience, (2) a reliance upon the Bible as the sole basis for faith and living, (3) an emphasis on evangelism, and (4) a conservative theology (Barrett, 71). Interestingly, when discussing Evangelicals Barrett provides no breakdown, but rather treats them as one homogeneous group. However, when he addresses Roman Catholics on the very same page, he breaks them down into four major groups: (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant)......
If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism.
The entire Catechism is the deposit of faith as handed on by the Apostles and preserved and clarified by their successors.
If a man won’t even search its thousands of numbered paragraphs, then he will continue to live in willful invincible ignorance.
Jesus gave the keys to Peter.
Peter was the first pope.
His peers recognized his special role.
This same group of fallible men actually chose a successor apostle to replace Judas, and that apostle was a real apostle.
The apostles had the authority to name new apostles, and they did so, and this is in the bible, and it continues to this day.
Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
>>Peter was the first pope.<<
>> His peers recognized his special role.<<
In Luke we see that the disciples themselves did not think that Peter was the designated leader or they would not have asked the question of Jesus they did.
"Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.'" (Luke 22:24-26)
If Jesus had designated Peter the leader He would have told them at that point but He clearly didn’t. The RCC uses Matthew 16:18 to try to justify the papacy yet 26 years later when Luke was written it was clear that Peter was not the leader.
For the record, I was responding to CynicalBear's assertion that Peter SPOKE for all of them when he made this declaration of faith. I never said that only Peter had the revelation or belief. But, Peter confirmed the belief for all of them when He spoke, as the pope does when he speaks ex cathedra for the beliefs of the Church.
Also, for the record, what I wrote is the Church's interpretation of that Scripture.
As for your remarks regarding Paul. I do not reject your assertion that Paul challenged Peter, and considered himself an equal. Nor do I reject that James reached the decision at the first conference regarding how the Gentiles were to be received into their ranks.
But, let's look back a little here before we so cavalierly toss out that there is no Biblical basis for Peter as the first pope.
Saul is converted and brought to the disciples in Jerusalem, but they were afraid, and rightfully so considering his past persecution of them.
But, read ACTS, it says that he spoke boldly of Jesus and then the believers brought him down to Caesarea. What happens next in Caesarea?
The Holy Spirit leads Cornelius to call Peter to Caesarea. Now Cornelius was a Gentile who was greatly respected by the Jews for his devotion to God. Before the men sent by Cornelius come to Peter, Peter has a vision, given to him by God and the vision confuses Peter and he is not sure what to make of it.
In the midst of this comes the men sent by Cornelius to get Peter. The Spirit tells Peter to go with these men for God is the one who sent them. And so Peter goes and realizes that the vision was meant to show him that the Lord is the Lord of the Gentiles as well as the Jews. What does he say to the Gentiles?
Acts 10:28-"You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean."
Cornelius tells him he was praying when a man appeared to him and told him to send for Peter and now that Peter has come, Cornelius and his household are assembled to hear what God has commanded Peter to say to them.
What follows is Peter preaching to them about Jesus and then the Holy Spirit comes upon the Gentiles, just as it had on the Jews and Peter orders them to be baptized.
Then Peter goes to Jerusalem and reports to the others about the vision and the meeting with Cornelius and his(Peter's interpretation) that the vision meant that the Gentiles were also to be given the gift of belief in Jesus and redemption. It is from this testimony by Peter that the Apostles and other disciples say, "Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life."
Now on to the conference at Jerusalem when the disciples contemplate whether or not the Gentiles would have to undergo circumcision. Peter stands up and says to them this,
Acts 15:7-11 "My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And god, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting god to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
After this, there is discussion and then James pronounces his decision.
It couldn't be more clear that Peter lays out what God, through the Holy Spirit has led him to believe and proclaim and that James has only agreed and affirmed it.
Note that though Paul was in Caesarea before Peter, it was Peter whom the Lord told Cornelius to send for and from whom they first received the good news and believed and were baptized. Now I must note that Scripture does not explicitly say they were baptized, but does that mean they were not?
And in Jerusalem, Peter has made the case, Paul and Barnabas support Peter with their testimonies regarding the signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. and James' "decision" is to agree with Peter.
Now I firmly believe that we are all equal in God's eyes. Equally loved and equally called to believe and be saved. But, that equality does not qualify me to authoritatively assert what any Christian is to believe.
I do not need to desperately believe it. On the contrary, it is the protestant who must desperately reject it.
Jesus does not acknowledge WHO Peter is, rather He acknowledges WHAT Peter is and that is the small rock, with the authority of the big Rock who is God.
There is no question that the Rock is God. Peter is the rock upon which God built His church.
Why stop at 26? Christ in verses 31-32 Christ singles out Peter to pay special attention to what he says next, then says Satan wants to sift him like wheat and tells Peter to strengthen his brothers. That is, to serve his brothers.
He tells Peter to serve his brothers right after saying that he who is chief should become the servant of the others. That's a pretty clear designation of Peter right after defining what the chief should be like and how you would know the chief among them.
There is no contradiction at all unless you take part of the verses out of context, quote them, and ignore the rest.
Even if it agreed that Peter had some sort of leadership role with regards to the other disciples, the Bible doesn’t say that Peter had ultimate authority over the other disciples when it comes to theological matters.
The Bible also doesn’t say that once Peter passed onto to Heaven then another head apostle (pope) is to be appointed over all of the other apostles.
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.