Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: MarkBsnr

RE: The example of Paul shows that while he was a bishop in his own right, he still reported to the central authority.

To whom did he report?

He did go to Jerusalem to be laid hands on and to be commissioned to preach the gospel, but where does it show that Peter had authority over him?

In fact in Galatia ( as Paul himself wrote in his epistle ), it was PAUL HIMSELF exercising the authority based on the word of God ( the gospel ) who PUBLICLY REBUKED Peter in Antioch for his hypocrisy. See Galatians 2:11-16.

In fact, when Paul wrote about the pillars of the church to the Galatians, he said this:

“6 As for those who were held in high esteem —whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism —they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.” ( Galatians 2:6-9)

Notice any supreme authority given to Peter in the above passage? I don’t. I do notice these:

1) He said that both he and Peter were equally entrusted with preaching the gospel. Peter to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. Where is the indicator that Peter was the Pope with authority over Paul?

2) When Paul mentioned the Pillars of the church, it is interesting that Peter (Cephas) was mentioned SECOND, next to James. Why would that be if Peter had jurisdictional primacy over the others? Shouldn’t he be mentioned first?

So no, all indications are that ALL APOSTLES held EQUAL positions in the preaching of the gospel. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ANY HIERARCHICAL AUTHORITY AT ALL.

RE: The patriarch of the Latin branch earned the first amongst equals status by being true to the Faith in the first millennium while the Orthodox were not quite, shall we say, orthodox.

And just because you said so, it must be so? Sorry, no dice. I want you to show me WHERE in the early churches ( yes, up to even Nicea ), Rome exercised authority over all the other churches.

If Rome held the doctrinal interpretation that everyone had to adhere to, then why did the Bishops not simply ask the Pope ( if indeed such a a position existed ) to speak infallibly for all on the one important doctrine — the Nature of God and the Deity of Jesus Christ — that separated orthodoxy from heresy?

Why bother meeting at Nicea? It would be a simple matter for the Pope to tell everyone what to believe and all to simply accept it.

Let the Bishop of Rome write a Papal Doctrinal Letter and let all adhere to what he infallibly said.

But no such thing existed.

In fact, it was ATHANASIUS (later Bishop of Alexandria ) who was the champion of the Nicene Creed.

RE: That’s not what Paul says. He says that the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth. He further goes on to say that it is only what the Church teaches that is right and correct.

You are referring to 1 Timothy 3:15:

“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Which leads to 2 questions:

1) What church was Timothy pastoring then? Answer the EPHESIAN CHURCH. Where in this passage did he refer to Rome?

2) When Paul used the term church? What was he referring to?

What Paul is referring to is this — The church holds forth the Scripture and the doctrine of Christ, as a pillar holds forth a proclamation. Hence, the church (any church anywhere in the world, be it in Ephesus, Rome or in New York) SHOULD be FAITHFUL to God’s word.

How do we know this? Because Paul said so.

He said this to Timothy in another letter:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”

This is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with his advise to Timothy and the Ephesians church he pastored — THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR OF TRUTH IN THAT IT MUST AND SHOULD BE FAITHFUL TO THE WORD OF GOD.

So, where does it mention the Church of Rome in the above passage? If Rome and the Pope were so important in this context, I find it strange that Paul failed to mention it at all.

RE: The term Catholic was used as early as the first century by Irenaeus.

Yes he did in his writings AGAINST HERESY, but again what did he mean by “catholic”? Did he mean a church headquartered in Rome with jurisdiction over all churches? Or did he mean the universal body of true believers everywhere?

If you say it is the former, maybe you can quote the exact explanation he gave for me....

RE: Take it up with Jesus. I do not reason why when it comes to Him.

Let’s see what the Lord Himself said concerning who His brothers and sisters are:

Matthew 12: 46-50

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

So, I’ve taken it up with Him and I still fail to see how he tells us that one must acknowledge the Papacy of Peter and his successors to be a member of His church.

I do see Him requiring OBEDIENCE to God (which of course requires adherence to HIS WORDS ).

RE: By refusing to follow the teaching authority of the Church (remember to shake the dust from your sandals), those who do not follow the Church are not of the Faith. And again, it is not just the Latin branch, but all Catholics.

But I DO follow the teaching authority of the church. I do not even disobey what the Popes teach.

However, in doing that, I must (and so must you) obey the teaching authority of Christ — Who taught us to — LOVE THE LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, WITH ALL YOUR SOUL AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND (Luke 10:27).

That does not mean BLINDLY accepting whatever a Bishop or even Pope teaches without using one’s mind (which the Lord Himself tells us to use) to discern whether what they teach are scriptural.

RE: Thankfully, only the Judge of All gets to decide that.

Of course, that is why I said your statement that “one is either Catholic or not” is not for you to decide. You agree with me and that’s good.


216 posted on 05/12/2012 9:57:14 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies ]


To: SeekAndFind
"Of course, that is why I said your statement that “one is either Catholic or not” is not for you to decide."

We each have to decide for ourselves whether we are Catholic or not. However, just like Salvation, we cannot simply pronounce our Catholicity and have it be a fact. We have to live Catholic by being in Communion with the Church and its doctrines and dogmas. The Early Church Fathers knew this, preached this, taught this, wrote this and lived this. Those who oppose the Catholic Church at every turn and are openly hostile to its teachings are not Catholic.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." - Matthew 7:21

217 posted on 05/13/2012 9:35:16 AM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
If you can pronounce in the personal pronoun 1 John4 you have the Holy Spirit within you. Which I believe you stated you have him.

I have personally met an occultist who tried to declared she was a Christian. I am a Charismatic Catholic. What I am about to tell you Do not try this unless very heart felt pray in Holy Hour.

After she declared she was a Christian ,I looked at her while I under the Holy Spirit told her Noooo. I asked her to repeat the Apostles creed or Nicene creed or that Jesus came in the flesh. She could not do it. She had contortions and stutterings when it came to the the born of the Virgin Mary/ remember this means flesh. She could not even say Jesus born of the Flesh. Her husband flipped out. She declared that there was "many Gods "at the key moments to pronounce Christ in the Flesh.

What God was showing me is his word in 1John 4 is a real test to know a real Christian. If we continue in the life. Amen.

But the point is if you (seekand find)can declare Christ came in the Flesh this is because you truly believe in Jesus. This is the Holy Spirit. Do not let anyone fool you.

God does not care about us being 100 percent right on theology more than just knowing him in Love. His Divine Mercy is greatly beautiful in perfect love.

Today's Catholic Mass reading has a great example of Peter and others being surprised too in their beliefs:

Reading 1 Acts 10:25-26, 34-35, 44-48

When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and, falling at his feet, paid him homage.

Peter, however, raised him up, saying, “Get up. I myself am also a human being.”

Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality.

Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.”

While Peter was still speaking these things, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word.

The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit

should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God.

Then Peter responded, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people,

who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?” He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

PRAISE JESUS!! AMEN!

218 posted on 05/13/2012 11:36:54 AM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
RE: The example of Paul shows that while he was a bishop in his own right, he still reported to the central authority.

To whom did he report?

The Council in Jerusalem.

He did go to Jerusalem to be laid hands on and to be commissioned to preach the gospel, but where does it show that Peter had authority over him?

Acts shows that the Council had authority over him. Peter was the head of the Council James was the specific bishop. Peter had general authority.

“6 As for those who were held in high esteem —whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism —they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.” ( Galatians 2:6-9)

And if you trace Paul's journeys and actions, you find that he ministered mostly to the Jews.

He said that both he and Peter were equally entrusted with preaching the gospel. Peter to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. Where is the indicator that Peter was the Pope with authority over Paul?

2) When Paul mentioned the Pillars of the church, it is interesting that Peter (Cephas) was mentioned SECOND, next to James. Why would that be if Peter had jurisdictional primacy over the others? Shouldn’t he be mentioned first?

So no, all indications are that ALL APOSTLES held EQUAL positions in the preaching of the gospel. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ANY HIERARCHICAL AUTHORITY AT ALL.

Paul is the best indicator in the NT of the hierarchical nature of the Church.

RE: The patriarch of the Latin branch earned the first amongst equals status by being true to the Faith in the first millennium while the Orthodox were not quite, shall we say, orthodox.

And just because you said so, it must be so? Sorry, no dice. I want you to show me WHERE in the early churches ( yes, up to even Nicea ), Rome exercised authority over all the other churches.

It didn't. It became that way after the behaviour of the other bishops.

If Rome held the doctrinal interpretation that everyone had to adhere to, then why did the Bishops not simply ask the Pope ( if indeed such a a position existed ) to speak infallibly for all on the one important doctrine — the Nature of God and the Deity of Jesus Christ — that separated orthodoxy from heresy?

Why bother meeting at Nicea? It would be a simple matter for the Pope to tell everyone what to believe and all to simply accept it.

Let the Bishop of Rome write a Papal Doctrinal Letter and let all adhere to what he infallibly said.

But no such thing existed.

In fact, it was ATHANASIUS (later Bishop of Alexandria ) who was the champion of the Nicene Creed.

And this invalidates the Creed how?

What Paul is referring to is this — The church holds forth the Scripture and the doctrine of Christ, as a pillar holds forth a proclamation. Hence, the church (any church anywhere in the world, be it in Ephesus, Rome or in New York) SHOULD be FAITHFUL to God’s word. How do we know this? Because Paul said so. He said this to Timothy in another letter: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”

We might keep in mind what 'useful' means. It does not mean sufficient, as a hint.

So, I’ve taken it up with Him and I still fail to see how he tells us that one must acknowledge the Papacy of Peter and his successors to be a member of His church.

I fail to see how this reflects on our conversation. If you do not believe in the commandments of God, or in the authority of the Church that Jesus Christ the Lord Almighty created for us, or wish to hedge or shade those commandments, that is up to you.

But I DO follow the teaching authority of the church. I do not even disobey what the Popes teach.

However, in doing that, I must (and so must you) obey the teaching authority of Christ — Who taught us to — LOVE THE LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, WITH ALL YOUR SOUL AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND (Luke 10:27).

That does not mean BLINDLY accepting whatever a Bishop or even Pope teaches without using one’s mind (which the Lord Himself tells us to use) to discern whether what they teach are scriptural.

Either you acknowledge the Pope's authority or else you do not.

RE: Thankfully, only the Judge of All gets to decide that.

Of course, that is why I said your statement that “one is either Catholic or not” is not for you to decide. You agree with me and that’s good.

If I had the responsibility to Judge people to their everlasting salvation or damnation, I would be unable to carry it out or even bear it.

221 posted on 05/13/2012 1:28:04 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
"Peter to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles."

"The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;" - Acts 15:6-8

223 posted on 05/13/2012 2:26:01 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson