Catholic "hierarchy" vs. Peter's confession

[Believer]

Matthew 16:17-20 "Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heave, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." then he warned his disciples no to tell anyone that he was the Christ."

I bring this up because I am curious about other's interpretations of it. Many people have used this quote from the scriptures to justify the "hierarchy" of authority in the catholic church. Yet, there is something still nagging at me saying that God wouldn't let man regulate the laws and rules of worship. Why give men the power to shape the church at their own will? I realize that anyone appointed by God is definitely up for the job, but what about the people that succeed Peter? does Peter have the right to pass on this title? Does he have to the power to give this authority? And if he does what about his successor?

My personal thought on this passage is that Jesus was saying that Peter is the "rock" because of his confession. Peter was the first guy to confess that Jesus was the Elect One, or Son of God. So when Jesus said that he is the foundation, I think he was saying that it was Peter's confession that was the foundation of his church (followers). Therefore is this church that Jesus is talking about a spiritual or a physical thing? Is the church of today man-made or God inspired?

Any thoughts?

[spl_cadet]

03-02-2003 @ 04:17 PM
Believer:
I bring this up because I am curious about other's interpretations of it. Many people have used this quote from the scriptures to justify the "hierarchy" of authority in the catholic church. Yet, there is something still nagging at me saying that God wouldn't let man regulate the laws and rules of worship.

Why not? That's what happened with the Jewish church.


Why give men the power to shape the church at their own will?

Answer: It isn't their will. They are guided by the Holy Spirit.


I realize that anyone appointed by God is definitely up for the job, but what about the people that succeed Peter?

Some weren't up for the job. We've had some bad popes. But the Holy Spirit protects the Church.


does Peter have the right to pass on this title? Does he have to the power to give this authority? And if he does what about his successor?

Yes. It's just like how the apostles passed on their priestly authority in the NT and they passed it on to others.


My personal thought on this passage is that Jesus was saying that Peter is the "rock" because of his confession. Peter was the first guy to confess that Jesus was the Elect One, or Son of God. So when Jesus said that he is the foundation, I think he was saying that it was Peter's confession that was the foundation of his church (followers). Therefore is this church that Jesus is talking about a spiritual or a physical thing? Is the church of today man-made or God inspired?

It is actually founded on St. Peter himself. If you go back to the Aramaic which was spoken back then, it reads 'And I tell you that you are Kephas, and on this Kephas I will build my church..."
So basically Christ says, "You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church." Now then, His Church is indeed a physical thing. If you look around in the Bible there's quite a few passages that show a heirarchy and such, such as matthew 18 and the last chapter of John (I would look up more but I have to go to Mass soon). Now then, it isn't man-made, but rather God built this Church along with its heirarchy.

[Gavin]

Good question, believer. I would be interested in other people's responses to this, too.

[InquisitorKind]

I would agree with Augustine and his interpretation of the rock.

And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer

John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

My thoughts on Matthew 16:18 are just as that: the church is built on Peter's confession of faith first and foremost ONLY because he was the first to believe. Other than that, the church is built on confessions of faith, not one man.

IMHO, the Catholic expansion on Matthew 16:18 to include only the successors to the bishops of Rome and a Primacy of Peter in the sense of an office, (i.e. all that is said in Vatican I) is reading Catholic theology into a text that doesn't support it.

Hope this helps,
~Matt

[InquisitorKind]

03-02-2003 @ 07:31 PM
spl_cadet:

[QUOTE]

Yes. It's just like how the apostles passed on their priestly authority in the NT and they passed it on to others.



Do you happen to have any passages in mind?

The only passage I can find where apostlistic succession occurs is Acts 1...and, to my surprise, they cast lots to see who would become the successor. (Assuming they were looking for a successor.) How come the Church doesn't do it that way today?



It is actually founded on St. Peter himself. If you go back to the Aramaic which was spoken back then, it reads 'And I tell you that you are Kephas, and on this Kephas I will build my church..."
So basically Christ says, "You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church." Now then, His Church is indeed a physical thing. If you look around in the Bible there's quite a few passages that show a heirarchy and such, such as matthew 18 and the last chapter of John (I would look up more but I have to go to Mass soon). Now then, it isn't man-made, but rather God built this Church along with its heirarchy.

Even if Aramaic was spoken, shouldn't we look at what was written in the Greek? It is the original language after all...

Anyway, Matthew 18? What heirarchy is shown there? I see the keys...also, in John 21 I don't see a heirarchy. Could you point it out to me?

Thanks for your time,
~Matt

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

To say that Peter was the Rock that the Church was built upon is to negate Jesus being the Rock in every prophetic utterance, ie. the stumbling block, the cornerstone, etc. See also Psalm 19:14. The Catholic church has maintained a succession of popes based on this. Also, may I ask any learned Catholic what the Latin inscription on the Pope's hat says?

[Believer]

My thoughts on Matthew 16:18 are just as that: the church is built on Peter's confession of faith first and foremost ONLY because he was the first to believe. Other than that, the church is built on confessions of faith, not one man.

Thankyou InquisitorKind, this was exactly the point I was trying to make. I believe that the "rock" or foundation was this first confession which set the stage for future christians to confess their belief in Jesus. Peter basically led the way into salvation. So does that mean that all the church is, is a spiritual basis of confession? If so wouldn't that mean that the church of Christ is his followers and not a certain denomination? If this is true does that mean the church of today is wrong? Definitely not! I believe the church is a great thing because as Jesus said we are to strive to learn more about him and his teachings. But do we need to go to a specific building on a certain day of the week to do this? I don't think so. Yet this "building" or place of worship still shouldn't be discounted, because it is a great thing especially for those of us who are unable to learn and/or worship during the week because of our "hectic" schedule. But is it graved in stone that we need to follow this exact practice of going and doing the same thing every Sunday morning? No. Does that mean it's a bad thing? No. But I believe you don't need all that "hyped up stuff" to get any closer to God. Because as it says in Matthew 18:20 FOR WHERE TWO OR THREE COME TOGETHER IN MY NAME, THERE AM I WITH THEM.

As it goes for the "hierarchy," I realize that Peter did become the leader of the first christian church after he moved to Rome when Christianity was declared Rome's official religion by Constantine. Yet, does that justify all the other positions that were "made-up" through time. I think that there should only be two "offices" in a church. Maybe three. There should be the pastor, a bishop, and possibly a president or a Pope so to speak. Though I'm not even sure it should go that far. Because shouldn't the church be just an extended community? Do we really need that much authority? It seems to me that this "hierarchy" is much like a caste system. As an honest question, I would like to know how and why certain people are placed in different positions of authority in the catholic church. Like the Cardinal. Why does he get a special authority over others in the church? What is this system of progression and succession based on? Is it because he's more "learned"? So what. Does that mean he's any closer to God than you or I? By all means no! I've seen Christians only two months into the faith who have tons more faith than a guy who new the bible front to back. Was it because they hadn't been corrupted by the world's arguments or sleurs yet? Maybe. But they were closer to God at that time then many of the priests and pastors I've seen throughout my walk as a Christian.

I realize that most of these men are supposed to be being led by the Holy Spirit. What about the priests who molested children? and even worse, the ones above them who just transfered the priests like it never happened? I know the Holy Spirit wasn't leading them! Which goes to show you that God lets us make our own choices and he's not going to use the Holy Spirit to force anything on us. So is the Holy Spirit protecting the church? I believe so in part. But He's not enforcing anything. We make the decisions and we (sometimes others as well) pay for them. God won't stop that.

Just some random thoughts of mine. I sincerely hope that I haven't offended anybody with these statements. God bless you all!

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

I really don't think Peter was THE leader of the early Church

See here
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,

For Peter to be sent, someone or something had to be over him (The council of Jerusalem) individually.

[Believer]

Agreed Bill. I was anticipating this argument though because it's been used against me by a friend of mine who's catholic. Thanks for the input :thumb: I'll be sure to tell him what you said.

[InquisitorKind]

Check out William Webster (http://www.christiantruth.com) and click on the articles section.

He has at least two articles on the Papacy/Matthew 16:18. Of special interest would be the 48 pages of documentation in which William Webster shows how almost all of the ECFs did not agree with Vatican I's interpretation of Matthew 16:18, including Augustine, as quoted above.

If your friend pulls an ECF quote, try to see if you can match it up with what William Webster has documented. If not, always ask for the context and go from there.

~Matt

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Ask him what's on the Pope's hat and PM me please. I am anxious to know.

Also ask him why, if Mary was sinless, did she need salvation?

Luk 1:46 And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord,
Luk 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.


:idea: :deal:

[InquisitorKind]

03-04-2003 @ 06:12 PM
Bill the Cat:

Ask him what's on the Pope's hat and PM me please. I am anxious to know.

Also ask him why, if Mary was sinless, did she need salvation?

Luk 1:46 And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord,
Luk 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.


:idea: :deal:

It's possible to resolve that contradiction within Catholic theology. The famous "pit" analogy comes to mind...

If you really want to make him rub his noodle, ask him why Jews and Muslims can be saved (as noted by the recent documents claiming Jews are included in the plan of salvation and the Cathecism referencing Muslims included in the plan of salvation) even though they do not meet Pope Boniface VIII's requirements:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII

Perhaps, even, ask if you are saved. Or if the Orthodox, who share all 7 sacraments with the Catholic Church, are saved?

Interior critique is the way to go...

~Matt

[spl_cadet]

03-04-2003 @ 12:19 PM
InquisitorKind:
Do you happen to have any passages in mind?

Not that I happen to know off hand, but I think it would be a fair assumption to say that St. Paul passed his priestly authority onto Timothy, wouldn't you agree?


The only passage I can find where apostlistic succession occurs is Acts 1...and, to my surprise, they cast lots to see who would become the successor. (Assuming they were looking for a successor.) How come the Church doesn't do it that way today?

Because there are literally millions of canidates.


Even if Aramaic was spoken, shouldn't we look at what was written in the Greek? It is the original language after all...

Koine Greek has no difference in the meaning of petros and petra as I recall.


Anyway, Matthew 18? What heirarchy is shown there? I see the keys...also, in John 21 I don't see a heirarchy. Could you point it out to me?

17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.



15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My lambs."
16 He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Shepherd My sheep."
17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep.

Bill the Cat
To say that Peter was the Rock that the Church was built upon is to negate Jesus being the Rock in every prophetic utterance, ie. the stumbling block, the cornerstone, etc.[/b]

Well then why don't you explain why Christ specifically said to St. Peter "I will buildy My Church on you."



As it goes for the "hierarchy," I realize that Peter did become the leader of the first christian church after he moved to Rome when Christianity was declared Rome's official religion by Constantine.

Actually, no. He became leader of the first Christian Church, the Catholic Church, in 33 AD after the ascension of Christ.


Do we really need that much authority?

Yes. That much authority is what has put out many heresies over the centuries.


I would like to know how and why certain people are placed in different positions of authority in the catholic church. Like the Cardinal. Why does he get a special authority over others in the church? What is this system of progression and succession based on? Is it because he's more "learned"?

Well firstly, all priests are supposed to have been called by God. Progression is mainly by ability and/or holiness. Thus Cardinal Ratzinger for example.


Which goes to show you that God lets us make our own choices and he's not going to use the Holy Spirit to force anything on us. So is the Holy Spirit protecting the church? I believe so in part.

It doesn't let the Church get destroyed or fall into heresy, but it does allow idiots to make the choice to enter the priesthood.



I really don't think Peter was THE leader of the early Church

See here
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,

For Peter to be sent, someone or something had to be over him (The council of Jerusalem) individually.

Not really. It's like the President getting together with his cabinet and they end up deciding to have him and the SecState go on a diplomatic mission.


Also ask him why, if Mary was sinless, did she need salvation?

Yes.

What the ECF's said about the Rock, the Church, and Peter. (http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/petertherock.html)

[spl_cadet]

03-04-2003 @ 03:28 PM
InquisitorKind:
If you really want to make him rub his noodle, ask him why Jews and Muslims can be saved (as noted by the recent documents claiming Jews are included in the plan of salvation and the Cathecism referencing Muslims included in the plan of salvation) even though they do not meet Pope Boniface VIII's requirements:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII

Show me how that is an iinfallible statement of dogma and you have a case. Otherwise you do not.


Perhaps, even, ask if you are saved. Or if the Orthodox, who share all 7 sacraments with the Catholic Church, are saved?

Saveable, but not saved per se. To assert that you are saved requires a belief in OSAS. We are not finally saved until the end of our mortal lives.

[InquisitorKind]

03-04-2003 @ 06:40 PM
spl_cadet:

Not that I happen to know off hand, but I think it would be a fair assumption to say that St. Paul passed his priestly authority onto Timothy, wouldn't you agree?



No, not safe...any other "passages" you could find?



Because there are literally millions of canidates.



So just cast lots for all of them. ;-)



Koine Greek has no difference in the meaning of petros and petra as I recall.



Cool. I did not know that.



17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.



15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My lambs."
16 He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Shepherd My sheep."
17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep.



How does this support a heirarchy?



What the ECF's said about the Rock, the Church, and Peter. (http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/petertherock.html)

They will obviously claim Augustine as Catholic. What do you think about the quote I gave in my first response to this thread? I can read those websites, or Protestant websites countering such arguments, all day...how do you take what Augustine is saying?

~Matt

[InquisitorKind]

03-04-2003 @ 06:42 PM
spl_cadet:

Show me how that is an iinfallible statement of dogma and you have a case. Otherwise you do not.



Sure, the Catholic website I got it from agrees.

http://www.reachingcatholics.org/lordship.html

"Three Popes and an ecumenical council. All of which are said to be infallible since they are teaching in matters of faith and morals. Some will deny this truth because these quotes are bigoted and certainly unbiblical. But nevertheless they clearly prove our point. Many more quotes from official Roman Catholic sources could be given but these four should suffice the person who is intellectually honest."

Of course, the other option is that the Pope was lying/extremely misled when he stated that. Which is it? (If I have created a false dicot., please let me know...it wasn't the intention.)



Saveable, but not saved per se. To assert that you are saved requires a belief in OSAS. We are not finally saved until the end of our mortal lives.

I don't know...I believe I am saved, yet I don't believe in OSAS. I think it is possible to be reassured of your salvation, and to toss it away if you wanted to. Sorry for getting off tangent.

~Matt

[spl_cadet]

03-04-2003 @ 04:07 PM
InquisitorKind:
Sure, the Catholic website I got it from agrees.

http://www.reachingcatholics.org/lordship.html

First error: That isn't a Catholic website.


"Three Popes and an ecumenical council. All of which are said to be infallible since they are teaching in matters of faith and morals. Some will deny this truth because these quotes are bigoted and certainly unbiblical. But nevertheless they clearly prove our point. Many more quotes from official Roman Catholic sources could be given but these four should suffice the person who is intellectually honest."

Error number 2: Simply because it is on a matter of faith and morals doesn't make it an infallible statement when made by the pope.

A link which explains this. (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate9.htm)


Of course, the other option is that the Pope was lying/extremely misled when he stated that. Which is it? (If I have created a false dicot., please let me know...it wasn't the intention.)

Refer to the above link.


I don't know...I believe I am saved, yet I don't believe in OSAS. I think it is possible to be reassured of your salvation, and to toss it away if you wanted to. Sorry for getting off tangent.

Oh, same here. I'm just referring to the idea that it's a done process.


No, not safe...any other "passages" you could find?

How is that not a safe assumption to make? He does send Timothy out as a priest as I recall.



How does this support a heirarchy?

St. Peter is told to take care of Christ's flock. This requires that he be in a position of authority over them. Any time there is someone who has authority over another, a hierarchy exists.


They will obviously claim Augustine as Catholic.

Well yeah, he did kinda claim to be such :smile:

As for the quote, which of his works is that from? Plus, not everyone can be right all the time, they aren't me :teeth:

Oh, and what's your avatar from?

[InquisitorKind]

03-05-2003 @ 12:30 AM
spl_cadet:

First error: That isn't a Catholic website.



My mistake. I thought it was.



Error number 2: Simply because it is on a matter of faith and morals doesn't make it an infallible statement when made by the pope.

A link which explains this. (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate9.htm)


Explained poorly, IMHO.

If it's a matter of faith and morals, doesn't that meet the requirements for Ex Cathedra?

Besides, if it wasn't binding, why would you need a website to explain why it's still true and yet not condemning those not in submission to the Roman Papacy?



How is that not a safe assumption to make? He does send Timothy out as a priest as I recall.


Was it the passing of authority as Catholics define it? Or was it something else, such as a simple commissioning?



St. Peter is told to take care of Christ's flock. This requires that he be in a position of authority over them. Any time there is someone who has authority over another, a hierarchy exists.

Sorry, doesn't follow. I think even Protestants would agree that Peter had some kind of prime-position over the rest of the Apostles, but by no means does that indicate a hierarchy which would continue, or that it was the authority laid out in Vatican I.

That is, if you can even say that being a minister to the flock requires authority as outlined by the Catholic Church.



Well yeah, he did kinda claim to be such :smile:


Not in the Roman Catholic sense. But that will be determined from his writings...which we will analyze below.



As for the quote, which of his works is that from? Plus, not everyone can be right all the time, they aren't me :teeth:

No, but this is the view he espouses throughout his writings. And being that he directly contradicts points in Vatican I, he would be under Anathema.

I believe I referenced the source. I can quote more of his opinions on Matthew 16:18 if you like. They aren't pro-Catholic.



Oh, and what's your avatar from?


A cool anime called "Jin-Roh." =) The exact avatar is a picture of the Facist (no, I'm not Facist) like Capital Police Force. They're wicked (yes, I'm from the NE) cool.

Dark and depressing; just how I like it,
~Matt

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

So What's on the Pope's hat?????

:argh: :argh: :argh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

[InquisitorKind]

:rofl:

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

I found out:

The title of the Pope of Rome is Vicarius Filii Dei. This is inscribed on his mitre
Quoted from Answers to readers’ questions in Our Sunday Visitor, November 15, 1914, p. 3.


Translated it means Vicar of the Son of God

Webster's Bible dictionary defines a vicar as:
In a general sense, a person deputed or authorized to perform the functions of another; a substitute in office


Sorry, but Jesus is still Jesus and He's still alive so we don't need a substitute. Sorry, no nutrasweet for me, I'll take sugar!!:rofl:

[spl_cadet]

Matt, I'll get to your stuff tomorrow, don't have much time right now.

03-05-2003 @ 09:11 AM
Bill the Cat:

I found out:

The title of the Pope of Rome is Vicarius Filii Dei. This is inscribed on his mitre
Quoted from Answers to readers’ questions in Our Sunday Visitor, November 15, 1914, p. 3.


Translated it means Vicar of the Son of God

Webster's Bible dictionary defines a vicar as:
In a general sense, a person deputed or authorized to perform the functions of another; a substitute in office


Sorry, but Jesus is still Jesus and He's still alive so we don't need a substitute. Sorry, no nutrasweet for me, I'll take sugar!!:rofl:

The Pope is the Vicar in the same old historical sense it always had. After all, the colonial powers would appoint vicars to rule their colonies, but no one would suggest that the vicar was equal to the king. Rather, the vicar ruled because the king wasn't close enough to effectively rule. Same sort of thing in play here. While Christ is in Heaven, the Pope will rule the Church on Earth (the Church Militant) in His stead, in order to guide the flock.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

03-05-2003 @ 09:50 PM
spl_cadet:

The Pope is the Vicar in the same old historical sense it always had. After all, the colonial powers would appoint vicars to rule their colonies, but no one would suggest that the vicar was equal to the king. Rather, the vicar ruled because the king wasn't close enough to effectively rule. Same sort of thing in play here. While Christ is in Heaven, the Pope will rule the Church on Earth (the Church Militant) in His stead, in order to guide the flock.

Funny, I thought Christ was still the head of the Church. And to equate it to colonial powers, the king was not omnipresent. The Spirit is omnipresent and needs no one to rule in His stead. He is close enough to rule on His own. We as pastors should guide our flock in the teachings of the Word, but we are in NO WAY rulers over them. As far as administratively, there should be a heirarchy for order's sake.

A simpler question, I guess. Is there any checks and balances in the Catholic Heirarchy? Who tests what the Pope says and rebukes him if necessary? Paul rebuked Peter publicly when Peter was in error. Does the Catholic church have something similar??

[brother vinny]

03-06-2003 @ 10:13 AM
Bill the Cat:


A simpler question, I guess. Is there any checks and balances in the Catholic Heirarchy? Who tests what the Pope says and rebukes him if necessary? Paul rebuked Peter publicly when Peter was in error. Does the Catholic church have something similar??

IIRC, the Pope indeed has a special counsellor, also a priest, set aside for this very purpose.

Also, keep in mind that Peter was rebuked by Paul not for Peter's teaching, but for refusing to walk according to the teachings of the Gospel.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

so why would somoene infallibly teaching need this check and balance?

Oh, BTW, Peter was rebuked for returning to the teaching of Jew and Gentile separation.

He was rebuked for a teaching as well as a refusal to walk after the Gospel

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Peter was in a position of teacher, and that's why only he was rebuked by Paul. Paul never considered himself under Peter, or a special councelor to Peter either. Neither did he consider the Council of Jerusalem the final authority on the things of Christ. Does the Catholic church have an equivalent to Paul?

[InquisitorKind]

spl_cadet: Matt, I'll get to your stuff tomorrow, don't have much time right now.



Sounds good to me. Look forward to it, Paul. If you find yourself running too low on time, just respond to the Augustine quote. That is the only important part of our discussion (IMHO) anyway.

03-06-2003 @ 12:34 PM
Bill the Cat:

so why would somoene infallibly teaching need this check and balance?



Because there are only certain conditions when infallibility applies. I think you are trying to equate infallibility with everlasting error-free teachings on the part of the Pope. Unfortunately, infallibility is far from that.

The "check and balance," as you have put it, is needed when the Pope is not speaking Ex Cathedra. During those times, he's as fallible as the rest of us.



Oh, BTW, Peter was rebuked for returning to the teaching of Jew and Gentile separation.

He was rebuked for a teaching as well as a refusal to walk after the Gospel



Which are, for purposes of this discussion, one in the same. But since he wasn't speaking Ex Cathedra, there is no argument against infallibility.



Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Peter was in a position of teacher, and that's why only he was rebuked by Paul. Paul never considered himself under Peter, or a special councelor to Peter either. Neither did he consider the Council of Jerusalem the final authority on the things of Christ. Does the Catholic church have an equivalent to Paul?

Why would it need one?

~Matt

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

For the same reason a pope is in place. Presumably, all churches should model the ancient church as much as possible, no? Paul was not directly connected to the council of Jerusalem, but was just as much a part of the body of Cheist as the council members. So in relation to today's church, are we protestants, not being in direct connection to the Vatican, not part of the Body?

[spl_cadet]

Since I have 5 minutes thanks to my stupid web design class....

03-06-2003 @ 09:34 AM
Bill the Cat:

so why would somoene infallibly teaching need this check and balance?

Because he only teaches infallibly under certain conditions.


Oh, BTW, Peter was rebuked for returning to the teaching of Jew and Gentile separation.

He was rebuked for a teaching as well as a refusal to walk after the Gospel

Nope. Remember, he was the one who first started saying that they didn't have to be seperate. He just didn't live what he preached was all.


Peter was in a position of teacher, and that's why only he was rebuked by Paul. Paul never considered himself under Peter, or a special councelor to Peter either. Neither did he consider the Council of Jerusalem the final authority on the things of Christ. Does the Catholic church have an equivalent to Paul?

Cardinal Ratzinger probably. However, he was indeed under the Council of Jerusalem and Peter.


So in relation to today's church, are we protestants, not being in direct connection to the Vatican, not part of the Body?

You are part of it, but not in communion with it.

[InquisitorKind]

03-06-2003 @ 02:02 PM
Bill the Cat:

For the same reason a pope is in place. Presumably, all churches should model the ancient church as much as possible, no? Paul was not directly connected to the council of Jerusalem, but was just as much a part of the body of Cheist as the council members. So in relation to today's church, are we protestants, not being in direct connection to the Vatican, not part of the Body?

Perhaps I do not understand your question. Let's work from the Catholic frame of reference:

What office to you believe Paul should be holding/was holding that should be present in the Church today?

Also, you seem to indicate that he was autonomous in relationship to the council at Jerusalem, yet part of the Body of Christ. Are you implying that those in the Catholic heirarchy should include a member/office that is not under the authority of the Vatican?

~Matt

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

He was simply one called of God to minister to the lost and hurt Gentiles. He was not commissioned by the council, but by God Himself. I don't think he should be holding any office in the Church except just a body member who was called to preach the Word. No commission from the twelve or the council, just a call from God, that made him part of the body.

I am coming from the frame of reference where I was called a heretic for leaving the Catholic church and becoming a pentecostal. I am still a member of the body of Christ, no matter what that priest said!!

[InquisitorKind]

03-06-2003 @ 03:46 PM
Bill the Cat:

He was simply one called of God to minister to the lost and hurt Gentiles. He was not commissioned by the council, but by God Himself. I don't think he should be holding any office in the Church except just a body member who was called to preach the Word. No commission from the twelve or the council, just a call from God, that made him part of the body.

Ok. I see what you're saying now. It sounds good to me.

I just don't think any Catholic would be convinced by it...

I am coming from the frame of reference where I was called a heretic for leaving the Catholic church and becoming a pentecostal. I am still a member of the body of Christ, no matter what that priest said!!

And I would agree that Christians outside of the Catholic Church are saved, even those who reject it.

~Matt