The Passion of the Christ

[theja]

DV, I have never denied Peter's role in the Church. I openly deny a bogus theory of succession that is unauthorised in scripture.

Again, just as the Lord knows your heart, He knows my heart too -- that I disagree with some positions of the RCC, but I do not hate them. You are mistaking disagreement for hatred. PLEASE NOTE.

1. Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors -living men (see, e.g., 1 Peter 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Peter 2:4-8; Matthew 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Ephesians 4:11).

2. Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . ."

The "power of the keys" has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (Isaiah 9:6; Job 12:14; Revelations 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is "over a house" (Genesis 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Isaiah 22:15,20-21).

3. Matthew 16:19 ". . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

"Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to "condemn" or "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus, St Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (John 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; John 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.

4. Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the "first" (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he ("Cephas") is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred
(John 1:42; Matthew 16:18).

7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (John 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2).

8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith may not fail" (Luke 22:32).

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren"
(Luke 22:32).

10. Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Matthew 16:16).

11. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Matthew 16:17).

12. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

13. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

14. Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Matthew 17:24-27).

15. Christ teaches from Peter's boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Luke 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a "fisher of men" (Matthew 4:19).

16. Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter the empty tomb (Luke 24:12; John 20:6).

17. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7).

18. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (John 21:2-3,11). The "bark" (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.

19. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (John 21:7).

20. Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).

21. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

22. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the gospel" in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

23. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

24. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God
(Acts 5:2-11)!

25. Peter's shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).

26. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

27. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).

28. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

29. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church
(Acts 11:5-17).

30. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).

31. The whole Church (strongly implied) offers "earnest prayer" for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

32. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).

33. Paul distinguishes the Lord's post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8). The two disciples on the road to Emmaus make the same distinction (Luke 24:34), in this instance mentioning only Peter ("Simon"), even though they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus within the previous hour (Luke 24:33).

34. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles
(Mk 1:36; Luke 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Corinthians 9:5).

35. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments
(Mark 8:29; Matthew 18:21; Luke 9:5; 12:41; John 6:67).

36. Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples
(Peter, James and John - Matthew 17:1; 26:37,40; Mark 5:37; 14:37).

37. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Matthew 14:28-32; Luke 5:1, Mark 10:28; Matthew 17:24).

38. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

39. Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!

40. Peter's proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the "House of Israel" (2:36) - an example of "binding and loosing."

41. Peter was the first "charismatic", having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

42. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

43. Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

44. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

45. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called "visitation of the churches" (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn't traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

46. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Galatians 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Galatians 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

47. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Peter 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders."

48. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Peter 1:16-21).

49. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Peter 3:15-16).

50. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

The Biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. Many learned Protestant scholars are aware of this and acknowledge this, it's only the few that will keep denying the facts.

A common objection against Peter's primacy is based on Galatians 2:11-14 where St Paul rebukes St. Peter (Cephas) for acting insincerely. This rebuke from St. Paul does not undermine St. Peter's teaching authority, since St. Paul did not rebuke him for false teaching but for setting a bad example. (As an aside, St. Paul also set a bad example in Acts 16:3.) It must be remembered that St Peter was a sinner like the rest of us (Luke 5:8,10). Likewise Nathan's condemnation of King David in 2 Samuel 12 did not undermine David's ruling authority but brought him to repentance. Finally, if St Paul did not recognize St Peter's teaching authority, then why did he spend fifteen days with Peter (Cephas) during his early ministry
(Galatians 1:18)?

I do not undermine your faith in the Lord, however for you to constantly attack the Catholic faith and call it unbiblical is simply proof that you have bitter resentments towards the Papacy and therefore, you are an anti-Catholic. And proof of this is all over the boards of the other forum, even before i joined in as a member. You can fool the others here, but not me.

And to claim John Wycliff and the other heretics as "heroes" is simply laughable. Does that mean you also support the doctrines of Arianism, Manicheism and the other "ism's" throughout Church history? Yet another proof of why Protestant "theologians" nowadays rely on Gnostic writings to support their cause instead of the Scriptures. Such pity!

And do me a favour theja...
Show me proof of "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible.
I've tried looking for it, but am unable to find it.
And please do not ignore my question this time (Yet again!!).

[theja]

Thanks for pointing those scripture verses, DV. But there is nothing to suggest the development of Petrine doctrine of succession. It is unbiblical.

As for acknowledging the Messiah, Andrew was ahead of Peter (John 1:41-42).

Yes, Peter had leadership qualities and Jesus utilised that. As one impulsive and known to speak up his mind, he had the privilege of preaching on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), a ONE-TIME historical event. He was also instrumental in recognizing that since Pentecost, Gentiles are included in the faith, as he witnessed the first Roman converts in Acts 10 -- another inaugural ONE-TIME event.

So the announcement in Matthew 16 to Peter is for him and him alone, not for future generations. There is no such thing as the chair of Peter in the entire Bible.

[theja]

DV, now I can see your bias in denigrating John Wycliffe. He knows the Bible more than the all murderers at the Council of Constance combined.

Make and unmake popes -- Council of Constance. This is what people do when there is no scripture to guide them.

Andrew was a disciple of John the Baptist 1st. He then followed Jesus (together with John's other disciple) after hearing John's proclamation of Jesus as the "Lamb of God".
John 1:42 testifies that Jesus gave Simon the name "Cephas" at their first meeting.
As for the rest of your comments...
It is based on philosophy and vain deceit and not on the Word of God.
It therefore is not theologically binding on Catholics
and you're are just assuming that out of pro-Catholic bias.

Regarding John Wycliffe...
He knows the Bible more than anyone else?
Strange...the Bible tells us that private interpretation is wrong.
Surely Wycliffe must have read that somewhere in the Bible?
Yet he insisted that he had the right to interpret the Scriptures in whichever way suited him.
The medieval Englishmen were strange folks for sure.
King Henry did the same, didn't he? Just because he wanted to sleep with another woman...tsk tsk tsk. This is what "Sola Scriptura" leads to, theja.

PS: No pun intended for the other English folks who are better educated in Church history and Scriptures.

Oh yes, you still have not answered my question: Where is proof of "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible? Your mere avoidance of this question is further proof of your cultic beliefs.

[Edited by _DigitaLVampirE_ on 2nd March 2004 at 20:29]

[theja]

DV, I said John Wycliffe knew the Bible more than the murderers at the Council of Constance. By the way, you have neither condemned nor endorsed the Council of Constance. I think because they made a joke of popes by deposing three and selecting one. Can murderers select Popes by assuming official position? I pose this question based on my PRIVATE interpretation of Scripture.

If you read my post above, I have explained what sola scriptura to me is. Any teachings that is contrary to the revealed Word of God we call the Bible is unnecessary and can be rejected.

I laugh at your ignorant insistent that scripture is closed to individual understanding. May be you're again trying to ignorantly insist that the RCC alone has a contract from heaven to twist scripture as it wishes.

As for me, by reading scripture, and by comparing scripture with scripture, I try to shoot down the errors and superstitions that are against the Word of God.

[theja]

Niquie, I am not the arbiter of truth. The Holy Spirit is (John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10-16).

Some teachings of the Bible are very plain. I can study those and weed out the ideas that are against them.

[Cowshoes]

Someone who quotes Frank Zappa can't be all bad.

Originally posted by theja

DV, I said John Wycliffe knew the Bible more than the murderers at the Council of Constance. By the way, you have neither condemned nor endorsed the Council of Constance. I think because they made a joke of popes by deposing three and selecting one.

Why should i condemn the Council of Constance for labelling Wycliffe as a heretic? He went back on his promises on several occasions (When confronted by Church officials, he promised not to preach his nonsense), and went too far when he attacked teachings regarding the Holy Communion and others. In fact, they were too tolerant on a man who should have been imprisoned rightaway for causing nuisance.

Can murderers select Popes by assuming official position? I pose this question based on my PRIVATE interpretation of Scripture.

So i guess St Paul (A Jew hater and murderer), should also have not been involved in Christ's ministry huh? For eg; 2 Timothy 4:1-6 where he charges Timothy with the office of his ministry.
I think this is a joke on Christianity, don't you think?

If you read my post above, I have explained what sola scriptura to me is.

Where?
Which verse did you quote to prove "Sola Scriptura" exists? I don't see it...perhaps i've gone blind from reading too much fantasy tales from your posts.

Any teachings that is contrary to the revealed Word of God we call the Bible is unnecessary and can be rejected.

I agree, which is why i reject your private interpretations.

I laugh at your ignorant insistent that scripture is closed to individual understanding. May be you're again trying to ignorantly insist that the RCC alone has a contract from heaven to twist scripture as it wishes.

I would say that you would not know what NT Scripture was for sure, if not for the Catholic Church. You are right by saying that the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church, but wrong in saying that we "twist" Scriptures. Didn't you learn what Martin Luther did during the Deformation? That's right...he twisted 1500 years of Church teachings, deleted books from the Bible because he had to cover his arse for his heresies.

As for me, by reading scripture, and by comparing scripture with scripture, I try to shoot down the errors and superstitions that are against the Word of God.

That puts you in the position of being the infallible final arbiter of the true meaning of Scripture (Despite of what you claim), and allows you to proclaim anathema on anyone who disagrees with you (Which is what you've just done with the Catholics). So you object to the Pope or the RCC having that authority, because you've reserved it to yourself. Myself, I object of you having that authority...you don't know any more about theology than you do about brain surgery, and you pick pieces of Scripture from here and there and construct your own jerry-built dogmas.

I think theja should be allowed to post pretty much whatever she does here. In that way people can evaluate what she has to say and make their own decisions. It enables the perceptive and intelligent to recognize the malevolent spirit and tone with which much of her anti-Catholic diatribe is delivered as well, and that advances the truth in its own way.

Hey i think i will visit the Gurdwara's in Punjab and see how they live their lives according to the teachings of their Guru. I've also heard they have some magnificent churches there too for the local Christians. Perhaps i should visit those churches to see if i can find anyone like theja...
Just for kicks.

[Marmaduke]

Originally posted by COWSHOES
Someone who quotes Frank Zappa can't be all bad.

Well, you know they say the devil has all the best tunes

And Zappa had little time for fundementalists of any persuation.

I forgot to add the words, "What do you think"? after the 1st paragraph...
My bad...and you have every right to be disgusted, just as i have every right to be disgusted with her every post. Imagine what i had to go through on the other forum...
Always attacking the CC either directly or indirectly and i always had to defend the Church, even for the Orthodox Church.
She must assume lay Catholics and Orthodox's to be untrained in Scriptures...the ignorance!
She also forgets that i spent 2 years with a Protestant Evangelist, learning every step of their "trade".
The very reason why i keep reminding her not to play bluff.

[Cowshoes]

Jasper,

Agreed. As a matter of fact, I think Frank Zappa adressed the issue of religious fudamentalism in one of his old songs when he sang "Ramit. ramit. ramit. ramit up your poop shoot-". I could be wrong, It's been several years...