Catholics "R" Wrong


#1
  1. How

  2. WHY?


#2

[quote="PJM, post:1, topic:279427"]
1. How

  1. WHY?

[/quote]

Because we right. :cool:


#3

Hi Pat.

  1. Universal jurisdiction of the pope

  2. Nicea canon 6.

Unless, of course, the rest of the patriarchs agree to the designation, then I will admit I am wrong.

Jon


#4

:thumbsup:


#5

The problem with the patriarchs is that there is one Church. If you have more than one, then you will get different beliefs and inevitably fall into error. This happened in the early centuries, where most of the bishops(?) fell into heresy but the ones who stayed in communion with the successor of Peter (the Pope) did not. The Pope is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit with regards to faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra.

Re: universal jurisdiction… well, yes, in order to prevent heresy, there needs to be a universal set of teachings that have to be followed. And the Pope is the visible head.

The Pope is elected, and of course not everyone will vote for the same cardinal, but the person who is chosen gets to be the Pope. Popes are human beings, sinners, but there is a special protection so the Church doesn’t fall into heresy.

Bishops can and do have jurisdiction over their respective (arch)dioceses, but there needs to be someone they answer to or it’s one person against the other, divisions happen, heresy, etc. There needs to be ONE Christian church. ONE body of Christ. JMO.


#6

Did Moses have universal jurisdiction, in the OT Church?


#7

=stephe1987;9141491]The problem with the patriarchs is that there is one Church. If you have more than one, then you will get different beliefs and inevitably fall into error. This happened in the early centuries, where most of the bishops(?) fell into heresy but the ones who stayed in communion with the successor of Peter (the Pope) did not. The Pope is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit with regards to faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra.

That’s an interesting statement. It is in the early centuries that we have a unified Church, without universal jurisdiction of any one bishop, and matters were resolved in councils. Its the model of the early Church. The curious thing is we have never had a unified Church under the universal jurisidiction of the Bishop of Rome.

Re: universal jurisdiction… well, yes, in order to prevent heresy, there needs to be a universal set of teachings that have to be followed. And the Pope is the visible head.

That’s not the issue. Heresy is prevented by councils. The pope may very well be the visable head, but that is not universal jurisdiction, and it is certainly not infallibility ex cathedra.

The Pope is elected, and of course not everyone will vote for the same cardinal, but the person who is chosen gets to be the Pope. Popes are human beings, sinners, but there is a special protection so the Church doesn’t fall into heresy.

Bishops can and do have jurisdiction over their respective (arch)dioceses, but there needs to be someone they answer to or it’s one person against the other, divisions happen, heresy, etc. There needs to be ONE Christian church. ONE body of Christ. JMO.

No one is arguing for multi-Christian Churches. The early Church was one Church, without universal jurisdiction.

Jon


#8

Moses wasn’t subject to the Council of Nicea.

Jon


#9

Neither was Peter.


#10

Yes, but Peter was subject to Acts, where he was not in charge.

Jon


#11

Are we reading the same Acts, Jon? Peter does the first miracle in Acts, He converts the first gentiles in Acts, He alone speaks when there is a question as to who is going to succeed Judas, Peter declares the first excommunication of Ananias and Sapphira, etc. etc. etc.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon’s quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the “whole Church” offered “earnest prayers” for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited…”

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html


#12

No.

Moses wasn’t even a priest.


#13

Your right he wasn’t but he was God’s vicar in the OT Church.

[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 18:13-26[/BIBLEDRB]

I smell Papacy in the OT Church. Given that Christ didn’t come to destory the OT Church but perfect it, I cant imagine why He would set up the old one with a hierarchy and not the new one.

Moses leader of God’s people Peter leader of God’s people

Both were part of a brother “team” of God’s leaders:

   Moses and Aaron                                           
   Peter and Andrew

Both had brothers who sought after them when God called:

   Aaron sought Moses at Mt. Horeb's desert      
   Andrew went to find Peter (John 1: 41) 

Both “shepherds” of God’s people:

   Moses shepherd for forty years watching father-in-laws sheep.
   Peter a fisherman called to become shepherd of Christians. ("Feed my sheep.")

Both had a miracle associated with their introduction to God:

   Miraculous fire in burning bush                     
   Called with miraculous catch of fish

Both had a miraculous fire associated with their call to lead God’s people:

  Called by angel in burning bush                     
  Tongues of fire come upon him

Both called to go before secular leaders in behalf of God’s people:

   Called to go before Pharaoh                            
   Witness before governors and kings (Matt. 10:18)

Both recoiled from God’s presence at first:

  Moses said, "Who am I, that I should go before Pharaoh?"  (Ex. 3: 11)                
  Peter fell at Jesus feet and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" (Luke 5:8)

Both men represented God to the people and the world:

  God told Moses that Aaron, "will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were   your mouth and as if you were God to him." And, "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.' "(Ex. 4: 16; 7:1) 

  God told Peter, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beloosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:18, 19)

Both calls were in the context of understanding who God was, the “I AM.”

  Moses asked God's name and He responded, "I AM, who I AM."
  Jesus asked Peter "Who do you say that I AM?" And Peter's answer proved he understood who Christ was. Both were given authority upon the name of the Great I AM. 

After being commissioned, both were immediately rebuked:

  God sought after Moses to kill him. (Ex. 4: 24)  
  Peter was called Satan. (Matt. 16: 23)

Both were given “The Rock”:

  Moses was given the rock in the form of the Ten Commandments, the written Word of God and the Old Covenant. The law was written in stone and given to Moses to implement. 
  Peter was given the title "The Rock" and his authority was in his own flesh. The law was in the church, in humans. 

Both were given the authority to bind and loose doctrine:

  Moses loosened the divorce laws (Matt. 19:8)           
  Peter was given keys. (Matt. 16: 19)

Both publicly betrayed God:

   Moses by hitting the rock                                                
   Peter by denying Him three times

Both were given the ability to perform signs and wonders!

It is very interesting to note that these two great leaders of God’s people actually met each other while Jesus was on earth. During the Transfiguration, Moses came and stood beside Jesus while Peter looked on. On one side was Moses representing God’s people and the Old Covenant and on the other Peter representing God’s people the New Covenant. And there is Jesus bringing them together in the middle. Jesus as the center of both men and both covenants! [Mark 9:2-8pp – Lk 9:28-36 9:2-13pp – Mt 17:1-13]


#14

I smell eisegesis, myself.

The papacy and a hierarchy are not the same thing, nor is the Papacy the same thing as the OT hierarchy - in which, incidentally, Moses had no successor.


#15

Oh geeze.
You guys are bent on me earning my paycheck.
Okay.
Just keep it charitable.
:cool:


#16

I dont really think they R wrong, i have respects for all the community member, hope we get to know each other a lot and share good things about us with all, cheers:thumbsup:


#17

Well of course they aren’t the same thing silly. And of course the Papacy isn’t the same thing as the OT hierarchy; however the OT hierarchy could be said to be a prefigurment of the new Church’s hierarch -the Catholic Church’s hierarchy- and that Moses’s role then is similar to the Popes role now. Chair of Moses - Chair of Peter.

What about Joshua?


#18

You presented the dilemma that God would not have abandoned a hierarchical structure and indicated that this would have to be the papacy. To me this indicates that you do think they are the same thing.

What about Joshua?

Fair enough, but what about after that? You have the Judges but they are spread out, few and far between, then you get a division of secular and religious power with the kings and the prophets.
Moses didn’t establish an office.


#19

Catholics are not wrong in their faith in Jesus Christ, their Creator as the Father, and their searching for the Holy Spirit to fill them up.

Catholics know that sin is evil and must be repented of.

What can be examined and questioned is the “church” itself with it clergy/laity (spirit of Nicolaitians); Maryism; the notion of a real purgatory rather than the Judgement Seat of Christ; a need for penance;and the uncertainity of salvation.

There are remnants of what used to be “pagan” practices but I would suggest that the paganic influence is lost in the vast time passed, it no loger matters. I am still calling it Easter and I am still gonna have a Christmas Tree.

I will say that I cannot see the Roman Catholic Church as the one and only true church.Sorry. Wrong on that.

The true church are people from all walks of life and various stylies of worship of Jesus Christ.


#20

c

Yes but the early church undeniably was ONE body different “churches” as in locations ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM. If you have a different faith than someone else you cannot truthfully say you all belong to one church. If you deny the power of the sacrifice of the mass or deny the mass altogether (which is the main point of church) you cannot truthfully claim you are in the same church as those that hold it sacred and a real sacrifice.

If you were to study the early church (we have writings available to us) you’d see that the dearly church was undoubedly the same as the Catholic Church today. No amount of denial, anger, “reasoning” will make that untrue. (trust me I speak from experience) If you are “sola scriptura” the bible itself doesn’t teach this and btw who canonized the bible (chose what books would be in it?)-The Catholic Church. One may argue (as I have going along with my husband) that the church went astray and began teaching things not taught by the early church but if you actually READ the early church you’d see the same things taught today were mentioned by the early church and some if not most were alluded to or spoken of in scripture itself.

There is only ONE church of Christ always has been always will. Donatists, Nicolatians, Anglicans, baptists, etc. who deny those teachings always held to by the ONE church cannot rightfully claim that they belong to it.

DoT


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.