Catholicism Cult?

[disciple]

i want to return again briefly to your use of mt 16:19 and 1 tim 3:15.

Mt 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

is peter getting the sole authority here on earth and becoming the first pope and vicar of Christ? i highly doubt it. it is obvious that He is giving the apostles authority here (as he already did elsewhere, cf. mt 10:1) but what does this refer to and what type of authority is it? notice this same authority given to the church (not just peter) just two chapters later:

Mt 18:15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 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. 19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20 "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."

notice that it's not just the leadership or just peter or the pope but where two or three have gathered together in Christ's name (i.e., believers or members of the church presumably). this authority was given to all who believe in Him. the church is Christ's representative on earth and not just one person who is the vicar (i.e., the pope). you need to look at the whole of Scripture (i.e., analogy of faith) and not just one isolated verse to substantiate your views.

here's what JFB commentary has to say (http://www.biblestudytools.net/Comme...mt&chapter=016):

Whatever this mean, it was soon expressly extended to all the apostles (Matthew 18:18); so that the claim of supreme authority in the Church, made for Peter by the Church of Rome, and then arrogated to themselves by the popes as the legitimate successors of St. Peter, is baseless and impudent. As first in confessing Christ, Peter got this commission before the rest; and with these "keys," on the day of Pentecost, he first "opened the door of faith" to the Jews, and then, in the person of Cornelius, he was honored to do the same to the Gentiles. Hence, in the lists of the apostles, Peter is always first named. thing is clear, that not in all the New Testament is there the vestige of any authority either claimed or exercised by Peter, or conceded to him, above the rest of the apostles--a thing conclusive against the Romish claims in behalf of that apostle.

and then later in chapter 20:

Mt 20:20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. 21 And He said to her, "What do you wish?" She said to Him, "Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left." 22 But Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" They said to Him, "We are able." 23 He said to them, "My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father."

if peter was just given the keys to the kingdom and he was the head cheese and vicar of Christ on earth the answer to this question should be quite easy. why wasn't it obvious to them? because they understood mt 16:19 much differently than a RC.

[disciple]

as far as 1 tim 3:15 he's using the picture and imagery of a house:

1 Tim 3:15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

what is the purpose of a house? what is the purpose of the pillars and supports? of course the church does this. the church as i said before is composed of all who in every place call upon Christ (1 co 1:2). those who trust in and follow Christ who is the truth (john 14:6) and whose word is truth (john 17:17) will uphold the truth. how does this prove a RC church with all its heirarchy and its vicar?

here's what JFB commentary says (http://www.biblestudytools.net/Comme...ti&chapter=003):
the pillar and ground of the truth--evidently predicated of the Church, not of "the mystery of godliness" (an interpretation not started till the sixteenth century; so BENGEL); for after two weighty predicates, "pillar and ground," and these substantives, the third, a much weaker one, and that an adjective, "confessedly," or "without controversy great," would not come. "Pillar" is so used metaphorically of the three apostles on whom principally the Jewish Christian Church depended (Galatians 2:9; compare Revelation 3:12). The Church is "the pillar of the truth," as the continued existence (historically) of the truth rests on it; for it supports and preserves the word of truth. He who is of the truth belongs by the very fact to the Church. Christ is the alone ground of the truth in the highest sense (1 Corinthians 3:11). The apostles are foundations in a secondary sense (Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14). The Church rests on the truth as it is in Christ; not the truth on the Church. But the truth as it is in itself is to be distinguished from the truth as it is acknowledged in the world. In the former sense it needs no pillar, but supports itself; in the latter sense, it needs the Church as its pillar, that is, its supporter and preserver [BAUMGARTEN]. The importance of Timothy's commission is set forth by reminding him of the excellence of "the house" in which he serves; and this in opposition to the coming heresies which Paul presciently forewarns him of immediately after (1 Timothy 4:1). The Church is to be the stay of the truth and its conserver for the world, and God's instrument for securing its continuance on earth, in opposition to those heresies (Matthew 16:18, 28:20). The apostle does not recognize a Church which has not the truth, or has it only in part. Rome falsely claims the promise for herself. But it is not historical descent that constitutes a Church, but this only, to those heresies (Matthew 16:18, 28:20). The apostle does not recognize a Church which has not the intermediate; the "ground," or "basement" (similar to "foundation," 2 Timothy 2:19), the final support of the building [ALFORD]. It is no objection that, having called the Church before "the house of God," he now calls it the "pillar"; for the literal word "Church" immediately precedes the new metaphors: so the Church, or congregation of believers, which before was regarded as the habitation of God, is now, from a different point of view, regarded as the pillar upholding the truth.

[Victor Joseph]

disciple my brother . . . I need to respectfully disagree. You make some good points. . . I don't have all the answers. (It still seems to be your 'opinion and interpretation of the Bible against my attempt to explain the teachings of Jesus' Church). I can go to the Word of God to attempt to prove the Authority and Primacy of the Bishop St. Peter.

More later. . .

You're in my prayers. . . V.J.

[disciple]

Originally posted by Victor Joseph
(It still seems to be your 'opinion and interpretation of the Bible against my attempt to explain the teachings of Jesus' Church).

you make it sound as if it's my opinion and interpretation and what you're saying is not yours. words and contexts have very plain meaning. grammar is something that may not be easy for some but hard to argue against. yanking things out of context or putting things into contexts that aren't there is also a dead giveaway of opinion. perhaps it's my opinion and interpretation against yours. but it's not as if i'm the only one interpreting or possessing opinions. you imply that your words are the very teachings of Jesus and require no interpretion yet you cannot (and have not) substantiate them from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles in the Scriptures.

I can go to the Word of God to attempt to prove the Authority and Primacy of the Bishop St. Peter.

you tried that and it's not there. reading in later history to the Scripture won't do it. Scripture does not teach the RC church or your supposed vicar of Christ...PERIOD. even our Orthodox friends here at the forum can agree with me here.

[Victor Joseph]

disciple. . .Re: Catholic Church "Cult or Real Deal?"


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Victor Joseph
...but I don't understand why we both can't honor Mary as much as the founders of Protestantism did?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b/c the background many of them came out of was RC. so they were still impacted by much of it. this cannot be substantiated from Scripture nor did the apostolic fathers believe this. this is a later invention. as i said before, the ante-nicene fathers were interested in going back to and preserving the apostolic faith and would not have ever tolerated any changes to the faith that was once and for all delivered.

So WHY did the early Protestants follow such 'tainted' fellows?

Anyway. . . Peace and Joy to you. V.J.

[Victor Joseph]

disciple. . . there is much in the Word of God that is implied. . . like the Trinity. . . the Pope I would assert is one of them. . . yet somehow I fear you will twist this as well. . . still I humbly wish you peace.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER


Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are mentioned 130 times. Peter is always listed first except in 1 Cor 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (exceptions to the rule).

Matt 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Lk 6:14-16; Act 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - Peter has the faith to walk on water. What other man has walked on water? This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which mandate leadership over the Church and dynastic succession.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. He will be the head of the apostles.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. The Pope is the "fisher of men."

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, Peter answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred. (seems the persecuting Roman empire knew who the head of the Church was. . .)

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net doesn't break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these (the other apostles)." Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep = all people, even the apostles.

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 selection of successor to Judas. 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 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 apostles and works 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 has a divine vision.

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

Acts 12:5 - 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 first doctrinal issue on circumcision at Church's first council at Jerusalem. 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 showing Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles.

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Peter writes from Rome (Babylon was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution).

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21 - Babylon = Rome. Rome was the only "great city" of the New Testament period.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

V.J.

[disciple]

Originally posted by Victor Joseph
disciple. . . there is much in the Word of God that is implied. . . like the Trinity. . . the Pope I would assert is one of them. . . yet somehow I fear you will twist this as well. . .

thanks for reading evil motives into my posts. as i said, my goal is to discover the authentic apostolic faith. i could lay the same charge at your feet.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER


Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are mentioned 130 times. Peter is always listed first except in 1 Cor 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (exceptions to the rule).

and? what does this prove? it certainly doesn't make him pope and vicar of Christ by virtue of counting the number of times he's mentioned in Scripture. not a good way to do hermeneutics.

Matt 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Lk 6:14-16; Act 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

yes. but does this make him pope and vicar of Christ? certainly peter has an important place in the plan of God but why not paul? he wrote a lot more Scripture than Peter and labored in Rome as well. again nothing here alarms me to think that peter is now the vicar.

Matt. 14:28-29 - Peter has the faith to walk on water. What other man has walked on water? This faith ultimately did not fail.

so. his faith failed him when he took his eyes off of Jesus. why focus on his faith? seems like the focus is the object--Jesus and not peter's feeble faith. this also does not make him vicar.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

ok. what does this have to do with him being vicar? how does this make him supreme?

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation.

in this context. how about the disciples on the road to emmaus in lk 24? seems to me that the same happened to them. how about paul (gal 1:12)? why limit this to peter alone as if this context overrides and cancels out any others? seems like you're trying to draw more from this than is really there don't you think?

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

uh...we talked about this one. grammatically peter cannot be the rock. any other verses teach that Peter is the rock? not that i can find.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which mandate leadership over the Church and dynastic succession.

uh...we talked about this too. read on to chapter 18 and 20. you missed some stuff. and wow! you've got dynastic succession! that's interesting didn't see that before

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

hmmm...the vicar of Christ b/c the tax collector approaches Peter and because Jesus pays for both of them together? missed that one. i think you're trying a bit too hard. would anyone really get pope out of these verses? i highly doubt it.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. He will be the head of the apostles.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, Peter answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. Luke 24:33.

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 selection of successor to Judas. 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 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 8:20-23 - 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 apostles and works 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 has a divine vision.

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

Acts 12:5 - 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.

so he speaks for the disciples. we've already established and agreed that he is first in many respects. but does this mean he is the vicar and sole representative of Christ on earth? not according to acts and the epistles. i think you're trying to draw way too much out of the fact that he is a representative in the gospels. just looking at acts and the epistles would clear all your misconceptions up though.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. The Pope is the "fisher of men."

oh yes..."The Pope is the 'fisher of men.'" and where is he called Pope in this text? please do not read later history back into Scripture. it doesn't make your case any better.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

we've already discussed this one to. the Eucharist doesn't even happen until John 13.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net doesn't break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

and where do you get this from? not from Scripture. pretty metaphor but not one that is valid. allegorize Scripture all you want but it will not prove your case.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these (the other apostles)." Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

there you go again reading later history back into Scripture. where is the apostolic see? and how does this make him head of them in any way?

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep = all people, even the apostles.

this he did to the jews. have you read acts and his two epistles? no Pope here.

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

there you go again. stop reading later history back into Scripture. where is a sacrament here? and where do you find sacrament of confirmation in Scripture? just another later addition to Scripture through human tradition.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves first doctrinal issue on circumcision at Church's first council at Jerusalem. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

peter the Papa? ok...please stop.

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 showing Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

i think you need to go back and reread the account. while peter speaks first james has the final word and it is the entire group that comes to the decision together thus affirming what i said about plurality of leadership. read it again carefully and you'll see that you cannot get out of it that peter is the ringleader or vicar of Christ.

Acts 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question...6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter..13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:...22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company....23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia...25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord...28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us,

i'm tired. this is pointless. none of these verses establish peter as the sole vicar of Christ. plurality of leadership (apostles and elders not apostle and elder) is the biblical model not one dynastic rule. Christ is the only head of the church. there is not a vicar on earth. only undershepherds and under-leaders of the one and only head of the church--Jesus Christ.

[countrymouse]

Originally posted by Victor Joseph
disciple. . . there is much in the Word of God that is implied. . . like the Trinity. . . the Pope I would assert is one of them. . . yet somehow I fear you will twist this as well. . . still I humbly wish you peace.

Victor Joseph, many of the verses you cited reveal that the other disciples looked to Peter as a leader, and that God gave him great responsibility. But there is also much eisegesis in many of your interpretations, as well as many omitted details. For instance,

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Let's give Scripture a chance to help interpret Jesus' declaration regarding the rock upon which he would build his church. It is true that Peter confessed the truth because God revealed the truth to him. And Jesus said Simon's name would be "Rock." But was Peter himself this rock, or was Jesus signifying the greatness of Peter's confession by renaming him, according to an ancient middle eastern custom?

Is Peter himself the focus, or is faith and confession that rock upon which Jesus built the church, with the apostles being the first to receive faith?

KJV Revelation 21:14
14. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

In the New Jerusalem, which is indeed the Church, there are twelve foundation stones, and no mention of one being superior. How curious!

Did you also read further in Matthew 16 and notice that Peter put his foot in his mouth, as was his general habit, and Jesus called him "Satan." So much for Peter's infallibility.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which mandate leadership over the Church and dynastic succession.

Peter did receive the keys on behalf of the Church. The keys belong to the whole church, not to a single dynastic sucession. Neither does this give the Church license to override truth established in Scripture through the Holy Spirit.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

These (and many other) verses simply do not have the signifigance that you read into them.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.
KJV Mark 16:7
7. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

Really???

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration
KJV Luke 9:28-33
28. And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.
29. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.
30. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:
31. Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.
32. But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.
33. And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

KJV Luke 22:31-34
31. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
33. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.
34. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

What really happened here? One of the other gospel accounts reveals that Jesus had just finished telling the disciples that they were all about to abandon him. But Peter boldly declared that he would lay down his own life for Jesus, even if all others ran away. Peter had a lesson to learn about making such rash claims without authorization; Jesus had not asked Peter to go and die with him at this point. This was something that Christ alone could do. Peter learned his lesson the hard way.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

Yes he did, and it was another case of foot going into mouth. You know what is unique about the Holy Bible? The characters are real and their humanity and frailty is never covered up.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred. (seems the persecuting Roman empire knew who the head of the Church was. . .)

This would indeed be significant if it were only true of Peter and his successors, but we both know that Peter was not the first martyr, and that most of the Christian martyrs held no ordained office in the churches.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep = all people, even the apostles.

Check this out:

KJV Galatians 2:7
7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

There must be at least two popes, according to your reasoniing!

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates selection of successor to Judas. If the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

To even claim that Judas had a successor could be a serioius error.

JV Acts 1:15-20
15. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16. Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves first doctrinal issue on circumcision at Church's first council at Jerusalem. 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 showing Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

And Peter was faithful to that teaching? No...

KJV Galatians 2:11-14
11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

The verse you cited itself proves you wrong:

KJV Romans 15:20
20. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

Paul preached where Christ had not yet been preached, building on no other apostle's foundation, including Peter's.

Clearly there is enough suspect interpretation within Roman Catholic hermeneutics to warrant great caution.

Victor Joseph, I have no ill will toward you or other Roman Catholics. But I will not have non-essential doctrines based on questionable hermeneutics imposed upon me.

You know that the Roman See does not have a pristine history. I pray that the whole church will move towards unity, but there must never be compromise of essential truth or imposition of non-essentials. You are welcome at the communion table of my church (United Methodist), but I am not welcome at yours apart from accepting questionable doctrines. Which church, then, is being schismatic? I think it would be yours, wouldn't it?

Grace and Peace to you,
cm

[Victor Joseph]

countrymouse & disciple. . . We seem to be speaking a different language. . . I want you to know that I do the best with what the Holy Spirit has given me.
And I am in disagreement with much of what you are saying. Some of your responses are beyond my understanding. . . I claim no scholarly knowledge. I mearly try to state the Catholic Churches position. . . I am a missionary (only).

countrymouse. . . I sense sincerity and kindness about you. but. . .

re: quote
You know that the Roman See does not have a pristine history. I pray that the whole church will move towards unity, but there must never be compromise of essential truth or imposition of non-essentials. You are welcome at the communion table of my church (United Methodist), but I am not welcome at yours apart from accepting questionable doctrines. Which church, then, is being schismatic? I think it would be yours, wouldn't it?

The "un pristine history" of the Catholic Church . . . do you really want to go there. . . The Catholic Church makes no claims of impecability (We are a church of sinners) and some are allowed to reach a high level. And yet with all the 'scandal's'throughout the last 2000 years the visible Church Jesus established still stands as He said it would . . . and will till the end of time.

I too pray for unity. . . but here is something to ponder. . . a Catholic once approached a Baptist with the comment that Jesus wants us all in one BIG Church. The Baptist woman was delighted with the idea. . . as long as it was one BIG Baptist Church. . . and so it continues.

I'm sure the vast majority of Methodists are sincere people. There are sincere people in every church. But I would maintain that the Methodist Church cannot be the true Church of Christ. Traced back historically, it merges into Anglicanism. In 1728 John Wesley was ordained as an Anglican clergyman. He gathered together a group of earnest Anglicans who met for study and prayer, and who lived according to such strict rules that they were called "Methodists." They had no intention of leaving the Church of England. In 1738 John Wesley began his campaign as a revivalist preacher, and the hostility of Anglican authorities who resented his unorthodox ways led to the establishment of the separate "Wesleyan" or "Methodist" Church. Methodists teach salvation by faith in Christ and an experienced interior conversion. Apart from that they do not stand for any distinctive point of teaching or Church discipline. Formal Creeds and set forms of worship have little appeal for the Methodist. . .

Is this a fare asessment countrymouse? I'm just trying to understand. . . OK?

I'm sorry there is not the unity that Christ desires and that we cannot at this time share in the Real Presence of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no snobbery on the Catholic Churches part. . . and my understanding is that for a non-Catholic to partake of the Body & Blood of the Lord withour recognizing the Body and Blood of the Lord is detrimental to that person and to do so. . . would be to lie with ones' body (Questionable doctrine???? Boy. . . let me try one last thing here. . . can I apeal to reason and the scriptures.

1 Cor. 11:27 ". . .whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord."

I am told that in the Aramaic language that Our Lord spoke , to symbolically "eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" of someone meant to persecute and assault him. Se Ps. 27:2 ; Isaiah 9: 18-20; Isaiah 49:26; Micah 3:3; 2 Sam 23: 15-17; and Rev 17:6, 16. Thus, if Jesus were only speaking symbolically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood as you would say, then what He really meant was "whoever persecutes and assaults me will have eternal life." This makes nonsense out of the passage!

Curious what you think of this. . .

What it comes down to for me is JESUS. I want HIM, All of Him. Not a symbol of Him, ALL of Him. I have an experiece and knowledge of Him in the Catholic Church. I've been to lots of Protestant Churches over the years and they just don't do it for me. He's right where I need Him. In all His Majesty and Glory in any Catholic Church.

Less drama . . . more love. . .LOVE! LOVE! LOVE!

God Bless. V.J.










Grace and Peace to you,



disciple. . . brother . . . a great deal of misdirected hostility. (I'm sure you'll disagree).

[countrymouse]

The Peace of Christ to you, Victor Joseph...

I long for unity in the body of Christ as much as you do. And there is no doubt misinformation on both sides. We're doing the best we can to understand each other. If I make a claim about the Roman Catholic tradition that isn't true, I certainly want you to correct me. Neither am I afraid to examine what I believe or what you believe, to see whether it is true. I hope you would not have me be dishonest or unwilling to examine your claims carefully, or point out your discrepancies. There is no reason for hurt feelings over disagreements; my comments were not meant to be taken as personal insults.

You said:Methodists teach salvation by faith in Christ and an experienced interior conversion. Apart from that they do not stand for any distinctive point of teaching or Church discipline. Formal Creeds and set forms of worship have little appeal for the Methodist. . .

That does not accurately represent the United Methodist Church, although there are branches of the Wesleyan legacy that do fit your description. We do not teach or believe that salvation is normally available outside Christ's kingdom, the Church catholic, although we do not deny that God may work without us in special circumstances. Remember, the thief on the cross was saved under no other ministry than that of Jesus himself, and God may work as He wills. There are examples of exceptions to rules throughout the Bible; Enoch, Job, Noah, Moses, Deborah, Paul, etc.

The UMC believes and teaches everything covered under the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. Each congregation does have some leeway within a structure of worship, but not as much as your information leads you to think. The only distinctive official doctrine John Wesley left to us came from Arminius, the doctrine of prevenient grace. But we do not make this essential. (Incidentally some of us prefer a Calvinistic view of grace.) Our doctrinal statements regarding the essentials tend to be simpler than those of many other denominations, but we do hold to those essentials that are covered by the two creeds I mentioned. Neither is baptism optional for us, or observing the Eucharist, although most of us observe it monthly rather than weekly, and at Christmas, Maundy Thursday, World Communion Sunday, and other days we deem special. We have an episcopal polity.

John Wesley fell from the favor of the Anglican Church for ordaining priests here in the colonies after pleading with the Church to send priests or a bishop to ordain them. There were many colonists who had no one to perform baptisms, offer the Eucharist, sanction marriages, etc. The Anglican Church was unresponsive to his request, and Wesley saw no other way to take care of the people than to ordain ministers for them himself, which he did. The Anglican Church didn't like it, and said so, but Wesley died an Anglican priest, never having left his church. We did not leave the Anglican church behind, they simply neglected us!

By the way, we are in fellowship with the Episcopal Church, the American church officially established by the Church of England. You can read about it here. You will also notice that there are several other churches involved, including some Baptist ones.
http://www.eden.edu/cuic/cuic.htm

We offer the Eucharist to all baptized Christians, and do not conceive of ourselves as the only true Church. Our pastors do explain its meaning before serving it, so that everyone knows it must be received in faith. We have a higher view of faith than either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church seems to have. The same is true in many other Protestant denominations.

We do not have a pristine history either, but we are growing in grace, as I believe the whole body of Christ is doing and will continue to do.

I do not condemn you for your beliefs, but I cannot with good conscience accept them all for myself or teach them to my children. Unity cannot be had at the expense of truth. May our children and our children's children see better times.

Respectfully,
cm

[countrymouse]

VJ, you also said:
I am told that in the Aramaic language that Our Lord spoke , to symbolically "eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" of someone meant to persecute and assault him. Se Ps. 27:2 ; Isaiah 9: 18-20; Isaiah 49:26; Micah 3:3; 2 Sam 23: 15-17; and Rev 17:6, 16. Thus, if Jesus were only speaking symbolically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood as you would say, then what He really meant was "whoever persecutes and assaults me will have eternal life." This makes nonsense out of the passage!

Curious what you think of this. . .

Again, I will say that symbolism is not an adequate word; I should say that what happens in the Eucharist is a spiritual reality. I do not reject the idea that Jesus is present for us in the Eucharist (and neither does my church); however, I will not speculate about how he is present or accept a doctrine based upon speculation.

As to the parallel between the Passover as type and the Eucharist as fulfillment, there is a qualitative change I've never seen a comment on. Under the law of Moses the drinking of blood was forbidden, "for the life is in the blood." I believe that this foreshadowed the real, Spiritual Life the New Covenant brings, as opposed to the inability of the Old Covenant to give this Life, which is full and never-ending fellowship with God with each individual among his people. Even eating the passover lamb of the Old Covenant could not give this Life. In the Eucharist, we do not sprinkle the wine (or juice) over our doorposts, we drink it, for Jesus' sacrifice does give Life to the one who accepts it in faith (under God's authority). By the way, Protestant churches serve the wine (or juice) to all their members. Does the Roman Catholic Church not serve only the bread to the general membership? Correct me if I'm mistaken.


What it comes down to for me is JESUS. I want HIM, All of Him. Not a symbol of Him, ALL of Him. I have an experiece and knowledge of Him in the Catholic Church. I've been to lots of Protestant Churches over the years and they just don't do it for me. He's right where I need Him. In all His Majesty and Glory in any Catholic Church.

Less drama . . . more love. . .LOVE! LOVE! LOVE!

I realize that many Protestant denominations go on the offensive against Catholics. My parents (Baptist) were reared to be very suspicious of any other denominations. Times are changing, and there has been progress. Nevertheless, true worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth, equally. There simply cannot and must not be any compromise of truth.

Jesus is what it all comes down to for me, too, Victor Joseph. My deepest desire is to be in pure and full fellowship with Him, for that is Life. He has commanded his people to love each other, and to correct each other in love, when the need arises. And that we shall do, for if we love Him, we will obey Him!

Grace and Peace,
cm

[Victor Joseph]

countrymouse. . . thank you for you kind response.

quote: countrymouse
"I long for unity in the body of Christ as much as you do. And there is no doubt misinformation on both sides. We're doing the best we can to understand each other. If I make a claim about the Roman Catholic tradition that isn't true, I certainly want you to correct me. Neither am I afraid to examine what I believe or what you believe, to see whether it is true. I hope you would not have me be dishonest. . ."

Beautiful . . . unity in the body of Christ is a core issue. Truth. . . paramount.
No. I do not wish you to be dishonest.

May I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. . . to help clarify the Catholic position on unity. . . 1396 The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body--the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form one body. cf.1 Cor. 12:13. The Eucharist fulfills this call: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because ther is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." 1 Cor. 10:16-17.

If you are the body and membership of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. To that which you are to respond "Amen" ("yes it is true") and by responding to it you assent to it. For you hear the words , "the Body of Christ" and respond "Amen." Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true.
St. Augustine, Sermo 272:PI.38,1247

You see the Eucharist we proclaim . . . unites us to Christ.

quote: countrymouse

"Again, I will say that symbolism is not an adequate word; I should say that what happens in the Eucharist is a spiritual reality. I do not reject the idea that Jesus is present for us in the Eucharist (and neither does my church); however, I will not speculate about how he is present or accept a doctrine based upon speculation."

OK. I accept where you're at with this. But do you have any suggestion as to how we can dispense with speculation and get to to Truth of the matter?
I have attempted sacred Scripture but how we're interpreting scripture seems to be dividing us. . . I don't think that Jesus commanded anyone to drop Bibles on everyone and said. . . 'you figure it out.'

I'm not sure you meant to but in all honesty I feel you side stepped the issue put forth below.

quote: Victor Joseph
I am told that in the Aramaic language that Our Lord spoke , to symbolically "eat the flesh" or "drink the blood" of someone meant to persecute and assault him. Se Ps. 27:2 ; Isaiah 9: 18-20; Isaiah 49:26; Micah 3:3; 2 Sam 23: 15-17; and Rev 17:6, 16. Thus, if Jesus were only speaking symbolically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood as you would say, then what He really meant was "whoever persecutes and assaults me will have eternal life." This makes nonsense out of the passage!

I am trying to approach this issue from a 'reasonable' point of view rather than quoting a passage and having it come across as 'triumphalistic'. . . understand that I am new to this ministry and have much to learn and would very much apreciate you patience with my approach. If you would read each of the above citations regarding this phrase to "eat the flesh" and "drink the blood" and what it meant to Our Blessed Lord and indeed to the middle eastern culture to this day! If I am correct. How does this make sense when inserted ". . .me will have eternal life."?

Peace and blessings to you. V.J.






I guess the next question is . . .is there such a thing as a 'valid' Eucharist?

[Victor Joseph]

countrymouse. . .

re: the "true" nature of the Eucharist and whether just any one can confect it. . . I would like to submit the following letter. It was written by a friend of mine who loves the Lord in the same way I do. He told me that it came about in response to his beloved sister's challenge (she's left the Catholic Church) to explain the 'sacrificial nature' of the Catholic Priesthood and the Mass. He was told to read Hebrews and get back to her.

I think it's a really good explaination and I'd be curious what you think of it.
V.J.

Letter to a sister. . .

"I know that you have many questions about the Catholic Church and it's claims. One question that comes up in Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews is the issue of the daily Sacrifice of the Mass offered in Catholic Churches all around the world. For nearly 2000 years the sacrifice of the Mass has been offered on altars in every Catholic Church. But how does this square with Holy Scripture that apparently condemns a Priest offering sacrifice at an altar? St. Paul says very clearly throughout Chapter 9 that Christ entered the sanctuary once and sacrificed himself once for all. He does not sacrifice himself daily like the Priests of the Old Covenant and he does not continually have to suffer over and over every day to atone for our sins. Christ's Sacrifice cannot be repeated. To do so would deny the perfect salvific sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

The Epistle to the Hebrews was most likely written in 67 AD. This was 3 years before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. At that time, daily sacrifices of animals were still being offered at the one Temple by Levitical Priests of the old Covenant. They performed the Sacrificial Liturgy of the Temple. At the same time, The Liturgy of the Word was celebrated by Rabbis in the Synagogues all over. After the destruction of the Temple, the Levitical (sacrificial) Priesthood could no longer continue until another Temple would be built (which has still never happened. A Mosque now stands on the spot of the old Temple). Meanwhile, the Liturgy of the Word continues in every Jewish Synagogue to this day.

St. Paul writes this letter to Hebrew Christians. He tells them in Chapters 9 and 10 that Christ offered himself not repeatedly with blood that was not his own, but once for all. He says that the sacrifices of the old law could never take away sins. They were but a copy of the true sacrifice of Christ Jesus. Jesus' sacrifice of himself is above any sacrifice of a cow or a goat.

Before this, though in Chapters 5-8, St. Paul makes an interesting comparison. He compares Jesus to Melchizadek. This is a very important comparison which brings up many questions. Why does St. Paul compare Jesus to Melchizadek? Well, there is the prophecy of Christ in Psalm 110 that says, "Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizadek". But here is what really strikes me as interesting. Melchizadek was not a Jew. Melchizadek did not offer sacrifice in atonement for sin. Melchizadek offered to God bread and wine as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

Jesus offered to God a bloody sacrifice in atonement for Sin. The Lamb of God (as John the Baptist identified Jesus) was sacrificed like the passover lamb was sacrificed. He was both High Priest and victim. He wore a seamless linen garment. He had no broken bones. He was innocent as a lamb is innocent. His death was offered in atonement for our sins. That is why St. Paul says to the Corinthians, "Christ our passover has been sacrificed". In all these ways, Jesus resembles the Levitical Priesthood within the Mosaic Covenant.

So how is Jesus like Melchizadek? The Sacrifice that Jesus offered on the cross has nothing to do with the Sacrifice that Melchizadek offered at the altar in front of Abraham with Bread and Wine. The Sacrifice that Jesus offered was the fulfillment of the bloody sacrifice prefigured in the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood. St. Paul tells the Hebrews that this sacrifice cannot be repeated. Fine. But...in the Old Testament there are prophecies that point toward a different kind of sacrifice that will come when the Gentiles acknowledge Yahweh as their God.

In the year 155 AD, a Christian philosopher named Justin, from Palestine wrote to a Jewish Rabbi named Trypho. He sought to explain the Christian faith to this Rabbi. Justin was later beheaded along with 6 other companions as martyrs for the Christian faith. A manuscript survives, in Paris, of most of this letter. In this letter, he says to the Rabbi..."God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve (minor prophets), as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles...' (Mal. 1:10-11). He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us (Christians) who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Chapter 41. A.D. 155)

This document tells us something of the belief of Christians in the years immediately following the death of the last Apostle. It also helps us make the connection between Melchizadek and Jesus. Melchizadek offered up Bread and Wine. Jesus also offered up Bread and Wine at the last supper as a memorial sacrifice of the Passover, but also as a memorial sacrifice of the Cross. The sacrifice of Bread and Wine that Melchizadek offered was acceptable to God. Why? Because it was a sacrifice not in atonement for sin, but a sacrifice freely given in praise and love and thanksgiving.

From the passage in Malachi (and many others in the Old Testament) we know that the Sacrifice of the Levitical Priests did not please God? We also know that the sacrifice of the Gentiles will please God. We know that it will be acceptable to God. What are some other sacrifices made by Gentiles that were acceptable to God? We see from almost the very beginning of Genesis a pattern. Cain and Abel both offer sacrifice to God. Abel's sacrifice is acceptable. Cain's is not. Why? Abel offers his first fruits out of love to God. It is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and it is acceptable to God. Cain offers a sacrifice but he keeps the best for himself. He offers the seconds to God. It is an unclean and unacceptable sacrifice.

Noah erects an altar and offers sacrifice in praise and thanksgiving to God after the Ark settles back on dry ground. This is an acceptable sacrifice.

Abraham offers his only beloved son with great faith and obedience because he loves God and he trusts God. This is an acceptable sacrifice and God offers to Abraham a Ram in place of his son.

Melchizadek offers bread and wine along with Abraham's tithing as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God. This is an acceptable sacrifice.

These are all acceptable sacrifices to God. He is pleased with a sacrifice that comes from the heart. Psalm 51 says, "For you do not desire sacrifice; a burnt offering you would not accept. My sacrifice, God, is a broken spirit; God, do not spurn a broken, humbled heart." Isaiah chapter one, repeats this sentiment saying, " Bring no more worthless offerings; your incense is loathsome to me." (verse 13). The context here is that the people are living evil lives and offering sacrifices without humbled hearts. They are called, "Sinful nation, people laden with wickedness, evil race, corrupt children!" (Is.1:4)

So, what is this sacrifice of the Gentiles that would come? The clean sacrifice that would be offered forever by the Gentiles? St. Paul in his letter to the Romans says, "I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship." (Rom 12:1) He continues by explaining that we though many are one body in Christ. (verses 4-5) I conclude that we offer ourselves, our humbled broken hearts with Christ on the Cross as a living, holy and pleasing sacrifice. We unite ourselves with the sacrifice of Christ.

Wait a second. Did I just blaspheme? How can I dare to unite myself with the suffering of Christ? Who am I? I am unworthy to loosen the strap on his sandal. How do I, a sinner, dare to say that I can add to the sacrifice of Christ by offering myself, a worthless sinner? Well... if we read some of St. Paul's other letters, there are more clues. As I pointed out above from Romans, St. Paul asks us to offer our bodies as living sacrifices. In another place, St. Paul says, "in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's suffering for the sake of his body, the Church." (meaning that in his body, he was experiencing suffering that he could unite with Christ's suffering and offer it up to God the Father, through Christ for the sake of the Church). In Romans Chapter 8, He says that "as heirs of God and Co-heirs with Christ, we must share in his suffering in order to share in his Glory. " Jesus offers himself to us in a complete, intimate way. He invites us to become one with him. He invites us to be grafted on to his vine and share everything with him. This includes his suffering but also his glory. He offers himself to us in the Mass so that we may "Lift up our Hearts" to the Lord, as we say in the Mass, so that we may truly be in communion with him.

Now, Why do we believe that the Bread and Wine are actually his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity? Why do we believe that we are actually consuming his flesh and blood? Why do we call this a Sacrifice?

In the upper room, on the night before he died. He celebrated the passover with his disciples. He holds up a piece of unleavened bread and tells them that it will be sacrificed for them. He equates it with his own body. Then he holds up a cup of wine and tells them that it will be sacrificed for them as well. Not only will it be sacrificed but the sacrifice will establish a new covenant with them. He tells them that the sacrifice will be his blood and that they must drink it. This is the basis for the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the second part of the Catholic Mass.

In the Catholic Mass, the priest asks us to lift up our hearts to the Lord and offer ourselves, along with the gifts of bread and wine. The priest asks God to send his Holy Spirit to change the gifts into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. In this way, we can unite our bodies as a holy and living and acceptable sacrifice to the Body of Christ. We ask God to find our sacrifice acceptable as he once accepted the sacrifices of Abel, Abraham and Melchizadek. There is nowhere any mention of Moses, Aaron or Levi. This is the eternal oblation and sacrifice of the Gentiles prophecied in Malachi.

This only makes sense, however if we equate the bread and wine as being sacrificial elements on the part of Jesus. Jesus himself tells us that the bread and wine will be offered for us as his flesh and blood. He then instructs the disciples to "do this as a memorial offering for me." The words of Jesus are remarkably close to the words that Yahweh told to Moses instructing him in the observance of the Passover memorial offering that would be offered forever. Is that why St. Paul tells us that Jesus is our passover? Is the clean offering of the Gentiles actually the continuation of the passover offering thus guaranteeing that the memorial offering truly would be offered forever.

An important element to note is that the passover memorial is a celebration. It is not a sin offering. It is an offering of praise and thanksgiving to God in remembrance for our deliverance from slavery...For the Israelites, slavery to Egypt. For the Christians, our slavery to sin.

St. Paul says, "This cup that we drink, is it not a communion with the blood of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16) "Therefore everytime we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim his death until he comes. (1 Cor 11:26)

In the words of St. John Chrysostom in AD 403..."What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice" (Homilies on Hebrews 17:3. AD 403)


Helene, I finally draw to a close. I invite you to come to Mass again and again. Experience the beauty and the dignity and the splendour of the Liturgy of the Word united with the Liturgy of the Eucharist. What a beautiful gift the Mass is. It is a gift from God that we offer back to God. It is a gift worthy of God. How could we ever build a Church beautiful enough to honor God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in one. What a gift the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is. It is the gift of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance of Bread and Wine. How could we ever be worthy of this gift? And yet, Christ need only say the word and we are made worthy. It is a gift given to the Apostles and handed down to us in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ and guaranteed by him forever. "

All my love to you dear Sister, Helene.
Humbly and obediently your brother, Eric.

[disciple]

Originally posted by Victor Joseph
He compares Jesus to Melchizadek. This is a very important comparison which brings up many questions. Why does St. Paul compare Jesus to Melchizadek? Well, there is the prophecy of Christ in Psalm 110 that says, "Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizadek". But here is what really strikes me as interesting. Melchizadek was not a Jew. Melchizadek did not offer sacrifice in atonement for sin. Melchizadek offered to God bread and wine as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

notice that the writer compares Jesus to Melchizedek and not us or any other priesthood which we partake (officiate) in. that's important. Jesus is the fulfillment of all OT Scripture. He is the new Moses, the new David, the new priesthood, the new Melchizedek, the new Lamb, the new Sacrifice, the new Offering, etc. so we cannot just willy nilly apply or compare this Melchizedek to us and our situation. also Scripture is clear as to why and how Melchizedek is a type of Jesus and it is not as your friend asserts.

Heb 7:2...king of Salem, which is king of peace. 3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually....11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. 13 For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. 15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is attested of Him "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek." 18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 20 And inasmuch as it was not without an oath 21 (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him, "The Lord has sworn And will not change His mind, 'You are a priest forever'"); 22 so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. 23 The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, 24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.

so it's not ambigious as to what the comparison is and it has nothing to do with some supposed bread and wine offering. it has all to do with the fact that Jesus is a priest and king who like Melchizedek is Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually who always lives as a priest forever who is able to save forever because of His once for all offering and sacrifice. this has nothing to do with any priesthood that we officiate in and the Supper that He gave is not this offering or sacrifice. this is just another poor attempt (as if grasping at straws) to substantiate a very unscriptural practice and belief. also the Scripture does not say that this bread and wine that Melchizedek brought was an offering or sacrifice. all it says it this:

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High.

as to what type of offerings he offered or what his daily duties were we do not know. in fact the word offering and sacrifice are absent from Scripture here. Melchizedek is left very mysterious in every way possible. so much so that it is said that he is without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. but most importantly we know that he is a king (of Salem=peace from which we get jeru-salem), he is a priest of God Most High, and that his true geneology cannot be traced. this is how Christ is compared to Melchizedek. and so the main argument this friend of yours makes is not used by Scripture and appears to be from complete speculation, not derived from exegesis from the text of Scripture.

Jesus also offered up Bread and Wine at the last supper as a memorial sacrifice of the Passover, but also as a memorial sacrifice of the Cross. The sacrifice of Bread and Wine that Melchizadek offered was acceptable to God. Why? Because it was a sacrifice not in atonement for sin, but a sacrifice freely given in praise and love and thanksgiving.

never in Scripture is the Lord's Supper called a memorial sacrifice or offering. the word offering or sacrifice is never applied to the Lord's Supper in Scripture. nor is it called a sacrifice given in praise and love and thanksgiving. these terms and ideas are simply and clearly foreign to Scripture.

He then instructs the disciples to "do this as a memorial offering for me."

He never said that! where do you get memorial offering from the text? it's just not there! this terminology is foreign to the very text of Scripture and were never spoken by Jesus. you cannot subtly change the words of our Lord and call it good just because it supports your practice and belief. this is adding to the word of God. notice no mention of it being an offering or sacrifice itself. it did point to or picture the sacrifice and offering but it was not an offering or sacrifice. there is no hint whatsoever in Scripture that this is a sacrifice or offering (notice the absence of it below).

Mt 28:26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."

Mk 14:22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it and gave it to them, and said, "Take it this is My body." 23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 "Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

Lk 22:17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes." 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. "

1 Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

[countrymouse]

Victor Joseph,

The letter you shared is a lovely expression of a brother's love, and Eric wrote many things in it that are true.

Nevertheless, the body of Christ is scattered across the world's nations and includes Protestants and Orthodox, as well as Roman Catholics. That is the present reality. Even during the apostolic period, the churches were not always in agreement.

If our Protestant clergy do not offer the Eucharist daily, do we sin? Did Christ command us to do this every day? Forgive me for asking rhetorical questions; Christ, at the Last Supper, told the disciples to share in the bread and the wine in remembrance of Him, as often as they did so. The common practice during the time of the apostles was to celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly. God's people in all the churches offer prayers of praise and thanksgiving daily, and sacrifices of their time, talents, and gifts every hour, and our bodies are living sacrifices as we live God's way and not the world's way. We are not slaves to any ceremonies or formulas; the Lord's Supper is a gift to us as is baptism.

Again, how Christ is present for us in these things is beyond understanding, but if we receive them with faith and gratitude, that is enough.

=========

May we take one more look at Peter's supposed supremacy? Here are some passages from Galatians that I think you should consider.

NAS Galatians 1:1
1. Paul, an apostle (not {sent} from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),

NAS Galatians 1:11-19
11. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but {I received it} through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
13. For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it;
14. and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.
15. But when God, who had set me apart {even} from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased
16. to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,
17. nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
19. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

NAS Galatians 2:1-2
1. Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
2. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but {I did so} in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

NAS Galatians 2:7-9
7. But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter {had been} to the circumcised
8. (for He who effectually worked for Peter in {his} apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
9. and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we {might} {go} to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Paul's authority was equal to Peter's. He heard the gospel not from any human lips, but from Christ himself. Neither did his commission to preach to the Gentiles come through the other apostles, but from Christ alone. That is why Paul is the twelfth apostle, and not Matthias, who was chosen before Pentecost by the casting of lots.

Protestants are just as much under apostolic authority as Catholics and Orthodox. In fact, our beliefs and practices are a purer and simpler expression of New Testament faith and practice.

Victor Joseph, I do not reject you or condemn you for remaining Roman Catholic; but I do not agree that the Roman Catholic churches are superior or closer to Christ. I assure you that my communion with Christ and with his people is very sweet and satisfying!

Grace and Peace,
cm

[disciple]

notice too, that it is James and Peter and John, who were reputed to be pillars and not just Peter (cf. gal 2:9). he is not placed above the rest in Paul's mind. in fact, Paul has to rebuke Peter in vv. 11-21, where after he makes this statement (vv. 7-10) he says, "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (v. 11)"

[Victor Joseph]

disciple . . .brother . . .

re: quote: disciple
"Jesus is a priest and king who like Melchizedek is Without father, without mother, without genealogy. . ."

Q. What do you mean Jesus is 'Without father?' (Sounds blasphemous. . . of course you know he had a FATHER as in 'God The Father.' Right?).

Q. What do you mean Jesus is without mother. . .? (We can't agree that Jesus had a mother and her name is Mary?). Would you make the 'Mother of God' into a mere incubator?

Q. What do you mean Jesus had no geneology. . .? What are we to make of the first Chapter of Matthew?

Q. How is it you seem to have such ready Protestant answers to virtually every passage in the Bible? Have you a book. . . (software). . .perhaps that you'd like to share. I'd love to own one to "consider" on my own at my leisure and thus bypass the 'tone' of you Posts. They are really rubbing me the wrong way. . . and I don't think that it's your intention. . . I'm trying to be kind here.

You probably think I'm being sarcastic. . . I'm not. I really would like to sit down with your source and contemplate.

Peace disciple. V.J.

[disciple]

My Source = Scripture

i just use the bible search engine above in this forum.

obviously Jesus has a father and a mother, etc. but the point of the type/antitype relationship is that Jesus is eternal (He lives forever to make intercession and His priesthood lasts forever) and as infinite Creator and King of the universe does not have a father, mother, genealogy, or beginning of days nor end of life as we do but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. it's not as if i pulled the type/antitype out of a hat for my own use and twisted it. it is in the very text of Scripture. Christ is the antitype to the type which is Melchizedek. it seems that you have a trouble on differentiating when something should be taken literally and when something should be taken figuratively...

[disciple]

and i'm sorry if my tone is rubbing you the wrong way. i'm just getting a little frustrated (as you picked up from my tone) because it seems that you constantly read RC terminology back into Scripture and add words to the text of Scripture that are foreign to it and absent from it. it makes for almost impossible communication. also it seems that our communication has degraded because of this fact and because our method of hermeneutics is so vastly different. perhaps i'll just humbly 'bow out' and allow CM and you to continue. again, my apologies for my attitude and frustration. thanks for your time.

[aletheo]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by countrymouse
Victor Joseph,

The letter you shared is a lovely expression of a brother's love, and Eric wrote many things in it that are true.

Nevertheless, the body of Christ is scattered across the world's nations and includes Protestants and Orthodox, as well as Roman Catholics. That is the present reality. Even during the apostolic period, the churches were not always in agreement.

This is a Protestant definition of the "Church."


We are not slaves to any ceremonies or formulas; the Lord's Supper is a gift to us as is baptism.

Yes, Baptism and Communion are gifts - gifts for our salvation. I will gladly be a 'slave' to Christ's Body and Blood. Reading the epistles of the holy Apostle Paul, I think he would agree.



Paul's authority was equal to Peter's. He heard the gospel not from any human lips, but from Christ himself. Neither did his commission to preach to the Gentiles come through the other apostles, but from Christ alone. That is why Paul is the twelfth apostle, and not Matthias, who was chosen before Pentecost by the casting of lots.

Where do we read Paul is the twelfth Apostle? Matthias filled up the number, and Paul was 'born out of due season.'


Protestants are just as much under apostolic authority as Catholics and Orthodox. In fact, our beliefs and practices are a purer and simpler expression of New Testament faith and practice.

One cannot be 'protest'-ant and under apostolic authority at the same time; and Protestant beliefs and practices are not an expression of the Faith, but of a misguided interpretation of a text without its context.

The Church that gave us the Canon of Scripture is the Church, the Body of Christ. If it is supposedly 'corrupt' then so is the Canon not to be trusted.