Posted on 07/08/2006 9:23:38 AM PDT by WestTexasWend
That should read the entire New Testament is that of the testament of Jesus Christ.
Yeah JC says my church, not the Catholic Church.
Really! You must have seen this on National Geographic or The Learning Channel. They love to distort history.
Before 367AD? Welcome to the Early Church Fathers
Jesus told his prodigal son Peter, Jn 21:15 “Feed My lambs Tend My sheep Feed My sheep.” Jesus had earlier said, Jn 10:11 “I am the good shepherd.” By directing that Peter become the good shepherd,
Jesus did no such thing...You're trying to insert something in the scripture that's just not there
"When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs. He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep." John 21:15-17 (in the NAB. Is it different in the KJV?)
The message is clear. In John 21:15 - Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," referring to the other apostles. Jesus singles Peter out as the leader of the apostolic college. In John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, ordaining his office and primacy. Peter became Christ’s vicar, or personal representative, on earth. Peter’s prestige as the head apostle was so great that people Acts 5:15 “carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them.”
Pure conjecture...No scripture to back it up...All of the Apostles performed signs and wonder, including Paul...The focus was supposed to be on Jesus, not Peter...
"Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and mats so that when Peter came by, at least his shadow might fall on one or another of them." Acts 5:15
Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.
Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?
Jesus was using a parable to explain to his disciples why He would be rejected. Whereas in Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ's authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).
Personally, I think they are synonymous. That's one of the reasons I went back to Catholicism after wandering around at the "Church of This" and the "Church of That", and the "Church of This and That" and the "Church of This and That, But Not the Other Thing" for several years.
Luckily, in His days here on Earth, there was no need for him to make distinctions. Regrettably, it became necessary to a lesser degree as early as Paul's time.
It's distressing that a post about the propriety or even possibility of female clergy turns out to be some kind of attack bait. But, well when I think of the number of people who, not knowing that I'm in the Church, tell me in all earnestness what "those Catholics" believe -- which has nothing to do with any kind of reality, I've decided that there's just something about the Church that irritates people -- kind of the way Catholics used to irritate me, kind of the way Paul was irritated by those awful Christians. All this anger just might be mere prelude to something wonderful.
Somehow it seems a propos to note that 30 years ago I ran a beach ministry (no! Really! - wonderful summer job!) in Freeport, Texas. Almost daily some guy would ask me how many people I'd saved that day. And I always answered, "Not a one! If anybody got saved today, Jesus saved 'em. I sure didn't." My opinion hasn't changed since I joined the Church. Jesus saves. We might disagree about how, and some of those disagreements might be very important. But it's IHS that does the saving, if any saving is being done.
The response to this question was provided in my post #335. And, YES the Catholic Church is quite familiar with Timothy since it included the book in the Canons of the Bible.
Do you subscribe to Sola Scriptura?
**************
Exactly. It is good to see the Vatican continuing to clarify this issue.
Much mischief was done with the birth of "feminism", which unfortunately has taken root with dissatisfied females in this country in particular.
Really? Where is that substantiated?
1 Tim. 3:1-3
Marajade. How does celibacy which is a legitimate sanctioned life for any Christian single ( priest or not) compare in any way to polygamy? If the Church changes her discipline ( look it up) to allow for married priests she would be changing from mandating one legitimate expression of life to another legitimate expression. She would not be endorsing something forbidden by all orthodox Christians throughout history.
Your anti Catholic bias has short circuited the logic portion of your brain.
Yes is can see where simple would appeal to you.
The Pope never said no women in leadership. There is a big difference between saying no women priests and no women in leadership. We all have a ministry to give back to the Church in service of God. There have been many great Catholic woman leaders. We call them Saints. But they practiced true and holy humility. They knew the charism they were given must also submit to the authority of Christ and His Church.
Paul also said that bishops should be married men.
Mind you, in the translation with which I grew up, the line was the bishops should be "husbands of one wife".
This led my mother to say, "All the bishops should marry ONE wife? Poor woman!"
Surrounded and nurtured with theological and scriptural insight like that, how could I go wrong?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1440113/posts
"Churchmen on brink of exodus over women bishops"
I don't take a position on either side of that argument. IMHO it's a debatable issue and I don't know the correct answer.
Neither do I.
The is danger in taking is taking scriptures too literally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.