Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: RnMomof7
Once again this is about false teachers not apostleship or apostolic succession, the papacy or the priesthood.. none of which are taught in the New Testament

All of it is in the NT as witnessed by those who were with Jesus Christ in His lifetime. Matthew 16:16-19.

Sirach 7:29-30 - with all your soul fear the Lord and honor His priests, love your Maker and do not forsake His ministers. God is not threatened by the authority He gives His children! God, as our Loving Father, invites us to participate in His plan of salvation with His Son Jesus. Without authority in the Church, there is error, chaos and confusion. That is what we see today ... x thousands of churches, all claiming to be christian, but which can't agree on scriptural interpretation. Our Lord did not leave us to our own whims. He left behind a hierarchical church, guided by the Holy Spirit. In its 2000 year history, not one pope, regardless of how bad he was, has ever erred in church teaching on matters of faith or morals.

87 posted on 03/09/2010 8:14:17 AM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]


To: NYer
RN... Once again this is about false teachers not apostleship or apostolic succession, the papacy or the priesthood.. none of which are taught in the New Testament
NYer..All of it is in the NT as witnessed by those who were with Jesus Christ in His lifetime. Matthew 16:16-19.

There is no papacy or priesthood or apostolic succession in scripture..

The priesthood was a type of christ, when fulfilled it had no other purpose and so there was no role for a priest in the new church.. There is no teaching of apostolic succession in the NT as we see God dismissed the attempt to replace Judas by the apostles, in fact their 'replacement ' is no where mentioned in scripture after they "ordained" him .As for Peter being the rock, lets look at that

Did Peter believe that He was the rock?

Did the early church believe that Peter was the Rock?

Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mat 16:14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them,But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: [for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.[
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

In Matt 16 Jesus asked his disciples what people were saying about Him Peter responds under the illumination of the Holy Spirit

"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Peter's CONFESSION OF FAITH IN CHRIST is the ROCK upon which the true church is built - not Peter the STONE.

Shortly later Jesus says this to Peter
Matt 16:23 "But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men"

So which is it Rock or Satan?

Did Paul believe that Peter was the Rock?

Paul, who was contemporary to Peter never greeted the "Pope " in Rome or the "Bishop of Rome " or even his fellow apostle Peter in Rome when he lists the workers in the church of Rome.

Peter was the apostle to the Jews not the gentiles.

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Peter would have had to be disobedient to his call to the Jews to be in Rome

Paul openly opposed Peter because Peter erred . Do you believe that Paul would never have openly opposed Peter if he was the head of the church? Can you imagine a Catholic bishop publicly opposing the Pope today?

Not ONE apostle or early father ever even hinted that Jesus made Peter the head of the church.. Peter never claimed it for himself. Such silence is deafening. The first person to propose this was a Bishop of Rome in the 4th century. Over 300 years after Christ As late as 396 Church theologians were teaching the rock on which the church was built was a confession of faith.

Whose hands had sown the Divine seed in the ground, that is Rome, we shall never know
Conjectures built upon foundations too insecure to be sanctioned history ,takes the Apostle Peter to Rome during the first reign of Claudius AD 42...About the time that that St. Paul gained his liberty, St Peter came to Rome.He had perhaps been there before. [ But it can not be proved. We have no information whatever as to Peters apostolic work in Rome Early History of the Church Abbe Duchesne ( Roman Catholic Historian)

Peter knew who the rock was

Christ is the cornerstone, the stone the builders rejected. Who did Peter believe the Rock was?
1Pe 2:4 To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

The Catholic church claim for Peter something he did not claim for himself, something the early church did not claim for him

Maybe you need to ask why?

89 posted on 03/09/2010 11:49:45 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson