Pomp and splendour

Caoimhín

While watching the news tonight covering the visit of the pope to the UK, I couldnt help notice the pomp, splendour and ceremony.

Surely these displays and veneration of a man is contrary to the teachings of christ (as i understand them). Maybe a better use of the money spent on these visits and ceremonies would be better spent on helping the sick, the poor and the needy?

Just strikes me as hypocritical.

In case you are wondering, I have no religious inclinations but I do believe that all men are born equal.

Any thoughts on this lads?

Wolfe Tone

Well he is supposedly the holiest man on earth.

regi

I think he's getting the pomp and splendour of a UK state visit, as would be accorded to any other major head of state.

Caoimhín

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well he is supposedly the holiest man on earth.

Says who? What is holy?

Is he a better human being than some poor down and out who would give his last €1 to someone even more needy?

Having seen the Vatican and being aware that it is one of the riches states in the world, it seems at odds with the words of Jesus, something along the line of a rich man, heaven a camel and a needle?

Caoimhín

regi wrote: »

I think he's getting the pomp and splendour of a UK state visit, as would be accorded to any other major head of state.

Sure, i get that. But he is representing a set of values, whos founder renounced wealth and vanity.

irishmotorist

It looked quite nice to me. Yes there was pomp and splendour, but then it was not an everyday, regular event. At Christmas and Easter, for example, there would be extra celebration than there would be every day of the week - because they are special events - not a standard day.

If something special and exceptional happens (like the visit of an important person) then you honour them. If your in-laws are visiting, you clean the house a bit. If Pelé was to visit your house, you'd cut the grass and have it looking well for him. I consider it to be about doing your best to honour your guest.

It's not a case of sticking a t-shirt on to meet the lads down the pub!

wolfsbane

regi wrote: »

I think he's getting the pomp and splendour of a UK state visit, as would be accorded to any other major head of state.

Major head of state? MUSSOLINI here might agree, and El Duce Mussolini certainly set him up as one - but do you think that accords with the nature of the Church of Jesus Christ we read about in the Bible?

Seems to me to be more in line with Babylon the Great.
_________________________________________________________________
Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. 5 And on her forehead a name was written:

MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.

Onesimus

wolfsbane wrote: »

Major head of state? MUSSOLINI here might agree, and El Duce Mussolini certainly set him up as one - but do you think that accords with the nature of the Church of Jesus Christ we read about in the Bible?

Seems to me to be more in line with Babylon the Great.
_________________________________________________________________
Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. 5 And on her forehead a name was written:

MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.

Open your Bible Wolfsbane, King Solomon was blessed by God with great Wealth, but he was also blessed with the great wisdom to see it for what it really was. It is not the attainment of money thats a problem, its the LOVE of money thats the problem.

wolfsbane

Onesimus wrote: »

Open your Bible Wolfsbane, King Solomon was blessed by God with great Wealth, but he was also blessed with the great wisdom to see it for what it really was. It is not the attainment of money thats a problem, its the LOVE of money thats the problem.

I fully agree. I just asked if the pomp and splendour that is proper for the rich and rulers of this world is proper for the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders. Is it what Christ would have had for Himself if on offer? Or the apostles?
________________________________________________________________
Revelation 18:21 Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore. 22 The sound of harpists, musicians, flutists, and trumpeters shall not be heard in you anymore. No craftsman of any craft shall be found in you anymore, and the sound of a millstone shall not be heard in you anymore. 23 The light of a lamp shall not shine in you anymore, and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall not be heard in you anymore. For your merchants were the great men of the earth, for by your sorcery all the nations were deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth.”

Onesimus

I fully agree. I just asked if the pomp and splendour that is proper for the rich and rulers of this world is proper for the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders. Is it what Christ would have had for Himself if on offer? Or the apostles?

If it was proper for King Solomon to receive it ( who was not a ruler of this world ) then it is also proper for Christ and his representatives to receive it today. The Apostles worked off the charity of others and others would give it, and when one Husband and wife in the acts did not present all of what they were supposed to give God struck them down and they died there on the spot. We give honor to whom honor is due just as St.Paul told us to do in Romans but give true worship and adoration to God alone. Jesus is King and our poor desire to build him great basilicas and clothe him in splendour is what we do. When you think about it too, the disciples thought Christ was gonna come and deliver them from the romans, and didnt get the spiritual side of it, but in a way Christ has certainly done so for he built his eternal City in Rome. The garments that the Pope wears and priests are sacred garments and visible signs of who they are and what work they do for Christ.

The Church needs money to print its books and do its missions, just as I'm sure your Baptist community needs the same donation to keep it going. It is also agreed that like any other institution your gonna have one or two misfits who will have a love for money and like Judas betray him at his very table, but this doesnt mean the church doesnt teach truth, it just means there are bad asses in the world and the Lord deals with them when he wills and we pray for them also.

Your quotes from Revelation ( a book with a lot of symbolic language ) are embarassing if you ask me, and its said with the greatest of respect for you and your desire to know Christ Jesus however distorted your theology of him and his kingdom may be. But your assumptions that this is all the Catholic Church are nonetheless yours and your commentaries and assumptions are no where to be seen in the Bible. Therefore if your assumptions are your own theories and to presume that revelation is talking about the Catholic Church and the Bible must contain all truth how come your commentary on scripture isnt ''IN'' scripture?

santing

Onesimus wrote: »

If it was proper for King Solomon to receive it ( who was not a ruler of this world ) then it is also proper for Christ and his representatives to receive it today.

I think there should be a difference. Didn't the Lord Jesus say

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." (Joh 18:36 ESV)

It does look that this earthly leader has an earthly kingdom to serve.

Baggio1

always amazes me how many folks point great babylon to the the catholic church,,,
times soon ahead will show it to be western civilization and especially USA ,,, they were given much and spent much wealth on destroying life with the henious crime of abortion, so when Bbaylon falls it will be the usa and western civilizxation mind u the church will also be overun, but thats another days work! sure the church WILL be taken over by a false pope - anti pope known as the false prophet of revelations he's convince all around the world to follow the new false one world religeon, true catholic church will go underground, just as early christians did before.....

first time in history finally all the elements concerning these things are finally starting to fall into place.

pomp and ceremony???? Christ I'm sure would feel very respected by a mass celebrated with such splendour after all he was/is God and is due such things....

Onesimus

santing wrote: »

I think there should be a difference. Didn't the Lord Jesus say It does look that this earthly leader has an earthly kingdom to serve.

Of course Jesus heavenly Kingdom is not of this world, but there is a distinction in scripture between the heavenly kingdom and Gods Kingdom on earth.

when Peter asks Jesus if the parable of the master and the kingdom was meant just for the apostles or for all people, Jesus rhetorically confirms to Peter that Peter is the chief steward over the Master's household of God. "Who then, (Peter) is that faithful and wise steward whom his master will make ruler over His household..?" Luke 12:41-42

When I was referring that Solomons rule over Gods Kingdom was not of this world, I was referring that, unlike the Queen of England or any other country, Solomon was King, not of the world, but of Gods earthly Kingdom. Just as Moses, David and Solomon etc etc were Kings/prime ministers over Gods earthly Kingdom so too is St.Peter Prime minister and vicar of Christs earthly kingdom this is why Jesus gave St.Peter the keys to bind and loose and protect.

The above could burst into a debate over the whole ''Is Peter the rock''? I've been there before and I'd rather not go there again. This was about pomp and splendour and the whole ceremonial thing that people have a problem with, so I was responding to that and intend to stick to it.

santing

Onesimus wrote: »

Of course Jesus heavenly Kingdom is not of this world, but there is a distinction in scripture between the heavenly kingdom and Gods Kingdom on earth.

God's earthly Kingdom here and now? I think you have lost me there.

Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you! (1Co 4:8 ESV)

kelly1

Have people nothing better to do that to b*tch endlessly about the Catholic Church? For God's sake people, give us a break! It's very tiresome.

I love the Church despite her failings and I will continue to defend her claim to be the true Church founded by Jesus Christ and Ian Paisley and his merry band of nay-sayers can take a hike!

I'm not blind and I see all the failures but what do you expect from sinful human beings as we all are? Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. It's also very clear to me that the Church is being persecuted as Christ predicted but I won't stand by and say nothing in defense.

Remove the beams from your own eyes...

Onesimus

santing wrote: »

God's earthly Kingdom here and now? I think you have lost me there.

He speaks to the Corinthians, who forgetting their first fervour, and the Christian modesty which St. Paul had taught them, both by word and example, were endeavouring to distinguish themselves by the reputation and honour of the apostle, who had converted them, by their antiquity of faith, and by other things more frivolous. ( 1Cor:4:8) again your post is more evidence of how you flip endlessly through the scriptures and vaccum certain passages that suit your own convictions, contrary to reading what is actually there.

Read your Bible Santing. The Church is Gods Visible Kingdom on earth.Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation. Jesus says, "I will build my 'Church' (not churches)." There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.

Kelly1 is correct, I seem to be giving it legs by replying as opposed to waking up and saying to myself ''Onesimus, your replying to someone who isnt searching for the truth, anything you say to him will go in one ear and out the other, he will just keep quoting you scripture according to his tastes and you will ( fool that you are ) keep replying to him, getting nowhere in the process.''

With that I think its safe to say I've said enough.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Have people nothing better to do that to b*tch endlessly about the Catholic Church? For God's sake people, give us a break! It's very tiresome.

I love the Church despite her failings and I will continue to defend her claim to be the true Church founded by Jesus Christ and Ian Paisley and his merry band of nay-sayers can take a hike!

I'm not blind and I see all the failures but what do you expect from sinful human beings as we all are? Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. It's also very clear to me that the Church is being persecuted as Christ predicted but I won't stand by and say nothing in defense.

Remove the beams from your own eyes...

It always comes down to this toys out of the pram attitude. The thing is, most other Christian groups or individuals have not set themselves up as the RCC has. Who else is claiming to be the OTC of which all truth comes. Who else is claiming to be exclusively Christ appointed etc? Making great claims requires great credibility. I'm afraid you can't apply the same measuring rod to other Christians, because they don't make the bold claims that the RCC do.

Predictably, its come down to the 'You are not really searching for truth' bullsh1t again, when someone is making criticisms that you have poor answers for. Shouts of persecution?? Don't make me laugh! The RCC has shown such hypocricy, that people are no longer in fear of it and are now picking it apart. Its dirty laundry is now exposed. Being angry at its hypocricy is not persecution!! A chinese Christian who has a cattle prod shoved in their mouth just for being Christian, THAT is persecution!!

Caoimhín

Onesimus wrote: »

Read your Bible Santing. .

Christ said nothing about a church, a kingdom on earth, adoration of other humans, the amassing of wealth or the desire for power.

Much of the bible was written long after the death of Jesus.

Simply, to me it seems like a giant cult.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

Have people nothing better to do that to b*tch endlessly about the Catholic Church? For God's sake people, give us a break! It's very tiresome.

I love the Church despite her failings and I will continue to defend her claim to be the true Church founded by Jesus Christ and Ian Paisley and his merry band of nay-sayers can take a hike!

I'm not blind and I see all the failures but what do you expect from sinful human beings as we all are? Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. It's also very clear to me that the Church is being persecuted as Christ predicted but I won't stand by and say nothing in defense.

Remove the beams from your own eyes...

Some of us see Rome (if not all Romans) as anti all that is Christ. That is to say: the essential message of Christ is distorted out of all recognition to the extent that the Roman church conveys precisely the opposite message to the one intended by Christ. The "pomp and ceremony" associated with the Popes British visit forms (it seems to some of us) an outward symbol of all that is erroneous about Rome.

- the exhaltation of a man as super-holy
- the distance between the church and the people (made manifest by his Popemobile (itself rendered necessary by the exhaltation of the position of Pope)
- the ecumenism


There is a difference between judgementalism and good judgement. It is possible that the latter is being exercised when it comes to Rome,

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

It always comes down to this toys out of the pram attitude. The thing is, most other Christian groups or individuals have not set themselves up as the RCC has. Who else is claiming to be the OTC of which all truth comes. Who else is claiming to be exclusively Christ appointed etc? Making great claims requires great credibility. I'm afraid you can't apply the same measuring rod to other Christians, because they don't make the bold claims that the RCC do.

Predictably, its come down to the 'You are not really searching for truth' bullsh1t again, when someone is making criticisms that you have poor answers for. Shouts of persecution?? Don't make me laugh! The RCC has shown such hypocricy, that people are no longer in fear of it and are now picking it apart. Its dirty laundry is now exposed. Being angry at its hypocricy is not persecution!! A chinese Christian who has a cattle prod shoved in their mouth just for being Christian, THAT is persecution!!

The hypocrisy is being used as a stick to beat the Church and of course the Church deserves to be held accountable for crimes committed by the clergy. Unfortunately the Church is rarely treated fairly by the media and secular voices because it dares to oppose the culture of death and liberalism. Govenrments and others want to silence protests on matters such as gay marriage, abortion and embryo destruction.

Ghost Buster

kelly1 wrote: »

Have people nothing better to do that to b*tch endlessly about the Catholic Church? For God's sake people, give us a break! It's very tiresome.

I love the Church despite her failings and I will continue to defend her claim to be the true Church founded by Jesus Christ and Ian Paisley and his merry band of nay-sayers can take a hike!

I'm not blind and I see all the failures but what do you expect from sinful human beings as we all are? Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. It's also very clear to me that the Church is being persecuted as Christ predicted but I won't stand by and say nothing in defense.

Remove the beams from your own eyes...

You first:D

santing

Onesimus wrote: »

He speaks to the Corinthians, who forgetting their first fervour, and the Christian modesty which St. Paul had taught them, both by word and example, were endeavouring to distinguish themselves by the reputation and honour of the apostle, who had converted them, by their antiquity of faith, and by other things more frivolous. ( 1Cor:4:8) again your post is more evidence of how you flip endlessly through the scriptures and vaccum certain passages that suit your own convictions, contrary to reading what is actually there.

Hmm. I still consider my quote accurate and applicable. But maybe an exposition on 1 Cor 4 is not in place here.

Onesimus wrote: »

Read your Bible Santing.

Thanks for the reminder, I never do that enough. BTW did you know that only a few centuries ago "tradition" would have required your death because of this statement ...

Onesimus wrote: »

The Church is Gods Visible Kingdom on earth.

Not exactly right, but probably OK. God's Kingdom spans more than the Church, so you could say that the Church is in the Kingdom, but they are not identical. The subjects of this Kingdom are citizens of Heaven - not citizens of Jerusalem or Rome (or Ireland). While on earth - visibly - they do not have an earthly city.

These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. (Heb 11:13-16 ESV)

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

The hypocrisy is being used as a stick to beat the Church and of course the Church deserves to be held accountable for crimes committed by the clergy.

Of course its being used as a stick to beat the RCC with. It has held itself up as the beacon of truth and morality for centuries. When you set yourself on such high ground, the fall is alot bigger.

Unfortunately the Church is rarely treated fairly by the media and secular voices because it dares to oppose the culture of death and liberalism.
Govenrments and others want to silence protests on matters such as gay marriage, abortion and embryo destruction.

The thing is, that it is difficult to be seen as a credible source of what is good and moral in the wake of such scandal. As much as RC's would like it all to be seen as an isolated incident that has been dealt with, it has fumbled and fudged its way through the whole affair and has shot its credibility in the foot.

One thing I will say, having just watched the highlight show of the Papal visit on BBC. It was all politics, religion and diplomacy. I saw little of Christianity in the whole thing.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

wolfsbane

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is part of my problem with it. I am not pleased that such an organisation is perceived by the heathen as representative of Christ's Church. Any more than I am if it were the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, or any other distorters of the gospel.

I don't expect perfection of any group of Christians, but what we see in the RCC is fundamentally opposed to the Church portrayed in the New Testament.

Individuals in it are another matter. I hope to meet many of them in heaven.

_________________________________________________________________
Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

I love the Church despite her failings and I will continue to defend her claim to be the true Church founded by Jesus Christ and Ian Paisley and his merry band of nay-sayers can take a hike!
I'm not blind and I see all the failures but what do you expect from sinful human beings as we all are? Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

Her failings show her to be not the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

The words of Christ to the seven churches in Revelation show us how Christ deals with persistent moral failure. More than a millennium of such failure proves Rome is apostate.

___________________________________________________________________
Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

Some of us see Rome (if not all Romans) as anti all that is Christ. That is to say: the essential message of Christ is distorted out of all recognition to the extent that the Roman church conveys precisely the opposite message to the one intended by Christ.

In all seriousness, how can you possibly say that? Doesn't the Catholic Church preach salvation through Christ and the Gospel of love and forgiveness?? C'mon!

antiskeptic wrote: »

The "pomp and ceremony" associated with the Popes British visit forms (it seems to some of us) an outward symbol of all that is erroneous about Rome.

- the exhaltation of a man as super-holy
>>> I don't believe he claims to be holy! He's only human for God's sake!

- the distance between the church and the people (made manifest by his Popemobile (itself rendered necessary by the exhaltation of the position of Pope)
>>> Surely you realize the pope mobile is for security?? Would you rather he walked around with the risk of getting mugged by some nutter? I suppose you would...

- the ecumenism
>>> How is that bad??

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't expect perfection of any group of Christians, but what we see in the RCC is fundamentally opposed to the Church portrayed in the New Testament.

Another biggoted, wild exaggeration of the Ian Paisley variety.

lmaopml

wolfsbane wrote: »

kelly1 said:

Her failings show her to be not the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

The words of Christ to the seven churches in Revelation show us how Christ deals with persistent moral failure. More than a millennium of such failure proves Rome is apostate.

___________________________________________________________________
Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.

Em... .....

Over analysing doomsday is not a good thing imo...

I do hope to see you in heaven Wolfsbane, where all things are understood properly...

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

In all seriousness, how can you possibly say that? Doesn't the Catholic Church preach salvation through Christ and the Gospel of love and forgiveness?? C'mon!

Ah, we get at the heart of the matter. The answer is NO.
In order to be saved the RC Cathechism requires:

• Perseverance in Charity. (837) With Charity (1822) the virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.
• the Church itself (846)
• Faith (846, 2068)
• Baptism (846, 2068)
• The Sacraments of the New Covenants (1129)
• Service of and witness to the faith (1816)
• Observance of the natural law (2036)
• Observance of the (ten) commandments (2068)

If you miss out on this list, you are not saved! That's a good enough reason for me not to be a RC - I'll never make it!

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"

There are however some excemptions for the way of salvation:

841 "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

and

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance.

wolfsbane

lmaopml wrote: »

Em... .....

Over analysing doomsday is not a good thing imo...

I do hope to see you in heaven Wolfsbane, where all things are understood properly...

Christ's letters to the seven churches in Revelation don't deal with the final Day. They deal with what was going on at that time, and His promise/threat to deal with it accordingly. All this happened back then. And it happens to His churches down through the ages - so we need to pay heed today.

Yes, I too hope to see you in heaven, my friend.
_________________________________________________________________
Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.

wolfsbane

Onesimus said:

Quote:
I fully agree. I just asked if the pomp and splendour that is proper for the rich and rulers of this world is proper for the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders. Is it what Christ would have had for Himself if on offer? Or the apostles?
If it was proper for King Solomon to receive it ( who was not a ruler of this world ) then it is also proper for Christ and his representatives to receive it today.

Solomon was an earthly ruler: he raised taxes, kept an army, executed criminals, etc. That he was ruler of Israel, a nation typical of the Church, makes no difference - it was an earthly picture of the holy nation to come.

This is how the Papacy established itself - applying OT pictures to itself, instead of being the heavenly anti-type. The Church is not meant to exercise earthly rule, nor enjoy earthly splendour. But the popes claim to have authority over all the rulers of the earth - and when they could get away with it they disposed of nations and countries as they saw fit. The pope sent the English king to take over Ireland so that the Celtic Church would be brought into line. Another pope divided up the Americas among European monarchs.

And this from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14257a.htm
The Roman question remains unsettled to the present day, since its solution by Italy has thus far been absolutely one-sided, besides having been brought about by violence. Without heeding the protests of the pope, Rome was declared the capital of Italy on 30 June, 1871. The radical elements, who were hostile to the Church and who had contributed so much to the unification of Italy, continued for the future also to hold the upper hand. Pope Pius IX by the Decree "Non expedit" of 29 February, 1868, had forbidden the Italian Catholics to participate in the political life and especially in the election of representatives of the Kingdom of Italy. Only in very recent years has a gradual tendency to a change of relations become noticeable. Although Pius X, because of the principle involved, adheres to the "Non expedit", he permits the participation of Catholics in administrative elections (municipal and provincial elections), and since the Encyclical "Certum Consilium" of 11 June, 1905, in certain cases on the recommendation of the bishop also participation in the parliamentary elections. Since that time the Catholics have begun to take part in the political life of Italy (1909: 22 representatives) and to exert an influence which we hope will redound to the welfare of the Church and of Italy.

The Apostles worked off the charity of others and others would give it, and when one Husband and wife in the acts did not present all of what they were supposed to give God struck them down and they died there on the spot. We give honor to whom honor is due just as St.Paul told us to do in Romans but give true worship and adoration to God alone.

OK so far.

Jesus is King and our poor desire to build him great basilicas and clothe him in splendour is what we do.

Jesus never commanded us to do anything of the sort! This is another example of OT thinking. A magnificent Temple, a separate priesthood, incense, sacrifices - all earthly types again set up in defiance of the spiritual nature of the Church.

When you think about it too, the disciples thought Christ was gonna come and deliver them from the romans, and didnt get the spiritual side of it, but in a way Christ has certainly done so for he built his eternal City in Rome. The garments that the Pope wears and priests are sacred garments and visible signs of who they are and what work they do for Christ.

In other words, the apostles were mistaken about the Roman army, and should have seen right away that Christ came to free them from their sins, not occupation. But the Papacy is right in having earthy power and splendour, rather than having only spiritual power and splendour of holiness!

No, you can't have it both ways.

The Church needs money to print its books and do its missions, just as I'm sure your Baptist community needs the same donation to keep it going. It is also agreed that like any other institution your gonna have one or two misfits who will have a love for money and like Judas betray him at his very table, but this doesnt mean the church doesnt teach truth, it just means there are bad asses in the world and the Lord deals with them when he wills and we pray for them also.

I've no problem with a church raising funds to evangelise, care for the needy, etc. I do have with it building great temples, living like kings and exercising earthy power. If it were only a few bad-asses abusing the system, that indeed could be dealt with. But it is the whole system that is abusive and living like lords.

Your quotes from Revelation ( a book with a lot of symbolic language ) are embarassing if you ask me, and its said with the greatest of respect for you and your desire to know Christ Jesus however distorted your theology of him and his kingdom may be. But your assumptions that this is all the Catholic Church are nonetheless yours and your commentaries and assumptions are no where to be seen in the Bible. Therefore if your assumptions are your own theories and to presume that revelation is talking about the Catholic Church and the Bible must contain all truth how come your commentary on scripture isnt ''IN'' scripture?

I'm not saying the RCC is Babylon the Great, just that she looks and behaves like it. And that the words of Christ in Revelation 2 & 3 show that no such corrupt church could continue down the ages.
_________________________________________________________________
Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.

lmaopml

Guys, how do you feel about the Orthodox churches? Not only the ones that are in communion with Rome of course, but all of the Orthodox faithful? Who have Sacraments - all seven, liturgy, structure of Bishops and priesthood, that is passed on by Holy orders, and not to mention the very same bible as you guys - that is not only interpreted in a personal way, but is very much informed by traditions too? and they also believe that accepting Jesus as our personal savior is brilliant, so long as one lives that way and that faith is expressed through charity and love..

Are they equally as heretic? and not Christian, or just the Latin Rite people under Peter? Do they practice idolotery too?

You see it just makes no sense whatsoever to me that Christ chose three reformers 1600 years later to pare his church down to having a 'personal relationship with Jesus and 'be saved' cause you pull doctrine from the Bible in whatever way suits each reformed denomination?

Does it not sound a little odd to reject all those things, even knowing that many of the doctrines you have, your creed etc. came from the Church? and that not everything, even you believe in, such as the 'Trinity' is spelled out in the Bible but came from that Church in her wisdom through the Holy Spirit..

I'd like to know if you believe they are idoloters too, and all that nonsense that Catholics get accused of? and what of Christs 'Church'?

santing

Imaopml,

I think this will push this treat in another direction, but OK...

lmaopml wrote: »

You see it just makes no sense whatsoever to me that Christ chose three reformers 1600 years later to pare his church down to having a 'personal relationship with Jesus and 'be saved' cause you pull doctrine from the Bible in whatever way suits each reformed denomination?

I completely agree, that wouldn't make sense. But you will find that for many centuries there were many independent or interdependent Churches, with Rome from the 8th century onwards putting itself forth as the (only) head. And even then, you will find that there were always voices protesting against the Church leaders, some of them were incorporated, many of them were just silenced (killed). Luther survived because of a (Catholic) German prince who took an initiative to abduct Luther before he could get killed...

lmaopml wrote: »

Guys, how do you feel about the Orthodox churches? Not only the ones that are in communion with Rome of course, but all of the Orthodox faithful? Who have Sacraments - all seven, liturgy, structure of Bishops and priesthood, that is passed on by Holy orders, and not to mention the very same bible as you guys - that is not only interpreted in a personal way, but is very much informed by traditions too? and they also believe that accepting Jesus as our personal savior is brilliant, so long as one lives that way and that faith is expressed through charity and love..

Yes, I would say the same thing about them. Corruption has completely worked through, just as leaven (always a picture of sin in the Bible) worked completely through the dough in Matthew 13 - such is the Kingdom of Heaven now. If you read the discussions of the British Celtic Church vs. RC than none of the topics discussed had actually any Biblical basic to fall back on - but Christian wars were fought over that!

lmaopml wrote: »

Do they practice idolotery too?

In practice, yes, they also have made idolatry a part of their liturgy. But idolatry is wide spread in Christianity, the Bible always mentions it in one breath with "adultery" and the latter is completely OK in the world and in practice accepted in most "established" Churches, including RC. Idolatry is often harder to quantify, but I would think is as rampant. RC and Eastern Orthodox have just formalised their idolatrous practices, whereas many (most?) Christians may feel a bit of shame when their idolatrous practices are highlighted.

lmaopml

santing wrote: »

Imaopml,

I think this will push this treat in another direction, but OK...I completely agree, that wouldn't make sense. But you will find that for many centuries there were many independent or interdependent Churches, with Rome from the 8th century onwards putting itself forth as the (only) head. And even then, you will find that there were always voices protesting against the Church leaders, some of them were incorporated, many of them were just silenced (killed). Luther survived because of a (Catholic) German prince who took an initiative to abduct Luther before he could get killed...

Hi Santing,

Yep I know, I'm a little off topic....I'll keep it short(ish)..lol. It's just that being told I'm not Christian is a little odd to me, and perhaps many others - especially when I feel in my heart that you just don't understand the faith of the common people who you believe to be heretical and idoloters, and of the Church as a whole..

I know there were fractions and independant thinkers and heresies etc in the early church..Various philosophies and arguements and reconciliation.... throughout the centuries. I'm only learning mind, and I am aware of it; but it seems to me that God has guided this early Church. I believe, like our Pope that the Orthodox and Catholic faiths are the two lungs of Gods Church on earth....

It is a re-affirmation of my faith in God himself, to acknowledge that when he said the gates of hell would not prevail over his Church, he wasn't talking about a willy nilly kinda Church that is not a force in the world, and always highlighted in the world as one that 'stands up', or that disappeared and re-emerged. He meant, his 'Church', and he gave those keys to Peter..

Yes, I would say the same thing about them. Corruption has completely worked through, just as leaven (always a picture of sin in the Bible) worked completely through the dough in Matthew 13 - such is the Kingdom of Heaven now. If you read the discussions of the British Celtic Church vs. RC than none of the topics discussed had actually any Biblical basic to fall back on - but Christian wars were fought over that!

In practice, yes, they also have made idolatry a part of their liturgy. But idolatry is wide spread in Christianity, the Bible always mentions it in one breath with "adultery" and the latter is completely OK in the world and in practice accepted in most "established" Churches, including RC. Idolatry is often harder to quantify, but I would think is as rampant. RC and Eastern Orthodox have just formalised their idolatrous practices, whereas many (most?) Christians may feel a bit of shame when their idolatrous practices are highlighted.

So where is God's Church? Is it with the reformers and it never stemmed from the Apostles themselves? or did the Apostles just say things that got forgotten and left aside by the next generation and for 1600 years, and now the earlier heresies are correct, and the reformers are the new prophets of God's church?

I believe in Jesus, I believe he is my saviour, I believe he established a Church on earth and it's not a priesthood of men who read the bible....It's ancient and guided by the spirit....I am compelled to look for that church because of these things...

'I' believe I am 'in' it, the one and only.....

..but I certainly believe you to be a Christian too...

lmaopml

Actually, I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind posting the link to the 'British Celtic Church and RC 'discussions''? I never heard of the British Celtic Church ( Sorry British Celts ) but I would like to see exactly what they discuss in their discussions...out of pure noseyness...:)

santing

Hi Imaopml,

lmaopml wrote: »

So where is God's Church?

The question that first might be asked is what is "God's Church?" Is God's Church a big political power in this world, or is the Church not "of this world?" Does Christ promise us world dominance, or did He sent us as sheep amongst wolves, but capable to stand before Kings because his Spirit would be with us? When the Apostles spoke about "latter times," "last days," "last hour," did they paint a picture of glorious times or of apostacy within Christendom? I stongly believe the latter is a consistent message throughout the New Testament.

To come back on your question, I give you an interpretation of Revelation 2&3 (and with that, you could actually pinpoint my christian heritage!). I believe that Revelation 2 & 3 has historic and personal applications, but as it sits in a book of prophecy, its main application should be prophetic. With that I would see in the first 3 Churches the early Church history, in Ephesus (menaing "beloved") I would see the very first centuries - with the Ephesians being charged of having left their first love (which borders on adultary!) a very solemn charge! Christ challenges them to repent or He would take away their wittness.
The next Church is Smyrna (meaning "myrrh" as being used for the embalment of the dead.) This is a reference to the persecuted Church of the 2nd and 3rd century. They are poor in this world, but rich in Christ - He has no other challenge for them than to be faitful unto death.
The 3rd Church is Pergamum (meaning either "high throne" or "twice married"), and the time for this Church started with Constantine legalising and promoting Christendom in the world. The Christians dwelled where Satan's throne is - not a good place to be! The "conversion" of Constantine was a black page in the Church history! Some people promoted Balak's teaching - which boils down to mixing with the enemy, in this case accepting political (worldly) power by the Church rulers. Nicolais is also mentioned, and I take his meaning from his name: conqueror of the people, which I would equate to the strong introduction of clergy power over lay people. The Church accepted the Roman government system as a model for Church government.
The 4th, 5th, 6ht and 7th Church did not replace each other, but live side by side, they are only introduced/started at different (succesive) times. The ending of these Churches is reversed to the ending of the first three (compare the order of Rev 2:26-29 with Rev 2:17).
The 4th Church is Thyatira - meaning bringer of incense and represent the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches broadly. The main part is corrupt - but their is a remnant in their midst who belong to Christ (2:24). This Church is characterised by works (2:19) and by idolatry (2:20) introduced through marriage with a heathen queen - and we would look at all the heathen practices that were absorbed in the "tradition" to speed up the conversion of the people. Charactericly it is a woman (cf. the BVM) and she teaches - the Church never teaches in the Bible, she is taught.
The 5th Church is Sardis ("escaped") and looks at the Churches of the Reformation - but they don't fare well either. Christ says "you are dead," there is no spiritual life in you. He warns them that He will come "as a thief" a warning never given to believers. Again there are exemptions "You have a few names" (3:4 - the translation "names" is a characteristic of a good translation as it is full of meaning!)
The 6th Church Philadelphia ("brotherly love") speaks of the Churches that started in the reveil (19th century). They have "but little power" but they have kept Gods Word. (3:8) Christ states emphatically that He loves them (3:9).
The 7th Church Laodicea ("People Power") is mainly a corruption of the 6th Church and visible in many mega-churches today. These people have great power, great worship, but are self-centered with Christ standing outside (3:20) Christ detests them - He spits them out of his mouth. But Christ knows that there are people who will open the door for Him.

So that's where the Church is at in my opinion. Even if you don't follow my history line, it is plain from the 7 descriptions that Christ's judgement on these seven Churches wasn't really all that good. The only Churches that are not challenged to repent or plainly condemned are the ones that either undergo great persecution or have "but little power."

lmaopml wrote: »

I believe in Jesus, I believe he is my saviour, I believe he established a Church on earth and it's not a priesthood of men who read the bible....It's ancient and guided by the spirit....I am compelled to look for that church because of these things...

'I' believe I am 'in' it, the one and only.....

..but I certainly believe you to be a Christian too...

I sincerely hope that you do belong to those who conquer, to those who listen what the Spirit says. They form the Church of God on earth today.

santing

lmaopml wrote: »

Actually, I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind posting the link to the 'British Celtic Church and RC 'discussions''? I never heard of the British Celtic Church ( Sorry British Celts ) but I would like to see exactly what they discuss in their discussions...out of pure noseyness...:)

A summary you can find on http://www.irishchristian.net/history/Britain.html
"Augustine exhorted them to adopt the Roman usage as to the celebration of Easter, the tonsure, and the administration of baptism, that a uniformity of discipline and worship might be established in the island. "
More details can be got from Bede. (but that is very "coloured" of course!)

wolfsbane

lmaopml said:

So where is God's Church? Is it with the reformers and it never stemmed from the Apostles themselves? or did the Apostles just say things that got forgotten and left aside by the next generation and for 1600 years, and now the earlier heresies are correct, and the reformers are the new prophets of God's church?

God's Church continued from Pentecost, in many places, in many states of persecution, heresies, impurity and reformation. Some of its members were inside the corrupt Church of Rome, some were outside it. Those outside it were hunted and harried by the powerful institution, and those inside it had to be very careful themselves. Like some of the Pharisees, their loyalty to Christ was real, but involved compromise. Same today.

The true gospel remained with these disparate groups of believers down the ages. The Reformation only made it so much more widespread, and it became hard to suppress in many places. The doctrine of the apostles and the nature of the NT Church is much more evident in the Evangelical churches than it is in Rome or Orthodoxy. In fact, Catholic scholars acknowledge the form and practice of the RCC is a later development, not that found in the NT. They defend it on the claim to apostolic authority to make such changes. We say it is evidence of their apostasy.

I believe in Jesus, I believe he is my saviour, I believe he established a Church on earth and it's not a priesthood of men who read the bible....It's ancient and guided by the spirit....I am compelled to look for that church because of these things...

I'm with you there! The true Church has no priesthood and laity. Every Christian is a priest unto God, and the organisation that set up again a separate priesthood is not the true Church.

'I' believe I am 'in' it, the one and only.....

You are, if you have faith in Christ alone. So am I. Your mistake is thinking it is the RCC.

_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

lmaopml

Hi Wolfsbane.

I have no problem with people believing I have made a mistake, that's the way the cookie crumbles, people don't agree on everything in my experience anyways on just about anything you can mention..... there are others who 'think' I haven't....that's fine, we all find our way, and hell we're lucky if even some people agree with us all the time..:) There's only one judge, and I think we can agree on that at least, one judge that knows the heart..

I was wondering though, what you make of the passage in Matthew yourself?

Matthew 16:13-20


13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And 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.
18And 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.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

lmaopml

santing wrote: »

Hi Imaopml,


The question that first might be asked is what is "God's Church?" Is God's Church a big political power in this world, or is the Church not "of this world?" Does Christ promise us world dominance, or did He sent us as sheep amongst wolves, but capable to stand before Kings because his Spirit would be with us? When the Apostles spoke about "latter times," "last days," "last hour," did they paint a picture of glorious times or of apostacy within Christendom? I stongly believe the latter is a consistent message throughout the New Testament.

To come back on your question, I give you an interpretation of Revelation 2&3 (and with that, you could actually pinpoint my christian heritage!). I believe that Revelation 2 & 3 has historic and personal applications, but as it sits in a book of prophecy, its main application should be prophetic. With that I would see in the first 3 Churches the early Church history, in Ephesus (menaing "beloved") I would see the very first centuries - with the Ephesians being charged of having left their first love (which borders on adultary!) a very solemn charge! Christ challenges them to repent or He would take away their wittness.
The next Church is Smyrna (meaning "myrrh" as being used for the embalment of the dead.) This is a reference to the persecuted Church of the 2nd and 3rd century. They are poor in this world, but rich in Christ - He has no other challenge for them than to be faitful unto death.
The 3rd Church is Pergamum (meaning either "high throne" or "twice married"), and the time for this Church started with Constantine legalising and promoting Christendom in the world. The Christians dwelled where Satan's throne is - not a good place to be! The "conversion" of Constantine was a black page in the Church history! Some people promoted Balak's teaching - which boils down to mixing with the enemy, in this case accepting political (worldly) power by the Church rulers. Nicolais is also mentioned, and I take his meaning from his name: conqueror of the people, which I would equate to the strong introduction of clergy power over lay people. The Church accepted the Roman government system as a model for Church government.
The 4th, 5th, 6ht and 7th Church did not replace each other, but live side by side, they are only introduced/started at different (succesive) times. The ending of these Churches is reversed to the ending of the first three (compare the order of Rev 2:26-29 with Rev 2:17).
The 4th Church is Thyatira - meaning bringer of incense and represent the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches broadly. The main part is corrupt - but their is a remnant in their midst who belong to Christ (2:24). This Church is characterised by works (2:19) and by idolatry (2:20) introduced through marriage with a heathen queen - and we would look at all the heathen practices that were absorbed in the "tradition" to speed up the conversion of the people. Charactericly it is a woman (cf. the BVM) and she teaches - the Church never teaches in the Bible, she is taught.
The 5th Church is Sardis ("escaped") and looks at the Churches of the Reformation - but they don't fare well either. Christ says "you are dead," there is no spiritual life in you. He warns them that He will come "as a thief" a warning never given to believers. Again there are exemptions "You have a few names" (3:4 - the translation "names" is a characteristic of a good translation as it is full of meaning!)
The 6th Church Philadelphia ("brotherly love") speaks of the Churches that started in the reveil (19th century). They have "but little power" but they have kept Gods Word. (3:8) Christ states emphatically that He loves them (3:9).
The 7th Church Laodicea ("People Power") is mainly a corruption of the 6th Church and visible in many mega-churches today. These people have great power, great worship, but are self-centered with Christ standing outside (3:20) Christ detests them - He spits them out of his mouth. But Christ knows that there are people who will open the door for Him.

So that's where the Church is at in my opinion. Even if you don't follow my history line, it is plain from the 7 descriptions that Christ's judgement on these seven Churches wasn't really all that good. The only Churches that are not challenged to repent or plainly condemned are the ones that either undergo great persecution or have "but little power."


I sincerely hope that you do belong to those who conquer, to those who listen what the Spirit says. They form the Church of God on earth today.

Hi Santing,

Thanks for telling how you would place yourself and me..lol.. in the overall picture that revelations sets out. I know there are some people who believe that 'Revelations' or much of it, has already taken place and the seven churches were real churches in Asia, and others who believe it's a warning of 'things to come' etc. but don't quite agree on where we're at, it's confusing to say the least - I haven't quite got that far yet. I've read it, and it sounds weirdly like our 'mass', or at least it seems to have a parallel with many things during mass, at times in the Catholic church, but that is just a lay perspective...and it's none too deep...

I think there is a fascination with revelations, and I believe it's important to read it and digest it....However, I am fearful of drawing too many conclusions from it and concentrating too much on it and looking for the signs etc. lest I be mistaken.

Kevster

I have no religious inclinations either, being the atheist that I am. However, I have no issues with the Pope or any other religous leader. Those who let things like this upset them are merely portraying their own internal issues that they should tend to.

For the record: The Pope appeared embarrassed by all of the attention and 'pomp'.

Kevin

georgieporgy

Kevster wrote: »

I have no religious inclinations either, being the atheist that I am. However, I have no issues with the Pope or any other religous leader. Those who let things like this upset them are merely portraying their own internal issues that they should tend to.

For the record: The Pope appeared embarrassed by all of the attention and 'pomp'.

Kevin

it's nice to read a good honest post once in awhile. reminds me of the good thief on the cross.

JimiTime

georgieporgy wrote: »

it's nice to read a good honest post once in awhile.

You don't think the other posts are honest?

lmaopml

JimiTime wrote: »

You don't think the other posts are honest?

I'd imagine that the guy was just saying thanks and 'it's refreshing' to a person who is non religious...Which is fine no?

Actually, I don't know exactly what the pomp and splendour are all about. There is a Pope mobile cause he could get shot! Sounds to me like reasonable precautions...

Actually, I heard he may be coming to Ireland God willing at some stage....

He's just a 'man'...He is head of the Bishops of the Catholic faith and by consequence of that and the Catholic history a head of 'state' too...

I think the British people showed their backbone during the visit, and so did the Queen who invited him...

Ahh there is wisdom in the oldies I guess...

Kevster

Only 27 years old here... although at times I feel like I have multiple times more maturity than some in their 30s, 40s, and even 50s.

I would find it to be a tremendous honour to meet the Pope some day, even though I'm not religious. I would enjoy discussing various topics with him.

Kevin

lmaopml

Good on you Kevin! Don't let anybody tell you what to think ever...no matter what comes by you...

Kevster

lmaopml wrote: »

Good on you Kevin! Don't let anybody tell you what to think ever...no matter what comes by you...

I foolishly let others tell me what to do in the past, but was never happy. I form my own opinions now, and only after I have heard from different perspectives on any one particular issue. Ignorance has no place in my world.

Thanks for the input/praise

Kevin

wolfsbane

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Wolfsbane.

I have no problem with people believing I have made a mistake, that's the way the cookie crumbles, people don't agree on everything in my experience anyways on just about anything you can mention..... there are others who 'think' I haven't....that's fine, we all find our way, and hell we're lucky if even some people agree with us all the time..:) There's only one judge, and I think we can agree on that at least, one judge that knows the heart..

I was wondering though, what you make of the passage in Matthew yourself?

Matthew 16:13-20


13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And 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.
18And 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.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

I doubt the Rock referred to Peter; more likely to Christ Himself, as that is the usual reference in the Scripture. But it could be Peter. The Early Fathers were unsure about it too.

However, if it was Peter, what does that mean? That Peter alone led the Church? Peter indeed was the main leader of the Church from the beginning. He was the main spokesman at Pentecost. He was chosen by God to be the first to bring the gospel to the Gentiles (Cornelius).

But he was never THE leader. James and John were there from the beginning too. And then Paul came on the scene. God chose Paul to be the main apostle to the Gentiles, as Peter was to the Jews:
Galatians 2: 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Back to the Matthew text: the foundation of the Church is in other places given as Christ, and then the apostles and prophets. Never Peter alone.

On top of this assumption that it was Peter alone, a further error developed - that Peter handed-on his office to the bishop of Rome. There is no Biblical warrant for such handing-on of the leadership of the Church Universal. It is a later claim, a claim resisted by many at the time. It is even debatable that Peter died at Rome, much less handed on a papal office.

No, the papacy is a corruption of the Church, a departure from the simplicity of Christ into a pagan priesthood and power-hungry institution. The history of the papacy cannot be reconciled with the Biblical picture of Christ's church.

The gates of Hell have not prevailed against His Church - it continues today in every land, bringing the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
_________________________________________________________________
Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.

lmaopml

Hi Wolfsbane,

It seems odd that you don't put any emphasis on why Jesus would rename Peter in the first place? I'm sure it's not because he didn't like the name Simon! Do you think there is a reason behind why the Lord would see fit to change his name to 'rock'? and then go on to relay the passage above to him?

...and what did the Lord mean when he said the 'keys'? In a strictly biblical sense?

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Wolfsbane,

It seems odd that you don't put any emphasis on why Jesus would rename Peter in the first place? I'm sure it's not because he didn't like the name Simon! Do you think there is a reason behind why the Lord would see fit to change his name to 'rock'? and then go on to relay the passage above to him?

...and what did the Lord mean when he said the 'keys'? In a strictly biblical sense?

Its entirely inconsaquential. No matter what scripture interpretting we do etc, we simply have to use Jesus' measuring rod. 'A tree will be known by its fruits'. The whole 'lets interpret this scripture in Matthew' is the biggest of red herrings. Not only is it open to interpretation, but even if Peter is the Rock referred to, it does not imply Peter being the first Pope etc. Wolfsbane touched on this a bit earlier. If someone is not willing to look to the question of fruitage, then the discussion is pointless. It just becomes about religion, and little to do with Christ.

santing

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Wolfsbane,


It seems odd that you don't put any emphasis on why Jesus would rename Peter in the first place? I'm sure it's not because he didn't like the name Simon! Do you think there is a reason behind why the Lord would see fit to change his name to 'rock'? and then go on to relay the passage above to him?

Peter doesn't mean "rock" but "stone, piece of rock." Petra, the female version means "Rock" Although Strongs dictionary gives nearly the same meaning to these words, if it had the same meaning, Christ would have said on this Petros I will build my Church. So it is significant that there is a difference!

What is the meaning of Rock (Petra) in Scripture? The following quotes should explain themselves:

"The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone," and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense."(1Pe 2:7-8 ESV)

cf also Rom 9:33, Isaiah 8:14, 28:16) and

and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. (1Co 10:4 ESV)

lmaopml wrote: »

...and what did the Lord mean when he said the 'keys'? In a strictly biblical sense?

Do you think the following references can help explaining this portion:

In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house. And they will hang on him the whole honor of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. In that day, declares the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way, and it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken." (Isa 22:20-25 ESV)

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. (Rev 1:17-18 ESV)

"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens. "'I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut. I know that you have but little power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. (Rev 3:7-8 ESV)

[/LEFT]