Saturday, January 19, 2019

St. John and the successor of Peter




De Maria December 2, 2012 at 9:00 PM
To whoever wrote the referenced comment,
Hi,
You said,
The basic problem here is that the authors are assuming that St John means the same thing by “successor of Peter” as what the modern RCC view of the papacy take it to mean. However, there is every reason to believe that St John did not mean this in the same sense.
The basic problem is not that the authors assume that St. John is accepting the proper interpretation of the phrase, “successor of Peter”.
The problem is that you and all EO (Eastern Orthodox) who disagree with the Catholic Church on this point, are assuming the modern and erroneous EO view of the Papacy.
I think to properly understand this from an Orthodox perspective, we need to go back toMatthew 16:18-24.
That is precisely what we need to do in order to understand the term correctly. I agree.
According to Whelton (p.61), the 17th century RCC scholar Jean de Launoy surveyed the Fathers and found that 17 considered Peter to be the rock, 44 considered his confession to be the rock, 16 considered it to be Christ and 8 considered it to be the apostles. However, what these raw statistics fail to show is that these interpretations are all interlinked: In reality, the rock is all of these:

-Christ is the rock (this is known from elsewhere).
-The confession is the rock because it is a confession about Christ, Who is the rock.
-Peter is the rock because he made this confession.
-The apostles are also the rock because they made the same confession.
I would disagree. Jesus is the Rock, in another Biblical metaphor. But in Matt 16:18-19, Jesus is speaking to Simon and the Apostles, about Simon Bar Jonah. And Jesus is describing Simon as “the Rock” upon whom He will build His Church. He is not speaking about anyone else. And when He gives away the keys, He uses a singular pronoun, addressing the person to whom He gives the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Simon Bar Jonah, aka as Cephas, Rock or Peter. He does not hand the keys to anyone else. He is not describing anyone else.
But the important thing to note about all of these interpretations is that they centre on the confession, and not on the person of Peter.
On the contrary, by centering on the confession, you center upon the man who uttered the confession. St. Peter is not the first man to utter this confession in the New Testament. Nathaniel does it the very first time he sees Jesus:
John 1:47-49
King James Version (KJV)
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
Yet Jesus does not give Nathaniel any keys.
Another man also does it, Thomas:
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
So, the simple confession is not enough. The confession was uttered by a particular man and that man is the subject and object of the Master’s lesson.
And its not as though Jesus Christ only did this once. What I mean is that, this is not the only time Jesus singled out St. Peter and made it clear that He considered St. Peter the Leader of the Apostles and of His Church.
Luke 22:30-32
King James Version (KJV)
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 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.
John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
If Jesus had only done it once, it could be dismissed as coincidence. But Jesus reiterated the fact that He considered St. Peter the Leader of His Church, several times. Here’s another:
Matthew 17:27
King James Version (KJV)
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
For me and thee.
But wait. In order to understand this verse, you must understand the verse you are questioning. Why did Jesus give Simon the name, “Rock”? Perhaps you never wondered. Here’s why.
Because He wanted all to know that Simon would be he to whom all must turn who want to know God’s will. There is a precedent for this in Scripture:
Exodus 7:1
King James Version (KJV)
7 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Exodus 18:13-15
King James Version (KJV)
13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.14 And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
Exodus 19:9
King James Version (KJV)
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.
God put Moses in a position of authority over the people. Jesus has done the same thing with Simon. God covered Moses with the Cloud, Jesus gave Simon His own name, Rock along with the keys to the Kingdom (Matt 16:18-19) and appointed him Shepherd over the Church (John 21:15-17).
Jesus has appointed Simon as Shepherd over His flock. And in order to bring this point home, Jesus gave Simon His own name, “Rock” or “Peter”.
This is to signify the type of authority which Jesus has given to Simon. He has the authority to bind and loose in the God’s name.
And that is why, the coin is for Jesus and for Peter. Because Jesus knows that Peter is His representative to all mankind. Amongst men, St. Peter is the person of Christ in a very special way.
Peter, being the first to make this confession (remembering that the Latin for first is prima) quite literally has the primacy.
The primacy falls to him for other reasons. But not for being the first to make that confession. Nathaniel made it first as already mentioned.
Those that made the same confession after him are his successors.
Nope. He whom he appointed was his successor and the one appointed by that person, his successor.
And given that Peter’s authority rests on the confession that he made, his successors have the same authority that Peter does.
Many have made the same confession. But to none but St. Peter did Jesus turn and say, “you are Rock”, “I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven”, “strengthen your brethren”, “this coin is for you and I”, and also, “feed my sheep”.
But the important thing to note in the above is the answer to the following question: who is Peter’s successor? ….
Non sequitur. That which you mentioned above is your line of reasoning. YOU proposed it. Now you are arguing against it. It is a classic “straw man argument.”
According to the above line of reasoning, those who made this confession is a successor of Peter. In short, every bishop is a successor of Peter – not just the bishops of Rome. Every bishop is a shepherd and must “feed Christ’s sheep” – that is, the Church that is placed under his guidance.
Nope. Successors of Peter are those who sit on the See of Rome. They are the ones to whom the Keys are passed down.
This understanding of the “successor of Peter” (which is also the Orthodox understanding) is also reflected in the writings of St Cyprian (another oft-miscited Father) – who uses the phrase “Chair of Peter” to refer to an episcopate. As far as St Cyprian is concerned, every bishop is the successor of St Peter.
I’d have to see the writings to which you refer. I believe it was St. Cyprian who wrote eloquently about the authority of the Pope. Until he found himself at odds with the Pope. Then, he changed his tune. But the fact that he recognized the truth until it was inconvenient to do so, proves that he understood the doctrine correctly before he changed his mind. The fact that he is considered one of our Saints, proves that he accepted the truth in the end.
There is every reason to assume that this is exactly the same interpretation that St John Chrysostom himself had in mind here, and the authors are jumping to conclusions and not considering the wider context.
Not if the comment which the author posted is compared to John 21:15-17. The reference to Jesus appointing Peter as the Shepherd of the entire Church, is unmistakable.
And just to put the final nail into the coffin,
You’ve put to rest the EO’s erroneous understanding. The Catholic doctrine stands tall.
and confirm that the Orthodox reading of St John Chrysostom is the correct one, let me tell you a little story…The most sensible way to understand his above words, then, is not as an argument for papal supremacy, but in-line with the Orthodox view – that is, every bishop is a successor of Peter (and not just the bishop of Rome).
Since you have shown a propensity to misunderstand the Scripture and the words of St. John Chrysostom, I take that story of yours with a mouthful of salt.
The argument which you attribute to the EO, has been proven false by a very simple review of the Scriptures and by referring St. John Chrysostom’s statement back to the Scripture to which he was obviously making reference.
The only way to come to the conclusion which you draw is by ignoring the Scripture to which St. John was referring and by purposesly rejecting Jesus’ intent in naming St. Peter the Leader of His Church and Shepherd over His Flock.
Sincerely,
De Maria

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Valid Doctrines are found in Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

PG said:

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is ]perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
..............
CCC-85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” [47] This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
==============================
I'm simple; therefore, Scripture will give me wisdom and understanding.
Prov 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
DS responded:
Makes me think of this quote:


“I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!” - Willam Tyndale
Luke 10:21In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

DE MARIA SAID IN REPLY:

Its amazing then that Jesus did not write any Scripture.

In fact, what He did was establish a Church and command that Church to pass down His Traditions:

Matthew 16:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
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.
19 And 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.

Matthew 28:19-20
King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:  20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

In fact, let's review what Jesus did. 
Jesus Christ did not write anything down. He established a Church and commanded that Church to pass down His Teachings. Another word for Teachings is Traditions.

That Church then wrote down the Traditions and called that the New Testament.

This is why valid Doctrines are found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. 

And invalid doctrines are found neither in Sacred Tradition nor in Sacred Scripture.

Take for instance, Sola Scriptura. You will find it neither in Sacred Tradition nor in Sacred Scripture.

Any Protestant doctrine which contradicts the Sacred Traditions taught by the Catholic Church also contradicts the Sacred Scriptures.


Sincerely,

De Maria

Saturday, January 5, 2019

De Maria March 4, 2013 at 11:00 PM
malbert February 18, 2011 at 6:26 AM
...i am malbert from goa can you please tell me how can u say that the bible belongs to us…where it is given in the bible…thanks.
I’m not sure if these will answer your question:
2 Pet 1:
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Saturday, December 29, 2018

Jesus baptized the Apostles



De Maria March 4, 2013 at 10:54 PM
Douglass October 27, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Maybe I don’t understand an answer you gave to Michelle on 10/26. She asked about John the Baptist and Jesus doing full emersion baptism. Part of your answer was that Jesus never did any baptisms. Yet in paragraph 7 of “Are You Born Again” you state,” He (Jesus) went down and baptized people in the Jordan with his disciples” (Jn 4:1-2). I read these verses in Chapter 4 and verse 2 states *(although Jesus himself was not baptizing, just his disciples). So I see Jesus didn’t baptize, but I don’t understand your reply in paragraph 7 of your article. If you have time can you clear up this for me. Thank you for your help.
Hi, I’m not responding to your question to Steve. I’m giving my opinion in the meaning of the seemingly contradictory Scripture verses. First one verse says that Jesus baptized. Then another says that only His disciples baptized.
I think though, that Jesus had to get the ball rolling, so to speak. Who baptized the Apostles? True, some of them were baptized by St. John. But St. John’s baptism did not give the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus had to re-baptize those Apostles. And baptize the rest. And then, presumably, delegated the duty of baptizing the masses to them.
That is my speculative explanation intended to explain the seeming contradiction in those two verses.

Claiming to be born again does not guarantee your salvation

          ester :
Will anyone who is "born again " end up in Hell?

If they fall away, yes.

Hebrews 6:4-6
King James Version (KJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Meat On Lenten Fridays: A Mortal Sin?
Thus one must substantially observe the law of abstinence on such days, and the obligation to do so is a grave one, meaning that it satisfies the condition of grave matter required for mortal sin. If one knowingly and deliberately fails in this obligation then one has committed mortal sin.

Scripture says that obedience to the Church is required of all believers:

Matthew 18:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Saturday, December 22, 2018

Full submersion Baptism

De Maria March 4, 2013 at 10:41 PM
Hi michelle,
i heard this discussion on the radio. i was raised catholic, but married a divorced man and now attend a non-denominational church. Here is my question–john the baptist and jesus all did full submersion baptism.
There is an assumption here. The assumption being that they ONLY did full submersion Baptism.
how can/does the Catholic church justify infant sprinkling ?
By the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18-19Matt 28:19-20John 20:21-23)
1. the infant is not old enough to make the choice on their own
In the Gospels, the children which Jesus saved were too young to seek His aid on their own. Their parents needed to do it for them. And Jesus always healed them on behalf of their parents. (Matthew 15:28John 4:50).
Why then, would Jesus refuse to save the little children in Baptism? (Matthew 19:14)
and 2. the baptism is not submersion–like john the baptist and Jesus.
According to the Tradition of the Catholic Church, all three types of Baptism are permitted.
If you want to interpret the requirement of Baptism according to the letter, then you must be Baptized in the Jordan River. There is no other river mentioned where anyone else was Baptized.
By the way, full submersion is not mentioned either. That is a Protestant reading into Scripture.
Sincerely,
De Maria

Saturday, December 15, 2018

Objections of a former Catholic

i heard this discussion on the radio. i was raised catholic, but married a divorced man and now attend a non-denominational church. Here is my question–john the baptist and jesus all did full submersion baptism.
There is an assumption here. The assumption being that they ONLY did full submersion Baptism.
how can/does the Catholic church justify infant sprinkling ?
By the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18-19Matt 28:19-20John 20:21-23)
1. the infant is not old enough to make the choice on their own
In the Gospels, the children which Jesus saved were too young to seek His aid on their own. Their parents needed to do it for them. And Jesus always healed them on behalf of their parents. (Matthew 15:28John 4:50).
Why then, would Jesus refuse to save the little children in Baptism? (Matthew 19:14)
and 2. the baptism is not submersion–like john the baptist and Jesus.
According to the Tradition of the Catholic Church, all three types of Baptism are permitted.
If you want to interpret the requirement of Baptism according to the letter, then you must be Baptized in the Jordan River. There is no other river mentioned where anyone else was Baptized.
By the way, full submersion is not mentioned either. That is a Protestant reading into Scripture.

Saturday, November 24, 2018

Jesus died for the ungodly


  1. MT said: 
    I hope you now can see the problem with interpreting the "we's" "us's" and "our's" in Romans 5:1-11 as applying universally to all humanity without exception. It leads to universalism, or the doctrine that all are now or will be saved.

    It is you who did so. I know what we, us and our means. I also know how to understand Rom 5:6 correctly. Ungodly means those who are not gods. Those who are not divine. Those who are mortal.
    Anyway, there's no need for me to debunk your whole article. The problem is your presupposition. Your starting point is false, your logic is wrong and the makes your conclusion false.
  2. This is the truth.

    1 Jesus died for the ungodly.
    2 That includes us and all people and all creation.
    3 But those who accepted His sacrifice, repented of their sins, obeyed His Word and participated in His Sacraments. And must continue doing good their entire life. If they do, God will grant them eternal life.
    4 Those who do not accept His sacrifice, do not repent of their sins and will be condemned to hell.

    Romans 2:1-13
    King James Version (KJV)
    1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

    2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

    3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

    4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

    5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

    6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

    7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

    8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

    9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

    10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

    11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

    12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

    13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.