Here is the bottom line folks and even Washington mentioned it in his farewell address. I have said this quite a few times here. If there is no supra human court beyond which there is no appeal all else is meaningless. We are reduced to whatever arbitrary consensus is in style at the moment and that can take us literally anywhere. In the best of societies some people are hurt. What moral principles that society is built on determines whether it’s predominantly good guys or bad guys and which is which is again a meaningless pursuit without a supra human court beyond which there is no appeal.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
There isn’t a right religion. There are definitely wrong religions though. These are ones that close minds, tell people it’s right to do something they are against, or wrong to do something they agree with.
If you disagree with something, but follow it, I would say you’re following the wrong religion. Use your heart and mind as a guide in this world first and foremost. Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.[/quote]
So, Child molesters and serial killers should just find a religion that goes along with their heart and mind? Wonderful.[/quote]
You seemed to have missed my last part:
“Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.”
Ironic, you bring up child molesters to criticize my viewpoint when your religion has the majority of them.[/quote]
Really, so 3.2% of child molesters are religious clerics, and only a fraction of that statistic is Catholic clerics, and my religion has the majority of them? I think you need to learn how to read statistics.[/quote]
What religion is accused more for rape charges?[/quote]
I think you are mistaken between hearing about accusations and actual accusations/convictions, because the Roman Catholic Church does not have any higher percentage than other religions, you just hear about us more. It comes with the territory.
If there are three children, two boys and one girl. One boy is a deviant, the other, a just boy. And, the little girl tells on anyone that does something bad. The deviant boy is always being told on by the little girl. Multiple times a day he gets beat and yelled at, it goes on for several years, as they are just parents they also do the same to the just boy when he is wrong, however only a few times through his life has he been beaten and yelled at.
However, the deviant boy is jealous of his just friend because he is a just boy and rarely does unjust things and is hardly punished. He is also jealous and upset because his just friend tells him he deserves to get beat because of his deviant behavior.
Because of his jealousy, every time the just boy does something wrong, the deviant boy is always yelling that the just boy did unjust things. Louder than when he gets in trouble because he is always in trouble so no reason to yell and warn everyone, because they already suspect he is in trouble and are tired of hearing about it.
Loud accusations get into the media, reporting that there was 60 rapes in Phoenix today is not as fascinating as busting a priest for raping a young child.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
There isn’t a right religion. There are definitely wrong religions though. These are ones that close minds, tell people it’s right to do something they are against, or wrong to do something they agree with.
If you disagree with something, but follow it, I would say you’re following the wrong religion. Use your heart and mind as a guide in this world first and foremost. Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.[/quote]
So, Child molesters and serial killers should just find a religion that goes along with their heart and mind? Wonderful.[/quote]
You seemed to have missed my last part:
“Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.”
Ironic, you bring up child molesters to criticize my viewpoint when your religion has the majority of them.[/quote]
I am going to stick up for the Roman Catholic Church on this one. I do not agree with all of their doctrines as many can see, but they can and are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I heard a study and the Catholic Church by percentages of men have a lower percentage of Child Molesters than the public. This does not abolish the crime, because the priest should be above reproach, but the priests are humans just like you and me, and they have their sins. I think the Catholic Church really screwed up by allowing these men to be placed in another church with children. They should have sent them to a monestary to never be arond children ever again. They will be judged for this. The Pope really screwed up no matter which one allowed this to go on. They have apologized, and hopefully will pay restitution and not go through the bankruptcy proceedings to keep their money in the Vatican.[/quote]
dmmadox, I respect and value your opinion. But you shouldn’t stick up for these people on this issue. They have done this for decades. When a priest gets in trouble, they move him to another church rather than sending him to jail. They should sent these people right to jail for a long long time. These people should never be defended.
[/quote]
I am sticking up for the Church, and not the people that did this. I agree they should go to jail. This is by far one of the top 2-3 things done by the Roman Catholic Church ever that I hate. These priests should be castrated if I had a say. I just do not want people to think it was the Church that did this. They were individual men that did this. The Pope or the Cardinals also had a hand in it by moving them around. If they were going to move the priests they should have not allowed them access to children ever again.[/quote]
But the church did allow this. They were aware of this for years. This is the same thing as a school principal being aware a teacher was raping children and instead of calling the authorities, they simply moved them to different classes.
The church is guilty.[/quote]
Yes, and we have apologized. Unless you were raped, I am sorry but you do not deserve a person apology, the people that were hurt are being taken care of.
We also are implementing systems to prevent this, evident on every Catholic Website connected to a parish.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
There isn’t a right religion. There are definitely wrong religions though. These are ones that close minds, tell people it’s right to do something they are against, or wrong to do something they agree with.
If you disagree with something, but follow it, I would say you’re following the wrong religion. Use your heart and mind as a guide in this world first and foremost. Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.[/quote]
So, Child molesters and serial killers should just find a religion that goes along with their heart and mind? Wonderful.[/quote]
You seemed to have missed my last part:
“Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.”
Ironic, you bring up child molesters to criticize my viewpoint when your religion has the majority of them.[/quote]
I am going to stick up for the Roman Catholic Church on this one. I do not agree with all of their doctrines as many can see, but they can and are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I heard a study and the Catholic Church by percentages of men have a lower percentage of Child Molesters than the public. This does not abolish the crime, because the priest should be above reproach, but the priests are humans just like you and me, and they have their sins. I think the Catholic Church really screwed up by allowing these men to be placed in another church with children. They should have sent them to a monestary to never be arond children ever again. They will be judged for this. The Pope really screwed up no matter which one allowed this to go on. They have apologized, and hopefully will pay restitution and not go through the bankruptcy proceedings to keep their money in the Vatican.[/quote]
dmmadox, I respect and value your opinion. But you shouldn’t stick up for these people on this issue. They have done this for decades. When a priest gets in trouble, they move him to another church rather than sending him to jail. They should sent these people right to jail for a long long time. These people should never be defended.
[/quote]
Sorry, no one here is defending rapists, they are defending the Catholic Church. Most people would want them to go to jail. Me? A catholic? I want to hang 'em from the tallest tree around. All of them, all hundred or so of them.[/quote]
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]
I was looking at America as that was the statistics I was looking at, yes the number is in the thousands for the RCC, and if the Pope offered me a years wages to hang 'em all, I’d decline and do it for free.
What some people have to understand is just because I Catholic and other people are Catholics does not mean we lack empathy for those that someone of the same religion hurts. To me, they have obviously showed they are not Catholic otherwise why would they do that.
Kill 'em all the fucking perverts, bring down justice.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]
Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]
Yes.
“The report of Roman Catholic priests molesting children is simply amazing. The study found that 4,392 of the 109,694 priests who served from 1950 to 2002 had been accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors.”
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/They%20have%20no%20shame.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases[/quote]
Accused. I’ve dealt with that issue before, this is why Priests are not allowed to beat children anymore, because sometimes those children are smart enough to lie. However, if they are actually guilty of molestation all’s fair.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]
Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]
Yes.
“The report of Roman Catholic priests molesting children is simply amazing. The study found that 4,392 of the 109,694 priests who served from 1950 to 2002 had been accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors.”
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/They%20have%20no%20shame.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases[/quote]
Is this a partial consequence of forcing abstinence in the priesthood? That is a lot worse than I thought.[/quote]
It could be, I would have no problem with the change. However, I think the lack of prudence in picking priests was part of the problem.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]
Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]
Yes.
“The report of Roman Catholic priests molesting children is simply amazing. The study found that 4,392 of the 109,694 priests who served from 1950 to 2002 had been accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors.”
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/They%20have%20no%20shame.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases[/quote]
Is this a partial consequence of forcing abstinence in the priesthood? That is a lot worse than I thought.[/quote]
Yeah, I think it is. I think it should be up to the priest to decide if they want to take a wife and family. I don’t know why this would negatively impact the priest as they would be able to relate to marital problems of others more (maybe).
[/quote]
Have you ever seen a priest’s daily activities? Wow boy, talk about no time. I am sure a wife and kids would love that.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]
Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]
Yes.
“The report of Roman Catholic priests molesting children is simply amazing. The study found that 4,392 of the 109,694 priests who served from 1950 to 2002 had been accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors.”
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/They%20have%20no%20shame.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases[/quote]
Is this a partial consequence of forcing abstinence in the priesthood? That is a lot worse than I thought.[/quote]
Yeah, I think it is. I think it should be up to the priest to decide if they want to take a wife and family. I don’t know why this would negatively impact the priest as they would be able to relate to marital problems of others more (maybe).
[/quote]
I thought this verse might be interesting to you concerning this subject.
(1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.)
[quote]69GoatMan wrote:
For a church, Catholic, or any, to be defined by Christ, should be able to define their acts, creeds, reasoning, rules, regulations and structures etc by following the Biblical examples of those things.
The Catholic church is unable to do that. They cannot define, by book chapter or verse many of their
beliefs and creeds. You said yourself you didn’t hold all their truths…think you said that.[/quote]
Not sure who you are talking to, but I hold all Catholic teachings as true. And I disagree with your claim that we cannot use the Bible to justify all our teachings, second where in the Bible does it say that it is only the Bible? No one answers this for me.
[quote] The Pope would be a good starting place, as would the rest of the manmade hierarchy that
is derived from the Roman government getting involved in religion itself. Call no other man Father. There was never an intention by Christ to divide leaders and laity. Who are the Nicolations that Jesus “hated the deeds of” as a warning to the church at Ephesus and at Pergamon? Do the greek word study on that…kind of a stretch for me, the logic behind the word, but it is interesting.
[/quote]
Call no man Father? Seriously? That is your proof against the Pope. When Jesus Chris said, “Call no man your father” (Mt 23:9), He did not mean priests. Sometimes people go crazy over this by saying, “Oh, if you are a priest I won’t dare call you father because the Word of G-d says, ‘Call no man father.’” However, that has nothing to do with it. They did not even call priests at that time “father”. When Jesus uses this term, He’s not saying that you should not call any person on earth your father; what He meant was, you should not call the person who begot you, your true father. There’s only one Father for everybody: G-d the Father! That guy you call your dad, he’s the instrument of fatherhood, but he’s not your true Father.
God forbid! Christ Himself is certainly the Rock, the foundation of the Church; of this I am as certain as you ; yet those of you have told me, one of you that we are all “lively stones,” another that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.” How can Christ be the foundation and the Apostles a foundation also? IN the same way Christ is the “light of the world;” yet He Himself says to the Apostles, “Ye are the light of the world.” If Our Lord is “the light,” and yet the Apostles can be “the light” also, I suppose Our Lord can be “the rock,” yet S. Peter a rock also. The difference of course is that Our Lord is the rock by His own Strength, S. Peter not by his own strength, but by the strength which G-d gives him. Christ was the light of the world by teaching His own truth through His own power; the Apostles were also the light of the world by teaching their Master’s truth through their Master’s power. So Christ is the rock on which the Church is built, because He is by His own power the infallible teacher of truth; S. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built, because he is by Christ’s power the infallible teacher of truth till the world’s end.
Not all of them do, and even ML said so, however the Catholic Church did change when presented with those 95 thesis. Who claims the Church is perfect? That would mean all of would have to G-d, as only G-d is perfect, however G-d in His perfectness did give us a catholic church. Yes, those Church’s had Bishops which came from the Apostles, they were part of priesthood descended from Christ.
I do not pretend to know one’s heart, neither do I pretend to know what G-d is.
[quote]
My choice is to believe in Christ as the Risen Savior. Based on Bible study, based on deep study within the Bible to find the truth. Based on faith and hope. Praying that His grace is as magnificent as I can possibly imagine…even more so.[/quote]
I have studied the Bible, and taken straight forward (which thanks to Protestants) the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The only one that meets all four marks of the Church which Jesus built.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]
Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]
Yes.
“The report of Roman Catholic priests molesting children is simply amazing. The study found that 4,392 of the 109,694 priests who served from 1950 to 2002 had been accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors.”
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/They%20have%20no%20shame.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases[/quote]
Is this a partial consequence of forcing abstinence in the priesthood? That is a lot worse than I thought.[/quote]
Yeah, I think it is. I think it should be up to the priest to decide if they want to take a wife and family. I don’t know why this would negatively impact the priest as they would be able to relate to marital problems of others more (maybe).
[/quote]
This is one of the issues that Martin Luther had with the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Chruch allows their priests to marry if they so choose. By making this choice they can be a priest but will never be able to be the Patriarch or Pope if you are Roman Catholic. Paul made the statement is was better to be with out a wife. I can see why the Roman Catholic Church thinks this way, but it just seems a bit extreme IMO. Priests in the Old Testament Hebrew Church were married, and had children, so why not priests of the Catholic Church? I guess what I am saying is that I still am struggling with this one. I am glad I am married and marriage and children are a blessing from God.[/quote]
You have to have the context for what Paul was saying. I know we could do some creative interpretation justify it and be apologists for Paul being wrong, but… Paul clearly believed that the second coming was eminent: like, Jesus was going to be back within his lifetime or shortly after, so in that context, you can see how focus on anything but matters of faith might be seen as a waste of time, Even in the centuries following, in the early church, folks really thought Jesus is gonna be back any day now, be ready. It really wasn’t until the post-middle-ages that the leadership of the church stopped assuming that Jesus was a coming any second, and that the second coming was probably in some distant future instead (the the Born again movement in the US in the 19th century brought that back).
[/quote]
But the Protestants allow their Chruch Leaders to get married. The Catholics are the only ones that do not. [/quote]
Which if you talk to Ministers you understand why it might be a good thing for Priests to be single. Because they feel like they are neglected. I know if I had a ministry that was as time consuming as a Priest, I wouldn’t want a wife out of fairness to her.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Jesus didn’t found the Catholic church. The Catholics don’t have any inherent monopoly on Christianity.[/quote]
Um…Jesus did give us our Authority. Unless, you know Jesus really didn’t mean what He said.
Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [20] Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. [/quote]
ahhhh, just finished my first practice exam for my series 6 test, and I have a few minutes while I await my fellow classmates’ completing their tests, so I will tackle this one . . .
Bro Chris - much respect to the RCC for its positive impacts on the world. However, you are building on a false premise with your interpretation of this verse.
Christ uses a play on words based on two things - Peter’s Correct Identification of his Deity, and Peter’s name . . . petros - piece of a rock (Peter’s name) compared to petra - a large formation/mass of stone/rock (recognition of Christ’s deity) of which a petros would be a piece. There is a clear distinction in the Greek between Peter and the Rock.
a good comparison would be a large stone or a boulder that falls off of Stone Mountain . . . they are not the same thing, thus Christ could not have been referring to Peter. A fact born out by the text itself.
So the statement is correctly read as "and I say you are a piece of stone (a part of the larger stone because of his faith) and on this Large Stone (accepting my deity in faith) I will build my church.
The emphasis/focus for that which Christ will build His Church upon is recognition of His deity - the first step in accepting his sacrifice as the atonement for our sins. The concept being that the cornerstone of the Church - the beginning/base of the church would be Christ himself as testified to in Ephesians 2:20 (I think that’s the right verse)
It is even further attested to when in the same passage He commands His disciples to not tell anyone that He is the Christ - the very thing that Peter declared and that Christ identified as the stone upon which the church would be built. The focus of the passage is clearly the deity/person of Christ, not Peter . . .
The Keys of th eKingdom and following - are given to all believers and do not represent any type of authority or position here on earth . . .
Sorry, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means . . .
[/quote]
So, you basically are saying Jesus said something that he really didn’t mean. Thanks.[/quote]
No - he meant exactly what he said . . . I was very clear about that . . .
Paul gives his most complete (and beautiful) exposition of Christian sex and marriage in the 5th of Ephesians:
22-“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23-For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24-But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25-Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26-so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27-that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28-So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29-for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30-because we are members of His body.”
After this definition he quotes directly from the 3rd of Genesis: 31-“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” The original description of marriage before the entrance of sin and then THIS 32-"This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church." This whole marriage/“one flesh” relationship is directly analogous to Christ’s marriage to His church. Somebody needs to explain to me the inferior nature of this state of affairs. The unique intimacy reserved to a man and wife is the only relationship used specifically to illustrate the intimacy between Christ the bridegroom and His church bride. As an aside I don’t need a abuncha peeping human priests defiling my intimacy with Christ.
In 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul is talking about remaining unmarried he also clearly states that one must have that gift from God which by unavoidable implication, even in the immediate context means being released from the need for close conjugal companionship including the completely normal and holy drive for sex. I wonder how many catholic “priests” and “nuns” have presumed upon the divine plan for their lives in an attempt to be “holier” than God’s own requirement and have subsequently fallen into perversion due to an illegitimately suppressed sex drive which I shouldn’t have to tell anybody will not remain suppressed.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]
Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]
Yes.
“The report of Roman Catholic priests molesting children is simply amazing. The study found that 4,392 of the 109,694 priests who served from 1950 to 2002 had been accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors.”
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/They%20have%20no%20shame.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases[/quote]
Is this a partial consequence of forcing abstinence in the priesthood? That is a lot worse than I thought.[/quote]
Yeah, I think it is. I think it should be up to the priest to decide if they want to take a wife and family. I don’t know why this would negatively impact the priest as they would be able to relate to marital problems of others more (maybe).
[/quote]
Have you ever seen a priest’s daily activities? Wow boy, talk about no time. I am sure a wife and kids would love that.[/quote]
I’d rather they be happy and busy than unhappy and possibly screwing children.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
<<< I’d rather they be happy and busy than unhappy and possibly screwing children.
[/quote]
Why? Maybe if we do enough child screwing in this nation we can achieve the enlightened state of the ancient Greeks for whom screwing children was normal. What’s with all the hang ups man? You really need to get free from all these leftover Christian restraints.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]
Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]
Yes.
“The report of Roman Catholic priests molesting children is simply amazing. The study found that 4,392 of the 109,694 priests who served from 1950 to 2002 had been accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors.”
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/They%20have%20no%20shame.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases[/quote]
Is this a partial consequence of forcing abstinence in the priesthood? That is a lot worse than I thought.[/quote]
Yeah, I think it is. I think it should be up to the priest to decide if they want to take a wife and family. I don’t know why this would negatively impact the priest as they would be able to relate to marital problems of others more (maybe).
[/quote]
Have you ever seen a priest’s daily activities? Wow boy, talk about no time. I am sure a wife and kids would love that.[/quote]
I’d rather they be happy and busy than unhappy and possibly screwing children.
[/quote]
I’m talking about the family, I am sure a priest would love to have a wife and kids. However all priests are not pedophiles, and neither are most of them.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Jesus didn’t found the Catholic church. The Catholics don’t have any inherent monopoly on Christianity.[/quote]
Um…Jesus did give us our Authority. Unless, you know Jesus really didn’t mean what He said.
Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. [20] Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. [/quote]
ahhhh, just finished my first practice exam for my series 6 test, and I have a few minutes while I await my fellow classmates’ completing their tests, so I will tackle this one . . .
Bro Chris - much respect to the RCC for its positive impacts on the world. However, you are building on a false premise with your interpretation of this verse.
Christ uses a play on words based on two things - Peter’s Correct Identification of his Deity, and Peter’s name . . . petros - piece of a rock (Peter’s name) compared to petra - a large formation/mass of stone/rock (recognition of Christ’s deity) of which a petros would be a piece. There is a clear distinction in the Greek between Peter and the Rock.
a good comparison would be a large stone or a boulder that falls off of Stone Mountain . . . they are not the same thing, thus Christ could not have been referring to Peter. A fact born out by the text itself.
So the statement is correctly read as "and I say you are a piece of stone (a part of the larger stone because of his faith) and on this Large Stone (accepting my deity in faith) I will build my church.
The emphasis/focus for that which Christ will build His Church upon is recognition of His deity - the first step in accepting his sacrifice as the atonement for our sins. The concept being that the cornerstone of the Church - the beginning/base of the church would be Christ himself as testified to in Ephesians 2:20 (I think that’s the right verse)
It is even further attested to when in the same passage He commands His disciples to not tell anyone that He is the Christ - the very thing that Peter declared and that Christ identified as the stone upon which the church would be built. The focus of the passage is clearly the deity/person of Christ, not Peter . . .
The Keys of th eKingdom and following - are given to all believers and do not represent any type of authority or position here on earth . . .
Sorry, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means . . .
[/quote]
So, you basically are saying Jesus said something that he really didn’t mean. Thanks.[/quote]
No - he meant exactly what he said . . . I was very clear about that . . .[/quote]
Line…by…line.
This is Peter, he is professing his faith to Christ Himself.
Jesus blessing Peter, because his faith is not because he sees Jesus, but because the Father, G-d, bestowed it on Him.
Thou art Peter; and up this rock I will build my church. Pretty plain, ‘Thou’ signifying Jesus was talking directly to Peter and not us (in this instance), otherwise he would have said ‘Ye’. Jesus tells Simon, He has given him the name Peter, which means rock. And, then He proclaims that upon this rock I will build my Church, no indication he is referencing Himself.
"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it’. No evil shall prevail against the office of Peter, Catholic understanding of papal infallibility. This does not talk about anything but His Church and the papacy.
Again with the “thee” thing, and not the “ye” thing. He is still talking to Simon or as we call him now Peter. ‘Thou’ shalt bind upon the earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever ‘thou’ shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed in heaven. He keeps saying ‘thou’ and not ‘ye’ Thou, indicating direct communication with Peter, the rock. Not Ye, as G-d says when He proclaims to all.
Context clue that He now shifts his words to His disciples and not just to Peter.
Pretty straight forward.
^ you can’t build an interpretational foundation on the English . . . .
Do a study on the language, conversations between Jesus and Peter, or Jesus and Simon. Include the other apostles too as they speak among themselves. While we understand that Simon and Peter are the same, Simon was the “old and earthly” Peter. Peter, finally “a rock”, was what Jesus intended him to be.
When Jesus addresses Simon as Peter here, it’s cause he finally “gets it”. There is no validity to any church being built upon a man, although all “churches” are put up because of man and his insight and wisdom. I am speaking congregations here, not on the body of Christ.
Peter himself records in 1 Peter 2 that those who come to know Christ are also living stones upon which is being built a spiritual house. Continue on and see that Peter quotes that the stone which was rejected has now become the chief cornerstone. Was Peter rejected as this stone? No. Christ was rejected. Yes.
He has become the chief cornerstone, unless you infer that Christ, being rejected, was replaced by Peter and surely you can’t mean that. There is no language that refers to papacy. The language is of elders/bishops, those that oversee the flock, and deacons, those that oversee the works, teachers…well, they teach, and preachers those who proclaim the word…which should be all of us.
Study without blinders and broaden the mind. Keep your core values and adhere to them, seek out those things that don’t affect the soul…aren’t heaven and hell issues. Bible study can be fun and not at all drudgery as some would have it to be. There are many good computer programs to help dig deeper and deeper. PC Study Bible is awesome. I’m a member of the Church of Christ.
I study with baptist, methodist, catholic and many other commentaries, to see what they all have to say and to figure out where they come from on their ideas. Very interesting.
Have a good day.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Totally agree with you though the number is in the thousands not hundreds.[/quote]
Are there any actual stats on this? I’m curious.[/quote]
Well there have been around 7,000 cases in the last 50 years in the US alone (substantiated cases from over 11,000 allegations).
I hate linking Wikipedia but they do have some pretty good sources pulled together
As far as I know the numbers of cases are comparable to any other institution the issue for me was more the reaction of the Church (trying to hide the issue instead of dealing with it.)
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
the issue for me was more the reaction of the Church (trying to hide the issue instead of dealing with it.)[/quote]
This is hitting the nail on the head. This is the issue I also have.
Sin is just like yeast in dough. You keep it secret and give it enough time and it will spread throughout the entire system. Sometimes people need to sit down and compare themselves to God. You do this and you will see all the stains on your soul. I just trust in the cleansing power of Jesus to wash all those stains white as snow.