Is Peter the foundation of the church?

[Guest]

William - it appears that we are going to go around and around.

Again - you keep referring to the Mennonite "Faith" - there is no such thing, as I would say there is not such thing as the Catholic Faith - rather there is a CHRISTIAN faith.

I would say that there is a Mennonite PRACTICE and a Catholic PRACTICE of the Christian faith.

There is no need for me to baptized into the Roman Catholic church - as I have already been baptized into the Christian Church which has the Lordship of Jesus Christ as her head.

If you need me to provide quotes from the historical early church - please check out this thread: http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=27472

I have provided quotes in there.

No William, John 6 does not teach transubstantion. "rules" for partaking of the Lord's Supper. Nor does John 6 teach the Lord's Supper. John 6 is a metaphor for spiritual hunger and thrist. Communion is not 'owned' by any denomination. The Lord's Supper is to be done as a rememberance of the sacrifice of Christ. If anyone 'owns' it - it is Christ.

Go to R.C.I.A. classes, be baptized into the Catholic Church (if your are not validly baptized) and you can take communion with us! Of course you would be a Catholic them!

It is a shame that you place undue restrictions on the Lord's Supper that is extra-biblical and dare I say not biblical at all.

No where in Scripture does it teach that not believing in 'transubstantiaion' is partaking of the Lord's Supper in an inappropriate manner.

As a believer in Christ, we are all 'saints' in the kingdom of God. And the only hope that I have is found in Jesus Christ - not a denomination.

 

[William Putnam]

William - it appears that we are going to go around and around.

Which is exactly why I am going to end it here....

I do this when points of mine are not addressed and are ignored completely. I am wasting my time in this thread...

Have a nice day, aLoneVoice, but please pray for me, as I fall short of the glory of God.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.
Thomas Paine

 

[Imagican]

Will,

Constantine WAS the FIRST Emperor to ALLOW Christianity to be practiced WITHOUT persecution IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

And, I can PROMISE ONE THING, he CERTAINLY had an 'influence' on it's leaders AND followers. How MUCH influence is certainly debatable but THAT the 'influence' existed is without doubt to ANYONE that understands EMPIRES and their LEADERS.

I will disagree on the Catholic Church being the ONLY church that can trace it beginning back to the apostles. For the CC is NOT the 'original' Body that was FORMED by the apostles. The CC came along at LEAST a hundred years AFTER the apostolic era. That the CC TEACHES this 'FIRST AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH' means NOTHING other than words. They have attempted to alter history, (especially their OWN), in ways that appear to those 'unlearned' that their 'stories' are TRUE when in FACT they are sometimes not even 'partially true'. Alas, what's a poor Protestant to do?

Man-made doctrine does NOT a Christian make. Nor does psuedo paganism, (a combination of previous pagan beliefs coupled with the NAME of Christ).

Peter, the apostle, was NOT the FIRST 'pope' of the CC. Rediculous concept except in the minds of those that created this falacy.

There MAY VERY WELL HAVE BEEN 'a peter' that was the 'first person' of this authority. But it CERTAINLY wasn't THE PETER that the Romans crucified. If so, it's ABSOLUTELY amazing that there is NO RECORD of it, (except in the fabricated history offered BY The CC).

Will, I attempt NOT to attack you 'personally'. NOT my intention. Just trying to offer a little MORE than 'my beliefs' concernning 'a religion'. For RELIGIONS are 'man-made' institutions that have little in common with the TEACHINGS of God, Christ OR the apostles. Sad but true.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Sorry, but a 'piece' of 'cracker' prayed over by a priest is NOTHING but a 'representation'. The words that Christ offered were NOT literal. The apostles did NOT 'eat' Jesus LITERALLY. It was a 'belief' in the symbolic relationship of His words that MADE the 'difference'.

And MANY HAVE eaten and drank to 'their OWN destruction. NOT in a misunderstanding that the 'cracker' and 'grape juice' WERE INDEED the flesh and blood of Christ, but IN their 'eating and drinking' with a 'wicked heart'. And there is LITTLE more 'wicked' than a following or teaching of that which is UNTRUE. For following that which is 'untrue' is in it's very essence REBELLION against that which IS true. And God IS OUR ONLY source of TRUTH, offered us through His Spirit, His Son and His prophets.

And IF the Catholic belief in the Eucharist IS truth, why is it that they offer the flesh to the congregation but REFUSE the offering of the blood? For are not BOTH to be given and received? Did NOT Christ tell them to DRINK as well as EAT?

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

Sorry, but a 'piece' of 'cracker' prayed over by a priest is NOTHING but a 'representation'. The words that Christ offered were NOT literal. The apostles did NOT 'eat' Jesus LITERALLY. It was a 'belief' in the symbolic relationship of His words that MADE the 'difference'.

And MANY HAVE eaten and drank to 'their OWN destruction. NOT in a misunderstanding that the 'cracker' and 'grape juice' WERE INDEED the flesh and blood of Christ, but IN their 'eating and drinking' with a 'wicked heart'. And there is LITTLE more 'wicked' than a following or teaching of that which is UNTRUE. For following that which is 'untrue' is in it's very essence REBELLION against that which IS true. And God IS OUR ONLY source of TRUTH, offered us through His Spirit, His Son and His prophets.

And IF the Catholic belief in the Eucharist IS truth, why is it that they offer the flesh to the congregation but REFUSE the offering of the blood? For are not BOTH to be given and received? Did NOT Christ tell them to DRINK as well as EAT?

MEC

As usual, you don't have a clue on what the Catholic Church does or is - whether today or 2000 years ago... Why do you pretend that you know what you are talking about? Do you get brownie points from your pastor for attacks vs. the Church?

Sorry to have to be so harsh, but I tire of this constant barrage of nonsense that emits from your posts. If you disagree with Catholicism, fine. But don't be posting such garbage that is not true, such as...

"IF the Catholic belief in the Eucharist IS truth, why is it that they offer the flesh to the congregation but REFUSE the offering of the blood?"

I am an extraordinary minister of the sacrament, and I can assure you, there are times where I offer the chalice to the community... If it is not offered, it is NOT because the Church is "withholding the blood of Christ" for some devious and despicable reasons like you imply rather strongly.

So before you continue on your distorted and twisted image of the Church, maybe you should actually read what SHE writes and learn what SHE practices, rather than what you heard or read in some anti-Catholic publication or from some disgruntled ex-Catholic who didn't know their own faith better than a second grader. Valid concerns addressed by yourself would be worthy of a more friendly response. But this? Even a 6 year old Catholic would know you don't know what you are talking about...

I apologize if I have offended anyone by this post, but I feel moved to speak this way in this situation... Even Jesus Christ became harsh with the Phariseess.

 

[Guest]

I am an extraordinary minister of the sacrament, and I can assure you, there are times where I offer the chalice to the community... If it is not offered, it is NOT because the Church is "withholding the blood of Christ" for some devious and despicable reasons like you imply rather strongly.

What is an "extraordinary" minister?

It would seem that for a majority of the time it IS withheld, and there are only certain times when it IS offered. So, the question I have is WHY for the MOST part is it withheld?

And secondly - what are the circumstances that makes it okay to offer the chalice?

 

[Imagican]

I am at a 'loss' to understand HOW I 'indicated' that there is 'something sinister' in the 'withholding of the blood'. I simply 'pointed out' that this IS the general practice of the CC.

Be harsh if you will. For it ONLY goes to SHOW the Spirit that 'lives in YOUR heart'. I find it 'helpful' when one 'allows' their TRUE selves to show. It also speaks VOLUMES as to WHAT one 'follows'. In your case, you have CHOSEN to follow a 'church'. And, in doing so, you have chosen to follow the spirit of this church.

Don't be dismayed fran, that you display the SAME spirit that 'allowed' those that 'proclaimed' Christ AS thier Savior to persecute any and ALL that refused to accept what they attempted to FORCE upon any and ALL under their dominion.

Fran, YOU are the one that is WRONG. I am NOT a Catholic and don't NEED to be in order to KNOW their ways. I HAVE studied QUITE a bit the doctrine and theology of the Catholic faith. An EXPERT? By NO MEANS. But even as a 'layman' it is OBVIOUS that the CC has quite a 'bent' perspective of the LOVE that Christ offered to THE WORLD.

That you take offense to 'the TRUTH' just goes to show how 'blindly' one CAN follow 'other men' and ignore The Spirit of God for the 'sake' of a 'religion'. And a 'man-made' institution at that.

So, fran, PLEASE tell us WHY the CC teaches the placing of a 'chip of cracker' in the mouths of the congregation but DOESN'T offer the 'drink'? I am 'REALLY' curious NOW. For your reaction is such that it INDICATES that 'perhaps' there IS something sinsister. For when one exhibits SUCH a reaction as yours to my previous post, it is USUALLY an indication that the REASON for such a reaction is that the comment came close to revealing something REALLY CRUCIAL. You know, like when one is a homosexual and when the WORD homosexual is mentioned, the person that is 'hiding' their tendency in this direction BLOWS up and starts RANTING about 'how much they HATE homosexuals. Do you KNOW what I am talking about?

Forbid NOT to wed.............Hmmmmm. Guess we ALL know the WHY of this NOW that it's effect on the clergy has become manifest in such a way that it CAN'T be 'concealed'.

So fran, I await your response to the question concerning NOT offering the 'drink'.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

What is an "extraordinary" minister?

It would seem that for a majority of the time it IS withheld, and there are only certain times when it IS offered. So, the question I have is WHY for the MOST part is it withheld?

And secondly - what are the circumstances that makes it okay to offer the chalice?

Thank you for your reasonable questions,

An extraordinary minister is a person besides a priest or deacon who presents the Body and/or Blood to a person for consumption. Since Vatican 2, the Church has recognized the need for a greater participation by the laity. Thus, the Church has given those who desire the privelege of giving communion to others without being ordained. This is a recognition of our "priestly" duty as a person baptized.

We are called "extraordinary" for self-explanatory reasons. Normally, during a Mass with several hundred people, it would take quite awhile for a single minister to give the Body AND the Blood to the community. The "extraordinary" minister keeps people from waiting an inordinate time. Also, it allows us laity to participate more in the Mass than just observers.

In my town, we have two large churches. One administers the chalice, the other does not. It is a matter of choice by the pastor. Whether it is because of practical matters, lack of funds, lack of personnel, personal desire to move the communion along quicker, or whatever, he has the option of administering It or not. Theologically, a person receives the ENTIRE Christ with just the Bread. Thus, no one is being withheld Christ because they fully receive it in just the one form. Presenting the chalice is optional. I personally prefer to receive both. But I do not feel shortchanged when just receiving one form.

The circumstances that make it OK to offer the chalice? I do not know of any where you CANNOT. Again, it is optional. One can receive either form or both. Theologically, one does not receive "more" Christ when receiving both. Since the sacrament is both sign and reality, the visible sign has more meaning to some when they receive both species. The priest at his own discretion will provide it or not. Generally, he will offer it if there are enough extraordinary ministers, they have enough wine to fill a few chalices, and the priest desires to present this second "sign" of the Risen Christ to the faithful. Some older priests may not want to offer the chalice because they are "old school". However, the Church allows the faithful to receive both forms. If "withheld", it is for practical reasons, not theological ones.

Regards

 

[Guest]

Okay - thank you for the your answers... however, it raises more questions.

First - where in Scripture does it say that only Priests, or ministers are able to administer the Lord's Supper? Clearly in the Upper Room, when Jesus initiates the Lord's Supper - He does not specifiy who can and cannot 'administer' it.

Secondly - in the upper room - Jesus teaches that we are to eat of the bread and DRINK of the cup. The Lord's Supper consists on BOTH the bread and the wine. Not just one or the other.

If "practical" reasons get in the way of the Lord's Supper because of guidelines based on it by the Roman Catholic Church - then perhaps that points to a problem with the Roman Catholic 'theology' of the Lord's Supper.

 

[francisdesales]

Okay - thank you for the your answers... however, it raises more questions.

First - where in Scripture does it say that only Priests, or ministers are able to administer the Lord's Supper? Clearly in the Upper Room, when Jesus initiates the Lord's Supper - He does not specifiy who can and cannot 'administer' it.

Jesus established a Church and gave it the power to bind and loosen, power that would be bound and loosened in heaven. Thus, as the Church developed, only the Bishop or those duly appointed were to administer the Eucharist. We have the writings of Ignatius of Antioch mentioning this around 107 AD. We have the Pastorals already showing a more monarchial style of church government, one that differed from that found in Acts 2-5. As a comfort, consider Acts 15 and how the Apostles decided, based on the Spirit and their power to bind and loosen - to rule that circumcision was no longer necessary. If you place yourself in 50 AD or so, you will not find any Scriptures that allow the Apostles to make such a decision! And thus, the Church doesn't find it necessary to search the Scriptures and quote it verse and chapter when the Spirit moves it to expound on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Secondly - in the upper room - Jesus teaches that we are to eat of the bread and DRINK of the cup. The Lord's Supper consists on BOTH the bread and the wine. Not just one or the other.

Same answer as above. I do not know at what point the chalice became reserved for the clergy - but it probably had a lot to do with the numbers of people and the practicality of administering enough wine to everyone present. We receive the entire Christ in just one species.

If "practical" reasons get in the way of the Lord's Supper because of guidelines based on it by the Roman Catholic Church - then perhaps that points to a problem with the Roman Catholic 'theology' of the Lord's Supper.

Theology is faith leading to understanding. It sometimes has little to do with "practicality". There is no problem with the theology of the Lord's Supper. The Eucharist is a sign and a reality. At one point in time, the Church decided that it was not practical to administer the Chalice to the rest of the faithful. Was this based on the then theological focus of the time? Perhaps. From my reading of the development of doctrines, I have found that people of different times and eras tend to focus on different issues. What the Medieval Catholics focused on differs from what we today focus on. The Church reaches out to the world to teach the Gospel. As a result, it must take people where they are at. People of the 1800's had no problem with contraception. It was an accepted idea, even among Protestants. Today, that is not the case. Our society of death believes that contraception and abortion are good things. Thus, the Church of today must focus on these theological issues. I am certain that those men who shepherded the flock had legitimate reasons for withholding the cup from the laity.

Regards

 

[gazzamor]

With all due respects William, it seems to me from reading your posts, that no matter what anyone says, you are doggedly defending your church’s position on this subject, which is mainly based on tradition.

As far as my exegesis on Matthew 16:18,19 goes, I believe what has already been said before: Peter (Petros) is just a rock that you can pick up with you hand, whereas “this Rock†(Petra) Christ, which can be a huge rock mass like the Rock of Gibraltar, or Ayres Rock of Australia.
If you are so convinced that Peter is the foundation “Rock†of the Christian
Church, Where are your Scriptures to back it up?

Probably the best translation of this text I have come across, is put forward by the linguist Fr. James [Silver] of Drew University which underlies the above explanation.) Fr. James's proposed translation with special care for the contextual nuances of the Hebraic waw which underlies the καὶ, for Matthew 16:18-19 is:

“So I tell you, then, that you are a stone, but I will build My Church on this rock, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. Still, I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, but whatever you might bind on earth must have been bound in Heaven, and whatever you might release on earth must have been released in Heaven.â€Â
And I would suggest that when Jesus said that to Peter, he gestured to himself.

As far as scripture is concerned, there is no other Rock but God
Isa 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.â€Â

Have a good day

gazzamor

 

[francisdesales]

As far as scripture is concerned, there is no other Rock but God
Isa 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.â€Â

Who is Cephas, then? Is it God? Is it refering to Jesus? Or is it refering to Simon? Apparently, it is a proper name given by God to a single man, much like Abram and Jacob received new names from God. What is the significance of God giving someone a new name?

Regards

 

[Imagican]

WOW!!!

How EASY you explain away and defend the 'man-made' traditions of the CC. You do it well, might I add.

But fran, COME on brother. From the perspective of your explanation, ALL I need do in order to CHANGE anything is to SAY that I was 'inspired' to do so. If I don't have enough money for new pews AND the widows? I'll just get some NEW PEWS and the widows can hit the streets a 'beggin'? And, if questioned, I'll simply state that GOD TOLD me to 'buy new pews'.

The PRIEST 'becomes' the Christ while handing out the 'cracker', but doesn't have the time or money to pass out little tiny paper cups of 'grape juice'? Hmmmm..... Sounds kinda like a 'cop out' to me. GIVE ME YOUR MONEY, but I don't have enough to 'give you' ten drops of 'grape juice'. Give ME your time, but I don't have the time to 'waste' on offering YOU a 'splash of grape juice'.

fran, can't you see WHY so many FOUGHT so hard to separate themselves from this groups attempts at a MONOPOLY on Christianity? Can you NOT see how these folks allowed their 'position' to 'go to their heads'? That they allowed power to corrupt COMPLETELY? And simply using this power that they had gained to CHANGE anything that they so desired.

We HAVE The Word FOR A 'REASON'. It is SO we may KNOW what God's will is for us. To 'believe' that we can 'change it' at OUR WILL is to void the 'purpose' of it to begin with. The CC has shown their lack of desire to follow with 'truth' as offered by scripture in FAVOR of 'their tradition' of their OWN creation.

They have created 'other gods' and 'other doctrine'. And what's WORSE; they have used EVERY means at their disposal to FORCE others to 'accept' their 'religion'. Torturing, murdering, robbing, raping, ANY means at their disposal. And when we study these 'means' it becomes APPARENT that there was NO Spirit leading these of such EVIL intent. For Christ STATED that we are to EMULATE HIM. And WHAT would this emulation BE? He layed His life down for His enemy. Yet the CC has taken it upon themselves to DESTROY their enemies. And WHO were these 'enemies'? ANYONE that refused to 'believe' what they taught. And ESPECIALLY anyone that SPOKE out against them. And you would call 'this' Christianity?

You are indeed an 'extraordinary' minister. To defend such a 'group' certainly does take 'something' extraordinary.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

But fran, COME on brother. From the perspective of your explanation, ALL I need do in order to CHANGE anything is to SAY that I was 'inspired' to do so. If I don't have enough money for new pews AND the widows? I'll just get some NEW PEWS and the widows can hit the streets a 'beggin'? And, if questioned, I'll simply state that GOD TOLD me to 'buy new pews'.

That is exactly what you do! "God told me". "I KNOW I am right". "The Spirit told me that the books we have in the Bible are the correct and only ones".

And so forth.

Take a look at yourself before you cast stones, Imagican.

Regards

 

[stranger]

golfjack wrote:

Jesus told Peter: You are Peter ( the greek word here for Peter is Petros, which means a piece of a rock or something as small as a pebble for a boy's slingshot) and on this rock ( Jesus was pointing to Himself) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it ( Matt. 16:18).

Hi golfjack,

Where you have the brackets (Jesus was pointing to Himself) I offer the following statement from another tread:

The written word does NOT always facilitate what gestures are made when words are spoken.

This is simply a characteristic of writing - so Jesus may have been pointing to Himself - I think that in another discussion that came up. But we do not know for certain and this in itself can providentially be taken as the way God intended it.

 

[Imagican]

That is exactly what you do! "God told me". "I KNOW I am right". "The Spirit told me that the books we have in the Bible are the correct and only ones".

And so forth.

Take a look at yourself before you cast stones, Imagican.

Regards

I DO the best that I can WITHOUT attempting to ROB ANYONE of 'their' Salvation. The Spirit has REVEALED MUCH that is NOT contained DIRECTLY in The Written Word. I offer that which I offer in The Spirit OF Love and DO NOT do it for PERSONAL GAIN. I travel WHERE I AM LED and refuse to be 'led by MEN'. And YES, from the perspective of 'one led BY men', I am QUITE certain that your comments concerning "God told me'' would SEEM correct. For YOUR 'religion' teaches that YOU MUST lean on MEN, whereas my relationship with God is a 'bit' more 'personal'. KNOWING that this IS possible MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE in this World.

fran, I do NOT attempt to simply 'argue' with you concerning your faith. I have attempted to 'point out' the discrepancies of the TRADITION of a 'man-made' religion and their detrimental effects when it comes to the ability to develope a 'personal relationship with God'. Your religion REFUSES to acknowledge this for it was NOT FORMED for the 'benefit of INDIVIDUALS'. It WAS formed by those whose INTENT was a 'bit darker' in nature. Whether this was 'true' from the BEGINNING or something that 'evolved' is IRRELEVANT to me. That they 'veered' from the 'truth' and inserted 'their OWN understanding' IS what's important to recognize.

Other than fasting and prayer, (which is JUST as pertinent TODAY as in the past), there is LITTLE 'tradition' that is worth it's weight in SALT. for MOST is 'man-made' and 'created' BY The CC. Even that which was 'carried over' into Protestantism. 'Man-made' tradition PROFITS an individual LITTLE, if any, and CAN be COMPLETELY detrimental in the development of a 'personal relationship' with THE ONE TRUE GOD. For, when one places 'their' man-made tradition ABOVE the worship of God Himself, what the participants 'create' is SELF worship rather than 'service to God' and one's brothers and sisters.

There is ONE truth that is ABOVE ALL ELSE. And THIS is LOVE. For ONCE one is ABLE to come to a 'perfect understanding OF love, EVERYTHING ELSE 'falls into it's PROPER place. And WITHOUT this understanding, there is LITTLE that one can 'create OR DO' that is able to 'bring them INTO the wisdom and heart OF God.

So, ANY tradition or behavior that is AGAINST LOVE, is created OUTSIDE of the realm of God. And this IS that which was GIVEN in order for those that DO 'understand' the 'wisdom of God' to DISCERN the Spirit, (or lack of), which guides those that PROFESS to follow Christ TO His Father. This IS how we are to discern 'those that would CHANGE the Gospel' offered through Christ and His apostles. Otherwise we are left with NOTHING BUT the influence of men over each other.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

I DO the best that I can WITHOUT attempting to ROB ANYONE of 'their' Salvation. The Spirit has REVEALED MUCH that is NOT contained DIRECTLY in The Written Word. I offer that which I offer in The Spirit OF Love and DO NOT do it for PERSONAL GAIN. I travel WHERE I AM LED and refuse to be 'led by MEN'. And YES, from the perspective of 'one led BY men', I am QUITE certain that your comments concerning "God told me'' would SEEM correct. For YOUR 'religion' teaches that YOU MUST lean on MEN, whereas my relationship with God is a 'bit' more 'personal'. KNOWING that this IS possible MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE in this World.

Yours is a subjective concept that doesn't hold any water outside of yourself. YOU believe that you are led by God. How many other people in history has made this claim? For this to be true, it must be accepted by the rest of the believing community. WE discern whether you are led by the Spirit. And given that you don't hold many of the community's beliefs, it is hard to fathom that God is leading you personally, while leading the Church (which HE said is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, not YOU) in the opposite direction. In other words, the community believes the Trinity, you don't. Is God leading you or the community? The Community, of course, the Church. YOU need to conform to the Church.

On the other hand, my faith is placed in the Apostles' witness that TNEY were led by God that THEY were given His Word to form a community, a Church, one in which HE would be present with it for all time. That means today, as well. Thus, if one believes that Jesus established a Church which we now call "the Catholic Church", then it follows that obeying her and following her teachings is equivalent to following the Will of God. Thus, I am not following my own whims. I am not following the whims of individual men. I am following God's will spoken through HIS Church.

fran, I do NOT attempt to simply 'argue' with you concerning your faith. I have attempted to 'point out' the discrepancies of the TRADITION of a 'man-made' religion and their detrimental effects when it comes to the ability to develope a 'personal relationship with God'.

You raise points of contention, but you have YET to prove one single thing! From your convoluted ideas of history to your thoughts on doctrine and the Sacred Scriptures, you have been proven time and time again wrong! Even your understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches is wrong! I have already challenged you with NUMEROUS questions - all conveniently ignored by you. With such an attitude, I can only guess that your motives are not to "bring the truth" to anyone. People who are searching for the truth do NOT ignore questions that they cannot answer! That is your mode of operation, however.

Your religion REFUSES to acknowledge this for it was NOT FORMED for the 'benefit of INDIVIDUALS'. It WAS formed by those whose INTENT was a 'bit darker' in nature. Whether this was 'true' from the BEGINNING or something that 'evolved' is IRRELEVANT to me. That they 'veered' from the 'truth' and inserted 'their OWN understanding' IS what's important to recognize.

All opinion and all worthless to an unbiased person.

Other than fasting and prayer, (which is JUST as pertinent TODAY as in the past), there is LITTLE 'tradition' that is worth it's weight in SALT. for MOST is 'man-made' and 'created' BY The CC. Even that which was 'carried over' into Protestantism. 'Man-made' tradition PROFITS an individual LITTLE, if any, and CAN be COMPLETELY detrimental in the development of a 'personal relationship' with THE ONE TRUE GOD.

Jesus didn't put down tradition that led people towards God, only ones that led people away from the Commandments. His example of the tradition of Korban is an example - the leading of Jews from fulfilling the 4th commandment. Thus, your rant about "tradition" has no bearing on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

For, when one places 'their' man-made tradition ABOVE the worship of God Himself, what the participants 'create' is SELF worship rather than 'service to God' and one's brothers and sisters.

A non-sequitur. Which Catholic Tradition places God in second place? Again, what are you talking about?

There is ONE truth that is ABOVE ALL ELSE. And THIS is LOVE. For ONCE one is ABLE to come to a 'perfect understanding OF love, EVERYTHING ELSE 'falls into it's PROPER place. And WITHOUT this understanding, there is LITTLE that one can 'create OR DO' that is able to 'bring them INTO the wisdom and heart OF God.

You are preaching to the choir.

So, ANY tradition or behavior that is AGAINST LOVE, is created OUTSIDE of the realm of God. And this IS that which was GIVEN in order for those that DO 'understand' the 'wisdom of God' to DISCERN the Spirit, (or lack of), which guides those that PROFESS to follow Christ TO His Father. This IS how we are to discern 'those that would CHANGE the Gospel' offered through Christ and His apostles. Otherwise we are left with NOTHING BUT the influence of men over each other.

Perhaps you should read the Scriptures. Within them, the ministry of Peter and John (authority and love) are inseperable. Authority and Love are strewn throughout the NT. Authority without love is not the way of the Church. Any exercise of this is an abuse. And such abuses are not uncommon in a Church that is not yet fully united with Her Head, Jesus Christ. Only after the Eschatological end will the Heavenly Church be manifest.

Regards

 

[St. Ambrose]

Who is Cephas, then? Is it God? Is it refering to Jesus? Or is it refering to Simon?

This is interesting. Does anyone have an answer?

 

[Solo]

This is interesting. Does anyone have an answer?

Cephas is a name meaning stone as is the name Peter.
The word for Rock is a different word.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Who is Cephas, then? Is it God? Is it refering to Jesus? Or is it refering to Simon?

This is interesting. Does anyone have an answer?

There were two disciples named Simon. I tend to believe that through out history, Simon Peter has taken a lot of heat, and/ or credit for the things that the other Simon did.

Jhn 1:40 One of the two which heard John [speak], and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
Jhn 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
Jhn 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.


Mat 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Mat 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Mat 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.