User Profile: Caleb-Texas

Caleb-Texas

Member Since: June 15, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • October 31, 2014 at 5:11pm

    @usedCZARsalesman

    I already answered your loaded question: Because Christ says so:

    “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.

    John 21:17

    As there has been bad Popes there also have been saintly Popes for the first hundred years most if not all of them were martyred for the Faith. We have been incredibly blessed by their fortitude and love of Christ:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_n6dCIfkFg

  • October 31, 2014 at 5:02pm

    @jb504079

    In addition I invite you to read the First and Second letters of Clement of Rome. In which as Bishop of Rome he set out to solve issues with the Church in Corinth. Many scholars argue that this letter was written around the same time as the Book of Revelations.

    Third, the title Pope does not have to be in the bible to demonstrate the authority of the office of the Papacy, just as the fact that the word Trinity is not in the bible does not demonstrate the fallacy of the Trinitarian doctrine.

  • October 31, 2014 at 5:00pm

    @jb504079

    First, I will like to clarify that is not only the Roman rite of the Catholic Church that testify for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome but the whole Catholic Church including the all the eastern rite of the Catholic Church, including the Byzantine and Chaldean rites.

    Second, to answer your question: because Peter did not die in Antioch but in Rome. Moreover the subsequent bishops of Antioch never made the claim for supremacy, quite the opposite St. Ignatius of Antioch (who was the third bishop of Antioch and a student of the Apostle John) writes:

    Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church wich also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.

    St. Ignatius of Antioch
    Letter to the Romans, Intro

  • October 31, 2014 at 3:13pm

    @Bonesiii

    Very interesting discussion you have with Lest…I am a late into it but I can’t help but to notice that you have a tendency of calling out logical fallacies without substituting your points. Your argument about Lest use of circular reasoning seems to me without ground and it seems to me that you do it to avoid confronting the substance of the quotes from the early apostolic fathers.

    “Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church wich also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. —

    St. Ignatius of Antioch
    Letter to the Romans, Introduction

  • October 31, 2014 at 3:02pm

    @usedCZARsalesman

    As a Catholic it is relatively easy to answer your loaded question:

    Because the bible says it and that settles it!

    We can discuss the biblical foundations of the papacy but your presupposition actually demonstrates the point. History shows that despite the fallen nature of man and Popes who have fallen incredibly short of God’s graces, that the Holy Spirit has guided and protected the Church over 2,000 years from error in matters of Faith and Morals, fulfilling Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:

    “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”.

    Popes are only infallible when speaking on matter of faith and morals that does not mean that they cannot make mistakes or sin.

    Although the historical argument for bad Popes is real and painful, the used of sex scandal, as applied in your comments is deplorable and without foundation.

  • October 31, 2014 at 2:48pm

    @Bonesiii

    The Catholic Church and for that matter the early apostolic fathers of the Church have never hold the view of the papacy that you are attributing to Catholics. The Pope is only infallible on issue of faith and morals. He can be wrong on many things as history has shown but never in matter of the faith.

    Your argument about “semitic totality” is not very clear to the extend that I have no idea what you are talking about. However, Jesus words are very clear. You have to do violence to text in order to insert an interpretation that is totally colored by your protestant lenses and ignorant of the history of the early Church.

  • October 31, 2014 at 1:53pm

    @ George Harrison

    How much clear you have to be? He is given to Peter and his descendants the keys and authority to the Kingdom of Heaven his church on Earth.

  • October 31, 2014 at 1:52pm

    @George-harrison (Continuation)
    More over the context of the Mathew 16 cannot be clearer. Jesus not only changes his name but he give him Peter the keys to the kingdom clearly making a scriptural and historical parallel with Isaiah 22:21-23 and thereby establishing the office of the papacy.

    I will clothe him with your robe, gird him with your sash, confer on him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
    and to the house of Judah.
    I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
    what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open.
    I will fix him as a peg in a firm place,
    a seat of honor for his ancestral house;
    On him shall hang all the glory of his ancestral house: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.

  • October 31, 2014 at 1:48pm

    Dear George-Harrison

    To your point:

    Matthew 16:18 however you must know that 1) Jesus was not speaking in Greek but rather his common language Aramaic. 2) That in Aramaic there is only one word for rock, kephas.

    As D.A. Carson, a Baptist scholar writes in Expositor’s Bible comementary:

    “The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses”.

    Thereby Jesus not only changes the name of simon to Kephas but directly commission him as the Rock upon which he will built his Church.

    Furthermore other passages in the bible clearly showed that Jesus indeed changed Simon name to Cephas:

    “Andrew brought Peter to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’”.

    John 1:42

  • [2] October 30, 2014 at 5:46pm

    @Cillendor

    “The “holy father” in the Vatican is a false prophet who believes he has the authority to reinterpret the words of JHVH to fit the current “scientific” vogue”.

    That is your own bias and historically ignorant interpretation. Actually the Church has never change its teaching on matters of faith and morals moreover the Holy Father guided and protected by the Holy Spirit in union with all the bishop does have that authority to defend and proclaim the teachings of Christ to all four corner of the Earth.

    Matthew 16:13-19

    When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

  • [1] October 30, 2014 at 5:39pm

    For a balance and well research article on the interpretation of Genesis I strongly recommend an article written by Jimmy Aiken. He goes through the pros and cons of different interpretative venues of Genesis:

    http://jimmyakin.com/2006/02/genesis_one.html

  • [2] October 30, 2014 at 5:38pm

    @ Smallgovt.lover

    It seems to me that you are more interested in pursuing ad hominem attack on Lest We Forget than an actual Biblical discussion.

    First, lets start where we agree. As Christians we all agree that the bible contains the inspired word of God. However many biblical scholar agree that not all books in the bible were written in the same style. Some books are epistles like the letters of the apostles or historical epic, parable and commentary. The important point is what the author intended to communicate by utilizing a particular writing style.

    As a Catholic I am free to interpret the account of creation as a literal account or as a literary device employed to communicate that 1) the world that we see was created and 2) that God is his creator, to a pre-scientific society. This interpretation harmonizes the story of creation found in Genesis with our current understanding of the Universe. We cannot ignore observable and testable evidence from the cosmos lest we abandon reason. As the great theologian St. Thomas Aquinas stated:

    “First, the truth of Scripture must be held inviolable. Secondly, when there are different ways of explaining a Scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly that, if convincing arguments show it to be false, anyone dare to insist that it still is the definitive sense of the text. Otherwise unbelievers will scorn Sacred Scripture, and the way to faith will be closed to them.”

    St. Thomas Aquinas

  • [6] October 30, 2014 at 4:54pm

    @ The Flea

    Matthew 16:13-19

    When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

    Responses (15) +
  • October 20, 2014 at 11:40am

    I agree with Patrick Coffin, someone should write a book and title it Bad Religion Reporting…Beck, anyone? The so-called report was just a leaked draft with no authoritative weight what so ever…yet the NYT salivated and proclaimed such document as a ground shifting/ doctrinal changing document.

    Contrary to some mainland protestant churches the Catholic Church does not proclaim to have the authority to change the Laws that God has written in our hearts.

  • October 9, 2014 at 2:53pm

    I was wondering if I was reading the right article! :-)

    In reply to the contribution The Pope, the Islamic State, and the Future

  • [81] October 9, 2014 at 2:52pm

    Amen! That is the Nicean Creed in a nutshell.

    however…

    “…a mystery that is thousands of years old in an afternoon of blogging”.

    Sorry but the rapture is a man-made doctrine not dating more than 200 years. No Christian believe in the so-called rapture until it was first popularized by John Darby.

    Responses (4) +
  • [2] September 8, 2014 at 5:28pm

    I also wonder what he thinks about Cloning a human being…Jesus nor the apostles said anything about Cloning…I guess he either will have no moral opinion about it or will have to follow someone moral opinion based on Christian principles…a rule made by somone other than Jesus…

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] September 8, 2014 at 5:20pm

    “I’m done with religion [and] stupid rules, that somebody other than Jesus thought up for my own good.”

    Like let say: Marriage between a man and a woman, openess to life during the marital act (no contraception) or necessity of baptism…

    Nowhere in the bible do we see the Jesus and me way to live your Christian life…the end result of such mentatilty is a cafeteria approach to interpreting the bible or fundamental Christian teachings. You take what you like and ignore what you don’t…enter episcopalian approval of same sex marriage, admiting divorce (sometime multiple divorces), properity gospel preaching and pathological fear of fraternal correction (judging)…

  • [-1] June 29, 2014 at 4:09pm

    Why people keep sponsoering Cracker Barrel? Is not the first time that they insult their patrons and then apologies…

  • June 28, 2014 at 10:29pm

    Gita well said!!!

123 To page: Go