Originally Posted by vega:
Vic Jesus never made any man head of His Church, not Peter nor anyone else because of the fallibility of man. The child molestation was an example. That could happen in any denomination. You keep insisting that Peter had some special position that no other Christian has. Peter was simply another man.
*****************
What does the Bible say about it? Are you ready to close the book on
the Bible? Explain Jesus out of it, is that not in the KJV?
Peter wasn't just another man according to Jesus, nor was John, Matthew,
the sons of thunder or the Baptist.
When you can denigrate the Bible to the point it isn't recognizable I know
you feel much better about the mind set you made for yourself.
Most reformers understood Peter to be the rock. The reason they could say this and still claim that the current pope is not the same rock as Peter is that they think Peter's authority died with him. Catholics think this is a mistake.
In Mat 18:16, true to his usual form of teaching, Jesus was invoking and old testament Scripture. In this case it was Isaiah 22:22. If we look at this passage, we see the precedent of succession to which Catholics believe Jesus was referring.
... I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open...and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. (Isaiah 22:23)
In the Old Testament, the office of Chancellor was a dynasty that had successors. This was evidenced by the reference to an office, a throne, a robe, authority, and the keys. This office also sounds a lot like a present day pope. The key holder is called a father. This appears very much to be the language of succession. Even the reference to the "House of David" in Isaiah 22:24 points to the issue of succession. David had died 400 years earlier. Jesus is also in the lineage of David. Jesus was King and certainly had the authority to give Peter the chancellor's (Prime Minister's) keys that God had given to Eliakim.
Keys are a permanent kind of thing. Jesus didn't say "I'll take them back after you die". That would not make sense. Catholics think Jesus gave Peter the "office" just as Eliakim had been given the "office". Jesus gave Peter power to bind on earth. So Peter had power to name a successor, which Catholics think he did. He gave the keys to Linus, who gave them to Anacletus, who gave them to Clement.
===============---------------===============
Vic, if you insist on making the Church something manmade then you are arguing for the scenario deep fat is constantly, along with his team, raising hell about. I think you have missed the point all together of a personal relationship with God. Your argument is that someone has to be involved as a middleman.
Vic, also your story about Peter appointing a successor is the fudge factor necessary to prove it and it makes absolute sense but we can’t just go around relying on fudge factors now can we. That’s just like a human.