The Catholic Church can't be THE Church because...

[mrtumnus]

However, given the fact that Christ gives the authority to "bind and loose" to all of the apostles in Matthew 18, wouldn't the "keys" be implied there as well?

Or a noticeable 'not there' for a specific reason?

If you look historically at what the "keys to the kingdom" mean there are indeed many offices that are held and responsibilities shared, but only one prime minister role who has the keys.

 

[mrtumnus]

Ah...but he doesn't affirm that Christ appeared to Peter before appearing to Mary Magdeline. In fact Paul doesn't mention her at all in the 'creed' of 1 Corinthians 15, probably because in that day women were not regarded as valid witnesses. So in the creedal form Paul received (presumably from Peter and James probably within 5 years of the crucifixion) and which he had delievered to the Corinthians, the appearances to the male apostles were singled out, not of the female associates. Interestingly, it's the reporting of the women discovering the Tomb (and Christ appearing to Mary) that lends credibility to the historicity of the Resurrection accounts--having women discover the tomb is not something people in that time would make up.

Not that this makes a whole lot of difference in the discussion--I just find it historically interesting.

No Paul doesn't mention Mary at all, and your theory there may be right. The point from what appears in Corinthians is that once again Peter is separated from the other apostles by the fact that Jesus appeared to him before all of the apostles together. Just as the angel at the tomb tells the women "Go and tell Peter and the disciples". Peter is consistently separated from the others throughout the NT.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

No Paul doesn't mention Mary at all, and your theory there may be right. The point from what appears in Corinthians is that once again Peter is separated from the other apostles by the fact that Jesus appeared to him before all of the apostles together. Just as the angel at the tomb tells the women "Go and tell Peter and the disciples". Peter is consistently separated from the others throughout the NT.

Of course in this case Peter had disowned Christ, hence the "Go and tell Peter and the disciples" (not "..and the other disciples"). One could just as easily argue that Peter needed to be personally restored in a way the other apostles did not (eg the John 21 scene)

Don't get me, wrong I'm not denying that Peter was prominent among the disciples particularly as one of those who seemed to be "pillars" (along with James and John--Gal 2:9), and the one who first preached to the Gentiles. I just think that sometimes his role is exaggerated by Rome more than is justified by the biblical and historical data. (I've read Patristic comments on "both sides" of the issue of Peter's relation to the other apostles and it is a mixed bag, at most, in supporting Rome's particular claims, IMO)

 

[DHK]

I just recently saw a discovery channel thing on these guys. From their sources these Albigenses were immoral their practitioners taught that fornication was ok. On the other hand I haven't studied this sect but they may not be a godly as one might suppose.

First, they have their information wrong. They were a God-fearing people.
Second, even if your information was remotely close to the truth, when would living a lifestyle not up to your own personal standards be a licence to wipe out an entire people by genocide in some of the most despicable and cruel ways. The Crusades make Hitler look like a saint.

 

[mrtumnus]

Of course in this case Peter had disowned Christ, hence the "Go and tell Peter and the disciples" (not "..and the other disciples"). One could just as easily argue that Peter needed to be personally restored in a way the other apostles did not (eg the John 21 scene)

Don't get me, wrong I'm not denying that Peter was prominent among the disciples particularly as one of those who seemed to be "pillars" (along with James and John--Gal 2:9), and the one who first preached to the Gentiles. I just think that sometimes his role is exaggerated by Rome more than is justified by the biblical and historical data. (I've read Patristic comments on "both sides" of the issue of Peter's relation to the other apostles and it is a mixed bag, at most, in supporting Rome's particular claims, IMO)

I think that John 21 is absoutely about personally restoring Peter -- hence Jesus asking him if he loves him 3 times. Yet this could have been done and then all told to 'tend his sheep'. Many things in scripture have more than a singular purpose, but they all have their purpose. Jesus commissioning of Peter alone in the shepherd role in the presence of the others does indeed have its purpose.

I think it's reading too much into the angel's comment to believe this is separating Peter because only he needed to be personally restored and the others did not. John is the only apostle who stood at the foot of the cross. To imply that only Peter abandoned Christ has no evidence in Scripture. For a fact only Peter's is significant enough to explicitly record. But the fact is, all but John disappeared somewhere along the way. The Gospels record Peter's denial and reconciliation. Ignores the others.

The angel's comment is consistent with that of Paul in 1 Cor 9:5 where he separates "Cephas" when mentioning the apostles and brothers and "Cephas". Peter is seen as one of the apostles yet separate from them.

 

[mrtumnus]

First, they have their information wrong. They were a God-fearing people.
Second, even if your information was remotely close to the truth, when would living a lifestyle not up to your own personal standards be a licence to wipe out an entire people by genocide in some of the most despicable and cruel ways. The Crusades make Hitler look like a saint.

I just read the wiki version and they were heretics by any stretch of the imagination. Although they were indeed a peaceful people.

I absolutely agree with you that the extermination of any group has no excuse.

Absolutely have to disagree with you that the Crusades make Hitler look like a saint. Best estimates are that 200,000 people in about 200 years were killed in the Crusades. Many of these were legitimate losses in trying to free the Holy Land from its Muslim conquerors. Hitler in about a decade managed about 17 million in the Holocaust alone if you include Soviet civilians, POW's and the Poles. Not to mention the military casualties -- bringing the total to about 70 million I believe. Can't quite see how Hitler comes out looking so much better.

 

[DHK]

I just read the wiki version and they were heretics by any stretch of the imagination. Although they were indeed a peaceful people.

I absolutely agree with you that the extermination of any group has no excuse.

Absolutely have to disagree with you that the Crusades make Hitler look like a saint. Best estimates are that 200,000 people in about 200 years were killed in the Crusades. Many of these were legitimate losses in trying to free the Holy Land from its Muslim conquerors. Hitler in about a decade managed about 17 million in the Holocaust alone if you include Soviet civilians, POW's and the Poles. Not to mention the military casualties -- bringing the total to about 70 million I believe. Can't quite see how Hitler comes out looking so much better.

This is just the fate of one town, only one town that the Crusaders went to--one town among hundreds:

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Kill all! Kill all![/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]In July, 1209, the three bodies of crusaders arrived, and sat down under the walls of Beziers. The citizens quailed as they surveyed the host from the ramparts. "So great was the assemblage," says the old chronicle, "both of tents and pavilions, that it appeared as if all the world was collected there." The men of Beziers rushed the encampment, but in vain. Crusaders, mingling with the citizens re-entered the gates amongst them, and Beziers was lost. The knights inquired of the Papal legate, the Abbot of Citeaux, how they might distinguish the Catholics from the heretics. Arnold at once cut the knot which time did not suffice to loose by the following reply: "Kill all! kill all! The Lord will know His own." (See illustration.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]The bloody work now began. The ordinary population of Beziers was some 15,000. The multitude, when they saw that the city was taken, fled to the churches, and began to toll the bells by way of supplication. This only the sooner drew upon themselves the swords of the assassins. The wretched citizens were slaughtered in a trice. Their dead bodies covered the floor of the church; they were piled in heaps round the altar; their blood flowed in torrents at the door. "Seven thousand dead bodies," says historian Sismondi, "were counted in the Magdalen alone". When the crusaders had massacred the last living creature in Beziers, and had pillaged the houses of all that they thought worth carrying off, they fired the city reducing it to a vast funeral pile. Not a house remained standing, not one human being alive.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Read a more detailed history from a Protestant perspective here:[/FONT]
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=albigenses

 

[Zenas]

Most often he was called petros, meaning a lttles stone. That is the way that he was referred to in Mat.16:19. It was in contrast to petra, the actual word that Jesus used when he said "Thou art petros (Peter), and upon this petra (rock) will I build my church (ekklesia--assembly). Christ promised that He would build his church on a massive rock, that rock being Himself, the chief corner stone. Petr would be as a pebble, a small stoone in the building of it. It was a play on words. The petra (great rock) was a possible reference to Peter's testimony, but not Peter himself. The foundation is always Christ--consistently all throughout Scripture. The Bible does not contradict itself.

Most commentaries, including good Baptist commentaries, would disagree. Craig L. Blomberg, who wrote the "Matthew" volume of The New American Commentary for Broadman Press, the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, says Peter is the rock.

The expression "this rock" almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following "the Christ" in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (Petros) and the word "rock" (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is aout to explain the significance of this identification.

It is often alleged, however, that the "rock" must be Christ or Peter's confession of Christ, especially since the days of Luther and the Protestant Reformation. These alternatives understandably react against traditional Roman Catholic equation of Peter with the first pope and against an elaborate ecclesiology built on this verse. But a legitimate interpretation of vv. 18b-19, as below, predicates nothing of this, so there should be no theological objections to taking Peter as "this rock." A distinction between "Peter" and "this rock" is also ofrten affirmed on the basis of the two different Greek words, but grammar requires this variation because the ending of petra ("rock") is feminine and could not be used for a man's name. The underlying Aramaic would have used kepha in both instances, in which case the problem disappears althgether.

Blomberg, ibid. at 252. Actually Blomberg makes a pretty good case for the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:17-19, but paradoxically at the end of his commentary on these verses he says:

At any rate, there is obviously nothing in these verses of the distinctively Catholic doctrines of the papacy, apostolic succession, or Petrine infallibility . . . .

Ibid. at 256.

 

[DHK]

Or a noticeable 'not there' for a specific reason?

If you look historically at what the "keys to the kingdom" mean there are indeed many offices that are held and responsibilities shared, but only one prime minister role who has the keys.

Absolutely not true. You fail to consider Scripture when making such absurd claims. Look at Scripture now.
First realize that "key" or Keys" simply meant knowledge. It was the knowledge needed to get into the kingdom of God. The Pharisees had been entrusted with that knowledge and had abused it. The apostles now had it. They would be given the Great Commission and would be sent throughout the whole world to give the gospel, the key to salvation, and thus the kingdom of God. We too have that responsibility.

First the Pharisees. See how Christ condemns them:
Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
--Christ condemned them. They had taken away the keys of heaven (that is the key of knowledge). They couldn't get into heaven themselves, and they certainly couldn't point anyone else that way because of their legalism and their trust in their traditions rather than the Word of God. Christ says the same in Mat.23


Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
--They have shut up the kingdom of heaven. It is as if they have locked it up with a key.

Now consider what Jesus says to the disciples:
Matthew 16:19 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.

And again:
Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The verses are almost identical. Verse 18 implies that all the disciples received the so-called keys, for they all had the power "bind and loose." This was not "a Peter only thing." To assume that it was is just nonsense and disregarding other Scripture.

Now take the context of Matthew 18 which then gives us the "key" to understanding the passage in Matthew 16. The full context in Matthew 18 is speaking about church discipline. Read it all from beginning to end. If the offender does not listen to the offended, then bring one or two witnesses that in the presence of two or three witnesses every word may be established. If there is no repentance, then bring him to the church. If there is no repentance, a decision is made. If the decision is one of "excommunication," then he is to unto you as a heathen and a publican--meaning absolutely no fellowship with him.
Regarding that decision, Christ says whatever the decision the local church has made Christ has agreed with it in heaven. If the man is forgiven (loosed) then my Father has done the same. If he has been bound (disciplined out of the church), then my Father has done the same. My Father in heaven agrees with whatever decision the local church has made. That is the context of this passage. Study it out. No special powers were given to Peter or to any of the disciples.

 

[mrtumnus]

This is just the fate of one town, only one town that the Crusaders went to--one town among hundreds:
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Read a more detailed history from a Protestant perspective here:[/FONT]
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=albigenses

I do not doubt this occurred. There are many errors the church made primarily due to often being one and the same with the state. Separation of church and state is more of a benefit to the church than the state imho.

What I do not understand is why Protestants wish to identify with this group as fellow Christians who were persecuted? Their theology is not Christian that I can see. This is what wiki says about their theology.

The Catharist concept of Jesus might be called docetistic — theologically speaking it resembled Modalistic Monarchism in the West and Adoptionism in the East. Simply put, Cathars believed that Jesus had been a manifestation of spirit unbounded by the limitations of matter — a sort of divine phantom and not a real human being. They embraced the Gospel of John as their most sacred text, and completely rejected the Old Testament — indeed, most of them proclaimed that the God of the Old Testament was, really, the devil. They proclaimed that there was a higher God — the True God — and Jesus was his messenger. These are views similar to those of Marcion.

The God found in the Old Testament had nothing to do with the God of Love known to Cathars. The Old Testament God had created the world as a prison, and demanded from the "prisoners" fearful obedience and worship. This false god was in reality — claimed the Cathari — a blind usurper who under the most false pretexts, tormented and murdered those whom he called, all too possessively, "his children". The false god was, by the Cathari, called Rex Mundi, or The King of the World. This exegesis upon the Old Testament was not unique to the Cathars: it echoes views found in earlier Gnostic movements and foreshadows later critical voices. The dogma of the Trinity and the sacrament of the Eucharist, among others, were rejected as abominations. Belief in metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls, resulted in the rejection of Hell and Purgatory, which were and are dogmas of the Catholic faith. For the Cathars, this world was the only hell — there was nothing to fear after death, save perhaps rebirth.

While this is the understanding of Cathar theology related by the Catholic Church, crucial to the study of the Cathars is their fundamental disagreement with both the Christian interpretation of the Doctrine of "resurrection" (cryptically referred to in Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2) as a doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave. In the book "Massacre at Montsegur" (a book widely regarded by medievalists as having a pronounced, pro-Cathar bias) the Cathars are referred to as "Western Buddhists" because of their belief that the Doctrine of "resurrection" taught by Jesus was, in fact, similar to the Buddhist Doctrine of Rebirth (referred to as "reincarnation").[3] And it was this challenge to the Christian interpretation of the Doctrine of "resurrection", echoing the original conflict between Christian theology and the Gnostics over the meaning of the Doctrine of "resurrection", that eventually led to the extermination of the sect.

 

[DHK]

What I do not understand is why Protestants wish to identify with this group as fellow Christians who were persecuted? Their theology is not Christian that I can see. This is what wiki says about their theology.

Wiki is not reliable when it comes to church history and what various groups believed.
Neither are biased Catholic historians who counted as all in opposition to their doctrine as heretics.
To get down to what the Cathari (meaning "the pure") really believed, as well as the Albigenses you might want to consider some other Protestant historians. The one I gave you is a good starting place. He also has some other links, I believe.

 

[mrtumnus]

Absolutely not true. You fail to consider Scripture when making such absurd claims. Look at Scripture now.
First realize that "key" or Keys" simply meant knowledge. It was the knowledge needed to get into the kingdom of God. The Pharisees had been entrusted with that knowledge and had abused it. The apostles now had it. They would be given the Great Commission and would be sent throughout the whole world to give the gospel, the key to salvation, and thus the kingdom of God. We too have that responsibility.

First the Pharisees. See how Christ condemns them:
Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
--Christ condemned them. They had taken away the keys of heaven (that is the key of knowledge). They couldn't get into heaven themselves, and they certainly couldn't point anyone else that way because of their legalism and their trust in their traditions rather than the Word of God. Christ says the same in Mat.23


Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
--They have shut up the kingdom of heaven. It is as if they have locked it up with a key.

Now consider what Jesus says to the disciples:
Matthew 16:19 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.

And again:
Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The verses are almost identical. Verse 18 implies that all the disciples received the so-called keys, for they all had the power "bind and loose." This was not "a Peter only thing." To assume that it was is just nonsense and disregarding other Scripture.

Now take the context of Matthew 18 which then gives us the "key" to understanding the passage in Matthew 16. The full context in Matthew 18 is speaking about church discipline. Read it all from beginning to end. If the offender does not listen to the offended, then bring one or two witnesses that in the presence of two or three witnesses every word may be established. If there is no repentance, then bring him to the church. If there is no repentance, a decision is made. If the decision is one of "excommunication," then he is to unto you as a heathen and a publican--meaning absolutely no fellowship with him.
Regarding that decision, Christ says whatever the decision the local church has made Christ has agreed with it in heaven. If the man is forgiven (loosed) then my Father has done the same. If he has been bound (disciplined out of the church), then my Father has done the same. My Father in heaven agrees with whatever decision the local church has made. That is the context of this passage. Study it out. No special powers were given to Peter or to any of the disciples.

Seems to be an interpretation Protestants cannot agree on.

W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew.
"Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority."

"It is of considerable importance," Albright says, "that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys."

 

[mrtumnus]

Wiki is not reliable when it comes to church history and what various groups believed.
Neither are biased Catholic historians who counted as all in opposition to their doctrine as heretics.
To get down to what the Cathari (meaning "the pure") really believed, as well as the Albigenses you might want to consider some other Protestant historians. The one I gave you is a good starting place. He also has some other links, I believe.

I saw nothing in what you provided or elsewhere on that site that discussed what they actually believed.

Encyclopedia.com and the Columbia Encyclopedia say basically the same thing as wiki regarding what they believed, and all 3 appear to be reasonably sourced. Do you have anything that states their beliefs to be different than these sources?

 

[DHK]

I saw nothing in what you provided or elsewhere on that site that discussed what they actually believed.

Encyclopedia.com and the Columbia Encyclopedia say basically the same thing as wiki regarding what they believed, and all 3 appear to be reasonably sourced. Do you have anything that states their beliefs to be different than these sources?

Church history is for another forum, and not germane to this thread, except for the fact that it (the history of the Inquistions and Crusades) showed the incredible cruelty and heathenism of the RCC. They were in no way an example of Christianity, nor even a succession of Christianity.
But with that being said, this thread is well past thirty pages and needs to be closed.