KFC posts:

AD POSTS 161

KFC POSTS 162

Here's the connection between the OT and the New Testament Church Christ established...

In the Old Testament the Jewish Tabernacle was the work of God.  According to Exodus, 25-31, Leviticus, Numbers 1, 3-8, 17, and 18, God drew up its plan, gave its dimensions, described its sacred furnishings, vessels for its service, the vestments and ornaments for the Priests who would minister there. He gave it a suitable constitution, appoionted its rulers and defined the extent of their power.

Since the Tabernacle of the Old Law (which was but a shadow, a figure of the Chruch to come), was the work of God, surely the Chruch of the New Testament, the substance, the reality, would likewise be the work of God.

It's easily shown that it was Christ Himself who established the Church when He declared His intention of founding a Church, by the institution of a living authority when He said to Simon Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

Christ intended to personally build His Chruch and gave it all the elements of a true body and a ruling authority. We know this becasue He added, "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. St.Matt. 16:19. This authority was ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED when Our Lord after His resurrection said to Peter, "Feed My lambs; Feed My sheep."

During His life on earth, Christ Himself was the visible head of the Infant Chruch, but after His Resurrection, the office of visibly "feeding the flock" was to be discharged by another to whom Christ gave the authority and office. As so as the followers of Moses were to be one compact body, so too were the followers of Christ to be One Body, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

the First Pentecost and after the descent of the Holy Ghost, the Chruch appeared before the world, a compact, fully organized society, with the Apostles at its head and St.Peter exercising supreme jurisdiction. 3,000 souls received Baptism and were added to the Church.

It wasn't the Apostles who devised the plan for this body, made Baptism the condition of membership, appointed the first head, and invested him with special authority. It was Christ who did all this and by doing so founded the Church which is the Catholic Church.

If the Holy Bible teaches anything plainly, it's that Christ established a visible Chruch and this rules out KFC's novel idea that the Chruch is a collection of all believers. The Chruch is a definite orgainzation founded not upon shifting sand, but on a rock. The Chruch is heirarchal, composed of rulers and subjects. "Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you bishops to rule the Church of God, which He has purchased with His own Blood." Acts. 20:28.

Its members are admitted by a Baptismal rite; they must hear and obey, "He who hears you hears Me, He who rejects you, rejects Me." Christ compares His Chruch to a "flock", a "sheepfold", a "city seated on a mountain", a "kingdom". He calls it "My Church", not churches.

47 times the Chruch is found in the OT and in each passage it means but one Church, one way of worshipping the Lord before the coming of Christ. That was the Jewish Chruch, the religion and the law of Moses established by God. From no other altars did God receive the sacrifice of prayer. They were all abominations to Him. "He who turneth away his ears to the hearing of the law, his prayer shall be an abomination." Proverbs 28:9. In the NT, the Chruch is mentioned numerous times and we find but one Chruch mentioned....which is the "pillar and ground of truth..".

St.Paul writes, "I write these things to thee hoping to come to thee shortly, but in order that thou mayest know, if I am delayed, how to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is the Chruch of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth." So there we have it from Saint Paul to us.....The Church is the house of God, which is the pillar and mainstay of the truth." (again to KFC's definition of the Chruch as "all believers" how can all believers be the pillar and ground of truth)?

 St.John speaks of the Chruch "at Smyrna", "at Ephesus", "at Philadelphia" etc. but these are different dioceses of the Church. They all belonged to the Catholic Church under St.Peter.   This is Biblical as well as historical.   

lula posts :

KFC,

Of the highlighted part.....Are you really saying this? Is this the same KFC who reads and studies Scripture?

Here's the passage, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Chruch, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

Explain how and why would Christ say this to Peter but mean Himself.

Christ is the ROCK, the Cornerstone...and here in St.Matt. 16:18, Christ designates Peter the rock-foundation of His Church. It means is that Peter was placed first in authority, first of the Apostolic Twelve. Christ's Chruch which is His Mystical Body was divinely established to exist all time and therfore can't be dissolved. Christ called His Church His household, flock, kingdom, and it stands to reason that such a household, flock, kingdom, must have someone in it who ranks forst in authority, who has primacy, the first rank, That person was Peter and the continuance of that household, flock, kingdom necessitates a successor if the Chruch is to last until the end of the world as Christ promised it would. They are designated by the CC as popes. Today, Pope Benedict XVI, is StPeter's 265th successor.  

Christ is the Good Shepherd...and in St. John 21:15-17, He designates Peter as the head shepherd of His flock, when He tells him to "Feed My lambs, Feed My sheep."

Christ is the KEY BEARER...and in St.Matt 16:19, He designates Peter to be the key-bearer in His Chruch.

St.Ambrose wrote, "Where Peter is, there is the Chruch." So all we have to do is look for St.Peter's successor and we find the Chruch established in 33AD by Christ. Everyone else is outside the Church which must make Christ very sad.

And this is where KFC and I stand united.

lula posts:

KFC POSTS #174

Sometimes you say the darndest things.......Christ is the tangible image of the unseen, invisible God. .....God "was nothing to look at" you say?????

Protestants have pictures of Jesus in their homes and in their churches and in many of their Sunday school books for teaching children.  So, if one measured Protestants by the same rule as you do with me here, then by using these "graven" images they would be practicing the idolatry of which they accuse Catholics.

MasonM,

I am aware of the modern dictionary definition of "graven" and "images" but my statement was in regard to text and full meaning of the First Commandment of Almighty God about the graven image or idol being used as the object of divine worship and thus constituting idolatry.   

The use of religious statues is a thoroughly Biblical practice.  

You are using such a narrow view, I am surprised at you.  Political action is one form of social action, lobbying, advocating, all are forms of social action. Of course asking government to do something for its people is social action. There are no such thing as government handouts.  That's code for granting money to those we don't think deserve it. Money is collected for the common good.  This money is allocated on a budgetary basis, as needs arise, and through law. I could easily say that money to government war contractors is a handout. Or medical aid a handout.  Or food a handout.  Jews should not look at it this way,  We should look to need and take care of need.   When you recite the Daily Miricles or the Amidah what's on your mind? 

Be well. 

no I don't say Lula.  Scripture says.  You should know me certainly by now!!! 

"He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorows and familiar with suffering."  Isaiah 53:2

I think scripture is clear he wasn't anything to look at from a physical point of view.  We all know that lovely looking people have doors opened for them that those with not so nice looks can't go through so easily.  We tend to look on the externals not the internals.  This makes sense with God's MO according to Paul as well when he said:

"Brothers, think of what you were when you were called.  Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.  He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things and the things that are not to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him."  1 Cor 1:26-29

Anything I read about Paul from outside sources as well as his own words seem to indicate that Paul was a small man who was relatively unattractive.  He was not the type to be noticed UNTIL he opened his mouth and taught about God.  His words either brought people to their knees or brought people to a fit of rage.  Same message, different reactions. 

agree.  But Catholics go beyond what Protestants do.  The kneel, they kiss and they pray to these statues Lula as well as to rosary beads.  I know.  Been there.  This goes beyond rememberances.  It's not the same thing.  Nice try tho. 

BTW where do you find rosary beads in scripture? 

no it's not, unless you're talking about the Pagans. 

you didn't read this in context.  You are focusing on the wrong part.  You deliberately have been trained to do so.  Read the whole section in context. 

really?  It says that here? 

Did you not notice Christ mentions this THREE times? 

How many times did Peter deny Christ? 

This has nothing to do designating Peter as head of anything.  It has ALL to do with reinstating Peter after he fell so badly. 

Three times he denied him.  Three times Jesus said feed my sheep. 

I'll bet you were not taught this:

Q. What happened when Peter denied Christ that last time?

A.  The cock crowed.

Q.  When did Jesus reinstate Peter?

A.  The morning, the same time as when the cock usually crows.

Q.  Why?

A.  Because everyday when Peter would get up to start his day and hear the cock crowing, he'd be reminded that he denied God in the flesh.  He'd be reminded how he denied the one he came to love the most.   So Jesus, in his wisdom, chose that same time period to reinstate Peter so now when Peter heard that cock crow he'd be reminded of Christ's gentle forgiveness and grace.

What about Paul?  Didn't he feed sheep?  How about John?  Timothy?  What about Godly Pastors today? Aren't they in the sheep feeding occupation too?  In fact the leader of the very first council was JAMES...not Peter (Acts 15). 

You're being taught this Lula but it's not biblical.  It's CC teachings as in catechism. 

lula posts:

kfc posts:

But you didn't and this is where the rubber meets the road...for in reality no one commits idolatry by making, having, looking at and even kissing images of Christ whether as a beaufiful new born Baby wrapped in swaddling cloths or as the Child being presented to the Lord in the Temple, or as the Boy of 12 teaching in the Temple, or as a wounded, sorrowful Man of 33 crucified on the Cross.

If I look affectionately at and kiss the photo of my mother,  am I honoring, adoring, or worshipping the image or the piece of paper itself? Or is it a tribute of love and respect offered to my mother? Same thing when Catholics reverence the Crucifix and statues only in so far as they remind us of Christ, of God of our BLessed Lady, and of the Saints.

Unfortunately, your agreement is negated becasue it's followed with (I) agree, but....

You said:

That you persist in this futile exercise of accusing us Catholics of praying TO these statues and TO Rosary beads when I've already said over and over that Catholics do not adore or worship images nor do we pray TO any images or TO the Rosary beads themselves reveals your preconceived bias.  

Let me reiterate.....that you conclude that Catholics pray TO statues, etc. is not my fault, rather it's your own fault in that you have judged us wrongly.  You're making the mistake of judging interior dispostions from exterior conduct. You have no right to accuse us of praying TO statues.   

LULA POSTS:

Didn't God tell Moses to make a statue of a fiery serpent and set it on a pole in Numbers? Didn't God command the making of statues in Exodus 25: 18-20? And how about the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord? 1Chr. 28: 18-19? There's more if this hasn't convinced.

And what about statues or images that represent God Himself? I'm thinking the Book of the Apocalypse and something similiar in Daniel 7:9, "As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat. His rainment was white as snow and the hair of his head was like pure wool. His throne was fiery flames, it's wheels were burning fire." I'll betcha even Protestants make depictions of God the Father based on this description of Him when teaching OT prophecies.

If not, why not....for images, pictures, icons, and statues are a great teaching tool.

KFC,

The Holy Bible itself makes clear that the "Word of God", i.e all that has been divinely revealed for our salvation, is not limited to the written Word alone. God's revealed Word exists in both written and oral form and both require acceptance and obedience.

How do Protestants know with certainity which books are contained in the Holy Bible?

As you know the Holy Bible did not, nor could not determine itself. It didn't determine its own contents. You might say the Holy Spirit and of course this is true, however stated alone begs the question, for the numerous inspired writing that make up the BIble were not placed in between the covers by some magical action. Living men were used and guided by the HS to determine which ones of the many epistles and writings would be placed together and which ones should be left out.

So, answer that question correctly and you'll have your question answered about the Holy Rosary which btw is a beautfful form of meditative and contemplative prayer. The prayers embodied in the Holy Rosary were composed by Christ Himself, in the case of the Our Father, and by the Angel Gabriel, St.Elizabeth, found in St.Luke. The Council of Ephesus in the 5th century completed the second half of the Hail Mary.

Praying the Rosary devotion is loving contemplatiion and meditation upon the  mysteries of our Redemption.  The 15 mysteries-----the Annunciation, the Visistation, the Nativity, the Presentation, the Finding in the Temple, the Agony, the Scourging, the Crowning with thorns, the Carrying of the Cross, the Crucifixation, the Resurrection, the Acsension, the Descent of the Holy Spirit, the Assumption and the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin-----are an excellent summary of the Gospel.

LULA POSTS:

C'mon, KFC! I'm not reading in context???.... Even fair-minded Protestant commentators, whom I can name by the dozen, know the context and word "rock" refers to St.Peter. 

Catholics don't believe one Rock excludes the other rock......Christ is the Eternal Rock, the Cornerstone, and that this passage tells us that He selected Peter as the rock-foundation, the secondary rock upon which He built His visible Chruch.

 The unique place of primacy Peter had is found in 3 texts...StMatt. 16: 13-19, St.luke 22:31 and St.John 21:15. Something big was happening when God changed men's names....Study St.John 1:42 and you'll learn of Simon meeting Jesus for the first time. ON that occasion, Christ declared that Simon would be called Kepha, the rock. Jesus changing Peter's name is significant. By calling him, "Kepha" the Aramaic word for rock, Peter means rock.   That took place 2 years before the meeting in Cesarea Philippi, where for the first time in human history, a man Simon was given the name of a rock, Kepha, to signify he was the earthly head of Christ's Chruch while Christ was the Eternal Rock. This is enforced by the indisputable fact that the "keys of the kingdom" which signify power, authority, jurisdiction, such have been exercised by every Bishop of Rome from Peter to Benedict XVI.

lula posts:

KFC,

you've got the wrong interpetation of Scripture going here. ....it soothes the Protestant denial of St. Peter as first head of the CC and Christ putting him there!

Your mention that Peter denied Christ 3 times before His Crucifixation is true and meaningful...he certainly proved he was a weak sinner.  After this Peter is asked to proclaim his love for the Lord 3 times which clearly and painfully goes back to his triple denial. Scripture goes on and we learn that Peter almost immediately recognizes his sin and repents....he's given the opportunity to rehabilitate himself and does and is subsequently given the charge to tend Christ's flock and to nurture His people.

If you pull together various texts, we can easily see that no other leader of the Infant Chruch is accorded such attention as St. Peter in his very special role. In St.Luke, Jesus tells Peter that Satan has asked for the disciples that he may sift them all like wheat....And Jesus says that He has prayed that Peter's faith may never fail. That's significant the Jesus prays for Peter alone and commissions him to care for the other disciples. "You in turn must strengthen your brothers."

From here we go to St. John 21:15-17, and get to what you brought up. The Risen Christ asks Peter 3 times if he loves Him. Peter responds affirmatively in each instance, and is given the 3 injunctions by Christ "Feed My Lambs, Tend My sheep, Feed My sheep." We know Jesus is the Good Shepherd caring for His flock, and this is a clear analogy between the roles of Christ and of Peter by Christ instructing him to tend and feed His sheep. Christ was designating Peter as the shepherd of His flock on earth.

You see, I think when KFC and Lula talk like this they are losing sight of something: their focus, their responsibility.  Whether its Jesus tending flocks or God, whether its a cross, a crucifix, or a Torah scroll, in the end, if we don't see through the symbol to the Universal, we are missing the boat entirely.  

Apparently, with Catholics, they do not see that making a graven image of who they call God is a sin. Apparently, with Protestants, the same is true of little baby Jesus in mangers. I know Buddhas was no god, therefore an image of him has nothing to do with this discussion.

I don't know.  I really don't think what people believe so much is the issue as much as their willingness to test their beliefs for the truth.  And by this I hardly mean text or interpretation.  I mean the only true test, a living test. The test of life itself and how we live it according to our faith and our practices,

Be well.

Absolutely Sodaiho.  Couldn't agree with you more.  It all comes down to how we live out what we believe.  It's when the "said" faith becomes real or not real.  What we say we believe is nothing in comparison to how we manifest that belief. 

But I'm not losing focus or responsiblility.   I know what the focus is but here for discussion sake, when the CC gets pushed  on me or anyone in my hearing I push back.  I'm a defender of the scriptures the same Luther was in the 15th Century and therein lies the rub with Lula.  My responsibility will always be to speak the truth.  I hope I'm doing it in love because that is always what I would hope comes across. 

My life verse is Jeremiah 20:7-9.  Yes, a Jewish scripture not one of the NT as many usually pick to represent them.