BAKERSTREET POSTS ON JAN.30 I'm just wondering what the "Church" in that sense is composed of. As she says, it isn't the buildings or the vestments, either. There seems to be another entity of some sort, or just the "idea" of the Church. Functionally, it seems like that just allows a religion to do everything it wants and still retain the purity.


By, george, Bakerstreet, I think you're getting it. In a comment or two before this, I said that the Church is not the buildings, but is all the people who practice the one Faith as given and taught by Jesus and handed on down through the ages by his Apostles and their successors.

The true Christian and Catholic doctrine is that the eternal Son of God became man in the Incarnation, thus commencing a life at once divine and human. And this life of Christ continues its activity by the Church, which is a kind of permanent social "incarnation'. As there is one continuous life of humanity by heredity, so the life of the Church is continuous by succession and Tradition and will be until the end of time. This is the promise and guarantee of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

"I said that the Church is not the buildings, but is all the people who practice the one Faith as given and taught by Jesus and handed on down through the ages by his Apostles and their successors."

In order for you to back up your idea of infallibility, though, you have to be free from error in the circumstances you describe. The Catholic Church isn't.

"I said that the Church is not the buildings, but is all the people who practice the one Faith as given and taught by Jesus and handed on down through the ages by his Apostles and their successors

nowhwere does it say...."thou art Peter and your successors.... upon this rock I will build my church....

even if you believe Peter is the Rock; the one to start the CC...nowhere does it say that his successors would carry on.

the only one that is infallible is Christ. Not the church. Not the people; not the popes certainly not the priests. Nobody is infallible here on earth.

I agree with what you're saying as far as the church not being buildings; and that there is only one faith given and taught by Jesus. Absoulutely. The diff is I don't see anywhere in scripture including Peter's own writings that lends itself to an earthly kingdom or religion set up here on earth. It's all man made. Like someone already said Jesus basically destroyed the earthly establishment already in place. All that's happened is another went up in it's stead. This time it was the CC. No diff than the religion of the Pharisees. I see no diff at all.

BAKERSTREET POSTS ON JAN. 30: But doctrinally and morally the people who are in charge of the church have not been infallible.
AND AGAIN ON JAN. 30: I’m not even arguing against it as much as I am addressing a limited set of its propositions. Like the infallibility of the Church. To me Lula’s perspective sets up a situation where everyone in the faith could go off and be totally evil, from the Pope down, but the “Church” would still be infallible.

BAKERSTREET POSTS: In order for you to back up your idea of infallibility, though, you have to be free from error in the circumstances you describe. The Catholic Church isn't.


Everyone in the Church, including the Pope and all the bishops are definitely not infallible. It is the Popes’ and bishops’ in union with him ex cathedra pronouncement when defining, clarifying or teaching matters of doctrine and morals made under very specific conditions that is guaranteed as true and without error under the gift of infallibility. To the Pope in his official capacity as successor of St. Peter Our Lord’s words apply, “I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, and do thou confirm thy brethren.” God can certainly preserve the Pope from making a wrong definition on doctrine and morals, and He has promised to do so.


Infallibility of the Church does not depend on human prudence. It depends ultimately upon the assistance of the Holy Spirit which He promised would abide with the Church forever. St.John 14:16. St. Paul clearly manifests this doctrine, “....behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth. 1Tim.3:15. The early Church Fathers insist upon infallibility of the Church and reason also tells us that the unity of the Church could not be maintained if she would fail in her teaching of the truth; her holiness forbids heresy to enter; her catholicity demands expansion without loss of the teaching and her apostolicity requires perpetual duration of an unchanged Apostolic doctrine.


BAKERSTREET POSTS ON JAN. 30: Had you been alive during the time when they were selling indulgences, would you have defended them? Was that not doctrine?
ALSO ON FEB.1: Historically, there can be no debate that indulgences were SOLD, offered, in advance to anyone who wanted to “donate” money, and there is not doubt that Popes offered indulgences for sins that HADN’T been committed yet.


Now, on the Doctrine of Indulgences:

History shows that the doctrine of Indulgences is, at best, simply misunderstood and, at worst, used in an attempt to discredit or attack Popes, papal authority and the Church’s doctrines.

Christ bestowed upon the Church not only the power of forgiving sin and the eternal punishment due to sin, but also the power of remitting the lesser, or temporal punishment due to sin. This power of remitting temporal punishment (spiritual debt) was claimed and exercised from Apostolic times. An Indulgence is a remission before God in whole or in part of temporal punishment due to sin whose guilt has already been forgiven. "Temporal punishment" to Catholics is "chastisement" to Protestants. That is, it’s pain unto life such as Scripture refers to when it tells us God punishes all those he loves as his children. Heb.12:5-6. In short, temporal punishment is part of how God redeems our sinful actions and turns their consequences into occasions of sanctity rather than damnation. Indulgences depend on the "treasury of merit" which today is called "fruitfulness." We are graced to bear fruit by the work of Christ. In bearing fruit is not about "works salvation" but about cooperation with grace. One of the manifestations of grace is the charism or spiritual gift. Spiritual gifts are graces given via the members of the Church so that the Body is built up in love Rom.12:1; Cor.12; Eph.4:11-16. The Church has been graced with spiritual gifts such as tongues, prophecy, healing, as well as the gift of mercy Rom.12:8. An indulgence is a formal apostolic enactment of the gift of mercy. It is directed at members of the Catholic communion under Apostolic authority through their baptism into the Church. That means that Indulgences are not a form of earned justification (since that was already freely given in baptism), but are instead given to lessen the temporal punishment due to sin already forgiven. In short, they are an aid to growing in holiness, not a “coupon” for “buying” the forgiveness of God. Christ gave the Church complete power of binding and loosing. After His Resurrection from the dead, He breathed on His disciples, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. St.John 20:22-23. The Church has the right, therefore, to loose or to remit some of the expiation due to God by a sinner after the guilt of his sin has been forgiven. St.Paul did this in the case of the sinful man in Corinth. 2Cor. 2:6-7, 10. Here, the Church is using her spiritual gifts, especially the gift of mercy, in remitting Indulgences. The principle underlying the Indulgence grant is based on the doctrine of the Communion of Saints and the solidarity of all Christians in the Mystical Body of Christ 1Cor.12:21-26.
Penitents must make some satisfaction for their sins by doing a “penance”. The penances imposed by the early Church were often very severe. These could last months or even years with the result that many a penitent died before he could fulfill his penance. From the eighth century onwards, the severe penances were often commuted to prayers, fasting, pilgrimages and other pious practices, particularly almsgiving.


An Indulgence is granted only in the sense that a person has fulfilled all conditions of the Church: by going to Confession 7 days before or 1 day after the day he gains the plenary Indulgence; by contrition of sin.; that is, by raising one’s heart to God amidst the duties and trials of life and making a pious invocation; by voluntarily depriving oneself of something pleasing, in a spirit of penance; by reciting various prayers such as acts of faith, hope, charity and contrition and by almsgiving, that is, by giving of oneself or one’s goods for a good work. When the Church remits an Indulgence, her action, according to the declaration of Christ, is ratified in Heaven. St.Matt.16:19; 18:18.
In the 11th century, Popes, bishops, and priest-confessors remitted the Indulgence grant to those who in fulfilling their penance in the spirit of almsgiving would contribute to the support of the churches, schools, hospitals, and pilgrimages.


It is true that there were grave abuses connected with the almsgiving in the Middle Ages, but some of the notions still current about the nature of Indulgences are very far removed from the truth. An Indulgence is not a pardon for sin, permission to commit sin, exemption from any law or duty, nor the purchase of the release of a soul from Purgatory. The Church has never given her authority to the proposition that an Indulgence can be applied to any given soul with unfailing effect. In fact, Pope Sixtus IV, in 1477, taught expressly that Indulgences for the dead are applied “by way of suffrage" i.e. by way of petition to God and depending on His acceptance for the intended poor Soul. The intercession for the Souls in Purgatory is very effective, but it is entirely up to God as to what poor Soul will benefit by a person’s prayers and Indulgences offered for a particular soul thought to be in Purgatory.


The granting of Indulgences to those who would contribute alms towards a various charitable work in itself is quite all right as Scripture tells us to redeem our sins by almsgiving. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an Indulgence, men could contribute to some pious cause such as the building of churches, the endowment of hospitals and to the support of the Crusades. To give money toward the glory of God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and when it is done for the right motives, will not go unrewarded.


However innocent almsgiving is in itself, this practice was gravely abused. There were corrupt ecclesiastical officials such as Pope Leo X who were tempted to abuse the condition of almsgiving and misuse at least a portion of the money that was meant for the purpose of the work of building St. Peter's. They debuted other religious who in their preaching they went far beyond the doctrines of the Church even to the point of saying that any offering would immediately secure the release of a departed Soul in Purgatory. These abuses are not a part of the Church’s doctrine of Indulgences.

The Church did take disciplinary actions to stop those abuses. They were condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. In 1268, Clement IV forbade the bishops to overstep their authority reserved the interpretation of the Indulgence grant to the Holy See. The Popes, notably John XXII and Boniface IX, censured the bishops and other religious for having unduly extended the privileges granted by the Holy See. Special Jubilees with Indulgences were proclaimed at the election of each new Pope and on other momentous occasions. Martin V reprimanded the archbishop of Canterbury in 1420 for “presumption and sacrilegious audacity in daring to issue a plenary indulgence in the same form as that of the Roman Jubilee.” Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa at the Council of Magdeburg in 1450 condemned the error that Indulgences remit the guilt of sin; and Sixtus IV in 1478 took measures as well. Duke George of Saxony opposed the improper use of alms giving in preaching Indulgences, but not the doctrine of Indulgences. As did Cardinal Ximenes in 1513 forbade them in Spain. He saw that the monetary contribution overshadowed the spiritual aspect and that this was a grave error of the Church’s Apostolic doctrine of Indulgences.


While it cannot be denied these abuses were widespread and even when corruption was at its worst, these spiritual grants were being properly used by sincere Christians, who sought them in the right spirit and by priests who took care to insist on the need for true repentance. Therefore, the Church instead of abolishing the practice of Indulgences, aimed rather at strengthening it by eliminating the evil elements of mankind for mischief. The doctrine itself has no natural or necessary connection with pecuniary profit, as is evident from the fact that the abundant Indulgences from the Council of Trent to the present day are free from this evil association. The only conditions required are the saying of certain prayers or the performance of some good work or some practice of piety.


The Council of Trent repudiated such abuses and enacted disciplinary measures to correct them. At the Council, the right of the Church to grant Indulgences was reaffirmed and the practice of granting Indulgences was retained. In 1567, St.Pius issued a Bull which tightened even more those disciplinary measures and because of it, the abuses relating to the remitting of Indulgences became rare. Clement VIII in 1605 and Paul V in 1621 appointed officials to supervise the publication of Indulgences. In 1669, Clement IX canonically established the Congregation of Indulgences. Today, those abuses are virtually nonexistent.

Apostolic Indulgences------(Note: this goes to Dr. Donald’s post and link).
Apostolic Indulgences are those that the Holy Father, or those having the faculty, attach to religious articles by blessing them . In the beginning of his pontificate, each Pope publishes through the Sacred Penitentiary a list of Apostolic Indulgences he wishes to grant.
To make the Apostolic Indulgences available to us as many as possible, The Code of Canon Law grants Cardinals, bishops the faculty to bless religious articles and to attach the Apostolic Indulgences. Priests may obtain the same faculty by applying to the Sacred Penitentiary. Their petitions should have the previous approval of their ordinaries. Apostolic Indulgences can be attached to religious objects, such as rosaries, crosses, crucifixes, statuettes and medals. The Saints represented must have been canonized or mentioned in the official martyrologies. The Indulgences are not personal. It suffices to keep them in a respectable place in the home. To attach the Apostolic Indulgences, a single sign of the Cross is sufficient. ....Although Pope Urban II in the 11th century and succeeding Popes in later centuries granted special indulgences for almsgiving and visiting churches, the Apostolic Indulgences as known today go back to the Bull Laudemus viros gloriosos of Sixtus V, issued Dec.1,1587, 41 years after Luther’s death. The doctrine of Indulgences from Apostolic times remains the same to this day.


In my view, one of the best books ever written that touches on the subject of the doctrines of Infallibility and Indulgences is by John L. Stoddard, “Rebuilding a Lost Faith by an American Agnostic.” In it he writes, “If Luther had merely protested against such practices, as was his right, and if, while remaining in the Church, he had worked with others to reform them, he could have done great work. But to seek to destroy the Church because of some faulty members, and to attack a beautiful dogma because of some abuses which had gathered round it, is as unwise as to desert a ship because its keel is fouled with barnacles.”

No offense, Lula, but you could have saved your time and written "Huh uh". You spend a lot of time writing things that I already know, as if knowing the Church's excuses will make some sort of a difference to me. It won't.

Re: Infallibility, you've just set up a situation where you can claim infallibility after the fact, and deny it on anything you want. They don't say, "Okay, here it comes, I'm going to issue something infallible now" because they know later it may prove to be in error.

So it is like fortune tellers, who only tell you they predicted something after it has happened.

Re: Indulgences, you could write twenty more pages and it wouldn't change the fact that the Church sold them, wholesale, advertising beforehand, for the sins of both the living and the dead, at funerals, for sins BEFORE THEY WERE COMMITTED, etc. From the Pope down. All the copy and paste in the world won't change it.

SEAN CONNERS POSTS: then, on another level...why wouldn't christ just tell him and the other apostles that pete is "in charge." why must it be a vague metaphorical reference that no one else hears?

Christ told Peter that he was “in charge” as you say, or the special head, when He told him, “you Cephas, are the ‘rock’ upon which I will build My Church. All the rest of his followers understood this as well. Indeed, Peter acted in that capacity and exhibited that authority as well.

There are an overwhelming number of Scriptural episodes that point to a special primacy amongst the Apostles that St.Peter had.
1--Whenever the Apostles are listed by name as a group, Peter is always first and Judas, the Lord’s betrayer is always last. If the Apostles aren’t mentioned by name, we see phrases such as “Peter and the others” which indicates that it was understood that Simon Peter represented the college of Apostles.
2---Only Simon, among all those of the NT, received a name change. St.Matt.16:18-19. This signified a status as the “rock” upon which Christ would build His Church. He was also the only one chosen by Christ to receive the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. While the rest of the Apostles received the power of binding and loosing in a general way St.Matt. 18:18, it was Simon Peter alone that Christ conferred this power. St.Matt. 16:18-19.
3---It was Peter that Christ called to come out of the boat and walk on water. St.Matt.14:25-33. It was from Simon Peter’s fishing boat that Christ preached to the crowds St.Luke 5:3. St.John deferred to Peter at the tomb, even though he was younger and ran faster and got there first. He waited for St.Peter to enter ahead of him. St.John 20:6. It was to Simon Peter, fist among all the Apostles, that Christ’s Resurrection was revealed and the first to whom Christ appeared after His Resurrection. St.Mark 16:7.
4----I have already mentioned how in St.Luke 22:31-32, that Jesus conferred a special role by praying for just for him, I.e. “I have prayed for you..” The same with what Christ says directly to Peter later in that verse. 3 times Christ says, “Feed my sheep.” which is an indication of his special role as the pastor of the flock.
5---In Acts 1:13, we are told that Peter leads the other Apostles in choosing a replacement for Judas who committed suicide. It’s Peter who preaches the first sermon after Pentecost leading some 3,000 people into the Church through Baptism. It’s Peter who performs the first miracle after Pentecost. In Acts 4:1-12, it’s Peter who led the Apostles and faced down the Sanhedrin.
6---In Acts 10:9-16, God delivers revelation to Peter that Gentiles could now enter the Church without the need to observe Jewish Kosher food laws, and this teaching Peter made binding the whole Church at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Throughout the NT, Peter is shown to have had a unique primacy and authority among the Twelve. That fact is shown in Gal. 1:18 when St.Paul, after his conversion to Christ spent time in prayer and preparation, did not begin his own public ministry until he had first gone up to Jerusalem and checked in with St.Peter.

you will not find...."you Cephas" anywhere in the Gk. Is it in the CC version or the Latin Vulgate?

KFC POSTS: you Cephas, are the ‘rock’ upon which I will build My Church. All the rest of his followers understood this as well. Indeed, Peter acted in that capacity and exhibited that authority as well.
you will not find...."you Cephas" anywhere in the Gk. Is it in the CC version or the Latin Vulgate

BAKERSTREET POSTS:
"John 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."



There are several words the inspired writer could have used for “rock” or “stone” in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common and interchangeable. Any connotation of small or large depends on context.

In the Septuagint, in Joshua 5:2-3, God said to Joshua, “Make flint knives and circumsize the people of Israel again the second time.” One cannot make flint knives out of a boulder, but it can be done out of a small rock by hand.

It can be argued that lithos is more commonly used for “small rock” or ‘stone”, there are examples of it being used as “large stone” as well. St. Matt. 28:2, it’s used for that large stone that sealed the tomb of Christ. Christ refers to Himself as a ‘stone’ in St.Matt.21:42-44. It is used as a small stone in 4:3 when the devil shows Jesus some small stones (Greek lithoi) and tempts Him to turn them into bread. In St. John 10:31, certain Jews pick up lithoi to stone Jesus. In 1Peter2:5, Peter uses lithoi to describe the people of God as “living stones.....built into a spritual house” (ooohh--that’s a good one, KFC, as in “living stones” meaning people (body of Christ) and “spiritual house” meaning the Church!). He does not call the body of Christ petroi. The only word that is never used to denote ‘small stone’ or ‘small rock’ in the NT is petros.

St.Peter had a chance to use that word, but he didn’t. The word ‘petros’ is uniquely applied to Peter in Scripture and is never used to denote ‘small rock”. The Baptist scholar, D.A. Carson that I mentioned in an earlier post said that the large/small distinction is found only in ancient Greek, which was used from the 8th to the 4th century BC and even then it was largely confined to poetry. The NT was written in Koine Greek from the 4th century BC to the 5th c. AD. He says there was no distinction between petros and petra.

KFC---this is a quote from one of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals. Maybe you’ve heard of it or own it. Gerhard Kittel’s, Theological Dictioinary of the NT. About St.Matt. 16:18, “The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text....suggests a material identity between petra and Petros....it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. ....Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession...the idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable...for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build My Church” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name “Rock”. To this extent, Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” Vol. 6, Erdmans, 98-99, 108.

KFC POSTS: you will not find...."you Cephas" anywhere in the Gk. Is it in the CC version or the Latin Vulgate?


We know Christ spoke in Aramaic. He said, Thou art "Kepha" and upon this "Kepha", I will build My Church." It was becasue Christ used the word "Kepha" that we sometimes see Peter called "Cephas" which is a Greek translation of the Aramaic word itself.

As for the use of "Cephas" in the Douay Rheims version, I found that word used 8 times. They are as follows:
St.John 1:42 "thou shalt be called Cephas"
1Cor. 1:12 "I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and"
3:22 "whether it be Paul or Apollo or Cephas"
9:5 "and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas"
15:5 "he was seen by Cephas and after that"
Gal. 2:9 "James and Cephas and John, who seemed"
2:11 "but when Cephas was come to Antioch"
2:14 "I said to Cephas before them all: if"

I cross referenced those with the King James Version and found that all the verses used "Cephas" except the 2 verses in Gal. 2: 11 and 14. Here, the KJV uses "Peter" instead of "Cephas". Why do you think that is? Is it because it was "Cephas", that is, the "rock" of the Church and an important indication of St.Paul's recognition of the primacy of St. Peter as the "rock" or foundation stone of the Church?

so "secular" sources are only ok when they agree with you, eh? lol

OF LULAPILGRIM'S POST: have you noticed whenever Christ speaks of His Church, it is always in the singular. You are well navigated Bible reader. Here He said, “I have built My Church upon a rock”---not My churches. Or when He said, “Hear the Church”----not hear the churches. He established one Church, not thousands of churches.

KFC POSTS: *banging my head against the wall*.....it's singular because the church is HIS BODY. He has ONE body. Like arms, legs, hands, feet. It's not about denomination. It's about HE is the head and the church is HIS body. The book of Col I already told you is ALL about his supremacy...he being the head. The book of EPH is all about the body. We, the church, is his body. Nowhere does either book speak of the CC nor does even Peter talk about being the head of any organized religion. I absolutely believe Peter is rolling around in his grave (so to speak) knowing he was made to be the Apostle of the CC.


Thank you, KFC for the good suggestion of reading Colossians and Ephesians which have to do with the structure or the composition of the Church. Christ's true Chruch, as revealed in Col. and Eph., is a body, , however, not only a body of people as you describe. It's more than that. Christ's true Church is an organic and spiritual entity like the body of a person (physical matter and spiritual soul). Also this body, the true Christian Church, is not strictly a human body but is akin to being a divine body.....this is by virtue of the fact that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ Himself.

In a very true sense, the true faithful constitute the members of Christ's Church body while He reigns in Heaven as the Head of His Church body. These passages bear this out. "Again, he is the head of his body, the Church" Col. 1:18. "Now you are the body of CHrist, member for member." 1Cor.12:27. "We are members of His body, made from His flesh and from his bones." Eph.5:30.
How did I arrive at the conclusion that Christ's Church must be a unified-----not a segmented ,many churches--body? I correlated those texts above with these:
"there shall be one fold and one shepherd" St. John 10:16. "And the glory that thou, Father, has given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one." 17:22. "You are called in one body...one spirit....one hope...one Lord....one faith...one baptism" Eph. 4:4-5.There it is in Scripture, as plain as can be, at least to me, that Christ's true Church was constituted as one---one in every respect: one in membership, one in belief, and one in worship and one in government.

That was the way Christ's Church was originally constituted and that is the way it will have to remain if it was always to be identified as His body. In my view, St. Peter was not only a member but also appointed as the first head of the one Christian body on earth.

How can all the hundreds of churches that have sprung up since the Reformation, each one different in name,in belief, in government and to an extent, mode of worship possibly be consonant with the one body, one spirit, one faith, one shepherd concept as described in the Bible?

the only way it can is when people realize that NO SECT OR FAITH will get them there. the only way is directly thru him and having a personal relationship. putting people in between, no matter who they are, or what they claim only distorts, corrupts and dilutes God's messages.

Because if you read Paul, you'll find that while there is a thread of sameness among the many schools of thought, there is also a lot that is secondary, and about which we differ. There is also things that Paul calls "custom" that have nothing whatsoever to do with God or Christianity. I think the majority of the differences will be within those topics, regardless of the fact that many believe them to be of huge importance.\

That doesn't change the fact that Protestantism is a defined, established belief; that man does not need anyone else to have a relationship with God, and all the 'authority' of the church is meaningless in terms of that which is immortal and spiritual. A lot of ritual and temporal power.

you are way too entrenched to even "get" what I'm saying Lula. I don't have the energy nor the time to go thru the whole Peter/Petros thing. Did you ever go to a reliable source outside the CC to find the he/she controversy in Gen 3:15? I think you need to check with a Hebrew scholar on that one and I'm absolutely sure you'll find out it's "he."

But I want to address just the quote above.

I agree Christ's church is to be unified. But it's not to be unified physically. It's not to be unified in one physical churchbuilding or denomination. It's to be unified by the spirit. It's the spirit that gives life said Christ. Christ did not come to this earth to make bad people good. He came to give dead people life. We get life from the HS. That's what unites us. We are alive where before we were dead.

The one shepherd, the one worship is all about Christ. He is the one that is the good Shepherd. He is the one that ALL Christians are to worship. That's where the unity comes from. Not the CC. That's bogus. That's a lie.

Look what Peter said himself to the elders in his day:

The elders which are among you, I exhort who am also an elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ....Feed the flock of God.....neither as being lords over God's heritage but being examples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd (Christ) shall appear you shall receive a crown of glory......1 Peter 5:1-4


never was there supposed to be any hierachy. Never. Even Peter put himself at the same level as these other elders as a fellow elder. Here was his chance to tell them that he was elevated among them as the "head" of the church. He says no such thing in either of his two letters. Some Pastors don't even like an elevated pulpit because they think it violates what Jesus would have wished. And Lording over the people...com'on Lula you know the CC as an organization has famously erred in this regard.

the word "elders" is "presbuteros" and where we get the word Presbyterian from. The word "shepherd" is "poimaino". The same word is translated in the English as Pastor in Ehp 4:11.

Poimen (Pastor) is to rule, lead, guide, comfort, correct, and strengthen.

Also, I just thought of this. The CC loves the quote in Matt 16 about Peter being the rock instead of Christ. Well don't you think it odd it's not in Mark? Mark wrote the gospel thru Peter's eyes. Basically Peter wrote the book of Mark and he didn't even put that in there. Don't you think that's a bit odd?