Smoke getting in your eyes? Just turn away

Rome — A documentary hit the airwaves this week in Poland alleging former pope, Saint John Paul II, protected pedophile priests when he was Archbishop of Krakow in his native country (Karol Józef Wojtyła became Pope Paul II). It has reignited a long-standing debate over whether John Paul II was made a saint too quickly. 

The report aired this week by Polish broadcaster TVN24 accuses John Paul of allowing three priests to continue working in the church in the 1970s despite knowing they had been accused of abusing minors. Two of the priests eventually served prison terms for their crimes.

Calls for John Paul II to be made a saint began at his funeral, on April 2, 2005, when cries of "Santo Subito" (or "sainthood immediately") erupted from the half million pilgrims in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican. Many held up banners calling for his sainthood.

The cries didn't fall on deaf ears. Just days after his death, the Vatican began the process of making him a saint. He was "beatified" only six years later and then "canonized" — formally declared a saint — just three years after that. It was the fastest canonization in the history of the Catholic Church.

"Quick canonizations are problematic," Father Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and author, told CBS News. "It is better to have a cooling off period to see if the person's reputation stands up over time. It takes time to do the research into a person's life and writings to make sure that his or her life matches the criteria for sainthood."

Since 1588, when the Vatican established an official saint-making office, the average time between death and sainthood has been about 181 years. That long post-mortem period ensured that would-be saint's lives were thoroughly scrutinized. 

But the Polish pontiff made significant changes to the church's sainthood rules during his time as pope, reducing the number of years before the process could even begin following a candidate's death from 50 to just five. 

But in John Paul's case, his successor Pope Benedict XVI waived even that reduced period. John Paul also reduced the number of posthumous miracles required for sainthood, from four to two. Finally, he eliminated the role of the "advocatus diaboli," or devil's advocate, whose role it had long been to critically examine a candidate's life and miracles, and to argue against their sainthood, though the Vatican can and does still solicit opposing testimony during the sainthood process.

"John Paul II's fast-track to sainthood was a product of his own reforms," John Allen, editor of Catholic website Crux and author of 11 books on Catholicism, told CBS News. "During his papacy, John Paul wanted to make the process faster, cheaper and less adversarial. As a result, he not only canonized and beatified more people than any previous pope, but more than all previous popes combined." 

The majority of these 482 new saints were figures from the 20th century, "reflecting John Paul's conviction that the church needed role models of holiness from our own time," Allen said.

The reforms opened up the Vatican to criticism that it was turning into a "sainthood factory," and abandoning its long-held critical standards, Allen said, noting that critics had "warned that the waiting period, for example, was intended to prevent a rush to judgment, and that there might be cases of fast-track halos the church would end up regretting. Ironically, some are now saying that about John Paul's own sainthood."

A-1) Story by Anna Matranga  March 10-2023, CBS News

The keys  must fit the door...​​

1 Corinthians 1:20-24

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. NASU

When one preaches Christ crucified, one is preaching baptism (Romans 6:3-11). If one doesn't think so, one understands neither the Gospel call nor the answering of the call as in 'calling on the name of the Lord' (Acts 2:21; Acts 22:16).

Jesus did not say 'key' (singular) to Peter. He matter of factly said 'keys' (plural). Consistent with that, when baptism is dealt with in the New Testament whether by command, example, teaching or inference, all of these keys are self-evident or understood. One must:

a)   Hear the Gospel (Romans 10:14-17)

b)   One must believe  (Acts 2:37, Acts 8:34-39 Ethiopian Eunuch)

c)   One must repent (Acts 2:38)

d)   One must be baptised into Christ for the forgiveness of sins                 (Acts 2:38, 40-41, 47, 22:16). God has 'added' you to the church.

e)  Though not a key to getting into the church, one must remain             faithful (James 1:12; 2:14-26). Obviously not once saved always...

​Hebrews 11:6; Acts 2:36-38; 40-41; Acts 22:16; Then there's the gift of the Holy Spirit, Ephesians 1:13; 4:30; Titus 3:4-7, Cornelius and his household in Acts 10.

Baptism is a necessary key to salvation (1 Peter 3:20-21, Romans 6:3-11, Galatians 3:27) It is just one of the keys on the same chain. 

​4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing  by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:4-7, NASU

'washing' NT:3067 - GREEK: loutron (loo-tron'); from NT:3068; a bath, i.e. (figuratively), immersion, baptism: NASU/KJV - washing.

NT:3068 - GREEK: louo (loo'-o); a primary verb; to bathe (the whole person; whereas NT:3538 means to wet a part only, and NT:4150 to wash, cleanse garments exclusively)

'Regeneration' NT:3824 - GREEK: paliggenesia-pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah   spiritual  rebirth (the state or the act), i.e. (figuratively) spiritual renovation; specifically, Messianic restoration. NASU/KJV - regeneration. 

'renewing' NT:342 - GREEK: anakainosis (an-ak-ah'-ee-no-sis)  renovation. KJV - renewing.

(New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary)

GET

IN TOUCH

...The fruit does not fall far from the tree

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,

3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.

4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. 1 Tim 4:1-5, NASU

An epitaph  penned in heaven...​​

Yet, again, low and behold what do we have here?

Revelation 3:7-13

7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 

He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: 

We know that the above (Revelation 3:7) is not only about Christ, but it is Christ declaring 'He has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut and who shuts and no one opens' How does that compare to Isaiah 22:22? Christ references Himself through the same scripture that 'Catholic Answers' says, refers to Peter. 

"Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder.
When he  opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will  open". NASU

Notice also verse 8 where again Christ makes this statement, "I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied My name".

Once more, Christ is talking about the Power He has, again reaching back, referencing part of Isaiah 22:22 as that scripture not only speaks of God's servant Eliakim but points beyond and forward to none other than Christ Himself which He acknowledges.

Well, that's one big NO as in nowhere. Even should one reject this scripture as applying to Christ, flying in the face of Christ applying it to Himself, it still rather obviously rules out this:

"To him (Peter), moreover, were to be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—an expression signifying the gift of plenary authority (Is., xxii, 22)" (Catholic Answers)

Talk about getting caught in the middle of 'nowhere'... 

As a talking point, doesn't there come a time and a place when and where a person finally gets tired and fed up of being lied to? If you stay with the lies and feed on them you become a longterm part of the problem for self and others besides perpetually enabling those who set the table you choose to sit at with family, perhaps even inviting friends, feeding on these poisons. Physically would you do or allow others to poison your family? That asked, I'm sure as Paul Harvey used to say, 'and now you know, the rest of the story'. Be a part of the solution? Get up and excuse yourself. Walk away from the table and those who prepare /poison it. 'Nuff' said on that.

Another word for plenary is 'unlimited'.

On earth, only Christ had that kind of 'authority' and Peter for all his good points wasn't on the short list. In addition Christ never ever exceeded God's will, or sold out God's doctrine short. I would positively say Peter and the others guided by the Holy Spirit did not either. There's certainly no evidence to the contrary. Peter's faults had more to do with character flaws.

Such as Peter denying Christ three times and being called out by Paul on one occasion for hypocritical  behavior  in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-14).  The first failure was an outright character flaw coupled with fear. The latter as Paul would write in Galatians 2:11 involved both character flaw, hypocrisy and yes, still fear. His actions otherwise more closely related to doctrinal weakness considering the vision he had prior to visiting Cornelious. His reluctance there was the fear of doing the wrong thing. On the hypocrisy issue, as Paul put it, " I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned". NASU

​Does Isaiah 22:22  provide a backstop?...​​

To him, moreover, were to be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—an expression signifying the gift of plenary authority (Is., xxii, 22). (Catholic Answers)

​Isaiah 22:22 (Is., xxii, 22)

Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder.
When he  opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will  open. NASU​

Key - OT:4668 HEBREW> maphteach (maf-tay'-akh); from OT:6605; an opener, i.e. a key. KJV - key. 

OT:6605 HEBREW> pathach (paw-thakh'); a primitive root; to open wide (literally or figuratively); specifically, to loosen, begin

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary)

More specifically, Isaiah 22 refers to a servant of God, Eliakim,  who is prophesied to replace one Shebna in the high station of lord-chamberlain of the household, lord-treasurer and prime minister of state during the reign of Hezekiah. And if you can repeat that statement in haste ten times without a glitch and a grin for eight seconds the jobs are yours.

Eliakim's advancement is further described by the laying of the key of the house of David upon his shoulders, v. 22. He had access to the house of the precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices; and to the house of the armour and the treasures (ch. 39:2), and disposed of the stores there as he thought fit for the public service. He put whom he pleased into the inferior offices and turned out whom he pleased. (any reasonable commentary like Matthew Henry's can enlighten)

As with a number of passages in the Old Testament, there are 'connects' from the then 'present' to past or future events, via corresponding parallel allusions. It's like a mirror reflecting images of two 'times' at the same time but not 'of' or 'about' the same event. Perhaps like 'time within time'. When you look closely at what's in front of you, you see double imagery One of what is and one of what's past or future related. Anybody who has experienced 'double exposure' with older 'film' cameras will understand what I mean.

For example, Isaiah 14 deals on the surface with the fall of the king of Babylon with a parallel allusion to Satan/Lucifer's creation and fall. (star of the morning). Note Isaiah 14:11-14.

Persuant to that Isaiah has numerous allusionary (not illusionary) references to Christ the Messiah. They are called Messianic prophecies which are abundant in Old Testament books, including Genesis

Also Ezekiel 28:11-16.

Ezekiel 28 deals with the king of Tyre but also within is a parallel allusion again to Lucifer and his fall from heaven and God's grace. 

A bad tree does not yield good fruit and...

Allen said canonization was "a finding that despite whatever human failures or limitations in judgment his papacy may have reflected, there was nevertheless a genuine holiness of life about the person of the pope.

Undoubtedly, supporters of John Paul II will say the same thing vis-à-vis his record on the abuse crisis."

A-5) Story by Anna Matranga - March 10-2023 - CBS News

​Ex  cathedra for  Ex ample?...

And why did Christ say in verse 19, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall shall have been loosed in heaven"?  NASU. At first glance it would appear that whatever Peter decides on earth would subsquently/afterwards be bound in heaven. If you have an earthly leader, like say a 'Pope', that's exactly what they would have you believe. Then, 'the power' stays on earth and the powers that be can pretty much do whatever they want. As in denying the 'sole authority' of God-breathed scripture,via Ex Cathedra for example. 

Ex cathedra is a Latin phrase, meaning not "from the cathedral" but "from the chair." The phrase does have religious origins though: it was originally applied to decisions made by Popes from their thrones. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, a Pope speaking ex cathedra on issues of faith or morals is infallible-    Merriam-Webster Dictionary. No, he's not- the Bible Matt 7:21-23.

So, a 'leader' sits on a comfy cushioned throne while the masses try to find solace between a rock (Petros) and a hard place, usually oblivious to the fact that's not God's Way but man's. 

It's all part of a systematic path to establish, keep and maintain power and sole authority. Really not much difference in the goals set in an autocracy versus democracy save the details in the 'methodology'.

1)   Usurp and undermine the existing sole authority
2)   Set up a substitute authority
3)   Integrate and/or transition the substitute authority into the old
4)   Adjust, adapt, morph both entities into one as and when needed
5)   Educate, Inundate, Saturate

As stated, at first glance it would appear that whatever Peter decides on earth would subsquently/afterwards be bound in heaven. Yet, is that so?

"... whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven"

Consider that whatever was to be done on earth had already been commissioned in heaven beforehand according to the will of the Father. Jesus said in fact that He came to do the will of the Father and that His doctrine wasn't His but the Father's. Being that Jesus had come from heaven while the Father was in heaven, it must be fair to say that He came with a game plan and stuck with it, of necessity. Thus in the Garden of Gethsemene, "Nevertheless, not My will but thine be done".

He went even further to say Luke 10:16

"The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me" and that if one did not abide in the doctrine of Christ, they did not abide in the Father (2 John 9-11).

Is that clear and absolute or what? Yes, it is that simple. It may not be rocket science but that's why misguided assertions fail to attain lift off, altitude or maintain trajectory. Tough to get off the ground without the proper groundwork and a trajectory that's way off base from countdown is doomed to failure no matter how well everything else goes. 4-3-2-1, earth below us, drifting, falling, floating weightless...

No gray areas for sure and it all points to the fact that with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, there wasn't anything Peter could or would do that wasn't already custom made beforehand in heaven  concerning God's plan for the one church, that Christ built.

Dotting the eyes-crossing the tease...

The Holy Spirit was to among other things, bring to their remembrance all the things that Jesus had taught them. With that in mind we can have every confidence the Holy Spirit would make sure God's will, foreordained from the beginning as to the church/kingdom, would be uncompromised. As, I'm sure all whose will is to do God's will would agree, Christ Himself didn't improvise any ad hoc changes to God's will while on earth. "Nevertheless, not My will, but thine be done". He followed God's plan, dotting the I's and crossing the T's. 

This is also very important. Notice the verb tense in what Jesus said to Peter about the 'keys'. 

"whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven"

Imagine you are standing right there as Jesus spoke. Now from that vantage point, listen again.

"Whatever you bind on earth/whatever you loose on earth"... future tense of things to come as guided by the Holy Spirit.

​"Shall have been bound in heaven/shall have been loosed in heaven"... “Shall have been” is just a more formal way to say “will have been”, understood to mean "will already have been" bound /loosed in heaven. Nevertheless, the tense is 'past' or referring to something already having taken place or already having been planned, approved or whatever. Hence the 'have been'.

For example, "I have been to Japan a few times = I have gone to Japan a few times". Thus, indicative of actions having been already taken or plans having been already made. You will see use of the words foreordained or predestined in scripture quite a bit. Both words refer to events having already been pre-determined.

If Jesus died for the plans that the Godhead had already made, does anyone honestly believe the Godhead especially the Holy Spirit, would allow Peter to go rogue and 'not according to those plans?  That said, it makes no sense that one would assume Peter had been given a blank check to do whatever he wanted with 'said keys'.

In fact we ought to let scripture determine what those 'keys' actually were/are, just as we cleared the falsehood with respect to how 'Catholic Answers' applies Isaiah 22:22.

Isaiah 22:22 "Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder. When he  opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will  open". NASU

'Catholic Answers' says Isaiah 22:22 refers to Peter:

"To him, moreover, were to be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—an expression signifying the gift of plenary authority (Is., xxii, 22)"

Does it? Aside from opinion and assumption, show me in scripture where that is said. Let's all spell, 'n-o-w-h-e-r-e'.

Nowhere in scripture is there any reference to support such a contention.

Nowhere is scripture accurately being put forward as proof.

Nowhere is there evidence beyond subsitutions of unsupported opinion and unsubstantiated assumption.

Scripture shows that the text specifically refers to Eliakim and his promotion during the reign of Hezekiah. Conspicuously absent, evidence that it refers to Peter.

'Must' be beyond reproach... go figure!

3 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer (Shepherd, Bishop, Pastor, Elder) it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach,the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 

1 Timothy 3:1-7, NASU

Allusion Verses - Versus Illusion & Confusion - Hoax's and Fears through Smoke and Mirrors...

Allusion - Illusion - Confusion...

​Allusion: a figure of speech, in which an object or circumstance from unrelated context is referred to covertly/indirectly. It is left to the reader to make the direct connection. However, scripture interpreting scripture does it better. If the connection is directly and explicitly stated by the author, it is then considered a 'reference'. Not to be confused with illusion.

​Illusion: A thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses; a deceptive appearance or impression; a false idea or belief. Not to be confused with allusion.

Now this is an illusion: To him (Peter), moreover, were to be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—an expression signifying the gift of plenary authority (Is., xxii, 22) (Catholic Answers) 

Sense: a faculty whether sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch by which the body perceives an external stimulus .

Concerning Eliakim about whom Isaiah 22 directly refers to, it is written in verse 22, "Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder. When he  opens no one will shut. When he shuts no one will  open". NASU.

​Right questions can bring you right answers. Is Isaiah 22:22, an allusion referring to the Peter of Matthew 16:13-19, only because Jesus said he would give Peter the keys to the kingdom? Or, just because 'Catholic Answers' says so?  No, it is an illusion. 

​Illusion: A thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses; a deceptive appearance or impression; a false idea or belief. Not to be confused with allusion. Below is a 'reference 'to an 'allusion' (Isaiah 22:22)

7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 

He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: Revelation 3:7

This is Christ saying Himself, that He is the one Isaiah 22:22, is 'alluding' to. Hence, Isaiah 22:22 is an allusion to Christ and rightly so.

From Christ's vantage point, it becomes a factual reference as He is directly and explicitly saying/laying claim to whom the scripture connects, namely Himself.

This conclusion we reach by letting scripture interpreting scripture. Not a new or novel idea just a neglected  1 (one).

Yes, it really is as simple as that and quickly tears asunder any fabric weaved into a cloak of lies. Better to use the 'sword of the Spirit' than a 'dagger of deception'. 

Ephesians 6:17, "And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God". NASU

ALL

ABOUT  YOU!

​​Mr. Peabody: Sherman... set the wayback                                                        machine to...

Sherman interrupts: Mr. Peabody, can we really go back in time?

Mr. Peabody: No, 'they' just have to want to believe we can

Sherman:  I don't know about 'that' or who 'they' are Mr. Peabody

Mr. Peabody: 'That' presumes a level of decreasing resistance and doubt directly proportional to the increasing level of enticement and their own personal desire. 'They' are those out there who swallow the lure. After all, people are 'lured' and enticed by their own desires (James 1:14). Sherman just turn the time dial to 'way back when'. We'll be back so soon, it will be just like we never left. Oh, and if you set the master dial to 'Imagination+' and lower the reality check dial to filter out John 12:48, I would be eternally grateful plus one forever more or less... last but not least spin the Vanna wheel and hope we land on Hezekiah for 715, BCause if we wind up in 701 give or take, the Assyrians will put us in Jeopardy. 

To put another spin on it, some things require a great deal of imagination and put the 'mind's eye' to quite a test. Exception to the rule: heart and intellect collaborating on something, someone wants too much, for their own good. Then the eye's of the heart (Eph 1:18) and the 'mind's eye', go cross-eyed straining to envision what's starry-eyed (naively enthusiastic or idealistic; failing to recognize the practical realities of a situation) straining to envision what's not there. A little different than turning a blind eye to reality but the motivations and inclinations may be similar or the same. All this talk about 'seeing' while blinding you with mind benders and tongue twisters.  

Question is, does Isaiah 22:22 support the contention that Peter was "to be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven-an expression signifying the gift of plenary authority?" (Catholic Answers)

What you have here is a another perfect example of 'eisegesis', the opposite and 'negative' counterpart to exegesis. There is nothing better than allowing scripture to interpret scripture and letting the Holy Spirit. the Spirit of Truth do His 'thing' part of which is to connect you to God. That's providing you have received the gift (indwelling) of the Spirit (Acts 2:38; Romans 8:26-39; Acts 5:32). Still, an understanding of the following is a definite asset. 

Eisegesis:  (to draw in) is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce and integrate one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases seamlessly and stealthly into an existing textual framework. It is often referred to as 'back-reading'. Eisegesis brings meaning to the text from 'without', with no regard for the original historical context of a biblical passage or concern for faithfulness to original meaning or intent. 

Exegesis: (to draw out) tries to examine and interpret text, letting meaning come from the text itself in its original, historical context while remaining faithful to the original, even as it is linguistically and grammatically converted/translated to modern day language, nuances and all.

Hermeneutics:  the methodology using an established set of rules and principles governing the proper exegesis of actual biblical text.​​

About this 'common shepherd' thing

For that matter, let's continue to allow scripture to interpret scripture. Listen to what God has to say. The approach surely has worked so far in reaching truth. yielding to scripture instead of to a personal agenda with an 'institutionalized core' at its heart. Inasmuch as scripture readily refutes on all points claimed so far, let's see if anybody is listening. As somebody once or twice said, God gave us two eyes and two ears but one mouth. Do I say this 'tongue in cheek'? 

An idiom: something said in an ironic, flippant, or insincere way; If you say something tongue in cheek, you intend it to be understood as a joke, although you might appear to be serious.

And the the answer is, 'no'. Need I say it louder?  'NO'.

When Jesus referred to His own relationship to members of the church (sheep) or when others referred to Jesus in the same context, scripture clearly tells us just who the 'Chief Shepherd' is.

Scripture otherwise does not bestow upon any one else the equivalent of the same 'office'. Unfortunately, that fact doesn't seem enough to dissuade pretenders to the throne from playing 'musical chairs' when the master piper isn't around. However, unlike oany other piper Jesus is always around. Aside from not hearing Him, though you have ears- you're not seeing Him, though you have eyes. A heart in a dark place is not given to understanding.

In truth, if one reads the first part of the following passage, note how Peter describes himself as he exhorts other elders (as in Pastor, Bishop, Overseer, Shepherd which are all terms describing the same 'office). He refers to himself as "your fellow elder").

1 Peter 5:1-5

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, NASU

What's this in verse 4 about 'the Chief Shepherd' appearing? Wonder who that could be? Not!

1 Timothy 3:1-2 and Titus 1:7 list qualifications. Again, Pastor, Shepherd, Elder, Overseer, Bishop - all describe one and the same. You really don't want to go 'there' as three of the qualifications are

a)   being the husband of one wife

b)   having believing children

c)   blameless, being of good behaviour and must be above                            reproach

Presumably the latter includes not molesting children and not engaging in homosexual behaviour among other stuff. Objections anyone? Let's have a recorded vote. Do I say this 'tongue in cheek?' What do you think?

1 Timothy 3:2-5

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?) NKJV ​

​Catholic Answers

​

A further step was the appointment of St. Peter to be the chief of the Twelve.

For this position he had already been designated (Matt., xvi, 15 sqq.) on an occasion previous to that just mentioned: at Caesarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He would build His Church,

thus affirming that the continuance and increase of the Church would rest on the office created in the person of Peter.

To him, moreover, were to be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—an expression signifying the gift of plenary authority (Is., xxii, 22).

​The promise thus made was fulfilled after the Resurrection, on the occasion narrated in John, xxi. Here Christ employs a simile used on more than one occasion by Himself to denote His own relation to the members of His Church—that of the shepherd and his flock. His solemn charge, “Feed my sheep”, constituted Peter the common shepherd of the whole collective flock.

YOUR PLACE

TOO!

Parents do you know where your children are

In 2004, two years after disgraced Boston archbishop Cardinal Bernard Law was forced to resign because he'd protected pedophile priests, John Paul appointed him to a prestigious post in Rome. 

In 2020, in a stunning admission, the Catholic church said John Paul II had ignored warnings about former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick from as far back as 1999, instead raising him to the powerful position of Archbishop of Washington D.C. McCarrick has since been defrocked and is under criminal prosecution in Massachusetts for alleged sexual abuse of minors.

"Canonization does not mean that the person was perfect, that they never did anything wrong, that they never sinned," said Reese. "They are people of their times with many of the blind spots and even prejudices of their times. Many aspects of their lives can be admired and imitated while at the same time recognizing that they made mistakes and even sinned."

​A-4) Story by Anna Matranga  March 10-2023, CBS News

​The late pope's canonization, McDonnell said, poured more salt on the still-raw wounds of abuse victims.

Accusations of failures to take action span across John Paul's 26-year papacy. He refused to believe accusations against Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionnaires of Christ order and one of the church's greatest fundraisers. Those accusations started surfacing in the late 1970s and continued for decades. Maciel was eventually found to have sexually abused minors and seminarians, and to have fathered several children, who he also abused. 

​A-3) Story by Anna Matranga  March 10-2023, CBS News

the churches of Christ Salute You   ​Romans 16:16

AT 

YOUR SERVICE

Welcome...  to the only church that Jesus built!

Matthew 16:18-19

ABOUT

US!

DIRECTIONS

​THEREABOUTS

SCRIPTORIALS & THEN SOME!

WELCOME

HOME

THE

LORD'S DAY

​One  fold  one  chief shepherd...

Acts 14:26-27

From there they sailed to Antioch, from which they had been commended to the grace of God for the work that they had accomplished. 27 When they had arrived and gathered the church together, they began to report all things that God had done with them and how He (God) had opened a door of faith  to the Gentiles.  NASU

So, we have Jesus saying He had other sheep, not of this fold (the lost sheep of the lost house of Israel) yet to be brought in to make one flock. Combined with Jesus saying He was the door of the sheep one need also consider Jesus said 'keys' (plural) to Peter, not just one key. More on that soon. As for being the door, Jesus was very 'matter of fact' (if that was possible). 

​John 14:6

Jesus said to him, "I am  the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.  NASU

Acts 2:37-38

37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. NASU

Now about 'keys' versus 'key'. The church of Christ has always focussed on and taught that the 'key' has been 'baptism' to the extent that many have thought the church has had/has an abnormal fixation on baptism. I know that's not what we mean but that is the perception regardless of whether we see it or not. The only defense to that lies in Peter's answer to "What shall we do?" in Acts 2:38. The response was short, to the point and a command to be obeyed, as was Ananias's response to Paul (Acts 22:16) and Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5, especially verse 2.

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. NASU

And what is the power of God?

Romans 1:16-17

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."  NASU

To that end if you tamper with the Gospel, Galatians 1:6-9 is clear. What you end up with is 'no Gospel at all' because there is no other. No Gospel, then 'no power of God unto Salvation'.

Greek: NT:1672  GREEK- Hellen (hel'-lane); from NT:1671; a Hellen (Grecian) or inhabitant of Hellas; by extension a Greek-speaking person, especially a non-Jew: KJV - Gentile, Greek.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary)​​

Salvation  on a keychain...

​

Now continuing on about what Revelation says regarding Jesus:

8 'I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied My name. 9 Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you. 10 Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. 11 I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name. 13 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.' NASU

What a tremendous recognition of faith by Christ! The ultimate 'Well done good and faithful servant'. Honor roll and role or what?

As we can now understand that Peter was not given plenary (unlimited) authority by Christ, but rather a plan preordained from the garden of Eden, what were the 'keys' Jesus gave to Peter. It certainly wasn't 'plenary (unlimited) authority'. Neither does the Ezekiel scripture of 22:22 even apply to him (Peter) nor the following for that matter: "... thus affirming that the continuance and increase of the Church would rest on the office created in the person of Peter" (Catholic Answers).

Ironically, This issue of the 'keys' begs a question which is likely best answered by asking a key question. What are keys for? The obvious answers are at times the most simple and often right under one's nose. Keys are to:

a)   To lock a door
b)   To unlock a door
c)   To sing in
d)   None of the above

e)   All of the above

The most relevant answer in our situation, would be that keys unlock doors. It's not consistent to maintain the keys Jesus was talking about were meant to close doors in light of what Christ came to do. Jesus Himself said He was the door to the sheepfold. More specifically, "I am the door. Anybody who goes to the Father must enter by me".

One door, one shepherd-as in the one Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4), ultimately one sheepfold for one flock-all of which and whom even Peter acknowledged. Shouldn't we each do the same?

5 These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'  Matthew 10:5-7, NASU

So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture". John 10:7-9, NASU

"I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd (as in 1 Peter 5:4)". John 10:16, NASU

The dots  (not spots) before your eyes

By 'joining the dots' it can be seen that one can't escape or ignore the direct role baptism has, along with hearing, faith, repentence and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in relation to being keys to get into the kingdom/church. Not that one is 'joining' anything. Through baptism one is added to the church/kingdom by our Lord Himself.  

Acts 2:37-38; 40-41; and 47 whereby: "... And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved". NKJV

No suprise then as the Lord opened the door of faith to the Gentiles (Acts 10), He did so by the same means in the same way He did when the church/kingdom began on the day of Pentecost for the Jews in Acts 2. Same 'keys', same approach, same method- same door unlocked by which to enter, being of course in the name of Jesus, the door that is Jesus. Irrefutable evidence from on high that the Jews should accept the Gentiles into the 'now' one fold Jesus (the door) was talking about regarding the 'other sheep, not of this fold' he was referring to at that time (the lost sheep of the house of Israel). How fitting (by design not accident or chance) that Peter would facilitate in both situations. Does God know how to cover all the bases or what? Not surprising considering both game plans were intended for 'beginnings'. 

Acts 10:44-48

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. 

Then Peter answered:

47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"

48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. NASU

Regarding 'just as we did...' remember?

Acts 2:4-8

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. 

5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.

6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.

7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we each; hear them in our own language to which we were born? NASU​​​​​​​​

Once again back to 'Catholic Answers'.

The promise thus made was fulfilled after the Resurrection, on the occasion narrated in John, xxi. Here Christ employs a simile used on more than one occasion by Himself to denote His own relation to the members of His Church—that of the shepherd and his flock. His solemn charge, “Feed my sheep”, constituted Peter the common shepherd of the whole collective flock.

Actually, mostly what the latter assertion 'constitutes' is wolves in sheep's clothing trying to get at the flock and I'm certainly not including Peter in the pack trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.

HOME

AT LAST

GOOD

NEWS!

Too many 'black sheep' in the family?

Supporters of John Paul's shortest-ever journey to sainthood say he lived a life of heroic virtue and exceptional holiness, the first requirement for sainthood. He helped bring down communism, repaired relations with Judaism and brought a new generation of worshippers into the church. But his detractors say the pope's reputation hasn't withstood the test of time, particularly when it comes to his record on clerical sex abuse.

John Paul II "was indeed rushed to sainthood," in the opinion of Michael McDonnell, the head of communications for the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP). "He was embraced globally for his travels and credited for helping to end communism in his very Catholic homeland.

These achievements provided great cover for him during a time when clergy abuse revelations were steamrolling in the United States and beginning to appear globally."

​A-2) Story by Anna Matranga  March 10-2023, CBS News