[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
sorry I have been having browser problems and posted with my iphone. It was a struggle.
It appears that it is not a misconception. It appears that there is a lot of explanation. The church cannot afford to offer reasonable stances on issues that are so limited. If the explanation given is correct one must assume that you have a homosexual male prostitutes that fears damnation from spreading a fatal disease to an unknowing homosexual john. Do you see how ridiculous it is for the church to have any opinion on this subject?
I have to say you are a good sheep for following this bs. [/quote]
Except that’s not what the Pope said either.
I’ll paraphrase: He said, it MIGHT be that if a homosexual prostitute (he never said male by the way) would use a condom that it MIGHT BE the first step in showing a sign of conscience that people can’t do whatever they want and that we are responsible for those others that we hurt.
And I’m not sure why you are calling me a good sheep just because I actually put down the $20 to read the interview for myself and find out what the Pope said myself. That doesn’t sound very sheepish to me.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< It really kinda sucks that so many Protestants still see us as enemies. >>>[/quote]I just cannot bring myself to give up trying to communicate with you Pat. Protestants do not see Catholic people as enemies. What really sucks is all the protestants who DON’T see catholicISM as their enemy. Like they once universally did before being seduced by all this kissy faced ecumenism.
[/quote]
Why shouldn’t one denomonation of Protestantists have equal issue with each of the other 10,000+ protestant denomonations?[/quote]
36,000 ish…but who’s counting…And some do with others…There are big arguments with Calvinism vs. Arminianism[/quote]
The 35’000 or 36’000 supposed denominations is a myth and when I get a chance I will discuss it with you. And many of these “denominations” are location specific.
But I’m not protestant. I believe what the early Church believed (the one’s in the generation of the apostles).[/quote]
Oh, your Catholic too?!
It actually doesn’t bother me that there are so many Protest divisions, nor do I have an issue with protestants who do not think that are better than me.
The simple reason is that most protestant churches lack central leadership and can basically do what they want. It definitely creates micro divisions though you got some nuts like the Westboro baptist church and then you got things like unitarians and stuff.
Except there is no proof that we have changed the Bible or Tradition, we still have the faith of the early Christians (just like the Orthodox). However, Protestants faith comes about in about 1500 years after Jesus. If anything your beloved Luther showed how easily the Devil can go against a mere man going against the body of Christ.
[quote]Wadda ya want me to say Chris. I do not buy ANY of the claims of the Catholic church
[/quote]
Guess you’ll have to give up that beautiful and beloved Catholic document: the Holy Bible.[/quote]
It couldn’t prevail against it, Jesus said so…Wait are you calling Jesus a liar? Yes you are.
Calvin perverted and molested the word of God to suit his own purposes. He did the work of evil all to well.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< And, if there is two denominations it is too much.[/quote]This is nothing more than Catholic semantics. There is just as much division in catholicism as anywhere else. You simply redefine it by other terms so as to escape the obvious. You’ll say “yeah but, yeah but the church has only has one teaching”. That’s fabulous except untold millions of her members do not care and believe whatever they want. Some of them so blasphemously liberal it’s scary. You know exactly what I’m talkin about. Division by any other name is just as divided.
[/quote]
Uh no, Calvin came out of the depths and decided to make a bunch of nonsensical crap up out of thin air and for some reason, some, but not many bought it hook line and sinker…The tenants of the church have not changed since apostolic times, period. If some parish decides not to follow it they are out of communication with the church. Catholics cannot make it up as they go along.
If you have revise history to make your points stand up, it’s likely you don’t have one.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
You know any Catholics that are okay with gay Marriage? I do.[/quote]
Yes, we call them lapsed Catholics or dissenters, or in the extreme case heretics.
It appears that it is not a misconception. It appears that there is a lot of explination. The church cannot Afford to offer reasonable stances on issues that are so limited. If the explition given is correct on must assume that you have a homOsexual male prostitute that fears damnation from spreading a fatal desise to an unknowing homosexual jOhn. Do you see how rediculois it is cfor the cue h to have any opinion on this subject?
I have to say you are a good sheep for following this bs.
[/quote]
Are you drunk?[/quote]
sorry I have been having browser problems and posted with my iphone. It was a struggle.
It appears that it is not a misconception. It appears that there is a lot of explanation. The church cannot afford to offer reasonable stances on issues that are so limited. If the explanation given is correct one must assume that you have a homosexual male prostitutes that fears damnation from spreading a fatal disease to an unknowing homosexual john. Do you see how ridiculous it is for the church to have any opinion on this subject?
I have to say you are a good sheep for following this bs. [/quote]
You don’t really know what your talking about…The pope said no such thing. He simply stated hypothetically that if one engages in sex with prostitutes, it’s proabably better he wear a rubber than not. Did not change the sinfulness of the acts involved.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
sorry I have been having browser problems and posted with my iphone. It was a struggle.
It appears that it is not a misconception. It appears that there is a lot of explanation. The church cannot afford to offer reasonable stances on issues that are so limited. If the explanation given is correct one must assume that you have a homosexual male prostitutes that fears damnation from spreading a fatal disease to an unknowing homosexual john. Do you see how ridiculous it is for the church to have any opinion on this subject?
I have to say you are a good sheep for following this bs. [/quote]
Except that’s not what the Pope said either.
I’ll paraphrase: He said, it MIGHT be that if a homosexual prostitute (he never said male by the way) would use a condom that it MIGHT BE the first step in showing a sign of conscience that people can’t do whatever they want and that we are responsible for those others that we hurt.
And I’m not sure why you are calling me a good sheep just because I actually put down the $20 to read the interview for myself and find out what the Pope said myself. That doesn’t sound very sheepish to me.[/quote]
First off if you are a Catholic don’t think you are ever anything but a sheep. Your stance on everything has been set by the Catechism. When is the last time the church sent you a survey asking your opinion on anything?
Second, let me give an example that may be more clear in showing the ridiculous nature of the pope having commented on this issue in any context. Imagine that he had said, should a physician chose to perform an abortion on a woman he should do so in a hospital with proper medical devices instead of in an alley with a coat hanger and bottle of vodka to avoid the increased risk of killing the mother in addition to the child.
Lol, that just means that there is more invalid marriages in America than the rest of the world. Makes sense, we’re a bunch of self-entitled people. [/quote]
Sorry but when a spiritual leader who is responsible for assisting in getting my soul to heaven is so easily compromised by monetary motivations I have to be suspect of their overall intentions.
On a side note would you not prefer that the pope spend more time contemplation the costs of having ordained priests that have been accused of pedophilia and the validity of their having been performing the sacrament of communion? After all receiving communion again has an effect on your soul. Only a priest can preform it, but if a priest is molesting a child does he retain that rite, or was he lacking in moral substance and we assume God new that, and despite the actions of the church would not have bestowed that rite on him. Are all confessions heard by priest null and void as well? and if so then how many people has the church condemned to hell by not addressing these molesters? You unfortunately lack the magical powers bestowed on the priests and must rely on them for the salvation of your mortal soul.
I am Catholic in the sense that yes, I believe I am part of the “universal” Church. But no, I am not “catholic catholic”, as in Roman Catholicism (I know you guys don’t like that term, and I do apologize, its just to differentiate).
The apostles never venerated the saints or Mary like the CC does, nor prayed the Rosary, nor had a Pope (no need to argue about the Pope, that has been beaten to death), nor had statues, nor celebrated Christmas or Easter, nor regarded the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture, nor held “sacred” Tradition as equal to Scripture.
When exams are done, I would like to discuss more about Tradition.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
First off if you are a Catholic don’t think you are ever anything but a sheep.[/quote]
Well, I don’t see myself as a sheep, I surely maybe wrong.
However, I did study history for four years, the Early Church Fathers for two years specifically, the doctrines of the Catholic Church in opposition for three years and three years as a sympathizer. I did study theology to understand the Catholic faith for many summers in order to prove Catholicism wrong. But, I maybe just wrong and following orders from a foreign leader I had no allegiance to until I entered the Catholic Church.
I don’t find that everything my faith includes is set by the Catechism, the Catechism has nothing to do with my faith, it is just a tool to teach part of the deep faith of Catholicism. However, what I believe, and I profess to believe every single day of the year like 8th graders pledging their allegiance to the flag…is set by G-d and is found in his Word, both in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
I could be wrong, but I hold that truth is truth, either I believe it or I don’t.
I don’t see that is what the Pope was saying either, may be I am wrong on this. Let’s look at the facts (if you want to disprove me go ahead and pull out some quotes from the book, I have mine but not on me).
The Pope was talking about the consciousness of the world. In a world where people do things for their own sake and not for the good of others (which he defines doing for the good of the other, as love). The Pope then said he believes that the world’s consciousness of others is slowly – maybe – coming back into which we are more and more caring about the good of the other person. The Pope brought up the topic of the homosexual prostitute (which really can be any person who is having sex, not just a prostitute) that uses a condom in order to protect the John. The Pope is not saying that he condom is not illicitly sinful, it is. The Pope is not saying that sex outside marriage is not illicitly sinful, it is. The Pope is saying that the fact that a prostitute would think about using a condom when infected with HIV to protect a John may indicate that the world’s consciousness is coming back to being focused on the goof of others.
Lol, that just means that there is more invalid marriages in America than the rest of the world. Makes sense, we’re a bunch of self-entitled people. [/quote]
Sorry but when a spiritual leader who is responsible for assisting in getting my soul to heaven is so easily compromised by monetary motivations I have to be suspect of their overall intentions. [/quote]
I don’t understand this comment?
[quote]
On a side note would you not prefer that the pope spend more time contemplation the costs of having ordained priests that have been accused of pedophilia and the validity of their having been performing the sacrament of communion?[/quote]
As I am informed, the validity of the sacrament of communion has nothing to do with the sinfulness of the priest. This was established in the early centuries. A priest can be in a state of Mortal Sin, but that does not affect the validity of the Eucharist.
And, are we saying that because a priest is accused of something they are guilty? About half of priests that are accused have the cases dropped.
[quote]
After all receiving communion again has an effect on your soul. Only a priest can preform it, but if a priest is molesting a child does he retain that rite, or was he lacking in moral substance and we assume God new that, and despite the actions of the church would not have bestowed that rite on him.[/quote]
Nope, if a priest is ordained, he is ordained for life. He can never not be a priest because of the indelible mark on his soul. His hands will always be ordained and he will always be able to consecrate the host and perform Mass (privately) until his death. Not something we have to contemplate.
No, sacraments are not valid based on the priest. They are based on if the priest performs the sacrament correctly.
As I said, sacrament’s validity are not based on the priest’s moral standings if he is in a mortal state of sin or not. We already know this. Established about 1800-1850 years ago.
How are the priest’s abilities magic? I mean I have met one or two priests that were also magicians, but none that were magicians based on their priestly abilities.
[quote]forbes wrote:
I am Catholic in the sense that yes, I believe I am part of the “universal” Church. But no, I am not “catholic catholic”, as in Roman Catholicism (I know you guys don’t like that term, and I do apologize, its just to differentiate).[/quote]
Actually it is not. Catholicism is universal. We are the only Church that extends the entire world and all of time. No other Church does that and is one and apostolic.
[quote]
The apostles never venerated the saints or Mary like the CC does[/quote]
Jesus venerated angels.
That’s because the Virgin Mary gave it to St. Dominic 1170.
Then, don’t say it. Because Peter is the Pope. Already proved that.
G-d commanded the Jews to make statues.
Actually they did celebrate Christ’s Mass and Passover (which is Easter).
How do you know this since there was not a canon of the Bible until 400 A.D.
Paul tells the disciples to listen to the traditions he has given them and thanks them for regarding it as the Word of G-d.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
sorry I have been having browser problems and posted with my iphone. It was a struggle.
It appears that it is not a misconception. It appears that there is a lot of explanation. The church cannot afford to offer reasonable stances on issues that are so limited. If the explanation given is correct one must assume that you have a homosexual male prostitutes that fears damnation from spreading a fatal disease to an unknowing homosexual john. Do you see how ridiculous it is for the church to have any opinion on this subject?
I have to say you are a good sheep for following this bs. [/quote]
Except that’s not what the Pope said either.
I’ll paraphrase: He said, it MIGHT be that if a homosexual prostitute (he never said male by the way) would use a condom that it MIGHT BE the first step in showing a sign of conscience that people can’t do whatever they want and that we are responsible for those others that we hurt.
And I’m not sure why you are calling me a good sheep just because I actually put down the $20 to read the interview for myself and find out what the Pope said myself. That doesn’t sound very sheepish to me.[/quote]
First off if you are a Catholic don’t think you are ever anything but a sheep. Your stance on everything has been set by the Catechism. When is the last time the church sent you a survey asking your opinion on anything?
Second, let me give an example that may be more clear in showing the ridiculous nature of the pope having commented on this issue in any context. Imagine that he had said, should a physician chose to perform an abortion on a woman he should do so in a hospital with proper medical devices instead of in an alley with a coat hanger and bottle of vodka to avoid the increased risk of killing the mother in addition to the child.
[/quote]
He wouldn’t. Abortion is murder, the church sides with life…I am a proud sheep. Most people take 30 second snippets from the news media to form their opinions about the church, which makes you a sheep yourself, because you follow the gospel of Nancy Grace.
Lol, that just means that there is more invalid marriages in America than the rest of the world. Makes sense, we’re a bunch of self-entitled people. [/quote]
Sorry but when a spiritual leader who is responsible for assisting in getting my soul to heaven is so easily compromised by monetary motivations I have to be suspect of their overall intentions.
On a side note would you not prefer that the pope spend more time contemplation the costs of having ordained priests that have been accused of pedophilia and the validity of their having been performing the sacrament of communion? After all receiving communion again has an effect on your soul. Only a priest can preform it, but if a priest is molesting a child does he retain that rite, or was he lacking in moral substance and we assume God new that, and despite the actions of the church would not have bestowed that rite on him. Are all confessions heard by priest null and void as well? and if so then how many people has the church condemned to hell by not addressing these molesters? You unfortunately lack the magical powers bestowed on the priests and must rely on them for the salvation of your mortal soul. [/quote]
Ok, so what is it you believe in, or don’t?[/quote]
If the church had done their job better I would still be Catholic today. The urgency that should exist in ensuring the congregations salvation is non-existent. The lack of dedication and leadership as well as the blatant lack of concern shown by the church for matters dealing with molestation, and the annulment of marriage is a major slap in the face to those who would like to have faith in the church and the ability of those they place in leadership to in fact lead. Not all accused are guilty, but they for damn sure are not all innocent. I think that to be a martyr for the faith would be something these priests would be lining up for.
Sorry but showing up on Sunday listening to a story from the bible, taking communion, singing, and occasionally confessing my sins is not the type of life one should be striving for as a Christian.
Participation at the level that the majority of congregations act is insulting to what the practice of religion is to stand for, and the fact that the leadership are almost always equally uninspired and uninvolved is proclamation that the church as it exists is a sham and I would go so far as to say blasphemous in its teaching and practice.
For f-sakes if a guy without a job that has dedicated his life to the church and g-d can’t be more spiritual convincing then why the heck would I go to him for spiritual guidance? He obviously knows nothing more than I do. You can make the argument that there are good priests, but they are the exception and the vast majority better meet my description. You can say well they are just men after all and we are all subject to sin and apathy, and I would agree. So why the need for them at all? 2 things I know for sure I believe is that priest should be allowed to marry, and they should be required to have a trade/job in addition to their priestly duties.
You can stand behind the doctrines and play judge as much as you want but at the end of the day these actions do nothing to ensure your own salvation or those you find to be in violation. I would go so far as to say I believe they impede ones chance of achieving a higher level of spirituality and living a truly Christ-like life. On that note let me say that every Christian I know is a hypocrite, as is every non-Christian, and deserves no second consideration of their opinion or beliefs as the majority has not done a single thing with them anyway. Feel free to ignore me as well, g-d knows I will ignore your doctrine and beliefs unless I reason them to be of value on my own.
The problem with religion is there is no reasoning allowed for the flock. I am glad that your limited experience has allowed you to remain in compliance with the doctrine, and that you feel you would reason on the same side as the church, however it is irrelevant is it not?
Would you compromise your beliefs if you caught your daughter or son being molested? would you kill the person? If you were in a war would you kill your enemy that sought to kill you? Is self defense part of your doctrine? Is protection of your family part of your doctrine? Is murder ever allowed? Or do you count on a non specified clause that will grant your soul forgiveness in these situations?
Thank the Holy Church for saying that the state of a priests souls has no effect on his ability to perform his duties. No doubt as Christ would have had it. Tell me you believe that is both necessary or reasonable… This only further proves the whole thing is a sham, completely unnecessary and even most likely incapable of leading any soul to salvation.
[quote]forbes wrote:
I am Catholic in the sense that yes, I believe I am part of the “universal” Church. But no, I am not “catholic catholic”, as in Roman Catholicism (I know you guys don’t like that term, and I do apologize, its just to differentiate).[/quote]
Actually it is not. Catholicism is universal. We are the only Church that extends the entire world and all of time. No other Church does that and is one and apostolic.
More tomorrow. But Peter is not the first pope. The rock being referred to was his confession of Jesus being the Son of God, not on Peter.
Peter also rebuked a man from bowing down to him, yet many people today bow down to the pope and kiss him. Honor is one thing. But that simply goes beyond honor.
Also:
Peter never mentioned successors.
Peter never had a palace, fancy attire, or a centralized location.
Peter was never regarded as “holy father”
Peter was rebuked by Paul (ya, anyone that tries to rebuke the pope today the way Paul did really wouldn’t make it too far).
1 Corinthians
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Matthew
21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Ok, so what is it you believe in, or don’t?[/quote]
If the church had done their job better I would still be Catholic today. The urgency that should exist in ensuring the congregations salvation is non-existent. The lack of dedication and leadership as well as the blatant lack of concern shown by the church for matters dealing with molestation, and the annulment of marriage is a major slap in the face to those who would like to have faith in the church and the ability of those they place in leadership to in fact lead. Not all accused are guilty, but they for damn sure are not all innocent. I think that to be a martyr for the faith would be something these priests would be lining up for.
Sorry but showing up on Sunday listening to a story from the bible, taking communion, singing, and occasionally confessing my sins is not the type of life one should be striving for as a Christian.
Participation at the level that the majority of congregations act is insulting to what the practice of religion is to stand for, and the fact that the leadership are almost always equally uninspired and uninvolved is proclamation that the church as it exists is a sham and I would go so far as to say blasphemous in its teaching and practice.
For f-sakes if a guy without a job that has dedicated his life to the church and g-d can’t be more spiritual convincing then why the heck would I go to him for spiritual guidance? He obviously knows nothing more than I do. You can make the argument that there are good priests, but they are the exception and the vast majority better meet my description. You can say well they are just men after all and we are all subject to sin and apathy, and I would agree. So why the need for them at all? 2 things I know for sure I believe is that priest should be allowed to marry, and they should be required to have a trade/job in addition to their priestly duties.
You can stand behind the doctrines and play judge as much as you want but at the end of the day these actions do nothing to ensure your own salvation or those you find to be in violation. I would go so far as to say I believe they impede ones chance of achieving a higher level of spirituality and living a truly Christ-like life. On that note let me say that every Christian I know is a hypocrite, as is every non-Christian, and deserves no second consideration of their opinion or beliefs as the majority has not done a single thing with them anyway. Feel free to ignore me as well, g-d knows I will ignore your doctrine and beliefs unless I reason them to be of value on my own.
The problem with religion is there is no reasoning allowed for the flock. I am glad that your limited experience has allowed you to remain in compliance with the doctrine, and that you feel you would reason on the same side as the church, however it is irrelevant is it not?
Would you compromise your beliefs if you caught your daughter or son being molested? would you kill the person? If you were in a war would you kill your enemy that sought to kill you? Is self defense part of your doctrine? Is protection of your family part of your doctrine? Is murder ever allowed? Or do you count on a non specified clause that will grant your soul forgiveness in these situations?
Thank the Holy Church for saying that the state of a priests souls has no effect on his ability to perform his duties. No doubt as Christ would have had it. Tell me you believe that is both necessary or reasonable… This only further proves the whole thing is a sham, completely unnecessary and even most likely incapable of leading any soul to salvation.
[/quote]
You seem to have a lot of questions with unsought answers for someone who claims the Catholic Church failed him. How did it fail you exactly? Is it because it contained people and they screw up and sometimes act in sinister ways?
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
You seem to have a lot of questions with unsought answers for someone who claims the Catholic Church failed him. How did it fail you exactly? Is it because it contained people and they screw up and sometimes act in sinister ways? [/quote]
If you have no questions then please give me the answers.
[quote]forbes wrote:
I am Catholic in the sense that yes, I believe I am part of the “universal” Church. But no, I am not “catholic catholic”, as in Roman Catholicism (I know you guys don’t like that term, and I do apologize, its just to differentiate).[/quote]
Actually it is not. Catholicism is universal. We are the only Church that extends the entire world and all of time. No other Church does that and is one and apostolic.
More tomorrow. But Peter is not the first pope. The rock being referred to was his confession of Jesus being the Son of God, not on Peter.
Peter also rebuked a man from bowing down to him, yet many people today bow down to the pope and kiss him. Honor is one thing. But that simply goes beyond honor.
Also:
Peter never mentioned successors.
Peter never had a palace, fancy attire, or a centralized location.
Peter was never regarded as “holy father”
Peter was rebuked by Paul (ya, anyone that tries to rebuke the pope today the way Paul did really wouldn’t make it too far).
1 Corinthians
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Matthew
21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
[quote]forbes wrote:
I am Catholic in the sense that yes, I believe I am part of the “universal” Church. But no, I am not “catholic catholic”, as in Roman Catholicism (I know you guys don’t like that term, and I do apologize, its just to differentiate).[/quote]
Actually it is not. Catholicism is universal. We are the only Church that extends the entire world and all of time. No other Church does that and is one and apostolic.
More tomorrow. But Peter is not the first pope. The rock being referred to was his confession of Jesus being the Son of God, not on Peter.
Peter also rebuked a man from bowing down to him, yet many people today bow down to the pope and kiss him. Honor is one thing. But that simply goes beyond honor.
Also:
Peter never mentioned successors.
Peter never had a palace, fancy attire, or a centralized location.
Peter was never regarded as “holy father”
Peter was rebuked by Paul (ya, anyone that tries to rebuke the pope today the way Paul did really wouldn’t make it too far).
1 Corinthians
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Matthew
21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
[/quote]
does this put you with the agnostics?
[/quote]
Nope. Im Christian. But I believe what the first Christians believed, which was Scripture, and not man made tradition.
[quote]forbes wrote:
I am Catholic in the sense that yes, I believe I am part of the “universal” Church. But no, I am not “catholic catholic”, as in Roman Catholicism (I know you guys don’t like that term, and I do apologize, its just to differentiate).[/quote]
Actually it is not. Catholicism is universal. We are the only Church that extends the entire world and all of time. No other Church does that and is one and apostolic.
More tomorrow. But Peter is not the first pope. The rock being referred to was his confession of Jesus being the Son of God, not on Peter.[/quote]
Actually, Peter is the first Pope. It’s historical. I mean sure you can ignore history if you wish, but that’s kind of dumb.
[quote]
Peter also rebuked a man from bowing down to him, yet many people today bow down to the pope and kiss him. Honor is one thing. But that simply goes beyond honor.[/quote]
Peter rebuked a man, not for bowing down to him, but worshiping him. Don’t twist scripture.
[quote]
Also:
Peter never mentioned successors.[/quote]
Why would he have to? However, the Early Church Fathers did, like St. Augustine: “If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, â??Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.â?? Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
[quote]
Peter never had a palace, fancy attire, or a centralized location.[/quote]
Kind of hard to when your enemy of the state #1.
[quote]
Peter was never regarded as “holy father”[/quote]
I’m sure he was regarded as Father though.
[quote]
Peter was rebuked by Paul (ya, anyone that tries to rebuke the pope today the way Paul did really wouldn’t make it too far).[/quote]
And, Jesus rebuked both. Yet, you’re Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.
In first Century Greek the word Petros and petras are synonyms.
I agree 100%, but this is talking about OTHER MEN building on Jesus Christ the foundation. There is one Rock, but we are all rocks in the one Rock. However, Jesus still said that he was going to build his Church on Peter.
[quote]
Matthew
21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?[/quote]
Yes, and I agree one hundred percent with what the verse says. However, you’re still ignoring the fact that Peter’s name means rock. And, Peter has primacy over all the Apostles.
Then how come Jesus himself calls Abraham, Father Abraham. How come Paul calls himself Father, and others Father as well?
