A compelling non-Catholic argument

[guanophore]

No doubt Peter was a leader in the NT church. The question though was he the only head? What is the evidence that he alone was the supreme head of the entire church and all the other apostles spoke of him this way?
If you study the scriptures you won’t see an affirmative answer to these questions. In fact Peter in his 2 letters never makes such a claim for himself either.

This kind of thinking exists only in your mind, ja4. Be transformed, by the renewing of your mind! Jettison these secular ways of thinking! There has only ever been, or will be, one Head of the Church. His name is Jesus. People that set themselves up as “Heads” of Churches have left the path of Christ.

This attitude of “supremacy” that you hold is not Christlike, and it was not found in the Church, which is why it is not in the Bible. Jesus taught that the Apostles should was one another’s feet. You are the only one making this claim. It is an attempt to bear false witness against your neighbor.

I do what i can for the truth…

This is you, admitting that your purpose here is to try to convince Catholics to abandon their faith.

Read further on in Acts 15:19 where we read that it was James who made the decision and not Peter.

This is not correct, ja4. All the Apostles were in unity together. They shared their experiences together, prayed together, and came to a decision together. It isn’t Paul or Peter, Peter or James. They were all in accord.

Acts 15:25-29
25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, … 28 For **it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us **to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

This is the same way it works today. Decisions are made by what seems good to the Magesterium (teaching authority appointed by Christ) and the HS. One accord.

There are just to many catholics confused on this issue like yourself that tells me it needs to be continually discussed.

I know you think that the Catholic Church “lost” the Teachings of Jesus and the Apostles at some point, and taught “wrong” because that is what you have said on other threads. however, we are not “confused”. What is confusing is that we reject the
new doctrines formed at the Reformation, because they separate scripture from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

 

[elt1956]

This thread is going no where. :banghead:

 

[CentralFLJames]

This thread is going no where. :banghead:

Its almost limit locked now. I so wish that the forum operators and mods would start enforcing some kind of anti-catholic policy and start banning individuals from threads when we see them start the circular arguments and filibustering techniques. I am sickened of how 1 or 2 people can completely ruin good intellectual dialog by hijacking these threads and wrapping everything around a fundamentalist axle.

We need a voting mechanism on individuals that lets us ban our grade them so that others new here can know that the person has been peer reviewed and where they stand with respect to insight and sincerity in wanting to objectively know our Catholic Faith. My fear is we are doing more harm than good when the spoilers come in here and ruin it for all…

James

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3438911]
Originally Posted by justasking4
It is Paul who wrote Galatians. Paul states that he was going to meet not just with Peter but 2 other leaders.

Read further on in Acts 15:19 where we read that it was James who made the decision and not Peter.

CentralFLJames
I can’t get over how far you will go to make any personal interpretation you can, no matter how absurd it is, to try and make a case for anything that opposes Catholic Teaching. Why do you hate The Catholic Church JA4? Who put all the treachery and scorn for Catholics in your heart?

You know very well that when the ship captain calls his officers together in council that all these are leaders of the working crew of the ship but they are all unified under the captain’s command. No matter how much you like the idea of a democratic process the Early Church was not a majority rule of peers. Peter was the head. When Peter’s asserted his authority James immediately recognized Peter’s authority and shut his mouth and listened for instruction. Once Peter saw that James accepted his authority Peter concurred with James’ assessment and let him assert it with his concurrence. Peter is head of the church no matter how much that messes up your notion of a christian commune all sitting around the campfire while pointing at each other’s bibles and nodding and smiling at each other as they sing kumbaya.

Here again the inspired-inerrant Scriptures refutes your position in Acts 15:22-23
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,
23 and they sent this letter by them,“The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.

As you can see when instruction are given to what the church will do it is not from Peter’s command but from all the apostles and elders. The “Early Church was a majority rule of peers.”

CentralFLJames
What you mean is that you do not feel comfortable being left standing alone outside the church in the cold and dark with no one inside paying any attention to your private teaching.

James

:doh2: :crying:

 

[CentralFLJames]

Here again the inspired-inerrant Scriptures refutes your position in Acts 15:22-23
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,
23 and they sent this letter by them,“The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.

As you can see when instruction are given to what the church will do it is not from Peter’s command but from all the apostles and elders. The “Early Church was a majority rule of peers.”

:doh2: :crying:

Nope. You do not understand the difference of scope between the diocese and The Church. Its as fundamentally different as a state is from a nation.
You also changed my scriptural context. Go back to the verse on James.

CentralFLJames:
From that context its clear everyone fell silent when Peter spoke infallibly, and the bishops made their contributions in accordance with their office. The argument that James ruled the whole Church at the Council of Jerusalem and not Peter has no biblical basis whatsoever.
James ruled in his diocese like he was supposed to.
Peter ruled the Church like he was supposed to.
It’s been that way ever since.

QED

James

 

[guanophore]

Here again the inspired-inerrant Scriptures refutes your position in Acts 15:22-23
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,
23 and they sent this letter by them,“The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.

As you can see when instruction are given to what the church will do it is not from Peter’s command but from all the apostles and elders. The “Early Church was a majority rule of peers.”

This is not the case, ja4. I think you are looking at the scriptures from the point of view of your own political system. On the contrary, the early Church did things by consensus of the Magesterium, just the same as it is done today. Jesus is Head of the church. It is not a democracy, it is a theocracy. The Church is ensouled by the HS, who works through the Apostles and elders to create doctrine. This is how Jesus set it up.
justasking4;3440089:

:doh2: :crying:

There is a simple solution to this, ja4. Stop using CAF as a forum to convert people, and you will get a lot less criticism, and more warming embrace.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Nope. You do not understand the difference of scope between the diocese and The Church. Its as fundamentally different as a state is from a nation.

You also changed scriptural context on me. My original statement was with respect to James. Go back to
CentralFLJames;3438590:
From here its plain that everyone fell silent when Peter spoke infallibly, and the bishops made their contributions in accordance with their office. The argument that James ruled the whole Church at the Council of Jerusalem and not Peter has no biblical basis whatsoever.
James ruled in his diocese like he was supposed to.
Peter ruled the Church like he was supposed to.
It’s been that way ever since.

QED

James

 

[sodak]

Its almost limit locked now. I so wish that the forum operators and mods would start enforcing some kind of anti-catholic policy and start banning individuals from threads when we see them start the circular arguments and filibustering techniques. I am sickened of how 1 or 2 people can completely ruin good intellectual dialog by hijacking these threads and wrapping everything around a fundamentalist axle.

We need a voting mechanism on individuals that lets us ban our grade them so that others new here can know that the person has been peer reviewed and where they stand with respect to insight and sincerity in wanting to objectively know our Catholic Faith. My fear is we are doing more harm than good when the spoilers come in here and ruin it for all…

James

I AGREE! You get people like this, stirring the pot just for the sake of stirring, and it wastes a lot of time and energy. It’s really a shame, I have questions that I want to ask other Catholics about our faith, but you better believe that I’m not going to do it here! That’s all I would need, to have to listen to a bunch of fundamentalist thinking, when I’m looking for a Catholic perspective. I wish we had a Catholic only forum to discuss things sometimes.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

From Protestantman
I have shown the scripture. The underlined point, is that Paul did not get any instruction from the Apostles. NONE. NOTHING. NADA. ZERO.

Let’s see. according to my Bible, in Acts 9:19 "Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus."

Yep, you’re probably right. It doesn’t say that Paul went to Bible college, so he must not have learned anything from the disciples he spent time with, nor from any of the apostles he visited a few years later – they must’ve just slept, or traded recipe cards, or something.

From Protestantman
His teaching was not from the result of the Laying on of hands. The verse that talks about Ananias, is talking specifically about the laying on of hands TO HEAL.

Wait, I’m confused. I thought you claimed that Paul got knowledge & authority from God directly. Are you saying here that Paul taught completely on his own, without any instruction from either other disciples/apostles but not even from the Holy Spirit?

Paul was not only healed of his blindness by Ananias.

Acts 9:17
"Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again AND be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

From Protestantman
Bingo. Uncertainty. But the fact remains, that Paul went to Jeruselam a second time, and was excepted as an Apostle then. Why would he have done this, if he had already been accepted 11 years before?

Actually, in poring over scripture, I notice that the Council of Jerusalem seems to be at least the third time Paul went to Jerusalem.

Instance #1 - Acts 9:26 & Gal. 1:18
Instance #2 - Acts 11:30
Instance #3 (for the Council of Jerusalem) - Acts 15:2 & Gal. 2:1

Given the time he had already been in Jerusalem, as well as Antioch, and had already met some of the apostles, what “proves” that Paul had NOT already been ordained?

I know that Gal. 2:9 states that “James, Peter & John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.”

The council discussed the question of whether the Gentiles needed to be circumcised, a question that had not been answered. Paul & Barnabus had been teaching in the negative, but went to Jerusalem to consult with the rest of the apostles about it.

Paul had been teaching this correctly, as confirmed by the rest of the apostles & Peter as the head.

From Protestantman
Yes I do. Yet Scripture never made the claim that such a position even existed. When does it say in scripture, that the Apostolic gifts were to be handed to a successor? When does scripture say that Timothy was anything more than a Disciple? Other than the 13 origional Apostles, when does scripture call anyone else an Apostle? Does scripture say that Barnabus was an Apostle(SPECIFICALLY)?

Yes, there is plenty off scriptural & historic evidence to support not only apostolic succession, but that there were other apostles than the original 13, including Paul. For example,Matthias & Barnabus. I know others were noted as apostles as well, but I forget where off the top of my head.

And yes, SPECIFICALLY, Barnabus is called an apostle in Acts 14:14.
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd,…

From Protestantman
You assume that his acceptance was absolutely neccesary to teach what Christ himself told him. He recieved neither Instruction OR authority from the Apostles, but from the mouth of Christ.

I don’t know about others, but I don’t assume that Paul had to be accepted to learn what was necessary to preach the entire gospel, as with God anything is possible.

However, Christ setup a certain manner for the authority he handed down to be passed on, & there is nothing in the Bible to show that God “magically” bypassed this process with Paul, especially given the numerous times that he could have been ordained that occurred between Paul’s baptism & the first time he was called an apostle.

I know I’ve seen threads that at least touch tangentially on the issue of exactly when Paul was ordained, but nothing really that conclusive. I think I’m going to start researching that next.

By CentralFLJames
We need a voting mechanism on individuals that lets us ban our grade them so that others new here can know that the person has been peer reviewed and where they stand with respect to insight and sincerity in wanting to objectively know our Catholic Faith.

Good idea!

Chris

 

[Orionthehunter]

I AGREE! You get people like this, stirring the pot just for the sake of stirring, and it wastes a lot of time and energy. It’s really a shame, I have questions that I want to ask other Catholics about our faith, but you better believe that I’m not going to do it here! That’s all I would need, to have to listen to a bunch of fundamentalist thinking, when I’m looking for a Catholic perspective. I wish we had a Catholic only forum to discuss things sometimes.

We as Catholics need to appreciate our blessings. We have found the Truth and it is our obligation to spread the Truth. I just figure my job is to converse and let the Holy Spirit convict.

 

[CentralFLJames]

We as Catholics need to appreciate our blessings. We have found the Truth and it is our obligation to spread the Truth. I just figure my job is to converse and let the Holy Spirit convict.

This is a great perspective OH. I need to discipline myself to think more as an instrument by which the Holy Spirit flows through than as an instrument of my own will. My problem is that I think God is pulling me in way deeper than I originally imagined I would go and now I don’t think I am going to ever be able to get back to being “normal” again with my own life and any time for myself again. Maybe its time to just surrender and enter religious orders…?

Sigh… was it Nikos Kazantzakis, author of The Last Temptation of Christ who warned about how God dupes those who let themselves approach too close to Himself and how He takes over their lives?

James

 

[Judewang]

It is not a question of whether or not the Catholic doctrines are “perfect”. In earlier times, the Catholic Church did not hide the fact that she made many mistakes. First the conception of the Earthly Church as “a perfect society” - which over time proved not to be what Christ wanted and the “Dark Ages” was perhaps one of the consequences of this misinterpretation of what Christ meant when he prayed, “May they all be One” But still the Catholic Church survived. I think the faithful Catholics are immuned to these and many other scandals not because we are “stubborn”. Rather we believe that Christ came for people like us - sinners - but called to be saints by the grace and power of the Holy Trinity. Everyday we are called to conversion for so long as we live. So, the questioin of “perfection” is not ours to claim - Only Jesus Christ is perfect. And this is what makes us ONE even with Catholics of the Eastern Rites. WE HAVE ONE TRADITION AND WE HAVE ONE CREED (NICENE and later CONSTANTINOPLE). This is what is keeping the Eastern and Western Catholics in communion. Even so, the Catholic Church never stops to call the Protestants to share this communion. But…hmm

But I don’t see and sense the same spirit of communion existing amongst the Protestants because they keep on fighting and disagreeing about Scriptures (Sola Scriptura). Since the time of Martin Luther, I wonder how many hundreds of denominations/congregations exists today.

But the Catholics are not so…mind you even amongst the 8-10 million Catholics in China are (at ground level) united by the same creed. In China it’s the politics of the Communist regime that’s trying to divide them NOT the ordinary Chinese Catholics themselves.

I think the first thing we must admit is that WE are not perfect. And since the institutional Church is the body of Christ - it too is NOT perfect but unceasingly called to be perfect so that one day she may become the worth bride of Christ. This is our hope and this is our faith - to hope for the impossible because to God, everything is possible!

 

[Judewang]

But I don’t see and sense the same spirit of communion existing amongst the Protestants because they keep on fighting and disagreeing about Scriptures (Sola Scriptura). Since the time of Martin Luther, I wonder how many hundreds of denominations/congregations exists today.

By the way…didn’t Jesus Christ say, “You pore over the scriptures, believing that in them you can find eternal life; it is these scriptures that testify to me, and yet you refuse to come to me to receive life!” ??? (John 5:39-40)

Scripture has a place BUT without tradition and the magisterium, the Bible will remain like a story book - without life. Both the tradition and the magisterium is passed down over the generations in faith - in the same way that the faith of Abraham was passed down from one generation to the next. And faith is not just a concept but an experience. By poring over the Scriptures with this or that theology - we are no different from the Pharisees unless we can relate it with our faith experience - because the Scriptures is meant to inspire our human spirit to worship of God in Spirit and in Truth.

Talking about tradition, Jesus Christ became man and lived amongst the Jews. He followed the Jewish tradition but gave it a new meaning - by fulfilling them in his own life. So what we inherit from the Jews, we should keep especially the Easter Celebration = Passover.

 

[elt1956]

Its almost limit locked now. I so wish that the forum operators and mods would start enforcing some kind of anti-catholic policy and start banning individuals from threads when we see them start the circular arguments and filibustering techniques. I am sickened of how 1 or 2 people can completely ruin good intellectual dialog by hijacking these threads and wrapping everything around a fundamentalist axle.

We need a voting mechanism on individuals that lets us ban our grade them so that others new here can know that the person has been peer reviewed and where they stand with respect to insight and sincerity in wanting to objectively know our Catholic Faith. My fear is we are doing more harm than good when the spoilers come in here and ruin it for all…

James

I wholeheartedly agree. Can’t we contact the moderaters to let them know what we see is going on? Peace

 

[Michael_Francis]

Over the thousand post limit and closed.
MF