And you consider that a fundamental difference comparable to that between an Arminian and a Calvinist? Moreover, why do Catholics use that verse?What does the Catechsim of the Catholic Church say? It’s interesting how Protestants automatically know that Catholics believe that Peter was the first “pope of Rome.”
What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say on this issue?
mikeledes;3416329]
Probably not and we should not expect protestants to agree anyway since its been reported that there are over 33,000 different denominations. To have any differences in the catholic church is something i would think would suprise you considering its claims.
It has something to do with the marian doctrines.
i don’t know.
i suppose your right until they look at the evidence and believe otherwise after.
i don’t know. However the church has held different views of this.
We all say that this is a multilayered passage that refers to three different things at the same time - Mother Mary, the Church, and faithful Israel. At different times, we talk about the three different aspects of this passage as they relate to whatever point we happen to be making at that time.
Peter was appointed Chief Shepherd of the Church during the time between the Resurrection and the Ascension of Christ. We see this in John 21:15-19.
Technically no, but in practice, it’s better to be a good Catholic than to take your chances and risk the hope that you are invincibly ignorant enough to make it in some other way.
The following is a pretty good summary of the history of canonization.
You know JTA4 in your 3,000+ posts since you have been here you have been asking these same questions over and over and over again as if expecting to get a different answer. We always tell you the same thing or point you to the CCC.
No thanks, we Catholics are already baptised in truth and are immune to a repetitive water torture kind of test of our faith. Why not try a change of style and assume for a moment that The Catholics just might have it right? Stand in our shoes and start examining scripture from an assumption of correct teaching and see if this explains why so many of the early Christians were willing to be martyred for their faith 400 years before anyone had a written cannon in their hands that was called “a bible”. 
We are not saying that there are absolutely no differences among Catholics within certain parameters established by the teaching authority of the Church. The differences among Protestants are fundamental and deal with the very core of the Gospel, salvation. The only thing Protestants agree upon in this issue is the use of the phrase “justification by faith alone.” This phrase, however, means different and contradictory things among different Protestants. Arminians vs. Calvinists are just one example.Probably not and we should not expect protestants to agree anyway since its been reported that there are over 33,000 different denominations. To have any differences in the catholic church is something i would think would suprise you considering its claims.
Doctrines that all Catholics are supposed to believe and which Protestants are somehow easily able to identify as Catholic.
.
The only thing Protestants agree on is that Catholics are wrong. I don’t blame them because we came before them and Catholicism has to be wrong in order for Protestantism to be right.
Not that I’m aware of.
Is this in scripture, or is it Tradition? ie. authority through Peter. As I said I am a bit fuzzy about sources. Thanks. Peace.If you could remember your references regarding this, I would really like to read them. I have read so much controversy about whether Peter was considered the head of the church and my memory is so hazy on sources, I would appreciate any help I can get. Thanks.
If you could remember your references regarding this, I would really like to read them. I have read so much controversy about whether Peter was considered the head of the church and my memory is so hazy on sources, I would appreciate any help I can get. Thanks.
Okay, pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between " Bishop of Rome" and Pope? Is Peter called both because at the beginning, before being given the “keys” by Christ, he was one disciple among others. Were the other disciples called Bishops? Do you know? I don’t. Please inform. Thanks. Peace.
Dear Protestantman. In all sincerity, I am asking how does the Church persecute others? In this day and age, or are you talking about other times and eras? Thanks. Peace.
I was wondering the same thing. All I could think of was perhaps that some non-Catholics felt intimidated, insecure and bullied by the profound intellect, pedigree and credentials of our pope, cardinals, bishops, clergy, university professors and theological leaders compared to non-Catholic leaders. The truth is, when it comes to theology few if any people on the planet can stand eye to eye and head to head with the intellectualism of such recent popes as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI nor the Catholic Church leadership and lay members in general; much less the spiritual achievement.Dear Protestantman. In all sincerity, I am asking how does the Church persecute others? In this day and age, or are you talking about other times and eras? Thanks. Peace.
I would say both.Is this in scripture, or is it Tradition? ie. authority through Peter. As I said I am a bit fuzzy about sources. Thanks. Peace.
He is Bishop of the Diocese of Rome, which is a Diocese just like the Diocese of Calgary or the Diocese of Denver, etc.Okay, pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between " Bishop of Rome" and Pope? Is Peter called both because at the beginning, before being given the “keys” by Christ, he was one disciple among others. Were the other disciples called Bishops? Do you know? I don’t. Please inform. Thanks. Peace.
No, ja4. Jesus would not instruct His disciples to “do all things that they tell you, for they sit in the seat of Moses” if it was erroneous. They were hypocrites, and Jesus instructed them to “do not as they do”. If they were teaching error, why did Jesus tell the disiples to follow it? that just makes no sense at all.
Luther, Calvin, Zwingli
When you say things like “your church” ja4, it seems to indicate that you do not realize that Jesus only founded One Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, and all who are in Christ are members of his one body. Such an expression denotes a divisive mindset.
This is impossible. How could Romans, and other apostolic books, have existed before Christ?
73 books in the Old Testament, or 73 books total?
It amounted to nothing = it did not save them from sin. You are missunderstanding the point. If salvation could have been gained through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
No, you are wrong. I always question any assumption that were a result of anothers teachings. My beliefs are my own. Regardless of whether they agree with Calvin, Luther or Zingwe, I never just assumed they were correct. My beliefs come from my own personal study of the word. I do not know whether or not there are supposed to be more or less books in the bible. This judgement will not rest on my head, but the head of the one who added or deleted. I do trust that the 66 were inspired by the prophets and the apostles
History to me is the fallible way in which humans try to make sense of what has happened. History begins with our immediate family, then goes back and beyond to our ancestors and even further back. Some history may not be exact, but it does give us a link to the thoughts and beliefs that have helped us form a chain down to the present. If you ignore history, you have only a half life and half of the whole. Peace.
The perhaps you need to rethink what you believe and question the sources that have fed you thus far. They may cite scriptures and tell you they mean certain things but the fact is that they lack any authority but their own, and they do not agree with other scripture on the same topic or with the verifiable writings of the early church.
The point is that when you tell me that you know better than the church to whom Christ gave His authority and contradict and oppose their teachings, you declare yourself a defacto authority, even when you are proven wrong.
That’s good.
Yes, I forgive you.
I consider myself to be a Christian, and nothing else.
This is true. I believe that this is one area where the Catholic Church prospers and the Protestant Church craps out. I think that the weaker structure of the reformation churches is much more succeptable to this. The protestant church ends up being like a Baskin Robins, or a buffet.
I see this too. Notice that many times the arguments are absolutely unessesary. I personally do not care if its pre, post, or mid. These rediculous splits are a result of worldly arguments, that are often started by people who do not want truth, only victory.
I agree. These kinds of Churches are full of people who are not living in the HS. These are usually full of those who think they are saved because they go every week. Worldy disputes like this are not from the fruits of the Spirit. It also makes me understand why Catholics think we are all this way.
The basis is Christ. Outside of that, there is much disagreement.
This is a result of poor leadership. In the church I attend, there is a decent structure. This is not true of all non-denom churches though. There are at least two others in my church that would take over if my father left, and the church would continue on without him. My father made sure that there was always a good structure of elders. In this, the church is not solely dependant on one person for any task.
I agree, I wish that protestants would be more unified with each other.
It is because the structure is weak. 3 little denominations and the big bad Devil:thumbsup: This is exactly why I want the total unification of the body of Christ. There is strength and power in unity.