T
Teneas
Guest
I suppose I should applaud you for a statement that I have encountered as a way to actually name those of a certain faith or denomination as that evil one.
Answer my question, if you can.
- Status
Answer my question, if you can.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Not always. If Scripture does not teach about a subject, then Tradition can not be parallel with nothing.
Tradition can Illuminate Scripture. If I do not understand a Bible passage, I look to the Early Church Fathers and see if they had anything to say about it.
J
Justy90
Guest
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Just because Mary was sinless, does not mean that Jesus did not save her.
If Jesus’ Body and Blood exist in the Eucharist, then what does it matter how many defines it. He is only present because of who he is and what he does, not any of us.
I do not know much about Anglicans, except I know that some are coming back to the RCC or it’s teachings.
Do you think that your Church has the Full Knowledge of Christs teachings? The Bible alone (while it does do a pretty good job) does not contain everything because it was never meant to. The Church which Jesus founded on Peter, that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against, and is the Pillar of Truth. This is what Jesus wanted, one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, not many different church’s that interpret the Scriptures how they see fit. From what I understand the Anglican Church was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry. Now I know this past action in no way defines your church today, but why do you reject Catholicism when King Henry only did because he could not get a divorce?
J
jericho777
Guest
Scripture does not establish or teach Peter was Pope it is catholic doctrine. Peter had many oppourtunities to establish the office but never any where in scripture does he do this. The excuse given every time is that he was humble. That’s nonsense because he noe anyone else never establishes or referrences the office any where because it does not exist.
T
Teneas
Guest
Depends upon your interpretation doesn’t it?
J
jericho777
Guest
It depends if you are going to let scripture say what it says even if it goes against Church teaching. That takes courage!
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
That was my point with the Trinity. I can say no where is the Trinity ( 3 persons but 1 God) established. There are references to the Father. There are references to the Son. There are references to the Holy Spirit. But no where is the Trinity established.
- Jesus told Peter that He would build His Church upon him.
- We then have many situations from Acts where Peter takes the leadership role.
- We then have many situations where Rome is looked to as having Authority.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Scripture and Church teachings have always been in alignment. It took Pride for Martin Luther to break away from the Church and add the word ‘alone’ to the Bible.
R
raggetyann
Guest
I thought i coud get your attention and give you a breather, I mean after all you are a fighter and even a great fighter needs a break now and then.
raggetyann
J
jericho777
Guest
The Trinity is clearly demonstrated throughout the bible. The foundation and complete revelation is plainly laid out. The argument you are using is the one used by JW’s in relationship to Jesus and His divinity. Where as throughout both OT and NT Jesus is demonstrated as God incarnate. Peter, Paul, and John all exercise great authority in scripture. No one ever refers to Peter as pope. He only refers to himself as a fellow elder nothing more.
J
Justy90
Guest
And many Anglicans left the RCC and wouldn’t return on a bet.
Oh my gosh. This is poppycock. Can you stop with the usuall rhetoric and the “we are better than you are garbage”? King Henry sought an annulment and if you knew anything about history, he wasn’t granted it because the Vatican was surrounded by the army of the king who vehimately pushed the pope not to grant it. It was politics, not righteousness by any stretch. And why would you think that the pope would grant a divorce when Catholicism declares that there is no such thing? Better do some research on your own denomination while you are learning something about Anglicanism because clearly as you said earlier, you don’t know much about it.
J
Justy90
Guest
spot on.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Oh? Perhaps you can refer me to the verse which explains that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all consubstantial and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son instead of from the Father alone. I’m sure your Orthodox brothers will be very interested in the evidence you provide.
Since the word “pope” is a merely a title that developed later, we should not expect to see it in the pages of the NT. However, we do find passages which reveal the primacy of Peter throughout the gospels and epistles. As for the “fellow elder” comment, I look forward to your response to the following:
1 Peter 5:1 – Peter a “fellow elder”
Many non-Catholics try to minimize the authority of the Catholic Papacy by pointing to 1 Peter 5:1 where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” and claiming that Peter was nothing special because he considers himself equal to all the other elders?
However, could it be possible that the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?
1 Peter 5:1-7
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 5Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.
Peter’s desire was that some of the recipients of this letter might have been moved by seeing that he of all people had humbled himself by calling himself a mere “fellow elder”? Would this have inspired them to practice humility, also?
Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”
Peter was first among the Apostles, and he viewed himself as the servant of all - a “fellow elder” - just as Jesus had taught him to do. Peter’s unwillingness to trumpet his own importance is evidence that he truly was “first” among the Twelve.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
And no where does anyone ever use the word Trinity.
My point is that we know God is a Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in much the same way that Peter is the Pope.
I mean, look at what the Pope does today…then look at what role Peter played in the Early Church…they are basically the same.
Sure the Church of today looks “different” from the Early Church, but the Early Church was small, where as the RCC is over a billion. Logistically, the Church had to evolve to meet the needs of the People. But the Pope serves the same role that Peter served.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Oh my gosh. This is poppycock. Can you stop with the usuall rhetoric and the “we are better than you are garbage”? King Henry sought an annulment and if you knew anything about history, he wasn’t granted it because the Vatican was surrounded by the army of the king who vehimately pushed the pope not to grant it. It was politics, not righteousness by any stretch. And why would you think that the pope would grant a divorce when Catholicism declares that there is no such thing? Better do some research on your own denomination while you are learning something about Anglicanism because clearly as you said earlier, you don’t know much about it.
Sorry to get you all heated. Fact is, King Henry left the Church and started his own. The reason doesn’t really matter.
Do you think that Jesus wanted King Henry to break away from the Church and therefore Jesus has continued to look at Anglicans as the True Church?
or
Was that a mistake, but today Anglicans are now back to being the Church that Jesus founded?
J
jericho777
Guest
Like I said earlier you always say he was humble so he never said he was pope. That’s simply not true he demonstrates time after time he was a fellow elder. That title elder is a biblical one. Nothing more nothing less.
J
jericho777
Guest
I will hold to the clear teaching of scripture on both.
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
Read the book “Upon this Rock” by Stephen Ray if you really want to see ALL the evidence, not just random pieces here and there. Unless you do not want to see
G
GratefulFred
Guest
It’s been an interesting discussion. I have learned alot about the history. I’d need a formal course to offer any corrections to anyone regarding how the Bible came to be over the years. Year 397 is longer than America has been a country. Perhaps my Catholic commitment colors my perception, but it seems that our Protestant brothers and sisters continue to protest too much. On this thread it seems there is more questioning of the Catholic positions than sound reasoning for the Protestant positions. Protest is not reasoning that supports a valid claim of having Christ’s authority. When the Pope does exercise Christ’s authority in a particular way, he has the infallibility of Christ. The Pope is not infallible in all he says, just on the crucial matters of Faith.
Tradition does not compete against Scripture. Tradition compliments Scripture because Scripture makes reference to Tradition as being part of Christ’s teachings.
Asking WHY a word or a rule was or was not written in Scripture is intellectually interesting, but it really has NOTHING to do with our FAITH (believing in what cannot be fully proved by intellect alone) in Jesus Christ and trying our best to follow those He put in charge.
As the Church grew and various ideas cropped up, meetings were held and decisions made by those to whom Christ’s authority extended. Because they considered the arguments of the day and took a decision with the authority given them by Christ, I accept it. It is near useless to ask why they did not analyze any issue as I might some 500, 1,000, 1500, 2000 years later.
Whatever any one may come up with as a plausible alternative is, in the end, guess work without the advantage of Christ’s authority. The now many Protest Churches are less than 600 years old. They simply do not have a clear line of authority FROM Christ. Most have established their own church for their own reasons, well intentioned or not.
So as the discussion continues, let us remember Matthew 18 and the child like faith we should have in Christ:
1 At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, 3 And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. 6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.
6* “Shall scandalize”… That is, shall put a stumbling block in their way*, and cause them to fall into sin.
7* “It must be”… Viz., considering the wickedness and corruption of the world. *
Tradition does not compete against Scripture. Tradition compliments Scripture because Scripture makes reference to Tradition as being part of Christ’s teachings.
Asking WHY a word or a rule was or was not written in Scripture is intellectually interesting, but it really has NOTHING to do with our FAITH (believing in what cannot be fully proved by intellect alone) in Jesus Christ and trying our best to follow those He put in charge.
As the Church grew and various ideas cropped up, meetings were held and decisions made by those to whom Christ’s authority extended. Because they considered the arguments of the day and took a decision with the authority given them by Christ, I accept it. It is near useless to ask why they did not analyze any issue as I might some 500, 1,000, 1500, 2000 years later.
Whatever any one may come up with as a plausible alternative is, in the end, guess work without the advantage of Christ’s authority. The now many Protest Churches are less than 600 years old. They simply do not have a clear line of authority FROM Christ. Most have established their own church for their own reasons, well intentioned or not.
So as the discussion continues, let us remember Matthew 18 and the child like faith we should have in Christ:
1 At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, 3 And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. 6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.
6* “Shall scandalize”… That is, shall put a stumbling block in their way*, and cause them to fall into sin.
7* “It must be”… Viz., considering the wickedness and corruption of the world. *
- Status