About the keys that were given to Peter in Matthew

[rwoehmke]

Forcing Gentiles to follow Jewish customs is clearly an error in faith/doctrine.

That is one way to look at it. Consider however that it may not have been so much an an error, but how it seemed to be when most Christians did indeed stem from Jewish converts. Now we move on to a second, or some say a third phase with the Samaritans being the second, and it doesn’t make sense to Paul, because Paul through his work among the gentiles and observing how they behave and believe as converts has tumbled to the fact that Salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone and not through Jesus Christ and the Mosaic Law. It was not the Mosaic law that changed their hearts, but Jesus Christ. Having worked almost exclusively among Jews, Samaritans, and some like Cornelius who was a Jewish sympathizer, Peter would not have as good a chance to make the connection that Paul did. You will note that when Paul, Peter, James, and the others got together in Jerusalem that Peter was not resistant to Paul’s new insight. So can we really conclude that Peter taught in error when he observed that it was following the Mosiac Law and believing in Jesus that seemed to lead to conversion? That was how it worked with those who dealt mainly with Jewish converts, why would he believe differently. It was certainly not spelled out in the Old Testament and evidently not spelled out in Jesus’s teachings.

This might be considered an early example of how particular doctrines or teachings become more fully understood with study, prayer and the passage of time. A fuller understanding does not make the original doctrine an error…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Peter was not perfect – nor has any man other than Christ been perfect. But Christ made Peter His instrument and steward – and Peter filled the job.

 

[Ilroy]

Judas was replaced in fulfillment of a prophecy. You’re really reaching there. It does not follow that because Judas was replaced, everyone else would be.

So, how will Christ be with His Church until the end of time if there was no Church to be with. Logically, if there were no successors the Church would simply quit being at the death of the last Apostle.

Peter was never the supreme authority. Paul challenged his life and his teachings when they were incorrect. Galatians 2:14 is a clear example of Peter leading people incorrectly in matters of faith and doctrine - a thing the “Pope” is not supposed to be able to do.

Paul didn’t challenge Peter’s teaching. He reprimanded Peter for not living his teaching when Peter wouldn’t sit with the gentiles. Don’t add to scripture what is not there. Every pope in the history of the Church has sinned to varying degrees. Christ does not depend on the Pope being a perfect creature to do His work. He ensures there is no false teaching on matters of Faith and Morals. He does not promise the sinlessness of any Pope, not even Peter.

 

[YADA]

Judas was replaced in fulfillment of a prophecy. You’re really reaching there. It does not follow that because Judas was replaced, everyone else would be.

Peter was never the supreme authority. Paul challenged his life and his teachings when they were incorrect. Galatians 2:14 is a clear example of Peter leading people incorrectly in matters of faith and doctrine - a thing the “Pope” is not supposed to be able to do.

Judas held an “Office” and offices are filled when they become ‘vacant’ … no amount of twisting can change that … As for the other "offices’ … history is the proof that there was succession … and leadership passed from one to another. That is a fact …

As for Paul’s challenge of Peter … Peter did not ‘teach’ incorrectly … it was Peter who opened up the dietary laws … what Peter did was change his behavior to please certain persons … Peter would eat with gentiles but changed his behavior when christian ‘judaizers’ came from jerusalem … this is not teaching error.

And Peter was given the leadership role by Jesus … you can say this is not the case but your saying it does not make it so …

 

[ckempston]

Define hypocrisy

Saying one thing, doing another. Except Peter was not only saying one thing and doing another, but teaching it as well, as Paul says, “forcing,” or “compelling.”

Ilroy:

So, how will Christ be with His Church until the end of time if there was no Church to be with. Logically, if there were no successors the Church would simply quit being at the death of the last Apostle.

I have no problem with there being successors, as I have conceded; however, I don’t agree with your logic. Jesus never said, “Where two or three are gathered in my name under the authority of a successor to the Apostles, there I am also.” I don’t see the logical connection of the existence of the church being dependent upon the existence of a successor. Jesus is the head, we are the body. If you cut off one part of the body, the body does not cease to exist.

 

[Pax]

See the last sentence in Galatians 2:14:

Forcing Gentiles to follow Jewish customs is clearly an error in faith/doctrine.

This is all a matter of interpretation and perspective. I have yet to find a non-Catholic bible believing Christian that questions any of Paul’s teachings vis-a-vis his actions. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of circumcision and the law.

Most non-Catholic Christians that want to use Paul as a tool against Peter on the issue of his[Peter’s] hypocrisy and therefore infallibility need to think more deeply about the issues. Impeccability and infallibility are two different things. Moreover, let’s take a look at what Paul teaches and then something he does in regards to circumcision.

In Galatians 5:2-4 Paul says:

“Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

This passage is taken from the very same letter where Paul describes his confrontation with Peter when he, Peter, acted hypocritically in the presence of the circumcision party. There are many other passages where Paul teaches that Christians are not to be circumcised. He even says in Galatians 5:12 “I wish those who unsettle you would** mutilate themselves**! *”

Those are very strong words from the apostle Paul. Now let’s look at Paul’s actions after having railed against circumcision.

In Acts 16:1-3 we read the following:

“AND HE came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”

So, is Paul a false teacher? Are Paul’s letters the innerrant word of God? Are Paul’s teachings and his actions with Timothy clearly an error in faith and doctrine? Is Jesus Christ of no advantage to Timothy? Must Timothy keep the whole law? Did Timothy by his circumcision fall from grace? Should Paul castrate himself for unsettling Timothy’s faith and compelling Timothy to be circumcised?

Catholics know the answers to all of these questions and most non-Catholics probably do as well. The difference is that Catholics not only know the direct answers, but they know the underlying reasons for them. Moreover, Catholics do not attack the apostle Paul for what he preached vs. what he did with Timothy. We don’t even accuse him of hypocrisy or impune the important position that he filled within the early Church. Likewise, we give the proper recognition to the hypocrisy of Peter without impuning his office or the commission given to him by Jesus.

I hope this helps.*

 

[ckempston]

And Peter was given the leadership role by Jesus … you can say this is not the case but your saying it does not make it so …

I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that was not the case. Peter was appointed the leader of the 12 and given the keys to the Kingdom. I am simply not convinced that because the offices continue that all the authority that comes with them continues. Clearly, abilities that were given to the Apostles were not passed on to Elders/Bishops in the churches that were planted. The miraculous gifts died with the Apostles and yet the church lived on. The Pope can’t raise the dead or shake off a poisonous snake with no ill effect.

 

[Pax]

…
…
I don’t see the logical connection of the existence of the church being dependent upon the existence of a successor. Jesus is the head, we are the body. If you cut off one part of the body, the body does not cease to exist.

Perhaps a practical examination of history would shed some light on this after a careful and prayerful reading of all that Jesus says about unity in John chapter 17.

Likewise, Jesus describes the church as the “kingdom.” Jesus is not only our savior, but He is also our Lord and King. Jesus left offices and a structure of church governance that respects, teaches, and preserves the concept and understanding of His kingship. Jesus left a prime minister to lead his church. History substantiates these facts as the Church continued to have deacons, priests, and bishops. Moreover, history shows the primacy of the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter.

 

[NotWorthy]

Saying one thing, doing another. Except Peter was not only saying one thing and doing another, but teaching it as well, as Paul says, “forcing,” or “compelling.”

You’ve just defined hypocrisy, but then you described heresy.

Big difference.

I have no problem with there being successors, as I have conceded; however, I don’t agree with your logic. Jesus never said, “Where two or three are gathered in my name under the authority of a successor to the Apostles, there I am also.”

What’s your point. Jesus does not reside just in the Church and no Catholic claims that. But can you gather in Jesus’ name and yet deny His very teachings?

I don’t see the logical connection of the existence of the church being dependent upon the existence of a successor. Jesus is the head, we are the body. If you cut off one part of the body, the body does not cease to exist.

And yet, look at the Protestant body. You have multiple heads and multiple bodies. I think your own argument proves itself false.

 

[ckempston]

This is all a matter of interpretation and perspective. I have yet to find a non-Catholic bible believing Christian that questions any of Paul’s teachings vis-a-vis his actions. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of circumcision and the law.

Most non-Catholic Christians that want to use Paul as a tool against Peter on the issue of his[Peter’s] hypocrisy and therefore infallibility need to think more deeply about the issues. Impeccability and infallibility are two different things. Moreover, let’s take a look at what Paul teaches and then something he does in regards to circumcision.

In Galatians 5:2-4 Paul says:

“Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

This passage is taken from the very same letter where Paul describes his confrontation with Peter when he, Peter, acted hypocritically in the presence of the circumcision party. There are many other passages where Paul teaches that Christians are not to be circumcised. He even says in Galatians 5:12 “I wish those who unsettle you would** mutilate themselves**! *”

Those are very strong words from the apostle Paul. Now let’s look at Paul’s actions after having railed against circumcision.

In Acts 16:1-3 we read the following:

“AND HE came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places*, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”

So, is Paul a false teacher? Are Paul’s letters the innerrant word of God? Are Paul’s teachings and his actions with Timothy clearly an error in faith and doctrine? Is Jesus Christ of no advantage to Timothy? Must Timothy keep the whole law? Did Timothy by his circumcision fall from grace? Should Paul castrate himself for unsettling Timothy’s faith and compelling Timothy to be circumcised?

Catholics know the answers to all of these questions and most non-Catholics probably do as well. The difference is that Catholics not only know the direct answers, but they know the underlying reasons for them. Moreover, Catholics do not attack the apostle Paul for what he preached vs. what he did with Timothy. We don’t even accuse him of hypocrisy or impune the important position that he filled within the early Church. Likewise, we give the proper recognition to the hypocrisy of Peter without impuning his office or the commission given to him by Jesus.

I hope this helps.

I’m not going to defend Paul’s actions. I have no idea why he did what he did, other than fear, which is the same reason Peter did what he did.

So, when exactly is infallability used? A sermon by the Pope? A Council? A Papal Bull? A book written by the Pope? It seems to me that there is no consistent answer and that sometimes some of these things are considered infallable, while other times they are not considered so. Seems a little too convenient for my taste. Leaves too much wiggle room for there to be any consistency, especially the fact that it takes into mind “intention” of the Pope. The Pope can say anything he wants, meet all the other requirements of being “ex cathedra” and then when he realizes what he said was totally contradictory to what some other Pope or Council said, he just has to say, “Oh, it wasn’t my intent to be infallible.”

 

[Pax]

…
I am simply not convinced that because the offices continue that all the authority that comes with them continues. Clearly, abilities that were given to the Apostles were not passed on to Elders/Bishops in the churches that were planted. The miraculous gifts died with the Apostles and yet the church lived on…

This is simply not true. Paul tells Titus the following:

Titus 2:15
Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

The office of bishop presumes authority and scripture articulates this clearly. In his letter to Titus, Paul speaks of the authority of the bishop when he says:

Titus 1:7-11
For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party; they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach.

Clearly the bishop has the right and authority to teach and to give instruction in sound doctrine. Others do not and they must be silenced by the bishop. The bishop is there to confute those that contradict sound doctrine. And please notice that there are those that are “insubordinate.” No one is insubordinate unless there are those over them with authority.

Hebrews 13:17 says this about bishops/church leaders:
“Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

Likewise, the bishops like Timothy[see 1 Tim 5:22] are given power and authority through the laying on of hands. We know that there is power transmitted through the laying on of hands by the testimony found in Acts chapter 8. In the narrative scripture explicitly states that the Holy Spirit is given by the laying on of hands. Simon the magician wanted the “power” associated with the laying on of hands and was even willing to pay money to get it. Naturally, he was rebuked by Peter.

All of the bishops were given this power in each generation by the laying on of hands and it continues to this day. Some priests, bishops, and popes have also had miracles associated with them and their ministries.

 

[davidv]

I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that was not the case. Peter was appointed the leader of the 12 and given the keys to the Kingdom. I am simply not convinced that because the offices continue that all the authority that comes with them continues. Clearly, abilities that were given to the Apostles were not passed on to Elders/Bishops in the churches that were planted.

So, are you saying that when President Bush’s replacement is sworn in next January, they won’t have the same authority the President Bush has? An “office” is just that. Any duties and authorities associated with it are independent of the one occupying it.

The miraculous gifts died with the Apostles and yet the church lived on.

If you think this, then you have not been paying attention to history.

 

[YADA]

I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that was not the case. Peter was appointed the leader of the 12 and given the keys to the Kingdom. I am simply not convinced that because the offices continue that all the authority that comes with them continues. Clearly, abilities that were given to the Apostles were not passed on to Elders/Bishops in the churches that were planted. The miraculous gifts died with the Apostles and yet the church lived on. The Pope can’t raise the dead or shake off a poisonous snake with no ill effect.

Paul himself refers to the Bishops as the “Stewards” of the Lord

from Titus

.
7 For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled, 9 holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.

And who are you to say that the miraculous gifts died with the apostles … Miracles are worked everyday … not every Apostle worked miracles of raising the dead … Jesus did not call every dead person back to life in the earthy sense … those miracles wer to illustrate the Glory of God … Jesus raises us to everlasting life … not to everlasting earthly life …

God works His miracles where and when He desires to illutrate the Glory and Power of God not to give you the reassurance that the Pope is the successor of Peter …

 

[Pax]

I’m not going to defend Paul’s actions. I have no idea why he did what he did, other than fear, which is the same reason Peter did what he did.

So, when exactly is infallability used? A sermon by the Pope? A Council? A Papal Bull? A book written by the Pope? It seems to me that there is no consistent answer and that sometimes some of these things are considered infallable, while other times they are not considered so. Seems a little too convenient for my taste. Leaves too much wiggle room for there to be any consistency, especially the fact that it takes into mind “intention” of the Pope. The Pope can say anything he wants, meet all the other requirements of being “ex cathedra” and then when he realizes what he said was totally contradictory to what some other Pope or Council said, he just has to say, “Oh, it wasn’t my intent to be infallible.”

Please give examples of where all of this has taken place.

You probably need to do some careful research on infallibility to remove the misunderstandings that you have. I would suggest starting here:
catholic.com/search.asp?query=infallibility

This is taken from one of the articles from that link:

"An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with “Bible Christians.” For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the “bad popes” stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position."

Those are the general principles. The other articles in that library can help show you what kinds of statements are infallible and which are not. This one may be very helpful to you:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

I hope all of this will be of some help in starting you off in this exploration.

 

[Pax]

I’m not going to defend Paul’s actions. I have no idea why he did what he did, other than fear, which is the same reason Peter did what he did.
…
…

I believe the reasons for the actions are different, but that is a tangential issue. The point is that one cannot use Paul in an attempt to discredit Peter’s authority or infallibility. Likewise, we cannot discredit Paul’s authority or the inerrancy of his letters because of what he did.

Would you agree?

 

[ckempston]

You’ve just defined hypocrisy, but then you described heresy.

Big difference.

So, Peter was a heretic who taught heretical things. Alright, glad you’re on board.

What’s your point. Jesus does not reside just in the Church and no Catholic claims that. But can you gather in Jesus’ name and yet deny His very teachings?

It was claimed that without the successors there would be no church. Not true. That was my point.

And yet, look at the Protestant body. You have multiple heads and multiple bodies. I think your own argument proves itself false.

Like Popes, the “Protestant bodies” are imperfect. Doesn’t make them “not the church.” See? Again, two can play at that game.

You guys are misunderstanding my comments on Miraculous Gifts, whether purposely or not. For a religion that is so paritcular about every word it chooses, I’d think you guys would pay attention to my terminology.

I’m referring to the gifts that were given at the laying on of the Apostles hands:

Romans 1:11
I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong—

Timothy had one, which remains unnamed, through the laying on of the hands of Paul:

2 Timothy 1:6
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

If the Apostles could lay hands on a Christian and impart on them the ability to prophesy, speak in tongues, or work miracles, then why can Popes not do this? Again, seems like all the authority and abilities that rested with the Apostles didn’t get passed on to their successors. It stands to reason that other things did not get passed on as well.

If you guys are so confident that these gifts exist today, show me a fulfilled prophecy by a Catholic prophet. I’ve read about a couple supposed prophecies, but I’d like to see what you have to say on this matter.

 

[ckempston]

I believe the reasons for the actions are different, but that is a tangential issue. The point is that one cannot use Paul in an attempt to discredit Peter’s authority or infallibility. Likewise, we cannot discredit Paul’s authority or the inerrancy of his letters because of what he did.

Would you agree?

Paul’s error does negate or justify Peter’s error. That’s totally illogical.

 

[NotWorthy]

So, Peter was a heretic who taught heretical things. Alright, glad you’re on board.

But St. Paul didn’t call Peter a heretic, he called him a hypocrite. It seems that you are imposing your view upon the Scriptures.

It was claimed that without the successors there would be no church. Not true. That was my point.

But your point is irrelevant. Christ dwells within us. Christ dwells within the Church. Where two or three are gathered in His Name doesn’t necessarily mean you have a Church. You can call it one, but it doesn’t make it so.

Like Popes, the “Protestant bodies” are imperfect. Doesn’t make them “not the church.” See? Again, two can play at that game.

But the Popes don’t teach in error. Protestant bodies believe that society can change what is the truth. You want to examine the sinfulness of contraception through any protestant church through the last 100 years?

You guys are misunderstanding my comments on Miraculous Gifts, whether purposely or not. For a religion that is so paritcular about every word it chooses, I’d think you guys would pay attention to my terminology.

I’m referring to the gifts that were given at the laying on of the Apostles hands:

Romans 1:11
I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong—

Timothy had one, which remains unnamed, through the laying on of the hands of Paul:

2 Timothy 1:6
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

If the Apostles could lay hands on a Christian and impart on them the ability to prophesy, speak in tongues, or work miracles, then why can Popes not do this? Again, seems like all the authority and abilities that rested with the Apostles didn’t get passed on to their successors. It stands to reason that other things did not get passed on as well.

If you guys are so confident that these gifts exist today, show me a fulfilled prophecy by a Catholic prophet. I’ve read about a couple supposed prophecies, but I’d like to see what you have to say on this matter.

These gifts exist today, just not as commonplace. But there is a big difference. Back then, these gifts were necessary as signs to believe in the New Church. Now, one must believe because of Faith.

Remember the words of Christ, “You believe because you have seen? Blessed are those who haven’t seen and yet still believe”.

 

[ckempston]

But St. Paul didn’t call Peter a heretic, he called him a hypocrite. It seems that you are imposing your view upon the Scriptures.

I’m using the word that was provided by you. I don’t really think Peter was a heretic, but he did teach the wrong thing, however temporarily.

But your point is irrelevant. Christ dwells within us. Christ dwells within the Church. Where two or three are gathered in His Name doesn’t necessarily mean you have a Church. You can call it one, but it doesn’t make it so.

Christ dwells in the church? I’d have to check some references on that. That may be what the Catholic church teaches, but according to the Bible, I think Christ only dwells in the church insomuch as he dwells within its individual members. Don’t quote me on that, I’ll check.

But the Popes don’t teach in error. Protestant bodies believe that society can change what is the truth. You want to examine the sinfulness of contraception through any protestant church through the last 100 years?

Gosh, we keep bringing up other subjects, but do you have to bring Onan into the discussion? I can only handle so many topics at once. There’s nothing sinful about contraception, provided it is not an abortificant.

These gifts exist today, just not as commonplace. But there is a big difference. Back then, these gifts were necessary as signs to believe in the New Church. Now, one must believe because of Faith.

Seems to me Faith was pretty popular in the 1st century too. Sounds like special pleading.

Remember the words of Christ, “You believe because you have seen? Blessed are those who haven’t seen and yet still believe”.

That’s kind of a bait and switch, and I have no problem with believing without seeing, so this seems kind of irrelevant. I am asking you to provide examples of people performing miracles in the modern day. I’m not talking about seeing the Virgin Mary in a pretzel, but an actual person knowingly, and purposefully, performing a miracle.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m using the word that was provided by you. I don’t really think Peter was a heretic, but he did teach the wrong thing, however temporarily.

No, you were describing Pete’s actions as heresy, while Paul describes them as hypocritical.

If Peter was teaching wrong and acting wrong, then Paul COULDN’T have called it hypocritical. He would have had to have described them as heretical. I’ve checked several interpretations. It’s not there.

Christ dwells in the church? I’d have to check some references on that. That may be what the Catholic church teaches, but according to the Bible,-] I think Christ only dwells in the church insomuch as he dwells within its individual members/-]. Don’t quote me on that, I’ll check.

The Church is the Bride of Christ. In marriage, the two become one. You can’t separate Christ from His Bride, the Church.

… and you CAN quote me on that!

Gosh, we keep bringing up other subjects, but do you have to bring Onan into the discussion? I can only handle so many topics at once. There’s nothing sinful about contraception, provided it is not an abortificant.

Well, every Protestant faith disagreed with you prior to 1930. But the Truth has changed. When did Christ reveal this new Revelation?

Seems to me Faith was pretty popular in the 1st century too. Sounds like special pleading.

Oh yes, Faith was just as important back then. But many needed signs to induce that Faith. Do you need miracles to believe in Christ?

That’s kind of a bait and switch, and I have no problem with believing without seeing, so this seems kind of irrelevant. I am asking you to provide examples of people performing miracles in the modern day. I’m not talking about seeing the Virgin Mary in a pretzel, but an actual person knowingly, and purposefully, performing a miracle.

Read up on Fatima, Lourdes, Guadaloupe. I don’t follow miracles too much, but I know they exist.