Sorry for veering off-course, though I don’t regard my assertions as being tired. What I do consider “tired” is the fact that people are quick to take their focus off of Jesus to concern themselves with details such as Peter’s geographic location.
I don’t feel that these are in the least “tired”. These are the kind of issues that need to be discussed if we, as servants of the same Master, are ever to understand one another.
ChristianWAB said:
You clearly didn’t get your facts from a Catholic source because you have the whole concept wrong. And if you’d bothered to search the forums before diving headlong into your attack on what you think you understand about what Catholics believe you might’ve found this thread where this was discussed extensively, or even more telling you might’ve found Immaculate Conception and Assumption and other articles that would give you something factual to discuss with us as opposed to whatever second-hand and biased source you got your ideas from.
Gee, as usual ya have only half the facts. Facts that are plainly written in every New Testament around. Matthew 16:18 and 18:16 clearly show that Jesus chose Peter to be the rock upon which He would build His church (note there that Jesus says that He will build His church, not author a series of books to be plucked apart outta context and have every single believer have the authority to create doctrines based on what they “think” or “understand” [and the history of the church shows just how many times that has led to heresies and errors, especially in the last 500 years.]) and that He Himself gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and told him to "feed my lambs " and “feed my sheep”. The name “pope” is not the important thing, but it’s the same office…
You really oughtta find out what we believe before you go telling us how to respond to anyone else. All of the devout Catholics that I know (my sorry self included) are all too aware of our Complete trust in the sacrifice of Christ for our salvation and I am frankly offended by the tone of your implication that we trust in Peter, Mary, or anyone else for it. You have displayed a terrible lack of real knowlege of Catholic belief and teaching and yet you are audacious enough to jump in here on our own forms and tell us what we believe and offer us advice?
is the fact that people are quick to take their focus off of Jesus to concern themselves with details such as Peter’s geographic location.What is more terrible still is the way in which non-Catholics fail to read the history of the Christian faith and put their belief in new winds of doctrine that bear no resemblance to what the New Testament teaches and what the early church believed, yet will believe what some man tells them simply because he can stand up and cite some scriptures as proof texts.
I apologize for characterizing your challenge of Marian dogma as “tired.” Although the kinds of challenges you bring may be new and exciting to you, to us they are tired because people launch them at us all the time. They are part of the standard anti-Catholic armamentarium, nearly always delivered in a strong “so there!” tone of voice. But these views are based upon a superficial understanding of the concepts and upon a casual reading of Scripture.
I find the tone of your response to be very sarcastic and, frankly, very rude. Is this the treatment I should come to expect from a faithful Roman Catholic? It doesn’t take audacity to come into a forum and try to share Biblical truths. It only takes a caring heart and a genuine concern for souls that only Jesus can save.
You need to work at the “caring” & “genuine” part. It’s coming across as “loud” & “sarcastic”.
Well, see, one problem that you have is that :nope: nobody here is arguing with that.
something to do with the fact that they are the ones who compiled the Bible for the rest of us. 
)
My grand-daddy would have washed your mouth out with soap for that kind of nasty tone!!
To which you might add that although both Peter and Paul were venerated in Rome, that Peter from the earliest time has been given the more prominent place.St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans was written between A.D. 56 and A.D. 58 (Acts 20:2-3). St. Peter was almost certainly not in Rome when the Epistle was written. All of the Jewish Christian had been expelled from the capital under Claudius and, by A.D. 56 (the second year of Emperor Nero), a few of them were just beginning to return (Romans 16:3). The Christians in Rome are already aware of who Paul is and have been in contact with him for some time (Romans 1:13, 15:22, 16:3-16).
Romans is written to give instruction to the gentile Christians of Rome, not to the Jewish Christians. Paul teaches them because he is the “Apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 1:5-6, 11:13-14). Ah! But, even though it is Paul who is the Apostle to the Gentiles, these Roman Gentiles were not converted by Paul. Indeed, Paul has never even been to Rome (Romans 1:13, 15:22, etc.). What’s more, Paul directly tells these Roman Gentiles that, now that he has finished preaching in the East, he needs their help to reach, not Italy, but Spain (Romans 15:24). This very same verse (Rom 15:24) tells us that Paul merely hopes to meet the Roman Gentiles “in passing” as he sets out for Spain.
Now, think about this.
“Thus I aspire to proclaim the Gospel, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another man’s foundation.”
So, who is this “other man”?
So, if Peter was not in Rome; if he did not establish the Roman church and hold the status of its bishop (as did Paul in churches like Corinth, even when he was not physically present there - see: 1 Cor. 4:15), then what we are asked to believe is Rome - the most important and populous city in the world at the time - was passed over and ignored by all the Apostles, and entrusted to people with no Apostolic authority. Now that’s unbelievable.
Where and When did Jesus say Salvation was through a Church? He stated salvation was through Him and Him alone. RIght?
This is a question for another thread.
Check to see what I was responding to and you’ll see that Church Militant was being FAR more rude to me. Yet, I noticed you didn’t chastize HIM for HIS tone. You didn’t even MENTION it. You didn’t break any records to jump down Militant’s throat for his tone. Is that because you AGREE with his view? Or were you upset that the “second hand and biased source” that I used was the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
If concerning yourselves with Peter’s geographic proximity to Rome is your concern, then so be it. I was simply stressing that the Gospel of Christ is, at least in my humble opinion, a bit more important. Oh, and just to clarify a point, I got that “Second hand and biased source” of information about Mary being sinless throughout her life from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church:
Biblical truths? Why do we need a non-Catholic to share with us something that we have in full? Or do you disagree? If so that is the topic for another thread that you are free to open and I’ll see if I and my fellow Catholics can clarify that for you.
) In a thread where a Catholic is trying to get Catholics to advise him how to respond to a non-Catholic assertion that what we believe is wrong, is it appropriate to enter into that discussion if you agree with that assertion? Or is it more appropriate to read the thread in an effort to gain accurate information about what Catholics really believe (and know in this case.) and if you still disagree, to open another thread for discussion and debate?
and all the compliments (both left and right handed…[Were the Marines at Normandy? I didn’t think so… ] Thank you also for the way you temper me, I appreciate it and praise God for you all!),This remark here is actually what offended me most because it implies that Catholic teachings run “contrary to the Word of God” which is patently untrue and again displays your lack of knowlege and understanding of what we believe. If you had bothered to look into the materials available on the ma(name removed by moderator)age library (linked above) or to carefully read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you would never have made such a remark because you would know by now that it isn’t true.
ChristianWAB said: