Is Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church the only way to salvation?

[richardwy]

And one last thing, the church is the pillar of truth and what gives us this information?

Not what, but who: Apostle of the Catholic Church, Saint Paul.

 

[justasking4]

mikew262;3379568]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Would you agree then that the catholic church is only specualting on who is in heaven since only God knows?

mikew262
Perhaps speculating is too weak a word.

I don’t think it is. It is impossible to know and the tragic thing with this doctrine is that it is based on speculations since there really is no way to know. This kind of thing is unnecessary since we know Jesus Himself is our great intercessor before the Father.

The Church does extensive research on a prospective saint’s life before beginning the sainthood process. Obviously, by documenting how that person went the “extra mile” in living God’s word, the most likely assumption is that person is indeed in Heaven. However, only God makes that final judgment, and only he truly knows for sure.

It can do all the research it wants on the individual but it can never arrive at any certainity. When a catholic prays to a saint they cannot have any confidence that this saint can hear them while they can have certainity the Lord Jesus hears them because He promised in Scripture that He could.

 

[moondweller]

Hello,

The Church has been given that authority by God. Do you say that while the Priest in the confessional can assume and make a presumption of forgiveness, ultimately we don’t know whether are sins are really forgiven or not? No, Christ gave His authority to the Apostles!!! The Church has been given that authority - by God!!! It is in the Church’s God-given authority of binding and loosing with the keys of Heaven to declare Saints.

The “binding and loosing” claimed by the hierarchy of the Roman church is based on its interpretation and personal application of Matt. 16:18 and 18:18. Yet we never see in Scripture any of the Apostles doing what Rome’s hierarchy claims it has authority to do. Instead the Apostles proclaimed forgiveness of all sins through faith in Christ who died a substitutionary, sacrificial death in their stead:Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,"Nowhere do we ever find the Apostles personally forgiving sins upon personal confession. As for saints, no one person was ever declared “a saint” by any Apostle. But instead all true believers are called saints by the Apostles:Acts 9:32 “Now as Peter was traveling through all {those regions,} he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda.”

Rom 1:7 “…to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called {as} saints:”

Rom 15:25 “…but now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints.”

1 Cor 1:2 “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling,”

2 Cor 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy {our} brother, to the church of God which is at Corinth with all the saints who are throughout Achaia:”

Eph 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus and {who are} faithful in Christ Jesus:”

Phil 1:1 Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi,There is no evidence that any of the Apostle understood those Matthew passages as stating that they, personally, had the power to forgive sins upon confession, and subsequently, personally, declare absolution. Nor is there any evidence that any Apostle pronounced “sainthood” upon anyone. But they declared the forgiveness of sins to all men, upon faith in Christ, and called all who believed their message concerning Christ, “saints” (holy ones - having been made holy, set apart, in Christ). The Roman hierarchy seems to assume far more power than even the Apostles.

Saint Moondweller - Hey, I like. It’s got a nice ring to it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Where in the NT do we see any apostle or bishop hearing confessions and giving absolution?

I am sure you have been shown the evidence many times on this forum before, and as this thread is not on Confession (I was using it as an example for another poster), I’ll just post a link and leave it at that:

catholic.com/library/Confession.asp

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

You are putting to much faith in the early fathers.

Better than trusting in oneself. The Early Church Fathers are most trustworthy witnesses for the Faith. They handed on the faith trustworthily to their successors on down the line to the present day Catholic Bishops.

Here is what a catholic historian says:

The Jesuit scholar Joseph Fitzmyer has stated,
“Paul never hints in Romans that he knows that Peter has worked in Rome or founded the Christian church there before his planned visit (cf. 15:20-23). If he refers indirectly to Peter as among the ‘superfine apostles’ who worked in Corinth (2 Cor 11:4-5), he says nothing like that about Rome in this letter. Hence the beginnings of the Roman Christian community remain shrouded in mystery. Compare 1 Thess 3:2-5; 1 Cor 3:5-9; and Col 1:7 and 4:12-13 for more or less clear references to founding apostles of other locales. **Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome. **For it seems highly unlikely that Luke, if he knew that Peter had gone to Rome and evangelized that city, would have omitted all mention of it in Acts.” [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30].

Not only the Scriptures do not support the claim Peter founded the church there but there are no historical facts to support the claim either.

I call innumerable Fathers plenty evidence. He also doesn’t state that Saint Peter was never in Rome (which is the assertion that started this current discussion). He states that Saint Paul beat Saint Peter to Rome. There’s no argument there. He also states that Saint Peter didn’t found the Church of Rome - I would ask Father Fitzmyer what he means by that. If he means that there was a group of believers that were preached to and partook of the Sacraments before Saint Peter arrived - I agree. If he means that there was a Bishop leading the Church of Rome and that maybe even Saint Peter never was there - well, then Father Fitzmyer is dead wrong.

Also note, that Father Fitzmyer is not part of the Magisterium, so that his viewpoints (which may or may not be accurate) are in no way binding upon the Church.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Let’s read him again:His conclusion is formed based on lack of evidence.

See above post.

(1) I didn’t say Peter “was never in Rome.” Based on lack of evidence I question the Roman teaching that Peter held the alleged position of “Bishop of Rome” and that he ministered there for some 25 years prior to his death. There simply is no historical evidence.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but in this case your opinion is erroneous. Now, I don’t know how long Peter was in Rome (lengths vary from a year or two to upwards of 40 years). But there is no doubt that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. There was never any question of this for over fifteen hundred years.

(2) The “scholarly” work that must be questioned is that which makes a statement without providing an adequate source to back it up. I would even question a religion that forms its “faith” on such unprovable claims.

I call the unanimous consent of the Fathers an absolutely infallible source that backs it up.

That’s why Jesus provided eyewitnesses to all that He said and did (Acts 1:8; 1 Jn. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:16). And then sent the Holy Spirit to preserve this witness in divinely inspired writings through the same men who eyewitnessed it all (Jn. 14:26). The N.T. Scriptures weren’t written some 1-4 hundred years after the fact.

This is for a discussion on Sola Scriptura. Not that we argue that Sacred Scripture is inspired (we both agree on that) - but whether everything is in Sacred Scriptures. There is currently one being held, so please respond in that thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=221860

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

IMO, God forgives those sins through the priest. If the person truly is not repentant in his/her heart, then I do not believe the sins are truly forgiven.

So we could all still be in our sins.

I don’t know what church you go to, but the Catholic Church teaches that the Priest does indeed have the authority to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Confession. We don’t need to wonder whether our sins maybe are still upon us - they are forgiven.

Same with the Saints. Like I said before - if they could not be in Heaven that means they could be in hell - which is the apex of arrogance and irreverence.

The Saints are in Heaven, that is what the Church teaches. Look at the prayer of the Church (lex orandi, lex credendi), look at our liturgical life. Never once does it mention Saints that may not be in Heaven. It is always the Saints in Heaven.

Here is an article on Saints. I know some don’t like Catholic Encyclopedia - but it really is a good source that is accurate 99.9999% of the time.

newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The “binding and loosing” claimed by the hierarchy of the Roman church is based on its interpretation and personal application of Matt. 16:18 and 18:18. Yet we never see in Scripture any of the Apostles doing what Rome’s hierarchy claims it has authority to do. Instead the Apostles proclaimed forgiveness of all sins through faith in Christ who died a substitutionary, sacrificial death in their stead:Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Take a look at the Church teachings (Saint Athanasius, Saint Anselm, etc.). The Church has never taught a contractual substitutionary atonement the way most Protestants mean.

And the Catholic Church is obvious in the New Testament and the entire Bible. Here is just one article on the subject:

newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

Acts 13:38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,"Nowhere do we ever find the Apostles personally forgiving sins upon personal confession.

I don’t know what Bible your reading, but in mine, the topic of Confession is rampant. We are constantly called to repent and confess our sins. The Lord gave only the Apostles (and their successors) the authority to forgive or retain sins (John 20:19-23).

catholic.com/library/Confession.asp
catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp

As for saints, no one person was ever declared “a saint” by any Apostle.

Why would they. They were the very first Saints - there were no Christian Saints before the Apostles. It generally takes years after a persons death before they are proclaimed a Saint. Also the procedural process of canonization took a while to develop (read article on the Saints linked a few post earlier).
moondweller;3379634But instead all true believers are called saints by the Apostles::
Indeed, that is true. But the sainthood of believers in the Church is different than the veneration of the Saints in Heaven (the cultus).

 

[submittedjoy]

<<<I don’t know what Bible your reading, but in mine, the topic of Confession is rampant. We are constantly called to repent and confess our sins. The Lord gave only the Apostles (and their successors) the authority to forgive or retain sins (John 20:19-23).>>>

This may be so but… we can also go directly to the Father… The veil has been ripped we can go directly to the throne of God and ask Jesus for forgiveness of sin and he is just and righteous to forgive us of that sin. John 2:1 says that Jesus is our Advocate… no other

 

[moondweller]

Hello,
Take a look at the Church teachings (Saint Athanasius, Saint Anselm, etc.). The Church has never taught a contractual substitutionary atonement the way most Protestants mean.

Read the Law of Moses which prefigured the Person and sacrificial work of Christ. By nature a sacrifice is substitutionary. Read Lev. 16 on the Day of Atonement. Christ is the fulfillment of it. If that’s not “substitutionary” then the word has no meaning.

I don’t know what Bible your reading, but in mine, the topic of Confession is rampant. We are constantly called to repent and confess our sins. The Lord gave only the Apostles (and their successors) the authority to forgive or retain sins (John 20:19-23).

Can you show me an example in Scripture where people stood in line to confess their sins, personally, to an Apostle, and the Apostle in turn responded with, “your sins are absolved?” Can you show me one example where that Apostle then assigned some sort of “penance” to be performed by the confessor?

I provide you with divinely, inspired Scriptures, you send me to articles.

Why would they. They were the very first Saints - there were no Christian Saints before the Apostles. It generally takes years after a persons death before they are proclaimed a Saint.

Then they couldn’t have addressed anyone as “saints” in the N.T. Yet I gave you a whole list of places where ALL believers are addressed as “saints.” Scripture nowhere differentiates between “saint” and “Saint.” No such concept existed. IOW, such a differentiation is man-made (non-Scriptural).

Also the procedural process of canonization took a while to develop (read article on the Saints linked a few post earlier).

So then it wasn’t an Apostolic “tradition.” Even according to RC teaching, a true “tradition” must be followed back to the Apostles. Nowhere do I find an Apostle canonizing men and women into “Sainthood.” Nowhere do I find any prayers being addressed to, say, the Apostle Stephen, who was the first to be martyred. That whole concept of “canonized saints” is foreign to the Apostolic age.

The poll is still almost neck and neck!

 

[jmcrae]

Read the Law of Moses which prefigured the Person and sacrificial work of Christ. By nature a sacrifice is substitutionary. Read Lev. 16 on the Day of Atonement. Christ is the fulfillment of it. If that’s not “substitutionary” then the word has no meaning.Can you show me an example in Scripture where people stood in line to confess their sins, personally, to an Apostle, and the Apostle in turn responded with, “your sins are absolved?” Can you show me one example where that Apostle then assigned some sort of “penance” to be performed by the confessor?

How we know that they did this is because of the next generation of Christians, who did all these things without even really discussing them other than to mention them in passing. “When choosing your Confessor, …” says Origen, and we realize, hey, they had Confessors back then. And then he goes through the method of doing a good Confession, which is the same as what your Catechism teacher teaches you in Grade 4, and the same as your RCIA teacher teaches you in RCIA, and again, you say to yourself, “Hey, they did Confession pretty much the same way as we do!”

I provide you with divinely, inspired Scriptures, you send me to articles. Then they couldn’t have addressed anyone as “saints” in the N.T. Yet I gave you a whole list of places where ALL believers are addressed as “saints.” Scripture nowhere differentiates between “saint” and “Saint.” No such concept existed.

That’s because they believed (as we do today) that Sainthood begins during our lifetimes, and continues on into the afterlife. You don’t spend your whole life as a sinner and then get to go to Heaven - you have to convert and change your life while you are still here on earth.

IOW, such a differentiation is man-made (non-Scriptural).So then it wasn’t an Apostolic “tradition.” Even according to RC teaching, a true “tradition” must be followed back to the Apostles. Nowhere do I find an Apostle canonizing men and women into “Sainthood.” Nowhere do I find any prayers being addressed to, say, the Apostle Stephen, who was the first to be martyred. That whole concept of “canonized saints” is foreign to the Apostolic age.

Check this out:

The Roman Catacombs

The spirituality of the catacombs is moreover “social”. The Christian , who is accustomed to say in prayer not “my Father” but “our Father”, knows that in God’s family one does not live separately, but socially. “Though many in number, we form one body in Christ” (Rom 12,59). The catacombs give us the image of this mystical body in which, in a hierarchy of roles and in one and the same unity of spirit, Christians live together in an orderly way. Here the Roman Pontiffs lie at rest among the humble anonymous multitude of their flock.
From the front of a sarcophagus a child raises his hands as an “Orante” who happily enjoys the peace of Heaven; on either side of him Peter and Paul, the founders of the Church of Rome, sustain him, as if they were introducing him into heaven. At Domitilla, in a picture of an arcosolium, Veneranda is represented in travelling clothes, on the threshold of the heavenly motherland, at the end of her exile.
The local saint, Petronilla, receives and introduces her. There is an exchange of prayers between the various parts of the Church.

Hundreds of pilgrims, buried in the Memoria of the ancient Appian Way (the Catacombs of St. Sebastian), invoke Peter and Paul, by scratching short prayers on the plaster of the triclia ( hall for funeral banquets, in the open air): “Paul and Peter, pray for Victor - Paul,Peter, pray for Sozomenon”.

At the entrance of the Crypt of the Popes in St. Callixtus, the wall is covered with prayers: “O St. Sixtus, remember in your prayers Aurelius Repentinus” " Holy Spirits, p(ray that) Verecundus may be safe at sea with his dear ones". At times there is no expressed prayer: to implore is enough to add a title to his name: " Felicio, priest and sinner".
We have thousands of inscriptions with prayers of the living for the dead or with earnest requests to the dead that they pray for those still alive. In a social mystical body,each individual person is bound to the entire Church…

The Apostles may not have canonized anybody, but the second generation most definitely canonized them.

 

[c659smith]

Read the Law of Moses which prefigured the Person and sacrificial work of Christ. By nature a sacrifice is substitutionary. Read Lev. 16 on the Day of Atonement. Christ is the fulfillment of it. If that’s not “substitutionary” then the word has no meaning.Can you show me an example in Scripture where people stood in line to confess their sins, personally, to an Apostle, and the Apostle in turn responded with, “your sins are absolved?” Can you show me one example where that Apostle then assigned some sort of “penance” to be performed by the confessor?

I provide you with divinely, inspired Scriptures, you send me to articles. Then they couldn’t have addressed anyone as “saints” in the N.T. Yet I gave you a whole list of places where ALL believers are addressed as “saints.” Scripture nowhere differentiates between “saint” and “Saint.” No such concept existed. IOW, such a differentiation is man-made (non-Scriptural).So then it wasn’t an Apostolic “tradition.” Even according to RC teaching, a true “tradition” must be followed back to the Apostles. Nowhere do I find an Apostle canonizing men and women into “Sainthood.” Nowhere do I find any prayers being addressed to, say, the Apostle Stephen, who was the first to be martyred. That whole concept of “canonized saints” is foreign to the Apostolic age.

The poll is still almost neck and neck!

If you don’t believe the Holy Spirit infallibly guides the Catholic Church, how can you believe the Bible is the word of God?

This very Church discerned and declared which early writings were Scripture and which were not.

Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible. And do you know what, according to the Bible, is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)? Scripture? No—the Church. Who, then, can do without it?

 

[sodak]

Where in the NT do we see any apostle or bishop hearing confessions and giving absolution?

Who says it has to be in the NT? Jesus gave Peter the keys, and made him the rock of the Church.

<<<I don’t know what Bible your reading, but in mine, the topic of Confession is rampant. We are constantly called to repent and confess our sins. The Lord gave only the Apostles (and their successors) the authority to forgive or retain sins (John 20:19-23).>>>

This may be so but… we can also go directly to the Father… The veil has been ripped we can go directly to the throne of God and ask Jesus for forgiveness of sin and he is just and righteous to forgive us of that sin. John 2:1 says that Jesus is our Advocate… no other

You still haven’t answered my question from post 160 where I answered yours.

Read the Law of Moses which prefigured the Person and sacrificial work of Christ. By nature a sacrifice is substitutionary. Read Lev. 16 on the Day of Atonement. Christ is the fulfillment of it. If that’s not “substitutionary” then the word has no meaning.Can you show me an example in Scripture where people stood in line to confess their sins, personally, to an Apostle, and the Apostle in turn responded with, “your sins are absolved?” Can you show me one example where that Apostle then assigned some sort of “penance” to be performed by the confessor?

Can you show me one example in the Bible where it tells me to accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior? Just one? I didn’t think so.

I provide you with divinely, inspired Scriptures…

From the Catholic Church. You accept the Scriptures, but not the Church that wrote them. You are pretty selective with what you believe. Catholics take ALL of what Christ tells us to believe.

 

[guanophore]

Here what a catholic scholar says about Peter being or founding the church in Rome.

How is this relevant, since Catholicism never claimed that Peter founded the Church of Rome? The charism that Jesus gave to Peter has nothing to do with Rome!

 

[guanophore]

Allyson, Catholicism is a work of man.

Can you please explain what you mean by this?

 

[steve_b]

You’re avoiding the issue.

How so?

You quoted this passage from Acts (emphasis mine)

:

James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we {might} {go} to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

I merely said they split their duties. That’s NOT avoiding the issue. That’s what the passage says. You can’t use it as your proof text
moon:

What you claim He did is not based on what actually followed through in history. IOW, your interpretation is not attested to by subsequent revelation.*** If*** Peter was commission to “rule” Christ’s church then we would see clearly defined and formulated evidence of it in the historical passages of Scripture.

IF???

Jesus said to Peter “poimaino” my Church. Would you like to see the definition of poimaino?

Definition

1) to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
a) to rule, govern
1) of rulers
2) to furnish pasture for food
3) to nourish
4) to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
5) to supply the requisites for the soul’s need
moon:

But we find nothing to that manifestation.One would have to prove Peter wasn’t speaking literally. Expositors are divided on “Babylon” being a “code word” for Rome.

That was a code word for secular Rome.
moon:

Only in those passages I referenced. In context they referred to Christ Himself, not Peter.

The one who absolutely “poimaino’s” (rules), tells His chief pastor to feed & “poimaino” rule. It’s a package.
moon:

The Book of Acts records their actions in choosing someone to replace Judas. But it doesn’t mean what Peter suggested and what they did was right.

Excuse me? You’re questioning the decision?
moon:

Jesus told them to “wait for what the Father had promised” (the Holy Spirit). He did not instruct them to choose another Apostle. Christ Himself chose the former Apostles. I’m with those who tend to think Paul was Christ’s choice, not Matthias.

How can I put this delicately? That’s not up to what YOU and others to reorder the choice. The Father already decided who would be the holder of the keys to His kingdom, and that was Peter. The Father wanted Peter to strengthen the apostles after Satan sifted THEM like wheat. The Father called Peter specifically to feed and rule over His kingdom. This was before Saul was even converted. The Father doesn’t go back on His word.

Yes Paul was selected an apostle… That doesn’t change anything the Father did for Peter.
moon:

Also, Jesus told the eleven that they would be His “witnesses,” eyewitnesses, in fact (Acts 1:8). An Apostle had to have witnessed, had to have personally seen, the risen Lord. Has your Pope? Have any of your Bishops? You cannot have a line of Apostolic “successors” which have never seen the risen Lord. Paul argues with the Corinthians:1 Cor. 9:1 “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?”

You confuse apostle with successor to their office.
moon:

The point remains, Steve. Peter never addresses fellow Christians as their “ruler” on earth.

He didn’t have to. Jesus said that for him.
moon:

When Bush is introduced to the House of Representatives he’s announced as the President of the U.S. Peter is never referred to, or even portrayed in Scripture as ruler of the church.

Peter didn’t have to. Jesus did that for him
moon:

You can’t get around it, Steve. Scripture simply does not support your interpretation. “Born Again Christian.” Not by water, but by the Spirit.

Scripture doesn’t support YOUR position.

(emphasis mine)

From Billy Graham’s favorite bible (NIV)

• Jn 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.a]” (what does born again mean in context?) 4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” 5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water AND the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=3&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-26117b”)] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘Youc] must be born again.’
  Water AND Spirit here my friend, is baptism. That’s the way it’s been understood for 2000 years.

 

[guanophore]

If Peter was commission to “rule” Christ’s church then we would see clearly defined and formulated evidence of it in the historical passages of Scripture. But we find nothing to that manifestation.

This is a myopic perception stemming from Sola Scriptura. In fact, the Scriptures were produced by the Sacred Tradition, and they entirely reflect and support that Tradition. Those who embrace Apostolic Tradition do “see clearly defined and formulated evidenc of it in the historical passages of Scripture”. Not only that, we see it in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Have you read these?

One would have to prove Peter wasn’t speaking literally. Unless you’re saying Peter wasn’t very good at being a ruling shepherd and providing food for Christ’s lambs.

I see that you have much to learn about your own family history. Peter did go to Rome, and was martyrd there. However, his charism to feed the sheep is independent of Rome. In fact, the Apostolic succession from Antioch, where he was before that , is recognized by the Whole Church.

Only in those passages I referenced. In context they referred to Christ Himself, not Peter.

Christ is the Rock. God the Father revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Christ. In that moment, Jesus grafted Peter into His rockiness. This is how God has always worked through people. As I write this, I am watching a special on the Christian channel about Moses going up to Horeb to receive the commandments. Moses was chosen especially, just as Peter was. Who are you to dispute God’s choice?

The Book of Acts records their actions in choosing someone to replace Judas. But it doesn’t mean what Peter suggested and what they did was right. Jesus told them to “wait for what the Father had promised” (the Holy Spirit). He did not instruct them to choose another Apostle.

I think this is a very good point, which I have pondered often. Jesus tarried 40 days before HIs departation. Why did He not appoint a 12th Apostle during that time? I think He did not because He wanted to empower Peter. He knew He would choose Paul, but during that time, He did not reveal anything to Peter, apparently, about Paul. God is not bound by His promulgations. There were other Apostles that were not attributed to Jesus, or Peter!

Christ Himself chose the former Apostles. I’m with those who tend to think Paul was Christ’s choice, not Matthias.

The two are not mutually exlusive, since there were other Apostles not attributed to Christ Himself, or Peter. Clearly, Jesus chose Paul, as definitively as He did Peter.

Also, Jesus told the eleven that they would be His “witnesses,” eyewitnesses, in fact (Acts 1:8). An Apostle had to have witnessed, had to have personally seen, the risen Lord. Has your Pope?

A just question. However, the Apostles appointed Bishops (presbyters) who did not necessarily see HIm.

Have any of your Bishops?

As much as I pray that all the Bishops may see HIm it is not my place to judge. When He directed the Apostles to entrust the message to faithful men who would teach others also, He did not require that each had seen Him.

"Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” John 20:29

You cannot have a line of Apostolic “successors” which have never seen the risen Lord.

On the contrary, that is EXACTLY what the succession is!

Paul argues with the Corinthians:1 Cor. 9:1 "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?"The point remains, Steve. Peter never addresses fellow Christians as their “ruler” on earth.

On the contrary, in this very epistle to the Corinthians he asserts his a Apostolic authority. You are projecting your secular understanding of leadership into the Church. Jesus specifically stated that those who lead will not “lord” it over others, or “rule” int eh secular sense. That is why the Pope signs his letters “servant of the servants of God”.

When Bush is introduced to the House of Representatives he’s announced as the President of the U.S. Peter is never referred to, or even portrayed in Scripture as ruler of the church.

Have you considered that your concept of leadership had been contaminated by our fallen condition?

You can’t get around it, Steve. Scripture simply does not support your interpretation.“Born Again Christian.” Not by water, but by the Spirit.

Water, and Spirit.

 

[mikew262]

Hello,

So we could all still be in our sins.

I don’t know what church you go to, but the Catholic Church teaches that the Priest does indeed have the authority to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Confession. We don’t need to wonder whether our sins maybe are still upon us - they are forgiven.

Same with the Saints. Like I said before - if they could not be in Heaven that means they could be in hell - which is the apex of arrogance and irreverence.

The Saints are in Heaven, that is what the Church teaches. Look at the prayer of the Church (lex orandi, lex credendi), look at our liturgical life. Never once does it mention Saints that may not be in Heaven. It is always the Saints in Heaven.

Here is an article on Saints. I know some don’t like Catholic Encyclopedia - but it really is a good source that is accurate 99.9999% of the time.

newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

Incorrect. If the person is truly not repentant, then forgiveness does not happen. See statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

It is not true that for the Catholic the mere “telling of one’s sins” suffices to obtain their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before.

 

[guanophore]

Your last quote is the issue. Even if Peter was there that does not mean he founded or established the church there. There is no proof that he did. If a person is going to say he did then he-she needs to present the evidence. So far that has never been done.

I guess I don’t understand how this is relevant? We believe that the Church in Rome was started by Jews who were present in Jerusalem at Pentecost. We know that it was many years before Peter and Paul travelled to Rome, and were martyrd there. The reason that Rome was given primacy is because Peter and Paul both preached an taught there for years before they were put to death by the Roman Authorities. Rome had the benefit of the very best doctrinal teaching from the two.

Hello,
All the Early Fathers attest to the fact that Saint Peter founded the Church of Rome. I trust their word infinitely more than yours.

I believe you will find that the primacy of Rome is not based upon either Peter or Paul “founding” the church,but building it up in the truth. The book of Acts clearly shows where Paul, in his journeys, constantly came upon groups of Christians that had been meeting for some time before he arrived. This was the case in Rome as well.

 

[guanophore]

Would you agree then that the catholic church is only specualting on who is in heaven since only God knows?

No, the Church only proclaims those to be in heaven that God reveals are there. The Church does not claim to know everyone who is there, or elsewhere! Divine Revelation is not “speculation” ja4.