You’re more consistent here…You cannot know that of your own knowledge.
Huh? Where does/did it say that?
It seems like you misunderstand. The Keys were given to Peter alone, and the Church thru Peter. We do not have any keys.
And I guess Jesus telling Peter alone to “feed my lambs” and “feed my sheep” three times means nothing?
And this is supposed to disprove Peter’s primacy? Wasn’t Peter human and subject to error as we all are today? And Peter, as do the Popes ( also Bishops ), believe it or not, defered to the jurisdiction of the local Bishop, St. James. This is not unususal and has happened.Agreed. Some facts scare people though LOL
Whose authority? I mean by whose authority are you writing? The authority of the church that TOLD you that they wrote bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? That authority? Oh - I see that authority. They told you that they wrote the bible? The five books of the Torah? That’s part of the bible you know. It was around before your church, unless you have decided to hijack Judaism as well. so you have the copyrights on that as well? Also, tell me by name who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Tell me their names. I’ll give you a hint - they weren’t Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, but if you have it on authority as to what guided them, you should be able to say who they were. And once you tell me, would you let all the churches and academics in the world know, because they are wondering too. Who wrote the apocalypse of John? Which John? Who was he? In what year was Matthew written? In what year was John written or Luke or Mark for that matter? Were any of the apostles still alive? I’ll give you another hint - no. So who were they? By what authority do you know anything more than what your church has told you? How many other gospels were there in addition to these? Tell me. I’ll give you another hint - many, many more than that. I can tell with some authority though who decided to chuck them because they were inconvenient to the hijackers who told you they wrote the bible. Then they conveniently called them heretics. Who called them heretics? Jesus? No, it was the people who told you that they wrote the gospels they selected and chose. And they are still calling people who disagree with them heretics today. Of course they can;t harm any of them anymore, so who really cares what they think? They are largely irrelevant. Whose authority -Give me a break. I’m going to bed. I’ll check in with fellas later this week to see who you’re trying to huckster next. Quite entertaining.
And that is concrete proof against the primacy?
The most common accusation on Catholic Answers Forum other than sola scriptura: “you’re confusing impeccability with infallibility.” Actually I’m quite adept in this area and do know the difference, Mithrandir.
I’m quite aware of the difference and agree that Peter is behaving badly here. I’m also not saying that Peter’s horrible behavior with table fellowship implies that he’s not a pope either. You missed my point completely. My point was that JAMES was in charge of the council, not Peter. That was my point. Universal jurisdiction and papal supremacy were evidently suspended that day. My point was James was the head hancho, not Peter. And it took James and Paul to rebuke Peter.**
So the argument isn’t a strawman when you don’t even properly understand what the argument is
And see my other post above about James chairing the council. If you’re not even willing to accept what Scripture, tradition and the Fathers all said about James leading the Council, then it’s impossible to carry on an intelligent and thoughtful, intellectually-honest conversation. It’s then pure denial and anachronism. The Church has always openly stated that James led the council. If you want to talk conjecture, it’s your interpretations of Matthew 16:18 and the other supposedly papal “feed my sheep” references. Conjecture and opinion can go both ways.**
Check with Michaelangelo, St Thersa of Avila, and a few others who have laced into and dressed down Popes.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
You are so so full of biased opinions and never back up your claims or false conclusions.
So by not knowing their exact names makes it false? Evidently you know very little about how the ancients wrote.
LOL! To bad nothing you said is new to the Catholic Church,so do us all a favor…give yourself a break!
ANSWER: I know good and well that it is nothing new to the RCC. So why are they telling you otherwise? If ya can’t say who wrote it, ya can’t say much else. Give it up. People have access to information these days, except in the few developing countries where your church is growing rather than contracting. Once they develop. where shall you go? People in Europe have the internet. They can look things up The RCC Churches there are all but empty. Except for tourists that is.
Wrote WHAT? And where are you getting your information? The Internet and material written by OTHERS because you certainly did not come up with the garbage you have been spewing forth. Nothing you have said is NEW…nothing! Same anti-Catholic garbage,get overself! Now give me a BREAK!
Constantine?
Now I know what I am dealing with. How funny!
But as a Catholic do you have a manual that tells you how to interpret EVERY single Scriptural passage? When you read every single line of the Bible, do you have a website or a red phone to the Vatican to ask them what their interpretation is? I know the Catholic Church is the ultimate judge of Scripture from a Catholic point of view and there are non-negotiables of course, but every single word of Scripture you don’t trust yourself to understand either? You have to look up and get approval on everything? What kind of question is that? I never said you proof-texted out of context or used circular logic You say that? LOL **Don’t you, as a Protestant, believe in the right of every believer to interpret the Bible as they feel the Spirit guiding them? Or do you arrogate the right of interpetation only to yourself?
Show where I have prooftexted out of context, (as you have done several times), or demonstrate where the history I have demonstrated is fallacious or amounts to circular logic.
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.–Galatians 2:11-12
Where is it said in that passage*or even in the bible-that James sent babysitters to look after Peter’s behavior?
Secondly you seem to not even read the passage correctly! You have it backwards-Peter seemd to have reverted after James’ men came, not before. The ones who came from James it seems were IN the circumcision group mentioned by Paul, not against them.
Bottom line you haven’t proved anything either…I proved from Scripture and Tradition that James was in charge of the council, James and Paul reproved Peter, Peter was not infallibly deciding anything that we see, etc. I never said his behavior and his infallibility had anything to do with each other. What I did prove is that Peter didn’t have a universal jurisdiction as popes claim today. If he did, then Peter would’ve chaired it. You don’t see bishops sending men to reprove popes in the last centuries, right? You don’t see bishops criticizing popes and popes listening. It doesn’t work now the way it did then.
Bottom line, you still have not proved that Peter’s primacy was removed because Peter was not perfect in his behavior.
**They don’t bother me at all. I’m not afraid of Scripture; I welcome it and I’m glad you do the same. When did I ignore anything? Your entire post here puts words in my mouth, presupposes odd reactions ahead of time, and is overly-speculative at best, accusatory at worst. **
I posted the entire context of the council where Peter is the first one to speak as the bold type I highlighted in your passage proves. Pretext as usual. You can’t ignore the first several verses of the chapter because you don’t like what they demonstrate.
Strawman?
Again, out of context. And it proves nothing about your presupposition. It merely seems to state that Peter wasn’t in Jerusalem. Strawman.
Strawman…That James was the bishop of Jerusalem says nothing to refute Peter’s primacy.
Check with Michaelangelo, St Thersa of Avila, and a few others who have laced into and dressed down Popes.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
And this is supposed to disprove Peter’s primacy? Wasn’t Peter human and subject to error as we all are today? And Peter, as do the Popes ( also Bishops ), believe it or not, defered to the jurisdiction of the local Bishop, St. James. This is not unususal and has happened.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
And I guess Jesus telling Peter alone to “feed my lambs” and “feed my sheep” three times means nothing?
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
Matt28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Do you know the difference between primacy of honor and primacy of universal jurisdiction with infallible, supreme power over the entire Church? 