Papal primacy

[pocohombre]

If the successors of Peter went astray as you claim then Jesus was a liar for the forces of hell did prevail.

It’s only a lie if you think it is Peter’s church, or if it is his successor’s church, or if it is the Catholic’s church, or even the Orthodox’s church or Luther’s church, for apparently with all the mud slinging it appears none are perfect but all have still prevailed. In the end it is Christ’s Church, His truth is marching on, His light is shining on, hopefully thru you and me in this dark world today. Hopefully you don’t have a problem with the gospel being stronger, even purer, than “your” church or “my” church.

 

[pocohombre]

Great work!!! I enjoyed what you have been writing concerning the primacy of Peter and I agree with you on that If I were not a Catholic I sure wouild now be considering becoming one!

Yes, what Randy posted is quite universal, quite catholic.

 

[ezeekl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
If the successors of Peter went astray as you claim then Jesus was a liar for the forces of hell did prevail.

It’s only a lie if you think it is Peter’s church, or if it is his successor’s church, or if it is the Catholic’s church, or even the Orthodox’s church or Luther’s church, for apparently with all the mud slinging it appears none are perfect but all have still prevailed. In the end it is Christ’s Church, His truth is marching on, His light is shining on, hopefully thru you and me in this dark world today. Hopefully you don’t have a problem with the gospel being stronger, even purer, than “your” church or “my” church.

Not so. How can you say that Christ’s church is marching on when Jesus prayed that His followers would be one yet we are not one. We are divided on the most basic of doctrines so we cannot be one. How can you say that those denominations that were not in existance for the first 1500 years of Christianity are Christ’s Church? Christ did not establish them; Luther did, Calvin did; Zwingli, the Wesleys and the others who came after them did. And what truth is marching on? Is it the truth about the necessity of Baptism or how about whether infant Baptism is valid or whether Baptism is a sacrament or an ordinance? Yes, it is Jesus church and He appointed Peter to be the shepherd of that church as the scriptures plainly teach in John 21:15-17. Peter is to feed the sheep (church) [verses 15 and 17] That is what a shepherd does. The shepherd also rules the flock which is exactly what verse 16 states. The use of the Greek word poimaino in verse 16 which is translated as “tend” means to rule, to govern, to take charge of. Isn’t it odd that as a sola scripturist you are ignorant of what scripture really teaches?

 

[spina1953]

I like to add the V II document Decree on Ecumenisn This pertains to the unity of the whole Church. I found it to be great reading. It seems to me from reading it that the Catholic Church seeks the unity of our seperated brethren while sharing a faith in Christ Jesus. Yes, there are issues that need to be addressed and solved so that unity can once again be whole and not fractured as it is now with all sorts of doctrines and beliefs as to how one is to believe in Christ and the message He taught and gave to the Apostles to pass it on to every generation. it does seen clear to me in looking to how those in times past thought in order to understand better what they were saying about Primacy of Peter. It seems to me and has been clear to me not because the Church says so or teaches is that St Peter was given the keys and he is the visible head of the Church. WE must rememeber that the Church is made up of men and so man of a fallen nature, there will always be some those who will fall. Look to Romans 15:1 “WE who are strong should be patient with the scruples of those whose faith is weak; we must not be selfish.” I am not speaking of faith here but using what was written to show that some are strong and some weak, also I take it to mean in a deeper sense that we should be helping rather than hindering. And it seems to me that there are those who do not want unity and so try and influence others to it and there are those who seek unity but at what cost? if the cost is to give up what has been known to be true, to go in a diffent direction then unity is not possible. I take the Catholic position because not only as a Catholic but because its teaching have pronouncement are correct and true. Without the Pope, we too would have ended up fractured and with all sorts of doctrines and beliefs.

 

[pocohombre]

Not so. How can you say that Christ’s church is marching on when Jesus prayed that His followers would be one yet we are not one.

Are you saying no souls have been added to the Bride since the Great Schism, or since the Reformation ? She is marching on or she is not. Quite sure CC teaching is that there are saved souls in those churches not in union with Rome.

How can you say that those denominations that were not in existance for the first 1500 years of Christianity are Christ’s Church?

Well Vatican II didn’t say we were Budhists or Hindus but certainly part of the Body, thru Rome.

Christ did not establish them; Luther did, Calvin did; Zwingli, the Wesleys and the others who came after them did.

Christ didn’t have to establish them per CC reasoning. Their foundation can be none other than what Christ laid, which per CC teaching is the CC. They are “offshoots” so to speak from CC. That is current Catholic teaching as I see it.

And what truth is marching on? Is it the truth about the necessity of Baptism or how about whether infant Baptism is valid or whether Baptism is a sacrament or an ordinance?

Apparently enough Truth that Christ is in it, in power to truly regenerate, confirm and make endure to the end, in salvation. Right, per CC teaching ?

Yes, it is Jesus church and He appointed Peter to be the shepherd of that church as the scriptures plainly teach in John 21:15-17.

Yes, Peter was used mightily, and is one of the twelve foundations of us all per Revelations. He was a leader. That was 2000 years ago and we all go back to him if we are in Christ at all. As to what each generation lays upon the previous is part of our story also.

 

[ezeekl]

Are you saying no souls have been added to the Bride since the Great Schism, or since the Reformation ? She is marching on or she is not. Quite sure CC teaching is that there are saved souls in those churches not in union with Rome.

*Extra Ecclesia Nolo Salus * still applies.

 

[spina1953]

If I remember my history correctly, Luther broke away from the Church and started his own; as a matter of fact its called Lutheren, so that is a man made church. Luther, Calvin, being another charch named after his teachings, Zwingli, and Westly all disagree as to what the church should be when they broke away from Rome. From then on it seems to me that the Prostestant churches have been fracturering ever since and now there are some 30.000 or more different Prostestant sects each one claining to be Bible based as well as saying they are the true church having the truth. Sounds to me that the Protestants can not agree which one is the true church as well as each one saying that they are Bible based as though other churches are not. Also, each says that one can read as they can the Bible and get whatever they can, as least that was what the some of the early Prostentant leaders said, which to me though I will say reading the Bible is a good thing but to interpete is another story. I know that those who knock on my door and start quoting Bible verses and then start interpeting it, which is just quoting a verse or two from all over the Bible and then tell me what it means, when in fact it does not mean what they say. How can I believe them when they cannot get their act together? For my money I will stay a Catholic and die a Catholic because at least I know they have the fullness of the truth.

 

[pocohombre]

If I remember my history correctly, Luther broke away from the Church and started his own; as a matter of fact its called Lutheren, so that is a man made church

I wish it were that simple, that dependent on how you get your name determines if it is man made. Last I heard Jesus did not name His church Catholic or Roman Catholic, nor Orthodox, nor People of the Way, nor even “Christian”. Right ? Jesus says we will be the “church”, and NT says the Body of Christ also. Now those names are fine and we pick the one we feel represents our faith best. As you say, one to “put your money on”. Right ? I doubt our “names” that this dispensation has attached to us will be used in the next.

These are man made names, are they not

Yes, yes, yes! Do we not all have man made names, as noted above ?

From then on it seems to me that the Prostestant churches have been fracturering ever since and now there are some 30.000 or more different Prostestant sects each one claining to be Bible based

First of all, I would hope all churches would say they are bible based, as even the CC does, not discounting tradition. Secondly the 30,000 is propaganda derived from David Barrett’s "World Christian Encyclopedia". It is not 30,000.You also have differing paremeters on what a “denomination” is. Yes, one definition had it at 8000 but Roman Catholics had 223 for same definition. Here is a site that explains the numbers freerepublic.com/focus/news/756707/ Furthermore, to an outsider, you are either Roman Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant. Orthodox have some kind of unity in that they are not Roman Catholic, nor are they Protestant. Protestants are unified in that they are not Roman Catholic nor Orthodox

Sounds to me that the Protestants can not agree which one is the true church

I thought most Protestant churches have a more universal view of “church” as Cyprian did. I thought they allow for freedom of conscience on faith matters ,that is baptists don’t usually go around saying that Lutherans aren’t saved cause they aren’t baptist, or not part of the one true church.

Also, each says that one can read as they can the Bible and get whatever they can, as least that was what the some of the early Prostentant leaders said,

Maybe, on some things. Even Jerome and Augustine said the same, on some things. For instance is it true Augustine said you didn’t have to believe in purgatory, but OK if you did. Jerome on some of his bible commentaries or book prefaces gave some opinions that he left up to the reader to agree or disagree with.

 

[Abu]

pocohombre #288
Last I heard Jesus did not name His church Catholic or Roman Catholic, nor Orthodox, nor People of the Way, nor even “Christian”. Right ? Jesus says we will be the “church”

The appalling disregard for Jesus is evident in the selfist assumptions. How puerile to disregard the expressed Will of the Lord who gave His mandate to St Peter as His Supreme Vicar.

For Jesus built HIS CHURCH on St Peter the Rock through three promises to him and no one else, with the sole supremacy of feeding and strengthening the flock, with His Apostles and St Paul to extend the foundation.

No one becomes “church” by denying His Bride. Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217)

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Trying to claim Christ while denying much of His teaching through the reality of His sole Church is the reason for the conflicting feelings and personal confusion.

 

[pocohombre]

The appalling disregard for Jesus is evident in the selfist assumptions. How puerile to disregard the expressed Will of the Lord who gave His mandate to St Peter as His Supreme Vicar.

For Jesus built HIS CHURCH on St Peter the Rock through three promises to him and no one else, with the sole supremacy of feeding and strengthening the flock, with His Apostles and St Paul to extend the foundation.

No one becomes “church” by denying His Bride. Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217)

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Trying to claim Christ while denying much of His teaching through the reality of His sole Church is the reason for the conflicting feelings and personal confusion.

Thank you. I thought it was a man named Ignatius that gave the name “catholic”(as an adjective not noun). It was a man made name as was "christian " or “people of the way” (which is fine by me but apparently to others “man-made” could be bad).

 

[ezeekl]

Well this thread keeps drifting. I think we have covered the original topic even though we do not agree. So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I am petitioning the moderators to lock the thread.