Ya know, it makes me laugh
It is true there is a somewhat mocking tone to your posts. I wonder what the source of that might be?
when I hear another explanation why the Scriptures don’t mean what they say or how we absolutely have no correct way or any idea of what Scripture says outside of your magisterium.
You seem to have considerable hostility toward the Catholic faith. It also seems that you are in posession of considerable misunderstandings and misinformations about Catholicims. The CC does not teach that the is “absolutely no correct way or any idea of what Scritpure says outside the magesterium”.
Have you considered actually having some dialogue about what the CC really believes and teaches, rather than all these erroneous notions you have collected?
Have you considered laying aside your hostility in order to learn?
Code:
Of all the Catholics I have ever spoken with on this subject over many many years, this is the first time I have ever heard anything remotely close to this. I don't accept it. Sorry.
It is likely that you misunderstood what you were told, or, it may be possible that someone made a mistake in saying it. In either case, one person’s personal expression is not necessarily what the Church teaches. If you are going to hate Catholicism, would it not show more integrity if you hated it because of what the Church really teaches, rather than misconceptions?
If Peter was everything your church claims, then he would have been spoken of in Scripture in these ways and he simply was not.
This is an erroneous idea, and one that you cannot scripturally support, either.
You cannot fill the void there that clearly exists.
The void exists for you pritchard because you refuse to accept what is written, and because you are clinging to the notion that everything that Jesus taught is contained in Scripture. Catholics don’t suffer from these deficiencies, so we don’t have a void.
Paul never eluded to Peter being supreme in any of his Epistles. Not once. At some point here you have to admit that this isn’t an argument that can be supported by Scripture.
Why would Paul subscribe to your erroneous and wordly attitudes about leadership in the Church?
The fact that Paul does not write about Peter’s role extensively does not mean there is no scriptural support for it.
Paul’s letters were written to Churches he planted, to address doctrinal and pastoral issues. Peter’s role was not among the problems in the early Church. Your assumption that it should be makes no sense.
=
The Bible is also not a Catholic book. It was compiled by the Early Church, East and West together.
It appears that you have some things to learn about the history of your faith. If you can curb your hostility, you won’t get banned, and you can learn something.
The Early Church, East and West togehter, was Catholic. All Catholic, all the time, everywhere.
In fact look at where those councils ended up. Carthage and Hippo both became part of the Orthodox church. So, if we wanted to be technical here, we could say that the Bible is an Orthodox book, but then we have another problem. Your canon isn’t the same as the Orthodox canon. Why?? There’s just too many voids to cover to make the Catholic argument to work.
The Bible is as much an Orthodox book as it is Catholic, because it was compiled prior to the schism. And you are wrong, there are no discrepancies in the 27 books of the NT identified at Hippo, Carthage, and later by the Council of Rome in 382.
If you dont everyone in here can logically and validly conclude that you have no real intent in discussing these things and we can all be on our way. Until the Bible alone argument can be established and proven there is no point in discussing the Papacy under Bible alone standards.
