Peters Keys to the Kingdom

[Louie1983]

Continued…

Paul’s rebuke of peter - Paul opposed Peter because he was separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Why was this a big deal? Because Peter was the one who infallibly taught that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. Peter was the one who made this monumental decision as we read in the book of Acts. Paul was criticizing Peter’s conduct, not his teaching authority. Everyone would have looked naturally to Peter and his conduct since he was the leader. God specifically reveals this in Scripture to teach us that there is a difference between a pope’s private conduct and opinions and his official teaching authority.

I believe Peter’s conduct can be viewed as legitimate. Peter had a mission to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was therefore very concerned about how the Gentiles were evangelized. Paul viewed Peter’s conduct as a possible scandal to the Gentile’s evangelization. However, Peter had his own reasons. In the book of Acts, we read that the Jews were angry that Peter was dining with Gentiles. They could not understand this, since they always viewed themselves as having a preferential position with God. Peter was trying to pacify them for the moment by trying to make the best out of a difficult situation.

God bless.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Continued…

Paul’s rebuke of peter - Paul opposed Peter because he was separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Why was this a big deal? Because Peter was the one who infallibly taught that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. Peter was the one who made this monumental decision as we read in the book of Acts. Paul was criticizing Peter’s conduct, not his teaching authority. Everyone would have looked naturally to Peter and his conduct since he was the leader. God specifically reveals this in Scripture to teach us that there is a difference between a pope’s private conduct and opinions and his official teaching authority.

I believe Peter’s conduct can be viewed as legitimate. Peter had a mission to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was therefore very concerned about how the Gentiles were evangelized. Paul viewed Peter’s conduct as a possible scandal to the Gentile’s evangelization. However, Peter had his own reasons. In the book of Acts, we read that the Jews were angry that Peter was dining with Gentiles. They could not understand this, since they always viewed themselves as having a preferential position with God. Peter was trying to pacify them for the moment by trying to make the best out of a difficult situation.

God bless.

Both posts were superb, Louis. Well-reasoned arguments. I will point out, however, that the other patriarchs had to sign off on the documents of the ecumenical councils along with the pope, his not being the exclusive executive signing like the president. And the main testimony we hear that paints the papacy in the light of the prince of bishops and head-honcho comes from the West, from those churches mostly intimately involved with Rome itself. Men like Ambrose, Augustine, and Cyprian, etc. But interestingly enough, Cyprian himself wrote glowing things about how Peter’s authority was handed to popes and that these men preside over everyone and then he had a falling out with the pope and changed his tune lol…Being a person that is as details-oriented and loving history, etc. you’ll definitely enjoy this:
books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=Ch4PAAAAIAAJ&dq=cyprian+papal+supremacy&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=Dy1HVdchIl&sig=QfJ7NbP6_saB5Acu_Kbiuam_-eg#PPR10,M1

We definitely know by 446 AD when Leo the Great wrote his letter to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica, that Leo already has great power and authority and views himself as Peter and prince of the patriarchs. See link section XII. newadvent.org/fathers/3604014.htm

And even earliier Irenaeus said in the second century “With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree… and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”

I don’t think there’s ANY argument that the papacy deserved a protos, a sense of having a special primacy. But what I think Anglicans and Orthodox argue most against is universal jurisdiction and infallibility. We don’t see infallibility ever explicitely stated until the
1800’s. It is a primacy of honor and respect and most arguments and cases were referred to Rome when they couldn’t be resolved at a diocesan level. The Pope definitely was held in high esteem but there are mixed quotes.

I’ve never spoken to a reasonable Anglican, for example, that doesn’t say the Pope is the prince of primates and patriarch of the West. But beyond that they disagree. I see the same with Orthodoxy. They afford him the coryphaeus title showing their respect as well.

I think history has done more to tarnish the papacy’s claims than anything. Seeing Pius V excommunicating Elizabeth I and then working with the Spanish Armada to try and conquer England in order to restore Catholicism over the Church of England left the people in Great Britain pretty sore; it left a nasty papal aftertaste. The Regnans in Excelsis bull excommunicated Elizabeth and encouraged the British people to turn on her. Pius V encouraged Mary Queen of Scots to take England as well. I can only imagine being British at the time and seeing a character in Italy intriguing against my country as a Brit. I’d be fuming. And what’s worse is the letter from a papal secretary to a nuncio in Madrid that said: “Whosoever sends her (Elizabeth) out of the world with the pius intention of doing God service not only does not sin but gains merit” that actually did more to hurt Catholic missionaries in England and the effort to re-Catholicize England than anything.

It’s papal intrigues in Europe and the political domination that led the Reformers to doubt and condemn the papacy more than anything I think. That infallible, “Church serving in Love” (Ignatius of Antioch) that was said by Leo the Great to be so gentle and caring was passively allowing or encouraging assassinations (and giving merit to them!) and helping the Spanish against England. The wealth and power of Rome was out of control.

I think the idea that a pope can be a horrific ruffian that encourages war and assasination and political intriguing to this degree and then be defended by Catholic apologists saying “Hey, nobody said the guy is perfect in behavior, just theological proclamations!” is a weak argument that many people don’t buy. Behavior is part of theological credibility and leadership. It’s the walk the walk not just talk the talk that people expect. Had these popes all behaved like John Paul II probably the entire Reformation would’ve been a tough sell! lol

 

[Louie1983]

Both posts were superb, Louis. Well-reasoned arguments. …Being a person that is as details-oriented and loving history, etc. you’ll definitely enjoy this:
books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=Ch4PAAAAIAAJ&dq=cyprian+papal+supremacy&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=Dy1HVdchIl&sig=QfJ7NbP6_saB5Acu_Kbiuam_-eg#PPR10,M1

Thanks for the compliment! Your posts are very well presented and very helpfull also! I’ll look at the website for sure!

We definitely know by 446 AD when Leo the Great wrote his letter to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica, that Leo already has great power and authority and views himself as Peter and prince of the patriarchs. See link section XII. newadvent.org/fathers/3604014.htm

**Yep agree here. **

And even earliier Irenaeus said in the second century “With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree… and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”

**No probs here. **

I don’t think there’s ANY argument that the papacy deserved a protos, a sense of having a special primacy. But what I think Anglicans and Orthodox argue most against is universal jurisdiction and infallibility. We don’t see infallibility ever explicitely stated until the
1800’s. It is a primacy of honor and respect and most arguments and cases were referred to Rome when they couldn’t be resolved at a diocesan level. The Pope definitely was held in high esteem but there are mixed quotes.

I know we didn’t see infallibility ever explicitly stated but it didn’t need to be, it was known and your comments above in the first couple of paragraphs prove that! It’s proved by the thousands of early church father quotes, it’s proved by scripture and it’s proved by the fact that church is still standng today with the pope as it’s head! The fact that our lady prophesised about the pope at fatima! The fact that thousands of saints have had messages rvealed to them by our lady regarding the pope proves to me also that the catholic church is backed by god ( st don bosco’s dream in regards to the end of the world shows this big time!)

I’ve never spoken to a reasonable Anglican, for example, that doesn’t say the Pope is the prince of primates and patriarch of the West. But beyond that they disagree. I see the same with Orthodoxy. They afford him the coryphaeus title showing their respect as well.

I agree, i’m not saying that they are disrespectfull. They are charitable, respectfull christ loving brothers and sisters. No dramas here with me. I also respect them greately.

I think history has done more to tarnish the papacy’s claims than anything. Seeing Pius V excommunicating Elizabeth I and then working with the Spanish Armada to try and conquer England in order to restore Catholicism over the Church of England left the people in Great Britain pretty sore; it left a nasty papal aftertaste. The Regnans in Excelsis bull excommunicated Elizabeth and encouraged the British people to turn on her. Pius V encouraged Mary Queen of Scots to take England as well. I can only imagine being British at the time and seeing a character in Italy intriguing against my country as a Brit. I’d be fuming. And what’s worse is the letter from a papal secretary to a nuncio in Madrid that said: “Whosoever sends her (Elizabeth) out of the world with the pius intention of doing God service not only does not sin but gains merit” that actually did more to hurt Catholic missionaries in England and the effort to re-Catholicize England than anything.

Yes the actions of some popes were regretfull, they let their personal pride get in the way of christ’s work!

It’s papal intrigues in Europe and the political domination that led the Reformers to doubt and condemn the papacy more than anything I think. That infallible, “Church serving in Love” (Ignatius of Antioch) that was said by Leo the Great to be so gentle and caring was passively allowing or encouraging assassinations (and giving merit to them!) and helping the Spanish against England. The wealth and power of Rome was out of control.

I think the idea that a pope can be a horrific ruffian that encourages war and assasination and political intriguing to this degree and then be defended by Catholic apologists saying “Hey, nobody said the guy is perfect in behavior, just theological proclamations!” is a weak argument that many people don’t buy. Behavior is part of theological credibility and leadership. It’s the walk the walk not just talk the talk that people expect. Had these popes all behaved like John Paul II probably the entire Reformation would’ve been a tough sell! lol

I don’t think it’s a weak argument my friend, i think it’s a true argument. They are human like the rest of us and i agree if we had more popes like john paul II then i think things possibly could have been better. But that is why we needed christ to die for our sins, we are all sinners including popes! Think of all the great popes that have done so much to bring peace, preach the faith, help the poor, fight poverty and aids and corrupt and evil governments! (look at how many jews were saved by the church during WWII). Yes people expect the walk the walk but also expect that some people will make mistakes and allow their personal pride to get in the way, it’s human nature unfortunately. Thankfully we have a 2000 year church rich in tradition and truth!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think it’s a weak argument my friend, i think it’s a true argument. They are human like the rest of us and i agree if we had more popes like john paul II then i think things possibly could have been better. But that is why we needed christ to die for our sins, we are all sinners including popes! Think of all the great popes that have done so much to bring peace, preach the faith, help the poor, fight poverty and aids and corrupt and evil governments! (look at how many jews were saved by the church during WWII). Yes people expect the walk the walk but also expect that some people will make mistakes and allow their personal pride to get in the way, it’s human nature unfortunately. Thankfully we have a 2000 year church rich in tradition and truth!

Believe it or not, I’m with you Louie. I’m struggling to accept infallibility and have been now for a while. I go to confession once a week or so and go to daily Mass praying for an obedient heart to accept this doctrine along other issues. I have struggled with the idea of Eucharistic Adoration also so today, with an open heart, I went to the new Adoration Chapel with my three year old son and prayed there. I am praying a novena to John Paul II and have an open mind. Trust me, I know there is a lot of argument in favor of the Petrine doctrines and papal supremacy and our Roman Catholic faith. I have not jumped ship. I’m hanging in there. And as you point out, Marian apparitions have been powerful forces in my own faith as well. Eucharistic miracles and Marian apparitions have reinforced my desire to accept the papal claims. I am a student of history and I have seen a great deal of corrupt, nasty, political grabbing, horrible moves by the papacy throughout the centuries. And I can see how some protestants and Orthodox have reacted to the geopolitical ramifications of the papacy at times.

But in my own faith life I’m praying and holding on. I am encouraged and heartened by the fact that the truths that I KNOW to be real (the Eucharist, Confession, Apostolic Succession, Marian beliefs, Saints, liturgy) are in our Roman Catholic faith. I also get encouraged by reading the lives of the saints and seeing all the good that our religion has produced. I personally think that I have a restless heart and a bit of a pessimistic spirit about me and that the devil uses it against me much like he gave a thorn to blessed St. Paul. These issues are my thorn. But I haven’t chosen to jump ship or trash the Church over them. I just like to get the arguments out there and debate them, think them through, understand them, and make sure the truth is where I’m being led. I’m working through it, man. Pray for me! Thanks for the spirited, intelligent, careful posts you’ve shared. You’re obviously richly blessed by Our Lord. God bless!
Scott+

 

[Louie1983]

Believe it or not, I’m with you Louie. I’m struggling to accept infallibility and have been now for a while. I go to confession once a week or so and go to daily Mass praying for an obedient heart to accept this doctrine along other issues. I have struggled with the idea of Eucharistic Adoration also so today, with an open heart, I went to the new Adoration Chapel with my three year old son and prayed there. I am praying a novena to John Paul II and have an open mind. Trust me, I know there is a lot of argument in favor of the Petrine doctrines and papal supremacy and our Roman Catholic faith. I have not jumped ship. I’m hanging in there. And as you point out, Marian apparitions have been powerful forces in my own faith as well. Eucharistic miracles and Marian apparitions have reinforced my desire to accept the papal claims. I am a student of history and I have seen a great deal of corrupt, nasty, political grabbing, horrible moves by the papacy throughout the centuries. And I can see how some protestants and Orthodox have reacted to the geopolitical ramifications of the papacy at times.

**Brother i hear you! I’m not accusing you of jumping ship and i understand 100% that your struggling with some issues because i have done the same with certain issues. It’s not easy to understand the faith, but we trust the the holy spirit will reveal the knowledge to us when we are ready to accept it. I’m praying for you! If there is one piece of advice i can give you is to visit the blessed sacrament as much as possible - this is a powerfull way to get closer to him and the church! believe me, it helped me immensely and now i can’t stop recommending it to everyone!

Yes i can understand the orthodox and the anglican view because of some of the corrupt and distugusting things that the chuch as done in it’s history. But history isn’t going to bring you closer to the faith, The church will! Hang in there, a priest whom i’m clsoe said to me the other day “if christ brings you to it, he’ll bring you through it”.**

But in my own faith life I’m praying and holding on. I am encouraged and heartened by the fact that the truths that I KNOW to be real (the Eucharist, Confession, Apostolic Succession, Marian beliefs, Saints, liturgy) are in our Roman Catholic faith. I also get encouraged by reading the lives of the saints and seeing all the good that our religion has produced. I personally think that I have a restless heart and a bit of a pessimistic spirit about me and that the devil uses it against me much like he gave a thorn to blessed St. Paul. These issues are my thorn. But I haven’t chosen to jump ship or trash the Church over them. I just like to get the arguments out there and debate them, think them through, understand them, and make sure the truth is where I’m being led. I’m working through it, man. Pray for me! Thanks for the spirited, intelligent, careful posts you’ve shared. You’re obviously richly blessed by Our Lord. God bless!
Scott+

Reading the lives of saints is a very powerfull way of helping your faith, i watched a movie on padre pio the other day and man, that was the best movie i have ever seen! He was something. Such struggles, such faith!

Everyone has issues friend, but it’s not the issues that counts - it’s how we handle them. Trust in god and his church is the best way! Yeah i understand you like to get the arguments out there to get some answres and this is good, nothing wrong with that. And by what you displayed, you seem to have a lot of answers anyway!

God bless you!
Brother i hear you! I’m not accusing you of jumping ship and i understand 100% that your struggling with some issues because i have done the same.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Reading the lives of saints is a very powerfull way of helping your faith, i watched a movie on padre pio the other day and man, that was the best movie i have ever seen! He was something. Such struggles, such faith!

Everyone has issues friend, but it’s not the issues that counts - it’s how we handle them. Trust in god and his church is the best way! Yeah i understand you like to get the arguments out there to get some answres and this is good, nothing wrong with that. And by what you displayed, you seem to have a lot of answers anyway!

God bless you!
Brother i hear you! I’m not accusing you of jumping ship and i understand 100% that your struggling with some issues because i have done the same.

Thanks, Louie! By the way, which Pio movie is it that you watched? I saw these two movies on Amazon about Pio and one called "Karol"http://www.amazon.com/Karol-Man-Who...ef=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1247728398&sr=8-1

Was this the movie you watched? amazon.com/Padre-Pio-Between-Heaven-Earth/dp/B001PB3NWU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1247728422&sr=1-2

Scott

 

[josethomas2005]

Ok josethomas, as per instructions, I read both “very carefully.” Please now make your point about these two links. What is your point and what is your analysis of the donation of Constantine?

Thank you for reading them carefully. Next you read the following articles carefully.

syrianchurch.org/Articles/PrimacyofStPeter.htm

socdigest.org/articles/11sept05.html

indianchristianity.org/syrian.html

 

[Worthy5]

Believe it or not, I’m with you Louie. I’m struggling to accept infallibility and have been now for a while. I go to confession once a week or so and go to daily Mass praying for an obedient heart to accept this doctrine along other issues. I have struggled with the idea of Eucharistic Adoration also so today, with an open heart, I went to the new Adoration Chapel with my three year old son and prayed there. I am praying a novena to John Paul II and have an open mind. Trust me, I know there is a lot of argument in favor of the Petrine doctrines and papal supremacy and our Roman Catholic faith. I have not jumped ship. I’m hanging in there. And as you point out, Marian apparitions have been powerful forces in my own faith as well. Eucharistic miracles and Marian apparitions have reinforced my desire to accept the papal claims. I am a student of history and I have seen a great deal of corrupt, nasty, political grabbing, horrible moves by the papacy throughout the centuries. And I can see how some protestants and Orthodox have reacted to the geopolitical ramifications of the papacy at times.

But in my own faith life I’m praying and holding on. I am encouraged and heartened by the fact that the truths that I KNOW to be real (the Eucharist, Confession, Apostolic Succession, Marian beliefs, Saints, liturgy) are in our Roman Catholic faith. I also get encouraged by reading the lives of the saints and seeing all the good that our religion has produced. I personally think that I have a restless heart and a bit of a pessimistic spirit about me and that the devil uses it against me much like he gave a thorn to blessed St. Paul. These issues are my thorn. But I haven’t chosen to jump ship or trash the Church over them. I just like to get the arguments out there and debate them, think them through, understand them, and make sure the truth is where I’m being led. I’m working through it, man. Pray for me! Thanks for the spirited, intelligent, careful posts you’ve shared. You’re obviously richly blessed by Our Lord. God bless!
Scott+

 

[bruno211]

Catholic means universal. The catholic church was started by a pagan babolynoian high priest similar to Simon the Sourcer as mentioned in Acts. He combined pagan doctrines and Christian doctrines to form a universal church. There is no historical evidence that Peter was in Rome. He did go to Babylon and not Rome. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter was the apostles to the Jews. There were many Jews in Babylon.

If you look at the Catholic Encyclopedia you will find a Simon Pater (Peter) Magus living in Rome. This is the only Peter that can be proved to be historically proved to have been in Rome. His teachings concerning the universal (Catholic) church is why they are so different as presented in the Bible.

The original New Testament was written in Konian Greek. Greek was the business language in Israel at the time of Jesus, Paul, and Luke. Petros (Peter) meant a small stone and not a huge rock.

The Kingdom is the Church and has no earthly head. Each congregation should have elders and deacons as Paul told Timothy to appoint in each congregation. The Bible never mentions a Pope. This was an invention by man and is a part of the paganism. The Bible says that the Church (The called out) is the kingdon.

The keys to the Kingdon was given to the Apostles and all Christians during the early Church. One gets into the Kingdom (Church) by obeying the Gospel as Peter preached the first Gospel sermon in Acts 2. And Jesus said before hje ascended to heaven; “Go into all the world and preach the gospel. He that believeth and is baptised will be saved. He that believeth not will be dammed.” You are baptised into Christ, the Church. Look at Romans 6:1-18. Who will you believe: Paul or some man (Pope). The Pope was not declared infallable until some time after the 3rd century.

Bruce Pennington

 

[ufamtobie]

QUOTE=Sellers1;5423954]Pardon me but this statement would be inferior to even an infomercial./

QUOTE]

Sellers,

Is that all you can say?

Ufam Tobie

 

[ufamtobie]

And what church is that??

Sellers,

You are Correct, Yes what Church is that, since there are so many protestant churches out there, hey there is even one opening its doors down the street from my work, I believe it is called “The True Church” lol go figure. Which Church is the True Church? the One opening its doors in about a week or the One that Opened its doors on Pentacost over 2000 years ago?

The Catholic Church has the Fullness of Grace and it is the name brand of all Churches all others Churches that came 1500 years later are just a generic brand they work as a stepping stone to find the true church, but don’t have the Fullness of Grace of the Original name brand.

If you were sick whould you want the Name Brand prescription with the FULL INGREDIENCE to get well or the Generic Brand with less ingredience?

Ufam Tobie

 

[Worthy5]

Catholic means universal. The catholic church was started by a pagan babolynoian high priest similar to Simon the Sourcer as mentioned in Acts. He combined pagan doctrines and Christian doctrines to form a universal church. There is no historical evidence that Peter was in Rome. He did go to Babylon and not Rome. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter was the apostles to the Jews. There were many Jews in Babylon.

If you look at the Catholic Encyclopedia you will find a Simon Pater (Peter) Magus living in Rome. This is the only Peter that can be proved to be historically proved to have been in Rome. His teachings concerning the universal (Catholic) church is why they are so different as presented in the Bible.

The original New Testament was written in Konian Greek. Greek was the business language in Israel at the time of Jesus, Paul, and Luke. Petros (Peter) meant a small stone and not a huge rock.

The Kingdom is the Church and has no earthly head. Each congregation should have elders and deacons as Paul told Timothy to appoint in each congregation. The Bible never mentions a Pope. This was an invention by man and is a part of the paganism. The Bible says that the Church (The called out) is the kingdon.

The keys to the Kingdon was given to the Apostles and all Christians during the early Church. One gets into the Kingdom (Church) by obeying the Gospel as Peter preached the first Gospel sermon in Acts 2. And Jesus said before hje ascended to heaven; “Go into all the world and preach the gospel. He that believeth and is baptised will be saved. He that believeth not will be dammed.” You are baptised into Christ, the Church. Look at Romans 6:1-18. Who will you believe: Paul or some man (Pope). The Pope was not declared infallable until some time after the 3rd century.

Bruce Pennington

Hi Bruce

You have some problems here. You need to provide citations for your historical claims. Also, you need to lay a foundation or justification on why you think the Bible is what it proclaims to be-divine revelation. You also need to justify how you know that the Bible is the only source of divine revelation. Finally, you need to justify and outline the criterion you are using to critique the Catholic Church if you are going to continue to try to disprove it or its tenets and practices. If you are going back to the Bible then again you need to show that is the only source and if it is the only source how can you come to any definite conclusion about divine revelation from written language which is by its nature indeterminate.

Also you indicate, " Who are you going to believe: Paul or some man (Pope) Was not Paul a man?

 

[jpaul1953]

Sellers,

You are Correct, Yes what Church is that, since there are so many protestant churches out there, hey there is even one opening its doors down the street from my work, I believe it is called “The True Church” lol go figure. Which Church is the True Church? the One opening its doors in about a week or the One that Opened its doors on Pentacost over 2000 years ago?

The Catholic Church has the Fullness of Grace and it is the name brand of all Churches all others Churches that came 1500 years later are just a generic brand they work as a stepping stone to find the true church, but don’t have the Fullness of Grace of the Original name brand.

If you were sick whould you want the Name Brand prescription with the FULL INGREDIENCE to get well or the Generic Brand with less ingredience?

Ufam Tobie

Ufam Tobie,

You’re a breath of fresh air that will not tolerate the dislike the protesters have for our/the Church.

They deny Simon Kephas(Peter)'s authority when it is the only authority ever issued by Christ. They say they believe the whole Bible, but they don’t. They leave out any and all that they can’t get a grip on, which is usually other Catholic-only teachings.

These individuals wear me out with their incapability to acknowlege that the apostles and early church fathers might know more than them. No, these newbies with their enormous egos have it all under control. I’m starting to ‘dust my sandals off and just walk away’ as Jesus told His many disciples. They say we’re wrong . Okay that fine, but then they get sarcastic. They say anybody with any common sense would know that the Church is just ramming their views down eother people’s throats. I can assure you, if they don’t want to see the truth, I will not try to make them see it.

The truth is here if they want it.

Thank Ufam Tobie, my breath of fresh air. Stick to your guns. I know I it 's good for the believers.

May God guide us always to the truth.

jpaul1953

 

[Louie1983]

Thanks, Louie! By the way, which Pio movie is it that you watched? I saw these two movies on Amazon about Pio and one called "Karol"http://www.amazon.com/Karol-Man-Who...ef=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1247728398&sr=8-1

Was this the movie you watched? amazon.com/Padre-Pio-Between-Heaven-Earth/dp/B001PB3NWU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1247728422&sr=1-2

Scott

no the one i watched is cimpletely in italian with english subtitles. when i find it on the net i’ll give you the link.

 

[Sellers1]

Sellers,

You are Correct, Yes what Church is that, since there are so many protestant churches out there, hey there is even one opening its doors down the street from my work, I believe it is called “The True Church” lol go figure. Which Church is the True Church? the One opening its doors in about a week or the One that Opened its doors on Pentacost over 2000 years ago?

The Catholic Church has the Fullness of Grace and it is the name brand of all Churches all others Churches that came 1500 years later are just a generic brand they work as a stepping stone to find the true church, but don’t have the Fullness of Grace of the Original name brand.

If you were sick whould you want the Name Brand prescription with the FULL INGREDIENCE to get well or the Generic Brand with less ingredience?

Ufam Tobie

I would want a correct diagnosis first.

 

[ufamtobie]

QUOTE=Sellers1;5460644]I would want a correct diagnosis first.

Sellers, If you want the Correct Diagnosis, you must tell me your symptoms?

Ufam Tobie

 

[jpaul1953]

Then to what else it got to do with? We believe it certainly got to do with the leaders of the church to whom this legality had been conferred to.

Mathew 16 is clear enough. And I thought some of the posts by Gabriel of 12 is very clear in explaining this and they make excellent reading. Maybe you should refer to them again.

Too bad there is only one official tradition and the Universal Church is its keeper. Protestants have to deal with this and whether you like it or not, it will not go away.
Anyway, it’s interesting if you can give proof where the manipulations are so that we can think about it too.

For someone who has said this,

**Tradition is something that has been severely manipulated by Catholics for centuries so I’m not really interested how you tie it together through your so called tradition, **

it not likely you will take history seriously from the Church either.

You sit on the premise that everything was to be found in the Bible, and as we know, it certainly is not. Only if you appreciate history, then all your doubts will be cleared and answered. Sadly, however, you would not, as someone has said, it will be fatal to your present belief system if you do. You see, the Church is not just something being set up today; it is and has been full of history.

Yes there are many Catholics who turned Protestant but there are quite a big number of prominent Protestant theologians who turn Catholic as well. I don’t know what this proves, do you?

The good part is that it appears the 'informed protestants even in High Positions have chosen catholicism over their denmimnation. and been basically reduced to a parishioner. That is truly humbling

The unimformed have decided to leave the Church for an easier road to salvation which is only there because now they 'shut their eyes to the truth.( I’ll be like Sellers!). This is truth: and we would rather have the bright bulbs of Protestantism than the lost sheep if Catholicism-Tiime wil bring them back

jpaul1953

 

[bruno211]

Some making posts about Peter and the Keys to Heaven use any means to defend their Catholic doctrine. Even asking if the Bible is really the word of God and even denying scripture that refutes that Peter was ever a Pope. The Catholic Bible says the same thing about how a person obtains salvation. Jesus himself said "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel (Good News). He that believes and is baptised will be saved. He that does not believe will be lost. The Bible will interpret itself and not as Catholic proclaim that scriptures are taken out of context. The Kingdon and the Church are one and the same thing. The early disciples including the Apostles went about teaching in the temple and house. They were teaching the Gospel which you might say is the Key that gets you into heaven. Peter will not decide who goes to heaven. Jesus said that the words that he had spoken will judge you at the end of time. The term Bishop in the New Testament is the same as an elder. Paul told Timothy to appoint elders (plural) in every congregation. Elder or Bishop is not a rank or office. It is a term that is used to designate leaders in a congregation.

Bruce Pennington

 

[Bill_Pick]

Ok clearly and let me know if im the only one that thinks this or…? but it seems to me that the major dif between the Catholics and protestants is clearly Peter and his keys to the kingdom which i would argue has been horribly taken out of context and personally would go as far to say Peter never intentioned any succession of a “seat” also that there are no other scriptures you can dig up to support that idea.
your thoughts?

What happen after Judas kill him self

 

[cazayoux]

… He that does not believe will be lost…

Even some that believe, but do not DO the will of the Father will be lost.
Faith without works is ‘dead faith’, not ‘no faith’.

The Bible will interpret itself and not as Catholic proclaim that scriptures are taken out of context.

If you were right, wouldn’t all non-Catholics agree on doctrine?

Peter will not decide who goes to heaven.

No Catholic believes that Peter decides who goes to heaven.
Peter’s authority as Pope is to feed and tend Jesus’ sheep.
His authority is a teaching authority.

Elder or Bishop is not a rank or office.

This contradicts scripture.

**KJV: Acts 1:20 **speaking of Judas’ office.
and his bishoprick let another take

Judas is gone, and his office remained.

michel