C
CarolNoel
Guest
Me too.
- Status
po18guy
Well-known member
[/quote]
[/quote]
I will take credit for my replies, but not all of these are mine. I ask my questions to inspire thought on your part, but you seem to dismiss them. You have not answered, but only repeated your well-set and well-known opinion. Can you answer them? This is meant to be a dialog, not a monolog where everyone here simply accepts your opinion and changes their beliefs. That is the promotion of an agenda, not a dialog.
I believe that non-Catholics place a heavy emphasis on Paul simply because they are limited to what is written and Paul wrote a lot. He taught a lot. There is great theological depth in his writings. But, the Church is more than just Paul, isn’t it? And, why must Peter suffer so much in your opinion for a single act of hypocritical behavior, when Paul demonstrates the exact same thing with Timothy?
From a purely human standpoint, to justify separation from the Catholic Church - a practice that began long ago - one must not only defend one’s own beliefs, but must also be set in opposition to the Catholic Church. Is this not common sense?
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
po18guy
Well-known member
D
dronald
Guest
This one’s easy. No, I’m not.
I am not claiming anything contrary to what the Bible says, I’m saying your belief that the Apostolic succession of a Pope from Peter to the Pope we have now is a stretch based on this passage in the Bible. There are much stronger positions than Paul visiting Peter for 15 days.
Yes I believe in everything the Bible says, but we don’t always draw the same conclusions. We’re not here to discuss authority.
Then I’ll clear this up now. (Even though I already have once) I have no issue with Peter or Mary. Just because I don’t have the same beliefs about Peter and Mary that Catholics do doesn’t mean that I have something against either one of them. I’ve been accused of both before, and I want to clear up that Protestants also love those who came before us.
I was relating Galatians 2 to your Galatians 1. You claim that Peter meeting with Paul gives Peter a special authority, yet when Paul rebukes Peter it’s no big deal. I’m not pitting either against either, I honestly believe that they were all Apostles and all had authority, and I don’t believe that Paul ever believed Peter had a special authority.
Which questions have I ignored exactly? If there is a question that is off topic or demeaning then of course I’ll skip it because it shows that I’m not being taken seriously in my replies.
This is actually a very valid point and I agree with it.
I don’t know if he suffers exactly. In what way is Peter suffering at the hands of Protestants? Is it simply because we do not accept the authority of a Pope?
They all have made mistakes for sure, I agree. It really does show (imo) that there isn’t truly one sole authority among men considering they all disagreed at some point. Again, this is why Paul goes ahead and says that they are “nothing.”
A
Abu
Guest
In Acts 15, when speaking at the first Church Council at Jerusalem (A.D. 50), we have seen that Peter condemned circumcision and the law of Moses (Acts 15:10-11). The first Council was careful in the wording of its resolution but it endorsed Peter’s sentiments, refusing to put any unnecessary burdens on the new converts.
Acts 10-15 show that even before Paul, Peter came to see that the ceremonial laws were no longer in effect. And furthermore “Peter was the prime mover in issuing this decree” for the rest of the Church.
defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html
Acts 10-15 show that even before Paul, Peter came to see that the ceremonial laws were no longer in effect. And furthermore “Peter was the prime mover in issuing this decree” for the rest of the Church.
defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html
A
Abu
Guest
That’s the heart of the problem – not accepting the authority of Christ when He mandated St Peter to be His Supreme Vicar.
Still bewildered, quite unable to explain why Christ is denied:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]
Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
As the Word of God, the Bible as defined and given to us by the Catholic Church, emphasises the supremacy of St Peter as Christ’s chosen Vicar.
D
dronald
Guest
I understand that this is what Catholics believe. We certainly have the same NT as you with the same words but obviously don’t interpret those passages the same.
And I’ll say again, this topic is not about authority. That’s why I leave so many questions unanswered because it’s guaranteed to go off topic. Catholicservant posted the same passages and I said the same thing.
A
Abu
Guest
- No one would have a N.T. without the Catholic Church who canonised it.
- Back to St Paul: the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!
But the poster tries to teach Christ and His Church! - “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).
a) Never did Jesus command any of His Apostles to write anything, but to go and teach under the Primacy of St Peter.
b) It is only through His Church that everyone can have the Sacred Scriptures to mangle or to lead him to Christ’s Church.
c) The result of private interpretation like the poster has been tens of thousands of differing and confused “interpretations” among those outside of His Church. Those errors proliferated 1500 years after Christ established His Church. - St Matthew, 28:16-20:
“And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
Perhaps the poster doesn’t know the meaning of consummation: (=completion) or “end” (=finish/termination).
How can Christ’s Church be the same as many thousands of differing sects in Protestantism, when the Catholic Church is that which Christ founded with His Magisterium? The faithful “remained faithful to the teaching of the Apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers.” (Acts 2:42). So, as Jesus commanded, His Church has the Eucharist (Holy Mass), His seven sacraments, the Magisterium in the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, Her Tradition and Her Sacred Scriptures. Where else can you find this?
If there is dissent from any of the teaching of Christ’s own Church then those so afflicted are unable in the area of their infidelity to help others to the truth. The information is flawed – the formation is flawed. They will be disinformed, malformed, without clear direction – strong and vibrantly wrong.
Christ said, “If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen and a publican.” (Matt. 18:17). Our Lord could never have commanded men to obey two conflicting authorities. That would spell chaos. So it is high time that the malformed gave up trying to please two masters – Christ and those in error. “You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Lk 16:13).
Until and unless you listen to Christ through His Church you may be in the same boat as His Apostles in earlier days – even to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18) (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 40). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).
po18guy
Well-known member
Good.
The problem is that no two persons on earth agree as to what the bible means. Truth is out there somewhere, but it does not reside in your ego or mine. There must be a referee, such as in Acts 15.
It is not only my belief. It is documented fact. The Church maintains a list of each and every successor in the office of Peter.
No, we are not, but some authority (Acts 15) must decide what is correct and what is error. Is there even the slightest chance - at all - that some of your opinions are in error?
In a bible Church that lives solely by the written word, he who wrote the most must take some form of precedence. Here at CAF, we have seen those who do not mention Jesus and argue solely from Paul. Isn’t that odd?
Are not both chapters true?
Paul believed him to be a pillar. Why not go to Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot?
Why go to Peter, if all had equal authority?
It began with the refusal to recognize that Peter was indeed special among the twelve. James and John with him, but in lesser roles. Paul wrote about his rebuke of Peter once. How many times have we seen it just in this thread?
If you don’t mind, which communion do you associate with? That will help a lot in knowing where you are coming from. You know ours. Fair is fair.
- Status