Protestants are not a different "religion" from Catholics

[Bernadette173]

When I was making the arrangements to marry my Catholic fiance, I was a Baptist, thinking I would always be one, and was working with a fantastic priest who is now a cardinal. A form asked my religion and I answered “Christian” and I followed with “but my denomination is Baptist.” Father looked as me and said “You know, you are right.”

I am thrilled that I crossed the Tiber and I thank God for it, but I don’t look at my former practice as another religion. True, I don’t think they have the full faith, but I most certainly do not look on the people in my former affiliation as being of another religion.

I agree with you on this one. People who aren’t followers of Christ through Roman Catholic faith are not of a ‘‘different’’ religion in that they all believe in Christ and His goodness toward mankind. Dogma and creed may differ slightly from religion to religion in Christiology, but at the forefront is Christ in each one of them. When different denominations have certain codes of belief and catechesis is when it breaks apart from being universal in nature. Whenever a religion ceceads from that one holy and apostolic belief system, is when it is no longer in communion with the CC of Rome. Not that we aren’t all followers of Christ, or that we do not feel kinship with those who follow Christ, but Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, and Roman Catholics have different catechisms and follow different councils by different ‘groups’ of people who believe in one common God. but to say that Protestants are the same as Catholics is to call black white, when black is black and white is white. But there is room to try to be communally friendly toward one another, even if the belief systems differ.

Oh and I also was taught by a Bishop who became a Cardinal that the denomination makes the difference in beliefs and whether it is in communion with the CC.

God Bless,
Bernadette173

 

[PJM]

=tqualey;8592552]Hi PJM,

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh … because I did not agree with you … I really did try to be accurate.

God bless

And I was inaccurate where?

God bless you Tom!

 

[david_ruiz]

]Oriental Church, Orthodox Church, Catholic Church agree on 7 Sacraments. Why not focus on what we agree on rather that what you see as disagreement. Work from that end.:

. OK. but if there is disagreement on this central point of faith in papacy dogma, why doesn’t the following statement apply to orthodoxy etc. ? - “Since it only takes the loss of one essential point of faith for a person to lose the faith and devolve into mere opinion, it is evident that Protestant is a man-made religion.” This statement is from “Highcalling”. Is there a different standard applied to Protestants vs Orthodox ? Or shall we focus on what we all have in common, what is truly catholic/universal, holy, one, apostolic ?..But being realistic ,there is a wide range from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to Lutheranism to Episcopal to Baptist etc. You can go from disagreeing on several key issues to a dozen key issues .Yet ,I really believe all could swear to the Apostles Creed. Which way do we go ? Which way do we go ?

 

[CopticChristian]

it is evident that Protestant is a man-made religion." This statement is from “Highcalling”. Is there a different standard applied to Protestants vs Orthodox ? Or shall we focus on what we all have in common, what is truly catholic/universal, holy, one, apostolic ?..But being realistic ,there is a wide range from Catholicism to Orthodoxy to Lutheranism to Episcopal to Baptist etc. You can go from disagreeing on several key issues to a dozen key issues .Yet ,I really believe all could swear to the Apostles Creed. Which way do we go ? Which way do we go ?

We would like to start with how we worship. In that case the Eucharist is the first agreement. As I said the 7 sacraments are not an issue. This is the departure.

 

[david_ruiz]

The NT Churches were not established in the sense that all was well in that they were up and running and like we see today

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8600016:

We would like to start with how we worship. In that case the Eucharist is the first agreement. As I said the 7 sacraments are not an issue. This is the departure.

Yes, unfortunately it is a departure , but for whom ,and when . That is the whole debate .Some say they are steadfast from day one yet don’t articulate their stand for 1200 to 1500 years .Others say divergence comes in the first five centuries , yet all are united in Remebrance unity , with some sort of real presence.(not enough controversy/problem to include in Apostles Creed).Should have left well enough alone.

 

[david_ruiz]

***Always and without a single exception, God has consistantly demanded [and punished severly for Not doin so], belief in only One God [Him-Triune], Never-EVER more than ONLY One set of Faith beliefs, and alway’s just One Chruch organization. Each unit of ONE is highly signifiant. Especially with the unslot of SOOOO-MANY man made versions of the 'One possible truth."

How or why God tolerates Protestantism has become the most recent MYSTERY of trying to comprehend the mind of God ***

THANKS for asking,

God Bless,
Pat

Hi PJM mystery is defined as something that must be divinely illumined. For He indeed does tolerate Protestantism ,even seems to be blessing it. It is the same kind of mystery Paul talked about as to how the Jews looked at saved, blessed, in-grafted gentiles.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;8596827:

.Hi CC. Wow, this is a loaded statement , full of wanting thought. To think we have struggling /arguing just what scripture says from the writers hand, and what church fathers said , what first church practiced , where tradition began, and yet they were not “established”, full of problems, and not good examples, not mature ? I thought everything Catholic has it’s apostolic foundations ? Of course if you think developing/evolving “structure/heirarchy” , ruling bishops/episcopacy is “maturity” , maybe. But to say some were not way ahead of us spiritually, even selling all for the Way, and dying for the faith ? You want an "establishment " as proof of spirituality ? Give me a church like Smyrna or Philadelphia any day.

It is interesting that we use problems of a church to divide us ,that is we see problems as a bad fruit ,that perhaps they are not fully in Christ , like we are .Don’t Catholics look at Protestant disunity as evidence of God’s lacking in their “movement” ? Don’t protestants cite Catholic problems as perhaps that they are not God’s church ? If the apostles were alive today ,do you not think Protestants would receive a few letters ? Would not Catholics receive a few letters ? Orthodox ? Maybe some are clean doctrinally but there are other things other than doctrine to be lacking in .Maybe others have great love and zeal but need some doctrinal correction ?

No ,let the NT look at you, discern you, judge you, admonish you, encourage you, for in the 7 Rev. churches you have all, past, present, and to come.Which is your /my church most like? So what was universal then should be universal now . Did they not die for their faith ,as some of us do now ? Were they lacking in ANYTHING, being filled and baptized in the Holy Ghost , as we can be today ? Are their heavenly rewards any different than what our promises hold ? Yes, but a seed multiplies after itself .Therefore a first century plant should look like a 20 th century plant, don’t you think ?The sky is the limit ? How do you know then what is in the original dna ? Can we assume what we are today must be OK, because we are a growing , maturing species ? I can see why tradition then becomes important, or it is more flexible than writing. Yet we are warned that “he who is learned in the ways of the Lord , do them ,as many as are written” (110 AD church father). Indeed , it seems that very early on we have to be reminded of what a mature plant is supposed to look like, and that we would naturally stray if things are not pegged down.

It is my discernment that you have anger, over what, I do not know. Seeds are not plants. The United States appears very different today from the original colonies and that is only 200 years in time. The Oriental Churches and Orthodox Churches in my opinion represent a freezing in time as to what the Church looked like at the time of schism and yet so similar to the OHCAC.

You want Smyrna. You want Philidelphia. What about Hippo? Many of these communities have come and gone and if you to to Ephesus to see the remnants of Ephesus there are buildings and in fact one dedictaed to Mary.

The problems of Rome and the Judaizing Christians were resolved. Do you not expect resolution?

Corinth was a young church and it blossomed until?

The NT as I see it is the OT understood in a way that no Jew understood and that is why there is not judging of anyone by the NT other to ask, do you see what Paul saw in the OT in what we call the NT. Jesus himself said he came to fulfill and the NT is nothing more than an interpretation of the OT in light of Christ. The NT does not judge as you say.

Would there be letters, probably, you may consider Trent the letter that you speak of addressed to Protestants. Have you considered that this may be what you are looking for?

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi, David Ruiz,

Not quite…

The 12 Apostles were not each given keys - Christ only gave out one set of keys - and that was to Peter. Now, if you have a scriptural verse that supports 11 other sets being given out by Christ, please share it with us.

All of the Apostles worked together - with Peter as the head. He is the one out of the Apostles that Christ ‘…would pray for…’ especially, who would fail and then come back to ‘…strengthen his brothers…’ May I suggest you read the 22nd Chapter of Luke for a better understanding that Peter was just one of the guys.

Do not misunderstand, all of the Apostles continued to cooperate with the Grace of God - except Judas - and they received many blessings. The Holy Spirit came to the Apostles and those others gathered in the upper room and gave them amazing Gifts. But look - it is Peter who takes charge, it is Peter who makes the decisions, it is Peter who is seen by both the Apostles and the Jewish authorities as being in charge.

Your view is simply not supported by Sacred Tradition, Scriture or the Early Church Fathers. What does support it are the traditions of men that seek to supplant the Chruch founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18).

God bless

Do you have any scriptural evidence that Peter gave the other 11 “use” of the keys ? Actually Catholic Encyclopedia :Indulgences says Mat18:18 “where like power is conferred on all apostles”-referring to matt 16 -keys /binding/loosening. Conferred by Jesus

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David Ruiz,

Honestly, you just can take a scrap of information from various places sew it together as you please and expect to have an anctual grament…

I see you are rejecting the Primacy of Peter - and this is something that the Catholic Encyclopedia does not endores. But, since you seem to like reading this learned text - here are some link that may help you get the idea that early catechesis seems to have failed in providing you:

newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm - this is on tradition and the living Magisterium

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm - this is on infallability

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm - this is on the Real Presence in the Eucharist

Here are three items that most Protestants not only deny but actively condemn. Chance are if you read this information you will not be making the mistakes you are parading before us in your posts. Honest, David, leaving the Catholic Church is one thing - but, don’t make foolish mistakes by misquoting and misunderstanding Catholic doctrine that can easily be identified. You can do better than this.

I bet if you took these three items, and contrasted them with any (or all) of the Protestant arguments against them - you know, like using the personal interpretation of scripture, the human traditions of whichever group you want and the Early Church Fathers (usually seen as from about 100AD - 500AD) I know you could come up with a compelling argument on which to present your anti-Catholic ideas. Give it a try.

God bless

Do you have any scriptural evidence that Peter gave the other 11 “use” of the keys ? Actually Catholic Encyclopedia :Indulgences says Mat18:18 “where like power is conferred on all apostles”-referring to matt 16 -keys /binding/loosening. Conferred by Jesus

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8600258:

It is my discernment that you have anger, over what, I do not know.

Sorry if I seem angry.I do not know if it is that or that I get too exuberant and am not “calm”. Actually your topic here has a lot to talk about.

Seeds are not plants.

I already agreed on this.These churches were more than seeds ,for they were bearing fruit ,or they had ceased to or had mixed fruit .They were no longer seeds.

The United States appears very different today from the original colonies and that is only 200 years in time.

Don’t feel this is an accurate comparison.Colonies were colonies.The US began it’s experiment in 2 phases 1776 (Independence) and 1789 (Constitution). I am drawing a blank on how to compare it to church history.I will say that each generation has it’s good bad and ugly.Are we evolving ? Maybe . Is there anything new under the sun ?

The Oriental Churches and Orthodox Churches in my opinion represent a freezing in time as to what the Church looked like at the time of schism and yet so similar to the OHCAC.

Very well put-though I know very little here,but enough to “feel” your statement

You want Smyrna. You want Philadelphia. What about Hippo?

Smyrna exists today as Izmir, large city in Asia Minor. Philadelphia too,but real small.

The problems of Rome and the Judaizing Christians were resolved

.Do you mean the council at jerusalem ?

Corinth was a young church and it blossomed until?

Don’t know. But perhaps we agree that scripture says the Lord is watching over the churches and had the power to remove the annointing or candlestick, and apparently did with some of these C.hristian communities.I believe we can learn a lot from these seven churches .Some even say that the seven represent church “history” and can relate to end times. If you think nations have a “cycle’” ,even cultures , perhaps churches do also .A beginning ,middle apex and a decline ,and perhaps even a revival here and there .But it always seems where one nation /culture declines , another rises. Just a thought . Something like Lutheranism or Methodists.I would say they were quite energetic and dynamic in the beginning and less so later on or now , but then other moves of God picked up in other denominations. Any church /generation can rest on it’s laurels…Just as you may say the early church thrived and grew, before scripture was complete (resting on oral tradition),one could say she thrived without the form of government she has today .That is, Revelations shows how intricately and personally the Lord is watching over us.Yes, He used the last remaining apostle to straighten/warn of things , but it also shows “independent” (if there can be such a thing in the Body) churches , with no head bishop type government, or even a pope.As Some have said , Christ is His own vicar , at least in Revelations. It proves nothing of course, but I find it to be in harmony with some Protestant church views.

Jesus himself said he came to fulfill and the NT is nothing more than an interpretation of the OT in light of Christ.

I have said elsewhere this is another area for discernment .It is indeed a new testament ,with some new things .Some things are done away with , and some things are not, and some things were there all the time but now are more illumined.

The NT does not judge

All I meant is that both OT and NT -the Word is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart,…Heb 4:12 .I mean when you read the letters to the 7 churches do you not ask yourself ,well, hopefully the Lord in you, how you measure up ,or your parish, diocese, even all of CC, not too mention other churches outside the CC ? I would say it is not you judging , but the letters themselves.

Would there be letters, probably, you may consider Trent the letter that you speak of addressed to Protestants.

Agreed. And the Augsburg Confession or Luther’s 95 Thesis- from a Catholic to Catholics ? I believe only God is true, and only His blood makes the Bride (individuals, churches/denominations) White and Pure.(not to mention His purifying fire)…Thank-you for letting me babble. May we be good iron to sharpen iron in truth and peace.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Don’t know. But perhaps we agree that scripture says the Lord is watching over the churches and had the power to remove the annointing or candlestick, and apparently did with some of these C.hristian communities.I believe we can learn a lot from these seven churches .Some even say that the seven represent church “history” and can relate to end times. If you think nations have a “cycle’” ,even cultures , perhaps churches do also .A beginning ,middle apex and a decline ,and perhaps even a revival here and there .But it always seems where one nation /culture declines , another rises. Just a thought . Something like Lutheranism or Methodists.I would say they were quite energetic and dynamic in the beginning and less so later on or now , but then other moves of God picked up in other denominations. Any church /generation can rest on it’s laurels…Just as you may say the early church thrived and grew, before scripture was complete (resting on oral tradition),one could say she thrived without the form of government she has today .That is, Revelations shows how intricately and personally the Lord is watching over us.Yes, He used the last remaining apostle to straighten/warn of things , but it also shows “independent” (if there can be such a thing in the Body) churches , with no head bishop type government, or even a pope.As Some have said , Christ is His own vicar , at least in Revelations. It proves nothing of course, but I find it to be in harmony with some Protestant church views.

But here’s the thing, friend.

From 33 AD to 1005 AD, that is from Calvary until the Great Schism, 100% of Christianity was capital-C Catholic (99%) or Oriental Orthodox (1%).

ALL non-Catholic and non-Orthodox churches reject the authority of both the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox churches and all of their Tradition.

So the only way you can argue the Reformers or anyone who came after them were right, is to declare that 100% of Christianity was wrong. We’re not talking about one or two local churches losing its lampstand, because the Protestants weren’t protesting what one or two churches allegedly got wrong. We’re not talking about an ebbing and flowing cycle, because the Protestants were protesting the doctrines that were held everywhere and in every church at the time. For Protestantism to be correct, you must posit a total apostasy, a total departure of the Holy Spirit from the Body of Christ.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

God wills for EVERYONE to come to knowledge of the truth and be saved. There is no way for anyone to come to knowledge of the truth if the whole Church has apostatized. If God is indeed God then He is almighty and more than capable of preventing a total apostasy. Why then would He walk out on His Church and let everyone unfortunate enough to live during the “total apostasy” go to hell for no other reason that simply being unfortunate enough to be born in that time period?

In other words… Is God Love or is He not?

I believe that God is Love and that is why I am a Roman Catholic.

 

[david_ruiz]

Honestly, you just can take a scrap of information from various places sew it together as you please and expect to have an anctual gramentWell, I only took 2 bits of info, and really made no argument , at least not with it. Just said Jesus conferred to all apostles power to bind and loose and cited scripture and Catholic Encyclopedia. This power is associated with “keys” in mat 16. While we agree it does not say all got keys, it does say they all did get what they referred to -binding and loosening. That is all. I would hope you would agree with this. I understand this disproves nothing to you as far as Peter’s primacy, but understand also it does not go against non-primacy views either.

.

But, since you seem to like reading this learned text - here are some link that may help you get the idea that early catechesis seems to have failed in providing you:

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cat Herder,

Excellent!

The plan that anyone can come 1,500+ years later and say, “You guys got it all wrong!” sounds just a little crazy to me. Ultimately, this is at the very heart of Protestantism.

God bless

But here’s the thing, friend.

From 33 AD to 1005 AD, that is from Calvary until the Great Schism, 100% of Christianity was capital-C Catholic (99%) or Oriental Orthodox (1%).

ALL non-Catholic and non-Orthodox churches reject the authority of both the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox churches and all of their Tradition.

So the only way you can argue the Reformers or anyone who came after them were right, is to declare that 100% of Christianity was wrong. We’re not talking about one or two local churches losing its lampstand, because the Protestants weren’t protesting what one or two churches allegedly got wrong. We’re not talking about an ebbing and flowing cycle, because the Protestants were protesting the doctrines that were held everywhere and in every church at the time. For Protestantism to be correct, you must posit a total apostasy, a total departure of the Holy Spirit from the Body of Christ.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

God wills for EVERYONE to come to knowledge of the truth and be saved. There is no way for anyone to come to knowledge of the truth if the whole Church has apostatized. If God is indeed God then He is almighty and more than capable of preventing a total apostasy. Why then would He walk out on His Church and let everyone unfortunate enough to live during the “total apostasy” go to hell for no other reason that simply being unfortunate enough to be born in that time period?

In other words… Is God Love or is He not?

I believe that God is Love and that is why I am a Roman Catholic.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David Ruiz,

One of the basic principles of Protestantism is a rejection of the Primacy of Peter. There really is no doubt that Peter was made the leader of the Apostles by Christ. What you are addressing (the binding and losing authority given to the Apostles) really addresses the Magisterium.

Notice how the Apostles were working in conjunction with Peter - they were not going in their own various and contradictory directions. I think this is one of the most significant features of Protestantism - and why there are 40,000+ different and competing groups all claiming that their way is the way to Christ.

If you are going to claim ‘…some bit of the Magisterium…’ then you will need to reference this. Most Protestant organizations are independent (and that is why they can not agree on anything - except that the Church founded by Christ on Peter in Matt 16:18 is wrong! ) Really, there is no unifying force in Protestantism - some even deny the Divinity of Christ.

The links I provided substantiate the statements I made previously and reinforce the ones I have made here. The nice thing about the Catholic Encyclopedia is that there are multiple hyper-links where you can go for additional information.

God bless

Well, I only took 2 bits of info, and really made no argument , at least not with it. Just said Jesus conferred to all apostles power to bind and loose and cited scripture and Catholic Encyclopedia. This power is associated with “keys” in mat 16. While we agree it does not say all got keys, it does say they all did get what they referred to -binding and loosening. That is all. I would hope you would agree with this. I understand this disproves nothing to you as far as Peter’s primacy, but understand also it does not go against non-primacy views either.

.Thank-you .Will try to read.

Yes and no.There is tradition, and some bit of magisterium in protetstantism ,as there is some form of RP, and some form of infallibility. Yes, I have made some mistakes.Not sure I made one with post you are responding to now .Heck it was too short -just two sentences. One with a question (can a question be a mistake ? ), the other citing a scripture and an encyclopedia . .Sorry if you think I was insinuating the Catholic Encyclopedia was contradicting itself or would not support primacy. Otherwise, don’t believe I misquoted but I will try to be careful.

God bless

 

[rinnie]

CopticChristian;8563361:

Catholics are required to believe these dogmas of Faith. So if you were taught that everything is in the Creed, you were seriously misinformed.-tqualey post.

Well is it because things were added to later church dogma ,or did the Creed leave out important dogmas ?

So David what do you feel was left out of our Creed?

We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that would include all of the dogmas, etc. Or do you feel they are not part of the OHCAC?

 

[rinnie]

Well, I only took 2 bits of info, and really made no argument , at least not with it. Just said Jesus conferred to all apostles power to bind and loose and cited scripture and Catholic Encyclopedia. This power is associated with “keys” in mat 16. While we agree it does not say all got keys, it does say they all did get what they referred to -binding and loosening. That is all. I would hope you would agree with this. I understand this disproves nothing to you as far as Peter’s primacy, but understand also it does not go against non-primacy views either.

.Thank-you .Will try to read.

Yes and no.There is tradition, and some bit of magisterium in protetstantism ,as there is some form of RP, and some form of infallibility. Yes, I have made some mistakes.Not sure I made one with post you are responding to now .Heck it was too short -just two sentences. One with a question (can a question be a mistake ? ), the other citing a scripture and an encyclopedia . .Sorry if you think I was insinuating the Catholic Encyclopedia was contradicting itself or would not support primacy. Otherwise, don’t believe I misquoted but I will try to be careful.

God bless

David where did any Catholic disagree that all of the Apostles had the power to bind and loose. We agree with that. For goodness sakes how could we disagree with that, and go to confession. You are not using your thinking cap today

What we disagree with, and you seem to have a hard time accepting is the actual word of God. You are PETER and to YOU I GIVE the keys to the kingdom. Please show me ONE scripture that states I give to all of YOU the Keys to the kingdom.

You cannot do so. Please accept the word of God. The word of God states YOU ARE PETER and to YOU I give. Please pray to the Holy Spirit on this matter, I can see that the Pope holding the keys to the kingdom upsets you very much.

Being able to forgive sins of others in the name of Christ is completely different from holding the keys to the kingdom.

I have noticed the last year that this scripture that Peter holds the keys to the kingdom bothers you very much. You must look deep into your heart and figure out why this true scripture of Christ bothers you so much. It is then you wll have your answer.

 

[joe370]

David where did any Catholic disagree that all of the Apostles had the power to bind and loose. We agree with that. For goodness sakes how could we disagree with that, and go to confession. You are not using your thinking cap today

What we disagree with, and you seem to have a hard time accepting is the actual word of God. You are PETER and to YOU I GIVE the keys to the kingdom. Please show me ONE scripture that states I give to all of YOU the Keys to the kingdom.

You cannot do so. Please accept the word of God. The word of God states YOU ARE PETER and to YOU I give. Please pray to the Holy Spirit on this matter, I can see that the Pope holding the keys to the kingdom upsets you very much.

Being able to forgive sins of others in the name of Christ is completely different from holding the keys to the kingdom.

I have noticed the last year that this scripture that Peter holds the keys to the kingdom bothers you very much. You must look deep into your heart and figure out why this true scripture of Christ bothers you so much. It is then you wll have your answer.

Or, where any early church father (especially ante-nicene) - illustrates that the keys were given to anyone other than Peter and his successor?

 

[PJM]

=tqualey;8597299]Hi, David Ruiz,

Not quite…

The 12 Apostles were not each given keys - Christ only gave out one set of keys - and that was to Peter. Now, if you have a scriptural verse that supports 11 other sets being given out by Christ, please share it with us.

All of the Apostles worked together - with Peter as the head. He is the one out of the Apostles that Christ ‘…would pray for…’ especially, who would fail and then come back to ‘…strengthen his brothers…’ May I suggest you read the 22nd Chapter of Luke for a better understanding that Peter was just one of the guys.

Do not misunderstand, all of the Apostles continued to cooperate with the Grace of God - except Judas - and they received many blessings. The Holy Spirit came to the Apostles and those others gathered in the upper room and gave them amazing Gifts. But look - it is Peter who takes charge, it is Peter who makes the decisions, it is Peter who is seen by both the Apostles and the Jewish authorities as being in charge.

Your view is simply not supported by Sacred Tradition, Scriture or the Early Church Fathers. What does support it are the traditions of men that seek to supplant the Chruch founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18).

God bless

***Actually if CORRECTLY understood each of the following Do in fact hand on the KEY when used with Peters guidence and authority

Mt. 28:16-20

Mt. 18:18

John 14:16-17

John 17:15-19

John 20:19-23

God Bless,

Pat***

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PJM,

I think, given the composition of this thread, it would be a good idea if you were to take the time and actually expalain how each of these quotes is to be CORRECTLY understood.

God bless

***Actually if CORRECTLY understood each of the following Do in fact hand on the KEY when used with Peters guidence and authority

Mt. 28:16-20

Mt. 18:18

John 14:16-17

John 17:15-19

John 20:19-23

God Bless,

Pat***