Protestants: Have you changed your mind on anything "Catholic" because of something said on these forums?

[cazayoux]

The Petrine Papacy part.

What historical proof do you have that the papacy didn’t exist?
Or is the history of the early Christian Church denied and you only look to scripture, which you intrepret to see nothing special of Peter?

 

[thecoach]

What historical proof do you have that the papacy didn’t exist?
Or is the history of the early Christian Church denied and you only look to scripture, which you intrepret to see nothing special of Peter?

This argument is getting old…first yu guys want to argue that the Bible is catholic, and that it was written well after the papacy had begun, and yet when it is brought to light that these Scriptures…written afterward, do NOT support your claims, which they should if your argument had logical merit, then you have to look to your other sources. Source written by those already perpetuating the falsehood.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Being a persecuted non-Catholic, would that just about make you angry also?

While it is difficult to know the psychology of a person via the internet, don’t be quick to rule out the “victim” psychology. It can be a channel of attention, and an absence of humility. I have seen on other forums signatures like, “proud heretic”, and those individuals are constantly espousing false assertions about the Catholic faith, and also the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You know…“how-can-it-be-revelation-if-it’s-not-in-Scripture” folks. When I see a signature that is a “negative” attribute of someone else’s faith, I give pause. Their focus is constantly on what others believe, attempting to tear it down, and justifying their own departure. The psychology is similar to angry persons who broke up with a boyfriend/girlfriend. They must tear down their former partner in order to justify a guilty conscience that the matter might have been their fault. A confident conscience would be much less likely to have to convince themselves of their decision over and over and over by tearing down the former partner.

That being said, we cannot know the influences in anyone’s life, and cannot have some metaphysical certitude that what I’ve said above is the case. So we should always be charitable to all persons who recognize Jesus Christ as the Son of God and reflect this faith in their lives. We only have a small sampling here. And I like St. Francis’ advice for us who have the true faith, especially for those who believe their minds are closed to the Catholic faith, which is preach the Gospel, sometimes use words.

 

[SD_Catholic]

Lets just say that not all are treated equally on this forum.

You’re right… if someone appears harsh towards Catholicism (or another person for that matter), usually the return fire will be harsh also… not that it’s right, but that’s just the way imperfect humans work …

I bet it would be much worse if a Catholic went to certain Protestant forums and started questioning their beliefs.

SD

 

[thecoach]

While it is difficult to know the psychology of a person via the internet, don’t be quick to rule out the “victim” psychology. It can be a channel of attention, and an absence of humility. I have seen on other forums signatures like, “proud heretic”, and those individuals are constantly espousing false assertions about the Catholic faith, and also the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You know…“how-can-it-be-revelation-if-it’s-not-in-Scripture” folks. When I see a signature that is a “negative” attribute of someone else’s faith, I give pause. Their focus is constantly on what others believe, attempting to tear it down, and justifying their own departure. The psychology is similar to angry persons who broke up with a boyfriend/girlfriend. They must tear down their former partner in order to justify a guilty conscience that the matter might have been their fault. A confident conscience would be much less likely to have to convince themselves of their decision over and over and over by tearing down the former partner.

That being said, we cannot know the influences in anyone’s life, and cannot have some metaphysical certitude that what I’ve said above is the case. So we should always be charitable to all persons who recognize Jesus Christ as the Son of God and reflect this faith in their lives. We only have a small sampling here. And I like St. Francis’ advice for us who have the true faith, especially for those who believe their minds are closed to the Catholic faith, which is preach the Gospel, sometimes use words.

nice arm chair psychology but no…calling attention to injustice is what a Christian should do.

 

[cazayoux]

This argument is getting old…first yu guys want to argue that the Bible is catholic, and that it was written well after the papacy had begun, and yet when it is brought to light that these Scriptures…written afterward, do NOT support your claims, which they should if your argument had logical merit, then you have to look to your other sources. Source written by those already perpetuating the falsehood.

By not answering the question, you’ve answered it.
You seem to ignore history.
We absolutely claim the bible to be Catholic.
The scriptures DO support our claims.
You just do not to *agree *with our scriptural backing for Peter’s primacy.
Your assertion that there is no scriptural proof is due to your interpretation of that scripture.
Why *should *I believe your intpretation? I don’t find it logical.

michel

 

[thecoach]

You’re right… if someone appears harsh towards Catholicism (or another person for that matter), usually the return fire will be harsh also… not that it’s right, but that’s just the way imperfect humans work …

I bet it would be much worse if a Catholic went to certain Protestant forums and started questioning their beliefs.

SD

A) it usually the other way around in terms of harsh words being initiated.

B) wrong is wrong and BOTH sides should be equally sanctioned.

 

[thecoach]

By not answering the question, you’ve answered it.
You seem to ignore history.
We absolutely claim the bible to be Catholic.
The scriptures DO support our claims.
You just do not to *agree *with our scriptural backing for Peter’s primacy.
Your assertion that there is no scriptural proof is due to your interpretation of that scripture.
Why *should *I believe your intpretation? I don’t find it logical.

michel

See, thats just it…you can be shown over and over that the Scriptures DO NOT support it, but you will still say they do because your hierarchy says they do. THAT is illogical.

 

[1stChristian]

I am not sure if he was ever in Rome, but the Scriptures do NOT portray him as the head of anything. That much is very plain. Yes, I am saying he was never a pope to begin with. See my proofs posted on another thread. They were, of course, criticized, but not refuted.

By denying Peter was in Rome, you are trying to discredit Peter as having the primacy, and by doing so, you attempt to deny he was the first pope, therefore the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession would fall apart. By your denying Apostolic Succession, you will then try to show that the Catholic church is not the church which Jesus founded.
Interestingly, if you ever reach the point (which you never could), then it would be impossible for you to fill the void of which church Jesus Christ did found if it were not the Catholic church. So, you have presented a circular argument for yourself, an argument which has no beginning and no end.
But you will try in a futile attempt on your part, as you completely ignore an overwhelming deposit of genuine historical documents, and expert knowledgeable people to do the same.

Here are just a few historical documents proving Peter was in fact in Rome and also died there:

**St Iraneus, “Against Heresies”, 3,1,1, 180 A.D. J208
“…in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church”.

Tertullian, “The demurrer against the heretics”, XXXII,1
“…like the church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter”.

Who has the authority to ordain priests? Only bishops do. Clement was ordained by the Bishop of Rome, Peter.

Eusebius, “History of the Church”, 3,2, 300 A.D. J652
“After the martyrdom pf Paul and Peter, Linus was the first appointed to the Episcopacy of the church at Rome”.

Saint Augustine, “Letter to Generous”, 400 A.D., J1418
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole church, the Lord said “Upon this rock I will build my church, AND THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT CONQUER IT”.**

Are you now going to deny these historical facts?

 

[cazayoux]

See, thats just it…you can be shown over and over that the Scriptures DO NOT support it, but you will still say they do because your hierarchy says they do. THAT is illogical.

See, that’s just it … you can be shown over and over that Scriptures and history DO support it, but you will still say that they don’t because you are the sole intrepter of scripture and seem ignore history altogether.

If you are called to teach, that is admirable.
It means a life of learning.
I am curious about the training you went through to become a minister.
I know the job is probably tough at times.
I can appreciate the work you do.
If this is the life you are called to, ignoring history is akin to putting your head in the sand.

Is your stance that history is not reliable?

Note that I’m focusing on the historical aspect, because I think it is obvious that we’d get nowhere requoting the scriptural support for each of our understandings.

michel

 

[thecoach]

By denying Peter was in Rome, you are trying to discredit Peter as having the primacy, and by doing so, you attempt to deny he was the first pope, therefore the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession would fall apart. By your denying Apostolic Succession, you will then try to show that the Catholic church is not the church which Jesus founded.
Interestingly, if you ever reach the point (which you never could), then it would be impossible for you to fill the void of which church Jesus Christ did found if it were not the Catholic church. So, you have presented a circular argument for yourself, an argument which has no beginning and no end.
But you will try in a futile attempt on your part, as you completely ignore an overwhelming deposit of genuine historical documents, and expert knowledgeable people to do the same.

Here are just a few historical documents proving Peter was in fact in Rome and also died there:

**St Iraneus, “Against Heresies”, 3,1,1, 180 A.D. J208
“…in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church”.

Tertullian, “The demurrer against the heretics”, XXXII,1
“…like the church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter”.

Who has the authority to ordain priests? Only bishops do. Clement was ordained by the Bishop of Rome, Peter.

Eusebius, “History of the Church”, 3,2, 300 A.D. J652
“After the martyrdom pf Paul and Peter, Linus was the first appointed to the Episcopacy of the church at Rome”.

Saint Augustine, “Letter to Generous”, 400 A.D., J1418
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole church, the Lord said “Upon this rock I will build my church, AND THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT CONQUER IT”.**

Are you now going to deny these historical facts?

Tell me why there is no deference to this authority in Romans? And these quotes dont point out a papacy. In fact, two of them also mention Paul, so what…was there a dual papacy then? His being in ROme, if he was.still does not prove a papacy at all.

Look, if your happy in what you beleive, then fine…but at least be respectful to those who are happy they left…NOT out of igorance or lack of knowledge, but perhaps the reverse. Lets leave it at that.

 

[cazayoux]

By the time that the last book of the New Testament was written around 100 A.D., the church which Jesus Christ founded was already on it’s fifth successor of Peter.

1st Christian!

I love this in your tag-line.
I hadn’t ever thought of this.
Got me curious.
Canon was set in 393.
We were on our 38th pope by the time the New Testament was canonized!!

Cool, huh?

michel

 

[1stChristian]

1st Christian!

I love this in your tag-line.
I hadn’t ever thought of this.
Got me curious.
Canon was set in 393.
We were on our 38th pope by the time the New Testament was canonized!!

Cool, huh?

michel

Lol! That too is a great line!

 

[1stChristian]

Tell me why there is no deference to this authority in Romans? And these quotes dont point out a papacy. In fact, two of them also mention Paul, so what…was there a dual papacy then? His being in ROme, if he was.still does not prove a papacy at all.

Look, if your happy in what you beleive, then fine…but at least be respectful to those who are happy they left…NOT out of igorance or lack of knowledge, but perhaps the reverse. Lets leave it at that.

If you can’t see the papacy here, and these are just a few documented cases, then I cannot help you. Just because Paul to is mentioned in history, you’d rather focus on him…
The Scripture Jesus told Peter goes like this:
wHAT YOU BIND ON EARTH WILL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN, WHAT YOU LOOSE ON EARTH WILL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN".
Now, you can interpret this all you want to your way. This clearly starts the papacy and is still an unbroken link from St. Peter. It works for us now doesn’t it.

 

[1stChristian]

1st Christian!

I love this in your tag-line.
I hadn’t ever thought of this.
Got me curious.
Canon was set in 393.
We were on our 38th pope by the time the New Testament was canonized!!

Cool, huh?

michel

I decided to have this as my signature so people can really think about it, and know it is true.

 

[thecoach]

If you can’t see the papacy here, and these are just a few documented cases, then I cannot help you. Just because Paul to is mentioned in history, you’d rather focus on him…
The Scripture Jesus told Peter goes like this:
wHAT YOU BIND ON EARTH WILL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN, WHAT YOU LOOSE ON EARTH WILL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN".
Now, you can interpret this all you want to your way. This clearly starts the papacy and is still an unbroken link from St. Peter. It works for us now doesn’t it.

You will continue to see what you wish. As far as this latest quote you provide, the Greek also means …what you bind on earth HAS been bound in Heaven…the implication that earht follows the designs of Heaven, as in the Our Father. You seem to think that Peter’s mere historical existence is enough to prove the Papacy…it does not. AS I said, this is going nowhere, si lets leave it here.

 

[distracted]

You will continue to see what you wish. . .

Catholics don’t just “see what [they] wish” in Scripture and base their beliefs on that… The Church came before the Bible; the Church produced the Bible (NT). We listen to that Church because to do so is to listen to Christ Himself… He set up a Church all people could trust… and only ONE. 33,000 different “churches” all teaching different things is obviously not something that can be trusted. Jesus said, “He who hears you, hears me.”

Jesus was speaking to the Apostles when he said that thing about binding and loosing… They were the first bishops./ priests… He gave his power to them (breathed on them, gave them the Holy Spirit)…

“He who hears you hears Me…”

 

[cazayoux]

You will continue to see what you wish. As far as this latest quote you provide, the Greek also means …what you bind on earth HAS been bound in Heaven…the implication that earht follows the designs of Heaven, as in the Our Father.

ahhh … great point… and i agree with you.
heaven is outside of time… and will not bend to what is stated by the pope.
So when he is told this, it really means that he, if teaching on faith and morals, is cooperating or 100% in line with (the perfect) heaven.
This is EXACTLY why the faith and morals taught by the church are done so INFALLIBLY… because it is ***already ***true in heaven.

Thanks for the tidbit on Greek. VERY helpful.

michel

 

[thecoach]

Catholics don’t just “see what [they] wish” in Scripture and base their beliefs on that… The Church came before the Bible; the Church produced the Bible (NT). We listen to that Church because to do so is to listen to Christ Himself… He set up a Church all people could trust… and only ONE. 33,000 different “churches” all teaching different things is obviously not something that can be trusted. Jesus said, “He who hears you, hears me.”

Jesus was speaking to the Apostles when he said that thing about binding and loosing… They were the first bishops./ priests… He gave his power to them (breathed on them, gave them the Holy Spirit)…

“He who hears you hears Me…”

See, I find your contentions blasphemous. The Church is NOT Christ, the Scriptures DO NOT back that up, so you believe what you wish, what you are told by those who wish to retain their power.

 

[cazayoux]

See, I find your contentions blasphemous. The Church is NOT Christ, the Scriptures DO NOT back that up, …

Paul persecuted Jesus’ church.
When Jesus meets Paul on the road to Damascus, Jesus says “Why do you persecute me?”.

What would be the difference if Jesus had said, “Why do you persecute my church?” or “Why do you persecute my body?”. ?

… so you believe what you wish, what you are told by those who wish to retain their power.

Please do not think that we follow blindly without testing or understanding what is being taught. This simply isn’t true.

regarding ‘those who wish to retain their power’… and what power is that? … the Church only claims the power to teach.

These last comments show a prejudice against the Catholic Church that has nothing to do with scripture, doctrine, or study.
c’mon … soften up a little.
The Church isn’t the ‘bad guy’ you have been taught that it is.

michel