S
STIOFAN
Guest
We could argue that lucifer was the first protester, therefore the first Protestant, now who would want to align themselves with satan.
I don’t think we could say that Paul would.
- Status
I don’t think we could say that Paul would.
A
adstrinity
Guest
He most certainly would!!! I’m glad you FINALLY acknowledge that Paul would follow the Pope today since he followed the Pope (Cephas) back then!!!
A
Angainor
Guest
Hus is not irrelevant. One reason there are few examples of quarrels in between the time of the quarreling of “I follow Paul” “I follow Peter” “I follow Apollos” in 1 Corinthians and the quarrels of “I follow Luther”; “I follow Calvin”, “I follow Benedict”, “I follow Zwingli”, “I follow Wesley”, “I follow Pastor Smith”, “I follow Pastor Jones” is because Catholicism ruled with an iron fist. Do you think burning at the stake is what Paul meant by not quarreling?
I would rather not look to the past, but you brought up the 1500’s. Let us put the past behind us. Let us today take Paul’s advice an stop the quarrels.
F
Fergal
Guest
The Real (bodily) Presence of Jesus today is confirmed by the Greek word commonly translated “remembrance.” The phrase “in remembrance of me” occurs only in Paul’s (I Cor. 11:23-26) and Luke’s (Luke 22:19) accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It is likely that Paul passed this down to Luke, since they had close associations in ministry together.
I guess the heart of the matter is verified by Paul. This makes him very Catholic indeed!!
Of course you can have difference of opinion and disagree about teachings but you must follow them.
I guess Paul saw that Peter didn’t go far enough in breaking with the old and fully embracing the new. Maybe Paul had to give Peter the true essence of the words DO NOT BE AFRAID before Peter could internalise them and pass them on down through history.
See catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=890
I guess the heart of the matter is verified by Paul. This makes him very Catholic indeed!!
Of course you can have difference of opinion and disagree about teachings but you must follow them.
I guess Paul saw that Peter didn’t go far enough in breaking with the old and fully embracing the new. Maybe Paul had to give Peter the true essence of the words DO NOT BE AFRAID before Peter could internalise them and pass them on down through history.
See catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=890
M
mtr01
Guest
IMHO, the deposit of faith should be guarded with an iron fist in order to prevent heresy from infecting Truth. Hus, in the end, was declared to be a heretic. Now I will be the first to assure you that I am in now way in favor of burning heretics (or anybody for that matter) at the stake. I think the Church was wrong to do that, and I will not try to make excuses for it.
I agree with you. No good ever comes from bringing up past wrongdoings from any side of the theological fence.
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
Hello Angainor,
Praise be to God, He has shown me the truth about Paul–and Paul was indeed no protestant. Your argument that Paul would urge Catholics not to follow the pope is not very strong. You see, although Peter was the first pope (Jesus handpicked him to feed to the flock), Peter did not enjoy the deposit of faith that we have today. Peter, Paul, John, and all the apostles were the very first theologians, if you will. Like theologians today, they often had slightly different points of view on how this or that worked, how grace worked, etc. So, in Paul’s day, it would have indeed been insufficient to follow only Peter’s teaching and ignore Paul’s or John’s, etc. BUT, today we are blessed to have the Bible-- the compilation of all the written teachings of the apostles. As a good protestant you should know never to take the Bible out of context. You must listen to James’ teaching just as much as Paul’s. This is because God intended the Bible to be read as a whole-- not a guidebook of different theologies. Catholics believe that oral Tradition (you know, the tons of info that Paul and John et al say they’ll explain later when they visit a given place) is just as valid as scripture, we use Scripture and Tradition to form our total deposit of faith.
And you know what the pope does? He guards the deposit of faith; that is, he guards all the teachings of 2,000 years of Christianity. That includes the teachings of Paul, Peter, John, James, Jesus Christ, God the Father . . .
So, should one “follow” the pope? Well, to do so would simply be to follow God’s full truth, as revealed in the Catholic Church. By all means, follow the pope.
Also, Angainor, I noticed you list your religion as Lutheran. Saying Lutheran doesnt mean much these days, as it’s very divided, so I don’t know which brand of Lutheranism you follow. But nearly every form of Lutheranism I;ve come across approves of homosexuality at worst, and at best it allows for abortion in certain cases. Now, I dont think Paul would be too happy about that.
-UK
Praise be to God, He has shown me the truth about Paul–and Paul was indeed no protestant. Your argument that Paul would urge Catholics not to follow the pope is not very strong. You see, although Peter was the first pope (Jesus handpicked him to feed to the flock), Peter did not enjoy the deposit of faith that we have today. Peter, Paul, John, and all the apostles were the very first theologians, if you will. Like theologians today, they often had slightly different points of view on how this or that worked, how grace worked, etc. So, in Paul’s day, it would have indeed been insufficient to follow only Peter’s teaching and ignore Paul’s or John’s, etc. BUT, today we are blessed to have the Bible-- the compilation of all the written teachings of the apostles. As a good protestant you should know never to take the Bible out of context. You must listen to James’ teaching just as much as Paul’s. This is because God intended the Bible to be read as a whole-- not a guidebook of different theologies. Catholics believe that oral Tradition (you know, the tons of info that Paul and John et al say they’ll explain later when they visit a given place) is just as valid as scripture, we use Scripture and Tradition to form our total deposit of faith.
And you know what the pope does? He guards the deposit of faith; that is, he guards all the teachings of 2,000 years of Christianity. That includes the teachings of Paul, Peter, John, James, Jesus Christ, God the Father . . .
So, should one “follow” the pope? Well, to do so would simply be to follow God’s full truth, as revealed in the Catholic Church. By all means, follow the pope.
Also, Angainor, I noticed you list your religion as Lutheran. Saying Lutheran doesnt mean much these days, as it’s very divided, so I don’t know which brand of Lutheranism you follow. But nearly every form of Lutheranism I;ve come across approves of homosexuality at worst, and at best it allows for abortion in certain cases. Now, I dont think Paul would be too happy about that.
-UK
A
Angainor
Guest
I will clear that up in my profile.
I am Missouri Synod Lutheran.
We believe homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful.
The sin of willfully aborting a child, except in those very rare situations where it may be necessary to save the life of the mother, is a sinful act, totally contrary to the will of God.
There are probably very few differences between us on these type of moral issues. I admire Catholic teaching on contraception, to a point. It is a fine ideal, but probably not practical in the era of modern medicine.
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
The Catholic Church has much to say about the MS Lutheran stance on abortion. It is NEVER morally permissable to willfully abort a baby-- even if the mother’s life is at risk as a direct result of the pregnancy.
The CCC paragraph 2271 states: “Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an ends or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” (emphasis added)
Therefore, my previous comment stands: the best form of Lutheranism available still falls short of God’s law by allowing abortion in some, although rare, situations.
Come home to the fullness of truth! We’re waiting with open arms!
A
Angainor
Guest
From your descripton, the very early Church is not sounding very Catholic. Authority does not seem to flow from Peter’s chair exclusively.
If you are referring to the faith/works debate, we may be closer than you think.
A
Angainor
Guest
The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) position is actually stated as “except in those very rare situations where it may be necessary to save the life of the mother”
This is much stronger than merely “at risk”. You misstated the LCMS position slightly.
It is a very tough moral situation, if it truely comes down to a choice between the mother’s life or the child’s. I would think that actual situation would be very rare indeed. I think LCMS takes that position because the child would have a tough time without a mother.
- Status