G
- Status
C
catsrus
Guest
How aggressive are you?!
Your statement "I say that the Papel Office is the anti-Christ" is little more than flame bait.
Christ instituted the Papal Office and Saint Peter became the 1st Pope. i.e. Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Christ. (read Matt: 16)
Your Book of Concord may have been around for 500 years but the Church Christ established has been around for 2000 years. I believe The Church Christ established to be more authoritative than Martin Luther.
Were it not for Sacred Tradition, you would have no Bible and no one would know the history of The Church. Sorry you have a hard time with it. I’m fine with it.
You could try, but you would not be sucessful.
I do not have to prove that the office of the Pope is legitimate.
You must prove that it is not.
Good luck with that.
W
Wildkit
Guest
Little Sheep:
You coyly began your post under the notion of replying to the question of transubstantiation of the Eucharist. This miracle that our Lord provided to the world, which I am sure many people believe had to be a hoax, was finally put to rest via technology roughly 35 years ago. Before then,….if I were a Protestant or any non Catholic, I would just categorize it as another one of those Catholic here say events that they call miracles.
In this case, thank you for technology!!!
What was the question again? Has our Lord provided any assistance with this question?
I for one didn’t need for someone to change my Church. Yet, the continuing information, whether they be the Dead Sea scrolls or technology continue to lead me in the direction our Lord wants for all mankind.
God Bless You!
L
littlesheep
Guest
Just got done. Agian.
Matt 16: 13 …. he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
Matt 16:14 And they said….
Matt 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied,….
Point one of many:
Who was He talking to with the first question?
Who was He talking to in the second question?
Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, Hilary and Bede interpreted the words “On this rock” as Peters confession of the Faith. Not the person Peter.
Let me quote Chrysostom “”Upon this rock” not upon Peter. For He(Christ) built His church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith?” You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.””
And to quote Hilary “ The Father revealed to Peter that he should say, “ You are the Son of the living God.” Therefore, The building of the Church is upon this rock of confession. This faith is the foundation of the Church.”
A humble example:
Now if someone asked a group of people a question and only one answered what does that mean? Lets say your husband comes home, opens the door and says to you and the kids “Hay who wants to go the movies tonight?” He is going to get a bunch of mes’ and one eye roll. Next he ask, “what movie do you want to see?” You step up to the plate and say “Herbie”. What movie are you and the rest of the gang going to watch tonight?. “Blessed are you my wife, the neighbor reveled that to you.” He took you as the spokesmen for the group. Same as with Peter. He spoke for the group.
Pont two: If Peter was the first Pope (which means PaPa) Why aren’t they called Petreus? The name that means Rock. Why are they called Popes.? Father of the Faith? I thought that was Christ. who founded the Church.
Point three:
Why Rome? Why not Antioch or Ephesus? Antioch was the first place where the followers of Christ were called Christians. Paul was the first of the Apostles to get to Rome. Peter was probably still in Ephesus. Paul didn’t go to see Peter, Peter in all probability went to Rome to see Paul. If - he went to Rome, I say that because there is some controversy over that supposition. It is only tradition that says he made it to Rome. But then I haven’t read all the Church Fathers yet eather so I could be wrong.
Well enough rambling for now I await your answer.
PAX
Just a
littlesheep
S
St.Eric
Guest
St. Iganatius of Antioch himself states that the presidency of the Church, i.e., the Papal seat, resides in Rome. That Peter was in rome is no tradition, it is an archeological fact. The bascillica is built on top of his burial site. This is indisputible. But, of course, there are folks who refuse to believe in factual history. Some people deny the holocaust ever happend.
W
Wildkit
Guest
Little Sheep:
This thread has to do with transubstantiation,……perhaps you would like to express your papacy beliefs by starting another thread, or better yet, maybe you have a question here?
God Bless You!!
This thread has to do with transubstantiation,……perhaps you would like to express your papacy beliefs by starting another thread, or better yet, maybe you have a question here?
God Bless You!!
L
littlesheep
Guest
Wildkit:
Sorry chriswilliams about hijacking the thread.
PAX
Just a
littlesheep
You are right. Moderators if you can, please move my post # 24 and the answer to that post #25 to Why do Lutherans believe the Pope is the Antichrist? or to the thread I started What Lutherans Confess. Thank you.
Sorry chriswilliams about hijacking the thread.
PAX
Just a
littlesheep
M
Mickey
Guest
Many of the Church Fathers have written so extensively, that it easy easy to take them out of context. A man and his faith cannot be separated. Note these quotes from St John Chrysostom:
“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])
“Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness.” (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])
“The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples.” (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])
“The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider’s web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world.” (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])
“Peter, the base, the pillar…” (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])
“This holy coryphaeus of the blessed choir, the lover of Christ, the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, he who received the spiritual revelation.” (In Acta Apost VI, I [chap 2, verse 22] vol IX, 56[48])
R
reckcreate
Guest
Hi! I have a question for all of you. My Mother-in-law is a MS Lutheran. We have had amiable discussions about Catholic/Lutheran issues for many years. She has come to understand/accept many Catholic teachings (and some she will not admit to!). She has become quite comfortable with the Catholic Church, attends with us often, and even joins in with our choir when she attends.
It seems to me that the biggest draw to the Catholic Church is the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. She believes the Lutheran Church HAS the real presence of Jesus in their communion. Such distinctions as Trans vs. con substantiation bear little concern for this woman of simple faith. She simply believes Jesus is present in their communion. This is why she regularly also attends her own church: so she can receive communion. It is also why she sees no real need to seriously consider joining the fullness of the Catholic Faith.
My question:
How can we, gently, explain to her about the need for Apostolic Succession, an ordained priest being the instrument of God for the Consecration, etc.? I hate to discourage her by implying she may THINK she is receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus, but has merely been receiving a symbol all these years. What recommendations can you offer to help her begin to question this herself?
Thank you.
Mary
It seems to me that the biggest draw to the Catholic Church is the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. She believes the Lutheran Church HAS the real presence of Jesus in their communion. Such distinctions as Trans vs. con substantiation bear little concern for this woman of simple faith. She simply believes Jesus is present in their communion. This is why she regularly also attends her own church: so she can receive communion. It is also why she sees no real need to seriously consider joining the fullness of the Catholic Faith.
My question:
How can we, gently, explain to her about the need for Apostolic Succession, an ordained priest being the instrument of God for the Consecration, etc.? I hate to discourage her by implying she may THINK she is receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus, but has merely been receiving a symbol all these years. What recommendations can you offer to help her begin to question this herself?
Thank you.
Mary
S
shannin
Guest
:tsktsk: I will pray for you, Little Sheep.
C
chriswilliam
Guest
D
reckcreate:
Don’t try to explain it. She was Lutheran all her life and if she believes she is getting Christ’s Body and Blood let her. She is set in her faith and you might cause an arguement like in some families,
- Status