Who founded your denomination?????

[rod_of_iron]

Corpus Cristi:

Maybe you should read up on how popes are elected, and then go from there, because once you find out, then you might get a clearer picture on how Peter’s authority is passed down through apostolic succession.

Popes are elected? No revelation is received from God to instruct the church who the next pope will be? Is the next pope chosen after the last pope is dead? How can a dead pope pass on the keys of the kingdom? How can a dead pope choose his successor?

 

[montanaman]

Popes are elected? No revelation is received from God to instruct the church who the next pope will be? Is the next pope chosen after the last pope is dead? How can a dead pope pass on the keys of the kingdom? How can a dead pope choose his successor?

These questions have the smell of someone who doesn’t care what the answers are. Pretty typical of students in undergrad philosophy classes. I’d run into these guys all the time–they deny, deny, deny, and when you get them into a corner, they deny language has any meaning…They also demand you provide all the proof, then they ignore it, and claim victory. It comes, I think, from a misunderstanding of “burden of proof.”

Seriously, papists, why are you bothering with a guy who not only has no interest in what we have to say, but an obstinant resistence to it? Shake the dust from your heels…

 

[rod_of_iron]

Corpus Cristi:

Well, we do have biblical evidence that Peter did have authority, just as the other apostles did.

Yes, I agree. When Jesus called his 12 apostles, He gave them authority to act in His name. But all the apostles were given the same authority.
Corpus Cristi:

Yet the two things that Peter had that the other apostles didn’t have was PRIMACY over the whole church, bishops only have authority to teach in their own diocese.

Not from what I see in the Bible. Peter did not have any special authority that the other 11 did not have. He was given the same authority as the other 11 apostles. Jesus called 12 apostles, not just one. The 12 were to meet together as a quorum and decide as a group over the direction the church would move. Why have councils if only one person decides every issue himself? The councils, like the one in Jerusalem, assembled to discuss problems and concerns, and then to decide how to deal with them. If Acts 15 contains the full transcripts of the council, then the council lasted less than 5 minutes. I have never been in a meeting that has dispersed so soon. But I do not see any real evidence of Jesus giving Peter primacy over the other apostles.

 

[rod_of_iron]

montanaman:

These questions have the smell of someone who doesn’t care what the answers are. Pretty typical of students in undergrad philosophy classes. I’d run into these guys all the time–they deny, deny, deny, and when you get them into a corner, they deny language has any meaning…They also demand you provide all the proof, then they ignore it, and claim victory. It comes, I think, from a misunderstanding of “burden of proof.”

Seriously, papists, why are you bothering with a guy who not only has no interest in what we have to say, but an obstinant resistence to it? Shake the dust from your heels…

Papist??? According to the dictionary, the word papist is an offensive term referring to Roman Catholics. You are not above insulting anyone on this forum, are you?

How can you say "peace go with you" at the bottom of your posts and then say the things you do elsewhere in your posts?

 

[montanaman]

Papist??? According to the dictionary, the word papist is an offensive term referring to Roman Catholics. You are not above insulting anyone on this forum, are you?

Of course not. I have a sense of humor. Watch The Simpsons–you’ll get one too.

 

[atenciom]

PEOPLE!!! :banghead:

sigh (Why do I bother?)

Since my last post, you have already started on two different subjects:

-did Peter pass on his authority
-Did Jesus give Peter any special authority/primacy in the first place.

Rod, what’s it gonna be? Which subject do you want? There’s also a third background subject that Montanaman brought up.

-What constitutes proof/hearsay/testimony, etc? When is it acceptable?

ROD OF IRON: Please choose so that we can get on with this.

Martin

PS MontanaMan’s “papist” comment is a joke. It’s kind of like calling your own kind by their derogatory name. Like some black people who call other black people Ni**er* in a loving sense. However, just to keep the confusion down, please no words like “papist” or “Romish” or anything like that. Thanks.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

rod of iron:

Yes, I agree. When Jesus called his 12 apostles, He gave them authority to act in His name. But all the apostles were given the same authority.

Not from what I see in the Bible. Peter did not have any special authority that the other 11 did not have. He was given the same authority as the other 11 apostles. Jesus called 12 apostles, not just one. The 12 were to meet together as a quorum and decide as a group over the direction the church would move. Why have councils if only one person decides every issue himself? The councils, like the one in Jerusalem, assembled to discuss problems and concerns, and then to decide how to deal with them. If Acts 15 contains the full transcripts of the council, then the council lasted less than 5 minutes. I have never been in a meeting that has dispersed so soon. But I do not see any real evidence of Jesus giving Peter primacy over the other apostles.

If you don’t see anywhere in scripture that Jesus gives Peter primacy and responsibility, either you need to brush up on your scripture, or you are interpreting the Bible to fit your preconceived belief that Peter was not the first pope.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

rod of iron:

Popes are elected? No revelation is received from God to instruct the church who the next pope will be? Is the next pope chosen after the last pope is dead? How can a dead pope pass on the keys of the kingdom? How can a dead pope choose his successor?

That’s just it. A dead pope doesn’t choose his successor. The college of Cardinals that are alive choose the next pope. Also, you have this whole succession thing all wrong. Other bishops besides the pope, are ordained by a bishop while both are still alive. They are then the successor of that particular bishop, but are also the successor of that particular apostle that the ordination goes all the way back to. A pope, however, isn’t the direct successor of their predecessor, rather, they are the direct successor of St. Peter. That’s why when a pope dies, the college of Cardinals is locked in the Sistine Chapel with a key, and vote by secret ballot on a new pope until they are all unanimous on one person. This can sometimes take a long time because the cardinals have to search their own souls to decide on who they would want as pope. After that’s decided, the elected is ordained as the new head of the pilgrim church on Earth, the vicar (represenative) of Christ.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Corpus Cristi:

That’s why when a pope dies, the college of Cardinals is locked in the Sistine Chapel with a key, and vote by secret ballot on a new pope until they are all unanimous on one person. This can sometimes take a long time because the cardinals have to search their own souls to decide on who they would want as pope. After that’s decided, the elected is ordained as the new head of the pilgrim church on Earth, the vicar (represenative) of Christ.

I see. You have said that the cardinals decide who they want to be the next pope, not who God wants. You cannot know what God wants unless He reveals His will to you. Since Catholics claim that revelation from God ended with the apostles, there is no way that the cardinals could know the will of God, because they do not receive revelation from God to tell them what His will is. Without God being able to reveal His will to the Catholic church (whether it be his will for the next pope or something else), the Catholic church can be no more than a man-made church.

 

[rod_of_iron]

atenciom:

PEOPLE!!! :banghead:

sigh (Why do I bother?)

Since my last post, you have already started on two different subjects:

-did Peter pass on his authority
-Did Jesus give Peter any special authority/primacy in the first place.

Rod, what’s it gonna be? Which subject do you want?

I already asked for proof that Peter passed on authority to a successor, but you brought up the idea that we should first discuss whether Peter had the authority to pass in the first place. We can discuss whether Peter had primacy, but I have been in discussion on that topic before on this forum, and nothing was settled. The Catholic church interprets certain things in the Bible to say that Peter had primacy, but those scriptures that are quoted to support this concept need a fair amount of eternal information added for them to even suggest that those verses support primacy for Peter.

But I suppose that we should discuss whether Peter had special authority before we discuss whether he passed the authority to a successor.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

rod of iron:

I see. You have said that the cardinals decide who they want to be the next pope, not who God wants. You cannot know what God wants unless He reveals His will to you. Since Catholics claim that revelation from God ended with the apostles, there is no way that the cardinals could know the will of God, because they do not receive revelation from God to tell them what His will is. Without God being able to reveal His will to the Catholic church (whether it be his will for the next pope or something else), the Catholic church can be no more than a man-made church.

Yes, the Catholic Church is a man-made church, and that man is God made flesh, the only man that is true God and true man, Jesus Christ.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

rod of iron:

I already asked for proof that Peter passed on authority to a successor, but you brought up the idea that we should first discuss whether Peter had the authority to pass in the first place. We can discuss whether Peter had primacy, but I have been in discussion on that topic before on this forum, and nothing was settled. The Catholic church interprets certain things in the Bible to say that Peter had primacy, but those scriptures that are quoted to support this concept need a fair amount of eternal information added for them to even suggest that those verses support primacy for Peter.

But I suppose that we should discuss whether Peter had special authority before we discuss whether he passed the authority to a successor.

Well, I assume that you went to Catholic.com to get to this forum, so, I’m going to ask you a question. When you went (supposedly) to Catholic.com, and you saw the sections of the library that had tracts on the very thing you’re asking us right now, did you look at them ready to deny any and everything that they said before you even read it because you didn’t want to believe it, or did you neglect to read them at all? It’s really simple, the subject of this argument, and to argue about this back and forth is just complicating the matter to the point that we won’t even be thinking about this subject. We have proof. You don’t. Think about it.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Corpus Cristi:

Well, I assume that you went to Catholic.com to get to this forum, so, I’m going to ask you a question. When you went (supposedly) to Catholic.com, and you saw the sections of the library that had tracts on the very thing you’re asking us right now, did you look at them ready to deny any and everything that they said before you even read it because you didn’t want to believe it, or did you neglect to read them at all? It’s really simple, the subject of this argument, and to argue about this back and forth is just complicating the matter to the point that we won’t even be thinking about this subject. We have proof. You don’t. Think about it.

On the contrary, you Catholics don’t have proof. If you Catholics had proof, you would have presented it to me long ago. I would not have to keep asking for proof, if you had already presented it to me. Think about it.

As for this forum, I found it using a search engine. I don’t know if I have been to this Catholic.com.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Corpus Cristi:

Yes, the Catholic Church is a man-made church, and that man is God made flesh, the only man that is true God and true man, Jesus Christ.

Jesus does not have a human spirit. He is God. A human spirit is created. Jesus was not created. He took upon Himself flesh and bone, but this did not change his spirit into a created human spirit.

Since the Catholic church rejects modern revelation from God, the church cannot possibly know what God desires of the church now.

 

[fulloftruth]

Rod of Iron, you misunderstand the churches teaching on revelation. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 65-95. 66 v28 “yet even if Revelation is already complete,it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith to gradually grasp it’s full significance over the course of the centuries.”

It also says that over the centuries there has been so called “private” revelation, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history.

It also says,commenting on Hebrews1:1-2
“In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), He spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say…because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who Is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty of not only foolish behavior, but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.”

What Proof is Rod of Iron looking for? I’m sorry I just got here.

 

[rod_of_iron]

fulloftruth:

Rod of Iron, you misunderstand the churches teaching on revelation. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 65-95. 66 v28 “yet even if Revelation is already complete,it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith to gradually grasp it’s full significance over the course of the centuries.”

It also says that over the centuries there has been so called “private” revelation, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history.

It also says,commenting on Hebrews1:1-2
“In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), He spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say…because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who Is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty of not only foolish behavior, but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.”

What Proof is Rod of Iron looking for? I’m sorry I just got here.

Hebrews 1:1-2, does not say all that you say it does. It does not say that God has said all He is going to say to us. If He has, why is He now giving us the silent treatment? That verse says: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

This does not say that God will stop revealing His truth to us. But we will know when God is revealing truth to us, because that which is revealed to us from God will not contradict that which He has already revealed in the past. I still ask, where is the office of prophet in the Catholic church? The Bible says that the office of prophet is one of the priesthood offices found in the true church of Jesus Christ. Where is it in the Catholic church?

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

rod of iron:

On the contrary, you Catholics don’t have proof. If you Catholics had proof, you would have presented it to me long ago. I would not have to keep asking for proof, if you had already presented it to me. Think about it.

As for this forum, I found it using a search engine. I don’t know if I have been to this Catholic.com.

The only thing you really want is explicite biblical reference to what we believe, and you’re just not going to get that because we aren’t meant to go by the Bible alone, that’s why there are so many denominations splitting off at probably an all-time-high growthrate of 1 EVERY 5 DAYS. You notice that these aren’t coming off of the Catholic church, they’re coming off of these other denominations, and these people in these denominations don’t even all believe the same things, but find a church that has a pastor that teaches closest to what they believe. As a result, there are maybe about tens, even hundreds of thousands of denominations as a result of sola scriptura.

 

[Aris]

ROI,

Your response tend to show a gross misunderstanding what saints are and who Mary is.

When people die they are raised from the dead and are alive. And though they may be in heaven, they continue to care for us who are still alive. If you do not believe so then you do not believe what the bible says that God is God of the living not of the dead.

I glossed over the proofs since this thread is not about specific doctrines but if we can verify who founded our Church.

We may debate the who really has a better proof but since you are not really interested in finding out the truth then I don’t think there will be enough proof to convince you.

I put forth the proofs quickly in the hope that you will in the fairness of discussion give your own proofs. As of yet, I have yet to see any proof from your side that the Bible supports your theory that Christ founded your church.

I can give you more proofs of how biblical is honoring Mary but only until you give me your proofs that Christ founded your Church.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

rod of iron:

Jesus does not have a human spirit. He is God. A human spirit is created. Jesus was not created. He took upon Himself flesh and bone, but this did not change his spirit into a created human spirit.

Since the Catholic church rejects modern revelation from God, the church cannot possibly know what God desires of the church now.

The church has always taught the divinity of Christ. We don’t deny it by believing that Christ also had a soul, like every other human being on the Earth. When Christ died, what happened? Scripture said that he descended into hell (not the hell of the damned, but the hell of those waiting to be freed). He has a body, he has a soul, and he is divine, so he has divinity. If he didn’t have a soul, he wouldn’t be human. He is true God and true man. This is what the church has always taught, though it was affirmed at the first Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325, because there were heretics (gnostics) who believed that Christ wasn’t divine. We believe that he was pure human infused with pure God.

 

[atenciom]

rod of iron:

I already asked for proof that Peter passed on authority to a successor, but you brought up the idea that we should first discuss whether Peter had the authority to pass in the first place. We can discuss whether Peter had primacy, but I have been in discussion on that topic before on this forum, and nothing was settled. The Catholic church interprets certain things in the Bible to say that Peter had primacy, but those scriptures that are quoted to support this concept need a fair amount of eternal information added for them to even suggest that those verses support primacy for Peter.

But I suppose that we should discuss whether Peter had special authority before we discuss whether he passed the authority to a successor.

Well, I tried to keep it down to one subject but it seems my efforts are in vain. The more you keep throwing out subjects, the more people are going to respond and you are going to end up in the same mess as before.

Since my last post, the following subjects have been brought up:
-Whether Jesus is divine or not
-Whether God’s revelation (public or private) has stopped or not
-And now Aris has come in with Mary and the Saints :nope:

These three have nothing to do with the previous three that were active at the time of my last post (yesterday). Do you see how things can get out of hand?

Now Corpus Christi is under the impression that you don’t really want to know the answers, you just want to argue. I’m sure you’re familiar with people like that. I don’t believe that you are . . .yet but I’m starting to because you are entertaining every subject that walks in here. If you were really interested in an answer to a particular question, you’d ask it and wait for the answer.

In the meantime, you have just laid down the subject: Did Peter have more authority/primacy than the other apostles. I changed the subject line so that you can quickly identify the subject that you want to talk about.

I will start the subject on my next post.

Martin