Who founded your denomination?????

[rod_of_iron]

Aris:

I’d like to quote a previous post.

“We can only sow the seeds.”

Unbelief will always be there. It is up to the person with God’s help to accept the Truth.

It has been shown that

1. Peter was the leader of the Apostles
2. Christ gave special instruction to Peter alone.

Both of which point to Peter’s primacy.

Where has it been shown that Peter was the leader of the Apostles? That is the concept that we are trying to arrive at by proving he had primacy. I have not really seen anything that makes me believe that Peter was the leader.

As for Jesus giving special instruction to Peter, Jesus was trying to get Peter up to par with the other apostles.

 

[montanaman]

Are you then implying that Peter was the only one in the history of the world to have something called primacy? Martin claimed that all 30 things together on his list proves that Peter had primacy. If no one else had all these 30 things happen to them, this would suggest that no one else but Peter ever had primacy. When Peter died, this primacy would have been buried with him.

I have been accused of abandoning logic. On the contrary, I am trying to be very logical. If Peter needed these 30 things to show primacy, then anyone else who claims to have primacy would need these 30 things also. That is indeed logical.

But we must first ascertain if all 30 of these things lead us to proving primacy if they are all grouped together. This is why I tried to discuss each one separately. But no one will discuss this logically with me. Perhaps, none of you know how to be logical.

Wow. Just…wow.

“Are you then implying that Peter was the only one in the history of the world to have something called primacy?”

No, he’s not implying that. Nice red herring there, but I think you’re the only one here who thinks he’s distracting anyone with that.

“If no one else had all these 30 things happen to them, this would suggest that no one else but Peter ever had primacy.”

Riiiight. But there really aren’t any other people who “claim” these things, so, I guess it’s a good indicator of primacy, isn’t it? In the context of Scripture, these things happening to Peter and Peter alone, as a whole, indicate primacy. Not necessarily “prove,” but it’s highly likely. In fact, there aren’t many other logical interpretations.

“If Peter needed these 30 things to show primacy, then anyone else who claims to have primacy would need these 30 things also.”

Not necessarily. 30 isn’t a magic number. It’s not a minimum number of requirements. It just is. And as far as I know, none of the other apostles “claim” primacy. That’s pretty much the point, rod. All these things taken together show primacy. What is so hard about this?

And finally–this is great–you say “But we must first ascertain if all 30 of these things lead us to proving primacy if they are all grouped together. This is why I tried to discuss each one separately.” Trying to parse this into something more simple is impossible at this point. You finally seem to be getting what we’re saying–that the group of things indicate a higher place for Peter among the Apostles–and you want to take each case as proof in itself, which you know we’re not trying to do.

Or, you still can’t comprehend, or refuse to comprehend, what we’re saying. We’re NOT saying that these things grouped together provide unassailable proof of Peter as the first pope, but we ARE saying that these things show a high likelihood that he was chief among them.

Now, you can no longer ignore that there’s SOME reason for mentioning Peter first among them so many times. So, what’s your theory–instead of trying to take apart ours? What has that meant, historically? Who has ever thought this meant something along the lines of your interpretation, whatever it is?

 

[montanaman]

Again, I ask – how does a person prove that something does not exist or that something does not happen?

What does negative evidence look like?

Asking me to prove something does not exist is a very cultic mindset.

Nobody’s asking you to prove a negative. But it WOULD be nice if you would make an argument other than “Nuh uh, nuh uh, nuh uh!”

As far as Jesus getting Peter “up to par,” (which is a very new interpretation. How new? Oh, I don’t know–when did you write it?) what do you think the significance of that is? Why record it? What was the writer trying to convey? Please–give us something other than your on-the-spot impression. I would submit that, especially with the Matt 16:18 “rock” passage, Jesus was most definitely doing something more than merely teaching a slow student.

Why do I bother? I’ve never met a fundamentalist with his head so far in the sand…

 

[rod_of_iron]

montanaman:

This is why I think you’re here for anything but a desire for truth.

I am indeed interested in truth. But I desire real truth, not Catholic propaganda.

montanaman:

Nobody has said that any ONE of those things proves primacy. We’ve all said that taken together, they show that he has primacy. Somehow, though, you take that curious Biblical fact–that Peter is mentioned prominently 30 times–and dismiss it as irrelevent.

If I am dismissing these 30 points as irrelevant, it is because no one has shown where any of these 30 points are relevant to showing that Peter had primacy. Until someone shows me how these 30 points work together to prove that Peter had primacy, I must believe that these points are irrelevant.

montanaman:

We’re not saying it proves the papacy, but it can’t be ignored.

I never asked for you to prove the papacy with these 30 points. Instead, I want you to show me how these 30 points work together to prove primacy.

 

[montanaman]

I never asked for you to prove the papacy with these 30 points. Instead, I want you to show me how these 30 points work together to prove primacy.

Because everything in the Bible is there for some purpose! I’ve never seen someone work so hard to be blind! Peter is given a place of prominence 30 times in Holy Scripture and it means nothing?!? Man, you stretch the boundaries of nonsense. Just when I thought I heard everything… 30 times Peter is given a mention while the other apostles are always either not mentioned, or are mentioned AFTER him, and it means nothing? Come ON.

Please, for the sake of my sanity, out of respect for REASON, of the truth you claim to believe in, at least acknowledge that it is a fact worthy of note. I can understand how you won’t come to the conclusion of primacy–your obstinancy–but please, quit pretending that there is no relevent, significant factoid here. Quit pretending that parts of the Bible are the equivilant of laundry lists or to-do lists.

 

[rod_of_iron]

montanaman:

Why do I bother? I’ve never met a fundamentalist with his head so far in the sand…

… And I do not think I have ever seen a person do such a song and dance around an issue without directly addressing it. This is what you are doing.

I ask you to show how those 30 things together prove that Peter had primacy, and you will not do it. This is becoming a very big waste of time for me. Instead of addressing my questions, you either call my character into question or you judge me for not playing your game. You want me to be one of those people in the story of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” who does not see that the emperor is not really wearing any clothes.

I am not going to sit around wearing Catholic glasses, pretending that the truth is what the Catholic church claims it is. I ask for proof, and I expect proof. If you make a claim, I expect you to justisfy that claim. I am not interested in your song and dance tactics. I expect you to directly address my questions and statements. Is that really that difficult to do? If you cannot do this, then please be considerate enough to tell me, so that I do not waste endless hours trying to discuss these things with you.

 

[montanaman]

“Catholic glasses.” That’s actually funny. Good point for levity, I guess…

What are you looking for to “prove the proof?” It’s not like it can be broken down any farther. Peter is given a place of prominence 30 times. That means something. You disagree. Your reasons for disagreeing are, well, “unarticulated.”

You think we’re asking you to prove a negative. Well, I guess maybe we are. After all, it’s entirely possible that you really see 30 cases where Peter is mentioned prominently but come to the conclusion that it means nothing. It’s just fluff. Biblical filler. If you really see no connection there, no deeper meaning, then I apologize. Yes, we disagree. I’m sorry I was frustrated.

I guess we have something we agree on then, because I see this Jesus guy healing lepers, but I don’t think that means anything either. It’s just an interesting side note. More of that annoying Biblical fluff that doesn’t mean anything. Like the geneologies… Probably just stuff to achieve the right word count that the editors required…

 

[rod_of_iron]

montanaman:

Because everything in the Bible is there for some purpose! I’ve never seen someone work so hard to be blind! Peter is given a place of prominence 30 times in Holy Scripture and it means nothing?!? Man, you stretch the boundaries of nonsense. Just when I thought I heard everything… 30 times Peter is given a mention while the other apostles are always either not mentioned, or are mentioned AFTER him, and it means nothing? Come ON.

Please, for the sake of my sanity, out of respect for REASON, of the truth you claim to believe in, at least acknowledge that it is a fact worthy of note. I can understand how you won’t come to the conclusion of primacy–your obstinancy–but please, quit pretending that there is no relevent, significant factoid here. Quit pretending that parts of the Bible are the equivilant of laundry lists or to-do lists.

It is nonsense for you to claim that Peter is given a place of prominence 30 times in the Bible, yet fail to show me why you believe that each of these 30 times are actually places of prominence. You are failing to show how those 30 times represent places of prominence, then you fault me for not acknowledging any of them. Do you expect me to accept these alleged 30 times to show places of prominence just because you say that they do? If you are so intelligent, you should be able to show why you believe that these 30 times are places of prominence in a way that I can understand, right? Can you?

 

[montanaman]

If you are so intelligent, you should be able to show why you believe that these 30 times are places of prominence in a way that I can understand, right? Can you?

No, you’re right, apparently I can’t. Not if:

Peter walking on water with Jesus means nothing to you;
Jesus paying taxes for Peter means nothing to you;
Peter getting a name change means nothing to you;
Peter getting the keys means nothing to you;
Peter speaking at the Council of Jerusalem means nothing to you;
Peter performing the first miracle after Jesus leaves means nothing to you;
Peter giving the first sermon after Jesus leaves means nothing to you, and so on…

If each one of these things means absolutely nothing to you, other than interesting narrative, then I guess it’s logical to conclude that the sheer weight of these items taken as a whole will mean nothing to you, as well.

So, it’s safe to say you’re right. I can’t explain it in a way that you can understand it.

 

[Aris]

ROI,

Part of the problem is of course you will not accept the Authority of the Church.
You do not believe that the Church of Christ when He founded it on Ceasarea Phillipi survived until this day.
You will not take as evidence what the Early Church Fathers said.

You are right. Basing on the Bible will not prove anything. You need to have a look at History and Church Traditions. Traditions read as the ones that the Apostles handed down to us.

Again, I have not seen you disprove what was said.

If you say the 30 instances that were mentioned do not say Peter has primacy, then you should show me proof that it says otherwise

 

[Charlemagne]

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?

The keys of the kingdom are passed on by God acting through the electors - the men who have been named Cardinals by the Popes. Cardinals are Bishops and are thus successors to the Apostles. They elect a new Pope from among their own members. The Cardinals are actually locked into a section of the Vatican when a sitting Pope dies, and are not allowed to leave or have contact with the outside world until they elect a successor.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Charlemagne:

The keys of the kingdom are passed on by God acting through the electors - the men who have been named Cardinals by the Popes.

But how can these electors pass on the keys of the kingdom if they do not possess those keys themselves? Can more than one person possess these keys simultaneously? If only the pope possesses the keys while he is alive, then he would take those keys to the grave with him, unless he passes those keys to another before his death. Does he? Who does he pass those keys to if he does?

Perhaps, God takes the keys away from the pope upon his death and waits for the Cardinals to decide who they want to be their next pope. In such a situation, the Cardinals are controlling who will be the next pope instead of God. God must sit around hoping that the Cardinals can pick the man that God would want to be the next leader of the Catholic church. This would put God in a secondary position in this decision process. Since it has been stated on this forum that the Catholic church believes that public revelation from God ended with the apostles, the Cardinals would not be choosing their next pope based on what God would reveal to them.

Charlemagne:

Cardinals are Bishops and are thus successors to the Apostles. They elect a new Pope from among their own members. The Cardinals are actually locked into a section of the Vatican when a sitting Pope dies, and are not allowed to leave or have contact with the outside world until they elect a successor.

Yet, you did not say anything about God’s role in this decision. According to what you have written, the Cardinals choose the pope, not God.

 

[rod_of_iron]

montanaman:

No, you’re right, apparently I can’t. Not if:

Peter walking on water with Jesus means nothing to you;
Jesus paying taxes for Peter means nothing to you;
Peter getting a name change means nothing to you;
Peter getting the keys means nothing to you;
Peter speaking at the Council of Jerusalem means nothing to you;
Peter performing the first miracle after Jesus leaves means nothing to you;
Peter giving the first sermon after Jesus leaves means nothing to you, and so on…

If each one of these things means absolutely nothing to you, other than interesting narrative, then I guess it’s logical to conclude that the sheer weight of these items taken as a whole will mean nothing to you, as well.

So, it’s safe to say you’re right. I can’t explain it in a way that you can understand it.

Oh, those things of Peter do mean something to me, but I do not see how those things represent places of prominence. Why can’t you describe to me why you believe those things represent places of prominence? With you, they are either places of prominence or just interesting narrative. I am of neither opinion. I believe that those things are in the Bible because they are important, but I do not see how representing places of prominence is that important reason they are recorded in the Bible.

How do any of those things you mention equate to a place of prominence? That is what you yet have to show me.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
*Maybe I’m being overly simplistic, but wouldn’t compiling this list be impossible since these things ONLY happened to Peter? If my thinking is off help me out.

In Christ,
Nancy *
rod of iron:

Are you then implying that Peter was the only one in the history of the world to have something called primacy?

No. Is that really what you gleened from my statement?

Martin claimed that all 30 things together on his list proves that Peter had primacy. If no one else had all these 30 things happen to them, this would suggest that no one else but Peter ever had primacy. When Peter died, this primacy would have been buried with him.

No, his primacy (position of leadership) was handed down to his successors.

**

I have been accused of abandoning logic.

On the contrary, I am trying to be very logical. If Peter needed these 30 things to show primacy, then anyone else who claims to have primacy would need these 30 things also. That is indeed logical. **

Please indicate the post # in which anyone said that Peter “needed” these particular 30 things to show primacy. If you cannot then please recant your statment. Thanks!

But we must first ascertain if all 30 of these things lead us to proving primacy if they are all grouped together. This is why I tried to discuss each one separately. But no one will discuss this logically with me. Perhaps, none of you know how to be logical.

I would venture to say that it’s possible that you misunderstood the motive behind listing those 30 things. You’ve become fixated on the list itself rather than the purpose of the list. The purpose of the list was not to list the particulars but merely to demonstrate how the sheer volume of references to Peter, which far outnumber references of the other apostles, indicates his importance (leadership…primacy) among the apostles.

You don’t need to agree with it, but make sure the point your disagreeing with is the point the poster was intending to make.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

rod of iron:

But how can these electors pass on the keys of the kingdom if they do not possess those keys themselves? Can more than one person possess these keys simultaneously? If only the pope possesses the keys while he is alive, then he would take those keys to the grave with him, unless he passes those keys to another before his death. Does he? Who does he pass those keys to if he does?

The keys stay with the office of pope, the don’t go with the individual.

Perhaps, God takes the keys away from the pope upon his death and waits for the Cardinals to decide who they want to be their next pope. In such a situation, the Cardinals are controlling who will be the next pope instead of God. God must sit around hoping that the Cardinals can pick the man that God would want to be the next leader of the Catholic church. This would put God in a secondary position in this decision process. Since it has been stated on this forum that the Catholic church believes that public revelation from God ended with the apostles, the Cardinals would not be choosing their next pope based on what God would reveal to them.

It doesn’t matter who the pope is. The holy Spirit will protect him officially teaching error no matter who it is.

Yet, you did not say anything about God’s role in this decision. According to what you have written, the Cardinals choose the pope, not God.

The cardinals choose the pope and God protects him from ever officially teaching error.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[rod_of_iron]

Aris:

Part of the problem is of course you will not accept the Authority of the Church.

Unless Peter’s primacy is proven, the authority of the Catholic church is a non-issue.

Aris:

You do not believe that the Church of Christ when He founded it on Ceasarea Phillipi survived until this day.

I believe that the eternal church, namely the Church of the Firstborn, has not ceased to exist and still survives. But I do not believe that the Catholic church is the continuation of the church that Christ founded. The Catholic church drove the true church into the wilderness, and transplanted it.

Aris:

You will not take as evidence what the Early Church Fathers said.

Who are these Early Church Fathers that I should listen to them?

Aris:

You are right. Basing on the Bible will not prove anything.

Really? Then why use the Bible at all if it will not prove anything?

Aris:

You need to have a look at History and Church Traditions. Traditions read as the ones that the Apostles handed down to us.

How can you be so sure that your Traditions are the same as the ones that were handed down by the Apostles, if what was handed down was not written down? You make this claim, yet I do not see how you have proven it to be true.

Aris:

Again, I have not seen you disprove what was said.

Your inability to prove what you have claimed is disproof enough.

Aris:

If you say the 30 instances that were mentioned do not say Peter has primacy, then you should show me proof that it says otherwise.

I started to do that earlier, but Martin told me that giving alternate interpretations was not proving to him that those 30 instances did not prove primacy. So, I stopped giving alternate interpretations.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

rod of iron:

Unless Peter’s primacy is proven, the authority of the Catholic church is a non-issue.

Do you mean not being proven to your personal satisfaction makes it a non-issue for you personally or as an absolute?

I believe that the eternal church, namely the Church of the Firstborn, has not ceased to exist and still survives. But I do not believe that the Catholic church is the continuation of the church that Christ founded. The Catholic church drove the true church into the wilderness, and transplanted it.

If I were to walk into a church this Sunday which WAS a continuation of the church that Christ founded, with the same doctrine, unchanged over time, which church would you recommend? Please be specific and give reasons for your recommendation.

How can you be infallibley certain that the Catholic Church is NOT the church that Jesus founded?

Who are these Early Church Fathers that I should listen to them?

They are Christians who lived must closer to the time of Christ than you or I. They act as witnesses to what the early Church believed.

How can you be so sure that your Traditions are the same as the ones that were handed down by the Apostles, if what was handed down was not written down? You make this claim, yet I do not see how you have proven it to be true.

If God can inspired fallible men to write without error He can certainly protect fallible men from speaking error. I’m interested in why you believe that all teaching MUST be written down in order for one to be certain of it since that directive, itself, is not written down.

Thank you for answering all my questions!!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[rod_of_iron]

Catholic4aReasn:

The keys stay with the office of pope, the don’t go with the individual.

The office of pope is just a concept. It is not a being in itself. The Bible does not tell us that Jesus ordained offices to His priesthood. Rather, He ordained men to function in these conceptual offices. According to the Bible, Jesus gave Peter the keys, rather than giving the keys to the office that Peter might have been called to occupy. Do you really want to claim that a concept can possess the keys rather than a human being? Such a claim would seem nonsensical to me.

Catholic4aReasn:

It doesn’t matter who the pope is. The holy Spirit will protect him officially teaching error no matter who it is.

So, you want me to believe that at various times, God will take away the free moral agency of the pope, so that the pope cannot possibly choose anything other than what God wants him to choose? If so, where in scripture does it ever say that God will take away anyone’s agency, even temporarily?

Catholic4aReasn:

The cardinals choose the pope and God protects him from ever officially teaching error.

But you have not claimed that God protects the Cardinals from making a mistake when choosing their next pope. If God does, this would be another case of God taking away agency from individuals. I still have not seen when God has ever taken away agency from anyone in the history of the world.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Okay, I think that the real problem is that all you’ve been combating with it fundamentalist trash and NOT what the church actually teaches on the papacy. There have been many, many, MANY volumes on office of the papacy IT’SELF, NOT EVEN touching on the THEOLOGICAL area of the papacy. You know a lot less than you think. I think you REALLY need to stock up on things like PAPAL encyclicals, the WRITINGS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS (THE LEADERS OF THE EARLY CHURCH, CLEMENT OF ROME, IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH, POLYCARP, JUSTIN MARTYR, ETC.), and READ THE CATECHISM, because really, that’s what the church teaches and has always taught, though expounded upon from years and years of looking at certain teachings and coming to a greater understanding of them in the faith and our lives. Really, it’s like you’re arguing about politics when you don’t even know anything about the topic. LEARN ABOUT IT

 

[Aris]

Corpus Cristi:

LEARN ABOUT IT

Amen!