Who founded your denomination?????

[rod_of_iron]

I am still waiting for someone on this forum to show me how any of the 30 items on Martin’s list show a place of prominence. But it appears that I am waiting in vain, because none of you apparently can do it. If you cannot support your claim, you should not make the claim. If you make a claim that you cannot support, you will look foolish.

I’m really disappointed with the lot of you.

 

[Catholic_Eagle]

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,

of Trent[known as the Roman Catechism} or Pope Pius X
Corpus Cristi:

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

 

[montanaman]

I am still waiting for someone on this forum to show me how any of the 30 items on Martin’s list show a place of prominence. But it appears that I am waiting in vain, because none of you apparently can do it. If you cannot support your claim, you should not make the claim. If you make a claim that you cannot support, you will look foolish.

I’m really disappointed with the lot of you.

What you’re actually waiting for is the technology of RNA transplants to GIVE you the information so you won’t have to obtain it yourself.

The problem is that you’re purposefully ignoring the FACT that Peter is given some prominence far more many times than anyone else. For you, this is either irrelevent, or merely a coincidence, or otherwise unimportant. It doesn’t even seem to be a curiosity for you. Well, for the last 1700 years or so that the Bible has existed, it’s meant something to a lot of people.

Personally, I don’t believe you. I think you realize that 30 instances of Peter being given a higher place on the totem pole IS an indication of something. It’s totally incompatible with your worldview, though, so you ignore it.

So be it.

You can make snarky little comments about how “nobody can prove it,” but with your charade of ignorance, you’re making yourself look silly, not the paragon of brilliance you think you are.

 

[Aris]

I agree absolutely.

By common understanding or should it be common sense, if somebody put your name in a book then you must be important for him to mention.

ROI,

I guess you are trying to look for the phrase “And Jesus gave Peter Primacy” or “Jesus appointed Peter as His head of the Church.” That you will never find because there has been no need to state the obvious.

And I bet, you would also not find the proof that Christ founded your church given the same criteria of proof that you are giving us.

How about I pretend for one moment that I agree with you that the issue with Peter is untenable.

How about giving me proof that Christ founded your church?

 

[montanaman]

How about giving me proof that Christ founded your church?

Lol. Now taking bets that his argument will come down to “faith.” My “Apostolic Lutheran” family, (a theological oxymoron if I ever heard one), always falls back to the “I have faith that I’m right” argument. I think they know how untenable that position is, but they just enjoy watching me get apoplectic over their rabid anti-intellectualism.

We’ll hear the same from Rod, or we’ll hear nothing. I don’t think Rod is the devil or is possessed, but I find it curious that like the devil, all his “arguments” are rejection or destruction–not a series of thoughts that build a cogent conclusion…

 

[rod_of_iron]

montanaman:

What you’re actually waiting for is the technology of RNA transplants to GIVE you the information so you won’t have to obtain it yourself.

If I make a claim, I do not expect you to prove my claim for me. But when you make a claim, that is exactly what you expect me to do – prove your claim for you. This expectation of yours is like the prosecution making an accusation against the defendant, and then expecting the defendant’s lawyers to prove that accusation for the prosecution against their client. That is just silly.

If you claim that Peter had primacy, I expect you to prove what you claim. If you cannot, you shouldn’t expect me to accept your claim as being true.

montanaman:

The problem is that you’re purposefully ignoring the FACT that Peter is given some prominence far more many times than anyone else.

How can I ignore this when you have not shown me how any of these times that Peter is mentioned shows prominence?

montanaman:

For you, this is either irrelevent, or merely a coincidence, or otherwise unimportant.

How can I make any of these judgments upon your claims unless you first show that any of the things that Peter did suggested prominence?

montanaman:

It doesn’t even seem to be a curiosity for you.

I find it curious that you will claim that the events in Peter’s life show prominence when you haven’t shown how any of those events could show prominence for any human being?

montanaman:

Well, for the last 1700 years or so that the Bible has existed, it’s meant something to a lot of people.

What does it mean? If those people believe those events show prominence, I still expect you or them to show how those events show prominence.

montanaman:

Personally, I don’t believe you. I think you realize that 30 instances of Peter being given a higher place on the totem pole IS an indication of something.

So, you are accusing me of deceit? If I did realize that these 30 instances showed places of prominence, then I could choose either to call them coincidence or to openly reject them. But you have not shown how any of those instances could show prominence. So, until you do, I cannot act either to accept them or reject them. The ball is in your court, but you aren’t doing anything with it.

montanaman:

It’s totally incompatible with your worldview, though, so you ignore it.

What worldview?

montanaman:

You can make snarky little comments about how “nobody can prove it,” but with your charade of ignorance, you’re making yourself look silly, not the paragon of brilliance you think you are.

But your snarky little comments actually do something to further this discussion???

 

[montanaman]

The conversation was derailed pages ago. I expect, (and almost hope), that it’ll be closed soon. So why do I keep contributing to it? I don’t know. I’ve never been known for an excess of wisdom.

You say you don’t see it. Fine. I hate to let it sink to this, but I guess it’s a perception difference. But let me try something else:

Imagine I say to you my Jeep Cherokee can get up a muddy logging road better than your hybrid two-wheel drive. You then say, “Give me proof,” and we both take the road. I get to the top three hours before you come walking up the incline. Based on this thread, I imagine your response would be, “You may have beaten me to the top of the hill, but that doesn’t PROVE anything. Show me how this instance of you getting to the top first PROVES your four-wheel drive is better than my hybrid car.”

In the real world, if this were to actually happen, I’d probably only be able to stare at you, dumbfounded.

At least 30 instances where Peter is mentioned first, or is deferred to as the spokesman or authority, and you don’t think that shows a higher status–when there is no other comparable candidate for such status? Okay, Rod. Even though it’s like bile in my mouth, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Rod of Iron:

I am a latecomer to this discussion and have only skimmed through the previous posts, but I would like to address a couple points. First, in post #348 and in refernece to Matt 16:16-18 in which Jesus gives the keys to Peter, you stated:

The meaning is only plain to someone who has already been taught to be Catholic. For someone who was not raised and indoctrinated Catholic, the interpretation that the Catholic church has accepted is not so easily acceptable by non-Catholics.

I was not “raised and indoctrinated” Catholic, but this verse always troubled me as a Protestant since I understood it to say that in fact Christ would build His church on Peter. *

Secondly, you seem to have a hang up about the fact that “Peter” is mentioned with a measure of frequency before Acts 15, but hardly, if ever, mentioned after Acts 15. The conclusion you falsely draw is that if Catholics are to use frequency as a sign for Peter’s primacy, then lack thereof should also indicate Peter’s lack of primacy. Of course, that conclusion is valid only if you assume the New Testament maintains a predominantly narrative telling throughout, which of course it doesn’t. The later epistles tend to focus more on doctrine than on narrating a story. We usually find places, events, and NAMES occurring in stories and not in theological treatises, which is what most of what the later epistles are.

Finally, although I’m not precisely sure where this list of 30 is that people are talking about, I assume it has something to do with Atenciom’s post #308 in which he provides major biblical references to Peter. The Catholics here are arguing that the items WHEN TAKEN AS A WHOLE indicate Peter’s primacy. You, on the other hand think that it must be shown that each item on its own must indicate primacy, which is simply not necessary to underscore the Catholic position that Peter has primacy. If you take the number one and add it to itself 30 times, then you get the product of 30. But if you take the number one by itself, you only end up with the number one! We Catholics don’t focus merely on the fact that Peter walked on water to prove his primacy. Such fact alone doesn’t prove his primacy. But,that’s not what we’re basing our conclusion on. The narrative aspects of the gospels and of the early Christian church, however, focus in great measure on Peter. It is that focus which IN PART allows us to conclude that Peter held primacy.

Fiat*

 

[Faith_is_First]

The meaning is only plain to someone who has already been taught to be Catholic. For someone who was not raised and indoctrinated Catholic, the interpretation that the Catholic church has accepted is not so easily acceptable by non-Catholics.

You know why this Scripture is unacceptable to you? Because you know it speaks of a certain Petrine primacy yet you dont want to admit it.

 

[RBushlow]

rod of iron:

I am still waiting for someone on this forum to show me how any of the 30 items on Martin’s list show a place of prominence.

If all of the clear evidence that’s been presented is ignored by ROI, it is clear that he does not desire to discern the truth, but only to win the argument. It’s sad, really.

 

[Imprimartin]

RBushlow:

If all of the clear evidence that’s been presented is ignored by ROI, it is clear that he does not desire to discern the truth, but only to win the argument. It’s sad, really.

Please, I know it’s hard to resist the temptation to write ROI off as hardheaded, but please keep trying.

Rod, perhaps your difficulty can be summed up in the following statement:

“Yes, the mentioning (in the bible) of Peter doing/saying stuff and the mentioning (in the bible) of all these special things happening to Peter is interesting but they don’t mean prominence or primacy. They mean something (which I may or may not know) but they certainly don’t mean primacy. Even if you put them together, the picture they paint may show something interesting, but this thing isn’t primacy.”

Is this an accurate summation of your thoughts?

Martin

 

[rod_of_iron]

Imprimartin:

Please, I know it’s hard to resist the temptation to write ROI off as hardheaded, but please keep trying.

Rod, perhaps your difficulty can be summed up in the following statement:

“Yes, the mentioning (in the bible) of Peter doing/saying stuff and the mentioning (in the bible) of all these special things happening to Peter is interesting but they don’t mean prominence or primacy. They mean something (which I may or may not know) but they certainly don’t mean primacy. Even if you put them together, the picture they paint may show something interesting, but this thing isn’t primacy.”

Is this an accurate summation of your thoughts?

Martin

Well, perhaps. You claim that special things happened to Peter, and I ask you why these things are special. You claim that these things show places of prominence, and I ask how they show this prominence. You say that all these 30 things, which do not even appear to show primacy, when put together, will magically show this primacy. If the only way that you can show Peter had primacy is by sleight of hand, then you really don’t have much. You and the other Catholics are really skilled at making claims, but you apparently cannot show how the things that you present are as you claim. I don’t know if I can make this any easier to understand.

If I am a hardhead because I want you to show me how these 30 things show prominence, and in turn, primacy, then so be it. But I am hoping that you will stop falling short in your effort to show me what you claim.

 

[Imprimartin]

rod of iron:

Well, perhaps. You claim that special things happened to Peter, and I ask you why these things are special. You claim that these things show places of prominence, and I ask how they show this prominence. You say that all these 30 things, which do not even appear to show primacy, when put together, will magically show this primacy. If the only way that you can show Peter had primacy is by sleight of hand, then you really don’t have much. You and the other Catholics are really skilled at making claims, but you apparently cannot show how the things that you present are as you claim. I don’t know if I can make this any easier to understand.

If I am a hardhead because I want you to show me how these 30 things show prominence, and in turn, primacy, then so be it. But I am hoping that you will stop falling short in your effort to show me what you claim.

Okay, I understand. I have a response right now and it has to do with the jewish culture and the jewish mind and the Holy spirit and how (exactly) He inspires the bible. But I don’t have the time to type it out right now (sat afternoon) because I have to go to the Catholic Family Conference in Southern California. I’m already late as it is. I’ll be back tomorrow with a cogent response.

Until that time, if anybody else knows what I’m thinking, they can chime in.

Thanks for hanging in there,
Martin

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

rod of iron:

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.

They are held by whomever holds the office of bishop of Rome. This means that whomever holds this particular office speaks with the authority of Christ.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

rod of iron:

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?

Jesus said that the holy Spirit would guide His Church to all truth (John 16:13). God is not taking away “free moral agency” but guiding, and not to “some” or “nearly all” or “partial” truth but rather ALL truth. ALL truth contains no error, therefore it is impossible for the Church to teach error. The one who holds the keys (Matt 16:18, Isaiah 22:22) speaks with the King’s own authority. God cannot err therefore neither can the one who speaks with His own authority.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

rod of iron:

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.

It doesn’t matter who the Cardinals elect. God divinely protects whoever is holding the office of pope from ever officially teaching area on any matter of faith or morals.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

rod of iron:

I am still waiting for someone on this forum to show me how any of the 30 items on Martin’s list show a place of prominence. But it appears that I am waiting in vain, because none of you apparently can do it. If you cannot support your claim, you should not make the claim. If you make a claim that you cannot support, you will look foolish.

I’m really disappointed with the lot of you.

I dealt with this issue in post #373. As I stated there, you appear to be fixated with the particulars of the list rather than the purpose of the list. The list was not given to you as a list of necessaries for primacy, the completion of each item being “proof” that Peter held primacy. Rather, the list was given to demonstrate the prominence of Peter in the NT in support of the claim that he held primacy among the apostles.

The claim that you are accusing this board of making has never been made. If you believe that it has, please cut and paste it. If you cannot, then please recant your accusation.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[RBushlow]

rod of iron:

.

Rod, just out of curiousity, what is your denomination? Thanks.

 

[Aris]

I don’t think you’ll get an answer to that question

 

[RBushlow]

rod of iron:

…

RBushlow:

Rod, just out of curiousity, what is your denomination? Thanks.

Aris:

I don’t think you’ll get an answer to that question

I don’t see why not. I’m just asking so that I can learn more about his faith. Some of his perspectives intrigue me. How about it Rod?