Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?

[Church_Militant]

In making the above innovation of ministry, Ignatius contributed to the development of early Catholicism and hierarchy not found in sacred scripture

. The second innovation is to tie the eucharist (and baptism) to the singular bishop as well.The gross fallacy that Daniel seems to espouse is that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found in scripture or else it is wrong

The even more “innovative” part is that that concept is nowhere found in the very scriptures he refers to.

When n-Cs can show that Sola Scriptura is a Biblical doctrine without the theological and mental gymnastics their arguments require one to endure then maybe they will be worth arguing with, but I won’t hold my breath because we Catholics have been telling them that for about 500 years and still they cling to that errant new wind of doctrine of men.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[SHW]

Hey Pax. This would be more of an exaggeration since Babies or infants couldn’t comprehend the preaching. So they likewise would logically have to leave successors to preach to them once they reached adulthood. So I don’t believe that Colossians’ verse would apply to the latter part of the ‘All Nations, All Creatures’ verse.

I think you are correct!

Parents do speak for their children in order for them to be baptized, however.

We believe that this “all nations” in Matthew 28:19 also refers to all persons born, until Jesus returns. Each new generation needs to be evangelized. Apostolic succession was first referenced in Acts 1:15-26 and referenced again in 2 Timothy 2:2.

A couple more verses:

Romans 1:5 “Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name,”

Romans 16:26 “but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith—”

Pax,
SHW

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Guanophore,

I had not thought of this ‘confession’ statement of Daniel’s in this manner…

This is what those who have abandoned the Apostolic Succession must claim, so that they can avoid admitting to themselves that they are disobedient to Christ. However, if there were no successors required, then Jesus and the Apostles would not have continued ot choose them!

Actually, I was in agreement with Peter declaring (confessing?) Jesus as the Messiah …and if Daniel wanted to use the term ‘confessing’ … well… that was OK with me. But the conclusion Daniel then draws: that there is no need for succession is just plain wrong and truly unscriptural (Paul - Timothy - those Timothy consecrated, etc.)

So my real questions are:
1.) just what is your understanding of what Protestant’s mean by ‘confession’ if not a statement believed to be true (in Peter’s case this was through the Divine Inspiration of the Father) and,

2,) how could Protestants as a group draw such an invalid scriptural and logical conclusion after 1500+ years of seeing Apostolic Succession in operation.

Thanks

Tom

 

[LionHeart777]

Yes do that LionHeart! I am sure you will come up with an interesting topic.

When you do please alert me so that I am participate.

I will.

 

[Cinette]

I think you are correct!

Parents do speak for their children in order for them to be baptized, however.

We believe that this “all nations” in Matthew 28:19 also refers to all persons born, until Jesus returns. Each new generation needs to be evangelized. Apostolic succession was first referenced in Acts 1:15-26 and referenced again in 2 Timothy 2:2.

A couple more verses:

Romans 1:5 “Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name,”

Romans 16:26 “but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith—”

Pax,
SHW

Conversion and Evangelization should continue always - we need to be challenged, to be tested, to be stretched… all the time!

This is why CAF is such a marvellous exercise and we continue to learn every day! We even learn from our children and grandchildren.

Faith is a workout!

Cinette

 

[twb1621]

Hi, twb1621,

I think you intended this post for Daniel …

Feel free to take another bite out of Daniel… By the time you are finished with him, the “Lion’s Den” may seem like a more secure area for this ‘Daniel’ then the CAF site…

I was challenging him by identifying that the ECF (or anyone else for that matter) did not write down EVERYTHING about the person they were writing about. Peter was accepted as God’s selection as the leader of the Apostles and our First Pope. Daniel has attempted to re-write the teachings of the ECF on this matter and it really is not going to fly. I think Daniel’s reluctance to engage others is telling - and, it tells me that he has decided to invent rather then research issues.

God bless,

Yup, when I realized it went to you I reposted it directing it to him but he never came back. But you knew it was not meant for you:thumbsup:

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TWB,

As I look back, it seems that Daniel has followed a very specific pattern of beginning with almost unmitigated criticism - then ducking and weaving when the arguments are torn to shreds, followed by their departure…leaving others to wonder what was going on.

Yup, when I realized it went to you I reposted it directing it to him but he never came back. But you knew it was not meant for you:thumbsup:

While I do not mind the questions, it just seems that if the half-baked arguments are shown to be of no value and are primarily basied on Faith Alone or SS … their feelings get hurt and they sulk away. It would seem to me that just appearing on this site with a challenge to the membrership is not to be taken lightly. But, maybe for some of these guys - little thought really goes into it.

Admittedly, the last chapter has not been written - and Daniel and others are free to think about our responses in the privacy of their own hearts. Maybe they will see how Protestantism fall way short of the mark … and, maybe that won’t happen today. We can and should pray that God’s Will be done in this area.

God bless

 

[twb1621]

Sorry, I would have answered sooner but I was indisposed…

Dan Keeran; you have formulated you own belief system, your own religion actually, asserting proudly that you support all of your proclamations with Scripture. As you do so, you interject your own unsupported opinions and “rationalizations” against virtually every historic document and quote of the ECF’s and scripture itself and when asked for answers to questions regarding your position you ignore them completely or give some equally ridiculous response claiming everyone else including the successors to the apostles were flat out wrong, merely mistaken or totally unaware of what they were talking or writing about or to who. Then you proceed with a question and answer series with you asking the apostles questions and they respond as though you believe you were there. Unless you are making these rediculous assertions intending nothing more than to entertain yourself you have many serious issues to confront.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twb1621
*Now you insist the only teachings of Jesus are those in the written Bible so answer these questions solely from Scriptural quotes as you claim all is needed. *

Quote:
Who saw to it that Paul was accepted by the others as one of them? How do you know? I’ll help you with this one; Peter did, the Bible says it.

REPLY: Gal.2:9 "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews."
Your above referenced verse is misrepresented as a response to the question.
The following is the correct reference;
**ACTS CH15; 7 ****4 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. 10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” **

Quote:
What is the original contents supposed to be in the Bible and where is that information presented in Scripture?

REPLY: 1 John 4:6 "We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood."
Deceptive and does not answer the question.

Quote:
Where is it in Scripture that other prophets would come to alter the contents of the Bible and that would be acceptable?

REPLY: See above.
Deceptive and does not answer the question.

Continued…

 

[twb1621]

continued from previous post;

Quote:
Where does Scripture provide the index or contents of the Bible?

REPLY: See above.
Deceptive and does not answer the question.

Quote:
Which Apostle provided the list for an index?

REPLY: See above.
Deceptive and does not answer the question.

Quote:
Have you compared your bible to the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate to be sure it has not been edited or censored and were the contents the same?

REPLY: See above.
Deceptive and does not answer the question.

Quote:
Where did the Bible you refer to originate from?

REPLY: John 16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."
Deceptive and does not answer the question.

Quote:
Where is it recorded that the Apostles or any of their faithful contemporaries gathered all the inspired Gospels and epistles and declared to the Christian world, “this will be the sole rule of faith after we have gone to the Lord.” ?

REPLY: 2 Peter 1:15 "And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things."
Deceptive and does not answer the question.

Quote:
Where does it say, the written New Testament would supplant Church Teachings?

REPLY: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Deceptive and does not answer the question.

Quote:
Where does it say that Christ intended to leave all His teachings in a single book, not in the Church, whether written, oral or otherwise?

**REPLY: See above. **
Deceptive and does not answer the question.

Quote:
Did Christ promise to give us an authoritative book, or did He promise us an authoritative Church?: “on this rock I will build my Church” (St. Matt. 16:18). St. Paul attests that “the Church of the living God … is the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

REPLY: See above.
Deceptive and does not answer the question.

 

[lion_of_judah]

Just chiming in on why this thread is still open, and it was created by me, yet I haven’t posted for like the last 30 pages or so. lol

 

[twb1621]

Just chiming in on why this thread is still open, and it was created by me, yet I haven’t posted for like the last 30 pages or so. lol

You raised a valid question many protestants have asked in the thread. Sometimes we find ourselves trying to explain matters to some people who don’t want to hear the answers.

 

[twb1621]

Hi, TWB,

As I look back, it seems that Daniel has followed a very specific pattern of beginning with almost unmitigated criticism - then ducking and weaving when the arguments are torn to shreds, followed by their departure…leaving others to wonder what was going on.

While I do not mind the questions, it just seems that if the half-baked arguments are shown to be of no value and are primarily basied on Faith Alone or SS … their feelings get hurt and they sulk away. It would seem to me that just appearing on this site with a challenge to the membrership is not to be taken lightly. But, maybe for some of these guys - little thought really goes into it.

Admittedly, the last chapter has not been written - and Daniel and others are free to think about our responses in the privacy of their own hearts. Maybe they will see how Protestantism fall way short of the mark … and, maybe that won’t happen today. We can and should pray that God’s Will be done in this area.

God bless

I am more inclined to believe the “author’s” motive was the hopeful gain of publicity for the sale of books at any expense…

 

[paul_c]

I am more inclined to believe the “author’s” motive was the hopeful gain of publicity for the sale of books at any expense…

Maybe I am naive, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. He thought he had something to teach us based on his own personal insight. If nothing else, it gave us an opportunity to thoroughly explore the issue. It is always necessary for there to be a persistent opposing view to bring out the best in these threads. The only danger for us is if we get so intent on winning the debate that we forget that our role here is to educate and learn .

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lion,

Do you plan on engaging, or remaining on the side lines in a type of ‘cat nap’…

Just chiming in on why this thread is still open, and it was created by me, yet I haven’t posted for like the last 30 pages or so. lol

Truly, like TWB said, there have been many interesting posts (ahhh… you may need to catch up a bit… ) and I think we have discussed some excellent ideas.So, you see, you did us a good turn by opening this up! Feel free to engage…

God bless,

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Dan,

…

You probably have guessed that there are things that are lost when one tries to import items from their culture onto the culture of others - in an effort to dispute the distant culture. Here we not only have issues that are almost 2,000 years old, done with an eastern (as opposed to western) mind-set - but also - have God Himself as the Originator (“Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Heavenly Father!”)

God bless

Talking about importing items from one culture to another!!

A friend I made at the gym, an Indian lady, introduced me to her daughter the other day and her name is…Sanita!!

It sound nice but in a European language it means the toilet!

 

[twb1621]

Maybe I am naive, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. He thought he had something to teach us based on his own personal insight. If nothing else, it gave us an opportunity to thoroughly explore the issue. It is always necessary for there to be a persistent opposing view to bring out the best in these threads. The only danger for us is if we get so intent on winning the debate that we forget that our role here is to educate and learn .

Hi Paul C, I do not believe you are naive, perhaps more patient then some. No disrespect intended, you are right of course, and I respect your position. However, I am sure you realize there is a fine line between appearing competitive and standing in defense of the teachings of the one True Church. We have an absolute responsibility when it comes to non-Catholics who visit Catholic Forums to provide explanations and information with credible support in regard to our Faith as opposed to the personal proclamations others may wish to promote against those teachings.
When a person of a belief system opposed to Catholicism persists in attempting to demean Catholicism but neither provides nor has any credible support to draw from, it is not a competition but legitimate defense of the Catholic Faith. Although many come to find the truth or to obtain answers to their questions, sometimes the intent of the visitor is not to learn but to demean and promote against all odds, regardless of what they wish to promote.
For those who are attempting to learn “in the wings”, be they Catholic or otherwise, we should respond as definitively as reasonably possible (while maintaining a Christian awareness as best as possible). Failure to respond to a misconceived or deceptive statement can lead others to the opinion the statement is correct in itself. Due respect should be afforded where respect is due and ego and competition (regrettably) are human traits we all struggle with to overcome, obviously, but are not (prayerfully) the driving force behind our devotion.

I hope that explains my motivation. Gone off topic I guess, sorry about that.

 

[paul_c]

Hi Paul C, I do not believe you are naive, perhaps more patient then some. No disrespect intended, you are right of course, and I respect your position. However, I am sure you realize there is a fine line between appearing competitive and standing in defense of the teachings of the one True Church. We have an absolute responsibility when it comes to non-Catholics who visit Catholic Forums to provide explanations and information with credible support in regard to our Faith as opposed to the personal proclamations others may wish to promote against those teachings.
When a person of a belief system opposed to Catholicism persists in attempting to demean Catholicism but neither provides nor has any credible support to draw from, it is not a competition but legitimate defense of the Catholic Faith. Although many come to find the truth or to obtain answers to their questions, sometimes the intent of the visitor is not to learn but to demean and promote against all odds, regardless of what they wish to promote.
For those who are attempting to learn “in the wings”, be they Catholic or otherwise, we should respond as definitively as reasonably possible (while maintaining a Christian awareness as best as possible). Failure to respond to a misconceived or deceptive statement can lead others to the opinion the statement is correct in itself. Due respect should be afforded where respect is due and ego and competition (regrettably) are human traits we all struggle with to overcome, obviously, but are not (prayerfully) the driving force behind our devotion.

I hope that explains my motivation. Gone off topic I guess, sorry about that.

TWB,
I never questioned your motivation in the least. I agree that every untruth needs to be corrected and the truth itself needs to be spread aggressively. You’ve been doing a great job in that regard. I was only questioning the need or propriety of questioning someone else’s motivation…

 

[twb1621]

TWB,
I never questioned your motivation in the least. I agree that every untruth needs to be corrected and the truth itself needs to be spread aggressively. You’ve been doing a great job in that regard. I was only questioning the need or propriety of questioning someone else’s motivation…

Thank you my Brother… As we know, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are several but divided over the many parts of the one body so that all parts although performing their individual purpose may function in unison with each other as one. your gifts are recognized and well appreciated. If you review post # 590 with diligence, you may better understand.

 

[benedictus2]

You raised a valid question many protestants have asked in the thread. Sometimes we find ourselves trying to explain matters to some people who don’t want to hear the answers.

Now why would you get that feeling Tom? Could it be because just when it is getting interesting and there is no possible comeback to your post they exit?

Another sure thing they are not listening is the consistent rehashing of old arguments when you have already rebutted them.
But as Guano keeps saying, post anyway, since the things we write may not be intended for the one we are currently debating with.

I think there is a lot of fear involved in that. If you have been protestant for most of your life it is scary to admit that you have been wrong for most part of your life.

Then there is the ego problem as well. When you have been your own magisterium for years, it is difficult to relinquish that.

All in a day’s work in God’s vineyard.

 

[twb1621]

Now why would you get that feeling Tom? Could it be because just when it is getting interesting and there is no possible comeback to your post they exit?

Another sure thing they are not listening is the consistent rehashing of old arguments when you have already rebutted them.
But as Guano keeps saying, post anyway, since the things we write may not be intended for the one we are currently debating with.

I think there is a lot of fear involved in that. If you have been protestant for most of your life it is scary to admit that you have been wrong for most part of your life.

Then there is the ego problem as well. When you have been your own magisterium for years, it is difficult to relinquish that.

All in a day’s work in God’s vineyard.

Well said Bene.