why st peter ?

[JGC]

http://www.ihsv.com/areonlycatholicssaved.html

The Church Teaches Ex Cathedra: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

Athanaisiam Creed: And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. … This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

You see? That has always been the teaching.

The Catholic Church makes claims about herself that are easily misunderstood, especially in the modern atmosphere of pluralism and ecumenism. Among these claims, the most fundamental is the doctrine of the Church’s necessity for salvation. Not unlike other dogmas of the faith, this one has seen some remarkable development, and the dogmatic progress has been especially marked since the definition of papal infallibility. It seems that as the Church further clarified her own identity as regards the papacy and collegiality, she also deepened (without changing) her self-understanding as the mediator of salvation to mankind.ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ315.HTM

 

[wjhii]

Christ did not chose Peter, history did. When the Roman Empire embraced the church it embraced the Roman Church founded by Peter. Remember Christ’s own brother James headed the church in the Holy Land which was far more important at the time than the Roman Church.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wjhii:

Christ did not chose Peter, history did.

So Jesus was lying when He said:

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

wjhii:

When the Roman Empire embraced the church it embraced the Roman Church founded by Peter.

No, it embraced the Church founded by Jesus Himself, who commissioned Peter as His steward.

wjhii:

Remember Christ’s own brother James headed the church in the Holy Land which was far more important at the time than the Roman Church.

James was the “supervisor” of the Christians in Jerusalem. He was not head of the whole Church.

 

[mayra_hart]

peter is conspicuously involved in all the church’s “firsts”. peter led the meeting which elected the first succesor to an apostle (acts 1:13–26). peter preached the forst sermon at pentecost(acts2:14), and received the first converts(2:41). peter performed the first miracle after pentecost(acts3:6–7),inflicted the first punishment upon ananias and saphira(acts5:1–11),and excommunicated the first heretic, simon the magician(acts 8:21). peter is the first apostle to raise a person from the dead(acts9:36–41).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

bjcros:

Most Catholics reject the interpretation that Protestants are outside of Salvation, especially in here.

So do I.

It appears that no matter how many different ways this is explained to you, you mischaracterize this Catholic teaching into something it isn’t. There are many complex aspects of theology, and this isn’t one of them. I don’t get why some people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, have trouble understanding this doctrine.

Calvinism, for example, is abundantly more complex than this simple teaching, yet you simply don’t or won’t understand this doctrine as the Church herself teaches it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

http://www.ihsv.com/areonlycatholicssaved.html

The Church Teaches Ex Cathedra: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)

Athanaisiam Creed: And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. … This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

You see? That has always been the teaching.

Are you charging St. Pius X with heresy? The above pertains to formal heresy, schism, etc. There’s such a thing as material heresy, schism, etc. Material sins may be objectively grave but subjectively venial. If you don’t get this, then I suspect you need to study Catholic moral theology more carefully.

No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church. … If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation (Catechism of Pius X, Nineth Article of the Creed)

One can be separated in body, but united in soul, and still be on the way of salvation. Conversely, one can be joined in body , but not in soul, and will NOT be on the way of salvation.

“When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body. . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark [by baptism of desire]” (St. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 5:28:39).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

wjhii:

Christ did not chose Peter, history did. When the Roman Empire embraced the church it embraced the Roman Church founded by Peter. Remember Christ’s own brother James headed the church in the Holy Land which was far more important at the time than the Roman Church.

According to even Protestant Bible scholars, Peter was the chief apostle.

See here:
Bind and Loose and the Keys of the Kingdom - View
**Upon this Rock … is the rock of Matt 16:18 Peter? - **View

and here…
**Unity of Command … not just a good idea, but biblically established **- View

 

[bjcros87]

itsjustdave1988:

So do I.

It appears that no matter how many different ways this is explained to you, you mischaracterize this Catholic teaching into something it isn’t. There are many complex aspects of theology, and this isn’t one of them. I don’t get why some people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, have trouble understanding this doctrine.

Calvinism, for example, is abundantly more complex than this simple teaching, yet you simply don’t or won’t understand this doctrine as the Church herself teaches it.

It appears that the Catholic Church says that I am condemned because I believe certain things. These things are not specifically stated in scripture, but I am still judge on my supposedly incorrect beliefs. Is this an accurate assesment?
I don’t have a problem understanding what the church says at least I don’t think so. The problem I have is that I have gotten many different responses. Saying that I have misinterpreted the documents, I am right, and some where in between.
I know that I believe many of the things that you do. What the church says is incorrect. I see no scriptural evidence supporting this. However, I see alot of evidence against it.