Who really founded the Catholic Church?
-
One more thing (which Catholics try to shy away),
The Apostle Peter has the distinction of being the only apostle to be branded satan by none other than the Lord Himself.
Note Jesus did not call Peter an idiot (which he was), he was satan. -
Paul? have, before his conversion, he was like the persecutor of the early church (ie, arch enemy #1 type)Originally posted by Icemoon:Apostles are significant. Even John was pivotal in giving us Revelations.
But apostles have their failure (except Paul .. lol) and we cannot forget Peter's colossal failure in the early church.
Anyway, Paul did describe himself as if he in a constant struggle to do good
Romans 7:21-25
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. -
That one was Saul, not Paul.
The inner struggle exists in every person as walking with the Lord is no easy task. You might have other struggles from him.
The thing is he did not let his struggle affect his conduct, teaching and expression. Remember Peter did succumb to peer pressure in Jerusalem?, as detailed by Paul. -
While Catholics argue that Peter made no erroneous teachings, who knows how many gentiles Peter put off because he thinks they should follow Jewish customs.
-
same person right?Originally posted by Icemoon:That one was Saul, not Paul.
The inner struggle exists in every person as walking with the Lord is no easy task. You might have other struggles from him.
The thing is he did not let his struggle affect his conduct, teaching and expression. Remember Peter did succumb to peer pressure in Jerusalem?, as detailed by Paul.
Just like Peter is also Simon son of Jonah
This just shows that no man (even the great Apostles) does have their own struggles and failures -
On this, I have no idea...Originally posted by Icemoon:While Catholics argue that Peter made no erroneous teachings, who knows how many gentiles Peter put off because he thinks they should follow Jewish customs.
-
Imagine on the door of the church office in Jerusalem:Originally posted by vince69:On this, I have no idea... Requirements to join us:
1. circumcision
2. ..
3. ..
The following conditions are applicable to Jews AND gentiles. -
Even his name is also confusing.Originally posted by vince69:same person right?
Just like Peter is also Simon son of Jonah
1. Peter
2. Cephas
3. Simon
4. Son of Jonah
Still got how many more? -
Think Jonah is the name of his father.Originally posted by Icemoon:Even his name is also confusing.
1. Peter
2. Cephas
3. Simon
4. Son of Jonah
Still got how many more?
if so, then correct, he is son of Jonah, right? -
Satan attempts to corrupt Peter, but Christ protects him.Originally posted by Icemoon:One more thing (which Catholics try to shy away),
The Apostle Peter has the distinction of being the only apostle to be branded satan by none other than the Lord Himself.
Note Jesus did not call Peter an idiot (which he was), he was satan.
Most importantly, f he was branded as Satan, why would Christ tell him to feed his flock? This are just more examples to prove that popes are not impeccable and that God chose weak man to lead.
Protestants tend to shy from the KEYS. Do u know wad the KEYS means? -
This is the safeguard I'm talking about. A few verses after the mention of keys, Jesus scolds him satan.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Satan attempts to corrupt Peter, but Christ protects him.
Most importantly, f he was branded as Satan, why would Christ tell him to feed his flock? This are just more examples to prove that popes are not impeccable and that God chose weak man to lead.
Protestants tend to shy from the KEYS. Do u know wad the KEYS means?
Note the order. Jesus did not scold him satan then praise him. It is the other way round.
If Popes are not impeccable .. then sorry what gives them the right to use ex-cathedra argument? -
There is a major difference in TEACHING without error and LIVING without error. I suggest u search the dictionary for the meaning of infallible and impeccable then. The popes are not infallible in their conduct or private opinions. If they were, they would be "impeccable." Christ promised infallibility to His Church, not impeccability. Infallibility deals with the truth that the Church teaches, not how her members conduct themselves. This is why Jesus said to Peter, "Whatever you bind or loose on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:1Originally posted by Icemoon:This is the safeguard I'm talking about. A few verses after the mention of keys, Jesus scolds him satan.
Note the order. Jesus did not scold him satan then praise him. It is the other way round.
If Popes are not impeccable .. then sorry what gives them the right to use ex-cathedra argument? 
. This deals with Peter's teaching authority, not his private conduct. You must understand this very important distinction -
When did Christ promise infallibility to his church?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:There is a major difference in TEACHING without error and LIVING without error. I suggest u search the dictionary for the meaning of infallible and impeccable then. The popes are not infallible in their conduct or private opinions. If they were, they would be "impeccable." Christ promised infallibility to His Church, not impeccability. Infallibility deals with the truth that the Church teaches, not how her members conduct themselves. This is why Jesus said to Peter, "Whatever you bind or loose on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:1. This deals with Peter's teaching authority, not his private conduct. You must understand this very important distinction
The apostolic argument is tenuous. Even if Jesus promises Peter (rightly so since he is apostle and the apostles then were inspired), it does not mean his successors are given the promise also. there are problems like how were successors chosen, who were the correct successors (when a pope excom another pope) and under what conditions do popes declare ex-cathedra.
If you study academica, you realize the apostolic argument is developed later. It is not biblical. -
Christ would not allow Peter to bind error in heaven hence he is protected by teh charism of infallbility. Furthermore in that verse, we see Peter communicating the divine nature of Christ (christology) without error after reciveing a revelation from the Father.Originally posted by Icemoon:When did Christ promise infallibility to his church?
The apostolic argument is tenuous. Even if Jesus promises Peter (rightly so since he is apostle and the apostles then were inspired), it does not mean his successors are given the promise also. there are problems like how were successors chosen, who were the correct successors (when a pope excom another pope) and under what conditions do popes declare ex-cathedra.
If you study academica, you realize the apostolic argument is developed later. It is not biblical.
In Mat 18:18, we are told to hear the Church. Would Christ tell us to hear the Church if it cannot make infallible decisions. Would Christ leave us astray by telling us to hear a Church that can always make doctrinal error causing 'the agtes of hell to prevail' against us.
Through Apostolic Succession, anyone who gains control of Peter's Office will assume its power. For example, in the Prime Minister office, he has the pwoer to declare war. He has this power because he is sitting in the OFFICE of the prime minister. The OFFICE is divine.
Do u understand the meaning of the KEYS? -
WHERE?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:In Mat 18:18, we are told to hear the Church. Would Christ tell us to hear the Church if it cannot make infallible decisions. Would Christ leave us astray by telling us to hear a Church that can always make doctrinal error causing 'the agtes of hell to prevail' against us.
18Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.Through Apostolic Succession, anyone who gains control of Peter's Office will assume its power. For example, in the Prime Minister office, he has the pwoer to declare war. He has this power because he is sitting in the OFFICE of the prime minister. The OFFICE is divine.
You just shot yourself on the foot.
What if an usurper killed the prime minister and assume his office? what if the prime minister removed like thaksin?
Like I said, the apostolic succession argument was developed later. In fact the argument gets more and more elaborate, until the bishop of Rome becomes Pope.Do u understand the meaning of the KEYS?
where is the lock? -
Opps verse 17:Originally posted by Icemoon:where is the lock?
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Apostolic Succession wasnt invented to justify the papacy. It had existed long ago and makes perfect sense. Why would Christ grant such powers to the Apostles alone and then desert the Church when he promised to be with it till teh end. Most importantly, there is numerical bible verses in support....just go to Scripture Catholic. View the Church fathers who support Apostolic Sucession.
For Example:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 9
The KEYS sums up Peter office well. -
Huh .. what does this prove?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Opps verse 17:
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Anymore than the sinner is to listen to the two or three witnesses.
furthermore verse 18 isn't even talking about the Apostle Peter .. -
Actually the real apostolic succession argument is not limited to Peter, it applies to others also. furthermore I think the eastern orthodox? also trace their church to dunno what apostles.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Apostolic Succession wasnt invented to justify the papacy. It had existed long ago and makes perfect sense. Why would Christ grant such powers to the Apostles alone and then desert the Church when he promised to be with it till teh end. Most importantly, there is numerical bible verses in support....just go to Scripture Catholic. View the Church fathers who support Apostolic Sucession.
perhaps it is part and parcel of the historical process .. you want to claim authority you gotta trace your office back to the apostles.
Church fathers cannot be trusted, because theirs is a biased account. Perhaps those opposing the apostolic succession, their works has been censored? -
Talking abt Church Infallbilioty.Originally posted by Icemoon:Huh .. what does this prove?
Anymore than the sinner is to listen to the two or three witnesses.
furthermore verse 18 isn't even talking about the Apostle Peter .. -
note that I'm not denying the validity of the accounts from the church fathers. I'm just asking - what exactly did Christ teach?
-
Apostolic Succession is abt the modern day church still posseseing Apostolic powers. The powers is not reallie granted to the Apostles but rather to the office or ministry set up by the Apostiles. Thier successors occupy this office and hence possese this powers as well. Every Bishop todae can trace themselves to the 12 Apostles.Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually the real apostolic succession argument is not limited to Peter, it applies to others also. furthermore I think the eastern orthodox? also trace their church to dunno what apostles.
perhaps it is part and parcel of the historical process .. you want to claim authority you gotta trace your office back to the apostles.
Church fathers cannot be trusted, because theirs is a biased account. Perhaps those opposing the apostolic succession, their works has been censored?
Another argument could be, why was it necessay to replace Judas then? -
since the verse talks about witnesses also .. does this mean witnesses are infalliable also?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Talking abt Church Infallbilioty.
the verse does not say anything about church infalliability. It only tells you to refer to the church when the two or three witnesses cannot settle the problem. -
For the church to make a correct decision all the time, it must be infallible? Would the Lord order people to refer to a source that can make error? Did Christ not grant the Holy Spirit unto the Church?Originally posted by Icemoon:since the verse talks about witnesses also .. does this mean witnesses are infalliable also?
the verse does not say anything about church infalliability. It only tells you to refer to the church when the two or three witnesses cannot settle the problem. -
what church? which church?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:For the church to make a correct decision all the time, it must be infallible? Would the Lord order people to refer to a source that can make error? Did Christ not grant the Holy Spirit unto the Church?
the one in Corinth? Epheseus? Jerusalem? Antioch? -
The universal catholic church LOL. Those churches are merely areas whwere churches are built....like church in rome, church in sigapore etc. But all part of the holy Apostolic Catholic Church.Originally posted by Icemoon:what church? which church?
the one in Corinth? Epheseus? Jerusalem? Antioch?