Does the Roman Church focus on Peter too much

[SwissGuard]

What is interesting is that they chose purple and scarlet of all the colors..

Blood red represents the blood of the martyrs.

 

[SwissGuard]

Could there be any link to this verse?:

"And the woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and had ornaments of gold and precious stones and pearls" Rev 17:4

No
those colors often represent royalty, and those verses speak about Pagan Rome ruled by the Emporers.

 

[fated]

and? So is EO. So is Lutheranism. So is a great many.

all claiming to be the one true. (more or less.) I have found no reason to believe the RCC claims any more than that of EO... and with a quagmire of half truths to sift through, I rather doubt I will.

Why do you believe them to be "half-truths," is it based on you "opinion" that they are "half-truths."

 

[holdon]

No
those colors often represent royalty, and those verses speak about Pagan Rome ruled by the Emporers.

So, why are the cardinals and the popes in those colors???

And isn't the Roman Catholic Church proud to have taken control of the Roman Empire?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Why do you believe them to be "half-truths," is it based on you "opinion" that they are "half-truths."

of them, there MUST be half truths.

E&O and RC both claim to be the first and only church. They both cannot be. One of them is the digressor, one is the original (if we are accepting the claims that they WERE founded by Jesus himself.) One holds the truth regarding the pope, the other, does not. half truths and outright errors are present.

 

[ScottBot]

of them, there MUST be half truths.

E&O and RC both claim to be the first and only church. They both cannot be. One of them is the digressor, one is the original (if we are accepting the claims that they WERE founded by Jesus himself.) One holds the truth regarding the pope, the other, does not. half truths and outright errors are present.

The CC and EO can both claim to be the first church and be right. WE share a common history that neither tries to hide. The rest of the stuff, while amazingly interesting, has been discussed ad nauseam.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The CC and EO can both claim to be the first church and be right. WE share a common history that neither tries to hide. The rest of the stuff, while amazingly interesting, has been discussed ad nauseam.

common history, with different beliefs about what happend within those first thousand odd years.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

And isn't the Roman Catholic Church proud to have taken control of the Roman Empire?

???

 

[fated]

common history, with different beliefs about what happend within those first thousand odd years.

Not really. I don't find anything in direct contradiction.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus
Do ya think Adam and Eve were the first "Catholics" then?

Acts 13:29 As yet they finish all-things the about Him having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772) according-lifting from the wood they place into a tomb.

Revelation 1:3 Blessed the one reading, and the ones hearing, the Words of the Prophecy, and keepings in it/her having been written/gegrammena <1125> (5772), for the Time Is-Near/egguV <1451>.

I meant the NT, sorry, I was arguing with an atheist on another thread.

Yea they are a tough bunch. Most of them are ex-Christians, both RC and non-RCs.

The Muslims and Jews are just as tough though and a lot of them are also ex-Christians

 

[holdon]

???

Yep. That's what Trento said last week I believe. Quite credibly too. It appears the Roman Catholics see it as a major achievement when they finally go the upperhand of the Roman Empire. The rest is history.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yep. That's what Trento said last week I believe. Quite credibly too. It appears the Roman Catholics see it as a major achievement when they finally go the upperhand of the Roman Empire. The rest is history.

I think Rome had an Emperor and that who is ruled Rome.

Just as England had a King who ruled England.

Not sure where you get that the Catholic Church took control of Rome???

 

[Uphill Battle]

Not really. I don't find anything in direct contradiction.

hmm. no direct contradiction = schism?

 

[fated]

hmm. no direct contradiction = schism?

Equal an undefined portion of Tradition regarding the nature of Papal Authority and Apostolic Authority. And seriously, I have not been able to find a direct contradiction. Any supposed contradiction I have been shown is not a contradiction any more than what atheists consider contradictions in the Bible.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

hmm. no direct contradiction = schism?

I found this an interesting read on Schism:

Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command. On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I found this an interesting read on Schism:

Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command. On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy.

Well then, maybe we have to wait until the full number of Christians leave the Roman Papacy before the "man of the sin" is revealed.

Can't imagine who that would be.

2 Thess 2:3 No any ye should be deluding according to no yet one manner/way, that if-ever no may be coming the apostasy/apo-stasia <646> first.
And may be being un-covered the Man of the Sin, the Son of the destruction/apwleiaV <684>.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

 

[fated]

Well then, maybe we have to wait until the full number of Christians leave the Roman Papacy before the "man of the sin" is revealed.

Can't imagine who that would be.

2 Thess 2:3 No any ye should be deluding according to no yet one manner/way, that if-ever no may be coming the apostasy/apo-stasia <646> first.
And may be being un-covered the Man of the Sin, the Son of the destruction/apwleiaV <684>.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

While it has often been speculated that the Pope would be the man of sin, really, the Pope as he currently is, and has always been, is inappropriate, it is simply too obvious, as in, there is no way that one can enter the position and not be understood by many to be the man of sin, which would not amount to a deception whatsoever. Unless I was deceived right now!

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

 

[holdon]

Not sure where you get that the Catholic Church took control of Rome???

Here:

The Christians expected to take control of the Roman empire. But if you get the Roman empire, you get all the infrastructure that goes with it. You get the roads, the mail system etc. With the conversion of Constantine, the early Christians acquired all this for the spreading of the Gospel.Now, I ask you, who still has Rome? ... and will possess it forever?Answer: The Holy Catholic Church
The Christians expected to take possession of the 4th kingdon, the Roman Empire, based on Daniel's prophecy and the conversion experiences of the rulers of the previous 3 kingdoms. As I previously noted, that why the popes into the 4th century were all martyred in Rome. They were working towards that end; taking possession of the Roman Empire. Once it happened, with Constantine, the Church was able to make use of all the infrastructure of the empire to spread the Gospel worldwide. The sudden shift in focus and ability, causes some to mistakenly claim that the post Constantine Church is the emergence of the Catholic Church.


From: http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43769767&postcount=224

 

[SwissGuard]

2089 - Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

Catechism Of The Catholic Church:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1.htm#2089

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

2089 - Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

Catechism Of The Catholic Church:

Hey, I can hang with the schism part ,as I have never repudiated the CHRIST-ian Faith that is of JESUS.

LLOJ [proud member of the non-repudiating Christian Faith that is of Jesus Christ my Lord]

Matt 24:6 Ye shall be being about yet to be hearing battles, and hearings of battles be seeing. No be being alarmed for it is binding to be becoming, but not as yet is the End.
Matt 24:7 `For shall be being roused nation upon nation, and kingdom upon kingdom, and shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes according places;
8 All yet these beginning of trevails.