Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[WarriorAngel]

Lost me; what in the world does that have to do with dogmatic confirmation of the objective fact of The Catholic Papacy?

You fail to realise then that God indeed requires us to docilely accept His doctrines.
And to do so dogmatically without question and argument.

And friend, the only denomination known to me that requires all to accept with docility whatever it itself alone claims and says is the RCC (CCC 87), so I'm pretty lost there, too.

Again, God demands this - so why would you think His Church wouldnt?

Because Jesus never promised that to the RCC or any other denomination, and because "gates" are defensive - and as far as I can tell, hell has not yet stopped Christianity. Gates have nothing to do with infallibility/unaccountability.

Jesus did in fact promise that the gates of hell wouldnt prevail - we know that the gates are the opening to hell - it would then be gates that open to evil and ungodly things...including untruths.
They CANNOT prevail in His Church.
He did indeed proclaim that.

And I'm lost as to what that has to do with confirmation of the Dogma of The Catholic Papacy - which is what we're discussing.

The Pope was given the authority to proclaim doctrines - and thus says the Lord they also will be bound in Heaven...or loosed if he looses them [Peter's successors].

So in a matter of fact - the Pope cannot proclaim untruths.
IF he were to - which he hasnt - then Heaven would still hold to them.

The keys given and His statement - bind the promise.
Peter's successors cannot fail.

With God ALL THINGS are possible. But that doesn't mean that all things are true. Is it POSSIBLE that Jupiter is made of Cheddar Cheese, does that mean it is a dogmatic fact of objective fact and of the highest importance that THEREFORE Jupiter IS made of Cheddar Cheese?

Yes with God all things are possible, therefore He protects His Church and His Pope...HE said HE would.
I have no reason to argue with His statements.

And, friend, NO ONE in this thread (well, at least not me or known to me) has suggested that the RCC is wrong about anything, I don't know WHY you desire to turn this thread into something anti-Catholic, especially you being a fairly high ranking Staffer. The issue is singular: The confirmation for the Dogma of The Catholic Papacy. Since it's dogma, since it's a matter of objective fact, a matter of highest certainty - there should be evidence of such; and THAT is the issue of this thread. PLEASE, I ask of you once again, PLEASE don't work to try to turn this into an anti-Catholic thread and discussion.

I see that no one failed to present the history or the writings...nor was scripture failing.

So what does it take for - you - as proof?

I now have SEVERAL request of you in this thread to quote me; all have been ignored. Quote me where I said that CAtholics are arrogant?

DID I say you said it, i said if we affirm and believe in scriptures as was passed down thru out the ages that the Pope is a successor to Peter and that successors [as with the chair of Moses] are to be obeyed and we will abide by the Pope, then we were indeed told that it is arrogance.
I not getting to who said what...

Well, there you are. So this dogma of one denomination is the one most divisive dogma in all of Christianity. THAT, in addition to being a dogma, in addition to being proclaimed an "objective fact," to being "a matter of highest certainty" all suggest some proof. THAT is the issue we're discussing - the RCC's proof for the claim it itself makes for it itself alone. What's 'ya got?

Well CJ, Christianity was never meant to be divided...so how do we pretend that its all good that it is?
Jesus prayed that it would not happen. But it did.

DID the Church do it?
They cannot help it they must adhere to the precepts of Christ - but they will still hold to them.
And they cannot help if some dont like the way it was set up.
They themselves didn't set it up - we know Peter was humbled for his position because the 1st will be last and the last will be 1st.
When they asked whom would be first.

Peter knew the road that lay ahead.
Reading history has prooven to me that many men assigned the Papacy rued the day.
Some even hid and had to be found.

Its the most difficult task ever assigned on earth - and i pray Popes havent failed [and it seems some mioght have i cannot speculate]...because they will be held to the highest standard of judgement.
The ones that failed - failed in not leading the ppl.
BUT they never 'spoke' about doctrines, so again - the Church was protected even from those who sought it out and were using the position as power.

No. The things our friend and respected Catholic Apologist quoted rather well substantiates the Protestant position - as we all saw. Now he's going another path, but I've yet to study that. I will.

If you are speaking highly of NewMan99 - i agree.
Also if you ever have the interest in pursuing other former protestant apologists - try Scott Hahn.

Take a little time to open up what they have discovered.
If nothing else - you will gain a deep insight on what they found that led them to the CC.

[/quote]

Yes; I reject your apologetic. And I even think you reject your own apologetic - if you didn't, then, as I pointed out, you'd be required to accept that the LDS is correct - and as I pointed out, I doubt you do. So, either your apologetic is to be rejected OR you must conclude the LDS is as correct as the RCC is. As I noted, I reject the apologetic. Which do you reject?


Maybe you'd like to focus on the discussion here: the confirmation for the Dogma of The Catholic Papacy? I hope so.

CJ, do you really want to keep going on about the LDS because frankly, I don't care to.


The LDS is not part of this - nor should it be.
FWIW - they do not claim their message came from Christ - but from an angel.

SO far as everything i have ever read about them, they claim it was an angel...not Christ.

But let's end the digression.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The LDS is not part of this - nor should it be.
FWIW - they do not claim their message came from Christ - but from an angel.

SO far as everything i have ever read about them, they claim it was an angel...not Christ.

That is how Muhammad "supposedly" received his vision.... Gabriel the Angel

 

[WarriorAngel]

Tell me, if the CC isnt the Church Jesus instituted, then where is the first Church ??

And furthermore, why wouldn't anyone want to be a part of it?

 

[WarriorAngel]

That is how Muhammad "supposedly" received his vision.... Gabriel the Angel

So did Ellen White [7th Day Adventist]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Tell me, if the CC isnt the Church Jesus instituted, then where is the first Church ??

And furthermore, why wouldn't anyone want to be a part of it?

Where 2 or more a gathered in His Name

 

[WarriorAngel]

Um, where two or more are gathered He will be present.
That's a simplistic way to follow all the doctrines He desires us to follow.

WE are not the entirety of His Church. WE are the ppl He calls out to follow Him [via His laws] and His choosen men.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Eating popcorn

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

[quote=Josiah]Lost me; what in the world does that have to do with dogmatic confirmation of the objective fact of The Catholic Papacy?

You fail to realise then that God indeed requires us to docilely accept His doctrines.[/quote]


1. Lost me; what in the world does that have to do with the dogmatic confirmation of the objective fact of The Catholic Papacy? You're loosing me, my friend....

2. Yes, we should accept God's doctrines. But what it the world does that have to do with the RCC, or any other of the world's 35,000 denominations? Lost me, my friend....

Jesus did in fact promise that the gates of hell wouldnt prevail - we know that the gates are the opening to hell - it would then be gates that open to evil and ungodly things...including untruths.
They CANNOT prevail in His Church.
He did indeed proclaim that.

Yes, but again, He never promised that to the RCC.
And it has nothing whatsoever to do with infallibility/unaccountability
And it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

And Hell has NOT stopped Christianity; so His promise is good so far.

The Pope was given the authority to proclaim doctrines - and thus says the Lord they also will be bound in Heaven...or loosed if he looses them [Peter's successors].

Okay, here's your chance. Quote, from the Scriptural words of Jesus, where He said that the Bishop of Rome has the authorityh to proclaim dogma, and that whatever that specific bishop today says will be bound in heaven (but not if any other says it), and that this all applies to Peter's successors. You have quite a large number of very specific things to quote Jesus to specifically confirm. I've actually made a number of requests like this of you in this thread, but you've ignored them. And I've asked you to quote me where you accuse me of saying things - and you've ignored those requests. We can't make much progress in our discussion if you just keep throwing stuff out there - as if doing so makes it substantiated as true. If you won't accept that from anyone else as a valid apologetic, then there's no reason anyone should accept it from you.

the Pope cannot proclaim untruths.

Well, anyone can claim anything about anything. The issue of this thread is not whether claims are easy to make - we all know they are, the issue is singular: Is it true? Can you document this as a matter of dogmatic objective fact, a matter of highest certainty? That anyone can claim ANYTHING is not disputed, nor is that the subject of this thread.

Yes with God all things are possible, therefore He protects His Church and His Pope...HE said HE would.

Again, quote, from the lips of Jesus, where He said He would "protect" the Catholic Pope.

And while perhaps He does protect His church, there's no promise that He would make any denomination's leader "infallible/unaccountable" - unless, again, there's some Scripture that no one in some 1500 years has been able to find that says that. Again, this thread is not about claims, it's about the dogmatic confirmation for Dogma of the Catholic Papacy as an objective fact.

Well CJ, Christianity was never meant to be divided...so how do we pretend that its all good that it is?

I don't know what you pretend or why.

But I NEVER remotely said that it's good that we don't all agree with each other (really, have you never read any of my over 11,000 posts?????????). What I said is that the RCC agreeing with no other but the RCC just means that the RCC agrees with only one - itself. The WORSE that can be said of the other 34,999 denominations some Catholics insist exist is that a few of them are as bad as the RCC is in this regard - they agree with only ONE - itself.

Take a little time to open up what they have discovered.

Oh, I VERY CAREFULLY and with all the objectivity I can muster, considered everything presented. As a Protestant, of course, I am not required by the RCC to accept the RCC's claims and such with docility and then read them into what any other ways so that such is "there" my implication, I am permitted to read them with objectivity and openness - and I did so. As best I can. What I found, as I posted, is that so far, what's present doesn't speak to the Papacy at all - much less confirm such as true. Actually, the words quoted very well suggests the typical Protestant position - so clearly so that I copied each of of these posts to my hard drive so I can use them to support the Protestant position. I will continue to openly and faithful consider all persented here - and I hope all will.

Now, do YOU have anything to contribute, any confirmation for this as a matter of objective fact, this dogma of The Catholic Papacy, which reveals such to be True? Just repetitions of the claim, or open ended questions, or assumptions retroactively applied, or just the claim assumed true in a text and then the assumption used to affirm the assumption, or arguing that the ONE who says its true MUST be right if the only one that agrees is the self same one - none of that helps. And none of that is an apologic you or any Catholic would permit from any other - so there's no reason we should accept it from you. I'm sure you agree.




.

 

[racer]

Oi! (lol) Don't be such a glutton for punishment, sis. Half of it is because we're not RC. We're talkin' about human nature here, not rocket science. The sensitivity will dissipate when the he realizes how sweet a gal I know you are, and that takes a little time & minimal effort like complimenting him on his checkered bow tie & mentioning you like how his short pant legs show off his argyles & pennyloafers.
NewMan has taken my abuse over the rep function in good spirit. I told him his avatar looked like that guy was about to eat that baby.
He said somethin' like, "Yeah, I was just trying to decide ...ketchup or mayo."

So now I get to beat him over the head with my rants about the structure of Corpus Christi, literalizing sacramentology & pontificating the life out of ecclesiology... (right?) .
Give 'im some respect, he can roll with our punches, especialy when he knows we're not tryin' to deck him. I anticipated some recoil when I saw "Romish". I think I might've even said to brace for incoming on his rep function.
It's a fair deal.

Rick---what have you been smokin'? Cuz, I haven't a clue what you just said . . . .

 

[NewMan99]

Rick---what have you been smokin'? Cuz, I haven't a clue what you just said . . . .

He's saying to give me a break - I am not such a bad fellow and I will realize you are a nice gal once I get to know you better. He is also saying I am also not nearly the hyper-sensitive person you take me for. He gave me a pretty hard shot (in jest) and I just rolled with it. I just don't think anyone should have to tolerate slurs. Spirited discussion - sure - bring it on. Slurs? No.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But let's end the digression.

Again, this thread is not about what you believe (or the beliefs of any one else). This thread is not about whether you are sincere or passionate in your believe - or blessed greatly because of it. And while the Archbishop in the opening post DOES believe the RCC is wrong (and he's an Archbishop accepting Apostolic Tradition and in Apostolic Succession) - I have never suggested that. All know my stand vis-a-vis the RCC. For MANY pages now, this thread has been a largely respectful, civil and even constructive discussion of ONE and only ONE issue: The confirmation/ validation/ substantiation for the Dogma of the Catholic Papacy. And no Catholic has asked that non-Catholics docilicly accept whatever the RCC says or claims or assumes or interprets for we are not bound to such as they are, we have ONLY been asked to be OPEN and objective - and I think that's largely been the case. At least, considerably better than the norm around CF, lol....

Now, my friend, please don't attempt to turn this negative or into a "Catholic bashing" thing when all sides have worked hard not to do that. Even more than the Archbishop in the opening post did. And, as also a fairly long-time poster here, I know that it's unusal for a good discussion to go more than 2 pages without it being hijacked by other topics, implied insults, personal insinuations, frustrations leading to angry words and "putting the WORSE construction" on what others say. We ALL need to work against that. Why? Because I don't matter. At all. Truth matters. Christ matters. I hope we all agree on that.


Back to the evidence....




.

 

[racer]

Translation: Catholics do not have the right to be offended when slurs are directed against them like weapons. It is exactly the same thing as the "n" word. Please do not presume to tell us how we are supposed to feel.

This conversation is pathetic. I am willing to accept the possibility that you were previously unaware that those terms offended Catholics (although how you could be ignorant of this is unfathomable to me). But now you ARE aware - you have been informed. Clearly you would rather rationalize its continued use of it at places like CF (even if you don't personally use them), instead of condemning it - otherwise why are we even debating it right now???

Just drop it. I am going to ignore you.

Whewoooeeee! I'm glad we made amends before I read this one!

 

[racer]

Greetings. I understand that myself so I will generally use "RCC" or "RCs" from now on.
Is that ok?

Mind if I ask exactly which part of NewMan's comment you understood?

 

[racer]

Greetings Albion.
If a word or words are offensive to one or more members here, why not, in the interest of harmony, just not use it/them?

There are times I have been reported for various posts where if the poster would have told me either by PM or on the thread it was offensive to them, I would have removed it.
This is one reason I will be posting less on the GT board in the future. Just my humble opinion of course. God bless

LLoJ,

Nobody is asserting or condoning the right to continue to use certain terms or labels once it's been pointed out that those words have the ability to hurt others.

Speaking for myself, I've simply asked a question and diligently sought an answer.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Oh, I VERY CAREFULLY and with all the objectivity I can muster, considered everything presented. As a Protestant, of course, I am not required by the RCC to accept the RCC's claims

Then that is always what it will be in a nutshell.

So there is nothing we can do to show you.
I accept that.

BUT Jesus set up a doctrine when He established the Papacy.
The bearer of the keys which open and shut His doctrines on earth for man.
AND since the Church was built on the foundation of Peter - that means again - His successors will not have the gates of hell prevail against them because of the keys.

Open - shut.
Shut - open.

No one else can open or shut the doctrines.
SO therefore, again - this doctrine from Jesus is always going to be upheld.

 

[Albion]

Tell me, if the CC isnt the Church Jesus instituted, then where is the first Church ??

Right where it always was--in the first several generations after Christ. It was not any of the various denominations that formed later. Not the RC, EO, Reformed, Anglican, Baptists, etc. But all of these and more are descended as branches from that early church that was not any of them.

And furthermore, why wouldn't anyone want to be a part of it?

If we could be transported back in time, maybe most of us WOULD care to be part of it.

 

[racer]

Here's a link to a review of the book I spoke of earlier:

Review of “The Bait of Satan” by John Bevere

It's The Bait of Satan by John Bevere. An exerpt:

 

[Albion]

Then that is always what it will be in a nutshell.

So there is nothing we can do to show you.

Oh, I think there is something you could do, but simply stating your version of history and scripture as if it were necessarily true won't do it. You'd have to become serious about investigating the facts in order to see where the truth lies. You might be able to convince some of us that Peter was considered infallible or the singular head of worldwide Christianity, and that he passed this on to Linus, and that this was both Jesus' will and was the common knowledge Christians at that time.

But simply stating a theory as if it were truth won't do it. It wouldn't do it if we were talking with Mormons who said that Joseph Smith dug up plates, so why are you a doubter? After all, you were told he did, right?

BUT Jesus set up a doctrine when He established the Papacy.

If he had established the Papacy that could be true.

AND since the Church was built on the foundation of Peter

-
There you go making up scripture again. The Bible does not say that. It says that Peter was to build the church JESUS founded.

that means again - His successors will not have the gates of hell prevail against them because of the keys.

Again, not correct according to scripture. The verse does not say "because of." It simply says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church...which is obviously true since it's still here.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So there is nothing we can do to show you.
I accept that.

Okay, thank you for finally sharing your position on this.

I is VERY hesitant to agree with you. Dogma - especially one this foundational to the RCC, this divisive in Christianity (LONG before the Reformation) - should not be where there is nothing that can be shown.


Thank you for weighing in with your view.


Let's continue with the discussion....




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Oh, I VERY CAREFULLY and with all the objectivity I can muster, considered everything presented. As a Protestant, of course, I am not required by the RCC to accept the RCC's claims

YOU said you are not required to uphold them, and you dont know them...or why are you asking about them?​

​

I said that I'M not asked to accept whatever the RCC says or claims with docility as the Catholic is (CCC 87) and NO ONE HERE has asked me to do that. What I've been asked to do, and what I have done to the best of my ability, is to read the words of the "witnesses" or "evidence" objectively and with an open mind. I've done that. So far (we're not done with this discussion - I hope).

I'm asking for the confirmation because it was stated such exists. I simply replied I'd like the opportunity to read it. And I was told that request would be honored. And so far, it has. I don't think we're finished, however.

you state we are wrong in your opinion

HOW MANY TIMES has this happened in this thread between you and me? You state that I said something, I ask you to quote me, and you ignore it. I'll try again: Where did I say that the RCC's dogma of The Catholic Papacy is wrong? Now, the Archbishop said that in the opening post, but where did I? There's now a pretty long list of posts to you requesting you to quote me on various points: all ignored.




.