A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[JacktheCatholic]

From post #491:

From the above link:


. . . The following extensive documentation reveals that Augustine taught that Peter was simply a figurative representative of the Church, not its ruler—a view reminiscent of Cyprian:

But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, 1‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord,2 and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’3 that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.​

For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘4 I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).​

And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’5 he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).​

Before his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all.​

I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit;’ and straightway, ‘Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained’ (Jn 20:22-23). This refers to the keys, about which it is said, ‘whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ (Mt 16:19). But that was said to Peter. To show you that Peter at that time stood for the universal Church, listen to what is said to him, what is said to all the faithful, the saints: ‘If your brother sins against you, correct him between you and himself alone’ (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermons, III/8 (273-305A), On the Saints, Sermon 295.1-3, pp. 197-198).​

6 According to Augustine the Apostles are equal in all respects. Each receives the authority of the keys, not Peter alone. But some object, doesn’t Augustine accord a primacy to the apostle Peter? Does he not call Peter the first of the apostles, holding the chief place in the Apostleship? Don’t such statements prove papal primacy? While it is true that Augustine has some very exalted things to say about Peter, as do many of the fathers, it does not follow that either he or they held to the Roman Catholic view of papal primacy. This is because their comments apply to Peter alone. They have absolutely nothing to do with the bishops of Rome. How do we know this? Because Augustine and the fathers do not make that application in their comments. They do not state that their descriptions of Peter apply to the bishops of Rome.

Address Augustine's thoughts on Peter for me please . . . .

1 Simon was the first to know Jesus for being the Messiah. We will continue to see Peter as the First in scripture.

2 I cannot follow the reasoning that Christ saw Simon (Peter) as the church. The church is built on a Foundation and that foundation is a rock and that rock is Peter. Peter becomes part of the church as well or a stone if you will but Jesus is the cornerstone of the building or household of God. All the Apostles become a stone of the church as well as do many Christians. BUT Peter is the FOUNDATION and NOT the CHURCH. That is a poor interpretation IMO.

3 This is a very poor and Protestatnt analogy. Pretty good theology but false none the less. Jesus is the Cornerstone which holds a special importance of a building. But Jesus is not the Foundation. Many Protestant theologans have come to concede that it is Peter who is the Foundation. This is a hard truth for Protestants that have been taught a theology that is only accepted in modern times. But then Protestants seem to think they know God so well they teach many of the Herecies of Old. Herecies that were rejected centuries ago. Things like women priests and the bread not being the Flesh of Christ or Jesus not being God but a creature of God. These are Herecies from the birth and adolesence of the Church. Now we have people that are very ignorant to the past and so arrogant as to think they know something better than the constant teachings of 20 centuries. Interesting theological debates but false none the less.

4 This has to do with baptism and such. It is not about the foundation of the church. Seems to me to be some contorting of scripture to try and show what some people want to believe as the truth. But it was not taught this way then and it is only taught this way now in Protestant churches.

5 This smells of fecal matter to me. Jesus was speaking to Peter alone and not in a future sense of all in the body of Christ. Again, contorting scripture to try and prove something men wish for it to mean and not what Jesus and the Apostles taught. Isaias22 is so painfully in correlation here that it makes me wonder how any one could be so blind as not to see it for what it is. The Keys ARE a symbol of Authority. Peter in scripture always had the Authority. From deciding on the person to replace Judas to deciding on circumcism being necessary for salvation it was Peter that decided and ALL followed.

6 According to Augustine??? Give me a break. It is actually "ACCORDING TO THE WRITER OF THAT ARTICLE". Really... di this author of your article interview Augustine so as to give detailed reasons for what he wrote. This is nothing more than some guys interpretation of an ECF writings. Highly suspect if you ask me.



****

THERE HAS BEEN A PRIMACY WITH PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS SINCE THE BEGINNING. FROM THE CHURCH'S BIRTH UNTIL TODAY THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A ROMAN PONTIFF THAT HOLDS THE KEYS.

I am so tired of Protestant theology that is doing nothing more than trying to show their own validity as the Church of Christ.

IF you want the real and only Church of Christ then there is the Catholic Church. PERIOD

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Racer,

I feel like I have been on a merry go round in this thread and it is getting us no where.

You choose what you believe you need for salvation.

I have what I need...

It is said that if two have a dispute to bring a couple of others to mediate and if there is still not a result then go to the CHURCH.

Guess what? In today's crazy and arrogant self righteous world where people think they are so smart as to know it all... WHAT IS THE CHURCH???

Do not answer that except to yourself. I know my answer. You know my answer.


SHALOM (No hard feelings only a desire to help others know God and his church)

 

[racer]

1 Simon was the first to know Jesus for being the Messiah. We will continue to see Peter as the First in scripture.

Well, this can not be proven with complete certainty. Yes, Simon was the first one to speak out loud who Jesus was. However, this still is not addressing what Augustine said above.

2 I cannot follow the reasoning that Christ saw Simon (Peter) as the church.

Well, that reasoning is not the invention of current day scholars or philosophers. That reasoning was voiced by St. Augustine not just and ECF, but also a doctor of the Church.

The church is built on a Foundation and that foundation is a rock and that rock is Peter.

We all understand here that that is what the RCC teaches. But, we disagree. That is the whole point of contention. In the eyes of those of us who disagree with the RCC Scripture shows otherwise.

Peter becomes part of the church as well or a stone if you will but Jesus is the cornerstone of the building or household of God. All the Apostles become a stone of the church as well as do many Christians. BUT Peter is the FOUNDATION and NOT the CHURCH.

You know, for some reason, when you make this assertion, I Tim 3:15 comes to mind.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.​

That is a poor interpretation IMO.

Of what interpretation are you speaking?

3 This is a very poor and Protestatnt analogy.

Protestant analogy? This is a quote from St. Augustine. The only analogy given is Augustine's.

Pretty good theology but false none the less.

So, you're saying that Augustine taught false theology?

Jesus is the Cornerstone which holds a special importance of a building. But Jesus is not the Foundation.

Many Protestant theologans have come to concede that it is Peter who is the Foundation.

If these supposed Protestant theologians that Trento continually cites, truly believed what Trento (now you) are attempting to imply that they believe, they would not be Protestant, they would be Catholic. You see, you and I can argue whether Ireneaus, Augustine, Polycarp, Ignatius were RC or not, but when it comes to living and breathing scholars/theologians who profess to be Catholic or non-Catholic, there's no debate.

This is a hard truth for Protestants that have been taught a theology that is only accepted in modern times.

What's a hard truth? The hard truth is they are clearly not in complete agreement with the RCC on this subject, or they would be Catholic. You need to read exactly what these Protestant theologians, who supposedly agree with RC theology, really say before you go around making this argument. I realize you probably weren't around when I clearly exposed where at least one of the men that Trento likes to quote, Philip Schaff, really argued. But, in another post I'll show you what I showed Trento.

But then Protestants seem to think they know God so well they teach many of the Herecies of Old. Herecies that were rejected centuries ago.

This is so absurd, I'll refrain from comment.

Things like women priests

Hmmm . . . how many Protestant churches have women "priests?" How many protestant denominations have priests?

and the bread not being the Flesh of Christ or Jesus not being God but a creature of God. These are Herecies from the birth and adolesence of the Church. Now we have people that are very ignorant to the past and so arrogant as to think they know something better than the constant teachings of 20 centuries. Interesting theological debates but false none the less.

You realize of course you are just rambling? You are not addressing St. Augustine's teachings like I asked. And, really, continually referring to people who disagree with your beliefs as ignorant, doesn't tend to inspire one to respond kindly.

4 This has to do with baptism and such. It is not about the foundation of the church.

What are you talking about? Augustine specifically addresses the fact that the Keys were not given to Peter alone . . . but, to the church. A point you and I have argued. He specifically addresses the fact that Jesus pointed out that no apostles was superior among the twelve, another point you and I have argued. He specifically says that it is Peter's confession and not Peter which is the foundation of the church, another point we have argued.




He specifically explains the extent of Peter's "pre-eminence:"

So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all.​

He specifically makes the same argument I've made to you here more than once:

I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit;’ and straightway, ‘Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained’ (Jn 20:22-23). This refers to the keys, about which it is said, ‘whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ (Mt 16:19). But that was said to Peter.​

There are Augustine's words, not mine or some other amateur Protestant apologist!

Seems to me to be some contorting of scripture to try and show what some people want to believe as the truth.

Uh huh.

But it was not taught this way then and it is only taught this way now in Protestant churches.

This is a doctor of the church speaking.

5 This smells of fecal matter to me.

Really? Which part in particular?

Jesus was speaking to Peter alone and not in a future sense of all in the body of Christ.

All twelve were present. He was teaching all twelve. But, even if someone acquieses that in this particular passage he only addressed Peter, as I have shown and Augustine has shown above, in other passages He bestows the keys and their authority on all of the other apostles. The point and argument is moot.

Again, contorting scripture to try and prove something men wish for it to mean and not what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

Uh huh. So, basically, you simply can not honestly address the citations given above and not acknowledge that he taught contrary to what the RCC now asserts?

Isaias22 is so painfully in correlation here that it makes me wonder how any one could be so blind as not to see it for what it is.

Remember the comment about contorting Scripture . . .

The Keys ARE a symbol of Authority.

A point with which I don't recall anyone disagreeing.

Peter in scripture always had the Authority.

What is your evidence for this? That Peter always had the Authority? I can clearly show you instances where other apostles asserted their authority over Peter. You make arguments with no foundation or substantiation. You are making comments that only serve as self-assurance that your beliefs are correct. They prove nothing nor do they promote fruitful and progressive discussions.

From deciding on the person to replace Judas to deciding on circumcism being necessary for salvation it was Peter that decided and ALL followed.

Jack, none of this rant addresses what Augustine taught.

6 According to Augustine??? Give me a break. It is actually "ACCORDING TO THE WRITER OF THAT ARTICLE". Really... di this author of your article interview Augustine so as to give detailed reasons for what he wrote. This is nothing more than some guys interpretation of an ECF writings.

Direct quotes from Augustine were given.

Highly suspect if you ask me.

Easily proven or disproved if you bother to check the sources. But, I'm not going to do it for you this time.

THERE HAS BEEN A PRIMACY WITH PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS SINCE THE BEGINNING. FROM THE CHURCH'S BIRTH UNTIL TODAY THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A ROMAN PONTIFF THAT HOLDS THE KEYS.

Yell it from the tree tops. Type it in bolded, red, 7 point fonts, still doesn't make it a fact.

I am so tired of Protestant theology that is doing nothing more than trying to show their own validity as the Church of Christ.

IF you want the real and only Church of Christ then there is the Catholic Church. PERIOD

Sounds like your afraid to me . . . . .

 

[racer]

Racer,

I feel like I have been on a merry go round in this thread and it is getting us no where.

This is the normal result when a Protestant and RC have this discussion. Especially, when the RC is faced with unquestionable and credible discreditation of some of their beliefs.

You choose what you believe you need for salvation.

Isn't this exactly what you've done?

I have what I need...

Yes, what you've chosen to believe . . .

It is said that if two have a dispute to bring a couple of others to mediate and if there is still not a result then go to the CHURCH.

So. This passage is not talking about "doctrinal" issues. Read it again.

Guess what? In today's crazy and arrogant self righteous world where people think they are so smart as to know it all... WHAT IS THE CHURCH???

Chill out, Jack. You're ranting and raving. Are you implying that all who disagree with you and your faith are arrogant and self-righteous?

Do not answer that except to yourself. I know my answer. You know my answer.

Know what, I know who Jesus is and what "He" commanded of me, that's what I believe to be important.

SHALOM (No hard feelings only a desire to help others know God and his church)

Um . . . yeah, absolutely no hard feelings after such a tirade . . . .

 

[BrightCandle]

Racer,

I feel like I have been on a merry go round in this thread and it is getting us no where.

You choose what you believe you need for salvation.

I have what I need...

It is said that if two have a dispute to bring a couple of others to mediate and if there is still not a result then go to the CHURCH.

Guess what? In today's crazy and arrogant self righteous world where people think they are so smart as to know it all... WHAT IS THE CHURCH???

Do not answer that except to yourself. I know my answer. You know my answer.


SHALOM (No hard feelings only a desire to help others know God and his church)

Hey Jack,

Did you ever consider that Rome's claim to supremacy are very much the same claims that the Jewish Church claimed in the time of Christ? Religious pride hindered them from recognizing the sad truth that the Jewish leaders had exalted the traditions of men over the plain teachings of the Hebrew Bible (OT). Rome has done the exact same thing, by exalting its man made traditions over the OT&NT, while at the same time claiming to be God's only true church!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Hey Jack,

Did you ever consider that Rome's claim to supremacy are very much the same claims that the Jewish Church claimed in the time of Christ? Religious pride hindered them from recognizing the sad truth that the Jewish leaders had exalted the traditions of men over the plain teachings of the Hebrew Bible (OT). Rome has done the exact same thing, by exalting its man made traditions over the OT&NT, while at the same time claiming to be God's only true church!

Yes I have considered this and find your theory to be false.

The Apostles are Jews that had all the same "traditions" as you call it as the Hypocrites. The difference is that the Apostles had the law on their hearts. The hypocrites taught correctly but did not follow what they were teaching and they were more interested in things of this world instead of God.

Also, the Catholic Church is the church left by the Apostles. There is no break in this...
And the Catholic Church moslty resembles the early church.

 

[BrightCandle]

Yes I have considered this and find your theory to be false.

The Apostles are Jews that had all the same "traditions" as you call it as the Hypocrites. The difference is that the Apostles had the law on their hearts. The hypocrites taught correctly but did not follow what they were teaching and they were more interested in things of this world instead of God.

Also, the Catholic Church is the church left by the Apostles. There is no break in this...
And the Catholic Church moslty resembles the early church.

Come on Jack. You know that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees many times for teaching their man made traditions over the word of God. And you also know that Rome boldly claims that church tradition is of equal authority with the Bible. The Apostles didn't hold to man made traditions, they preached Jesus and proved it from the Scriptures. While the Jewish leaders held to their un-Scriptural views of the Messiah, which is what lead them to reject Jesus.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Come on Jack. You know that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees many times for teaching their man made traditions over the word of God. And you also know that Rome boldly claims that church tradition is of equal authority with the Bible. The Apostles didn't hold to man made traditions, they preached Jesus and proved it from the Scriptures. While the Jewish leaders held to their un-Scriptural views of the Messiah, which is what lead them to reject Jesus.

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. Jesus even said to do as they say because they are in Moses chair.

Before you start condemning the Pharisees for "man made traditions" I think you need to first understand what Jesus rebuked them for.

 

[BrightCandle]

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. Jesus even said to do as they say because they are in Moses chair.

Before you start condemning the Pharisees for "man made traditions" I think you need to first understand what Jesus rebuked them for.

Jack: Read the Gospels, you will find Jesus telling the Pharisees in no uncertain terms that their worship was in vain because of tradition. Matthew 15:9 "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the precepts of men".

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack: Read the Gospels, you will find Jesus telling the Pharisees in no uncertain terms that their worship was in vain because of tradition. Matthew 15:9 "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the precepts of men".

Look closer at Matthew 15...

But you say, 'Whoever says to father or mother, "Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,"
6 need not honor his father.' You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said: 8 'This people honors me with their lips, 5 but their hearts are far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.'"
Jesus is calling them Hypocrites because "their hearts are far" from God. Jesus is not condemning traditions but rather the Pharisees two sidedness. They say one thing and think and feel another. He says they honor him with words but do not believe it. For if they believed it then they would feel it. God wants our Love.

If you have a significant other you want them to love you and not simply say they love you. God wants us to love him too. But if we do not love him from our hearts and only pay him lip service then we are hypocrites too.

Remember that Jesus said to do as they teach. If we accept your explanation then we make Jesus a liar. I know you do not want to do that.


Look as well to Isaiah 29:13 The Lord said: Since this people draws near with words only and honors me with their lips alone, though their hearts are far from me, And their reverence for me has become routine observance of the precepts of men

 

[BrightCandle]

Look closer at Matthew 15...

But you say, 'Whoever says to father or mother, "Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,"
6 need not honor his father.' You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said: 8 'This people honors me with their lips, 5 but their hearts are far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.'"
Jesus is calling them Hypocrites because "their hearts are far" from God. Jesus is not condemning traditions but rather the Pharisees two sidedness. They say one thing and think and feel another. He says they honor him with words but do not believe it. For if they believed it then they would feel it. God wants our Love.

If you have a significant other you want them to love you and not simply say they love you. God wants us to love him too. But if we do not love him from our hearts and only pay him lip service then we are hypocrites too.

Remember that Jesus said to do as they teach. If we accept your explanation then we make Jesus a liar. I know you do not want to do that.


Look as well to Isaiah 29:13 The Lord said: Since this people draws near with words only and honors me with their lips alone, though their hearts are far from me, And their reverence for me has become routine observance of the precepts of men

Why were their hearts far from God? Because they had supplanted the Word of God with man made traditions! That is what is common to all Pagan religions, and it is leads men into a religious delusion, which is what the Pharisees and Sadducees were in. Rome has done the same thing by its man made pomp, mystic rituals and ceremonies, and man made traditions taken from Pagan Rome and "sanctified" by Papal Rome. If Jesus came to Rome today, he would no doubt say the same words to the Papacy as he did in Matt. 15.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Tyndale, you can't be serious. I would name all 265 Popes if I had the time. what is it you don't get, or perhaps in denial with?

1. You list is unsourced.
2. Even the Vatican's official list of the popes is confused as to who was the immediate successor of Peter.
3. You still need to proove that the early church had a concept of a papacy.
4. There are early church documents that deny the concept of a papacy.

There are so many more problems with your opening post that it doesn't even deserved to be dignified with a response.

 

[Rick Otto]

1 Simon was the first to know Jesus for being the Messiah. We will continue to see Peter as the First in scripture.

I thought His mother knew it first.
No, wait... didn't His aunt Elisabeth prophesy it, and his unclet get silenced for disbelief?
His cousin John (The Baptist) knew about Him before Peter did, right?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Why were their hearts far from God? Because they had supplanted the Word of God with man made traditions! That is what is common to all Pagan religions, and it is leads men into a religious delusion, which is what the Pharisees and Sadducees were in. Rome has done the same thing by its man made pomp, mystic rituals and ceremonies, and man made traditions taken from Pagan Rome and "sanctified" by Papal Rome. If Jesus came to Rome today, he would no doubt say the same words to the Papacy as he did in Matt. 15.

To think... all I had to do was subscribe to some anti-catholic garbage and know that Exodus was nothing but... what did you call it? Ah yes "man made traditions".

Those stupid Jews following those traditions made by Moses. They would have been so much better if they had you and your anti-catholic rethoric to help them.

 

[BrightCandle]

To think... all I had to do was subscribe to some anti-catholic garbage and know that Exodus was nothing but... what did you call it? Ah yes "man made traditions".

Those stupid Jews following those traditions made by Moses. They would have been so much better if they had you and your anti-catholic rethoric to help them.

If the Jews only did what Moses taught them, Jesus would have commended them, but they added many thousands of other rabbinical laws that trumped the very words of Scripture, which is exactly what Roman Catholicism has done in our time.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

If the Jews only did what Moses taught them, Jesus would have commended them, but they added many thousands of other rabbinical laws that trumped the very words of Scripture, which is exactly what Roman Catholicism has done in our time.

"Many thousands of other rabbinical laws"???

LIKE WHAT?

 

[BrightCandle]

"Many thousands of other rabbinical laws"???

LIKE WHAT?

The Jews had a multitude of man made "laws" that dealt with almost everything in life. Like how far one could walk on the Sabbath without it being a sin, or exactly how you had to clean your hands before you ate food, etc, etc.

 

[racer]

1 Simon was the first to know Jesus for being the Messiah. We will continue to see Peter as the First in scripture.

Who posted this again? How many times do we have to expose the absurdity of this argument and debunk it?

 

[simonthezealot]

****

THERE HAS BEEN A PRIMACY WITH PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS SINCE THE BEGINNING. FROM THE CHURCH'S BIRTH UNTIL TODAY THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A ROMAN PONTIFF THAT HOLDS THE KEYS.

I am so tired of Protestant theology that is doing nothing more than trying to show their own validity as the Church of Christ.

IF you want the real and only Church of Christ then there is the Catholic Church. PERIOD

I beg to differ Jack! You've not shown anything remotely close to proof of this in 180 +posts on the White..Papacy... thread!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I beg to differ Jack! You've not shown anything remotely close to proof of this in 180 +posts on the White..Papacy... thread!

That is your OPINION.

I felt I have adequately shown the Papacy to be as Jesus intended.

I will add that I have not shown this to some, like your self. But I have had others see my points and their validity.

Do not be so quick to judge based on only your own opinion.