Known for all ages?? NOT

[PilgrimToChrist]

The Fathers of Chaledon seemed to have believed that the Primacy of Rome had more to do with the fact that it was an imperial capitol rather than the Succession of St. Peter, which also applies to Antioch. Of course this in no way lessens the significance of Rome as a See of St. Peter, it merely demonstrates that the idea of papal primacy based soley on Peter was not believed by the Chaledonian Fathers.

"For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city."- Canon XXVIII

And Pope St. Leo the Great argued quite succinctly that they were wrong in this -- that Rome's primacy did not have to do with Rome's worldly position but Jesus' establishment of Peter as the prince of the Apostles.

 

[simonthezealot]

So we are 78 posts into this thread and no one is even putting up an argument to support the vaticans claim that the Petrine primacy was known for all ages.
Yet people are willing to follow blindly this institution? You can't trace your own claims and yet you'll trust they have had this loyal to the LORD succession for 2000 years...
This should be very disconcerning.

What we are seeing is the most fundamental of your beliefs do not have a shred, a shred of historical proof for hundreds of years. Thats not good guys.

 

[sunlover1]

You have no way to know such a thing.

Yes, we can. For one thing, it is a bunch of wild-eyed,

Dunno which pic you're looking at but i see three men with their eyes closed,
one looking (Normally) at the camera, a woman with normal eyes , a man
with his eyes half open/half closed it appears in the middle of a blink,
and a man looking to the heavens. They Appear to be praying.

sweaty,

LOL , sure.

middle-aged men

So far on truths side we have middle aged men.

clumped around what appears to be a kneeling,

kneeling?
I'm sure you've seen a different picture than i. Maybe I need a translater
If she's kneeling she must be 11 feet tall standing.
Now the second picture, that guy is kneeling, bless his heart.

young girl,

Truth again!

all reaching out to put their hands on her. Its inappropriate just in that.

On her HEAD.. yeah that is a very bad idea. To lay hands on someone and pray
over them. And in fact, the more folks laying hands on you the worse it is.
Is anyone among you ill? let him send for the rulers of the church;
and let them say prayers over him, putting oil on him in the name of the Lord.

Somehow I doubt the Apostles looked more like the former then the latter.

Yes. It is kind of dirty and pedophilic.

Want to talk dirty and pedophilic?
Cos i can give you dirty and pedophilic,
and not fabricated either.

Foolishness!
This child is being prayed over and good (I would hope)
intentioned men of God are laying hands on her HEAD.
HOPFULLY that's what's going on in the second photo
as well

But the other sense was the one I was talking about -- spiritually dangerous.

Yes, the laying of hands and prayer is a very dangerous practice...
UNLESS it looks just Like the bottom photo!
Then it's a 'good thang'.

 

[sunlover1]

Mine too, right before we send out our missionaries for example...
Like when the Holy Spirit asks for Saul and Barnabas to be set aside in Acts 13

Yes.. We do lay hands on men and women when they go out into new mission fields
as well, we do it when they are sick, we do it when the Spirit of God moves in us
to do it as well.

The Holy Ghost directed the apostles, who had received their authority from Jesus Christ, to lay hands upon Paul and Barnabas. Paul makes mention of this authority having been delegated to Titus and Timothy, and specifically mentions the laying on of hands regarding Timothy.

Do the people of your church have this very authority that was once given to the apostles by Christ himself, conferred by the laying on of hands throughout history?

Yes, this authority (God's authority is what it is) God gave to all of us. You just
have to read the Bible without preconceived ideas. You'll be surprised by MUCH
of what you read in there. Men are rascals lemme tell ya!
And of course He did give different gifts, abilities, ... Just keep reading the book.
It's all right there, handed down from Jesus and the Apostles, inspired by God Himself.

So we are 78 posts into this thread and no one is even putting up an argument to support the vaticans claim that the Petrine primacy was known for all ages.

I only recall IBS posting one ECF..

 

[Standing Up]

In all seriousness, this is the problem I have w/ Catholicism. If heresy is anything that didn't originate with the Apostles, what good are "understandings that came later?"

Good question.

 

[Nick T]

And Pope St. Leo the Great argued quite succinctly that they were wrong in this -- that Rome's primacy did not have to do with Rome's worldly position but Jesus' establishment of Peter as the prince of the Apostles.

Of course he did; the West had long held that the Primacy of Rome was that of St. Peter (although they forgot about Antioch) and some even said that this Primacy was akin to supremacy. It was only in the East where Rome had problems enforcing it's "authority".

 

[ivebeenshown]

Yes, this authority (God's authority is what it is) God gave to all of us. You just have to read the Bible without preconceived ideas.

Can you please show me in scripture where all believers have the same authority as Paul and Timothy?

Hebrews 13
17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Paul writes that some have authority over others, and watch for their souls.

2 Corinthians 10
8For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: 9That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters.

What is the point of even mentioning authority if 'everyone has it'? If everyone has the same 'authority', there is no true authority to be had.

 

[Standing Up]

How about this: 700 or 7000 horsemen? They contradict, so neither of the books can be trusted.
How about this: the account of the resurrection event, and who all was there, and the order of the events. They contradict, so none of the Gospels can be trusted.

Except the gospels don't contradict. Tradition contradicts.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Except the gospels don't contradict. Tradition contradicts.

Really? Did Mary Magdalene first see and recognize the risen Jesus while she was running with the other Mary to tell the disciples about his missing body (Matthew 28), or did she run to Peter and 'that other disciple' to tell them about his missing body, run back to the sepulchre, and stand weeping over his missing body, unaware that he was alive until the risen Jesus appeared to her there (John 20)?

 

[Standing Up]

So we are 78 posts into this thread and no one is even putting up an argument to support the vaticans claim that the Petrine primacy was known for all ages.
Yet people are willing to follow blindly this institution? You can't trace your own claims and yet you'll trust they have had this loyal to the LORD succession for 2000 years...
This should be very disconcerning.

What we are seeing is the most fundamental of your beliefs do not have a shred, a shred of historical proof for hundreds of years. Thats not good guys.

Firmilian in 256ad pointed out the same thing. Rome vainly pretends the authority of the apostles.

 

[sunlover1]

Can you please show me in scripture where all believers have the same authority as Paul and Timothy?

Hebrews 13
17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Paul writes that some have authority over others, and watch for their souls.

2 Corinthians 10
8For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: 9That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters.

What is the point of even mentioning authority if 'everyone has it'? If everyone has the same 'authority', there is no true authority to be had.

I said God has given all of us authority. You doubt this then you'll have to
do your own study. My Bible tools are not available to me at this time

We have authority in different areas.
My pastor has that "spiritual for edification type"
of authority over me and I am thankful for that.

But it's not some sort of "Do whatever I tell you
to do" type of authority..

Do you think God would leave your fate in another man's hands?
(Here, drink this)

 

[Standing Up]

Really? Did Mary Magdalene first see and recognize the risen Jesus while she was running with the other Mary to tell the disciples about his missing body (Matthew 28), or did she run to Peter and 'that other disciple' to tell them about his missing body, run back to the sepulchre, and stand weeping over his missing body, unaware that he was alive until the risen Jesus appeared to her there (John 20)?

Start a new thread.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Start a new thread.

No. It is entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.

Someone said that because there are two varying accounts of succession recorded in regard to the bishop of Rome, neither of them can be right. I am demonstrating that this is poor logic which could be used to apply to the bible itself. The bible is not God, it is not perfect.

 

[boswd]

Note for laconic student, who seems to be having an off night:

[Quoting some RC thingy] "... Peter ... presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his [Peter's] blood"



To go there: an idiom of speech, referring to their intent. In this case, conflating the blood of a very fallible mortal with that of the Lamb of G-d. As in - -

do NOT go there!

again context is such an overlooked but yet important factor. His blood is referring to Peter being Martyred for the sake of Christ's Church.
Peter was martyred in Rome.

again we really need a *rolls eyes* icon added to the smilies.

 

[sunlover1]

again context is such overlooked but yet important factor. His blood is referring to Peter being Martyred for the sake of Christ's Church.
Peter was martyred in Rome.

again we really need a *rolls eyes* icon added to the smilies.

Can you be in charge of getting that for us?
I want some of those cute smilies FIF uses sometimes as well..
please!!
*insert flirty smiley here lol

 

[ivebeenshown]

Can you be in charge of getting that for us?
I want some of those cute smilies FIF uses sometimes as well..
please!!
*insert flirty smiley here lol

I agree, roll-eyes would be useful. The head smack almost conveys the same message but portrays someone like, bashing their keyboard in childish frustration or something.

 

[Standing Up]

No. It is entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.

Someone said that because there are two varying accounts of succession recorded in regard to the bishop of Rome, neither of them can be right. I am demonstrating that this is poor logic which could be used to apply to the bible itself. The bible is not God, it is not perfect.

They are contradictory. There are no extant records of the account. The first five or so "bishop" listings are contradictory. There's only vain pretending as Firmilian said. But don't feel bad, no one can produce their rolls of bishops, except for the apostles to Polycarp; there's no questions or contradictions there.

 

[ivebeenshown]

They are contradictory. There are no extant records of the account.

You mean of the resurrection? Or the bishops?

 

[simonthezealot]

So we are 78 posts into this thread and no one is even putting up an argument to support the vaticans claim that the Petrine primacy was known for all ages.
Yet people are willing to follow blindly this institution? You can't trace your own claims and yet you'll trust they have had this loyal to the LORD succession for 2000 years...
This should be very disconcerning.

What we are seeing is the most fundamental of your beliefs do not have a shred, a shred of historical proof for hundreds of years. Thats not good guys.

NOTHING guys?
Really?

Why is that?

 

[ivebeenshown]

NOTHING guys?
Really?

Why is that?

Faith is the evidence of things not seen. *shrug*