Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Originally Posted by NewMan99If the Catholic Church is the True Church, then Catholics SHOULD SAY SO.
CJ,
Regarding your post #332...
.
This is because we both "fisk"...When two fiskers meet on the internet - their chats can get VERY long and complex. We are both fiskers.
The word "defective/ignorant" could also be usedAnd when we True Catholics say the Roman Catholic church is not the True Church, and we say so, Roman Catholics play the victim card, and call us "anti-Catholic", "Catholic bashers", "Catholic haters", etc.
What should we call you for falsely saying your church is the "one true church"?
Would imposters be appropriate?
CJ,
Thanks for your thoughts, but sorry I don't have time to reply except to say that it remains obvious to me that you still do not grasp on a fundamental level what I am trying to say.
It also makes sense in that it gives Jesus the only reason for nicknaming impulsive Peter "petros". Peter needed the extra attention to strengthen him against the huge blow to his self-confidence that his thrice denial would bring. Peter's primacy is narrational, not institutional. He was the apostle that represented the best & worst of us all & so is looked to for example, but we need to not be in denial of the bad examples he provided or we'll miss valuable lessons & be tempted to be in denial about our own worst sides too.Matthew's Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose stone Peter
Only you could say that with a warm fuzzy smile.quote=LittleLambofJesus;The word "defective/ignorant" could also be used
Terms of endearment in The War On Disunity.Pope Benedict XVI reasserted... that Orthodox Churches are "defective."
Augustine defends the authority and primacy of the See of Rome. Note well, the Pelagians were attempting to show that Pope Zosimus was on their side of the argument. In reply, Augustine answers all the Pelagian charges and in doing so he refutes Siman as well.
" 'He saith unto him, Feed My sheep.' And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, "If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren, and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and in which thou didst rejoice, show thou now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep" (Homily 88 on John, NPNF1,XIV:331).
Chrysostom could not have made it any clearer. According to Chrysostom, Peter had authority over the other apostles, or in Chrysostom's words Peter had , 'the chief authority among the brethren.'
"And if any should say, 'How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?' I would make this reply, that He [Jesus] appointed Peter , not of the chair [in Jerusalem], but of the world" (Homily 88 on John, NPNF1,XIV:332).
In one fell swoop, Chrysostom destroys your claims.
If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges."
Theodoret of Cyrus,To Pope Leo,Epistle 113(A.D. 449),in NPNF2,III:293
Engagement in the early centuries usually wasn't good for ones "health"Only you could say that with a warm fuzzy smile.
Terms of endearment in The War On Disunity.
...or is that terms of engagement?
The word "defective/ignorant" could also be used
Vatican Takes Step to Absorb Orthodox Church - Christian Forums
On July 10, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the "universal primacy" of his Roman Catholic church, approving a document released on Tuesday, July 10, 2007, proclaiming that Orthodox Churches are "defective."........................
It merely requires believing that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church and that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all truth.
Why wouldn't God protect the truth?
By way of closing and concluding this post and this analysis of the first question, I want to remind readers that the claim of Petrine Primacy does not rest on any one piece of evidence, but rather on a preponderance of evidence.
EC said:Before the Great Schism, the Roman Church was a part of the Church, yes.
After the Great Schism it was not. The pope essentially got a bit pigheaded and tried to give himself power and authority he never had nor was entitled to. The East said "hold on buddy, what are you doing? That's not right" in which the pope threw a hissy fit and quit talking to us.
That's the nutshell of it.
Your friend forgot the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 869-870 (which the Pope participated in, though very few Bishops actually attended) which was later overturned by the council in 879-880.
And what's the next couple verses?.............
The RCC always mentions St. Peter, and uses him as theological proof of their supremacy, even though this very thing was warned against in scripture.
Take your time and have a good night.
Can you or others give us the Scripture that warned against this. Thanks
Can you or others give us the Scripture that warned against this. Thanks
Mark 10:42-44 said:But Jesus called them to [Himself] and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.
And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all.
Luke 22:24-26 said:Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest.
And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.'
But not so [among] you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.
1 Cor 1:11-13 said:For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's [household], that there are contentions among you.
Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1 Cor 3:21-23 said:Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours:
whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come--all are yours.
And you [are] Christ's, and Christ [is] God's.
Firstly, there is nothing cited above that indicates anything said of Peter applies to the bishops of Rome as any exclusive successors of Peter.
The above makes the false assumption and usual mistake of Roman Catholic apologists to apply a later claim made in opposition to the consensus of the church fathers by later Roman bishops of being the sole reciprients of the "keys" and "chair of Peter", then in fact the Church has never supported that claim.
[SIZE=+1]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. The common mistake made by Roman Catholic apologists is the assumption that because some of the fathers make certain comments about Peter—for example, that he is chief of the apostles or head of the apostolic choir—that they also have in mind the bishop of Rome in an exclusive sense. But they do not state this in their writings. This is a preconceived theology that is read into their writings. Did they view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Did they view the bishops of Rome as being the exclusive successors of Peter? NO![/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]In the view of Augustine and the early fathers all the bishops of the Church in the East and West were the successors of Peter. They all possess the chair of Peter. So when they speak in exalted terms about Peter they do not apply those terms to the bishops of Rome. Therefore, when a father refers to Peter as the rock, the ‘coryphaeus,’ the first of the disciples, or something similar, this does not mean that he is expressing agreement with the current Roman Catholic interpretation. This view is clearly validated from the following statements of Augustine:[/SIZE]
[/font]
Here, in fact, we have Augustine, a doctor of the Church, clearly and unambiguously defining, in a manner contrary to the claims of Rome, that Peter was a symbolic representative of the entirety of the "Christian people" and that what was given to Peter, was in fact, given to ALL.
[/font]
Augustine is in agreement with the misnomer "Protestant" view and opposed to the Roman Catholic view.
[/size][/size]
Thanks for posting those, for they support my comments, that the church fathers in using exalted terms when speaking of Peter, were speaking of Peter, alone.
Now, show us where any of those say one thing about any of those comments on Peter being applied to the bishops of Rome in an exclusive manner.
If not, then concede that your e-pologist source misrepresents what they actually say and back engineers the later claims of Rome into them where they do not exist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?