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.
More to the point, the priest is not Christ. Even if Root wants to see him standing in Christ's stead at the altar, the whole thing still has its place in time and space.They've missed the part where Christ is sitting now at the right hand of God. He's not standing with the priest sacrificing again.
Yes, he was.
And this rules out a head of the visible church...how?
If said individual ignores the sign and goes around, he's on his own.
The Holy Spirit gave the Church 72 books...who made the decision to change it to 66? A man. This is the perfect example of men not following the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That happens a lot, by the way. But never to the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Trying to limit how the Holy Spirit works is not a point worth arguing? A Biblical manifestation of the Holy Spirit at work? Too funny. Your determination is not such a manifestation, though.
Read the first part of the first letter. To Timothy, my child in faith...then he instructs him to remain in Ephesus. Chapter 4 gives Timothy instructions about how to be a good bishop. Earlier, he was taught how to choose a good bishop. Paul named Timothy head of the Church where he left him.
Well, we don't confine ourselves to only Scripture.
It doesn't matter? There's no distinction in Aramaic between pebble and boulder. For one.
Christ is certainly the Rock, but that does not preculde Peter from being the Rock, as Christ named him. Jesus didn't make Peter head of the Church while Christ was still walking the hills of Galilee. And Christ chose fallible men to further his ministry. Peter took the position at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit manifested in him and the other apostles. The Early Church knew what Christ did with Peter. Why did it take a thousand years for anyone to question it?
Who says it can't refer to Christ and Peter? You? By what authority?
"His Holiness" or "Your Holiness" was the title in question, dear brother Stryder06.
Now, I prefer to call folk "Your worship" at times. Or "Your Highness". But if you prefer some other title, for example "Mister" then have at it
Double talk. The Pope is no holier than you. That title is undeserved.
That's rewriting history. The Catholic Church was in need of reform, and was in the process of reforming. Not to Luther's liking, so he, and the others revolted.
Nothing is impossible with God. That you choose to limit Him is very telling.
I also find it very telling when people insist that the "fullness of salvation" can be only found in their particular denomination and that God does not recognize other denominations as being branches of the same vine, Jesus Christ.
The Protestant Reform saw something that wasn't there, pretty much. The Catholic Church was not selling indulgences, had already said that selling indulgences was error, and was in the process of changing what needed to be changed.
Well, you understand, I hope, that that was a reasonably accurate exposition of a certain theological system, i.e. If it's not expressly ruled out by the Bible, it's fair game for being made into a must-believe dogma by the church leaders (and then called correct because "the Holy Spirit made us do it."You'll have to do better than that. Nothing is impossible with God, but there are things that He simply won't do. Sharing His glory is one of them. Lying is another.
Well, being no more holy than I is no great achievement nevertheless I am sure he has achieved it. He may even exceed your holiness
Well, being no more holy than I is no great achievement nevertheless I am sure he has achieved it. He may even exceed your holiness
Not even remotely funny. It's really sad that you see him as a "Holier than thou" individual.
I reckon a lot of people are holier than me. It's no big deal to admit that some other folk have walked with God longer or closer than I. It's certainly nothing to get depressed about.
By the way, pope Francis is 76 years old, he's had more time to walk with God. I say God bless him.
Saying someone may be holier is not the same as calling them "Your Holiness". I think you know that though.
Oh, is it the title you are unhappy about?
He also bears the title "servant of the servants of God", is that good or what?
Pope Francis doesn't appeal to me in some ways, but on this issue I think he deserves patience. If he doesn't wind up being killed for it, he may well move some of this stuff in the direction you are advocating.It's the unwarranted recognition given to him. Seated on a throne between two cherubim. Allowing people to kneel before him and kiss his hand. Responding when someone calls him "Holy Father". No man should ever allow such honor to be shown to him when he calls himself the "Vicar of Christ".
It's the unwarranted recognition given to him. Seated on a throne between two cherubim. Allowing people to kneel before him and kiss his hand. Responding when someone calls him "Holy Father". No man should ever allow such honor to be shown to him when he calls himself the "Vicar of Christ".
Ah, so there are "protestant denominations" now! Perhaps we are getting somewhere and will hear no more about a mythical "the Protestant Church" from you
Hmm. No such luck. You just don't seem able to understand this, despite many explanations that have already been given.
What are you talking about? None of that makes any sense. Or it is that you just want to taunt us with gibberish?
We know Christ is the head. But he also left a visible head, Peter, and His successors. Isaiah 22, which Christ referenced in Caesarea Philippi, shows that the office was meant to be generational.Because one was never established. Only Christ could have done that, and He didn't. He left Himself as the Head.
But there are no Catholic doctrines which contradict the Word of God, which, by the way, includes the written Word, and the oral Word.No, a perfect example of men not following the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can be found in doctrines that go contrary to the word of God. Doctrines that elevate the traditions of man over "Thus saith the Lord."
Actually, we do it the same way. We pray, and then they vote. The Holy Spirit is the one who chooses, whether you see it or not.I was actually saying that I wasn't going to split hairs behind casting lots, and how your church chooses currently. It wouldn't be profitable. That said, there is no biblical manifestation at work when your church selects a Pope given that that office is not one sanctioned by God.
The purpose of a bishop is to instruct the flock in proper doctrine. Timothy is a bishop.Paul does no such thing in the his letter. Telling Timothy to stay where he was so that he could instruct individuals in proper doctrine does not make him a bishop. As already stated, the disciples were evangelists. If Timothy was following after Paul, it would have been in the same vein.
Again, there is no Catholic doctrine which goes contrary to what the Word of God tells us.Wasn't saying you had to. It would however be in your best interest to confine yourself to teachings that don't go contrary to what the scriptures say. That's where the problem is.
The context was in front of a huge rock outcropping, which is, to this day, unmoved.Maybe not linguistically, but I'm certain no one would mistake a pebble for a boulder. It would be understood based on the context in which the word was used. Thus one could tell that the Rock Christ would build His church upon wouldn't be a movable one, but an immovable one.
But he was, as the writings of the Early Church prove.I'm not saying that Peter didn't have a prominent role among the apostles, even one of leadership in some sort of way. I wouldn't doubt that at all. What I'm saying is that he is not the Rock, nor was he the first pope or the visible head of Christ in the church.
The text makes itself clear. God does not share His glory. Such logic is the reason why the scriptures have been pushed to the wayside in favor of man's words. You don't need to look for any "authority" to explain the text. Line upon line. Precept upon precept. How many prophecies were there that pointed to the apostles? Each prophecy in that book pointed to the coming Savior so that we would know who He was. Trying to apply that to Peter is down right...well it's just wrong, and if you're going to base your understanding on "authority" than base it upon the inherent authority of the word of God.
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?