But you seem to have never read any of the Early Christian writings which all uphold the Catholic understanding of these doctrines.
Upvote
0
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.
I don't think there's any rule about it.
Thank you for saying that.
I was educated in Catholic schools, which is why I remember each of these lines being drilled into us students, word for word, just as they are being played back for us on CF by a new generation. The difference, I suppose, is that I investigated in order to find out what the real facts are.
But what does Peter have to do with the Catholic Church? Peter never claimed to be Catholic! There are no accounts of Peter in Rome. Peter never claimed to be superior to any of his brothers in any way, so it is wrong to say that he was the head of the Catholic Church. Besides, even if he were, nothing in the Bible indicates that such a role should pass down to his successors.
Where, in that passage, do you see any indication that the dead Christians in Heaven can know what is going on with us and hear us when we pray to them?
But what does Peter have to do with the Catholic Church? Peter never claimed to be Catholic! There are no accounts of Peter in Rome. Peter never claimed to be superior to any of his brothers in any way, so it is wrong to say that he was the head of the Catholic Church. Besides, even if he were, nothing in the Bible indicates that such a role should pass down to his successors.
Where, in that passage, do you see any indication that the dead Christians in Heaven can know what is going on with us and hear us when we pray to them?
No, it means to hold fast to the traditions they'd been given, not to some collection of upcoming speculation and legend that the institutional church would decide to label with the term "Holy Tradition." The two are different words, with different meanings, and they aren't even spelled the same way.
Not only do we not know what the traditions referred to in that verse are, but they could be almost anything from regular attendance at synagogue to observing the Hebrew holy days to gathering together with someone or other. And yet your church has invented Indulgences, Mary's bodily Assumption in to the heavens, Limbo, and much more under the guise of "Holy Tradition" equal to the word of God.
You're not aware of any verse in the NT in which the living are told to pray for each other then, right?
But you seem to have never read any of the Early Christian writings which all uphold the Catholic understanding of these doctrines.
But you don't list any.......But you seem to have never read any of the Early Christian writings which all uphold the Catholic understanding of these doctrines.
First among equals IIRC....but not supreme...You seem to have never read any of the Early Christian writings on the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
If there is evidence please present it....I am open to correction.There is more evidence showing that Peter was in Rome, was the Bishop of Rome, died in Rome and was buried in Rome.
That is certainly one interpretation, but neither did he say anything about Holy Tradition even though he survived until the early/mid 90's AD. You think that would have been important enough to at least mention.That's correct you wouldn't know by looking only in the Bible, because the bible itself says that not everything is contained in the Bible. Jn 21:25
Another mistreatment of Scripture.That's correct you wouldn't know by looking only in the Bible, because the bible itself says that not everything is contained in the Bible. Jn 21:25
You seem to have never read any of the Early Christian writings on the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. There is more evidence showing that Peter was in Rome, was the Bishop of Rome, died in Rome and was buried in Rome.
Peter was the head of the Apostles, the first Bishops. Paul came to see Peter and be assured that he was teaching correctly. Rome and the Bishop of Rome were seen by all the other Bishops as the last court of appeal and final judgement in matters of Faith in the early Christian writings. Peter is placed at the head of Christ's flock John 21:17 Apostolic succession is found in the Scriptures. Acts 1:15:26 As well as Clements First Letter.
Those who have gone before us are are together with us in Christ. 1 Thessalonians 5:10 and Ephesians 3:19
Another mistreatment of Scripture.
You quote John 21:25 but you conveniently decline to mention John 20:30-31.
"but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name."
In case you missed the point there, it's that the Bible is ADEQUATE, SUFFICIENT, COMPETENT ENOUGH for teaching us all that God intended...NOT the opposite!
What's the reason you pretend that John 20:31 does not exist--even after I explicitly called it to your attention and provided you with a link to the wording?Jn 20:30 just says the same as Jn 21:25 that there are many other things that are not recorded in the NT Scriptures.
Nevertheless, Peter never called himself the Pope, as the Catholic Church says. He was not placed at the head of the flock of Christ, because the head of the flock of Christ is precisely (guess who!) Christ! Jesus Christ is the Head of the True Church (Ephesians 5:23) and the Shepherd, for whose sheep he lays down his life (John 10:11-15). Now, Peter is one of the sheep — because he is also a sinner who needs redemption, just like all of us.
Once again, you depend upon rationalizations and "why nots." That isn't how we follow God's revealed will and intent for us, by looking constantly for loopholes thorough which we can "improve upon" God's word with the excuse "It doesn't explicitly say not to do this" or "It doesn't say anything about this at all, so that means we're free to add whatever we want."Peter is one of the sheep. Why would Christ leave one of the sheep to care for the other?
I do believe 2 Timothy was speaking of the OT....Jn 20:30 just says the same as Jn 21:25 that there are many other things that are not recorded in the NT Scriptures.
The NT does not say anywhere that it is totally sufficient on it's own, only that it us useful, helpful, etc. 2 Tim 3:16-17 says that the Scriptures are profitable (useful), not that they are all that is required.
Peter is one of the sheep. Why would Christ leave one of the sheep to care for the other? No, he left a new shepherd to care for His flock. Because Peter was an apostle does that mean he was not a man? No, he was a common man who was chosen and given authority, Christ's authority.
Peter is a new shepherd? Where do you read that?
So... Wait. Peter is a sheep who is the shepherd of the remaining sheep which belong in the same flock of which he does and which is not his? Wait, I'm confused. So, there is Christ's flock, and Christ is the Shepherd; then, Peter is one of the sheep of that flock; and now, Peter is a shepherd for the other sheep, whilst still being a sheep? How does that work? What happens to Christ?
We don't have any reason to think that makes him any kind of a pope, though.Peter was chosen by Christ to shepherd His flock and care for His sheep after He returned to Heaven.
That's the theory, but if it were accurate, the church would have known it long before the idea of a pope became accepted. Even then, and as we all know, only the Western church bought into that theory, which should show any thoughtful person that the simplistic story you're telling us here isn't in accord with the historical record.The Bishops of Rome succeed him in that office as chief shepherd on earth.
Peter was chosen by Christ to shepherd His flock and care for His sheep after He returned to Heaven. Peter was left here as head of the Apostles to to strengthen his brethren and guide Christ's Church in Christ's physical absence. He and he alone was given the Keys to the Kingdom. Peter was once a member of the flock and was given the office of shepherd by Christ. The Bishops of Rome succeed him in that office as chief shepherd on earth.
There are many who want to re-interpret the Scriptures differently then the way the first Christians did.
It was just a rundown on what he believes personally. Some people feel the need to do that.You have made five statements there, all of which remain unproven with biblical passages. Again, where do you see that?
You have made five statements there, all of which remain unproven with biblical passages. Again, where do you see that?
And you are one of them. I mean, surely the first apostles didn't think that Peter was supposed to go to Rome and rule over all Christians in the world — neither did they think Peter was infallible, or that anything he said was to be seen as true, even if it contradicted Scripture! So, if anyone is reinterpreting Scripture differently from what the first Christians did, it is Catholics, not Protestants.
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?