Catholicism: Is it TRULY of God?

[Cepha]

Jul 3, 2008 3:51:12 GMT -5 whathell said:

Every other religion was either started through a fight or an argument, an off-shoot of Catholicism. And since St. Ignatius used the term as early as 107 A.D. referring to the church as the "Catholic church", then everything was Catholic in belief back then...hello people wake up.

You wrote:


There is one other possibility …you are just dead wrong ;D

That's the easiest way to end a discussion...just say "you're dead wrong".

You wrote:
[It so clearly states how Jesus made Peter head of his church…]

This is your RELIGION speaking and NOT bible scriptures

That same logic can be applied to your statement, that it is your religion talking.

You wrote:
[…the Catholic church when he gave him the keys to the Kingdom and told him "WHAT YOU LOOSE ON EARTH WILL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN, AND WHAT YOU BIND ON EARTH WILL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN". This is the papacy.]

Then I guess we all are Popes because Yeshua/Jesus also said in the same book:

Matthew 18:18-20 (New International Version)

18. "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19. "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."[/quote]

But that passage taken in context (continuting your continuation here)

A Brother Who Sins Against You

15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.

16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'[c] 1

7If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.

19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

So you see, this passage in it's entirety is referring to the authority of The Church over just individual disciples. The Church is given the final word on excommunication. The Apostles here are given authority on matters regarding The Church (take for example when they appoint a new Pope...it is The Church's Heirchy that does this and this is accepted in Heaven because their decisions are guided by The Holy Spirit).

This doesn't mean that if two disciples come together in Jesus' name and decide to rape a child that their decision will automatically accepted by Heaven just because two decided on the same thing. This is what led to the abuses in the FLDS church in Texas. They believed they were doing God's work.

No my friend, the passages you took out of context are referring to Church Authority and because Jesus was only talking to The Apostles (The Heirchy of His Church), it only applies to The Church's Heirchy.

It's always good to use an entire passage to understand the scripture (and this was from your own NIV bible so that no bias can be alleged).

LOL
You wrote:
[This is clearly leadership of Jesus's church.]

Ephesians 1:22-23 (New International Version)
22. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23. which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Colossians 1:18 (New International Version)
18. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Darn …and I was thinking that Yeshua/Jesus was running things.

He is not running The Church Himself on the earth. For that, He left The Church with a leader (John 21).

Does Jesus pay the electric bill at your Church? Does Jesus decide what color the new paint for the walls is going to be? Does Jesus fill out the tax exempt forms at your church? If He doesn't, then someone else is making those decisions. Someone else is physically leading your church.

You wrote:
[I'd rather have a leader than to have 30,000 denominations in confusion and disarray.]

Catholicism IS confusion ...lol

It is...to those who haven't been called to "universal" Christianity. You will never get it unless God brings you to it and with your anti-Christian attitude, I doubt He will.

The best Catholic Apologists are former anti-Catholics who had their eyes opened by God like He did to Saul and to Constantine. And to me. One day, you might just find yourself on the other side of the argument. And if you even think "never"...that probably would've been Saul's answer too before he became a Christian.

But then again any cult seems harmonious when you accept its teachings.

Then they drink Kool-Aid and die.

You wrote:
[Every other religion was either started through a fight or an argument, an off-shoot of Catholicism.]

Guess you be

We be started by Jesus Christ Himself.

You wrote:
[And since St. Ignatius used the term as early as 107 A.D. referring to the church as the "Catholic church", then everything was Catholic in belief back then...hello people wake up.]

People have the right to leave this falsehood and confusion and become indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

Or, they have to the right to accept things that existed before The Holy Bible did from the same Church that God chose to reveal His Word to.

2,000 years historical lineage VS 100 years American church?

I'll stick with the truth that's older than The Bible itself.



Pax

[teresahrc]

WH;

These verses are important. Notice how Jesus(who is God) changes Simon's name to Peter.
The only other instances I can think of in the Bible where God changes someone's name is first, Abram to Abraham. He gave him a promise and made him the father of many nations. Very significant. Next, Jacob to whom God gives the name "Israel" and he becomes the father of the 12 tribes of Israel.]

You are comparing apples and oranges here.

How am I comparing apples and oranges? Isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the same God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ?
Doesn't the Old Testament often (really completely) prefigure it's complete fulfullment which is in Jesus Christ?

If there is to be one Church as Jesus prayed in John 17:

23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

How can the Church be in "complete unity" if it is divided among thosands of denominations, many contradicting each other on important Christological and Soteriological issues?
Jesus didn't pray that we be brought to "complete diversity"

Furthermore, Jesus said
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.


What is the fruit we are to recognize?
Galatians
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Notice, that St. Paul contrasts the fruit of the Spirit with the acts of the sinful nature. Including in the acts of the sinful nature are
"Dissentions and Factions".
And what is "Protestanism" altogether but Factions of the One Original Church? Even the so-called Reformers did not intend to start a "new" church, but eventually did in fact separate from the Catholic Church?

That said, I'd like for you to know, WH, that the Catholic Church does not reject Protestants themselves, indeed we call them brothers, it only rejects the idea of schism and factions, and longs for the Church to be united and for those who rejected the Sacrements of the Church to receive them again.

Thank you for your response to the things I wrote. I hope you are seeing that, YES, Catholicism is TRULY of God.

Peace be with you.
Teresa

[Cepha]

Jul 3, 2008 11:36:41 GMT -5 @teresahrc said:

WH;

These verses are important. Notice how Jesus(who is God) changes Simon's name to Peter.
The only other instances I can think of in the Bible where God changes someone's name is first, Abram to Abraham. He gave him a promise and made him the father of many nations. Very significant. Next, Jacob to whom God gives the name "Israel" and he becomes the father of the 12 tribes of Israel.]

You are comparing apples and oranges here.

How am I comparing apples and oranges? Isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the same God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ?
Doesn't the Old Testament often (really completely) prefigure it's complete fulfullment which is in Jesus Christ?

If there is to be one Church as Jesus prayed in John 17:

23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

How can the Church be in "complete unity" if it is divided among thosands of denominations, many contradicting each other on important Christological and Soteriological issues?
Jesus didn't pray that we be brought to "complete diversity"

Furthermore, Jesus said
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.


What is the fruit we are to recognize?
Galatians
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Notice, that St. Paul contrasts the fruit of the Spirit with the acts of the sinful nature. Including in the acts of the sinful nature are
"Dissentions and Factions".
And what is "Protestanism" altogether but Factions of the One Original Church? Even the so-called Reformers did not intend to start a "new" church, but eventually did in fact separate from the Catholic Church?

That said, I'd like for you to know, WH, that the Catholic Church does not reject Protestants themselves, indeed we call them brothers, it only rejects the idea of schism and factions, and longs for the Church to be united and for those who rejected the Sacrements of the Church to receive them again.

Thank you for your response to the things I wrote. I hope you are seeing that, YES, Catholicism is TRULY of God.

Peace be with you.
Teresa

[Cepha]

www.tbm.org/was_peter_the_first_pope.htm

[Cepha]

I'll let Tom Brown's own website rebut itself.

Tom Brown's Homies (on his own website):

Kenneth Copeland


Jesse Duplantis


Rodney Howard-Browne


Yeah...we can trust his "opinion".
___________________________________________________

I think brother Swaggart puts it best!

[Cepha]

Jul 4, 2008 22:44:40 GMT -5 @christiansonero said:

The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the Book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes, were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.

But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the Church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the Church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome, comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

Also, nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).

What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).

Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic no. Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere is his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the Gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).


TOOOOOOOOMAHHHHH QUERIAS MAS??? AHORA SI PAPA AHORA SI!!!!

QUERIAS JUGAR Y AHORA ESTAS LLORANDO COMO UN NINO CELOSO!! JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA

www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html

[Cepha]

TOOOOOOOOMAHHHHH QUERIAS MAS??? AHORA SI PAPA AHORA SI!!!!

QUERIAS JUGAR Y AHORA ESTAS LLORANDO COMO UN NINO CELOSO!! JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA

Why don't you translate that into English so that the board can see what you just wrote?

[Cepha]

Jul 4, 2008 23:50:28 GMT -5 @christiansonero said:

Jul 4, 2008 23:27:28 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Why don't you translate that into English so that the board can see what you just wrote?

Why not just refute my post?? Ohhh I know the answer already, you can't, lol

That's not "your" post.
Those are someone else's words.
Besides, I only refute in the Debate Board.
Which you won't dare enter.
Not that it matters anymore.

By this time tomorrow you and GadzJustice will be patting yourselves on the back in your personal emails and asking WhatHell what we're saying over here because The Board will have banned you by then (not me).



But by all means...please.
Keep posting.
Keep justifying them banning you.

[righteousone]

You know Christian sonero, you are the one that is defeated here from your answers. Hang it up buddy, you won't and can't win a war between false religions, (yours), and their 30,000 denominations vs. ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

[Cepha]

How Predictable Are They?
Look at what I wrote a couple of months ago!

fideidefensor.proboards80.com/index.cgi?board=mark9&action=display&thread=222
____________________________________________________

Re: Anti-Catholic Forums
« Reply #1 on May 14, 2008, 10:54pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical traits you'll find on anti-Catholic sites:

Mean and nasty atmosphere.

The sugar/salt statements like: "I tell you this with christ's love...repent or burn in hell you pagan!"

Racists.

Bush Supporters.

Become enraged when asked for proof of their beliefs.

Have many "alones"...this alone or that alone...if something alone is required for salvation, which one is it? Isn't there only supposed to be one "alone" (hence, meaning no other thing needed)?

Break down scriptures into fragments, piece them together creating a new belief, then call it a Christian belief.

Knock tradition, yet, practice tradition.

Insist one only uses the Bible for debates, but then use denominational commentaries and tracts to debate.

Create a debate, then, go and pull every anti-Catholic dogma they can when you begin to answer their question trying to take the focus off of the discussion and introducing new points to a conversation that never were part of the debate in the first place.

Complain about everything. As long as they do it, it's no problem, but when you do it against them, then, it's a problem.

Run out of time. All of a sudden, they don't have time to be on a forum anymore.

Don't cite sources. Their notorious for copying & pasting, but not citing the source from where they got their information.

Take scriptural verses out of context.

The old stand-by's:
"Well, the only thing that matters is Jesus!"
"Mary doesn't save!"
"What about the Priests that molested those little boys?"

[righteousone]

Jul 5, 2008 9:43:58 GMT -5 @christiansonero said:

unrighteousone, thanks for your kind words, thats very catholic of you, but anyways to the task at hand.

In your babbling of accusations, you failed miserably to refute what scripture says, about Peter being the pope, he was not. Alllllll the apostles were in charge!!!! See where I posted scripture showing and proving this.

Show me in and with scripture only, how I am wrong, to which I am not.

And please stick to scripture and no youtube videos and little boy pics.

Have a Blessed day.

Why do you say "thanks for your unkind words...as a Catholic". Are you not Christian also? What gives you the right to insult and aggravate people, shouldn't you too follow Jesus's commands of being KIND to others? Or is that just a Catholic thing?
It so clearly states in Scripture about the papacy it isn't funny. Especially when Christ spoke to Peter and said "WHAT YOU LOOSE HERE WILL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN, WHAT IS BOUND WILL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN". What do you think this means? And why do you have such a hard time with the pope? Authority is good, if not we'd all be like yourself, confused and chaotic.

[Cepha]

Jul 5, 2008 11:09:00 GMT -5 righteousone said:

Show me in and with scripture only, how I am wrong, to which I am not.

And please stick to scripture and no youtube videos and little boy pics.

Have a Blessed day.

Why do you say "thanks for your unkind words...as a Catholic". Are you not Christian also? What gives you the right to insult and aggravate people, shouldn't you too follow Jesus's commands of being KIND to others? Or is that just a Catholic thing?

It so clearly states in Scripture about the papacy it isn't funny. Especially when Christ spoke to Peter and said "WHAT YOU LOOSE HERE WILL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN, WHAT IS BOUND WILL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN". What do you think this means? And why do you have such a hard time with the pope? Authority is good, if not we'd all be like yourself, confused and chaotic.

Their not allowed to read and are not taught these verses:

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

Peter's Keys and Papal Succession
Jer. 33:17 - Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Dan. 2:44 - Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

Isa. 22:19 - Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required. This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

Acts 1:20 - we see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostles' offices. Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter's death.

John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus' creation of Peter's office as chief shepherd with the keys passed to Linus, Cletus, Clement I, all the way to our current Holy Father.

Matt. 23:2 - this shows that the Jews understood the importance of succession to the chair and its attendant authority. Here, Jesus respects Moses' seat ("cathedra") of authority which was preserved by succession. In the Church, Peter's seat is called the "cathedra," and when Peter's successor speaks officially on a matter of faith or morals, it may rise to the level of an "ex cathedra" (from the chair) teaching.

Eph. 3:21 - this divine word tells us that Jesus Christ's Church will exist in all generations. Only the Catholic Church can prove by succession such existence. Our Protestant brothers and sisters become uncomfortable with this passage because it requires them to look for a Church that has existed for over 2,000 years. This means that all the other Christian denominations (some of which have been around even less than one year!) cannot be the church that Christ built upon the rock of Peter.

Or what Primitive Christianity believed:

Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built
“Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...'” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“'...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

“...folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid...” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

“...Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others...” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail'” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

“...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).

“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church...” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).

“lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom...” Hilary de Poiters, On the Trinity, 6:20(A.D. 359).

“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).

scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#scripture_I

[whathell]

Jul 3, 2008 11:36:41 GMT -5 @teresahrc said:

WH;

These verses are important. Notice how Jesus(who is God) changes Simon's name to Peter.
The only other instances I can think of in the Bible where God changes someone's name is first, Abram to Abraham. He gave him a promise and made him the father of many nations. Very significant. Next, Jacob to whom God gives the name "Israel" and he becomes the father of the 12 tribes of Israel.]

You are comparing apples and oranges here.

How am I comparing apples and oranges? Isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the same God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ?
Doesn't the Old Testament often (really completely) prefigure it's complete fulfullment which is in Jesus Christ?

If there is to be one Church as Jesus prayed in John 17:

23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

How can the Church be in "complete unity" if it is divided among thosands of denominations, many contradicting each other on important Christological and Soteriological issues?
Jesus didn't pray that we be brought to "complete diversity"

Furthermore, Jesus said
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.


What is the fruit we are to recognize?
Galatians
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Notice, that St. Paul contrasts the fruit of the Spirit with the acts of the sinful nature. Including in the acts of the sinful nature are
"Dissentions and Factions".
And what is "Protestanism" altogether but Factions of the One Original Church? Even the so-called Reformers did not intend to start a "new" church, but eventually did in fact separate from the Catholic Church?

That said, I'd like for you to know, WH, that the Catholic Church does not reject Protestants themselves, indeed we call them brothers, it only rejects the idea of schism and factions, and longs for the Church to be united and for those who rejected the Sacrements of the Church to receive them again.

Thank you for your response to the things I wrote. I hope you are seeing that, YES, Catholicism is TRULY of God.

Peace be with you.
Teresa

I wish I could continue to debate this as it is very important you understand the truth of what you are speaking. My friends are being disrespected on this board and accused falsely of all sorts of things after being invited to come here. Catholic (as he is called on http://www.blackplanet.com) knew when he asked us to come here exactly what we would post from the discussions there. Until, and if ever, they are respected I will no longer frequent this site. I leave you with these thoughts on what you have posted thus far.

You wrote:
[How can the Church be in "complete unity" if it is divided among thosands of denominations, many contradicting each other on important Christological and Soteriological issues?
Jesus didn't pray that we be brought to "complete diversity"]

What!!!!

You are stuck on the physical church ,however the body of Christ is the true church and has always been one body and it has never been diverse!

Those in heaven and on earth are all part of ONE church (the body of Christ) and it is NOT a place where people enter because they enrolled as a member of a congregation.

No. You are allowing yourself to be deceived by Catholic doctrine.

John 1:13 (New International Version)

13. children born NOT of natural descent, NOR of human decision OR a husband's WILL, but born of God.

Acts 2:47 (New International Version)

47. praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

You wrote:
[And what is "Protestanism" altogether but Factions of the One Original Church?]

(((SMH)))

The ORIGINAL CHURCH is the body of Christ.

Calling us Protestants is a Catholic bias. It was a Catholic who nailed the errors found in Catholicism …NOT non-Catholics! They (your own members) PROTESTED CATHOLICISM.

I have NEVER been associated with Catholicism and am therefore NOT a protestant anymore than the Eastern Orthodox are considered protestants. I follow Yeshua/Jesus ONLY and NOT a man made office.

There is NO biblical support for the office of papacy.

SB has posted several points which show it is all made-up.


href=http://www.wayofthemaster.com
Peace in knowing Jesus.

[Ramon]

whathell said, "You are stuck on the physical church ,however the body of Christ is the true church and has always been one body and it has never been diverse!"

But there was a physical Church during the Apostles Time which under one Faith, Baptism, and Spirit. Yes, the Church is invisible, but it also visible. The Early Church [1st-10 Centuries] was under one Faith, despite the many heretics that arouse in the Church [like Arius]. Christ promised that he will protect his Church from all error [Matthew 16:18] and Saint Paul calls the Church the "pillar of Truth" (2 Tim 3:15). The idea that the Church is only "spiritual" was not shared by anyone in the Early Church [1st-10 Centuries] and it is a pure Protestant bias.

"But [it has, on the other hand, been shown], that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples--as I have proved--through [those in] the beginning, the middle, and the end, and through the entire dispensation of God, and that well-grounded system which tends to man's salvation, namely, our faith; which, having been received from the Church, we do preserve, and which always, by the Spirit of God, renewing its youth, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel, causes the vessel itself containing it to renew its youth also. For this gift of God has been entrusted to the Church, as breath was to the first created man, for this purpose, that all the members receiving it may be vivified; and the [means of] communion with Christ has been distributed throughout it, that is, the Holy Spirit, the earnest of incorruption, the means of confirming our faith, and the ladder of ascent to God. 'For in the Church," it is said, "God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers,' and all the other means through which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behaviour. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:24 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:458

All the Early Christians believe Christ' Church is always visible and will never fail. If the Church was not indefectible it would cease to be visible. If the Church is not visible and cannot pass along the faithful teachings of the Apostles, then Saint Paul preaching, his letters to the Churches to keep a unity of faith and his refutation agaisnt heretics was useless. Why did he care if the Church will always be one [in a pure spiritual sense]? Even our Lord pray for unity among the Holy Apostles [John 17:22] and I doubt that Jesus Christ only had "love" in mind!

whathell said, "I have NEVER been associated with Catholicism and am therefore NOT a protestant anymore than the Eastern Orthodox are considered protestants. I follow Yeshua/Jesus ONLY and NOT a man made office."

Eastern Orthodox Christians are not Protestants. You may follow Jesus only, but you follow your own man-made interpretation of Scriptures. Like Most Protestants, you follow modern-day doctrines instead of following the Holy Apostles, there Holy Successors [2 Tim. 2:2], the God-Bearing Fathers, and the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils proclaim. While Protestants do not have Apostolic Succession, we Eastern Orthodox have Apostolic Succession. Yes, you do not follow a office [even though the Early Christians did], but you follow "whathell" office of interpretation of Scriptures.

Blessings,
Ramon

[Cepha]

Jul 5, 2008 23:13:11 GMT -5 Ramon said:

whathell said, "You are stuck on the physical church ,however the body of Christ is the true church and has always been one body and it has never been diverse!"

But there was a physical Church during the Apostles Time which under one Faith, Baptism, and Spirit. Yes, the Church is invisible, but it also visible. The Early Church [1st-10 Centuries] was under one Faith, despite the many heretics that arouse in the Church [like Arius]. Christ promised that he will protect his Church from all error [Matthew 16:18] and Saint Paul calls the Church the "pillar of Truth" (2 Tim 3:15). The idea that the Church is only "spiritual" was not shared by anyone in the Early Church [1st-10 Centuries] and it is a pure Protestant bias.

"But [it has, on the other hand, been shown], that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples--as I have proved--through [those in] the beginning, the middle, and the end, and through the entire dispensation of God, and that well-grounded system which tends to man's salvation, namely, our faith; which, having been received from the Church, we do preserve, and which always, by the Spirit of God, renewing its youth, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel, causes the vessel itself containing it to renew its youth also. For this gift of God has been entrusted to the Church, as breath was to the first created man, for this purpose, that all the members receiving it may be vivified; and the [means of] communion with Christ has been distributed throughout it, that is, the Holy Spirit, the earnest of incorruption, the means of confirming our faith, and the ladder of ascent to God. 'For in the Church," it is said, "God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers,' and all the other means through which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behaviour. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:24 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:458

All the Early Christians believe Christ' Church is always visible and will never fail. If the Church was not indefectible it would cease to be visible. If the Church is not visible and cannot pass along the faithful teachings of the Apostles, then Saint Paul preaching, his letters to the Churches to keep a unity of faith and his refutation agaisnt heretics was useless. Why did he care if the Church will always be one [in a pure spiritual sense]? Even our Lord pray for unity among the Holy Apostles [John 17:22] and I doubt that Jesus Christ only had "love" in mind!

Blessings,
Ramon

It's all in The Bible.
The heirchy.
The established teaching authority.
The condemnation of going "outside" of The Church for teachings.

Book of Acts.

[righteousone]

I think WH is stuck and just says that we are brainwashed by Catholic doctrine b/c he doesn't know what else to say. He is stuck on the answers here from knowledgeable Catholics.

[Cepha]

Jul 6, 2008 11:02:29 GMT -5 righteousone said:

I think WH is stuck and just says that we are brainwashed by Catholic doctrine b/c he doesn't know what else to say. He is stuck on the answers here from knowledgeable Catholics.

The only way to settle any disagreements in doctrine is to take it to the Debate Board.

Other than that, in a discussion forum, it's just an exchange of beliefs because outside of the structure of a formal debate, there is no order and where there is no order there is chaos and God is "not" the author of chaos and Satan is so we can tell one's intentions by which route they want to take to try to prove any doctrines wrong.

The one who chooses to argue their points outside of order are definately doing Satan's work.

The one who chooses to argue their points within the bounds of order are definately "not" doing Satan's work. Still I won't go as far to say that they'd be doing God's work because I'm not God and I would never speak in His name.

[teresahrc]

Hi Ramon, peace be with you.

My husband is Orthodox too.

Teresa

[righteousone]

WH, your answers contradict what I've been saying. Anyway, you refuse to believe in the church that Christ started, you reject the church that Christ founded, you reject the Scriptural passages showing you the truth of the Catholic church, you refuse to research or learn any history of the Catholic faith since Jesus, you are ignorant of Scripture, therefore being ignorant of Christ. This truly is a sin, and one I hope God forgives on your behalf.
Do you think that there are 1.12 Billion Catholics for a reason? That no president ever welcomed any head of state at Andrews Air Force Base like he did with my beloved pope? Did you see the millions of people who were at the pope's Masses and gatherings? Are you trying to say it is because we are all in a cult? If anyone is in this cult it is you, and you are certainly brainwashed big time. I will pray for you.

[Cepha]

R1,

This is surely an issue to be debated.
Outside of a structured Debate
(like The Apostles used to have),
it is fruitless to even discuss this.

He's of course welcome to share his beliefs and we're welcomed to question his proofs,
but outside of a Debate, it's just a lot of "your wrong" being thrown back and forth.

I would love to debate him or anybody on the issue,
but no one will engage me in a structured debate.

In WH's defense, at least he's been reasonably respectful here.

He's quit this forum (according to him).

Here is his defense of those who were here (his friends)
who wouldn't engage anyone here in a debate
and who never responded to challenges put to them
(one of whom called me up personally to insult me on my private number
leaving me a message where he cursed me out
and who cursed at me in one of his responses here
literally using the Spanish word for the "F" word):

WhatHell:
"My friends are being disrespected on this board and accused falsely of all sorts of things after being invited to come here.

Catholic (as he is called on http://www.blackplanet.com) knew when he asked us to come here exactly what we would post from the discussions there.

Until, and if ever, they are respected I will no longer frequent this site."

In short, he quit because he says "they" were the ones who were disrespected.

The reality is that they were given every opportunity to prove their allegations
against universal Christians and they didn't.
Nor would they cite their sources.

They were just copying & pasting "other's" opinions
without crediting the original authors of said opinions
and without allowing for the testing of these sources.

When their sources were identified and discredited,
their attacks became more and more verbally abusive.

It's it and that's that.