Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is an excellent observation. As far as I an tell this is symbolic and applies to mankind. As long as you are a baptized christian your church was also founded by Jesus. No religion is better or worse than others. The catholic Church is older so it seized the moment, that is all.
When Peter was martyred in Rome they remembered where his so-called tomb was and built Saint Peters over the tomb. They took the biblical passage and developed the papacy. It is what it is Vizio.
Peter was no Pope as the concept of pope did not exist. In fact, the Jewish folks did not even have the concept of bishop down. In any event Peter was considered the leader of the apostles and the Chrcu was built over his tomb.
Whether the Bible is in error or not regarding this point is moot. The doctrine was born from Matthew 16:18-19.
All of that is irrelevant, since you said yourself that the Bible contains errors. We have no reason to trust a word of that. For that matter, you said your church has erred. So we have no reason to trust a word of what they say, either.
A stinky pile of manure wrapped up in pretty paper is still a stinky pile of manure, and yes, you are Catholic bashing no matter how you try to pretend that you're not.
When you decide that your version of religion is "right" and somebody else's is "wrong", that's "bashing".
Im speaking of the blatant errors in Catholicism that goes again the bible. That is not bashing. The bible has the final say so, not me or a catholic...I moved ut the way and let scriptures speak for itself.
As a human being, I love a catholic like anyone else and alot of my family is catholic, but i don't have to go along with their doctrine that goes against what the word of God teaches. If it makes you feel better, I can expose Jehovah Witness doctrinal errors and Mormon doctrinal errors as well too.
Sample verses of what the bible says about correcting errors and teaching that go against the word of God.
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
All of that is irrelevant, since you said yourself that the Bible contains errors. We have no reason to trust a word of that. For that matter, you said your church has erred. So we have no reason to trust a word of what they say, either.
You speak like a Sola Scriptura person that has all the answers and believes the Bible is infallible. That is your religion and I see nothing wrong with it. My religious views are different, that is all. I believe the Bible has errors and it cannot be the entire word of God. I also believe the Catholic Church is imperfect. Furthermore, I think it is impossible for us mere mortals to have all the answers.
You speak like a Sola Scriptura person that has all the answers and believes the Bible is infallible. That is your religion and I see nothing wrong with it. My religious views are different, that is all. I believe the Bible has errors and it cannot be the entire word of God. I also believe the Catholic Church is imperfect. Furthermore, I think it is impossible for us mere mortals to have all the answers.
I just can't understand how you can claim to believe anything, since the 2 sources you have, you believe are in error.
And your butchering and taking scripture out of context is very strong.
Lets start with the pope issue:
The Bible specifically names several offices in the church and describes the work and qualifications of those who hold that office. Office Named Qualifications Work Apostles Eph. 4:11; Matt. 10:2-4;
Luke 6:13-16 Acts 1:21-26;
2 Cor. 12:11,12 Eph. 3:3-5;
Acts 10:39-41 Elders or Bishops Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23;
Eph. 4:11 1 Tim. 3:1-7;
Titus 1:5-9 Acts 20:28;
1 Peter 5:1-3 Deacons Phil. 1:1 1 Tim. 3:8-13 Acts 6:1-6
The Bible contains several passages where the office of Pope ought to be mentioned, if it existed. Ephesians 4:11,12 and 1 Corinthians 12:28 list various officers and workers in the church, but the office of Pope is not mentioned. Why not? BECAUSE A POPE IS NOT COMMANDED ANYWHERE
The term Pope did not exist in those days. But, if you must know the Pope is just the Bishop of Rome and the leader of all Christians in the world. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and the successor of Peter who was the leader of the Apostles and hand picked by Jesus to build his church.
You conveniently ignore Matthew 16:18-19.
Quote:
The Bible Says Jesus Is the Head of the Church. and Says Jesus Is the Church's Foundation.
Matthew 16:13-18 - This passage is often used to try to prove Peter is the foundation of the church . But the passages already studied prove that Jesus, not Peter or the Pope, is the foundation of the church. Matthew 16. actually confirms this truth.
The context (v13,15,16) is not discussing who Peteris nor what his position is, but who Jesus is and what His position is. The passage does not exalt Peter; it exalts Jesus. Jesus does not confess Peter; Peter confessesJesus.
The verse is not saying Peter is the rock on which the church is built, but rather it contrasts Peter's name (Greek PETROS, masculine - a piece of rock) to the rock on which the church would be built (Greek PETRA, feminine - a solid ledge of rock).
Historically the little rock big rock analogy has been proven to be a feeble attempt to deny the Bible. The passage is quite clear and feels like a little rock inside the shoe of Protestants.
Quote:
The foundation of the church is not Peter. It is the truth that Peter had just confessed - that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (v16). This is confirmed by the context and by other Scriptures. To say Peter is the foundation would be to put a man in the place of Deity! The lives of Peter and of the Popes make them entirely unfit to be the foundation of Jesus' church.
Consider some great sins in the life of Peter.
* Immediately after talking about the foundation of the church, Christ rebuked Peter saying: "Get behind me, satan, thou art a scandal to me; for thou dost not mind the things of God, but those of men" (Matthew 16:21-23).
* Peter denied Jesus 3 times, even with curses and swearing (Matthew 26:69-75).
* Jesus rebuked Peter's lack of faith (Matthew 14:22-31).
* Peter was hypocritical and disobeyed the gospel (Galatians 2:11ff). Now consider sins in the lives of Catholic Popes.
The church needed earthly men to lead. Furthermore, Peter was just a man and during those days many doubted Jesus. In fact, James was not even present when Jesus was put on the cross. What no one can deny is that Peter was the chief apostle and he is named much more often than anyone else in the NT.
Quote:
The following facts have been gleaned from the Catholic Dictionary and the Catholic Encyclopedia (at www.newadvent.org/cathen/).
* At least 4 Popes are admitted to have had illegitimate children.
* At least 5 Popes were sons of priests, including at least one (maybe two) Popes who were sons of other Popes! (Some of these priests may have been married but left their families to become priests.)
* At least 6 Popes were excommunicated or condemned as heretics, including one Pope who was excommunicated twice and two Popes who excommunicated one another!
"In the first twelve centuries of her existence the Church was disturbed some twenty-five times by rival claimants of the Papacy. The strife thus originated was always an occasion of scandal, sometimes of violence and bloodshed ... For forty years (in the 14th century) two and even three pretenders to the Papacy claimed the allegiance of Catholics: whole countries, learned men and canonised saints, ranged themselves on different sides, and even now it is not perhaps absolutely certain who was Pope..." (Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, p. 869). Who can believe that Christ's church is founded on an office occupied by such men as these? Imagine Jesus' church supposedly going through long periods of time in which nobody really knows who was the real head of the church! How much better to accept the plain Bible teaching that the church is founded on the sinless, Divine Son of God!
Ha, ha. You are rediscovering the wheel. There were plenty of corrupt Popes! So what??? That proves nothing. It simply means men are imperfect and does not change Matthew 16:18-19 at all.
I just can't understand how you can claim to believe anything, since the 2 sources you have, you believe are in error.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere.
Seriously, God is so way above our heads that trying to use books is futile. You need to move up to the next stage in your journey. You are stuck with Sola Scriptura which is OK for folks that don't know where they are.
Then I wonder why Peter appeared to Joseph Smith to give him legit apostolic succession.
Because Peter was the last individual to hold the authority. But, since this particular thread is not about Mormonism, so let's not get off topic.
Quote:
How much time Peter spent in Rome is not important. What really matters is Matthew 16:18-19.
Peter ordained many others, but we will never know. What really matters is the concept of apostolic succession and Peter ordained many others that could have ordained Linus. In reality there was no formality to these events.
Yes, I understand that is what you believe. I will say, though, that I admire the fact that the Roman Catholic Church at least recognizes the need for apostolic authority and a legitimate line of succession. This is something that Protestantism lacks entirely. So we have that in common (the understanding of its importance) even if we do not agree as to who holds that authority.
[quote=SAAN;32855267]SO when following what the bible commands is brought up, it is Catholic bashing?
Asked and answered, but you clearly just want to argue.
Protestants believe in the Bible only.
Catholics believe in the Bible, PLUS sacred oral traditions.
Each group of Christians is following what they sincerely believe is right.
I won't bash you for only following the Bible, so why don't you endeavor to quit bashing Catholics who believe there is more to God and his church than just the Bible
I feel quite certain God does not approve of any of his people bashing his other people.
I don't! But, I can move away from what I consider to be unreliable. That the bible is not infallible does not diminish God at all. Your views make sense to you and perhaps I want more. That does not mean there is anything wrong with Sola Scriptura.
Quote:
At least I know what to believe.
Exactly! If that works for you I see nothing wrong. However, I find it very limiting and the high concern for salvation does not make my day. At this point in time I am happy with my parish where there is a heavy emphasis on living like a Christian an preaching a philosophy designed to help the less affluent among us. Our priests are excellent speakers and the topics for the homilies are very interesting instead of the same old 'salvation" routine. It is mostly Jesus centered rather than Pauline or OT centered. But, this is my impression and nothing else.
I enjoy the fanfare, the rituals, the incense, and all that stuff. I hate modern looking Catholic Churches. The older the better. The more statues, the better. I want to feel I am in a church and not in an old airplane hangar.
And I enjoy the dogma (whether right or wrong is moot).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, since this particular thread is not about Mormonism, so let's not get off topic.
