Posted on 07/26/2013 2:57:13 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
popes can be traced back to Peter...
Peter founded the catholic church..
all who followed Peter wrote the bible..
the bible was held sacred by catholic until around the 15th century..
when the king of england wanted to screw everyone and everything with a vagina that came his way...
pretty simple really, if you are willing to just follow the timeline...
I was recently told, by a Catholic, that this is (and I quote) "an uninformed opinion" for anyone to say that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible. Not sure which Catholic I'm supposed to believe here.
You'll have to take that up with the non-Protestant Jehovah's Witnesses.
pretty simple really, if you are willing to just follow the timeline...
Your time line is off because you forget the Old Testament.
I don’t care to hear about King Henry VIII’s vaginas.
The Presbyterians are still a going concern?
It was probably Pelosi or Biden.
Believe the Catholic who has authority to teach, inherited in a direct line from the apostles chosen by Christ. Preeminent among these would be the popes.
The Bible is most certainly a Catholic book.
“What does a Roman Catholic need to do to join the Orthodox Presbyterian Church?”
Lose one’s mind.
Embrace Satan and all his empty promises.
OK...
i was recently told, BY A PROTESTENT..
that they believe the bible said to divorce at will and marry whoever because you are no longer physically attracted..
how does that sound???
protestantism was born because henry wanted a different vagina...
this is how it is, i do not care what insignificant little crap balls you throw at me..
Vlad, you’re something else, and I salute you.
“popes can be traced back to Peter...”
Does the RCC have a 2,000 year tradition that there is a Pope in Rome who is head over the entire church? Even in the days when the alleged supremacy of Peter came into vogue, not even the Bishop in Rome believed he was the only man who was the successor of Peter.
According to the Catechism, the Roman Bishop is:
882 ... the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”403
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”404
It was this same idea of “General Father” or a ‘Universal Bishop” that Gregory condemned in the then Bishop of Constantinople who had taken the title Universal Bishop:
“What then, dearest brother, will you say in that terrible scrutiny of the coming judgment, if you covet to be called in the world not only father, but even general father? Let, then, the bad suggestion of evil men be guarded against; let all instigation to offense be fled from. It must needs be (indeed) that offenses come; nevertheless, woe to that man by whom the offense comes Matthew 18:7. Lo, by reason of this execrable title of pride the Church is rent asunder, the hearts of all the brethren are provoked to offense. What! Has it escaped your memory how the Truth says, Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a mill stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea (Ib. 5:6)? But it is written, Charity seeks not her own 1 Corinthians 13:4. Lo, your Fraternity arrogates to itself even what is not its own. Again it is written, In honour preferring one another Romans 12:10. And you attempt to take the honour away from all which you desire unlawfully to usurp to yourself singularly. Where, dearest brother, is that which is written, Have peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord Hebrews 12:14? Where is that which is written, Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God Matthew 5:9?”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360205018.htm
It wasn’t until one of Gregory’s successors, Boniface III, that the Roman Bishop petitioned the emperor for the title of Universal that they enjoy today.
Some Catholics can read this letter and say that Gregory only condemned the title, but not the power they claim he still possessed. However, there are other instances where Gregory could have embraced his power as “universal” Bishop of the entire church. While at this time the idea of the “Primacy of Peter” was in vogue, yet this same primacy was not translated to a supremacy over the entire church. And, in fact, there wasn’t just one person who held the “throne” of Peter; according to Gregory, it was held by one Apostolic see ruled by divine authority by THREE separate Bishops, which is that of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. Here is the letter in full, but first I am going to quote the RCC abuse of it:
The link to the whole letter first
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm
Now here are the Roman quotations of this letter, wherein they assert that Gregory is a champion of the Primacy of Rome. Take special note of the clever use of ellipses:
Pope Gregory I
“Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]” (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii
“Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?...Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles...received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate.” (Letter to the Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Ep. 7)
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm
I provide their versions of the quotations only to highlight for you the parts they omit. And, really, there is no reason for them to omit them. The lines they remove are small sentences, and then they continue quoting right after they finish. It’s quite an embarrassing display!
In this letter, Gregory is specifically attributing to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch the “Chair of Peter” and its authority that they bestowed upon him. In the first quotation, the Romans omit the sentence which says: “And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, [they omit here] yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. [They rebegin here]” After telling them about the “special honor” that is respectively given to both parties, Gregory immediately goes into a discussion on what that special honor is... which is the authority of Peter they all enjoy:
“Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21.”
Notice how different this reads when one does not omit what the Romans omit! Gregory declares that the See of Peter is one see... but in THREE places, over which THREE Bishops preside, which is Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, the latter of which he was now writing to.
So while the Romans insist that the Primacy of Peter refers to the Bishop of Rome, Gregory applies the Primacy of Peter to ALL the major Bishops of the See. They are, in effect, ALL the Church of Peter, and possess his chair and authority.
And Gregory, of course, isn’t alone in this. Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
So while you may have particular people saying that the Roman Bishop has authority, or has the chair of Peter, yet these same accolades are given to multiple Bishops, all said to have the “throne” or authority of “Peter.” Furthermore, this authority, at best, consisted only as a place of honor, and not one that the various Christian churches across the world took as the “final say” on matters of doctrine or canonicity (just ask the Eastern Orthodox, the other guys who claim to be THE Holy and Apostolic Church of God on Earth).
The Catholics (and other Christians) do not consider Jehovah Witnesses to be Christians, Catholic Answers lists them in non-Christian cults alongside Mormons, yet on religion threads I see what appear to be Catholics, using the non-christian cults to attack Christians and trying to confuse the non-Christian theologies with Christianity, it seems pretty strange and it must be confusing to many Christians reading their posts.
protestantism was born because henry wanted a different vagina...
this is how it is, i do not care what insignificant little crap balls you throw at me..
You are conveniently forgetting to address the Old Testament.
I think your gutter language is atrocious.
Thanks. I think. :)
The funny things is that you actually believe you are posting things that somehow overturn what was previously said. It doesn’t matter when the title “Universal” was asked for by a pope, for instance.
“The funny things is that you actually believe you are posting things that somehow overturn what was previously said. It doesn’t matter when the title “Universal” was asked for by a pope, for instance.”
Certainly it does, because the RCC claims that the Pope has always had “universal” power in the church, as defined by the RCC, and therefore it is impossible for a Pope to ask an Emperor for something that he already had, or that a Pope previously claimed he didn’t have, and that authority was shared by three successors of Peter, and not one, in that See.
Simple minded you must mean. Hebrews and Jews for the most part wrote the Bible. Catholics may claim to compile these books wrote by other peoples but with the passage of time that may not be correct either. But Catholics did NOT WRITE the Bible. Peter was a Jew as well as Paul. Pretty simple really, if you are willing to just follow the timeline... of when the beginnings of the Catholic Church really started.
Why are you even talking about the Bible? What makes you think it’s the word of God?
Hebrews and Jews for the most part wrote the Bible. Catholics may claim to compile these books wrote by other peoples but with the passage of time that may not be correct either. But Catholics did NOT WRITE the Bible. Peter was a Jew as well as Paul. Pretty simple really, if you are willing to just follow the timeline... of when the beginnings of the Catholic Church really started.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.