Why would anyone become Catholic?

OK, so let me get this straight. Someone doesn't know Christ but lives a good life is already saved. So Christ tells His apostles to go out and proclaim His gospel of salvation. They go out and tell these people that if they don't accept Christ they will now be sent to hell. The people say no we already are going to heaven so they reject this story. Now they are going to hell. Did I get the gist of that?

If they were already going to heaven, then by hearing about Jesus and rejecting Him, now they're going to hell?

So why would anyone go out and tell them about Jesus then?

How is that doing them any favors?

FWIW, rejecting the false teachings and religion of Catholicism is NOT rejecting Jesus Christ.

Rejecting false teaching about Mary does not equate to rejecting Jesus Christ.

Rejecting the self-proclaimed infallibility of the pope and magisterium is not rejecting Jesus.

One can certainly loved Jesus and follow Him without loving and following the false system of man-made teachings that have sprung up in His name no matter who claims to be speaking for Him, Catholics, Mormons, JW's, Pentecostals, whoever......

Not everyone who claims to be from God is. That's why God told us in Scripture to test the spirits and see if they are from God or not and the measure we use is the Word of God.

The Davidic Kingdom?

Yeah, Ive seen that apologetic "story" cropping up, here of late. I'll deal with that later, perhaps.

But when I was talking about history, I meant the history of the Christian Church.

Why is it -- that if papacy was instituted by Christ --- the first centuries of churchmen knew of no such thing?

There is a big gap in years there. Like -- about as many years (or more) than the United States has been in existence.

Don't try to explain it all away...for there is no sufficient explanation for it, or else we would have all heard of it by now.

What I'm sensing here is that much of the FRoman crowing as all about trying to keep the troops in line, an ongoing effort to either provide excuses, or else discredit critics of certain and particular claims peculiar to the Church of Rome (A.K.A,, the Roman Catholic Church).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

But like trying to qualify "Mary" as Queen of Heaven by dragging out cherry-picked verses concerning "queen mother" concerning one of king David's wives...this stretching towards David for his kingship to be ---- now, not Christ's own -- and a better kingdom "not of this world" as Christ spoke of His own Kingdom...to place that now onto the Apostle Peter's shoulders as proof or evidence for 'authority' to be singular province of the bishop of Rome, is a whole bunch of problematic stretching.

How come no one noticed any of that junk (to be applied as you would have it) in the first centuries of the Church?

Where they all idiots -- or were the Early Church Fathers, potentially flawed in some ways or another as individuals -- still close enough to the original teachings to have known full enough of such an idea as Rome eventually came to boast for itself -- to not been portion of the original charter?

They knew better then, then (most of) Rome does now.

Most anyone would be perfectly safe in betting their own sweet bippy on that.

>> unbroken chain of apostolic succession

Well, as with the claim to the “stipulated “unanimous consent” of the fathers,", it depends upon how much you can spin "unbroken" to mean absences of up to 3 years, and excluding rival popes. Under that premise, there could be no papal successors until 2,000 years later and still claim to have "unbroken" succession.

...there is no actual standard of what gap of time is acceptable, and what gap would break succession. Thus, it is simply impossible to say what gap is acceptable. For example, according to a typical list of popes (example) there was no pope during the whole years 259, 305-307, 639, 1242, 1269-1270, 1293, 1315, and 1416, not to mention the many partial years. That's over a half dozen breaks of over a year. - http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/11/romes-meaningless-claim-to-unbroken.html

Roman Catholic Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U., author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC,

"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no successor...Even so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes. Two and three claimants existed at times, and when there were three of them each excommunicating the other two, they all had to be dethroned and the Council of Carthage started the whole thing over again in 1417." (WHAT JESUS MEANT, p. 81

The Western Schism was thus at an end, after nearly forty years of disastrous life; one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, "a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm

He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

But which also is manifestly open to interpretation, a has been seen here. Some understand it as requiring conversion of Prots to Catholicism for salvation, excluding them as brethren before that, allowing only the ignorant to be saved otherwise, while others affirm trinitarian baptized Prots such as me as their brethren now.

However, 846,47 is under the section, "The Church and non-Christians," and teaches that Baptism is a door to enter the Catholic Church, and is preceded by 838 under the section, "Who belongs to the Catholic Church?," which states

she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." ith the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

And as Lumen Gentium states, which i showed you already,

: "..there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities…"

• "They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.

Also in further affirmation,,

“All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ: they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” — http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

"Ecclesiastical communities" does not describe EOs, as Rome calls them churches, which it imagines Prot churches are not to be called (though even the Laodiceans was called a church, so perhaps Rome can be), and other RC teaching shows baptism only refers to trinitarian baptism, eliminating the SA and OPs, and most cults at least.

It can hardly be thought that this affirmation of salvation only refers to some (basically theoretical) Prots who have never heard of the claims of Rome, which would be basically make it meaningless. Instead it calls trinitarian baptized Prots who are part of "ecclesiastical communities" "Christians," and places them into the Catholic church, in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic church.

Accordingly, those who are not trinitarian baptized would not be called Christians, nor those who know that Rome is the one true church but rebel from it, versus those that who see the weight of evidence as being contrary to that elitist claim, from the EOs to sincere Prots, who in the light of Scripture are not convinced of the claims of Rome, and like myself, see Rome as so contrary to the NT church in Scripture as to be basically invisible. And while not an infallible organ and assuredly determinative of Truth (or is Rome),

"Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1.).

You are fast becoming relegated as a poster of parroted propaganda with its presuppositions who ignores the questions that challenges these. You have some questions to answer from before..

Isaiah 22:22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Rev. 3:7 These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Once more we see an RC attempting to enlist Isaiah 22:21-25 in support of a perpetuated Petrine papacy, yet where is this verse infallibly or otherwise officially (whatever that means to you) defined as referring to Peter? Or are you willing to grant the evangelical premise that Scriptural evidence is determinative of Truth?

That being so, i am incredulous (though i should not be, considering the demigoddess status ascribed to Mary) that you make Peter into being the Lord Jesus, as "he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth" in Rv. 3:7 which you link to Peter, is manifestly not referring to Peter - which purported "pope" is conspicuously never even mentioned in any of the letters to these 7 churches - but to the Lord Jesus.

The one addressing the churches is that "Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," (Rv. 1:11) and to make this into being Peter is blasphemous, and as such it is another example of the papolatry of Rome.

Regardless, classic commentators Keil and Delitzsch state , the Targum, Jerome, Hitzig, and others assume that Eliakim is the peg, which, however glorious its beginning may have been, comes at last to the shameful end described in Isa. 22:25. . And whether or not v. 25 refers to Eliakim or Shebna, it is evident is that being fastened in a sure place does not establish perpetuation:

In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall ; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord hath spoken it. (Isaiah 22:25)

Thus if it refers to Peter then it teaches that he will be cut down!

In addition, nothing is provided by way of literal fulfillment of this prophecy in the Old Testament, nor in the New in support of Peter, and when perpetuation of any office is the case then the Scriptures makes that evident.

But what is evident as concerns perpetuation is that to Christ it is promised that His kingdom will never cease, (Lk. 1:32,33), who shall be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that being their holy Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, out of which our Lord sprang and made a new covenant with. (Heb. 7:14; 8:8 ) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house”, for “in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) And who “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7)

So much for Is. 22, while as regards Mt. 16:18, besides the ongoing Aramaic vs Greek argument dealt with recently here , c t interpretation must be done in the light of the whole of Scripture.

The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. > This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

As for inveighing some Prot scholars who affirm Peter was being referred to, including Luther, this does not translate into Peter being the first of a line of assuredly infallible popes whom all the church looked to as its supreme head, which is simply no seen in Scripture.

Luther himself who is invoked here by the RC teaches

"It is true that the keys were given to St. Peter; but not to him personally, but rather to the person of the Christian church. They were actually given to me and to you for the comfort of our consciences." [LW 51:59].

To this [community] Christ gave the power of the keys, saying in Matthew 18 [:18], “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” He said the same to Peter as an individual, representing and taking the place of one and only one church, “[I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and] whatever you bind on earth,” etc., Matthew 16 [: 18–19] [LW 43:28].

In St. John 1 [:42], he calls him Cephas, “You shall be called Cephas,” Keph in Hebrew, Kepha in Chaldean, and Petros or Petra in Greek, Rupes in Latin, all of which mean rock in German—like the high rocks the castles are built on. Now the Lord wants to say, “You are Peter, that is, a man of rock. For you have recognized and named the right Man, who is the true rock, as Scripture names him, Christ. On this rock, that is, on me, Christ, I will build all of my Christendom, just as you and the other disciples are built on it through my Father in heaven, who revealed it to you...”

See, these are the keys of the kingdom of heaven and they should be used to give eternal retention and remission of sins in the church, not just at the time of baptism, or once in a lifetime, but continuously until the end—retention for the unrepentant and unbelievers, remission for the repentant and believers....

That is why, too, the two items follow one another in the Children’s Creed, “I believe in one holy Christian church, the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins”; so, where the church is, namely, the building on the rock, there are the keys to the forgiveness of sins. [LW 41:314-315] - http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/luther-christ-gave-keys-to-peter.html

Furthermore, many so-called church "fathers" also understood Mt. 16:18 as referring to the confession of Peter and to Christ:

Ambrosiaster [who elsewhere upholds Peter as being the chief apostle to whom the Lord had entrusted the care of the Church, but not superior to Paul as an apostle except in time], Eph. 2:20:

Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life. — Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians—Philemon, Eph. 2:20; Gerald L. Bray, p. 42

• Augustine, sermon:

"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)

and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289

...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95

Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:

'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.

• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:

Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)

• Cyril of Alexandria:

When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.

More .

Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. — Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., p. 71

• And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock, stated that,

“If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” — Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.

From Jesus - Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (John 14:6)

From the Catechism - “Outside the Church there is no salvation”

Hmmm... Which should I choose...?

One thing Catholics should consider. Catholicism is not necessarily Jesus’ Church. Perhaps it's the remnants of poor, erroneous teachings passed down from a group of believers who fell away and perverted the gospel.

I will hedge my bet and follow Jesus.

If they were already going to heaven, then by hearing about Jesus and rejecting Him, now they’re going to hell?

So why would anyone go out and tell them about Jesus then?

“It’s a mystery.”

Hmmm... Which should I choose...?

I don't want to play guessing games. You believe that they're damned, correct?

But to be fair, I'll ask you again.

Do you agree with the following statement, based upon your understanding of Scripture?

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - they WILL NOT achieve eternal salvation.

Take all the time that you need. And consider your position carefully. The Church's position is clear. What is yours?

I have a Bible. You have a Bible. And you are accusing me of trying to deceive you. I believe that you have sinned against me. What should we do now? What does the Bible say? What does Jesus say? “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

That was already dealt with yesterday here , but ignored and now you post the same parroted polemic.

In short, as said, this text

actually applies to matters of personal wrongs, yet there is nothing new here, as the same principle is set down in the OT, and despite the strawman of your parroted polemic it is often used), under the premise of the supremacy and sufficiency (formal and material aspects) of Scripture magisterial authority is upheld. Westminster itself affirmed,

"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)

A infallible authority was never provided or promised to deal this issue in the OT or under the New, while in principle it is to be dealt with today in the church beginning at the local level, and in which Paul instructs,

If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. (1 Corinthians 6:4)

While a centralized magisterium to deal with disciplinary or doctrinal matters that cannot be resolved at the local level is the ideal, yet Scripturally the authority and veracity of this was based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of assured papal and conciliar infallibility, which is what Rome presumes in "infallibly" decreeing that she is infallible.

And rather than "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God," (2 Corinthians 6:4) which apostolic credentials those who want to claim they are such apostles must have, the history of Rome has been much the contrary, with popes even by the 4th century ( supporters of the rival of Damascus 1 being slain) employing the sword of men to attain spiritual ends, while teaching many things noble Bereans would never find in Scripture.

Thus rather than being the solution to division, Rome has compelled it due to her unScriptural basis for the determination and assurance of Truth - that being the premise of her assured veracity - and the many things she teaches that are not manifestly taught in Scripture, as well as are contrary to it.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

And it is the remnant who have found God as their Father - not a "priest" pastor which the NT church knew nothing of - that realize the essential "unity of the Spirit," manifest in both spontaneous fellowship and in ministries, which transcends the external divisions, thus both Rome and liberals count them as their greatest threats, though this remnant itself must be much more practically sanctified.

I'll keep it simple.

.

________________________________________________________

.
WHAT IS "THE KEY TO THE HOUSE OF DAVID?"

________________________________________________________

.

If you can put your heads together and give me a unified answer to this single question, I'd appreciate it.

Here is the relevant section of the chapter:

The Lord Almighty has revealed this in my hearing: “Till your dying day this sin will not be atoned for,” says the Lord, the Lord Almighty.
This is what the Lord, the Lord Almighty, says:
“Go, say to this steward,
to Shebna the palace administrator:
What are you doing here and who gave you permission
to cut out a grave for yourself here,
hewing your grave on the height
and chiseling your resting place in the rock?
“Beware, the Lord is about to take firm hold of you
and hurl you away, you mighty man.
He will roll you up tightly like a ball
and throw you into a large country.
There you will die
and there the chariots you were so proud of
will become a disgrace to your master’s house.
I will depose you from your office,
and you will be ousted from your position.
“In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah.
I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seata of honor for the house of his father.
All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.

Or do you mean anyone hallucinating Jesus during heat stroke is automatically an Apostle? (which is the secular description of what happened to Paul).

It's true that being a Christian does not require you to put your brain on a shelf. But it does require faith in the communication we have received from God. If you accept the Scriptures as God-breathed, that obligates you to consider as true those things proffered in Scripture for their truth value. Obviously, this does not mean you must accept every descriptive statement as normative. For example, that Judas went out and hanged himself is descriptive, but not normative, thankfully. But when the description of an event such as Paul's conversion in the road to Damascus is presented by the inspired writer as true, and particularly the interpretation of the event, then you must either accept those statements as conveying truth, or you must discredit the writer as not speaking under inspiration.

1. Which gets us to the first problem you have with Paul's account of his conversion and calling: It isn't simply Paul who believes it and presents it as true. Acts was written by Luke, who states at the outset his purpose:

Luke 1:1-4 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, (2) Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; (3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, (4) That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

So Doctor Luke most certainly believed Paul's Damascus account as Paul presented it. In fact, Luke presented it three times over (See Acts 9, 22, & 26), and not only did he not refute it, but deployed it to establish further truths, in particular the validity of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, in which Luke, being a Gentile, would be most happy to concur as true.

2. The second major problem you have is this: Jesus did rise from the dead. And if you accept this premise (as I am sure you do, BTW), you must hold any inscripturated record of a post-crucifixion appearance of Jesus as true, regardless of secular doubting. But if you succumb to the skeptics on this, you undermine the resurrection itself, because the skeptics deploy that same hallucination theory against not just Paul, but against Peter and all of the apostles, claiming none of them saw the real Jesus. No Christian can accept that premise:

1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

So again, if you accept that Christ is willing and able to make such appearances after His death and resurrection, you must at least accept the possibility that this is precisely what happened to Paul, without letting your medical background interfere by confusing a medical condition that can explain some experiences of seeing bright lights, versus other experiences involving a genuine divine appearance also associated with seeing bright lights.

3. The third major problem you have is this: The experience was what is known as an objective vision, as opposed to subjective. The principle criteria for the distinction is whether other individuals present experienced the phenomena when it occured. The post-resurrection appearances of the risen Jesus to the apostles were objective. They were experienced simultaneously by more than one person at a time. Paul accounted for his experience of seeing Christ as being in that same category, and therefore apostlically qualified:

1 Corinthians 15:3-10 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; (4) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (5) And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: (6) After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. (7) After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. (8) And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. (9) For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (10) But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Clearly in the above passage Paul is claiming the apostolic criteria of having seen Christ in the same objective manner as the other apostles, and so secures his claim to be an apostle, albeit unworthy in his own estimation.

The essence of an objective vision then it that it was not experienced alone, as was for example Peter's vision of the unclean animals made clean. Rather, as Paul recounts, and no one refutes, those who were with Paul had visual and auditory events that corresponded to Paul's. So even though Paul perceived them as a unique communication to him, it was an objective supernatural event, shared in some way by all present, by audible and visible insignia that everyone there experienced:

Acts 9:3-7 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: (4) And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (5) And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. (6) And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. (7) And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

And recounted again here:

Acts 22:6-9 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. (7) And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (8) And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. (9) And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Both accounts show that the bystanders were aware of something extraordinary going on. The Greek in Acts 9 suggests they perceived some sort of sound, whereas the Greek in Acts 22 clarifies that what they couldn't hear was intelligible speech. This is similar to what happened when the Father spoke from heaven concerning Jesus. In that case some of the bystanders thought it was thunder, others thought it was an angel:

John 12:28-29 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. (29) The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

The upshot of all this is that this was clearly an objective vision, i.e., there was not a medical condition at the base of it, but a miraculous intervention in the life of Saul that was witnessed by an audience hostile to the idea of a resurrected Jesus. The only way to refute this is to impugn Luke as well as Paul, and thus discredit the Fourth Gospel as well as all the Pauline epistles, as being recorded by unfaithful witnesses reporting falsehoods, thus eliminating in a single blow the majority of the New Testament.

4. The fourth problem you have is that the other apostles, purportedly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, did not refute Paul's story, but rather accepted his ministry (Acts 15), which we know from Galatians (and many other places) he conducted openly under color of apostleship. This appears to be an acceptance by the apostles of Paul's apostolic mission to the Gentiles.

So, by impugning Paul's apostolic credentials as being nothing more than a "beneficial" medical condition, you are in effect saying the apostles in Jerusalem, including Peter, got it wrong, that they were not being led by the Holy Spirit, or worse, that the apostles and the Holy Spirit were complicit (and I speak as a man, God forbid this should be the case) in allowing a deluded man to think he was an apostle, when in fact he wasn't, to think he encountered Jesus, along with audible and visible manifestation for his associates, when in fact it was nothing more than a mysterious simultaneous attack of heat stroke for the entire group. Can you hear the plausibility cracking?

In other words, he preached locally but wasn't an apostle.(Ac.4:36-37)

As for the notion that Paul's ministry was strictly local and therefore somehow not apostolic, that is defective for at least two reasons:

1. First, even if we granted the erroneous assumption of being merely "local," what criterion of apostleship does that violate? None. Being sent to do a mission does not automatically infer some minimum of distance, as in, if he doesn't get X number of "frequent traveler" miles under his belt, he's therefore not an apostle? Huh? Sorry, but that is laughable. And without basis in Scripture.

2. Second. the idea that Paul's ministry was local is ludicrous. He had three missionary journeys that took him farther and to more places than any of the other apostles, at least as recorded in Scripture. See the following maps with supporting Scripture: http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN092MAPS1.htm. So even if miles traveled were a real criteria of apostleship, none of the other apostles come anywhere close to being as much an apostle as Paul. But I speak as a man. The criterion is ridiculous.

When Barnabas saw the Gentiles being swept into the fellowship of the Church he was glad; but he recognized that someone must be put in charge of this work. That someone must be a man with a double background...

So essentially it was Barnabas who "appointed" Paul to preach to the gentiles. I could go on, but I advise you read it for yourself.

Again, by way of review, there are multiple witnesses to the fact that Paul was called by Jesus directly to be an apostle. The only way to challenge that is to discredit the bulk of New Testament Scripture. The reason the hallucination hypothesis exists at all is because it is precisely the goal of the skeptics (which is not the same thing as secular) to discredit Scripture, only they are generally more consistent, in that they apply the hallucination theory to all the post-crucifixion appearances of Christ, and thus discredit even more of the New Testament record than you do.

But as a Christian I reject the premise of the skeptic, and proclaim with Paul:

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

And entailed in that resurrection are a thousand other impossible good things God has done and will do for His people, whether making Paul an apostle on His own authority, or making followers of Jesus out of skeptics, which I once was. Praise God for His amazing grace.

Peace,

SR

The Church's position is clear.

No it isn't.

Take all the time you need to figure out why I just said that.

But here's a hint.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

We don't get all that many such as Kallistos Ware, around these parts.

There are some (though few "Orthodox' theologians such as Ware) [Roman] Catholics whom do not damn all "Protestants" or those they perceive to be so.

Otherwise, there more than a few who DO damn all Protestants to hell and gone -- but then those so-called Protestants supposedly "know" what Rome claims for her own ekklesia? -- which would negate them being afforded salvation, according to Romish formula as such is stated in *some* places, but still stated sort-of kind-of opposite, elsewhere.

Notice -- who will [allegedly] being going to hell (no salvation-salvation denied) if he does not convert to Roman Catholicism, other than those pesky Protestants (of course!) but Kallistos Ware, also.

Him -- and most of all the rest of those whom deny "popery" as in not accepting that particular claim of the Church of Rome -- in the manner which Rome desires it to be taken, or understood.

In other words -- the Orthodox, by their very existence stand in refutation of more than a few Romish claims.

So solly challie -- you strike out again.

Yet -- the way you posed the question was quite cunning. Gotta' hand it to you.

But why do it that way?

It's wrong, of course, in the way which you worded things. Backwards. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/847.htm

Question answered.

red-horse-rider:

Don't let these FRomans play mind-games on you, forcing all sorts of unnecessary double-reverse mental gymnastics tactics upon yourself, in this case -- focusing upon people far distant from 'Rome' while they still otherwise have never retracted prior "infallible church" statements which would condemn me, you, and Kallistos Ware also.

Those are kept out of view for the most part...but are what still gives the fire-breathers around here security in their pronouncing damnation upon our heads.

I already chose Jesus over, above and beyond any man-made institution, system, ritual, tradition or practice.

What’s so hard to understand?

You never responded to -

“One thing Catholics should consider. Catholicism is not necessarily Jesus’ Church. Perhaps it’s the remnants of poor, erroneous teachings passed down from a group of believers who fell away and perverted the gospel.”

Key, or Keys:

Isaiah 22:20-23 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: (21) And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. (22) And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. (23) And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.

Keys open and close things, so any reference to keys might have such language. But notice the key in Isaiah is not plural, not "keys" but "key." So we have a discrepancy in the purported analogy.

Also note that there is someone in the New Testament who actually DOES have the one key associated specifically and unambiguously with the house of David:

Revelation 3:7-8 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; (8) I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

Note here the key is singular, as it encompasses all that is entailed in being the true Prime Minister of Israel. The church at Philadelphia was dealing with what Jesus called the synagogue of Satan, those of Israel who like the Pharisees had thoroughly rejected Jesus as Messiah. But here Jesus tells them that He, not they, holds the key to the authority of David's house, and that He will keep their door open, and no man can shut it.

As this happens after the resurrection, and thus after the giving of the keys to the apostles as a group, then we must accept that they are described differently by the Holy Spirit for a reason. They are not the same thing. Eliakim in Isaiah 22 is not a prototype of Peter. He is a prototype of Jesus. Shebna had failed in his duties to the house of David, but where he failed Eliakim would succeed. So as the Jewish magisterium under the Pharisees and Sadducees failed in their duties to God's people, God would take away their key, their authority to govern, and give it to Jesus.

But what of Peter's keys? First of all, they were not his to the exclusion of the other apostles. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says Peter will be given the keys, future tense. It did not happen at that time, but was yet future. When did it happen? No sooner than Matthew 18:18:

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The power of binding and loosing, by which Jesus described the keys in Matthew 16, is thus applied equally to all twelve apostles in Matthew 18. Furthermore, no principle of exclusion is stated which restricts it to those twelve only, but in principle any follower of Christ, in preaching the Gospel, may be instrumental in many different forms of loosing and binding, everything from the loosing or binding of sinners through Gospel preaching, to the binding and loosing of judgments in church discipline. Thus the apostles unlocked the doctrine and build a secure foundation as God gave them revelation, and the elders and other servants of local congregations build on that foundation by applying that doctrine to the practical circumstances of their flocks, all of which may be seen in terms of a multiplicity of loosings and bindings (plural keys), but not as in any way competing with the one key of Messianic governance, which Scripture explicitly tells us is held by King Jesus Himself.

Peace,

SR

I have a Bible. You have a Bible. And you are accusing me of trying to deceive you. I believe that you have sinned against me.

Scripture is dealing with real sin. Not imagined sin.

I've seen others take offense at stuff and then consider that they've been wronged, when no wrong was done but rather they are just easily offended.

It smacks of manipulation and control issues in the life of the person claiming to be offended.

What should we do now?

Try to not be so easily offended?

What does the Bible say?

Read the Beatitudes in Matthew 5-7 and consider a godly response instead of being offended.

What does Jesus say?

Don't think more highly of yourself than you ought? What was Jesus' response when people wronged Him? Did HE demand they apologize?

If someone *apologies* because they're forced to, then it's meaningless.

If Elsie wronged you, it behooves you to go to him and tell him so and WHAT HE DID that was wrong. Then the ball is in his court to take the appropriate action. The only thing that can be compelled is outward action, but that does not mean an inward heart change.

That's what I see as being a great flaw in Catholicism. It is great at compelling outward behavior under thread of duress and eternal damnation without effecting an inward heart change than is necessary for true salvation.

People then fall into the trap of works based salvation without being born again into God's family.

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - they WILL NOT achieve eternal salvation. Take all the time that you need. And consider your position carefully. The Church's position is clear. What is yours?

That is not clear, as Rome does not teach that "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - they WILL achieve eternal salvation."

Instead it says they "too may achieve eternal salvation," and thus either you did not find the teaching clear or you engaged in sophistry, demanding affirmation or denial to an absolute statement corespondent to RC teaching, when the latter does not make that absolute statement.

The answer is that man is given basic moral light by God which in essence corresponds to the Law, and thus convicts man that there is one true God, and is to be obeyed in accordance with a basic moral sense given him for this God is holy, and that sin brings judgment, and thus the need for atonement and forgiveness.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (Romans 2:14-16)

Thus the everlasting gospel to "every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people," is "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Revelation 14:6,7)

And thus the Spirit works to reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment (John 16:8)

But which light usually is defiled, thus "when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." - Romans 1:21

Yet it is this light which the preaching of the cross can appeal to, and which message is actually a greater measure of grace. For due to the light man has and the degree of grace man has to reject sin, (Gn. 4:7), then man is culpable, and God would be just in condemning all sinners to Hell, even if they never expressly heard the gospel of Christ or were able to repent, for in willfully rejecting light man has, then he is in essence rejecting Christ, "the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9)

Conversely, those who obey light God gives them in grace, will be given more light, leading to The Light."

Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have. (Luke 8:18)

Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. (John 12:35-36)

What all this is postulated to mean is that like as a Jew could be saved by believing on the mercy of God before Christ came, a Gentile or Catholic obeying the light he has which convicts him of one true God versus idols,

and God's holiness and of the needs for moral obedience,

and of his own sin, and of God's coming judgment and the need for atonement and forgiveness,

and who thus rejects the typical belief that his own goodness vs. sinfulness will save him,

and instead utterly and contritely casts himself on the mercy of God for salvation, will find Christ and salvation. There is no other name [authority] by which souls may be saved but Jesus Christ, (Acts 4:12) but as with a devout Jew before Christ, it could be that by casting himself on the mercy of God for salvation as a contrite damned + destitute sinner, then one is believing in Christ, as that is God's mercy, but this presumes light that would mean in essence rejecting all other competing deities and their means of salvation and abilities to save, and would lead the means of atonement up to God.

[And if they do not find Christ, and even if they were not given the same degree of grace as another, yet as said, they are still culpable of sin, for God gives some measure of light and ability to every man, and it is upon that basis that they are are judged. For as in giving, "it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." (2 Corinthians 8:12)]

Thus what the CCC says is correct, "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

However, it neither asserts they will be saved, nor is it at all clear how such may be saved, while asserting Muslims worship the same God as RCs means the latter are lost, as Allah is not some unnamed nondescript deity, but one who is manifest as quite contrary to the God of the Bible.

If you can put your heads together and give me a unified answer to this single question, I'd appreciate it.

Why do you continually ignore what you must respond to and just go on posting more parroted polemics? The below was already shown to be disallowed as referring to Peter, or do you simply stop reading as soon as you see something that contradict your chosen fallacious arguments.

This person cannot be that of Rv. 3:7, which is not Peter anyway, for what you leave out is that the same person will be removed.

I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seata of honor for the house of his father.

I'll keep it simple. From your own uncited (NIV ) version is the verse you left out:

"In that day," declares the LORD Almighty, "the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down." The LORD has spoken. (Is. 22:25)

So much for perpetuation, and thus both Rv. 3:7 and Is. 22 fail to support your perpetuated Petrine papacy, which only adds to your unbroken string of faulty arguments. Yet you presume to call yourself Aquinas.

But here Jesus tells them that He, not they, holds the key to the authority of David's house, and that He will keep their door open, and no man can shut it.

How dare you involve context in your exegesis! That ruins everything. Scripture means whatever an RC says it does if it support Rome.

You are fast becoming relegated as a poster of parroted propaganda with its presuppositions who ignores the questions that challenges these.

I don't know why you'd say that. My post 2435 explains the relationship between these parallel verses in great detail. I "listen to the Church," as Jesus commanded us, and I try to share Her Teaching, as "the pillar and foundation of truth." I do not apologize for this. I can't answer ever question posed to me since I work a couple of jobs. I try to answer the strongest arguments.

That being so, i am incredulous (though i should not be, considering the demigoddess status ascribed to Mary) that you make Peter into being the Lord Jesus, as "he that is holy, he that is true

See above. Regardless, don't panic yet. We're actually in agreement. We agree that Jesus holds "the key of David" in Rev 3:7, (since he is the King of the eternal House of David, i.e., the Kingdom He established while on earth, His Church.)

Do you agree, as a matter of historical fact, that in the Davidic kingdom, referred to in Isaiah 22, the King would transfer the keys of the House of David from one "palace administrator" (or majordomo, prime minister or vice-regent) to another?

Do you agree that, as a matter of historical fact, the "palace administrator" would wear around his neck a pouch containing an over-sized key, representing his office and earthly authority?

I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

As King of the eternal House of David (Rev. 3:7), the Kingdom of God, Jesus gives the "key of David," or the "keys of the kingdom" to Peter.

And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"

The power to "bind and loose" is a phrase which comes from the rabbis and refers to the authority to make decisions binding on the people of God.

Yes, this power is also given to the Apostles.

But the Apostles weren't given the "keys of the kingdom." In the Davidic kingdom, the keys represented the office of the "palace administrator" who has the "authority" to "be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah." The vice-regent held full plenary authority in the king's absence.

what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

I read the familiar "built on the confession of Peter" argument which is partially true, but a theory which holds absolutely no explanatory power regarding the "key of the kingdom," which is only given to Peter by the King of the Kingdom.

Finally, you seem to adhere to a false dichotomy, that the Church was either built on Peter's confession of faith, or on Peter himself, as the keeper of the keys.

The two ideas are not logically opposed. Both are reflected in the Church Fathers. Augustine, for example, held both ideas to be true.

St. Augustine the Great of Hippo [A.D. 393]
[Psalm Against the Party of Donatus 18 in PL 43:30], "Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of Hell do not prevail."
Ignatius of Antioch [A.D. 110]
"… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 ).
Cyprian of Carthage
"Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"
Cyprian of Carthage [A.D. 251]
"the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition).
St. John Chrysostom
And if anyone would say "How did James receive the chair of He says to him, "Feed My Sheep." Why does He pass over the others and speak about these to him? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the other ... He entrusts him with the primacy of the brethren; and as He does not bring forward the denial, or reproach him with the past, but says: "If you love Me, rule the brethren." ... And if anyone would say "How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem," I would reply that He appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world...
Council of Ephesus
Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Celestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, Whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion.
Patriarch St. Flavian the Martyr of Constantinople [A.D. 449]
[Epistle to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome in ], Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. ... Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference ... but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. ... Further to issue an authoritative instruction ... so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void.

_____________________

In summary then, as did the Davidic kings, Jesus, as the King of the eternal and redeemed Davidic Kingdom, His Church, gives the "key of the kingdom," representing the authority and office of the "vicar," or representative of Christ on earth, to Peter, as recorded in the Bible, an office that has been in continuous existence to this day.

.

Jesus "chose" Paul? When?

So you are denying that Jesus chose Paul to be an apostle? Or that Paul was not apostle before..what? And or that Barnabas was not apostle? And that Paul did not see the Lord as Acts records? Provide the Catholic source for each.