Posted on 12/16/2006 1:07:45 PM PST by Zemo
That's not correct, he mentioned the keys of the kingdom, by which that on earth could be bound or loosened in heaven, but He gave that to all of Apostles equally.
You wrote: "What belief of mine is false according to scripture? All I'm asking for is just one example."
Sola scriptura.
"I just don't believe that Babylon is a codeword for Rome."
Okay, so you reject something that is universally held by orthodox Christians for many centuries. What else is new?
"Even your own link you provided above disputes it."
No, actually it doesn't. It presents several views, but is clear about the reality of the research.
Ok then, why is there a double standard for priests serving in Churches which recognize the authority of the Pope?
Apostolic succession (i.e. the Keys) pass through Peter.
What about Matthew 15?
Apostolic succession pass through all of the Apostles who received the Holy Spirit from Christ.
You wrote: "Ok then, why is there a double standard for priests serving in Churches which recognize the authority of the Pope?"
There isn't.
"And the Bible also tells me the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church."
What scripture? I thought the foundation of the Church was Christ.
I'm not a Pharisee.
I disagree.
You wrote: "What scripture? I thought the foundation of the Church was Christ."
Marajade, do you read your Bible? I am constantly amazed at how I have to point out verses to Protestants here.
Read 2 Tim 14-15
I don't know of any Pharisees today, do you? So Matthew 15 doesn't apply to today?
"I am constantly amazed at how I have to point out verses to Protestants here."
Who are you to classify me as a Protestant. You may say I am, but I do not.
Oh, I nearly forgot.
I wrote: "And the Bible also tells me the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church."
But you misdirected what I said. You wrote: "What scripture? I thought the foundation of the Church was Christ."
The pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church. I said nothing about the "foundation of the Church" so why would you confuse those two.
Please pay attention. That helps.
The Lord spoke of the Jewish traditions of the Pharisees, those are totally different from the traditions of His Church.
And for the final time, I'm through responding to you. I have provided a link to the Catechism, the answers that you desperately need are in there.
I have a couple of questions for you all.
V & W, leaving aside the whole Babylon thing, it is demonstrable that from at least about 100 AD Christians believed that both +Peter and +Paul were at Rome. Thereafter the testimony of The Fathers as well as the bishops of The Church is uniform that +Peter was at Rome. Was there ever a time when anyone in The Church denied what The Church always and everywhere believed (and indeed prayed in its Kontakia, Troparia and Apolytikia) concerning +Peter's presence in Rome or that the bishops of Rome are the successors to +Peter?
And to you, M, why does it make a tinker's dam of difference to you, who apparently are neither Orthodox nor Eastern nor Roman Catholic, whether or not +Peter was at Rome? Certainly his location has no impact on the Apostolic succession of the bishops of Rome or on the traditional and canonical status of the See of Rome as the senior church in The Church, so I am at a bit of a loss as to your point.
What chapter of 2 Tim again please.
Every credible source has always said that he was martyred in Rome.
"And to you, M, why does it make a tinker's dam of difference to you, who apparently are neither Orthodox nor Eastern nor Roman Catholic, whether or not +Peter was at Rome?"
Because it may to God's word.
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.