Posted on 03/08/2014 10:06:40 PM PST by NKP_Vet
The following outline shows that Jesus intended to create a holy, visible Church; complete with a prime minister, a hierarchy, binding authority, and perpetuity—the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
It is important for Protestants to understand some basic facts. Contrary to the modern belief that the Bible is a “blueprint” or “textbook” which explains how a church should be structured, it is a product of the Catholic Church—a compilation of writings that reflect a structure that was already present. As such, the “Bible alone” has no reason to provide fine details of proper ecclesiology; however, proper ecclesiology is detectable. Shortly after Jesus’ resurrection, the Catholic Church wrote lots of letters. The Catholic Church discerned which of those letters were inspired. By the end of the fourth century (Councils of Hippo A.D. 393 and Carthage A.D. 397) the Catholic Church finalized the “table of contents” of the Scriptures and called the entire body of writing “the Bible”. In other words, the Bible would not even exist if the popes and the hierarchy did not exist.
(Excerpt) Read more at thechurchofchristiscatholic.com ...
And consider the unholy unScriptural manner just one of the early movers in that direction worked to attain it, Pope Damasus 1, who is officially a Roman Catholic Church "saint.".
On Pope Liberius's death September 24 A.D. 366, violent disorders broke out over the choice of a successor. A group who had remained consistently loyal to Liberius immediately elected his deacon Ursinus in the Julian basilica and had him consecrated Bishop, but the rival faction of Felix's adherence elected Damasus, who did not hesitate to consolidate his claim by hiring a gang of thugs, storming the Julian Basilica in carrying out a three-day massacre of the Ursinians.
On Sunday, October 1 his partisans seized the Lateran Basilica, and he was there consecrated. He then sought the help of the city prefect (the first occasion of a Pope in enlisting the civil power against his adversaries), and he promptly expelled Ursinus and his followers from Rome. Mob violence continued until October 26, when Damasus's men attacked the Liberian Basilica, where the Ursinians had sought refuge; the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field.
Damasus was now secure on his throne; but the bishops of Italy were shocked by the reports they received, and his moral authority was weakened for several years....
Damasus enjoy the favor of court and aristocracy,... His magnificent lifestyle and hospitality help to break down the anti-Christian prejudices of upper-class pagan families. He was active in repressing heresies, including Arianism, and did not scruple to call in the secular power... His measures against the intransigently Nicene disciples of Lucifer of Cagliari (d. 370/ 1) were particularly brutal...
Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope.
In 378, he persuaded the government to recognize the holy see as a court of first instance and also of appeal for the Western episcopate... In tune with his ideas, Theodosius 1 (379-95) declared (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion in that form from which the Romans had once [imagined they] received from St. Peter.. , This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. -Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32,34.
Mostly likely you are going to have another article posted explaining this away.
And then to top it off, the footnotes were laughable. Vague propositions calling on support from unbiblical sources.
“which contradicts itself by not being in the bible”
False, FRiend. This is a caricature of sola scriptura. I suggest you learn what it actually means.
“There is nothing man alone can do to convert people to the Catholic Church.”
yea. That stopped working when the Inquisition ended.
More importantly, you should plug the hole in the bottom of your roman bucket. It is leaking Catholics... millions and millions.
So!?
Where is POPE?
Infallible Placemarker!
(Marks your place in a thread correctly - every time)
Show me a picture of him kissing it or be quite about it.
No picture exists showing him kissing it.
And we know that you’re a lot smarter than JP2, so if he did kiss a koran your reasons for him doing it would be definitive, not his. That’s because you know more than these Popes and can crawl into their minds. Your training in world’s religions are so superior to any Catholic, and certainly any Pope.
Do the terms *crossing the Tiber*, *once a Catholic, always a Catholic*, and *baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul* sound familiar?
They should because IIRC, YOU are the one who has posted them the most.
I did show you a picture of him kissing it.
And here are some links from Catholic sources honest enough to admit that it happened, addressing it.
Pope John Paul II Kisses the Koran
http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/instructions/debates/anti-catholicism/pope-john-paul-ii-kisses-the-koran/
Catholics World News
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=10415
Even if your tried to articulate an argument, Acts 1:14-15, like other texts, simply shows Peter as the initial non-assertive ground-level leader among brethren, not one all looked to as the first of a line of supreme exalted infallible heads, which were like the pope of Rome. Which is what you must support, even if Scripture does not.
And in which the Peter calls for the only apostolic successor manifest in Scripture, as none is named for James, (Acts 12?:1,2) which was to maintain the original 12, thus only one was chosen, and which was by the nonpolitical OT means of casting lots (Prov. 16:33)
Instead, as said in my larger reply to the OP you must have missed but should read first, her elections have often involved political machinations, resulting in, among other things, wicked men being elected, and conveying that God is a respecter of persons in favoring Italians. Moreover, a qualification for an apostle seem to require a literal personal discipleship by the Lord Himself. (Acts 1:21-22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12,17)
• Acts 2: 14-41; 4:8-21 shows Peter as the first one to use the keys to the kingdom, that obviously being the gospel, as by faith in it and its Christ souls are "translated into the kingdom of his dear Son." (Col 1:13) But again, this is not an issue and does not translate into a infallible Perpetuated Petrine papacy, esp. that of Rome.
And in contrast to Rome, Peter preaches a simple gospel message in which are born again in the same hour as they heard it, not after months of indoctrination about Rome being One True Church®, and Mary, etc. which is the norm.
And in which no one titled "priest" meted out penance, and unlike Rome's infant sprinkling, having confessed personal repentant faith the Lord Jesus in baptism, (Acts 2:38; Rm. 10:9,10) as this is the required condition for it, (cf. Acts 8:36-38), then in contrast to the institutional gospel of Rome, these souls manifest true evangelical conversion. • Acts 5: 29-32 likewise shows Peter as the leader among brethren, and in contrast to the Roman papacy which sanctioned torture and killing of Christians, Peter and the apostles were the subject of such carnal warfare, and responded by spiritual means, not seeking the sword of men which Rome used until it was finally taken away. Unjustly RCs think.
Of course, you left out Acts 5:1-10 in which Peter is the instrument of discipline by spiritual means, while in contrast to a true apostle, Peters suppsd successors, seeking the same effect, had to rely on the sword of men in the past, while today even impenitent murderous prosodomite pols can be blessed, as Benedict did to manifestly impenitentTeddy K. with no apparent censure at all.
In Acts 9:32-42 God is doing miracles thru Peter, as He also did abundantly thru Paul, which does not make either a pope, except in Roman reasoning. But which abundant supernatural attestation and virtue is in stark contrast to the sppsd successors of Rome. See #9 in my main post on this issue, by Gods grace. Those who claim much must have corresponding attestation, which Rome does not, nor Muhammad despite his victories and the longevity of his religion.
• In Acts 10:30-48 we once see the keys to the kingdom being used, though these were also given to the rest, but once again this provides not support for Rome's papacy, but a contrasting reproof it it.
For not only does Peter refuse to allow even a yet unsaved man bow down to him, but preaches a simple evangelical gospel message, culminating in
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43)
And which the Gentiles heard and believed, being born again, and thus were baptized. And which faith Peter testified purified their hearts. (Act 15:9) And which Rome only allows as an exception, under her contritio caritate perfecta (perfect contrition) clause, which is contrary to her formal teaching which holds that the act of baptism works to regenerate a soul, even without personal faith, and so even an unbeliever can salvifically baptize one, resulting in such being formally justified by the interior holiness of their soul.
Thus having begun with justification being based on the level of interior holiness, the salvation process ends with souls becoming good enough in purgatory to enter Heaven, as they sinned afterward baptism and did not cooperate fully with the grace Rome dispenses thru her ritualism.
Instead, Peter preaches faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save by His sinless shed blood (1Pt. 2:24; 3:18) purifies the heart, and results in holy character and works.
• Acts: 12:6-18 records Peter being supernaturally sprung from prison in answer to prayer, even if they did not seem have much faith, but which is not the only story in Scripture of supernatural deliverance, and that of Paul and Silas resulted in a household conversion. (Acts 16:30-34
• As for Acts: 15-1-11, this further reveals your habit of simply pasting things as answers, as i just refuted this attempt to wrest support for Peter as the first of a line of supreme exalted infallible heads. And which even Catholic scholarship testifies to lack of evidence for .
Speaking of notes, see these Roman ones.
Here ya go NKP. A priest confirms that El Pope kissed the Koran and seems so pleased about it, he posted pictures on his blog...
Interesting.
Catholics claim that whatever is bound on earth by the OTC is bound in heaven.
Therefore, this pronouncement of Peter's binds in heaven the gospel of salvation by faith in Christ. Simply by believing.
Like I say, show me the picture of him kissing the Koran. You can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. All these people, including Catholics, can speculate till the cows come how on what he was doing. Until a picture surfaces showing him kissing the Koran, it’s a moot point.
Getting the infallible Perpetuated Petrine papacy of Rome into Scripture is theologically akin to photoshopping. That which they are looking for cannot be found.
I see a picture of the Pope looking at a green book. Not saying he didn’t kiss whatever book it is, and if he, and that book was the Koran, I accept his reasoning. I don’t presume to know more than this towering intellect, who served 26 years as Pope, spoke 8 languages and devoted his entire life to Jesus Christ. The same can not be said for the majority of Catholic-haters on FR. In their small minds all popes are the anti-Christ and all Catholics are are on a fast train to hell.
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.