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 ...
“it was a pretty simple statement.”
More like simply laughable.
No sources again?
Live sources please.
Making Paul into a RC is akin to Muslims making Abraham one of their own.
You mean you do not see Paul exhorting obedience to the Roman pontiff in his epistles to the churches?
Or reminding them to pray for the holy pontiff?
And teaching that teaching office of the church will always be infallible?
And helping to ordain a successor to the martyred apostle James? (Acts 12:1,2)
And referring to a special class of believers called "saints?"
And addressing prayers to them in Heaven?
And teaching to baptize infants in recognition of proxy faith?
And teaching that the good works one performs by the grace of God truly merits the attainment of eternal life itself?
And ordaining men he titled "priests?"
And making a distinction btwn presbuteros and episkopos? And teaching that the normative state for apostles and NT pastors was to be celibate?
And teaching that spiritual and eternal life is gained by physically eating flesh and blood?
And instructing pastors how to perform transubstantiation and dispense the elements?
And actually exampling the consecration and distribution of this corporeal bread and wine himself?
And making this to be the most important ritual in his many writings to the churches?
Indeed, such examples of egregious extrapolation is what RCs specialize in, and as with this OPs typical promotions, they are an argument against Rome, as it results in her being exposed for what she is.
See above for the latest reproof on this.by God's grace.
The Papists even make these claims within threads wherein they attack Protestantism! Like liberals, they embrace victimhood while they yet continue to attack. I also suspect they sense they are getting their butts beat every time they start on this trash, so, being all bloodied and bruised, they feel persecuted, even though they picked the fight.
From Metmom's post earlier:
From the Catechism:
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
I would love to see it. I doubt Paul would have enough time get past the salvation doctrines of the Catholic church today.
I'm sure we'll get that in the future re: Luther and the scriptures. Or just a FR thread? LOL
Like liberals, Protestants obfuscate obfuscate obfuscate. Never mind that the statement in question is true -- simply ridicule it, just like Alinsky taught. Insulting, isn't it? I would most earnestly suggest you refrain from implying liberalism is discussions like this. It is beyond discourteous and clearly ludicrous statement, given the venue is Freerepublic.
"I also suspect they sense they are getting their butts beat every time they start on this trash, so, being all bloodied and bruised, they feel persecuted, even though they picked the fight."
I, on the other hand, suspect that Protestant sense that they are taking beating. Perspective is everything. As for "this trash," scrolling down through the RF's March offerings, there have been 2-3 threads each posted by a Catholic/Protestant concerning the other. But its only "trash" when Catholics post about Protestants -- never the other way around, I suppose.
A make you believe church by deception.
It’s not me you have to answer to *shrug*.
Pity we wasted so much time and effort on all those Crusades.
As for that passage from the Catechism, I've never encountered it in my Bishop Morrow Catechism.
If you keep setting up a targets that exalt elitist Rome, then do not complain when they are shot at.
4. Nowhere (in the Bible) is the church exhorted to look to Peter as its supreme infallible head.
5. Not once in the Lord's own letters to the churches (Rev. 2 & 3) is the pope even mentioned, despite the critiques, commendations and censures.
"If" God divinely guided the RC (and we must be specific as the EOs differ with Rome on many substantial things, even on the canon - if only slightly in this case) church is a question which Rome herself settles based upon her premise of assured veracity.
And which would seem to be based on her being the historical steward of Divine writings (thus the "we-gave-you-the-Bible" polemic).
And likewise based upon that then she is the the infallible interpreter of scripture, dissent from which is rebellion against God.
Is this what the argument is?
On your point 5, everybody - except our befuddled preterists - knows Revelation was written late in the first century. This gives time for the alleged successors of Peter to have been well known in the churches everywhere. Surely such a successor would have been, at the very least hinted at, in the Lord’s letters to the seven churches. No such hint, no mention. If Jesus Christ knows of no such Petrine succession, neither should we. Romanists know more than Jesus Christ?
Mistake: I meant to address my last post to you.
**Nowhere (in the Bible) is the church exhorted to look to Peter as its supreme infallible head.**
Please read about the Council of Jerusalem. St. Peter was the speaker, then others took action.
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.