Posted on 06/20/2015 12:42:46 PM PDT by rwa265
Listers, we’ve catalogued the first ten Vicars of Christ for the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Save the information on our first pope – St. Peter – all the information presented is taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia and links for further reading are provided.
1. Pope St. Peter (32-67)
St. Peter held a primacy amongst the twelve disciples that earned him the title “Prince of the Apostles.” This primacy of St. Peter was solidified when he was appointed by Jesus to the Office of the Vicar – demonstrated by Christ giving St. Peter the Keys to the Kingdom. To understand St. Peter, one must first understand Christ and the Church Christ came to establish. Jesus is the “Son of David” and his life and ministry fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of the New Davidic Kingdom and New Jerusalem; hence, we look to the historic kingdom of King David as a guide to the New Davidic Kingdom. King David had a vicar that ruled his kingdom when David was absent and the sign of authority for this vicar was the keys of the kingdom. In the New Davidic Kingdom, Christ the Son of David gave the keys to his Vicar to guide the Kingdom until the return of Christ – we now refer to this vicar as “the pope.” SPL has written extensively on these issue in http://www.stpeterslist.com/45/10-biblical-reasons-christ-founded-the-papacy/ and http://www.stpeterslist.com/94/13-biblical-reasons-st-peter-was-the-prince-of-the-apostles/.
(Excerpt) Read more at stpeterslist.com ...
One day I hope you actually have some substance in your replies.
Were the Jews converted at Pentecost fed the blood of Jesus? Or did God’s LIFE, the Holy Spirit, get into them by another way? Think, pigeon. Are you telling us that you receive the life of the catholic god via your throat and belly? God forbid
The trouble with that kind of statement is that definition, and/or accurate identification of who Nicolaitans were, and what was hated, can be difficult to establish.
Diligence, grasshopper, diligence. The Nicolaitans were ruling believers not sheparding them. The system of ‘ism’ is at the heart of all works based religion. The Nicolaitans were pushing ‘work your way to worthiness and you must do that work in our system’. Jesus hates that. By FAITH are you saved, not of works lest ‘anyman’ should boast.
“...RC wasn’t around until Constantine...”
The persecuted underground (prior to Constantine) and the official state Church that emerged after Constantine are the same Church.
The eucharist which can only be present in the Catholic Church, including the Orthodox branch of the Church because since Christ they have also always had a valid eucharist, was beyond doubt referenced as early as circa 110 A.D. by St. Ignatius’ epistle to the Philadelphians:
“Take heed then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of his blood; one altar; as there is one bishop ...”
Because the underground Christians beleived in the real presence during the eucharist (and all of the sacraments) prior to Constantine, by definition it could not have been the same Church (group of early Christians) as those who later deleted the eucharist and the sacraments.
Also: St. Justin Martyr, writing in the 150 A.D. time period well before Constantine, chastised and condemned Mithraism:
“...Wicked demons have imitated (imitated the “food eucharized through the word of prayer that is from Him, from which our blood and flesh are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who became incarnate) in the mysteries of Mithra ...”
If an early underground church that DID NOT celebrate the eucharist and reemerged in the 1500’s did exist, it would have had to have happened prior to the writings of St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, and of couse the Acts themselves.
The fact that Holy Communion was preserved before Constantine, shows a consistent tradition being preserved, not a new church being formed.
Both the Greek and the Latin Church recognize these historical truths, not simply the “evil RC’s”.
The five sects condemned by Constantine were NOT “original Christians”; their beliefs were heretical even by the modern protestant standards:
For example - the Paulians were not from St. Paul, but a deceiver named Paul of Samosa who like Mohammed, did not believe in Christ’s divinity but taught that He was a mere man.
I've found the same thing, and that Roman Catholic are frequently guilty of doing that, prying faith in Christ from passerby, if possible, by way of insisting that all --- true faith, spirit & authority must be channeled (from God) through the RCC ---or else it's less than genuine or even entirely false.
God Himself did not design, and set up such a prone-to serious corruption bottleneck, or else God would be Fool of the Universe rather than Creator.
Keep the classic projection.
Have heard enough of that already. Don't need any more from you...
None of you was able to refute Cephas as meaning "Rock"
I wasn't trying to. It's all been discussed before, anyway.
Regardless of the narrow focus upon one word; the earliest centuries church did not interpret Matthew 16 as meaning that there should be one line of "successor" to Peter, and that line would reside at and preside from Rome.
That is what is being studiously avoided (or else dealt with by Sophistry whenever it IS spoken about, by Roman Catholics). So as usual, the charges you hurl at those you call "prots" are as arrows which ultimately boomerang return to sender...
The RCC lied to the Western world about itself for a long, long time...mixing falsehoods in with elements of truth (making the whole mess -- quite the mess) but finally, once men such as Philip Schaff and number of "Protestants" who did extensive translation work as for early patristic authors, the distorted pseudo-history of the Christian church which was long advertised by the RCC as justification for the claims they would make as for that church's alleged supremacy --- could be seen by those who cared to look, to be the lies they were from the first moments Romish concoctions began to hatch. long centuries ago.
Many who did so (continued telling the same lies, but those often adjusted in effort to compensate for newly uncovered irrefutable evidence which refuted claims of Rome for itself, as long stated) could be forgiven for doing so, since they didn't know they were being lied to themselves?
Now THERE'S something of a line of "succession" passed down from one to another, in the Latin Church!
"...so you all attack spelling and grammar errors...."
Attack? No, but that's one of those things which you've done in the past.
Number 2 still holds it's Prisoner, though. Run, run, run. Still a prisoner.
Technically correct (except in purported Eucharist miracles): "human" should have been left out, as "real" does not mean "actual: except as used by some RCs, and some (even a CA forum elder) teach,
Yes. It is his human body and blood, --together with his human soul and his divinity. It is Jesus in his entirety, human and divine. Even his resurrected body is still a human body. - http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=6706231&postcount=6
More zealously,
If the Eucharist is not truly Christ's flesh and blood under the mere appearance of bread and wine, why have even animals recognized the presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Why have some animals even shown it reverence? Why have dogs trained to search for human flesh recognized the Eucharist as human flesh? - http://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs/nc/non_catholics__Eucharist_Mass.htm has a way . What i state on my page refuting the Catholic doctrine, what is believed (from RC sources)( is that
that at “consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood, ” thus becoming the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” (CCC 1376; 1381) having been “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) Thus the statement, “Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)
Directly in response to a non-Catholic bigot that began doing it on other topics.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Sauce for the goose......
Look up Eucharist miracles.
I will continue to follow your lead.
“...Wicked demons have imitated (imitated the “food eucharized through the word of prayer that is from Him, from which our blood and flesh are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who became incarnate) in the mysteries of Mithra ...”
This may sound superfluous but whether those are your editing or the words of Justin Martyr is important.
OR perhaps;
Hang 'em with a (semi)new rope, and they still complain.
Meanwhile, there's no retraction for your own other error(s).
To be or not to be It or not It, wasn't that the question?
There are only 2-3 roman catholics that are actually Christians on this thread. I am sure of that!
It is difficult to associate with the majorit y of the roman catholic cult as they prefer to post nonsense backed by more nonsense.
This referenced post is all some are capable.
Sad, sad, roman catholic cultists. They prefer symbols over substance, and flesh over Spirit!
Pray thatGod will open their eyes!
What?
I had initially provided links to previous exchanges of comment between yourself and another, wherein you had declared there to have been a conversational/logic type of error committed by another person [eagleone].
#204"I am not your pal and none of those definitions of Dude apply to me"
Pal or no pal, in the definition which you had provided for the word "dude" (at #200), that word thru slang usage (see #2) could well enough generally apply to yourself, unless you be not a man, but instead some sort of "it", as I've already pointed out, hoping the contrast would serve to assist sharpening of focus.
The definition, again (for the 3rd time?) @ #2 in the listing which you had provided, left yourself to be in error when in summation you had said;
I'm not sure what your own continued protestations are about, but nonetheless, apparent attempt on your own part to now make it out to be as if the conversation at that juncture was about "belief or practice"(?), or possible errors should only count, or else matter if it does pertain to "belief or practice", as you put it, is noted.
One possibility that comes to mind right about here, would be that; as exampled by previous objection to the usage of the word "dude", yourself denying that you were one of those (specifically under the definition you had supplied), or could be addressed as "dude", even after it has been shown that the definition which you chose could include application towards yourself (if but in slang usage) raises doubt that if "in belief or practice" some aspect or another of your own (or even other RC dudes and dudettes, generally) be logically established to some way be in error, acknowledgment of that on your own part would seem to be as impossible as a long-haired, hovering Cousin It, as depicted in the photo included in comment #206.
Admittedly, the above is not that much of a treasure map which would lead to true valuables, but it (can I use that word "it"?) is still something of a map which retraces logically enough footprints of silly, but those not all my own.
For my own part I'll confess that I was just figuratively prancing 'round about the illogical assertions which I'd encountered when reading through portions of comment, the illogical & "error" nature as evident & visible to the eye as the moose dropping that guy's sister (in the snow) left evidence of thull-dud. Can you hear me see it now?
If you'll excuse me, I'll be in the shower for a while.
Ping me if anything interesting occurs.
Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.
I started to post something similar but I figure it’d be over the head of the intended audience. When you have someone in checkmate and they refuse to see it or acknowledge it you walk away from the board knowing you’ve won.....as do the rest of the onlookers.
WVK Perhaps you missed this earlier question: Who was it that was recently called out by the RM over the abuse of members handles/Nicknames?
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.