Pope Francis Accidentally Torpedoed The Claimed Infallibility Of Vatican II By Directly Attacking The Council Of Trent And Other Councils By Declaring Vatican II To Be THE Magesterium

Martin Luther (like Francis) opposed many of the ancient teachings of the Church. But how could he convince people that the historic church was wrong in its beliefs, and that he was right? He needed an authority that he could appeal to, and claim was higher than that of the Universal Church. He seized upon the Bible, introducing a new doctrine, Sola Scriptura, which said that Scripture Alone could be used to define Christian doctrine. The ancient teachings and Apostolic tradition of the Church could then be discarded as of no value whatsoever. So how can Francis do away with that which he is opposed to?

Francis acts as if no pope or council came before he and Vat II and that they arent subject to the council of Trent, other councils, and popes who taught opposite if Francis.

Francis is doing the same, he is introducing tbings contrary to numerous popes, councils, etc. His inviting of the pagan, demonic Pachamama devotees onto sacred ground and blessing the idol and allowing it to be paraded in front of the high altar goes against everything past.

Francis acts as if he and Vat II are pope of popes, council of councils, look upon them and despair! But he cannot ovverride the following:

Ecumenical Counsels, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful, to Francis, etc, and must be a continuation of them from Sacred Scripture all the way through church history until now:

“But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it *in accordance with Revelation itself,* which all are obliged to *abide by and be in conformity with,* that is, *the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety* through the legitimate succession of bishops and *especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself,* and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”

Not my pope

And Francis has said that the church agrees with Martin Luther on justification when it doesn’t.

Francis has repeatedly said that non-Catholics, schismatics, protestants, etc, all have martyrs, which contradicts Pope Eugene IV AND the Council of Florence, and the centuries and centuries of precedentband church tradition they built upon then at this council, all of which overrides Francis as they have precedence before him.

Francis shows time and again he IS Martin Luther II.

Pope Francis invited the devotees of the pagan, demonic Pachamama onto sacred ground, ends up now no better, actually worse, than Pope Honorius I. You missed him:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I

“In 680, Honorius was anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople along with the Monothelites, for “having followed them in all things”.[7]

Citing his correspondence with Sergius, the Council accused Honoris of having “confirmed his impious doctrines”.[8]

Pope Leo II’s letter of confirmation of the Council altered the Council’s condemnation so as to criticize Honorius not for teaching or committing heresy, but for “imprudent economy of silence”.

[9] Leo’s letter states that Honorius is anathematized because he “did not purify this apostolic Church by the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but rather he allowed the immaculate [Church] to be stained by profane treason.”[7]...”

The Council of Trent, which lined up with previous councils, was spanned by four papacies which bolstered Trent, and bolstered by numerous popes long after Trent is essentially being challenged in many ways bu Francis. So this isn’t about me, so don’t deflect to me. Francis is defeated by what past popes required.

It is indeed about you, for in Catholicism it is not the laity who defines what the church meant, but the "living magisterium." for instance, you may think that such statements as,

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino,

mean that no faithful Protestant (etc.) can be saved, but V2 broadly affirms (with some doublespeak) the salvation of many who

"do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For 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..." (Vatican Two: Lumen Gentium 16) Lumen Gentium 16: “The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God.

And there are more, and one of your brethren here has posted TWENTY-FIVE EXPLICIT ERRORS OF VATICAN COUNCIL II, and thus we see that the present Living Magisterium is what a faithful Catholic is to look to in understanding what church teaching is and means, and not essentially be like an evangelical in ascertaining this based upon your own understanding of ancient texts.

Which leads to division. As one poster wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” - Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html) Likewise now you must disallow any allowance of

Again, it is about you. 'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

Sorry your assumption that the ONLY wholly inspired substantive authority is the NT is wrong. Jesus didn’t establish a NT, he established a church.

Actually a supremely authoritative body of wholly inspired writings was discerned and established as being so came before there ever was a church of Rome, and thus Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church. Which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, with even the veracity of apostolic preaching being subject to examination by Scripture.

And as abundantly evidenced , as written and established, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured Word of God.

Thus, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" [not oral tradition].(Luke 24:27,43-45; cf. Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.) "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)

For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8) Cf. Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

As for oral tradition, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.

All of which invalidates the argument that "you could not know what Scripture consists of and means without the Catholic church, and since we have you the Bible then it means you recognize her authority and need to submit to all else she formally defines.

He made Peter the Rock upon which it was built.

Wrong as refuted by the very post you are responding to, but like so many of your brethren here you just ignore such and parrot perverse polemics.

He didn’t say upon your faith is a rock.

So you disagree with your church as well which allows for this along with your untenable take. For your catechism affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.

Read Isaiah 22 about Eliakem.

Its Elikam and just where does Scripture or your church infallibly cite this as referring to Peter? And if not, then since your real basis for assurance of Truth rests upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of Rome, then this cannot provide it. Regardless, if you want to argue like a evangelical then neither does the Holy Spirit ever invoke Is. 22 as pertaining to Peter, and not only was this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy apparently fulfilled in the OT [as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 36:22, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later] - but the text actually states:

"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." (Isa 22:25)

Whether this refers to Shebna or Eliakim is irrelevant, for in any case it means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency.

Yet if we are to insist on a future fulfillment, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).

For it is Christ who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6) And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9)

Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, nor does it necessarily denote successors (Christ has none Himself, but took over the function of Lordship from the Father: Acts 2.

Thus if this prophecy corresponds to anyone future then it is Christ, who shall one day deliver the kingdom to the Father as functional head, after he, not Peter, has put all His enemies under His feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25-28)

And in any case, the Peter of Scripture is not that of Rome.

Also in the NT there is only one church they and it continues as an unbroken chain from the 12 Disciples through the Bishops of the church. It is only the Catholic Church that continues from Jesus Christ to today

Now you are once again just parroting a polemic which you can only wish Scripture and history attests to, but which it they not.

as you see from the NT the church Jesus established is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth not the NT.

Which recourse is desperation. Somehow this text is supposed to support the RCC as being the rock-solid foundation for Truth based upon her novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, yet in the Greek none of the few actual words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach or support that the church is the supreme infallible source of Truth over that of Scripture. The word for ground (ground) only occurs here and the word for pillar (stulos) only occurs 3 other times Rev. 3:12;10:1 Gal. 2:9) and both words denote support (apostles were called “pillars”) and which the church does in supporting the Truth - which Christ is - and is grounded in it. For rather than being the source, then as said, Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and was built upon its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church (such as "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27).

Read the early church fathers and you will see the church in the NT is the Catholic Church.

Which is absurd as a basis for what the NT church believed. How can the uninspired and non-uniform writings of men be that standard? Rather, the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the NT church believed is Scripture, esp. Acts thru Revelation which best shows how they understood the OT and the gospels. As for the uninspired and non-uniform writings the early church Fathers, these manifest a progressive accretion of errors adopted from tradition which by its very nature is neither infallible and supreme susceptible corruption. Thus God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. And see 14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia

What you posted from Pope Boniface VIII is subject to this, which is binding upon all popes, councils, etc:

Ecumenical Councils, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful, to Francis, etc, and must be a continuation from Sacred Scripture all the way through church history until now:

“But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”

The above means that church teaching goes back to and is anchored in the Sacred Scriptures.

Thus when popes, councils, etc, go all the way back to St. Peter. Paul, etc, against Francis and Vat II are overridden.

You are ostensibly teaching that Francis and Vat II could override the first Pope, Peter, and they can’t.

Francis is just like Luther and you in that he wants to discount previous popes and councils and wants to elevate himself to pope of popes and Vat II to council of councils and it doesn’t work that way.

You are a schismatic modernist who wants the flavor of the month and like a revisionist who sees history in only one direction.

What you posted from Pope Boniface VIII is subject to this, which is binding upon all popes, councils, etc: Ecumenical Councils, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, or the solemn teachings of supreme pontiffs are binding to the faithful, to Francis, etc, and must be a continuation from Sacred Scripture all the way through church history until now: “But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.” Thus when popes, councils, etc, go all the way back to St. Peter. Paul, etc, against Francis and Vat II are overridden. You are ostensibly teaching that Francis and Vat II could override the first Pope, Peter, and they can’t.

Sigh. Try to understand that it is not up to you to decide whether or not the pope or the whole magisterium are pronouncing something in accordance with Revelation itself: the premise of Rome is that it is doing so in such pronouncements as Boniface for teachings of her Sacred Magisterium are protected from error in and even from salvific error in non-infallible teachings which are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful and cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly (http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM; Donum Veritatis). And thus the very test you cites does states that they do, that "when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself," and the binding part is on you, "which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.”

The basic premise of Rome is then that

It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.

And regarding V2, your position is to be what Ratzing stated to another dissident.that of letter to Archbishop Lefebvre demanding his submission to the post-Conciliar Church:

You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic." (http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html)

Otherwise you are a schismatic. See, Can a Pope be Removed from Office? and Can a Pope commit heresy?

You are a schismatic modernist who wants the flavor of the month and like a revisionist who sees history in only one direction.

Seriously, I am a fundamentalist evangelical who actually thinks the TradCaths are correct that Rome has contradicted herself, but that according to the type and broadness of submission to the pope that they themselves affirm (the list I provided you in post 47 was mostly from their sites) then Catholics are not to be ascertaining which church teachings are " in accordance with Revelation" but are to trust their living pope and magisterium in its understanding of them. Otherwise they must reject parts of V2 and Francis and essentially act like evangelicals in making the validity of church teaching subject to their own judgment of whether or not it conforms with past historical church teaching. The main difference is that our source is that the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the NT church believed is Scripture, esp. Acts thru Revelation which best shows how they understood the OT and the gospels. Thus we reject Catholic distinctives while contending for those which are Scriptural.

Francis is just like Luther and you in that he wants to discount previous popes and councils and wants to elevate himself to pope of popes and Vat II to council of councils and it doesn’t work that way.

The NT church actually began in dissent from the historical magisterium and will common people discerning what they would not. Meanwhile if you reject Francis and or V2 even in part (which you should and most here seem to do) then in essence you are presuming to be like a Luther to a certain degree, discounting at least one popes and council based upon the premise that their judgment of what historical church teaching is and means.

He made Peter the Rock upon which it was built. He didn't say upon your faith is a rock. He said Peter you are rock and upon this rock I will build MY church. He then gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Is THIS what Rome so thoroughly embeds into it's followers' brains?

Did JESUS change Simon's name to PETER?

NIV Matthew 4:18-19
18. As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
19. "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."

NIV Matthew 8:14
When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

NIV Matthew 10:1-2
1. He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
2. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;

NIV Matthew 14:28-31
28. "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
29. "Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
30. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
31. Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

NIV Matthew 15:13-16
13. He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
14. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
15. Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
16. "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.

As you can plainly see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
BEFORE the following verses came along.....

NIV Matthew 16:13-18
13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15. "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16. Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
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."

"You are Simon, son of John; you will be called Cephas, meaning Rock" (John 1:42).

NIV 1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

NIV Luke 6:48
He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.

NIV Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

NIV 1 Peter 2:4-8
4. As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him--
5. you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
7. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, "
8. and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for.

But, since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS???

NIV Genesis 49:24-25
24. But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,
25. because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb.

NIV Numbers 20:8
"Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink."

NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

NIV Deuteronomy 32:15
Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior.

NIV Deuteronomy 32:18
You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.

NIV Deuteronomy 32:30-31
30. How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up?
31. For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede.

NIV 1 Samuel 2:2
"There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.

NIV 2 Samuel 22:2-3
2. He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer;
3. my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me.

NIV 2 Samuel 22:32
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

NIV 2 Samuel 22:47
"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior!

NIV 2 Samuel 23:3-4
3. The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: `When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,
4. he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.'

NIV Psalms 18:2
The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

NIV Psalms 18:31
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

NIV Psalms 18:46
The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior!

NIV Psalms 19:14
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

NIV Psalms 28:1

To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.

NIV Psalms 31:2-3
2. Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me.
3. Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me.

NIV Psalms 42:9
I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"

NIV Psalms 62:2
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken.

NIV Psalms 62:6
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken.

NIV Psalms 62:7
My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge.

NIV Psalms 71:3
Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress.

NIV Psalms 78:35
They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer.

NIV Psalms 89:26
He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.'

NIV Psalms 92:14-15
14. They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green,
15. proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him."

NIV Psalms 95:1
Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.

NIV Psalms 144:1
Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.

NIV Isaiah 17:10
You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress.

NIV Isaiah 26:4
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal.

NIV Isaiah 30:29
And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel.

NIV Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

NIV Habakkuk 1:12
O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.

.....No other rock.............

And now you know the Biblical position!

Read the early church fathers and you will see the church in the NT is the Catholic Church.

Golly!

Here's an Early Church Father: let's read what he had to say...

• 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

Augustine, sermon:

Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.

• Augustine, sermon:

For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. 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)

• Augustine, sermon:

And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; 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

• Augustine, sermon:

Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...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

• Augustine, sermon:

...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193

• Augustine, Psalm LXI:

Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)

• Augustine, in “Retractions,”

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.

Martine Luther He seized upon the Bible, introducing a new doctrine, Sola Scriptura, which said that Scripture Alone could be used to define Christian doctrine.

Why that dirty dog!!

"What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle?
For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.
Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher."

Augustine (De bono viduitatis)

Pope Francis invited the devotees of the pagan, demonic Pachamama onto sacred ground...

Well; if there is ANYTHING that you NEVER want to do; is to invite SINNERS!!! onto sacred ground!!!

ECF's an be wrong; but the CCC is NEVER wrong!!

“And I say to thee: Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER TWO
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD

The Good News: God has sent his Son

422 'But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.'¹ This is 'the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God':'² God has visited his people. He has fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his descendants. He acted far beyond all expectation - he has sent his own 'beloved Son'.³

423 We believe and confess that Jesus of Nazareth, born a Jew of a daughter of Israel at Bethlehem at the time of King Herod the Great and the emperor Caesar Augustus, a carpenter by trade, who died crucified in Jerusalem under the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, is the eternal Son of God made man. He 'came from God',⁴ 'descended from heaven',⁵ and 'came in the flesh'.⁶ For 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. . . And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace.'⁷

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'⁸ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.⁹

If you are truly Protestant then you understand the following:

Martin Luther: Sacred Tradition, previous councils, popes, etc, aren’t binding on me, even if they disagree with what I am saying now.

Vatican II: We concur the same for us as well.

Pope Francis: I concur as well (cites Vat II, condemns the Council of Trent, etc).

*Protestantism Intensifies*

If you are truly Protestant then you understand the following: Martin Luther: Sacred Tradition, previous councils, popes, etc, aren’t binding on me, even if they disagree with what I am saying now. Vatican II: We concur the same for us as well. Pope Francis: I concur as well (cites Vat II, condemns the Council of Trent, etc).

If you are truly Protestant then you should understand the following:

Historical papal teaching: 'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

Vatican Two" In accordance with historical papal teaching the flock is bound to assent to what we teach as the Living Magisterium explaining what Sacred Tradition, previous councils, popes, etc. mean "in all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and laity are not to "set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another."

Pope Francis: I concur as well (cites various historical papal teaching requiring such).

TradCaths: What Oral Tradition, previous councils, popes, etc. mean is determined by us who reject teachings of previous councils, popes and their "letters and other public documents ";etc. when we interpret ancient church teaching as contradicting them.

Martin Luther: I agree.

Here are early church fathers: “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans, c. A.D. 110)

“…Peter, on whom the Church was to be built, speaks there, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock that adheres to its pastor. You ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if anyone be not with the bishop, then he is not in the Church…” (Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 68, c. A.D. 254)

“And if you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this holy Church, the mother of us all, the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, c. A.D. 350)

“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…’ On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep, 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 [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair…If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian of Carthage, Unity of the Catholic Church, c. A.D. 251)

I could post much more but no time. There is so much in scripture that shows that Roman Catholicism is the one true faith and the church Jesus built and left in the hands of Peter and the other Apostles and passed down through the Bishops. If he still refuses to listen take it to the church.....there is only one true church to take it to.

Here are early church fathers:

Why? Why must you insist on resorting to the uninspired word of men to provide what you can only wish the wholly inspired word of God said, and when I already said to you "How can the uninspired and non-uniform writings of men be that standard? Rather, the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the NT church believed is Scripture, esp. Acts thru Revelation which best shows how they understood the OT and the gospels"?

And I had also substantiated that the Peter of Scripture is not that of Rome. And if you want to see some of what even Catholic researchers have found regarding your papal progression see here. Even the EOs significantly disagree with you on what tradition teaches.

But as with your last response, this one also is all too typical of Catholic defenders, who blithely ignore what refutes them and blindly proceed to post more parroted propaganda. Thus like the rest, your response is an argument against being a Catholic. At least Catholic Answers forum finally folded up shop.

There is so much in scripture that shows that Roman Catholicism is the one true faith and the church Jesus built and left in the hands of Peter and the other Apostles and passed down through the Bishops

That is pure delusion, for rather then there being so much in scripture that shows that Roman Catholicism is the one true faith, the reality is that - as also shown you and ignored - distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

. If he still refuses to listen take it to the church.....there is only one true church to take it to.

Rather, if Rome was that church then it has Francis as its head and liberal bishops who elected him as it majority leaders, and at best is a mixed multitude of a vast majority of liberals and cultic devotees and some conservatives with relatively very few actual regenerate souls - who need to leave it for conservative evangelical faith as I did. And thus its leadership would have to excommunicate itself if that were possible!

However, in principal Matthew 18:15-17 applies to church discipline in any body of believers, and the binding and loosing flows from the OT and begins in the home and marriage, (Num. 30) while Matthew 18:18-120 proceeds to teach that the spiritual power of binding and loosing is available for all believers, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20) and the only exhortation to confess sins is actually to each other (James 5:16-20) while Catholic priests were not part of the NT church. See here, by the grace of God, if you dare to understand this better.