Posted on 02/05/2024 4:12:09 PM PST by ebb tide
You have a number of errors in your statement, eagleone
ref: council of trent online the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid;
I agree that this is a complete pigs-meal of a document that in the end says absolutely nothing but confuses everyone. But that's the point - it says nothing except two points:
No I do not just pontificate, I had not counted your thread sin their entirety and quit literally not long after posting the previous realized I was wrong about your position on the current issues.
I apologize for that.
Having considered prayerfully that Scripture quite often I do not see how Peter being selected as the chief apostle at that time now confers the same authority to the pope today. I am pretty sure Peter would not be appointing such openly corrupt individuals to such high places of influence within the Church.
My issue is not in a lineage of structure but with the continued near infallibility imbued within that structure, an infallibility not born out in Scripture nor in the acts of the Catholic Church itself.
Many faithful disagree with how that Scritpure is interpreted by Catholicism. That is a stretch even just considering as it is written linguistically. All you are doing in asking that question in that manner is insisting I abdicate my search for the truth and accept dogmatically what the institution of the Catholic Church insists is the correct way to read those Scriptures.
Actually, what the Bible does say/teach is that God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them together in marriage - as the Lord Jesus Himself specified (Mt. 19:4–6) - and Scripture only condemns homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with.
And homosexual relations have been tragically primarily responsible for approx. 80% of new HIV cases among men and over 700,000 American deaths, though such is not even the decisive reason why homosexual relations are wrong.
Yet there is still room at the cross for all who will come to God in repentance and faith, and trust in the Divine Son of God sent by the Father, the risen Lord Jesus, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and thus be baptized and live for Him. Acts 10:36-47
Scripture only condemns homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with.
Don't stop there. All sin is essentially a misuse or abuse of what God has given us, and which is just a matter of degrees. I am one who can attest to this myself (former fornicator, etc.), and in some way or degree, we have all been or are guilty of what others do to a greater degree. And God is more focused on the sins and defects of true believers in His body, the church - where judgement begins (1 Peter 4:17; cf. Ezekiel 9:6) - then those of the world
However, we can condemn sin if we are repentant over our own sins and defects, which are more than we know. However, the redeemed are those who have been spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) by effectual, penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith in the Divine Son of God sent be the Father to be the Savior of the world, (1 Jn. 4:14) who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood, on His account. And which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and which is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; Heb. 10:25-39) Glory and thanks be to God.
I think one can find sodomy as SIN even before the Ten Commandments were given.
Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
20 And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous.
21 I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to me: or whether it be not so, that I may know.
22 And they turned themselves from thence, and went their way to Sodom: but Abraham as yet stood before the Lord.
23 And drawing nigh he said: Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked?
24 If there be fifty just men in the city, shall they perish withal? and wilt thou not spare that place for the sake of the fifty just, if they be therein?
25 Far be it from thee to do this thing, and to slay the just with the wicked, and for the just to be in like case as the wicked, this is not beseeming thee: thou who judgest all the earth, wilt not make this judgment.
26 And the Lord said to him: If I find in Sodom fifty just within the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.
27 And Abraham answered, and said: Seeing I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes.
28 What if there be five less than fifty just persons? wilt thou for five and forty destroy the whole city? And he said: I will not destroy it, if I find five and forty.
29 And again he said to him: But if forty be found there, what wilt thou do? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of forty.
30 Lord, saith he, be not angry, I beseech thee, if I speak: What if thirty shall be found there? He answered: I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
31 Seeing, saith he, I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord. What if twenty be found there? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty.
32 I beseech thee, saith he, be not angry, Lord, if I speak yet once more: What if ten should be found there? And he said: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.
The other two groups in Genesis apparently don't mentioned.
Not me. Peter was the street-level leader among apostolic brethren, whom he never ex-cathedra commanded (versus led and exhorted) but is one of those who were manifest as leaders, (Galatians 2:6) and specifically named as one of the apostles who was married, (1 Corinthians 9:5) and who preached evangelical gospel, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) and is evidenced to have a general pastoral ministry. (Galatians 2:6)
However, nowhere in the rest of the NT, which is interpretive of Matt 16:17-19, is Peter said or described as being the rock upon which the church is built. In-stead, in contrast to Peter (“petros”), that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also 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 so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
Moreover, the NT church Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome and the first of a line of supreme infallible heads reigning over all the churches, and having the final defining judgment in questions affecting the whole Church, even without the consent of the bishops. Which is contrary to what Scripture reveals of Peter, and which modern research even by Catholics rovides testimony against.
The NT church also never manifestly saw mention or intimation of preparation to choose a successor for Peter by electing a elder as a apostolic successor, much less conveying total supreme papal authority. Unlike king David and the promise of his son Solomon to reign over Israel and his institution as king, (1 Chronicles 29) and the record of his son Rehoboam reigning in his stead (2 Chronicles 9:31) and so forth, the Bible not only does not record Peter�s death but it also does not foretell of a successor or speak of preparations for one. Nor does it mention any apostolic successor for any apostle (even though the apostle James who was martyred: Acts 12:1,2) except for Matthias being chosen for the apostate Judas (which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (Acts 1:15-26; :cf. Rv. 21:14), which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots, (cf. Prov. 16:33) which Rome has never used to select popes. What Scripture does teach is that of presbyterous (see #8) being ordained to oversee the flock of God. (Acts 20:28)
Nor is ensured perpetual magisterial (conditional) infallibility ever promised to leadership as Rome imagines of the Peterine office, nor ever evidenced (Caiaphas will not do), neither is that essential for authority (Dt. 17:8-13; Mt. 23:2) and binding and loosing, and which is not restricted to Peter or apostles.
As with Mary, the Peter of Rome is not that of Scripture. Why did Jesus tell Peter (Luke 22:32) that He had prayed for him that his faith not fail him, and that he should convert his brethren (fellow Apostles)?
Which is begging the question, since the Lord did not tell Peter to convert his brethren(!), for the word at issue (stērizō) means "strengthen" (likewise stablish/establish) as your own Luke 22:32 NABRE translates it (as does the KJV and others, or similarly), versus convert. The Lord prayed for Peter as being the impetuous leader, whom He knew needed it.
Acts makes clear that, for whatever faults he may have had, Peter was the chosen one.
No, Christ is the Chosen Cne, while Peter was "a" chosen one, as described, though Paul is more manifest as a "pope" than Peter. 51 Biblical proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy - using popular Catholic reasoning that is.
You can reject Jesus’ authority as He exerted it in Scripture, but that seems contrary to the Spirit.
Meaning there is not one command to all the church to recognize and or submit to Peter as the infallible supreme head in authority overall all the churches - much less in Rome - while it is Paul who calls a council, commissions elders, reproves, chastises, and daily cares for all the churches, and suffers greatly. Etc. And reproved holy faithful Peter for an exceptional instance of compromise (not that I am throwing stones at him!).
Who, as one sovereignly chosen by the Lord Jesus, was converted, baptized and filled with the Spirit thru a non-apostle, and preached immediately, before spending 3 years in Arabia, likely receiving the special revelations that were entrusted to him, having not received the gospel from man.
And apart from a non-eventful brief stay with Peter 3 years later, it was 14 years later that Paul went to visit James, Peter and John, whose formal approbation was needed due to charges by false apostles that he was not a valid apostle, which threatened to undue the labor of Paul. (Galatians 1, 2)
But we need anointed evangelical Peter and Paul converts today.
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
It's all about Jesus.
Those who claim that they follow Peter are wrong according to Paul. Nor do we follow Luther as we are so often falsely charged and accused with. Nor any other man.
Salvation is about Jesus. Period. HE is the rock, the petra on which the body of Christ is built.
In ! Corinthians 10;4 Paul tells us that the petra the rock, is Jesus. Here it is in the Greek.
https://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
*Petra* is also used in Matthew 16:18.
https://biblehub.com/greek/4073.htm
JESUS is the rock. There is no other.
Did the Hebrew text include these writings?
While probably true, in the present, a group of folks get to vote whomever they want into office.
This constant harping is ridiculous.
As if...
The Almighty God NEEDED the Catholic "Church" to preserve His Word.
You put God in a box - just like you do on your "altar".
...and just in case I'm not clear: The Catholic "Church" is a work of Satan.
And you put yourself above God.
Aren't you cute!
And you put yourself above God.
...and just in case I'm not clear:
The Catholic "Church" is a work of Satan.
So much hatred and bitterness.
Repeating a lie will not make it true.
You're bothered by the truth - and call it a lie.
In a nutshell, YOU are under a great deception and it will lead to your eternal condemnation - unless you turn from it.
II Tim 4:3,4
"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."
and...
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
The Catholic "Church" is a work of Satan.
Shouting is a sign of an inferiority complex.
To continue to shout is an indication of immaturity.
Thanks for showing you suffer from both.
But remember:
The Catholic "Church" is a work of Satan.
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.