Posted on 02/22/2013 5:43:18 PM PST by NYer
That was Simon Peter Magus...
“But no worries, you don’t need to hear all of it because for you “all” of it was written down”
Iscool never said that. He said that everything that was necessary for our salvation was written down. Do you dispute that? Is there some secret formula for salvation which isn’t included in the New Testament that the Catholic church has kept to itself all these years? Or do you believe that the Gospel of Christ is sufficient to show us the way?
Try again. This time try to support your argument with references like I did.
Christ cannot be there to change the bread and wine into his Body and Blood as he did at the Last Supper. In his place (alter Christus) is the priest, empowered through his ordination to celebrate the Eucharist in this very special way.
your ‘study’ of history is really underwhelming. googling something I realize is the ‘modern’ manner of education but that is NOT a proper manner to become informed.
Your ‘tradition’ view of Peter’s death has NO first century sourcing. The earliest it appears is some 150 years later anecdotally. Hence no one can claim that it is a generally known fact...because it is not provable factually (except by stories passed on with no supporting evidence) and it is not ‘generally’ accepted.
We KNOW by Paul’s own words that he was in Rome. In his letter to the Romans he talks about the time that he was there. And interestingly, in that very same letter Paul does not acknowledge Peter at all. IF Peter had been in Rome at that time, Paul would have acknowledged him.
Since the New Testament is absolutely silent on what happens with Peter and there is no other evidence that can be referred to Peter’s Roman adventures remain nothing more than stories of interest but unsupportable.
If that makes you feel better than you are welcome to it. as for me i will stick with the truth.
I can’t believe this thread is still going.
I really will.
Name and link or quote.
Thank you.
One can at least center the Dark Ages in the West as the period of anarchy between the fall of Rome and the rise of Charlemagne. That would put it roughly between 400 AD and 800 AD. The only source of order in that period --- the lighted pathway through the Dark Ages, if you will --- was the Catholic Church.
That's speaking of course of central and western Europe. The Roman empire continued in the East--- for another 1,000 years! --- until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
And I will stick with The Truth....
I think you might want to go back and reread Revelation, because not a single one of the 144,000 is a “survivor”. They are specifically martyrs, killed for their witnessing of the Lamb. They are the firstfruits of the resurrection, in a way (Christ was technically THE first fruit), and it is enlightening to compare them to the OT practice of firstfruits.
In the OT, the firstfruits were the best, most flawless part of the crop, which was given (offered, or sacrificed) to God before the rest was harvested. In Revelation, the 144,000 are the most blameless of mankind, who are martyred (sacrificed, and literally given to God) before the God reaps the rest of humanity.
Jesus does that every time when partaking of communion in Biblical Christian churches.
There are no “other Christ’s” as your Latin phrase indicates.
Only One, Jesus.
Invite the Holy Spirit to help.
The steps taken in the Catholic church are not needed to properly celebrate the Lord’s supper, but I know it is tradition.
Well, I was responding on this very thread to terycarl, who has stated:
“That having been said, the church itself, not individual members, is protected from error bu the Holy Spirrit.....the pope, bishops, priests, altar boys, nuns....etc. can err and be sinful.....the Church can’t!!.” in Post #81
So, there is the “Church never makes mistakes”, as it sounds to me.
Also, there is this, in Post #114:
“...in the 2013 year history of the Catholic Church, it has never taught anything in opposition to the teachings of Christ.....NEVER.”
Although he’s since walked that back to say he just meant the couple of teaching that have been pronounced ex cathedra, and not really everything the church has taught, even though that is not what he wrote.
“Christ cannot be there to change the bread and wine into his Body and Blood as he did at the Last Supper.”
Maybe the Christ you follow can’t do it, but the one I know can do pretty much whatever he pleases, since he is Lord of Heaven and Earth. He’s not imprisoned up in heaven unable to participate, instead, anywhere two or three of His follower gather, He is there too, whether one of those followers is a priest or not.
I can GAURANTEE the Apostles would have an much easier time recognizing the ecclesiology of most evangelicals than they would the ecclisiology of the RCC. It doesn't mean there are not Christians in the RCC...just like it doesn't mean there are not lost people in the evangelical movement.
But it's a matter of historical fact that the ecclesiology of New Testament Apostolic Christianity is vastly different than that of the modern (or even post 4th century) Catholic Church.
Whether that is right or wrong is a different debate I will not have (because in all my history and decades of debating Catholics on this issue...they have never persuaded me...and I have only persuaded one of them [and then he his family]). It's futile.
I guess it would depend on your definition of a survivor. What did they survive? Life without receiving the Mark of the Beast. That makes them survivors in my book.
That's true. But it also illustrates the problem with saying "the Church" this and that, without explaining exactly what you mean and how it's defined in this context.
Half the poorly-catechized Catholics --- let alone the other baffled brethren --- don't know whether you mean "the USCCB" or "L'Osservatore Romano" or "papal diplomacy" or "the Vatican's policy" (by which they mean, sometimes,the editorial tilt of L'Osservatore Romano) or "Pope Urban VIII's opinions on heliocentrism" or "the #@%# Diocesan Marriage Tribunal I had to tangle with back in the 1980's."
Best to say something like "the teachings which are de fide doctrines of the Catholic Church are free from error." Those who are actually interested in the truth, will inquire further; those who are actually not, will reach for another intellectual Cheez Doodle and go on to some other topic. Fine. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Tagline's for all to ponder, from Holy Scripture:
Thanks, Boogieman, for taking the time and care to provide the actual quotes, and promptly, too. I appreciate that.
Short answer: No. Why? Because Scriptural text can be interpreted a million different ways and so much depends on how Peter, the other Apostles, and their successors understood and applied His teachings. This is most manifest in the Holy Eucharist and the Catholic Mass. Indeed, at the very outset it was the early Church Fathers who decided on what books would be admitted as authentic Gospel and Biblical writings and what ought to be excluded.
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.