Replies

Not only are there specific verses where Jesus gives such authority to Peter,

That is also simply an assertion. None of the purported proof texts teaches Peter possessed assured formulaic infallibility as per Rome, much less that was promised to his office, despite the extrapolative coercion of RCs. None. Including that his faith would not ultimately fail. He could make infallible statements, which others can as well, but there is no promise he always would whenever he spoke universally on faith and morals, while it was James that gave the final definitive sentence in Acts 15.

and that such an office shall not go vacant,

That also is an assumption. Nowhere in Scripture do we see an apostolic successor except for Judas, which was to maintain the number of the 12, (Rv. 21:14; Acts 1:15ff) thus only one is chosen. And rather than supporting apostolic succession, the Holy Spirit conspicuously never mentions any successor for the apostle James who was martyred, (Acts 12:1,2) or preparations for another pope, despite its cardinal importance for Rome and the careful chronicling of important events and details of the early church.

Rome has never even elected (TMK) any of her supposed successors by the non-political OT Scriptural method of casting lots (Prov. 16:33) used by Peter and the 11, but instead her elections have often involved political machinations, and electing manifestly immoral men who were not fit to be even church members.

there is the simple precedence that Peter is referenced more than three times as often in the gospel as all other disciples combined;

You should know that is a specious proof: first, there are 4 gospels and the NT does not stop at the end of John, and based on how much one is mentioned and degree of labor and his instrumentality, the case is made for a Pauline papacy (as a parody). And unlike Peter, post conversion sin is never manifestly attributed to Paul. Meanwhile, using the amount of positive press given as indicating greatness, which does have warrant, Mary, the mention of whom is rather marginal in Scripture, is in stark contrast to Catholicism,

Secondly, every group will have a leader, and the issue is not whether Peter was the initial street-level leader among brethren, and who exercised a general pastoral role, but whether he was the first of a succession of exalted Roman popes which the church looked as its supreme infallible head, with unlimited, incalculable (Dollinger), holding upon this earth the place of God Almighty, which power he can exercise unhindered.

Married Peter fades from view after Acts 15, and Paul himself called all the Ephesian pastors to conference, as well as doing many other things that make him as a pope. Nowhere in any of the epistle are the churches even exhorted to pray specially for Peter (though they certainly did as for other leaders, and as needed) as the supreme head. And in Gal. 2:1ff Peter is mentioned as the second among 3 pillars of the church, “who seemed to be somewhat,” and who provided public affirmation of of Paul, but who publicly reproved Peter for his duplicity, consistent with Paul's statement that “God accepteth no man's person.”

In addition, the power of binding and loosing was also given to all the disciples, (Mt. 18:15-19) and exercised contrary to Rome's presumption.(1Cor. 5; James 5) And who was the first to use the keys to the kingdom of God, the gospel, by faith in which souls are translated into it. (Col. 1:13)

Not once in the Lord's own letters to the 7 representative churches in Rv. 2 and 3 is the pope mentioned, not as a solution to their needs nor as fidelity to as a commendation, which at least is evidence that Rome did change the Bible to support here, but which lack of testimony is why Rome employed the use forgeries to support her pretensions.

Nor is Peter confirmed to be the rock upon which Christ built His church, but the Christ of Peter's confession is. For in contrast to Peter, 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) And even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against the Roman papacy being the reality in the early church.

How odd is that, if not that the gospel writers were selecting incidents to demonstrate a precedent?

Again, the problem is that of extrapolating the simple and imperfect leadership of Peter into the supreme infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy of Rome, which even the EOS rightly reject, which neither Scripture nor early history establishes. Rome is simply thinking of men above that which is written, contrary to what "pope Paul" taught. (1Cor. 4:6)

But that’s just it! There was NOT abundant use of all 24 books! Most of the Khetuvim / Writings / Hagiography are barely mentioned! <

p>You are misrepresenting what i said, which was not "all 24 books," and the link shows what was referred to, with the point being that this use saw not apparently conflict with the Jews.

And besides what the inspired writers added, and not including mere allusions, as the Lord (Mt. 21:16,42; 22:44; 23:39; 25:41; 27:46) the multitudes (Mt. 21:9; 27:35; Jn. 6:31) and even the devil (Ps 91:11,12) invoked Psalms in the gospels, and te Holy Spirit to the Jews in Acts (Acts 1:20; 2:25-28,31,34; 13:22) and is called Scripture, (Jn. 19:28) it supports this as Scripture and argues for Writings being included as "the law and the prophets" (Jn. 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; cf. Ps. 69:4; 82:6; 89:28, 29; 110:4) and as part of the books the Lord referred to as Scripture in Lk. 24:44. 1 Corinthians 14:21 is also called

Plus we have clear quotes of Proverbs. (Romans 2:6; 3:15; 12:20; Heb. 12:5,6; Ja. 4:6; 1Pt. 5:5) Thus other of the Writings may be included as accepted Scripture, to which Paul for instance references. In many traditional copes of the Hebrew Bible Psalms is the first of the Writings, and a close association to the Prophets is also seen in the DSS.

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27) “...saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:” (Acts 26:22) “Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures.” (Rom 1:2) "And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening." (Acts 28:23)

Florence was infallible

This also is an often repeated canard as regards the infallible canon. While a favorite of Roman Catholic apologists, the fact is that far more weightier sources state the contrary.

This includes the Catholic Encyclopedia which states, “The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm0

And that of its (Florence) decrees Eugene IV approved only such as dealt with the extirpation of heresy, the peace of Christendom, and the reform of the Church. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

Even ultra conservative Sugensis admits,

Granted, Catholics during the time of Florence had to give their assent to what Florence decreed, but this did not mean, for sake of conscience, that a Catholic could not contest what Florence said about the canon. This is why even Cardinal Cajetan contested Florence‘s canon list. So yes, Luther could contest the canon prior to Trent and do so quite legitimately. — http://catholicintl.com/question-83-july-2008/

And indeed, while modern RCs insist on portraying the RC as indisputably being determined ac early as the 4^th century, what is indisputable is that dissent continued right into Trent,.

And if you will hold that that the list of book of Florence was infallible, then you must also hold that “nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”, and that the souls of those who depart this life “in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”(eph. mine) — https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

Florence was so much more remarkable than Trent, since it gained the assent of not only the Catholic bishops... but each and every Orthodox bishop present.

Rather, what is remarkable is how misleading this is. The reality is that the Council of Florence was a continuation of the Council of Basle, and was a very messy affair, done under pressure, and was hit and moved by plague, and involved two popes and two live councils, and was ultimately indeterminative, unlike Trent. The compromised (on the part of the EOs) concord was short lived and in which agreement was assented to after “Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation,” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm) due to the need for military assistance from Rome against the Ottoman Turks.

Even after the decree of union (Laetentur Coeli) its adoption in the East was not secured. St. Mark of Ephesus among others rejected the unity, while upon learning of the union the Russians rejected angrily and ousted any prelate who was even remotely sympathetic to it. And after their return to Constantinople from Florence, many of the Greeks repudiated the reunion. In addition, the Council declared the majority of the Council of Basle, which upheld conciliar authority over the pope, as heretics and excommunicated them.

No, I stated, “referenced them authoritatively,” meaning that they referenced them as providing authority for a theological assertion.

No, you means SOME of “the earliest Church fathers referenced them authoritatively,” while others made a distinction between the canon proper and authoritative versus doubtful but edifying books, which tradition Luther followed. Thus Trent settled the matter for RCs.

The Catholic doctrine about purgatory is:

All that you stated and is not uniformly settled, but as sourced is different from that of Rome with its atoning and purifying torments. Besides other disagreements.

That the Ancient Church prayed for the dead is undeniable. Paul even refers to baptizing non-believers “for the sake of the dead.”

That the Scriptures nowhere example any prayer to the departed among the hundreds in Scripture, while your 2 Mac. 12 advocation is not the same as the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, and supports prayer being made for a man who was slain due to a mortal sin (“it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain”), which sin, according to Rome there is not hope for. This thus requires RCAs to minimize the consecrated idols which caused their death, or postulating they may have repented at the last moment, which is just one more argument from silence.

French historian Jacques Le Goff states,

“It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus - around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period - prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews.” — Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, p. 45, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Yet, the Orthodox wiki cannot repudiate Shenouda’s facially ridiculous speculation? How sad and tragic.

And Roman Catholic apologists will reject sanctioned Nihil obstat and Imprimatur Bible commentary, parts of the Catholic Encyclopedia, papal bulls, encyclicals, the CCC and Vatican Two.

but the Catholics interpret Paul in 1 Cor 3:11-15 as describing (admittedly with possible metaphor) purgatory. This interpretation was argued by St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Origen and St. Gregory.

Which is incontrovertibly wrong since 1 Cor. 3:8-15 as shown here, does not occur until the Lord's return, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:21-23; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) versus purgatory, which has souls suffering upon death. And the suffering is that of a loss of rewards based upon the manner of workmanship once built the church with, not to attain holiness of heart, and which loss the believer is safe despite of, not because of.

Moreover, it is not simply suffering the produces righteous character, but being tempted, and which Scripture only shows this life is for with its manifold temptations, contrasting “now” being the time of trials, “now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations..might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 1:6,7) and our “the sufferings of this present time” (Rm. 8:18) versus later, and thus the Lord Himself as made perfect through sufferings, in being “tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 2:10; 4:15) Thus all the verses which clearly speak of a N.T. believer's postmortem condition (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2) show it is with the Lord, in whose presence there is fulness of joy (Ps. 16:11). Bless God. (Been through the arguments before.)