I've noticed old vladimir998 has no reply when confronted with the facts.
To be quite honest...catholics have written so much over time I'm not sure they even know what they're supposed to believe.
I'd love to know how catholics continue to cling to catholicism when the claims upon which it is supposed to be based repeatedly are shown to be false.
Ready for the strawman argument and personal attacks.....
Jesus instituted the Petrine Office in the person of Peter (Matthew 16:18) who was succeeded by Linus then Anacletus, etc.
Chain of testimony: St. John the Apostle => St. Polycarp => St. Irenaeus
St. Irenaeus: “The blessed Apostles then having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus* the office of the espiscopate... To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric... In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us....”
* “Make haste to come before winter Eubulus and Pudens, and Linus and Claudia, and all the brethren, salute thee.” 2 Tim 4:21
“Your post 352 completely takes the legs out of any arguments catholics have regarding Peter being the first pope.”
Actually it does nothing of the kind. We’ve been over this again and again. Here’s an example of the constant problem of Protestant anti-Catholics trying to discredit a faith they know almost nothing about:
This was posted:
““If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” — Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.”
Now, this quote is in several places on the internet with EXACTLY THE SAME OTHER QUOTES. It is repeatedly cut and pasted by people who have clearly never read the original source - as I have - or who are deliberately hiding what else comes after it in the same book. Is there any point to rehashing what has already been shown to be a misrepresentation? The whole book is available online for free. Has Elsie ever read the book? I seriously doubt it. And therein lies the problem. Elsie couldn’t even spell the archbishop’s name correctly! All he/she did was cut and paste it from other source which also had it misspelled. What’s the point of trying to engage someone in conversation about a source he/she clearly can’t get right?
“I’ve noticed old vladimir998 has no reply when confronted with the facts.”
Again, what’s the point of trying to engage someone in conversation about a source he/she clearly can’t get right?
“To be quite honest...catholics have written so much over time I’m not sure they even know what they’re supposed to believe.”
That’s hilarious coming from you considering your own predicament. Elsie believes all of the dead believers are in “sleep”. They’re not in heaven (Elsie said Mary is not in heaven for instance). Is that what you believe? If you believe differently than he/she does then clearly one or both of you is wrong. Which is it? So what is a Protestant to believe? How is it that you all say you believe in sola scriptura yet you can’t agree on what the Bible actually teaches? Most likely - as has happened before - I will not get any answers to those questions. And if I ask them again, then the Religion Moderator will tell me I am badgering you. There’s too much fear here on the Protestant side to allow Protestantism to be exposed as the man-made thing it is.
“I’d love to know how catholics continue to cling to catholicism when the claims upon which it is supposed to be based repeatedly are shown to be false.”
None of them have been shown to be false. Again, look at the rest of the book which contains Kenrick’s quote (please note the correct spelling of Kenrick).
“Ready for the strawman argument and personal attacks.....”
Oh, so any response will be that, right?