Posted on 01/18/2012 3:19:15 PM PST by NYer
.- Pope Benedict XVI said today that achieving Christian unity requires more than “cordiality and cooperation” and that it must be accompanied by interior conversion.
“Faith in Christ and interior conversion, both individual and communal, must constantly accompany our prayer for Christian unity,” said the Pope to over 8,000 pilgrims gathered in the Vatican’s Paul VI Audience Hall on Jan. 18.
The Pope’s comments mark the start of the 2012 Week of Prayer for Christian Unity that runs until Jan. 25. It will be observed by over 300 Christian churches and ecclesial communities around the globe.
The Pope asked for “the Lord in a particular way to strengthen the faith of all Christians, to change our hearts and to enable us to bear united witness to the Gospel.”
In this way, he said, they “will contribute to the new evangelization and respond ever more fully to the spiritual hunger of the men and women of our time.”
The Pope explained that the concept of a week of prayer for Christian unity was initiated in 1908 by Paul Wattson, an Episcopalian minister from Maryland. One year later, he became a Catholic and was subsequently ordained to the priesthood.
Pope Benedict recalled how the initiative was supported by his predecessors Pope St. Pius X and Pope Benedict XV. It was then “developed and perfected” in the 1930s by the Frenchman Abbé Paul Couturier, who promoted prayer “for the unity of the Church as Christ wishes and according to the means he wills.”
The mandate for the week of prayer, the Pope underscored, comes from the wish of Christ himself at the Last Supper “that they may all be one.” He observed that this mission was given a particular impetus by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) but added that “the unity we strive for cannot result merely from our own efforts.” Rather, “it is a gift we receive and must constantly invoke from on high.”
The theme for 2012 Week of Prayer – “All shall be changed by the victory of Jesus Christ our Lord” – was crafted by the Polish Ecumenical Council. Pope Benedict said it reflects “their own experience as a nation,” which stayed faithful to Christ “in the midst of trials and upheavals,” including years of occupation by the Nazis and later the Communists.
The Pope tied the victory the Polish people experienced over their oppressors to overcoming the disunity that marks Christians.
He said that the “unity for which we pray requires inner conversion, both shared and individual,” and it cannot be “limited to cordiality and cooperation.” Instead, Christians must accept “all the elements of unity which God has conserved for us.”
Ecumenism, the Pope stated, is not an optional extra for Catholics but is “the responsibility of the entire Church and of all the baptized.” Christians, he said, must make praying for unity an “integral part” of their prayer life, “especially when people from different traditions come together to work for victory in Christ over sin, evil, injustice and the violation of human dignity.”
Pope Benedict then touched on the lack of unity in the Christian community, which he said “hinders the effective announcement of the Gospel and endangers our credibility.” Evangelizing formerly Christian countries and spreading the Gospel to new places will be “more fruitful if all Christians together announce the truth of the Gospel and Jesus Christ, and give a joint response to the spiritual thirst of our times,” he explained.
The Pope concluded his comments with the hope that this year’s Week of Prayer for Christian Unity will lead to “increased shared witness, solidarity and collaboration among Christians, in expectation of that glorious day when together we will all be able to celebrate the Sacraments and profess the faith transmitted by the Apostles.”
The general audience finished with Pope Benedict addressing pilgrims in various languages, including greeting a group of men and women from the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, before leading the crowd in the Our Father and imparting his apostolic blessing.
There isn't any scripture in defense of your positions so we know that that's not true...
I do not debate with those who lie about me.
*****Nobody is in favor of what you call a “rogue” leader going out and starting some cult where everyone follows HIM alone and swallow everything and anything he tells them the Bible says. Nowhere in Scripture is anyone ever given license to do that. We are commended to fellowship with those of the faith in Christ just as the early Christians did in local congregations - some even met in homes. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that today and nothing mandates that meetings MUST take place in a formal “church” building. I like the idea of informal gatherings to study Scripture and praise and worship the Lord together. Maybe if going to church hadn’t gotten so stuffy and snooty, more people would still be meeting.****
Those informal gatherings of the NT occurred because of persecution. Once that threat was gone, the Church flourished as it is human nature to want to worship God in beautiful settings and to give the best to Him.
For whom do you think all those artisans created such beauty. The Churches told the story of God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit and our relationship to them, in the stained glass and frescoes and murals. The towering spires speak of reaching up to God as He reaches down to us.
What do you think moved them?
****But his ministry was not, contrary to some traditions, as a stay-at-home “bishop” or “pope” of the church which was there in Rome,****
Had Peter died in another city, that city would be the center of the Church.
I find it fascinating how God works.
Jerusalem was under control of the Romans at the time Jesus lived. And it was the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. The Jews wanted a king to overthrow the Romans and free them from their oppression. St. Paul was a Roman citizen and then, he and Peter died in Rome and it was from Rome that Christianity gained its freedom.
****This “authority” that you claim is only given to The Church and, by it, the presumed ability to infallibly interpret Holy Scripture, misses out on the facts that this organized body has not always been correct in many areas; they have contradicted each other from Pope to Pope; they have committed atrocities in the name of Christ; they have persecuted genuine Christians; they have destroyed writings that went against them and they have made into dogma doctrines which have no Scriptural support or go against Scripture. Not the kind of behavior Peter spoke about that should be shown in the “household of God”. We are all part of the Spiritual House, living stones, Peter said, and we all have the responsibility to speak the truth and demonstrate holy lives that honor and glorify our Savior.****
Protestants always love to point to sinners in the Church thinking it somehow discounts the Church’s authority. Popes have not contradicted each other on binding doctrine and dogmas. There has been no change in Church doctrine, only a deepened understanding of the truth.
Jesus never promised that those who led the Church would be perfect. Peter was rash and impulsive and not always obedient. When he did not live according to the Council of Jerusalem, Paul had to rebuke him. But, that didn’t mean that Peter could not lead the Church, only that he was not perfect.
I hope I am not being presumptuous to say that you are a sinner. Yet, you believe that in spite of being a sinner, the Holy Spirit can/will guide you to the truth. What would make you different from the Church?
The Church has not changed, just as the truth has not changed. The truth revealed in the NT, was not a different truth than what was revealed in the OT, it was a deeper understanding of that truth, because God had come as Man to deepen our understanding, of God’ love, sacrifice and redemption. And He came to draw all men to Himself, not just those to whom He had already revealed Himself.
The nature of mankind did not change with the coming of Christ, rather the nature of the covenant changed for we now had a perfect sacrifice and a perfect intercessor for our redemption.
You bring up the killing of genuine Christians by Catholics. Do you forget or ignore the killing of Catholic Christians by protestants? Why? Is it because to do so would be to admit that not just Catholics have done such wrong in the name of spreading the gospel?
I think of Peter in the garden when they came to arrest Jesus. What did he do? He grabbed a sword and cut off the ear of one of the centurions. Now, Peter was not a fighting man and probably never dreamed that he would do something like that. But, what did Jesus do? He told Peter to put away his sword and then healed the man.
Christians have put away their swords and Jesus will heal the wound that such violence caused.
In every age, we see the Holy Spirit guiding the Church away from that which is wrong within her and toward what is right.
The problem is that protestants can’t see the forest for the trees.
****So, if you want to relinquish your ability to reason and to investigate Scriptural truths to see if these things be so, then go right ahead. Go ahead and ignore the still small voice of the Holy Spirit that speaks to your heart when you see a Bible passage made to say what you can’t see it saying. Go ahead and trust that others will take full responsibility for your soul and hand its keeping to those who demand fealty to THEIR interpretation under penalty of anathema. But shouldn’t you at least wonder why they NEED to demand such if Scripture really backs them up? No, I choose the Divinely-inspired Holy Scriptures as my infallible authority and I trust the indwelling Holy Spirit to lead me unto all truth - just as Jesus promised. I don’t claim to be infallible, but God’s word is and I can trust it. I sincerely pray you see the truth.****
Why have I relinquished my ability to reason because I accept the Church as Christ’s and trust that the Holy Spirit guides her? If it makes you feel good to think that, go ahead. I know differently. I know that I have searched Scripture, as well as Tradition and history to know that the Church is exactly what she claims.
That still small voice of the Holy Spirit led me back to the Church.
If your prayer is for me to see the truth as you see it, please don’t bother. I have been there, done that and found where God wants me to be.
The Holy Spirit has determined what is Scripture through the men who guarded it from the beginning and passed on that truth to others. It was not me, or you or anyone else who did this, but the work of the Holy Spirit through the Church.
Now wait a minute. What Paul wrote was Scripture which is also what he taught. Peter himself acknowledges it as such.
So you're telling us that Paul, who was preaching what Jesus revealed to him by divine revelation, had to go to the other apostles to make sure that what he was teaching was right?
Are you serious????
Galatians 1:11-17 11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
****he rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy and false doctrine****
Well, right there you are wrong and adding to Scripture what is not there. Paul did not rebuke Peter for false doctrine, but for hypocrisy.
BUT GOD HATH SHEWED ME THAT I SHOULD NOT CALL ANY MAN COMMON OR UNCLEAN.”
Yep, God revealed the truth to Peter, yet again. God did like to do that didn’t He?
Picture it, Peter knew he was to go to all nations and lo and behold there were Jews in all nations. You know, a little thing called the diaspora, that is, Jews who lived in nations other than Israel.
No one has ever claimed that Peter knew EVERYTHING instantly upon receiving the Holy Spirit.
The *Church* doesn't seem to be listening very well, then, does it.
When the notorious immorality of the Catholic clergy is finally appropriately dealt with, then you can come back to us and tell us that and expect us to believe it. Until then, since it's been an issue for at least the last thousand years, your credibility is taking a pounding.
St. Peter Damian's Book of Gomorrah: Homosexual Situation Graver than Damian's Time
Read the next chapter.
You defame ALL clergy with such a statement.
But, I understand it is your fallback position.
Needed more proof reading, but thank God for what edifies.
A direct appeal to Mt 16:18 greatly obscures the number of steps that have to be interpolated in order to get us from Peter to the papacy. Let’s jot down just a few of these intervening steps:
a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to “Peter.”
b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has “exclusive” reference to Peter.
c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine “office.”
d) This office is “perpetual”
e) Peter resided in “Rome”
f) Peter was the “bishop” of Rome
g) Peter was the “first” bishop of Rome
h) There was only “one” bishop at a time
i) Peter was not a bishop “anywhere else.”
j) Peter “ordained” a successor
k) This ceremony “transferred” his official prerogatives to a successor.
l) The succession has remained “unbroken” up to the present day.
Lets go back and review each of these twelve separate steps:
(a) V18 may not even refer to Peter. “We can see that ‘Petros’ is not the “petra’ on which Jesus will build his church…In accord with 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the ‘petra’ consists of Jesus’ teaching, i.e., the law of Christ. ‘This rock’ no longer poses the problem that ‘this’ is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally ‘on you.’ Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., ‘this rock’ echoes ‘these my words.’ Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church…Matthew’s Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (cf. 5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose stone Peter. Also, we no longer need to explain away the association of the church’s foundation with Christ rather than Peter in Mt 21:42,” R. Gundry, Matthew (Eerdmans 1994), 334.
(b) Is falsified by the power-sharing arrangement in Mt 18:17-18 & Jn 20:23.
(c) The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect that the promise is separable from the person of Peter.
(d) In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the Church, and not to a church office.
(e) There is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (cf. 1 Pet 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5).
(f) This commits a category mistake. An Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, it’s an extraordinary rather than ordinary office.
(g) The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (cf. Acts 18:2; Rom 16:3). It wasn’t founded by Peter. Rather, it consisted of a number of house-churches (e.g. Rom 16; Hebrews) of Jewish or Gentile membership—or mixed company.
(h) NT polity was plural rather than monarchal. The Catholic claim is predicated on a strategic shift from a plurality of bishops (pastors/elders) presiding over a single (local) church—which was the NT model—to a single bishop presiding over a plurality of churches. And even after you go from (i) oligarchic to (ii) monarchal prelacy, you must then continue from monarchal prelacy to (iii) Roman primacy, from Roman primacy to (iv) papal primacy, and from papal primacy to (v) papal infallibility. So step (h) really breaks down into separate steps—none of which enjoys the slightest exegetical support.
(j) Peter also presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1). And according to tradition, Antioch was also a Petrine See (Apostolic Constitutions 7:46.).
(j)-(k) This suffers from at least three objections: i) These assumptions are devoid of exegetical support. There is no internal warrant for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors. ii) Even if he had, there is no exegetical evidence that the imposition of hands is identical with Holy Orders. iii) Even if we went along with that identification, Popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor (or priest, if you prefer), not a Pope.
(l) This cannot be verified. What is more, events like the Great Schism falsify it in practice, if not in principle.
These are not petty objections. In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain. To my knowledge, I haven’t said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position. But other issues aside, this admits that there is no straight-line deduction from Mt 16:18 to the papacy. What we have is, at best, a chain of possible inferences. It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument. Moreover, only the very first link has any apparent hook in Mt 16:18. Except for (v), all the rest depend on tradition and dogma. Their traditional support is thin and equivocal while the dogmatic appeal is self-serving.
The prerogatives ascribed to Peter in 16:19 (”binding and loosing” are likewise conferred on the Apostles generally in 18:18. The image of the “keys” (v19a) is used for Peter only, but this is a figure of speech—while the power signified by the keys was already unpacked by the “binding and loosing” language, so that no distinctively Petrine prerogative remains in the original promise. In other words, the “keys” do not refer to a separate prerogative that is distinctive to Peter. That confuses the metaphor with its literal referent.
Regarding Isa 22:22—as E.J. Young has noted, “This office is not made hereditary. God promises the key to Eliakim but not to his descendants. The office continues, but soon loses its exalted character. It was Eliakim the son of Hilkiah who was exalted, and not the office itself. Eliakim had all the power of a “Rabshakeh,” [the chief of drinking], and in him the Assyrian might recognize a man who could act for the theocracy…Whether Eliakim actually was guilty of nepotism or not, we are expressly told that at the time (”in that day” when they hang all the glory of his father’s house upon him he will be removed. Apparently the usefulness of the office itself will have been exhausted…The usefulness of Eliakim’s exalted position was at an end: were it to continue as it was under Eliakim it would not be for the welfare of the kingdom; its end therefore must come,” the Book of Isaiah (Eerdmans 1982), 116-18.
More generally, every argument for Petrine primacy is an argument against papal primacy since the more that Catholicism plays up the unique authority of Peter, as over against the Apostolic college, the less his prerogatives are transferable to a line of successors. There’s a basic tension between the exclusivity of his office vis-à-vis the Apostolate and the inclusivity of his office vis-à-vis the Episcopate.
You make a very good point that the arguments between Catholics and non-Catholics on these threads WRT sola Scriptura really is, when you get down to it, a dichotomy between which is the authority for the Christian faith. It is either Scripture or the Church. As you put it, sola Scriptura versus sola ecclesia. If the magesterium is infallible in everything it declares to be de fide, then we don't need infallible Holy Scriptures. But if the Magesterium derives its authority from Scripture, as so many Roman Catholics here assert as well as their Catechism, then it must also be infallible to be counted on to give them this assured status. So, then, if Scripture is infallible - as it is alone divinely-inspired - then it is the true authority ABOVE the Church magesterium.
Your conclusion is correct.
Interesting that when the Roman Catholics were doing all they could to keep the scriptures out of the hands of the common man, for to do otherwise would reveal the corruption within the Roman catholic church, there were Christians who sought refuge from the happenings....They did bring together the bible and it wasn't Roman Catholics.
Of course once the Roman Catholics realized they could not stop the scriptures from getting into the hands of the people, and that those of the Reformation had brought together a true translation for the common man, they had to counter that and have one of their own, which was proven to be as corrupt as the Roman Catholic church.
The history of the Roman Catholic church's oppostion to the ordinary man having the scriptures is amazingly interesting and insightful....no wonder they have to continually say they are the "guardians" of the scriptures....they did all but that!
The only reason I stated it is to counter the assertion that only the Roman Catholic Church is the THE true church established by Jesus. I am quite aware of all our sinful natures, but what has occurred within the upper echelons of the Magesterium AND the Papacy while being held as superior to any and all other Christian faith traditions is inexcusable. How, with a straight face, can Catholics pretend that the debauchery and mafia-like criminality that has happened within the hierarchy isn't anything worse than "just our human nature"? Did they completely ignore Paul's commands that such behavior should not be tolerated and the unrepentant guilty parties removed from the fellowship? We aren't talking about minor indiscretions here. It most certainly DOES call into question the authority of this Church. According to the very standards Peter and Paul set out for the church leadership, those who not only committed these grave acts but continued in them would have been tossed out on their ears if they were truly following Scriptural church discipline. This goes for ALL those who would desire to be leaders within a church. Although there is always forgiveness and mercy with God, those who flaunt God's commandments should be sent away from the fellowship until and unless they show repentance. Even then, if they were leaders, giving them back their positions is not a given.
As far as Popes contradicting other Popes' pronouncements or doctrine changing, which is not accountable to "developing" understanding of truth, I can provide you with multiple links that disprove that false impression. Just ask and I'd be happy to direct you to them.
I hope I am not being presumptuous to say that you are a sinner. Yet, you believe that in spite of being a sinner, the Holy Spirit can/will guide you to the truth. What would make you different from the Church?
NO, Jvette, I admit that I am a sinner saved by God's grace and, of course, God deals with each of us in his own way according to our bent. Being guided by the Holy Spirit requires a "broken and contrite heart" first. Only then can he work through faith in our lives. How he guides us into truth is through the Word of God, it is the sword of the Spirit. Anyone who has surrendered their lives to Christ are not only born again but are indwelt with the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth. As long as this really happens, there is no difference.
The Church has not changed, just as the truth has not changed. The truth revealed in the NT, was not a different truth than what was revealed in the OT, it was a deeper understanding of that truth, because God had come as Man to deepen our understanding, of God’ love, sacrifice and redemption. And He came to draw all men to Himself, not just those to whom He had already revealed Himself.
The truth revealed through Christ as recorded in the New Testament is both a fulfillment of the Old and a new covenant. Jesus revealed mysteries to the Apostles and to Paul that heretofore were NOT known previously. For example, in the OT times, the Holy Spirit would come and go with a believer. David prayed that God would not take his Spirit from him. But in the NT, we learn that the Holy Spirit dwells within us and will not leave us - we are sealed until the day of redemption. And there are many other examples of new truths revealed.
The nature of mankind did not change with the coming of Christ, rather the nature of the covenant changed for we now had a perfect sacrifice and a perfect intercessor for our redemption.
I agree and the new covenant God makes with man redeems us from the curse of sin and delivers us to God who saves us by his grace through faith. The old way of sacrifices that only covered sin is ended because the Lamb of God takes away our sin and as far as the east is from the west so far has he removed our sins from us and our sins and iniquities he will remember no more. Praise God!
You bring up the killing of genuine Christians by Catholics. Do you forget or ignore the killing of Catholic Christians by protestants? Why? Is it because to do so would be to admit that not just Catholics have done such wrong in the name of spreading the gospel?
No, I know that many horrible things have been done by those who thought they were doing God a favor by persecuting and killing those who they thought were hurting the cause of Christ. We know, of course, that that is not God's way and that the tares will grow among the wheat and it is HIS job to sort them out. The church is definitely supposed to be the bulwark and support of the truth tenets of the Christian faith as revealed in Scripture but we are commanded to speak the truth in love and be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks us of the hope that is within us, with gentleness and respect. I just don't believe anyone who sincerely loves the Lord and who is serving him with all their heart, mind and soul would ever be guilty of such behavior. Most especially not those who claim they are the One, True and Only Church of Jesus Christ. Such actions would NEVER be sanctioned by the Lord so anyone who claimed such authority and committed such acts would be condemned and shown to be of the devil NOT Christ. I know the history that has happened and many people will have a lot to answer for when they face their judgment.
I just thank God that he knows those that are his. We hear his voice and him only do we follow. And he gives to us eternal life through faith in Christ. I hope you have a blessed Sunday.
Paul rebuked Peter for saying that the Gentiles had to be circumsized in order to become Christians. This is the false doctrine Paul rebuked him for.
Galatians 2:11-21
When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
“For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
Good point.
IMHO, the original contention about St. Augustine could not withstand any examination and the "I was just playing a game" position was a lame fall back.
So the Spirit tells you that you are to hold the tradition of your religion as equal or higher authority than the scriptures???
The scriptures say to 'test the spirits'...How do you test this Spirit you lay claim to???
Your position is not one that I see other Catholics professing...You must be a former Protestant...
One of His truths, which the protestant rejects, is that Jesus left His Apostles with authority and with Peter as their leader. As their guide, He sent the Holy Spirit.
Jesus sent his Spirit as a guide to ALL Christians...
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
So that's where the light goes out for you guys...IF you are a born again Christian, you have the same Spirit within you that lead the apostles to all truth...
You have the same Spirit within you that your magisterium claims to be led by...
The same Spirit is within you that is in your priest when he claims to turn wine into blood and a cracker into flesh...
The same Spirit within you that is within your priest when he pardons your sins...(Why doesn't your priest confess to you???)
We have Scripture, which is His inspired word, as a guide, but we also have the Church and both are protected by the Spirit.
Absolutely not true...Does longevity mean protection by the Spirit??? Of course not...The Holy Spirit was given to LEAD you to truth...That doesn't mean anyone of you, or us follows the leading...
We are living in the domain of Satan...
Joh 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
Protestants who believe that they and they alone can infallibly interpret Scripture and doctrine are taking upon themselves an authority that is not given them.
Interpretation has nothing to do with authority, but power...And it's not so much interpretation as it is believing...
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
And what is that power??? The Holy Spirit...We don't need authority to know the scriptures, we need power...And we have it...
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
Joh 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
We Christians have any and all of the power that your 'Church' claims to have to understand the scriptures...Of course your religion says otherwise...And, without any evidence of such...
They come up with this unBiblical, unGodly bunk that only they can understand the scriptures...I can't believe you guys, at least those of you who appear to be saved fall for this stuff...
But I have the evidence...It is the word of God that was taught to the Apostles and disciples who wrote it down to be preserved by the Holy Spirit...
That's crazy...No one would know about Jesus Christ had it not been for the book...No one would know about God if it were not for the Book...
Do you really think the testimony of Moses would have made it up thru your Church had there never been anything written about Moses and God??? Or creation???
Here's an interesting thing for you...Check any dictionary...An icon is not something written...It's a picture, a painting, a carving; something that is a symbol of something...There is no icon in Luke...
I have no idea what you are talking about but whatever it is, you obviously made it up...
But it doesn't matter to me in the least whether you respond to me...
If Peter did not believe what he was doing was right, it was hypocrisy...If he did believe what he was doing was right, it was false doctrine...
Or that Paul would not be required to get permission from Peter to send these letters...
Or that Peter was directed to preach to the Jews considering they would go into obscurity shortly after the commission and would become very insignificant as a population numbers wise...And that Paul was given the commission to go to the Gentiles who ultimately would number into the billions...
Paul revealed (from God) the working of the church and salvation by grace thru faith without works...If there ever was a pope, it had to have been Paul...
So we have this religion that can be identified by:
Mat 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
Mat 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
Mat 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
AND:
Mar 12:38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
Mar 12:39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:
Mar 12:40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.
AND:
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
AND:
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
And give the title of God Almighty to a mere man:
Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
It is the Catholic religion that is identified by these things which we are warned against in the scriptures...
Wake up, Catholics...
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.