Posted on 08/24/2014 3:18:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Ok; and I'll bet that you also...
... fast twice in a week and I tithe everything that you possess.
Get with narses; as he has a pitcher y’all could use.
Us thumpers like pitchers; ‘specially them thar kinds that come in them thar little booklets you can find lotsa places.
Elsie:
Bravo! and please RM don’t delete this post. I appreciate the passion of the response as My Sicilian temper at times has thought about saying the same. For the record, Catholic Interpretation of Scripture is comfortable with the 4-sense of Scripture that was used by the Fathers, so yes, a passage can have interpretations using 1, 2, 3 or all 4 of the senses of Scripture. What Rome defines is that MT 16:16-18 refers to Peter [whether it is his confession or due to his confession of faith or person] and that Peter was the Chief of the Apostles and First Among them thus he and via Apostolic Succession, has a Primacy that extends to both the Church of Rome and its Bishop.
Now for all the pissing matched that go on here, has anyone among you Protestants actually read what Vatican I actually said. Well, I have linked it for you. If you read the Definition of Papal Infallibility, it does clearly link Peter’s Confession to the idea of Primacy and Infallibility
We teach and declare that,according to the gospel evidence,
a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God
was immediately and directly
promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
conferred on him by Christ the lord.
[PROMISED]
It was to Simon alone,
to whom he had already said
You shall be called Cephas [42] ,
that the Lord,
after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,spoke these words:
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#
Look!
Over THERE!
Elsie:
And you wonder why “smugness” as you stated is sometimes prevalent in my post, again your words. Well, when you have charitable people like you as friends referring to me and other Catholics as “cultist”, I mean acting “Smug” seems quite charitable and by God’s Grace is the best I am able to do write now without my Sicilian temper moving to more, lets Say, General George Patton type colorful language.
::yawn::
And this is also there :
FEED MY SHEEP [John 21:17] and this also there “But I have Prayed that your own faith my not fail; and once you have turned back, YOU MUST STRENGTHEN YOUR BROTHERS” [Luke 22”32]
So lets play Elsie’s game, he/she post a scripture passage and I post one back. So yes, Peter’s life in the Gospels is one of great faith, sinning, but his Love of the Lord always led him to repent and come back, and Christ clearly in both Luke and John’s Gospel specifically tells Peter to “Feed his Sheep” and “Strengthen his Brothers”
So I will sing that song from Steam in 1970, na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye, allegorically of course saying goodbye to your fundie FR prot interpretation of course, not you personally as I don’t want to come off as Smug or be called a cultist by you, just saying.
So glad you like pitchers.
Here’s some — http://www.webstaurantstore.com/4085/pitchers.html?utm_source=Bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Growth
Elsie:
Its A Bird, No Its a Plane, No its Superman...., oh wait, what was I thinking, it is none other than Elsie, the FR Protestant Theologian par excel lance.
If you'll refer to the reply where I did this; I'll apologize for the remark.
I mrepeat...
I repeat...
You left out...
So lets play Elsie’s game, he/she post a scripture passage I'll ignore it and I post one back.
“So lets play Elsie’s game, he/she post a scripture passage I’ll ignore it and I post one back.”
Haha that’s done all the time around here. By everyone. Which is precisely why the “Scripture proof” game gets no one anywhere.
But please, don’t let that stop you (or anyone).
Elsie:
For the record, it was your post 198 that I was thinking of. Again, not harm no foul and I explained my understanding of your use of the term in another post.
What you are doing is rejecting argumentation that is based upon the testimony of wholly inspired Scripture, by dismissing it as "my views," while you fallibly extrapolate a perpetuated supreme and infallible Petrine papacy and priesthood out of local pastors in Scripture, and invoke non-inspired men which you imagine proves your tradition is valid, while in fact the basis for your claim to truthfulness is that of the assured veracity of Rome
Scripture, tradition and history are and mean whatever she says they do. As Manning asserted , "the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine."
If Rome taught that Mary divided the Red Sea you would defend that on the basis that the Bible does not say she did not. As what Rome says is determinative of how you see Scripture etc., then i keep bringing you back to the same issue, which you ignore, and the questions i asked!
Can you honestly say that the NT gave precise instructions as the ministry and function of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon. It is very unclear and an appeal alone to Scripture can’t answer it
You next against resort to a logical fallacy, that the most precise instructions as to the ministry and function of something must be in a source for it to be the supreme standard, and to the posting same type of ignorance refuted in a past debate, that as ,"nowhere is what they [Presbyters] are charged to do defined.
Yet as shown before , Scripture give quite amount of detail as to the ministry and function of bishop/elders, and materially provides for church laws, but utterly does not show them being titled "priests" and engaging in a unique sacrificial function, turning bread and wine into human flesh and blood to be consumed to provide spiritual and eternal life for the flock. If fact, they are not once shown unique dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, let alone such being their primary one. No wonder you must resort to uninspired tradition.
the Apostles worried that men would argue over who should be Bishop, etc, and thus they appointed men to lead the Churches....Are you saying that all these men got it wrong?????
Rather, you in-credibly extrapolate perpetuated infallible supreme papacy out of appointing men to lead the Churches! That is what you "got wrong," likewise these men insofar as any supported this unScriptural Roman papacy.
daniel212:
Well, Rome has never said Mary parted the red sea. You keep dodging my question and you are wanting me to adopt your paradigm, Sola Scriptura. I will not now, nor tomorrow nor never adopt that heresy. You want me do discuss the question of Papal primacy according to protestant lens. I will not.
The NT does not clearly state what each presbyter and deacon did at every Church. It only provides scant details. Clearly the Presbyters in James Letter were charged with doing more than what the presbyters were in Paul’s pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. We have already had this discussion. Which one is normative, or does it reflect an uneven development that occurred at various apostolic Churches.
No I take Christ word that the Gates of hell would not prevail and the Holy Spirit would guide the Church so the orthodox Fathers of the late 1st and early 2nd century, who were correct on Trinitarian and Christological disputes vs. the various Gnostic sects were in my view, the legitimate witnesses to what was orthodox ecclesiology and all that it entailed with respect to ministry and function of Bishops [Overseers]; Presbyters/Priests and Deacons.
But the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus turned from Peter to the group for that next sentence, and wouldn’t asserting that be adding to the words of the Bible? I accept that it could be interpreted that way, but I do not accept that it cannot be interpreted that Jesus was still speaking to Peter.
No one has addressed why one interpretation of this passage is better than the other. You want me to believe a certain interpretation is the only acceptable one based on what? Your interpretation of how other passages relate to this one? But there are many interpretations of those other passages, too. So how is anyone ever to determine the Truth, if different people can read the same passage and come up with different interpretations.
Obviously depending on the words alone will make it impossible, as evidenced above where the fact that Jesus was addressing different people at different times has to be inserted in order to clarify the text. So who has the authority to add clarifications?
O2
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.