Posted on 04/16/2015 8:47:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Why?
Lol.....
Martin Luther has noting to do with Protestants....
Like Islam has noting to do with the Islamic state.
“against scripture”
that assertion is largely based on a logical fallacy - an argument from silence (in Latin argumentum ex silentio).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
So you would suggest that Mary was before what Jesus called the first resurrection? Were do you find the "special dispensation" in scripture? Or do you think adding to scripture is ok?
I am not Lutheran. Martin Luther WAS a Roman Catholic, having been raised and indoctrinated into that cult. BUT, he recognized the massive errors that the RCC was promulgating, and posted his theses.
What is LOL, is that so many Roman Catholic cultists try to answer any question against their heretical cult with "Martin Luther"...blah, blah, blah...
Roman Catholicism has little to do with reality! It is 10% truth covered with 90%fake ritual and non-Scriptural "traditions of men", i.e.: a cult!
So what ARE you?....and notice I never mention “lutherans”...I said PROTESTANT.
There was no such thing as a protestant until Martin Luther came along.
Ever heard of the Protestant Reich Chrch?
Yeah, after 1,600 years, along come the protestors and decide that the religion, which they seek to redefine in their own perverted image is really a cult.....thanks, after practicing the true Christian religion for 2,015 years, we are so happy that you came along to save us from ourselves.......good grief.
If you want to start your own religion as did mohammed and joe smith, feel free to do so, just don't pretend that it is Christian.......it isn't
Uhhhh, he was excommunicated because he did NOT follow the lead of the Catholic church....like all other protestants, he thought that he knew better what Christianity was than did Christ.....he didn't!
You are free to dig your own grave. Roman Catholicism isn't Christianity, and it is not my OPINION!!! It is based on the extraneous and evil additions to God's Holy Word and plan, from the cult sourced on the Tiber in Rome. It is a poisonous group which indoctrinates and holds fast to the minds of the weak and unsure. It offers a feel-good-about-myself religious experience, not a relationship with God, through Christ. It depends on a cultic worship of a goddess, which holds control over the minds and offers a tangible, touchable statue or depiction to use as a crutch!
Roman Catholicism offers a woman on the throne holding a baby... and deifies her beyond imagination. Christianity offers a Risen Christ that died for our sins, and left the cross far behind! Roman Catholicism keeps Him on that Cross, and tells you to "go see His mother"!!
Good luck with that. BTW, where is your refutation of the premise of the article?
Mark 8: ... 33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” ...
Martin Luther is only mentioned because he was the most prominant revolter at the time. You use the words heretical cult...it was Luther who was the heretic. It is the prerogative of the existing church to determine what is and isn't heresy against them.
For the protestant revolters to decide that the true and only fully Christian church on Earth, Catholicism, is heretical is beyond bizzare.
Heresy is determined by those being denied the truth, not the deniers.
Yeah..and shortly thereafter He said "Take and Eat of this, THIS IS MY BODY, and take and drink of this, THIS IS MY BLOOD. But how easy it is to dismiss that part...
Fear not, Christ promised to be with the Catholic church until the end of time and they have faced opposition at LEAST as serious as the protestant revolution.
Peter was admonished because he had erred and shown a momentary lack of faith....But he did O.K. and became the first Catholic Pope and is loved and respected by ALL Catholics.
Ever hear of St. Peters Basillica in Rome...most people have heard of it...I've been there...very nice.
That is also wishful RC eisegesis, as the text does not say James would not eat with the Gentiles, or even that he was present at in Antioch (versus Jerusalem), only that some came from James and Peter was fearful of their opinion, and led others to sin by his denial of the gospel. Thus as Peter was the one separated from valid brethren, after affirming they were, then he was blamed. And as Barnabas also is indicted by Paul, had James been present and done so then he also would have been mentioned by Paul in his reproof.
In addition, there is zero intimation that Peter exercised authority over James, though Peter was the initial leader (but not as the autocratic Roman Caesario papacy), and in fact Peter is listed second after James and before John in Gal. 2:9. Those are the facts.
Fairness
Follow the leader...
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
He said "You vipers... But how easy it is to dismiss that part...
So, I need to rebuke fellow Catholics and the people who consider me to be a member of a cult to be "fair".
Yeah, right.
I seem to have gotten this all messed up.
The Catholics who rebuke us Prots for being bible only, should say something to you about putting the bible first over Traditions of the church.
George Salmon in 1890 published a book entitled The Infallibility of the Church (University Press, Dublin)...even he states in regard to Gal 2:8:
"Paul limits Peter's province to the apostleship of the circumcision, that is to say, to the superintendence of the Jewish Churches; and states that the work of evangelizing the Gentiles had, b agreement with the three Chief Apostles, been specially committed to himself and Barnabus."
Within less than 20 years after Jesus' death, we see James acting as the first bishop of Jerusalem...where people are going to him for support/questions/judgment...
Acts 15:19: “It is my judgment... shows James giving directives to communities beyond as if it's THE authority of the church.
"James, who was surnamed 'The Just' by the forefathers on account of his superlative virtue, was the first to have been elected to the office of Bishop of the Jerusalem Church." ... Eusebius (263 to 339)
"The sixth book of Hypotyposes represents the following: Peter, James, and John after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not contend for the glory, even though they had previously been honoured by the Saviour, but chose james the Just as Bishop of Jerusalem." (Clement of Alexandria, 150 to 215)
There isn't any reason to believe that the roles were reversed in any way re: James & Peter.
Catholics have always recognized James as Bishop of Jerusalem. That’s exactly what I described: Peter sets the doctrine, and James implements it in his see.
As for you citations, you really should read something in its original context before you cite it. Your citation of Clement of Alexandria confuses the actual writings of Clement with another author’s citation of it. Clement of Alexandria actually cites Clement of Rome’s first epistle as “aposotolic,” even as if it were scripture itself. (The New Testament was still in a bit of a state of flux when Clement of Alexandria wrote.) In this first epistle, Clement of Rome affirms primacy over other sees. Now, our Eastern brethren disagree with the Catholic assertion that Clement of Rome’s primacy amounted to the authority of the papacy, but it certainly establishes that Peter’s see, not James’ see, was that of the primate.
In fact, time and time again throughout the New Testament, Peter is called “primus,” (first) when he was, in fact, *not* the first of the apostles. He *was* the first to witness the resurrected Christ, but only because John stopped and allowed him to enter first, a clear deference. And there are so many times when the other disciples ask Peter to ask Jesus something.
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.