Posted on 06/06/2016 8:31:02 AM PDT by ebb tide
Are you dense? I've identified as a Christian.
You're not a prot, nor a Catholic, yet you continuously attack the Catholic Church from your little secret sect.
When I see error, yes...as a Christian we are to point it out. Paul and John wrote against errors in the church.
That structure in the second picture in your homepage is an example of error. Catholics have made an idol of "Peter's Chair". I'm sure an idol of Mary is somewhere close by.
I betcha Peter would have that thing melted down in a heartbeat. Paul would roundly condemn it.
We won’t even go into the false beliefs regarding the apparition at Fatima. More error on the part of roman catholicism.
But you have already said you do attend some kind of “church” on Sundays.
No. You've only identified yourself as a heretic.
By their very nature, heretics do not see errors.
You’ve identified the problem with roman catholicism.
A heretic is one who follows Christ?? Wow. Just. Wow.
That’s the problem. I don’t believe you follow Christ.
Do you?
What do you mean by “that’s all that matters”?
The question remains....do you believe His promise of John 5:24?
Ah, good ‘ol Marian Horvat. According to her, the Apostle Paul is a Roman Catholic.
“St. Paul is severe in his condemnation of false teachers, e.g. Protestants,” we are told. Second Thessalonians 3:6, which says avoid association with those “walking disorderly” is taken to mean that Catholics should avoid non-Catholics. Does this make sense? Paul was having difficulty with three groups of people:
One, exr pagans in danger of lapsing back into paganism.
Two, Judaizers.
Three, Gnostics, who denied many Christian doctrines, including the birth of Jesus in the flesh.
None of these things have anything to do with Protestants.
Can Paul be regarded as a Roman Catholic?
The RCC teaches that Peter is not only an Apostle but the Chief Apostle. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia calls Peter the Prince of the Apostles. The RCC teaches that Bishops of Rome, or Popes, are the successors of St. Peter.
Paul never said that Peter is the head of the Christian Church on earth.
Paul never gave any Apostle a rank higher than Apostle.
Paul describes Peter, James and John as “pillars,” but makes it sound like they are equal. Galatians 2:9.
Paul never made submission to Peter a condition of salvation.
Paul never said anything about Peter having a successor.
Paul publicly disagreed with Peter on at least one occasion.
Instead of saying that Peter is head of the church, Paul says that Peter was sent to the Jews and he, Paul, was sent to the Gentiles. Paul claims to be the equal of Peter. Again, Galatians 2:9.
Jesus said that the distinguishing characteristic of HIS FOLLOWERS would be LOVE for one another. This was the commandment He gave before going through His passion ...
John 13
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you should love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love among one another.”
“He who hears you (Peter) hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me (Lk 10:16).” It could not be clearer: the Protestant who rejects the head, rejects Christ himself, and should not be granted the name Christian.”
I don’t think any Protestant rejects Peter, or his status as Jesus’s right hand man and Apostle. Horvat is apparently lumping Peter’s presumed succssors, the Popes , with him. Jesus personally chose Peter, did He personally choose the various Popes after him? No, they were chosen by fallible men.
IMO “heretic” is a bit much. Schismatic, maybe.
Wasn’t Luke 10:16 referring to the 70 additional disciples that were sent out?
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.