The Chair of Peter

[Benadam]

a) I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please write clearly.
b) Your comment about demonstrating by bias is wrong and irrelevant.

You reject a Church that claims to be established by Christ with the authority, power and structures described in Scripture. It's reasonable to think that faith formed in generations of rejecting the Catholic Church would create bias that rejects any Church that looks Catholic.

 

[GodsGrace]

FYI, it was Benadam who wrote "All this oes [sic] is demonstrate prejudice by bias", not me. I replied "Your comment about demonstrating by bias is wrong and irrelevant."

So are you boasting about your negativity? Very nice -- not. Does your belief force you to make snide and cynical remarks?

I know J.
He said it about you.
You're the most biased person on this thread.
His comment was correct.
It wasn't snide or cynical (as I've never been with you)...it was truth.
If you can admit that you're biased....maybe you can come to accept some truth, even if you don't agree with it.

 

[jaybo]

You reject a Church that claims to be established by Christ with the authority, power and structures described in Scripture. It's reasonable to think that faith formed in generations of rejecting the Catholic Church would create bias that rejects any Church that looks Catholic.

I'm not rejecting the church that Christ established: His body of all believers. I reject the idea that the Catholic denomination is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ. Every denomination of true believers, including the Orthodox (which claims to be the original church denomination), has its foundation in Jesus Christ.

 

[GodsGrace]

FYI, it was Benadam who wrote "All this oes [sic] is demonstrate prejudice by bias", not me. I replied "Your comment about demonstrating by bias is wrong and irrelevant."

So are you boasting about your negativity? Very nice -- not. Does your belief force you to make snide and cynical remarks?

BTW Jaybo,
when mentioning another poster by name, please tag that poster.
(using the @ sign immediately followed by the name).
Thanks.

 

[jaybo]

I know J.
He said it about you.
You're the most biased person on this thread.
His comment was correct.
It wasn't snide or cynical (as I've never been with you)...it was truth.
If you can admit that you're biased....maybe you can come to accept some truth, even if you don't agree with it.

I have lost all respect for you. I won't respond to your personal attacks. I'm putting you on "ignore" until you grow up.

 

[Benadam]

Well, even the CC recognizes the Body of Christ.

True that. But not limited to that definition.

No matter what denomination.

Not true. The Church of the bible rejects that notion.

The CC has changed its position on the idea of being "outside the church".

No there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church is still doctrine. That teaching is better understood.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have lost all respect for you. I won't respond to your personal attacks. I'm putting you on "ignore" until you grow up.

Saying that you are the most biased person on this thread is NOT a personal attack.
It's a fact - which you cannot accept.

 

[GodsGrace]

True that. But not limited to that definition.

Not true. The Church of the bible rejects that notion.

No there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church is still doctrine. That teaching is better understood.

Benadam...
We could discuss this if you wish to.
It's dinner time here however.

I agree that the Body of Christ may not be limited to that definition.
It IS however, how the NT describes it.
And how the CC understands it to be.
The Communion of the Saints might be a more acceptable definition to you.

As jaybo has correctly shown, the Body of Christ IS a biblical idea and cannot be denied.

As to salvation outside the church....
Do you believe Protestant believers are lost?

 

[jaybo]

Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and anyone who believes the gospel and is saved are all part of the body of Christ.

 

[Benadam]

As to salvation outside the church....
Do you believe Protestant believers are lost

Well we consider protestants brothers in Christ but separated.

We recognize the Holy Spirit operating in Protestant communities.
We recognize protestant devotion! to ther Sacraments .a sign; of unity.hefause it flows from desire to do what the Church does.

Where the rubber rmeets the road.

The individual Christians culpability for separation and their love for Truth.

At this stage there is little to no fault for the separation but whatever it's both
C'atholic and Protestant.

There is no salvation outside the Church can he better and more accurately expressed.

The gifts Jesus came with and gave to the Church are so the Church can be continually given to the world until His return.

If you remember Scripture about that final suffering,.For the inhabitants of the world it will be a trial that reveals love of thruth and it adds for it's love of truth that could save! them. .

 

[jaybo]

Well we consider protestants brothers in Christ but separated.

We recognize the Holy Spirit operating in Protestant communities.
We recognize protestant devotion! to ther Sacraments .a sign; of unity.hefause it flows from desire to do what the Church does.

Where the rubber rmeets the road.

The individual Christians culpability for separation and their love for Truth.

At this stage there is little to no fault for the separation but whatever it's both
C'atholic and Protestant.

There is no salvation outside the Church can he better and more accurately expressed.

The gifts Jesus came with and gave to the Church are so the Church can be continually given to the world until His return.

If you remember Scripture about that final suffering,.For the inhabitants of the world it will be a trial that reveals love of thruth and it adds for it's love of truth that could save! them. .

When you say "Well we consider protestants brothers in Christ but separated" And "We recognize the Holy Spirit operating in Protestant communities." and "We recognize protestant devotion! to ther [sic] Sacrament", are you schizophrenic?

 

[Benadam]

jaybo
When you say "Well we consider protestants brothers in Christ but separated" And "We recognize the Holy Spirit operating in Protestant communities." and "We recognize protestant devotion! to ther [sic] Sacrament", are you schizophrenic?



No That's not a manifestation of a fractured interior life. It's evidence of the unity of shared belief I experience as a Catholic.

 

[Mungo]

He wasn't chosen by God to lead his Church.

Yes he was. The gospels show that very clearly from John 1:42 to John 21 on sea shore (as Walpole showed in post #228).

Read again the OP to The Primacy of Peter

 

[Mungo]

These are the verses that the Catholic denomination builds their doctrine on: Matthew 16:17-18, "And Jesus answered him. “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

Now if you go a few verses after, it says this: Matthew 16:22-23, "So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him: “God forbid, Lord! This must not happen to you!” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”

Notice that Jesus calls him a) "Satan" and b) a stumbling block. (The latter is obviously in contrast to "on this rock...")

The Catholic church has a clear need to elevate Peter to a position that is not substantiated by Scripture. (The same way that other unScriptural doctrines are promoted.) He was a flawed, vacillating man as is clearly shown in the Bible.

Read Galatians if you want to see Peter for who he actually was, not how you want him to be.

Peter was not a flawed, vacillating man.
He had some faulsts, as we all do.
He had to learn, as we all do.
You seem to build your arguments on a couple of verses that don't say all you claim.
You ignore all the many verses that disprove your claims

 

[Mungo]

Well, even the CC recognizes the Body of Christ.
All believers are part of the Body.
No matter what denomination.
It did not change at Vatican II
The CC has changed its position on the idea of being "outside the church".
Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus no longer applies since Vatican Council II.

There has been no change of mind.
It did not change at Vatican II.
It is a much misunderstood principle.
But off topic.

 

[jaybo]

Yes he was. The gospels show that very clearly from John 1:42 to John 21 on sea shore (as Walpole showed in post #228).

Read again the OP to The Primacy of Peter

Apparently you haven't read Matthew 16:23, "But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”

a) He calls Peter "Satan"
b) He calls Peter "a stumbling block" (as opposed to the rock "Cephas")
c) Then He says that "you are not setting your mind on God’s interests".

This gives a clear picture of fallible Peter. Satan, a stumbling block, who has his mind on something other than God's interests.

He never says anything remotely like this to any other disciple! This adoration of Peter is a false interpretation promoted by Catholicism.

 

[GodsGrace]

Apparently you haven't read Matthew 16:23, "But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”

a) He calls Peter "Satan"
b) He calls Peter "a stumbling block" (as opposed to the rock "Cephas")
c) Then He says that "you are not setting your mind on God’s interests".

This gives a clear picture of fallible Peter. Satan, a stumbling block, who has his mind on something other than God's interests.

He never says anything remotely like this to any other disciple! This adoration of Peter is a false interpretation promoted by Catholicism.

 

[Mungo]

Apparently you haven't read Matthew 16:23, "But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”

a) He calls Peter "Satan"
b) He calls Peter "a stumbling block" (as opposed to the rock "Cephas")
c) Then He says that "you are not setting your mind on God’s interests".

This gives a clear picture of fallible Peter. Satan, a stumbling block, who has his mind on something other than God's interests.

He never says anything remotely like this to any other disciple! This adoration of Peter is a false interpretation promoted by Catholicism.

Apparently you haven't read the OP to The Primacy of Peter.
Apparently you haven't read Walpole's post #228
You are ignoring all the evidence from John 1:42 to the meeting on the shore in John 21.

You are obsessed with one verse to the exclusion of all the others.
For someone who professes Sola Scriptura you only seem to believe a small selection of scripture and ignore the rest.

 

[jaybo]

Peter was not a flawed, vacillating man.
He had some faulsts, as we all do.
He had to learn, as we all do.
You seem to build your arguments on a couple of verses that don't say all you claim.
You ignore all the many verses that disprove your claims

That is simply your opinion. Clearly I disagree.

I follow Jesus Christ and am guided by the Holy Spirit. If you want to follow the flawed man named Peter instead of the Lord Jesus Christ, you should examine why. Peter was just a man, with many flaws.

 

[Mungo]

That is simply your opinion. Clearly I disagree.

I follow Jesus Christ and am guided by the Holy Spirit. If you want to follow the flawed man named Peter instead of the Lord Jesus Christ, you should examine why. Peter was just a man, with many flaws.

That's simply your opinion.
I follow Jesus and he clearly appointed Peter to lead his Church. I don't just look at one verse and ignore the rest.
To no other aspostle did he give a new name.
To no other apostle did he give (singly) the power to bind and loose.
To no other apostle did he give the keys to the kingdom.
To no other apostle did he tell to strengthen his brethren.
To no other apostle did he tell to feed his lambs.
To no other apostle did he tell to take care of his sheep.