Catholic Heresy (for the record)

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dec 26, 2014
3,757
19
0
amein

"Debate is useless with those who do not have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit because they cannot see or understand the Truth in the Bible from the Holy Spirit.

Until the Catholics accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior we are to have nothing to do with debating them about the Truth in the Bible. "

i would say that IF they seek the truth, even though they are still catholic and are not saved yet,
if they
seek
truth, then , as this site allows, they may seek it here. just it is no use if they remain dead and want to continue remaining dead - if they continue sinning by doing confessional, mass, or any such abomination then we
who believe and obey GOD cannot have anything to do with them, not even greet them or ever share a meal with them, as GOD'S WORD (which they reject) says plainly.

instead of debating here,
they can go here to see more of why they are rejected by GOD until and if they repent, and if GOD allows them mercy (GOD has mercy on who he is happy to have mercy, and GOD hardens whom he is pleased to harden; GOD is SOVEREIGN) >>>
Why I left the Roman Catholic church! (personal testimony)
 
Feb 6, 2015
381
2
0
I do not need to answer your questions because you totally reject everything the Holy Spirit says in the Bible. We are told by the Holy Spirit in the Bible we are not to have fellowship with any so called brother who is an Idolater.
Lol!!!! Thats a total cop-out and you know it! The only reason you don't answer Mikeuk and my questions, is because you can't, without making yourself look daft!


Pax tecum



"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed." Luke 1:48
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Obviously your knowledge of Church history is lacking. Ever hear of St. Ignatius, one of the earliest church fathers? It don't seem you have, here's a lesson in history for ya. St. Ignatius, a disciple of the apostle John, was martyred in Rome under Emperor Trajan's rule. It was during the journey to Rome in 110 A.D. that he wrote his famous letters that contain invaluable information about the early Church. This was 20 years after John wrote his Gospel. Catholic, referring to the Whole Church was a term in common use at the time and Ignatius' writing is the oldest still existing text which contains a specific form of the phrase we still use today as a proper name. That of "ekklesia katholicos," which means "Universal Church". The terms "holen ten ekklesian" which means "The Whole Church" and "ekklesia kathholes" which means "The Church throughout the whole of" were also in use by the Apostles and others in the early Christian community.

Now I'm sure your thinking....." What about Constantine?" Well GaryA, if you were to study early church history more thoroughly, you would come to learn that Constantine did not actually become a Christian until he was an old man on his death bed. That was when he was baptised and professed that Jesus is Lord. During his life he did not surrender to Christ. He simply changed the law so that it was no longer illegal to be Christian. This was quite prudent of him given that Christianity was steadily growing and might have turned into an ugly rebellion against him.

So you see GaryA, as I have just proven, your opinion that Constantine started Catholicism is incorrect...in a big way! No.... he (Constantine) simply recognized it and let people legally be Christian. Christians were having "Catholic Masses" long before this "legalization" of Christianity. Three hundred years before Constantine, Christians believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, honored Mary, had elaborate ceremonies, prayed for the dead, respected the Church hierachy, baptized babies, recognized Peter as the Rock, built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days of Christianity and that is the Catholic Church of today.

History is what it is GaryA.... even if you don't agree with it.


Pax tecum


"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed" ---Luke 1:48
It certainly is a version of history. There is really no problem with the church being catholic in the sense that it is universal. What we protestants object to is the Roman Catholic church declaring itself to be the church universal.

I am amused by your inclusion of Constantine's conversion as including baptism. The orthodoxy of Rome requires baptism for salvation in that it is a means by which a person receives grace. Just an observation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Feb 6, 2015
381
2
0
It certainly is a version of history. There is really no problem with the church being catholic in the sense that it is universal. What we protestants object to is the Roman Catholic church declaring itself to be the church universal.
A version of history? How many versions of history do you claim there to be? The church history I know is that Catholicism exsisted 1500 years before Protestantism and its thirty thousand plus sects came to be. So it seems to me, what you are objecting to is history. Like I told the other fella a couple of posts back.... History is what it is, you can't change it, even if you disagree with it.



Pax tecum



"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed." Luke 1:48
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
A version of history? How many versions of history do you claim there to be? The church history I know is that Catholicism exsisted 1500 years before Protestantism and its thirty thousand plus sects came to be. So it seems to me, what you are objecting to is history. Like I told the other fella a couple of posts back.... History is what it is, you can't change it, even if you disagree with it.



Pax tecum



"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed." Luke 1:48
Really?! There are as many versions of history as there are historians. The only version of church history I'm interested in is the one contained in the bible.

Rome writes her history to teach what she wants to teach.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
A version of history? How many versions of history do you claim there to be? The church history I know is that Catholicism exsisted 1500 years before Protestantism and its thirty thousand plus sects came to be. So it seems to me, what you are objecting to is history. Like I told the other fella a couple of posts back.... History is what it is, you can't change it, even if you disagree with it.



Pax tecum



"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed." Luke 1:48

I will state this once again as I have in the past;
The Catholic church version of history will tell you they existed since the Lord formed and founded it, and Peter was the first pope.
Problem is that true history shows that the term Catholic was not even used tell the 2nd century some time between 101 to 200 AD. This would place the formation of it over 70 years later after the Lord's crucifixion, and many of years after Pentecost and divisions were already taking place in the Church that the bible states is the body of believers in Christ. Not a denominational name, or building/s. The only other name given to those in the body of Christ besides Church is Christians. No mention of Catholic nowhere in the bible, because it was formed years later..............
 
Feb 6, 2015
381
2
0
The only version of church history I'm interested in is the one contained in the bible.
Oh.....I see, You mean the history of the same bible that the Catholic Church compiled at the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the First Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) ? That Church history? Now if you are to disagree with this, you are disagreeing with the founder of your own Protestant sects..... Martin Luther.
"We are compelled to concede to the Papists (Catholics) that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all." - Martin Luther, commentary on St. John.
Rome writes her history to teach what she wants to teach.
Please give some examples, preferably something thats imprimatur.




Pax tecum



"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed." Luke 1:48
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Oh.....I see, You mean the history of the same bible that the Catholic Church compiled at the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the First Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) ? That Church history? Now if you are to disagree with this, you are disagreeing with the founder of your own Protestant sects..... Martin Luther.
"We are compelled to concede to the Papists (Catholics) that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all." - Martin Luther, commentary on St. John.

Please give some examples, preferably something thats imprimatur.




Pax tecum



"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed." Luke 1:48
1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicle's, Acts

Martin Luther gives his version of history.

God said it was He that preserved His word.

I'd say I'm sorry to burst your bubble but I'm not.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
Your question is answered comprehensively in part one and appendix seven of 'Systematic Theology Volume Four: Church, Last Things' by Dr. Norman Geisler. I suggest you carefully read them.

Part One: The Church: (Ecclesiology)
Chapter One: The Origin of the Church
Chapter Two: The Nature of the Universal Church
Chapter Three: The Nature of the Visible Church(es)
Chapter Four: The Government of the Visible Church
Chapter Five: The Ordinances of the Visible Church
Chapter Six: The Ministry of the Visible Church (Spiritual Gifts)
Chapter Seven: The Relationship of the Church to the State
Appendix Seven: The General Councils of the Church and the Development of Roman Catholicism

Source: Geisler, Norman L.: Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things. Minneapolis, MN : Bethany House Publishers, 2005, S. 11





You denied the "unique authority" true. However, if all of the Apostles were given this authority and they passed that onto elders, does that not mean that the second question I ask hold validity? That apostolic succession does exist outside of a hierarchy of bishops, but not outside of a hierarchy within the Church? (Which is what Coptics and Orthodox argue)
 
Sep 16, 2014
1,278
23
0
Luke 11:27-28
[SUP]27 [/SUP] While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed."
[SUP]28 [/SUP] But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."

Matthew 5:3-12
[SUP]3 [/SUP] "Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
[SUP]4 [/SUP] Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth.
[SUP]6 [/SUP] Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.


We are all blessed according to the Word of God. Therefore Mary being Blessed means nothing more than she was a child of God just like the rest of us. We are all equal to Mary because God has said we are also Blessed just like Mary.


Therefore Mary is not superior to us nor is Mary below us. We are equal to Mary. If we True Christians are equal to Mary then why are you Catholics not accepting the Truth from us that is in the Bible?
 
Dec 26, 2014
3,757
19
0
so, how to obey scripture here? the roman heretics who won't cease their sinning after one or two admonitions, are supposed to be not associated with at all, until and IF they repent and turn to yahweh in yahshua for forgiveveness and willingly (and JOYFULLY) cease their, if ever.

the heretics, thankfully, can never deceive the elect, although they do deceive most other or many other nations,
but they will reply without end (apparently) being spurred on and energized by the prince of darkness
as long
as they trust the prince of darkness and remain unwilling to turn to the light to be helped in yahweh's grace in yahshua (IF yahweh's willing).
 
Feb 6, 2015
381
2
0
1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicle's, Acts
Give some specifics, there are 47 Chapters in Kings one and two not counting the twenty eight in Acts.

Martin Luther gives his version of history.God said it was He that preserved His word.
Is that right???? I'd like to see where God says Martin Luther would preserve His word!

I'd say I'm sorry to burst your bubble but I'm not.
Lol!! Not burstng my bubble, its not I that has a problem accepting history.



Pax tecum



"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed." Luke 1:48
 
Feb 6, 2015
381
2
0

You have the wrong understanding of Luke 11:27-28. The beatitude in Lk.11:28 should not be interpreted as a rebuke of the mother of Jesus; (see Lk.8:21) Rather, it emphasizes (like Lk.2:35) that attentiveness to God’s word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus.

Matthew 5:3-12.
Now in Matt.5:3-12, the form Blessed are (is) occurs frequently in the Old Testament in the Wisdom literature and in the psalms. Although modified by Matthew, the first, second, fourth, and ninth beatitudes have Lucan parallels (Mt.5:3/Lk.6:20/Mt.5:4/Lk.6:21,22; Mt.5:6/Mt.5:11-12/Lk.5:22-23). The others were added by the evangelist and are probably his own composition. A few manuscripts, Western and Alexandrian, and many versions and patristic quotations give the second and third beatitudes in inverted order.

We are all blessed according to the Word of God. Therefore Mary being Blessed means nothing more than she was a child of God just like the rest of us. We are all equal to Mary because God has said we are also Blessed just like Mary.
Therefore Mary is not superior to us nor is Mary below us. We are equal to Mary. If we True Christians are equal to Mary then why are you Catholics not accepting the Truth from us that is in the Bible?
FYI KenAllen, The Catholic Church never, ever elevates Mary to the level of deity, and if you studied Catholic Church Doctrine you'd knows this. There is an infinite distance between the power of Jesus and the power of Mary. Jesus is the Creator, and Mary is the creature. Without Jesus’ power, Mary would have no power. Whats sad is that you and the Protestants of today want to treat Mary as nothing more than a disposable vessel. Very sad indeed.

We Catholics, on the other hand, recognize the incredible gifts that God has given to Mary and the rest of us. We participate in the work of Christ in furthering His kingdom, and Mary, as the mother of God’s Son, does this more intimately than any other creature. I guess when Mary prophesied "all generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48), she didn’t have you in mind.

In fact KenAllen, If you are as schooled in church history that you claim to be, you would know that Martin Luther, the man who ignited the Reformation, had a deep and loving devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and believed in Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her role as mediatrix. He (Martin Luther) would be very disgusted with your attempts to denigrate Mary as a mere Jewish lady who gave birth to Jesus.


Pax tecum


"all generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48),
 
Feb 6, 2015
381
2
0
I will state this once again as I have in the past;
The Catholic church version of history will tell you they existed since the Lord formed and founded it, and Peter was the first pope.
Problem is that true history shows that the term Catholic was not even used tell the 2nd century some time between 101 to 200 AD. This would place the formation of it over 70 years later after the Lord's crucifixion, and many of years after Pentecost and divisions were already taking place in the Church that the bible states is the body of believers in Christ. Not a denominational name, or building/s. The only other name given to those in the body of Christ besides Church is Christians. No mention of Catholic nowhere in the bible, because it was formed years later..............
Okay.... then I too will state once again as I did back on page 126, post 2501 of this thread.

"Christ left the adoption of a name for His Church to those He commissioned to teach all nations. Christ called the spiritual society He established, "My Church" (Mt.16:18), "the Church" (Mt.18:17). In order to make a distinction between the Church and the Synagogue and to have a distinguishing name from those embracing Judaic and Gnostic errors we find St.Ignatius (50-107ad) using the Greek word "Katholicos" (universal) to describe the universality of the Church established by Christ. Remember.... St. Ignatius was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St.Peter, ( apostolic succession) the Bishop of Rome. It is in his writings that we find the word Catholic used for the first time. St.Augustine, when speaking about the Church of Christ, calls it the Catholic Church 240 times in his writings."

With that being said.....I also asked you a question on said page/post that went unanswered, care to take another crack at it?

"If it is your belief that Jesus Christ is not the founder of the Catholic Church, then who is???"



Pax


"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. ---Lk.1:48.
 
G

GaryA

Guest
Obviously your knowledge of Church history is lacking. Ever hear of St. Ignatius, one of the earliest church fathers? It don't seem you have, here's a lesson in history for ya. St. Ignatius, a disciple of the apostle John, was martyred in Rome under Emperor Trajan's rule. It was during the journey to Rome in 110 A.D. that he wrote his famous letters that contain invaluable information about the early Church. This was 20 years after John wrote his Gospel. Catholic, referring to the Whole Church was a term in common use at the time and Ignatius' writing is the oldest still existing text which contains a specific form of the phrase we still use today as a proper name. That of "ekklesia katholicos," which means "Universal Church". The terms "holen ten ekklesian" which means "The Whole Church" and "ekklesia kathholes" which means "The Church throughout the whole of" were also in use by the Apostles and others in the early Christian community.
What makes you think any of these words and phrases apply to the Catholic Church?

Fifty-nine other modern groups could just as easily call themselves "universal", and say:

"See there!? We are that Universal Church. We have 'universal' in our name."

:rolleyes:

The term 'universal' may well have been used by some to describe the early Church; however, it did not apply in the slightest to a not-yet-existent Holy Roman Empire -- which is what it was called LONG before it was EVER called [ Roman ] Catholic Church. ;)


Now I'm sure your thinking....." What about Constantine?" Well GaryA, if you were to study early church history more thoroughly, you would come to learn that Constantine did not actually become a Christian until he was an old man on his death bed. That was when he was baptised and professed that Jesus is Lord. During his life he did not surrender to Christ. He simply changed the law so that it was no longer illegal to be Christian. This was quite prudent of him given that Christianity was steadily growing and might have turned into an ugly rebellion against him.
This is all moot. Constantine did not do it to become a [ real ] Christian. He did it to foment a State Church into existance.


So you see GaryA, as I have just proven, your opinion that Constantine started Catholicism is incorrect...in a big way! No.... he (Constantine) simply recognized it and let people legally be Christian. Christians were having "Catholic Masses" long before this "legalization" of Christianity. Three hundred years before Constantine, Christians believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, honored Mary, had elaborate ceremonies, prayed for the dead, respected the Church hierachy, baptized babies, recognized Peter as the Rock, built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days of Christianity and that is the Catholic Church of today.
You have not proven anything. And, you are incorrect.


History is what it is GaryA.... even if you don't agree with it.
History, for you, is what the RCC wants you to believe that it is...

Have patience -- one day you will understand.

:)
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
Okay.... then I too will state once again as I did back on page 126, post 2501 of this thread.

"Christ left the adoption of a name for His Church to those He commissioned to teach all nations. Christ called the spiritual society He established, "My Church" (Mt.16:18), "the Church" (Mt.18:17). In order to make a distinction between the Church and the Synagogue and to have a distinguishing name from those embracing Judaic and Gnostic errors we find St.Ignatius (50-107ad) using the Greek word "Katholicos" (universal) to describe the universality of the Church established by Christ. Remember.... St. Ignatius was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St.Peter, ( apostolic succession) the Bishop of Rome. It is in his writings that we find the word Catholic used for the first time. St.Augustine, when speaking about the Church of Christ, calls it the Catholic Church 240 times in his writings."

With that being said.....I also asked you a question on said page/post that went unanswered, care to take another crack at it?

"If it is your belief that Jesus Christ is not the founder of the Catholic Church, then who is???"



Pax


"For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. ---Lk.1:48.

Yes and they adopted the name Christians as that is what others were calling them first, not Catholic.
The term Catholic came into existence after all the original first Apostles were killed or exiled as John was. Peter, Paul, John, Timothy, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Matthias, and all the other first Apostles did not ever use the term catholic because it did not exist in their time.

[h=3]Ignatius of Antioch[/h]The earliest recorded evidence of the use of the term "Catholic Church" is the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about 107 to Christians in Smyrna.

I believe Jesus founded the true Church which is the body of believers in Him, not a name or denomination church building. No matter what denomination we are in if we put our full faith and trust in Jesus for our salvation we will have eternal life. You do not have to be Catholic for this, which the catholic church taught for many years that you do.
And my answer would be who first termed the word Catholic founded it, and as I have given an example in the earliest church writing using the term was in 107 AD....
 
W

WillyWally

Guest
I'm new here, so correct me if I'm out of line.
It seems to me, that calling other sects 'Heretics' is so far from the teachings of Jesus, that the principals of this forum really need to take a look in the mirror.
I was raised (and abused) in the Catholic faith, to the age of ten, when my Mother finally got the courage to tell her mother that Catholicism was not all it was cracked up to be, and we moved to a Protestant Church.
I have no love of the Pope and his minions, but to level the charge of Heresy is a very serious thing.
This is Sectarianism, the same Devil's work that sees Shia and Sunni killing thousands of 'heretical' others.
The same sentiments that gave us the Troubles in Ireland.
Show a little humility.
See Tribesman's quote, above: A perfect faith is nowhere to be found, so it follows that all of us are partly unbelievers. - John Calvin
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,371
113
I'm new here, so correct me if I'm out of line.
It seems to me, that calling other sects 'Heretics' is so far from the teachings of Jesus, that the principals of this forum really need to take a look in the mirror.
I was raised (and abused) in the Catholic faith, to the age of ten, when my Mother finally got the courage to tell her mother that Catholicism was not all it was cracked up to be, and we moved to a Protestant Church.
I have no love of the Pope and his minions, but to level the charge of Heresy is a very serious thing.
This is Sectarianism, the same Devil's work that sees Shia and Sunni killing thousands of 'heretical' others.
The same sentiments that gave us the Troubles in Ireland.
Show a little humility.
See Tribesman's quote, above: A perfect faith is nowhere to be found, so it follows that all of us are partly unbelievers. - John Calvin
It depend on the motivation. All we do as Christian must base on love. If it is heresy than we must honestly say it is heresy. Not because we want to kill, but because we want to love our catholic brother and sister. so they know that they are lost and come back to real Jesus.

Mary as Queen of heaven is never in the bible, pray to Mary is not in the bible, Purgatory is not in the bible. Muslim in the plan of salvation is not in the bible,All of these teaching is satanic. We have to pray and love them and warn them how these teaching lead to hell not to heaven.


If you know your lover walk toward brinks, you have to said: Honey, you walk to wrong direction, it will kill you.

That is love.

And if you hate him or her than you said, You are OK honey, keep doing what you do.

And that is hatred,

Brother, If you choose to love them than you have to say they are heresy.
 
M

mikeuk

Guest
A great many more words..

Few are relevant to the question asked so I will no reproduce in entireity since that will serve only to confuse the issue,the words that do address the question I will quote shortly which gets lost in Jeffs hateful ranting to himself - he needs help I think! I thank you at least for being civil and the effort in your reply.


The question asked so many times, now restated.
"What was meant by the power to bind and loose in the context, of Matthew 16:19, later Matthew 18:18, and then in terms of proving delegated powers existed john 20:23 - who was it given to, what was the power, and how do you put this into practice today?


I find it fascinating that most of your words are dedicated to a question I did not ask, in fact specifically excluded. The attempt to evidence it was not Peter, or not peter alone. I asked you who it was, not who it was not.


That illustrates the protestant mindset par excellence. Which like so many political oppostion parties is defined on a negative -not what it is, but what it is not ! so you spend far more words in saying broadly "it is not peter" than you do in skirting the question I asked


So the only parts you address the question at all are...


When Christ gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16: 19), He explained what that meant:
"Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The problem is you give no explanation of what it meant, preferring to say who it applied to!


Only these few words attempt an answer
That same promise was renewed to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18, as it was in John 20:23, with the special application there to forgiveness of sins.

Am I to assume you agree broadly with the sacrament of reconciliation? That regardless of words used to describe you agree that apostles were given delegated authority to forgive or not forgive sins? Do you actual exercise that today, and who do you assume has succession from apostles to do so, or do you believe that died with them?


Most of the protestant commentary on John 20:23 is complete B/S - because the vast majority of protestants argue that Gods saving word can lead to acceptance of christ and forgiving, and that is the meaning of the power, ignoring the fact that disciples were given the power to "retain" as well. Clearly not , then just evangelising, but actual authority in respect of sin..


What denomination if any are you?


But most of the question remains and I tire of asking. What specifically was the power given in Matthew 16:19 when jesus was clearly speaking to peter in respect of binding and loosing? What does that mean in practice? Who exercises that authority today and what authority was given.


That is the question I have for most protestants who having said "it is not peter" then seem to ignore the powers completely such as he power to enforce binding interpretation of law including that based in scripture which in reference to the church of matthew 16 is vital to succession.


Contrary to what the average Catholic has been told, the so-called Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church stood unanimously against the current Catholic interpretation. And I have here the publications of many other devout Catholic historians who say the same thing.

Not so , and let us spare each other the cut and paste war , because so many volumes have been devoted to this, we two will not add to that, nor I suspect persuade each other. There are an army of protestant theologians who accept the primacy of peter, but then who question whether it succeeded from him,! Luther for one, and many others after!


I also think you look at the hairs on the elephants backside and miss the elephant entirely. What is the power presumed by the magisterium and pope in essence? And the answer to that is interpretation and constancy of doctrine.


So forget the mechanism by how it happens and ask the broader question. The hallmark of the "true church" denomination is constancy of doctrine, since revelation does not change, neither can doctrine. Only one denomination has stood for millenia essentially unchanged. Indeed, only after the reformation does doctrine splinter endlessly, and with it the denominations to presently tens of thousands.


So when I refer Matthew 18:17, to avoid peter, but ask the question as to what is the "church" given authority to resolve disputes - how can it be any one of those splinter groups? How can they claim apostolic succession, when they were born of endless splits, so those before them did not believe what they do, and those after them no doubt different again?


The protestants generally have to stand back and decide why it is, that the entire world of protestantism is a continuous cat fight on doctrine - including this forum, seemingly united in only one thing that the "catholics got it wrong" - but as doctrinal ground that is hopeless - all it illustrates is two things. That the new testament is ambiguous, and they have no authority they accept to resolve the divisions.. Do they really think that Jesus would let his church wander off the rails on doctrine, and that people can choose what they want it to believe as most protestants seem to. Or do they really believe he would leave it without a succession?

So ignore arguments on the magisterium which are so many hairs on the elephants backside, look at the elephant which is the fruits of that process. The new testament. The creed. The catechism. All born of the same belief on succession. Essentially Unchanged in two millenia - and that is the hallmark of a true denomination. I see no other that can come close. Moreover the absence of that is visible in all the endless schisms of protestantism.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
We Catholics are Christians.
That depends on how you define Christian. My definition of a Christian is:

A person who believes that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is the absolute standard of truth and that ANYTHING that contradicts it (the Bible) is a lie or an error. Hundreds of basic tenants of Catholicism contradict scripture. I believe that my definition assumes or subsumes all beliefs essential to salvation.