Peter's Successor

No, I am able to say that because of my allegiance to nothing but Scripture. Since I owe no man allegiance, I am not bound by his teachings.

The necessity of baptism is not an issue of interpretation. However, it is clear from SCripture that baptism is to be practiced. The RCC has never practiced this. Their practice has been sprinkling. It is also clear from Scripture that baptism does not bring salvation or the cleansing of original sin.

You are confusing things. I realize that interpretation is necessary in all things but I am using interpretation in the narrower sense. You are here using it in the larger sense.

[qutoe]Are you saying that you perfectly know the mind of God? [/QUOTE]Not at all. But I am saying that where Scripture is explicit on the mind of God, you have no legitimate grounds to differ, even if the church and her bishops tell you to.

 

You will find a lot of non-Catholic Christians who disagree with you on this point.

If you incorrectly say that the necessity of Baptism is not a matter of interpretation, why should I trust your opinion as to what else is not a matter of interpretation.

Larry, you sound as though you think that you are infallible.

 

You know this how?

Ah, Magic_pizza, check out world history and see if you see any importance, large population centers and otherwise civil power in the ancinet dust pile of Babylon in Iraq, or this little "watering hole" in Egypt? I see nothing of the kind. But ROME! Now, there is a population center that is a "plumb to pick" in Christian evangelism that attracted both Peter and Paul!

Can you think of a better reason for using "Babylon" as a code word for.......what place, Magic_pizza? Explain the liklihood that Peter was in a population center of ancient Babylon (goat and sheep herders) of this place in Egypt called "Babylon"?

Methinks there are better places to go in Egypt then this obscure place...

NOW who has a chip on their shoulder? Thanks for getting inside my head and deciding what my reaction will be before the fact.</font>[/QUOTE]Magic_pizza, I will try anything to get you to THINK! Does that offend you? sorry, but it had to be done!

Magic_Pizza, what do you think of the link I gave you earlier that discusses Peter in Rome? How about the testimony of the early church fathers who testify to that effect?

Speak to me and retort to the fact that ancient tombs that surround Peter's tomb that describe how wonderful that they can be buried near Peter, a site that had an ancient basicica erected to mark the site, long since fallen into dust, upon which is now erected the largest church building in all of Christendom - St. Peter's Basilica we see today.

The bottom line is, I can'y make you believe anything you choose not to believe, Magic_pizza.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

For those who believe, no proof is necessary;
For those who do not believe, no proof is possible.

 

And you don't? You sure seem to believe that the RCC has a hold on the truth.

How did you come to be a RC? Did you use your mind at all? Did you see what they believed and decide on your own that you agree with their interpretations? You did make an assessment of their claims and decide from Scripture and whatever else that they were the true church, did you not? You decide to accept their teachings as truth, do you not? Wow, if you actually used your mind in making a decision and a judgment of what is true, you sure sound like many others that are not RCC. Bottom line is you do the exact same thing you are accusing everyone who is not RC. Are you willfully ignoring this fact? Who has decided for Ron what truth is? Ron has. You have made a decision using your mind just like us. Didn't know you had so much in common with us, did ya?

God Be Praised!
Neal

 

Neal, I'm not sure why you insist that I have made declarative statments as to what is or is not truth.

I have merely been asking Larry a few questions in response to his assertion that his is the only possible interpretation to Scripture.

Do you agree with him that most issues of faith are not a matter of Scriptural interpretation and that there is only one intrpretation possible and that he has it right?

Ron

 

I am trying to point out to you, because obviously so many of your other posts seem to neglect this painfully obvious fact, that you make decisions and use yourself as your final authority. You accuse those who say Scripture is their final authority of using their own personal interpretation as the final authority. But you do the same thing! You choose to believe the RCC. Ron has made that choice. You, as your final authority, has made that choice to believe the claims of the RCC. You accept their interpretations as your own.

I just want you (and other Catholics here) to stop coming down so hard on those who say Scripture is their authority. Don't accuse them of using their own interpretation or opinion or whatever unless you are going to point the finger back to yourself. Bottom line is everyone makes decisions for themselves and all of their beliefs are their interpretations that they have accepted.

That's all.

God Bless,
Neal

 

That doesn't matter. What a "lot of non-Catholic Christians" may say is not the test of truth. When Christ commanded to Make disciples by baptizing and teaching, that removed all debate about the necessity of baptism. It is absolutely necessary.

However, it is never necessary for salvation. On that regard, all Bible-believers agree. It is not regenerative.

First, I have not incorrectly said that. Second, I am not asking you to trust me. I am merely asking you and others to make Scripture your authority and to leave the bondage of the authority of men.

Nope.

 

This is an untrue statement. I have never asserted that my interpretations are the only possible ones. What I have asserted is that there are some things on which Scripture is so explicit that playing the "that's only your interpretation" card is illegitimate. These issues that I have listed have no other legitimate interpretations. It is not that "mine is the only possible one." It is that Scripture is explicit.

I haven't even put "most issues of faith" in this category as you wrongly assert. I have listed some very basic issues of faith.

 

"It has to be the way I think it to be because I think it's the logical explanation" is hardly an effective argument. Try harder.

[/QB]

No, it didn't. It's ad hominem, kind of like making fun of someone's screen name.

How many different times shall I respond to the same question? I've responded twice, and that should be sufficient for even you. Re-read my posts.

Dates, WPutnam. Dates. When were these tombs erected? 100AD? 200AD? 800AD? When? You're ignoring the fact that I asked you this already.

You can, however, belittle and ad hominem quite effectively. Disappointing, but predictable.

 

Magic_pizza's last line says it all:

If that is ad hominem, I don't know the definition of the term. Never had I belittled your "handle" here, Tragic_pizza, but I have come close!

Have a nice day, Tragic_pizza, but I think persuing this further is a waste of my time...

God bless you anyway...

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

Well, perish forbid we waste WPutnam's time with such petty matters as backing up his claims...

 

Yes indeed, you do!

But while I have you, here is a bit of "tongue in cheek" by a good friend of mine, Phil Porvasnik:

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dpeter%2bin%2brome%26o%3d0%26page%3d1&q=peter+in+rome&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d241 50a36a4150a36a%26sid%3d34150a36a4150a36a%26qid%3d5952F8FDE48D8D498DA5218947643D35%26io%3d7%26sv%3dza5cb0dc0%26ask%3dpeter%2bin%2brome%26uip%3d4150a36a%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3d Was%2bPeter%2bEver%2bin%2bRome%253f%26ac%3d4%26qs%3d62%26pg%3d1%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fhometown.aol.com%2fphilvaz%2farticles%2fnum13.htm&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fhometown.aol.com%2fphilvaz% 2farticles%2fnum13.htm

Wow! Hope the link works!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

Hi Larry,

You said a couple of things that were in error.

"The necessity of baptism is not an issue of interpretation. However, it is clear from SCripture that baptism is to be practiced. The RCC has never practiced this. Their practice has been sprinkling. It is also clear from Scripture that baptism does not bring salvation or the cleansing of original sin."

First of all unless you are saying that your Church (are you baptist? I haven't looked. ) is the infallible interpruter of scripture or you personally are and all of your opinions of scritprue are infallibly correct, you cannot make that statement from a protestant perspective since many sincere people who you would likely call Christian disagree with you on the nature and effects of baptism. That's just a cold hard fact. I can think of 10 different positoins on what baptism is and how it is done without even trying.

Second point, your proving rather quickly that you don't know a lot about Catholicism except what you have read from anti-catholic sources. If your like many of the anti-catholic people I have met, you will tell me I don't know what I believe. I have been Catholic for 43 years. Case and point, you say we sprinkle. Sorry, that's not a valid mode of baptism in the Catholic Church. You say immersion is never practiced in the Catholic Church. Not true. It is actually the fullest sign of Baptism according to our Catechism:

1239. "The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple IMMERSION in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head. "

Pouring is practiced the most out of convenience because baptisms are normally practiced indoors. Which brings me to the question of how those in Acts who were baptized indoors were immersed. I don't think the common man had a bathtub back then and likely just took baths in the river. Water was carried in jugs.

Hang around Larry, you might learn something.

Blessings

 

Yes, for example who can deny the clarity of the Real Presence? "...the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh....Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life....For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed....he who eats me will live because of me....This is my body....This is my blood of the covenant..."

It is, as you say, patently clear.

 

Notice how you conveniently change the topic to make your accusation of "in error." We were not talking about the nature and effects of baptism, but rather the necessity of it. That is a sly little change that will not fly. Christ said to baptize. That means it is necessary. About that, there can be no debate.

It is not that I do not know what I am talking about. The things that I know about Catholicism have been taken directly from their catechism and from their official pronouncements. I have found that a number of Catholics do not know what their church teaches. I was making a general statement. Perhaps the word "never" should have been omitted. The typical practice of the Catholics is sprinkling or pouring. And that is not baptism at all. Baptism, by definition, means to immerse. You cannot immerse by sprinkling or pouring. That is, as you say, cold hard fact.

But the bigger issue is that here you introduce a clear contradiction of Scripture. Scripture never teaches taht baptism "brings about a death to sin." That is clearly unbiblical teaching. It is a demonstration of where RCC contradicts Scripture in an issue about which there are no other legitimiate interpretations.

Perhaps you would like to start this objection by demonstrating where in Acts anyone was baptized indoors and then show us why they would not have had sufficient water to do it in???? I realize that is a simple starting place, but I don't buy your objection.

One thing I have learned while hanging around here is how many Catholics do not really know what their church teaches and do not understand the implications of it.

 

So why did you overlook the most obvious question??? Why did you not think through this teaching??

Think about it: If he meant his literal flesh, why didn't anyone try to take a bit of his arm, or his neck, or his leg?? Lest you accuse me of triviality, think very carefully. He just said that eating his flesh and drinking his blood would bring eternal life. Yet we do not see even his most devoted followers trying it. In fact, in teh very same chapter, we see that Peter says that Christ had the "words" of eternal life (6:68). What this clearly shows is that it is you who misunderstand. Those standing right there saw quite clearly what he was talking about and not a single one of them ... not even his closest, most enlightened followers, understood him to be talking of literal eating of flesh and drinking his blood. Now if they, standing right there physically with him, understood it the way that we do, why do you differ???

Paul himself talks of this as being a memorial (1 Cor 11). You do not see any practicing any mystical encantations to change it to something "real." He said the bread and cup was a memorial. In this respect, it is us who stand firmly in teh line of apostolic teaching. It is you who have departed.

This is but another instance showing that some do not study Scripture and try to understand what it says, but rather follow their teachers. Let us get back to the word and begin to give more serious thoughts to what Christ actually said and taught through his earthly ministry and through the revelation of his word to the authors of Scripture. Let us abandon the man-centered authority that is entirely too prevalent.

 

So why did you overlook the most obvious question??? Why did you not think through this teaching??

Think about it: If he meant his literal flesh, why didn't anyone try to take a bit of his arm, or his neck, or his leg???</font>[/QUOTE]And why, when Christ said "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." did they not all start sucking their thumbs and playing hide-n-seek? You ask a silly question, and you think it is profound. The apostles waited for further understanding, and it was given them at the Lord's Supper.

I study the words, and I listen to the apostles and the early Church fathers, and I listen to the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth. And all leads harmoniously to the same conclusions. Since the Real Presence was universally understood for 1500 years, I am in good company. No, only somebody determined to uphold a tradition of men could read John 6 and not see the clear meaning.

"For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

 

memorial: something...intended to celebrate or honor the memory of a person or an event.

Why do you assume that a memorial must only be symbolic? There is no such limitation on a memorial. Indeed, in the Eucharist we celebrate and honor Christ by partaking of his gift of Himself, by eating His flesh and drinking His blood so that we may abide in Him, and He abide in us.

Since Christ is present in non-Catholic worship as well ("whenever two or three...") then how is it that in that case you don't object to memorializing a person who is right there in your midst, but you do object when Catholics do the same?

 

IT is a "memorial" that "Shows the Lords Death UNTIL He comes" according to 1Cor 11. "Do this IN REMEMBERANCE" is a focus on remembering NOT a focus of OBTAINING Christ.

The RCC version is "Do this TO GAIN access to ME and to take into yourself - Christ".

Hard to miss.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Babylon was the accepted term for "Rome" by the NT saints.

However - as for Peter's unbroken line of successors.

Emperor Sigismund's council defrocked all Papal lines (yes all three co-ruling papal lines had "successors") and started his own. It is that one that we continue to follow today.

In Christ,

Bob