The Catholic Church

[Steadfast Fred]

There is no line of succession. I can prove to you that Peter was never in Rome, but it will take more time than I have right now. Take a look at his line of succession. Go to Celestine. Notice that Celestine actually resigned. There was no Pope for a period of two years. The succession was broken right there. Celestine was actually imprisoned. I find that hilarious. The cardinals imprisoned their own pope because he wanted to live a pious and ascetic life, closer to God, then he could by being a Pope. What a lark!

Correct! There is no Apostolic Succession. Revelation records only twelve Apostles of the Lamb"

The disparaging remarks are unnecessary. You are right, and some infractions have been handed out because of it. However he does believe in some heresies. Those are doctrines outside of orthodox Christianity. They need to be pointed out. No Bible-believing Christian would believe in some of the things that he believes in. They are listed in a thread that is now closed.

According to his website, he does adhere to and teach heresies. And you are correct again, no Bible-believing Christian would believe in some of the things that he believes in.

FYI, Bishop Fulton Sheen was a heretic. I don't hold a lot of respect for him. I hate the doctrines of the RCC and any organization that points people to hell rather than heaven.

BFS also teaches many heresies that only those who don't know their Bibles can be fooled into believing.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Perhaps I just disagree with you. I don't find the word "papist" a "bigoted" or offensive term. It is part of our English language and a term that people have referred to those who follow the teachings of the Pope. I come across the term in older Protestant commentaries quite often.

The word "papist" appears on page 600 of the 1726 Philip Bailey Dictionary. It is defined as "One that professes the Popish religion".

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Your post is missing the link but I'm familiar with it already. His line of apostolic succession is through Antioch, so yes, I believe it! And whether or not Arch-bishop Wrenn is in communion with Rome or not has nothing to do with whether or not his succession is valid or not (IMHO) and it is sad to see the many disparaging remarks and the amount of disrespect shown to this man of God on a Christian forum such as this one.

DHK, Archbishop Fulton Sheen once wrote: 'There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church; there are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.' You, I belive, fall into that first category.

Thank you. That is one of the few words of support that I have gotten here on this Christian forum where certain people are allowed to deny that other members are even saved and get away with it.

Edit: Okay, I'll have to revise the above; I see that at least attention has been called to it.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Correct! There is no Apostolic Succession. Revelation records only twelve Apostles of the Lamb"

According to his website, he does adhere to and teach heresies. And you are correct again, no Bible-believing Christian would believe in some of the things that he believes in.


BFS also teaches many heresies that only those who don't know their Bibles can be fooled into believing.

Is one of Pharisaical pursuasion a heretic? [edit]

 

[The Biblicist]

No church was founded on Peter or by Peter. When Paul was explicitly speaking of laying the foundation upon which the church at Corinth was built he said:

"There is no other foundation laid than Jesus Christ" - 1 Cor. 3:11

That is clear and explicit langauge.

However, Matthew 16:13-18 contains no such explicit and clear language but must be INTEPRETED to fit the Catholic ecclessiology.

For example, Christ does not say "Thou art Peter and upon YOU I will build my Church"

If Christ would have said that, it would be explicit and clear as 1 Cor. 3:11. But he did not say that.

Indeed, he said everything to prevent that intepretation.

1. The Context is about who is Christ not Peter - vv. 13-17
2. The question of the context was not directed merely to Peter but to all the disciples.
3. Jesus uses the second person singular when he says "Thou art Peter" but a THIRD PERSON singular when he says "upon THIS rock"

4. The nearest antecedent to the THIRD PERSON "this" in Matthew 16:18 is "this" in verse 17 which in turn has for its nearest antecedent Peter's testimony of Christ in verse 15.

5. The giving of the keys to Peter in Mt. 18:18 is merely in his characterization of the material Christ uses to build UPON THAT ROCK His church. This is proven by the application of the keys to a plural "you" in Matthew 18:18 which has for its antecedent "the church" in verse 17. This is proven by Peter's analogy of the church composed of "lively stones" in 1 Pet.2:5 and by Peter's identification of the "rock" (petra) as Christ in 1 Pet. 2:8.

Rome refuses to recognize all this contrary evidence to their INTERPRETATION of Matthew 16:18-19. They refuse to see that their INTERPRETATION is in direct contradiction to 1 Cor. 3:11 and the exclusive words "there is no other foundation" than Jesus Christ to build the church upon.

You need to repent and return from apostasy.

....and I repeat you have no BIBLICAL evidence either of you for your whole episcopal view of Peter and a succession of popes.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Is one of Pharisaical pursuasion a heretic? Then you are a heretic.

Since my teachings are in agreement with the Word of God, your accusation is unfounded.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Since my teachings are in agreement with the Word of God, your accusation is unfounded.

Not all of them are. And your actions are not. I offered you my hand of peace; you slapped it away and then proceeded to deny my salvation.

What does the Bible say about people who boast of having right belief but hate a brother? Oh, but you don't consider me a brother; you deny my salvation, so that gives you a right to initiate any personal attack that it pleases you to initiate.

 

[The Biblicist]

No church was founded on Peter or by Peter. When Paul was explicitly speaking of laying the foundation upon which the church at Corinth was built he said:

"There is no other foundation laid than Jesus Christ" - 1 Cor. 3:11

That is clear and explicit langauge.

However, Matthew 16:13-18 contains no such explicit and clear language but must be INTEPRETED to fit the Catholic ecclessiology.

For example, Christ does not say "Thou art Peter and upon YOU I will build my Church"

If Christ would have said that, it would be explicit and clear as 1 Cor. 3:11. But he did not say that.

Indeed, he said everything to prevent that intepretation.

1. The Context is about who is Christ not Peter - vv. 13-17
2. The question of the context was not directed merely to Peter but to all the disciples.
3. Jesus uses the second person singular when he says "Thou art Peter" but a THIRD PERSON singular when he says "upon THIS rock"

4. The nearest antecedent to the THIRD PERSON "this" in Matthew 16:18 is "this" in verse 17 which in turn has for its nearest antecedent Peter's testimony of Christ in verse 15.

5. The giving of the keys to Peter in Mt. 18:18 is merely in his characterization of the material Christ uses to build UPON THAT ROCK His church. This is proven by the application of the keys to a plural "you" in Matthew 18:18 which has for its antecedent "the church" in verse 17. This is proven by Peter's analogy of the church composed of "lively stones" in 1 Pet.2:5 and by Peter's identification of the "rock" (petra) as Christ in 1 Pet. 2:8.

Rome refuses to recognize all this contrary evidence to their INTERPRETATION of Matthew 16:18-19. They refuse to see that their INTERPRETATION is in direct contradiction to 1 Cor. 3:11 and the exclusive words "there is no other foundation" than Jesus Christ to build the church upon.

You need to repent and return from apostasy.

....and again to Walter and Wrenn. There is no Biblical foundation for your belief that the church was built upon Peter or any line of aposolic succesion from Peter.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Why do I slap your hand away?

Because the Bible teaches us not to receive doctrines that are contrary to that which the Apostles taught.

 

[DHK]

Once again this is getting out of hand,
and it is over 30 pages. It is time it is closed.