Search results

What's interesting is that when a Catholic points an honest Protestant to the Early Church and shows what THEY believed in and taught - he is taken aback and made to think. However, when a Catholic shows this to dishonest anti-Catholics with an ax to grind - they usually blow it off and claim...

Soooo, THAT'S your "anomaly"?? Bercsuse YOU have decisded that since Pau doesn't mention Peter explicitly in his Epistle to the Romans - this somehow "proves" that Peter wasn't there as Bishop?? Paul doesn't mention John in Ephesians. Does that mean John WASN'T in Ehpesus? As to your second...

You're darn RIGHJT it's your last Comment. The mountain of evidence against you is overwhelming. Like I said before - it's interesting that you completely FAILED to address any of the SIXTY-FIVE Protestant scripture scholars who unanimously agree with the Cathoic posiion on Matt. 16:18...

WRONG. You're having to perform all sorts oof Scriptural acrobatic in order to arrive at your absurd conclusions - when the evidence in Scripture is CRYSTAL-clear. Just ask the SIXTY-FIVE Protestant scjolars I presented in posts #231 & #232 who agree that the "Rock" is Peter. YOUR nonsense...

WROG agaun. Firsy of all - the text in question is verse 17: Matt. 16:17 “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. There is NO mention if a "Rock" here - NOR is it even implied. It is simply the FIRT part of e threefold...

That's funny - because NEITHER Paul NOR the Holy spirit ever said that. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness The Greek word used here is οπηελιμοσ (fel'-ee-mos) - which means: Profitable...

Really?? Can you show me in the Catechism where this is "denied" by thhe Church? In Col. 2:16-17, Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit refers to festivals, dietary laws, holy days, new moons – and YES, the Sabbath the Sabbath is included in what St. Paul calls aa mere...

Oh? We "ALL" missed that - did we?? Apparently, you're under the false idea that God is the ONLY one in Scripture who is called "Rock". Time for a Bible Lesson . . . In Isaiah 51, we read the following: Isaiah 51:1-2 Look to the ROCK from which you were cut and to the quarry from...

That;s because Jesus never called Himse;f NOR His Father a "Rock" in Matt. 16:18. He was talking about Simon bar Jonah, His disaciple. ONE more time . . . THIS is why Peter is referred to as "Cephas" in Paul's letters - because Cephas is a Greek transliteratioon of the Aramaic, "Kephas"...

Interesting . . . IUmmmmm - did the SIXTY -FIVE or so Protestant scholars I listed in posts #231 & 232 also "miss it"?? What a ridiculous rabbit trail you are attempting to lead us down into instead of just presenting the simple text of the verse. As I expolained to you earlier - The Aramaic...

What's even MORE interesting is how SDAs cherry-pick what they want about the Sabbath - but IGNORE what the New Testament says the Sabbath: Col. 2:16-17 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon OR A SABBATH. These are...

CONTD . . . · "Some interpreters have therefore referred to Jesus as rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter's faith or Peter's confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the Rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient."...

Incidentally - many Protestant scholars agree with the Catholic position on Matt. 16:17-19 . . . Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19 1. There is no distinction between "petros" and "petra." · "In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms...

No - Jesus was condemning the fact that the Scribbes and Pharisees were tryoing to SUPERCEDE God's Authority. He also blasted them in Mark 7 in a different sceanrio - but the context was basically the same because they were placing their manmade traditions ABOVE Scripture and Sacred Traadition...

Correct - and the reasons WHY arr documented in the book, Pedophiles and Priests, by Protestant authoror, Philip Jenkins. Jenkinns documents the FBI and Law Enfotrcement statistics regarding molestations within American churches - and the evidence is disturbing, to say the least. He notes that...

Really?? I hinestly thought that you might be above this kind of idiocy - but I see that I was wrong. The anti-Biblical fallacy that Jesus forbade calling men "Father" is an example of ignprance of the Scriptures. In Matt. 23, Jesus was speaking about the Scribes and Pharisees who exalted...

WRONG. Peter's rols - and that if his successors has NEVER been about kingship - but about servitude. Their role has been that of Pastor (John 21:15-19) and Vicar (Matt. 165:18-19). A pastor CARES for his flock. A Vicar is merely the chief AGENT - not the King.

And, like every other anti-Catholic ever spoke with - you have a warped understanding of Apostolic Succession. It doesn’t ONLY apply to the Bishop of Rom (the Pope) – it applies to ALL of the ordained clergy. As for “what happened” to the other 11 Apostles – EVERY Bishop alive today was...

Yup - SOME of your Protestant Father challenged corruption within the hierarchy of the Church. Unfortunately - they spawned far more corruptoin with the Scriptures and doctrine that is STIL resonating to this day, as the perpetual splintering and doctrinal invention continues . . .

Thank you for your illuminating - albeit, empty responses . . .