Electing New Pope

[Truther]

It's a fail because you couldn't answer ANY of the questions I asked of you - as usual.
Changing the subject and moving the goalposts are the tactics of a failure . . .

I was simply saying that "Pope" and "Cardinal" are extra Biblical titles for the so-called "church" rulers.

That is the red flag.

Similarly calling church leaders "gurus" is a red flag.

Anyone can see that.

 

[Truther]

I’ll make you a deal:
As soon as YOU show me where the BIBLE says that our ONLY Authority is the BIBLE – then I’ll show you where you can find the word “Cardinal” in the Bible . . .

Chapter and Verse, please.

Are you saying the Bible is not our only authority?

Who among us, else is, then?

 

[BreadOfLife]

It still astonishes me how the Gothic nations, all utterly pagan and idolators that covered all of Europe after pagan Rome's fall, all converted to Christianity in the space of less than a century. Thus one would imagine would have been only of God, yet they all were, according to the Romans, heretics... Arians. Doesn't that make you wonder? Makes one wonder even more that the Catholic faith and the Nicean doctrine had to be implemented by force upon those so called Arians, first by the approval of Constantine and his authority over the church, then by the armies of Clovis. The "Arian" nations that held out were destroyed, the Goths, Heruli and Vandals.
At first, the popes found it difficult to achieve religious primacy vis-à-vis the other archbishops around the Mediterranean. One prime example is Milan. The Roman emperors, all being pagans, would not aid them in enforcing it. To some extent, the situation changed with Constantine’s conversion. He favored Christianity, making it the state religion, yet he saw himself as the head of all the churches. This however, still did not elevate the pontiffs over their colleagues in Constantinople, Alexandria, or Jerusalem. Or for that matter Antioch. And so Catholicism invoked the doctrine of Petrine primacy. They had to. That was their only option. The later emperors, especially in the West, accepted it, but only ecclesiastically. A complicating factor was the breakup of the Roman Empire and domination by Germanic peoples. These were Christians, though not Catholics, who refused to acknowledge the pope’s supremacy or to obey his unbiblical dogmas. This problem was partly solved with the assistance of King Clovis in Gaul, who became a Catholic and used military force to impose his new religion. Thirty years later, Justinian I, reigning in Constantinople, decided to reunite the Roman Empire. To this end, he recognized the pope as the head of all the churches, with a view to gaining support in Italy. (This is the means by which the dragon gave the Papacy his power, his seat, and his authority). He sent his great general, Belisarius, first to crush the Vandals in North Africa and then the Ostrogoths in Italy, together with their Germanic religion. But after Justinian died, the other archbishops ignored his elevation of the pope, whom they no longer accepted as their superior. To add to the pontiff’s woes, another Germanic people, the Lombards, then invaded Italy and tried to dominate him, at a time when weak emperors in Constantinople were no longer able to save him. Thereupon he turned westward and petitioned the Franks to provide the necessary troops. At that time, too, the forged Donation of Constantine was produced, procuring not only deliverance from the Lombards but also "gave" him the Papal States, a temporal kingdom that lasted more than eleven centuries, until 1870.
After that comes the finale, an even more ambitious scheme of world domination, in league with a global superpower.

Thank you for yet another skewed Ellen white “history” of the Church.
Constantine had NOTHING to do with Catholic doctrine – and there is ZERO evidence that points to this fairy tale. Boy – that demonic lady REALLY did a number on you SDAs . . .

If the Romans were sticklers about anything – it was DOCUMENTATION. – and this entire narrative that the Catholic Church was “created” by Constantine doesn’t pass muster.

As for the Petrine Primacy – do your homework.
The Early Church Fathers were invoking this from the beginning.

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

 

[Truther]

Thank you for yet another skewed Ellen white “history” of the Church.
Constantine had NOTHING to do with Catholic doctrine – and there is ZERO evidence that points to this fairy tale. Boy – that demonic lady REALLY did a number on you SDAs . . .

If the Romans were sticklers about anything – it was DOCUMENTATION. – and this entire narrative that the Catholic Church was “created” by Constantine doesn’t pass muster.

As for the Petrine Primacy – do your homework.
The Early Church Fathers were invoking this from the beginning.

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Roman Catholic quotes anyone but scripture writers to score points in his head.

This is the only way that he can survive mentally with that religion.

He props up extra Biblical writers as equals to Biblical writers.

Iranaeus said it so by doggie that's the truth! LOL

 

[amigo de christo]

Free? Haha.. The Pope is more bound than we are, he cannot contradict past magesterial teaching without destroying his own authority.

For example,
Pope Francis could not say we can now ordain women to the priesthood.
John Paul the Great closed the door to any more discussion on the topic.
All future popes are bound by that document.

Pax et Bonum

It sure dont stop him from kissing korans and budda statues and claiming all religoins are finding their own way to God .
that alone is total blasphemy .

 

[Brakelite]

As soon as YOU show me where the BIBLE says that our ONLY Authority is the BIBLE

KJV Isaiah 8:20
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them .

Thank you for yet another skewed Ellen white “history” of the Church.
Constantine had NOTHING to do with Catholic doctrine – and there is ZERO evidence that points to this fairy tale. Boy – that demonic lady REALLY did a number on you SDAs . . .

The history I wrote of above can be verified from a number of different sources, some of them Catholic. But you know that don't you. You couldn't contradict anything specifically from actual historical sources except Catholic revisionist nonsense... Although you did say a week or so ago that the donation was a forgery/counterfeit... Which is why the only option left to you was to attack someone who just happened to agree with the same historians she read herself. And none of them adventists.

If the Romans were sticklers about anything – it was DOCUMENTATION. – and this entire narrative that the Catholic Church was “created” by Constantine doesn’t pass muster.

Straw man. I didn't say currently created the Catholic Church, nor do I believe he did. But he did pass laws which favored it's development... Like Sunday sacredness.

As for the Petrine Primacy – do your homework.
The Early Church Fathers were invoking this from the beginning

Nonsense. You are quoting only those who contributed to the Catholic apostasy. There were many bishops from around the Mediterranean and Asia that refused point blank to submit to papal demands. The long enduring arguments between Rome and the rest of Christendom over the disputed day for celebrating Easter is a case in point, followed by the ongoing purposeful targeting of the Sabbath that was still being observed by churches throughout the world, prompting Rome to establish fasts on Sabbath, and making that day as distasteful as possible to the people, while promoting Sunday as a day of feasting and gladness. Then a little later there were a series of church councils that progressively promoted Sunday, and prohibited any reverence for the Sabbath. But there were Christian communities throughout the Christian world, and even on the papal doorstep, that refused to acquiesce and continued to worship according to conscience and scripture, shunning the Catholic traditions and commandments of men. That information did not originate with Ellen White. Your own church councils and their "documents" affirm this... As well as independent historians.

 

[marksman]

Since four rounds of balloting are taken every day until a candidate receives two-thirds of the vote. In the past, 15 to 20 days after a papal vacancy, the cardinals gathered in St. Peter's Basilica for a Mass invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in electing a new Pope. Only cardinals under the age of 80 are eligible to vote in a conclave.

Question: What makes a "cardinal" incorruptible?

For example, a Pope is voted in by cardinals, what makes a cardinal worthy? is it an exam or test he must pass? And, if so, then couldn't anyone pass that same exam and then be worthy to vote in a Pope. Haven't some early Popes bought their way into the papacy?


Is not the Pope voted into an incorruptible office by corruptible man? And, once in power, have not a few proceeded to become drunken with power, deeming heresies? And, being equal to scripture authority may say NO MORE SOLA SCRIPTURA?


Athanasius Creed:
Whoever desires to be saved must above all hold to the catholic faith.
Anyone who does not keep it whole and entire will doubtless perish eternally.

That's quite a statement. Is that designed to keep life long customers? And, this is coming from an incorruptible office?

I love the Catholic people, but hate certain doctrines of those in authority over them.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the choice of Pope is all decided before they go into the conclave. Lots of lobbying is done to weed out the unsuitable and lots of lobbying is done to get the one they want.

 

[amigo de christo]

Just a thought , but i dont think brakelite is gonna run and holler ALL HAIL POPE FRANCIS and the one world religion .
Very good my friend .

 

[amigo de christo]

Sorry to burst your bubble but the choice of Pope is all decided before they go into the conclave. Lots of lobbying is done to weed out the unsuitable and lots of lobbying is done to get the one they want.

Aka its as crooked as the political system .

 

[quietthinker]

Question: What makes a "cardinal" incorruptible?

election...what else?....would the Pope elect a corruptible cardinal? or are cardinals corrupted because of the immediate influence they are subject to? .....now that's a very cardinal point!

 

[BreadOfLife]

That’s not what I said at all, I said there must’ve been some other ethnicities through the two thousand years that had qualifications to be voted in as Pope.

I don’t believe in affirmative action, because of the color of a person’s skin, color I believe in qualifications for the Papacy.

MANY of the Early Popes were either Jewish or Greek or some other ethnicity. They are list
ed as "Roman" because of their citizenship.

Paul was considered a "Roman" because of his citizenship - but he was a Jew. So it ALL depends on WHO is keeping records.

I’m a former Catholic so I know nothing of the other religions you mentioned.

That shouldn't have anything to do with how much you know about other faiths.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I was simply saying that "Pope" and "Cardinal" are extra Biblical titles for the so-called "church" rulers.
That is the red flag.
Similarly calling church leaders "gurus" is a red flag.
Anyone can see that.

First of all, Einstein - "Pope" is NOT a title oif the Bishop of Rome.
It is simply a term of endearment, derived from the word for "Father" (Papa).

Secondly - there are OTHER words in the Christian lexicon that are not in the Bible.
"Trinity" - yet ut us one of the MAIN tenets of the Christian faith.
"Incarnation" - yet it is the chief doctrine of Christianity.

While we;re at it - I don't see many Protestant terminolpogies in the Bible, like:
"Accepting Jesus as Personal Lord and Savior"
"Solsa Scriptura"
"Sola Fide"
"Limited Atonement"
"Altar Call"
"Eternal Security"

Perhaps YOU could shed some light on those . . .

 

[FHII]

WHO says that a Cardibnal is automatically "inforruptible"?

And that is what you should say. All men are corruptible in the flesh. So I'd like to point some things out. Not to you BOL, but to others.

Before I begin, I am not Catholic. BOL have argued several times over certain doctrines.But I do appreciate God's servants and preachers. While I don't subscribe to Catholic doctrine, I don't like unfair attacks on even false preachers.

You are going to find it hard to point to any Man of God in the Bible who didn't have faults. And I ask the readers if they are incorruptible themselves. If so, why would you demand a Cardinal to be incorruptible? Moses erred. David and Solomon erred. Paul erred. Peter did on several occasions! But Cardinals aren't supposed to? Well, no one is supposed to, but Cardinals are supposed to be above that, as is the Pope?

Now, the way I see it, most (if not all) of the holy men of old and the Apostles were chosen by God directly. Men did not elect them, nor did they have to take some sort of test . But that holds true for Apostles and Prophets. Evangelists and deacons were appointed by men God appointed, or in the case of deacons... under their approval.

We also have Acts 1. The remaining Apostles realized that Judas needed a replacement. They drew lots and chose Mattias. Now, I don't believe that was God's choice (Paul was God's choice), but at least there is a precedent.

The Catholic Church is quite large, so there must be a gov't with them. By gov't I mean a system of leadership and structure. The Pope simply cannot visit every parish in the world and run the administration instruction of such. Heck... Peter couldn't and he was just in one small area; that why he called for deacons to be chosen.

So while "Cardinal" and "Pope" are not Biblical titles, the structure system isn't too far off from the gov't system Paul prescribed. I really don't have a problem with it, although a true Man of God is chosen by God and not men. But in the absence of God, at least there is a precedence.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Are you saying the Bible is not our only authority?
Who among us, else is, then?

Ummmm, Sacred Tradition, for one:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Here, the Bible puts Sacred Tradition ON PAR with Scripture.

Another is the Church.
In fact - the Bible, which YOU labels as outr "SOLE" Authority tells us that Christ's CHURCH is our FINAL earthly Authority:

Matt 16:18-19
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent ME, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

How 'bout that?

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Roman Catholic quotes anyone but scripture writers to score points in his head.
This is the only way that he can survive mentally with that religion.
He props up extra Biblical writers as equals to Biblical writers.
Iranaeus said it so by doggie that's the truth! LOL

The fact that YOU don't have the foggiest understanding that I showed these writings simply to illustrate that Petreine Primacy was something that was already believed centuries BEFORE Constantine doesn't surprise me.

That kind of idiocy still blows me away - but it doesn't surprise me . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

KJV Isaiah 8:20
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them .

And this says absolutely NOTHING about Sola Scriptura - but thanks foe trying.

The history I wrote of above can be verified from a number of different sources, some of them Catholic. But you know that don't you. You couldn't contradict anything specifically from actual historical sources except Catholic revisionist nonsense... Although you did say a week or so ago that the donation was a forgery/counterfeit... Which is why the only option left to you was to attack someone who just happened to agree with the same historians she read herself. And none of them adventists.
Straw man. I didn't say currently created the Catholic Church, nor do I believe he did. But he did pass laws which favored it's development... Like Sunday sacredness.
Nonsense. You are quoting only those who contributed to the Catholic apostasy. There were many bishops from around the Mediterranean and Asia that refused point blank to submit to papal demands. The long enduring arguments between Rome and the rest of Christendom over the disputed day for celebrating Easter is a case in point, followed by the ongoing purposeful targeting of the Sabbath that was still being observed by churches throughout the world, prompting Rome to establish fasts on Sabbath, and making that day as distasteful as possible to the people, while promoting Sunday as a day of feasting and gladness. Then a little later there were a series of church councils that progressively promoted Sunday, and prohibited any reverence for the Sabbath. But there were Christian communities throughout the Christian world, and even on the papal doorstep, that refused to acquiesce and continued to worship according to conscience and scripture, shunning the Catholic traditions and commandments of men. That information did not originate with Ellen White. Your own church councils and their "documents" affirm this... As well as independent historians.

Constantine legalized Christianity - that's it.
The fact that the ONLY game in town - as far as Christianity is concerned - was the Catholic Church should tell you something. Sure, there were some hheretical sects, like the Gnostics, Arians, etc. - but those were dissident groups. There was ONE Church.

As for the rest of your rant - it's ALWAYS the same song with you - the Sabbath.
You complain that Christians observe the Lord's Fay (Sunday) as the fulfillment of the Sabbath - because YOU'RE still stuck in the SHADOW of the fulfillment which is CHRIST.

Move AWAY from the shadoews and come to Christ . . .
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 a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

 

[Brakelite]

And this says absolutely NOTHING about Sola Scriptura - but thanks foe trying.

Constantine legalized Christianity - that's it.
The fact that the ONLY game in town - as far as Christianity is concerned - was the Catholic Church should tell you something. Sure, there were some hheretical sects, like the Gnostics, Arians, etc. - but those were dissident groups. There was ONE Church.

As for the rest of your rant - it's ALWAYS the same song with you - the Sabbath.
You complain that Christians observe the Lord's Fay (Sunday) as the fulfillment of the Sabbath - because YOU'RE still stuck in the SHADOW of the fulfillment which is CHRIST.

Move AWAY from the shadoews and come to Christ . . .
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 a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

That's a fairly desperate reply, even for you. You cannot actually address direct points, but haul out a scatter gun and hope you hit something. Tell us. How was the church of Rome connected to the church in India, established by Thomas?
How was the church of Rome connected to the Celtic church in Britain established by evangelists from Galatia?
How was the church of Rome connected to the church in Ethiopia established by missionaries from the church in the east?
How was the church of Rome connected to the Assyrian church of Persia and Afghanistan?
How was the church of Rome connected to the churches in Syria, established by really missionaries from Jerusalem?
How was the church of Rome connected to the churches of Greece, Asia minor, Cappadocia, France, Germany, all Christian communities well established before the church in Rome could free themselves from the yoke of Odoacer? And what about a little later, the Christian churches in China and south East Asia? All established by missionaries sent out from, not Rome, but the metropolitan in Persia?
Your church invented lies in order to lay claim to Patrick, yet history reveals the church in Britain established already by the time Patrick was born. His father was a presbyter. Patrick himself testifies of having fallen away from his father's faith. That Church wasn't Catholic. It was certainly Christian, but no connections to Rome until Augustine tried to force their submission to Rome centuries after the Britain's were already converting.
The only shop in town? Seriously? Either you have a woeful understanding of history, or you are lying in desperation to defend the indefensible. Which is it?

 

[Truther]

First of all, Einstein - "Pope" is NOT a title oif the Bishop of Rome.
It is simply a term of endearment, derived from the word for "Father" (Papa).

Secondly - there are OTHER words in the Christian lexicon that are not in the Bible.
"Trinity" - yet ut us one of the MAIN tenets of the Christian faith.
"Incarnation" - yet it is the chief doctrine of Christianity.

While we;re at it - I don't see many Protestant terminolpogies in the Bible, like:
"Accepting Jesus as Personal Lord and Savior"
"Solsa Scriptura"
"Sola Fide"
"Limited Atonement"
"Altar Call"
"Eternal Security"

Perhaps YOU could shed some light on those . . .

Sounds like you are "deriving" yourself farther and farther away from NT terminology regarding elders and the 5 fold ministry, fella.

 

[Truther]

Ummmm, Sacred Tradition, for one:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Here, the Bible puts Sacred Tradition ON PAR with Scripture.

Another is the Church.
In fact - the Bible, which YOU labels as outr "SOLE" Authority tells us that Christ's CHURCH is our FINAL earthly Authority:

Matt 16:18-19
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent ME, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

How 'bout that?

Sacred tradition???


LOL

 

[Truther]

The fact that YOU don't have the foggiest understanding that I showed these writings simply to illustrate that Petreine Primacy was something that was already believed centuries BEFORE Constantine doesn't surprise me.

That kind of idiocy still blows me away - but it doesn't surprise me . . .

Idiocy for not believing extra Biblical writers that came after the Apostles are writing the pure word of God?

I will leave that to the geniuses of the RCC.