Peter's Primacy And Succession

[jmjtina]

When it comes to the FAITH, God will not lead us astray. Never. We follow the teachings of Christ, why would God allow us to be led astray in the faith when he promised that we wouldn't be led astray in regards to faith?

You mistake the deeds of men for the faith itself. No, again we are sinners and we fall short. The faith is what stays consistent, because Jesus himself promised that.

Peace and Charity.

[Bruce S]

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority.

They VOTED on replacing Judas with Matthias. But they DID NOT vote on Paul.

Right?

So, Paul is the first Protestant Apostle? Certainly he arose independent of ELECTION, DELEGATION, No SUCCESSION issues here. He claimed AUTHORITY, he opened MANY CHURCH's did he not? I think he had a little more authority than did the SUCCESSOR Matthias did he not?

So, using your flawed logic, Paul is invalid, Matthias is valid. Thus, give us back all the Christian knowledge of Paul.

Right?

Go find something from the Proof Texts and cut and paste it here for us, k?

[jasJis]

Oh, when you are wrong, it is just people of flesh, but when you claim to be right, it is of God.

Good God Man, talk about doublespeak.

Just WHEN IS the Catholic Church wrong? Ever??

Sheesh, even diehard Protestants don't claim ANYTHING but scripture is right, and EVEN THEN, they are not in agreement with what it means.

Oh...

I forgot, the Catholic Church has ALL the answers here. Of course, that is only when they are right, if not, it is fallible men, but men when right are the Magisterium, except when they are wrong, then they are not.

Circles.

Now you are just being silly.

There is a hierachal nature of the teachings. Infallible in the Big things, human in the small things. Anna already described to you the difference between Doctrine and Dogma. Be a little more honest and a little less tiresome. You are smart enough to hold your own. We've had lot's of non-Catholic Christians here. They weren't here for Catholics to "play with". They came with intelligent discussion and helped enlighten all the Christians visiting here, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

People here are open to learn from you as long as you present yourself as fair and open to learn from Catholics. Continually repeating misconceptions and lies about Catholicism when we've repeatedly corrected you and explained what Catholicism really says about itself, undermines the credibility of all your arguments.

If you're here to just provide your side with a close-minded debate, at least show us the respect to do it to the best of your ability. You've repeatedly shown intelligence. Mix in a bit more of integrity and I think we will all benefit from our discussions.

[Bruce S]

We've had lot's of non-Catholic Christians here. They weren't here for Catholics to "play with". They came with intelligent discussion and helped enlighten all the Christians visiting here, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

The "sit at OUR knee and learn syndrome" I know the type. I'm not one, I will rest my case on one fact.

Show me the thread, ANY thread, where a Protestant came, and debate started, where the Catholics ended up conceding that the Protestant was right, on ANY issue, and where the Catholic position was wrong?

Any thread, any issue. [not tiny debating point, but ISSUE]

Show me one.

[jasJis]

They VOTED on replacing Judas with Matthias. But they DID NOT vote on Paul.

Right?

So, Paul is the first Protestant Apostle? Certainly he arose independent of ELECTION, DELEGATION, No SUCCESSION issues here. He claimed AUTHORITY, he opened MANY CHURCH's did he not? I think he had a little more authority than did the SUCCESSOR Matthias did he not?

So, using your flawed logic, Paul is invalid, Matthias is valid. Thus, give us back all the Christian knowledge of Paul.

Right?

Go find something from the Proof Texts and cut and paste it here for us, k?

Sheesh. Doesn't the following scream DELEGATION (Ordination) to you??

Acts 9:1-20 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains.  On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him. 

He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"

He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do."

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus. For three days he was unable to see, and he neither ate nor drank.

There was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias, and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias."

He answered, "Here I am, Lord." 

The Lord said to him, "Get up and go to the street called Straight and ask at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul. He is there praying, and (in a vision) he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay (his) hands on him, that he may regain his sight."

But Ananias replied, "Lord, I have heard from many sources about this man, what evil things he has done to your holy ones 4 in Jerusalem.

And here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call upon your name."

But the Lord said to him, "Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name."

So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit."

Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength. He stayed some days with the disciples in Damascus, and he began at once to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

The Lord God called Paul and worked through a Disciple of His Church (the Way) to ordain (laying of hands to pass on the Holy Spirit). Why did God bother to do this? Because He chose to work through His Church, then and now.

[jasJis]

The "sit at OUR knee and learn syndrome" I know the type. I'm not one, I will rest my case on one fact.

Show me the thread, ANY thread, where a Protestant came, and debate started, where the Catholics ended up conceding that the Protestant was right, on ANY issue, and where the Catholic position was wrong?

Any thread, any issue. [not tiny debating point, but ISSUE]

Show me one.

Cool. The horns of a dilemma. Have a Catholic say the Church is wrong in something so that you can accept our aruguement that it is right.

I'm flummoxed.

The Catholic Church does not say other Christians are necessarily wrong in everything, but necessarily wrong in somethings. The culpabilty of their wrongness and the reasons for the error are judged by God. But a Christian is a Christian, and God knows who is seeking Him sincerely according to what abilities they were graced by God with. [see parable on the Talents given to the Servants.]