/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>Is it better to have uniformity, like in the Catholic church, or the disconnection of the Protestant churches?

neither.

best is how the orthodox church is setup, without a pope and without the protestant tendency to heresy and modernism; but with an internal uniformity that everyone conforms to via tradition and scripture

>>259795

Catholics and Orthodox will unequivocally tell you unity and that they're the Church Christ founded himself and Peter was the first Pope, but it's quite obvious that their church was effected by Constantine-era Roman paganism.

Diversity doesn't hurt that much, as long as we can all agree that Christ is our Lord and Savior and that the Bible is the revealed word of God, then we'll all be on the right track. The Nicene/Apostles Creed is also often a common ground for Protestants and Catholics/Orthodoxes.

>>259800

Please stop being sensible. This is neither the time nor place for that sort of thing. :(

>>259803

REEEE protty scum heretic burn in the fire, heretic. DEUS VULT etc.

And order is, once again, restored. thanks.

The Catholic Church is no longer monolithic, the Cardinals and the Bishops are fighting among themselves, the Pope is just one among many.

Take what I'm going to say with a grain of salt before researching for yourselves, I won't claim to know for sure because I'm still investigating, and please catholics, don't be offended because I'm also one, but the Catholic Church is no longer Catholic, the Second Vatican Council made the Church to change over time into something else, that I will not name. If somebody wants to know, start with what Dr. Malachi Martin, a Catholic priest who red the third secret of Fatima in 1960, while serving as assistant to Cardinal Bea, thought was happening and what he though would happen in the coming years, before his death in 1999. There's plenty of material online, though I would recommend the interviews in the radio show Coast to Coast.

>>259833

Unfortunately after centuries of brutal persecution by Rome, the prospect of a Christian ruling Rome was too tempting for Christians to give up. They overlooked how political power corrupted the Church and theological errors crept in.

>>259838

catholics admit that sola scriptura is a valid stance so nothings stopping you from being one of those vagabonds who center their faith around the study of the scripture and be formally catholic. i personally have benefited greatly from following our popes statements. i dont have to agree with him but a lot of what he has said has improved my understanding of the scripture. even in the sermons of a holy father who is currently leading the masses i am frequenting says that our church my be flawed but the division only brought forth only more flawed churches.

we must stay together so the evil cant single us out. you dont have to have to agree with the church but realize that you might be wrong yourself too.

>>259911

This is basically why I'm joining. Puritanism is better then separatism. We need each other. The differences are minor. No one is denying me communion for not praying to saints instead of praying directly to Christ. At this point I would do more harm then good staying separate.

>>259911

>catholics admit that sola scriptura is a valid stance

No we don't and it isn't

The pope is only infallible in matters of morals and faith. And a history of "bad popes" as they are called has done nothing to sully the church on matters of faith and morals.

There is also scriptural backing for this:

>"I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Luke 22:32)

>"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." (Matthew 16:18)

You are thinking like a secular person, of the church as man-made political organisation and that kind of uniformity is probably dangerous in human affairs, but you forget that Christ promised his faith will not fail, regardless of how despicable a person the pope may have been in the past or may be in the future.

Another good proof of this:

>"49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

>51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one."

(John 11:49-52)

Notice how, even though Caiaphas was clearly antagonistic toward Christ, by virtue of being high priest that year he was able to prophesy Jesus' death for the Jewish nation (without even realising it himself). It says clearly that he did not say it on his own, but it came to him as high priest.

This is further illustrated here:

>"1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice."

(Matthew 23:1-3)

Jesus tells them not to follow the example of the Pharisees, but notice how he says that because they sit on the "seat of Moses" that the Jews should do as they say. So even when dealing with one of the bad popes, we can be guaranteed of truth in matters of morals and faith (when speaking ex cathedra). Even if their behaviour should not be emulated.

>>259944

You forget that it was given to peter and not anyone else.

There is no biblical basis that you can inherit the blessings or promises from Peter.

Also why rome?

Paul founded the "church" in rome not Peter.

We know that Peter was often in babylonian and preached there to the jews.

Also there are 12 apostles so there must be 12 popes after your ideology.

When Jesus prayed that his faith does not fail it does not say that he shall be errorless concerning doctrine.

Also from the hebrew matthew we know it says, house of prayer.

A house of prayer is not the body of christ.

>>259944

>seat of moses

This is a pharisee invention to demonstraie their right to modify biblical law.

But Moses never had any authority in giving or changing the law. Moses was a prophet, every commandment was from Gods mouth, Moses was just repeating it.

>>259955

Jesus' words, friend. I believe it to be metaphorical in that instance, but I don't see how this matters. The Catholic church doesn't invent or change God's truth. It's revealed to the church.

>>259954

>You forget that it was given to peter and not anyone else.

>"On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; 21 I will clothe him with your robe, gird him with your sash, confer on him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open."

(Isaiah 22:20-22)

The Papacy is prefigured in the Prime Minister of Israel. Who has successors. Jesus clearly references this position and this scripture when he talks of Peter having "the keys to the kingdom of heaven" and "whatever [he] bind[s] on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever [he] loose[s] on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Isaiah depicts succession in this role.

>Also why rome?

Catholics don't believe in sola scriptura. You can't prove Peter's role as the Bishop of Rome perhaps with scripture, but holy tradition has weight. We know many things that weren't written down.

>Also there are 12 apostles so there must be 12 popes after your ideology.

Christ didn't give the keys to the 11 other apostles. He said clearly for Peter to feed his sheep and that on Peter the rock, he'd build his church.

Christ also set Peter aside:

>"“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”"

(Luke 22:31-32)

He says that Satan desired all of them (a plural you), but that Christ had prayed that Peter's faith (a singular you) may not fail.

Peter is also always mentioned first and Judas last when naming the apostles. He is set apart.

>>259970

>Isaiah 22:20-22

You idiot.

This is not about the pope or peter, those are about people of Isaiahs time where the asyrians took the northern kingdom captive, but God killed the army when they came against the southern kingdom of juda and jerusalem.

This prophecy has been Fullfiled 3000 years ago and never involved the pope.

Also Its not visible that his position got inherited by his children, especally if you concern that the job stoped a few hundred years later when the kingship was halted.

Also, do you know why it says the key of the house (tent) of David? Because it maintained to the houshold of david and by this his to his descendants

>whatever [he] bind[s] on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever [he] loose[s] on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

This is not only for peter, every christian that is filled in the spirit can and is able to do this.

That is what jesus meant when he said he gave us all authorities of heaven and earth, this includes peter.

>Catholics don't believe in sola scriptura

Its not about believing in sola scriptura, you guys dont accept the scripture.

Skripture gives us some insight but you reject this truth for the sake of your tradition.

>Peter is also always mentioned first and Judas last when naming the apostles. He is set

Peter tells us what Jesus called him to do

„After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.“

‭‭Acts‬ ‭15:7‬ ‭

But never ever do you read that peter was special in any way.

We know that John was the most beloved by christ, so why is not he the pope?

There is no pope in the bible!

Paul said: our head is christ!

There is no authority in heaven or hell that is between me and christ.

>>259984

>This is not about the pope or peter, those are about people of Isaiahs time

It's called a "type." You see, us Catholics actually read the Old Testament as more than just some historical stories that don't matter anymore. It all matters.

>This is not only for peter, every christian that is filled in the spirit can and is able to do this.

Except Peter himself is the rock. The text is very clear. Not his faith, not people like him, but Peter.

>Its not about believing in sola scriptura, you guys dont accept the scripture.

I would argue that we read scripture more fully. We don't twist scripture to apply to all who read it like we are divining with it. And we use all of it especially when New Testament texts clearly reference Old Testament texts that the apostles would unmistakably be aware of.

>But never ever do you read that peter was special in any way.

That he was special is all over the bible. I quoted some passages before. In Acts Peter speaks authoritatively on faith. The Council of Jerusalem being a good example. James' "ruling" has since faded but what Peter said still stands.

I was raised Protestant and the reason for my conversion was precisely that Protestants, for people who value scripture above all else, sure do choose to simply ignore a lot of things or do backflips to make it say what they want.