Pope Francis Fires Bishop For Being Too Catholic
(babylonbee.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (40)
sorted by:
Citing Origen doesn't help your case nearly as much as you think it does.
He was a blatant heretic who fabricated a bunch of nonsense that has no biblical support whatsoever, such as the preexistence of souls and universal salvation. His entire life's work boiled down to trying to force Christian teachings into the mold of pagan Greek philosophy.
I don't trust Origen to interpret scripture for the same reason that I don't trust Arius or Mohamed. How far removed one is from the time of Christ has no bearing on the accuracy of one's reading of Christ's words.
the fact that origen was a heretic only strengthens the case because even a heretic understood that Peter is the Rock. there is no other interpretation of Mt.16. I could cite 40 other Church Fathers who were not heretics but legit saints.
Uh, no, that's not how that works. That it no way eliminates the possibility that Peter being the Rock is just a heretical doctrine.
And I cited scripture. Church fathers, no matter how numerous, are not scripture. Once again, you illustrate the core problem with the RCC by building your doctrine on the traditions of men rather than the Word of God.
"and i cited scripture" ... "rather than the Word of God."
cool story.
Apparently you forgot to read my earlier comment, which illustrates Christ’s usage of Petra vs petros, a distinction that is lost in the English. I showed that Christ uses Petros to christen Peter while using Petra as the actually foundation of the church. I showed that Paul corroborates this distinction by also declaring that the church, like Israel before, follows the true Rock which Christ. Paul uses Petra to refer to Christ just as Christ Himself does. Paul had every opportunity to say that Petros/Peter was the rock we should be following, and staunchly refuses to do so, pointing instead to Christ. The RCC would do well to follow Paul’s example.
The mere fact that the disciples repeatedly argued among themselves who was the greatest strongly indicates that Christ at no point designated one of them as having additional power or authority over the others. If anything Christ rebukes Peter more often and more strongly than the other disciples because Peter constantly refused to realize when he was saying something stupid.
I already said all of these things above; I’m repeating them again until it sinks in that Peter being the first pope and apostolic succession are not biblical principles
And you still have not addressed my other point that the RCC has utterly invalidated itself from being Peter’s successor in any form by teaching fables contrary both to Peter’s teaching and to the rest of scripture.