Proto dont like the vicar talk

[djc08]

I understand better know and thanks...but it is still really annoying.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 18 2005, 06:52 PM']most protos believe that Jesus means the confession that he is lord is the rock..not peter..
[right][snapback]830089[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I was referring to the slue of other passages such as "whose sins you forgive..." "speaking with the voice of Christ" "pilliar of truth" etc....

[N/A Gone]

yea..."priesthood of all believers" is an argument against that.

they have answers for all of our questions bro..why do you think it isnt a clear path to unity?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

israel was also described as a priestly nation and had the common priesthood, yet they still had a priesthood. why is catholcism any different?

[N/A Gone]

well, we dont follow most of jewish practices and theology why would christianity be any different?

just giving you the protestant answer..

"the church is corrupt and controling and fallable, id rather just my own interpretation and as I learn more I would get closer to the lord.."\

fun stuff eh?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

yeah. protestants are my homies.

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men."[15] The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek";[16] "holy, blameless, unstained,"[17] "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,"[18] that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."[19]
Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."[20] The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."[21]

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially.[22] In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace-a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit-,the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

[Theoketos]

"Vicarious Filii Dei" is NOT a title of the Pope by the way. Never was never has been. So the whole thing starts way off.

[Aloysius]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarius_Filii_Dei"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarius_Filii_Dei[/url]

The Donation of Constantine refers to St. Peter as the Vicarius Filii Dei, and to the popes as Vicars of Peter. The Donation of Constantine is fairly irrelevent anyway since it was (1) a forgery and (2) a forgery of a state document not even a Church document

[N/A Gone]

did u really just use wikipedia as a source? hmm..credibility being lost..

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 18 2005, 09:28 PM']yea..."priesthood of all believers" is an argument against that.

they have answers for all of our questions bro..why do you think it isnt a clear path to unity?
[right][snapback]830302[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I never implied that it was an easy road to unity. I was simply showing you where I would come from as you asked. It would be an approach of showing how Christ entrusted the [b]apostles [/b] with the sacraments and the like in conjunction with the fact that Christ established His followers in a hierarchy: disciples, apostles, the 3, then Peter...

[Myles Domini]

If I may be so blunt as to say. The Protestant 'answers' to Catholic teachings on the ministerial priesthood and the papacy carry no weight and are unjustified. Why on earth should we allow 16th century figures to tell us how to interpret the Sacred Scriptures when we have 15 centuries prior of interpretation given to us by the Fathers? Particularly since even from the beginning there was no clear agreement on this issue between the Reformation Patriarchs e.g. Luther and Calvin's ecclesiologies.

Moreover, I disagree that Catholicism has rejected the vast majority of its Jewish heritage. On the contrary it retains almost everything it inherited intact. Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism was not the only form of Second Temple Judaism and just because Catholicism in all ways does not resemble Rabbinic Judaism doesn't make it less Jewish. Our beliefs on re-presentation at the Eucharist, atoning sacrifice, new covenant, messianism etc.etc. find no meaning without reference to Jewish beliefs on the issue. The papacy also falls into this category cf. Isa 22:15-25 and Mt 16:16-20 what is the Son of David doing in both passages?

Its isolating Catholicism from the Jewish milleu that is its rightful home that cause people to believe that the Church can exist without the proper structure of the covenant in accordance with the preceeding 5 covenants that Christ together in his own self. Personally, I think the adequate tonic would be to visit [url="http://www.salvationhistory.com"]The St Paul centre for Scriptural Theology[/url] and buy a few good titles such as 'A Father who keeps his promises' or 'the Lamb's Supper'. They are excellent one size fits all introductions into the complete penetration of Catholicism (rightly so) by its Jewish provenance.

INXC
Myles

PS) In addition as it has, of course, been underscored: The Pope is Bishop of Rome, Archbishop of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy and the adjacent islands, Patriarch of the West, Pontifex Maximus, Vicar of Christ and Servant of the Servants of God. Not vicar of the son of God.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Myles

[N/A Gone]

woah, you will love his reply.
[quote]It says that the beast has "the name of blasphemy." Revelation 13:1. "It became one of the leading doctrines of the church that its visible head is invested with supreme authority over bishops and pastors in all parts of the world. More than this, he took the very name of God! He was addressed as "Lord God the Pope" and declared to be "infallible." (For documentation see Appendix 3). He demands the worship of all men.

What about 666? Let's take a shocking look.

On the Pope's official mitre is the title "Vicarius Filii Dei" which means "Vicar of the Son of God." The claim that this is his official title has been stated publicly through the years. The April 18, 1915 issue of Our Sunday Visitor, states: "The letters inscribed in the Pope's mitre are these: "VICARIUS FILII DEI," which is Latin for Vicar of the Son of God."

In Revelation 13:18 it says, "Count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. (666)."

Let's do it now and see what we find. Remember the Roman numerals you learned in school?

V = 5
I = l
C = 100
A = 0
R = 0
I = l
U = 5
S = O


"U" and "V" have the same value. Look in your encyclopedia under "Alphabet."

F = 0
I = 1
L = 50
I = 1
I = 1


D = 500
E = 0
I = 1
----------- Total = 666!


In Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, it comes out the same[/quote]


[quote]You see, in the Council of Trent (1545 A.D.), the church leaders ruled that "tradition" is of as great authority as the Bible! They believed that God had given them the authority to change the Bible any way they pleased. By "tradition" they meant human teachings.

Jesus said, "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9.

Just as they had brought images into the church to make it easier for the pagans to come in, they changed the Sabbath of the Bible for the same reason.

How did it all start?

The sun was the main god of the heathen even back as far as ancient Babylon. Since they worshiped the sun on Sunday, the compromising church leaders could see that if they changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, it would accomplish several things. Number one - it would separate them from the Jews who were hated by many of the Romans and who, along with Jesus, (Luke 4:16), had been worshiping on Saturday from the beginning (and still do today). Number two - it would make it much easier for the pagans to come into the church if the Christians met on the same day that the pagan world did.

It worked well. Pagans flocked in by the thousands. Satan's plan of compromise was doing its baleful work. The change was attempted gradually but many of the true hearted, loyal Christians were alarmed. They came to the leaders and wanted to know why they had dared tamper with the law of Almighty God! The church leaders knew this would happen - and they had an answer ready. It's a masterpiece. If a person doesn't know the bible well it sounds good.

The people were told that they were worshiping on Sunday now because Jesus rose from the dead on that day.

There's not even one verse in the Bible that tells us to do this, but that's what they were told. Isn't it amazing! Maybe you've even heard that yourself!

When Emperor Constantine became a Christian, Christianity became the state religion you remember. As thousands of sun-worshipers flocked into the church, it wasn't long before they had a dominating influence. Most of his top officials had been sun-worshipers. Because the Roman government was getting shaky, Constantine consulted with his aides and with the church officials in Rome.

"What shall we do? How can we unite and stabilize the government?"

The counsel of the church leaders was timely.

"Pass a Sunday law. Force everyone to cease work and honor Sunday."

That was it! It would satisfy the sun-worshiping pagans, and unite pagans, Christians, and the Roman empire as never before.

The year is 321 A.D. Constantine, yielding to the suggestion of church leaders passes the first Sunday law! Here it is, straight out of the record:

"Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all trades rest on the venerable day of the sun" Edict of March 7, 321 A.D. Corpus Juris Civilis Cod., lib. 3, tit. 12, Lex. 3.

(For more information on this, see Appendix 9).

The Christians who would not compromise and dishonor God found themselves in a dilemma. Satan had worked things around so that you were forced to honor the pagan "day of the sun" or pay the penalty. Even after the Emperor's Sunday law, many Christians continued to honor and keep holy the seventh-day Sabbath that their Saviour had kept. God knew what was going on and had predicted that the man of sin would "think to change times and laws." Satan was about to pull off a world-wide hoax.[/quote]

ok, i wanna hit this guy hard...give me some heat

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 19 2005, 07:40 AM']did u really just use wikipedia as a source? hmm..credibility being lost..
[right][snapback]830429[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yeah, cause wikepedia usually has a pro-Catholic bias...

all the info there is right, you can look it up. there is no inscription on any of the papal tiaras or the papal mitre, and there is no official mention of the title "Vicarius Fillii Dei". The only thing is in the forged Donation of Constantine, and it only calls Peter himself by that title and all the subsequent popes it calls vicars of Peter.

Challenge him to prove it is an official title of the pope. It is not.

Besides, you can stretch anything to match the number "666"

[Aloysius]

Check it out, the editor of Our Sunday Visitor in 1914 is the antichrist! His name comes out to "666"
[img]http://www.biblelight.net/OSV1914.gif[/img]

you see, this claim is very very old news, and thouroughly refuted time and time again.

[Aloysius]

[quote]The April 18, 1915 issue of Our Sunday Visitor, states: "The letters inscribed in the Pope's mitre are these: "VICARIUS FILII DEI," which is Latin for Vicar of the Son of God."[/quote]

of course, the very next issue contains a retraction because the writer of that artical had also bought into a lie and had not thouroughly researched it.