I'm there
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (77)
sorted by:
Well, now, that's what it always comes down to for Protestants, some version of sola scriptura and a denial of holy tradition with each individual as the final arbiter of interpretation.
As for your question, don't change the words. Words have meanings. I said the pope is the successor of St. Peter. Do you agree, or not, that Peter was the leader of the Apostles? Let's go from there.
He started the church.
Christ started the church. Was St. Peter the leader of the Apostles?
Words have meaning, remember? What “church”? The eternal redemption church or the physical church? Peter started the latter. I’ll say yes, he was the leader.
Yes, words have meanings that you are, and I say this in good faith, poorly catechized about.
The "church" is the body of the faithful. Christ is the head. Read your Paulian epistles, that's his language, not mine. It doesn't matter if there is a building or not. Wherever people are gathered in Jesus' name, it's a church. Therefore, when Jesus was on earth, and the disciples were gathered in the upper room, for that last supper, that was the "church".
With all due respect, then, since you admit that Peter was the leader of the apostles, you're actually where the Orthodox and Chaldeans and the other pre-protestant groups are. They just deny the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. All bishops....Catholic, Orthodox, Chaldean, Armenian (basically all pre-protestant) can trace every bishop back to someone ordained by the Apostles. Remember, ordination started in Acts.