ECT WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE EKKLESIA TODAY ??

OCTOBER23

OCTOBER23

New member
CRUCIFORM said,

Jesus Christ is the ultimate Head of His Church,

and He has appointed Peter and his successors as His earthly representatives .

TOO BAD THE REPRESENTATIVES NEVER FOLLOWED WHAT JESUS TOLD THEM.

Let us see now ........ Burning Christians at the stake, Torturing Bible believing people, Drowning them in wells and also , BUGGARY AND SODOMY.....

DEBAUCHED NUNS THROWING THEIR BABIES DOWN A WELL

Hmmm , looks like they were BAD REPRESENTATIVES OF JESUS .
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Cedarbay said:
The EO does not have a pope, so what is their governing ecclesial office? Maybe Arsenios will chime in if he's around. I find the schism between EO and RC a fascinating bit of history, each claiming to be the One, True, Church. Hey...Lutheran's of the Missouri Synod believe they are too, with their faith also based in the teachings of Christ and His Apostles.
Click to expand...
The question, then, is which claimant actually fulfills the biblical paradigm of Christ's one historic Church?
 
H

HisServant

New member
Cruciform said:
The question, then, is which claimant actually fulfills the biblical paradigm of Christ's one historic Church?
Click to expand...

The orthodox church in Jerusalem fulfills them all if you are going that route.

Peter never went to Rome, never taught in Rome, never died in Rome.... unless he had a time machine and transporter it couldn't have physically happened.

Peters travels are well documented along with the time frame of each of them... him spending any time in Rome is an impossibility.

So try again cult boy.
 
revpete

revpete

New member
Cruciform said:
No. Jesus Christ is the ultimate Head of His Church, and He has appointed Peter and his successors as His earthly representatives to guide and teach the Church in His own name and by His very authority. That is the ecclesiology which has been believed and taught by Christ's one historic Church from the very beginning.







Gaudium de veritate,



Cruciform

+T+
Click to expand...


Ok, so can you give clear scriptural proof (not the articles you usually site by RC sources) of apostolic succession?

Pete 👤
 
D

Danoh

New member
Seems old Pete and James never did travel as far as later, so called "Church Fathers" that Roman Catholics and Protestants alike both prove themselves fools by, assert...

Matthew 10: 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Danoh said:
Seems old Pete and James never did travel as far as later, so called "Church Fathers" that Roman Catholics and Protestants alike both prove themselves fools by, assert... Matthew 10: 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Click to expand...
By your "logic' then, NONE of the apostles ever traveled to Rome, which is absurd. In any case, I'll go with the testimony of the early Church Fathers---who knew and were taught by the apostles and/or their appointed successors (the bishops)---over the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect any day.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
Bright Raven

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Cruciform said:
By your "logic' then, NONE of the apostles ever traveled to Rome, which is absurd. In any case, I'll go with the testimony of the early Church Fathers---who knew and were taught by the apostles and/or their appointed successors (the bishops)---over the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect any day.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
Click to expand...

Who would the Pope say is head of the Church today?
 
D

Danoh

New member
Cruciform said:
How exactly does citing Paul's testimony to his ministry somehow demonstrate which claimant to be the true Church is actually that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself...?
Click to expand...

In him first, a new church - assembly of people - began. Paul is the pattern; not Peter.

When Paul was saved, Israel's calling under Peter had already been broken and cut off from its access, Acts 7:51-53 in light of Matt. 12:30-32; Rom. 2:25; Rom. 11; etc.

All the RCC did was rip off a Priesthood - Israel's Priesthood, Ex. 19:6; Is. 61:6; 1 Pet. 2:9, etc - that Paul related now awaited Matt. 10:23 in light of Rom. 11:25.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Cruciform said:
By your "logic' then, NONE of the apostles ever traveled to Rome, which is absurd. In any case, I'll go with the testimony of the early Church Fathers---who knew and were taught by the apostles and/or their appointed successors (the bishops)---over the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect any day.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
Click to expand...

I'll go by the passages.

Fact is you and your kind always rely on more than the stated fact is 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

So much so that you will have to look at this paasage to see what I am referring to.
 
Cruciform

Cruciform

New member
Danoh said:
I'll go by the passages.
Click to expand...
Yes, you'll "go by the passages" as interpreted by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

Fact is you your kind always rely on more than the stated fact is 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
Click to expand...
Catholics wholeheartedly affirm Paul's statement that the Scriptures are useful and authoritative. We simply don't buy into the false 16th-century Protestant assumption that ONLY the Scriptures are useful and authoritative---a notion that Paul simply does not teach [source].

So much so that you will have to look at this paasage to see what I am referring to.
Click to expand...
:darwinsm: ...Congratulation on yet another utterly false assumption derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 
D

Danoh

New member
Cruciform said:
Yes, you'll "go by the passages" as interpreted by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.


Catholics wholeheartedly affirm Paul's statement that the Scriptures are useful and authoritative. We simply don't buy into the false 16th-century Protestant assumption that ONLY the Scriptures are useful and authoritative---a notion that Paul simply does not teach [source].


:darwinsm: ...Congratulation on yet another utterly false assumption derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
Click to expand...

Get lost...that you might be found not having your own righteousness, Phlip. 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top