Much of this is how we are looking at the scriptures.
Quote
Quote
Also Jesus sets this precident Himself by teaching His disciples that the Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses, and therefore had religious authority. In this light, it's not really a stretch of the imagination that there would also be "the seat of Peter."
While the first one is in scripture you misinterpret the text.
No, I didn't, you just don't like the fact that Jesus established the validity of succession so you have your own "interpretation".
Quote
Please take note that the latter notion, a "seat of Peter", simply is not in scripture.
Yes it is, like I said, the apostolic succession began with the appointment of Mathias, and even as the apostles had a leader appointed by Christ (Peter), today's bishops, the successors of the apostles, are leaders that have a leader, the Bishop of Rome.
Quote
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, "why do ye also trangress the commandment of God by your tradition?"
Pure conjecture. You merely claim that our traditions transgress God's commandments. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Quote
Quote
Matthew 16:18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Based upon a faulty interpretation shown here...
Look at my commentary, I was referrencing the second part of the verse about the church. Pay attention!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nono.gif" alt="" />
Quote
Quote
But are the Popes really the successors of Peter? Yes! The apostolic succession began with the appointment of Mathias in Acts, clearly indicating the the apostolic age would go on and never die.
Sorry. The passage simply shows a new apostle was picked Apostolic succession as a necessity for truth to remain requires eisegesis.
Sorry yourself. Maybe you should actually read the passage. The apostle was picked to replace Judas, indicating incontrovertably that succession was a must. But you just don't want to see it.
Quote
Quote
Because Protestants don't believe in a Church with authority of its own, the idea of ecclesiastical infallibility is alien to them.
False. Strawman. I and several others I know hold to the belief the church has always been represented on earth. We just don't believe that Rome is the sole representative of that nor the infallible authority governing such.
If the shoe fits, wear it. Of course this doesn't apply to Anglicans. But other nonliturgical denominations give the church absolutely no authority, subjecting everyone and everything to scripture. But everyone seems to read the Bible differently, everyone claiming inspiration. No one has the final say. 33,000 denominations later.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />
