What does this have to do with Christianity?

>>18281281
>Pope
>Plenary Indulgence
Where is that mentioned in the Bible?

>>18281291
Where is using 4chan mentioned in the Bible?

>>18281291
Oh, yeah, and Matthew 16:18-19: Peter is the Rock that the Church is built on and he is given the Keys to Heaven whereby he and his successors may bind and loose obligations on the faithful.

>>18281319
The part of Genesis that concerns Sodom

>>18281321
>whereby he and his successors may bind and loose obligations on the faithful.
Has anyone told the non-catholic 'apostolic churches' that?

>>18281281
can you prove what you said is true? you cant

>>18281330
I didn’t wank for 8 months because of it.

>>18281319
>he thinks this is a killer argument that proves you can just make up your entire religion at your leisure

>>18281375
Please, answer the question.

>>18281321
1. Peter is not the rock, but his confession (namely Christ) 2. The keys are given to the apostles and all ministers (Matthew 18:18) 3. The power of binding and loosing is the power to include and exclude persons from the Church in accordance with the commands of Christ, it does not mean God defers to the pope and allows him to alter reality and the truth including to somehow create his own office 4. The pope is not in any sense successor to Peter, as he holds an office which did not exist while Peter was alive, leads an organization which did not exist while Peter was alive, and teaches dogmas which Peter neither heard of nor would tolerate

>>18281381
See >>18281375

>>18281388
1. Jesus says, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build My Church”. Peter or Cephas signifies ‘a rock’, so “this rock” is indeed Peter; why else would he use the near demonstrative adjective?
2.To a lesser degree than Peter.
3. God permits his people to manage themselves with a level of subsidiarity. He even deigned to allow Israel a king at their behest.
4a. If Saint Peter was given the keys to heaven, what use is this if the Protestant doctrine of “once you go to heaven, you have no conscious impact on earth à la the Communion of the Saints and their intercession” is to be believed? It is the logical conclusion of deduction that Saint Peter would have a successor. Why would Jesus Christ say to Saint Peter, “Feed my lambs… Look after my sheep… Feed my sheep.”, and then he dies and then who is to tend to the flock? If Protestantism to believe, even the possibility of spiritual leadership via saintly intercession is to be rejected. In both of Saint Paul’s epistles to Timothy, he brings to Timothy’s attention that he had received the laying on of hands i.e. ordination and this shows Apostolic Succession of the hands i.e. ordination. When Saint Peter was martyred, the bishops chose Saint Linus as his successor in around 67 AD and some of the surviving apostles would have taken part in that election not unlike the College of Cardinals. Why would Jesus who is God promise so much to Saint Peter if he was to die like all men? Logically, He must have promised all this also to his successors. Saint Peter died, the Church did not. Does the Rock remain whereupon the Church was built, or is it also dead? Our God is the God of the living. Our God is Jesus Christ. The Church is the Body of Christ, therefore it must be living and must have at its foundation a living institution of unity, the Papacy, of which Jesus said to Saint Peter…
1/2

>>18282481
“But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” - Luke 22:32
4b. Christ instituted one Church. Not 2, not 2,000, and all Christians are members thereof by virtue of their baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. However, this Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which holds the Fullness of Truth, and those that follow minor heresies or schisms are still part of it because there is only one Church, but they are in imperfect Communion.
2/2

>>18282498
>and those that follow minor heresies or schisms are still part of it because there is only one Church, but they are in imperfect Communion.
Sounds like cope for apostolic churches not apparently needing to recognise the authority of Peter as (ostensibly) expressed through his papal heirs

>>18282481
>Peter or Cephas signifies ‘a rock’, so “this rock” is indeed Peter; why else would he use the near demonstrative adjective?
It does not follow that we are called Christians, therefore we are Christ. He questioned of Peter who it was men said He was, and then asked who it was he said He was, to which he replied “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”. This drew praise because he did not believe this through his own wisdom, but because he trusted in the revelation of God, so the Lord declared that he who was called Peter was now worthy of the name, to be called a rock because he had confessed the true rock upon which the Church was built. For Him to be speaking of Peter in this moment is a strange and sudden shift away from Himself to Peter, while everything else in the context was about Himself.
>To a lesser degree than Peter.
This is never said and is not consistent with the text.
>God permits his people to manage themselves with a level of subsidiarity. He even deigned to allow Israel a king at their behest.
The office of king was not one of the Church but of the Israelite nation, which they were well advised against and demanded out of their own weakness. But in the government of His church and certainly in His worship the Lord delegates nothing.
>It is the logical conclusion of deduction that Saint Peter would have a successor
I deny not that Peter has a successor, as in a sense all ministers sit in his chair, but I deny the pope of Rome is in any respect, or that any hold the very same office as him.
>Why would Jesus Christ say to Saint Peter, “Feed my lambs… Look after my sheep… Feed my sheep.”,
Because Peter before this had said “I do not know Him I do not know Him I do not know Him”.
>who is to tend to the flock?
It is the duty of each and every pastor to tend Christ’s sheep.
(1/3)

>>18282481
>this shows Apostolic Succession
It shows Timothy received an office from the apostles, and as he was enjoined to ordain elders it shows that this is to continue in the Church until the return of the Lord, and in this sense there is an apostolic succession. But Timothy was not ordained to an office which did not exist, so we are not to suppose he was a priest or bishop or archdeacon or archbishop or cardinal or pope, since these offices have no claim to apostolic succession because they do not derive from the apostles.
>When Saint Peter was martyred, the bishops chose Saint Linus as his successor in around 67 AD
This is multiple layers of anachronistic mythology. First, it was supposed in the late 2nd century by ignorance of the development of the episcopate that a successor to Peter as bishop of Rome was elected. This was many centuries before the papacy and this bishop was then regarded as no different from any other bishop, the electors were supposed to be the congregation (which was indeed the tradition of the Roman church until well into the middle ages, when they were usurped by the cardinals). Who this successor was was uncertain, as Tertullian and Irenaeus give different accounts, because both are ahistorical. In reality there was no episcopate in the church of Rome until the mid 2nd century AD, before that point the church had been governed by a plurality of elders since its foundation by Peter and Paul; there was no bishop of Rome until 80 years after Peter was dead. The chain is broken.
(2/3)

>>18282481
>Why would Jesus who is God promise so much to Saint Peter if he was to die like all men?
I do not know what promise you speak of, since everything we have spoken of so far from the keys to feeding Christ’s sheep is not so much a gracious promise of reward as an imposition of duty, namely the duty of governing the Church.
>therefore it must be living and must have at its foundation a living institution of unity, the Papacy
“Peter is dead, the Church is living, therefore there must be a god-king in Rome who is properly given titles of the Trinity with the power to bind the conscience, which a man is surely damned if he does not submit to him”, it is an extremely strange argument. The foundation of the true Church is the gospel of Christ.
>>18282498
>Luke 22:32
This was Peter’s personal faith, which indeed he maintained even through his cowardice, and not the faith of the Roman church which did not exist yet and which would be warned by the apostle Paul in divine scripture precisely that it wast to watch out that it not allow its faith to fail (Romans 11:20-21)
>Christ instituted one Church. Not 2, not 2,000, and all Christians are members thereof by virtue of their baptism
Quite right, and very true. There is one Church, consisting of all believers, led by one and only one head, and united in baptism. Then you see the Roman church is a pretender when it claims to be the Catholic Church, since it is not mystical, but institutional, it is united not by faith in Christ, but by submission to the pope, it is not led by Christ the head, but by its head the pope, and it accepts not the baptism of those baptized outside its walls. The scripture names this pretender the whore of Babylon.

>>18282565
>>18282566
>>18282570
It would take me at least an hour to answer this, and I want to read the Westminster Confession in my quest to understand the denominations. I suppose the Larger Catechism would be more detailed, but best to get a summary first.
All I’ll say now is that you’re wrong about the Catholic Church claiming all non-Catholic baptisms are invalid; even an atheist can do a valid baptism with the right words viz. Saint Genesius, martyr.

>>18281281
It's 2026 and Christians still believe magical priests can caste buffs on their magical book of fairytales.

>>18281283
>read the Bible
>talk about the Bible soiface

>>18281281
Enjoy Hell.