re: If there was ever a Vatican III. What changes should be made to the Church?

They don't need assistance to pray to God.
They don't need Mary as a mediatrix between them and Christ.
They don't need a priest- no human can forgive
sins. Only God can do that.
"Vicar of Christ"?? Ie vicarious Christ? Blasphemy!
Praying to so called saints? Blasphemy.
The mass effectively re- sacrifices Christ every time.
Christ was crucified ONCE AND FOR ALL who are called and are in Him.

There is no basis in the Bible for celibacy among priests- this was enacted because the priests were passing their estates to their children, and the church wanted the money.
There is NO BASIS for purgatory in the Bible. This was an invention if Rome to extract $$ from ignorant peasants to fund the building of St Peter and all their gold-encrusted structures.

quote:

---

Praying to so called saints? Blasphemy.

---

If you are Catholic ask yourself this question: Why is exodus 20:3-6 omitted from the 10 commandments? Also why is verse 17 broken into 2 commandments? Coveting your neighbors wife is covered in verse 14.

quote:

---

Why is exodus 20:3-6 omitted from the 10 commandments

---

It's not. Just check both my KJV and Catholic Bible. Both read the same.

quote:

---

Also why is verse 17 broken into 2 commandments? Coveting your neighbors wife is covered in verse 14.

---

Committing adultery and coveting aren't the same thing. To desire something is not the same thing as going through with it.

quote:

---

It's not. Just check both my KJV and Catholic Bible. Both read the same.

---

Right, but when you say your 10 commandments are verses 3-6 in there?

I grew up catholic. I didn't have 11 commandments. There just wasn't anything about idol worship or carved images.

Idk if it's even worth arguing this point if you really believe that. The Deuteronomical books are in the Septuagint which is where 2/3 of the New Testament comes from, and which pre-dates the Bible. Your statement is just factually wrong.

vatican city needs to be leveled

Do you attend a church in Amite by any chance?

Is that a bad thing?

Sorry for the delayed response; I couldn't devote the time to a response until now.

quote:

---

Yes, if they are human power alone, as I brought up earlier in debate with your protestant brother, the spirit guides and protects the Church from error when the entire college of bishops in union with the Pope speak together.
...
The truth is the Council wouldn't have sided with Arius because that Spirit wouldn't have guided them to do that. If there is no Spirit guiding the councils, then yes, they could have, but again we believe that the Spirit given to the Apostles at Pentecost is still actively involved in the Church.

---

What if Joel Osteen said that he is without error because the Spirit guides and protects his speech when he speaks?

Those who spoke on behalf of God in the Bible had miracles accompany their words to prove their message was from God. This included the apostles. Councils and Popes do not have such proofs of their claimed infallible dictates.

The Bible gives us no reason to believe that we should expect infallibility to exist outside of the scriptures, and since Councils and Popes have certainly contradicted themselves, there is no reason to expect them to be infallible, either; they clearly aren't. The Bible is infallible precisely because it is the word of God. It is inerrant because God cannot err. Humans, however, can and do.

quote:

---

Finally, my main argument for why It's not peters confession that he is the Christ is the rock, but instead, Peter himself that is the rock is the name change itself. Why would Jesus change Simon's name to Peter, which means rock?

---

Peter was weak. He denied his Lord three times. The name change was prophetic of the unshakable man that Peter would become after the Spirit came upon him and the other apostles at Pentecost. Peter would become an unshakable rock of the faith, but not the cornerstone of it, nor the singular foundation of it.

We are told several times that Christ is the chief cornerstone and that the foundation was built upon the apostles and prophets (plural). No time in the scriptures is Peter distinguished as the head of the Church after Christ's ascension. In fact, in Acts 15, a matter of disagreement was brought to all the apostles and the elders in Jerusalem to decide a matter. Peter was merely a contributor, as I said previously.

One would think that if Peter was the first Pope, and that the Papal pomp and presence that casts such a large shadow over Catholicism today as merely a continuation of the same that belonged to Peter, then Peter would have a much more prominent role in the New Testament scriptures after Christ ascended to heaven, yet he doesn't. He is counted among the other apostles. He is given charge over the gospel to the Jewish converts, but Paul is given equal charge over the Gentile converts.

quote:

---

Secondly, the keys are given to Peter (I understand you argue it's to all the apostles) further show that Peter is given the same authority as a single person in Eliakim. In many ways, events and people in the Old Testament prefigure events and people in the New Testament. Just as King David gave Eliakim the keys, so is Peter given the keys by Jesus. Jesus is the King, but on earth, while he is absent bodily, he gives authority to Peter and his successors.

---

The key (pun intended) to understanding what the "keys" are is to understand what the kingdom of heaven is that those keys open and close the gates to. The kingdom of heaven is salvation: it's the entrance into the family of God by faith in the confession that Peter gave. It's that confession by faith that opens up the gates for a person, and when Jesus gave the keys to the apostles (they weren't literal keys like Eliakim had as a symbol of authority), He was giving them the authority to preach the gospel to the world in His name, which He would remind them of and give them the charge in the Great Commission when Jesus would leave them behind. It was also the authority to excommunicate persons from the kingdom or Church who had rejected the faith through lack of repentance for sin. Peter did not have this authority alone, but all of the apostles had it, and passed it along to the elders of the churches. It's an authority that the elders of churches have today.

quote:

---

In terms of Paul and others, criticizing Peter being the head of the Apostles doesn't prevent one from error; just because Paul rebukes Peter doesn't mean he can't be the head of the Apostles. Remember Jesus calls Peter Satan after giving him the keys. The Pope only speaks without error when he speaks in a specific way and on faith and morals. That way is speaking from the Chair or ex-cathedra, there is more involved, but the Pope can speak in error.

---

Of course Paul rebuking Peter doesn't mean that Peter isn't the head of the Church. My point was that Peter wasn't referred to at all as the head of the Church, though Christ is said to be the head of the Church even after His ascension into heaven (Eph. 5:23 and Col. 1:18), yet the references to Peter's position within the Church include being a fellow elder, another one of the several apostles, and an apostle that is rebuked by another apostle. There is no sign of preeminence or primacy outside of the misinterpreted verse in Matthew 16 that sadly places honor and position on Peter rather than on Christ.

quote:

---

While there is no direct mention of Peter being the head, I find it interesting that even though John ran faster than Peter to the tomb, he still let Peter go in first. Maybe that's nothing, but perhaps it's a sign that John recognizes Peter as head and wants to let him go in first, or maybe John was scared to go in, IDK. But to me, it's interesting.

---

It is interesting, but it's only an inference. Nothing in that depiction of the visit of the tomb of Christ indicates a primacy of Peter on its own. In fact, that would be a great place to note that Peter was given the honor to go in first due to his position, but it was omitted.

quote:

---

I would also point out that Peter is commonly the one who speaks on behalf of the Apostles to Jesus. Let's not forget that Jesus said to Peter alone at the end of the Gospel of John, feed my sheep. I know all of them were called to do the same, but why speak it to Peter alone?

---

Jesus speaking to Peter was Jesus' way of restoring Peter after his thrice-fold denial. It's why Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Christ. Each time, Jesus responded by telling Peter to tend to His flock. Peter needed to given that assurance after he betrayed his Lord by denying Him.

quote:

---

Even if this isn't the case and the whole story with Peter going in first even though he didn't get there first was not a sign of his primacy. You can't ignore that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom. Again it doesn't make sense to give the keys to all of the apostles because, in the Old Testament, it was given to a single man not a group of people.

---

There were no physical keys to the kingdom of God. They were symbolic of the authority to open and close the gates based on the faith of those who proclaimed Christ, so there wasn't a single person of the apostles that had them.

Ultimately this issue boils down to how we interpret the scriptures. You, via Rome, are basing an entire (important) doctrine of Papal primacy on essentially a single verse while ignoring many other clear passages of scripture that teach something different, or ignoring the entirety of the rest of the New Testament that makes no mention of such an important conclusion if that were the correct one. Essentially, the doctrine is accepted because it is the teaching of the Church of Rome rather than a clear dictate from scripture, itself. It's why Protestants like myself put such a premium on sola scriptura, because everything we believe comes down to that.