catholictigerfan

Nobody is above the law. Except if you have a D in front of your name.

The rain will be out of here by Saturday morning, play two Saturday one Sunday.

quote:

---

Maps across the country are bad

---

Hopefully this fixes that, which would be devastating for Dems.

Where did that miss?

I know this is not on the topic of the thread, or what it has derailed to, but I want to share my insight on the latest Catholic debate thread on TD.com



Basically, in this video, Joe argues that miracles like Fatima point to at least Christianity and more the Catholic Faith. As he pointed out in his video, Mark 16:20 points to this idea (not Fatima but signs proving the words they preached)

I'd be interested to see if there are truly more supposed miracles in the Catholic faith than in other Christian denominations. I don't think miracles only happen in the Catholic faith; I'm sure they happen everywhere or at least they are claimed to happen everywhere.

Yes, the thread has already been derailed, and I'm about to derail it further.

Basically, we go back and forth on this biblical point and that biblical point in these threads. However, these miracles should at least be considered. If a miracle like Fatima is real than what does that say about the protestant approach to scripture? As Fatima disagrees with many protestant interpretations of the scripture.

I guess this is kinda my way to bow out of debates like this, which I used to debate a lot in. Arguments only do so much in the Christian faith; it is usually a personal encounter with Jesus that leads to someone coming into the Catholic faith, not some well-formed argument. I could argue as well as St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine, and it probably wouldn't convince people like FOO, canon ect.

Godbless and Happy Easter (yes it is still easter! At-least for Catholics) :cheers:

I'm late to this debate, but I wanted to share this video that might help explain the catholic position on the papacy.



Basically, he argues, using Luke 22:31 as his starting point.
1) Matthew 16, while it does prove the papacy, it isn't a good place to start. His starting point follows;
2) In Christ's kingdom, the leader is called to serve
3) All of the apostles are called to serve the Church
4) St. Peter is called to serve evden his brethren amongst the twelve. (I took this from his video)

So basically, Jesus calls Peter to be the Servant of the Servants of God. Just as Jesus came to serve, not to be served. He only gave this to St. Peter, so he has primacy.

I don't think he is trying to disprove Matthew 16 or saying we shouldn't use it, but rather that Matthew 16 is complicated, as evidenced by this thread.

I know the argument doesn't argue for his authority, but it does point out his primacy in serving his brethren.

First: The Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God.
Second: The Apostles in themselves have authority to bind and loose, but Peter among them is primary, mostly in being a servant.
Third: Through their successors, Bishops and the Pope are the successors of the Apostles, and the Pope, who is the successor of St. Peter. Remember, they replaced Judas, who betrayed Jesus.

Welp

Evans back out there

:banghead:

Lead off walk scores again. :banghead:

He hasn’t been horrible, need bats to wake up.