Baby Murderers Rake it in!

[Guest Guest]

It is an unborn BABY.

 

Do you think if you reach 100,000 posts you & Ed will make it to heaven ?

 

[Guest Guest]

Philippians 2:14

 

Do everything without complaining or arguing ..

[A Faithful Catholic]

Philippians 2:14

 

Do everything without complaining or arguing ..

 

I do. People argue with me. I don't argue with them. I just repeat the Word of God. Loving thy neighbor trumps your quote.

 

[A Faithful Catholic]

Didn't Christianity consist of the Catholic Church for the first 1500 years?

 

No. While the Catholic Church was seeking to control the world through religion, true Christians were running for their lives from the Catholic holocaust that ran for centuries.

 

God has always had His people, faithful to Him and His Word. They had no part in the Roman Catholic Church. Through much of history, organized religion has hunted and slaughtered God's people.

 

Finally the Truth Be Told!!

 

 

That is a JOKE!!!!!!!!

[Uncle Geo]

Didn't Christianity consist of the Catholic Church for the first 1500 years?

 

No. While the Catholic Church was seeking to control the world through religion, true Christians were running for their lives from the Catholic holocaust that ran for centuries.

 

God has always had His people, faithful to Him and His Word. They had no part in the Roman Catholic Church. Through much of history, organized religion has hunted and slaughtered God's people.

 

Finally the Truth Be Told!!

 

The actual truth is found in Mt: 16, 18-19. In that tiny bit of scripture, which you choose to ignore, Jesus calls St. Peter (the first pope) the rock on which he will build His Church.

 

Why do you ignore this?

 

 

@

[A Faithful Catholic]

The actual truth is found in Mt: 16, 18-19. In that tiny bit of scripture, which you choose to ignore, Jesus calls St. Peter (the first pope) the rock on which he will build His Church.

 

Why do you ignore this?

 

 

@

 

Protestants ignore many things in scripture and what actually happened in those days.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

That is a JOKE!!!!!!!!

 

 

Not a joke = a belief that you did not answer.

 

Congrats - you should not have answered this post the way you normally do.

 

 

Answer with an answer instead of a blow off.

 

 

Come on - do something different

 

 

@

[The West Sider]

I know that you were talking to AFC about this (transubstantiation) but I hope you won't be offended if I stick my own two cents in ...

 

Transubstantiation, the changing of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is a cornerstone of Catholic belief. Jesus told the apostles "this is my Body" and "This is my Blood." And then he told them to, "Do this in remembrance of Me."

 

He did not say that the bread symbolized His body or that the wine symbolized His blood He said that it is His actual body and blood, Mk 14: 22-24, Lk 22: 19-20.

 

I could never understand why Protestants have such a hard time believing this, after all, they profess to believe every word in Holy Scripture. Perhaps the King James version of the Bible says that the bread and wine are only symbols? Is that the reason?

 

I'm not trying to be a smart a$$ here ... I really want to know.

 

Not thinking that you are a wise guy. I appreciate the response.

 

My thought would be this:

 

The bread and wine of the Last Supper that was shared with the Apostles symbolized His body and blood that was sacrificed for mankind when he was crucified on the cross.

 

Much the same as your Peter comment.

 

There are numerous times in the Bible where it is mentioned that the "stone" that has been rejected by the builders is the stone that the church will be built on. Who is the stone? Jesus.

 

Psalm 118, Matthew 21:42, Mark 12, Acts 4

 

Now, I don't doubt that all of the Apostles had important roles. I just don't believe at this point in my life that Peter was the "stone" that was being talked about.

 

Waiting for Geo's humbleness and humility. Ready for AFC cut-n-paste theology.

 

TWS

[Guest Guest]

Not a joke = a belief that you did not answer.

 

Congrats - you should not have answered this post the way you normally do.

 

 

Answer with an answer instead of a blow off.

 

 

Come on - do something different

 

 

@

 

 

Waited as long as I could tonight.

 

Be different AFC.

 

Try it. --- Please, for God's sake.

[Guest Guest]

Not thinking that you are a wise guy. I appreciate the response.

 

My thought would be this:

 

The bread and wine of the Last Supper that was shared with the Apostles symbolized His body and blood that was sacrificed for mankind when he was crucified on the cross.

 

Much the same as your Peter comment.

 

There are numerous times in the Bible where it is mentioned that the "stone" that has been rejected by the builders is the stone that the church will be built on. Who is the stone? Jesus.

 

Psalm 118, Matthew 21:42, Mark 12, Acts 4

 

Now, I don't doubt that all of the Apostles had important roles. I just don't believe at this point in my life that Peter was the "stone" that was being talked about.

 

Waiting for Geo's humbleness and humility. Ready for AFC cut-n-paste theology.

 

TWS

 

What do you thing is wrong with AFC , because he is truly in need of a spiritual leader to straighten him out. I do not enjoy assassinating his character , but he needs help........

 

[A Faithful Catholic]

The bread and wine of the Last Supper that was shared with the Apostles symbolized His body and blood that was sacrificed for mankind when he was crucified on the cross.

 

No symbol about it. How can you eat a piece of bread and drink wine unworthily if it is just those? You can't...St. Paul had it right as so does the whole of Christianity for the first 15 centuries and the CC and the Orthodox still do. Tell me, why is it that only the Catholic Church has Eucharistic Miracles that science cannot explain? Because God wants to prove that He is truly present in the Eucharist, that's why.

 

Much the same as your Peter comment.

 

There are numerous times in the Bible where it is mentioned that the "stone" that has been rejected by the builders is the stone that the church will be built on. Who is the stone? Jesus.

 

Psalm 118, Matthew 21:42, Mark 12, Acts 4

 

Now, I don't doubt that all of the Apostles had important roles. I just don't believe at this point in my life that Peter was the "stone" that was being talked about.

 

Waiting for Geo's humbleness and humility. Ready for AFC cut-n-paste theology.

 

TWS

 

Why did Jesus give Peter ALONE the Keys to Heaven and no one else?

Why did Jesus ALONE appoint Peter the Shepard of His Flock in the Lambsx3 discourse and no other?

 

Here are some samplings from PROTESTANT CLERICS on the "Rock" in terms of Peter. I don't even use Ancient Catholic quotes either:

 

ALBERT BARNES

 

(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)

 

"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

 

 

JOHN BROADUS

 

( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)

 

"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

 

 

CRAIG L. BLOMBERG

 

( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

 

"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

 

 

J. KNOX CHAMBLIN

 

( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)

 

"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

 

 

R. T. FRANCE

 

( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)

 

"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).

 

 

HERMAN RIDDERBOS

 

( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)

 

"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

 

 

DONALD HAGNER

 

( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

[A Faithful Catholic]

What do you thing is wrong with AFC , because he is truly in need of a spiritual leader to straighten him out. I do not enjoy assassinating his character , but he needs help........

 

Help in what area? I belong to the correct Faith for a start...

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

Help in what area? I belong to the correct Faith for a start...

 

I don't believe I was talking to you .. Isn't it rude , to interrupt in other peoples conversations ? My parents taught me that as a young boy. But , I forgive you because the Lord would want me to.

 

[A Faithful Catholic]

I don't believe I was talking to you .. Isn't it rude , to interrupt in other peoples conversations ? My parents taught me that as a young boy. But , I forgive you because the Lord would want me to.

 

If you weren't talking to me, my mistake then. If you were talking about me, too bad.

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

If you weren't talking to me, my mistake then. If you were talking about me, too bad.

 

I believe you knew I wasn't talking to you young man because you don't have a problem reading. You are intelligent , but you do have a difficult time expressing yourself with grace. ( with no disrespect to you intended )

 

[The West Sider]

No symbol about it. How can you eat a piece of bread and drink wine unworthily if it is just those? You can't...St. Paul had it right as so does the whole of Christianity for the first 15 centuries and the CC and the Orthodox still do. Tell me, why is it that only the Catholic Church has Eucharistic Miracles that science cannot explain? Because God wants to prove that He is truly present in the Eucharist, that's why.

 

 

 

Why did Jesus give Peter ALONE the Keys to Heaven and no one else?

Why did Jesus ALONE appoint Peter the Shepard of His Flock in the Lambsx3 discourse and no other?

 

Here are some samplings from PROTESTANT CLERICS on the "Rock" in terms of Peter. I don't even use Ancient Catholic quotes either:

 

ALBERT BARNES

 

(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)

 

"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

 

 

JOHN BROADUS

 

( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)

 

"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

 

 

CRAIG L. BLOMBERG

 

( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

 

"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

 

 

J. KNOX CHAMBLIN

 

( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)

 

"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

 

 

R. T. FRANCE

 

( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)

 

"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).

 

 

HERMAN RIDDERBOS

 

( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)

 

"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

 

 

DONALD HAGNER

 

( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

 

The cut-n-paste theologian.

 

TWS

 

 

@

[Guest Guest]

EEWW! I can't believe anyone would develop a religion around cannibalism. Yuck. Does it taste like blood and body to you faithful folks?

[A Faithful Catholic]

The cut-n-paste theologian.

 

TWS

 

 

@

 

Does it make it any LESS true? Your own bretheran claimed Peter was the Rock and Jesus was/is the builder! Truth is truth.

[A Faithful Catholic]

EEWW! I can't believe anyone would develop a religion around cannibalism. Yuck. Does it taste like blood and body to you faithful folks?

 

Jesus did. Catechism. This, in part, is why having a PROPER Eucharist is so vitally important:

 

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"135

 

1329 The Lord's Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem.143

 

The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meal, when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread,144 above all at the Last Supper.145 It is by this action that his disciples will recognize him after his Resurrection,146 and it is this expression that the first Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies;147 by doing so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him.148

 

The Eucharistic assembly (synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, the visible expression of the Church.149

 

III. THE EUCHARIST IN THE ECONOMY OF SALVATION

 

The signs of bread and wine

 

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took the cup filled with wine. . . ." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.155

 

1334 In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt; the remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread of the Word of God;156 their daily bread is the fruit of the promised land, the pledge of God's faithfulness to his promises. The "cup of blessing"157 at the end of the Jewish Passover meal adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup.

 

1335 The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist.158 The sign of water turned into wine at Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus' glorification. It makes manifest the fulfillment of the wedding feast in the Father's kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has become the Blood of Christ.159

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"160 The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. "Will you also go away?":161 the Lord's question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life"162 and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

 

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#I

 

 

@

[The West Sider]

Jesus did. Catechism. This, in part, is why having a PROPER Eucharist is so vitally important:

 

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"135

 

1329 The Lord's Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem.143

 

The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meal, when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread,144 above all at the Last Supper.145 It is by this action that his disciples will recognize him after his Resurrection,146 and it is this expression that the first Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies;147 by doing so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him.148

 

The Eucharistic assembly (synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, the visible expression of the Church.149

 

III. THE EUCHARIST IN THE ECONOMY OF SALVATION

 

The signs of bread and wine

 

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took the cup filled with wine. . . ." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.155

 

1334 In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt; the remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread of the Word of God;156 their daily bread is the fruit of the promised land, the pledge of God's faithfulness to his promises. The "cup of blessing"157 at the end of the Jewish Passover meal adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup.

 

1335 The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist.158 The sign of water turned into wine at Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus' glorification. It makes manifest the fulfillment of the wedding feast in the Father's kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has become the Blood of Christ.159

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"160 The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. "Will you also go away?":161 the Lord's question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life"162 and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

 

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#I

 

And the cutting and pasting continues.

 

You give me a headache.

[A Faithful Catholic]

And the cutting and pasting continues.

 

You give me a headache.

 

 

Why don't you try reading it for once? You left the CC based on non-issues in terms of the Faith teachings. Like I have said to you before, you have been poorly catechized........but to leave the Church because of ONE priest and his homily is your fault.

[The West Sider]

Why don't you try reading it for once? You left the CC based on non-issues in terms of the Faith teachings.

 

AFCnP?

 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Those religious folks again.....are they all nuts?

 

"For many of Africa's women, getting access to family planning services is difficult at the best of times. When war intervenes they can find themselves without any services at all, even as they become more vulnerable to sexual violence -- the situation in northern Uganda being a case in point.

 

A long-running conflict in this region has pitted the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) against government forces. The rebels, led by Joseph Kony, claim to be fighting for a government based on the Biblical Ten Commandments, but have become notorious for rights abuses that include the use of children as soldiers, sex slaves and porters."

 

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41947

[A Faithful Catholic]

AFCnP?

 

? You left the Church for ridiculous reasons....

 

 

@

[Uncle Geo]

Not thinking that you are a wise guy. I appreciate the response.

 

My thought would be this:

 

The bread and wine of the Last Supper that was shared with the Apostles symbolized His body and blood that was sacrificed for mankind when he was crucified on the cross.

 

Much the same as your Peter comment.

 

There are numerous times in the Bible where it is mentioned that the "stone" that has been rejected by the builders is the stone that the church will be built on. Who is the stone? Jesus.

 

Psalm 118, Matthew 21:42, Mark 12, Acts 4

 

Now, I don't doubt that all of the Apostles had important roles. I just don't believe at this point in my life that Peter was the "stone" that was being talked about.

 

Waiting for Geo's humbleness and humility. Ready for AFC cut-n-paste theology.

 

TWS

 

TWS ... Thank you for sharing your beliefs regarding the issues of Transubstantiation and Peter, the Rock on which the Church was built.

 

I do urge you to take a closer look at the issues ... or at least read the short passages in the New Testament that I used to explain my assertion that the bread and wine are truly changed into the body and blood of Jesus. They are Mark 14: 22-24 and Luke 22: 19-20 ... only a few words but ones that clearly state the essence of Jesus' action and his command to "Do this in remembrance of Me."

 

Either Jesus was correct in declaring that the bread and wine were indeed changed into His actual body and blood or he made a misstatement ... Personally, in light of His actual words, I find it hard to understand how people can come to the conclusion that he intended to make the bread and wine mere symbols ... I'll leave it up to you to decide.

 

I was encouraged by your statement of belief "at this point" in your life, which indicates to me your willingness to be open minded regarding points of Faith.

 

As much as I suspect you will protest, I really don't think you should ignore AFC's post #236. Copy and paste it may well be, but it does present the viewpoint on the issue of Petrine prominence expounded by several Protestant scholars and is well worth your time and effort.

 

I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you on your spiritual journey ... and I hope that you will do the same for me.

 

 

@