I only teach Paul's Doctrine...
...Paul's Doctrine, is simply the Doctrine of Paul. as found in his 13 epistles.... and that is "Church Doctrine".
Agreed. It hasn't changed, it developed, never deviating from the essence of Paul's doctrine. The evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.
-In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17).
-He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), and
- fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2, 9).
- He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28)
- Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others
were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.” The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas
“being sent on their way by the church.”
- Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and Paul and Barnabas
were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).
The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. (a condition for infallibility)
Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible, that you have been trained to reject.
The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church,
has always failed, as unbiblical. It's a man made tradition not found in the Bible. Bible cults frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter.*
QUESTION:
if you agree that Paul was commissioned as an apostle “by Jesus Himself” then does he derive his apostleship from Jesus or from Peter?
ANSWER:
Both. Why do you feel compelled to make a choice? It’s the usual Protestant “either/or” dichotomous mentality. Calvin does the same thing repeatedly. Matt Slick is worse.
Did you actually just post that the "Cult of the Virgin" wrote the NT?
Why do you worship the Cookie Monster? Please post like an adult and use the quote feature so we know you are not lying.
That is hilarious..
Incredible that you could believe it.
It's incredible you dogmatize stupid insults, and make a fool of yourself in the process.
There are 27 NT books and not even ONE of them was written by a CATHOLIC>.
The 27 NT books were preserved, compiled, ratified and proclaimed by Catholic bishops. Did you finish high school? Have you heard of Google?
Romans 1:7 KJV To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
The Greek word for "
throughout the whole world. " is kata holos. Romans 1:8
Later Latinized to "Catholicus"
From Latin to English is translated as "Catholic".
Later Latinized to "Catholicus"
The Latin to English is translated as "Catholic".
Paul is using Catholic as an adjective phrase meaning universal. That's what Catholic means
Ignatius uses "Catholic" as a noun, not separating the Church from Christ, and neither did Paul. "Saul', Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Did Jesus appear in Damascus before Paul showed up? The Bible says the Church is, by extension, Christ on earth, united by the Eucharist.
And the one your "cult of Mary" "cult of the virgin" falsely defined as Pope 1, .. Here is what Paul said about him..
Peter and Paul had no doctrinal differences. "Cult of the Virgin" was explained in 1974 AD, not 33 AD..
Marialis Cultus (February 2, 1974) | Paul VI
"He walked not uprightly according to the TRUTH".., at least once.
Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and Paul corrected him. Popes have been corrected by saints throughout history. That doesn't prove they have no authority. If you bother to read your Bible, Peter was hiding from the Judaizers, not teaching them. You are chasing phantoms of your own creation, trying to discredit Peter.
We need to distinguish between how the word
cult is used in Catholic theology and how it is used in the vernacular.
In the vernacular,
the word cult refers to a person or group that uses psychological and emotional manipulation to control others. It seems to be the only definition you know.
But in Catholic theology the word
cult is used to describe
a particular form of worship. If a Catholic wishes to marry a non-Christian, the dispensation that is applied for is called “disparity of cult,” meaning that they have different methods of worship.
Within Catholicism there are different “cults” or liturgical forms and devotions. Any liturgical or prayer devotion centered around a particular saint is referred to as a
cult. Therefore, the “cult of Mary” within Catholicism would refer simply to Marian devotion. There is no
psychological and emotional manipulation to control others in Marian devotion. That's a clear violation on the Church's teaching on human dignity.
10. It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.(8) This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.(7) The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son,(9) cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father,(10) he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life.
Declaration on religious freedom - Dignitatis humanae
www.vatican.va
Therefore, the “cult of Mary” within Catholicism would refer simply to Marian devotion, that no Catholic is forced to have. Your constant derogatory reference to "The Cult of Mary" is
forum sadism when used in the vernacular context; it appears its the only way you can use the term. Do it once more and I will have to commend you to the care of St. Ignora in the iggy bin, only because you are too proud to be corrected and refuse to dialogue like an adult. I'm sick of your stupid childish insults, a bully, unbecoming of anyone claiming to be a Christian.
