And truly, would Christ, after commanding the Apostles to preach and teach the Gospel to all nations, baptizing all in His name, stating He would be
"with them" to the end of the age...
do an about face, and then take off, leaving them with no precise instructions on what kind of Church he wanted implemented, what He wanted done,
He was very precise in what His expectations were. I doubt he would leave them without any firm plan in place.
They were scared to death of being without Him, up to watching Him ascend... their saving grace was Pentacost Sunday, and that was even with the
knowledge I truly believe He gave them regarding the Church.
Also, remember in Acts 8, when the man reading Isaiah asked Philip the Apostle to explain it to him. Then afterwards, he beseechs Philip to baptize
him, and the Holy Spirit of God comes upon the man.
Furthermore, in Acts 10, the Angel of God has Cornelius, the centurion, in answer to his prayers, go to Peter for teaching, and similarly, goes to
Peter and commands him to meet with Cornelius and those like him, even though they are Gentiles. So God's Messenger appears to Peter to instruct him
on faith and morals, to pass along his teachings.
The Holy Spirit also came upon them, and Peter ordered them to be baptised, and they asked Peter to stay a few days.
If these passages, in addition to all I have posted previously in all my posts do not at least make you think a little bit about what Christ started
here on earth...
Consider- if your resistance is really the Chair of Peter... the Papacy itself and all it appears to represent.
What it really represents to me is a place of holy and inspired instruction. Guided by the Holy Spirit, as stated by Christ Himself in the Scriptures,
and supported by the Epistles of the Apostles.
It is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth, as St. Paul writes... the household of God.
And infallible in official teaching of faith and morals.
For those that may feel "they have an infallible Bible and that is the only infallibility they require"...
I pose this:
You may perhaps be infallibly certain that your
particular interpretation of the Bible is correct.
Or you are not.
you maintain yourself to be infallibly certain of your particular interpretation, then YOU claim for your particular self a very personal
infallibility which you deny
only to the Pope, and which Roman Catholics claim only for him.
You also cannot deny
this same particular infallibility for every single person on Earth to feel for themselves and their own particular
interpretation of their same 'infallible Bible'. Therefore, according to this point of view, you are allowing each of the hundreds of millions of
readers of the Bible, their own personal infallibility and in essence, their own ability to be their own Pope.
While, the only one who is not
to be the Pope is the Pope himself.
You avoid ever allowing for any hint of one man being given the grace of the Holy Spirit to discern infallibility in the matters of official faith and
morals by multiplying the infallibility by the multitudes of millions of readers of the Sacred Scriptures, to the exclusion of one man.
Sounds very fair, logical, and....infallible... doesn't it?
edit on 29-11-2010 by thegoodearth because: (no reason given)