The Accused is going to Hell (For Rejecting Catholic Dogma)

On the Johannine Passage I agree that John wrote both letters but the context of John 21:16 highly disagrees with my opponent’s stance that “Poimaine” in the said verse denotes “rulership” rather than “sheperding” which the context requires. My opponent accuses me of dishonesty when in fact he’s the one who is dishonest by forsaking the context per se of John 21:16. On the Jerusalem CouncilI'm fond of facts not of fables and my opponent seems to resort to the latter. No regrets but he made me conclude that based on his very own words: "It was very noisy with everyone speaking over each other, then Peter spoke and everyone shut up; then TO BREAK SILENCE PAUL STARTED TELLING UNRELATED STORIES." The context of Acts 15:6-12 disagrees: The apostles and the elders came together tolook into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice AMONG YOU, that by my mouth THE GENTILES would hear the word of the gospel and believe...as and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them AMONG THE GENTILES. Paul did not started telling unrelated stories to break silence but on the contrary, he spoke of very related things about the subject per se which is soteriology. "The matter was resolved on Peter's speech, no more arguments; THEN JAMES REMINDED EVERYONE TO GET TO WORK ON WHAT PETER SAID." Again, the context of Acts 15:13-19 disagrees: After they had stopped speaking, JAMES answered, saying, “Brethren, LISTEN TO ME. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name.With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written...THEREFORE it is MY JUDGMENT that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. James did not merely reminded everyone to get to work on what Peter said but on the contrary, James just is the ONLY ONE who made the decision (v. 19) based on two sources: 1) Peter’s Petrine Honor ( Mt. 16:15-19) and 2) Scriptural Substantiation ( Amos 9:11,12 LXX). CONCLUSION: Peter never acted as a Pope in the Jerusalem Council. There is never a clue, not even one. Everyone could read Acts chapter 15 to see for themselves that Peter did not exercise Papal Primacy. On the Patristics None of the church fathers agrees with my opponent’s stance on Papal Primacy: IreneausIrenaeus' Concern Was the Preservation of Truth, Not the Handing Down of Authority: In this order and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (ibid. III:3:3) It is "most abundant proof that their is one and the same life-giving faith" from the apostles until Irenaeus' time? Or is it rather proof that the church in Rome has authority over all other churches and that 1,800 years later we should all listen to the bishop of Rome whether he's preserved apostolic truth or not? I submit that it's the former, since that is what Irenaeus said. Cyprian My opponent cannot use Cyprian for his stance on Papal Primacy because it is clear that he is against such notion as I pointed out in Round # 3 ((( http://www.christian-history.org...))) They are not liars: St. Cyprian Epistle LIV Letter to Cornelius: There’s no dispute thatRomewas the chief church. None at all. Nor is there dispute that the bishop ofRomewas successor of St Peter in a unique manner, because St Peter himself helped establish the Church of Rome. The fact is, however, that this unique Petrine privilege was shared with the bishops ofAlexandriaandAntioch. As St Gregory ofRome(540-590) puts it: Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For [Peter] himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside (Book 7, Epistle 40) The original Greek is in the past tense- that is, priestly unity took its source inRomebecause St Peter was inRome, and St Peter is the icon of the unity of the episcopate, that is, in his person, sacerdotal unity takes its source. And, as an additional note, which was again not refuted, the word "chief" can also be translated "primeval." (Firmillian Acknowledges that Stephen took the Throne of Peter, disagrees with his policy about re-baptism.) The early Fathers exhibited a strong zeal to maintain unity in the Church, condemning the sin of schism in very strong terms, as seen particularly in Pope St. Clement, Cyprian and Augustine. Contrary to RC claims this episode is not evidence of universal papal jurisdiction because "being in the Church" was never conditional to being in union withRome. One early example to demonstrate this is Firmillian's letter to Cyprian on the controversy with Pope Stephen on the issue of re-baptising heretics and schismatics: "Those who are at Rome do not observe all the things which were given at the beginning, and it is in vain that they pretend to support themselves upon the authority of the Apostles....I have reason to be indignant at the manifest folly of Stephen, who, on the one hand, glories in his episcopal seat, and pretends to possess the succession of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church were placed, and who, on the other hand, introduces other stones, and constructs new buildings for other churches, by asserting, upon his own authority, that they possess the true baptism...You, Africans, you may say to Stephen, that having known the truth, you have rejected the custom of error; but for us, we possess at the same time, truth and usage; we oppose our custom against that of the Romans; our usage is that of truth, preserving, since the beginning, that which Christ and the Apostles have given to us...Yet Stephen does not blush to affirm, that those in sin can remit sins, as though the waters of life could be found in the house of the dead. What! Dost thou not fear God's judgement, when thouh showest thyself favourable to heretics against the Church!....What grievous sin thou has committed in separating thyself from so many flocks! Thou has killed thyself; do not deceive thyself; for he is truly schismatic who renounces the communion of the unity of the Church! While thou thinkest that all others are separated from thee, it is thou who art separated from all others." (Firmillian ad Cyprian, Ep. 75.) (Cyprian acknowledged the eminent authority of Stephen as the Successor of Peter and his right to appoint bishops, even though he disagreed with him on the Re-Baptism Issue) Cyprian repeatedly denied, in multiple contexts, that the bishop of Rome or any other bishop has universal jurisdiction (Letter 51:21, Letter 54:14, Letter 67:5, Letter 71:3, Letter 72:26) On the Laying on of hands 1) The laying on of hands doesn’t prove Papal Primacy at all. 2) Judas’ successor to apostleship NOT to bishopric. 3) Exodus 29:9 doesn’t spoke of “Laying on of hands” but on the contrary, it says “put the head-dresses on their heads”(NEB). It is very explicit that it’s not identical. I challenge my opponent to present his irrefutable and unambiguous proof/ argument for Papacy.