Catholic proof by induction

Linus was Peter’s appointed replacement, which was obviously from God and not from the designs of man. Agree so far?

If so, then you agree that no one could justifiably separate themselves from Linus’ flock in order to be faithful to the teachings of Peter and Paul. Anyone who did so would clearly be up to no good.

How then is it ok to separate oneself from Francis in order to be faithful to the same?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >which was obviously from God and not from the designs of man. Agree so far?
    not everything a godly man does is directly from God.
    second, not even every GOOD thing a godly man does is directly from God.
    Only things directly from God are directly from God.
    While I dont take any issue with Linus, and am not insinuating he was anything like Judas, do remember that Jesus himself appointed Judas. "direct appointment" cannot be considered the final source of authority in this context.

    I take it youre trying to criticize EOs or sedevacantists though so whatever.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > not everything a godly man does is directly from God
      Is this justification for separating yourself from Linus in order to be faithful to the teachings of Peter and Paul? That’s all that matters.
      > I take it youre trying to criticize EOs or sedevacantists though so whatever
      Nope, it works for both because it’s just a standalone argument for Catholicism, but I actually devised it in arguing with a reformed Christian.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Is this justification for separating yourself from Linus in order to be faithful to the teachings of Peter and Paul?
        It would be if whoever claimed to be "with Linus" (though thousands of years removed) deviated drastically from Linus and the Apostles.
        The High Priest in Christ's day was an abject damnable heretic; and they had been so for a long time; despite having a traceable lineage all the way to Aaron.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Agree so far?
    No.
    >no one could justifiably separate themselves from Linus’ flock in order to be faithful to the teachings of Peter and Paul. Anyone who did so would clearly be up to no good.
    What if they were just moving to a different city?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > What if they were just moving to a different city?
      The whole church community had common relations and shared a common life, so even if you moved to a different city you’d still not be separated from Linus if you were part of the Christian church.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The whole church community had common relations and shared a common life, so even if you moved to a different city you’d still not be separated from Linus if you were part of the Christian church.
        Sure. The same way I'm not separated from Chinese Christians right now.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But you’re separated from Francis.

          >Is this justification for separating yourself from Linus in order to be faithful to the teachings of Peter and Paul?
          It would be if whoever claimed to be "with Linus" (though thousands of years removed) deviated drastically from Linus and the Apostles.
          The High Priest in Christ's day was an abject damnable heretic; and they had been so for a long time; despite having a traceable lineage all the way to Aaron.

          > It would be if whoever claimed to be "with Linus" (though thousands of years removed) deviated drastically from Linus and the Apostles
          If you sincerely think this then you haven’t understood mathematical induction.
          > The High Priest in Christ's day was an abject damnable heretic; and they had been so for a long time; despite having a traceable lineage all the way to Aaron
          Irrelevant because not in the line of Christ.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But you’re separated from Francis.
            Praise God.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How is it any better than being separated from Linus?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Linus wasn't an Antichrist usurper of the authority of God.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > Linus wasn't an Antichrist usurper of the authority of God
            1 John 2:22
            Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denieth the Father and the Son.

            When did any Pope do this?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The pope of Rome sits in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Irrelevant because not in the line of Christ.
            The line of Aaron was confirmed by God. How is that irrelevant?
            Did you just forget how Aaron was appointed?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It’s different because Christ is the high priest.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Christ matters more than who Christ appoints as well as who claims to be appointed by Christ. Got it. Glad we agree.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >which was obviously from God and not from the designs of man.
    Why think that?
    >If so, then you agree that no one could justifiably separate themselves from Linus’ flock in order to be faithful to the teachings of Peter and Paul.
    How does that follow, even if we accept what you said above?
    >If so, then you agree that no one could justifiably separate themselves from Linus’ flock in order to be faithful to the teachings of Peter and Paul.
    That’s assuming that Francis is a legitimate successor to Peter. But there’s obviously no reason for any non-Catholic to think that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > Why think that?
      Unless there was some demonic deception, it’s true.
      > How does that follow, even if we accept what you said above?
      Linus would have had in his role as leader of the church the same authority to bind the conscience of all the faithful that Peter had.
      > That’s assuming that Francis is a legitimate successor to Peter. But there’s obviously no reason for any non-Catholic to think that
      Considering you already doubted that Linus was Peter’s legitimate successor, I’m not surprised you think that.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Unless there was some demonic deception, it’s true.
        I don’t see why that would have to be the case.
        >Linus would have had in his role as leader of the church the same authority to bind the conscience of all the faithful that Peter had.
        Why in the world would you think that? Obviously no Protestant is going to accept that assumption.
        >Considering you already doubted that Linus was Peter’s legitimate successor, I’m not surprised you think that.
        Linus may have been appointed by Peter. That’s not my point. You just haven’t given any reason to think that Peter’s appointment of Linus was something he did by divine inspiration rather than just his own discernment.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > Why in the world would you think that? Obviously no Protestant is going to accept that assumption
          If Protestants will admit that they would circumvent Linus’ leadership and separate themselves from them to be faithful to the memory of Peter, then that’s on them. The aim of the exercise of thinking about the Pope as Linus is to simulate how this would probably violate any reasonable person’s conscience.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Linus obviously wasn’t a pope, though, regardless of whether he was appointed by Peter or how that appointment took place. The consensus view is that there was no monarchical bishop of Rome at that time.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Linus would have had in his role as leader of the church the same authority to bind the conscience of all the faithful that Peter had.
        Peter didn't have that role or authority either.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          All the apostles did.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nope.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus told the apostles,
            >When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:12–15)

            Linus obviously wasn’t a pope, though, regardless of whether he was appointed by Peter or how that appointment took place. The consensus view is that there was no monarchical bishop of Rome at that time.

            >Linus didn’t do or act like X though
            Point?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Point?
            The point is that he wasn’t a pope?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pope is just a word which refers to the successor of the first leader of the church, Peter.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's only one leader of the true Church, and His name is Jesus Christ.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >first leader
            Only one leader? Wouldn’t that be Christ?
            >of the church
            I thought the Bible said there were multiple churches

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There wouldn’t have been a singular successor to Peter though, assuming Peter did found the church at Rome. Linus would have been a member of a group of presbyters who ran the Roman church.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >>When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth
            Amen

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >actually, chud, that book is wrong because WE wrote it

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is catholic ecclesiology literally just an endless string of non sequiturs?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *