How well do you know Catholic Christianity?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on August 31, 2010 at 9:50pm

Permalink Reply by ScribeD on August 31, 2010 at 11:17pm

Helen, your premise seems to begin with the famously misinterpreted verses of Matthew 16 and the erroneous assumption that Jesus "founded the church" on St. Peter. [your quote: "Hence, I will elaborate my reply to you anchored by the understanding that indeed Jesus founded His Church upon Peter..."]

Jesus said nothing of the sort. Period. This is a deliberate attempt by the Roman church to usurp authority that was not granted to any single Bishop, and especially not to the Roman church. Peter never claimed any kind of primacy ever and the only time in scripture that we know he seemed to be attempting to exercise some sort of authoritarian attitude - Paul shot him down for hypocrisy.

In Matthew 16, Jesus said he was henceforth calling Simon "Pedros" (pebble) and that upon this "Petra" (boulder) he would establsh his church. There is a clear distinction between those two concepts and Jesus was deliberately drawing that contrast. He could have easily said he was founding the church on Peter, if that is what he meant. He did not say that. He said he was founding it upon Peter's confession - which is another thing entirely.
1. If the confession was the sole possession of Peter, Jesus would not have taken the glory from him by saying "this was revealed to you by my Father".
2. if he had intended the point to be about Peter, he would have said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against you".

Note that Jesus said "he would found HIS church. He is taking sole possession of it, otherwise he would have said "our church" which would have led to the understanding of Peter somehow being a co-ruler. He did not, so therefore he is not making Peter a co-ruler of any kind - not in any way as superior to the other Apostles.

Peter's confession is about the Deity and Supremecy of Christ. This is something that no one, until that moment had comprehended. Jesus is therefore making a clear statement of the church belonging to those who adhere to his LORDship, not the lordship of some petty earthly ruler or ecclesiastical dictator.

Furthermore, it is clearly and abundantly stated elsewhere in Scripture that this is the point Jesus is making. Paul goes to great lengths to establish Christ as the Head of the Church. The book of Hebrews goes to great lengths to establish Jesus as the only authority, the supreme fulfillment of all of Scripture. Finally, John could easily have labored in his letters and his Gospel to establish Peter as an authority. He does not. In fact, he focuses on Peter's failure and the need for his restoration.

John's central theme is Christ; from John 1:1 to Revelation 22. John's point is to remove all doubt of the gnostic heresy of his day and he does not make one effort to establish Peter as an authority, nor to establish a Roman Bishop of any kind. In fact, it is very well established that John remained the final recognized apostolic authority-leader of the church until his death sometime in decade of 90 AD (well after Peter, perhaps 25 years after Peter's martyrdom). When he died, Rome was by no means a seat of authority, but rather Ephesus and that area of Asia minor continued for more than a 100 years post-apostolic era as a headquarters or rather a hub of Christianity. (this is why Constantine chose Nicea as the seat of the council to on apostolic doctrine).

When Rome was relinquished by Constantine, it was not the center of the empire, but rather the abandoned backwater that it had become. Constantine chose Byzantia as his headquarters, because it was the thriving center of the empire in his day.

There is nothing historically, nor biblically, to establish the Vatican as any greater authority of Christianity than any other Bishop-led centre of the time. In fact there were 6 other Bishop-seats (in the day that Rome was relinquished by Constantine), each with just as much of a sense of Apostolic authority as Rome, if not more. It is well established that Rome only began to exercise it's sense of combined political and ecclesiastical authority centuries later as power corrupted the Roman church.

So, you are beginning with a flawed premise and you would do well to stop, step back and consider what David has been saying. Since you yourself have admitted that your entire set of arguments begins with a premise that can so easily be refuted both Biblically and Historically.

~Scribe D

Permalink Reply by RoyW on September 1, 2010 at 11:43am

David,

Once again you have researched and came up with some excellent stuff. You are a researcher. I remain grateful for your work. I can still remember when Walter Martin was the Bible Answer Man.

Roy

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on September 5, 2010 at 3:37am

Helen,

>> David, I can’t simply drop the argument of Jesus founding His Church, because without clearing this point, we will not be able to move on to anything, because you refuse to see/accept where the Authority of the Church comes from.

The post by Scribe in combination with the YouTube videos and previous posts in this discussion have successfully debunked the false teaching that Peter was the rock in which Christ would build His church, but I will give it one more shot.


©1996 by Thomas F. Heinze
Reproduced by permission
On Whom Is The Church Founded?

The Apostle Peter himself explained in the Bible on whom the church was founded. He said that Jesus was the cornerstone: This Jesus is the stone rejected by you the builders which has become the cornerstone. There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved (Acts 4:11-12).

To have a Biblical basis for the papacy, the Roman Catholic church neglects the numerous passages such as the one above which clearly teach that Christ is the head and foundation of the church, and quotes a short part of a passage from the Gospel of Matthew. They neglect to realize that even if the church was founded on Peter, there is nothing in this passage to infer that his status was passed on to the popes. I quote that passage here, with a few verses which precede it, and will add to our understanding.

They replied, "some say John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "And you, who do you say that I am?"

"You are the Messiah," Simon Peter answered, "the Son of the living God!"

Jesus replied, "Blest are you, Simon son of Jonah! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are "Rock," and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:14-18). In Greek, the original language of the New Testament, Christ calls Peter "Rock" (masculine gender) then says "on this rock" (feminine gender) I will build my church. What is the rock on which the church is built? The usual Catholic interpretation is Peter, but the difference in gender makes this questionable. Then, just five verses ahead, Jesus reproves Peter with such severity that He calls him Satan. In the context itself then, it is equally possible that the "rock" upon which the church is founded is found in the statement that Peter made, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

If we will let the passages in other parts of the Bible that refer to the same subject help us decide who it is that the church is founded upon, we find that it is Christ. No one can lay a foundation other than the one that has been laid, namely Jesus Christ (1·Corinthians 3:11).

Peter certainly should have understood whether the church was founded on himself or on Christ, and he wrote that it was on Jesus Christ: For Scripture has it: "See, I am laying a cornerstone in Zion, an approved stone, and precious. He who puts his faith in it shall not be shaken." The stone is of value for you who have faith. For those without faith, it is rather, "A stone which the builders rejected that became a cornerstone." It is likewise "an obstacle and stumbling stone." Those who stumble and fall are the disbelievers in God's word; it belongs to their destiny to do so (1 Peter 2:6-8). Peter understood Christ to be the cornerstone, the foundation of the church, and was obviously referring to Him in this passage.

Christ Himself said, Are you not familiar with this passage of Scripture: The stone rejected by the builders has become the keystone of the structure (Mark 12:10). The Jews understood that in saying this, Jesus was claiming to be their Messiah, and since they did not want Him to be their head they immediately tried to kill Him, stumbling on the stone, as the Scriptures had predicted. Later they succeeded, but He rose from the dead and became the stone upon which the church was founded. Will you accept Christ as the foundation and director of your life?

Returning then, to Matthew 16:14-18, with this background from the Scriptures, it seems clear that The rock to which Jesus referred was not Peter himself, but his confession: You are the messiah, the Son of the living God.

Even if this were not true, and Peter were the rock upon which the church was founded, there is still no Biblical reason to think that Peter's authority was passed on to others, and that the popes are his successors. Neither is there reason to believe that this idea was accepted by the early church. In fact the idea of a "pope" developed a little bit at a time and it was only in 1870 that the infallibility of the pope became a dogma. Even then there was a strong opposition to the idea from within the Roman Catholic church itself. There is just no real foundation to the idea that one man, other than Jesus Christ Himself, has the authority over us that the Pope claims to have, although there are good reasons why he may want us to believe it.

It is also rather confusing that the Pope ties his claim to authority, infallibility, and the right to have others bow down to him, to his being the successor to Peter. Peter certainly never claimed these things. Just the opposite! When one tried to bow before him he said, Get up! I am only a man myself (Acts 10:26).

In addition, Paul found it necessary to rebuke Peter very severely, not because he was infallible, but because he was wrong. He wrote, When Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch I directly withstood him, because he was clearly in the wrong (Gal. 2:11). Nor was this the first big mistake that Peter made. We all remember how Peter denied Christ three times at the very moment of our Lord's trial and condemnation. I don't want to take away anything from this great apostle, but it is not logical to claim that the pope's infallibility was handed down to him from a man who made mistakes and his authority over the church came from a man who refused to let people bow down to him.

Since the true church is founded on Jesus Christ, we should find a church that does not preach another salvation based on works and sacraments, but one which has as its base the Holy Bible, and the one name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved. Since virtually everything that can be known about Christ is found in the Bible, don't go to a church which has some other authority, whether it be the pope, the Book of Mormon, the Watch Tower, or even its own pastor's alleged communications with God. If you can be comfortable in a church without taking your Bible, there is probably something wrong.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on September 5, 2010 at 6:41am

Dear Helen-

>>1-What is Evangelize? Teach the Truth of the Gospel without error, correct?

Correct, but the Gospel is so simple that a six year old can grasp it.

What is the Gospel Helen?

2 Peter 3:15-16 Is not referring to the Gospel. The Gospel is simple.

>>6- Who doe the Scriptures say to have received ALL the Truth from God?

12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you. 16"In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me." 17 Some of his disciples said to one another, "What does he mean by saying, 'In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,' and 'Because I am going to the Father'?"

Are we not Disciples of Christ?

John 8:31-32 (New International Version)
31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Can you appropriate this verse to your life Helen or is it just for Jews?

>>9- When they came out full of the Holy Spirit. Who stood up and addressed the crowds?Peter, the Rock, the leader chosen by Jesus.

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,

Peter "the rock" appears for the first three chapters and then drops off the book of acts. And Paul writes how many books and how many did Peter write? Who corrects who? Yes, Paul corrects Peter in Galatians. Paul states He is in no way less than any of the apostles.

>>10- Who answers Jesus?

This is the evidence to create the papacy? Lord have mercy.

>>11- Does the Scriptures say that God revealed His Truth to anybody else in the NT who was not in the Upper room?

Does Scripture say that God did not reveal His truth to anybody else? How many were in the upper room? About 120, verse 15 of Acts chapter 1 states.

Acts 1:15 (New International Version)
15In those days Peter stood up among the believers[a] (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)

I asked you the following: Do we all have authority to tell someone, if you repent and believe in your heart and confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord you are saved and if you don’t, you are condemned already.

You quoted Matthew 18:15-19 which have nothing to do with my question. As a born again Christian do we have the biblical authority to preach the Gospel to individuals, in other words? Of course we do. You are talking about correcting a brother in sin, which has nothing to do with my question.

>>but I URGE you NOT to divert from the Subject of Confession

You are the one deviating from the subject as I clearly show above. I am making the case that if we all have the biblical authority to preach the gospel to individuals as the great commission Matthew 28 commands us, then there is no need for confession. I can tell people as I do when I preach to believe and Repent, not to believe in me or to repent before me as if that has any value, no but to God. To believe in Christ and to repent to God for their sins. No need for me to teach them of a habitual confession practice to men, when the veil has been ripped from top to bottom and they can go boldly into the throne of Grace, as I have mentioned it before to you. You do not respond to those verses.

>>Perfect. But who from they had learned the GOOD NEWS? From those who had received it first hand, right? Are you defending oral Tradition now? Or did they Go about ‘reading the New Testament’ that didn’t even exist at that time?

Oral tradition (oral transmission) is fine for the Gospels for the gospel is not complicated and we had letters circulating to make sure the oral transmission was faithful. I will ask again, what is the Gospel, Helen? Plus we had the Gospels in circulation by the time Acts was written. Matter of fact The book of Acts starts by saying the following:

Acts 1
1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach.

Acts was written by Luke.

>>This, my dear brother in Christ, if ANYTHING, supports my point about oral Tradition the Authority of the Disciples NOT the authority of the whole Body of the believers!!!

Nope, not even close. What is the Gospel Helen, what is so complicated about the gospel?

>>Furthermore, lets not forget what Jesus told the Apostles: “Go and make DISCIPLES of all Nations”. And after making disciples, the Apostles would then ‘oversee’ their disciple’s ministry. These is evident in the Letters sent out by Peter, Paul and Timothy (a disciple of Paul himself and so on…

The Apostles stayed in Jerusalem and the believers who where scatter taught the gospel. There were no Apostles supervising them. God was supervising them as the Spirit would lead them to all truth. Just like he does now. There are folks who come to Christ and have no academic background some barely know how to read, but they are mightily use by God to preach the word of God. God provides in such times abundantly. I was in Prison when I started to preach and teach the word of God. No one instructed me on how to teach and preach. And to God’s glory and praise, when I was working on my AA in theology and took the first class of Homiletics (the art of preaching) I was amazed how the Lord had guided me to construct my sermons exactly as the Bible Institute was teaching.

You know what my Catholic friends have told me when they find out that Christ called me from a cell to serve Him. No man had preached to me (I do not say that with pride, but to back up the topic at hand) and no man gave me my calling. The majority of Catholics tell me, so you were a gang banger thug and now you think you can be a Pastor? Pleaszzzzzzeeee hahaha I just pray for them.

1 Corinthians 1:20-30 (New International Version)

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.


>>David, you saved me a lot of work quoting so many passages that actually support my point, NOT yours: 1 Peter 1:1-2 ,1Pet 3:15, Rom 1:14-15

Again you are speaking oranges when the topic is apples. 1 Peter 1:1-2 establishes that there were others scatter throughout different areas, who he later reminds to give an answer for their hope. Peter was teaching them that all of us in the body of Christ have the God given command to make disciples. So how are these verses supporting your belief that only the Apostle have such authority? Yes! Indeed not all men were chosen by God to do what the apostles did, which they were used by our Lord, as well as the prophets, to build the foundation of the church, but they were forever admonishing all believers to preach the Gospel.

Acts 8:4
Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word.

I could put an impressive list making my point but this would become too long.

1Pet 3:15
15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as LORD. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

I then asked you: Who is Peter writing to? What does he tell them to do?

He is writing to all believers admonishing them to give an answer for their hope, that is the point. We all have the God given authority to preach the gospel.

>>See, again you are helping me make my case. Philip, as a Deacon is not a leader, but a follower. Follower of what? Of the instructions given by the leader. What does the leader have? The authority to lead.

And what where the leaders, who by the way were not popes or priests, but Apostles who instructed everyone to do what? To make disciples, to preach the Gospel, not to establish man made traditions that would teach man to confess to man or thatthe priest is a mediator between man and God. No way. We all have the God given command to make disciples. To call all men to repent of their sins and accept Christ as Lord and savior and then be baptized. Baptized as people who are conscious of what they are doing and not as infants.

>>Agreed 100%!!! But this passage is not relevant for our discussion because it pertains something else, talks about being witness not Authority?

So a witness has no authority? Matthew 10:17 "But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues;

Matthew 10:19 "But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say.

Was this only applicable to the disciples? Or is it applicable to all the Church? Of course all the church.

>>The above passage, as verse 9 CLEARLY states it, is about confessing or professing the FAITH in Jesus, NOT confessing SINS, the subject of our discussion. I hope that is clear. Thus, it is not relevant for our discussion.

Ah my point was: 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”

And how are they to hear without someone preaching? Someone preaching, we all have that God given authority.

>>Verse 15 is AGAIN reinforcing the command to GO spread the news, make disciples of all nations and so on. IT IS NOT talking about authority of LEADERSHIP.

So what happened to the Lord telling us I will never leave you nor forsake you? So those that go make disciples have no authority or leadership? Who chooses/calls leaders and gives them authority? The RCC or God? The bible teaches God (Eph 4:11) does. The church can confirm the calling, but the church does not give the gifts of ministry which again I remind you do not include priest, popes and an array of other RC positions.

I said: Do all believers receive the power describe here? Of course beloved and what will happen then?

>>Yes!!! Just like YOU and I, as believers have received it. But does it STATE what kind of Power? Emphatically NO!

What? The verse states what kind of power. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Power to be witness. Do you know what being a witness means? I will tell you.

Please note the Lord's Words of Acts 1:8 in our subtitle above: "Ye shall be witnesses unto Me." This is a statement of certainty and in no way dependent upon man's devices. The Holy Spirit literally resides within every genuine child of grace and He is the witness for Jesus Christ--we just provide the vehicle. That is precisely the reason why all believers are exhorted to be filled with the Spirit (Eph.5:18). Because when a life is filled and controlled by Him, it is empty of self and exhibits supernatural power (dunamis in the Greek--from which the English word "dynamite" is derived!). And all who come in contact with that tremendous power will be affected to the degree God intends. Even if no words are spoken, each and every individual will be attracted to the power or be repelled by it!

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus" Acts 4:13 (KJV, emphasis mine).

>>Indeed you have been enlightened by the Light of Jesus. But as we can see, you cannot tell me with 100% authority that you HOLD the TRUE INTREPRETATION of the Gospel. Like Peter and the other apostles held. Simple as that!

Ohhh yes I can. Maybe you can’t, but I surely can say that I hold the true interpretation of the Gospel. What is the Gospel for the 4th time Helen? Of course every believer can hold the true interpretation of the Gospel, like Peter and the other apostles held. That is why they wrote it down. What in the name of the Lord are you talking about?

>>According to you, we should both KNOW the Truth. Aren’t we BOTH “empowered” to interpret and teach it?

As I have told you before. We can both be wrong, but we can both be right. So you are either wrong or me. So yes, we should both know the truth aligning everything to the bible, not to traditions that contradict the bible.

>>You mentioned somewhere that you know what the RCC teaches, but yet you stated that the we believe in the Popes interpretation of the Scriputures!!!

Protestant Church cites the Bible alone as the source of doctrinal knowledge. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, cites the Bible and Tradition. Please consider the following:

". . .the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."1

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 82.

[To the Catholic church, the Papal traditions are equally authoritative as scripture.]

>>You have written some more, but I don’t think I need to reply anymore because I trust my case has been made pretty soundly already.

Well, I certainly don’t think there is anything sound about the RC interpretation of scripture in the doctrines we been looking at, but ok sis the Lord bless you.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on August 30, 2010 at 4:35am

Dear Helen,

I am enjoying our exchanges :)

You quoted Bishop Fulton and his assertion might be correct. But food for thought back at you. Large numbers of Christians (in the millions) convert from Catholicism to Protestantism. The majority have the same complaint. They never taught us the bible and a relationship with the Lord was non-existent apart from religious rituals.

>>as a non-Catholic, you will need to ‘forget’ most of what you have been told about Catholicism and seek/understand what this Church really teaches.

I agree and reassure you that what I know about Catholicism comes from the Vatican website. Catholics and personal research. I dare not speak up on a subject if I have not invested some time researching the claims for and against.

>>For almost 400 years Christianity had no published Bible

The epistles and Gospels where circulating since they were written. The Septuagint was already available. Letters from later authors such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius were also passed around. Marcion was among those who attempted to synthesize a coherent understanding of the entire Bible as early as 144 AD unfortunately he believed the Old Testament was not compatible with the new. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian became strong opponents of Marcionism. Oral Tradition was use, no doubt about that, but when the time came to canonize the N.T. it was not through Oral Tradition, but through the abundance of documents. It was quite a task due to the abundance of false Gnostic writing had immerge. The essential components of the New Testament were established and the canon closed as early as 367 CE. In 397, the Catholic Church approved the entire New Testament for use in the church (at the Third Synod of Carthage). Actually, the NT had been approved in 393, but nothing survives from that Synod (of Hippo).

>>History tells us that they HAD to rely on the Oral Tradition ( with Capital T) passed on to them by the Apostles and their disciples. This is what the RCC calls Sacred Tradition, which you referred to as man tradition.

Oral transmission of the epistles and books of the New Testament is fine; we have no problem with that. But the abundance of extra biblical practices established by the Catholic Church that contradict sacred scripture is what we are completely against. Those remain man made traditions.

>>The RCC proclaims that she is Apostolic ( again, this is historically well documented and proven. I refer you to the oldest document of Christianity, The Didache 50 AD) and, therefore, all her Doctrines are Infallible.

The RCC can claim apostolic origin and that does not mean it is. From its foundation it has misinterpret verses of scripture to establish priesthood and practices at times far from the truth. Is highly unlikely The Didache is from 50 AD (Acts 15) none of the epistles or books of the N.T. mention it.

>>Since the RCC is Apostolic, she proclaims that her Authority comes from Christ. Why does she say that? Because Christ founded her when he appointed one of the Apostles, Simon Peter or Cephas, as her leader.

I have already proven how the above statement is incorrect in this discussion. I suggest you read my comments and as you find issues you feel like tackling we can definitely go from there. Read Sharon’s arguments and my responses and tell me how I am wrong with the Protestant interpretation according to the word of God.

>>“And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matt 28:18-20).

It is truly amazing how the Catholic Church has created a system to keep the people of God in bondage. All the above means is that God will be with ever born again believer. Is one of the most beautiful promises in the bible.

Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."

Acts 18:10 for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city." (NASB ©1995)

I am with you always. It was an arduous work he had commanded his disciples to undertake; a few unlettered laboring men to undertake the moral and religious conquest of a world that had just crucified their Master. There was, however, an assurance that they should be fine for the task,
1. All power, and authority, in heaven and earth was in the hands of their crucified Lord.
2. He who has all power will be present with them, a help in time of need. He is a mighty, present and helping Savior.
He will be with every believer until His coming.

>>in His infinite and Divine intelligence he was foretelling the history of His Church.

Amen and Amen Helen. But His church is not The RCC, but every single individual member comprises the church. You are the church, the bride of Christ. Christ died for the Church, but not the RCC or the Protestant Church, but for each member to be of the body of Christ.

>>This is where the Catholic and Apostolic Church takes her assurance for her Authority, as well as the comfort for her infallibility. Because if her discernment comes from the Holy Spirit, it is free of error.

The doctrines of the RCC are far from error as you will see as we continue to discuss this issue sis.

>> His Church, which He founded upon Cephas, His Rock, is to be no less of a teacher than He Himself was.

Again this is inaccurate Christ would not establish His church with fallible man. We are the church, but He is the corner stone and head of the body of Christ. I can and will give you an impressive list of verses to establish that tomorrow. I have run out of time for today.

>>Paul himself clearly states this in one of his letters when he says that some have been placed in the Church as TEACHERS, not all.(1Cor12:28-29).

Ephesians 4:11 New International Version (©1984)
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,

Where are the verses to state that we should have priests and nuns and popes?

>>Confessing to a Priest.

Check my first response to this discussion where plenty of evidence is given to debunk the need for confession.

>>I am obliged to suggest that you refer to the writings of the early Christians,

Sis – we have 66 books in the bible to base our practices from. I am somewhat familiar with those writing, but tell me specifically who and for what purpose?

>>Then a Protestant may argue, as you did, that Jesus was giving His authority to the whole body of believers which was to become His Church, not only to the Apostles. Well, this is a misinterpretation of the Scriptures; because the Scriptures themselves state it rather obviously that Jesus was talking to His chosen disciples not to the crowds.

God is not a respecter of persons. It was not for the successors of the Apostles as the Catholic church elaborated an unbiblical system, but to those God calls and gifts as Teachers, Pastors, Apostles, Evangelist, and Prophets (Ephe. 4:11).

>>Jesus Christ arranged things so that the Sacramental forgiveness would come through the ministry of the priest. If someone argues against that he is not so much arguing with the Catholic Church, but with Christ Himself.

The statement above is absolutely wrong. And is too late for me to prove it and as I mentioned it before I have up above on my first comment of this discussions. Tell me sis, where does the bible say that the Lord gave us priests. That is right, nowhere. I will elaborate further when I have additional time.

Blessings sis.

Permalink Reply by Helen on August 30, 2010 at 5:52pm

Hi David,

Apologies if I am being somewhat slow in responding to your comments. As I said, I am having problems finding my way around the site and, as a new member, maybe I need a bit more time to familiarize myself.

I had not seen this reply of yours before and I will try to comment on it now.

Please note that the text in bold are your comments. My responses come right below them.

>>For almost 400 years Christianity had no published Bible

The epistles and Gospels where circulating since they were written. The Septuagint was already available. Letters from later authors such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius were also passed around. Marcion was among those who attempted to synthesize a coherent understanding of the entire Bible as early as 144 AD unfortunately he believed the Old Testament was not compatible with the new. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian became strong opponents of Marcionism. Oral Tradition was use, no doubt about that, but when the time came to canonize the N.T. it was not through Oral Tradition, but through the abundance of documents. It was quite a task due to the abundance of false Gnostic writing had immerge. The essential components of the New Testament were established and the canon closed as early as 367 CE. In 397, the Catholic Church approved the entire New Testament for use in the church (at the Third Synod of Carthage). Actually, the NT had been approved in 393, but nothing survives from that Synod (of Hippo).

Helen’s Resp - David, be realistic:

What makes it alright to pass on oraly the epistles ( which means letters) but not anything else? What was to prevent the one reading and passing it on to others to NOT add his own little interpretation. Why you accept that but reject other oral trasmission is not clear to me...

Secondly, Clement of Rome was a Pope of the RCC from 80-96 AD (meaning he had 1st hand knowledge of the teachings of the Apostles)
Ignatius or St Ignatius was bishop of Antioch - 35- 107 AD, was a disciple of John who wrote letters to various Churches.
St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon 125-200 AD,
Tertullian of Carthage, 155-220 AD, was a brilliant apologist called ‘The father of western theology…

They were all Catholics and that's well recorded history. These names were hugely respected even by Luther, Calvin and other Protest-ant theologians.


>>History tells us that they HAD to rely on the Oral Tradition ( with Capital T) passed on to them by the Apostles and their disciples. This is what the RCC calls Sacred Tradition, which you referred to as man tradition.

Oral transmission of the epistles and books of the New Testament is fine; we have no problem with that. But the abundance of extra biblical practices established by the Catholic Church that contradict sacred scripture is what we are completely against. Those remain man made traditions.

Helen’s Resp -

Sorry but you are missing the point. The Apostles and their disciples were educating people on the Gospel orally. They were not only sitting in an ‘office’ and writing letters, but mainly evangelizing verbally. They would go and talk, then pick a clever, pious, honest person and edify them and ‘ordain’ this person as the leader of his local church, who would them be responsible for evangelizing his local community ( I will suppor this view in an different forum soon). The Apostle would then go away somewhere else, and keep corresponding with that person. This person would teach his congregation orally based on the teachings and letters he received from the Apostle. This David, is oral Sacred Tradition.


>>The RCC proclaims that she is Apostolic ( again, this is historically well documented and proven. I refer you to the oldest document of Christianity, The Didache 50 AD) and, therefore, all her Doctrines are Infallible.

The RCC can claim apostolic origin and that does not mean it is. From its foundation it has misinterpret verses of scripture to establish priesthood and practices at times far from the truth. Is highly unlikely The Didache is from 50 AD (Acts 15) none of the epistles or books of the N.T. mention it.

Helen’s Resp. -

No, you are wrong. The RCC is Apostolic, the ONLY institution on earth that can be traced back 2000 years. The RCC ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT base her teachings on the Didache because this manuscript was not discovered until 1883 in Constantinople. It is considered a Treasure and it DOES confirm a lot of the claims of the RCC for being Apostolic, but the RCC had already been around for almost 2 millennia when it was discovered.

>>Since the RCC is Apostolic, she proclaims that her Authority comes from Christ. Why does she say that? Because Christ founded her when he appointed one of the Apostles, Simon Peter or Cephas, as her leader.

I have already proven how the above statement is incorrect in this discussion. I suggest you read my comments and as you find issues you feel like tackling we can definitely go from there. Read Sharon’s arguments and my responses and tell me how I am wrong with the Protestant interpretation according to the word of God.

Helen’s Resp. -

David, I am afraid so far you have not proven anything. I will look for your other comments though, for I would not like to unfair.


>>“And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matt 28:18-20).

It is truly amazing how the Catholic Church has created a system to keep the people of God in bondage. All the above means is that God will be with ever born again believer. Is one of the most beautiful promises in the bible.

Helen’s Rep.

This is just your opinion, which I obviously do not share, but I regret very deeply that you think so. As far as I am concerned I pray to God, I worship Him, I try to follow His commandments and all His ways and most of all, I love Him sincerely. He knows my heart, he knows my name, he hears my prayers and gives me Grace. I have a hard time to believe that among over 1 billion Catholics in the world I am the only one who feels this way.

I do feel fortunate to have been placed in the Holy Chuch of Jesus and thank Him for this.


>>in His infinite and Divine intelligence he was foretelling the history of His Church.

Amen and Amen Helen. But His church is not The RCC, but every single individual member comprises the church. You are the church, the bride of Christ. Christ died for the Church, but not the RCC or the Protestant Church, but for each member to be of the body of Christ.

His followers are all Christians in the world, all those who proclaim His name and they are ALL blessed and loved by Jesus. His Church, however, is the Church of Rome. The one He founded, as I thoroughly explained to you.

He founded it upon Peter(Kephas or Cephas), to whom - in a subtle reference to the OT, when David gave the ‘keys of his kingdom‘ to his new minister (who would then be recognised as such by all who would see him) - Jesus gave the keys of HIS Kingdom to that fisherman and promised him: The gates of hell shall not prevail against it ( any coincidence that the RCC has survived for 2 thousand years, in spite of all attacks and oposition? This topic is also going to be included in the discussion I plan to post here...

>>This is where the Catholic and Apostolic Church takes her assurance for her Authority, as well as the comfort for her infallibility. Because if her discernment comes from the Holy Spirit, it is free of error.

The doctrines of the RCC are far from error as you will see as we continue to discuss this issue sis.

Helen’s Resp.

So far you have not succeeded in supporting any of your views and this, to be honest, does not surprise me a bit. Because for 2 millennia many plp have tried to refute the RCC and failed.

The Church of Rome, on the other hand, has and has had many brilliant Apologistis such as St.Thomas Aquinas, fantastic minds that to defend her throughout history. I would be naive to believe that I could ever do as good a job as those brilliant theologians have done. But if you are serious about proving your points, I would be happy to provide you a list of names for you research, including some prominent protestants who, in trying to refute Rome, became passionate catholic apologists.

>> His Church, which He founded upon Cephas, His Rock, is to be no less of a teacher than He Himself was.

Again this is inaccurate Christ would not establish His church with fallible man. We are the church, but He is the corner stone and head of the body of Christ. I can and will give you an impressive list of verses to establish that tomorrow. I have run out of time for today.

Helen’s Resp.

Woudn't he? Who told you that? Why did he appointed Peter then? Was he not a mere fisherman? ( Please refer to my previous reply for Bible quotations)

Anyhow, this view of your is not even correct because according to the RCC, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, where Jesus Himself is the Head and the successor of Peter is, whoever he may be, is His Vicar. His infallibility( Peter's successor) is given through the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit when he, the Pope, speaks as an ex-cathedra, not alone but with all the bishops that are in communion with Rome. ( As said, I am going to start a separate discussion to clarify this).

>>Paul himself clearly states this in one of his letters when he says that some have been placed in the Church as TEACHERS, not all.(1Cor12:28-29).

Ephesians 4:11 New International Version (©1984)
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,

Where are the verses to state that we should have priests and nuns and popes?

In the beginning of the verse it refers to Apostles: The bishop of Rome IS the successor of the Apostle Peter. Then Evangelists, Pastors and priests are ‘job descriptions’ of priests, nuns and other clergy alike.

If you are to be so pick, to an almost childish level, then please tell me where does in the Bible do you read the words: Bible, Holy Trinity, Ascension, and so on?

David, thanks again and God bless.

Permalink Reply by Helen on August 30, 2010 at 6:18pm

Hi,

I haven't got around to editing the above before adding my reply.

Apologies for the many mistakes. I am writing in a foreign language....

Thanks again, David!
H.

Permalink Reply by Christine_loves_jesus on September 2, 2010 at 6:42am

If you look at it more simply...Confession to a Priest I believe is not expecting that the Priest forgive you... he is acting as a conduit for you to come into connection with God..at the end of the day you are always forgiven your sins because of the death and resurrection of Jesus and the forgiveness you feel comes from this as well as forgiving yourself...

Permalink Reply by Helen on September 3, 2010 at 11:56am

Christine, you've put it so wisely.

You see, this is where I struggle to communicate to my brothers protetants the Sacrament of Confession: The penintent (the person confessing) does not confess to the Priest, but to Jesus. We, as we enter the confissionary, because of our belief (you, the authority that Jesus gave to the apostles to 'bind and loose', and which was passed on to their successor, namely, the clergy throughout history) confess to the person 'alter Christus', not Jesus Himself, but the priest in place of Christ.

The absolution comes from God, the priest just declares it in the name of Christ by the authority given to him.

Now, isn't it the same when a protestant say I repent, jesus forgive me. Don't they believe in forgiveness because of the mercy of God ? Well then, that's the same for us, but the priest declares it as servant of Christ in the name of Jesus.


God Bless,
H.

Permalink Reply by Carla on May 22, 2010 at 7:21pm

Janie,

You truly are a blessing as you respond in Humility and Love. I always love hearing from you in these forums. I am also so blessed each time.

Eph 4:1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,
Eph 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love,
Eph 4:3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Love in Christ, Carla

Permalink Reply by Michael Vernon McEntire on May 17, 2010 at 12:44pm

Sharon, I'm sorry that you have been hurt or offended by any comments or discussions in the AAG community. When I left Mormonism (now many years ago), I felt a strong desire to investigate a "real" Christian Church, and after visiting the Methodists, Lutherans, and Anglicans, I began worshipping in a Roman Catholic Church, and I appreciated being welcomed there. I hope you understand that there were very big and powerful reasons for the Protestant Reformation, and that those reasons haven't disappeared or weakened over the ensuing centuries. I deeply regret the divisions in Christianity, and with millions of others I frequently pray that we may become united. I also hope you understand that Evangelical Christians can be just as uncomfortable with Roman Catholics as you have apparently been here. I've also noticed that Roman Catholics can be very defensive against Protestantism, and defend their Roman Catholic denomination as if it were not a denomination at all, but THE Christian Church, and speak of Evangelicals as if they were not completely or fully Christian. It all stems from the same question that the Corinthian Jailer asked of the Apostle Paul, "What must I do to be saved?" I wish that we could all simply answer what the Apostle Paul answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." But we don't, do we? We add a multitude of other things that we think one must do to be saved, and that's where we complicate Christianity and cause divisions in it. For example, Mother Teresa said that she did not know if she had been good enough to go to Heaven when she died. I reply, Oh dear, where did this go wrong?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 17
• Next ›
• Page