Christian Forums

I belive if God spoke he would say, who is a Catholic; who is a Protestant?
would he stand in some judgment on petie bickierings? Would he say the Catholics are right and the Protestants are wrong so let the protestants burn, or would he say The Protestants are right and the Catholics are wrong so let the catholics burn?

If we want to know who the true church is we only have to look back to the day Of Pentecost at the 120 who were filled with the spirit and pearched Jesus Christ.

They were just believers and were neither RC or Protestant. We see the church through modernday traditional eyes and mindsets that are instilled in us by traditional teaching. We are tossed about by every wind of doctrine and heap to oursaelves teachers having itching ears.   
Why have we made the institution the church instead of the body.? Why do we say on Sunday I am going to church as if it were a place we go on a certainday
The place of worship is not the church. We are  the church everyday where ever we are.
Paul said know ye not ye are the temple and the spirit of God is in you.

Is God locked up in some building or someones denomination? No but where ever two or three are gathered in his name there Jesus is in the mist, but aside from that I am first the church personally and the holy Spirit is me guide.

mike123

The true church is made up of all who have believed on Jesus; Catholic or others. I came out of the Catholic Church and know many believers there. I now attend an assembly without membership other than being a part of the body of Christ and know many believers where I am.

In Jesus' name - larry2

Yes, it is so redicculous to think that god would ever hae some type of heirarchy, especially with apostles first, then ordained bishops like matthias to succeed judas. It is especially crazy thinking to believe that these crazy "priests" would somehow have the ability to forgive the sins of others, or not to! phooey! i mean John 20:21-23 must be wrong.  And to think that these bishops have the power to legislate, or even pronounce judgement upon others and even excommunicate them, like ananias and sapphira. Matthew 18:16-20 has to be totally unbiblical. To think that these priests somehow have the power to confect the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is ludicrous, I mean who in the world would believe that we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord to have eternal life? John 6:54 is totally unbiblical in nature, and Jesus had to be wrong! Who would have ever thought that we must meet on the Lord's day, the first day of the week? Who would ever think that scripture can tell us when and where to meet to partake of the Lord's supper? hocus pocus I tell you!

I mean who died and made Peter(cephas) pope and then asked him to feed Jesus sheep and tend Jesus sheep? Not Jesus!!!!    No way!

lol

Just a bit of sarcasm for the unbelievers here.

peace, papist

: papist1  Fri Apr 24, 2009 - 11:22:07
Yes, it is so redicculous to think that god would ever hae some type of heirarchy, especially with apostles first, then ordained bishops like matthias to succeed judas. It is especially crazy thinking to believe that these crazy "priests" would somehow have the ability to forgive the sins of others, or not to! phooey! i mean John 20:21-23 must be wrong.  And to think that these bishops have the power to legislate, or even pronounce judgement upon others and even excommunicate them, like ananias and sapphira. Matthew 18:16-20 has to be totally unbiblical. To think that these priests somehow have the power to confect the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is ludicrous, I mean who in the world would believe that we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord to have eternal life? John 6:54 is totally unbiblical in nature, and Jesus had to be wrong! Who would have ever thought that we must meet on the Lord's day, the first day of the week? Who would ever think that scripture can tell us when and where to meet to partake of the Lord's supper? hocus pocus I tell you!

I mean who died and made Peter(cephas) pope and then asked him to feed Jesus sheep and tend Jesus sheep? Not Jesus!!!!    No way!

lol

Just a bit of sarcasm for the unbelievers here.

peace, papist

dear papist I think you missed the poiint. The twelve apostles did represent the leadership of the church during its earliest days but they were neither RC or protestant.
The church was the church. They were also common and never parraded or flaunted their authority or position. They did not have castles or thrones.and  they did not ware religious vestmonts AND fancy hates and act all holy. The Holy Spirit was their authority and power. but they themselves were humble servants.

: mclees8  Sat Apr 25, 2009 - 10:10:49

: papist1  Fri Apr 24, 2009 - 11:22:07
Yes, it is so redicculous to think that god would ever hae some type of heirarchy, especially with apostles first, then ordained bishops like matthias to succeed judas. It is especially crazy thinking to believe that these crazy "priests" would somehow have the ability to forgive the sins of others, or not to! phooey! i mean John 20:21-23 must be wrong.  And to think that these bishops have the power to legislate, or even pronounce judgement upon others and even excommunicate them, like ananias and sapphira. Matthew 18:16-20 has to be totally unbiblical. To think that these priests somehow have the power to confect the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is ludicrous, I mean who in the world would believe that we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord to have eternal life? John 6:54 is totally unbiblical in nature, and Jesus had to be wrong! Who would have ever thought that we must meet on the Lord's day, the first day of the week? Who would ever think that scripture can tell us when and where to meet to partake of the Lord's supper? hocus pocus I tell you!

I mean who died and made Peter(cephas) pope and then asked him to feed Jesus sheep and tend Jesus sheep? Not Jesus!!!!    No way!

lol

Just a bit of sarcasm for the unbelievers here.

peace, papist

dear papist I think you missed the poiint. The twelve apostles did represent the leadership of the church during its earliest days but they were neither RC or protestant.
The church was the church. They were also common and never parraded or flaunted their authority or position. They did not have castles or thrones.and  they did not ware religious vestmonts AND fancy hates and act all holy. The Holy Spirit was their authority and power. but they themselves were humble servants.

So are you saying the church did not have bishops, priests and deacons from the beginning forward and that these were the shepherds over the flock with Peter asthe earthly shepherd christ appointed?

Why don't you show me n church history in the first 15 centuries where your church is and show me their interpretation of the NT.

I have writings from the time of the apostles forward, in pretty much every decade until this very day, of the Church and her teachings. I also have an unbroken succession of bishops from the apostles forward. i would say that the burden of proof is on you and your take of history.

peace, papist

: papist1  Sat Apr 25, 2009 - 12:03:10

: mclees8  Sat Apr 25, 2009 - 10:10:49

: papist1  Fri Apr 24, 2009 - 11:22:07
Yes, it is so redicculous to think that god would ever hae some type of heirarchy, especially with apostles first, then ordained bishops like matthias to succeed judas. It is especially crazy thinking to believe that these crazy "priests" would somehow have the ability to forgive the sins of others, or not to! phooey! i mean John 20:21-23 must be wrong.  And to think that these bishops have the power to legislate, or even pronounce judgement upon others and even excommunicate them, like ananias and sapphira. Matthew 18:16-20 has to be totally unbiblical. To think that these priests somehow have the power to confect the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is ludicrous, I mean who in the world would believe that we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord to have eternal life? John 6:54 is totally unbiblical in nature, and Jesus had to be wrong! Who would have ever thought that we must meet on the Lord's day, the first day of the week? Who would ever think that scripture can tell us when and where to meet to partake of the Lord's supper? hocus pocus I tell you!

I mean who died and made Peter(cephas) pope and then asked him to feed Jesus sheep and tend Jesus sheep? Not Jesus!!!!    No way!

lol

Just a bit of sarcasm for the unbelievers here.

peace, papist

dear papist I think you missed the poiint. The twelve apostles did represent the leadership of the church during its earliest days but they were neither RC or protestant.
The church was the church. They were also common and never parraded or flaunted their authority or position. They did not have castles or thrones.and  they did not ware religious vestmonts AND fancy hates and act all holy. The Holy Spirit was their authority and power. but they themselves were humble servants.

So are you saying the church did not have bishops, priests and deacons from the beginning forward and that these were the shepherds over the flock with Peter asthe earthly shepherd christ appointed?

Why don't you show me n church history in the first 15 centuries where your church is and show me their interpretation of the NT.

I have writings from the time of the apostles forward, in pretty much every decade until this very day, of the Church and her teachings. I also have an unbroken succession of bishops from the apostles forward. i would say that the burden of proof is on you and your take of history.

peace, papist

I think you need to re-read what i said

: mclees8  Sun Apr 12, 2009 - 11:16:04
I belive if God spoke he would say, who is a Catholic; who is a Protestant?
would he stand in some judgment on petie bickierings? Would he say the Catholics are right and the Protestants are wrong so let the protestants burn, or would he say The Protestants are right and the Catholics are wrong so let the catholics burn?

If we want to know who the true church is we only have to look back to the day Of Pentecost at the 120 who were filled with the spirit and pearched Jesus Christ.

They were just believers and were neither RC or Protestant. We see the church through modernday traditional eyes and mindsets that are instilled in us by traditional teaching. We are tossed about by every wind of doctrine and heap to oursaelves teachers having itching ears.  
Why have we made the institution the church instead of the body.? Why do we say on Sunday I am going to church as if it were a place we go on a certainday
The place of worship is not the church. We are  the church everyday where ever we are.
Paul said know ye not ye are the temple and the spirit of God is in you.

Is God locked up in some building or someones denomination? No but where ever two or three are gathered in his name there Jesus is in the mist, but aside from that I am first the church personally and the holy Spirit is me guide.

mike123

What you said?  Sure, line for line.

You said "If we want to know who the true church is we only have to look back to the day Of Pentecost at the 120 who were filled with the spirit and pearched Jesus Christ. "

This is only very partial proof of what the church is and was. You must look to the entire NT to see what Jesus intended for the church, and commanded it to be. this would include giving the apostles his own mission, the power to forgive sins of others, or declare them unforgiven etc.... I could go on and on. You must also remember that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, and if anyone fails to hear the church they are to be anathema(excommunicated, as a heathen and a publican(matt 18:16-20). This is just the tip of the iceburgh, if you would like dozens more scriptural texts to back up what the church actually was, let me know.

You said "They were just believers and were neither RC or Protestant."

True, there was one church and they were called to remain one, as Jesus and the Father are one.
This one church and it's doctrine's just so happen to have the same teachings, habded down by the apostles and their disciples in every age, unchanged to mean anything different. This church also canonized the Bible in the first 382 years a.d. There was no such thing as "protestants" until certain members of the one church "protested" against this one church in the early 16th century, this isknown as the 'reformation" which was intended to reform the one church, and what actually happened was it caused severe division, mostly among it's own adherents(luther, calvin, zwingli, wesley etc, and the division continuesto this very day, over 30,000.

You said " see the church through modernday traditional eyes and mindsets that are instilled in us by traditional teaching. We are tossed about by every wind of doctrine and heap to oursaelves teachers having itching ears. "

I would agree, the false doctrine of sola scriptura has caused evry wind of doctrine, because man is trying to interpret it for himself, apart from the Church God instituted. This is basic knowledge and factual in the most simple historical application on the matter. the church was virtually a monolith for almost 2/3 of Christian history, and then sola sciptura was introduced and  the chaos and division bean, and has never ended. This is what happens when you mix human thinking and ego in with scriptural interpretation. each man for himself, no checks or balances, no magesterium of bishops or cardinals to filter it through.

You said "Why have we made the institution the church instead of the body.? Why do we say on Sunday I am going to church as if it were a place we go on a certainday
The place of worship is not the church. We are  the church everyday where ever we are.
Paul said know ye not ye are the temple and the spirit of God is in you."

You may have done this, but the church is a spiritual organism of sorts, not defined by one single definition. It is both visible and invisible, triumphant and militant, including the great cloud of witnesses, and those still trudging the road here on earth. The church is Christ as Head and we as His Body, not seperate in any way from Him, with His mission at hand. The church is as a light upon a hill, for all to see. Tobe "christian" previous to the 16th century, everyone knew where to go, and who to see, and then what to do. Today it is a mess, where unbelievers have no clue where to go, or what to believe because their are thousands of ways being taught to believe, and only one of them is correct. Truth does not change.

You said "Paul said know ye not ye are the temple and the spirit of God is in you. "


So you think this encompasses what the church is in it's entirety?  Wow, what a pretext.

Does this mean we can throw out the rest of scripture as it concerns the church? Your reading is very selective at best.

I come from a background of believeing nothing and being taught nothing about Christianity, then coming to know Christ personally in jail in 1993 nd attending over 18 biblie believing churches. All of these churches taught something different concerning baptism, and I found this to be the farthest thing from unity, or being of one mind or heart, believing the same thing.

I then went on a search of church history from the first century forward and was angered to see onlyCatholic doctrine. i was very anti Catholic. What I soon found, was that I had been told a lot of things about Catholic teaching, that were not true.(worship of mary and the saints, works centered salvation etc....)  I went and studied the church teachings for myself, and did not disagree with them.  No one had to evangelize me into the church, or come knocking at my door. I found the fullness of truth in a basic study of history, totally unbiased history.

I am a true skeptic, I look at both sides of an issue and weigh it out. I am not a propagandist.

peace, papist

I think if God were here, He would teach us all to use the spell check function before posting.

: mclees8  Sat Apr 25, 2009 - 10:10:49

: papist1  Fri Apr 24, 2009 - 11:22:07
Yes, it is so redicculous to think that god would ever hae some type of heirarchy, especially with apostles first, then ordained bishops like matthias to succeed judas. It is especially crazy thinking to believe that these crazy "priests" would somehow have the ability to forgive the sins of others, or not to! phooey! i mean John 20:21-23 must be wrong.  And to think that these bishops have the power to legislate, or even pronounce judgement upon others and even excommunicate them, like ananias and sapphira. Matthew 18:16-20 has to be totally unbiblical. To think that these priests somehow have the power to confect the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is ludicrous, I mean who in the world would believe that we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord to have eternal life? John 6:54 is totally unbiblical in nature, and Jesus had to be wrong! Who would have ever thought that we must meet on the Lord's day, the first day of the week? Who would ever think that scripture can tell us when and where to meet to partake of the Lord's supper? hocus pocus I tell you!

I mean who died and made Peter(cephas) pope and then asked him to feed Jesus sheep and tend Jesus sheep? Not Jesus!!!!    No way!

lol

Just a bit of sarcasm for the unbelievers here.

peace, papist

dear papist I think you missed the poiint. The twelve apostles did represent the leadership of the church during its earliest days but they were neither RC or protestant.
The church was the church. They were also common and never parraded or flaunted their authority or position. They did not have castles or thrones.and  they did not ware religious vestmonts AND fancy hates and act all holy. The Holy Spirit was their authority and power. but they themselves were humble servants.

oh, you were there?  tell me all about them. What type of food was Paul's favorite, and peter's?

Please tell me what their favorite colors were.

Also, while you are at it, do you still wear no undergarments, and ride camels and walk everywhere? How about your teeth, i am sure you don't brush them, since the apostles did not, and surely you don't have a bank account, since they did not. I am also sure that whatever church you attend does not have a building, or a bank account of any sort and that everyone shares each others money and food. I also assume you meet unerground in catacombs and bury your dead there also, in the same place you have mass and the Eucharistic meal?
What about the women? Do they wear head coverings at your catacomb?

Let's get real and stop with the pandering and diversions.

If you can'thave a real discussion concerning these topics, please refrain from engaging in the conversation.

peace, papist

: papist1  Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:40:47
oh, you were there?  tell me all about them. What type of food was Paul's favorite, and peter's?

Paul was a fiend for Knishes.
Peter favored lobster, preferably in a white wine butter sauce.

::wink::

So I guess no one can show me any protestant theology previous to the 16th century. sola scriptura, sola fide etc. Please, anyone show me where someone was interpreting the Bible in calvinistic, lutheran, wesleyan etc.... previous to the 16th century.

I will be back in a few days to check on what you might have come up with.
peace, papist

: papist1  Tue Apr 28, 2009 - 06:11:11
So I guess no one can show me any protestant theology previous to the 16th century. sola scriptura, sola fide etc. Please, anyone show me where someone was interpreting the Bible in calvinistic, lutheran, wesleyan etc.... previous to the 16th century.

I will be back in a few days to check on what you might have come up with.
peace, papist

And you will never understand that your question doesn't matter at all... not in the least.

Just because a RCC doctrine has been wrong for 14 centuries does not make it now correct by default.


Like I said before, if you read the bible, especially how we are told to act as Christians.. the RCC would willfully disband itself and pay double for all past grievances (whether true or not) and give the rest of its vast wealth to the poor.  If they cannot get even the most simplistic and basic tenet of Christianity then their authority on any other issue is moot.

: papist1  Tue Apr 28, 2009 - 06:11:11
So I guess no one can show me any protestant theology previous to the 16th century. sola scriptura, sola fide etc. Please, anyone show me where someone was interpreting the Bible in calvinistic, lutheran, wesleyan etc.... previous to the 16th century.

I will be back in a few days to check on what you might have come up with.
peace, papist

You mean other than the parts where Catholics and Protestants agree?  Cuz that's more than half of all doctrine, really.

The Orthodox church has been opposing the primacy of the papacy for as long as the RCC has been claiming the primacy of the papacy.

The first charismatics of the 21st century were labeled neo-Montanists because of the similarity between their actions and the reports of the 4th? century group known as Montanists.  Tertullian "left" Christianity to become a Montanist.  I put "left" in quotations because I'm altogether uncertain that he left at all.  He himself didn't consider himself to have left.

The Pelagians opposed infant baptism as effectual for salvation.

The Copts for centuries maintained an eschatology totally different from the Catholic church, and more similar to the amil/preterist views.  Not sure if they still do, though.

As for Sola Scriptura, it finds parallels in pre-Talmudic Phariseeism, with its preference for the Torah.  I believe the early church opposed this rather vehemently, though, and instead chose to be more inclusive.  "All Scripture is God-breath" apparently included the use of a number of pseudipigraphal books, when we look at history instead of just tradition.

Dispensationalism finds tremendous parallels with the Marcionites...not that that's a recommendation for them.

Speaking of Marcionites and gnosticism, there are some parallels there to Sola Fide, in the whole "you only have to believe..." bit.  Of course, modern Sola Fide-listas wouldn't agree with Marcion concerning exactly what it IS you have to believe, but the similarity is real enough.

There now...have fun.

: papist1  Mon Apr 27, 2009 - 16:40:47

: mclees8  Sat Apr 25, 2009 - 10:10:49

: papist1  Fri Apr 24, 2009 - 11:22:07
Yes, it is so redicculous to think that god would ever hae some type of heirarchy, especially with apostles first, then ordained bishops like matthias to succeed judas. It is especially crazy thinking to believe that these crazy "priests" would somehow have the ability to forgive the sins of others, or not to! phooey! i mean John 20:21-23 must be wrong.  And to think that these bishops have the power to legislate, or even pronounce judgement upon others and even excommunicate them, like ananias and sapphira. Matthew 18:16-20 has to be totally unbiblical. To think that these priests somehow have the power to confect the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is ludicrous, I mean who in the world would believe that we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord to have eternal life? John 6:54 is totally unbiblical in nature, and Jesus had to be wrong! Who would have ever thought that we must meet on the Lord's day, the first day of the week? Who would ever think that scripture can tell us when and where to meet to partake of the Lord's supper? hocus pocus I tell you!

I mean who died and made Peter(cephas) pope and then asked him to feed Jesus sheep and tend Jesus sheep? Not Jesus!!!!    No way!

lol

Just a bit of sarcasm for the unbelievers here.

peace, papist

dear papist I think you missed the poiint. The twelve apostles did represent the leadership of the church during its earliest days but they were neither RC or protestant.
The church was the church. They were also common and never parraded or flaunted their authority or position. They did not have castles or thrones.and  they did not ware religious vestmonts AND fancy hates and act all holy. The Holy Spirit was their authority and power. but they themselves were humble servants.

oh, you were there?  tell me all about them. What type of food was Paul's favorite, and peter's?

Please tell me what their favorite colors were.

Also, while you are at it, do you still wear no undergarments, and ride camels and walk everywhere? How about your teeth, i am sure you don't brush them, since the apostles did not, and surely you don't have a bank account, since they did not. I am also sure that whatever church you attend does not have a building, or a bank account of any sort and that everyone shares each others money and food. I also assume you meet unerground in catacombs and bury your dead there also, in the same place you have mass and the Eucharistic meal?
What about the women? Do they wear head coverings at your catacomb?

Let's get real and stop with the pandering and diversions.

If you can'thave a real discussion concerning these topics, please refrain from engaging in the conversation.

peace, papist


Mike
Please lets do. when did the popes of Rome start waring the religious vestmonts and why? do you really think that peter would have adorned himself this waY?   

[/color]

Let's get real and stop with the pandering and diversions.

If you can'thave a real discussion concerning these topics, please refrain from engaging in the conversation.

peace, papist


Mike
Please lets do. when did the popes of Rome start waring the religious vestmonts and why? do you really think that peter would have adorned himself this waY?   

[/color]


Im just a common sense person. Im sorry if I don't meet up to you intelectual ways. but i beleive my observation is valid. I know the church starteds out common. When we read the book of acts and the things jesus taught about the pride of the Pharasees one has to wonder. When did the church take on the big show, and why did they do it.   

This may be helpful in explaining it Mike.  I found this on-line...

The liturgical vestments worn at Mass have evolved over time. Since the earliest days of the Church, liturgical vestments have been worn by priests for the celebration of the Mass. Even though priests of the Old Testament wore vestments in their liturgical rites, the "Christian" vestments are not really adaptations of them.  However, the Old Testament idea of wearing a special kind of clothing in the performance of liturgical rites did influence the Church.

St. Jerome asserted, "The Divine religion has one dress in the service of sacred things, another in ordinary intercourse and life." For the first few centuries of our history, the Church continued to refine "who wore what when and how" until about the year 800 when liturgical norms for vesting were basically standardized and would remain so until the renewal following the Second Vatican Council.

In the 3rd Century "Canons of Hippolytus" we read: "As often as the bishops would partake of the Mysteries, the presbyters and deacons shall gather round him clad in white, quite particularly clean clothes, more beautiful than those of the rest of the people." Thus, too, St Jerome, in his commentary on Ezek. xliv. 19, says that "We, too, ought not to enter the Holy of Holies in our everyday garments ... when they have become defiled from the use of ordinary life, but with a clean conscience, and in clean garments, hold in our hands the Sacrament of the Lord." When, in the year 289, St Cyprian was led to martyrdom, he wore, according to Eusebius (Hist. eccles. iv. cap. i I), an under tunic (linea), an upper tunic (dalmatica, tunica) and mantle (lacerna, byrrus).

I would make two additional points.  It's important to keep in mind Mike, that the Pope, Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon does not own those clothes.  They are merely to symbolize their office, the religious function they are performing, and the Church's tradition, which we honor.  An example of this is that the colors of the vestments are a reminder to the faithful as to what time of the liturgical year it is, or what particular feast is being celebrated, (Dark purple for Lent, symbolizing the blood of Christ's sacrifice.  White for Christmas and Easter, symbolizing purity, etc.). When the "last will and testament" of HH John Paul II was released...it showed that he owned virtually nothing. Not a bank account.  No credit card.  No real property.  That is typical.  The majority of pastors at every level in the Church are under some sort of vow or commitment to "poverty", either through formal vows or to diocesan rules.  In the vast majority of Catholic Churches around the world, you would be lucky to find central heating or even electricity.  I have attended Mass in many a mud-dobbed hut of a Church.  Most Priest friends I have, never have more than a couple of bucks in their wallet.  I always buy.  They seldom own anything more than just a few personal items and some civilian clothes.  Except for Mass, their prescribed dress is intentionally designed to be completely "un-showy", (Black), and inexpensive, or the simple robes and sandals of the religious orders, (Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.).  The Church owns some impressive real estate and some wonderful art, but they are neither owned by, or intended, to "show off" or "puff up" the human pastors of the Church, who are all sinners, just as you and I.  You may also be confusing Our Lord's criticism of the religious arrogance and stubbornness of the Pharisees, with how they may have dressed.  Christ certainly was critical of their hubris and their arrogance, but He did not come to demolish the Priesthood, but to fulfill it.  When Mary anointed Christ with expensive perfume that may have been worth almost a year's wages, and Judas objected, saying they should have used it for the poor, Christ rebuked him, and allowed her to perfume Him.  The Church is very specific and meticulous in everything from vestments to what liturgical chalices can be made of, not to "show off", but to create beauty and in so doing, honor Christ our King, just as Mary in John 12:3 did.

The liturgical vestments worn at Mass have evolved over time. Since the earliest days of the Church, liturgical vestments have been worn by priests for the celebration of the Mass. Even though priests of the Old Testament wore vestments in their liturgical rites, the "Christian" vestments are not really adaptations of them. However, the Old Testament idea of wearing a special kind of clothing in the performance of liturgical rites did influence the Church.

St. Jerome asserted, "The Divine religion has one dress in the service of sacred things, another in ordinary intercourse and life." For the first few centuries of our history, the Church continued to refine "who wore what when and how" until about the year 800 when liturgical norms for vesting were basically standardized and would remain so until the renewal following the Second Vatican Council.

In the 3rd Century "Canons of Hippolytus" we read: "As often as the bishops would partake of the Mysteries, the presbyters and deacons shall gather round him clad in white, quite particularly clean clothes, more beautiful than those of the rest of the people." Thus, too, St Jerome, in his commentary on Ezek. xliv. 19, says that "We, too, ought not to enter the Holy of Holies in our everyday garments ... when they have become defiled from the use of ordinary life, but with a clean conscience, and in clean garments, hold in our hands the Sacrament of the Lord." When, in the year 289, St Cyprian was led to martyrdom, he wore, according to Eusebius (Hist. eccles. iv. cap. i I), an under tunic (linea), an upper tunic (dalmatica, tunica) and mantle (lacerna, byrrus).

Mike
I could not help but notice that all this reference by Hippolytus and Jerome is in the 3rd century. Three hundred years since the church began. We see here that clergy has now been separated from the common laity to ware vestments of office and position.  Yet even though the apostles represented a certain authority we get no idea that they exalted themselves from the common in any way.  They (Hippolytus and Jerome) say we should not enter the Holy of Holies wearing common or defiled garments. This is a return to the Old Testament  priesthood. How ever when Jesus went to the cross to be our once and for all sacrifice at the moment of death the veil to the Holy of Holies was torn from top to bottom by the hand of God. The old testament priesthood was abolished for we now have a more perfect priesthood. This is the priesthood of all believers who have been made clean by the blood of the lamb. All believers now enter into the Holy of Holies  by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said it is not the outside of a man  that makes him unclean but what is on the inside.  We have entered into a new relationship that is not contingent upon outward forms and appearances but a relationship of the heart where God is worshiped in the Spirit and in truth just as Jesus told the women at the well. Some where these men or bishops lost sight of this.  I would make two additional points. It's important to keep in mind Mike, that the Pope, Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon does not own those clothes. They are merely to symbolize their office, the religious function they are performing, and the Church's tradition, which we honor. An example of this is that the colors of the vestments are a reminder to the faithful as to what time of the liturgical year it is, or what particular feast is being


celebrated, (Dark purple for Lent, symbolizing the blood of Christ's sacrifice. White for Christmas and Easter, symbolizing purity, etc.).

Mike
It does not matter if these clergy do not own the clothes. It is the separating of clergy from laity to have themselves exalted above the common to perform rites and ritual. This is all for appearance of religious authority. Along with this is titles. These things become pride of position and ambition. It also institutionalizes the church. Something I'm sure you will not understand. I doubt very seriously that any  of this  existed during the time of the apostles. Yet somehow the outward show of religion shows up three hundred years latter       

When the "last will and testament" of HH John Paul II was released...it showed that he owned virtually nothing. That is typical. The majority of pastors at every level in the Church are under some sort of vow or commitment to "poverty", either through formal vows or to diocesan rules. In the vast majority of Catholic Churches around the world, you would be lucky to find central heating or even electricity. I have attended Mass in many a mud-dobbed hut of a Church. Most Priest friends I have never have more than a couple of bucks in their wallet. I always buy. They seldom own anything more than just a few personal items and some civilian clothes. Except for Mass, their prescribed dress is intentionally designed to be completely "un-showy", (Black), and inexpensive, or the simple robes and sandals of the religious orders, (Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.). The Church owns some impressive real estate and some wonderful art, but they are neither owned by, or intended, to "show off" or "puff up" the human pastors of the Church, who are all sinners, just as you and I. You may also be confusing Our Lord's criticism of the religious arrogance and stubbornness of the Pharisees, with how they may have dressed. Christ certainly was critical of their hubris and their arrogance, but He did not come to demolish the Priesthood, but to fulfill it. When Mary anointed Christ with expensive perfume that may have been worth almost a year's wages, and Judas objected, saying they should have used it for the poor, Christ rebuked him, and allowed her to perfume Him. The Church is very specific and meticulous in everything from vestments to what liturgical chalices can be made of, not to "show off", but to create beauty and in so doing, honor Christ our King, just as Mary in John 12:3 did.

mike
It is an honorable thing for these men to take a vow of poverty it might be well for some protestant preachers. Im sure that the apostles did no seek riches but I doubt they took vows of poverty.
This sounds more like the rules of a religious order.  I doubt they thought about power and position or call attention to their office by wearing religious garments or even black robes that would elevate them above or set apart from the common for priestly reasons . I would rather see them as common men. I cant imagine  Peter exalting himself above anyone like this even though he was greatly respected.  Can you ? Even though we were not there during his time. It's still hard to imagine that he would ever be called pope Peter or your eminence and especially Holy Father Can you ? Be honest now. Can you see him sitting on a throne haveing anyone bow to him? Can you see him wearing elaborate religious vestments. Can you really now honestly ? So why did the popes and cardinals and all the rest do this? This is what Jesus was warning of.   

But all their works they do for to be seen of men:  they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,  6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi:#

A person can take a vow of poverty and still have pride of power and position along with personal ambition . When ever you start wearing special robes or uniform and are given titles this is sure to happen. And it did happen with the exalted clergy system
of the RCC
Yes they say they sit in Peters seat just as the Pharasees sat in Moses seat so we must hear them to do what they command. But the Lord knows what it is that drives this religious show.  When you exalt and set apart the leadership and call them the church and then say salvation is of the Church which they set themselves up to be you have lost sight of who Christ was and who the church is.

Who has saved you and what do you attribute that salvation.   Is it some exalted religious order that has called itself the church doing religious rites and ritual in religious clothes? This may be a personal thing but I despise all this religious show business.   

They (Hippolytus and Jerome) say we should not enter the Holy of Holies wearing common or defiled garments. This is a return to the Old Testament  priesthood. How ever when Jesus went to the cross to be our once and for all sacrifice at the moment of death the veil to the Holy of Holies was torn from top to bottom by the hand of God. The old testament priesthood was abolished for we now have a more perfect priesthood.

The OT priesthood was not abolished, it was fulfilled by the priesthood of Our Lord.  He is the eternal High Priest.  We re-memorialize His sacrifice, and a priest acting en persona christi, offers and consecrates this, through the Mass.  The Mass is a true Sacrifice: Christ, as the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, offers the graces of His once and for all Sacrifice on the Cross to us sacramentally under the appearances of bread and wine through the ministry of His ordained presbyters.

This is the priesthood of all believers who have been made clean by the blood of the lamb.

That is identical with Catholic belief.  The Church, as the Body of Christ, offers Herself to God. Each member, as a part of the royal priesthood ("the priesthood of believers") offers his or her own sufferings and prayers, uniting them with Christ's offering of Himself.  According to the Scripture of the New Testament, this in no way contradicts the existence of Bishops, Presbyters or Deacons, having the authority to lead the Church, teach the faithful, anoint the sick, ordain others, etc. or celebrate the Last Supper, (Eucharist), with the royal priesthood of believers;  The faithful.

Some where these men or bishops lost sight of this

I disagree.  They carry it on faithfully at every Mass.  Why do Protestants not do this every Sunday as the Apostle Paul said?  Why do they not memorialize this sacrifice in the Eucharist?

It is the separating of clergy from laity to have themselves exalted above the common to perform rites and ritual. This is all for appearance of religious authority. Along with this is titles. These things become pride of position and ambition. It also institutionalizes the church. Something I'm sure you will not understand. I doubt very seriously that any  of this  existed during the time of the apostles.

Yes, it does separate them.  Just as our Lord did when he picked 12 rather ordinary men and "separated" them from others;  giving them vast authority and power.  To speak in His name, "bind and loose", heal the sick, forgive men's sins, etc..  It doesn't get more "separated" than that.  This is what you are missing Mike.  The New Testament clearly describes a real, visible, church, being created with actual ministers with real authority, that were separate from the laity.  Why else would the NT describe and refer to Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons?, i.e., An "institution."  The New Testament describes at some length, that this authority was passed on , by the Apostles, to the Church's Bishops and Presbyters.  Why do you think that this somehow, ended?  Scripture is even clear that the only way to become properly "ordained", is by the 'laying on of hands', by someone who is already ordained himself, and has the authority to pass on that mandate.  God "calls" people to the ministry through the Holy Spirit, but even the Apostle Paul, chosen by Christ directly, went to Jerusalem to be "ordained" in a ceremony.Your simply categorizing all Catholic clergy as being "prideful and arrogant".  They are just human, but I have never known more than one or two, that were not humble and caring.  It seems like your main opposition to Catholicism is just how it, "appears" to you, or how you think it "looks".  I think you are projecting what Peter or the Apostles may have looked like and what sort of courtesy was shown to their office, because you imagine them to be just "regular, American looking, folk., (tongue somewhat in cheek here.).  That would not be common to the customs or courtesies of the age of the Apostles.  We Americans are a plain and egalitarian people.  It is a bit of projection and wrong to assume that this is the way Our Lord or His ministers were treated in a culture far different, far more formal and properly behaved, than ours.  Mary with perfume worth a year's wages anointing our Lord, with His approval, is one example.  The woman who did not even hardly dare to touch the hem of Christ's robe was another. I read the NT as showing how royally and properly Our Lord was treated by His believers and how that extended to His ministers.  All Christians know that Christ is Our King.  Why would we treat His ministers, the successors to His Apostles, as anything less than His Royal Ambassadors?

Peter exalting himself above anyone like this even though he was greatly respected.  Can you ? Even though we were not there during his time. It's still hard to imagine that he would ever be called pope Peter or your eminence and especially Holy Father Can you ?

I have no idea what "exalting himself", is?  If a Bishop or Pope "exalted himself", he would quickly hear about it.  HH John Paul II, for example, was the epitome of self-deprecation and humility.  The word "Pope", simply means "papa", just as the words "Holy Father" do.  He is the chief Bishop of the Church and the father of the flock of Christ.  It isn't "exalted" at all.  It is an affectionate term of endearment, and I have no doubt that the Apostle Peter was very much referred to as a Holy Father.  You would probably be shocked at the common courtesy that mid-eastern people of the first century would have extended him.  As they took their sick and even their dead, on litters, out into the street, on the mere hope that when Peter passed, his shadow alone, would pass over them, and heal them or raise them from the dead, then yes, I can imagine they treated him with bows and deference that you are simply dismissing.

"Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."  Matthew 19:27-28

Our Lord apparently, views His anointed ministers as His Royal Princes.  Why don't you?

But all their works they do for to be seen of men:

That is the key, Mike.  Christ was saying that the Pharisees error was in what they were teaching and doing, but even Christ was not saying that everything about the Old Law or way was to be destroyed or abolished. 
The priests, whom God gave the responsibility of teaching His laws to the people, had failed in their solemn duty. Malachi 2:7, 8 documents this: "'For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But you have departed from the way; you have caused many to stumble at the law. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi,' says the LORD of hosts." In Matthew 5:17 He begins answering their unspoken questions: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets." In effect He was telling them: "If you think I came to destroy the law or prophets, you are not thinking clearly." He makes it plain that anyone who thought He was abolishing the law or prophets was mistaken. He assures them of His respect for God's law: "I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

Yes they say they sit in Peters seat just as the Pharisees sat in Moses seat so we must hear them to do what they command.

No.  They sit in Peter's seat, just as Peter acted with the authority given him by Christ.  No more or less.

Who has saved you and what do you attribute that salvation.   Is it some exalted religious order that has called itself the church doing religious rites and ritual in religious clothes? This may be a personal thing but I despise all this religious show business.

I am being saved by my faith in Jesus Christ and the Grace of salvation that He has given as a gift, through His sacrifice on the cross.  I obey the authority of His ministers, who are properly ordained to act with His authority and when I attend Church, it is to receive God's grace through two ways.  1.  By the proclamation of the Gospel and the reading of the Bible at Mass.  2.  By the receiving of His Body and Blood through the Holy Eucharist as He commanded.  I bow to my King and Lord, Jesus Christ, and I pay respect to His ministers, who I expect to look and act accordingly, when they are acting by His authority. 

Christ made truly present, and our reception of Him;  Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, is the heart and core of that "show", that you despise.

Quote
They (Hippolytus and Jerome) say we should not enter the Holy of Holies wearing common or defiled garments. This is a return to the Old Testament priesthood. How ever when Jesus went to the cross to be our once and for all sacrifice at the moment of death the veil to the Holy of Holies was torn from top to bottom by the hand of God. The old testament priesthood was abolished for we now have a more perfect priesthood.



Night
The OT priesthood was not abolished, it was fulfilled by the priesthood of Our Lord. He is the eternal High Priest. We re-memorialize His sacrifice, and a priest acting en persona christi, offers and consecrates this, through the Mass. The Mass is a true Sacrifice: Christ, as the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, offers the graces of His once and for all Sacrifice on the Cross to us sacramentally under the appearances of bread and wine through the ministry of His ordained presbyters.

Mike
Dear Night why did you omit the most important points that I was making ? You clip just the things you believe you can justify without weighing and giving thought to everything that I said. We must read in context the whole statement. There by you miss the point being made   I am sure you are a very sincere Catholic but I was giving a contrast between what the church under the apostles was and what the RCC was over three hundred years latter Here is the first point you omitted

My statement
I could not help but notice that all this reference by Hippolytus and Jerome is in the 3rd century. Three hundred years since the church began. We see here that clergy has now been separated from the common laity to ware vestments of office and position. Yet even though the apostles represented a certain authority we get no idea that they exalted themselves from the common in any way by the wearing of vestments In fact nothing in any of the gospels or the epistles suggest they do this. My point was when the church began at Pentecost all was common. Yes the apostles were recognized as leaders of the church chosen by Christ but None of them would be like what see in RCC show business

Next you omitted three paragraphs including the verse from Christ himself
mike
It is an honorable thing for these men to take a vow of poverty it might be well for some protestant preachers. Im sure that the apostles did no seek riches but I doubt they took vows of poverty. This sounds more like the rules of a religious order. I doubt they thought about power and position or call attention to their office by wearing religious garments or even black robes that would elevate them above or set apart from the common for priestly reasons . I would rather see them as common men. I cant imagine Peter exalting himself above anyone like this even though he was greatly respected as a leader of the church . Can you ? Even though we were not there during his time. It's still hard to imagine that he would ever be called pope Peter or your eminence and especially Holy Father. Can you ? Be honest now. Can you see him sitting on a throne having anyone bow to him? Can you see him wearing elaborate religious vestments. Can you really now honestly ? So why did the popes and cardinals and all the rest do this? This is what Jesus was warning of.

Matthew 23: 5,7
But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi:#

A person can take a vow of poverty and still have pride of power and position along with personal ambition . When ever you start wearing special robes or uniform and are given titles this is sure to happen. And it did happen with the exalted clergy system
of the RCC
Yes they say they sit in Peters seat just as the Pharasees sat in Moses seat so we must hear them to do what they command. But the Lord knows what it is that drives this religious show. When you exalt and set apart the leadership and call them the church and then say salvation is of the Church which they set themselves up to be you have lost sight of who Christ was and who the church is.


You latter then stated
Quote
It is the separating of clergy from laity to have themselves exalted above the common to perform rites and ritual. This is all for appearance of religious authority. Along with this is titles. These things become pride of position and ambition. It also institutionalizes the church. Something I'm sure you will not understand. I doubt very seriously that any of this existed during the time of the apostles.

Night
Yes, it does separate them. Just as our Lord did when he picked 12 rather ordinary men and "separated" them from others; giving them vast authority and power. To speak in His name, "bind and loose", heal the sick, forgive men's sins, etc.. It doesn't get more "separated" than that. This is what you are missing Mike.
No this what you are missing and you have missed all through out my whole comments

Mike
Yes he chose 12 to be apostles but not one of them would have sat as A pope
Picture now the Papacy with all its grand surroundings with the hierarchy parading themselves in religious array and fashion being called by titles. And now picture the apostles and tell me you see them like this ?

Truly can you in all honesty see them as an exalted hierarchy like the RCC

The main reason it is difficult to respond to your comments about the "Church as under the Apostles", as you put it, is that you get many aspects of the church wrong, i.e., that there was no hierarchy in the early church in contrast to what scripture tells us.  Secondly, you make vast assumptions about the church, how they acted, what they wore; that there is not one scrap of proof of.  These are things that you are just imagining were the facts to be in the first century church, that even you have made no link, to any evidence whatever on.  How can I comment on something that history knows not one single thing about?  Third, unlike you, I do not pick a date like 400 AD, and declare that the church was "no more" then.  That somehow, you believe, that the church by 400 AD was "corrupt" and not God's church any longer.  That is just your argument without fact.  I, and most other Christians disagree strongly with that.  Holy Scripture disagrees strongly with that.  I will endeavor to answer your points however..

Yet even though the apostles represented a certain authority we get no idea that they exalted themselves from the common in any way by the wearing of vestments

What does "exalted" mean in this context?  You keep using it, but I don't know what it means.  When I rose and saluted a superior officer in the military, was that officer "exalting" himself?  No! I think it was just common military courtesy that is to be expected.  People who met one of the Apostles, who respected them, would have bowed and held their hand to their chest, or even kissed the Apostle's chest, as is the custom in that part of the world.  Why do you not greet your pastor that way?  Because it is not your "custom" to.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  When I greet a Bishop of the Church, I kiss the episcopal symbol of his office;  His ring.  That is common courtesy and respect, passed down through the centuries, not for the man, but just like soldiers saluting, for the office.  I expect you would rise to attention if the President walked in into a room you were in?  Why would you?  Hopefully, because you respect the office, if not the man, and your mama' taught you the manners to do so.  Do you have one single piece of reliable evidence to support this oft' repeated assumption of yours, that such courtesy was not offered to the Early Church Fathers?  Second.  Who cares?  What possible difference does it make if they did or didn't?  How does that possibly effect whether they still were they legitimate authorities of the Church?   We have no idea from one, single, solitary, source in history or anthropology, what they wore or did not wear, except in the most general of assumptions.  You are simply projecting your own "feelings" about what they wore.  Secondly, it is an irrelevant point as to what the truth of their message or what Our Lord's message is.  Let's assume they wore robes.  Your pastor may wear a business suit.  My priest may wear a black shirt with white collar.  Now tell me, what in blazes does that have to do with anything?  What in the world does this exalting yourself, even mean?  I literally have not one clue what you are talking about.  If a priest wears his historic garb for Mass...that is exalting oneself?  How is that?

Next you omitted three paragraphs including the verse from Christ himself

Our Lord was criticizing the Pharisees for being hypocrites and paying attention to the details of the law without understanding the meaning of the law.  His condemnation of the Pharisees had to do with their denial of Him and their twisting scripture to pervert the law.  Christ was not a fashion critic.  Do you really think that Christ was making "fashion" commentary?  Mike, I guarantee you that you have spent about 1,000 % more time on what is the correct "dress" for religious people to wear is than Our Lord probably ever thought of.  It is simply a non-issue for me and hundreds of million upon hundreds of millions of other Christians.  It has 0 to do with my salvation.  It has 0 to do with the "validity" of a church.  It has 0 to do with God's plan and desires for us.

I doubt they thought about power and position or call attention to their office by wearing religious garments or even black robes that would elevate them above or set apart from the common for priestly reasons . I would rather see them as common men. I cant imagine Peter exalting himself above anyone like this even though he was greatly respected as a leader of the church . Can you ? Even though we were not there during his time. It's still hard to imagine that he would ever be called pope Peter or your eminence and especially Holy Father. Can you ? Be honest now. Can you see him sitting on a throne having anyone bow to him? Can you see him wearing elaborate religious vestments. Can you really now honestly ? So why did the popes and cardinals and all the rest do this? This is what Jesus was warning of.

I answered this completely...

: desertknight
I have no idea what "exalting himself", is?  If a Bishop or Pope "exalted himself", he would quickly hear about it.  HH John Paul II, for example, was the epitome of self-deprecation and humility.  The word "Pope", simply means "papa", just as the words "Holy Father" do.  He is the chief Bishop of the Church and the father of the flock of Christ.  It isn't "exalted" at all.  It is an affectionate term of endearment, and I have no doubt that the Apostle Peter was very much referred to as a Holy Father.  You would probably be shocked at the common courtesy that mid-eastern people of the first century would have extended him.  As they took their sick and even their dead, on litters, out into the street, on the mere hope that when Peter passed, his shadow alone, would pass over them, and heal them or raise them from the dead, then yes, I can imagine they treated him with bows and deference that you are simply dismissing.

"Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."  Matthew 19:27-28

Our Lord apparently, views His anointed ministers as His Royal Princes.  Why don't you?

: McleesWhen you exalt and set apart the leadership and call them the church and then say salvation is of the Church which they set themselves up to be you have lost sight of who Christ was and who the church is. 
Yes he chose 12 to be apostles but not one of them would have sat as A pope
Picture now the Papacy with all its grand surroundings with the hierarchy parading themselves in religious array and fashion being called by titles. And now picture the apostles and tell me you see them like this ?

Well, unfortunately Mike, Holy Scripture has a completely different opinion than you on the subject. 

1.  The Early, 1st Century Church.  Hierarchy-The Apostles.  Peter was appointed by Christ himself as head of the Apostles.  He alone was told that the Church would be built on him and his faith and that the "gates of Hell would never prevail against it."  He was given the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven", which is still the symbol of the Vatican.  It is recorded by Peter's successors, Clement I, whose writing's survive, that this was the case and that Peter's "seat", or "throne", (yes, that word was used by the early Church.). The last of the Apostles who ordained Presbyters, eventually those Presbyters had Bishops ordained to "oversee" them as the Christian communities grew.  Deacons were ordained to assist the Presbyters and Bishops in their duties.  Chief Bishop (Peter)-Bishops-Presbyters-Deacons-Laity.

2.  The Catholic Church, 2009.  Bishops, through the long line of Apostolic Succession from the original 12 have been invested through the power of the Holy Spirit with the leadership of God's Church.  The chief Bishop, the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter, just as the other "patriarch" Bishops of the various ancient cities of Christianity, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, can all trace their Apostolic line of Succession back to the original 12.  Presbyters are ordained by Bishops to be in charge of each Christian "community" i.e., parish.  They are assisted by Deacons. This is the exact church structure and organization that is recorded in the Holy Scripture of the New Testament.  Chief Bishop (Pope)-Bishops-Presbyters-Deacons-Laity.

This was the Church structure then.  This is the exact same church structure now.  They perform the same function.  They practice and teach the same orthodoxy.  They oversee and minister the same sacraments.  Did Christ say that we are only saved within the Church?  Absolutely!  Holy Scripture, as recording Christ's and the Apostles words directly, always refer to the Church as His Body, or His Bride, of which they are one flesh.  There is no salvation outside of the Church, because there is no salvation outside of Christ, Our Lord.

As far as I can tell, your objection involves the word "exalted", which I literally, have no idea what you mean by that, and how people "dress".  I sure would hate to bet my soul on thinking that that is what God, above all other things, finds the most important about His Church.

Well if you don't understand what I mean about exalting then I can't not explain it to you. One day I'm sure it will be revealed to you.

About the scripture Matthew 23: Jesus was not only addressing their obvious hypocracy but their love for recognition and yes how they dressed and carried themelves and the love of titles was speaking to their pride of position. You can dodge this all you want,but  Jesus was making a point of it for a good reason.

But thats all right, I  have had my say

You remeind of how they put blinders on horses. this is so they can only see what they want them to see. but if Jesus took the blinders off they see with a much greater vision

THIS is what Matt:23 says...

"For they preach but they do not practice".  " They tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them."  " "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter."  " "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves."

You are doing exactly what Christ accused them of doing, you are looking at every jot and tittle of the law, and missing the meaning of it.  What is written above in scripture here does not apply to my experience, and hundreds of millions of others, in the Church that Christ founded.


How do I know that Christ is not teaching about "vestments" or "Cathedrals", because He tells us so in scripture.  Just down from where you quoted in Matt.  is written...

Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that made the gold sacred?


Now, is he saying that temple's of gold are corrupt, or is he saying that the Pharisees misuse of the Temple office is?  Clearly the later.

You blind ones, which is greater, the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?

Is He saying that "alters" are wrong?  Or is He saying that not properly respecting and honoring the gift of the alter is wrong?

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes 12 of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others."  " "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean.  "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth."

Now I ask you, is Our Lord being the runway fashion critic here, or is he berating the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, for "looking" the part, without "being" the part.

Mike, if you cant see that, I don't know what to tell you.  It is as clear as day to me.  I think and I know that Christ was angered not by their "fashion", but that they were wearing the Temple garb.  They were wearing the dress of Rabbi, but they were hypocrites instead.  That is the message of Matt:23

It is you who are blinded by your dislike of how things in the Catholic Church, "look".  It is seperating you from Christ's true Church.

: desertknight  Sat May 02, 2009 - 14:12:30
THIS is what Matt:23 says...

"For they preach but they do not practice".  " They tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them."  " "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter."  " "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves."

You are doing exactly what Christ accused them of doing, you are looking at every jot and tittle of the law, and missing the meaning of it.  What is written above in scripture here does not apply to my experience, and hundreds of millions of others, in the Church that Christ founded.


How do I know that Christ is not teaching about "vestments" or "Cathedrals", because He tells us so in scripture.  Just down from where you quoted in Matt.  is written...

Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that made the gold sacred?


Now, is he saying that temple's of gold are corrupt, or is he saying that the Pharisees misuse of the Temple office is?  Clearly the later.

You blind ones, which is greater, the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?

Is He saying that "alters" are wrong?  Or is He saying that not properly respecting and honoring the gift of the alter is wrong?

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes 12 of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others."  " "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean.  "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth."

Now I ask you, is Our Lord being the runway fashion critic here, or is he berating the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, for "looking" the part, without "being" the part.

Mike, if you cant see that, I don't know what to tell you.  It is as clear as day to me.  I think and I know that Christ was angered not by their "fashion", but that they were wearing the Temple garb.  They were wearing the dress of Rabbi, but they were hypocrites instead.  That is the message of Matt:23

It is you who are blinded by your dislike of how things in the Catholic Church, "look".  It is seperating you from Christ's true Church.

wait a minute Night I was not reffering to the whole discourse of Matt 23 Which i know full well he was calling them hypocrites. I just thought you would remember the specific verses that i origionally posted Here is what i said

About the scripture Matthew 23: Jesus was not only addressing their obvious hypocracy but their love for recognition and yes how they dressed and carried themelves and the love of titles was speaking to their pride of position. You can dodge this all you want,but  Jesus was making a point of it for a good reason.

Here is the verses Mattew 23: 5,7
But all their works they do for to be seen of men:  they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,  6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi:

aside from their hypocracy he noted their love for recongition which I sighted above

Why do you turn a blinded eye to this and only say he adressed the hypocracy?

O.K., Now assuming that Christ was not linking how people "dress" with the rest of what He clearly says in Matt. 23, lets take our current Pope as an example, and compare it to the exact scripture that you quoted, so this time, there is no question that I answer your questions, and there is no question, as to how it applies to my Church.  "But all their works they do for to be seen of men."  Now, of course Christ is not referring to the very public work that the Pharisees, or even He, for that matter, had to do "publicly".  Obviously that cannot be the case because Christ's entire ministry was a "public work".  Everything the Apostles did and preached and taught was done "publicly".  Every time we worship on Sunday, it is to be done with our brother Christians "publicly".  What Christ is saying here is that the Pharisees put on a big show of praying and public atonement that they don't really mean.  Does HH Benedict do this?  Do Catholic Bishops do this that you can cite?  I don't think so.  The press being what they are, they would surly find out about it if the Pope were sneaking off to Monte Carlo to play blackjack or something.  Do you have any evidence that he is?  OK, "they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments."  Now, of course that has to do with the Jewish prayer shawls for one, not vestments, and the phylacteries are not a garment of any kind at all.  They are leather boxes with straps that orthodox Jews wear around their arm and head while praying.  "Enlarge the borders of their garments" and "broadening their hems", means lengthening your tassels on the shawl so that everyone can see them peaking out from under your clothes.  It means making sure that the leather boxes of your phylacteries are big enough to see, so everyone can see you being pious, when of course, they really were not. It is not a reference to "fancy dress".  It is not a reference to liturgical vestments.  It is not a reference to Christian ministers leading their congregations in prayer in a church service.  All orthodox Jews even today wear prayer shawls underneath their garments.  Christ is saying, "see how these hypocrites make sure everyone can see that they have prayer shawls on underneath!"  Now how does that compare with the Pope or Bishops?  Are they wearing one thing, but practicing something else?  Some are I'm sure, but the vast majority, no, of course not.  Never mind that they do not wear anything that compares to a prayer shawl, but even in their Christian liturgical dress, they do not wear it as "hypocrites."  Again, if you understand that Jesus is talking about prayer shawls or cloths, which are never fancy anyway, then you can understand that scripture.  Next, "And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets,"  Well, I don't know of many Popes, Bishops or Priest who attend "banquets".  Again, Christ is not referring to going to a fancy restaurant.  He is not referring to attending say, the retirement banquet of a fellow priest or an awards banquet or such.  Christ is referring to the Greek/Roman style pig-out with hundreds of courses and dancing girls and other entertainment.  Do you know of any Catholic Bishops who are doing this?  In a 1.1 billion person church, I'm sure you can find one, but I know of no Bishops, Priests or Popes who are frequenting swanky nightclubs and  and restaurants with dancing girls.  I don't think Christ is telling us here that it is improper for a minister of His church to ever go out to a nice restaurant to eat, or to ever go to the shopping market, and say hi!, while they're picking up a jug and loaf.  Do you?  Next, "and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi:  Well, I don't think any Bishops, Priest or Popes are in any danger of being called "Rabbi", now they may be called "teacher", but so does St. Paul call himself teacher, and the Scripture calls many others "teacher", besides Christ.  Was this what Christ was talking about?  I think it would be a stretch if even as a Protestant, someone said the Bible forbids the Sunday school teacher from being called exactly that.  So, might He be saying, "don't let yourself be puffed up with pride with titles, when you are actually an unfaithful, unmerciful, unloving person?"  Do you know many Catholic Bishops or Priest that are this way?  I don't.  I'm sure there are a few here and there, but as a rule, I know them to be particularly humble and nice people.  It is their calling.  So, have I answered what you want?  Do you see how just assuming that the way you "feel" or how things may "look" to you may be not what you think it is?

I will admit to you one incident that got Catholics in an uproar recently.  When HH Benedict, was home visiting his brother in Germany, who is a priest, a tailor friend of theirs had, had two nice suits made for them.  They were photographed wearing them.  You know what happened?  Catholics from around the world sent messages to the Vatican saying , "Don't do that!", "Put your robes back on!"  See, in their clerical attire all priests are the same, whether they are parish priests or Popes.  Catholic faithful the world over look at them and see the representatives of the Church.  They see the authorities that Christ appointed.  They don't see them as an individual "puffing himself up" and "looking for recognition" in his new fancy business suit, like some TV pastors.  They see the representatives of Jesus Christ, only.  I wore a uniform in the military, not to "puff myself up with recognition", but so I couldn't.  So when people looked at me, all they saw was the power of the United States.  When we see a priest or Pope in his attire, I do not see the man, I see the Vicar of Christ.  I see the throne of Peter.  The holder of the Keys to the Kingdom of God.  That is what Christ intended. 

: desertknight  Sat May 02, 2009 - 21:54:30
O.K., Now assuming that Christ was not linking how people "dress" with the rest of what He clearly says in Matt. 23, lets take our current Pope as an example, and compare it to the exact scripture that you quoted, so this time, there is no question that I answer your questions, and there is no question, as to how it applies to my Church.  "But all their works they do for to be seen of men."  Now, of course Christ is not referring to the very public work that the Pharisees, or even He, for that matter, had to do "publicly".  Obviously that cannot be the case because Christ's entire ministry was a "public work".  Everything the Apostles did and preached and taught was done "publicly".  Every time we worship on Sunday, it is to be done with our brother Christians "publicly".  What Christ is saying here is that the Pharisees put on a big show of praying and public atonement that they don't really mean.  Does HH Benedict do this?  Do Catholic Bishops do this that you can cite?  I don't think so.  The press being what they are, they would surly find out about it if the Pope were sneaking off to Monte Carlo to play blackjack or something.  Do you have any evidence that he is?  OK, "they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments."  Now, of course that has to do with the Jewish prayer shawls for one, not vestments, and the phylacteries are not a garment of any kind at all.  They are leather boxes with straps that orthodox Jews wear around their arm and head while praying.  "Enlarge the borders of their garments" and "broadening their hems", means lengthening your tassels on the shawl so that everyone can see them peaking out from under your clothes.  It means making sure that the leather boxes of your phylacteries are big enough to see, so everyone can see you being pious, when of course, they really were not. It is not a reference to "fancy dress".  It is not a reference to liturgical vestments.  It is not a reference to Christian ministers leading their congregations in prayer in a church service.  All orthodox Jews even today wear prayer shawls underneath their garments.  Christ is saying, "see how these hypocrites make sure everyone can see that they have prayer shawls on underneath!"  Now how does that compare with the Pope or Bishops?  Are they wearing one thing, but practicing something else?  Some are I'm sure, but the vast majority, no, of course not.  Never mind that they do not wear anything that compares to a prayer shawl, but even in their Christian liturgical dress, they do not wear it as "hypocrites."  Again, if you understand that Jesus is talking about prayer shawls or cloths, which are never fancy anyway, then you can understand that scripture.  Next, "And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets,"  Well, I don't know of many Popes, Bishops or Priest who attend "banquets".  Again, Christ is not referring to going to a fancy restaurant.  He is not referring to attending say, the retirement banquet of a fellow priest or an awards banquet or such.  Christ is referring to the Greek/Roman style pig-out with hundreds of courses and dancing girls and other entertainment.  Do you know of any Catholic Bishops who are doing this?  In a 1.1 billion person church, I'm sure you can find one, but I know of no Bishops, Priests or Popes who are frequenting swanky nightclubs and  and restaurants with dancing girls.  I don't think Christ is telling us here that it is improper for a minister of His church to ever go out to a nice restaurant to eat, or to ever go to the shopping market, and say hi!, while they're picking up a jug and loaf.  Do you?  Next, "and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi:  Well, I don't think any Bishops, Priest or Popes are in any danger of being called "Rabbi", now they may be called "teacher", but so does St. Paul call himself teacher, and the Scripture calls many others "teacher", besides Christ.  Was this what Christ was talking about?  I think it would be a stretch if even as a Protestant, someone said the Bible forbids the Sunday school teacher from being called exactly that.  So, might He be saying, "don't let yourself be puffed up with pride with titles, when you are actually an unfaithful, unmerciful, unloving person?"  Do you know many Catholic Bishops or Priest that are this way?  I don't.  I'm sure there are a few here and there, but as a rule, I know them to be particularly humble and nice people.  It is their calling.  So, have I answered what you want?  Do you see how just assuming that the way you "feel" or how things may "look" to you may be not what you think it is?

I will admit to you one incident that got Catholics in an uproar recently.  When HH Benedict, was home visiting his brother in Germany, who is a priest, a tailor friend of theirs had, had two nice suits made for them.  They were photographed wearing them.  You know what happened?  Catholics from around the world sent messages to the Vatican saying , "Don't do that!", "Put your robes back on!"  See, in their clerical attire all priests are the same, whether they are parish priests or Popes.  Catholic faithful the world over look at them and see the representatives of the Church.  They see the authorities that Christ appointed.  They don't see them as an individual "puffing himself up" and "looking for recognition" in his new fancy business suit, like some TV pastors.  They see the representatives of Jesus Christ, only.  I wore a uniform in the military, not to "puff myself up with recognition", but so I couldn't.  So when people looked at me, all they saw was the power of the United States.  When we see a priest or Pope in his attire, I do not see the man, I see the Vicar of Christ.  I see the throne of Peter.  The holder of the Keys to the Kingdom of God.  That is what Christ intended. 

Mike
Your point is well taken, and I am not suggesting that the clergy or pope for that matter are not humble servants who serve with integrity. I know God is not judging by the clothes or vestments we wear. Yet something in my spirit still troubles me about the exalting of clergy. I mentioned this before and I know you do not have the answer because we were not there and you can dismiss it by saying there is no proof and true  I have no proof. I can only judge that the disciples would no wear vestments by reading and understanding what scripture says about true humility.

I do not believe they had anything or were anything like what we see in the RCC. I do not believe for one moment they dressed any different  because they were apostles. I don't believe for one moment that Peter would sit on a throne, or surround himself with  grandeur.  I do not believe for one moment that he would even allow anyone to address him as a pope or your eminence or Holy Father. There is and has been the recognition of office and the wearing of clerical robes is like a uniform of office. I wonder when the church found it necessary to have this kind of thing. Almost like military. True we are soldiers for Christ, but this is a different kind of war. I have my ideas about why the papacy put on the vestments.  When the Christian church was finally accepted as the official religion of the empire the bishops of Rome wanted to be the head of the Christian church. As the official head of the church they needed visibility and recognition as the religious authority of the church. This is about power and position backed by the power of Rome  Hence they put on the vestments   

You said the people were offended at the picture taken of the pope in a suit. They only want to see him in robes of office. This is what we want. We want to elevate the clergy   
We  put them on a stage separated from the laity because in our humanistic thinking this how we think it should be  This is also the Protestant churches. Yes the apostles and Christ were a visible hands on ministry. They went from town to town to town witnessing Christ gospel and healing the sick. I don't for one minute believe that they came into town all duded up and flaunting themselves as  religious authority. If that's what you want to believe so be it but to me it smells of something rotten. It smells of the something Christ was not about . But its tradition now, and hey we just can't  see the church as anything else 

Listen I have no bias here. I don't believe in denominationalism and I do not even belong to the established church any more,  and yes puffed up TV preaches jet setting around  smells of something to. Paul and Silas were run out of town when they would not allow the people to worship them. They came into town common and were booted out the same way. And don't tell me Peter went to Rome like any pope or Rome was to be the head center of Christianity. The bishops of Rome  were  never ordained to be the power broker of Christianity. But if is what you want to believe then so be it.   

: mclees8  Sun May 03, 2009 - 11:59:07
Mike
Your point is well taken, and I am not suggesting that the clergy or pope for that matter are not humble servants who serve with integrity. I know God is not judging by the clothes or vestments we wear. Yet something in my spirit still troubles me about the exalting of clergy. I mentioned this before and I know you do not have the answer because we were not there and you can dismiss it by saying there is no proof and true  I have no proof. I can only judge that the disciples would no wear vestments by reading and understanding what scripture says about true humility.

I do not believe they had anything or were anything like what we see in the RCC. I do not believe for one moment they dressed any different  because they were apostles. I don’t believe for one moment that Peter would sit on a throne, or surround himself with  grandeur.  I do not believe for one moment that he would even allow anyone to address him as a pope or your eminence or Holy Father. There is and has been the recognition of office and the wearing of clerical robes is like a uniform of office. I wonder when the church found it necessary to have this kind of thing. Almost like military. True we are soldiers for Christ, but this is a different kind of war. I have my ideas about why the papacy put on the vestments.  When the Christian church was finally accepted as the official religion of the empire the bishops of Rome wanted to be the head of the Christian church. As the official head of the church they needed visibility and recognition as the religious authority of the church. This is about power and position backed by the power of Rome  Hence they put on the vestments  

You said the people were offended at the picture taken of the pope in a suit. They only want to see him in robes of office. This is what we want. We want to elevate the clergy  
We  put them on a stage separated from the laity because in our humanistic thinking this how we think it should be  This is also the Protestant churches. Yes the apostles and Christ were a visible hands on ministry. They went from town to town to town witnessing Christ gospel and healing the sick. I don’t for one minute believe that they came into town all duded up and flaunting themselves as  religious authority. If that’s what you want to believe so be it but to me it smells of something rotten. It smells of the something Christ was not about . But its tradition now, and hey we just can’t  see the church as anything else 

Listen I have no bias here. I don’t believe in denominationalism and I do not even belong to the established church any more,  and yes puffed up TV preaches jet setting around  smells of something to. Paul and Silas were run out of town when they would not allow the people to worship them. They came into town common and were booted out the same way. And don’t tell me Peter went to Rome like any pope or Rome was to be the head center of Christianity. The bishops of Rome  were  never ordained to be the power broker of Christianity. But if is what you want to believe then so be it.  

I love common sense.

: Wycliffes_Shillelagh  Mon May 04, 2009 - 19:39:29
I love common sense.

Yep...I just wish people would use a little of it from time to time.... ::smile::

: mclees8  Sun May 03, 2009 - 11:59:07
Mike
Your point is well taken, and I am not suggesting that the clergy or pope for that matter are not humble servants who serve with integrity. I know God is not judging by the clothes or vestments we wear. Yet something in my spirit still troubles me about the exalting of clergy.

Excuse me for cutting (and pasting  ::crackup::) in.  I hear you.  But these things that trouble our hearts are more culture-based than anything else.   I like my clergy relatively poor too, but my African-American friend thinks that is awful.  To her, it shows that the guy couldn't make it in the world.  She prefers her pastors well-dressed:  it shows to her that a black man of God can make it in a white man's world.  Now, I am not sure that I agree, but I think my feelings are more based on white-guilt culture than the proper reading of scripture. 

Yes, servants of God are to be humble, but there is a problem with total proverty too.  Leaders are worthy of honor in the secular world and should be in the religious world as well.  Personally, I like the idea of vestments in church and less fancy but dinquishable clothes outside of church.   Temple worship was quite formal and ritualistic, and NT worship did not change this.  So, we see both types of dress (formal and informal) in the history of the church. 

I do not believe they had anything or were anything like what we see in the RCC. I do not believe for one moment they dressed any different  because they were apostles. I don't believe for one moment that Peter would sit on a throne, or surround himself with  grandeur.

Maybe not, but David did, and he was a man after God's own heart.  So, in the later age of kings, it might have been necessary to have more royal-like worship to ensure the people are worshipping God to a greater extent than honoring their king.

  I do not believe for one moment that he would even allow anyone to address him as a pope or your eminence or Holy Father. There is and has been the recognition of office and the wearing of clerical robes is like a uniform of office. I wonder when the church found it necessary to have this kind of thing. Almost like military.

But for some, military shows seriousness and order.  In my church (Orthodox), we kiss the priest's hand, because he is a deliverer of the Word of God.   There is nothing wrong with showing honor.   

True we are soldiers for Christ, but this is a different kind of war. I have my ideas about why the papacy put on the vestments.  When the Christian church was finally accepted as the official religion of the empire the bishops of Rome wanted to be the head of the Christian church. As the official head of the church they needed visibility and recognition as the religious authority of the church. This is about power and position backed by the power of Rome  Hence they put on the vestments  

To be honest, I am not sure when vestments started.  But since temple worship was pretty formal, I would not be surprised in they picked up their cues from there.  A fact modern American Christians don't like to deal with is: the temple was expensive as was the ark of the covenent.  Ancient worship seemed to involve a lot of majesty (and expense) and this was way before Constantine.

You said the people were offended at the picture taken of the pope in a suit. They only want to see him in robes of office. This is what we want. We want to elevate the clergy  
We  put them on a stage separated from the laity because in our humanistic thinking this how we think it should be 

In fact, even in the early church, we have levels of authority - bishop, presbyter, and deacons.  These were positions of honor (and of course responsibility). 

This is also the Protestant churches. Yes the apostles and Christ were a visible hands on ministry. They went from town to town to town witnessing Christ gospel and healing the sick. I don't for one minute believe that they came into town all duded up and flaunting themselves as  religious authority. If that's what you want to believe so be it but to me it smells of something rotten. It smells of the something Christ was not about . But its tradition now, and hey we just can't  see the church as anything else 

Let's not forget the monastic tradition as well, which is more along the lines you are getting at here.    I do think the apostles were more in that tradition, but don't both
the majesty and suffering reflect our Lord Jesus as well? 

Listen I have no bias here. I don't believe in denominationalism and I do not even belong to the established church any more, 

Non-denominationalism is not the answer either.  Starting a church on one's own is not Scriptural either.  By the way, the RCC and Orthodox churches are not denominational. 
That is a Protestant invention.

and yes puffed up TV preaches jet setting around  smells of something to.

I agree. These are self-established churches.  And while I am no longer Catholic, I admire the modern popes who eschewed all personal wealth.

Paul and Silas were run out of town when they would not allow the people to worship them.

Worship and honor are very different things.  I honor the President even if I disagree with his views.  I would never honor a President who demanded worship.

They came into town common and were booted out the same way. And don't tell me Peter went to Rome like any pope or Rome was to be the head center of Christianity.

Yet Peter and Paul were the leaders of early Christianity.  I agree they were too busy to be sitting on a throne in Rome.

The bishops of Rome  were  never ordained to be the power broker of Christianity. But if is what you want to believe then so be it.  

This is a problem with Catholicism.  I agree with you here.

Thanks for reading, especially if you disagree.

uh, Jesus instituted the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. It was virtually one for about 1500 years, other than the eastern split in 1054.

men instituted the protestant churches beginning in the 16th century, and now we have over 33, 000 man made religions claiming Christ since then, and it is rare that any two agree on the same interpretation of all doctrine.

pretty simple really.

peace, papist

: papist1  Mon Jul 27, 2009 - 22:28:14
uh, Jesus instituted the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. It was virtually one for about 1500 years, other than the eastern split in 1054.

men instituted the protestant churches beginning in the 16th century, and now we have over 33, 000 man made religions claiming Christ since then, and it is rare that any two agree on the same interpretation of all doctrine.

pretty simple really.

peace, papist

Dear Papist
It is true Jesus founded only one church which RC's like to call Holy and apostolic  They consisted of all who received Christ as Lord and became followers of Christ. As I have said many times that one church was born on the day of Pentecost. The church was not even called Christian yet not to mention that we have no known evidence before Ignatius that the church was ever called catholic before 110 AD.  This church Jesus founded had no name. Jesus gave it no name nor did the apostles. The people of Antioch came up with the word Christian. The word catholic was just a borrowed term that Ignatius used that caught on to become an excepted term for the church. All in all though the church consisted of those who followed Christ just as those at the very day of Pentecost.  

Just because the church of Rome under the papacy calls itself catholic it is an umbrella term for all believers  not just RC's. I agree that about the 33000 denominations being not of God but niether did the RCC hold to true apostolic tradition adding many doctrines and self proclaiming themselves to have the right to do so. This is because the papacy institutionalized the church and abused and used its authority. Which was gained by deception. It became political and corrupt.

All in all though  the church that Jesus started consists of all who have come to love him with a pure heart. Yes it is very sad and true that many believers are mislead by the denominational leadership including the RCC. But on that day when Christ returns for his bride he will not see any denomination, Protestant or Catholic but only those who's hearts are true and pure. I pray we will be both together there on that day but wer won't be there because of earthly affiliation to any denomination.

Peace Mike

: mclees8  Thu Jul 30, 2009 - 17:47:42

: papist1  Mon Jul 27, 2009 - 22:28:14
uh, Jesus instituted the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. It was virtually one for about 1500 years, other than the eastern split in 1054.

men instituted the protestant churches beginning in the 16th century, and now we have over 33, 000 man made religions claiming Christ since then, and it is rare that any two agree on the same interpretation of all doctrine.

pretty simple really.

peace, papist

Dear Papist
It is true Jesus founded only one church which RC’s like to call Holy and apostolic  They consisted of all who received Christ as Lord and became followers of Christ. As I have said many times that one church was born on the day of Pentecost. The church was not even called Christian yet not to mention that we have no known evidence before Ignatius that the church was ever called catholic before 110 AD.  This church Jesus founded had no name. Jesus gave it no name nor did the apostles. The people of Antioch came up with the word Christian. The word catholic was just a borrowed term that Ignatius used that caught on to become an excepted term for the church. All in all though the church consisted of those who followed Christ just as those at the very day of Pentecost. 

Just because the church of Rome under the papacy calls itself catholic it is an umbrella term for all believers  not just RC’s. I agree that about the 33000 denominations being not of God but niether did the RCC hold to true apostolic tradition adding many doctrines and self proclaiming themselves to have the right to do so. This is because the papacy institutionalized the church and abused and used its authority. Which was gained by deception. It became political and corrupt.

All in all though  the church that Jesus started consists of all who have come to love him with a pure heart. Yes it is very sad and true that many believers are mislead by the denominational leadership including the RCC. But on that day when Christ returns for his bride he will not see any denomination, Protestant or Catholic but only those who’s hearts are true and pure. I pray we will be both together there on that day but wer won’t be there because of earthly affiliation to any denomination.

Peace Mike

Nice personal thoughts mike.

Can you please back up everything you just stated with facts from history? thanks, papist

oh, you can start with your claim about the term "catholic" being borrowed by Ignatius.

: papist1  Sat Aug 01, 2009 - 01:22:08

: mclees8  Thu Jul 30, 2009 - 17:47:42

: papist1  Mon Jul 27, 2009 - 22:28:14
uh, Jesus instituted the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. It was virtually one for about 1500 years, other than the eastern split in 1054.

men instituted the protestant churches beginning in the 16th century, and now we have over 33, 000 man made religions claiming Christ since then, and it is rare that any two agree on the same interpretation of all doctrine.

pretty simple really.

peace, papist

Dear Papist
It is true Jesus founded only one church which RC's like to call Holy and apostolic  They consisted of all who received Christ as Lord and became followers of Christ. As I have said many times that one church was born on the day of Pentecost. The church was not even called Christian yet not to mention that we have no known evidence before Ignatius that the church was ever called catholic before 110 AD.  This church Jesus founded had no name. Jesus gave it no name nor did the apostles. The people of Antioch came up with the word Christian. The word catholic was just a borrowed term that Ignatius used that caught on to become an excepted term for the church. All in all though the church consisted of those who followed Christ just as those at the very day of Pentecost. 

Just because the church of Rome under the papacy calls itself catholic it is an umbrella term for all believers  not just RC's. I agree that about the 33000 denominations being not of God but niether did the RCC hold to true apostolic tradition adding many doctrines and self proclaiming themselves to have the right to do so. This is because the papacy institutionalized the church and abused and used its authority. Which was gained by deception. It became political and corrupt.

All in all though  the church that Jesus started consists of all who have come to love him with a pure heart. Yes it is very sad and true that many believers are mislead by the denominational leadership including the RCC. But on that day when Christ returns for his bride he will not see any denomination, Protestant or Catholic but only those who's hearts are true and pure. I pray we will be both together there on that day but wer won't be there because of earthly affiliation to any denomination.

Peace Mike

Nice personal thoughts mike.

Can you please back up everything you just stated with facts from history? thanks, papist

oh, you can start with your claim about the term "catholic" being borrowed by Ignatius.

No not just personal thoughts Just common sense application. What facts do you need ? Just read the scripture. As for the word catholic why don't you prove that it wasn't.  A term is a term. If they are terms for something then we borrow them to say something right  ?

: mclees8  Sun Apr 12, 2009 - 11:16:04
I belive if God spoke he would say, who is a Catholic; who is a Protestant?

Because Truth matters and doctrine matters.  Whatever we hold to be true is what fuels our actions and so our lives will be lived according to what we perceive as truth.

You can boil down your question even further and say why be Christian at all? Why not just be jewish, or Buddhist?

Really why not be atheist? Why does believing matter? And does what we believe matter?

So I come back to truth. Because Truth matters.

: Magnificat  Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 01:39:12

: mclees8  Sun Apr 12, 2009 - 11:16:04
I belive if God spoke he would say, who is a Catholic; who is a Protestant?

Because Truth matters and doctrine matters.  Whatever we hold to be true is what fuels our actions and so our lives will be lived according to what we perceive as truth.

You can boil down your question even further and say why be Christian at all? Why not just be jewish, or Buddhist?

Really why not be atheist? Why does believing matter? And does what we believe matter?

So I come back to truth. Because Truth matters.

Of course truth matters? So what is the truth ? or who is the truth we should say? Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the father except by me.
So what has this to do with being Protestant or Catholic. What truth is central to the gospel. John 3:16 for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whomsoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have ever lasting life.


Is any other truth you think I should know except the promise of the Holy spirit whom Jesus gave us at Pentecost. Oh we could go on and on but what truth is it that you think I'm lacking here concerning catholic Protestant. Maybe we should home in on (whom soever believeth) shall have eternal life. Who are the whomsoevers. Note it did not say whomsoever is Roman Catholic. What constitutes saving faith. being a good loyal Catholic goning to mass every day. I tell you right now IT IS no the out ward things we do but the inward person we are that makes any of us his.

God bless   

b

: mclees8  Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 16:21:43

: Magnificat  Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 01:39:12

: mclees8  Sun Apr 12, 2009 - 11:16:04
I belive if God spoke he would say, who is a Catholic; who is a Protestant?

Because Truth matters and doctrine matters.  Whatever we hold to be true is what fuels our actions and so our lives will be lived according to what we perceive as truth.

You can boil down your question even further and say why be Christian at all? Why not just be jewish, or Buddhist?

Really why not be atheist? Why does believing matter? And does what we believe matter?

So I come back to truth. Because Truth matters.

Of course truth matters? So what is the truth ? or who is the truth we should say? Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the father except by me.
So what has this to do with being Protestant or Catholic. What truth is central to the gospel. John 3:16 for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whomsoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have ever lasting life.


Is any other truth you think I should know except the promise of the Holy spirit whom Jesus gave us at Pentecost. Oh we could go on and on but what truth is it that you think I'm lacking here concerning catholic Protestant. Maybe we should home in on (whom soever believeth) shall have eternal life. Who are the whomsoevers. Note it did not say whomsoever is Roman Catholic. What constitutes saving faith. being a good loyal Catholic goning to mass every day. I tell you right now IT IS no the out ward things we do but the inward person we are that makes any of us his.

God bless   

mclees8,

I think that you are getting the wrong message?  Basically, lets look at our Christian walk as a long Voyage across a large ocean.  The Catholic ship is undoubtedly the safest and most secure ship, but it's not the only ship crossing the ocean.  Myself being an Excommunicated Catholic, because of being married as a Born Again Christian, will probably put me in the same ship as you are in.  Lets face it, regardless of what ship were take the voyage in, the Catholic Ship is still much safer.  Jesus gave the keys to Peter, and the other churches broke away in contempt. The Protestants don't have a let to stand on, period.  Apparently the Grace of God is keeping the Protestant ships barely afloat?

: banished  Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 17:29:24
b

: mclees8  Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 16:21:43

: Magnificat  Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 01:39:12

: mclees8  Sun Apr 12, 2009 - 11:16:04
I belive if God spoke he would say, who is a Catholic; who is a Protestant?

Because Truth matters and doctrine matters.  Whatever we hold to be true is what fuels our actions and so our lives will be lived according to what we perceive as truth.

You can boil down your question even further and say why be Christian at all? Why not just be jewish, or Buddhist?

Really why not be atheist? Why does believing matter? And does what we believe matter?

So I come back to truth. Because Truth matters.

Of course truth matters? So what is the truth ? or who is the truth we should say? Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the father except by me.
So what has this to do with being Protestant or Catholic. What truth is central to the gospel. John 3:16 for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whomsoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have ever lasting life.


Is any other truth you think I should know except the promise of the Holy spirit whom Jesus gave us at Pentecost. Oh we could go on and on but what truth is it that you think I'm lacking here concerning catholic Protestant. Maybe we should home in on (whom soever believeth) shall have eternal life. Who are the whomsoevers. Note it did not say whomsoever is Roman Catholic. What constitutes saving faith. being a good loyal Catholic goning to mass every day. I tell you right now IT IS no the out ward things we do but the inward person we are that makes any of us his.

God bless   

mclees8,

I think that you are getting the wrong message?  Basically, lets look at our Christian walk as a long Voyage across a large ocean.  The Catholic ship is undoubtedly the safest and most secure ship, but it's not the only ship crossing the ocean.  Myself being an Excommunicated Catholic, because of being married as a Born Again Christian, will probably put me in the same ship as you are in.  Lets face it, regardless of what ship were take the voyage in, the Catholic Ship is still much safer.  Jesus gave the keys to Peter, and the other churches broke away in contempt. The Protestants don't have a let to stand on, period.  Apparently the Grace of God is keeping the Protestant ships barely afloat?

Sorry this is not a catholic Protestant issue. It is a faith issue. there are no two boats only only one, and it is unsinkable. You are either in that boat or you are drowning. I am now neither catholic nor Protestant and I be long to know denomination yet i serve Christ faithfully. he is all that there is. I am not a rebel against authority. I just left all the valley of confusion where the river of confusion divides the the church. from down in the valley you cannot see the confusion for what it is but if you leave it and climb higher on the mountain you can plainly see it.       

God bless

(quote)
Sorry this is not a catholic Protestant issue. It is a faith issue. there are no two boats only only one, and it is unsinkable. You are either in that boat or you are drowning. I am now neither catholic nor Protestant and I be long to know denomination yet i serve Christ faithfully. he is all that there is. I am not a rebel against authority. I just left all the valley of confusion where the river of confusion divides the the church. from down in the valley you cannot see the confusion for what it is but if you leave it and climb higher on the mountain you can plainly see it.        

God bless
(end of quote}

Look at the title of the thread it's about why be RC, why be Protestant. Believe it or not, you are my most likely Catholic Convert, and you are standing out there in the wilderness all by yourself.

During every English Language Mass after we say the Lord's Prayer the Priest prays:

"Deliver us Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day.  In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

The congregation says:
For the kingdon, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever.


The Priest Prays:
"Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles:  I leave you peace, my peace I give you.  Look not on our sins, but the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live for ever and ever.

The congration says, Amen.

There you have it.  Catholics pray that Jesus will not look at their sins, but rather look at the faith of his (Roman Catholic) Church that was founded by Peter.  That is the boat that is unsinkable. Jesus looks upon the faith of his Church.  Even a Born Again Bible Believing Protestant church is better than no church.  I prefer that you get into a Roman Catholic church every Sunday for Mass.  You can cross your arms across your chest when you go up to the alter during Communion.

: banished  Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 21:22:53
(quote)

Sorry this is not a catholic Protestant issue. It is a faith issue. there are no two boats only only one, and it is unsinkable. You are either in that boat or you are drowning. I am now neither catholic nor Protestant and I be long to know denomination yet i serve Christ faithfully. he is all that there is. I am not a rebel against authority. I just left all the valley of confusion where the river of confusion divides the the church. from down in the valley you cannot see the confusion for what it is but if you leave it and climb higher on the mountain you can plainly see it.       

God bless

(end of quote}

Look at the title of the thread it's about why be RC, why be Protestant. Believe it or not, you are my most likely Catholic Convert, and you are standing out there in the wilderness all by yourself.

During every English Language Mass after we say the Lord's Prayer the Priest prays:

"Deliver us Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day.  In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

The congregation says:

For the kingdon, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever.


The Priest Prays:

"Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles:  I leave you peace, my peace I give you.  Look not on our sins, but the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live for ever and ever.

The congration says, Amen.

There you have it.  Catholics pray that Jesus will not look at their sins, but rather look at the faith of his (Roman Catholic) Church that was founded by Peter.  That is the boat that is unsinkable. Jesus looks upon the faith of his Church.  Even a Born Again Bible Believing Protestant church is better than no church.  I prefer that you get into a Roman Catholic church every Sunday for Mass.  You can cross your arms across your chest when you go up to the alter during Communion.

I tell you again when Jesus comes He will not see Catholic or Protestant. Only those who Love Him and serve him. I am not in the wilderness by my self and I serve him in ways you do not know.

Its not a denominationaL thing and it never was. On the day of Pentecost the church was born. Not of Roman catholics or protestants. Neither existed. they were just believers filled with the Holy ghost and power to witness for Christ. this is still how Jesus will see his Bride today and at His second coming   

How do you pray when you are not in service. You don't have to answer. Just think about it.   Does he know you or is it just in service. Serving the Lord is not just serving the institution but it is a life that is given.

God bless

: mclees8  Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 22:20:33

: banished  Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 21:22:53
(quote)

Sorry this is not a catholic Protestant issue. It is a faith issue. there are no two boats only only one, and it is unsinkable. You are either in that boat or you are drowning. I am now neither catholic nor Protestant and I be long to know denomination yet i serve Christ faithfully. he is all that there is. I am not a rebel against authority. I just left all the valley of confusion where the river of confusion divides the the church. from down in the valley you cannot see the confusion for what it is but if you leave it and climb higher on the mountain you can plainly see it.       

God bless

(end of quote}

Look at the title of the thread it's about why be RC, why be Protestant. Believe it or not, you are my most likely Catholic Convert, and you are standing out there in the wilderness all by yourself.

During every English Language Mass after we say the Lord's Prayer the Priest prays:

"Deliver us Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day.  In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

The congregation says:

For the kingdon, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever.


The Priest Prays:

"Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles:  I leave you peace, my peace I give you.  Look not on our sins, but the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live for ever and ever.

The congration says, Amen.

There you have it.  Catholics pray that Jesus will not look at their sins, but rather look at the faith of his (Roman Catholic) Church that was founded by Peter.  That is the boat that is unsinkable. Jesus looks upon the faith of his Church.  Even a Born Again Bible Believing Protestant church is better than no church.  I prefer that you get into a Roman Catholic church every Sunday for Mass.  You can cross your arms across your chest when you go up to the alter during Communion.

I tell you again when Jesus comes He will not see Catholic or Protestant. Only those who Love Him and serve him. I am not in the wilderness by my self and I serve him in ways you do not know.

Its not a denominationaL thing and it never was. On the day of Pentecost the church was born. Not of Roman catholics or protestants. Neither existed. they were just believers filled with the Holy ghost and power to witness for Christ. this is still how Jesus will see his Bride today and at His second coming   

How do you pray when you are not in service. You don't have to answer. Just think about it.   Does he know you or is it just in service. Serving the Lord is not just serving the institution but it is a life that is given.

God bless

Hello mclee8,

I'm glad that you asked that question, because belonging to a church is a lot different than what you think.  It's back breaking work!  Let me tell you about my past 24 hours.  Last weekend there was a Typhoon and Flood in Manila that caused thousands to be homeless.  My wife emailed all the parents of the children in the Christian School where she works, and told them to drop off donations.  Many people responded, but the stuff was dropped off in shopping bags and leaf bags.  It all has to be packed into small U-Haul boxes so that the squared-off pallets could be loaded into a shipping container.  My wife arranged for the free shipping of the container and also setup a 700 Club account for cash donations.  I helped pack the boxes, loaded them on my truck, made 2 trips almost a hundred miles to the nearest airport.  This is a normal occurrence for doers of the word, and it's almost impossible to do God's work while alone out in the wilderness.  Not fancy theology or even a thank you, mind you, just back breaking work.  And of course, both my wife and I would much rather be doing all this for Catholic Charities, but they wont have us because of a technicality about our Born Again marriage.  If you can do all that by yourself I'm here to learn.  I think that you should at least try going to a Catholic Church for a while to see if the Spirit moves you in that direction.

: banished  Sun Oct 04, 2009 - 00:07:11

: mclees8  Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 22:20:33

: banished  Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 21:22:53
(quote)

Sorry this is not a catholic Protestant issue. It is a faith issue. there are no two boats only only one, and it is unsinkable. You are either in that boat or you are drowning. I am now neither catholic nor Protestant and I be long to know denomination yet i serve Christ faithfully. he is all that there is. I am not a rebel against authority. I just left all the valley of confusion where the river of confusion divides the the church. from down in the valley you cannot see the confusion for what it is but if you leave it and climb higher on the mountain you can plainly see it.       

God bless

(end of quote}

Look at the title of the thread it's about why be RC, why be Protestant. Believe it or not, you are my most likely Catholic Convert, and you are standing out there in the wilderness all by yourself.

During every English Language Mass after we say the Lord's Prayer the Priest prays:

"Deliver us Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day.  In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

The congregation says:

For the kingdon, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever.


The Priest Prays:

"Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles:  I leave you peace, my peace I give you.  Look not on our sins, but the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live for ever and ever.

The congration says, Amen.

There you have it.  Catholics pray that Jesus will not look at their sins, but rather look at the faith of his (Roman Catholic) Church that was founded by Peter.  That is the boat that is unsinkable. Jesus looks upon the faith of his Church.  Even a Born Again Bible Believing Protestant church is better than no church.  I prefer that you get into a Roman Catholic church every Sunday for Mass.  You can cross your arms across your chest when you go up to the alter during Communion.

I tell you again when Jesus comes He will not see Catholic or Protestant. Only those who Love Him and serve him. I am not in the wilderness by my self and I serve him in ways you do not know.

Its not a denominationaL thing and it never was. On the day of Pentecost the church was born. Not of Roman catholics or protestants. Neither existed. they were just believers filled with the Holy ghost and power to witness for Christ. this is still how Jesus will see his Bride today and at His second coming   

How do you pray when you are not in service. You don't have to answer. Just think about it.   Does he know you or is it just in service. Serving the Lord is not just serving the institution but it is a life that is given.

God bless

Hello mclee8,

I'm glad that you asked that question, because belonging to a church is a lot different than what you think.  It's back breaking work!  Let me tell you about my past 24 hours.  Last weekend there was a Typhoon and Flood in Manila that caused thousands to be homeless.  My wife emailed all the parents of the children in the Christian School where she works, and told them to drop off donations.  Many people responded, but the stuff was dropped off in shopping bags and leaf bags.  It all has to be packed into small U-Haul boxes so that the squared-off pallets could be loaded into a shipping container.  My wife arranged for the free shipping of the container and also setup a 700 Club account for cash donations.  I helped pack the boxes, loaded them on my truck, made 2 trips almost a hundred miles to the nearest airport.  This is a normal occurrence for doers of the word, and it's almost impossible to do God's work while alone out in the wilderness.  Not fancy theology or even a thank you, mind you, just back breaking work.  And of course, both my wife and I would much rather be doing all this for Catholic Charities, but they wont have us because of a technicality about our Born Again marriage.  If you can do all that by yourself I'm here to learn.  I think that you should at least try going to a Catholic Church for a while to see if the Spirit moves you in that direction.

Dear banished I believer you are doing yourself a disservice. You are not banished from Christ when he lives in your heart. I would change that name you have tagged on your self. If the institution has made you feel that way then they have done you a disservice.
You minimiize who you are by thinking that your serving Christ in some lesser capacity because you cannot serve through the RC church. I must say my service to him is humble.   

I have learned much since i divorced myself from the organized church.  I have learned salvation is not through the institution how ever much good is done through it. I do not believe we are doing works to be saved but because we are saved.  What organized church  are you doing these things.  Listen My point is this What would you do if you were not of any denominational church. Would you still serve Him. I am not advocating that you leave you place of worship but truly see who it is that you worship not because you serve an organized church.   We know the two greatest commandments. Love the Lord God with all your heart mind an soul, and then love your neighbor as your self. If we do this we have done all that God would want from us.
God bless 

mclees8-

You have been side stepping the fact that you are out in the wilderness.  The school where my wife works is Assemblies of God.  The famous TV Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy Baker have pored million into building Christian Schools and Churches all over the World.  I think you are missing the point that since the time of Peter and the Last Supper with Jesus He is in the Eucharist.  The Theological term is, "transubstantiation".  Do a Google Search to learn about it.  Anyway, during every Roman Catholic Mass since the time of St Peter the priest actually converts the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.  Therefore, when a Catholic is excommunicated he is in fact banished from Jesus.  Yes they are heartless bastards, but the rules are the rules.  If you ask any Catholic they will tell you that my wife and I banished ourselves when we broke the rules set down by cannon law. Two practicing Catholic are not to make an alter call at a Charismatic event, become Born Again, and get married in a Born Again Church.  Those actions bring on automatic Excommunication and banishment from the Eucharist.  The only reason I am allowed to mention it, is because this is a Protestant owned forum.  The famous Catholic Answers Forum has given me the boot twice (Jean Anthony), plus all 4 Yahoo Catholic Forums have given me the boot also.  Before I die I will not be given the Sacraments of the Church, and will be buried as a common heathen.  We will go out as doers of the word and born again.

You have a chance to get out of the wilderness now and be a Catholic, so do it.     

: banished  Sun Oct 04, 2009 - 09:33:24
mclees8-

You have been side stepping the fact that you are out in the wilderness.  The school where my wife works is Assemblies of God.  The famous TV Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy Baker have pored million into building Christian Schools and Churches all over the World.  I think you are missing the point that since the time of Peter and the Last Supper with Jesus He is in the Eucharist.  The Theological term is, "transubstantiation".  Do a Google Search to learn about it.  Anyway, during every Roman Catholic Mass since the time of St Peter the priest actually converts the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.  Therefore, when a Catholic is excommunicated he is in fact banished from Jesus.  Yes they are heartless bastards, but the rules are the rules.  If you ask any Catholic they will tell you that my wife and I banished ourselves when we broke the rules set down by cannon law. Two practicing Catholic are not to make an alter call at a Charismatic event, become Born Again, and get married in a Born Again Church.  Those actions bring on automatic Excommunication and banishment from the Eucharist.  The only reason I am allowed to mention it, is because this is a Protestant owned forum.  The famous Catholic Answers Forum has given me the boot twice (Jean Anthony), plus all 4 Yahoo Catholic Forums have given me the boot also.  Before I die I will not be given the Sacraments of the Church, and will be buried as a common heathen.  We will go out as doers of the word and born again.

You have a chance to get out of the wilderness now and be a Catholic, so do it.     

Listen I know about transubstantiation and I think now you are just trying to jerk me around .  So now you are banished from the Eucharist and you will die as a heathen along with thre rest of those poor souls of the born agains.

You didn't obey the rules and now you will burn. We have been delivered from the curse of the law. (There is no more condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus)Rom 8:1
You take communion right. In your mind think of it as the Eucharist. Oh of course its not being done by an offical RC priest. darn the luck. I guess you are still going to burn.

God bless 

: mclees8  Sun Oct 04, 2009 - 12:17:43

: banished  Sun Oct 04, 2009 - 09:33:24
mclees8-

You have been side stepping the fact that you are out in the wilderness.  The school where my wife works is Assemblies of God.  The famous TV Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy Baker have pored million into building Christian Schools and Churches all over the World.  I think you are missing the point that since the time of Peter and the Last Supper with Jesus He is in the Eucharist.  The Theological term is, "transubstantiation".  Do a Google Search to learn about it.  Anyway, during every Roman Catholic Mass since the time of St Peter the priest actually converts the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.  Therefore, when a Catholic is excommunicated he is in fact banished from Jesus.  Yes they are heartless bastards, but the rules are the rules.  If you ask any Catholic they will tell you that my wife and I banished ourselves when we broke the rules set down by cannon law. Two practicing Catholic are not to make an alter call at a Charismatic event, become Born Again, and get married in a Born Again Church.  Those actions bring on automatic Excommunication and banishment from the Eucharist.  The only reason I am allowed to mention it, is because this is a Protestant owned forum.  The famous Catholic Answers Forum has given me the boot twice (Jean Anthony), plus all 4 Yahoo Catholic Forums have given me the boot also.  Before I die I will not be given the Sacraments of the Church, and will be buried as a common heathen.  We will go out as doers of the word and born again.

You have a chance to get out of the wilderness now and be a Catholic, so do it.    

Listen I know about transubstantiation and I think now you are just trying to jerk me around .  So now you are banished from the Eucharist and you will die as a heathen along with thre rest of those poor souls of the born agains.

You didn't obey the rules and now you will burn. We have been delivered from the curse of the law. (There is no more condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus)Rom 8:1
You take communion right. In your mind think of it as the Eucharist. Oh of course its not being done by an offical RC priest. darn the luck. I guess you are still going to burn.

God bless  

Mclees8-

I am not trying to "jerk you around",  I am trying to show you the path to salvation, which of course is best done through the Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church.  Like I said earlier, there are other water logged ships (about to sink) that cross the Ocean, but the Catholic ship is the safest and most secure ship.  Get aboard now before the one man canoe that you are on now sinks.  I didn't say that we would burn without the Sacraments of Peter's Church, I said that we would be buried as common heathens.  And that's true.  It's up to Jesus to determine who burns. Remember, before my excommunication I had already eaten a barrel full of those Catholic transubstantiation wafers, so it's not as if I never had real communion.  Were you at one time a Catholic, or always out in the wilderness?

If you decide to take your chances out in the wilderness let me team you up with Harold Camping from Family Radio.  He has been preaching that the Church Age ended a few years back and has written a couple of books on the subject.  You can find Family Radio with an Internet Search, and if you don't live within radio reception range there are shortwave broadcasts and audio streaming at the web side.  I much prefer that you pay a little extra for the premium channels and tune in to EWTN the Catholic Television Network.  Practicing the Catholic faith will always require more effort and quite a bit of attention must be given to canon law. Everything inside the Catholic Church is a legal process.  It's a religion governed by canon law. Just wondering, are you in with Harold Camping and think that the Church Age has ended?  Is that the reason you started this thread?  Camping brings up some good points.

: mclees8  Sat Oct 03, 2009 - 16:21:43
Of course truth matters? So what is the truth ?

As far as the OP goes, that answer suffices. The reason why being either Catholic or Protestant all boils down to Truth.

or who is the truth we should say? Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the father except by me.
So what has this to do with being Protestant or Catholic. 

Plenty.  Because it all comes down to how we understand who Christ is and what He is on about.  The whole point of Christ's coming is salvation and there is quite a difference in how Catholics and Protestant understand salvtion and how Christ's life,death and ressurection effected salvation.

What truth is central to the gospel. John 3:16 for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whomsoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have ever lasting life. 

This certainly is a true but not the entire truth. The entire Gospel cannot be summarized in this one verse because Christ himself said that not every one who calls him Lord, Lord will have eternal life.

That is why I said above our understanding of the "HOW" of salvation matters.

Is any other truth you think I should know except the promise of the Holy spirit whom Jesus gave us at Pentecost. 

That is once again true. But only part of the truth and not the entirety of Truth.

Oh we could go on and on but what truth is it that you think I'm lacking here concerning catholic Protestant. Maybe we should home in on (whom soever believeth) shall have eternal life. 

As I have said above, this is not the be all and end of all the Bible but just a portion of it. 

Who are the whomsoevers. Note it did not say whomsoever is Roman Catholic. 

That is true. But when Christ established His Church there was only one Church. The Catholic Church. And this is the means by which He effects salvation.

Take note that Christ did not do any writing.  The NT was written within the bossom of the Catholic Church. What Christ did instead was to built a Church. That is why Church matters.

Here we get more in depth as to the question of the wholeness of Truth.

What constitutes saving faith. being a good loyal Catholic goning to mass every day. I tell you right now IT IS no the out ward things we do but the inward person we are that makes any of us his. 

It may not be the outward thing we do but your criterian of the "inward person" certainly requires a bit more definition. 

And yes going to mass everyday plays a huge role in saving faith. But to explain that will take more time.

Peace!

 What constitutes saving faith. being a good loyal Catholic goning to mass every day. I tell you right now IT IS no the out ward things we do but the inward person we are that makes any of us his.
It may not be the outward thing we do but your criterian of the "inward person" certainly requires a bit more definition.

And yes going to mass everyday plays a huge role in saving faith. But to explain that will take more time.

Peace!


Going to mass every days saves you. Did the apostles do that?  How about walking with Christ every day. There's a song we sing ( I come to the Garden alone when the dew is still on the Roses. Yes it is bliss for me every day. You need a definition What are the two greatest commandments. (Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart mind and soul, and thy neighbor as thyself. In this lies all the law and the Prophets. I beieive the definition is ( Love)  Define love and you define Christ     

: mclees8  Wed Oct 14, 2009 - 10:51:58
What constitutes saving faith. being a good loyal Catholic goning to mass every day. I tell you right now IT IS no the out ward things we do but the inward person we are that makes any of us his.
It may not be the outward thing we do but your criterian of the "inward person" certainly requires a bit more definition.

And yes going to mass everyday plays a huge role in saving faith. But to explain that will take more time.

Peace!


Mike > I don,t believe Christ taught all that your legalist church has taught .


Going to mass every days saves you. Did the apostles do that?  How about walking with Christ every day. There's a song we sing ( I come to the Garden alone when the dew is still on the Roses. Yes it is bliss for me every day. You need a definition What are the two greatest commandments. (Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart mind and soul, and thy neighbor as thyself. In this lies all the law and the Prophets. I belieive the definition is ( Love)  Define love and you define Christ     

'You are Peter and Upon This Rock, I will build My Church'
-Christ, Matthew
This Rock, My Church. There is No Plural.  Its pretty simple



Jesus Christ established A Church—not a book—to be the Foundation of the Christian faith
(Luke 20:29-32; Matt. 10:40; 28:18-20).


Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).
Peter was First Patriarch of Antioch then Founded Church of Rome.
(Matt. 16:18)
Peter listed as the First of the Apostles in all NT. Recorded more than any other disciple. Given command to 'Feed my lambs' 3 times.


Galatians 1:6-9
'I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Some people are throwing you into confusion and  pervert the gospel of Christ
But even if an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.  If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!'


Protest-ants & Jews know the final empire in the Scriptures will be 100% Roman Catholic so the true gospel can be preached to the world before JEW Anti Christ.
And why they attack the Catholic Church, its peoples, monasteries, governments.
They know the wh*re is Judaism/ Occult Judaism.
OCCULT Jews occupy The Throne for now.

: TradCath  Thu Oct 15, 2009 - 08:27:24
'You are Peter and Upon This Rock, I will build My Church'
-Christ, Matthew
This Rock, My Church. There is No Plural.  Its pretty simple



Jesus Christ established A Church—not a book—to be the Foundation of the Christian faith
(Luke 20:29-32; Matt. 10:40; 28:18-20).


Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).
Peter was First Patriarch of Antioch then Founded Church of Rome.
(Matt. 16:18)
Peter listed as the First of the Apostles in all NT. Recorded more than any other disciple. Given command to 'Feed my lambs' 3 times.


Galatians 1:6-9
'I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Some people are throwing you into confusion and  pervert the gospel of Christ
But even if an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.  If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!'


Protest-ants & Jews know the final empire in the Scriptures will be 100% Roman Catholic so the true gospel can be preached to the world before JEW Anti Christ.
And why they attack the Catholic Church, its peoples, monasteries, governments.
They know the wh*re is Judaism/ Occult Judaism.
OCCULT Jews occupy The Throne for now.

If it is Peter as the head of Christ's church then follow Him and the example for christ he was. Please tell me where in scripture does it ever say that the church will be 100% Roman Cathlolic. This much I know and listen well. the Lord knows no Catholic or Protestant.  He knows who his bride is and will recieve them when he returns. he has no pet denomination. He will find his bride that give their life  for his sake. 

Rev 6:9>And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them;

Rev 7:14> These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. 16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. 17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Rev 12:11> And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Thes spoken of here may sit on many pews. there wiil be two in the field, one will be taken and the other one left.

Please mind well this will not be a demoninational or organized church thing. The question is How will Jesus find you. You will not be taken because of any affiliation. You will not be able to where a sign saying what a good catholic you were.

Every one will be tested for his works and that is not about how will you served the institution but what was in your heart that motivates one to love his neighbor

God Bless 


     

: mclees8  Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 10:54:22

Galatians 1:6-9
'I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Some people are throwing you into confusion and  pervert the gospel of Christ
But even if an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.  If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!'[/b]

The question here is what is the gospel and what is another gospel.   Is the penal substitution theory the gospel?  No.  The early church did not use this model.  It begins to take hold only in the 11th century.  Is sola scriptura an early church doctrine?  No.  The church came up with the idea of the New Testament.   

If it is Peter as the head of Christ's church then follow Him and the example for christ he was. Please tell me where in scripture does it ever say that the church will be 100% Roman Cathlolic.

The church is not the sum of all believers.  That is the book of life, not the church.  Protestants changed the definition of the church to this;  the church is real (organization), earthly as well as heavenly.  It is not a concept. 

It is also undivided, since Christ cannot be divided, as Paul says.  Therefore, there can be only one true church.   Note in Matthew 16:18 Jesus says he will build his church, not churches. 

By the way, I do not think the RCC is that one true church.  However, I expect there to be Protestants and Catholics in the book of life.   See the difference?

This much I know and listen well. the Lord knows no Catholic or Protestant.  He knows who his bride is and will recieve them when he returns.

True, but this doesn't mean there that the church doesn't matter. The church is God's witness on earth and even heaven (Eph. 3:10).

he has no pet denomination. He will find his bride that give their life  for his sake. 

Actually, he does.  He established one church. See above.  He loves the church.

You will not be able to where a sign saying what a good catholic you were.

But do you replace the word "Catholic" with "Christian?"  We will have to give an account for everything we have done.   Is defending and helping his Church part of these things?

Every one will be tested for his works and that is not about how will you served the institution

I hope that I served the church well.  It's not unimportant.

but what was in your heart that motivates one to love his neighbor

That may count for even more.
 


     

trifecta,

God bless you!  I learned a lot from your last post.  Thanks

: trifecta  Mon Nov 02, 2009 - 17:09:28

: mclees8  Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 10:54:22

Galatians 1:6-9
'I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Some people are throwing you into confusion and  pervert the gospel of Christ
But even if an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.  If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!'[/b]

The question here is what is the gospel and what is another gospel.   Is the penal substitution theory the gospel?  No.  The early church did not use this model.  It begins to take hold only in the 11th century.  Is sola scriptura an early church doctrine?  No.  The church came up with the idea of the New Testament.   

If it is Peter as the head of Christ's church then follow Him and the example for christ he was. Please tell me where in scripture does it ever say that the church will be 100% Roman Cathlolic.

The church is not the sum of all believers.  That is the book of life, not the church.  Protestants changed the definition of the church to this;  the church is real (organization), earthly as well as heavenly.  It is not a concept. 

It is also undivided, since Christ cannot be divided, as Paul says.  Therefore, there can be only one true church.   Note in Matthew 16:18 Jesus says he will build his church, not churches. 

By the way, I do not think the RCC is that one true church.  However, I expect there to be Protestants and Catholics in the book of life.   See the difference?

This much I know and listen well. the Lord knows no Catholic or Protestant.  He knows who his bride is and will recieve them when he returns.

True, but this doesn't mean there that the church doesn't matter. The church is God's witness on earth and even heaven (Eph. 3:10).

he has no pet denomination. He will find his bride that give their life  for his sake. 

Actually, he does.  He established one church. See above.  He loves the church.

You will not be able to where a sign saying what a good catholic you were.

But do you replace the word "Catholic" with "Christian?"  We will have to give an account for everything we have done.   Is defending and helping his Church part of these things?

Every one will be tested for his works and that is not about how will you served the institution

I hope that I served the church well.  It's not unimportant.

but what was in your heart that motivates one to love his neighbor

That may count for even more.
 


     

The church has always been one church. It is man who divides it attaches its names to it introduces its own beliefs, doctrines, traditions that were not of the apostles. It was men who institutionalized it and separated the clergy and exalted it. It was man who gave tiles and rank to clergy and put on special garments as to be set apart to be called Rabbi Rabbi.     

This is not to say there are to be leaders whom we are to respect, but I believe the apostles did nothing to call attention to themselves as to be over anyone. Even when certain people of a town tried to worship Paul and Silas they said no we are just men like you. for this they ran them out of town.

It is man who wants to be glorified with rank title and position. It is man who who desires to have power and recognition. But this is not what Jesus ever taught for those who know Him and see his truth. we are not he exalted ones but as John the Baptist said , He must increase and I must decrease. I love my neighbor and do good works that honors God and lifts up the name of Christ just as Christ called all of us to do not out of any sense of duty but it is now Christ who lives in me. Love compassion and faith are now apart of who I am and still being perfected in me

Think now this is how it was long before we were made to see grand cathedrals and with popes cardinals and all this other exalted priest hood that institutionalizes the church as a thing, a hierarchy of religious piety and A place we go to on Sunday. Yes we should gather to Worship, but we glorify him as one who is given not to an institution but to Him.

I gather with others and help bring Christ to the poor on Sunday and we worship under a tree. Are we not doing in His name and are we not the church just as much as in any church with a steeple? Jesus ministered in the streets and on mountainsides. there is nothing wrong with going to a place of worship as we do not worship it but Him who sits at the right hand of God. It is not the place of worship or the clergy system that is the only vehicle to Christ for is truly institutionalizes the church. Jesus told the women at the well that that day has come when you will not worship on your mountain nor In Jerusalem but the true worshipers will worship God in spirit and in truth

God bless

: mclees8  Tue Nov 03, 2009 - 08:10:16
I gather with others and help bring Christ to the poor on Sunday and we worship under a tree. Are we not doing in His name and are we not the church just as much as in any church with a steeple? Jesus ministered in the streets and on mountainsides. there is nothing wrong with going to a place of worship as we do not worship it but Him who sits at the right hand of God. It is not the place of worship or the clergy system that is the only vehicle to Christ for is truly institutionalizes the church. Jesus told the women at the well that that day has come when you will not worship on your mountain nor In Jerusalem but the true worshipers will worship God in spirit and in truth

God bless

You may be a church, just not Christ's Church. You are your own personal church. This is the problem with Protestantism

Modern Protestants have privatised Christianity. It's egocentric not Christocentric They have reduced it to a "personal relationship with Christ

: winsome  Tue Nov 03, 2009 - 13:33:31

: mclees8  Tue Nov 03, 2009 - 08:10:16
I gather with others and help bring Christ to the poor on Sunday and we worship under a tree. Are we not doing in His name and are we not the church just as much as in any church with a steeple? Jesus ministered in the streets and on mountainsides. there is nothing wrong with going to a place of worship as we do not worship it but Him who sits at the right hand of God. It is not the place of worship or the clergy system that is the only vehicle to Christ for is truly institutionalizes the church. Jesus told the women at the well that that day has come when you will not worship on your mountain nor In Jerusalem but the true worshipers will worship God in spirit and in truth

God bless

You may be a church, just not Christ's Church. You are your own personal church. This is the problem with Protestantism

Modern Protestants have privatised Christianity. It's egocentric not Christocentric They have reduced it to a "personal relationship with Christ

John 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

: Amo  Wed Nov 04, 2009 - 12:32:32
John 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Thanks Amo. I least there's some here that understands. 

: mclees8  Wed Nov 04, 2009 - 11:12:32

You talk as one who has no understanding. The church is not a place or a thing. It is a people.

This is a Protestant idea derived from the fact that Protestants were not in the actual church.  The church is both physical and spiritual, as is its head, our Lord Jesus Christ.  It is not just people, but the "pillar and foundation of the truth."   See my quote above.

They have beguiled you with false teaching.  Your idea about protestants being rouge churches that take all scripture out of context is straight from religous pride, arrogance, and, prejudice .

Or is it an honest disagreement with Protestants about their emphases?  Demonizing Rome doesn't prove anything.   The way I see Roman interpretation of Scripture is as good as the Protestants', if not better.   

The fact is the Lord does not see Catholic or Protestant Just those who love and keep his commandments. Are many mislead in this modern day thing we call Christianity. Thats a fact and its both sides of the river.
God bless

You have a point here.   I do think, though, we will also have to account for our faith and were we truly serving his church. 

: mclees8  Tue Nov 03, 2009 - 08:10:16

The church has always been one church.

Now, this we can agree on.

It is man who divides it attaches its names to it introduces its own beliefs, doctrines, traditions that were not of the apostles.

The question is whose traditions are "man's traditions" or the doctrines of men.  It is easy to say my church's traditions are of the Apostles and yours are of man.   But then you have to prove it.  Protestants traditions do not just come from the Bible but from  the Protestant fathers, 1500 years later:  The early church did not believe in sola scriptura (there was no compiled New Testament for a few hundred years), they did not believe in justification by faith alone (a Luther invention), and they certainly didn't believe the community (church) had nothing to do with salvation (this wasn't in their culture), and they believed in the real presence of communion (historical fact: note Justin Martyr, Ignatious, Ireanous and of course Paul in I Cor 10).

It was men who institutionalized it and separated the clergy and exalted it. It was man who gave tiles and rank to clergy and put on special garments as to be set apart to be called Rabbi Rabbi.    

This was true in Jewish society.   People with honor were treated accordingly.  It was true then and now.   Do we not give respect to the President?

This is not to say there are to be leaders whom we are to respect, but I believe the apostles did nothing to call attention to themselves as to be over anyone.

But the Apostles were "over" people.   Note too that the church established "overseers" (bishops).    There is nothing wrong with authority.

Even when certain people of a town tried to worship Paul and Silas they said no we are just men like you. for this they ran them out of town.

Worship is not the same thing as honor.   I honor many people but only worship God. I bet you do too.

Think now this is how it was long before we were made to see grand cathedrals and with popes cardinals and all this other exalted priest hood that institutionalizes the church as a thing, a hierarchy of religious piety

I understand that cathedral may not be your thing (I am American too), but they are also a way of honoring the Lord.

and A place we go to on Sunday. Yes we should gather to Worship, but we glorify him as one who is given not to an institution but to Him.

Protestants are always pitting God against the Church.   But we see in Ephesians the church is the Bride of Church.  Jesus loves the church!

I gather with others and help bring Christ to the poor on Sunday and we worship under a tree. Are we not doing in His name and are we not the church just as much as in any church with a steeple?

Nothing wrong with worshipping outside, and I am sure you are worshipping the same God that I do.  But note that when two or three or gathered in name, the Scripture doesn't call this the church, but that He is with them.  A family gathered in prayer includes God among them but it is not the church.  No one in the early church thought this, but, these days, many Protestants do.

Jesus ministered in the streets and on mountainsides. there is nothing wrong with going to a place of worship as we do not worship it but Him who sits at the right hand of God. It is not the place of worship or the clergy system that is the only vehicle to Christ for is truly institutionalizes the church. Jesus told the women at the well that that day has come when you will not worship on your mountain nor In Jerusalem but the true worshipers will worship God in spirit and in truth

God bless

To end on a good note, I can agree here.   Can you accept that some find more comfort worshipping in a cathedral than others?  

Thanks for reading.

: trifecta  Sat Nov 28, 2009 - 20:48:09

: mclees8  Tue Nov 03, 2009 - 08:10:16

The church has always been one church.

Now, this we can agree on.

It is man who divides it attaches its names to it introduces its own beliefs, doctrines, traditions that were not of the apostles.

The question is whose traditions are "man's traditions" or the doctrines of men.  It is easy to say my church's traditions are of the Apostles and yours are of man.   But then you have to prove it.  Protestants traditions do not just come from the Bible but from  the Protestant fathers, 1500 years later:  The early church did not believe in sola scriptura (there was no compiled New Testament for a few hundred years), they did not believe in justification by faith alone (a Luther invention), and they certainly didn't believe the community (church) had nothing to do with salvation (this wasn't in their culture), and they believed in the real presence of communion (historical fact: note Justin Martyr, Ignatious, Ireanous and of course Paul in I Cor 10).

It was men who institutionalized it and separated the clergy and exalted it. It was man who gave tiles and rank to clergy and put on special garments as to be set apart to be called Rabbi Rabbi.    

This was true in Jewish society.   People with honor were treated accordingly.  It was true then and now.   Do we not give respect to the President?

This is not to say there are to be leaders whom we are to respect, but I believe the apostles did nothing to call attention to themselves as to be over anyone.

But the Apostles were "over" people.   Note too that the church established "overseers" (bishops).    There is nothing wrong with authority.

Even when certain people of a town tried to worship Paul and Silas they said no we are just men like you. for this they ran them out of town.

Worship is not the same thing as honor.   I honor many people but only worship God. I bet you do too.

Think now this is how it was long before we were made to see grand cathedrals and with popes cardinals and all this other exalted priest hood that institutionalizes the church as a thing, a hierarchy of religious piety

I understand that cathedral may not be your thing (I am American too), but they are also a way of honoring the Lord.

and A place we go to on Sunday. Yes we should gather to Worship, but we glorify him as one who is given not to an institution but to Him.

Protestants are always pitting God against the Church.   But we see in Ephesians the church is the Bride of Church.  Jesus loves the church!

I gather with others and help bring Christ to the poor on Sunday and we worship under a tree. Are we not doing in His name and are we not the church just as much as in any church with a steeple?

Nothing wrong with worshipping outside, and I am sure you are worshipping the same God that I do.  But note that when two or three or gathered in name, the Scripture doesn't call this the church, but that He is with them.  A family gathered in prayer includes God among them but it is not the church.  No one in the early church thought this, but, these days, many Protestants do.

Jesus ministered in the streets and on mountainsides. there is nothing wrong with going to a place of worship as we do not worship it but Him who sits at the right hand of God. It is not the place of worship or the clergy system that is the only vehicle to Christ for is truly institutionalizes the church. Jesus told the women at the well that that day has come when you will not worship on your mountain nor In Jerusalem but the true worshipers will worship God in spirit and in truth

God bless

To end on a good note, I can agree here.   Can you accept that some find more comfort worshipping in a cathedral than others?  

Thanks for reading.

Hello Tirifecta. thank for reading my post. I have read your comments and will respond directly.  Let me ask you a quick question.

Who has saved you? 
I will be back

The issue is not where we worship but who we worship and how do we worship him. What constitutes true worship? Do we channel true worship the the thing, the institution, the place we church. or is it through the spirit ? Is it a life of going to church or is a life given to Christ

God bless
God bless

: mclees8  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 08:10:34

The issue is not where we worship but who we worship and how do we worship him. What constitutes true worship? Do we channel true worship the the thing, the institution, the place we church. or is it through the spirit ? Is it a life of going to church or is a life given to Christ

God bless

No, It's not the issue mclees.

Where and how we worship is important. Do we worship in our way or in God's way?

Modern Protestants have privatised Christianity. It's egocentric not Christcentric It reduces Christianity to a "personal relationship with Christ

: winsome  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 08:29:20

: mclees8  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 08:10:34

The issue is not where we worship but who we worship and how do we worship him. What constitutes true worship? Do we channel true worship the the thing, the institution, the place we church. or is it through the spirit ? Is it a life of going to church or is a life given to Christ

God bless

No, It's not the issue mclees.

Where and how we worship is important. Do we worship in our way or in God's way?

Modern Protestants have privatised Christianity. It's egocentric not Christcentric It reduces Christianity to a "personal relationship with Christ

: mclees8  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 11:50:22

: winsome  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 08:29:20

: mclees8  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 08:10:34

The issue is not where we worship but who we worship and how do we worship him. What constitutes true worship? Do we channel true worship the the thing, the institution, the place we church. or is it through the spirit ? Is it a life of going to church or is a life given to Christ

God bless

No, It's not the issue mclees.

Where and how we worship is important. Do we worship in our way or in God's way?

Modern Protestants have privatised Christianity. It's egocentric not Christcentric It reduces Christianity to a "personal relationship with Christ

: winsome  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 13:26:47

I don't believe in denominationalism either. I believe in the one true Catholic Church. All these (Protestant) denominations are an abomination.

Aren't you really saying "Outside the Church No Salvation?" Christ has made the Catholic Church the means by which all men are to enter into heaven, and must be believed by Catholics? All others not remaining, or refusing to become united to the Pope cannot be saved.

: larry2  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 18:18:16

: winsome  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 13:26:47

I don't believe in denominationalism either. I believe in the one true Catholic Church. All these (Protestant) denominations are an abomination.

Aren't you really saying "Outside the Church No Salvation?" Christ has made the Catholic Church the means by which all men are to enter into heaven, and must be believed by Catholics? All others not remaining, or refusing to become united to the Pope cannot be saved.

No, I don't say that and the Catholic Church doesn't say that either.

: winsome  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 04:05:20

: larry2  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 18:18:16

: winsome  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 13:26:47

I don't believe in denominationalism either. I believe in the one true Catholic Church. All these (Protestant) denominations are an abomination.

Aren't you really saying "Outside the Church No Salvation?" Christ has made the Catholic Church the means by which all men are to enter into heaven, and must be believed by Catholics? All others not remaining, or refusing to become united to the Pope cannot be saved.

No, I don't say that and the Catholic Church doesn't say that either.

When did that change? I have an Axiom "Outside the Church - No Salvation" in my Catholic dictionary that requires all men to be joined to the Roman Catholic Church which I print below.

A theological axiom which means that membership in the Church founded by Christ is necessary for the salvation of every individual man. Since the Roman Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and since many millions of men are not members thereof, it might be thought that these millions, according to Catholic theology, will inevitably be damned. Catholic theologians have commonly held that to many of those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own can be saved by doing God's will as they see it, and theologians explain the axiom "outside the Church no salvation" to allow for such cases.

The teaching on this theological axiom can be summed up in the following seven points

1.   The axiom is a revealed truth which must be believed by Catholics: but it must be understood in the sense in which the Church understands it, not according to the personal interpretation of any individual.

2.    The axiom means that Christ commands all men to be baptized into the Catholic Church and to remain therein, united to the pope, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Hence anyone knowing of this strict command of Christ and refusing to obey it cannot be saved.

3.    All men are not only commanded to join the Church, but Christ also has made the Catholic Church the means by which they are to enter into heaven.

4.   The Church is a necessary means of salvation, not only because of any intrinsic necessity (i.e., Christ could have arranged other means of salvation), but solely because it was established by Christ.

5.   In some circumstances, according to God's infinite mercy, salvation may be obtained by those who are not actually members of the Church but who have a wish or a desire to become members.

6.    The wish or the desire that can sometimes substitute for actual membership in the Church need not always be explicit (e.g., as it is in those who are taking instructions in preparation for baptism), but it may be explicit, that is, it may be included in the good disposition of a person who wishes to do God's will.

7.   For the desire of membership in the Church to be effective in insuring one's eternal salvation, it must be joined in perfect charity or love of God and the individual must have supernatural faith.

: larry2  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 05:23:28

: winsome  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 04:05:20

: larry2  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 18:18:16

: winsome  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 13:26:47

I don't believe in denominationalism either. I believe in the one true Catholic Church. All these (Protestant) denominations are an abomination.

Aren't you really saying "Outside the Church No Salvation?" Christ has made the Catholic Church the means by which all men are to enter into heaven, and must be believed by Catholics? All others not remaining, or refusing to become united to the Pope cannot be saved.

No, I don't say that and the Catholic Church doesn't say that either.

When did that change? I have an Axiom "Outside the Church - No Salvation" in my Catholic dictionary that requires all men to be joined to the Roman Catholic Church which I print below.

A theological axiom which means that membership in the Church founded by Christ is necessary for the salvation of every individual man. Since the Roman Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and since many millions of men are not members thereof, it might be thought that these millions, according to Catholic theology, will inevitably be damned. Catholic theologians have commonly held that to many of those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own can be saved by doing God's will as they see it, and theologians explain the axiom "outside the Church no salvation" to allow for such cases.

The teaching on this theological axiom can be summed up in the following seven points

1.   The axiom is a revealed truth which must be believed by Catholics: but it must be understood in the sense in which the Church understands it, not according to the personal interpretation of any individual.

2.    The axiom means that Christ commands all men to be baptized into the Catholic Church and to remain therein, united to the pope, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Hence anyone knowing of this strict command of Christ and refusing to obey it cannot be saved.

3.    All men are not only commanded to join the Church, but Christ also has made the Catholic Church the means by which they are to enter into heaven.

4.   The Church is a necessary means of salvation, not only because of any intrinsic necessity (i.e., Christ could have arranged other means of salvation), but solely because it was established by Christ.

5.   In some circumstances, according to God's infinite mercy, salvation may be obtained by those who are not actually members of the Church but who have a wish or a desire to become members.

6.    The wish or the desire that can sometimes substitute for actual membership in the Church need not always be explicit (e.g., as it is in those who are taking instructions in preparation for baptism), but it may be explicit, that is, it may be included in the good disposition of a person who wishes to do God's will.

7.   For the desire of membership in the Church to be effective in insuring one's eternal salvation, it must be joined in perfect charity or love of God and the individual must have supernatural faith.

Hi Larry,

You are right and I answered your post too hastily. I did not read your phrasing carefully enough and took it to be the usual claim that Catholics believe all Protestants are damned. Please accept my apologies for that and I withdraw my comment and also the comment that [Protestant] denominations are an abomination as being uncharitable to my Protestant brothers and sisters.

God bless

winsome

: winsome  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 05:52:36

: larry2  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 05:23:28

: winsome  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 04:05:20

: larry2  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 18:18:16

: winsome  Sun Nov 29, 2009 - 13:26:47

I don't believe in denominationalism either. I believe in the one true Catholic Church. All these (Protestant) denominations are an abomination.

Aren't you really saying "Outside the Church No Salvation?" Christ has made the Catholic Church the means by which all men are to enter into heaven, and must be believed by Catholics? All others not remaining, or refusing to become united to the Pope cannot be saved.

No, I don't say that and the Catholic Church doesn't say that either.

When did that change? I have an Axiom "Outside the Church - No Salvation" in my Catholic dictionary that requires all men to be joined to the Roman Catholic Church which I print below.

A theological axiom which means that membership in the Church founded by Christ is necessary for the salvation of every individual man. Since the Roman Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ and since many millions of men are not members thereof, it might be thought that these millions, according to Catholic theology, will inevitably be damned. Catholic theologians have commonly held that to many of those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own can be saved by doing God's will as they see it, and theologians explain the axiom "outside the Church no salvation" to allow for such cases.

The teaching on this theological axiom can be summed up in the following seven points

1.   The axiom is a revealed truth which must be believed by Catholics: but it must be understood in the sense in which the Church understands it, not according to the personal interpretation of any individual.

2.    The axiom means that Christ commands all men to be baptized into the Catholic Church and to remain therein, united to the pope, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Hence anyone knowing of this strict command of Christ and refusing to obey it cannot be saved.

3.    All men are not only commanded to join the Church, but Christ also has made the Catholic Church the means by which they are to enter into heaven.

4.   The Church is a necessary means of salvation, not only because of any intrinsic necessity (i.e., Christ could have arranged other means of salvation), but solely because it was established by Christ.

5.   In some circumstances, according to God's infinite mercy, salvation may be obtained by those who are not actually members of the Church but who have a wish or a desire to become members.

6.    The wish or the desire that can sometimes substitute for actual membership in the Church need not always be explicit (e.g., as it is in those who are taking instructions in preparation for baptism), but it may be explicit, that is, it may be included in the good disposition of a person who wishes to do God's will.

7.   For the desire of membership in the Church to be effective in insuring one's eternal salvation, it must be joined in perfect charity or love of God and the individual must have supernatural faith.

Hi Larry,

You are right and I answered your post too hastily. I did not read your phrasing carefully enough and took it to be the usual claim that Catholics believe all Protestants are damned. Please accept my apologies for that and I withdraw my comment and also the comment that [Protestant] denominations are an abomination as being uncharitable to my Protestant brothers and sisters.

God bless

winsome

No ! Salvation is not contingent upon  any membership period. You cannot just simply join any organized church catholic or protestant and be saved. This idea is an abomination and insult to Christ who gave himself freely to suffer for our sins and raise from the dead to secure salvation for all that believe that he is the Christ the Son of the living God.

Who are these  people who wrote these things? They were not of Christ but of an organized church system that so arrogantly channel salvation through it. instead of our faith in Christ. They are worse than robbers. this is not biblical or the gospel of Christ.

You now say there is not salvation out side the church, which Catholics is to say there is no salvation out side of ones affiliation to the church of Rome. They taught you this but It did not come from Christ


There is no salvation out side the church seems right and one could say that to some degree. The trick here is who is the church. You say the church is the institution of papal Rome but they are an exalted clergy that has set them selves apart and above the laity. They are now looked to as representing and being the church but from the beginning the apostle represented the authority but they were not the church as any whole nor were the exalted above the believers  From the beginning the church consisted of all who believed that Jesus was Lord. They became the adopted sons of God by there confession of faith in Christ. No membership just salvation freely given by grace.   The apostle were not exalted but common amongst the body. they were respected as  the apostles but they did not represent any organized church system that required membership like some club to secure salvation. What abomination!!   

What is more correct and not misleading is " there is no salvation out side of faith in Christ". No disrespect of leadership or recognizing  authority. They are just of the body of Christ like all believers.

God bless

Dear mclees8, to say they're are not children of God because they believe that way to me is wrong, because again it is based on Jesus dieing for us, and our belief that He did. Their doctrine of "Outside the Church-No salvation, is not much different than SDA believing all are lost for not observing the Sabbath, or the COC believing you must be baptized in their tank, or any amount of law keepers among us thinking it depends on ourselves to keep ourselves saved.

We're told to not despise another brother just they believe in not eating something, or they put one day above another; God receives them. It's like you using the scripture "They became the adopted sons of God by there confession of faith in Christ" When you get right down to it we are adopted to the benefits of a child of God, but we are really Born of God. I came out of the Catholic Church, and I can guarantee you most all I know from there believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and that is the criteria of salvation to my thinking.

You said the following: "Who are these people who wrote these things? They were not of Christ but of an organized church system that so arrogantly channel salvation through it instead of our faith in Christ. They are worse than robbers. This is not biblical or the gospel of Christ." Because they were taught, and believe these things does not justify they are not of God, and it is only Jesus Who will judge them.

My thoughts.

: larry2  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 08:33:37

Dear mclees8, to say they're are not children of God because they believe that way to me is wrong, because again it is based on Jesus dieing for us, and our belief that He did. Their doctrine of "Outside the Church-No salvation, is not much different than SDA believing all are lost for not observing the Sabbath, or the COC believing you must be baptized in their tank, or any amount of law keepers among us thinking it depends on ourselves to keep ourselves saved.

We're told to not despise another brother just they believe in not eating something, or they put one day above another; God receives them. It's like you using the scripture "They became the adopted sons of God by there confession of faith in Christ" When you get right down to it we are adopted to the benefits of a child of God, but we are really Born of God. I came out of the Catholic Church, and I can guarantee you most all I know from there believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and that is the criteria of salvation to my thinking.

You said the following: "Who are these people who wrote these things? They were not of Christ but of an organized church system that so arrogantly channel salvation through it instead of our faith in Christ. They are worse than robbers. This is not biblical or the gospel of Christ." Because they were taught, and believe these things does not justify they are not of God, and it is only Jesus Who will judge them.

My thoughts.

Then let me put it another then Larry. What they say is not of God. I do not despise any man but misrepresentation is even hated by God. You say that you left the catholic church. Why and where did you go? I don't see the church as catholic or Protestant and God has no pet denomination that believes it has the exclusive way of salvation. The church is the church and all will be judged out of it. He alone will separate the sheep from the goats and the tares from the wheat. He will also separate the truth from the lie. 

Yes Larry most are true in their faith to Christ. they are very sincere Godly people. Now that the true gospel is no longer denied them. but they are being lied to about what constitutes their salvation. No one is saved by any membership. they teach these things to keep them in bondage to a wrong idea that he papacy and the clergy system is the church. therefore no one is saved outside of it.


God bless

: mclees8  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 07:40:15
No ! Salvation is not contingent upon  any membership period. You cannot just simply join any organized church catholic or protestant and be saved. This idea is an abomination and insult to Christ who gave himself freely to suffer for our sins and raise from the dead to secure salvation for all that believe that he is the Christ the Son of the living God.

To answer this properly we need to understand salvation. Salvation is not some one off event. I do not believe in OSAS. Salvation is a journey. It had a start and it has an end.

We can say
I have been saved
I am being saved
I hope to be saved.

That journey starts with Baptism when  we were made children of God, when we came into the New Covenant, when we were transferred from the power of darkness to the kingdom of Christ (Col 1:13 & Acts 26:18).  It also makes us members of the body of Christ – the Church.

But that is only our first step. We need to continue on that journey and not fall by the wayside and turn back to darkness.
Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you. (1Cor 15:1-2)

As I keep saying it is primarily though the sacraments that Christ gives us the strength for the journey. It is with his Body and Blood that he feeds us in the Eucharist. It is in Reconciliation that he picks us up and reconciles us.

Grace is freely given, but not forced on us. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God (Heb 12:15). We have to ask for it in humility.

You believe you gain salvation through your own efforts, without the Church, without Christ's grace from the sacraments.

Anyways dear brethren, I'm out of this again, and only wanted to address one facet of it. God bless you all and be kindly to one another in the love of Jesus.  ::smile::

: mclees8  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 07:40:15

There is no salvation out side the church seems right and one could say that to some degree. The trick here is who is the church. You say the church is the institution of papal Rome but they are an exalted clergy that has set them selves apart and above the laity. They are now looked to as representing and being the church but from the beginning the apostle represented the authority but they were not the church as any whole nor were the exalted above the believers  From the beginning the church consisted of all who believed that Jesus was Lord. They became the adopted sons of God by there confession of faith in Christ. No membership just salvation freely given by grace.   The apostle were not exalted but common amongst the body. they were respected as  the apostles but they did not represent any organized church system that required membership like some club to secure salvation. What abomination!!   

What is more correct and not misleading is " there is no salvation out side of faith in Christ". No disrespect of leadership or recognizing  authority. They are just of the body of Christ like all believers.

God bless

The Catholic Church is not just the clergy, but both clergy and laity. But the clergy have a special role given them by God. They have not set themselves above the laity but have been put in authority by God.

The Church is both the mystical body of Christ and a visible institution. It is the city set on a hilltop that cannot be hidden (Mt 5:14)

: winsome  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 10:05:30

: mclees8  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 07:40:15
No ! Salvation is not contingent upon  any membership period. You cannot just simply join any organized church catholic or protestant and be saved. This idea is an abomination and insult to Christ who gave himself freely to suffer for our sins and raise from the dead to secure salvation for all that believe that he is the Christ the Son of the living God.

To answer this properly we need to understand salvation. Salvation is not some one off event. I do not believe in OSAS. Salvation is a journey. It had a start and it has an end.

We can say
I have been saved
I am being saved
I hope to be saved.

That journey starts with Baptism when  we were made children of God, when we came into the New Covenant, when we were transferred from the power of darkness to the kingdom of Christ (Col 1:13 & Acts 26:18).  It also makes us members of the body of Christ – the Church.

But that is only our first step. We need to continue on that journey and not fall by the wayside and turn back to darkness.
Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you. (1Cor 15:1-2)

As I keep saying it is primarily though the sacraments that Christ gives us the strength for the journey. It is with his Body and Blood that he feeds us in the Eucharist. It is in Reconciliation that he picks us up and reconciles us.

Grace is freely given, but not forced on us. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God (Heb 12:15). We have to ask for it in humility.

You believe you gain salvation through your own efforts, without the Church, without Christ's grace from the sacraments.

I am saved by grace through faith, and  of no effort of my own. I have said many times that " it is not he outward things we do but the inward person we are. or you can the person i am becoming that the lord sees. I am not outside the church. I have not denied Christ my Lord. I am just not of the RCC. But this is the whole issue here isn't it ?

God bless

: mclees8  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 14:01:18

I am saved by grace through faith, and  of no effort of my own. I have said many times that " it is not he outward things we do but the inward person we are. or you can the person i am becoming that the lord sees.

The couch potato Christian. "I have nothing to do but lie here and Christ will do it all.

: winsome  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 14:39:31

: mclees8  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 14:01:18

I am saved by grace through faith, and  of no effort of my own. I have said many times that " it is not he outward things we do but the inward person we are. or you can the person i am becoming that the lord sees.

The couch potato Christian. "I have nothing to do but lie here and Christ will do it all.

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else. 

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else.  

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."?  

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else.  

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."?  

Please it is not about where it is. Its about keeping the true message of Christ,s gospel. Im going to copy paste Selenes statement to me about the purpose of the church until Jesus returns. At least i know one catholic here is still focused.

You say that the Catholic Church will not bring peace and safety that the world wants?  My brother, it was never the duty of the church to bring world peace and safety in the first place.   That was never our mission.  God sent His Church to spread the Good News - that Christ loved the world so much that He gave His life to bring redemption and forgiveness of sins to mankind.

God bless,
Selene

Thank you selene

: mclees8  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 07:16:43

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else.  

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."?  

Please it is not about where it is. Its about keeping the true message of Christ,s gospel. Im going to copy paste Selenes statement to me about the purpose of the church until Jesus returns. At least i know one catholic here is still focused.

Mike, what are you talking about?   ???  I know that where it is is not what it is about, hence why we call ourselves, "Universal", i.e., Catholic.  It is Tantor who is making some un-biblical case that because the Church is head-quartered in Vatican City and not Jerusalem, that it somehow makes it illegitimate.  Read through our posts again.  

You may paste Selene's posts any time you want, I find I am in complete agreement with them!!!   ::priest::

: desertknight  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 07:27:54

: mclees8  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 07:16:43

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else.  

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."?  

Please it is not about where it is. Its about keeping the true message of Christ,s gospel. Im going to copy paste Selenes statement to me about the purpose of the church until Jesus returns. At least i know one catholic here is still focused.

Mike, what are you talking about?   ???  I know that where it is is not what it is about, hence why we call ourselves, "Universal", i.e., Catholic.  It is Tantor who is making some un-biblical case that because the Church is head-quartered in Vatican City and not Jerusalem, that it somehow makes it illegitimate.  Read through our posts again.  

You may paste Selene's posts any time you want, I find I am in complete agreement with them!!!   ::priest::

Please it is not about where it is. Its about keeping the true message of Christ,s gospel. Im going to copy paste Selenes statement to me about the purpose of the church until Jesus returns. At least i know one catholic here is still focused.
[/quote]

Mike, what are you talking about?   ???  I know that where it is is not what it is about, hence why we call ourselves, "Universal", i.e., Catholic.  It is Tantor who is making some un-biblical case that because the Church is head-quartered in Vatican City and not Jerusalem, that it somehow makes it illegitimate.  Read through our posts again. 

You may paste Selene's post any time you want, I find I am in complete agreement with them!!!   ::priest::
[/quote]

So you say you agree with Selene about her last statement that I pasted. we were discussing the true role and thrust of The church which has nothing to with the affairs of this world. It has everyhting to with being saved from. Just like jesus prayed for the disciples. Is that the message the pope gives to the leaders of the world when he visits the UN? He counsels them not on salvation but the moral political position. This is about peace and unity in the world.

This is not about the gospel that Jesus commanded his church to bring. That message is lost in all the churches intanglements of  world affairs. The world is of the spirit of antichrist. It is the antichrist who will be the worlds hope for peace and safety in the world. We are waiting for Christs second coming  Which is the great hope of the church that keeps its focus.  Not on the politics of the world or that the church and the UN can bring a New world order of peace and safety and economic stability and all that is Babylon. Babylon will be destroyed and the antichrist will set out to destroy the very church that helped him get his seat.

God bless

The true gospel message was lost the first day the papacy was formed. And even though they will say that is their purpose  what is the UN connection.

a correction

So you say you agree with Selene about her last statement that I pasted. we were discussing the true role and thrust of The church which has nothing to with the affairs of this world. It has everyhting to with being saved from the world Just like jesus prayed for the disciples. Is that the message the pope gives to the leaders of the world when he visits the UN? He counsels them not on salvation but the moral political position. This is about peace and unity in the world.

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else.  

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."?  

Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?  I find it funny that Peter of all persons, would desire Jesus church to be founded in the capitol of the arch enemy of his own people (the Jews)... Historically, it seems more likely that Rome was covetous of the new Christian religion and just co-opted it from the Apostles when enough time had elapsed and they had the might of the Roman Empire behind them.

Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

: Tantor  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:00:00

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else.  

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."?  

Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?  I find it funny that Peter of all persons, would desire Jesus church to be founded in the capitol of the arch enemy of his own people (the Jews)... Historically, it seems more likely that Rome was covetous of the new Christian religion and just co-opted it from the Apostles when enough time had elapsed and they had the might of the Roman Empire behind them.

Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

As dk said That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity. Personally I'd go for stupidity. You just like to throw out stupid theories with no basis for them just to try and provoke arguments. But they have no merit whatsoever.

: winsome  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:22:10

: Tantor  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:00:00

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else. 

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."? 

Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?  I find it funny that Peter of all persons, would desire Jesus church to be founded in the capitol of the arch enemy of his own people (the Jews)... Historically, it seems more likely that Rome was covetous of the new Christian religion and just co-opted it from the Apostles when enough time had elapsed and they had the might of the Roman Empire behind them.

Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

As dk said That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity. Personally I'd go for stupidity. You just like to throw out stupid theories with no basis for them just to try and provoke arguments. But they have no merit whatsoever.

Umm... no.. its based on what we know the original apostles wrote and the political climate of the times... it's not said out of hatred or stupidity.

We have no evidence whatsoever that any apostle desired the church to be moved to and/or started in Rome... considering that Rome was slaughtering Christians left and right under different Caesars.

So to say it is stupid is also being dishonest with the facts... because there are none.

: Tantor  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:32:27

: winsome  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:22:10

: Tantor  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:00:00

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else. 

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."? 

Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?  I find it funny that Peter of all persons, would desire Jesus church to be founded in the capitol of the arch enemy of his own people (the Jews)... Historically, it seems more likely that Rome was covetous of the new Christian religion and just co-opted it from the Apostles when enough time had elapsed and they had the might of the Roman Empire behind them.

Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

As dk said That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity. Personally I'd go for stupidity. You just like to throw out stupid theories with no basis for them just to try and provoke arguments. But they have no merit whatsoever.

Umm... no.. its based on what we know the original apostles wrote and the political climate of the times... it's not said out of hatred or stupidity.

We have no evidence whatsoever that any apostle desired the church to be moved to and/or started in Rome... considering that Rome was slaughtering Christians left and right under different Caesars.

So to say it is stupid is also being dishonest with the facts... because there are none.

A question like this is stupid - Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?

A statement like this is stupid - Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And this is stupid too - And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

Don't expect me to waste any more time with your nonesense. You clearly don't want a sensible discussion.

I want a discussion based on facts... can you provide any?... from a reputable source of the 1st century?  Because without testimony from Peter himself or his peers anything you would pose as fact is nothing more than hearsay.. and I think its a little incredulous to base ones faith in a church totally on hearsay alone.

Do you have any eye witness testimony to bring to this discussion.. or not?

: winsome  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 13:19:19

: Tantor  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:32:27

: winsome  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:22:10

: Tantor  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 10:00:00

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 18:23:55

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:51:48

: desertknight  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 16:48:13

: Tantor  Mon Nov 30, 2009 - 15:30:26
But the Catholic church has never been Jesus church.... so you should take your own advice and seek it.

That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity.

No.. its the truth.. the Church Jesus was started in Jerusalem and no one ever had the authority to move it anywhere else. 

So if the Church is not based in Jerusalem, it is not legitimate?  Please point out the specific Scripture that makes this a requirement, that mandates that the Church be based in Jeruselum.  Where is that in the Bible?  Are you unaware that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, that we are no longer, "Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."? 

Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?  I find it funny that Peter of all persons, would desire Jesus church to be founded in the capitol of the arch enemy of his own people (the Jews)... Historically, it seems more likely that Rome was covetous of the new Christian religion and just co-opted it from the Apostles when enough time had elapsed and they had the might of the Roman Empire behind them.

Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

As dk said That statement is either said out of complete hatred or utter stupidity. Personally I'd go for stupidity. You just like to throw out stupid theories with no basis for them just to try and provoke arguments. But they have no merit whatsoever.

Umm... no.. its based on what we know the original apostles wrote and the political climate of the times... it's not said out of hatred or stupidity.

We have no evidence whatsoever that any apostle desired the church to be moved to and/or started in Rome... considering that Rome was slaughtering Christians left and right under different Caesars.

So to say it is stupid is also being dishonest with the facts... because there are none.

A question like this is stupid - Show me in scripture where it says that Jesus wanted his church in Rome?

A statement like this is stupid - Rome is illegitimate.. always was and always will be... unless you can provide any scrap of writing from any of the original apostles to the contrary.

And this is stupid too - And then you have to deal with all the striking similarities to the Pagan tradition of Rome that has been adopted very deviously by the RCC in order to appease people.

Don't expect me to waste any more time with your nonesense. You clearly don't want a sensible discussion.

I don't think it stupid. He is  desperately trying to help you see something that you refuse to see. What is it you are defending but the power, authority and position of Papal Rome.  I here you say you have no evidence or facts all the time.  But if it is asked of you and you can't answer, then you flip it off as stupid nonsense. Why is that? truly what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Truly there is nothing in scripture that supports the position of papal Rome. Rome was fancied by some bishops because Peter an Paul established churches there. But that did not make it the established capital of Christianity. But the papacy wants you to think so. Is it not about its claimed authority. This is the constant drumbeat of all that you defend here.  Now you say it is my hangup And Tantor is stupid. Why is that ?

mclees,

Suggesting that the Church could only be centred in Rome if scripture explicity said it could be is a dead brain argument.

If the US president (or Congress) decided to move the seat of govenment from Washington to say, Delware, would it be opposed because it doesn't say in the constitution that the founding fathers wanted it moved to Deleware?

When Alaska was bought and added to the Union was it opposed because the constition didn't say it could be bought?

Was buying Alaska illegitimate because the constitution didn't say it could be?

: winsome  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:03:23
mclees,

Suggesting that the Church could only be centred in Rome if scripture explicity said it could be is a dead brain argument.

If the US president (or Congress) decided to move the seat of govenment from Washington to say, Delware, would it be opposed because it doesn't say in the constitution that the founding fathers wanted it moved to Deleware?

When Alaska was bought and added to the Union was it opposed because the constition didn't say it could be bought?

Was buying Alaska illegitimate because the constitution didn't say it could be?

But there would be a paper trail of the discussion.. the congressional record that would detail the discussion and then the vote on the moving of the capitol.

So your comparison to the US Constitution falls flat.

Where is the letter from Peter stating the church should be moved to Rome?... where is the letter from Peter or witnesses to the ordination of Peter's successor?

Such a simple question should have a simple answer.. shouldn't it?  Especially if you claim your church is built on the rock of Peter...?  Wheres the proof?

: mclees8  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 14:30:04
Truly there is nothing in scripture that supports the position of papal Rome. Rome was fancied by some bishops because Peter an Paul established churches there. But that did not make it the established capital of Christianity. But the papacy wants you to think so. Is it not about its claimed authority. This is the constant drumbeat of all that you defend here.  Now you say it is my hangup And Tantor is stupid. Why is that ?

Christ's church was not based on a place.  It was based on the Apostle Peter.  That is why Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, which means "rock."  Because the Apostle Peter was the Bishop of Rome, Christ's church was in Rome.   

Matthew 16:17-18 Blessed are you , Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven.  And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shallnot prevail against it.

: Tantor  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:21:04

: winsome  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:03:23
mclees,

Suggesting that the Church could only be centred in Rome if scripture explicity said it could be is a dead brain argument.

If the US president (or Congress) decided to move the seat of govenment from Washington to say, Delware, would it be opposed because it doesn't say in the constitution that the founding fathers wanted it moved to Deleware?

When Alaska was bought and added to the Union was it opposed because the constition didn't say it could be bought?

Was buying Alaska illegitimate because the constitution didn't say it could be?

But there would be a paper trail of the discussion.. the congressional record that would detail the discussion and then the vote on the moving of the capitol.

So your comparison to the US Constitution falls flat.

Where is the letter from Peter stating the church should be moved to Rome?... where is the letter from Peter or witnesses to the ordination of Peter's successor?

Such a simple question should have a simple answer.. shouldn't it?  Especially if you claim your church is built on the rock of Peter...?  Wheres the proof?

My comparison does not fall flat because now you are introducing additional and irrelevant criteria. As I said this is a dead brain argument and I'm sorry for you that you wish to pursue this sort of trivial level of discussion.

In my opinion it is tragic that we cannot have an adult level of discussion between Catholic and Protestants on issues but that some of you just want to play games of trivial pursuits.

grow up.

: winsome  Wed Dec 02, 2009 - 06:48:10

: Tantor  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:21:04

: winsome  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:03:23
mclees,

Suggesting that the Church could only be centred in Rome if scripture explicity said it could be is a dead brain argument.

If the US president (or Congress) decided to move the seat of govenment from Washington to say, Delware, would it be opposed because it doesn't say in the constitution that the founding fathers wanted it moved to Deleware?

When Alaska was bought and added to the Union was it opposed because the constition didn't say it could be bought?

Was buying Alaska illegitimate because the constitution didn't say it could be?

But there would be a paper trail of the discussion.. the congressional record that would detail the discussion and then the vote on the moving of the capitol.

So your comparison to the US Constitution falls flat.

Where is the letter from Peter stating the church should be moved to Rome?... where is the letter from Peter or witnesses to the ordination of Peter's successor?

Such a simple question should have a simple answer.. shouldn't it?  Especially if you claim your church is built on the rock of Peter...?  Wheres the proof?

My comparison does not fall flat because now you are introducing additional and irrelevant criteria. As I said this is a dead brain argument and I'm sorry for you that you wish to pursue this sort of trivial level of discussion.

In my opinion it is tragic that we cannot have an adult level of discussion between Catholic and Protestants on issues but that some of you just want to play games of trivial pursuits.

grow up.

Brain dead?... I think it's the other way around.  and your comparison does fall flat because you are comparing apples to oranges.

You have absolutely no supporting evidence to back up any of your churches claims to authenticity other then hearsay from decades after the event... which is the adult way to approach it.   If you make a claim, be ready to back it up.. as I have with all my assertions and you have just casually dismissed them as stupid and juvenile.

Please support your claims..

: Tantor  Wed Dec 02, 2009 - 08:55:07

: winsome  Wed Dec 02, 2009 - 06:48:10

: Tantor  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:21:04

: winsome  Tue Dec 01, 2009 - 15:03:23
mclees,

Suggesting that the Church could only be centred in Rome if scripture explicity said it could be is a dead brain argument.

If the US president (or Congress) decided to move the seat of govenment from Washington to say, Delware, would it be opposed because it doesn't say in the constitution that the founding fathers wanted it moved to Deleware?

When Alaska was bought and added to the Union was it opposed because the constition didn't say it could be bought?

Was buying Alaska illegitimate because the constitution didn't say it could be?

But there would be a paper trail of the discussion.. the congressional record that would detail the discussion and then the vote on the moving of the capitol.

So your comparison to the US Constitution falls flat.

Where is the letter from Peter stating the church should be moved to Rome?... where is the letter from Peter or witnesses to the ordination of Peter's successor?

Such a simple question should have a simple answer.. shouldn't it?  Especially if you claim your church is built on the rock of Peter...?  Wheres the proof?

My comparison does not fall flat because now you are introducing additional and irrelevant criteria. As I said this is a dead brain argument and I'm sorry for you that you wish to pursue this sort of trivial level of discussion.

In my opinion it is tragic that we cannot have an adult level of discussion between Catholic and Protestants on issues but that some of you just want to play games of trivial pursuits.

grow up.

Brain dead?... I think it's the other way around.  and your comparison does fall flat because you are comparing apples to oranges.

You have absolutely no supporting evidence to back up any of your churches claims to authenticity other then hearsay from decades after the event... which is the adult way to approach it.   If you make a claim, be ready to back it up.. as I have with all my assertions and you have just casually dismissed them as stupid and juvenile.

Please support your claims..

Shifting your argument to a different topic. You are like a jack-in-a-box

I have not shifted anything.... nothing at all.

Will you at least attempt to answer my questions.. instead of resorting to juvenile name calling?

How do you conclusively know that Peter started the RCC except by hearsay?

Peter did not "start" the Catholic church...our Lord, Jesus Christ did.  It was founded with Peter as it's earthly head and the proof is the inerrant Word of God in Matt. 16:18.  It is unimportant to Catholics whether the Church is head-quartered in Rome or Timbuktu, it has been headquartered in Avignon, France in the past and is not based in Rome now.  The Church is not even based in Italy;  it is based in Vatican State which is a separate country from Italy.  We say "Rome" as a shorthand.  Popes are the chief Bishop of the Church, (the word 'Pope' is just a term of enderment that has become used as one of his titles.), who are elected as the Bishop of Rome as it is the traditional final resting place of both Peter and Paul.  (The "Holy See" refers to both of their martyrdoms there, although they are elected as the successor to Peter.).  It has been attested to throughout the ages.  Pope Clement I of Rome exercised his authority as head of the Church in his epistle to the Corinthians which was included in many canons of the New Testament until the Church, my Church, excluded it in the final canonisation of the NT.  An example of early Christian texts of Peter's primacy and of his subsequent successors...

"Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, "How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].

: desertknight  Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 00:07:19
Peter did not "start" the Catholic church...our Lord, Jesus Christ did.  It was founded with Peter as it's earthly head and the proof is the inerrant Word of God in Matt. 16:18.  It is unimportant to Catholics whether the Church is head-quartered in Rome or Timbuktu, it has been headquartered in Avignon, France in the past and is not based in Rome now.  The Church is not even based in Italy;  it is based in Vatican State which is a separate country from Italy.  We say "Rome" as a shorthand.  Popes are the chief Bishop of the Church, (the word 'Pope' is just a term of enderment that has become used as one of his titles.), who are elected as the Bishop of Rome as it is the traditional final resting place of both Peter and Paul.  (The "Holy See" refers to both of their martyrdoms there, although they are elected as the successor to Peter.).  It has been attested to throughout the ages.  Pope Clement I of Rome exercised his authority as head of the Church in his epistle to the Corinthians which was included in many canons of the New Testament until the Church, my Church, excluded it in the final canonisation of the NT.  An example of early Christian texts of Peter's primacy and of his subsequent successors...

"Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, "How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].

: mclees8  Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 01:46:53I really don't see anything here that shows the church of Rome was the established Capital of the whole christian church. or that it was recognized as such by al the Bishops of the empire  And because there was always bishops in Rome is no evidence that they were all popes ( meaning supreme papa of the whole christian church) They were just the bishops of the churches established at Rome. Just like there were other bishops through out Asia. Corinth, Pergomus, and  Antioc  

But lets say that for the sake of the argument that it was as you want to believe

How is that the Bishops of the west would not endorse the bishops of Rome in their desperate quest to be the supreme pope of the whole christian church through out  the Empire and beyond. This surely was a lofty and fanciful idea. So now they managed to lie their way into power and the west was split  Now if Rome was alway excepted as the capital of the church and all the bishops there formed a linage of popes and all the church recognized that then what was the oposition of the west.

Sounds like some flim flam was going on. Things they have manipulated to justify their ill gotten position in your eyes and the eyes of the people.

Ignatius:, "who is also called Theophorus, to the Church, (in Rome), which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

Irenaeus:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian :
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the Church would be built' [Matt. 16:18] with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth' [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Origen :
"if we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Additional sources...

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

The primacy of the Roman See is a well established fact in ecclesiastical history.

: desertknight  Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 03:07:20

: mclees8  Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 01:46:53I really don't see anything here that shows the church of Rome was the established Capital of the whole christian church. or that it was recognized as such by al the Bishops of the empire  And because there was always bishops in Rome is no evidence that they were all popes ( meaning supreme papa of the whole christian church) They were just the bishops of the churches established at Rome. Just like there were other bishops through out Asia. Corinth, Pergomus, and  Antioc  

But lets say that for the sake of the argument that it was as you want to believe

How is that the Bishops of the west would not endorse the bishops of Rome in their desperate quest to be the supreme pope of the whole christian church through out  the Empire and beyond. This surely was a lofty and fanciful idea. So now they managed to lie their way into power and the west was split  Now if Rome was alway excepted as the capital of the church and all the bishops there formed a linage of popes and all the church recognized that then what was the oposition of the west.

Sounds like some flim flam was going on. Things they have manipulated to justify their ill gotten position in your eyes and the eyes of the people.

Ignatius:, "who is also called Theophorus, to the Church, (in Rome), which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

Irenaeus:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian :
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the Church would be built' [Matt. 16:18] with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth' [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Origen :
"if we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Additional sources...

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

The primacy of the Roman See is a well established fact in ecclesiastical history.

dear Night I have read your letters closely. You list four men. I will assume they were all bishops. i know Ignatius was of Antioch and the other three I do not know. I'm sure they must be of the early church fathers.

The first one from Ignatius. In the first line i notice (In Rome) was that an ad in. or was that always there?

the Letter from Irenaeus was the only one that really supports your idea but it sounded a lot like he was trying to appeal this idea, and that it was not shared by all the bishops of that time.

thee other two only speak of Peter and the power to bind and loose.

Again I see nothing conclusive that Rome was shared as the capital of all the Christin church.  Do the letters of just a few select bishops have  the unquestioned  support of all the churches and bishops of the empire at that time.

No please re read this question.

But lets say that for the sake of the argument that it was as you want to believe

How is it that the Bishops of the west would not endorse the bishops of Rome in their desperate quest to be the supreme pope of the whole christian church through out  the Empire and beyond. This surely was a lofty and fanciful idea. So now they managed to lie their way into power and the west was split  Now if Rome was alway excepted as the capital of the church and all the bishops there formed a linage of popes and all the church recognized that then what was the oposition of the west. 
God bless

I don't argue for the sake of argument. There is a serious point to all this. Surely the papacy was born of  corrupt ambitious men who not only wanted to be supreme papa of Christianity (pontifex maximus) but wanted to rule religiously and politically the whole Empire and known world. Little wonder that it could amass such great wealth and power. Little wonder that Rev 17 says She is the Great Whore of  Babylon. She was all that Babylon is.

I also asked you  when you said you agreed with Selene about the real purpose of the church Christ founded. What is the UN connection?  What is is real purpose and goal there?
   

: McLThe first one from Ignatius. In the first line i notice (In Rome) was that an ad in. or was that always there?

Well, yes for clarity, but as that is who he is clearly addressing, it can't be to anyone else, hence the title of the letter, "Epistle to the Romans"  Do you think it is to someone else?  ::smile::

the Letter from Irenaeus was the only one that really supports your idea but it sounded a lot like he was trying to appeal this idea, and that it was not shared by all the bishops of that time.

Actually he is appealing to the fight against the various non-Christian heresies prevalent at the time and appealing to the unified authority of the Church.

Again I see nothing conclusive that Rome was shared as the capital of all the Christin church.  Do the letters of just a few select bishops have  the unquestioned  support of all the churches and bishops of the empire at that time.

Did you bother to click on the link I provided?  There are more sources there.  Were there other Bishops who did not like such central authority?  I presume so as there are now, but that is not the argument.  

Here is a statement and the problem those who argue the other side have.  1.  These sources are not just "a few Bishops", the sources I listed are regarded as some of the most important Fathers of the Church.    2.  There is certainly a severe lack of any texts and a total lack of any argument of Bishops who disagreed with the idea of Petrine Supremacy.   There is no record of any other model existing before the split in AD 1054.

How is it that the Bishops of the west would not endorse the bishops of Rome in their desperate quest to be the supreme pope of the whole christian church through out  the Empire and beyond. This surely was a lofty and fanciful idea. So now they managed to lie their way into power and the west was split  Now if Rome was alway excepted as the capital of the church and all the bishops there formed a linage of popes and all the church recognized that then what was the oposition of the west.
God bless

I honestly have no idea what you are asking here or what your argument is.  The Bishops of the West did endorse the Bishop of Rome as the Pope.  There is no record of anything else.  Am I missing what you are asking?  I'm confused.  What are you referring to when you say, "lie their way into power"  and "the west was split"?  Split when?  Lie when?   ???  What "opposition of the West"  are you talking about?

I don't argue for the sake of argument. There is a serious point to all this. Surely the papacy was born of  corrupt ambitious men who not only wanted to be supreme papa of Christianity (pontifex maximus) but wanted to rule religiously and politically the whole Empire and known world. Little wonder that it could amass such great wealth and power. Little wonder that Rev 17 says She is the Great wh*re of  Babylon. She was all that Babylon is.

The same tired ole' bigoted garbage.  Won't justify such trash with an answer.  You always know when the person you are arguing with has nothing to say, they just recycle garbage and spew it out without one, single, solitary, shred of proof.  Old hat around here.

I also asked you  when you said you agreed with Selene about the real purpose of the church Christ founded. What is the UN connection?  What is is real purpose and goal there?

What "UN connection" are you talking about?   ???  The Vatican has an ambassador in the UN, as do we, and virtually every single country on the planet.  And that is evil.....how?

: desertknight  Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 03:07:20

: mclees8  Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 01:46:53I really don't see anything here that shows the church of Rome was the established Capital of the whole christian church. or that it was recognized as such by al the Bishops of the empire  And because there was always bishops in Rome is no evidence that they were all popes ( meaning supreme papa of the whole christian church) They were just the bishops of the churches established at Rome. Just like there were other bishops through out Asia. Corinth, Pergomus, and  Antioc  

But lets say that for the sake of the argument that it was as you want to believe

How is that the Bishops of the west would not endorse the bishops of Rome in their desperate quest to be the supreme pope of the whole christian church through out  the Empire and beyond. This surely was a lofty and fanciful idea. So now they managed to lie their way into power and the west was split  Now if Rome was alway excepted as the capital of the church and all the bishops there formed a linage of popes and all the church recognized that then what was the oposition of the west.

Sounds like some flim flam was going on. Things they have manipulated to justify their ill gotten position in your eyes and the eyes of the people.

Ignatius:, "who is also called Theophorus, to the Church, (in Rome), which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

Irenaeus:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian :
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the Church would be built' [Matt. 16:18] with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth' [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Origen :
"if we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Additional sources...

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

The primacy of the Roman See is a well established fact in ecclesiastical history.

These references are what is called hearsay.. and do not constitute admissible evidence in any court of law in the land.

It's equivalent to trying to tell the judge that you heard a friend of a friend of a friend say that so and so did such and such...

I won't accept the RCC unless I see it in Peters own writings.. or in the writings of Paul or any of Jesus' other disciples... without that first hand information, the RCC is nothing but and illegitimate pretender.

We also know those you quoted had a vested interest in maintaining their power by saying those things.  We also know Origin and Tertullian were pretty much heretics if you read all their writings.. even by Roman Catholic standards.  Are you going to believe what a heretic says about the Roman See and reject everything else they say?

: Tantor  Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 16:31:52
These references are what is called hearsay.. and do not constitute admissible evidence in any court of law in the land.

It's equivalent to trying to tell the judge that you heard a friend of a friend of a friend say that so and so did such and such...

Nonsense.  We are not in a court of law and if you do not accept the Fathers of the Church and their judgement then I assume you will not be a hypocrite and accept much of the Bible.  What did Jesus write?  Are Jesus's words in the NT written by Jesus?  NO!  Gee, and that would be in a court of law....hearsay.  How bout' other books of the NT?  Who wrote second Peter?  I don't know of any scholar who thinks Peter did.  I won't even start with the OT as virtually none of it was even written during the time of the events it describes, let alone by any of the principals of it's stories.  And what would the Bible be called in a "court of law"?  Hearsay.  I await your, "But we non-Catholics know the Bible just fell out of a tree, fully formed" response.   Of course, what should we expect when the canon of the Bible was clearly compiled by the criminals in the dock that you identify...the Church Fathers.  It is they, those exact same people who you will not take the word for, who gave you the canon of the Bible.  Even Protestants acknowledge that.

: TantorI won't accept the RCC unless I see it in Peters own writings.. or in the writings of Paul or any of Jesus' other disciples... without that first hand information, the RCC is nothing but and illegitimate pretender.

Without first hand information about what?  I wish you guys would at least pose a cogent argument.  I have no idea what you are referring to.  What specifically are you refering to?

: TantorWe also know those you quoted had a vested interest in maintaining their power by saying those things.  We also know Origin and Tertullian were pretty much heretics if you read all their writings.. even by Roman Catholic standards.  Are you going to believe what a heretic says about the Roman See and reject everything else they say?

Yes, because anyone with any training in history or logic knows that a ad hominem arguments are irrational and fallacious.  It is akin to Hitler saying, "Looks like rain today.", and the respondent saying, "Hitler invaded Poland so obviously he can't be trusted about it looking like rain today".  ::doh::  Uh, no, we look at the conventionally accepted evidence of a subject and then proceed from there.  That evidence is not based on whether the person is a heretic or not.  To me, Calvin was a heretic, but I have read him and enjoyed his thinking in an effort to understand Reformed theology.  If you want to learn and understand something about the history of early Christianity and the Church, then you read the early Fathers of the Church.  

: desertknight  Thu Dec 03, 2009 - 17:14:11
Nonsense.  We are not in a court of law and if you do not accept the Fathers of the Church and their judgement then I assume you will not be a hypocrite and accept much of the Bible.  What did Jesus write?  Are Jesus's words in the NT written by Jesus?  NO!  Gee, and that would be in a court of law....hearsay.  How bout' other books of the NT?  Who wrote second Peter?  I don't know of any scholar who thinks Peter did.  I won't even start with the OT as virtually none of it was even written during the time of the events it describes, let alone by any of the principals of it's stories.  And what would the Bible be called in a "court of law"?  Hearsay.  I await your, "But we non-Catholics know the Bible just fell out of a tree, fully formed" response.   Of course, what should we expect when the canon of the Bible was clearly compiled by the criminals in the dock that you identify...the Church Fathers.  It is they, those exact same people who you will not take the word for, who gave you the canon of the Bible.  Even Protestants acknowledge that.

1.) I believe that those that said they wrote the books of the New Testament.. or they Holy Spirit was telling a falsehood.  To say that they were not written by those that claimed to have written them is basically throwing the Holy Spirit out the window (which is what the RCC has always done).

: TantorI won't accept the RCC unless I see it in Peters own writings.. or in the writings of Paul or any of Jesus' other disciples... without that first hand information, the RCC is nothing but and illegitimate pretender.

Someone from Peter stating the intentions for the "Church that was founded on him being the Rock"... It is pretty clear from biblical timing that Peter never could have physically been in Rome no matter what hearsay you might bring to the argument otherwise.  Peter could not be in two places at the same time and Paul not even once mentioned in his extensive writings that Peter was ever in Rome... not even once.

: TantorWe also know those you quoted had a vested interest in maintaining their power by saying those things.  We also know Origin and Tertullian were pretty much heretics if you read all their writings.. even by Roman Catholic standards.  Are you going to believe what a heretic says about the Roman See and reject everything else they say?

Why is id ad hominem?.. Origen and Tortullian writings reveal their interest in affirming Roman dominance of the Christian world from an orginizational point of view, yet when it comes to all their forays into doctrinal matters, they are pretty much hold stances that are anti-catholic.

As far as the Canon... even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time and God has used evil for good many times throughout history... I only accept the canon based on the standards that the council came up with being very reasonable, logical and sane... it's probabily the only time in history where that has occurred.  But I wouldn't go trumpeting it around to much because others will start delving into the decisions of your church and come out with the same bad taste in their mouth like me.

Catholics worship Baal and Our Lady of Ephesus as far as I am concerned.

: Tantor  Fri Dec 04, 2009 - 06:26:37
1.) I believe that those that said they wrote the books of the New Testament.. or they Holy Spirit was telling a falsehood.  To say that they were not written by those that claimed to have written them is basically throwing the Holy Spirit out the window (which is what the RCC has always done).

Subterfuge.  Christ never wrote a single word that we know of, and yet all that we believe He said is purely "hearsay", by your own forensic definition...now you side step it.  I don't claim that there are books of the Bible not written by the principles within those books, the Bible itself does in it's own chronicle of events.  Did Noah write the book of Genesis?  That would have been a neat trick as it records events long after Noah's death.  Did David write the Book of Samuel?  Did the Apostle John write the Gospel of John?  Even if you believe that John said what was said in the Gospel of John, by your definition, (not mine), we do not have one single surviving manuscript of John's actual authorship and virtually all serious Biblical scholars, particularly in the case of the OT as well as parts of the NT, view Biblical writing as pseudepigraphical, i.e., "hearsay", by your own definition!  Now you want to try to back-pedal on that.

: TantorSomeone from Peter stating the intentions for the "Church that was founded on him being the Rock"... It is pretty clear from biblical timing that Peter never could have physically been in Rome no matter what hearsay you might bring to the argument otherwise.  Peter could not be in two places at the same time and Paul not even once mentioned in his extensive writings that Peter was ever in Rome... not even once.

???  Please quote the biblical passages where it makes clear that Peter could not have been in Rome.  You just got finished saying that you refuse to believe that 1st Peter was written by any other than Peter and yet he states in it...

"1 Peter 5:13  "The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God's election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark."

Hummmm, now as there isn't a single Biblical scholar that I know of that actually believes Peter was in Mesopotamia, and for good reason..."Babylon" had ceased to exist for over two centuries before Peter was even born, then, pray tell. where was he writing from?  It obviously wasn't Jerusalem because that is where he was writing to!  Now we have literally, dozens of historic accounts of Peter's presence in Rome and his execution, but not one scrap of evidence, not one account, not one scholar of note, claims that he went to a city that was sand and centuries old artifacts in order to write 1st Peter.

: TantorWhy is id ad hominem?.. Origen and Tortullian writings reveal their interest in affirming Roman dominance of the Christian world from an orginizational point of view, yet when it comes to all their forays into doctrinal matters, they are pretty much hold stances that are anti-catholic.

That is exactly why it is an ad hominem, because you did nothing to refute their historic account of the Church and it's obvious organisation, you just asserted that because both of them became guilty of doctrinal errors in their lives, that, that somehow negates their observations of the structure of the Christian Church.  That is the very definition of an ad hominem argument.

: TantorAs far as the Canon... even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time and God has used evil for good many times throughout history... I only accept the canon based on the standards that the council came up with being very reasonable, logical and sane... it's probabily the only time in history where that has occurred.  But I wouldn't go trumpeting it around to much because others will start delving into the decisions of your church and come out with the same bad taste in their mouth like me.

Catholics worship Baal and Our Lady of Ephesus as far as I am concerned.

That is because like most separated faithful, your's is a religion of self-centred, "Christianity as I see it" faith.  You accept what you personally "feel" is correct and reject what gives you the "bad jou, jou".  It's a faith of personal observation and interpretation devoid of historic teaching and disinterested Biblical scholarship.  That "bad taste" you are refering to is nothing but bigotry and ignorance.  You are guilty of what the great American southern writer Flannery O'Connor writes of in describing the evangelical Protestantism of her day...

"The (Evangelical) religion of the South is a do-it-yourself religion, something which I as a Catholic find painful and touching and grimly comic. It's full of unconscious pride that lands them in all sorts of ridiculous religious predicaments. They have nothing to correct their practical heresies and so they work them out dramatically."

Peace, brother.

 

We have been through the definition of Babylon many times.  Babylon could not have been Rome.  Peter was a Apostle to the Jew first.. and then the Gentile.  Babylon is where all the Jewish people went when they fled the Roman occupation of Palestine.. and it would make perfect sense for Peter to go there while it would make almost no sense to head to Rome since Paul was already there and Paul was destined to minister to the Gentiles. And like I said, in all the extensive writings of Paul, he never mentioned Peter even once as being in Rome.

Taking travel time into account with Peter's journeys and witness from other books of the bible, it is almost impossible for Peter to have ever been in Rome and it would never have made sense for him to go to Rome in the first place.

I'm of the belief that if you go by history.. Linus (who was killed) was the first Bishop of Rome as appointed by Paul and then Linus was succeeded by Cletus.. and then there was some sort of argument about succession and Cletus gave way to Clement who was appointed by Peter... either way, I think it is obvious that even the early apostles were confused about apostolic succession and it's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

: Tantor  Fri Dec 04, 2009 - 12:14:00
We have been through the definition of Babylon many times.  Babylon could not have been Rome.

Then where was it?  Why does all of the evidence say that it is Rome?  Why do so many writers of that era and immediately after report Peter to have been in Rome and executed there?

: TantorPeter was a Apostle to the Jew first.. and then the Gentile.  Babylon is where all the Jewish people went when they fled the Roman occupation of Palestine.. and it would make perfect sense for Peter to go there while it would make almost no sense to head to Rome since Paul was already there and Paul was destined to minister to the Gentiles. And like I said, in all the extensive writings of Paul, he never mentioned Peter even once as being in Rome.

Huh?  "Babylon" had not been a city for about 200 years before Peter was born.  There was no "Babylon" to go to.  It did not exist.  The reason Paul didn't mention Peter being in Rome was that Paul was there after Peter's death.  He was also not there to appoint anyone Bishop or do any evangelising as such.  He was there as a prisoner making a legal appeal to the emperor as a Roman citizen, (it was his right.).  He lost that appeal and was executed there.

: TantorTaking travel time into account with Peter's journeys and witness from other books of the bible, it is almost impossible for Peter to have ever been in Rome and it would never have made sense for him to go to Rome in the first place.

Please site your biblical sources as evidence.

: TantorI'm of the belief that if you go by history.. Linus (who was killed) was the first Bishop of Rome as appointed by Paul and then Linus was succeeded by Cletus.. and then there was some sort of argument about succession and Cletus gave way to Clement who was appointed by Peter... either way, I think it is obvious that even the early apostles were confused about apostolic succession and it's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

It is possible that Paul may have somehow, been able to anoint Linus as Bishop, but as said, as he was under arrest and was not in Rome to evangelise, it is less likely.  It is far more likely that Peter did as tradition says, which is why Linus is already mentioned as a leader in Rome in 2 Tim. 4:21.

I have never made it out to be "cut and dried", in fact, I have been the one who is continually trying to educate you non-Catholics on what the definition of Apostolic Succession is.   It does not matter greatly whether Paul anointed Linus or Peter did.  It does not mater greatly whether Peter was actually in Rome, although what accounts we have seem to overwhelmingly state that it was so.  It is that the Church proclaimed through her authority that the Chief of the Bishops should be the bishop of Rome is all that is important.  That certainly by Clement I, the authority of Rome as the Chief See is evident in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians.  Now to be clear, it does not make any difference if the Pope or chief Bishop, lives in Rome or the Catskills of New York.  It is the fact that the Church, through the linage of authority of the Apostles, is able to anoint who she wants to positions of authority.  When the Popes were living in France during the Avingon period, they were still the legitimate leaders of the Church.  By tradition, the head of the Church is elected Bishop of Rome, but that title is not the same as the authority the Church has to appoint a chief Bishop.       

Hummmm, now as there isn't a single Biblical scholar that I know of that actually believes Peter was in Mesopotamia, and for good reason..."Babylon" had ceased to exist for over two centuries before Peter was even born, then, pray tell. where was he writing from?  It obviously wasn't Jerusalem because that is where he was writing to!  Now we have literally, dozens of historic accounts of Peter's presence in Rome and his execution, but not one scrap of evidence, not one account, not one scholar of note, claims that he went to a city that was sand and centuries old artifacts in order to write 1st Peter.

Wow!  Yet today neither desertknight, or any other Catholic I have ever met, will admit that Rome is the spiritual Babylon spoken of in the new testament.   Of course when it needed to be Rome, in order to support their teachings, it was, but now it is not.  Is Rome Babylon, or is Rome not Babylon?

: Amo  Fri Dec 04, 2009 - 16:05:31Wow!  Yet today neither desertknight, or any other Catholic I have ever met, will admit that Rome is the spiritual Babylon spoken of in the new testament.   Of course when it needed to be Rome, in order to support their teachings, it was, but now it is not.  Is Rome Babylon, or is Rome not Babylon?

I can only speak for myself and not for others, but I certainly wish you would get your facts straight...

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/bablylon/msg715902/#msg715902