Why be RC, why be Protestant

[mclees8]

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

[larry2]

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

[papist1]

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

[mclees8]

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.

[papist1]

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

[mclees8]

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

[papist1]

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

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

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

[papist1]

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

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

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.

[papist1]

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

[Tantor]

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.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

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.

[mclees8]

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]

[mclees8]

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.   

[desertknight]

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.

[mclees8]

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.   

[desertknight]

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.

[mclees8]

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

[desertknight]

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...

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?

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. 
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.

[mclees8]

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

[desertknight]

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.

[mclees8]

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?

[desertknight]

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. 

[mclees8]

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.   

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

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.

[broach972]

I love common sense.

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

[trifecta]

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  ) 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.

[papist1]

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

[mclees8]

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

[papist1]

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.

[mclees8]

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  ?

[Magnificat]

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.

[mclees8]

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   

[banished]

b

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?