Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Papacy / Hierarchy in the Bible
http://thechurchofchristiscatholic.com ^

Posted on 03/08/2014 10:06:40 PM PST by NKP_Vet

The following outline shows that Jesus intended to create a holy, visible Church; complete with a prime minister, a hierarchy, binding authority, and perpetuity—the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

It is important for Protestants to understand some basic facts. Contrary to the modern belief that the Bible is a “blueprint” or “textbook” which explains how a church should be structured, it is a product of the Catholic Church—a compilation of writings that reflect a structure that was already present. As such, the “Bible alone” has no reason to provide fine details of proper ecclesiology; however, proper ecclesiology is detectable. Shortly after Jesus’ resurrection, the Catholic Church wrote lots of letters. The Catholic Church discerned which of those letters were inspired. By the end of the fourth century (Councils of Hippo A.D. 393 and Carthage A.D. 397) the Catholic Church finalized the “table of contents” of the Scriptures and called the entire body of writing “the Bible”. In other words, the Bible would not even exist if the popes and the hierarchy did not exist.

(Excerpt) Read more at thechurchofchristiscatholic.com ...


TOPICS: Apologetics; History; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholicchurch; church; freneau
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-385 next last
In sum, a select group of men were given offices by Jesus Himself. A specific office was assigned to St. Peter. St. Peter’s role is perpetual. Those men within the hierarchy had authority, and chose to perpetuate their authority by assigning successors. Scripture offers no indication that such authority should ever cease or that succession should ever stop. The apostolic office was given the Spirit that would guide the Church into all truth. The decisions of those men are binding. The apostolic office is the visible teaching authority for the worldwide Church. Entrance into Holy Orders is limited to people who are properly chosen. Nowhere in Scripture is there a demonstration of Protestant-styled clergy with Protestant-styled (self-grabbed) offices being taken. Nowhere in Scripture is private interpretation that conflicts with the established hierarchy condoned. Proper interpretation of the Bible is the Church’s responsibility. Sacred Tradition is as authoritative as Sacred Scripture. In other words, “Bible Christians” are those who recognize that God intended a visible Church with Christ as King and with St. Peter’s successor as his prime minister—a papacy and a hierarchy. Ergo, Catholics are the true Bible Christians, and the Catholic Church is the real, and only, Church of Christ.
1 posted on 03/08/2014 10:06:40 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Guess we can disagree on that. Nice hermeneutical gymnastics the author takes.


2 posted on 03/08/2014 10:18:24 PM PST by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; metmom; daniel1212; All

You sure?

“Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.” (Augustine, John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

“For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. (Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV)(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)

“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.

Compare Augustine’s argument with these facts about the Greek of Petros and Petra:

Peter – rock
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm

Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.

Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).

“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.

4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

Augustine again:

“For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra;”

By the way, isn’t this the second time you’ve launched a thread like this? Don’t you get bored with it?


3 posted on 03/08/2014 10:19:25 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


4 posted on 03/08/2014 10:20:49 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (HELL, NO! BE UNGOVERNABLE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

“complete with a prime minister, a hierarchy, binding authority,,,,”

Sure, everyone can see that by how Jesus comported himself during his time on earth. He insisted he be regarded as a head of state, and that a hierarchy be followed at all times, nobody could meet him unless they satisfied the lower echelons first, and of course,, he insisted that all treat him as an authority figure.

Anyone can look at the work of Jesus and instantly see that Christ never created anything like the Vatican and a monarchist government.


5 posted on 03/08/2014 10:21:13 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I think they might have blown it when they excluded Enoch.


6 posted on 03/08/2014 10:23:43 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (HELL, NO! BE UNGOVERNABLE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change; ...
It is important for Protestants to understand some basic facts. Contrary to the modern belief that the Bible is a “blueprint” or “textbook” which explains how a church should be structured, it is a product of the Catholic Church—a compilation of writings that reflect a structure that was already present. As such, the “Bible alone” has no reason to provide fine details of proper ecclesiology; however, proper ecclesiology is detectable. Shortly after Jesus’ resurrection, the Catholic Church wrote lots of letters. The Catholic Church discerned which of those letters were inspired. By the end of the fourth century (Councils of Hippo A.D. 393 and Carthage A.D. 397) the Catholic Church finalized the “table of contents” of the Scriptures and called the entire body of writing “the Bible”. In other words, the Bible would not even exist if the popes and the hierarchy did not exist.

Scripture existed outside the Catholic church and was Scripture long before the Catholic church was around to give it its stamp of approval. Scripture does not need the corrupt, immoral leadership of Catholicism to validate it. It stands on its own as the God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word of God.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say,...? is always the work of Satan.

And it's staggering to think that Satan is STILL getting so much mileage out of impugning the word of God.

1.2 billion strong gullible.

7 posted on 03/08/2014 10:28:12 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

It always strikes me as interesting. Roman Catholic writings are everywhere trying to attack everything Protestants believe. Protestants spend very little time worrying about Catholics.

The RCC seems obsessed with American Protestants, Lutherans, Orthodox, Church of England,,,etc etc. Its always the same thing. Everyone else is wrong, and they are always nearly to the point of reunification with the ones who left the RCC. Or in the case of the Orthodox, those who the RCC left.

Either way, its like some nutty ex who can’t accept that it’s over. We are cordial, we don’t hate you, but no,,, we aren’t moving back in, and we are quite happy in our new life, even though you are sure we are utterly in the wrong.

It feels like you might slash our tires or something,,, do we need a restraining order?


8 posted on 03/08/2014 10:29:06 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; metmom; daniel1212; All
The Catholic Church discerned which of those letters were inspired. By the end of the fourth century (Councils of Hippo A.D. 393 and Carthage A.D. 397) the Catholic Church finalized the “table of contents” of the Scriptures and called the entire body of writing “the Bible”.

What's with this make believe history? Those councils were local and had nothing to do with Rome, and, in fact, did not represent the majority view of the entire church, nor of the west, which held to a different canon, as represented by Jerome, Athanasius and others. They viewed the apocrypha, for example, as being "scripture" only in a certain sense, that is, as useful for the edification of morals, but not for the creation of doctrine. (Though not all would suffer to even call it "scripture" in any sense.) Observe:

Athanasius on the apocrypha:

“But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former [standard new and old testament canon], my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read.” (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)

Rufinus on the Apocrypha:

“But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical:’ that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named ‘Apocrypha.’ These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken” (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 36, p. 557-558.).

Jerome on the Apocrypha

“These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.

You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter...The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ... The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle - that to the Hebrews - is not generally counted in with the others) ... The Acts of the Apostles ... The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome’s Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy scriptures...Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon...Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels...the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles...let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs...Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt (Ibid., Letter CVII.12).

What the Savior declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples...But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant...The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Savior, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes...We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater...”(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160).

Cardinal Cajetan calls them not “canonical for the confirmation of the faith,” but “canonical” only in a certain sense for the “edification of the faithful.”

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

Official prefaces to Latin translations, endorsed by Popes, of the scripture making the same distinction:

“At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.” ( B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471.)

The Papists use make-believe history to support their claims. A clear examination of the material, however, always shows something different.

9 posted on 03/08/2014 10:29:11 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Life must really be tough when *Prots* know more about church history and the ECF’s than Catholics do.


10 posted on 03/08/2014 10:46:21 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

BORING!

11 posted on 03/08/2014 10:49:08 PM PST by boatbums (Simul justis et peccator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Sometimes the hierarchy does not turn out as it was meant to be.

Ezek 9:

3 And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer’s inkhorn by his side;

4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:

6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.

7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.

8 And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem?

9 Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seeth not.

10 And as for me also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head.


12 posted on 03/08/2014 11:00:28 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

You know, having read several tirades like this from Catholic posters, I am inclined to agree with you. The trend today, certainly in Protestantism, is for a steady decline in denominational differences, but the RCC (or at least elements within in) just doesn’t seem to want to play ball. Meanwhile secularism continues to dominate Western nations; Islam is infiltrating everywhere; an old enemy (paganism) has made a surprise comeback (in the form of wicca, hinduism, and neo-paganism) and there doesn’t seem to be any concerted response from the biggest player in Christianity.


13 posted on 03/09/2014 1:02:30 AM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Thanks for pointing out the errors in Catholic theology.


14 posted on 03/09/2014 5:22:53 AM PDT by Kent1957
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Subscribed


15 posted on 03/09/2014 6:15:34 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: metmom

1.2 billion gullible is what concerns me, that’s a lot of people being misled.

I think the Catholic church will be the end times church revelation talks about, watch for Islam being brought into the fold at some point. That’s just my thoughts on it.

I do know it’s a dangerous thing, like JW, Mormonism, and any of those cults that say they follow the bible, but use their own versions and then they also make up their own rules.


16 posted on 03/09/2014 6:17:07 AM PDT by Bulwyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Another bogus article.


17 posted on 03/09/2014 6:21:10 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

“Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.”

Paul has good instruction about those who post threads like this - continually.


18 posted on 03/09/2014 6:26:03 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

The argument made here (and constantly elsewhere on FR) favoring the the Papacy being the guardian and interpreter of scripture is like saying that the Post Master should be in charge of interpreting the Constitution rather than the Supreme Court because Paul Revere warned that the British were coming.


19 posted on 03/09/2014 7:09:51 AM PDT by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

“By the way, isn’t this the second time you’ve launched a thread like this? Don’t you get bored with it”.

Don’t you get bored with playing verbal gymnastics to deny the truth?


20 posted on 03/09/2014 7:28:55 AM PDT by NKP_Vet ("I got a good Christin' raisin', an 8th grade education, ain't no need ya'll treatin' me this way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

“Protestants spend very little time worrying about Catholics”.

You want me to go back and list all the Catholic-bashing remarks from protestants on FR? 100 to 1 favor of protestants bashing anything and everything that is posted about Catholicism. Even when a Catholic Caucus thread is started you have the usual Catholic bashers weighing in to tell Catholics how wrong their faith is.

It’s called protestant guilt and it’s alive and well on FR.


21 posted on 03/09/2014 7:33:44 AM PDT by NKP_Vet ("I got a good Christin' raisin', an 8th grade education, ain't no need ya'll treatin' me this way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Makes a nice Christmas present.

http://www.amazon.com/The-One-True-Faith-Bible/dp/B0095229NA


22 posted on 03/09/2014 7:39:01 AM PDT by NKP_Vet ("I got a good Christin' raisin', an 8th grade education, ain't no need ya'll treatin' me this way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
I never spent more than a few seconds at most, thinking about Roman Catholicism for the better part of my life --- until a few of those ilk started trying to take over FreeRepublic and make it into Roman Catholic proselytization-land

Here, from the link [provided just above];

Do see that part where it says "attempting to convert people to another religion or opinion"?

Well, daily we are inundated with [Roman] Catholic promotional materials. Sometimes, those even speak of Christ (though one often enough needs to really look, or wade through the swamps of Catholicism this or Catholicism that just to catch a brief glimpse of Christ--Him being such a prisoner of that cult and all...)

Some of us here know Christ from outside of the narrow confines of Catholicism -- and can see that much of the RCC promotional thread postings (not all of them, and not all of them in ever aspect perhaps) are as much propoganda as anything, disagree because we KNOW BETTER than as things are often stated, so in exercise of our own freedoms, make our case for our own views.

If that doesn't well enough suite you --- are you logged on? Does your sister get nibbled by mooses? How about cheese? Do you like cheese? I like cheese...

Oh, and here's a bunny --with a waffle!


23 posted on 03/09/2014 8:01:09 AM PDT by BlueDragon (You can observe a lot just by watching. Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

Peter didn’t want him to be crucified. Different situation. He was just expressing his dismay at the thought of a good friend being put to death.

How would you feel if your best friend said that he must go somewhere and then be put to death? Wouldn’t you say that he/she was nonsensical too?


24 posted on 03/09/2014 8:08:21 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

I think you have that backwards. Catholics post the truth; it’s the Protestants that attack.


25 posted on 03/09/2014 8:09:42 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

There are two choices:

1. Jesus revoked His previous statement.
2. Jesus lied.


26 posted on 03/09/2014 8:16:26 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (HELL, NO! BE UNGOVERNABLE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

You are leaving Peter out of the picture.

Christ’s statement stands.


27 posted on 03/09/2014 8:19:06 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Catholics do not try to convince you to change your ways (Proselytize). We merely post the truth and ask you to consider it.

On the contrary, I have had Protestant tell me to read the Bible (I do already.) and be saved. (I was saved by my Baptism of water and the Spirit.

So their exhortations fall on a mind that is totally satisfied with the truth as Christ taught it.

BTW, do you believe in the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?


28 posted on 03/09/2014 8:28:29 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

It’s the part about bound on earth and in heaven.
It was revoked or a lie.


29 posted on 03/09/2014 8:38:17 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (HELL, NO! BE UNGOVERNABLE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

It’s the part about bound on earth and in heaven.
It was revoked or a lie.


30 posted on 03/09/2014 8:38:17 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (HELL, NO! BE UNGOVERNABLE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I don't believe a word of the above. Sorry, I've been here too long. I know what happens...and I know that a significant amount of what Romanists call "truth" is not truth, but instead is distortion of it---as I (and many others) have taken pains to lay out in some detail on these pages, as to the how and why of it all...

Otherwise --no questions please...until you provide answer for why you tell Protestants (and others, anyone within earshot, actually) what they should believe.

Then, after that is taken under consideration, turn it around the other way, and tell us why Protestants (whoever the heck those people are) cannot do just as you, yourself do.

31 posted on 03/09/2014 8:38:18 AM PDT by BlueDragon (You can observe a lot just by watching. Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

“Paul has good instruction about those who post threads like this - continually”.

Paul was speaking about protestants and other faiths that spread heresy. Paul was a Catholic, as were all the other followers of Christ.


32 posted on 03/09/2014 9:08:57 AM PDT by NKP_Vet ("I got a good Christin' raisin', an 8th grade education, ain't no need ya'll treatin' me this way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Scripture existed outside the Catholic church and was Scripture long before the Catholic church was around to give it its stamp of approval. Scripture does not need the corrupt, immoral leadership of Catholicism to validate it. It stands on its own as the God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word of God."

The Catholic Church examined and compiled the scriptures, sifted out the false gospels, and preserved the holy word from every form of attack centuries before Protestantism came on the scene.

If not for the Catholic Church, neither you, me, or anyone would have the scriptures.

33 posted on 03/09/2014 9:41:12 AM PDT by Wyrd bi ful ard (Pope Calvin the 1st, defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; Greetings_Puny_Humans
"Paul has good instruction about those who post threads like this - continually."

Both Catholics and Protestants post threads like this with great frequency. Why are you suddenly taking issue with it?

34 posted on 03/09/2014 9:43:07 AM PDT by Wyrd bi ful ard (Pope Calvin the 1st, defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
"If not for the Catholic Church, neither you, me, or anyone would have the scriptures."

I beg to differ here...... if not for the Protestant Reformation, the only Bible you and I would have would be the One in use before the Reformation, written (translated) in Latin so that the common man would not be able to read it himself, but rather would need the Catholic church Hierarchy to interpret it for him.

35 posted on 03/09/2014 9:56:02 AM PDT by Apple Pan Dowdy (... as American as Apple Pie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Blue,
Simple basic truth..

they changed the sabbath..
they changed the calendar (and darn near the whole world follows it)..
they use a Greek/Latin transliteration and pawn that off as a real name for the Jewish Messiah.
if we are truthful and speak English, Joshua, a name in our bibles is His English transliterated name.(actually a name for an important Jew in the old testament) but hey, what’s in a name?

And if we want real truth, more protestants go right along with those ‘truths’ of the roman catholic church and accept them as their ‘truth’ because the whole world and our church fathers who came before us accepted them as their truth...

If the catholic church is what the reformers and many protestants believe it is in scripture, how is being an offspring and daugter of their foundation a good thing?

How much of that foundation do you feel comfortable standing on? I am not comfortable with any of it anymore..

With those basic truths they share, protestants in large numbers are right beside their mother on that foundation, never even contemplating or thinking about it- those are just worldwide ‘givens’ and their ‘truth’ too.. some protestants have made changes but they share one of those three usually..

Just some thoughts that can unify Catholics and Protestants...against me if nothing else :)


36 posted on 03/09/2014 10:02:22 AM PDT by delchiante
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
The scripture was compiled by the Church. Had the Church not compiled it, it would not exist today in the form it does.

"...written (translated) in Latin so that the common man would not be able to read it himself, but rather would need the Catholic church Hierarchy to interpret it for him."

Latin, English, or otherwise, how many of the "common man" do you think could read, period? England had a literacy rate of about 30% in the early 1600s IIRC (counting males only, for women it would have been even less.)

37 posted on 03/09/2014 10:04:21 AM PDT by Wyrd bi ful ard (Pope Calvin the 1st, defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

Seems like many many people did not trouble reading and understanding the Bible after it was translated into a language they understood. In fact that was the end of the “dark ages”.


38 posted on 03/09/2014 10:46:56 AM PDT by Apple Pan Dowdy (... as American as Apple Pie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy

The fact is that it was NOT the Catholic church that translated it into English..... it was done by the Protestant reformers.


39 posted on 03/09/2014 10:48:20 AM PDT by Apple Pan Dowdy (... as American as Apple Pie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
"Seems like many many people did not trouble reading and understanding the Bible after it was translated into a language they understood. In fact that was the end of the “dark ages”."

you've got your timeline seriously skewed. Luther produced his version of the new Testament in the early 1500's, and the entire bible in the 1530's. Tyndale's, a translation to English of Luther's New Testament, came in the 1520's. A slew of different versions were produced up through the late 1500's, including the Douay-Rheims. The King James was compiled in the first decade or so of the 1600s.

And Yet, literacy rates in England (excepting Wales), Scotland and France remained around only 60% into the 1700s.

41 posted on 03/09/2014 11:05:46 AM PDT by Wyrd bi ful ard (Pope Calvin the 1st, defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Bulwyf
I think the Catholic church will be the end times church revelation talks about, watch for Islam being brought into the fold at some point. That’s just my thoughts on it.

The stage is set with the RCC's teaching on muslims in their Catechism.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

42 posted on 03/09/2014 11:10:22 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bulwyf
Oh, and this......

The pope kissing the Koran.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330


43 posted on 03/09/2014 11:11:36 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
A specific office was assigned to St. Peter.

Oh??

44 posted on 03/09/2014 11:26:35 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
In sum, a select group of men were given offices by Jesus Himself.

Oh??

1 Corinthians 12:27-31

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.


How on EARTH did Paul fail to mention the POPE?


45 posted on 03/09/2014 11:29:48 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Paul was a Catholic, as were all the other followers of Christ.

Unfortunately (for this case) Paul has gone to his reward. I would absolutely LOVE to have him expound on current Catholic doctrine. Just like he did with the Judaizers and other false teachers of his day.

Fortunately, we do have his words of exhortation, his words of 'another gospel, all those militate against the current Catholic dogma.

46 posted on 03/09/2014 11:56:22 AM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
"literacy rates in England (excepting Wales), Scotland and France remained around only 60% into the 1700s. "

Nothing skewed here..... 60% being able to read the bible without depending on the Catholic church to interpret for them, is better than 0%. And think about it, that 60% could and was reading it to their family and congregations.

47 posted on 03/09/2014 12:01:25 PM PDT by Apple Pan Dowdy (... as American as Apple Pie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
If not for the Catholic Church, neither you, me, or anyone would have the scriptures.

Wouldn't have a thread without this: God preserved His Word as He said He would. A small sampling:PSALM 12:6-7, PSALM 33:11, MATTHEW 24:35

If God could raise children of Abraham from stones: Luke 3:8, He would have raised up a preserver of scripture. Rejoice then that the early Catholic church was honored to preserve the scriptures. Perhaps today's Catholics will read them, hear the voice of God and return to His revealed method of salvation. By grace through faith. Eph 2: 1-10

48 posted on 03/09/2014 12:04:03 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
How on EARTH did Paul fail to mention the POPE?

1 Peter 2:5-86, how did the 'Pope' fail to mention the Pope?

49 posted on 03/09/2014 12:07:42 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

“Paul was speaking about protestants and other faiths that spread heresy. Paul was a Catholic, as were all the other followers of Christ.”

Occasionally, you post things that really stand out. Often as examples that are not good.

1. There were no Protestants.
2. He was writing about those who spread dissection - as a great many of your threads seem to do.
3. Paul was a Christian.


50 posted on 03/09/2014 12:14:54 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-385 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson