Santorum’s views on the Earth is questionable (as is Chris Matthews' grammar)

Surely you mean nicknamed him Petros?... his name was Simon..

Not according to Jesus it wasn't. No metaphor there.

There were at least four Popes who were contemporaries of Jesus. Perhaps you know more about Christianity than they and their followers did?

[ There were at least four Popes who were contemporaries of Jesus. Perhaps you know more about Christianity than they and their followers did? ]

That would be correct according the roman catholic church history.. which may be historical agitprop..

Other church history says there was no roman catholic church until about 313 a.d. and for sure nothing like a modern pope..

I don’t trust roman catholic veracity.. and am leery of other history’s as well.. A Jewish Pope strains credibility.. Especially a married Jewish Pope..

Other church history says there was no roman catholic church until about 313 a.d. and for sure nothing like a modern pope..

"Other history" and the religious adherents who present it is entitled to "say" whatever it likes. The outlawed Roman Catholic Church can be documented to have been alive and well at least as early as last decades of the first Century AD:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. --St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ca. A.D. 110

A Jewish Pope strains credibility.. Especially a married Jewish Pope..

It appears that you think it is a relevation that some Popes have been married. Over thirty actually. In fact, there is no rule against a Pope being married. For that matter, I know several married priests. And no ethnicities are disqualified from Catholicism either. Certainly not Hebrew. You must be confusing Catholicism with LDS. I don’t trust roman catholic veracity.. and am leery of other history’s as well.. A Jewish Pope strains credibility.. Especially a married Jewish Pope

[ You must be confusing Catholicism with LDS. ]

Not really... I know most of what they both believe..
And also claim to believe.. but not all do...

They both believe some very strange things..
Roman Catholicism and Latter Day Saints are weird religions..
Almost as weird as the Scientology people..

Thats not to ignore some strange beliefs of some of the so-called protestants..
I don’t care what any of them believe.. Atheists also believe some strange stuff..

Strange is a judgment call.. a perception...
What is.... IS.... and What ain’t..... AIN’T..
Some protestants worship their bible... AND
Some catholics(various orthodox) worship their church...

Both would say they don’t but from what I can see.. they DO...
I see that as strange.. you can be strange and I will not hate you..
For.... you need NOT be Smart to be a God believer..
Many dumb or strange people can believe in God... and many are..

I'm confused. On the one hand you seem to have a problem with Catholicism in general. On the other, you back off and indicate that your quarrel is just with some extreme Catholics. And you rightly point out that the same could be said about people of all faiths. No argument there.

But you go out of your way on this and other threads to attack Catholics, the Catholic religion and general, and the Pope in particular.

I responded with documentation that the first Christians, including many who walked with Jesus, and knew Him personally, practiced His faith just as Catholics do today, 2000 years later. I won't claim that I know better than you, but are you saying that you know better than they did?

[ I’m confused. On the one hand you seem to have a problem with Catholicism in general. ]

True you are.. I have a problem with sheep pens.. i.e. John ch 10..

Sheep pens, goat pens, vampire pens, pig pens and hyena pens.. etc..
Course I tend to paraphrase sheep pens into current american culture..

I have been to “churchs” of every size shape and demeanor..
Including synagogues, mosques, temples, shrines, and cathedrals..
house of God, house of prayer, pagoda, pantheon, place of worship..
sanctuary, tabernacle, altar, chancel, holy place, sanctorium, sanctum...

They all are very similar.. designer Gods.. with Used God Salesmen..
Most try to sell me something when all I want is for them to Show me Something..

Interesting that yours is the true Faith, because you are taking only from the Book. Unfortunately, the Book of John was written in approximately 90AD, presumably by a man who was worshiping the same way Catholics do today. If not, it was written at a time when the majority of Christians WERE worshiping exactly as Catholics do today. And they continued to do so for another millennium. In any case, multiple alternative Gospels were available in the 5th Century when the Catholic Church decided to limit the Canon to the Four that we are familiar with today. So, not only do you reject the way Christ's original followers chose to worship Him (including at a time when He was making personal appearances and might have corrected them), but you are also presuming that yours is in an intellect that recognized a flaw in their practice. Presumably they might have corrected a flaw they had seen in John's Gospel. Or left it out of the Canon entirely. They did not.

Or maybe you're the one who got it wrong.

On a personal note, I respect your decision to devote your life to God in your own particular way. The Catholic faith holds that Catholic Communion is not the exclusive path to Christ. Just the easiest and most direct by far.

[ On a personal note, I respect your decision to devote your life to God in your own particular way. The Catholic faith holds that Catholic Communion is not the exclusive path to Christ. Just the easiest and most direct by far. ]

Not from what I can see.. after much searching..
It seems silly and worse dishonest.. much like LDS..

Not from what I can see.. after much searching..

In that case, I feel sorry for you. Your opinions are based on faulty information. If you're really are working hard to discover the truth, you're obviously not very good at it.

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (Catechism #847)

[ In that case, I feel sorry for you. Your opinions are based on faulty information. If you’re really are working hard to discover the truth, you’re obviously not very good at it. ]

Sorry about the abrupt last post.. I tend to be rather clinical.. and abrupt..
Your reading of church history seems to me to be limited..

Thats ok with me though.. as a sheep penner you must be that way I suppose..
Amazing how different RCC “church history” is from other church histories..
You; Having faith that church hierarchy has not “tweeked” their history to match dogma is “cute”...

But you wouldn’t know that, not even “knowing” any other church history.. than the approved “kind”..
Its like LDS approved history it is quite stylized omitting some very important known facts..
And inserting other quasi-”facts” as formulas..

This is done all over the world especially in Russia and China..
Its called brain washing in some circles.. Pavlof techniques in others..
But I don’t feel sorry for you, you seem to be quite happy..
What you see, you see.. and what you don’t see you don’t want to see..
There is a kind of “harmony” in that..

You are being quite vague with your accusations. If your understanding of Church history is so comprehensive, it should be easy for you to provide some concrete examples.

In response to your suggestion that Catholic beliefs were false, it was certainly easy for me to document that the earliest followers of Jesus called themselves Catholics, and followed a Bishop of Rome. It was also easy for me to disprove your suggestion that Catholics are not tolerant and even supportive of other faiths.

[ You are being quite vague with your accusations. If your understanding of Church history is so comprehensive, it should be easy for you to provide some concrete examples. ]

Why... to start a flame war?... No profit in that...
Not much room for consensus between us... maybe a little but overall not much..
Been there, done that... so far never much profit..

Sheep pens seem to be, to me, a halfway house or holding tank..
for people addicted to things of this world basically non spiritual..
They must sober up before they can actually “see something”..
You know....... something “REAL”.. not “pink elephants”..

LIKE: a worldly priest turning a “wafer” into the physical body of Jesus to be fed to the worldly body in a worldly way to be consumed in a worldly ceremony for worldly reasons.. infantile spirituality..

some people, like me, see this as Kabuki Theater with strange noises, costumes, makeup, masks, and theatrical illusion.. a play..

You're going to have to do a LOT better than that. Aside from the New Testament itself, there is plenty of documentation of the earliest Christians, including those who knew Jesus personally, following this practice. Furthermore, it was the central religious practice for the Catholic Church (i.e. "All Christians") for over 1700 years before some misguided Christians decided that he had a better interpretation of ancient books than the people who actually wrote them.

BTW, I thought we were talking about "Papistry" or whatever goofy term you've invented to go with your invented modern theology. If you were actually doing research you claimed, instead of merely defending a belief without precedent, you would know that there is plenty more documentation, both in the NT, and from contemporary eyewitness accounts that the original Christians were practicing EXACTLY as Christ had intended, and that those practices remain pretty much unchanged 2000 years later.

But, again, if you feel more comfortable with your onw new-age personal relationship feel free to continue. If I might make a suggestion, it would be to avoid trying to insult people who don't believe as you do with lables like "sheep." OTOH, if you simply must lable us, you might want to think of a better term for how we have been instructed to follow the Shepherd.

[ BTW, I thought we were talking about “Papistry” ]

Well you’re wrong as you no doubt mostly are about many other things..
I reject roman catholic scewed views of history..

Like I said already.. how can we inspect “things” together..
We believe two very different views of reality..

You are limited to RCC historical views.. I am not..
You are not familiar with/to real historical views..
We are not on the same page of the same book..

I applaud you trying to dialog with me but you’re reality is limited..
and you show no willingness to dialog you’re hamstrung by dogma.. I am not..
Its like I’m describing a landscape to a blind man.. (to much work)..

I use transubstantiation only as an example.. not a subject for discourse..
If your in the half-way house of the RCC I say good..
Thats where you ought to be.. its good you are there..

Well you’re wrong as you no doubt mostly are about many other things.. I reject roman catholic scewed views of history..

Like I said already.. how can we inspect “things” together.. We believe two very different views of reality..

You are limited to RCC historical views.. I am not.. You are not familiar with/to real historical views.. We are not on the same page of the same book..

You're a broken record my friend. You keep alluding to a set of alternative facts without backing it up. Your primary dispute with the Catholic faith was based on your rejection of the Pope. So I provided evidence in the form of a first century letter that documented the practice was alive, well and respected at a time when Christ's actual followers were available to dispute it. Furthermore, the letter was well-know, and alluded to throughout history. It existed without disupute for seventeen centuries. So, no, my point is not limited to RCC historical views. If you have concrete evidence to dispute my facts, now is the time to bring them forth. Again, on the one hand we have a practice that was accepted by the people who walked and spoke with Jesus. On the other, we have a misguided latter-day interpretation of words in a book. A book that is most certainly not a "living document."

Its all well and good to say that a person is "limited" and "misguided," but you started this conversation. You say I'm wrong, but you are unable to provide one specific example of how.

[ Your primary dispute with the Catholic faith was based on your rejection of the Pope. ]

Not at all.. I don’t begrudge roman catholics or other orthodox their “Popes”..
Even protestants and LDS have their “Popes”... and other talismans.. and amulets..
They use other words but the mendacious scam is the same..

What crawls my nape is the Cargo Cultish behaviors..
The cargo is different but the group think is the same..
As I’ve said, they(cults/religions) are needed as “holding tanks” for sobering up.. “drying out”..

I am not sure much of what I deduced to you has penetrated..
You seem to have missed most of it.. maybe not, but it seems that way..

Could be because we are not on the same page..
I do know what you are saying because “I’ve been there”..
Me, Expecting “you” to follow me.. may be a bit too generous..

But I do play with the Cargo Cultists on occasion..
Call it “Brotherly Love”...

If you're saying that cultish behavior can be a side-effect of organized religion, I have no argument with you. I have also observed it to be a problem for those like yourself, who base their faith on a personal relationship with God.

However, if you are not celebrating the Eucharist regularly, you are specifically disregarding Christ's instructions in favor of your own religious superiority complex. The problem with what you are doing (basing your faith on your own personal interpretation of the Bible), is that we have concrete historical evidence that recognizable Catholicism was being practiced BEFORE any versions of the New Testament were recorded.

Translation: If you are not a Catholic, you are not worshiping the way that those who actually knew Jesus did.

[ if you are not celebrating the Eucharist regularly, you are specifically disregarding Christ’s instructions in favor of your own religious superiority complex. ]

The so-called “Eucharist” or “Lords Table” has been made a cartoon by many versions of “christians”.. It is based on the passover.. which the Jews made a cartoon by their celebration..

The night before Jesus crucifixion (Last Supper) was indeed a passover dinner.. or “Eucharist”.. All present knew they were at a passover so-called “feast” those present being all Jews..

But some of the apostles were so removed from the real meaning of passover they didnt understand Jesus comments..
when he likened himself to the passover lamb and passover wine.. He said they must eat him and drink his blood..
Many of them(apostles and others) were offended..

The RCC Eucharist is a cartoon.. masking this “reality”...
and many protestant celebrations are the same.. maybe all of them..

I realize you may have been stunted in your observations by RCC dogma.. but that is not my fault.. Me, slapping transubstantiation on the butt (where the wafer comes out of).. is only given in brotherly love..

Jesus saying you must eat my flesh and drink my blood was not unusual speaking since Hebrew uses metaphorical idioms widely to express thoughts.. as does Aramaic.. The mystery is how dumb and non spiritual some of the apostles were..

You know.. like the average Roman Catholic.. and not a few “prosties”..

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.