Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Defense of the Papacy: 9 Reasons True Christians Follow the Pope
stpeterslist ^ | February 21, 2013 | HHAMBROSE

Posted on 02/22/2013 5:43:18 PM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 451-483 next last
To: boatbums
It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church persecuted other Christians who refused to give allegiance to the Pope of Rome.
They justified their actions by citing such proclamations as those of Pope Boniface in his Unam Sanctum and so-called "heretics" were persecuted and prosecuted - some even executed - based solely on their refusal to be subject to the Pope.

It sure seemed as though this teaching was incontrovertible back then, but now they say it was just a misunderstanding and he really didn't mean it the way it sounded.

Peoples' LIVES were at stake here!

It is stuff like this that convinces me that the Roman Catholic Church cannot possibly be THE one, true church.

It is patently obvious that Jesus was speaking of a spiritual body and not an institution whose claim to fame is longevity.

If what they teach is NOT verified by the sole, objective authority we have - the Word of God - then they are no more authentic than any other religion is.

Amen sister.
251 posted on 02/24/2013 4:44:25 PM PST by Syncro ("So?" - Andrew Breitbart The King of All Media (RIP Feb 1, 1969 – Mar 1, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: NYer; boatbums
we occasionally post a thread that meets biblical (sic) scrutiny

Could you post a link to one?

Thanks.

252 posted on 02/24/2013 4:52:34 PM PST by Syncro ("So?" - Andrew Breitbart The King of All Media (RIP Feb 1, 1969 – Mar 1, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; All

Nothing flippant. It’s simply a response to the nonsense that you claim to refute what was said earlier. We believe that not everything the Christ said was recorded. To which you responded, that you were referring to His words not actions suggesting that all His words were written.

What was pointed out to you was the sheer absurdity of this proposition because it suggests that Christ remained speechless when He performed a vast array of acts. (John: 21: 25) Obviously since this cannot be the case, it proves the point that not everything the Christ said was written. This is why Peter and his successors were entrusted with teaching ONE TRUTH, not a multitude of interpretations that have been spawned since the schism. The Church as the rock, is founded on scripture, tradition as handed down by the successors of St. Peter, revelation, and experience and has become the mustard tree that now covers all corners of the world.


253 posted on 02/24/2013 5:03:57 PM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Who is being incoherent?

For failure to consider context, that would be you...

I pointed directly towards how gnosticism was dealt with early on. They did not allude to things Christ did (or said) not part of the record. For whatever reason, that was ignored by yourself, with the focus of the exchange steered towards fill-in-the-blank word games (concerning what Christ MAY have said that wasn't recorded)

I recognize that as a camel's nose under the edge of the tent sort-of-thing, as did the one whom first responded to you here concerning it, along with another having taken pains to provide wider context.

When after that having been pointed out, have one in effect say "what nose?, what camel?" it's then plain enough from that display of incoherence, the rest of the conversation will be incoherent, for it will focus on everything BUT that camel.

254 posted on 02/24/2013 5:36:36 PM PST by BlueDragon (what do you mean he has bullet holes in his mirrors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
you missed the entire section concerning other churches....perhaps you missed the disagreements between Rome and Egypt or the disagreements between Rome and northern Africa or the disagreements between Rom and Constantinople. You view history through the lens of Rome . I on the other hand have studied history....Rome claims much that is untrue and always has been. God on the other hand is truly infallible

I missed nothing...the Eastern schism was very bad but not a disaster because both sides, East and West agree on ALL the major precepts of the church...the basic desagreement is on the role of the leader and who he is....You have not studied history or you would never make the claim that Rome claims ANYTHING that is untrue....in fact it is now time

255 posted on 02/24/2013 6:16:05 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Don't you think there is a difference between words and action? Scripture clearly says Jesus DID many other things that IF they had been written down, the whole world could not contain all that COULD be written. That is a far cry from insisting, as your church does, that Jesus SAID many things not written down and then attributing these "sayings" to Tradition that was orally passed down and equally binding on all Christians as his words were. They produce no real proof of what these unwritten sayings were

you have to be kidding....Jesus was a human being and He said zillions of things that were not recorded...He didn't even know the apostles until He was an adult. How many wonderful things must He have said to His parents, relatives, friends, that we will never get to hear. Maybe one of His boyhood friends fell and was injured...perhaps Jesus wiped away the injury and comforted His friend.....they were ten years old, chances are that it didn't make the big book. For you, or anyone, to claim that everything that Jesus said was somehow recorded is nonsense!!!

256 posted on 02/24/2013 6:33:47 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
You don't have to make Christians look bad in order to make Catholicism look good. Or maybe you do.

a strange comment indeed....Catholicism is Christianity.

if you care to follow some lesser "denomination" so be it, but whatever it is, it is NOT full Christianity.

there can only be one true Christian Church on Earth....there is, and it is Catholicism. All other denominations are indeed Christian, but not FULLY Christian. Close doesn't count, they fell away from the true Christian church and became outsiders looking in....not wrong, not evil, just incomplete.

257 posted on 02/24/2013 6:45:29 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
You view history through the lens of Rome . I on the other hand have studied history....Rome claims much that is untrue and always has been. God on the other hand is truly infallible

my previous post was somehow cut short...please point out, for we who are not historians, what Rome claims that is in error historically....ANYTHING WILL HELP !!

258 posted on 02/24/2013 7:01:00 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon; All

We are not talking here about camels or noses. Quite simply, there are MANY things that Christ said and did that are not part of recorded Scripture. They were handed down by what we have come to know as the oral tradition from Peter and his apostles to his successors the Popes may of whom were the early Church Fathers and saints of the Church. This is the received tradition of Holy Scripture along with revelation that is the true deposit of the faith. There cannot be multiples truths. If that were so every street corner pastor in every FourSquare Church would claim to be to be teaching the Gospel of our Lord including Joel Osteen, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Mormons, the Church of Scientology...you get the point. This is why great thinkers, philosophers, scientists, essayists like GK Chesterton, including atheists and a former Chief Rabbi of Rome all converted to Catholicism. That the current Pope has been called the Theological Einstein of our times simply adds an exclamation point to all of this who has famously said that faith and reason are braided together to make for the compelling witness to Truth contained in the Catholic Credo. “The One True, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church...” The Church for the ages where the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her.


259 posted on 02/24/2013 7:11:59 PM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

I’m not on FR too much, but if you are, how about being the change you’d like to see? Next time you see a thread that seems designed to provoke confrontation, why not refuse the bait and instead objectively point out the problem? Point out what prevents a charitable discussion and see if anyone will join you in talking over facts instead of trading insults. I would! I’m much more attracted to fruits of the Holy Spirit than sour apples :) Just my 2 cents worth.


260 posted on 02/24/2013 7:35:21 PM PST by PeevedPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: NYer; boatbums
THANK YOU for your apology to boatbums and (I hope) by extension to all nonCatholic Christians. I was embarrassed and scandalized that a fellow Catholic would post an article whose title states that nonCatholics aren't "true" Christians. That kind of mindset is neither charitable nor in keeping with Catholic teaching. I can understand and empathize with any nonCatholic Christian who felt poked by a stick (or worse) by this post.

Please excuse me if my words come across as harsh. They aren't intended to be. I sometimes say something with the best of intentions and only later realize how thoughtless it was. I don't believe you had negative motives for your post but I can understand that others might disagree.

Peace be with you.

261 posted on 02/24/2013 8:00:50 PM PST by PeevedPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

You don't have to make Christians look bad in order to make Catholicism look good. Or maybe you do.

a strange comment indeed.....

Well I see from your other statements that it appears you still do have that need.

God is patient with you, so I will be too.

The fact that your Catholicism keeps drawing a circle with Biblical Christianity outside of Catholic Christianity causes God to draw a bigger circle encompassing Biblical Christianity and Catholic Christianity.

Any Catholics wishing to take part in Biblical Christianity God welcomes to break through the wall and join His True church.
The church that is made up of EVERY born again person that has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and lives his/her life with Jesus inside them and them inside Jesus.

And as usual it is your statement--Catholicism is Christianity-- that is strange indeed.

Christianity is what was just explained to you above.

if you care to follow some lesser "denomination" so be it, but whatever it is, it is NOT full Christianity.
There are no second class Christians, you either are a Christian in it's fullness, or you are not.

You may follow your denomination, but Biblical Christianity has not followers of denominations, just followers of Jesus as the Bible commands.

For Catholics to put themselves above Biblical Christians is not from God.

Just because Catholism requires putting your denomination between you and God doesn't mean that Biblical Christianity has to follow that "strange" belief.

there can only be one true Christian Church on Earth
There is and it is explained above. It is NOT Catholicism.

Catholicism CAN be included, it's an individual decision.

Personal relationships with Jesus are just that...and between each individual and Jesus.

All other denominations are indeed Christian, but not FULLY Christian
LOL, there you go again as Reagan would say.

An individual is either fully Christian, or not Christian. Period.

You can't be "kinda" Christian any more than you can be "kinda" preganant. You either are or you are not.

Gosh, Catholics have such a hard time accepting Biblical Christians as complete Christians.

Well God does, His word confirms it.

All other denominations are indeed Christian, but not FULLY Christian. Close doesn't count, they fell away from the true Christian church and became outsiders looking in....not wrong, not evil, just incomplete.
There are literally millions of Biblical Christians that have never had anything to do with the Catholic Church, so to claim that they "fell away" from it is pure foolishness.

Biblical Christians ARE members of the True Christian church and yes...they do look into Catholism, but from a perspective of Jesus looking at a broken system that enslaves to traditons and following a man, the pope, instead of God Incarnate.

You can be set free.

John 8:31-32 "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

36: If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Jesus is standing at the door.
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened." Matthew 7:7-8

262 posted on 02/24/2013 8:07:22 PM PST by Syncro ("So?" - Andrew Breitbart The King of All Media (RIP Feb 1, 1969 – Mar 1, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

I am very confused by these pings. I am not participating in this thread.


263 posted on 02/24/2013 8:08:57 PM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: terycarl; Nifster
nifster:You view history through the lens of Rome . I on the other hand have studied history....Rome claims much that is untrue and always has been. God on the other hand is truly infallible

terycarl: You have not studied history or you would never make the claim that Rome claims ANYTHING that is untrue

terycarl, are you calling nifster a liar?

That is not allowed on the Religion forum.

You should apologize.

What is it you have posted to Christians here? Oh yea, you should be ashamed. Own it.

264 posted on 02/24/2013 8:22:09 PM PST by Syncro ("So?" - Andrew Breitbart The King of All Media (RIP Feb 1, 1969 – Mar 1, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: PeevedPatriot; NYer; boatbums

“...nonCatholics aren’t “true” Christians...”

I grew up knowing that occasionally there might be a Catholic who was a true Christian. I had some who were in my family (cousins, etc). I got a lively conversation going one time by stating that I believed John XXIII really knew the Lord...how sacrilegious...in the eyes of some of you reading this...

I would say today, without doubt, that there will be many more true followers of Christ in ‘Heaven’ that there are ‘Catholics’...some of those true followers will be Catholics, many will not be Catholic. All will be members of the one, holy, catholic church (small ‘c’ is not a typo).

All that being said, there are many ‘professing’ Christians who do not know Yehshua as Lord and Savior, do not have a personal relationship with Him.

I believe that personal relationship is key...knowing Him...I do not need an intermediary between Him and me. I do not need an intermediary to hear my ‘confession’. I do not need a ‘priest’ to celebrate communion with Him. We who know Him are kings and priests,

“John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
(Revelation 1:4-6 KJV)

“And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.”
(Revelation 5:10 KJV)


265 posted on 02/24/2013 8:41:17 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a Tea Party descendant...steeped in the Constitutional Republic given to us by the Founders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
**And as usual it is your statement--Catholicism is Christianity-- that is strange indeed.**

Have you ever attended a Catholic Mass?

It is divided into two parts -- the first part, The Liturgy of the Word, centered usually on an Old Testament Reading, a Psalm, and something from one of St. Paul's letters. Then the Gospel -- often with the words of Jesus Christ. Just who do you think Catholicism is centered on? It's Christ!!!!!

Hopefully you will not be repeating this untruth.

The second part is the Litrugy of the Eucharist is completely focused on Jesus Christ. The priest is the alter Christus there for us in place of Christ.

266 posted on 02/24/2013 8:48:54 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
**And as usual it is your statement--Catholicism is Christianity-- that is strange indeed.**

Have you ever attended a Catholic Mass?

It is divided into two parts -- the first part, The Liturgy of the Word, centered usually on an Old Testament Reading, a Psalm, and something from one of St. Paul's letters. Then the Gospel -- often with the words of Jesus Christ. Just who do you think Catholicism is centered on? It's Christ!!!!!

Hopefully you will not be repeating this untruth.

The second part is the Litrugy of the Eucharist is completely focused on Jesus Christ. The priest is the alter Christus there for us in place of Christ.

267 posted on 02/24/2013 8:49:31 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

we could start with something as simple as Peter having ever been in Rome....The New Testament is clear through Paul’s writings that Peter was the apostle carrying the message to the Jews and Paul was carrying the message to the Gentiles.

But why bother with basics???


268 posted on 02/24/2013 9:46:42 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
The priest is the alter Christus there for us in place of Christ.

The priest is another Christ in place of Jesus? [that is completely unscriptural and borders on blaspheme]

Why? What's wrong with having the REAL Jesus Christ via his Holy Spirit in your church service as the Biblical Christian services do?

**And as usual it is your statement--Catholicism is Christianity-- that is strange indeed.**
Sorry, but as you would see if you read my whole post I reject the fallacy that "Catholicism is Christianity" which discounts Biblical Christian Christianity and pretty much says it doesn't exist.

Millions of Biblical Christians who have never had any connection with the Catholic church would dispute that pretty strongly, led by the Holy Spirit.

269 posted on 02/24/2013 10:15:17 PM PST by Syncro ("So?" - Andrew Breitbart The King of All Media (RIP Feb 1, 1969 – Mar 1, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
We are not talking here about camels or noses.

Oh yes we are!

This is the camel's nose;

Notice the "jump", the assumption that something crucial was passed down...but no definition of what that was in the slightest.

It IS THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENT some of the early gnostics made, except that there were being specific as to what information was explained much by;"Oh, we were told this by an apostle". "We were told these things, but not anyone else was told." Later gnostics, not having had much direct access to apostles, nor any records of some teaching or another having been given directly to them, claimed to have gotten things "through revelation".

When such departed from scripture, introducing new ideas, or adding to, distorting that which is contained in scripture, such was battled against by, as I made mention of "early church notables". In other places those can be seen to be referred to as "Early Church Fathers".

I've seen the argument you are trying to make here, be so thoroughly shredded it's not even funny. Yet it keeps coming back...because the same faulty premises keep getting repeated by folks whom should know better! (that might not be you).

Those that do know better, at least try to doll the argument up, by calling it "unpacking". The trouble with that is, once some of the stuff is unfolded, it's so far off track of the original message (as can be found in the scriptures) that it is opposition to scripture itself (and many times in opposition to the writings of "Early Church Fathers too!) being as it either adds new themes, or undoes old ones by changing definitions, sometimes in mid-sentence, adding requirements which makes grace itself (the unmerited favor of God) something one must "do works" to obtain.

Thank God for the Reformation. The approaches found there, towards "grace' and justification (this latter one of those things which can be seen to be redefined in mid-sentence in RCC pronouncements) which were pressed by the Reformers, have positively (for the good) affected RCC teachings, at least in some quarters. That it may be said that such as is now taught of in the RCC (at times and places), aligns much with that which the Reformers stressed as being of primary importance, which also can be found to be supported by "early church fathers", buttresses the case that either and both groups are on the right track when they do also stress the same "primary" principles.

So what is it exactly that was passed down from the ORIGINAL apostles, what theme or set of ideas that we cannot otherwise find CLEAR evidence of in what scripture we have? If you cannot show me that, then what is left but to fall back on the the later arising "traditions"?

We can in many ways show and reasonably track items like "papal supremacy" not being an early tenet of the church (and much resisted even within the Latin church when first being strongly pressed, somewhere around the sixth century, if memory serves) and so on.

I realize my having said so will invite someone to bring an out-of-context quote from some 3rd or 4th century "church father", but even those in context in which they are found, seldom if ever cut the mustard, besides being a bit too late to get under the wire (edge of the tent? haha) of being able to be plausible as "oral tradition" "passed by Christ" "to the Apostles" as is the case which is being presented.

So tell me;
WHEN exactly was this information, this otherwise unrecorded "oral tradition from Christ" first incorporated? Hundreds of years later? That's usually the case. If not --- please feel free to prove otherwise. Or drop the empty claim. Your choice.

To repeat myself for sake of clarity, WHAT was in this "oral tradition" not otherwise found in scripture?
Was there;
Important stuff, themes pressed as being somehow crucial. not directly addressed in scripture, not present in the law (Torah), nor touched upon or addressed by the prophets of Israel (books of the prophets) nor addressed by Christ nor His own Apostles' written works speaking specifically of events and the words of Christ? Let us include Paul's numerous Epistles, his extensive writings towards both "Law" and prophesy which Christ came to fulfill, including also that which is significant to the Gospel record found in the book of Luke (along with the other Gospels, themselves regarded to have been written directly by Apostles themselves, of course).

As towards things not found therein, but much pressed in later centuries, somehow... we are supposed to accept, "oh, this is the way it's always been from the beginning".??? This was handed down by Christ? For that IS what you are more or less advocating is "truth".

What indication (beyond the oft repeated assumptions you repeat here) is there that this unspecified, unwritten, unrecorded "oral" information, popping up centuries later "came from/through Peter" who recieved it directly from Christ? If you are trying to tie the "oral tradition" to words alleged to have been spoken of by Christ, to things which can be seen to have developed over time--- that argument is a both a loser and the very "camel's nose" I speak of.

Egads, what a load. The "camel" has dropped a pile. To those whom have grown up surrounded by the "smell", perhaps it is not as noticable? For myself, I'll accept no such uncouth creatures in my own dwelling place, temporary as that dwelling may be...

The bleating denials are just that. Just so much empty bleatings. Your argument lacks coherence (just like I said). Having high up muckyty-mucks in the RCC state the same doesn't make it into "truth", either. Just a "version" ... and one far from being unimpeachable.

270 posted on 02/24/2013 10:59:51 PM PST by BlueDragon (what do you mean he has bullet holes in his mirrors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
you have to be kidding....Jesus was a human being and He said zillions of things that were not recorded...He didn't even know the apostles until He was an adult. How many wonderful things must He have said to His parents, relatives, friends, that we will never get to hear. Maybe one of His boyhood friends fell and was injured...perhaps Jesus wiped away the injury and comforted His friend.....they were ten years old, chances are that it didn't make the big book. For you, or anyone, to claim that everything that Jesus said was somehow recorded is nonsense!!!

Perhaps in your rush to mock and ridicule you missed my entire point! I never said EVERYTHING Jesus ever said was recorded in Scripture. What I DID say is that what was written in Scripture was so we would believe and have eternal life, like John said many times in his writings. The problem with conjecture, and that IS what imaginings about Jesus during times not spoken of in Scripture are, is that any number of things can be described. We have several writings from people back then that purported to be eye witnesses to Jesus as a kid doing certain things such as healing little baby birds or cursing someone and something bad happened to them, stuff like that. There are thousands of stories that have been and will continue to be written about Jesus and, without some verifying proof, they are nothing more than fiction - someone's fanciful and creative imagination. If the believers back in Jesus' time didn't give them any credence then, who are we thousands of years later to come along and say, "Oh, that COULD have happened. We don't really know."?

What we DO know is that whatever DID make the "book" was intended to be there for specific reasons and, as it is Divinely-inspired and God-given, it is the objective authority we have for the rule of our faith. John said he wrote what he did so that we can KNOW we have eternal life. Did he leave out anything or fail to mention something critical to our salvation? Nope. So, of course Jesus said "zillions" of words, but we can have confidence that those words he said that we, today, need to know about are there in Scripture. Holy men of God "spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" and that is what we have - God's love letter to us. The Holy Spirit did not gyp anyone. We don't need some theologians centuries after the fact to tell us all the stuff we SHOULD know about that got omitted.

271 posted on 02/24/2013 11:40:34 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: PeevedPatriot

That has been my intent for the last several years. I try very hard to stick to the discussion and not make personal insults. I’m not sure what you mean by “not taking the bait”. If you mean to simply IGNORE the offending threads, then sorry, I won’t, nor do I think any of us should. If someone posts something that is wrong or vindictive or condescending about my faith, I have every right to join the discussion. What I have asked repeatedly for is more discretion by those who are the usual posters of such threads. So far, I’ve seen little evidence they care and plenty that demonstrates they enjoy stirring the pot - complete with provocative titles. I don’t fall for the bait instigating me to get nasty where the RM has to intervene and most of us show plenty of self discipline by not falling for the game either. And, sadly, that was the game. I’m much more interested in speaking the truth and winning souls to Christ. Anyone who truly loves the Lord would do the same. Thanks for standing up for peace among brethren.


272 posted on 02/24/2013 11:57:28 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; verga; wintertime; RitaOK
GeronL:

I agree with that and I firmly wish that the inter-religious sniping here come to an end. I have never doubted the good faith Christianity of Reformed Christians here. Likewise, I certainly hope that my fellow Catholics would also act in good faith and give credit where credit is due to our Reformed brothers and sisters in Christ. I would also like to see all Christians here pay proper respect to Jews and vice versa and to other faiths and vice versa. Also, believers and non-believers here ought to grant each other mutual respect.

In earlier years, I participated in the religious wars here until it struck me that overwhelmingly, those who participate on Free Republic are my fellow conservatives on matters of public policy and usually on matters of morals and on many shared concepts of faith, differ though we may on some points.

We ought to be united in the effort to resist and defeat our common enemies and the enemies of God and of His will. Those of us who are Christian should seek to follow the leadership of Jesus Christ and of His Father in Heaven and of the Holy Spirit.

I read posts from Reformed Christians that may temporarily boil my blood as yours is probably boiled by some Catholic posts. I tell myself to calm down, that the posts that aggravate me may well, in turn, be inspired by posts of fellow Catholics who have angered those Reformed Christians. Jesus Christ called upon us all to love one another as we have been loved and are loved by God. In the early days of Christianity, it was said that the Roman pagans knew the identities of the Christians because they were the ones who loved one another.

Each of us should strive to be as much more like Christ as we are able to the extent that we can discipline our sinful natures in order to move in that direction. Man fell when Adam and Eve sinned. It is our nature now to struggle against our own tendency to sin, each and every one of us falls short of the standard set by our Savior.

If it is OK with you, I am not going to recreate the lengthy post that I lost because I am older than I once was and tired and it is late at night and I prefer this post anyway as a response to you with whom I share so very many principles and beliefs. I know that you have no real beef with Catholics. You may disagree with us on this or that point of theology but that is very much a reflection of your principled approach and also of that of many Catholics. If I ever have offended you, I apologize because you did not and do not deserve it.

My specific disagreements with #57 were that, to the best of my knowledge, 1) no emperor or king or any other royal figure EVER crowned himself pope. If you know of any, please let me know the specifics, and 2) the title of pope is derived from the Italian il papa or the father and the Italian language, and the specific title of pope did not exist in Jesus Christ's time, and 3) The scriptural sources of the papacy are the Peter Passage in Matthew 16: 13-20 and Christ's guarantee to be with the Church to the end of the world. Matthew 28: 20. I also understand that you may well disagree with what I believe those passages to mean and I have no doubt that any disagreement is with respect and good faith as are mine.

May God bless you and yours, now and forever.

273 posted on 02/25/2013 12:14:47 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em, Danno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
It had appeared to me that you had been attacked in a post to which I was pinged as were you. I responded to that post and pinged you as a courtesy. If you wish me not to do so, I will respect your wishes. As you know, I very often agree with you on matters involving homeschooling and, ummmm, other venues for schooling, but have differences with you (as I do with many) on the specifics of religion. I mean you no disrespect.

May God bless you and yours, now and forever.

274 posted on 02/25/2013 12:43:45 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em, Danno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
Wow

Some of these claims are preposterous r they not?

I have Catholic blood kin and have never ever heard some of these exclusivity bagging rights

Alter Cristos?

Man....i would not say that in the middle of a summer thunderstorm in Dixie

Or in combat

Or on my lit de mort

275 posted on 02/25/2013 12:54:16 AM PST by wardaddy (wanna know how my kin felt during Reconstruction in Mississippi, you fixin to find out firsthand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Although I have differences with the Catholic Church, I would be pleased beyond words to have every Catholic in this nation fully practicing their faith.

Imagine the blessings, peace, and prosperity that everyone in this nation would enjoy.

Have a great day. :-)


276 posted on 02/25/2013 5:30:58 AM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Exactly, and all of the other times that the Pope, or church officials are speaking, not ex cathedra, then they are just as fallible as the rest of us, and they can even, believe it or not, say and do things which are in opposition to Christ. Since that is most of the time, according to your own admission, your previous comment is pretty meaningless.


277 posted on 02/25/2013 7:24:20 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

In other words, it was the Dark Ages only for the non Catholics...

Interesting thing that Middle Ages stuff...Who thought that up???

Middle Ages went from about 500 AD to 1500 AD give or take a few...The first 5 Centuries then were the beginning ages...That leaves the last 5 Centuries for the end of the ages...

Who ever thought that up must have believed in the 6 days of Creation...


278 posted on 02/25/2013 8:41:32 AM PST by Iscool (I love animals...barbequed, fried, grilled, stewed,,,,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
What was pointed out to you was the sheer absurdity of this proposition because it suggests that Christ remained speechless when He performed a vast array of acts.

Maybe, if one is ignorant of scripture, or just refuses to believe it...

But for those of us who do read and believe the scriptures, we know that John recorded everything that Jesus ever said that we needed to know for our salvation...

Of course Jesus wasn't silent...But we know that Jesus did not say nor teach anyone that there was more than we can find in the written scriptures that is required knowledge for our salvation...

This is why Peter and his successors were entrusted with teaching ONE TRUTH, not a multitude of interpretations that have been spawned since the schism.

Fact is, Peter didn't teach all that much...His epistles are more of an encouragement than doctrine...

So Jesus taught scores of truths...Paul taught a multitude of truths as well as Matthew...What truth did Peter teach???

The Church as the rock, is founded on scripture, tradition as handed down by the successors of St. Peter, revelation, and experience and has become the mustard tree that now covers all corners of the world.

Your Catholic religion is not a rock and certainly is NOT THE ROCK...

Think about it...Don't you think Peter cringes and covers his face in embarrassment and shame every time some schmuck bows down to one of your popes and calls him 'holy father'???

Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Among MANY of the truths that the apostles taught, one was that Christians do not bow down to another man...

279 posted on 02/25/2013 9:12:21 AM PST by Iscool (I love animals...barbequed, fried, grilled, stewed,,,,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

Amen to that...


280 posted on 02/25/2013 9:20:09 AM PST by Iscool (I love animals...barbequed, fried, grilled, stewed,,,,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
The second part is the Litrugy of the Eucharist is completely focused on Jesus Christ. The priest is the alter Christus there for us in place of Christ.

No he ain't...

281 posted on 02/25/2013 9:24:12 AM PST by Iscool (I love animals...barbequed, fried, grilled, stewed,,,,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Bingo. The numbers selected (by God) on the provided card are now covered.

That round is over. But there they are, sitting in the parlor, calling out numbers in vain, trying to cover and recover the numbers in that game where the true winner was already pronounced some 20 centuries ago.

"But we are sitting in his chair", they cry. Physical occupancy may as well equate at this juncture, to crying out "but we have Abraham as our father" which some did in effect saying or asking "who do you think you are? you cannot instruct us for we are the chosen".

The Jews of that day had more centuries behind them then, than do those whom now pound the table with claims of apostolic succession.

282 posted on 02/25/2013 9:54:46 AM PST by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Salvation
Alter Cristos?

Yea, isn't that something?

The priest is another Christ.

Wow, just wow.

He changes the cracker into the literal body and blood of Jesus, then HE turns into Christ and takes Himself...embedded in the cracker...and hands Himself to the people in line.

283 posted on 02/25/2013 11:41:19 AM PST by Syncro ("So?" - Andrew Breitbart The King of All Media (RIP Feb 1, 1969 – Mar 1, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea
I believe that personal relationship is key...knowing Him...

I agree with you :) Our theology is different but on this we do agree. One of the biggest appeals Catholicism had for me was that it drew me closer to Christ.

I do not need an intermediary between Him and me.

I understand that some may see intermediaries (i.e. confession to God of my sins via a priest) as obstacles. For me it's a blessing. It puts a human face on the compassion and forgiveness of Christ. It also helps to get an objective assessment from someone duty-bound to minister the mercy of Christ to me. That might mean assuring me that I haven't trespassed as badly as I think I have. Or it might mean I'm trivializing something I shouldn't. I don't find these obstacles. I find them blessings that make me appreciate God's goodness, mercy, and also his justice in ways that I am too blind to grasp on my own.

That said, I don't disrespect my nonCatholic brethren who see things differently. Peace be with you.

284 posted on 02/25/2013 11:42:58 AM PST by PeevedPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; All

This is the kind of sophomoric stuff that those not properly schooled in this subject ventures onto. By your definition, no one needs to be “taught” we can all look at scripture and intepret it for ourselves without guidance just like David Koresh did, or the Mormons do, or Rev. Wright does. And of the course all the the great theologians from St. Ambrose, St. Catherine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the early Church fathers all got it wrong. Each one can teach himself. Each one is a “religion” unto himself. And yet you admit that there were many things things that Christ said and did that were not recorded but were handed down as part of the apostolic tradition. But no worries, you don’t need to hear all of it because for you “all” of it was written down. No need for One Church, no need for One Truth, No need for one Interpretation. Everyone gets to interpet his/her own way. Wow!


285 posted on 02/25/2013 12:08:21 PM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Sorry --- It would have been more helpful if I'd put in the approx. years and more of the schema. With the understanding that there are many ways to slice the salami (cf Christopher Dawson), you can put Western European Church History in (loosely) six "ages":

1. AD 33 - AD 330 "Early Church" (Persecution, martyrs, growth. Most of the OT and NT Canon accepted, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Nicaean Reform.)

2. AD 333 - 650 "Age of the Fathers" (Invasion, Huns, Visigoths, Vandals. Fall of Roman Empire. Post-Nicene Fathers, Conversion of Barbarians. Gregorian Reform.)

3. 650 - 1000 "Dark Ages," The Preservation of Civilization (Struggles with Vikings; 2/3 of Christian heartland lost to Islam. Monastery and cathedral schools, literacy, agriculture, restoration of town life, conversion of Vikings, Carolingian Reform.)

4. 1000 -1454 "Middle Ages" (Great Schism -> Fall of Constantinople. In the West, civilization from Oslo to Sicily, Warsaw to Compostella. Cathedrals, Universities, Music, Arts, Architecture, Scholarship, the Doctors of the Church. Black Death, 60% of population dies. End of feudalism, rise of Cities. Cluniac Reform.

5. 1454 - 1789 "Age of Revolt and Revolution") (Fall of Constantinople--> French Revolution. Reconquest of Spain, Renaissance, the New World, "Reformation," Wars of Religion, Exploration and World Mission, new Religious Orders. "Enlightenment," French Revolution. Trentian Reform.)

6. 1789 - Present "Modern Age," a.k.a. "Age of Murder"

Just an outline, necessarily sketchy. Covers a lot. Just wanted to give you an overview. The mega-killing between Christian factions and nations --- Christian civilization has never been free of murder, sorrowfully --- the most carnage was in the 16th-17th and 20th centuries.

286 posted on 02/25/2013 12:46:30 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("For it is time that Judgment must begin with the House of God." 1 Peter 4:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: PeevedPatriot

“I find them blessings that make me appreciate God’s goodness, mercy, and also his justice in ways that I am too blind to grasp on my own.”

Thank you for your kind comments. I do understand what you are saying. My wife comes from a family of Catholics, and she has a first cousin who is a Priest. He is well known to me and we are good friends. His mother and my wife’s mother were ‘missionaries’ for Jesus and for the Gospel, sharing it wide and far. Both understood that God was much bigger than the ‘Church’.

I had opportunity to speak in a Catholic Church at my father-in-law’s funeral. I shared from my heart, and shared for the whole family regarding his life and his last days on this earth (he lived with us for the last 8 or 10 months of his life). It was an opportunity for me to share the Gospel through his life.

I lived in Northern Ireland for three years in the late ‘70’s (78 - 81) and there, when travelling in the Republic of Ireland I would often choose a Catholic Church to attend for Sunday services. One evening I had a Church of Ireland priest and a Roman Catholic priest in my home for dinner. It was a blessed evening. I was there when John-Paul II made his first visit to Ireland.

Again, I appreciate your response, and I understand. I hope you also understand me and what I wrote.

Blessings,
Gpa


287 posted on 02/25/2013 2:47:37 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a Tea Party descendant...steeped in the Constitutional Republic given to us by the Founders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
First, it's not my place to suggest how you should act, so apologies in that regard. I wasn't saying I think you should ignore threads you find offensive. I'm saying we are free to choose our manner of response to threads that slander or wrongly state the positions of our faith. And our manner of response (by their fruits ye shall know them) IMHO shows if we walk the walk or merely talk the talk. Comments can abandon the charity of Christ long before mod intervention is necessary. I say that in general not to you personally.

What I was trying to say and perhaps still cannot phrase concisely, is that you--or anyone--who believes a thread has been posted with intent to disrespect or skew discussion in an uncharitable direction can choose to point out the bias and reframe the discussion in a more balanced direction in the comments. It can be done charitably or, as often happens on this site, less than charitably.

I tend to lurk more than participate. What I have observed is that lack of charity seems evident in many of the Catholic and nonCatholic commenters. To what extent it's intentional wounding, heat of the moment irritation, or sincere misunderstanding of the other side's position is something I'm not willing to judge. Jesus can do that. I have other things to worry about :)

Peace be with you, dear sister in Christ. I think it's time for me to fast from the Religion Forum for a while. May you have a blessed Lent and joyous Easter.

288 posted on 02/25/2013 2:47:42 PM PST by PeevedPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea
I hope you also understand me and what I wrote.

Yes, I think I do better understand. I also appreciate the kindness and warmth in your comment. Thank you :) May the blessings of Christ be yours now and always!

289 posted on 02/25/2013 2:52:07 PM PST by PeevedPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon; Iscool
The Jews of that day had more centuries behind them then, than do those whom now pound the table with claims of apostolic succession.

Excellent points. Both of y'all. Thank you.

Whatever "succession" there was spoken of by early church fathers was a succession of MESSAGE and TRUTH and not any kind of automatic power transfer that guaranteed infallibility to whomever was the next in line. We have numerous examples of popes who were, it appeared, not even Christians much less THE leader of ALL Christians. If what they taught was contrary to Scripture, then we are to trust God rather than man. The common argument has been that Scripture says what "we" say it means and that has been the source of much contention especially when clear Scripture is twisted into something unrecognizable.

As an example, I was having breakfast with a local priest and other family members and we started talking about our "favorite" verses in the Bible (I think I might have been the one to suggest it, but I don't remember). I said mine was Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast.". The priest looked up and said, "That sounds Protestant to me.". I was surprised somewhat that a Catholic priest wasn't familiar with Scripture enough that he didn't recognize it when he heard it, but it was clear that he knew what he heard was NOT what his church taught. That pretty much confirmed what I had thought. It is the handing down of the TRUTH and if a church strays away from that truth, it no longer is the buttress and foundation of the truth.

290 posted on 02/25/2013 3:34:44 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
terycarl: You have not studied history or you would never make the claim that Rome claims ANYTHING that is untrue terycarl, are you calling nifster a liar? That is not allowed on the Religion forum. You should apologize. What is it you have posted to Christians here? Oh yea, you should be ashamed. Own it.

what???? if Nifster can show anything that Rome claims that is untrue....go for it....the Catholic Church is Truth personified....there is no error within her teachings at all....none!!!

291 posted on 02/25/2013 3:48:57 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: PeevedPatriot; GGpaX4DumpedTea
I understand that some may see intermediaries (i.e. confession to God of my sins via a priest) as obstacles. For me it's a blessing. It puts a human face on the compassion and forgiveness of Christ. It also helps to get an objective assessment from someone duty-bound to minister the mercy of Christ to me. That might mean assuring me that I haven't trespassed as badly as I think I have. Or it might mean I'm trivializing something I shouldn't. I don't find these obstacles. I find them blessings that make me appreciate God's goodness, mercy, and also his justice in ways that I am too blind to grasp on my own.

In James 5:16, we are told "Therefore, make it your habit to confess your sins to one another and to pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.". I don't think it is saying ONLY do so with a priest - since there is NO mention of one - but that the benefit you spoke of - that of coming clean and getting counseling - is available to all Christians through their ministers as well as one another. Though I don't think a pastor has any power to forgive sins as a stand-in for God (only God can forgive sins), we can go directly to the throne of grace through Christ and know that God is faithful to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. The added benefit of being honest with our faith family about our failings is the accountability it gives us with each other and the privilege to pray for one another for spiritual and physical healing makes us more closely connected and answerable for our brothers and sisters in the Lord. This is something our Heavenly Father desires for us to have as a blessing and channel for growth. We are ALL ministers to each other.

292 posted on 02/25/2013 4:15:08 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
we could start with something as simple as Peter having ever been in Rome....

oh please....I find it difficult to engage in a conversation with a person who doubts that it snows in Minneapolis...

293 posted on 02/25/2013 4:35:34 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
Millions of Biblical Christians who have never had any connection with the Catholic church would dispute that pretty strongly, led by the Holy Spirit.

Millions of Christians have ALL had a connection to the Catholic church...for example, if they were properly baptized, they were baptized Catholic...you cannot be baptized into a false denomination.

294 posted on 02/25/2013 4:51:57 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Although I have differences with the Catholic Church, I would be pleased beyond words to have every Catholic in this nation fully practicing their faith. Imagine the blessings, peace, and prosperity that everyone in this nation would enjoy.

GOD ALMIGHTY!!!!!how true your words are...Catholics vote for Obama, Catholics have abortions, Catholics act as though following Christ does not matter.....that proves that Catholics are as stupid as everyone else..I, however, believe that they will face a higher levelofjudgement...Catholics know better, they have been given the TRUTH, they are able to participate in the Sacraments, they are able to recieve the actual Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Mass....if they puke away those opportunities of their own free will....so be it.....I am a Catholic, I fail a lot, I am ashamed of my failures, but I blame noone else for my failures...we are all on our own...to even that Jesus Christ came to earth and just said....if you believe in Me...you're saved....is nonsense

295 posted on 02/25/2013 5:24:07 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
terycarl, are you calling nifster a liar

to call Catholicism wrong is not necessarily a lie....but it is definitely an error...those who do not understand the truth sometimes speak in error.

296 posted on 02/25/2013 5:30:29 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

You can’t stuff the millions of baptized Biblical Christians into your Catholic denomination, the Holy Spirit will not allow it.

God sees thing differntly than Catholics seem to.

You wish to have baptism represent being baptized into your denomination, fine.

Biblical Christians are not baptized into a denomionation, but into a personal born again relationship with Jesus.

That is a proper baptism and has nothing to do with your denomination.

The only people that have a connection to the Catholic church are the ones that choose to. Or are born into it and are therefore usually stuck in it.

Very few Biblical Christians choose that as the joy and peace of having a born again personal relationship with Jesus has the closeness desired.


297 posted on 02/25/2013 5:33:04 PM PST by Syncro ("So?" - Andrew Breitbart The King of All Media (RIP Feb 1, 1969 – Mar 1, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

**You can’t stuff the millions of baptized Biblical Christians into your Catholic denomination, the Holy Spirit will not allow it.**

The Holy Spirit already allows it!

Christ said to the apostles, “Go, therefore, to all the nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” from end of Matthew.

You or I may not live to see it, but it will happen.


298 posted on 02/25/2013 5:39:16 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
the Catholic Church is Truth personified....there is no error within her teachings at all....none!!!

Does everything you read leave your memory as soon as it is read?

There have been many proofs of error in the Catholic church's teachings posted here in the Religion Forum, even agreed upon by rational informed learned Catholics.

Only God is Truth Personified, no org or person outside of God. Period.

You missed my point in the post your replied to here.

A poster said he studied history, and you said he did not.

That is saying that poster is a liar and apparently you are alright with that.

Accuser of the brethren.

It isn't the first false claim posted by you that has been exposed.

Catholics, meh

Oh and BTW another rule you broke here in the RF: When mentioning a poster by name you are supposed to ping them. You know, put their name in the "to" field.

299 posted on 02/25/2013 5:47:54 PM PST by Syncro ("So?" - Andrew Breitbart The King of All Media (RIP Feb 1, 1969 – Mar 1, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
your previous comment is pretty meaningless.>/i>

believe thee me....my comments are never meaningless....

the Pope speaks, just as we all do, and is subject to error, opinion, jest....whatever...

when he speaks "ex Cathedra" he cannot err.....ever.

300 posted on 02/25/2013 5:50:03 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 451-483 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