Skip to comments.In Defense of the Papacy: 9 Reasons True Christians Follow the Pope
Posted on 02/22/2013 5:43:18 PM PST by NYer
click here to read article
I didn’t know you were a Catholic and could make judgments like that. LOL!
Thank you sir...I absolutely agree with you. It has to do with who we are together in Christ. I know that Jesus, The Christ, did not come to earth to create a religion. He came to reconcile us to God...God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...One God. He speaks to us...and if we listen, we hear Him. He is our mediator. And yes, He said, through His brother James, to ‘confess our sins one to another’...
...and on the other hand, we are all ‘kings and priests’...
“...when he speaks “ex Cathedra” he cannot err.....ever....”
Only God speaks without error. No man, not even the ‘Pope’ can speak without error. God never ordained that. Period. The Catholic Church ‘defines’ ‘ex Cathedra’...how convenient.
.....thou art petros, and upon this Rock I will build My church....
.....thou art petros, and upon this Rock I will build My church....
and your rejoinder has nothing to do with the hisotricity of Peter....history shows he was never in Rome....
but let’s not let anything like that get in the way
The church is built on Christ, not on Peter. Gross misinterpretation to say otherwise.
Surely you are not that obtuse.
The poster said he studied history
You said he did not study history
THAT WAS THE LIE
Or maybe you actually are...that obtuse.
There it is in your own words, the Catholic church in error, from the top guy even!
Not only subject to, but actually IN ERROR many times over, and over many centuries.
Hang on there, TC! Didn't you just get done saying:
the Catholic Church is Truth personified....there is no error within her teachings at all....none!!!
Can you clarify what sounds like a glaring contradiction? How is it your Popes can say, and, presumably, teach things that may be in error, yet the Catholic Church has "no error within her teachings AT ALL"? We have many examples in the past where proclamations by popes were negated by successive popes and teachings that were once considered inerrant got changed and/or corrected. Can you explain this disconnect?
You are aware that Peter was martyred in Rome, crucified upside down.
go to Google type in "Death of Peter the Apostle" and you will get quite a few links.
Note it is very difficult to die in a place that you have never been.
Salvation: "I didnt know you were a Catholic and could make judgments like that. LOL!"
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...
Christians are supposed to judge other Christians when they or their denominations participate in extra/un/Biblical practices.
Having a priest turn into another Christ as you have admitted when describing the Catholic mass is not from God, in fact breaks the rule of there is only one God.
To believe that there are more than one Christs is unscriptural and actually blaspheme.
Could you explain the reason behind this false practice and show how it glorifies the One True God, God the Father, God the Holy Spirt, and the ONE AND ONLY CHRIST: Jesus, the Lord and Saviour of all born again Biblical Christians who have a born again personal relationship with Jesus Christ, the ONLY Christ?
Thanks in advance if crickets don't intervene.
Not properly schooled??? What kind of schooling is required to reject the simple words of the scriptures???
I'm a firm believer in Sunday School...I read commentaries...I listen to a great deal of preaching...I read a lot of your Catholic propaganda...How much schooling is required for you???
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.
They got some right...But not nearly enough to teach someone how to get into the Body of Christ...
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.
I never said that...Why are you making things up???
But no worries, you don't need to hear all of it because for you "all" of it was written down.
For Christians, 'all' of it was written down that is necessary for our Salvation...That's what the apostle John said...You don't believe the apostle John, eh???
No need for One Church,
There is one church...But there is no One Church...
no need for One Truth,
The only One Truth is Jesus...It is NOT your Catholic religion...And Jesus and the apostles and disciples spoke and wrote many truths...
No need for one Interpretation.
Jesus says nobody gets to make an interpretation...That includes your religion...Understanding the scriptures has to do with believing, not interpreting...
Everyone gets to interpet his/her own way. Wow!
You don't spend much time learning the words that God preserved for his church, do you???
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Middle Ages is a period of European history that lasted from the 5th until the 15th centuries. It began with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and was followed by the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery. The Middle Ages is the middle period of the traditional division of Western history into Classical, Medieval, and Modern periods. The period is subdivided into the Early Middle Ages, the High Middle Ages, and the Late Middle Ages.
In the Early Middle Ages, depopulation, deurbanization, and barbarian invasions, which began in Late Antiquity, continued. The barbarian invaders formed new kingdoms in the remains of the Western Roman Empire. In the 7th century North Africa and the Middle East, once part of the Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire), became an Islamic Empire after conquest by Muhammad's successors. Although there were substantial changes in society and political structures, the break with Antiquity was not complete. The still sizeable Byzantine Empire survived and remained a major power. The empire's law code, the Code of Justinian, was widely admired. In the West, most kingdoms incorporated extant Roman institutions, while monasteries were founded as Christianity expanded in western Europe. The Franks, under the Carolingian dynasty, established an empire covering much of western Europe; the Carolingian Empire endured until the 9th century, when it succumbed to the pressures of invasion the Vikings from the north; the Magyars from the east, and the Saracens from the south.
During the High Middle Ages, which began after AD 1000, the population of Europe increased greatly as technological and agricultural innovations allowed trade to flourish and crop yields to increase. Manorialism the organization of peasants into villages that owed rent and labor services to the nobles; and feudalism the political structure whereby knights and lower-status nobles owed military service to their overlords, in return for the right to rent from lands and manors - were two of the ways society was organized in the High Middle Ages. The Crusades, first preached in 1095, were military attempts, by western European Christians, to regain control of the Middle Eastern Holy Land from the Muslims. Kings became the heads of centralized nation states, reducing crime and violence but making the ideal of a unified Christendom more distant. Intellectual life was marked by scholasticism, a philosophy which emphasized joining faith to reason, and by the founding of universities. The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, the paintings of Giotto, the poetry of Dante and Chaucer, the travels of Marco Polo, and the architecture of Gothic cathedrals such as Chartres are among the outstanding achievements of this period.
The Late Middle Ages were marked by difficulties and calamities, such as famine, plague, and war, which much diminished the population of western Europe; in the four years from 1347 through 1350, the Black Death killed approximately a third of the European population. Controversy, heresy, and schism within the Church paralleled the warfare between states, the civil war, and peasant revolts occurring in the kingdoms. Cultural and technological developments transformed European society, concluding the Late Middle Ages and beginning the Early Modern period.
He was right...That verse is Protestant...The whole of scripture is Protestant...
There are no Protestants in the Catholic religion and there are no Catholics in the Bible...
(The Holy Bible, and Jesus say differently. To call it nonsence shows a lack of knowledge of the Bible and speaking from a position that lacks wisdom)
Again, scripture trumps your erroneous proclimation:
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved--Acts 16:31
John 6:47 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hatheverlasting life."--Jesus Christ
John 5:24: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.:--Jesus Christ
Nonsence. That was a reply to terycarl, and the Holy Spirit will NOT let her "stuff the millions of baptized Biblical Christians into your Catholic denomination."
**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!
Neither can you, and BTW the Holy Spirit does not "stuff" anyone anywhere.
Yes, very good your scripture does come from the "end of Matthew," in fact Matthew 28:19:
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"Thanks, that makes my point. No where can you find that people when baptized are automatically instantly "stuffed" into the Catholic organization.
When a person believes on Jesus Chfrist and becomes born again and starts a personal relationship with Jesus...Jesus in the believer, the believer in Jesus...he or she instantly becomes a part of the Church that is Jesus Christ. NOT the Catholic church, which did not even exist back then.
Yes I know that terycarl states that the Catholic Church started on Jesus' birthday, but that is just plain poppycock.
Yeah, yeah, we’ve heard it all before. The Pope and the Church NEVER make mistakes... well they never make mistakes on the important things... well they never make mistakes when they are speaking in just a certain way, and that has only happened twice in 2000 years. But... don’t call us out on it when we wrongly claim they never make mistakes!
That was Simon Peter Magus...
“But no worries, you dont need to hear all of it because for you all of it was written down”
Iscool never said that. He said that everything that was necessary for our salvation was written down. Do you dispute that? Is there some secret formula for salvation which isn’t included in the New Testament that the Catholic church has kept to itself all these years? Or do you believe that the Gospel of Christ is sufficient to show us the way?
Try again. This time try to support your argument with references like I did.
Christ cannot be there to change the bread and wine into his Body and Blood as he did at the Last Supper. In his place (alter Christus) is the priest, empowered through his ordination to celebrate the Eucharist in this very special way.
your ‘study’ of history is really underwhelming. googling something I realize is the ‘modern’ manner of education but that is NOT a proper manner to become informed.
Your ‘tradition’ view of Peter’s death has NO first century sourcing. The earliest it appears is some 150 years later anecdotally. Hence no one can claim that it is a generally known fact...because it is not provable factually (except by stories passed on with no supporting evidence) and it is not ‘generally’ accepted.
We KNOW by Paul’s own words that he was in Rome. In his letter to the Romans he talks about the time that he was there. And interestingly, in that very same letter Paul does not acknowledge Peter at all. IF Peter had been in Rome at that time, Paul would have acknowledged him.
Since the New Testament is absolutely silent on what happens with Peter and there is no other evidence that can be referred to Peter’s Roman adventures remain nothing more than stories of interest but unsupportable.
If that makes you feel better than you are welcome to it. as for me i will stick with the truth.
I can’t believe this thread is still going.
I really will.
Name and link or quote.
One can at least center the Dark Ages in the West as the period of anarchy between the fall of Rome and the rise of Charlemagne. That would put it roughly between 400 AD and 800 AD. The only source of order in that period --- the lighted pathway through the Dark Ages, if you will --- was the Catholic Church.
That's speaking of course of central and western Europe. The Roman empire continued in the East--- for another 1,000 years! --- until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
And I will stick with The Truth....
I think you might want to go back and reread Revelation, because not a single one of the 144,000 is a “survivor”. They are specifically martyrs, killed for their witnessing of the Lamb. They are the firstfruits of the resurrection, in a way (Christ was technically THE first fruit), and it is enlightening to compare them to the OT practice of firstfruits.
In the OT, the firstfruits were the best, most flawless part of the crop, which was given (offered, or sacrificed) to God before the rest was harvested. In Revelation, the 144,000 are the most blameless of mankind, who are martyred (sacrificed, and literally given to God) before the God reaps the rest of humanity.
Jesus does that every time when partaking of communion in Biblical Christian churches.
There are no “other Christ’s” as your Latin phrase indicates.
Only One, Jesus.
Invite the Holy Spirit to help.
The steps taken in the Catholic church are not needed to properly celebrate the Lord’s supper, but I know it is tradition.
Well, I was responding on this very thread to terycarl, who has stated:
“That having been said, the church itself, not individual members, is protected from error bu the Holy Spirrit.....the pope, bishops, priests, altar boys, nuns....etc. can err and be sinful.....the Church can’t!!.” in Post #81
So, there is the “Church never makes mistakes”, as it sounds to me.
Also, there is this, in Post #114:
“...in the 2013 year history of the Catholic Church, it has never taught anything in opposition to the teachings of Christ.....NEVER.”
Although he’s since walked that back to say he just meant the couple of teaching that have been pronounced ex cathedra, and not really everything the church has taught, even though that is not what he wrote.
“Christ cannot be there to change the bread and wine into his Body and Blood as he did at the Last Supper.”
Maybe the Christ you follow can’t do it, but the one I know can do pretty much whatever he pleases, since he is Lord of Heaven and Earth. He’s not imprisoned up in heaven unable to participate, instead, anywhere two or three of His follower gather, He is there too, whether one of those followers is a priest or not.
I can GAURANTEE the Apostles would have an much easier time recognizing the ecclesiology of most evangelicals than they would the ecclisiology of the RCC. It doesn't mean there are not Christians in the RCC...just like it doesn't mean there are not lost people in the evangelical movement.
But it's a matter of historical fact that the ecclesiology of New Testament Apostolic Christianity is vastly different than that of the modern (or even post 4th century) Catholic Church.
Whether that is right or wrong is a different debate I will not have (because in all my history and decades of debating Catholics on this issue...they have never persuaded me...and I have only persuaded one of them [and then he his family]). It's futile.
I guess it would depend on your definition of a survivor. What did they survive? Life without receiving the Mark of the Beast. That makes them survivors in my book.
That's true. But it also illustrates the problem with saying "the Church" this and that, without explaining exactly what you mean and how it's defined in this context.
Half the poorly-catechized Catholics --- let alone the other baffled brethren --- don't know whether you mean "the USCCB" or "L'Osservatore Romano" or "papal diplomacy" or "the Vatican's policy" (by which they mean, sometimes,the editorial tilt of L'Osservatore Romano) or "Pope Urban VIII's opinions on heliocentrism" or "the #@%# Diocesan Marriage Tribunal I had to tangle with back in the 1980's."
Best to say something like "the teachings which are de fide doctrines of the Catholic Church are free from error." Those who are actually interested in the truth, will inquire further; those who are actually not, will reach for another intellectual Cheez Doodle and go on to some other topic. Fine. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Tagline's for all to ponder, from Holy Scripture:
Thanks, Boogieman, for taking the time and care to provide the actual quotes, and promptly, too. I appreciate that.
Short answer: No. Why? Because Scriptural text can be interpreted a million different ways and so much depends on how Peter, the other Apostles, and their successors understood and applied His teachings. This is most manifest in the Holy Eucharist and the Catholic Mass. Indeed, at the very outset it was the early Church Fathers who decided on what books would be admitted as authentic Gospel and Biblical writings and what ought to be excluded.
Great Welcome to the Catholic Church!
See post #312.
sure he can....God promised it and so far...so good...for 2013 years the pope has never said anything ..Ex Cathedra...that was in error.
there is a difference between studying history and learning history....he studied it.
So, an official ex cathedra declaration is officially declared infallible beforehand? Except for those retroactively declared ex cathedra that occurred prior to 1870 when papal infallability became doctrine?
Is that about right?
How many ex cathedra declarations have there been since 1870, that were officially declared beforehand? And, who retroactively determined what was and was not to be declared ex cathedra prior to 1870?
why.....if not then, when???and really not at His birth, but when He gave unto Peter the authority to lead His church and gave him the keys to the kingdom of Heaven....works for me!
Dogmas of the Catholic Church [Catholic Caucus]
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] Our Lady and Dogmas: Pondering the Assumption (Launch of Rosary Crusade)
[CATHOLIC/FRIENDS CAUCUS] This dogmatic denunciation of dogma sponsored by a disorganized...
Preserved Sinless from the Moment of Humanity (Dogma of the Immaculate Conception) [Catholic Caucus]
The Decline of Dogma and the Decline of Church Membership
The Three D's -- Dogma, Doctrine and Discipline [Ecumenical]
Radio Replies First Volume - Dogma and reason
Radio Replies First Volume - Development of dogma
Docility (on Catholic dogma and infallibility)
Ineffabilis Deus: 8 December 1854 (Dogma of the Immaculate Conception)
the whole of scripture is protestant.............without the Catholics there would be NO SCRIPTURE....
all the new testament characters are Catholic...when Christ established the church, all who had been baptized immediately became cATHOLIC...there were no Lutherans, Methodists, POresbeterians ...nothing...just Catholics.
SATAN believes that Christ is the savior, Hitler probably believed it, PolPot might have believed it, David Koresch believed it, for crying out loud, certainly we have some responsibilty for our redemption...it cannot be as simple as believing one fact....Jesus is the Savior....BINGO!!!!!!!!! I am saved.....please.
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.