Posted on 04/15/2015 10:35:02 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Rome?
The miniseries was great but bawdy....Ciarán Hinds as Caesar stole the show
Rome the city is a must see for any well traveled inhabitant of the third planet from our star
That’s my two cents on Rome
What theology is that?
I’m southern Baptist....large congregation sort
I’m 57
prolly sat in a pew 1800 Sundays and a few Wednesday nights
Been to a few Presbyterian Lutheran Methodist and Assembly of God too
Never heard Catholics brought up but twice
When Pope was shot...offering prayers
And when mission work in Uganda hot zone overlapped with Catholic groups and our assistant pastor discussed the joy of cooperation and joint effort
So where are these services that smear Catholics as part of their service
Likewise I’ve been to mass many times and not seen the reverse either
But here on FR it’s 1500s again
A few of the Catholics have done that on this site. I was very shocked the time I read that if people were not Catholic, they would never go to heaven. No where in the Bible is that said. What arrogance.
Why do these conversations have to be contentious? I would much rather have a rational debate with people than getting "poppycock" and other generalities as responses. That is what I lament and am "ranting" about... the loss of civility and conversation on this board.
Jesus does not share His headship ...it is His and His alone. ALL authority is given TO HIM above all others.
Yes... and it is by this authority that He Himself grants authority that is His alone. Read Matthew 9...
1 He entered a boat, made the crossing, and came into his own town. 2 And there people brought to him a paralytic lying on a stretcher. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Courage, child, your sins are forgiven.” 3 At that, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4 Jesus knew what they were thinking, and said, “Why do you harbor evil thoughts? 5 Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic, “Rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home.”Forgiving sins is blaspheming because God alone has such authority. Jesus not only shows that He has such authority but ALSO THAT IT IS HIS TO GIVE TO MEN...
John 20: 19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side.[m] The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. 23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”The Apostles were given the authority of Christ... authority reserved to God alone. This is REAL authority. It is from Christ and by Christ through His ministers. Matt 10:40 goes even farther in showing REAL authority...
“Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me."All authority has been granted Christ and He granted authority to His Bride, the Church, for the administration of His Kingdom even to the extent of standing for Him to His people.
In Matt 16:18, Christ promised to build His Church. Between which parties is the Covenant made when Christ is lifted up on the Cross? Christ and His Church (Eph 5:25-27). The Church was always the point and SHE is there at the beginning. We can argue about the makeup of the Church... is She the embodiment of ALL believers or just the baptized or just members of the RCC... but it seems fairly ludicrous to argue that the Church wasn't there to receive authority from Christ.
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ... not Christ Himself. He is the Prime Minister among ministers of the Kingdom. Christ is the head of the Church and She has never claimed otherwise.
If you care, please read and learn what the Church actually teaches rather than continuing to spout nonsense: II. The Church - Body of Christ
"Not 100 people in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is.” -- Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Vicar - Latin vicārius a substitute, performed, exercised, received, or suffered in place of another, taking the place of another person or thing; acting or serving as a substitute
A substitute indeed. The more I learn about the Catholic Church the more abhorrent it looks.
I used to defend my faith on the forum but now just avoid all the animus.
Like the last line in Roneo and Juliet “all are punished!”
Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
I don't know about you but I am a one-man business with four homeschooling kids... I don't have time to respond to everything. If you look at my posting history, you will see that I take as many challenges as one man can reasonably handle... I never shrink from a good debate. I try to follow conversations to conclusions. Unfortunately, what often happens is that multiple posters try to get in on the action and a voice can get drowned out and overwhelmed quickly. I have every intention of returning to the thread in question when I have time to do it justice. I haven't forgotten that you sent me multiple very long posts. I don't just want to give short or curt responses. Alas, life gets in the way. Please be patient with me as I do try to get to the worthwhile challenges. Your posts in particular take a great deal of time to handle. That is a compliment to you.
All i see you doing is usually expressing the same old assertions or type of argumentation that have been often challenged and refuted here. We are not to continue past debates with a poster interactively from threads to threads, but i think if you care to affirm here the argumentation which you referred to here, most of which i usually see other RCs making, then i think we could deal with them again as a group.
And yet you just made my point that you highlighted at the top of your post... "crickets?" Again, people may disagree with our responses but the responses have been anything but crickets.
That Aramaic is determinative what Mt. 16:18 means and which is that Peter is the Rock, t despite what other researchers and the rest of Scripture says
I don't claim to be the world's best Scripture scholar. I proclaim what I know and what I've learned. I could be wrong about the Aramaic assertion... it's been years since I remember that particular discussion that brought it up. I will point out something, though... taking the linguistic gymnastics out of it, Jesus did change Peter's name to "rock" at the exact same time that He discusses on which "rock" He will build His Church. Coincidence? Ok... but I think many people get caught up in the jots and tittles and miss the plainness of the words in front of their faces. In a single sentence, Jesus permanently changed St Peter's name and referenced that name (or a variation thereof) as a rock for His Church. There are only a few times in the Bible where names get changed... and it is always with great importance.
That the fallible interpretation of Is. 22:15-23 speaks of Peter, not Christ if anyone in the secondary sense.
Haven't seen this particular line of reasoning but I'd like to see how your exegesis put Jesus in the role of Prime Minister rather than King. There are clearly defined roles being discussed in Is. 22.
And the strawman that Protestant faith means that have have no appeal to ecclesiastical magisterium...
Can you point me to the infallible pronouncements of this overarching Protestant magisterium to which all must subscribe?
That Peter was The spokesman for the apostles in Acts 15, but had no Scripture for him to cite (yet James did), and which somehow refutes SS, as if Scriptural substantiation was not the basis for this judgment, as if an explicit text is needed.
If you read the Gospels, you will see that St Peter is always the spokesman for the Apostles when they are gathered together. And he didn't have Scripture to cite to say that the Gentiles didn't have to be circumcised to be part of the Church. Can you tell me what Scripture he consulted and quoted? He had to rely on his judgement based on the teachings of Christ. What came out of the Council of Jerusalem was new doctrine.
That the sole replacement of an apostle, Judas, translates into continued apostolic succession, and which translates into Catholic apostolic succession, versus leadership being thru presbuteros which were charged with being overseers. And that NT pastors are RC "priests," though nonexistent in Scripture, based upon the premise that there primary distinctive function was that of offering up the Eucharist a sacrifice for sin, though they are never even shown to do so in the life of the church, and preaching the word is said to be their primary distinctive function, by which souls are "nourished," nor is the Cath literalistic interpretation of the Lord's supper supported by the rest of Scripture, including in the life of the church, while only the metaphorical position easily conflates with it.
Lots of assertions in a run-on sentence. Nothing here to hang my hat on. This is an example of what makes conversations so difficult. You go on and on but don't actually make a point of refutation beyond mere words and opinion.
That Rome did not stifle the translation of the Bible into the languages of the people but was just keeping it safe, with the laity relying upon what was read and explained in Mass so as to preserve (cultic) unity.
Until the advent of the printing press Bibles were copied by hand. They were primarily translated into the language of the learned, Latin. They were read to all at Mass and explained so that all could understand. Unity (cultic?) of Faith is what Christ desired for His Church (John 17:21, Eph 4:13). Why would the Church do other than it did from a truly historical perspective?
Look, I'm out of time and only halfway through your post. This is my problem with responding to you. If you could pick a topic for discussion, that would help me engage you... and I would like to engage in a good dialogue with you.
Rather than relying on Webster’s for your knowledge of Catholic doctrine, won’t you please just take a moment at the link I gave you? It might illuminate some misconceptions of the Church.
So you are saying that because you never personally heard that it doesn’t ever happen?
That certainly makes it truism.
I've read that pgyanke. It starts off with #781 which has part of it's belief that the "church" has superseded the nation of Israel. It has not. The nation of Israel is once again being gathered by God just as He promised He would do. The nation of Israel still has seven years of the 490 years promised to it. The ekklesia of Christ is separate from the nation of Israel.
Also, the rest of page you sent me to presumes that the Catholic Church is the "church" referred to in scripture. It can not be that "church". The Catholic Church includes beliefs not taught by the apostles and incorporated pagan beliefs and practices. There is no way the Catholic Church can be that "church" spoken of in scripture.
So says you. However, Christ has been building His Church (as He promised He would) for 2000 years. She has been enriched by the intellects and faith of great saints, clergy, laymen and doctors. She has withstood challenges far greater than those posted on this forum and endeavored to keep teaching all who would listen. You are not the first to think they have "gotcha" arguments for why the Church can't be the Church and you will not be the last. History reads like this forum with challenge and response. Those who can not accept go their way as disciples did in John 6 because the teachings are hard and mysterious. We simply walk by faith and not by sight following what Christ has built and continues to guide.
God bless.
That's not why they left pgyanke.
>> She has been enriched by the intellects and faith of great saints, clergy, laymen and doctors.<<
Catholics do put their faith in their men don't they.
Enlighten me.
Catholics do put their faith in their men don't they.
it's idiotic comments like this that really make me question the time I spend on this board. Those men (and women, by the way) pointed to Christ. Their example and teaching is worth examination. Even here, you are attempting to teach others. Why should anyone listen to what you have to say?
For that matter, if you really want to boil Sola Scriptura down to its essence, by what authority does anyone who holds that view explain Scripture? Surely it's a conflict of logic to preach that nothing may be added to Scripture and then add your own personal exegesis.
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1,
Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. — http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm
Yet as the Dominican cardinal and Catholic theologian Yves Congar O.P. states,
Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare...One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. — Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., p. 71
And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock, stated that,
“If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” — Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.
Your own CCC allows the interpretation that, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424), for some of the ancients (for what their opinion is worth) provided for this or other interpretations.
• Ambrosiaster [who elsewhere upholds Peter as being the chief apostle to whom the Lord had entrusted the care of the Church, but not superior to Paul as an apostle except in time], Eph. 2:20:
Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life. — Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians—Philemon, Eph. 2:20; Gerald L. Bray, p. 42
• Augustine, sermon:
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.
• Augustine, sermon:
For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
• Augustine, sermon:
And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
• Augustine, sermon:
Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95
• Augustine, sermon:
...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193
• Augustine, Psalm LXI:
Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)
• Augustine, in “Retractions,”
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
"Not 100 people in the United States hate Mary of the bible, but millions hate what they see that the Roman Catholic Church has made her into.” -- Elsie the Great.
No links for me; I'll post some of your 'church' teachings right here!!
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
KUMBYAH!
They left because they had not been His from the Father. Read the chapter.
>>Those men (and women, by the way) pointed to Christ.<<
Give me a break. Everything Catholic supports the hierarchy of the "Church". I purely nicolaitan.
They call what you’re attempting straw man around here
We call it putting words in people’s mouths
Many Catholics here pretend they are under steady non Catholic assault but I personally I’ve never seen such nor even much mention of Catholics
My first question to you was which theology does this openly since I never see such
Likewise I never see Catholics in my life bash non Catholics except here where some Catholics claim salvation is only attainable thru their church
I think any denomination that indulges in such provincial chauvinism is following a dark road and missing the point
There is no monopoly on access to Christ
This stroking here is just BS frankly
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.