[Chrysostom]

(Ridley's Own) Hislop is doo-doo reading. And he was never an Archbishop. That book's entire thesis (that Roman Catholicism is warmed-over Babylonian paganism) rests on attempting to draw conclusions based on faulty connections and even faultier historical documentation such as this: Isis, Horus and Siris were Egyptian gods. IHS was (at one point) imprinted on all communion wafers. IHS on the wafers really stand for Isis Horus and Siris. Therefore, Roman Catholics are devil worshippers.

(Me) Hello, Jack Chick!

[Chrysostom]

(JerryLove) So when Jesus gave Peter "the keys to teh kingdom", and declared him the rock upon which the church would be built... what did that mean?

(Me) Peter was representative of the rest of the Apostles, in that they were entrusted with the Gospel. Jesus declared the Apostles specifically to be His appointed witnesses on Earth. They were the foundation of His Church (Ephesians 2:20), and held the "keys to the kingdom" because they were particularly responsible for being His witnesses (e.g., John 15:27; Acts 1:8; 13:31).

Ephesians 2:20
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

John 15:27
And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.

Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

Acts 13:31
and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.



(notmyown) But the question of Peter's authority as the "Bishop of Rome" is not in the Bible, nor is the idea of papal succession.

(ICTHUS) So, what, Peter suddenly died as soon as Revelation was written?

(Me) He actually died before Revelation was written, no matter which of the two most popular dates (mid-late 60s or 90s) we accept. He was martyred in the 60s. However, I don't really see how this is relevant.




(ICTHUS) Just because something isint written down in the Bible doesnt mean it wasn't meant to be.

(Me) Paul seemed fairly convinced that the Word was sufficient to equip the man of God for every good work (2 Timothy 3:17). It would be strange to discover that Paul had forgotten a complex ecclesiastical hierarchy with this comment -- especially considering that he was giving advice to a future pastor! I would think that, had the pastor been required to fully submit to the authority of the Pope, then, that Paul would have either pointed that out here, it would have been in Scripture elsewhere, or he wouldn't have said that the Scripture was sufficient to completely equip him as a pastor.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righ teousness,
17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.



(ICTHUS) You fundamentalists just cant get your mind around the idea...

(Me) Please don't resort to name-calling, my friend.



(GoldenChild16) I'm at work right now so I can't get to deep into this, but this verse is a PROMISE that Jesus will give Peter the authority over the Church. The actual action takes place in chapter 18 "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep."

(Me) Just as I said above, the Apostles held a special place in the Church -- they laid its foundation. So, did Peter and the other Apostles have a special task? Yes, absolutely. Did that include feeding His sheep? Yes, absolutely. But how does this verse support the complicated ecclesiological system of the Roman Catholic Church over, say, Episcopals or Presbyterians?

[joelsdad]

t Christ is King, and everything we have in the RCC comes from Him.

Please, do not give Jesus credit for everything in the RCC. Being a former cathilic who was a child pre Vatican 2 and a treen after vatican 2, having served as an altar boy for 11 years and havong attended Catholic schools for 13 years and having gone to seminary for one year (forgive my boasting) I think allows me a little knowledge as to what the church beleives.

Lets talk about one little place the RCC had as an official doctrine of God-----LIMBO!!!!!

For any who may not know what limbo WAS- it was a supposed place where all unbaptized babies who died went. They weren't good ewnough for heaven and nopt being baptized (and thus having the stain of original sin removed according to RCC doctrine) they weren't fit for heaven and weren't "bad" enough for hell so they went ot limbo. Of course Limbo was done away with ands every one promoted to heaven HOORAY!!!! Butr my question is was this place devised of by God or mans invention. For if it were of God no man can do away with ity.

How about pre vatican 2 and the fact that it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. This was not a venial but mortal--I still have my little 6th grade catechism that tells me so. But now it is not even a sin for Catholics to eat meat on Friday. Was this a design of God or of a church thqt in order to ensure its fleets of fishing vessells kept making a profit devised a way to make sure lots of fish was eaten.

Saints have been canonized and decanonized by the RCC. Was God mad at these folks in heaven He decided to demote them???

One more which is a biggie---PURGATORY. Suppossedly the place where nearly all of heaven bound humanity stops for a while to have the rest of their siuns burned off. This is the greatest blasphemy of the RCC for in creating this place out of thin air it says the blood of Christ alone cannot fully and totally forgive ALL sins.













1

[Chrysostom]

I think that all the RCC's "minor" problems -- Marian dogmas, Purgatory, and so on -- are completely dependent upon the root problem, which is the rejection of Sola Scriptura. By striking at the head -- the replacement of Scripture with tradition -- we strike at all the doctrines which fall out of it.

[Katholish]

For any who may not know what limbo WAS- it was a supposed place where all unbaptized babies who died went. They weren't good ewnough for heaven and nopt being baptized (and thus having the stain of original sin removed according to RCC doctrine) they weren't fit for heaven and weren't "bad" enough for hell so they went ot limbo. Of course Limbo was done away with ands every one promoted to heaven HOORAY!!!! Butr my question is was this place devised of by God or mans invention. For if it were of God no man can do away with ity. - Joelsdad

Actually, incorrect. Post-Resurrection Limbo has never been a doctrine of the Church. The Church has no "official teaching" on the destination of unbaptised babies, so theologians hold the Limbo theory, others do not. The Church has never made a solemn declaration on the matter, and thus it is free to be discussed. Your claim that the Limbo theory was dispelled in favor of an official teaching that all babies go to Heaven is incorrect as well. There is no such Church teaching.

Pre-Resurrection Limbo though, is a fact, and teaching of the Church. Limbo is the name we give to what the Bible refers to as "the Bosom of Abraham". That place where the Early Patriarchs and righteous people waited for the Incarnation, for before the Death of Christ, the Gates of Heaven were not yet open. Christ "descended into "hell"" to retrieve these holy people and give then access to Heaven. (For you do not suppose that Abraham is or was rotting in Hell?)

How about pre vatican 2 and the fact that it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays. This was not a venial but mortal--I still have my little 6th grade catechism that tells me so. But now it is not even a sin for Catholics to eat meat on Friday. Was this a design of God or of a church thqt in order to ensure its fleets of fishing vessells kept making a profit devised a way to make sure lots of fish was eaten. - Joelsdad

The Church has the right of odenience of her children, and has the right to make disciplinary laws concerning their well being. It is a mortal sin not to attend Mass on Sundays. This is disciplinary. No meat on Fridays (which still exists during Lent) was efficacious for the faithful, but when the Church in her wisdom, thought this too rigorous a requirement, dispensed with the command, and made it optional, though still recommended it. (I do not eat meat on Fridays.) The original law, has absolutley nothing to do with the fishing industry (which I think that you already knew), but with the fact that Our Lord died on a Friday, and has a memorial (and a way to keep us constantly mindful of His sacrifice) we abstain from meat, for it was blood sacrifices that Our Lord came to replace, giving Himself up in reparation for our sins.

Saints have been canonized and decanonized by the RCC. Was God mad at these folks in heaven He decided to demote them??? - Joelsdad

There has never been a "decanonized" saint in the history of the world. If you wanted to specify what it is you are referring to, I might be better able to address the concern. Canonization is an infallible process.

One more which is a biggie---PURGATORY. Suppossedly the place where nearly all of heaven bound humanity stops for a while to have the rest of their siuns burned off. This is the greatest blasphemy of the RCC for in creating this place out of thin air it says the blood of Christ alone cannot fully and totally forgive ALL sins. - Joelsdad

Purgatory is a topic of such scope, that if you wanted to discuss it further, we had best start another topic. Sufficieth to say, that we in no way hold that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient to forgive all sins, for all of those in Purgatory have been forgiven, but must still be "purified" for nothing may enter Heaven that is not pure, and a virgin and a prostitute, while both may be saved, may have differing levels of purity, in the one case, it would certainly not be thought of as perfect.

[Lyle]

(JerryLove) So when Jesus gave Peter "the keys to teh kingdom", and declared him the rock upon which the church would be built... what did that mean?

(Me) When you look at the passage closely. Jesus gives Peter a name that means "little rock" and it will be upon "rock" that He will build His church. He wasn't reffering to Peter, on whom He will build the church, for Jesus is the rock of the church

[Ranger_Aragorn]

I think that all the RCC's "minor" problems -- Marian dogmas, Purgatory, and so on -- are completely dependent upon the root problem, which is the rejection of Sola Scriptura. By striking at the head -- the replacement of Scripture with tradition -- we strike at all the doctrines which fall out of it.

The RCC certainly does not replace Scripture with Tradition.

I think Jesus (when he originally said this) threw in two greek words which had similar meanings to each other, but meant different types of Rocks (i.e. big rocks and small rocks). Afterall don't you occassionally use the odd word that isn't English? (I know I do, I often through the odd Afrikaans word into what I am saying)

No, but I haven't had the chance to learn another language yet, so I can't really connect with ya there

If you can prove Jesus was speaking Aramaic, and then all of sudden started speaking Greek in the middle of a sentence, I am more than willing to listen.

My understanding (and that of many many other protests) is this: Peter had just hit on the single most important revelation in the History of Man, that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God. That is the very foundation that the Church is built on. You take that Revelation away and Christianity is a pointless waste of time, a hollowshell that would have fallen down millennia ago.

Yes, but this doesn't mean in any way that Jesus didn't refer to Peter as the rock... also, there are actually many Protestants who accept that Peter was the rock

Peter called himself an elder. That is not in debate, and never was. But what he does say is significant. Peter says: To the elders: I, who am also an elder...." Were Peter in charge of the whole Church, he would hardly have to justify his position as an elder, to fellow elders. Yet he felt the need to remind them that he was an elder.

So? The Pope is a fellow bishop, but that doesn't make him non-authoratative, or not the Pope. What does this have to do with justification?

OK, back to the President example

What if in a meeting he says "I exhort to the fellow leaders among you, as a fellow leader and witness to the...."

That means he's not the President? There are other leaders of the U.S., they just aren't as high up as he is. I'm sorry, but this just isn't striking me as a strong arguement.

Just what do you think Shepherding is?

16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mount where Jesus appointed them. 17 And seeing Him, they worshiped Him. But they doubted.

18 And coming up Jesus talked with them, saying, All authority in Heaven and on earth was given to Me.

19 Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen.

OK, I thought the same. I am not saying there can't be other shepherds. Just that the Pope is the head shepherd on earth.

is it just a coincidence that peters name means rock? ... did Jesus change his name to peter or rock? ... or was he called peter before he met up with Jesus?

Jesus changed his name. Read John 1:42

[Chrysostom]

(Previous) I think that all the RCC's "minor" problems -- Marian dogmas, Purgatory, and so on -- are completely dependent upon the root problem, which is the rejection of Sola Scriptura. By striking at the head -- the replacement of Scripture with tradition -- we strike at all the doctrines which fall out of it.

(Ranger_Aragorn) The RCC certainly does not replace Scripture with Tradition.

(Me) The RCC teaches that the Church is the infallible interpreter of the Scripture. This is because of tradition. Since the Scripture's meaning is controlled by the Church in the Roman theory of knowledge, the Scripture has, in effect, been replaced by the Church. And, of course, the Church supposedly has power because of tradition. So, the Church and tradition have replaced the Scriputre, in the RCC theory of knowledge.

[Goldenchild16]

For a short response to the petros/petra argument.
At this time of Christ, the words Petros and Petra were starting to lose their meanings as defined. Actually if Jesus really wanted to make it clear that Peter was only the small rock then he would have used the word "Lithos".

Although we can go back and forth on the meanings of the Greek text, we must first realize that the book of Matthew was first written in Aramaic, the language that Matthew spoke, so that the locals could understand it. Then, when it became more widespread it was translated into Greek. You may not believe that, but then consider this... Jesus was one of the locals. He spoke regularly with the apostles, who were locals. The locals spoke Aramaic. Jesus spoke Aramaic.
What difference does this make you might ask? A lot!
The word that Jesus really used for Peter was "Kephas" or Kepha".
How do we know this? By looking at the bible!
John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter.)"
1 Corinthians 1:12
What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
1 Corinthians 3:22
"whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future–all are yours,"
1 Corinthians 9:5
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

That's only a few.

[Raphael]

Before I go on any further...Ranger Aragorn, and Golden Child, Welcome to CGR, please stay with us for a long time to come.
And don't panic, threads about Catholicism and it being wrong or right are too common place here.

Back to the debating circle....

(Ranger Aragorn)
The RCC certainly does not replace Scripture with Tradition.

(Roger)
Catholicism places Tradition above Scripture. (or at the very least on par with Scripture).

(Ranger Aragorn)
No, but I haven't had the chance to learn another language yet, so I can't really connect with ya there

If you can prove Jesus was speaking Aramaic, and then all of sudden started speaking Greek in the middle of a sentence, I am more than willing to listen.

(Roger)
Obviously I can't prove it, my tape recorder gave out at that bit.

Seriously though Yes, I cannot prove it, however it can be safely assumed to be what happened. Greek was a contempory language, it held an equivalent position in world languages that English now holds. If you wanted to do some trade with someone who wasn't the name nationalilty as you, you spoke Greek. Jesus was a trademan (carpenter) before He started His ministry here on Earth. It is a given that he knew atleast a smattering of Greek, and very likely he was passably fleunt in Greek.

And trust me when you can speak more than one language you slip in the odd word or two from various languages, especially if you can make a play on words.
touché

(Goldenchild16)
At this time of Christ, the words Petros and Petra were starting to lose their meanings as defined.

(Roger)
Please cite evidence of this.

(Goldenchild16)
Actually if Jesus really wanted to make it clear that Peter was only the small rock then he would have used the word "Lithos".

(Roger)
Which would have made the clever play on words with Petra and Petros impossible.
As I said before, there was a clever play on words with what Jesus said.

[joelsdad]

Actually, incorrect. Post-Resurrection Limbo has never been a doctrine of the Church. The Church has no "official teaching" on the destination of unbaptised babies, so theologians hold the Limbo theory, others do not. The Church has never made a solemn declaration on the matter, and thus it is free to be discussed. Your claim that the Limbo theory was dispelled in favor of an official teaching that all babies go to Heaven is incorrect as well. There is no such Church teaching.

Your statment here is incorrect. The old Baltimore Catechism series which contains the official nihiil obstat and imprematur of the church categorically states that unbaptized children went ot Limbo if they died. Also Vatican 2 officially ended limbo. That was big news in the 60's for many Catholics.



The Church has the right of odenience of her children, and has the right to make disciplinary laws concerning their well being

Yes each individual local assembly has the duty to maintain discipline in the congregation, bu tthe RCC declared eating meat on friday to be a mortal sin--which you know the RCC teaches that anyone who dies with mortal sin on their soul is condemned for eeternity. Do you think God would send wsomeone to hell because of eating meat? And when they diod away with this capital punishment for hot dog eating on Fridays--what about all the suppossed souls lost for sneaking a boloney sandwich on Fridays? Were they given post death pardons and promoted. I do not know how old you are--but these declarations from Vatican 2 created a stir in Cathilic circles just as switching from latin to English and being asllowed to take commuinion in you rhand were.

[Chrysostom]

(Goldenchild16) For a short response to the petros/petra argument.

(Me) Why has no one answered my arguments?

[Katholish]

Your statment here is incorrect. The old Baltimore Catechism series which contains the official nihiil obstat and imprematur of the church categorically states that unbaptized children went ot Limbo if they died. Also Vatican 2 officially ended limbo. That was big news in the 60's for many Catholics. - Joelsdad

Firstly, I would like to remind you that while the Baltimore Catechism is free from doctrinal error, as the imprematur states, it does not represent a teaching of the Church in and of itself, as it is only an interpretation of such teaching specifically designed for the Church in America. That being said, I do not see specifically where it states what you claim, for in the index under "Limbo" there are only referrences to Pre-Resurrection Limbo.

Secondly, Vatican II did not "officially end" Limbo. The question is still up for speculation among theologians. Would you mind citing the Vatican II document that you are questioning?

Do you think God would send wsomeone to hell because of eating meat? And when they diod away with this capital punishment for hot dog eating on Fridays--what about all the suppossed souls lost for sneaking a boloney sandwich on Fridays? Were they given post death pardons and promoted. - Joelsdad

The Church never said that eating meat in and of iteself was wrong. It declared it mortal sin to disobey the law of abstinence. So yes, I do think that a person would be condemned for blatent disobedience to the Church. Being a matter of discipline only, the fact that said discipline was latter removed, does not reflect upon the crime of disobedience in the first place. Dispensation from abstinence was not retroactive.

[joelsdad]

That being said, I do not see specifically where it states what you claim, for in the index under "Limbo" there are only referrences to Pre-Resurrection Limbo.

If I can figure oiut how to scan a page into this thread I will show you in a Catholic Bible the "official" teaching of the church. This is a St. Josephs edition published in the 1940's with an official edited catechism in it.

The Church never said that eating meat in and of iteself was wrong. It declared it mortal sin to disobey the law of abstinence. So yes, I do think that a person would be condemned for blatent disobedience to the Church.

I thought the Bible was clear that only God could determine what sin was--can you show me anywehere where the church was given the right to name something a sin so grievous (that is not spelled out in Scripture) as to exclude someone from heaven for eternity. Remember it still is the written position of the RCC that if someone dies with mortal sin on their soul--they are condemned.

Firstly, I would like to remind you that while the Baltimore Catechism is free from doctrinal error, as the imprematur states, it does not represent a teaching of the Church in and of itself, as it is only an interpretation of such teaching specifically designed for the Church in America.

So this catechism when it states limbo is where unbaptized babies went un til Vatican 2 is doctrinally correct but only for babies who died in America that were un baptized??????

Secondly, Vatican II did not "officially end" Limbo. The question is still up for speculation among theologians. Would you mind citing the Vatican II document that you are questioning?

They can speculate all they want--but Vatican 2 pardoned all those babies in "limbo". If I can find a document ot back it up I will put it here. this was around 40 years ago.

The RCC certainly does not replace Scripture with Tradition.

Once again this is not true, fo rRCC beleives in oral tradition that after Constantine legitimized Chrisitanity Catholicism started promulgating many doctrines that supposedly were handed down orally fropm generastion to generation..


A question I wish to ask you Katholish and the other Catholic apologists on this thread--If a Church promotes ateaching that is clearly in opposition to The Word of Gos--should we stay wityh the Word of God and oppose the teaching or should we reject the clear teaching of Scripture and go with the "new revelation"???

[Katholish]

If I can figure oiut how to scan a page into this thread I will show you in a Catholic Bible the "official" teaching of the church. This is a St. Josephs edition published in the 1940's with an official edited catechism in it. - Joelsdad

Is this catechism the Baltimore catechism then? I have a Baltimore #3, 1949. If you are implying that because this catechism was attached to the Bible, that it means that that catechism represents an official teaching of the Church, and not merely a summary of that teaching, or an explaination, I can assure you that it does not. In order for something to be an official teaching of the Church, it must be a universal teaching. Meaning, one that is for the entire Church. The Baltimore catechism was made specifically for the Church in America, and thus is clearly not an official Church teaching in itself, but a summary and explaination.

I thought the Bible was clear that only God could determine what sin was--can you show me anywehere where the church was given the right to name something a sin so grievous (that is not spelled out in Scripture) as to exclude someone from heaven for eternity. Remember it still is the written position of the RCC that if someone dies with mortal sin on their soul--they are condemned.

I do believe that Matt 16:19 provides for that. If you disagree with the interpretation, that is another matter.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Yes, I am aware of what mortal sin is, and what it implies.

So this catechism when it states limbo is where unbaptized babies went un til Vatican 2 is doctrinally correct but only for babies who died in America that were un baptized??????

No, I pointed out that the Baltimore catechism was designed for the Church in America only to point out that it in itself is not an official teaching of the Church, and to point out that the Imprematur only states that the book is free from doctrinal error, which isn't the same as saying that everything in a book is Church teaching, or even correct for that matter excect insofar as it does not contradict doctrine.

They can speculate all they want--but Vatican 2 pardoned all those babies in "limbo". If I can find a document ot back it up I will put it here. this was around 40 years ago.

The Council most certainly did not "pardon" babies. If it ruled on the issue of Limbo (which I do not believe it did) then it would have stated that a Post-Resurrection Limbo does not exist. Hence there would never have been anything in a non-existant place to begin with. I am aware of when the Council took place. I have a copy of all of its documents on my desk. I will thus be able to look up anything that you site.

A question I wish to ask you Katholish and the other Catholic apologists on this thread--If a Church promotes ateaching that is clearly in opposition to The Word of Gos--should we stay wityh the Word of God and oppose the teaching or should we reject the clear teaching of Scripture and go with the "new revelation"???

I cannot answer an impossible hypothetical. You must know that we maintain that the Church is infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit, Who preserves her from doctrinal error. Thus it is an impossibility that the Church could officially contradict, either herself, or God. Now, whether or not a Church teaching "appears" to be contrary by some people is a matter interpretation. I will try then to answer your question with some amendments.
New Question:
If the Church declared a teaching that appeared to you to contradict Scripture, would you oppose the teaching?
My Answer:
No, for then I would know that my private interpretation was incorrect. I am only human afterall. The Church, however, is appointed and protected by God to be the final arbitor in matters of interpretation.