Could Jack Chick be Right???

[sambos671]

Or Maybe they’re wringing their hands in anger!

 

[ralphinal]

Or Maybe they’re wringing their hands in anger!

Irony of Ironies!! They are the money men behind Jack Chick! IT is all too clear. Make it look like the only person who sees their plots is a loon and then you can work in peace

 

[Mosacked]

If you are basing your faith system on that which is expressly shown in the Bible, you have no ritual at all. Catholic mass is based on the Didache, among other things, which dates from the time of the Apostles.

The support for the Real Presence is clear in Scriptures. What you point to is a difference in understanding of the Bible. You cannot prove to me that my point is invalid because yours disagrees. In fact, your point of view is NOT consistent with the early Church

Jack Chick claims it. It is a lie that he printed

Someone said blessed are those who do not see yet believe. I can’t recall who it was

Which came first, the Bible or the Church?

Others will discuss Purgatory

Ralph,

the key is in verifying if the person is indeed God-sent. If we fail to do that, everything falls apart. For example, the muslims believe muhammad was god-sent, and because of that, they believe everything he said and nothing else makes sense to them. Likewise, if you believe that the catholic system was established by God, then nothing else matters because you wouldn’t believe them anyhow.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT PETER WAS OFFICIATED AS POPE AND HAD PASSED IT DOWN TO THE CATHOLICS?

You don’t. You only have with you the historical ‘records’ from the catholic founders.

The only way to challenge this is to awake Peter. Otherwise, its just TALK.

.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Ralph,

the key is in verifying if the person is indeed God-sent. If we fail to do that, everything falls apart. For example, the muslims believe muhammad was god-sent, and because of that, they believe everything he said and nothing else makes sense to them. Likewise, if you believe that the catholic system was established by God, then nothing else matters because you wouldn’t believe them anyhow.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT PETER WAS OFFICIATED AS POPE AND HAD PASSED IT DOWN TO THE CATHOLICS?

You don’t. You only have with you the historical ‘records’ from the catholic founders.

The only way to challenge this is to awake Peter. Otherwise, its just TALK.

.

I truly dislike how you are categorizing Ralph here; you are basically saying all Catholics are dolts because we choose, after much reading and prayer, that the Catholic church is Jesus’ church. It’s insulting to the great doctors of the Church such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas as well as to all Catholic posters. If you want to dismiss legitimate written records, then fine but don’t call our intelligence into question.

 

[sambos671]

Irony of Ironies!! They are the money men behind Jack Chick! IT is all too clear. Make it look like the only person who sees their plots is a loon and then you can work in peace

Yes! Jack Chick is a Jesuit spy! No wonder he’s paranoid!

 

[greggy53]

Ralph,

the key is in verifying if the person is indeed God-sent. If we fail to do that, everything falls apart. For example, the muslims believe muhammad was god-sent, and because of that, they believe everything he said and nothing else makes sense to them. Likewise, if you believe that the catholic system was established by God, then nothing else matters because you wouldn’t believe them anyhow.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT PETER WAS OFFICIATED AS POPE AND HAD PASSED IT DOWN TO THE CATHOLICS?

You don’t. You only have with you the historical ‘records’ from the catholic founders.

The only way to challenge this is to awake Peter. Otherwise, its just TALK.

.

We know that the Holy Bible contains the word of God (not the koran). The word of God says that Jesus established his Church on earth and made St Peter it’s first leader. It’s that simple. You either believe, or you don’t.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph,

the key is in verifying if the person is indeed God-sent. If we fail to do that, everything falls apart. For example, the muslims believe muhammad was god-sent, and because of that, they believe everything he said and nothing else makes sense to them. Likewise, if you believe that the catholic system was established by God, then nothing else matters because you wouldn’t believe them anyhow.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT PETER WAS OFFICIATED AS POPE AND HAD PASSED IT DOWN TO THE CATHOLICS?

You don’t. You only have with you the historical ‘records’ from the catholic founders.

The only way to challenge this is to awake Peter. Otherwise, its just TALK.

.

But, how do you know that he was not the first Pope? Do you throw it out because it is a Catholic Claim?

First, to tell is someone was sent by God, we need to check their message against previous ones. Muhammed fails on that account. Jesus does not. Second, we need to check their message against itself. Is it internally contradictory or not? Muhammed fails on that account. Jesus does not. So, we know that Jesus is sent by God. Because we know that, we can trust what Jesus says.

Now, using the same logic, let us check the claim of Peter as the first Pope. Does it fit with preveous Biblical precedent? Yes. Peter is the steward and caretaker of the early Church (which is what the Pope is today). There is tons of proof for that, and you can find it on here. Adam was steward and caretaker of the Garden. David’s kingdom had a steward as well. So, there is no issue there. Second, is it internally consistant to have that? Yes. If you do not have one Pope, you will have one million. JEsus prayed that we all be one. If he would have known that to be impossible if everyone could make it up as they go

 

[sambos671]

I don’t know how the discussion of the Jesuit Spy Jack Chick became about the Papacy. There are several things that leads us to believe that Jesus Christ established the Papacy (or the Primacy of Peter) and that the Church for the most part Adhered to it through the ages and thus it is consistent teaching. But like most Christian Doctrines it has developed over time. Jesus said to Peter “Your are Peter” Greek rendering is Petros which is the masculine form of rock which most likely the word used was Kephas. But this alone is not enough evidence. Application in scriptures also gives a key. James the leader of the Church in Jerusalem only applies Peter’s suggestion or upholds it rather than negating it. Also note that historically we can see that Apostles became heads of local Churches. James in Jerusalem (both the Great and the Less), John in Antioch, Mark in Alexandria. Clements leter puts Peter in Rome by mention of his death, Ignatius writes “I do not commend you as Peter and Paul did.” List given by Ireneaus and Tertullian shows Apostolic succession in Rome. Note this by Vidmar

When Ignatius of Antioch was on his way to Rome to be executed in 110 AD, he wrote a letter to the Romans and spoke with unusual defference of the Roman Church “a church worthy of God, wothy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification,k and presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, and bearer of the Father’s name.”
2. Eastern and Western Churhces disagreed about the dating of Easter, with the East opting for 14th Nissan…and the West Choosing the Sunday after 14th Nissan. Pope Anicetus and Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, had disputed the question amicably, but a crisiscame about 180 AD, when anAsiatic group visiting Rome observed the Eastern date. Pope Victor wished to bring the East in conformity with the Western practice and wasdefied by the bishop of Ephesus. Victor first excommunicatedthe Asian group in Rome, then the diocese of Asia- or at least he threatened to. The ensuing controversy is pertenant in that Irenaeus did not question the pope’s right to excommunicate or to intervene in the workings of another diocese
3. Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, appealed to Pope Stephen when another bishop (Marcion of Arles) proved intractable in reconciling lapsi to the church, even on their death beds. The implication was that the Bishop of Rome Could intervene…

And several other instances showing primacy of Rome in the Christian communion. So a combination of Scripture, History, Tradition, and practice lead to an undestanding of the Primacy of the Papacy.

 

[jmcrae]

“There is an instance in the Book of Acts where the Church rules against what the Bible says. So, you tell me who has more authority the Church or the Bible? …think.”

I’ve heard a lot about the church and the bible in my time but I’ve never heard this…Would you please give the scriptures your referring to so we all can see what going on…Thanks…God Bless…

In Acts 15, the Apostles gather together in Council in the city of Jerusalem, and they rule that it is not necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised, or to refrain from “unclean” foods other than animal blood - this is the opposite of what is clearly taught in the Old Testament about how Gentiles are to be converted to the ways of God.

The Judaizers were formally excommunicated by the Council for their “Bible alone” approach to the situation, where they were circumcising the Gentile converts and requiring them to refrain from unclean foods - just as it tells us to do, in the Old Testament (which was all the Scripture that existed in those days - the first word of the New Testament was not written down until 51 AD which was at least a decade after that.)

 

[Caramel]

Hey always remember not all prots are in the same bag…I believe in His presence in the communion, not everybody who does goes for the trans and con explanation…I accept it by faith…We have a spiritual walk in faith it doesn’t depend on what the eye sees or the taste buds taste …Guess you see I’m back…Our church has a food bank…Some of our church uses it along with people of the community…We have a Thanksgiving dinner for our church and those who come to the food bank… I sat in a nice padded chair in back of the gravy server and prayed for those in the line…Hey would you mind looking in your catahchism and see what they say about rewards and crowns…Thanks God Bless…Kim

Yeah, but Jack Chick believes that Catholics believe that the priest uses “magical” powers to pull Christ out of Heaven and put Him back on the cross. I suppose that means that every time transubstantiation is achieved, Christ is being pulled down out of heaven, etc. So that must happen an awful lot with all the Catholic Masses and that is just the Catholics!! Of course that came from his tract “Are Roman Catholics Christian?” so I guess he may have written a tract called “Are Protestants who Believe in Transubstantiation Christians” or a tract called “Is Anyone who Believes in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation Christian?”

 

[Caramel]

Ralph,

the key is in verifying if the person is indeed God-sent. If we fail to do that, everything falls apart. For example, the muslims believe muhammad was god-sent, and because of that, they believe everything he said and nothing else makes sense to them. Likewise, if you believe that the catholic system was established by God, then nothing else matters because you wouldn’t believe them anyhow.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT PETER WAS OFFICIATED AS POPE AND HAD PASSED IT DOWN TO THE CATHOLICS?

You don’t. You only have with you the historical ‘records’ from the catholic founders.

The only way to challenge this is to awake Peter. Otherwise, its just TALK.

.

No. It is not just TALK. “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18). In the Douay-Rheims Bible it goes on to explain: "As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the Church; in which building he should be, next to Christ Himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fullness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

“The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if He had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the Church was to be built: Christ Himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building His House, that is, His Church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods…”

Christ’s use of the term “gates of hell” refers to…" the powers of darkness and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or Church of Christ.

“By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ.”

Christ established His Church with the Apostle Peter as the rock that supported it. At this point Peter was Catholic as he belonged to the Church founded by Jesus; the Catholic Church. Knowing that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is supported makes him the first Pope, ordained as such by Jesus Himself.

Also, in Matthew 16:19 it is stated that “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.” Peter is given the authority to pass on the title of Pope to his successor.

I apologize for not being able to give you the page numbers from the Douay-Rheims Bible, as I have it on my kindle and I don’t know how to reference citations of the books and passages that I have stored there.

 

[Caramel]

Thread Participants:

I had written an entire page discussing a large part of the Jack Chick tract “Last Rites” and I had decided to continue it tomorrow morning when I did something and the whole thing disappeared. This is the second time that has happened to me today!!

I am so sorry. I am ill and I just can’t post the whole thing again today. I can’t believe it happened twice.

The name of the tract is “Last Rites” and it is about a Catholic named John who…well, you can check the tract yourself if you want. I had a hard time “translating” this tract from Jack Chick’s normal comic book format into a format that could be used here and the only way I can discuss it is to present the story and point out what I believe to be errors as I go along.

And that’s what I was doing and then - it was gone. I had stopped because of space constraints and I just can’t do it again tonight. I am so sorry.

 

[greggy53]

Caramel, the Douay-Rheims Bible is on-line. I use it all the time because it is so much easier to search.

 

[Mosacked]

No. It is not just TALK. “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18). In the Douay-Rheims Bible it goes on to explain: "As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the Church; in which building he should be, next to Christ Himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fullness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

“The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if He had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the Church was to be built: Christ Himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building His House, that is, His Church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods…”

Christ’s use of the term “gates of hell” refers to…" the powers of darkness and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or Church of Christ.

“By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ.”

Christ established His Church with the Apostle Peter as the rock that supported it. At this point Peter was Catholic as he belonged to the Church founded by Jesus; the Catholic Church. Knowing that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is supported makes him the first Pope, ordained as such by Jesus Himself.

Also, in Matthew 16:19 it is stated that “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.” Peter is given the authority to pass on the title of Pope to his successor.

I apologize for not being able to give you the page numbers from the Douay-Rheims Bible, as I have it on my kindle and I don’t know how to reference citations of the books and passages that I have stored there.

Caramel, THIS is what I mean by just talk.

You typed so much but STILL failed to show us HOW & WHY would Peter have anything to do with the Catholics today. We know what happened to Peter, and we know what Jesus told him, BUT… what has that all got to do with you?

If you haven’t noticed, we are STILL talking about that missing ‘LINK’.

.

 

[StillWondering]

Caramel, THIS is what I mean by just talk.

You typed so much but STILL failed to show us HOW & WHY would Peter have anything to do with the Catholics today. We know what happened to Peter, and we know what Jesus told him, BUT… what has that all got to do with you?

If you haven’t noticed, we are STILL talking about that missing ‘LINK’.

.

I think you may not have heard that Peter had a successor name Linus. He in turn had a successor, who in turn had a successor.Here’s a Wikipedia list of it as a non-Catholic perspective. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

Those men acts as the link from the the Gospel of Matthew in the Scriptures to the Catholic Church. There are so many other links as well if you read the Early Church Fathers.

 

[Mosacked]

I think you may not have heard that Peter had a successor name Linus. He in turn had a successor, who in turn had a successor.Here’s a Wikipedia list of it as a non-Catholic perspective. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

Those men acts as the link from the the Gospel of Matthew in the Scriptures to the Catholic Church. There are so many other links as well if you read the Early Church Fathers.

No, I do not. You see, the Bible never said Peter had a successor. And that’s really just one of the problems.

1 - The Bible contains several passages where the office of Pope ought to be mentioned, if it existed. Ephesians 4:11,12 and 1 Corinthians 12:28 list various officers and workers in the church, but the office of Pope is not mentioned. Why not?
Paul wrote several letters to and from Rome, naming many people there (Rom. 16; Col. 4:7-14; 2 Tim. 4:9-22; Philem. 23,24). If Peter was Pope in Rome, surely Paul would have mentioned him. But Paul mentions neither Peter nor anyone else as being Pope.
Who can imagine someone today writing official letters to or from the church in Rome, listing the officers of the Catholic Church, giving all this information about the work and qualifications of lesser officers, but never mentioning the Pope? If the office of Pope was established by Jesus, why does the New Testament fail to mention it?

2- All apostles received direct guidance of the Holy Spirit - Acts 2:1-4; Ephesians 3:3-5; John 16:13; 14:26.
Why would apostles need guidance from a Pope if they were guided directly by the Spirit? Paul expressly stated that his teaching was not based on anything learned from man but on direct revelation from Jesus - Galatians 1:11,12,16,17; 2:6-9,11-14.

3- Peter refused to allow men to bow to honor him religiously, but modern Popes accept and encourage this.
Acts 10:25,26 - Peter forbade Cornelius to worship him or to bow before him. Peter’s reason was that he was a man. Are not modern Popes men too? Why should modern Popes accept that which Peter refused?
The Bible never allows anyone to bow to any man as an act of honor for his religious office (Matt. 4:10; Apoc. 22:8,9). Yet modern Popes allow and expect this.

Jesus’ church had no office of Pope, nor did Peter serve as Pope. Catholic books admit there were times when no one knows who was Pope, so how can they know the succession? There can be no valid succession of Popes. Yet you can force a succession in your bid to establish a new religion by a mere tweak of the records.

It is not even the issue of records pointing to us a succession when we have shown sufficiently that the appointment itself is in doubt.

.

 

[greggy53]

Caramel, THIS is what I mean by just talk.

You typed so much but STILL failed to show us HOW & WHY would Peter have anything to do with the Catholics today. We know what happened to Peter, and we know what Jesus told him, BUT… what has that all got to do with you?

If you haven’t noticed, we are STILL talking about that missing ‘LINK’…

Because you don’t acknowledge the apostolic succession from St Peter doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. At least you apparently accept the leadership of St Peter. So if that is true what happened that prevented or detroyed the succession of that authority? Or perhaps you don’t believe that that authority was passed on after St Peters death?

 

[ralphinal]

No, I do not. You see, the Bible never said Peter had a successor. And that’s really just one of the problems.

1 - The Bible contains several passages where the office of Pope ought to be mentioned, if it existed. Ephesians 4:11,12 and 1 Corinthians 12:28 list various officers and workers in the church, but the office of Pope is not mentioned. Why not?
Paul wrote several letters to and from Rome, naming many people there (Rom. 16; Col. 4:7-14; 2 Tim. 4:9-22; Philem. 23,24). If Peter was Pope in Rome, surely Paul would have mentioned him. But Paul mentions neither Peter nor anyone else as being Pope.
Who can imagine someone today writing official letters to or from the church in Rome, listing the officers of the Catholic Church, giving all this information about the work and qualifications of lesser officers, but never mentioning the Pope? If the office of Pope was established by Jesus, why does the New Testament fail to mention it?

Peter was the head of a group that was illegal and considered a threat to the empire. As such, to name him in a letter giving away his location would be a death sentence. Peter does write his epistle from “Babylon” which was always taken to be Rome. Further, history record both Peter and Paul being killed in Rome.

The NT DOES mention the office of Pope, but you do not see it as such. The office of Pope is the head of the Bishops. In other words, the Pope is just a Bishop with one extra role. We see Peter performing that role more than once.

2- All apostles received direct guidance of the Holy Spirit - Acts 2:1-4; Ephesians 3:3-5; John 16:13; 14:26.
Why would apostles need guidance from a Pope if they were guided directly by the Spirit? Paul expressly stated that his teaching was not based on anything learned from man but on direct revelation from Jesus - Galatians 1:11,12,16,17; 2:6-9,11-14.

Because someone has to be the leader. Someone has to say “We meet at this time in this place.” Someone has to be the face of the group

3- Peter refused to allow men to bow to honor him religiously, but modern Popes accept and encourage this.
Acts 10:25,26 - Peter forbade Cornelius to worship him or to bow before him. Peter’s reason was that he was a man. Are not modern Popes men too? Why should modern Popes accept that which Peter refused?
The Bible never allows anyone to bow to any man as an act of honor for his religious office (Matt. 4:10; Apoc. 22:8,9). Yet modern Popes allow and expect this.

These are traditions that developed over the Middle Ages. If they died off, no one would care. If you did not “bow” to the pope, nothing would be done to you.

Jesus’ church had no office of Pope, nor did Peter serve as Pope. Catholic books admit there were times when no one knows who was Pope, so how can they know the succession? There can be no valid succession of Popes. Yet you can force a succession in your bid to establish a new religion by a mere tweak of the records.

Here is another example of a slight misconception leading you way off. Succession is not passed from Pope to Pope. It is passed through the bishops themselves. In order to have a true gap, you would need ALL of the Bishops on earth to die off at one time. THe Pope is just a bishop with an extra set of duties

It is not even the issue of records pointing to us a succession when we have shown sufficiently that the appointment itself is in doubt.

.

 

[jmcrae]

No, I do not. You see, the Bible never said Peter had a successor. And that’s really just one of the problems.

With the Bible?

The Book of the Acts of the Apostles ends just before the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul, so we need to look to history for these - the same history that shows us that Linus was St. Peter’s successor.

Jesus’ church had no office of Pope, nor did Peter serve as Pope.

In John 21:15-19, we see Jesus appointing Peter to be “chief shepherd” of the Church - that’s what the Pope is. You are right that the word is not actually used, but the role is certainly well-described, there.

Catholic books admit there were times when no one knows who was Pope, so how can they know the succession? There can be no valid succession of Popes.

As long as there is one valid Bishop alive, the line of succession is intact. And if there is only one valid Bishop alive, he is, by default, the Pope.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

So…could Jack Chick be right?