God wrote the Bible not the Catholic Church

[mdstanzel]

God come to my assistance, Lord make haste to help me. Glorey be…

Please be easy on Believer. I can see he’s actually struggling. His views are clouded by his actions in leaving the Church. This could get dangerous for him. Seriously. If he starts to actually see the truth, assuming he’s not running like I did, he will be required by God to revert. Now I’m not one to judge so harshly, but I see pain in his words. He’s rather despirate in chosing scripture that he plays like he knows. I find the scriptural background one many that argue here to be very weak.

Anytime someone reverts to making false accusations publicly like this one, he is struggling with something far deeper than we recognize. I would guess he had a bad experience in the past. However, the Church is full of sinners. The Infalibility of the Papacy is very misunderstood by all, even many Catholics here. There are fancy words that Catholics use that make non-Catholics, mainly Protestants, feel uncomfortable. Its like saying sweety to someone you care about publicly. Guys like to put on a show like they’re tough. I see a mind block occurring and Believer and others are not being open minded about learning.

I guess it’s all magic. The bible just appeared out of thin air. gottta go to change a diaper. Whoo.

 

[mdstanzel]

Back. Don’t you love the Domestic Church. It’s great being a father and especially a revert. I loathed the Catholic Church to the point I was a hard core anti-Catholic. But as I learned scripture, I discovered that the Church was … CATHOLIC? I was mortified and I deperately struggled to make it Eastern Orthodox. But I have problems with that because the evidence is there for the primacy of Perter. It’s deniable, but that doesn’t make it so. The facts are there. The “deposit of faith” was passed on down through the ages and its obvious that the Protestants are avoiding the truth because “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”. [currently my favorite quote.]

I argued just as silly as these non-Catholics. I was and still am the king of the bible. But I kept explaining away the scriptures that pointed directly to the Catholic Church and its majesterium (teaching authority). Also, it was struggling with the scriptures that directly quote to pass down the traditions passed on down through the ages. Don’t be a fool and start acting like this is 'man’s philosophy or traditions". That was my argument until I actually realized that the Protestants have their own teaching authority and traditions. The difference is that their tradition and teaching authority does NOT come from Christ. It took me a while to bone up to this. I finally crumbled and sought out spiritual advice from a priest. That was the week of All Souls Day 2006. But in my despirate attempt to prove the Catholic converts wrong to save my wife from them, I started reading.

As a young man I never had a chance to read the Early Church Fathers. I heard of them, but convinced myself that they were not real. I thought they were made up until I started hearing Protestants quote them and talk about them too. I thought about the providence of God. Why would God act like the He was going to start the Church and then just end it in heresy? Talk about not trusting God. The more I read the more I realized the stupidity coming from my mouth. Instead of calling it stupidity lets call it ignorance. I don’t believe that you are stupid. I just think that you are afraid and unable to defend this anti-Christ doctrine.

I’m your worst nightmare come true. I’m a bible preaching Catholic.

Let me leave with one final word on this subject. I’m beginning to see a pattern. The Jews see the Penteteuch and the rest of the Old Testament like we, Catholics see the New Testament canon compared to the Early Church Fathers. Just an interesting thought. I’ll have to ponder the correlation if there really is one.

 

[Janet_S]

Back. Don’t you love the Domestic Church. It’s great being a father and especially a revert. I loathed the Catholic Church to the point I was a hard core anti-Catholic. But as I learned scripture, I discovered that the Church was … CATHOLIC? I was mortified and I deperately struggled to make it Eastern Orthodox. But I have problems with that because the evidence is there for the primacy of Perter. It’s deniable, but that doesn’t make it so. The facts are there. The “deposit of faith” was passed on down through the ages and its obvious that the Protestants are avoiding the truth because “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”. [currently my favorite quote.]

I argued just as silly as these non-Catholics. I was and still am the king of the bible. But I kept explaining away the scriptures that pointed directly to the Catholic Church and its majesterium (teaching authority). Also, it was struggling with the scriptures that directly quote to pass down the traditions passed on down through the ages. Don’t be a fool and start acting like this is 'man’s philosophy or traditions". That was my argument until I actually realized that the Protestants have their own teaching authority and traditions. The difference is that their tradition and teaching authority does NOT come from Christ. It took me a while to bone up to this. I finally crumbled and sought out spiritual advice from a priest. That was the week of All Souls Day 2006. But in my despirate attempt to prove the Catholic converts wrong to save my wife from them, I started reading.

As a young man I never had a chance to read the Early Church Fathers. I heard of them, but convinced myself that they were not real. I thought they were made up until I started hearing Protestants quote them and talk about them too. I thought about the providence of God. Why would God act like the He was going to start the Church and then just end it in heresy? Talk about not trusting God. The more I read the more I realized the stupidity coming from my mouth. Instead of calling it stupidity lets call it ignorance. I don’t believe that you are stupid. I just think that you are afraid and unable to defend this anti-Christ doctrine.

I’m your worst nightmare come true. I’m a bible preaching Catholic.

Let me leave with one final word on this subject. I’m beginning to see a pattern. The Jews see the Penteteuch and the rest of the Old Testament like we, Catholics see the New Testament canon compared to the Early Church Fathers. Just an interesting thought. I’ll have to ponder the correlation if there really is one.

Praise God that you finally came home! Did your wife come back to the Church as well?

Your story reminds me of Saul/Paul in Acts 9:1-18. Saul went from “breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord” in verse 1 to being “filled with the holy spirit” and baptised in verse 18. It sounds like you had a dramatic transformation. It’s amazing what God can do if we are open to His grace.

Did you watch the Journey Home tonight on EWTN? The guest was Joseph Pasquella, a convert from Orthodox Christianity. He highly recommends this book, Jesus, Peter, & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy.
amazon.com/Jesus-Peter-Keys-Scriptural-Handbook/dp/1882972546

 

[Janet_S]

Did you know that the sign of the cross is actually the sign of the upside down cross?

We know the earliest Christians made the sign of the cross. In AD 211, the Church Father Tertullian said “In all the occupations of our daily lives, we furrow our foreheads with the Sign.”

Why do you think crossing yourself “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is a problem?

 

[Robert902]

Actually it isn’t the Bible. 1 Tim 3:15 states, the Pillar of Bulwark of the Truth is the Church.

Second, Jesus said disagrees with you for He said,

Jesus disagrees with Eph. 5:20-21?

15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen** I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.** 19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. 20** For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them**–Matthew 18: 15-20.

I am not talking about these things. The 18 year old High School student was saying that his trust was in the Catholic Church first, and second in the Bible. The Bible tells us to test all things, using the Word of God as the standard. If what an organization tells us doesn’t line up with God’s word, then it is to be discarded.

God Bless,
Robert

 

[Robert902]

A ‘thing’ is an inanimate object. The Chruch is not a ‘thing’, it is a living organism.

Eph does not say ‘test all living organisms’ no, it does not say that

All things is the same as saying everything. 1Thess. 5-20-21 is a command, and we are commanded to put everything to the test, including the church.

God Bless,
Robert

 

[Robert902]

Yet, there are people (liberal Christians) today who admit that masterbation is not a sin, or that homosexual isn’t really a grave sin. My friend, many Protestant ministers do not declare themselves** infallible but do admit they are fallible**.

Only one Church declares to be infallible regarding faith and moral and that is the Magisterial Authority of the Church, the Bishops in union with the Pope.

In a way, your intepretations makes you a type of Pope himself for you declare that we inherited the keys. Even Matthew 16:18 only address one person who Jesus gave the keys to. In this passage Jesus gave the keys to Peter only. Not his Apostles. It was not until in Matthew 19 that the rest of the Apostles were granted the authority to bind and loose, yet none of them were given the keys of heaven.

There are fallacies in your private intepretation. To consider that we all inherited the keys of the kingdom to bind and loose, would give us the infallible ability to declare all things concerning moral and faith binding.

I don’t see the connection between the ability to bind and loose and being infallible.

Every Christian today has the Scriptures, and therefore the keys. The key to the kingdom of God is found in His word. If what you are saying was true then only Catholics would go to heaven.

God Bless,
Robert

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yet, there are people (liberal Christians) today who admit that masterbation is not a sin, or that homosexual isn’t really a grave sin. My friend, many Protestant ministers do not declare themselves** infallible but do admit they are fallible**.

Only one Church declares to be infallible regarding faith and moral and that is the Magisterial Authority of the Church, the Bishops in union with the Pope.

In a way, your intepretations makes you a type of Pope himself for you declare that we inherited the keys. Even Matthew 16:18 only address one person who Jesus gave the keys to. In this passage Jesus gave the keys to Peter only. Not his Apostles. It was not until in Matthew 19 that the rest of the Apostles were granted the authority to bind and loose, yet none of them were given the keys of heaven.

I don’t see the connection between the ability to bind and loose and being infallible.

Every Christian today has the Scriptures, and therefore the keys. The key to the kingdom of God is found in His word. If what you are saying was true then only Catholics would go to heaven.

God Bless,
Robert

That is your fallible interpretation. Not even Scripture supports your false interpretation. Jesus addressed to one person. One human being. He addressed Simon Peter.

We were not given the keys of heaven only Peter this and Jesus gave this key to Him alone. It was then he handed down the authority bind and loose to rest of the Apostles in Matthew 19.

In your last statement that “only Catholics would go to heaven.” That is not what the Catholic Church teaches,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[Mannyfit75]

In addition,

It furthers states regarding unity,

Further,

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:

• a permanent renewal of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;280

• conversion of heart as the faithful “try to live holier lives according to the Gospel”;281 for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ’s gift which causes divisions;

• prayer in common, because “change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;”'282

• fraternal knowledge of each other;283

• ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests;284

• dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;285

• collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.286 “Human service” is the idiomatic phrase.

822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize “that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts.” That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."288

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

 

[guanophore]

17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen** I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.** 19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. 20** For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them**–Matthew 18: 15-20.

Why do you refuse the authority of the Church that Jesus founded, then, Robert?

I am not talking about these things. The 18 year old High School student was saying that his trust was in the Catholic Church first, and second in the Bible. The Bible tells us to test all things, using the Word of God as the standard. If what an organization tells us doesn’t line up with God’s word, then it is to be discarded.

God Bless,
Robert

Where do you read that the bible you hold in your hand is the standard? Where do you think that bible came from Robert? It would have no authority at all, if not for the church.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t see the connection between the ability to bind and loose and being infallible.

Wow. Think of the implications! the Apostles can bind anything, even outside the will of God! Jesus never told them to persist in the truth? What exactly do you think the authority to bind and loose is all about?

Every Christian today has the Scriptures, and therefore the keys. The key to the kingdom of God is found in His word. If what you are saying was true then only Catholics would go to heaven.

God Bless,
Robert

No Christian would have those scriptures were it not for the Catholic church, but that is beside the point. The keys are not the scriptures. The keys are a sign of authority given to the Apostolic succession, with Peter as the head. This occurred before any of the New Testament had yet been written.

Only Catholics go to heaven.

 

[wjw123]

Yet, there are people (liberal Christians) today who admit that masterbation is not a sin, or that homosexual isn’t really a grave sin. My friend, many Protestant ministers do not declare themselves** infallible but do admit they are fallible**.

Only one Church declares to be infallible regarding faith and moral and that is the Magisterial Authority of the Church, the Bishops in union with the Pope.

In a way, your intepretations makes you a type of Pope himself for you declare that we inherited the keys. Even Matthew 16:18 only address one person who Jesus gave the keys to. In this passage Jesus gave the keys to Peter only. Not his Apostles. It was not until in Matthew 19 that the rest of the Apostles were granted the authority to bind and loose, yet none of them were given the keys of heaven.

I don’t see the connection between the ability to bind and loose and being infallible.

Every Christian today has the Scriptures, and therefore the keys. The key to the kingdom of God is found in His word. If what you are saying was true then only Catholics would go to heaven.

God Bless,
Robert

Yes, Robert our church “teachings” are infallible. Those teachings
come from our Lord himself.

Where as the “keys” was given to Peter as he is given the authority (first Pope) to teach our faith to us.

We are not all given “keys” to the kingdom, we are not all Popes that we can take pieces of Sacred Scriptures and interpet it as we please. Just imagine a world without authority.

Seek the fullness of the truth, join us in the Catholic Church brother.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

Did you know that the sign of the cross is actually the sign of the upside down cross?

Oh good! I was afraid I was worshiping Satan wrong.

Actually, we do it upside down as a tribute to St Peter, who was crucified upside down.

I can’t believe I give you an entire Psalm to comment on and you want to talk about the smiley at the end. Here are a few more to entertain yourself with…

:nun2: :banghead:

 

[jmcrae]

Robert:

I don’t see the connection between the ability to bind and loose and being infallible.

“Binding” means to forbid something to all Christians everywhere.

“Loosing” means to permit something to all Christians everywhere.

It doesn’t make sense that every Christian can do this instead of just one person, because you would end up with a situation where things are both permitted and forbidden, which is a contradiction. Is God a God of contradictions? I don’t think so.

Therefore, only one person at a time can have this power - the Pope.

 

[guanophore]

Only one Church declares to be infallible regarding faith and moral and that is the Magisterial Authority of the Church, the Bishops in union with the Pope.

Is this a problem?

I don’t see the connection between the ability to bind and loose and being infallible.
God Bless,
Robert

The authority that God gave to Peter to bind and loose is connected inseparably to Jesus promise that he would be with us always even unto the end of the age, and that He would send the HS to guide us into all truth. Infallibility exists because it is based on the foundation of Christ, and comes through the Holy Spirit. The successor of Peter is not infallible within himself, but because he has been made so by Christ.

 

[mdstanzel]

Janet S

God has been bestowing lots of graces on this domestic church. I find myself at peace where anger and bitterness once lived. I am grateful to be back. It is ironic though that I “had” to leave to figure it out.

The Journey Home guest was also a confirmed Catholic in his junior year of high school. He converted to the Pentecostal Church and discovered the ancient Church in the Orthodox Church. It was interesting to see how similar his answers to the questions were similar to mine. That is how I came to accept the Catholic Church completely. I spoke to many priests and Orthodox before settling in my faith. I felt that I had to be sure.

The authority that God gave to Peter to bind and loose is connected inseparably to Jesus promise that he would be with us always even unto the end of the age, and that He would send the HS to guide us into all truth. Infallibility exists because it is based on the foundation of Christ, and comes through the Holy Spirit. The successor of Peter is not infallible within himself, but because he has been made so by Christ.

The part that seems to always be left out is the - notice the word - fact that infalibacy only holds true when the Pope speaks from the holy see in Rome on the matter of Faith and Morals. Other than that you can shoot craps and get your own answer…well I would go that far. The Pope is a very wise and humble man. Infalibacy doesn’t speak any great about him. It is a promise from Christ passed on down through the ages. The early Church believed it but the doctrine was never “solidified” until the late 19th century. Thus the “Old Catholic” church was born, a scismatic Catholic group that broke with Rome and appears to be united with the Society of Saint Pius X.

 

[Sixtus]

Mat 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

thee = 12 disciples
keys (plural) = 12 disciples each having a single key to a single door
door = Jesus

Why? Because they are now sitting on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

I shake my hdead in utter disbelief that supposedly intelligent human beings could come up with such profound statements based on so little evidence

Nowhere in Mt 16:15-20 is this implied. Nor is it implied that the Lord was speaking to all of them except when He bade them not to speak to anyone that He was the Messiah.

It is clear from a simple understanding of language that the Lord was speaking to Peter in the first person, not a sort of Peter collective.

Disseminate it ‘you are Peter’…‘and I give you’! Nowehere and no way can 'you are Peter be intended to a whole group! Peter is singular, he is not plural.

The Lord reiterates this when He asked Peter thrice ‘do you love me’?Jn 21:16-17. Each time the Lord referred to Peter alone 'feed my lambs, ‘feed my sheep’, ‘tend to the needs of my flock’! The proof is in the fact the Lord predicted to Peter the manner in which he was to glorify God.

One hears these profound and bizare interpretations just to try to prove His Church wrong. So sad, so sad

The simple truth is one cannot use the Scriptures against the Church whose Scriptures they are

 

[Singinbeauty]

Mathew 16 16-20

16
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
20

Who is “thee” that Jesus refers to in your bible Mat 16:19

“you are Peter, upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give —you— (referring to Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

Read the whole passage and it’s meaning. Peter is given the keys to the kingdom. Keys meaning Jesus gave Peter the supreme authority on earth to continue his teachings. The rock referring to the foundation of the church which again refers to Peter.

Peter the first Pope from which all Popes can be traced back to, in an unbroken link.

What my question is in this subject… Did Jesus mean for Peter to ‘pass down the keys’? Just a thought that popped into my head whenever I hear people talking about this…

 

[believers]

I shake my hdead in utter disbelief that supposedly intelligent human beings could come up with such profound statements based on so little evidence

Nowhere in Mt 16:15-20 is this implied. Nor is it implied that the Lord was speaking to all of them except when He bade them not to speak to anyone that He was the Messiah.

It is clear from a simple understanding of language that the Lord was speaking to Peter in the first person, not a sort of Peter collective.

Disseminate it ‘you are Peter’…‘and I give you’! Nowehere and no way can 'you are Peter be intended to a whole group! Peter is singular, he is not plural.

The Lord reiterates this when He asked Peter thrice ‘do you love me’?Jn 21:16-17. Each time the Lord referred to Peter alone 'feed my lambs, ‘feed my sheep’, ‘tend to the needs of my flock’! The proof is in the fact the Lord predicted to Peter the manner in which he was to glorify God.

One hears these profound and bizare interpretations just to try to prove His Church wrong. So sad, so sad

The simple truth is one cannot use the Scriptures against the Church whose Scriptures they are

It’s really very simple… Peter was the first to receive the revelation from the Father that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That was the Gospel to the Jews and Peter was the first to receive this key. This same revelation was also given by the Father to the rest of the disciples. It’s the belief in the heart and the confession that is the key. All believing Jews must possess this key.

 

[Sixtus]

Peter was the first to receive the revelation from the Father that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, Son of the living God. Mt 16: 16 .

That much is pretty obvious Lord said ‘Simon son of Jonah, you are favoured indeed, this did not come from mortal man but by my heavenly Father’ Mt 16 18

… belief… that is the key. All believing Jews must possess this key

This is an astonishing interpretation of the Lord speaking in the singular interpreted as Him speaking in the plural!

Disseminate it: 'You are Peter…I will give you the keys…what you forbid…what you allow…

The Lord could have said: You are Peter but I confer the keys on all of you’. He could equally have said ‘You are all Peter’s and I confer the keys on all of you’. But He did not say that so it is pointless pretending He did. That is just wild speculation that is unscriptural.

Listen to her whose Scriptures they are, how it is written it is written