History of the Roman Catholic Church

[brkn1]

But just because you have some sort of belief in Christ doesn’t mean that you have “all truth.” Even heretics “believe” in Christ!

Well, would you be so kind then, as to tell us just what you believe “all the doctrines of the Gospel” are?

And do you think Luther was in possession of “all truth” when, speaking of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, he said the following:

“Real Presence” is unbiblical, as I would be so kind to tell you. Some of the reasons for that statement follows:

The Passover Feast was a memorial of the first actual Passover, which required the substitutionary sacrifice of a lamb to protect the firstborn from God’s judgement.
Jesus used this memorial of a temporary judgement to institute a new remembrance meal of His Sacrifice as our Substitute to protect believers from God’s eternal judgement.
Jesus used bread and wine, instead of the original passover lamb, to institute the new remembrance meal.
The context of the Passover memorial and Jesus’ “Do this in remembrance of Me.” gives a symbolic sense to the “is” of “This is my body.”.

To say that Christ can be actually physically present in the wafer is to contradict Scripture…
Jesus said that He was going to the Father and He promised the Holy Spirit as His replacement.
Jesus said that He finished the work that the Father gave Him in this world.
Jesus’ ONE Sacrifice is finished as He declared on the Cross.
There is no biblical “eternal Victim” or “continuing Sacrifice”.
There is no “breaking or eating of Jesus” described in the Bible. The remembrance is called the “breaking of bread”.
The Lord Jesus Christ is physically in Heaven right now acting as our Mediator and High Priest.
A physical presence on earth at this time is denied by these verses in (Hebrews 9:24-28) “For Christ is not entered into the holy places (made with hands), which are figures of the true: but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Nor yet that He should offer Himself often…”.
The book of Hebrews speaks so strongly against your doctrinal traditions.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

[THE BISHOP OF ROME IS THE LEADER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND IS INFALLIBLE IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS. THE PROOF IS IN THE 2000 YRS HISTORY OF THE CHURCH!

**Well then, I thank you for that information, I had heard it before mind you , but then and now I am unable to find confirmation in either Church History or Holy Tradition. Further Tradition tells us that to seek guidance a Catholic believer or a seeker must consult the Fathers of the Church. Not wishing to be nasty, I have to tell you you’r not counted amongst the fathers and for very good reasons I would say! There are very few,if any amongst the Catholic Fathers, who back the claims of the Papacy! Jerome was fulsome when he was in his youth, but later , older and wiser he played down his tone. Augustine also tempered his enthusiasm with age, as for the rest many had never heard of the Roman Claims,until attempts were made to enforce them and then the Pope was given short thrift. I refer to the African Bishops and indeed the Eastern Sees also. At the time of the great troubles in the east many Catholic Bishops were out of Communion with the papacy.

**
It is some 300 yrs after the Birth of Christ before any real claim, or attempt is made to claim any authority or jurisdiction, other than what is given by the Church or by the various emperors. Even then the idea was rejected.
**
Feed my Sheep?

** To be acceptable, as I have said above, confirmation of what Scripture means come from the Fathers, Scripture is not to be judged just by anyone or by any standard. It is to be judged by the Holy Fathers in Council and not by Roman adventurers who make it up on ,‘the hoof,’ as it were.
**
The Legitimacy of the Bishop of Rome!

**This rests on the Catholic Church as does his other title as Primate of ‘Old Rome,’ he is as ,‘legitimate,’ as any other Catholic bishop and descendent of the apostles and no more. His power and authority came from the state and the Church. He has neither Jurisdiction nor Infallibility other than that given by Tradition and the Church…
Indeed, Roman Authorities in Ireland and England as well as on the Continent denied any claim to infallibility right until 1870! While England denied it at regular intervals over a thousand years.
**
MY MISTAKE THEN, I THOUGHT ANGLICAN MEANT C.OF E…

**Yes it is a mistake on your part, but not to mind!
**
**The term Anglican was used to denote the Catholic Church in these Isles from 750 AD, at least,[BEDE’S HIST.] Before that the Catholic Church was known as the Celtic Church ,in either case it was signified by its most powerful social component. Just as in Rome it was known to outsiders as the Roman Church.] Amongst the Celts and English it was known as ,“The Church,” The term Anglican again surfaces in 1215 in the Magna Charter. Through the medieval years in correspondence with other countries the English Church identified it self with the term ,‘Seinte Eglise Dengleterre’, [History vol, L111. 1968.] which has been variuosly translated as ,‘Church of England,’ or ‘Church in England’. Either way it was and still is , the ancient catholic church in this country as long as it retains the necessary criteria of Rev, Scripture and Councils.
**
**When the split came in 1570 and the followers of the papacy, our 16t, Cent, Donatists walked out in to schism following Trent and the New Church,[Evelyn’ Diary.] the term Anglican became the popular usage again, whilst the schismatics ultimately became known as Romanists, Romans and finally Roman Catholics.
**
“By the Church you mean the Catholic Church of course”

**Of course, I never refer to Rome other than by its own title,'the catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, which I believe was confirmed at Trent.
**
**Henry the 8th, rejected the authority of the pope.

Of course he did, just as the Greeks had always done and as the English had done many times, but he was only following the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils which confine the authority of a bishop to his own see but which the papacy consistently ignored. Henry rejected the authority of the pope, but only by saying that he had no more power in England than any other foreign bishop." O. Wakeman.Reformation in Eng., pg 19.] Rome’s Supremacy was confined by the Councils to certain areas, chiefly, but not entirely, to the surbicarion churches in Italy with the three Islands.
**

 

[luckyfredsdad]

B]From my computer and various,“Catholic Blogs”, I gather that there are at least four sets of Popes,'Sede Vacantes" ?] if I read aright. There is at least one large group who broke away and have there own Bishops with at least four Churches in the area where I live in in the UK! On top of that We have at least one Old Roman Catholic Church. With groups of women from Ireland mostly claiming to be Romanists , but who are out of Communion with Rome because some Romans refuse W/O… And you have the nerve to call Anglicanism, LA LA LAND? You and your Neo Anglican Friend deserve one another!

They do not retain Apostolic Succession. They cannot be ‘not in communion with Rome’ and have Apostolic Succession. Once a group leaves the Catholic and/or the Orthodox Church, it separates itself from Apostolic Succession.

**Now who said that,? Don’t tell I can guess, the Bishop of Rome? Now he’s a infal0lible guide I must say! Have you seen the reply of Bishop John of Salisbury to the Pope view on Anglicanism. He totally rubbished it and made the Romanists looked quite unschooled
and silly!
**
“Once a group leaves the Catholic |Orthodox Church, it separates itself from Apostolic Succession”

**Orthodoxy separated from Rome and they have apostolic succession, The Polish Nat, Catholic Church has separated as well and they have it, whilst I understand there’s considerable intercommunion between the two and all this doesn’t include the Utrecht,or Old Catholics, who whatever their sins regarding women’s ordination still have apostolic succession. **

Well it proves you are nat always right, as some do say. Though I would quote S.John of Kronstadt, [roughly,] “Zeal not according to knowledge”.[Rom.10.2]

 

[raumzeitmc2]

“Real Presence” is unbiblical, as I would be so kind to tell you. Some of the reasons for that statement follows…

Jesus’ ONE Sacrifice is finished as He declared on the Cross.
There is no biblical “eternal Victim” or “continuing Sacrifice”…

The Lord Jesus Christ is physically in Heaven right now acting as our Mediator and High Priest…

You have too many objections; I can’t even begin to properly respond to them all in one sitting, so I’ll only just touch upon two of them.

Jesus’ ONE Sacrifice is finished as He declared on the Cross.

First, you are trying to get way too much mileage out a single Greek word Tetelestai (“it is finished”) which Christ spoke from the Cross in John 19:30.

Listen to what Robert Sungenis says about Tetelestai :

Protestant apologists have often used the phrase in John 19:30, “It is finished,” as proof that Christ’s work of propitiation was finished, totally and completely, at the cross. Since the Catholic Mass is a continuation of Christ’s propitiatory work, these apologists claim that the Catholic Church is in violation of the gospel. James G. McCarty states:

…He cried out, ‘it is finished1’ … His sacrificial word of redemption was done…. The Greek verb in John 19:30 is in the perfect tense. ‘It implies a process, but views that process as having reached its consummation and existing in a finished state ‘[Dana’s and Mantey’s http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Grammar-Greek-Testament-Index/dp/0023270705”]A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament

, p. 200].

In other words, the saving work of Christ was completed on the cross and continues in a state of completion. The verse can be translated: ‘It has been finished and stands complete.’ Roman Catholicism misrepresents the finished work of Christ on the cross by saying that the sacrifice of the cross is continued in the Mass.

The Gospel According to Rome, p. 163.]

The first problem with McCarthy’s interpretation is that he assigns an object to the phrase “it is finished” that is not stated in the context. McCarthy claims that “the saving work of Christ was completed on the cross” is the object for “it is finished,” but the text does not give that information. As a result, McCarthy forces into the phrase his particular view of Christ’s work. The most natural and historical interpretation of the text suggests that “it is finished” (Greek: tetelestai) 457 refers to the accomplishment of all the details that were required prior to Christ’s death, for once these details are completed, Jesus utters “it is finished” and gives up the spirit and dies.

Jesus’ desires to accomplish all the specific prophecies of the Old Testament. The previous use of tetelestai in verse 28 makes this clear: “Jesus knowing that now all things had been finished, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, says, ‘I thirst’”

Fulfillment of Scripture is also evident John 19:24 (cf., Luke 24:25-27).

Hence, the primary contextual referent of “it is finished” is the fulfillment of Scripture. In addition, Jesus desires to secure the care of His mother, Mary, and thus gives custody of her to John the apostle at the foot of the cross (John 19:25-27). Once these things are accomplished, Jesus can then die. Hence, the scriptural prophecies concerning His suffering and death are finished, but whether His “saving work” of propitiation is finished is not something the text even begins to discuss, let alone settle.

Note 457, bottom of page 343:

“It is finished” is the single Greek word Τετελεσται , a verb standing without a subject or object, thus having no specific grammatical referent.

Not by Bread Alone, 2000, Robert Sungenis, Queenship Publishing, ISBN 1579181244, pp. 342- 343.

Regarding sacrifice, two things:

a. Sacrifice need not always involve death.

“I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship.” Romans 12:1

b. Sin is an infinite offense against an infinitely holy God, and as such, requires an infinite sacrifice to perfectly atone for it.

Now Christ’s sacrifice was indeed infinitely perfect and complete. But the very fact of its infinite perfection, of its infinite completeness, proves there is an infinite or perpetual dimension or aspect to it. For Christ must eternally intercede for us! He can never stop interceding for us. He continues his Priestly ministry even after the Last Judgment, for “He ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). Otherwise we should be eternally lost! That fact alone should give all of us some feeble appreciation of how deeply sin offends an infinitely holy God!

The Lord Jesus Christ is physically in Heaven right now acting as our Mediator and High Priest.

And by this very statement you prove you recognize that Christ is an eternal Priest!

“The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: ‘You are a priest forever’” Hebrews 7:21

Now, you simply *cannot *have a priest without a sacrifice, or a priesthood without an offering. There simply is no such thing as a *non-sacrificing *priest!

For the very definition of a priest is, in fact, “one who offers sacrifices.”

The book of Hebrews also tells us that Christ is the “same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

Thus Christ, who was both priest and victim, must forever remain both priest* and* victim!

 

[brkn1]

But just because you have some sort of belief in Christ doesn’t mean that you have “all truth.” Even heretics “believe” in Christ!

Well, would you be so kind then, as to tell us just what you believe “all the doctrines of the Gospel” are?

And do you think Luther was in possession of “all truth” when, speaking of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, he said the following:

Your response seems to avoid the subject you asked about the “Real Presence”.
I would like to continue on this unbiblical error.

A “Real Presence” in the bread would violate the true doctrine of Jesus being Perfect Man as well as being Perfect God.
The Bible is careful to show that Jesus got tired and was tempted and suffered as we are. That is a necessary part of what defines our being human.
Jesus traveled about Israel by walking and He got hungry, weary, and thirsty as all humans can. He was never at two places at once in His human form.
If our Lord could both sit at the table and offer Himself to be physically eaten by the disciples, then Jesus could not be said to be human as we are. A Perfect Man can not be physically whole at more than one place at the same time. This requirement of His being a Perfect Man is necessary for the one Sacrifice Christ made to redeem us, just as the sacrificial lamb had to be perfect.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Your response seems to avoid the subject you asked about the “Real Presence”. I would like to continue on this unbiblical error.

A “Real Presence” in the bread would violate the true doctrine of Jesus being Perfect Man as well as being Perfect God.

That conclusion of yours cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.

The Bible is careful to show that Jesus got tired and was tempted and suffered as we are. That is a necessary part of what defines our being human.
Jesus traveled about Israel by walking and He got hungry, weary, and thirsty as all humans can. He was never at two places at once in His human form.

That opinion of yours cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.

If our Lord could both sit at the table and offer Himself to be physically eaten by the disciples, then Jesus could not be said to be human as we are. A Perfect Man can not be physically whole at more than one place at the same time. This requirement of His being a Perfect Man is necessary for the one Sacrifice Christ made to redeem us, just as the sacrificial lamb had to be perfect.
These opinions of your cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.

How do you know Jesus could not be in two places at once? Padre Pio was documented to be in two places at once several times. Are you saying Padre Pio had powers Jesus didn’t posess?

Do you really believe Jesus couldn’t do things we can’t do? If so, we can throw out that story where He walks on water.

You say you believe in the word of God. Jesus is God. He said, in John 6, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you, for my flesh is real food and my blood real drink.” At the Last Supper He said, “This is my body…this is my blood.” There is no hint anywhere in Scripture that those words are symbolic. All the explaining away you did in another message is just stuff protestants made up to deny the truth of the Lord’s words and you won’t find those opinions in Scripture either. If you don’t believe those words, you cannot say you believe the word of God. The fact is, you do not believe the word of God. You believe what you want to believe.

Jesus did not come to deceive us. If He didn’t mean those words literally, He would have said something else.

 

[brkn1]

That conclusion of yours cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.

That opinion of yours cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.

If our Lord could both sit at the table and offer Himself to be physically eaten by the disciples, then Jesus could not be said to be human as we are. A Perfect Man can not be physically whole at more than one place at the same time. This requirement of His being a Perfect Man is necessary for the one Sacrifice Christ made to redeem us, just as the sacrificial lamb had to be perfect.

These opinions of your cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.

How do you know Jesus could not be in two places at once? Padre Pio was documented to be in two places at once several times. Are you saying Padre Pio had powers Jesus didn’t posess?

Do you really believe Jesus couldn’t do things we can’t do? If so, we can throw out that story where He walks on water.

You say you believe in the word of God. Jesus is God. He said, in John 6, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you, for my flesh is real food and my blood real drink.” At the Last Supper He said, “This is my body…this is my blood.” There is no hint anywhere in Scripture that those words are symbolic. All the explaining away you did in another message is just stuff protestants made up to deny the truth of the Lord’s words and you won’t find those opinions in Scripture either. If you don’t believe those words, you cannot say you believe the word of God. The fact is, you do not believe the word of God. You believe what you want to believe.

Jesus did not come to deceive us. If He didn’t mean those words literally, He would have said something else.

You say:

What does “Do this in remembrance of me.” suggest to you then? I suggest that is more than a hint.

Your Padre Pio question defines what a straw-man argument is. Pure nonsense.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Ferde Rombola;5011902:

The word ‘protestant’ says nothing about Luther or his heresy. The word is derived from the word “protest”

Oh! What was Luther doing when he nailed his thesis to the door?

He was protesting against the teaching of the Catholic Church. That made him a protestant. I didn’t say he was the only protestant. He was just the first. There have been millions since. They are ‘protestants’ because they protest against the teaching of the Catholic Church. I think I said that once already.

You are Romans because you are members of the Apostolic Roman Church!

There is no such thing as the Apostolic Roman Church. I belong to the one, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. That’s ‘the one,’ as in THE ONE.

[This was claimed right after Trent, if I wanted to be insulting I should call you a Trentist, because some people believe your church as it is known today stemmed from that Robber Council.

Again, you fail to back up your allegations with a single citation. You haven’t posted one yet. Just one vitriolic stream of opinions after another.

I don’t know who “some people” are but I don’t doubt your assertion. Protestants make up all kinds of lies and slander against the Church, as the Lord prophesied. What you call “that Robber Council” was the true reformation, called because the Pope and the Bishops understood that Luther had some serious and valid points. They invited him and the other ex-Catholic heretics to attend the Council, but they refused, preferring instead to breed sexts like rabbits. The Council enacted many of the reforms Luther claored for and some he didn’t. The Church came out of the Council in much better shape than when it began.

You are obviously not too proud of your Church or its history or you wouldn’t deny your and its name!

You can believe me when I say there is no one on earth prouder to be a Catholic, prouder of his Church and prouder of Her Founder than me.

What I deny are your various names for my Church, all which are invalid.

Is there any chance you can format your messages as the rest of us do? It would be a great help in deciphering them. I think you’re typing in the opening bracketed line. What I do is highlight it, copy it and paste it in at the beginning of what I want to quote, then type at the end, hit once and that does it. The software puts a space between the end of the quote and the comment to it. If you have any questions, just ask. About formating, I mean. I know you know all there is to know about the Christian faith.
[/quote]

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Your response seems to avoid the subject you asked about the “Real Presence”.
I would like to continue on this unbiblical error.

I’m perfectly content to discuss the Real Presence, if that’s what you like. But I had thought some preliminaries were in order.

A “Real Presence” in the bread would violate the true doctrine of Jesus being Perfect Man as well as being Perfect God.

How?

The Bible is careful to show that Jesus got tired and was tempted and suffered as we are. That is a necessary part of what defines our being human.

But unlike us, he was not only fully human - but also fully divine! And Christ cannot be divided. His humanity cannot be divorced from his divinity!

Jesus traveled about Israel by walking and He got hungry, weary, and thirsty as all humans can. He was never at two places at once in His human form.

How do know? Were you there, following him around at every instant? LOL

If our Lord could both sit at the table and offer Himself to be physically eaten by the disciples, then Jesus could not be said to be human as we are. A Perfect Man can not be physically whole at more than one place at the same time.

Again, you are trying to bring Christ down to our level, to the level of a mere man! But he was not a mere man - he was both God and man! He was the God-man - God incarnate! How tragic that we should impute the limitations of our sinful flesh to the infinitely Holy Creator of the universe!

This requirement of His being a Perfect Man is necessary for the one Sacrifice Christ made to redeem us, just as the sacrificial lamb had to be perfect.

Yet again: Christ was indeed a perfect man, yes, but he was also very God! The two are inseparable!

As for his being the sacrificial Lamb, indeed he was - and is! Look at the book of revelation. You see Christ portrayed there as a lamb, or rather, as The Lamb!

But a Lamb, in biblical terms, is a victim! So you see, Christ remains - even in heaven - he remains a victim, a sacrificial victim. Indeed, He is truly, The “Eternal Victim.”

He is the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” .

And so terrible is sin, that His glorified body will forever bear the ) Stigma of his victimhood.

“Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.’” John 20:27

But before we can understand the Lord’s Real Presence which, admittedly, takes faith (sometimes even a great deal of faith, because we are dealing with a most sacred mystery), we must first come to see, understand, and appreciate these great and profound truths about Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[brkn1]

Yet again: Christ was indeed a perfect man, yes, but he was also very God! The two are inseparable!

As for his being the sacrificial Lamb, indeed he was - and is! Look at the book of revelation. You see Christ portrayed there as a lamb, or rather, as The Lamb!

But a Lamb, in biblical terms, is a victim! So you see, Christ remains - even in heaven - he remains a victim, a sacrificial victim. Indeed, He is truly, The “Eternal Victim.”

He is the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” .

And so terrible is sin, that His glorified body will forever bear the marks (Stigma) of his victimhood.

“Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.’” John 20:27

But before we can understand the Lord’s Real Presence which, admittedly, takes faith (sometimes even a great deal of faith, because we are dealing with a most sacred mystery), we must first come to see, understand, and appreciate these great and profound truths about Jesus of Nazareth.

There is still a problem with a an earthly “Real Presence” according to the verse I quoted from (Hebrews 9:24),
“For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, (which are) the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.”

This verse does not allow for Christ to now come down physically to enter into the “holy places made with hands”, which a bread wafer or a tabernacle would be. We are only talking about Christ’s “physical” Presence here, by the way.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

FR said: THE BISHOP OF ROME IS THE LEADER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND IS INFALLIBLE IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS.

Well then, I thank you for that information, I had heard it before mind you , but then and now I am unable to find confirmation in either Church History or Holy Tradition.
There seems to be much you are unable to find. Doesn’t mean it isn’t there, does it?

[There are very few,if any amongst the Catholic Fathers, who back the claims of the Papacy!

I can’t respond to that until you tell me what those claims are. Most protestants make claims for the papacy that we don’t. As for the primacy of Peter, more below.

It is some 300 yrs after the Birth of Christ before any real claim, or attempt is made to claim any authority or jurisdiction, other than what is given by the Church or by the various emperors. Even then the idea was rejected.

What idea was rejected? What ‘real claim?’ See what I mean?

The Church didn’t spring full blown into its present form in a day. It took almost four hundred years for the Church to select and gather the writings that comprise the canon of Scripture. Furthermore, much of doctrine was not defined by the Church until it was challenged.

ALL the bishops of the first centuries of Christianity ALWAYS appealed to the Bishop of Rome to settle differences between them. If you doubt it, do some homework.

Feed my sheep!

…confirmation of what Scripture means come from the Fathers, Scripture is not to be judged just by anyone or by any standard. It is to be judged by the Holy Fathers in Council and not by Roman adventurers who make it up on ,‘the hoof,’ as it were.

I was in lock-step with you right up to “and not by…” Then you deviated into another of your unsubstantiated opinions. Can you cite this ‘making up on the hoof’ for me?

The protestant excuse for ‘Feed my sheep’ is a forgiveness of Peter for denying the Lord three times. Of course there’s not a word in Scripture to support that, and it’s arrant nonsense on its face. “Feed my sheep” means Feed my sheep the way I read it and the way it’s been read for almost 2000 years in the only Church that matters.

The Legitimacy of the Bishop of Rome!

He is as ,‘legitimate,’ as any other Catholic bishop and descendent of the apostles and no more. His power and authority came from the state and the Church. He has neither Jurisdiction nor Infallibility other than that given by Tradition and the Church.

Then why is Peter’s name mentioned more then twice as often as all the others combined? Why did John, who outran him to the tomb, stop so Peter could enter first? Why is he the only one of the Twelve to speak in Acts? Why is he the first to preach the Gospel? Why did the Lord give him the keys to the Kingdom? And why did the ECFs all extol his primacy. Here are some of them:

Tertullian
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give *to you *the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen
“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Understand, these things were always believed about Peter and the defense of him didn’t have to happen until the deniers started coming out of the woodwork. They’re still around, as you know.

Indeed, Roman Authorities in Ireland and England as well as on the Continent denied any claim to infallibility…While England denied it at regular intervals over a thousand years.

So what? There have always been heretics in the Church and they, too, are still with us. Does heresy automatically have legitimacy in your sect?

When the split came in 1570 and the followers of the papacy…walked out in to schism following Trent and the New Church,[Evelyn’ Diary.] the term Anglican became the popular usage again, whilst the schismatics ultimately became known as Romanists, Romans and finally Roman Catholics.

Rubbish! “Roman Catholic” is not the title of the Church, which is The Catholic Church. The same one referred to below by Ignatius of Antioch:

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains . Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Is AD 110 early enough for you?

Henry the 8th, rejected the authority of the pope.

Of course, but only AFTER he appealed to the Pope to allow him to divorce his wife. Why did he ask the Pope for that permission if the Pope had no authority to grant it to him? Time to do a little rational thinking, amigo. Time to start putting the parts together instead of picking at the pieces.
[/quote]

 

[GKC]

“Of course, but only AFTER he appealed to the Pope to allow him to divorce his wife. Why did he ask the Pope for that permission if the Pope had no authority to grant it to him? Time to do a little rational thinking, amigo. Time to start putting the parts together instead of picking at the pieces.”

Decree of nullity, not divorce. And he didn’t ask the Pope for it, he went through the established diocesan channels, hoping to keep the process in England, where any bishop with jurisdiction could have granted the decree. In fact, it was Catherine who appealed, as was her right, to the Rota in Rome. Clement really didn’t want to get involved. But he was.

Details always available. Hank is a hobby of mine.

GKC

 

[Protestant101]

[MATTHEW Ch.16/18.

The Roman claims are built on tablets of clay!.**
Archbishop Kenrick wrote,
"From this it follows either that no argument at all, or a very feeble one , can be drawn in proof of the primacy of Peter from the words, "On this rock will I build my Church.’ He went on,"If we ought to follow the number of Fathers on this question then certainly it is to be held that we should understand by the rock, the faith professed by Peter and not Peter professing the Faith."

But, Peter did profess his faith in this Bible passage.

 

[Protestant101]

That conclusion of yours cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.

That opinion of yours cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.

If our Lord could both sit at the table and offer Himself to be physically eaten by the disciples, then Jesus could not be said to be human as we are. A Perfect Man can not be physically whole at more than one place at the same time. This requirement of His being a Perfect Man is necessary for the one Sacrifice Christ made to redeem us, just as the sacrificial lamb had to be perfect.

These opinions of your cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.

How do you know Jesus could not be in two places at once? Padre Pio was documented to be in two places at once several times. Are you saying Padre Pio had powers Jesus didn’t posess?

Do you really believe Jesus couldn’t do things we can’t do? If so, we can throw out that story where He walks on water.

You say you believe in the word of God. Jesus is God. He said, in John 6, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you, for my flesh is real food and my blood real drink.” At the Last Supper He said, “This is my body…this is my blood.” There is no hint anywhere in Scripture that those words are symbolic. All the explaining away you did in another message is just stuff protestants made up to deny the truth of the Lord’s words and you won’t find those opinions in Scripture either. If you don’t believe those words, you cannot say you believe the word of God. The fact is, you do not believe the word of God. You believe what you want to believe.

Jesus did not come to deceive us. If He didn’t mean those words literally, He would have said something else.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

There is still a problem with a an earthly “Real Presence” according to the verse I quoted from (Hebrews 9:24),
“For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, (which are) the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.”

I’m not sure I see your point. This passage is just telling us that the true temple is in heaven, and that it is this heavenly temple where Christ enters to offer his sacrifice to the Father.

Thus Christ, far from having “finished” his redemptive work, in now actively engaged in offering himself to the Father in the heavenly temple. For if redemption were finished at the cross (in the Protestant sense of “finished”), why would there be need of a temple in heaven into which the true High Priest would have to enter?

This verse does not allow for Christ to now come down physically to enter into the “holy places made with hands”, which a bread wafer or a tabernacle would be.

This verse does not say a word about where Christ may or may not go! Nor does it prohibit anything. All it does tell us is that there is a true temple in heaven, and that Christ has entered into it. Nothing more.

---

“And when [the wise men] were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother…” Matthew 2:11

And wise men still find the child with his mother!

 

[Dhugz]

Therefore on the part of the Protestants and anti-catholics christian denominations, they Believed that the catholic Church is Corrupted since at 4th century. Therefore, the Bible is also a Corrupted, the word Biblios or Bible came from the word of Pagans, and the Bible is compiled around 365 ad. The Catholic Church thru its councils, she Selected the books which should be or not to be included in the Compilation of the Holy Book of the Catholic Church. Today most of Protestants believed that the Bible is INSPIRED BY God! Then we also concluded that the People of the Church is also Inspired by God to Compile the Books in the Bible. Therefore, there is Contradictions to their Claims, that the Catholic Church is the Church Corrupted after the First Century, and of course it is similar to Book that the Credibility of the Author is in Error therefore the Book is also in Error. Am i right? So, the doctrines of all Christian denominations, the Protestants and fundamentalists also CORRUPTED! Since, they knew and believe that the Bible is free from Error and those who made the Bible and who Compiled its books are inspired by God then, there’s no reason to Question the Credibility of the Catholic Church, because if the Church is in Error all your doctrines also are in Error. Ok!

 

[guanophore]

Lucky, there is all kinds of evidence in Scripture and Tradition. If you do not see it, it is because you are reading with your anti-Catholic lenses on your face.

The Magesterium is not “of the Pope”, it is of Christ. Jesus is the one who appointed
and maintains the Teaching Authority in the Church.

You are of course correct the authority is of Christ. I would never claim anything else, neither did I do so in my previous email. But you equate the Church with the Roman Catholic Church which is a fallacy.

You are making inaccurate assumptions about me, Lucky. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. I agree, however, this is a common fallacy, especially in Europe and the Americas.

In my honest opinion the Roman Church as we now know it is an offspring of The Council of Trent! The true Church is the Body of Christ to which we are admitted by Baptism.

You have been very poorly educated, then, about Catholicism. The Roman Rite took over in Europe when the seat of the Empire moved to constantinople in the 6th century.

I would take Peter’s commissioning as I take the commissioning of all the other apostles, that is seriously and indeed not only the apostles but of their descendants the Catholic Bishop’s also!

What do you make of the fact that something was added to his commissioning that is not the case with the others?

What I cannot find in scripture is any mention of the Bishop of Rome, or any close alliance between that Bishop and S.Peter or indeed any claim that S. Peter was a Bishop of Rome.

You are no doubt proceeding upon a false assumption that the totality of the Chrisitan faith is found in Scripture. The letters of Paul make it clear that Rome had not had the benefit of Apostolic Teaching. This did not happen until Peter and Paul came there.

The City of Rome is only mentioned incidentally in the scriptures and in one book, [Rev.XV11 ] she is singled out for fierce denunciation!

Does this somehow discredit the validity of the Church in Rome, or the labor of Peter and Paul there?

While all these things do reflect the Authority given to the Church, they are not the Source of that Authority. Jesus is theSource. All authority was given to Him, and He gave it to their apostles, and they to their successors.

As a Catholic I agree with you, but you are avoiding the heart of the matter which is you have to prove that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church

Why should such an impossible task fall to me? Since I have never claimed this is the case, and you do, why don’t you take on the task of proving a negative?

and that the papacy has any legitimacy other than that given by the Church and that through the Councils with the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus gave Peter his legitimacy and authority long before the first council, and prior to the sending of the Holy Ghost. It seems to me that you have things out of order.

This you have signally failed to do. If constant bland repetition is sufficient to prove a case without any material to back it up the Roman Church wins hands down. But if proof is called for…?

It seems to me that, if you cannot accept what the Scripture themselves attest, what else would you?

All authority comes from God.

Indeed it does and it is usually displayed through the Bishops in Council!

Later in history, certainly. In the NT, it was exercised by the Apostles. Authority was not exercised apart from them, or unity with Peter, who was appointed by Christ to feed and care for the sheep.

Seven Ecumenical Councils are the pillar s of the Church and through them the Holy Ghost works his will.

Are you under some misapprehension that these councils did not recognize the primacy of the successor of Peter in Rome?

 

[guanophore]

The first passage is the important one. In it S.Peter had declared that Christ was the Son of God. To say the least this was a crucial development in the mind of the apostles .
Our Blessed Lord replied ,“Blessed art thou ,Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee that thou art Peter,[Petros} and upon this rock,[petra] I will build my Church; and the gates of hades will not prevail against it . I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven : and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven”.

What was given in the last verse it should be noted was given later to all the apostles.

Not entirely. Not all of them were renamed “Rock”.

The most likely meaning of all this is that the Rock was not so much Peter but the truth Peter had professed. The Church being founded on Christ. Some ancient writers such as S.Augustine believe that Christ ,Himself ,is the Rock and obviously this has scriptural parallels

All these things are true. Jesus is the Rock. He grafted Peter into Himself, changing his identity, and making it one of Rock (as symbolized by the new name). The statement is also a firm foundation.

‘other foundations can no man lay than that is laid , which is Jesus Christ.’ [1st, Cor.3. 11.]

Yet He is clear that others can be grafted into Himself, and become part of His foundation stones.

****The Creed of the founding Fathers of modern Romanism, written at Trent, goes on regarding scripture,

I don’t know who made this up, but it is very inaccurate. ARe you willing at all to look at the real history of the Roman (Latin) Rite?

The Roman claims are built on tablets of clay!.

I will concede that your imagination of the “Roman claims” certainly are!

Of course, those that required a justification for disobedience to the Roman Pontiff certainly needed to beleive that the claims were based on clay.

 

[Dhugz]

I want to add my knowlegde to the Last supper of Christ,jesus took the bread said “take this all of you and eat it, this is my body which will be given up for. Before the supper has ended he took the Cup and said to his disciple” take this all of you, this is my blood the blood of the new and everlasting covenant it will be share for you and for all! Do this in memory of me.
I believe that when i recieve the host it is the body and blood of Christ, he did not say " this is the symbol of my body, blood" but he said it is my body and blood! After that, he said "do this in memory of me, therefore the Church is doing it every Mass, in remembering Christ we alway celebrate the eucharist, we eat the Body with blood of Christ, because it is the commandment of our lord Jesus Christ. Also the apostles did it, when they are gathered they ate bread, the body and blood of Christ.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

FR: "Of course, but only AFTER he appealed to the Pope to allow him to divorce his wife.

GKC: Decree of nullity, not divorce. And he didn’t ask the Pope for it, he went through the established diocesan channels, hoping to keep the process in England, where any bishop with jurisdiction could have granted the decree. In fact, it was Catherine who appealed, as was her right, to the Rota in Rome. Clement really didn’t want to get involved. But he was.

Thanks for the correction. They were Catholic bishops, though. Thomas More was a Catholic. Hank made the appeal to the Catholic Church, which was my point to LFD, who wants us to believe the Catholic Church was a foreign entity in Hank’s England.