A
Angainor
Guest
There must be more to being Catholic than believing Peter is the rock.
How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?
- Status
M
mercygate
Guest
This is a statement that redefines “tautology.”
A
Angainor
Guest
Is that good?
T
tqualey
Guest
I won’t bother reading it as it stands.
Shame. There was significant content that you have simply dismissed because of style.
While you have said much, both history and logic don’t sustain your position. There is no recorded evidence of any Pope preaching by word or example that the sale of indulgences was approved Catholic doctrine. This was simply an abuse done by those who mis-represented the Catholic Church’s position.
Simony, adultery and fornication have always been condemed by Catholic Church following the teachings of Christ - it did not make any difference if a Pope or any other person committed this sin - it was still a sin.
Merely throwing whatever ‘dirt’ you find handy is not a genuine way to make an argument. A simpl straight forward reading of the NT will identify that Christ built His Chruch on Peter - and it makes no sense that this foundation would just collapse upon Peter’s death. The Chruch Fathers saw this reality and wrote about how the torch was carried forward to the next generation. No one has ever claimed that the Pope’s have been without sin - only that Christ’s Chruch will not be overcome by the powers of hell. This is an important distinction to make - and one I suggest you assess with dispassionate logic.
Best wishes,
Shame. There was significant content that you have simply dismissed because of style.
While you have said much, both history and logic don’t sustain your position. There is no recorded evidence of any Pope preaching by word or example that the sale of indulgences was approved Catholic doctrine. This was simply an abuse done by those who mis-represented the Catholic Church’s position.
Simony, adultery and fornication have always been condemed by Catholic Church following the teachings of Christ - it did not make any difference if a Pope or any other person committed this sin - it was still a sin.
Merely throwing whatever ‘dirt’ you find handy is not a genuine way to make an argument. A simpl straight forward reading of the NT will identify that Christ built His Chruch on Peter - and it makes no sense that this foundation would just collapse upon Peter’s death. The Chruch Fathers saw this reality and wrote about how the torch was carried forward to the next generation. No one has ever claimed that the Pope’s have been without sin - only that Christ’s Chruch will not be overcome by the powers of hell. This is an important distinction to make - and one I suggest you assess with dispassionate logic.
Best wishes,
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Many, many threads around here discuss Catholic errors. There is not enough room on this thread to discuss them all, let alone one.
AFH, We try to stick to one topic per thread. Catholics were wondering why the discontinuity between believing Peter=rock and not being Catholic. Instead every other issue seems to be getting dragged into this. Perhaps you should read some other threads around here. You might also want to read some Protestant theology to understand where we are coming from before you make some of the assertions you make. You might also want to read up on things such as indulgences before making some of the statements you make. The Catholic encyclopedia might be a good start.
Peter, by the way, wasn’t the rock.
And I knew Mercygate doesn’t buy into SS before I wrote that.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
You need to read your history.
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
Truthstalker,
I was referring to your general blanket statements in effort to prove “Catholic errors”. “There is not enough room on this thread to discuss them all, let alone one”. What are you talking about? I distinctly asked you to provide specific examples of why you keep stating that you cannot trust Papal teachings or the Catholic Church’s teachings. You still haven’t provided one fact. Instead, you throw more blanket statements and eroneous “facts” hoping to prove your argument. As Catholics on this thread show in scripture where the answers can be found and explain why we have ALWAYS interpreted them the same way, non-C’s use their altered Bible and thus their own individual interpretation and beliefs to argue against our proof. Thus, our having to attempt to prove Catholocism’s Authority. Because if non-C’s can’t buy into that, they are going to have a difficult time believing anything we say. I don’t need to read any more Protestant theology. It is a changed, egotistic, individual interpretation of men in the 1500’s that splintered from the trunk of Christianity - Catholocism. What assertations have I made about Protestantism that are wrong? Please correct me. Be specific. I grew up going to Protestant Churches with friends and other family members, so I am pretty sure I am correct in what I say. What is it you think I don’t understand about indulgences? Peter is the Rock. Jesus didn’t say that to anyone else. Protestantism has always had to refute Peter as the Rock and separate Catholocism from Christ because otherwise they cannot legitimize their own beliefs. By the way, Luther in the 1500’s, on his own, added Sola Scriptura to scripture. He even says he knew it wasn’t there. But, he said, “It is now there because I said so”.
I was referring to your general blanket statements in effort to prove “Catholic errors”. “There is not enough room on this thread to discuss them all, let alone one”. What are you talking about? I distinctly asked you to provide specific examples of why you keep stating that you cannot trust Papal teachings or the Catholic Church’s teachings. You still haven’t provided one fact. Instead, you throw more blanket statements and eroneous “facts” hoping to prove your argument. As Catholics on this thread show in scripture where the answers can be found and explain why we have ALWAYS interpreted them the same way, non-C’s use their altered Bible and thus their own individual interpretation and beliefs to argue against our proof. Thus, our having to attempt to prove Catholocism’s Authority. Because if non-C’s can’t buy into that, they are going to have a difficult time believing anything we say. I don’t need to read any more Protestant theology. It is a changed, egotistic, individual interpretation of men in the 1500’s that splintered from the trunk of Christianity - Catholocism. What assertations have I made about Protestantism that are wrong? Please correct me. Be specific. I grew up going to Protestant Churches with friends and other family members, so I am pretty sure I am correct in what I say. What is it you think I don’t understand about indulgences? Peter is the Rock. Jesus didn’t say that to anyone else. Protestantism has always had to refute Peter as the Rock and separate Catholocism from Christ because otherwise they cannot legitimize their own beliefs. By the way, Luther in the 1500’s, on his own, added Sola Scriptura to scripture. He even says he knew it wasn’t there. But, he said, “It is now there because I said so”.
M
MIZER
Guest
Dear Always for him,
I’ve been following your discourse with truth stalker. I’m amazed by your patience. He/She doesn’t seem to be too interested in the truth at all, let alone stalking it.
I’ve been following your discourse with truth stalker. I’m amazed by your patience. He/She doesn’t seem to be too interested in the truth at all, let alone stalking it.
M
mercygate
Guest
Always For Him’s post broken into paragraphs for the sake of clarity.
AFH’s content is basically on point but I would prefer it to be purged of what I consider to be needlessly antagonistic phrases, such as, “altered Bible” and “egotistic, individual interpretation.”
M
MIZER
Guest
I agreee the first two expression’s may be antogonistic but the last one, “individual interpretation” is simply factual. The entire world of non-catholic christianity is based on the private interpretation of the individual. If using this expression antagonizes a believer, perhaps said believer ought to start asking himself, why.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
As Guanophore said on another thread,
I would suggest you address the argument rather than attack the person. If you cannot support your statement with credible factual links, don’t make them.guanophore said:
Please check CAF rules before making another post.
CAF Rules:
Please keep in mind that you are a guest in the house of the Catholic Church here.
M
mercygate
Guest
Correct, but the term “individual interpretation” was preceded by the qualifying adjective “egotistical”. Even if it IS egotistical, pointing it out only antagonizes people, sets them on their guard, and casts the discussion in adversarial terms, which sours the milk.
The facts speak for themselves.
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
Thank you Mizer for your kind post. Mercygate, in hoping to keep my post as short as possible, I didn’t break it down by paragraphs. Whether my style is right or wrong in someone’s opinion, it is what it is. At least I try. As discussions heat up, things can seem antagonistic, but I wouldn’t call them needless. I admit that using egotistical could seem a little strong. But, it is exactly what Luther became in the end. His need for power and political support took him away from the Truth. So, it really does apply, it is just hard to stomach. I beg to differ, individual interpretation is exactly factual and on point. I agree with Mizer and everyone else who condemns individual interpretation. Isn’t it the reason we have teach, discuss and try to prove OUR beliefs in the first place against Protestantism’s initial re-interpretation of scripture, ommission of determined as inspired books from the Bible, adding “alone” to doctrine, among other things? So, the Protestant Bible is an altered, changed, different, whatever word needs to be used, Bible. Even since the founding of Protestantism, Protestant Churches have continued to re-invent their own interpretation of scripture and doctrine. We have consistantly shown, proven, provided scripture, solid historical evidence and because their beliefs in what their Church’s interpretation and what their Church has taught them, we seem to always have to “prove” why to everything.
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
The reason I responded to TS the way I did is because he/she has yet to answer any of the questions posed to him/her. He/she has yet to provide credible facts to back up his/her bold, blanket statements. He/she became adversarial trying to prove his/her arguments without any factual evidence. I was not trying to be antagonistic in my response (although, it looks like I was). It seems that non-C’s don’t know that their Bible was drastically altered through the Reformation. I don’t know if it has changed since then. Anyway, they act like their Bible is the original Bible and they use THEIR Bible and their individual interpretation to argue against our Bible and our 2,000 years of historically same teachings of Jesus’ One Truth. I don’t believe that it is in error to bring that to light when non-C’s refute our Bible and our interpretation by using theirs to prove ours as wrong. They are not open to the truth when they are being adversarial. It is not the other way around.
I will really try to refrain from saying anything that would put non-C’s on their defenses. It will happen across the board at times because we are the Church that Jesus founded and he is our only Authority. His teachings are all we have to use to discuss, teach and share our beliefs and interpretations.
I wish that were true! It seems that the facts aren’t speaking for themselves, thus the need to teach.
I will really try to refrain from saying anything that would put non-C’s on their defenses. It will happen across the board at times because we are the Church that Jesus founded and he is our only Authority. His teachings are all we have to use to discuss, teach and share our beliefs and interpretations.
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
I asked some questions on another thread and thought, they actually should have been asked here.
If Jesus’ Authority wasn’t passed from Peter to subsequent Popes, or magisterium, why is it that anyone believes in the Bible?
Since non-C’s aren’t ordained in any lineage from Peter, and since non-C’s believe that Jesus’ authority and power stopped with Peter (or that Peter never had any authority or power), where do they derive their power or authority to perform baptisms, perform marriage ceremonies, or to confirm (some do that) in the name of God or through God? Mere mortals and lay people don’t have any power or authority to perform these duties do they? Is it just words, or do they believe that God is working through them? If they believe that God is working through them, then did God give them the power or authority to perform those functions? I didn’t mention the Consecration of the Eucharist, the forgivness of sins in Reconciliation because I don’t think they believe in those sacraments. Am I correct on that?
Do Non-C’s annoint the sick? If they do, where do they get the power an authority to do that? When Protestant ministers are ordained, is it through some type of power? Do they receive some kind of power or authority when ordained? If so, where does that power or authority come from?
If Jesus’ Authority wasn’t passed from Peter to subsequent Popes, or magisterium, why is it that anyone believes in the Bible?
Since non-C’s aren’t ordained in any lineage from Peter, and since non-C’s believe that Jesus’ authority and power stopped with Peter (or that Peter never had any authority or power), where do they derive their power or authority to perform baptisms, perform marriage ceremonies, or to confirm (some do that) in the name of God or through God? Mere mortals and lay people don’t have any power or authority to perform these duties do they? Is it just words, or do they believe that God is working through them? If they believe that God is working through them, then did God give them the power or authority to perform those functions? I didn’t mention the Consecration of the Eucharist, the forgivness of sins in Reconciliation because I don’t think they believe in those sacraments. Am I correct on that?
Do Non-C’s annoint the sick? If they do, where do they get the power an authority to do that? When Protestant ministers are ordained, is it through some type of power? Do they receive some kind of power or authority when ordained? If so, where does that power or authority come from?
M
mercygate
Guest
I think they have a couple of different ways of looking at this. Some do not believe that baptism or the Lord’s Supper are anything but symbols, so “authority” is no problem in terms of sacramental effect.
Some anoint the sick because it is in the Bible.
Some believe that “authority” comes from the universal priesthood of all Christians – and they do not distinguish between the ministerial presbyterate and the universal presbyterate, although there is clearly a distnction in scripture.
Some believe that “authority” for ministry comes from the congregation. The congregation discerns the “call” when a person presents himself, or even, a congregation will identify a person and tell him that he has “the call” and put the ball in motion.
All will say that the “authority” comes from following the Bible.
In the case of Lutherans and confession, i did some research on that a couple of years ago and learned that the power of absolution resides in the words of Scripture recited by the minister – but I do not recall which words of Scripture were chosen. Could it be Jn 20:20-23?
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
Who are they imitating in the Bible when they annoint the sick? If they believe that baptism cleanses you of Original Sin, then it cannot be just symbolism.
I am amazed that Jesus’ Words of the Last Supper are not taken literally he said them. His disciples and thousands of others left him because they knew exactly what Jesus was saying. Only Peter stayed. (We have covered that one already, so I won’t do it again.)
Luther believed in definite 7 sacraments, not symbolism, or sacramental effect. Why is that so different now?
I knew that Lutheran’s continued the sacrament of Reconciliation up until about 100 years ago. That had to be eradicated by man. We don’t have the power to eradicate teachings or doctrine because we don’t like it. Although, Luther did and Protestants don’t question that. I would like to know more about “the power of absolution resides in the words of Scripture recited by the minister.” What is that? I will read what you have provided to try to gain a better understanding of that.
I am amazed that Jesus’ Words of the Last Supper are not taken literally he said them. His disciples and thousands of others left him because they knew exactly what Jesus was saying. Only Peter stayed. (We have covered that one already, so I won’t do it again.)
Luther believed in definite 7 sacraments, not symbolism, or sacramental effect. Why is that so different now?
This baffles me. Where in the Bible does it say any of that? Universal priesthood comes from those who Christ founded his church on. I can’t imagine that it would be believed that it applies to men (or women) who separated from the original Church founded by Christ. He gave power and authority to Peter and the Apostles and their successors to continue his teachings and to lead his Church and no one else, not the congregation, not the congretation’s discerning “call” or not by just following the Bible. That seems pretty clear. I have never heard, read or been taught anything of that nature being Catholic. But, then again, I am no theologan.
I knew that Lutheran’s continued the sacrament of Reconciliation up until about 100 years ago. That had to be eradicated by man. We don’t have the power to eradicate teachings or doctrine because we don’t like it. Although, Luther did and Protestants don’t question that. I would like to know more about “the power of absolution resides in the words of Scripture recited by the minister.” What is that? I will read what you have provided to try to gain a better understanding of that.
M
mercygate
Guest
James 5:14. “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.”
True, but many do not believe that baptism DOES anything at all. For some it is just an “ordinance” that you do because it is in the Bible.
Peter and 10 of the others. That was where Judas fell away.
Did he retain belief in all of the sacraments? I know he fought against taking confession away. He lost.
In I Pet 2:5 and 9 Peter refers to the members of the Church as a “holy priesthood” and a “royal priesthood.” Protestants take this to mean that there is no OTHER, appointed, MINISTERIAL priesthood.
And you’re not Protestant. Think about it. They don’t HAVE a divinely-ordained ministerial priesthood with anointed bishops, so they figure out another way of authenticating their ministry.
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
I just wish they could see that. That is what had to happen when Protestantism split from Catholocism. Why is it that they question us so thoroughly, but don’t question that? I have so much to learn about the Protestant’s dissention from Catholocism.
If baptism is in the Bible, isn’t it supposed to have real meaning?
I have always read that Luther did believe in all 7 sacraments. I will try to find information as to whether or not he wanted to retain confession. Are you saying that he fought against having confession taken away and lost? That would mean he wanted to retain confession, but the other reformers didn’t, right?
M
micas
Guest
Anyway, they act like their Bible is the original Bible and they use THEIR Bible and their individual interpretation to argue against our.
Except for those rogue books RC call deutercanonical and Protestants call the apocrypha and the rewriting RC did to the ten commandments you have the same bible as we do!
Anyway, they act like their Bible is the original Bible and they use THEIR Bible and their individual interpretation to argue against our. God lied when He promised to preserve His word.
See Isaiah 40:8
- Status