If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
backfromthebrink: Maybe you don’t mean this, but your posts seem like personal attacks against straw men and misrepresentations of the Catholic faith, and also seem full of hate. I am not a Catholic, but the responses of yours that I have read on this board make me cringe. It’s often hard to communicate emotion in writing, but I couldn’t be as spiteful and mean as you are being if I tried. You seem to be “talking at” everyone instead of “talking to” them. Try a little grace.

Colossians 4:6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
Seems like there is lot of venom being thrown both ways. Again, as I’ve pointed out several times before, all this bickering is silly. The vast majority, if not all, of the folks participating in this thread are Christian. Catholics and Protestants may worship God a little differently and have some different interpretations, but I believe we all have the basics in common.

Lighten up folks! :rolleyes:
 
JRKH…Fair enough. I will present what I can to you on Bibliology but I suspect you will never accept anything that challenges the catholic church.

Ckempston. Thank you for your comments. I get very passionate about this deception and I do hate seeing people die having placed their faith in that church. It is sure death. I apologize for how I come accross and wish I was better at tolerance of this. In the end it is Gods fight. I cannot help who God has chosen to not enlighten. I do not hate anyone. I hate the enemy and the deception he has so successfully woven in the catholic church. As I look at my posts I do see how you are left with that impression. To be honest I am not sure how to temper this …saddness actually over what is being done here by seemingly well intentioned people lost to what the enemy has done and Christ had predicted for us as a warning. I will take your words to heart and pray over them for Gods direction in all of this. Thanks
 
If you mean which denomination is right I would say none. Paul addressed this exact thing when he said some say we follow Apollos and some say Paul. He was talking about this exact thing BUT within that there was never any veneration of anyone but a worship of God. I do not claim to put my faith in a denomination but my savior and His Word
 
Hi

I can sum up the question this way, with only two words.

Novus Ordo!!!

Have a great day.

Frank J
 
JRKH…Fair enough. I will present what I can to you on Bibliology but I suspect you will never accept anything that challenges the catholic church.

Ckempston. Thank you for your comments. I get very passionate about this deception and I do hate seeing people die having placed their faith in that church. It is sure death. I apologize for how I come accross and wish I was better at tolerance of this. In the end it is Gods fight. I cannot help who God has chosen to not enlighten. I do not hate anyone. I hate the enemy and the deception he has so successfully woven in the catholic church. As I look at my posts I do see how you are left with that impression. To be honest I am not sure how to temper this …saddness actually over what is being done here by seemingly well intentioned people lost to what the enemy has done and Christ had predicted for us as a warning. I will take your words to heart and pray over them for Gods direction in all of this. Thanks
You DO have a vivid imagination, have you ever thought of writing horror stories ?
 
Why not, he can’t prove that anymore than he can prove most of the other accusations he has made.
I agree with you, I just don’t want him to thrash around about it on this thread. :o
He knows what hes saying and he also knows they are not true, he said himself he used to be a “devout” Catholic.
Well, we see it differently. I don’t think he ever understood Catholic teaching. The fact that he believed himself to be a “devout Catholic” does not make it so. His own description of the cold deadness he experienced makes it clear that he was not in communion with the Church even when he was attending.
He has just let himself be misled by false prophets. To leave the True Faith out of ignorance is one thing but to turn around and throw mud in the face of the Church Jesus Christ founded after being a part of it and "KNOWING " those are lies, is another.
I agree with this also, but I am not convinced that he is not ignorant.
Code:
If he is soooo happy in his new life, why not just go on and enjoy it. He will be back someday cuz he already knows in his heart he is wrong. There are those who do this sort of thing just to start trouble. And to try to justify what they have done.
I agree that there is some reason he is here. Perhaps there are unresolved feelings and issues. This is a good thing, from my perspective, and an opportunity to try to correct misperceptions. I think it is better to err on the side that this is an authentic inquiry and that it is based on ignorance. I am sure if I am wrong, this will come to light.
 
first It is not me but you who are quoteing scripture out of context. Christ own words John 3:3 You must be born again. Notice that it does not include anything.
bftb, such a statement is proof of taking scripture out of context. It is not appropriate to attempt to build a theology on one or a few verses, and exclude anything from the theology that is not found in those particular verses. The whole of the Divine Revelation must be taken together for the meaning to become clear.

Jesus has is clear in his reference to water with regard to baptism. This is found all through the New Testament, as well as the Old! Jesus joined the HS to the baptismal waters when He entered them.

One of the prophesies about being born again is found in Ezekiel:

" I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances." Ezek 36:25-27

Water is not separated from the infusion of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 4: 12 For there is no other name under heaven given by men by which we must be saved. That is Christ not Mary not the saints Christ and Christ alone.
Christ chose not to be “alone” in His salvation. He chose to involve Mary. He could have appeared on earth fully grown as a man if He wanted.

Jesus chose to build His church on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. He does not want to be alone, but to be the Head of His Body, the Church. We can participate which Him in His saving mission, by His grace.
This is the problem often run into. People taking Scripture without understadning the Bible at all in its teaching of doctrine.
News flash, bftb. The Bibel does not “teach doctrine”. People teach doctrine. Jesus commissioned His Apostles to Teach, not to write books.
Chrtist did leave us a church and that church is NOT the catholic church. That is man’s church and it is corrupt.
I have not read the remainder of this thread, but now that you have made this assertion, you will have to prove what you are asserting.
You also have to remeber that Christ taught under the law. He was the fullfillment of the law but not until the cross. The messgae of grace begins to show itself in John. Then largly through Paul. Funny how Paul rebuked Peter (your first Pope, suposewdly infallible) regarding the mixing of law and grace. again, the original heresy of the church.
No, bftb, you have misunderstood. Paul rebuked Peter because he was behaving hypocritically. He was not acting in accordance with the infallible teaching that he had promulgated. Furthermore, infallible does not mean impeccable.

Lastly, heresies are not “of the Church” but of error, which the Church cannot teach. I do agree that dealing with this legalism was one of the challenges of the early church, but it does not constitute heresy.
You really have to study scripture more. You confuse catholic writings with Gods word and then you lump them together in importance. Paul was not catholic. Where do you get the garbage from. This is what I am talking about it is the damage you do to others erarching for truth. [/qupte]

Try to maintain a sense of decorum, bftb. I don’t want you to be banned before you have a chance to be enlightened!

Paul was (and is!) Catholic. All of the writers of the NT were Catholic. The whole NT is Catholic. That is why we must take the writings from the perspective of the Catholic Church. The catholic church is the context of the NT.
backfrmthebrink;3900155:
Code:
I just wish you had more imformation theologically regarding scripture rather than the catholic writings. If you would like to tackle an issu with scripture only I would enjoy that very much but in no way will give respect or creedence to anything written by the catholic church as authoratative in the discussion
If this is the case, you are in quite a fix, since that leaves out the whole New Testament.🤷
 
On a last note the catholic church is not the author of the book. That would be God but funny how the catholic church claims just that. Casting the pearls amongst the swine
I am confused about this statement. Do you not think that people were involved in the writing of scriptures? Perhaps you admit to that, but you deny that these persons were Catholic?

If so, then is the fact that the Scripture was given to the Catholic Church what you mean when you say “Casting pearls amongs the swine”?

Are Catholics swine, and therefore, not deserving of scripture?

Or, are you referring to us telling you that the writers of the NT were Catholic is an act of casting pearls before swine?

After reading several of your posts, I am inclined to think the latter is the most accurate, but I don’t want to jump to conclusions.
 
backfromthebrink: Maybe you don’t mean this, but your posts seem like personal attacks against straw men and misrepresentations of the Catholic faith, and also seem full of hate. I am not a Catholic, but the responses of yours that I have read on this board make me cringe. It’s often hard to communicate emotion in writing, but I couldn’t be as spiteful and mean as you are being if I tried. You seem to be “talking at” everyone instead of “talking to” them. Try a little grace.

Colossians 4:6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
Blessings to you for your charitable feedback. 👍
 
The sacred scriptures are not catholic writings. They are Gods words written by the Apostles commissioned by Christ himself.
Actually, many of them were not written by Apostles. However, I do agree that they are God’s Word, written by those called of God.
The catholic church has seen fit to alter history by claiming the early church to be “catholic” and thus responsible for the cannon.
This is a ridiculous assertion, since history cannot be “altered”. Apparently you have been reading too much fiction, and you have bought into the reality of time machines!

Where do you think the canon came from, if not the early church?
They did the same thing by rrewriting history claiming Peter to be the first pope. Peter never claimed this nor would he.
There are many things that are not understood fully when they are happening, but the meaning only becomes clear later. I agree with you that Peter, when Christ made him the rock, had no idea how this would turn out. The early church did not use Latin, so the term “pope” was not used until the Latin Church became prevalent in the West, which was later. That does not change the primacy of Peter, however, which is attested to by all the ECF’s.
Agustine was responsible for making so called christianity the official church of Rome by way of what would become the catholic church.
You need some polishing on your calumny there, bftb. This accusation is supposed to be leveled with “Constantine”. Better go back over those Chick Tracts again!
Again long after the death of John. An organizatrion made by man. You claim to be spiritual and have knowledge of scripture but you cannot. You deny the authenticity of the Word of God you belittle it by saying that a man and a council no Apostle ever heard of, can claim to add books and other writings to be of equal value and you put your faith in that!
No, bftb. We do not consider the writings of the ECF’s to be equal with scripture.
THEN you call yourself a Christian! May God forgive you!
Amen! Am I saved now? 😉
Any read of Matthew and how Christ delt with the Pharasees and how the Pharasees delt with John the Bapitist would allow any enlightened person to see the catholic church in the same light. Hipocrites! Pagans! and “how they love the place of honor”…"and to have men call them Rabi.(Priests, Father).
bftb, I am wondering why you are here?

Did you stop to read the forum rules?

If not, you may not realize that you are breaking them by calling names. Such behavior will get you banned from the forum, possibly before you accomplish your goal.
Code:
BTW to answer your last question Jesus was not talking about a biological Father but a spiritual one. " Mat 23:27 You are like whitewashed tombs which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead mans bones and everything unclean. In the same way on the outside,you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocricy and wickedness"
Nothing in your posts seems to indicate that you consider Catholics righteous whether on the outside or the inside! do you really think that Catholics appear as righteous?
You try to belittle me and others like me who have knowledge of scripture and have spent lifetimes in study of it. All I can say to you is that you have heard the truth and it is in Gods hands. I do pray for you as still, you refuse to hear the truth of the Gospels and have instead turned yourself to the propaganda of the decietful catholic church. There is no life in that church. I pray you take no more souls with you.
Wow. You sure do have so much prejudice and bigotry in you. How did this happen?

Thank you for your prayers. I pray that, while you are offering them, they will be heard, since we know that God will not hear your prayers unless you forgive your brother from your heart.

I also pray that you will be healed of the great insults that you are carrying.
 
Seems like there is lot of venom being thrown both ways. Again, as I’ve pointed out several times before, all this bickering is silly. The vast majority, if not all, of the folks participating in this thread are Christian. Catholics and Protestants may worship God a little differently and have some different interpretations, but I believe we all have the basics in common.

Lighten up folks! :rolleyes:
No, mikew, we do not "believe we have all the basics in common. I think it is clear from bftb’s posts that he does not believe he shares anything in common with Catholics. He has called us swine, hypocrites, pharisees and deceivers. Clearly he does not want to be related with such persons.
 
Hey Lisdogan…

You said, Sorry,** it is almost impossible to reply to this posting because my initial posting has not been put in correct quotes, and is undifferentiated from comments and observations made by Joe370:. my reply is in red quotes, sort of. Not very satisfactory I’m afraid.
**

I apologize for misquoting. Everything I said should have been addressed to all those who believe what you said below: —post 1147

"Some believe that Christ founded the universal Christian church, of which the Catholic Church is part, along with many other denominations. The universal Church of Christ was not originally designated the ‘Catholic Church’, because that name did not exist for some decades.

If you think the claim is ‘ridiculous’ then perhaps it is up to you - for a change - to provide proof of your claim.

Again the burden of proof is on them since they (who ever they are)–are making the claim that Jesus established the C.C. as well as other denomination circa 33A.D.

J0e370: Every single church, protestant,non-Catholic, non-denominational —what ever they go by nominally (outside the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church) can only trace its origin back to a mere-man, and that is a fact! --Not to Jesus; Not to the Apostles!

**This of course would be meaningless if there was an apostasy. However, the apostasy theory holds no water. **

We know that, and the answer continues to be the same, in that it has been listed again and again over the centuries. Even I can go Google it. New Churches spring up every day. Many consider the Catholic Church the Mother Church, particularly mainstream Christian churches, but prefer to understand and manifest their faith in other ways: they stand on the firm foundation of their faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, but may look in different directions or stand in different positions on that foundation.

That is certainly their prerogative/right. Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you saying that many non-Catholics believe that the C.C. was indeed founded by Jesus (GOD), but choose to “manifest their faith in other ways” --(join a man-made church centuries after Jesus established His church)?

joe370The Lutheran church is the oldest protestant church. Lutheranism is a major branch of Western Christianity that identifies with the teachings of the sixteenth-century German reformer Martin Luther. Luther’s efforts to reform the theology and practice of the Roman Catholic Church launched the Protestant Reformation and, though it was not his original intention, left Western Christianity forever divided.

I have made it clear before that I do not like the name Protestant because it defines all other churches as those which protested against Catholicism. That is not true of all Christian churches by any means. Post-Luther churches might be called ‘reformed churches’; those that arose before Luther, might just be called churches - the church of England which was untouched by Rome until 6th century. Here is a bit of history: there is more where that came from which demonstrates there were independent churches well before Luther:

The Catholic Church in England and Wales is part of the worldwide Catholic Church, the Christian Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, currently Pope Benedict XVI. It traces its origins to the original Christian community founded by Jesus, with its traditions first established by the Twelve Apostles and maintained through unbroken Apostolic Succession. Its formal history in England and Wales traces from the 597 Augustinian mission.

Christianity arrived in the British Isles in the first or second centuries (probably via the tin trade route through Ireland and Spain), and existed independently of the Church of Rome, as did many other Christian communities of that era. Records note Brythonnic bishops, such as Restitutus, attended the Council of Arles in 314. The Pope sent Saint Augustine of Canterbury from Rome in the 6th century to evangelise the Angles in (597). With the help of Christians already residing in Kent, he established his church in Canterbury, the capital of Kent, and, having received the pallium before he left Rome, became the first in the series of archbishops of Canterbury. The last Catholic archbishop of Canterbury was Reginald Pole, who died in 1558.

Simultaneously, the Celtic Church of St.Columba continued to evangelise Scotland and northern England. The Celtic Church submitted in some sense to the ‘authority’ of Rome at the Synod of Whitby in 644. Over the next few centuries, the Roman system introduced by Augustine gradually absorbed the pre-existing Celtic Christian churches.

England adhered to the Catholic Church for nearly a thousand years, but in 1534, during the reign of King Henry VIII, what was the established (Catholic) church in England became independent of Rome with Henry as its head. Under his son, Edward VI the English church became aligned with the Protestant movement before briefly rejoining the Roman Church during the reign of Queen Mary I, in 1555. Catholicism continued in England, although it was subject to various forms of persecution.

Leo I (“Leo the Great”), Bishop of Rome, Claims Authority/Primacy over all Christians

Leo I “The Great” (400?–461 A.D.), was Bishop of Rome from 440–461 A.D. He was the first Bishop of Rome to claim primacy/authority over all other Christians (at that time Europe had been overrun by the Huns, and had become largely barbarian and pagan again). The claim was largely ignored by most of the other Christian churches, including the Celtic Church, and the four other original Apostolic Sees of the East; particularly by the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Clearly Rome was not the only city that could claim a special role in Christ’s Church. Jerusalem had the prestige of being the city of Christ’s death and resurrection, and an important church council was held there in the first century. Antioch was the place where Jesus’ followers were first called “Christians” (as well as “Catholic”) and, Alexandria was an important early center of Christian thought. It is important to note that the three main apostolic sees of the early Church (ie. Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome) were directly related to Peter. Prior to holding the position of Bishop of Rome, Peter was the Bishop of Antioch. And his disciple, St. Mark the Evangelist, founded the church in Alexandria. Constantinople became highly important after Constantine moved his capital there in 330 AD.

Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, The Chronicle, AD 303, "[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [AD 42]: The Apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years."
 
…The primary theological reason for the eventual primacy of Rome is the city’s association with Peter. Tradition held that Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and, more importantly, was martyred there (his remains are believed to reside beneath St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City). St. Paul was believed to have been martyred in Rome as well.

Bishop Eusebius quotes from documents written in 232, 211, 200, 198, and 170, which all specifically mention St. Peter in Rome. Of course, there are numerous other sources, as well. Here are some of the many early historical citations in descending order:

Lactantius, The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5, AD 318, “When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew.”

Bishop Peter of Alexandria, Penance, Canon 9, AD 306, “Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome.”

The Poem Against the Marcionites, AD 267, “In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down.”
St. Cyprian, Epistle 52, A. D. 251, described Rome as “The place of Peter.”

Orien, Third Commentary on Genesis, AD 232, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History, “Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way.”

The Little Labyrinth, AD 211, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 5:28:3, “Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter.”

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4, 5:1, AD 210, “Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood.”

Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 and 32:2, AD 200, “But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]…[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans , which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.”

Clement of Alexandria, Sketches, AD 200, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 6, 14:1, “The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings; should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Caius, Disputation with Proclus, AD 198, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:5, “It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Caius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This Caius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’.”

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies 3:3:1, 3:3:2, and 3:3:3, AD 189, "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.

…"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

…“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.”

St. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Letter to Pope Soter, AD 170, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:8, “You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time.”

St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, wrote Letter to the Romans 4:3, AD 110, “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive.”
Pope Clement (fourth Bishop of Rome), First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 5, AD 96, “But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.”

There are more historical records to show that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome until he was martyred about 67. If you’d like additional citations, I’d be glad to provide them. The evidence is clear and uncontradicted.
 
…Even anti-Catholic apologist James White of Alpha Omega Ministries, in a June 1995 debate with Joe Gallegos, conceded, “According to the Papal claims, Peter was the Bishop of Rome until his death. There is plenty of evidence of this from the writings of early fathers, but surprisingly little from the Biblical text itself.”

Actually, there is Biblical evidence…

In St. Peter’s 1st Epistle 5:12-14, he writes, “By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.”

It is well established that Babylon is a code name for Rome. It is used in this way in the Revelation to St. John (The Apocalypse) six times:

Revelation 14:8, “And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.”

Revelation 16:19, “And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.”

Revelation 17:4-6, “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.”

Revelation 18:1-3, “And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.”

Revelation 18:10-11, “Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:”

Revelation 18:21-22, “And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;”

There is no question the Bishop of Rome exercised primacy in the Catholic Church from the 1st Century onward.

Some examples:
Pope Clement (88-97) wrote to the Church in Corinth in the year 96 to tell them to make changes in their attitudes and practices. The Early Church On-Line Encyclopaedia (Ecole) Initiative, a cooperative effort on the part of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars across the Internet to establish links of early Church history, says “This letter is important because it indicates that the author was acting has the head of the Christian Church and that it was centered in Rome.”

Pope Victor (189-199) ordered Easter to be celebrated throughout the world on Sunday, rather than on the 14th Nisan, whichever day of the week it happen to fall. All of the churches adopted Easter Sunday except those in Asia Minor. Pope Victor then excommunicated all the bishops in Asia Minor. While the Pope eventually relented in the excommunication, no one ever suggested that he did not have the authority.

Pope Calixtus (217-222) overruled those bishops who excommunicated for life all apostates, adulterers, and murderers, regardless of their repentance. The Pope decreed that all sinners with contrition could be absolved and received back into the Catholic Church.
After Pope Cornelius (251-253) was elected, he was faced with an antipope, Novatian, who promptly went about trying to consecrate bishops throughout the world who would be loyal to him. Naturally, this created tremendous uncertainty and confusion wherever Novatian tried to create false bishops over the heads of the legitimate bishops. This unequivocally shows the power of the Pope as the recognized leader of the worldwide Catholic Church.

Pope Stephen (254-257) removed certain bishops in Africa for heresy. Later he overruled a synod of African bishops which wanted to rebaptize lapsed Catholics returning to the faith. The Pope made it very clear he was in charge and eventually prevailed in this matter.
Pope Dionysius (260-268) reprimanded Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria for misstatements on the Trinity. The Bishop then followed the Pope’s guidance.
Pope Sylvester (314-335) did not attend the First Council of Arles (314), thinking it unbecoming for him to leave Rome. Following Arles, the bishops there commended him for not leaving the spot “where the Apostles daily sit in judgement.” He repeated this example at Nicaea, which his successors followed in the councils of Sardica (343), Rimini (359), and the Eastern ecumenical councils. At Nicaea, Pope Sylvester sent two priests as his legates, who helped preside over the sessions and who were the first to sign the cannons.

Pope Julius (337-352) decided that Athanasius, rather than Pistus, should be the Bishop of Alexandria. At the same time, he read the riot act to the Arians in Alexandria.

Because Pope Liberius (352-366) stood firm against Arianism, Emperor Constantius had him kidnapped and replaced with an antipope, Felix, who no one accepted. In captivity, the Pope was tortured until he signed a semi-Arian document, which, of course, was not valid. This episode clearly showed the vital role of the Pope in determining Catholic doctrine. The Pope returned to Rome and continued his fight for orthodoxy. He eventually succeeded in seeing many Arians come back to the Catholic Church.
 
…“Pope” means “father” and was used by many bishops before the title was reserved for the successor of St. Peter. With or without the title, the Bishop of Rome exercised worldwide primacy just as Pope John Paul II does today.

St. Augustine also wrote, “Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom. This is the rock which the gates of hell do not prevail.” (Psalmus contr. Partem Donati, str. 18)

In the same vein, St. Augustine wrote:
“For, if the order of succession of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom as representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my church and gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”" (Letters, Volume I [1-82])
And ,“If the order of bishops succeeding to each other is to be considered, how much more securely, and really beneficially, do we reckon from Peter himself, to whom, bearing Figure of the Church, the Lord say, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’.” (T.ii.E.liii.Generos col. 91)

St. Augustine further wrote:
“The Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should… With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

A common question is, why was the Bishop of Rome given preeminence and not “to the bishop of Jerusalem or of Antioch, since those were the two great centers of the early Church?”
As indicated in the Gospel of St. Matthew 16:17-19, the Gospel of St. John 21:15-17, and the Gospel of St. Luke 2:31-32, Jesus designates St. Peter as head of the Church.
St. Peter ministered in Jerusalem, Judaea, and the districts stretching to Syria, before travelling to the Provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia. He founded the Church at Antioch and stayed there a couple of years. Before leaving Antioch, he appointed Evodrius as bishop to succeed him.

Had St. Peter stayed in Jerusalem or Antioch, the bishops of one of these Churches would have been his successor as Pope.

In the New Testament, St. Peter’s name appears more times than all the other apostles combined. He is listed 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). The rest of the apostles together come to a grand total of only 130. And St. Peter’s name is always listed first, with the sole exception of Galatians 2:9, which is the proverbial exception that proves the rule.
St. Peter is often mentioned as distinct among the apostles:
“And Simon and they that were with him followed after him.”

(St. Mark 1:36)
“But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men who stood with him.” (St. Luke 9:32)

“But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words.” (Acts of the Apostles 2:14)
“And when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts of the Apostles 2:37)

“Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts of the Apostles 5:29)

“Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (St. Paul’s 1st Epistle to the Corinthians 9:5)
Some say it’s strange that St. John, who lived during the pontificates of St. Peter, Pope Linus, Pope Anacletus, and Pope Clement but never mentioned their names. But there are many things which Jesus said and did that are not mentioned by St. John (21:25). Furthermore, does Dr. Smith think it likely that every word written down by every apostle has been preserved to the present?
What is noteworthy is that, in Pope Clement’s Epistle to the heakenCorinthians in 96 AD, it is he who is writing as head of the Catholic Church, rather than an original apostle still living.

Almost all of the 265 Popes who have served during the last 2,000 years have been good and holy men, but there have been some unfortunate exceptions. Popes can and do commit sins, sometimes big time. They are protected, though, from teaching error on matters of faith and morals when officially speaking to the worldwide Catholic Church.
Thus, no Catholic would ever dispute that a few Popes “have fallen from virtues of their predecessors,” but I challenge anyone to cite a single Pope from any era–who taught apostasy.

This is the meaning of Jesus’ words that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” his Church (St. Matthew 16:18) and that “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” (St. Matthew 28:20) He would not permit his Church to teach error.
Likewise in St. John 14:16, Jesus says, “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.”
Also, in St. John 14:26, Jesus promises, “But the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
Furthermore, in St. John 16:12-13, Jesus says, “I have yet many things to say unto you, you ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of trust, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”
There can be no question Jesus intended for his Church to always be guided in truth. But keep in mind that papal infallibility does not equate to impeccability.
With regard to some of the bad popes, we should remember that the power of the Pope to teach religious truth is comparable to power Jesus mentions of the scribes and Pharisees St. Matthew 23:1-3: “Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Parisees sit in Moses’ seat (kathedras): All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, observe and do; but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.”
 
Hey Lisdogan…

There were of course political reasons for the upsurge in the pope’s authority. First, Rome was the historical capital of the empire and an important city politically, so it was natural that the bishop of that city would also be important. And when Constantine moved the capital of the empire to Constantinople in 330, the pope was the most powerful figure that remained in Rome.

Also influential were the barbarian invasions of the fifth century. Leo I, who is regarded by many as the first pope in the modern sense, was instrumental in persuading Attila the Hun not to attack Rome in 452. When the city finally fell to the Vandals in 455, Leo convinced their leader not to burn the city. These accomplishments added to the prestige to the bishop of Rome.

Moreover, when Rome fell to the barbarians in 455 AD, the church became the defender of order and justice, and what was left of ancient civilization. The Roman bishop was instrumental in regaining the unity and stability that had been shattered by the invasions. In the East, on the other hand, the empire survived for another 1000 years, so the bishops there did not have the same opportunity for political importance as their Roman counterpart.

Up until Constantine the church (Christianity) was illegal. So of course no one was claiming primacy/authority. It was an underground church, celebrating Masses it houses etc.

The original Rites had three major groupings: the Roman, the Antiochian (in Syria), and the Alexandrian (in Egypt). In the 4th century, under the influence of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom, the Byzantine Rite derived from the Antiochian. These 4 main Rites eventually led to over 22 Liturgical Rites present today in the one, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church. See below…

All of the following are particular churches of the Catholic Church. They are all in communion with the Bishop of Rome and acknowledge his claim of universal jurisdiction and authority. They have some minor distinct theological emphases and expressions concerning, for instance, in the case of those that are of Greek (Byzantine) tradition some aspI agree. The various Orthodox churches to this day have no single organizational structure or single “head.” But the C.C. is a very visible church. What do you mean by small ? ects of the Latin depiction of purgatory.[3]
Armenian Catholic Church (1742)
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (1990)
Bulgarian Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church
Croatian Greek Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Georgian Catholic Church
Greek Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
Macedonian Catholic Church
Maronite Catholic Church
Melkite Catholic Church
Romanian Catholic Church
Russian Catholic Church
Ruthenian Catholic Church (usually called the “Byzantine Catholic Church” in the United States)
Slovak Greek Catholic Church
Syrian Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
The Roman Catholic Church considers itself the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ founded.

Up until this time all Christians had considered themselves to be both of orthodox (with a small “o”, meaning “right belief”) faith, and members of the catholic (with a small “c”, meaning “universal”) church, (the universal “Body of Christ”). The various Orthodox churches to this day have no single organizational structure or single “head”.

**I agree. The various Orthodox churches to this day have no single organizational structure or single “head.” But the C.C. is a very visible church. What do you mean by small ? **

The claim of Leo I of Rome’s supremacy would ultimately affect monasticism by leading to the Great Schism between the Eastern and Roman Churches in 1054 A.D., and resulting in the end of independent Celtic monasticism in 1172 A.D. at the Synod of Cashel. At that time the Irish Celtic Christians finally came under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church which then disbanded the Celtic Monastic Orders that had existed in Ireland for nearly 700 years previously.

I agree!!!

Joe: His Church will survive until his return.

This is incorrect: see above, and lets do some homework here. I am not clear about pre-Reformation history of non-Catholic churches, but know they did exist.

**Among the Christian churches IN THE WORLD TODAY, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are the only churches that existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The churches I am referring to are the protestant churches that spearhead the reformation. **

joe: The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on.

I think your logic is flawed here: long life does not mean something is divine. After all Satan has made a long run too.

In your opinion, what makes something divine?

Apples and oranges my friend. I am referring to earthly temporal institutions. Satan was around before the world was even formed.

The anti-Christ is ceaseless in his efforts to destroy Jesus’ “Body” which is the church, with Jesus as the “head” of the church. Wouldn’t you agree with that fact?

“But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Revelation 12 :16-17

joe: The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Quote:
Other faiths have not collapsed even after 5,000 years (Hinduism for example). I agree with the rest of your statement, thank you.

I meant in the west.👍
 
…Even anti-Catholic apologist James White of Alpha Omega Ministries, in a June 1995 debate with Joe Gallegos, conceded, “According to the Papal claims, Peter was the Bishop of Rome until his death. There is plenty of evidence of this from the writings of early fathers, but surprisingly little from the Biblical text itself.”

Actually, there is Biblical evidence…

In St. Peter’s 1st Epistle 5:12-14, he writes, “By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.”

It is well established that Babylon is a code name for Rome. It is used in this way in the Revelation to St. John (The Apocalypse) six times:

Revelation 14:8, “And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.”

Revelation 16:19, “And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.”

Revelation 17:4-6, “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.”

Revelation 18:1-3, “And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.”

Revelation 18:10-11, “Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:”

Revelation 18:21-22, “And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;”

There is no question the Bishop of Rome exercised primacy in the Catholic Church from the 1st Century onward.
If Rome and Babylon are the same as you claim, then how could Rome(Babylon) still exist?
The verses of Revelation indicate that fallen Rome (Babylon) will “become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.” after its destruction.

Why would any church want to have the name of Rome (Babylon) associated to it, if that is what is meant by those verses in Revelation?
 
If Rome and Babylon are the same as you claim, then how could Rome(Babylon) still exist?
The verses of Revelation indicate that fallen Rome (Babylon) will “become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.” after its destruction.

Why would any church want to have the name of Rome (Babylon) associated to it, if that is what is meant by those verses in Revelation?
In the Book of Revelation, Babylon is referred to as pagan Rome. During the first Century, western Europe was ruled by the Roman Empire. This text was written around the time of Nero. Two of the disciple of Christ were martyred as well as other Christians. Nero is 666. The whore of Babylon is Jerusalem.

The Babylon of Book of Revelation is not referring to the Vatican. The Vatican did not exist then. You can’t be reading the last book of the Bible in the modern context. You have to read it as if you were John himself.

If you want to see the Catholic prospective on the Book of Revelation, I recommend you read Scott Hahn’s commentary on the passage.

members.aol.com/johnprh/whore2.html#baby
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top