My #1 reason for not converting...

[bengal_fan]

Ordinary history tells us that Peter was executed in Rome in 67 AD - he got there somehow.

does anybody actually read entire posts before commenting?? :banghead:

i never said Peter wasn’t in Rome. i even said that i was not saying that and that it was a tired argument to even suggest that. i was saying that it never, in the bible, says he was in Rome but that we know for sure he founded Antioch and can pretty much assume he founded Jerusalem.

 

[jmcrae]

does anybody actually read entire posts before commenting?? :banghead:

i never said Peter wasn’t in Rome. i even said that i was not saying that and that it was a tired argument to even suggest that. i was saying that it never, in the bible, says he was in Rome but that we know for sure he founded Antioch and can pretty much assume he founded Jerusalem.

Yes, but he died in Rome, which makes the Bishop of Rome to be his Successor. If he had died in Antioch, then the Bishop of Antioch would have become his Successor, but he didn’t.

 

[bengal_fan]

Yes, but he died in Rome, which makes the Bishop of Rome to be his Successor. If he had died in Antioch, then the Bishop of Antioch would have become his Successor, but he didn’t.

ummm, if Peter founded the church in Antioch and was the bishop there, then the man who followed him would have been his successor. simple logic.

 

[swariffin]

Hi,

I know title is provoking. But seriously, I’m not looking for a fight.

There are many things in Catholicism that I like, and it seems to be the church that makes the most sense compared to others. Dogmas are well-defended and generally plausible.

However, I know so many Christians that are not Catholics (mainly Lutheran Charismatics) yet are on fire for God. I don’t talk about worship-song-i-love-you-jesus on fire, but REALLY on fire, giving their lives to the Lord, trusting in him. And I see God bless them, do miracles through them. I know several prophets and a few that speak in tongues, and some time ago, a miracle somewhat like the one with loaves and fish happened at a church I know.

If I looked solely at teachings and apologetics, I might as well be a Catholic, but when I look at these people, I can’t really believe that the Catholic Church is superior to other churches, as it claims. I can’t believe that these people are not the church.

If these miracles are not due to God, who then? I can’t believe it’s the devil.

• CB

Dear Contrabas,

I understand that you are not looking for a fight. I will not judge you regarding you are converting to Catholicism or not. But, I do seriously ask you (not for a fight either). What are you looking for when you believe in God? Are you looking for signs? miracles? ability to speak in tongues? For me, I did experience a little miracle when I attended a healing mass 3 years ago. My long suffering from uric acid was cured completely within 3 days without any medication/drugs and even as I continue to consumed peanuts until now. I did speak in tongues eventhough I denied it myself, but I did it during a special session in a Charismatic gathering. But, what makes me believe completely in Catholicism is after further and further study about the bible, reading many books (such as several written by Scott Hahn), and having many discussions such as in this forum.

The holy spirit can work in other person in other religion too, even to a non believer. The most important thing is, you can see from the fruit such person yield. Take an example from Mother Theresa. I believe that almost no body could deny the works of the Holy Spirit within her.

 

[jmcrae]

ummm, if Peter founded the church in Antioch and was the bishop there, then the man who followed him would have been his successor. simple logic.

He was successor to the See of Antioch, but not to the Papacy - Peter held the Papacy until he died, and passed that on to the Bishop of the place where he died.

He did not pass the Papacy on to the Bishop of Antioch, because he did not die there; he was Pope until he died - he only passed on the See itself.

 

[porthos11]

and i would disagree. it never says in the bible that the see of Peter is in Rome. in fact (and don’t think i am saying the tired old argument that Peter was never in Rome…) the only city we know for sure Peter was the founder of the church was Antioch (this of course is excluding Jerusalem, but very early on we see that James, the “brother” of the Lord was the bishop of Jerusalem. so by your “biblically based” logic, Antioch is the see of Peter. your argument doesn’t hold water without first acknowledging the authority of Rome. you can’t get the authority of Rome strictly using scripture.

The Bible does say that Peter founded Antioch, and yes, it doesn’t say the Peter founded the church of Rome. Nevertheless, we are not Sola Scripturists, and we look to history for facts as well. And the earliest writings of the apostolic and ante-Nicene Fathers was that Peter made his see in Rome and died there as its bishop. No ancient writing has ever denied this as a matter of history.

It does not have to be in the Bible for it to be true. St. Peter was bishop of Rome.

 

[fellowChristian]

Yes, that!!!

Pretty sad, but ya, so far in my life journey, Protestants as a group are light years ahead of Catholics in terms of their relationship with God. Catholics know about God. Protestants know God. Measured as a group, not by the individual.

Catholic here:wave:

And let me say something… No one knows God like a practicing Catholic.

His Body Blood Soul and Divinity are placed on my tongue every Sunday. You can’t get more personal then that!

Jesus is not my “buddy” not my “homeboy”!

I don’t just know about Him…I love Him.
He is our God, our Creator, our Savior and my knees hit the floor for our King!

So please do not “stereotype” Catholics. There are alot more practicing Catholics then you think. Attend Mass every Sunday and look around. Those faces you keep seeing are keeping the faith.

May the Lord Bless you on your journey home.

 

[tomarin]

i do not wish to knock protestants – they are our fellow christians and they do lots of good things – but the fact that catholicism is and always has been universal in scope whereas the “on fire” protestant movements are primarily an american phenomenon found exclusively in this country (and maybe parts of latin america) also argue in favor of catholicism as the fullest expression of christianity.

 

[po18guy]

If and when you develop a true love for the Eucharist and firmly and truly believe that it is truly Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Savior, you will become Catholic.

All these other things you describe will merely be secondary.

Amen!

 

[Deconi]

ummm, if Peter founded the church in Antioch and was the bishop there, then the man who followed him would have been his successor. simple logic.

I was right with you until this bit, Bengal.

The man who followed Peter in Antioch is INDEED another Bishop, for Antioch. But since Peter still lived, where his person goes, so does the Papacy!

If he had died in Antioch, then the Papacy should be in Antioch. But as “jmcrae” points out, Peter died in Rome and for THAT reason, the Papacy resides there!

As for “Babylon,” I have read convincing arguments that it refers to Rome because in the context of the times, the Christians were actively being hunted and burnt or fed to lions for amusement! They had to communicate in ‘codes’ during some of their letters. I cannot remember the other Biblical passages that corroborates this argument, but they’re there. (If need be I can find the argument again)

Otherwise, I can see that you’re not arguing ‘against’ the Papacy but answering somebody.

 

[mapleoak]

Pretty sad, but ya, so far in my life journey, Protestants as a group are light years ahead of Catholics in terms of their relationship with God.

It is hard to see how one can have a much closer relationship with God than to actually eat and drink of His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Emotional fire doesn’t equate to love, for true love is there whether or not the emotions run dry.

 

[mapleoak]

I happened upon cutting a sucker branch from a maple tree early this spring. It was in the bud stage when it was cut and it blossomed and produced leaves for at least a month afterwards. It then withered and died for it had no continuing source of nourishment.

 

[bengal_fan]

i think everyone is missing my point about Peter, Rome/Antioch, and the scriptures.

the Bible NEVER says that Peter was bishop of Rome. never says it. it does say Peter was in “Babylon” and that can be interpreted as Rome, but it could also be the area where Babylon once stood (there are Christians there you know). the Bible does say Peter was the bishop of Antioch. the man who replaced Peter there succeeded him, therefore was a successor of Peter. i can agree that if Peter was the pope, he took that with Him. i can also agree that Peter did die in Rome. my whole original argument was to the person who said all we have to do is read the Bible and we will see the complete truth of the catholic church and i wholly disagree with that for the same reasons you all seem to be disagreeing with me. catholics don’t hold to scripture alone (and the term “scripturists” is offensive, no Christian is a “scripturists” just as no catholic is a “papist”, we all try to follow Christ so we are Christians) so by saying the Bible never puts Peter in Rome and never puts him as the bishop of Rome doesn’t (and shouldn’t) affect a catholics papal arguments. that was my whole point. the person saying that all you need is the Bible to prove the truth of the RC was wrong.

 

[AgnosTheist]

the Bible does say Peter was the bishop of Antioch.

thats new to me. which verse?

the man who replaced Peter there succeeded him, therefore was a successor of Peter.

what i’d like to see is how the bible supports the idea that an apostolic successor inherits the same divine powers (like infallibility) that peter had.

 

[Deconi]

i think everyone is missing my point about Peter, Rome/Antioch, and the scriptures.

the Bible NEVER says that Peter was bishop of Rome. never says it. it does say Peter was in “Babylon” and that can be interpreted as Rome, but it could also be the area where Babylon once stood (there are Christians there you know). the Bible does say Peter was the bishop of Antioch. the man who replaced Peter there succeeded him, therefore was a successor of Peter. i can agree that if Peter was the pope, he took that with Him. i can also agree that Peter did die in Rome. my whole original argument was to the person who said all we have to do is read the Bible and we will see the complete truth of the catholic church and i wholly disagree with that for the same reasons you all seem to be disagreeing with me. catholics don’t hold to scripture alone (and the term “scripturists” is offensive, no Christian is a “scripturists” just as no catholic is a “papist”, we all try to follow Christ so we are Christians) so by saying the Bible never puts Peter in Rome and never puts him as the bishop of Rome doesn’t (and shouldn’t) affect a catholics papal arguments. that was my whole point. the person saying that all you need is the Bible to prove the truth of the RC was wrong.

As I said, Bengal. I’m right with you, in that I know what you’re saying AND mean.

 

[Teflon93]

i think everyone is missing my point about Peter, Rome/Antioch, and the scriptures.

the Bible NEVER says that Peter was bishop of Rome. never says it. it does say Peter was in “Babylon” and that can be interpreted as Rome, **but it could also be the area where Babylon once stood **(there are Christians there you know). the Bible does say Peter was the bishop of Antioch. the man who replaced Peter there succeeded him, therefore was a successor of Peter. i can agree that if Peter was the pope, he took that with Him. i can also agree that Peter did die in Rome. my whole original argument was to the person who said all we have to do is read the Bible and we will see the complete truth of the catholic church and i wholly disagree with that for the same reasons you all seem to be disagreeing with me. catholics don’t hold to scripture alone (and the term “scripturists” is offensive, no Christian is a “scripturists” just as no catholic is a “papist”, we all try to follow Christ so we are Christians) so by saying the Bible never puts Peter in Rome and never puts him as the bishop of Rome doesn’t (and shouldn’t) affect a catholics papal arguments. that was my whole point. the person saying that all you need is the Bible to prove the truth of the RC was wrong.

Ridiculous—take a look at the state of Babylon in the early 1st century AD and look at the journey required to get to it.

The Bible only references “faith alone” to refute it; and yet Protestants who claim to hew to Scripture have no trouble inventing this doctrine despite this fact.

You’ll note that Christ says nothing about handing the keys of the kingdom to Martin Luther or Jean Calvin either.

 

[bengal_fan]

thats new to me. which verse?

sorry, you are right in that it doesn’t explicitly say it, but in Galatians 2 we see that Peter came to Antioch and it sounds as though he spent significant time there. if Peter was in a city, he seemed to have an authority over all the Christians of that city, that is why historians say he was bishop of Antioch.

 

[bengal_fan]

Ridiculous—take a look at the state of Babylon in the early 1st century AD and look at the journey required to get to it.

The Bible only references “faith alone” to refute it; and yet Protestants who claim to hew to Scripture have no trouble inventing this doctrine despite this fact.

You’ll note that Christ says nothing about handing the keys of the kingdom to Martin Luther or Jean Calvin either.

man, you don’t really try to understand what some one is saying. you seem to just look for key words, take them out of context and hit the reply button (or quote button, but you quote everything as though you aren’t responding to specific things). the bible is pretty clear that we are saved by grace alone (which every protestant i know, including luther and calvin hold to). the question comes in how do we receive this grace. the bible again is fairly clear that we receive grace through faith (and it actually takes grace to have faith) (Eph 2:8-9). works MUST spring forth from this faith or the faith is a dead faith according to James. works do not impart grace. works justify our faith and make it more perfect, but it is through faith we receive grace.

also, it is extremely possible (and probable) that Christians went to the area known as Babylon. most journeys of that time were rough, but they took them anyway. Thomas travelled all the way to India, why couldn’t Peter have travelled to Babylon? it’s not ridiculous, you are doing the same thing you accuse protestants of doing, interpreting scripture with a bias.

i never, never, never in any post have suggested that the “keys” were given to luther or calvin or anyone other than Peter. try reading and understanding before responding. it really helps in discussions and gives you much more credibility in debates.

 

[Teflon93]

man, you don’t really try to understand what some one is saying. you seem to just look for key words, take them out of context and hit the reply button (or quote button, but you quote everything as though you aren’t responding to specific things). the bible is pretty clear that we are saved by grace alone (which every protestant i know, including luther and calvin hold to). the question comes in how do we receive this grace. the bible again is fairly clear that we receive grace through faith (and it actually takes grace to have faith) (Eph 2:8-9). works MUST spring forth from this faith or the faith is a dead faith according to James. works do not impart grace. works justify our faith and make it more perfect, but it is through faith we receive grace.

also, it is extremely possible (and probable) that Christians went to the area known as Babylon. most journeys of that time were rough, but they took them anyway. Thomas travelled all the way to India, why couldn’t Peter have travelled to Babylon? it’s not ridiculous, you are doing the same thing you accuse protestants of doing, interpreting scripture with a bias.

i never, never, never in any post have suggested that the “keys” were given to luther or calvin or anyone other than Peter. try reading and understanding before responding. it really helps in discussions and gives you much more credibility in debates.

Try following your own logic—you have no credibility that I can see when throwing out the howlers you do; particularly when these “devastating” anti-Catholic arguments are far more injurious to the Protestant view.

You need to read more history. There is a very good reason why Peter would go to Rome and not Babylon which is apparent to anyone with a passing familiarity with history.

Your misreading of grace, faith, and works displays a continued unfamiliarity with Catholic teaching and Scriptural interpretation. There have been many, many threads on this subject which should set you straight; my point remains that sola fide and sola scriptura are invented doctrines, as should be obvious in that they did not appear till 1,500 years after Christ gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom.

 

[Bennie_P]

Hi,

I know title is provoking. But seriously, I’m not looking for a fight.

There are many things in Catholicism that I like, and it seems to be the church that makes the most sense compared to others. Dogmas are well-defended and generally plausible.

However, I know so many Christians that are not Catholics (mainly Lutheran Charismatics) yet are on fire for God. I don’t talk about worship-song-i-love-you-jesus on fire, but REALLY on fire, giving their lives to the Lord, trusting in him. And I see God bless them, do miracles through them. I know several prophets and a few that speak in tongues, and some time ago, a miracle somewhat like the one with loaves and fish happened at a church I know.

If I looked solely at teachings and apologetics, I might as well be a Catholic, but when I look at these people, I can’t really believe that the Catholic Church is superior to other churches, as it claims. I can’t believe that these people are not the church.

If these miracles are not due to God, who then? I can’t believe it’s the devil.

• CB

The real question is not what God may be doing in the lives of others, but what are we allowing Him to do in our life. If we seek Him out and His will and not what others do or appear to do then we will find HIs power and the path that He has for us. God works in all the faithful in and out of full communion with Rome. But if we know where the fullness of the faith is then that is the path we must follow. Any and all of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit which may be found in non-Catholic Chrsitian Churches are all found within the Catholic Church. I left a very active Non-demonational Church that I have no doubt that God was working though the majority of its members. I didn’t leave that church for the fact I didn’t find God working there nor that my Brothers and Sisters didn’t truly love God, I converted to the Catholic Church because God revealed to me this is where He could bring me into the fullness of the faith and do the work He has made me to do which just might be to help to fire up some of my new brothers and sisters. I don’t know for sure for I’m still a work in progress and I’m still learning as God teachings me with the help of my new brothers and sisters and my older brothers and sisters.