Absolutely.
actually they are not bad sometimes they just misunderstood what Catholics says about the bible,nd they are more dedicated to bible they do not believe in some superstition like us catholic…they just depend on the bible…^_^Are “Bible believers” bad?
I completely do not understand your post. What you expect to point and not get rebutted. What is the point of joining this forum? You want to have your say but you cry foul when others have theirs?
But the question is how do you get to be IN Christ? What is the process of becoming in Christ?
Naaah. The Catholic Church always HAS BEEN and ALWAYS WILL BE Holy for the simple reason the she is the Body of Chirst. Now it is true that some of her prominent members were unholy, but the Church HERSELF was NEVER UNHOLY
And where have I ever said that I have not sinned. It seems you reading and comprehension has not improved.
Not too Smart, Peter was not defending the faith when he cut off the ear of the soldier, so first off get your facts right.
Yes God does do that will and He uses us to do it. God can very well feed, the poor, clothe the naked, etc, but how does He do it? He send US to do it. That’s what being Christian is all about. So no your are completely wrong. God nees us to defend the faith. Jesus said if you deny Him, He will deny you as well.
And part of that is defending the faith. Yes we must love. But love must go with truth. Truth is important because that is what informs our actions. Love is not mere mushy sentimentality. It is must be grounded on truth.
Careful! You insult and deny the Eucharistic Lord, and condemn yourself with your own words. May Jesus not deny you before the Father. Amen.
But, Jesus is addressing the Mosaic law and the old Covenant here. We have been freed from the old Covenant through the blood of Jesus. Being under the new Covenant, we are still to love God first and neighbor as oneself, but we are not under the “law” No Christian has ever been.
You said that the “Church” was defined. I cannot see where the Church was defined in the passages you quoted, and most definitely not the one in Matt. 16:18. It did not say that the Church is supposed to be a juridical entity. On ther contrary, it is the body of Christ, the body of believers.
In fact, the Protestants protested in defense of Christ’s teachings which were, during the middle ages, being ostensibly violated and abused by the Roman Catholic heirarchy. They were corrupted by power and were even competing for the temporal powers held by kings and monarchs.
I think we have to make something clear here. A lot, if not most, Protestants disagree that Peter was the Rock that Jesus referred to (1 Cor. 10:4). Peter in Greek is Petros (masculine, and defined as a detached rock) while “Rock” is petra (feminine, and defined as a solid rock). The Church is therefore built on Christ and not on Peter. Moreover, Peter was not the first apostle who went to Rome, it was Paul, hence the letter to the Romans. Peter merely continued what Paul started in Rome being the “apostle to the Gentiles.”Moses was long gone from THEIR sight (except at the transfiguration
2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, [Mt 23:2-3]
Can you find anywhere in the OT
Did anyone object to what Jesus said, or ask Him where He got this notion because it was not written down in the sacred texts? Nope! Jesus was telling them what they already KNEW from oral Tradition. And He validates this oral Tradition as authoritative. And its authority, even though not written down, carried on long after Moses departed this life.
- where Moses had a seat
- that the scribes and Pharisees sat on it when Moses died
- that everyone was to practice and do whatever they said because they sat on Moses chair
Therefore,
The authority for the Catholic Church, built on Peter, the pope and all the bishops united with him, in unbroken succession from the apostles, carries that same authority. Do what the Catholic Church tells you because Peter’s cathedra is here.
If indeed there was an uninterrupted and valid succession from the apostles, then how do you explain the time whaen there were bishops who claimed to be popes. They even excommunicated each other! All of them went through the usual election right?
First, it’s not me claiming this fact, it’s history. This you have not answered, I hope you’ll at least consider it before arguing it again. As far as invalidly elected Popes (also known as anti-Popes), they were men who attempted to gain power of the Church that was not theirs to gain. During each of the anti-Popes, a validly elected Pope reigned. If a disagreement occurred, an anti-Pope would make himself visible in a failed attempt to take power from the real Pope. These anti-Popes were not validly elected by the Church. This is like a citizen of the United States of America claiming that the President has no authority and thus making himself the leader of the New United States of America. Should such an action happen and become successful, the U.S. would be changed. Should it fail, the U.S. will remain the same under the same leadership. The anti-Pope challenges have all failed as they all happenned during the reign of a validly elected Pope. Therefore, just as in the example I stated of the U.S., the validly ordained Pope was the rightful leader of God’s Church. This is one example of the “Gates of Hades” (St. Matthew 16:18) not prevailing against the Church that Christ Himself built.
Haha! It’s okay. By the way, the Executive Minister of INC, Erano G. Manalo, the son of its founder, Felix Y. Manalo, died last week and was buried yesterday September 7, 2009. In fact, yesterday was declared a non-working holiday by our president as a national day of mourning. Just FYI guys!
Hey, I just realized that my post contained a lot of typos! LOL!
Good thing you were still able to catch what I was trying to say! There were 3 popes if I am not mistaken and it was just settled during a council. Nevertheless, it took a long time before the issue was settled and during that time, the catholics were at a quandary as to whom among the claimant popes was the true pope. There was one in Avignon, one in Rome, and the other I forgot. All I could remember from my reading of Church History was that they even excommunicated each other.I will be happy to provide you with an accurate historical answer to this question, but we can’t dialogue if you answer my questions with a comment that is not relevant to my original comment. If you answer my post #397 (which you attempted to answer by throwing in examples of anti-Popes rather than tackling the comments of St. Irenaeus), I will be happy to do some historical research on your comment and provide you with an answer. Look forward to your reply.Hey, I just realized that my post contained a lot of typos! LOL!
Also, it would be a very convenient excuse today for the RCC to say that there was only one valid pope during that time and that the other 2 were invalid. The fact remains that there were 3 popes simultaneously in power at that time. There were even bishops who assassinated popes in order to gain the seat! There were evil men who became popes and it would be an insult to Peter and the other apostles to claim that those popes were their “infallible” successors.
Please consider this post:
Nope. The Church is not the body of believers. Nowhere in the Bible does it say it is the body of believers. The Church is the Body of Christ according to Saint Paul. But according to Christ in Matt 16:18 He is building A (one, uno) Church. This He promised to build upon Peter. This He fulfilled at Pentecost. Protestant denominations cannot trace their church back to that day in Pentecost the birthday of the Catholic Church - the
By SOME in the heirarchy. SOME in the heirarchy IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
True. But they DO NOT MAKE UP the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church through all that remained Holy because it is THE BODY OF CHRIST.