Protestants: please stop using the label "Bible-believing"

[Zundrah]

FCEGM;5740263]Because that’s precisely what I see you doing in your latest incarnation as a “Hard Core Methodist”.

I am no different to how I was before.

No, you’re justifying your exit from Catholicism by making ignorant assertions about “heresy” this and “heresy” that.

Lies, I am not justifying anything.

Yes, I know; sorry about that.

No worries there!

You have no authority to determine just what is or isn’t a heresy.

Ahh, and you do?

And yet from what I’ve seen of your recent posts, you’re sounding more like a page out of a Jack Chick “comic”.

I’ve never heard of “Jack Chick”!

Many, many of us have tried to help you with this, Jennifer,

Yes, true but the answers were wrong!

but you seem to prefer the quick thought rather than the deep study

.

That is your oppinion FCEGM. Not th truth however.

I hope someday you will allow the words of the prayer you still include as part of your signature to form you.

It already has. I still pray my full rosary daily. I even say the Creed the catholic way, beceause regardless of doctrine I know that God guides us christians; protestant or catholic.

 

[FCEGM]

Quote:
You have no authority to determine just what is or isn’t a heresy.

Not on my own, but I belong to the Church that does have that authority.

I’ve never heard of “Jack Chick”!

Actually one doesn’t need to know who he is to sound a bit like him.

Quote:
Many, many of us have tried to help you with this, Jennifer,

Yes, true but the answers were wrong!

No, the recipient just couldn’t understand the answers. I hope someday you will be able to do so.

 

[bene_vale]

You are the one who is saying that artificial contraception is prohibited by God and not me. So the burden of proof is on the prosecutor and not on the defense. The quotes you posted are not biblical. They do not have the authority of Scripture. Besides, as I have said, people during those times did not have such a high view of sex, they looked upon it as a mere necessity for procreation but otherwise, it was an act of the flesh for them. Man was appointed by God to be the stewards of the Earth, therefore, we must be responsible. It is highly irresponsible for us to keep on populating the Earth in spite of out exponential population growth rate, not to mention the scarcity of resources. Yes, most of it is because of greed of some people, but still, we must not add to the causes of misery by producing children we are unable to take care well.

For anyone who believes that contraception is even remotely permissable, here are a few things to meditate on:

the word ‘contraception’ means “against the beginning.” (learned this from Janet Smith).

"Contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be for any reason justified - John Paul II, 1983

We were all embroyos once. Let’s think about this when pondering the words of Jesus 'what you do to the least, you do to me."

 

[bene_vale]

Here’s one more:

“At the moment of conception, man is already destined to eternity in God” John Paul II

 

[steve_b]

John chapter 6

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ***"***This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

What’s the hard teaching of Jesus that offended them so much? Be specific?
Z:

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The **Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. **

Is Jesus with this statement contradicting what He has been saying to them? Is He now saying, forget what I just told you, because eating MY flesh counts for nothing?
Z:

The words I have spoken to you are spirit[a] and they are life.

So why did they leave Him?

 

[greggy53]

My friend, what you just expained was heresy.

Yes, Protestant heresy

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Aw come on you know what she was saying…And you are saying that the Church that Jesus established was heretical for 1500 years?

]
NO, it isn’t the Catholic Church that is heretical, the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ here on earth. It is the Roman Church that is heretical peddling false doctrine and causing schism!

**Supplanting Scripture with false tradition, the tradition of men. Perverting the catholic faith and ignoring scripture.
**
False Doctrine?

**In this correspondence you have never even tried to justify the stance of the Roman Church in its heretical teaching! simply peddling the old tired gibberish that has been around for years, I refer to the question of the Matthew 16 quote! Trent, the founding conference of the Roman Church in its canons issued a statement that all scripture should be understood and interpreted according to the ,“unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers,”! That is the Catholic Way and has been ignored by yourselves and your Church. Because the teachings of Scripture and Tradition of the first four hundred years have proved themselves to differ from Roman Teaching! Referring again to Matthew S.Augustine interprets, on this rock, as ,on Christ,’ because Christ was the Rock.’ Origen claims that,‘on this rock’ , means,’ on all men who have the same faith."
Ss., Hilary, Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexanderia believe that it is S.Peter’s Confession of Faith.

The Romanist scholar Launoy composed a famous list of Fathers who commented on this Scriptural quote. Seventeen Fathers favoured Peter as being the Rock. Forty Four believed that it was Peter’s faith, Sixteen Fathers claimed it was Christ Himself and eight for it being the apostolical college! Archbishop Kenrick in his speech to be given at the Vatican Council, it wasn’t given under the circumstances,] wrote," On this rock I will build My Church…If we ought to follow the greater number of Fathers on this question then certainly it is to be held that we should understand by the rock, the faith professed by Peter and not Peter professing the Faith."

Yes, Protestant heresy

As a Catholic, I do not believe the protestant faith stems from scripture and the teaching of Christ, but the Roman teaching falls far short from the truth as well by design as by accident.
Cyprian of Carthage regarding the matter ,“Certainly, the rest of the apostles were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship of dignity and power!”

**

 

[greggy53]

]
NO, it isn’t the Catholic Church that is heretical, the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ here on earth. It is the Roman Church that is heretical peddling false doctrine and causing schism!

You are the first person I have met here who thinks there is a difference between the Roman Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church…The Catholic Church is universal, and all who claim to be Catholic acknowledge the Pope in Rome as the leader of Christ’s church here on earth. There is NO difference between the Catholic and Roman Catholic faith. If you do not acknowledge the Pope in Rome as leader then you are NOT Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

…answer the questions put above, just where in Scripture does Peter’s prerogatives go beyond those of the other Apostles ?

Jesus gave Peter special gifts and reponsibilities. The are also referred to as Petrine gifts. To Peter was given the specific commission to feed and care for the flock. Of course he was not to do this in isolation from the other Apostles, but Jesus clearly appointed him to this duty.

Where in scripture does Peter’s ,‘Succession,’ extend to the Bishop of Rome or his successors?

Are you saying that you don’t perceive any Apostolic succession in the Scripture?

The first line of Bishops ordained by Peter originated in Antioch of Syria. this line of Bishops remains intact today, as do other successions of bishops installed by Apostles all over the world. The shepherding role given to Peter would have travelled with Peter wherever he went. God intended for him to go to Rome, just as He intended for Paul to go. The two of them built up the Church in Rome so that it became a hub of sound doctrine. Since Peter was martyred in Rome, it was there that he passed his responsibilities to a successor.

Where in Scripture or Holy Tradition is the Bishop of Rome or the Papacy even mentioned?

When the NT was written, the office of the Pope had not yet developed. Neither had the term “trinity”. What we see in the NT as a small seed has become a large tree.

In this latter case he is simply mentioned as a Bishop of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church doing his service as a diocesan bishop, nothing more!

Peter’s role was always more. That is why his name appears at the top of the lists of the apostles, and why Christ singled him out on important occasions. The early church understood Peter to be the rock upon which Christ built His Church. Those who needed a reason to reject the authority appointed by Christ had to find a different meaning for Jesus decision about how He would build His church that excludes Peter as a Rock. However, God never renames anyone without important reasons.

In fact they are not mentioned. If your Protestant scholar has studied the early fathers of the first three or four Centuries and not learned that the early fathers have,in the main, no idea , nor are remotely conscious, as far as I can see, of the prerogatives of the papacy he,s wasting your time!

'I will certainly concede that the role of the Bishop of Rome grew markedly over time, and I will also agree that persons occupying it have abused the office. However, what you are saying is that the office of Aposlte is not valid because Judas betrayed Christ. The sinfulness of men does not negate the gifts and call of God, which are irrevocable.

The Bishop of Rome has his authority from two sources, the State, in that the Emperor’s [Gratian and the Valentinians mainly,] gave him power and he was dependent on the state police to enforce his will. Secondly, the Church through the Ecumenicl Councils made him Patriarch of the West and even this was probably at the Emperor’s behest.

It is true that these two sources of authority are accurate from a secular and temporal point of view. But the authority given to Peter by Christ is supernatural, and he passed it to his successor in Rome. Peter was a Patriarch of the West prior to his martyrdom in Rome. At that time, the only council that had been held was that of Jerusalem, at which time Jesus used Peter to sway the direction of the Church. Jesus chose Peter to go to the house of Cornelius so that He could pursuade Peter of that to which He must testify later in Jerusalem, and then in Rome.

But these were a result of his being the Emperors parish priest not of Revelation, Scripture or Tradition! In fact the Ecumenical fathers in Council gave the Bishop of Constantinople, [New Rome,] the same priviliges as they gave the Bishop of Rome,[Old Rome].

The secular responsibilities given to the bishops do not negate the spiritual responsiblities given by Christ.

The difference being that Old Rome’s commission had an earlier date on it!

\

It seems importatn to you, for some reason, to invalidate the Petrine gifts.

I commend you for your study of your Church’s teaching, but, ‘Vatican Two Documents,’ and Encyclicals written by various luminaries of your Church in modern times are hardly evidence, for the questions at hand!

Indeed, they are germaine to the question at hand. They reflect the Apostolic instruction as it applies to the present day.

It is like asking the polis to be the judges in their own courts! As Our Saviour Christ Himself says," IF I BEAR WITNESS TO MYSELF, MY TESTIMONY IS NOT TRUE"!!

As Paul shows us constantly,after Christ 's Revelation, Tradition through the Holy Ghost and the Councils is our strength. The Deposit of Faith is neither to be increased nor diminished and that is what Rome has done, tampered with the Deposit!

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, lucky. If you are brave enough to study the history of the Church, you will learn this. I will agree that officials from Rome have done a great many things that are not part of the Deposit of faith, however, it is not possible to “tamper with the Deposit”. It is an immuntable entity that cannot be assailed by men, or by devils. The gates of hell cannot prevail against it.

 

[guanophore]

Yes we can, the Holy Spirit is our guide we trust the translation team to give us a good edition to read and most choose ones we like such as the NLT which puts much of the terms into a common use language. Then when we read it in that language we know we glean from it the teachings of God.

It is interesting that the “Holy Spirit” guides you in the opposite direction He did the first Christians. It is also interesting that “gleaning” was not the method that Jesus set up for disciples to learn the faith. He did not give them a book, and direct them to “glean” the teachings of God. Instead, He chose and trained people, then appointed them with His authority to teach “all that I have commanded”. Scripture indeed is profitable in the course of teaching, but the role and duty of teaching belongs to persons appointed by God, not individuals picking up books on their own.

We are to have the faith of a child and pure faith, strong faith above all considerations and that is very simple: love and trust in the Lord like a child does to His parents and the rest works itself out.

I agree with the childlike faith, but it is to be exercised in communion with those appointed by God. Otherwise the rest that “works itself out” does so according to each and everyone that has a navel, which is why we see so much fragmentation today among those who espouse the view you have stated here.

Its true I do listen to teachers and those strong in faith but they are guides placed her for their Calling by God not the final authority I listen to, that is the Holy Spirit that flows within me and who grants me my authority.

Individual believers can only have authority to the extent that they are in union with those appointed by God. This statement reflects a fantasy that has no relation with what the Apostles believed and taught.

What weak faith to think God cannot and would not create Protestants for His ways are mysterious and His plans for us sometimes obscured but the end is His will. Another once thought they knew more than than God ,Lucifer, and we know what his fate was.

The HS of God does not create division, but unity. It is unity that defines the True Church. Of course God creates all persons, including those persons who become Protestants. He allows all of his created persons free will. If they choose to defy his will, as did Adam and Eve, he permits this. It is an error to promote that God wills fragmentation and disunity in His Body, the Church.

 

[distracted]

For anyone who believes that contraception is even remotely permissable, here are a few things to meditate on:

the word ‘contraception’ means “against the beginning.” (learned this from Janet Smith).

"Contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be for any reason justified - John Paul II, 1983

We were all embroyos once. Let’s think about this when pondering the words of Jesus 'what you do to the least, you do to me."

i din’t know JPII said that!!

and i thought he was… shall we say… less “militant” about such things as oiur current pope…

 

[guanophore]

He said that the gates of hell would not prevail againtst it and it hasn’t, hence all the people and sect’s that have had to leave the catholic church because of RCC heretics.

I have been out for a few weeks, so I am not sure what kind of changes you have been going through. At one point, you stated you were enrolled in RCIA, and now you seem to have returned to your Protestant faith. In the course of this shift, you seem to have developed a hostility toward the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, Zundrah, and I think you know that from your time here on the forum. I know you have not had much time to study the Eastern Rites, but to make false assertions as you have done here is not appropriate.

Of course there have always been heretics. We can see this evidence already in the NT, and it the writings of the Early Fathers, it is clear that there were many heresies rampant today. The Catholic faith, however, is immutable (unchanging) since it is guarded by God. Those who depart from it are no longer Catholic.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to depart from the church founded by Christ because other people make bad choices (practice sin, or promote heresy). To say that new “sects” had to be formed because men erred is like saying that, since Judas betrayed Christ, all the Apostles should abandon what Jesus committed to them, and start over with what they thought might work better. Such a problem solving approach is preposterous.

I urge you to reflect on the reasons you came to CAF. If you wish to remain here, you will have to work on your charity, and avoid violating the forum rules. You are required to respect the Catholic faith here. If you wish to refer to “Catholic heresy” as a justification for fragmenting the body of Christ, or to blame “RCC heretics” for the divisions caused by the Reformation, you will need to find some other venue. They were RC, and they did become heretics, but such language does not contribute to fruitful discussion. It certainly does not appear to be related to the topic.

 

[guanophore]

The heresy I mention is the heretical interpritation of the scripture “I am the bread of life.”
The Eucharist.

Catholics interpret the Scriptures in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught. They taught that Jesus meant His literal Body and Blood. How do we know this? Because we can read the evidence in the early fathers, the direct and immediate disciples of the Apostles. This is the Truth that has been preserved by the HS in the Church since the day of the Last Supper.

The modern Methodist interpretation comes from a tradition of men about 500 years old. It is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

 I am being serious here .. please appreciate that I'm not being your average protestant, I'm have come to realise that catholicism is inconsistant... Fill in the gaps if you will please but I think I have made my mind up, until further notice...

Definitely, you are not an average anything!

I am sure that Catholicism does seem inconsistent to you. There are many things that you do not understand.

When you came to CAF, you had your “mind made up” also. So, now that it is “made up” again in the opposite direction, I am sure that the HS will continue to guide you into all Truth. I believe that you really do sincerely want to do the will of God. You will remain in my prayers.

You may wish to transfer your forum activites to CARM, though.

 

[guanophore]

NO, it isn’t the Catholic Church that is heretical, the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ here on earth. It is the Roman Church that is heretical peddling false doctrine and causing schism!

It seems that you have a warped conception of whateve it is you consider “the Roman church”.

The Church herself is incapable of “peddling false doctrine”. Persons who do such things have already separated themselves from the church founded by Christ.

  Supplanting Scripture with false tradition, the tradition of men. Perverting the catholic faith and ignoring scripture.

I will agree that there have been many individuals throughout history who have attempted to insert the traditions of men into Christ’s Church, and perverted the faith committted to us by the Apostles. Many also ignore or twist the Scriptures. In every case, such persons have already separated themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I think you may be confusing the actions of sinful wayward persons with the Holy Bride of Christ. The Church cannot sin because Her head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the HS. These divine elements prevent her from sin. Fallible men attached to her can, and do, sin, and fall from grace. In doing so, they are out of communion with the One Holy Bride.

In this correspondence you have never even tried to justify the stance of the Roman Church in its heretical teaching! simply peddling the old tired gibberish that has been around for years, I refer to the question of the Matthew 16 quote! Trent, the founding conference of the Roman Church in its canons issued a statement that all scripture should be understood and interpreted according to the ,“unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers,”! That is the Catholic Way and has been ignored by yourselves and your Church. Because the teachings of Scripture and Tradition of the first four hundred years have proved themselves to differ from Roman Teaching!

I am glad that you have read and agree with the decrees of Trent. I think this declaration is the Truth from the HS. However, your assertion that the “Roman” Church departs from the perspective of the fathers is erroneous. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, though.

Referring again to Matthew S.Augustine interprets, on this rock, as ,on Christ,’ because Christ was the Rock.’ Origen claims that,‘on this rock’ , means,’ on all men who have the same faith." Ss., Hilary, Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexanderia believe that it is S.Peter’s Confession of Faith.

Yes, of course. The statement is a Rock. Jesus is THE Rock. Peter is a Rock. None of them are separated from one another. The Petrine ministry is not separated from his faith.

" On this rock I will build My Church…If we ought to follow the greater number of Fathers on this question then certainly it is to be held that we should understand by the rock, the faith professed by Peter and not Peter professing the Faith."

Fortunately, Christianity is not a majority rule.

Jesus did not rename Peter for no reason, and it is certainly inappropriate to separate Peter from his faith profession, and to separate either from the Rock who is Christ. Christ grafted Peter into Himself, and made him part of the Foundation upon which He built His Church. For some reason, it seems important to you to separate them, not sure why.

the Roman teaching falls far short from the truth as well by design as by accident.

It is unclear what "roman teaching " you refer to here. It seems to be something you have fabricated in your head, or inherited from generations of anti-Romanists.

 

[steve_b]

NO, it isn’t the Catholic Church that is heretical, the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ here on earth. It is the Roman Church that is heretical peddling false doctrine and causing schism!

Supplanting Scripture with false tradition, the tradition of men. Perverting the catholic faith and ignoring scripture.

In keeping with the title of the thread, allow me to correct you with scripture

Paul in writing to the Church of Rome said

[Rm 16:]
17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil
1, Henry VIII couldn’t get permission from the pope to divorce his wife, so he broke from the Church of Rome. (as you can see it is condemned by Paul) Does Henry not think Paul’s warning doesn’t apply to him? BTW, Paul tells us what the consequences of division are for the one who divides and won’t return to unity.* [Gal 5:] 19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that **those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. ***

1. Henry not only broke a scriptural warning by breaking from Rome and the pope, but he also had the gaul to make himself the head of the Church in England. Now what again are you saying above about "Supplanting Scripture with false tradition, the tradition of men. Perverting the catholic faith and ignoring scripture."
   The history of “Roman” as qualifier to the Catholic Church began
   newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm
2. You were started by Henry VIII.

lucky:

.
False Doctrine?

In this correspondence you have never even tried to justify the stance of the Roman Church in its heretical teaching! simply peddling the old tired gibberish that has been around for years, I refer to the question of the Matthew 16 quote! Trent, the founding conference of the Roman Church in its canons issued a statement that all scripture should be understood and interpreted according to the ,“unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers,”! That is the Catholic Way and has been ignored by yourselves and your Church. Because the teachings of Scripture and Tradition of the first four hundred years have proved themselves to differ from Roman Teaching! Referring again to Matthew S.Augustine interprets, on this rock, as ,on Christ,’ because Christ was the Rock.’ Origen claims that,‘on this rock’ , means,’ on all men who have the same faith."
Ss., Hilary, Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexanderia believe that it is S.Peter’s Confession of Faith.

The Romanist scholar Launoy composed a famous list of Fathers who commented on this Scriptural quote. 16 Fathers favoured **Peter **as being the Rock. 44 believed that it was Peter’s faith, 16 Fathers claimed it was Christ Himself and 8 for it being the apostolical college! Archbishop Kenrick in his speech to be given at the Vatican Council, it wasn’t given under the circumstances,] wrote," On this rock I will build My Church…If we ought to follow the greater number of Fathers on this question then certainly it is to be held that we should understand by the rock, the faith professed by Peter and not Peter professing the Faith."

Addressing your quotes and comments

Jesus didn’t get a name change. He was already the Rock. And of course Jesus builds His Church on Rock just as He said.

Who did Jesus the Rock give the new name of Rock to? Simon, now Rock
Who did Jesus the Rock give the keys to His kingdom to? Peter, now Rock
Who did Jesus the Rock give the power to bind and loose as the key holder to? Peter, now Rock
Who did Jesus the Rock commission to confirm his brothers after Satan sifts all of them? Peter now Rock
Who did Jesus commission to feed and rule His sheep? Peter now Rock

Going back to an earlier point, re: Peter’s faith, or his statement. Can Peter be seperated from his faith? No. Is Peter and his faith differrent? No. Peter and his faith are one. It’s NOT Peter or HIS faith, it’s BOTH Peter and his faith. To make some distinction AS IF THEY ARE SEPERATE IS SILLY.

And to another point, if all of us give the testimony of Peter, does that mean we get the keys to the kingdom too? No. That would show a complete misunderstanding of what the keys mean as used by Jesus. Do we individually get the power to bind and loose whatever here on earth and it will be bound and loosed in heaven? No. That would be the silliest of interpretations.

Protestants need to stop protesting and arguing with the Church over this. If you REALLY believe what is said in the bible, you have to know there are consequences for your constant arguing and refusal to reunite with the Church

lucky:

As a Catholic,

The moderators settled this issue of who is Catholic and non Catholic.

Among Christians, those not in union with the pope, are non Catholics.

lucky:

Cyprian of Carthage regarding the matter ,“Certainly, the rest of the apostles were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship of dignity and power!”

read the entire quote in context.

 

[KathleenGee]

I see alot of emotional biases in the remarks given by non-Catholics, as well as not grounded in early church history, or not acknowledging the use of Scripture and its synthesis throughout the Mass.

To just understand worship, read Michael Aquilina’s , ‘The Mass of the Early Christians’.

My Baptist girlfriend was shocked we have Bible readings at Mass…

The Anglican Church was the first to OK contraception in the early 1930’s that all other Christian denominations and sects condemned.

There have been successors to Peter who had failed. But the founder of the Anglican Church, King Henry…it began with him not having a male heir…he died of syphilis. One of the vows said at the earlyl Christian liturgies was not only to not steal or lie, but not to commit adultery.

The Catholic Church has been faithful throughout its 2,000 year history to the permanency of marriage and the sanctity of human life, and I believe it is not only work of the Holy Spirit, but the rock of Peter – the sign of unity among us.

 

[greggy53]

I see alot of emotional biases in the remarks given by non-Catholics, as well as not grounded in early church history, or not acknowledging the use of Scripture and its synthesis throughout the Mass.

To just understand worship, read Michael Aquilina’s , ‘The Mass of the Early Christians’.

My Baptist girlfriend was shocked we have Bible readings at Mass…

The Anglican Church was the first to OK contraception in the early 1930’s that all other Christian denominations and sects condemned.

There have been successors to Peter who had failed. But the founder of the Anglican Church, King Henry…it began with him not having a male heir…he died of syphilis. One of the vows said at the earlyl Christian liturgies was not only to not steal or lie, but not to commit adultery.

The Catholic Church has been faithful throughout its 2,000 year history to the permanency of marriage and the sanctity of human life, and I believe it is not only work of the Holy Spirit, but the rock of Peter – the sign of unity among us.

Thats the way to tell it sister!

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I see alot of emotional biases in the remarks given by non-Catholics, as well as not grounded in early church history, or not acknowledging the use of Scripture and its synthesis throughout the Mass.

To just understand worship, read Michael Aquilina’s , ‘The Mass of the Early Christians’.

My Baptist girlfriend was shocked we have Bible readings at Mass…

The Anglican Church was the first to OK contraception in the early 1930’s that all other Christian denominations and sects condemned.

There have been successors to Peter who had failed. But the founder of the Anglican Church, King Henry…it began with him not having a male heir…he died of syphilis. One of the vows said at the earlyl Christian liturgies was not only to not steal or lie, but not to commit adultery.

The Catholic Church has been faithful throughout its 2,000 year history to the permanency of marriage and the sanctity of human life, and I believe it is not only work of the Holy Spirit, but the rock of Peter – the sign of unity among us.

A book you may enjoy reading, if you haven’t aready done so (or maybe your Baptist friend):
No price too high, a pentecostal preacher becomes Catholic, Jones, A, Ignatius Press, U.S.A. 2006. ISBN 978-0-89870-919-3
*‘Alex Jones was an ‘on-fire’ Pentecostal minister in Detroit and a very dedicated shepherd of his flock. In seeking to give his congregation the most genuine experience of the early Church prayer and worship services, he carefully read Scripture, the Fathers of the Church and writings of the early saints. The more he read and researched, the more Alex came to the startling conclusion that the present day Catholic Church - and the Holy Mass - is the same ‘worship service’ as in the early Church’ *

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Kathleen Gee.

“**The Founder of the Anglican Church”?

The Anglican Church is no more than a showing forth of the One ,Holy Catholic Church in this country. It is the Church in England! Further more, it has been so for two thousand years or more. British Bishops attended Nicea, according to at least one modern Roman Scholar and when you belittle the Church , you belittle the Body of Christ!
When you go on about Henry Tudor’s infidelities, I have no doubt at all that many of the accusations are true. How-and-ever if this is a road you wish to go down, first I must say it has no place in a discussion about Christ and Scripture! Secondly, the behaviour of various popes, leaves a lot to be desired, not so much that many of them were thought to be pagan, but their sexual peccadilloes, were not beyond reroach ,especially the one , a sixteen year old, who had relations with his mother!

But, I must say, it is typical of the level of discussion reached by many , not all,on these forums.

Regarding Henry the Eigth! Scholars today, go beyond the writings of penny novels and it is thought that Henry’s illnesses were more the result of poor eating habits than sexual depravity!

**

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Jesus gave Peter special gifts and reponsibilities. The are also referred to as Petrine gifts. To Peter was given the specific commission to feed and care for the flock. Of course he was not to do this in isolation from the other Apostles, but Jesus clearly appointed him to this duty.

**B]I have no doubt that Peter was given a specific commission as you say, but so were all the other Apostles! Scripture however, doesn’t record that anything was passed to the Bishop of Rome , beyongd his duties as a diocesan bishop and Patriarch **.

Are you saying that you don’t perceive any Apostolic succession in the Scripture?

]B]I am not saying this at all. Apostolic Succession is not only the mechanical laying on of hands however, it is also the successful teaching of the revelation of Christ which is interpreted for us by the Christian fathers of the First Centuries. This is confirmed by Roman Catholic Councils, especially and famously, by Trent! Yet nowhere on these forums do we find any recognition of the part played by the fathers in the apostolic process!
I instance the comments put forward by your contributers on the Matthean Rock quote! The interpretation of the Holy fathers are either rubbished or ignored.``

When the NT was written, the office of the Pope had not yet developed. Neither had the term “trinity”. What we see in the NT as a small seed has become a large tree.
Development?

**There is no development in our Catholic dogma, it is revealed by Christ, once to the saints, as S.Jude [His Brother,?} tells us and it is completed, explained and interpreted by the same holy fathers within the seven ecumenical councils with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. As you say the doctrine of the Trinity is a supreme example! As is, I think, our relationship to The Lady Mary shown quite clearly by the Councils at Ephesus, Constantinople and the Seventh Council. **

'I will certainly concede that the role of the Bishop of Rome grew markedly over time, and I will also agree that persons occupying it have abused the office. However, what you are saying is that the office of Aposlte is not valid because Judas betrayed Christ. The sinfulness of men does not negate the gifts and call of God, which are irrevocable.

**I have never belittled the office of an Apostle. Indeed I think the authority and teaching of Christ was passed on to the apostles as a College and through them to the College of Bishops. However, I do think that the claims of the papacy restrict and diminish the post of the diocesan bishop to their detriment!
**

It is true that these two sources of authority are accurate from a secular and temporal point of view. But the authority given to Peter by Christ is supernatural, and he passed it to his successor in Rome. Peter was a Patriarch of the West prior to his martyrdom in Rome. At that time, the only council that had been held was that of Jerusalem, at which time Jesus used Peter to sway the direction of the Church. Jesus chose Peter to go to the house of Cornelius so that He could pursuade Peter of that to which He must testify later in Jerusalem, and then in Rome.

**Peter, If I remember was Apostle to the Circumcision, the Jews? Whilst Paul was Apostle to the Gentiles. It was about 300yrs gone before the Pope of Old Rome, was made Patriarch of the West,it was a gift of the Church. later the same priviliges were bestowed upon the Bishop of New Rome, Constantinople.
**

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, lucky .

This isn’t what your Church tells its people around here. Roman Catholic!!**