Refuting the charge against the CC of an soon to Ex-Catholic

[Mannyfit75]

I see you have not bothered to read my 3 post long letter addressing Matthew 16:18 and 19

:sigh: Why do I even bother posting things since none of you read them and or just censor them.

Hypocrites who do not even know there on tradtions, church history, dogma, etc etc even when I spell it out for them.

Ad hominem and I grew weary of it.

I did. I read them but you failed to look at the context concerning Matthew 16:13-20 in its entirety. You try to avoid the idea that Simon Peter is the Rock by claiming that Rock is Jesus by citing ECF quotations. I am pleased that the Catholic Church does not only reply on their testimony, but on the Traditions which she had stand firm on.

You now have the infallible ability to know who and what are the hyprocrites. You should follow what Jesus said. “Do what they tell you to do, but don’t what they do.” He said this concerning Pharisees because they sit on Moses seat. Second, judging hyprocrites of Catholics is not your business. You leave that to God who is Judge. You aren’t a judge. Your anger towards the Church just show more of that. Say what you had to say but you taken many of the context of the Church teachings completely out of context.

The more you attack Jesus Christ Church, I will defend it. I have no problem with that. I have done this for over a year now. Apologetic has become a norm for me. Your objection is no different than other Ex-Catholics, and they can be refute, either by me, or another Apologists better than me. Believe me if you think you had it easy with me, there are other Catholic Apologists here which can make you upset.

 

[FCEGM]

No, I read it.

Anyway…

You said a week ago you were in RCIA, and seemed fine with it. Now you claim to be an ex-Catholic, but still refer to an RCIA teacher.

What the heck are you? It is your status people are trying to determine, so as to best answer your gripes/issues/historical problems.

Are you

A) Catholic, and practising
B) in RCIA to become Catholic
C) Lapsed (aka former Catholic, though that is a misnomer)
D) Just angsty and making it all up for kicks

And in April 2007 he presented himself as a Catholic seeking prayers for an illness that had not yet been diagnosed and causing him to be “forced to live with family members” because of the illness. See his not so “super old” post here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…94#post2130194

Also, do a Google search for a sentence from his post #39 in this present thread and not-so-amazingly one finds that the entirety of posts #39 and following were written by a “John Schroeder” of “Contender Ministries” and written in 2003; Mr. Shroeder’s article is entitled “The Fraudulent Papacy - A History Lesson”.

So, we have here either. . .

E) Mr. John Schroeder himself masquerading as an ailing Catholic before segueing into his true self (rather, not-so-true self) or. . .
F) Jeremy - hopefully diagnosed and recovered - using someone else’s life and ignorant diatribe as his own.

Either persona deserves a :tsktsk:

 

[Mannyfit75]

And in April 2007 he presented himself as a Catholic seeking prayers for an illness that had not yet been diagnosed and causing him to be “forced to live with family members” because of the illness. See his not so “super old” post here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…94#post2130194

Also, do a Google search for a sentence from his post #39 in this present thread and not-so-amazingly one finds that the entirety of posts #39 and following were written by a “John Schroeder” of “Contender Ministries” and written in 2003; Mr. Shroeder’s article is entitled “The Fraudulent Papacy - A History Lesson”.

So, we have here either. . .

E) Mr. John Schroeder himself masquerading as an ailing Catholic before segueing into his true self (rather, not-so-true self) or. . .
F) Jeremy - hopefully diagnosed and recovered - using someone else’s life and ignorant diatribe as his own.

Either persona deserves a :tsktsk:

A masquerader. Well, the internet has tons of them. I think that some people here have multiple accounts, posing as someone else they are not. Kinda freaky… we shall see.

 

[slybry]

And in April 2007 he presented himself as a Catholic seeking prayers for an illness that had not yet been diagnosed and causing him to be “forced to live with family members” because of the illness. See his not so “super old” post here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…94#post2130194

Also, do a Google search for a sentence from his post #39 in this present thread and not-so-amazingly one finds that the entirety of posts #39 and following were written by a “John Schroeder” of “Contender Ministries” and written in 2003; Mr. Shroeder’s article is entitled “The Fraudulent Papacy - A History Lesson”.

So, we have here either. . .

E) Mr. John Schroeder himself masquerading as an ailing Catholic before segueing into his true self (rather, not-so-true self) or. . .
F) Jeremy - hopefully diagnosed and recovered - using someone else’s life and ignorant diatribe as his own.

Either persona deserves a :tsktsk:

If it is Jeremy he needs to learn how to cite. It’s obvious the posts were copied and pasted…they’re word for word.

God

 

[socalsurfnici]

I’m saying he would not be receiving Jesus in Holy Communion anymore if he leaves the Catholic Church for a Protestant one.

The majority of Protestants don’t have weekly communion, and they don’t even believe in the real presence. They view communion as symbolic means of unity. There those who adhere real presence but their sacrament are invalid.

I don’t really care if this turns people off. Protestants don’t have Real Presence in their Communion. Period. Unless they had any form of Holy Order that is valid, then fine.

I am completely against the theology behind Protestantism. Their lack of reverence of the Blessed Mother, the constant Anti-Catholic misconception, the lack of respect of their Christian heritage of Apostolic Succession, etc. I can go on. Their doctrine sickens me.

I understand, that’s fair, but if you turn people off who are interested in becoming Catholic or turn off those who know nothing about Catholics it encourages their ignorance.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I understand, that’s fair, but if you turn people off who are interested in becoming Catholic or turn off those who know nothing about Catholics it encourages their ignorance.

Truth but with my counters with Non-Catholics who just refuse to have an open mind of the Catholic position on our core beliefs, it is like preaching to the choir. Sometimes, you have tell them like it is and show them the errors of their ways.

 

[jpsheehn]

C) very accurate. Perhaps your deaconess friends think so, but then she’d be wrong too.

:

My triple post above is DEAD ON and super accurate down to the timeframe established by the Roman Catholic church itself. Do you think I would be dumb enough to not back up my claims without using the churchs own documents.teahiucng dogma,etc?

If you have studied the early church fathers you would be disputing my claim. Your not even coming close to disputing.

Here is the super duper over simplified version of it for you. I almost hesitate to post this cause its looses its full meaning, but if I have to spoon feed it to you I guess I well. Please re-read that twice so you understand.

The church itself is at odds with its on infalliable docturine and teachings. The passage of Matthew 16:13-20 has been disputed within the Cathollic church itself for some time. (I have cited several of the church own examples, docurines, counicals, papal bulls, the magistium etc etc etc in the above postings. It does not help that alot of my post haven been CENSORED either)

Therefore is the Papal lineage from Peter valid? Do you realize what it means if St. Peter is not really the fist pope? Thats would basicly mean the entire basis of Catholicism would be a lie!

Again I am very hesitant to over simplify the entire debate, but I can see I am basicly forced to do so others can understand.

It doesn’t matter anyway. No one is bothering to read the posting your now just busy censoring the heck out of them as you see fit. The meaning behind all the posting has since been totaly lost.
What we reading now is just pure chaos and misunderstanding.

I’ll be happy to take the debate to some forums were I will not be CENSORED so I can prove my points. Until than my hands are basicly tied and there really is nothing more I can say or do.

:shrugs:

 

[jpsheehn]

Believe me if you think you had it easy with me, there are other Catholic Apologists here which can make you upset.

Oh I invite that very very much! I would love a debate on this! But willl the forum be UNCENSORED? No of course it won’t.

These forums themselves are ran and mantanined by Catholics and anything even remoting going against there ideal will and has been censored!!!

I have had almost 23+ posting removed! The adminisators citied Anti-Catholicism as the basis for there removal.

He who has the power makes the rules!

I must submit to the censorship of these forums so what can I do?
My responses to many posting here have already been removed.

Oh and BTW Manny I thought you said you were “done with me” in private e-mail here.

I am simply forced to seek my answers to my questions elsewhere.

I really am starting to think Luther had it right… Sola Scriptura over church tradtions anyway day.



Good luck and Gos Bless.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Oh I invite that very very much! I would loce a debate on this! But willl the forum be UNCENSORED? No of course it won’t.

It isn’t run by you.

These forums themselves are ran and mantanined by Catholics and anything even remoting going against there ideal will and has been censored!!!

Catholic Moderators know the rules. Do you? If you break them, they will censor according the forum rules.

I have had almost 23+ posting removed! The adminisators citied Anti-Catholicism as the basis for there removal.

Well, it** serves you right**. Do you know that when you sign up for this Forum, you have a duty to follow all Forum Rules, review banned topics, and such? You probably been told by some moderators who gave you links on these rules.

By breaking these rules, breaks the terms and conditions which you agree upon.

If you are censored, it serves you right. I have no pity for you.

He who has the power makes the rules!

Oh and BTW Manny I thought you said you were “done with me” in private e-mail here.

This forum is more of a previledge than your rights to be here.

Oh yes, I’m done with you in pm message but I’m done with you in public forum. I am more than** willing to debate your objection and Anti-Catholic ranting**.

You want a debate its coming and forum members are welcome to partake. http://www.forumsextreme.com/imgs1/sFi_fencing.gif

 

[jpsheehn]

It isn’t run by you.

Catholic Moderators know the rules. Do you? If you break them, they will censor according the forum rules.

Well, it** serves you right**. Do you know that when you sign up for this Forum, you have a duty to follow all Forum Rules, review banned topics, and such? You probably been told by some moderators who gave you links on these rules.

By breaking these rules, breaks the terms and conditions which you agree upon.

If you are censored, it serves you right. I have no pity for you.

This forum is more of a previledge than your rights to be here.

Oh yes, I’m done with you in pm message but I’m done with you in public forum. I am more than** willing to debate your objection and Anti-Catholic ranting**.

You want a debate its coming and forum members are welcome to partake. http://www.forumsextreme.com/imgs1/sFi_fencing.gif

I would love one! Sadly we will have to do it someplace else other than here. You yourself just admited I have been censored even though I have used NOTHING BUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES OWN TEACHINGS.

Pick a place and a time my friend.

I myself suggest we find a more protestant/lutheran forum for the debate since you seem so sure of yourself.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This is why things do not add up for me. Its long but I hope you read it. I worked on this and formulated this for a long long time.

Welcome to factual history the Catholic church never want you to know.

It depends whom one reads - what leads you to think that anything is being deliberately kept out of sight ?​

Key word here being FACT using the Catholic churchs own papers, dogma, councial etc all verififiable. If this post even survives that along will a miricle of itself.

(Oh by the why I like my former RCIA teacher very much. She was really great. She was one of the few catholic whom I can honestly say I respect. She really knows her stuff.)

As a child in a family of devout Roman Catholics, I could recite by heart Matthew 16:18 and 19 long before I could read or write. On cue, when prompted by parent or sibling, I would emote as follows:

"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,

and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will

give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what-

soever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven,

and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed

in heaven.”

Those words, I was taught, spoken by Christ to the Apostle Peter, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peter was the first pope, and that he was the rock on which Christ built His Church - the Roman Catholic Church, the only true Church. It is upon these two vitally important Scriptures, therefore, that the entire Roman Catholic monolith is supported. For, if Peter is not Catholicism’s foundation rock, if he was not the first pope, if he was not endowed with infallibility, then all its popes have been frauds, and all its claims of divine authorization are reduced to wishful vagaries. In this critical matter, history – not anti-Catholic “heretics” – is the Vatican’s most relentless, indefatigable enemy.

History shows, for example, that no bishop of Rome considered himself to have any greater authority than the many other bishops, nor sought monarchial authority over all Christendom, until the 3rd century was well underway.

Is the emphasis on:​

• “monarchical” - or on
• “all Christendom” - or on both ?

Then, Calixtus I, whose most celebrated accomplishment recorded in Britannica is the transfer of the Roman Christians’ cemetery from the Via Salaria to the Via Appia, attempted to hijack our Lord’s legacy by citing Matthew 16:18 as the establishment of Peter and all succeeding bishops of Rome to be rulers over all the churches.

Why is it hi-jacking to quote that text on that subject, but not hi-jacking to quote a text to support some other thing ? Is “hi-jacking” a word reserved for supporting with Scripture doctrine of which one disapproves ?​

Putting a wagon in a garage does not make it an automobile; and declaring oneself to be the boss doesn’t produce a boss. The great Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, ridiculed Calixtus and his claim, referring to him as a “usurper.” In its Catechisms the Vatican quotes Tertullian whenever it is expedient, but you won’t find his appellation for Calixtus I in any RCC printed matter.

This is on the assumption that Tertullian was referring to Callistus, & not to Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage. As is often the case in Church history, there are arguments for either possibility.​

Tertullian BTW was not an ecclesiastic (let alone a bishop), but a lawyer.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I would love one! Sadly we will have to do it someplace else other than here. You yourself just admited I have been censored even though I have used NOTHING BUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES OWN TEACHINGS.

Pick a place and a time my friend.

I myself suggest we find a more protestant/lutheran forum for the debate since you seem so sure of yourself.

Censorship is necessary here to maintain good order. Unfortunately, I prefer you would accept the debate to be taken here.

You just have to apply charity here. That is all that is required to offer a good debate without resorting to attacks. You apply reason and logic. Cite your sources, either by official church documents, encyclopedia, encyclicals, what have you. If you do this, you won’t be censored.

 

[jpsheehn]

Censorship is necessary here to maintain good order. Unfortunately, I prefer you would accept the debate to be taken here.

You just have to apply charity here. That is all that is required to offer a good debate without resorting to attacks. You apply reason and logic. Cite your sources, either by official church documents, encyclopedia, encyclicals, what have you. If you do this, you won’t be censored.

I have already done this Manny. Again you did not read what I have wrote.

I see Gottle of Geer did! THANK YOU GOTTLE! Thank you so very much!!

I hope to formulate a response within the confines and rule of this board for Gottle. If I do not choose my words carefully the entire post will be censored yet again for anti-catholicism.

I really would perfer a more open forum where I will not be handicapped due to being labeled as anti-catholic.

The censorship is super restrictive. Manny can’t deal with our discussion in private e-mail which DID ALLOW me to voice my disputes in an uncensored forum. Hence why Manny is “finished with me” in private, but more than accomidationing in open public forums.

More to the point Manny you want a one sided home-field public advantage in the debate. What point is there for me to debate you than if what I write is gonna be censored YET AGAIN for around the 30th time?

Its now midnight were I am at. I’ve had a long day dealing with the strangest accident of an aircraft dumping oil all over our neighborhood doing alot of damage in the process. I’m off to bed for now. I wil not yet again get into heavly theological and eccnumical debate etc etc when I am half asleep.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…ended]

Nor will you find Rome confessing to the faithful Roman Catholic laity, that the great Augustine, joined by Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon, declared the rock upon which Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle Peter. That is not this writer’s opinion or pipedream. That is hard, cold, unyielding history. In his 13th sermon, preserved I believe by divine intent, Augustine made his belief perfectly clear.

“Thou art Peter, and on this Rock – petra – which thou hast confessed,

on this rock which thou hast known, saying: ‘Thou art Christ, the Son

of the living God,’ I will build my church upon Myself, who am the Son

of the living God; I will build it on Me, and not Me on thee.”

Of course not - Peter is not the foundation of Christ; that would be ridiculous The Church has both, & all the 12 for that matter, as its foundation, in different ways. If both Christ & Peter can bear the keys, as they do, then why can they not both act as foundations ? If the Gospel is not less Christ’s word for being preached in the words of Paul, how is Christ wronged if He is the foundation of His Church by means of Peter ? Christ is Shepherd of His Church, & Bishop too - yet so are men. Christ is many things that He does through men; the authority, power, & glory do not thereby cease to be wholly His.​

Roman Catholic apologists have called this writer some unflattering names for stating that there was no pope and no papacy for more than 500 years after Christ returned to heaven. But history is history, and all the name calling in the world will not alter the fact that Augustine spoke the previously quoted words during his years in Africa as bishop of Hippo – get this, now – in the first third of the FIFTH CENTURY. Moreover, Augustine’s conviction – based on a correct interpretation of the Scriptures - that Jesus Himself was the foundation rock of Christianity, was shared almost 100% by the churches existing at that time.

Which He is - how is that an objection to Catholic doctrine ? If Revelation can see the 12 Apostles as foundations, & if Christ can be “the head of the corner”, why is there no room for Peter to be the Rock in Matthew 16 ? Why must any one way of speaking of the Church’s foundations necessarily exclude others ?​

Following the abortive attempt of Calixtus I to seize control of Christendom, Stephen I, bishop of Rome AD 253-257, took a shot at it citing as his authority some newly discovered documents now known as the pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies.

The (pseudo-)Clementine Recognitions, of which the Homilies form part, were not composed until the fourth century, probably in the East. Only the First Letter of Clement is genuine - the Second was composed about 150.​

Or were you referring to something else ?

This spurious collection contained a forged letter allegedly written by Peter to James the Lord’s brother in which he appoints Clement to be his successor as bishop of Rome, with binding and loosing authority unlimited. Since Linus and Cletus, according to church historian Eusebius, were, in that order, the first two known bishops of Rome, the authenticity of the purported Petrine letter was at once an issue, and Stephen’s effort failed as miserably as that of Calixtus I. continued

Peter was most definitely not the first Pope - that is a fact. And Catholic theology & dogma do not require him to have been.​

He was never Pope in his life - he was an Apostle, which is something far more than a mere Pope, because all Popes are bishops; who are lesser than the Apostles.

Another point - the famous text in Matthew 16 allows Peter had a function in the Church. I think that’s uncontroversial. The mistake often made is to identify that function with the position of Pope - they are not the same thing: being Pope is an historically contingent form of the function assigned to Peter; that does not mean that Peter exercised that same function in the same historically-conditioned ways as the Roman bishops; & later, the Popes who succeeded them. It’s one thing to say there is a genuine continuity in faith between Peter, Callistus I, Gregory VII, & John XXIII - & something very different, to say that all of them exercised the same function in the same way.

Historical accuracy cannot be sacrificed to apologetics - neither can theology.

Can we go on from there ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have already done this Manny. Again you did not read what I have wrote.

I see Gottle of Geer did! THANK YOU GOTTLE! Thank you so very much!!

I hope to formulate a response within the confines and rule of this board for Gottle. If I do not choose my words carefully the entire post will be censored yet again for anti-catholicism.

I really would perfer a more open forum where I will not be handicapped due to being labeled as anti-catholic.

The censorship is super restrictive. Manny can’t deal with our discussion in private e-mail which DID ALLOW me to voice my disputes in an uncensored forum. Hence why Manny is “finished with me” in private, but more than accomidationing in open public forums.

More to the point Manny you want a one sided home-field public advantage in the debate. What point is there for me to debate you than if what I write is gonna be censored YET AGAIN for around the 30th time?

Thanks I look forward to continuing ​

It should be possible to have a reasonably civilised discussion - lots of other hard issues are aired without too much trouble

 

[Mannyfit75]

I have already done this Manny. Again you did not read what I have wrote.

I see Gottle of Geer did! THANK YOU GOTTLE! Thank you so very much!!

I hope to formulate a response within the confines and rule of this board for Gottle. If I do not choose my words carefully the entire post will be censored yet again for anti-catholicism.

I really would perfer a more open forum where I will not be handicapped due to being labeled as anti-catholic.

The censorship is super restrictive. Manny can’t deal with our discussion in private e-mail which DID ALLOW me to voice my disputes in an uncensored forum. Hence why Manny is “finished with me” in private, but more than accomidationing in open public forums.

More to the point Manny you want a one sided home-field public advantage in the debate. What point is there for me to debate you than if what I write is gonna be censored YET AGAIN for around the 30th time?

Its now midnight were I am at. I’ve had a long day dealing with the strangest accident of an aircraft dumping oil all over our neighborhood doing alot of damage in the process. I’m off to bed for now. I wil not yet again get into heavly theological and eccnumical debate etc etc when I am half asleep.

If you insist on debate I suggest *individual emails *would probably suit you.

 

[peary]

Leaving the Church? Godspeed. And remember what Alice said in Wonderland: “Any road will take you there if you don’t know where you’re going.”

Have a wonderful day:thumbsup: