J
JoaoMachado
Guest
My apology Aris, but I am not sure what you mean here? Can you elaborate?
Joao
- Status
Joao
H
Harland
Guest
Can you supply any proof Peter wasn’t in Rome? You are saying the Church has been wrong for 1970 years or so. Where is you proof. Its up to you to prove the Church wrong. The Church doesn’t have to prove it’s right.
A
Aris
Guest
Joao,
From what we’ve seen in History, the meaning of Catholic sort of got different. Initially it only meant the Universal Chruch. Then along came Luther and the other fellows and Catholic began to take a different meaning from the original word as can be shown by our dictionary quoting.
However, there is only one vine, the Church that Christ instituted. What ever the meaning of Catholic is today, we can not dispute that there was only one Church, the One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church. And that all churches came from this vine or fell away.
When answering the thread “Who founded your denomination”, continuity with the Apostles must also be clear.
Hope that clarifies.
From what we’ve seen in History, the meaning of Catholic sort of got different. Initially it only meant the Universal Chruch. Then along came Luther and the other fellows and Catholic began to take a different meaning from the original word as can be shown by our dictionary quoting.
However, there is only one vine, the Church that Christ instituted. What ever the meaning of Catholic is today, we can not dispute that there was only one Church, the One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church. And that all churches came from this vine or fell away.
When answering the thread “Who founded your denomination”, continuity with the Apostles must also be clear.
Hope that clarifies.
R
rod_of_iron
Guest
How would I prove that Peter was not in Rome? Should I go to Rome and scour the city, making sure that Peter’s fingerprints are nowhere to be found? Or that his DNA is nowhere to be found? Should I scour the city looking for any clothing he may have possessed or any personal possessions that he may have carried to Rome? And if I cannot find any of these proofs, can I declare that I have proven Peter was never in Rome? Do fingerprints or DNA last long enough for me to find them today? Should I use bloodhounds to try to pick up his trail, so that I can trace his journey through all the lands he may have traveled? Should I check every ship’s register at that time to see if there is any proof that he bought a ticket for Rome?
I do not see how I could possibly do any of these things. So, please tell me what I could possibly do to prove that Peter was never in Rome? I do not have a clue how to possibly prove that something did not happen almost 2000 years ago.
R
rod_of_iron
Guest
How did I beat around the bush? I answered honestly and succinctly what I believe.
From what I can ascertain, the Bible contains truth. I do not see any false information in it. But I would not say that the book is inherently true. When reading the Bible, I do not know if Solomon really had the exact number of wives and concubines that the Bible claims he did. I don’t know if all the other people had what the Bible claims they had. I do not know if all the history in the Bible is absolutely correct. But I do believe that the Bible is realiable, especially when speaking on the doctrine and gospel of Jesus Christ.
Yes, I do. Jesus said that He is the truth. He is the best basis for truth that you and I can have. The Holy Spirit is here to guide us into all truth. How can we have any better guide than the Holy Spirit?
I have done so before, but I will do it again.
Praying to Mary. Where does Jesus or His disciple tell you to pray to Mary for anything? Where did they ever do so in the Bible? Give me chapter and verse please.
Infant baptism. It has been claimed that since the Bible mentions a couple of times that a man’s whole household was baptized, this meant that the infants were bapstized also. But those scriptures do not speak of these men actually having infants in them. I have not found any verse in the Bible that directly speaks of an infant being baptized. If you have, please tell me the infant’s name?
Baptism by sprinkling. Where is such a baptism mentioned in the Bible? Give me chapter and verse please.
Here are a few for starters.
R
rod_of_iron
Guest
Perhaps, you don’t know that after Jesus died on the cross, He was raised from the dead and has been alive ever since. Since Jesus has been alive ever since, He could come to Earth and establish His church at any time. He could do it today if He wanted to. There was no requirement that Jesus could only establish His church while He lived on Earth nearly 2000 years ago. Any church that would have been established by Jesus in the past 2000 years could legitimately claim that Jesus had founded their church. How do you know if they are telling the truth?
H
Harland
Guest
Rod of Iron
I’m sorry if I misunderstood what you are saying. I understood you to say, the Bible doesn’t say specifically that Peter was in Rome so he was never there. Is that what you are saying? Sense you know he wasn’t in Rome where did he die? He had to die somewhere didn’t he? Just because the bible doesn’t say something doesn’t make it not so. Just like because the bible says something doesn’t make it so. The bible says the earth is flat. Is the earth flat? The Church has said for the last 1940 yeas or so that Peter was martyred and is buried on Vatican Hill. At that time Vatican Hill was outside Rome. So as I said it’s your responsibility to show me proof Peter was never in Rome. Where is your proof? You are the one that is saying he wasn’t. So it is up to you to furnish proof. Again if I misunderstood you I’m sorry.
I’m sorry if I misunderstood what you are saying. I understood you to say, the Bible doesn’t say specifically that Peter was in Rome so he was never there. Is that what you are saying? Sense you know he wasn’t in Rome where did he die? He had to die somewhere didn’t he? Just because the bible doesn’t say something doesn’t make it not so. Just like because the bible says something doesn’t make it so. The bible says the earth is flat. Is the earth flat? The Church has said for the last 1940 yeas or so that Peter was martyred and is buried on Vatican Hill. At that time Vatican Hill was outside Rome. So as I said it’s your responsibility to show me proof Peter was never in Rome. Where is your proof? You are the one that is saying he wasn’t. So it is up to you to furnish proof. Again if I misunderstood you I’m sorry.
M
MariaG
Guest
Rod,
I believe someone else already posted this but here goes again. For apostolic succession, go here catholic.com/library/apostolic_succession.asp If for some reason the link does not work, go to our hosts www.catholic.com. type in apostolic succession or lineage. Both will bring you to the article.
God Bless
Maria
I believe someone else already posted this but here goes again. For apostolic succession, go here catholic.com/library/apostolic_succession.asp If for some reason the link does not work, go to our hosts www.catholic.com. type in apostolic succession or lineage. Both will bring you to the article.
God Bless
Maria
C
Charlemagne
Guest
Are you saying that one church is as good as any other? Jesus created the Catholic Church when He named Peter the first Pope. The other “churches” broke away for various reasons, and then other groups broke off of the original defectors and so on down through history.
The Catholic Church descends directly from Jesus Christ and lives the fullness of His teachings in the Mass and the Seven Sacraments. No other “church” can make that claim.
M
MariaG
Guest
Rod,
Any church that claims Jesus came back to earth after His ascension into heaven as recorded in the Bible, would have to believe not in the Second coming of Christ but the third, fourth, fifth… Only the Second coming of Christ is Biblical. Therefore, Christ cannot have come back to establish any other church, that contradicts the Scriptures.
Any church that claims Jesus came back to earth after His ascension into heaven as recorded in the Bible, would have to believe not in the Second coming of Christ but the third, fourth, fifth… Only the Second coming of Christ is Biblical. Therefore, Christ cannot have come back to establish any other church, that contradicts the Scriptures.
S
sapl31
Guest
Won’t we all be surprised the see people from all denominations sharing at the table in Heaven. If Catholics and protestants studied each other’s beliefs seriously they could see the similarities not the differences. Did you know not all protestants teach “once saved, always saved.” Remember the Bible says you are saved by grace through faith, not by works lest any man should boast. However many churches teach that by not living the proper life you may fall from that grace and not go to heaven. And if you believe you are perfect than I suggest some time in serious prayer and meditation. The Catholic Church does not base all of it’s beliefs in scripture, many are based in tradition. The rosary, show it to me in the bible and there are other examples. THe church admits to using tradition.
R
rod_of_iron
Guest
Maria,
I have already visited that link, and I did not see any information about men or women who witnessed Peter naming his successor and ordaining that successor. The article makes some claims and then tries to support those claims by quoting from men who were not alive when Peter would have passed on the apostleship to his successor. The only one listed who was probably alive to be able to see this was Clement. From what I have seen so far, all the testimonies in that article are just hearsay.
R
rod_of_iron
Guest
Yes, Harland. What I am saying is that without any firsthand evidence or testimonies that Peter was in Rome and that He died in Rome, he could have died just about anywhere.
Again, how do I prove that Peter was never in Rome? I do not know how I would prove this negative.
R
rod_of_iron
Guest
These statements of yours have yet to be proven true on this forum. Until you or any other Catholic proves these statements are true, I can only view these statements as your opinions.
R
rod_of_iron
Guest
Then you must deny that Jesus appeared unto Saul on the road to Damascus, right? You must deny that Jesus appeared in this blinding light that knocked Paul down and blinded him, right? Granted, Jesus did not establish a church with Paul at the time, but the Bible tells us that Jesus did appear to Paul. Joseph Smith claims that Jesus appeared to him. Why would Smith’s testimony of Jesus appearing to him be any less believable than Paul’s testimony about Jesus? I have also been told by some Catholics that Jesus has allegedly appeared to certain Catholic people since His ascension. Perhaps these people who have had Jesus appear to them are now Saints in the Catholic church.
I believe Jesus when He spoke of His second coming. His second coming will be a coming in glory and power. When the second coming occurs, all people in all nations will know that Jesus has returned. But this does not prevent Jesus from appearing to individual people. A visit to an individual would not qualify as the second coming. The Bible does not say that Jesus will not appear to individuals. But the second coming will be when Jesus comes in all His majesty.
H
Harland
Guest
rod of iron:
A
Aris
Guest
Praying to Mary. Where does Jesus or His disciple tell you to pray to Mary for anything? Where did they ever do so in the Bible? Give me chapter and verse please. - ROI
Revelation 5:8, where John says “And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.”
2 Thessalonians 1:11
Wherefore also we pray always for you: That our God would make you worthy of his vocation and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness and the work of faith in power:
Essentially it is the same if you ask your fellow man to pray for you. If you are asking if we worship Mary, we don’t.
Lastly, refer to Luke 1:28:
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
That is where we got part of the prayer.
I have given proof.
Now please show your proof in the Bible that Christ founded your denomination.
Revelation 5:8, where John says “And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.”
2 Thessalonians 1:11
Wherefore also we pray always for you: That our God would make you worthy of his vocation and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness and the work of faith in power:
Essentially it is the same if you ask your fellow man to pray for you. If you are asking if we worship Mary, we don’t.
Lastly, refer to Luke 1:28:
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
That is where we got part of the prayer.
I have given proof.
Now please show your proof in the Bible that Christ founded your denomination.
B
Burnman
Guest
The word Catholic comes from the Greek compound word katholokos, related to the Greek term katrholou (kathos + holos), which literally means “for the whole”. In other words, we believe, preach, and teach the whole of Jesus Christ.We ( Catholics ) have been commanded to bring the “whole teachings and salvation” of Christ to the “whole world”.
Or to put it another way, if you aren’t Catholic, you have a “hole” in your theology.
Bernie
R
rod_of_iron
Guest
You’ve proven nothing. None of your quotes from the Bible show anyone praying to Mary or anyone teaching that you should pray to Mary. Your quote from Revelation contains the phrase, “prayer of saints”. Every time that the word “saints” is used in the Bible, it is speaking of those Christians yet alive on Earth. Who are these Christians praying to? The Lamb of God. Nowhere in that verse is Mary mentioned or that you should pray to Mary. That verse is not relevant to what you are trying to prove.
In your quote from 2 Thessalonians, it speaks of someone praying to someone else. But who is being prayed to? God. Mary is not mentioned in this verse nor is there any mention of anyone praying to her or being told to pray to her. This verse is also not relevant to what you are trying to prove.
As for your third quote from Luke, this verse does not tell you to pray to Mary. In this verse, Mary is still alive. How is this relevant to your argument that praying to Mary is scripturally sound? It is not. You have not shown me one iota of evidence in the Bible to even suggest that you should pray to Mary.
I understand where you get your prayer from, but there is no mention that this is a prayer. There is also no mention that anyone should say this alleged prayer to speak to Mary after she died.
As I have alreadly said, you have proven nothing. If this is your best proof for praying to Mary, then I must conclude that the doctrine of praying to Mary is completely unbiblical.
A
atenciom
Guest
PEOPLE!!! :banghead:
Rod is taking on all these subjects simultaneously.
We’ve got:
-Was Peter in Rome or not?
-Is it okay to pray to Mary?
-proof versus truth
-Did Jesus start the catholic church?
-Plus all the sub threads, other non-catholics, and who knows what else!!
I’m getting confused. And in my apologetic experience, this will only serve to dishearten because of all the “work” it will require to adequately respond in this forum. It’s like one person coming onto the battle field knowing that he has to fight 10 different lengthy battles, only to await another volley the next day. I’ve had E-mail discussions with protestant pastors where we’d start out with one topic. Then, sooner or later, he’d say, "Well, what about ". After a while, I’d be addressing ten subjects in one email . . . every email . . . every day. It becomes work after a while.
Can we tackle one subject at a time please. Remember, it is common to switch subjects. I propose to let Rod pick one and we’ll all discuss it to it’s end. Then move to the next one. Someone should keep a list of topics so that nothing gets forgotten. They should keep out the but-what-abouts until they can be properly addressed later. I know that some subjects depend on others but there’s got to be a better solution to what’s going on here.
:tiphat: Rod deserves a complete, catholic answer to all his questions.
For what it’s worth,
Martin
PS. I know other non-catholics had issues too on this subject. Is there a better way of dealing with all this?
Rod is taking on all these subjects simultaneously.
We’ve got:
-Was Peter in Rome or not?
-Is it okay to pray to Mary?
-proof versus truth
-Did Jesus start the catholic church?
-Plus all the sub threads, other non-catholics, and who knows what else!!
I’m getting confused. And in my apologetic experience, this will only serve to dishearten because of all the “work” it will require to adequately respond in this forum. It’s like one person coming onto the battle field knowing that he has to fight 10 different lengthy battles, only to await another volley the next day. I’ve had E-mail discussions with protestant pastors where we’d start out with one topic. Then, sooner or later, he’d say, "Well, what about ". After a while, I’d be addressing ten subjects in one email . . . every email . . . every day. It becomes work after a while.
Can we tackle one subject at a time please. Remember, it is common to switch subjects. I propose to let Rod pick one and we’ll all discuss it to it’s end. Then move to the next one. Someone should keep a list of topics so that nothing gets forgotten. They should keep out the but-what-abouts until they can be properly addressed later. I know that some subjects depend on others but there’s got to be a better solution to what’s going on here.
:tiphat: Rod deserves a complete, catholic answer to all his questions.
For what it’s worth,
Martin
PS. I know other non-catholics had issues too on this subject. Is there a better way of dealing with all this?
- Status