Who is the Rock?

[SavedByJesus]

In rememberance…these things he says are “spirit”…not to be taken literally as in eating his flesh or drinking his blood.

 

[dnu]

saved,

I can find bundles of early Christian Fathers emphasizing obedience to the Church and to the Bishops.

One “ignore the Church and have a personal relationship with Jesus unde the guidance of the 66 book Holy Bible ONLY” citation before the deformation.

pretty, pretty, pretty please?

David

 

[GeorgeSword]

saved,

I can find bundles of early Christian Fathers emphasizing obedience to the Church and to the Bishops.

One “ignore the Church and have a personal relationship with Jesus unde the guidance of the 66 book Holy Bible ONLY” citation before the deformation.

pretty, pretty, pretty please?

David

There isn’t one. So is that case closed?

 

[dnu]

saved,

The euacharist was:

Prophecied by God (Malachi 1:11

Instituted by Jesus (Mark 16, Mathew 26, Luke 22, John 6)

Explained by Paul (1 Corinthians 11 23-34)

and has been exercised every day by the Church Jesus established on Peter (Mathew 16:18-20, Peter is the "kepha) for almost 2000 years.

History is on our side

David

 

[dnu]

George,

Yes, it is case closed, I’m simply hoping that savedbyJesus will acknowledge it and begin to question his Protest-ant position.

David

 

[tweetymom]

Does your Protest-ant pastor regularly hold classes teaching about Christian history? Does he regularly discuss primary source documents such as the Didache, Church Fathers writings, etc.? If not, why not?

If he only uses “the word of God,” is this the Word of God according to the Church for fifteen hundred years, or is this the cannablized “word of God” that Luther and Calvin redacted down to meet their own theology?

What infallible source does your Pastor use when giving his interpretation of scripture in his sermon? Does his Theological interpretation conflict with the Pastor of the same denomnation in a town 20 miles away? If so, why? If you didn’t like his teachings, could you go down the street two blocks and found a new church and teach what you want? Why? Where would you get the authority to do so?

Tell me, if I decided to bail on Catholicism, which of the 30,000 Protest-ant churches would I go to to get the “truth?” How do you know the other 29,999 Protest-ant Churches are wrong? Because you can’t all be right, the opinions on many issues are diametrically opposed, someone has to be wrong. If you’re being led by the spirit, does that mean they’re not?

Protest-ant-ism is a lie and a fraud. Tithe up though, your Pastor needs a new weather-man suit for next weeks sermon.

David

Don’t you think you are being a bit rude calling Protestants liar. Thought that was a no no?

 

[dnu]

tweety,

Out of that whole post, thats all you can respond with? Perhaps it was rude, but sometimes the truth is rude. Does your Pastor where a weatherman suit? Why? Would Peter or Paul be wearing a weatherman suit? Is your service centered on Christ, or the Pastors sermon? Do you study Christian history, or just his personal interpretation of the bible? Question everything, perhaps I’ll see you at mass one day.

David

 

[tweetymom]

tweety,

Out of that whole post, thats all you can respond with? Perhaps it was rude, but sometimes the truth is rude. Does your Pastor where a weatherman suit? Is your service centered on Christ, or the Pastors sermon? Question everything, perhaps I’ll see you at mass one day.

David

I do go to Mass. And that is not all that I have responded to I have reported your rude behavior to the moderators, calling Protestants liars. They are not and making fun of their name.

 

[SavedByJesus]

saved,

I can find bundles of early Christian Fathers emphasizing obedience to the Church and to the Bishops.

One “ignore the Church and have a personal relationship with Jesus unde the guidance of the 66 book Holy Bible ONLY” citation before the deformation.

pretty, pretty, pretty please?

Read your Catechism…I have…the entire book…the RCC recognizes the 66 books as** Canonical**…the others they recognize as Aprocryphal. Do you even know what that means?

Romans 8:9 (King James Version)

9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

 

[Canto]

In rememberance…these things he says are “spirit”…not to be taken literally as in eating his flesh or drinking his blood.

Says whom? And with what authority?

If you are refering to the flesh (not Christ’s) profits nothing, the words I have spoken are Spirit and life verse, this is a reference to the heavenly realities of the Eucharist that many that day failed to comprehend.

The early fathers and since then are clear that the bread and wine are in actuality his body and blood.

“this [bread] is my body” said Christ, not a symbol of but is.

 

[SavedByJesus]

Without any scriptural proof, Roman Catholicism has blatantly

  lied about the Apostle Peter’s whereabouts from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D.,

  so as to lend some credence to their "apostolic succession". They have 

  placed Peter in Rome reigning as a pope when the Bible paints us a 

  totally different picture. Lorraine Boettner, in his book 

  Roman Catholicism, pages 121-122, dates Peter’s journey using 

  the Bible as his only source. 

  "Most Bible students agree that Paul's conversion occurred in the 

  year 37 A.D. After that he went to Arabia (Gal.1:17), and after 

  that he went up to Jerusalem where he remained with Peter for 15 

  days (Gal.1:18). That brings us to the year 40 A.D. Fourteen years

  later he again went to Jerusalem (Gal.2:1), where he attended the

  Jerusalem council described in Acts 15, in which Peter also

  participated (vs.6). This conference dealt primarily with the

  problems which arose in connection with the presentation of the

  Gospel in Jewish and Gentile communities. Paul and Barnabas

  presented their case, and were authorized by the council to

  continue their ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22-29); and this

  quite clearly was the occasion on which Paul was assigned to work

  primarily among the Gentiles while Peter was assigned to work

  primarily among the Jews (Gal.2:7- 8), since this same Jerusalem

  council is spoken of in the immediate context (Gal.2:1-10). So

  this brings us to the year 54 A. D., and Peter still is in Syria,

  12 years after the time that the Roman tradition says that he began

  his reign in Rome. Sometime after the Jerusalem council Peter also

  came to Antioch, on which occasion it was necessary for Paul to

  reprimand him because of his conformity to Judaistic rituals

  (Gal.2:11- 21). And the same Roman tradition which says that Peter

  reigned in Rome also says that he governed the church in Antioch

  for 7 years before going to Rome. Hence we reach the year 61 A.D.

  ,with Peter still in Syria."

 

[Harpazo]

Without any scriptural proof, Roman Catholicism has blatantly

  lied about the Apostle Peter’s whereabouts from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D.,

  so as to lend some credence to their "apostolic succession". They have 

  placed Peter in Rome reigning as a pope when the Bible paints us a 

  totally different picture. Lorraine Boettner, in his book 

  Roman Catholicism, pages 121-122, dates Peter’s journey using 

  the Bible as his only source. 

  "Most Bible students agree that Paul's conversion occurred in the 

  year 37 A.D. After that he went to Arabia (Gal.1:17), and after 

  that he went up to Jerusalem where he remained with Peter for 15 

  days (Gal.1:18). That brings us to the year 40 A.D. Fourteen years

  later he again went to Jerusalem (Gal.2:1), where he attended the

  Jerusalem council described in Acts 15, in which Peter also

  participated (vs.6). This conference dealt primarily with the

  problems which arose in connection with the presentation of the

  Gospel in Jewish and Gentile communities. Paul and Barnabas

  presented their case, and were authorized by the council to

  continue their ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 15:22-29); and this

  quite clearly was the occasion on which Paul was assigned to work

  primarily among the Gentiles while Peter was assigned to work

  primarily among the Jews (Gal.2:7- 8), since this same Jerusalem

  council is spoken of in the immediate context (Gal.2:1-10). So

  this brings us to the year 54 A. D., and Peter still is in Syria,

  12 years after the time that the Roman tradition says that he began

  his reign in Rome. Sometime after the Jerusalem council Peter also

  came to Antioch, on which occasion it was necessary for Paul to

  reprimand him because of his conformity to Judaistic rituals

  (Gal.2:11- 21). And the same Roman tradition which says that Peter

  reigned in Rome also says that he governed the church in Antioch

  for 7 years before going to Rome. Hence we reach the year 61 A.D.

  ,with Peter still in Syria."

You do know that many Protestant scholars consider Boettner as a discredible source on just about everything, right?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[GeorgeSword]

Read your Catechism…I have…the entire book…the RCC recognizes the 66 books as** Canonical**…the others they recognize as Aprocryphal. Do you even know what that means?

Romans 8:9 (King James Version)

9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Have you read it? We recognize 72 books as canonical.

 

[Canto]

Lorraine Boettner, in his book

The same book that claims Orthodox oppose icons and that us Catholics baptise bells and that calls all souls day purgatory day

catholic.com/library/The_Anti_Catholic_Bible.asp

Peter also came to Antioch, on which occasion it was necessary for Paul to reprimand him because of his conformity to Judaistic rituals

Reprimanded because of his primacy y/n?
Did Peter have a good reason?
Or should I say Cephas (Rock) have a good reason
Paul virtually always calls Peter Cephas

Galatians 5:2-3 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

Yet this same Paul had Timothy circumcised.

 

[dnu]

Tweety,

If one makes a claim that cannot be verified by historical evidence, that is called a lie. I have asked numerous, numerous times for ONE primary source document from the first 1,500 years of Christianity that says something to the effect of “ignore the church and have a personal relationaship with Jesus.” As that evidence cannot be supplied, I say “faith in Jesus only” is a lie, as it cannot be substantiated during a period of one thousand and five hundred years before the Protest-ant religions were created by men.

SavedbyJesus stated that the RCC didn’t exist until the 4th century, I showed him evidence of Marion doctrines that were from the 3rd century, therefore, his alledging that the “RCC” made false doctrines cannot be substantiated, because, by his allegation, the RCC didn’t even exist…therefore, based solely on what he himself said, I can say he is lying…at the minimum historically misinformed.

When have I made fun of Protest-ants names? They did Protest Christs Church did they not? They did form their own systems of beliefs that do not conform to the prior 1,500 years did they not? Simply adding a hyphon is not making fun of anything, it is simply making sure that the word is pronounced properly. It is not “prawdustunt,” as if to imply it’s just another way of thinking, they are “PROTEST-ant” religions that deviated from the truth. Report me to the moderators, I’d be interested in seeing what evidence you used to substantiate your arguments.

David

 

[Brendan]

In rememberance…these things he says are “spirit”…not to be taken literally as in eating his flesh or drinking his blood.

So you believe that when something is “spirit” is it not literal, not real? Like angels and the 3rd Person of the Blessed Trinity. They are “spirit”.

Where does the Bible say that when things are “Spirit”, they are metaphorical? Catholics hold that when Christ talks about things that are “spirit”, they are of a a deeper than that which is physical, more ‘real’ than ‘real’.

It seems that your theology denies the Holy Spirit, for Christ says that He will send the Spirit of Truth to the Apostles. If what you say is true, and when Christ talks of the “spirt”, He is not to be taken literally, then no one was sent, the “Spirit of Truth” that Christ talks about is just a metaphor.

 

[Filioque]

Never heard of this before…
For the last paragraph which dates and verses?
Babylon was code as the Romans were persecuting the Church.

Never heard this before? Well then you have to widen your circle of reading. There are a number of crackpot books out there that many Anti-Catholics read with greater gusto than the Bible itself. Pick up a copy of Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating, The books of Lorraine Boettner, and Hislop are exposed for the historical frauds they are.

Hard to convince someone like our Original poster here, they usually give the calumnies and fiction about the Catholic Church equal space with the Bible, and will quote the CCC or other Catholic documents from the misquoted sources, rather than look it up themselves.

 

[SavedByJesus]

Be careful what you beleive…

From the **Catechism of the RCC **

Just came across this CC reference

1378
Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the** cult **of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession

**By definition **a **cult **is described as…
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader

 

[SavedByJesus]

This goes against everything Jesus stood for…you really want to cling to this?

According to your religion everyone outside of it is already damned to Hell. But in reality it will be GOD who condems the RCC to hell when he returns. I say again…who is adding what here?

**Revelation 22:18 **For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

**DECLARATIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT **)

FOURTH SESSION: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.”

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 33).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, LET HIM BE** ANATHEMA**” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 3).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 13).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON CONFIRMATON: “If anyone says that the confirmation of those baptized is an empty ceremony and not a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a sort of instruction, whereby those approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith to the Church, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Confirmation, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: “If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 8).

Someone is either a blood bought, born again, bible believing, Jesus submitted Christian or not. All of these are contradicted by the doctrine and practice of Roman Catholicism. One person cannot have saving faith in two separate gospels, plans of salvation, authority, different Christs and different mediators at the same time.

Two things that are completely different are NOT THE SAME. Saving faith requires a definite CHOICE/DECISION. One foot in each gospel is not saving faith. Its either Christ Alone by Faith Alone or it isn’t.

 

[Canto]

Be careful what you beleive…

From the **Catechism of the RCC **

Just came across this CC reference

1378
Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the** cult **of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession

**By definition **a **cult **is described as…
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader

The word cult comes from the Latin meaning worship.

The offical Latin text of the Catechism uses the word **cultum **meaning worship. So yes we worship the Eucharist, Jesus!