Who's Traditional Catholicism?

[lhagan]

Roman Doctrine vs. the Bible

The “primacy of Peter” doctrine asserts that Jesus gave Peter, and Peter’s successors, authority to function as the sole custodians of true Christian teaching—and as Pope Benedict asserted, “This primacy is for all time” (ibid.). Supporters of this doctrine point to one key passage of scripture, in which Jesus said, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Matthew 16:18–19).

A careful study of this passage and other scriptures, however, reveals something very different from what Benedict has in mind. In the original Greek text, Jesus’ statement is actually a play on words. The Greek word for “Peter” is petros (meaning a small stone), and the Greek word for “rock” is petra (a huge rock or mountain). The Bible clearly shows that Jesus Christ is the Rock (see 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:4; see also Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 28:16). He was referring to Himself as the petra, and to His disciple Peter as the petros.

Scripture also shows that the Church was not founded on Peter alone, but was “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20). Jesus described His petros—Peter—as a foundation stone of the Church, along with the other apostles and prophets. However, Jesus Christ and His teachings would remain the true foundation of the Church. This is the true meaning of Matthew 16:18–19. Attempts to twist this verse into a statement of Peter’s exclusive authority are simply not biblical. This is why the Roman claim for power based on Peter’s supposed primacy has never been accepted by the Eastern Orthodox churches, and why it was rejected by the Protestant reformers (see Civilization Past & Present, Wallbank, p. 133).

Peter’s Biblical Role

What does the Bible reveal about Peter’s role in the early Church? Peter is placed first in lists of the twelve apostles (Matthew 10:1–4; Luke 6:13–16). He was often the spokesman for the group (Matthew 16:13–16), and he gave the first sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2). Peter, along with James and John, was one of three pillars in the Jerusalem Church (Galatians 2:9). Peter, Paul and Barnabas made observations about doctrine at a conference in Jerusalem, but James—not Peter—chaired the conference and rendered the final decision (Acts 15). Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles—but neither one is listed as above the other (Galatians 2:7). Paul even corrected Peter (Galatians 2:11–14). Peter refused homage when it was offered (Acts 10:25–26); no one kissed his ring. The Bible reveals that Peter was a leader among the apostles, but he neither had nor claimed primacy over the others.

Continued…
holy-catholic.org/arian/arian-introduction.html#not_heresy

 

[lhagan]

Continued…

Facts of History

But was Peter the first pope to preside in Rome? Even Catholic sources acknowledge that the term “pope” was not used in the West “until the first half of the 5th century” (Short Biographies of All the Popes, Lozzi Roma, p. 2). As scholar Hans Küng states: “Catholic theologians concede that there is no reliable evidence that Peter was ever in charge of the church in Rome as supreme head or bishop” (The Catholic Church, Küng, p. 20). Professor Küng also mentions that “there could be no question of a legal primacy—or even of a pre-eminence based on the Bible—of the Roman community or even of the Bishop of Rome in the first centuries” (ibid., p. 49). The New Testament does not link Peter with Rome, and it mentions no successor to Peter. The apostles urged Christians to look to Jerusalem and the churches in Judea—not to Rome—as their models (Galatians 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 2:14).

Historians know that the bishop of Rome was “at first only one of several patriarchs” (Civilization Past & Present, Wallbank, 6th ed., p. 133). There were also patriarchs in Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria who were regarded as equals—but history records that they were also competitive and grasping for power. Around 160ad, Bishop Anacetus of Rome tried to pressure Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, to keep the Roman Easter instead of the biblical Passover held on Nisan 14. Anacetus was unsuccessful, because Polycarp said he was following a tradition learned from the Apostle John. Fifty years later, another Roman bishop, Victor, threatened to excommunicate the eastern churches for not adopting the Roman date of Easter. Again they refused, and they continued to follow true apostolic teaching.

The Petrine theory holds that Peter’s successors are to decide doctrinal matters for the Church. Yet, at the Council of Nicaea in 325ad, records show that the Roman bishop, Sylvester I, did not attend and exercised no primacy when the date of Easter was set as a replacement for the biblical Passover, and when Sunday worship officially replaced the seventh-day Sabbath. The Council of Nicaea was called and presided over not by a Roman bishop, but by the Emperor Constantine. As emperor, Constantine held the title of Pontifex Maximus in the pagan Roman religion—a title that Roman bishop Leo I would adopt a century later when arguing for the Petrine primacy over all other bishops. In 451ad, however, the Council of Chalcedon rebuffed Leo, and decreed that the bishops of Rome and Constantinople had equal authority. By 1200ad, Pope Innocent III was claiming to be the “Vicar of Christ,” and the Supreme Sovereign of the Church and the world (Halley’s Bible Handbook, p. 776). For about 600 years during the Middle Ages, Roman bishops pointed to the “Donation of Constantine” as evidence of their right to preside over all the other bishops, but the document was later proven to be a fraud (Kung, p. 50).

Prophetic Warnings

Scripture and history both show that the early Church did not recognize the Roman theory of Petrine primacy. Rather, it was ambitious Roman bishops who developed the doctrine to gain power over other bishops and their churches. Jesus Christ warned that at the end of the age, many would be deceived by false teachers claiming to represent Him (Matthew 24:3–5). Paul warned that in the latter times hypocritical teachers would spread lies (1 Timothy 4:1–3) and would delude people into believing ancient heresies and unbiblical traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:1–15). These long-standing warnings are coming alive today!

holy-catholic.org/arian/roman-catholicism.html#petrine_deception

 

[Dempsey1919]

Disregard this entire thread. The information comes from a site that espouses the ancient heresy of Arianism.

I can’t believe that this heresy, which almost destroyed the Church, is still held to be true by some people.

Pray to Pope St Athanasius of Alexandria that you will not be deceived by these lies and distortions.

 

[James0235]

The Athanasian Creed

Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all else, hold to the true Catholic Faith. Whoever does not keep this faith pure in all points will certainly perish forever.

         Now this is the true Catholic faith: We worship          one God in three persons and three persons in one God, without mixing          the persons or dividing the divine being. For each person -- the Father,          the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- is distinct, but the deity of Father,          Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory and coeternal in majesty.          What the Father is, so is the Son, and so is the Holy Spirit.


         The Father is uncreated, the Son uncreated, and          the Holy Spirit uncreated; The Father is eternal, the Son eternal, and          the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three who are eternal, but          there is one who is eternal, just as they are not three who are          uncreated, nor three who are infinite, but there is one who is uncreated          and one who is infinite.


         In the same way the Father is almighty, the Son          is almighty, and the Holy Spirit is almighty. And yet they are not three          who are almighty, but there is one who is almighty. So the Father is          God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three          Gods, but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy          Spirit is Lord; yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.

For just as Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually to be God and Lord, so the true Christian faith forbids us to speak of three Gods or three Lords. The Father is neither made not created, nor begotten of anyone. The Son is neither made nor created, but is begotten of the Father alone. The Holy Spirit is neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeds from the Father and the Son. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

         And within this Trinity none comes before or          after; none is greater or inferior, but all three persons are coequal          and coeternal, so that in every way, as stated before, all three persons          are to be worshiped as one God and one God worshiped as three persons.          Whoever wishes to be saved must have this conviction of the Trinity.


         It is furthermore necessary for eternal salvation          truly to believe that our Lord Jesus Christ also took on human flesh.          Now this is the true Christian faith: We believe and confess, that our          Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and Man. He is God, eternally          begotten from the nature of the Father, and he is man, born in time from          the nature of his mother, fully God, fully man, with rational soul and          human flesh, equal to the Father, as to his deity, less than the Father,          as to his humanity; and though he is both God and Man, Christ is not two          persons but one, one, not by changing the deity into flesh, but by          taking the humanity into God; one, indeed, not by mixture of the          natures, but by unity in one person.


         For just as the reasonable soul and flesh are one          human being, so God and man are one Christ, who suffered for our          salvation, descended into hell, rose the third day from the dead. He          ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father          almighty, and from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.          At his coming all people will rise again with their own bodies to answer          for their personal deeds. Those who have done good will enter eternal          life, but those who have done evil will go into everlasting fire.


         This is the true Catholic Faith. Whoever does          not faithfully and firmly believe this cannot be saved.

James

 

[lhagan]

This is the true Catholic Faith. Whoever does not faithfully and firmly believe this cannot be saved.

Pray to Pope St Athanasius of Alexandria that you will not be deceived by these lies and distortions.

All the Roman Catholic church can ever say is “lies and distortions” and “you can not be saved”. (Then you say your God is all merciful and forgiving…contradict much? And, who gave man the authority to tell somebody they can’t be saved?.

When you explain the trinity it is really vague but, yet really long winded(for hopes we’ll get tired of listening to you and take your word for it).

But this is direct and to the point:

The Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ

There is no reference to the Trinity in the Bible and Jesus did not mention the trinity in his teachings, in fact the concept of the trinity was first written about by Tertullian of Carthage ((140-230 A.D.) a Roman Montanist heretic and the son of a Roman Centurion) at the end of the second century, his ideas being taken from Greek and Hindu ideologies, and was not formally adopted into Christianity until the first Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., which was called by Pope Sylvester I and overseen by the Emperor and Pagan High Priest of Rome: Constantine I, in order to pave the way for the Romanization of Christianity against the stance on the divinity of Jesus Christ which was being made by Arius of Alexandria. The Romans were accustomed to polytheism and it was believed that the only way the incurably superstitious Pagan Romans could be converted to Christianity would be if it was integrated with Roman Paganism to create a Christo-Pagan Sect that bore parallels with traditional Roman Paganism. At the time the Orthodox Church believed it had converted its first Roman Emperor, Constantine I, to Christianity although Constantine I retained his Pagan Chief Priest title of “Pontifex Maximus” and was not baptised Christian until he was on his deathbed in 337 A.D.

In the Gospel according to John 1:1 we read that the Word (Logos) meaning Jesus Christ and the Theos were the same. “The Word with God and the Word was God,” this is correct when God uses his servant to be his Messenger and we read in Ezekiel 3:10 that God tells his servant “Son of man, receive into your heart all My words…,” the word of God spoken through the man of God is the Word being made flesh and dwelt among us and therefore in that sense the Word is with God, and the Word was God. The Roman Church misused this verse to help establish the trinity.

holy-catholic.org/arian/liturgical_lore.html#trinity

 

[homewardbound]

yawn

Whats the point of this thread? Besides spewing a bunch of nonsense?

Oh wait I know, cause its the cool thing…the “in” thing to be anti-catholic and spread stupidity.

Good job OP! You did your job well.

 

[Hijikata]

yawn

Whats the point of this thread? Besides spewing a bunch of nonsense?

Oh wait I know, cause its the cool thing…the “in” thing to be anti-catholic and spread stupidity.

Good job OP! You did your job well.

Quoted for truth.

 

[freudmacher]

yawn

Whats the point of this thread? Besides spewing a bunch of nonsense?

Oh wait I know, cause its the cool thing…the “in” thing to be anti-catholic and spread stupidity.

Good job OP! You did your job well.

Yeah, I am kinda disapointed I read through it and now I will never ever be able to get back the last 7 minutes of my life.

 

[Markstorm]

Yeah, I am kinda disapointed I read through it and now I will never ever be able to get back the last 7 minutes of my life.

I scrolled down, saw “Arianism”, and grabbed some popcorn in anticipation of the smacking down of heresy.

Thank you for posting the Athanasian Creed, this is actually the first time I’ve read it. I believed it all to begin with, of course, but it is good to have it in one concise creed.

 

[GerardP]

All the Roman Catholic church can ever say is “lies and distortions” and “you can not be saved”. (Then you say your God is all merciful and forgiving…contradict much? And, who gave man the authority to tell somebody they can’t be saved?.

The “Roman Catholic Church” didn’t say “lies and distortions” a few posters said that. You’ve got to be precise if you intend on making your point.

When you explain the trinity it is really vague but, yet really long winded(for hopes we’ll get tired of listening to you and take your word for it).

Can you give an example? And how is a mystery like anything about God’s nature not going to have some degree of lack of understanding? That’s why it’s called a mystery and that’s why Faith is necessary. If it could be understood completely faith would not be necessary.

But this is direct and to the point:

holy-catholic.org/arian/liturgical_lore.html#trinity

Norse mythology is also direct and to the point. That doesn’t make it true.

You will find numerous refutations online to the points you’ve quoted.

But I would like to know where you claim your authority to believe in and interpret the Bible comes from?

Did the book just drop from the clouds one day?

Which Canon do you accept? Why?

Instead of pointing towards non-Catholic sources to bash the Church, why don’t you point to Catholic sources and show the error?

Pick one point at a time and show the error instead of a “shot-gun” approach as well and you might get a real discussion going.

 

[stmaria]

I notice that your article quotes Hans Kung. He was banned form teaching at Catholic Universitites decades ago. He is a heretic. He denies Papal infallibility, is pushing for the ordination of women in the priesthood, and many other things. Nothing he says has an ounce of truth.

"

As scholar Hans Küng states: “Catholic theologians concede that there is no reliable evidence that Peter was ever in charge of the church in Rome as supreme head or bishop” (The Catholic Church, Küng, p. 20). Professor Küng also mentions that “there could be no question of a legal primacy—or even of a pre-eminence based on the Bible

 

[GerardP]

Let’s look at this as an example of shot gun approaches:

The Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ

 

[lhagan]

But the problem is, why should I continue to look it up when the first statement in the citation shows a huge ignorance of what and how the Catholic Church teaches in its history, theology and philosophy?

I did not say I believed the site. I was wanting opinions on the site from followers of the church. It is one thing to research the truth, it is another thing whether or not the follows of the church believe the truth.

A wise decision comes from research and opinions.

Is there anyway that those records that aren’t made public can support any heretics claims?

 

[GerardP]

I did not say I believed the site.

How are we supposed to know that?

I was wanting opinions on the site from followers of the church.

You want opinions from which site from which followers of what Church?

It is one thing to research the truth, it is another thing whether or not the follows of the church believe the truth.

Okay…

A wise decision comes from research and opinions.

A wise decision also comes from having wisdom.

Is there anyway that those records that aren’t made public can support any heretics claims?

I don’t understand what you want.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

lhagan, if you post a heretical website and leave it at that, people naturally assume that you are just one of those “evangelizers” who try to convert people by making them read their material. It happens all the time here and people just grow tired of it. So, if you are seeking apologetics and want to learn why Arianism is simply WRONG (and very dangerous since it destroys Christianity) then say it. I’m sure if you would have started the thread this way people would be much more helpful.

Pax

 

[lhagan]

lhagan, if you post a heretical website and leave it at that, people naturally assume that you are just one of those “evangelizers” who try to convert people by making them read their material. It happens all the time here and people just grow tired of it. So, if you are seeking apologetics and want to learn why Arianism is simply WRONG (and very dangerous since it destroys Christianity) then say it. I’m sure if you would have started the thread this way people would be much more helpful.

Pax

I apologize. I’m sorry my post was vague.

You brought up a question. What is the Catholic churches definition of evangelist and evangelize? What faiths fall under this category?

 

[rwoehmke]

It is interesting to surf the web on some of the old heresies. Not for the information to be derived from the sites, but because it soon becomes evident that many of them still have a following, no matter how limited in numbers.

 

[thedavidwilson]

All the Roman Catholic church can ever say is “lies and distortions” and “you can not be saved”. (Then you say your God is all merciful and forgiving…contradict much? And, who gave man the authority to tell somebody they can’t be saved?.

Jesus, the second person in the Triune God, gave the apostles and their successors this authority with Peter and his successor being the head. It is the Catholic Church’s job and lawful authority to define this.

 

[lhagan]

Jesus, the second person in the Triune God, gave the apostles and their successors this authority with Peter and his successor being the head. It is the Catholic Church’s job and lawful authority to define this.

Define yes. Calling people “Liars and distorters” doesn’t define anything. And, the Pope himself doesn’t even have the authority to tell somebody they can not be saved and I highly doubt he would claim that he did. This is what I was telling them. I fully agree that the Catholics Church and the follows have the job and lawful authority to define succession.

 

[thedavidwilson]

Define yes. Calling people “Liars and distorters” doesn’t define anything. And, the Pope himself doesn’t even have the authority to tell somebody they can not be saved and I highly doubt he would claim that he did. This is what I was telling them. I fully agree that the Catholics Church and the follows have the job and lawful authority to define succession.

The Church does not say who, individually, will be saved and will not. That would be passing judgment which is God’s job. The Church, based on scripture, defines the criteria by which we will be judged. There job is also to take this criteria and communicate it (not customize) to each new generation so they know what they need to do to get to heaven. We as individuals, using reason, can say that a certain religon has aspects that violate this criteria, e.g. islam’s call to make war on non-believers to convert them. We can therefore pass a judgement that a religion is false and has these aspects that would inhibit a person going to heaven. We cannot however say that a particular person in that religion will be saved or not since there might be mitigating circumstances like invincible ignorance or them being forced to be a member of that religion.