Peter the Rock?

[Truthnightmare]

Scripture commands is being a "fragile snowflake"??
There is notheing Christ-like or even remotely Scriptural i your posts.

As for sitting in judgement and condemning the souls of others -
Matt. 7:2
For in the same way YOU judge others, YOU will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to YOU.

Good luck with that . . .

I don’t judge others, there is only two positions of the law for judgment, obviously you are not familiar with…

11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

I’m not a judge of, but try my best to be a doer.

And I don’t let my right hand know what left is doing, nor do I take credit for any good work, while we are speaking I’m feedin the homeless what the hell are you doing on this Sunday morning?
I’m a man, I crack jokes have fun, call people stupid, crazy, lazy and a whole bunch of other things… But a weak sensitive Catholic that gets on there knees and kisses another man’s ring wouldn’t understand that….

I call my wife nuts sometimes… that doesn’t mean I’m judging her soul… you are nuts!!

Now it’s football time… and I’m going to enjoy..

And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.

I'm not really following you in the above post, sorry.

I have Mormon neighbors, and family of mine also have Mormon friends, and I like their conversation (the Mormons) because they stick to things that they know won't go against my strictly biblical, 'main-stream Christian' 'opinions'.

I've had long conversations with some very well-informed Mormon guys who come across as sane, reasonable and logical - unlike some Christians I know, who have the same "sola scriptura" 'main-stream' Christians doctrine I believe. In fact in my own experience it's always only been from among those who have strictly "Sola Scriptura" beliefs like I do, who have a 'hysterical' approach.

I have a brother who is a JW. We don't discuss our differences because we don't want to end up in the argument that we know we will end up in, if we do. We're fully aware of what our differences are. So that's enough.

I've had Catholic friends over the years too. In my experience they also always come across as sane and reasonable people, though I have major differences with the teaching of the Catholic Church - but I don't say things to get people's backs up against what I consider the real gospel. To me it's pointless attacking someone else's faith in a social situation because it will just cause them to close their ears to the biblical doctrine completely.

In these forums it's different because these forums are there for debate, and if Catholics want to open themselves up to having their faith attacked then they should be quiet instead of attacking or criticizing any so-called 'Protestant' doctrine.

I also have had Jewish friends. Only good people.​

No… you are following me because I agree with what you have said.

Note - it seems my responses have combined themselves which leads to confusion… I will correct it. My bad.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The word "appeal" is a loaded one. I prefer "consult." Because "consult" is the most we can infer from the internal textual evidence of the letter. We all consult the opinions of respected people all the time, but that is a far cry from bowing to their authority over us.

WHY would the Church at Corinth appeal to - or "consult" the Bishop of Rome?

The matter at hand was that certain men were usurping the Authoroity of the local clergy. This is why they felt the need to appeal to a higher Authoroity.

To answer your question, though: Presbyterians and Lutherans disagree on some issues, but that doesn't make one or the other a "sinner" in the sense used by Matt. 18:15-18.

Again, you didn't address the issue.

Presbyterian, Lutheran, Calvinist, Evangelical, non-denominational, etc. HOW to 2 friends from different denominations settle matters of sin as per Matt. 18:15-18?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don’t judge others, there is only two positions of the law for judgment, obviously you are not familiar with…

11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

I’m not a judge of, but try my best to be a doer.

And I don’t let my right hand know what left is doing, nor do I take credit for any good work, while we are speaking I’m feedin the homeless what the hell are you doing on this Sunday morning?
I’m a man, I crack jokes have fun, call people stupid, crazy, lazy and a whole bunch of other things… But a weak sensitive Catholic that gets on there knees and kisses another man’s ring wouldn’t understand that….

I call my wife nuts sometimes… that doesn’t mean I’m judging her soul… you are nuts!!

Now it’s football time… and I’m going to enjoy..

And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.

No… you are following me because I agree with what you have said.

Note - it seems my responses have combined themselves which leads to confusion… I will correct it. My bad.

I only jope those JWs and Mormons that YOU referred to ad "nuts" find christ through a humble and charitable Christian.
He certainly isn't being shared at YOUR doorstep . . .

 

[RedFan]

WHY would the Church at Corinth appeal to - or "consult" the Bishop of Rome?

The matter at hand was that certain men were usurping the Authoroity of the local clergy. This is why they felt the need to appeal to a higher Authoroity.

Again, you didn't address the issue.

Presbyterian, Lutheran, Calvinist, Evangelical, non-denominational, etc. HOW to 2 friends from different denominations settle matters of sin as per Matt. 18:15-18?

They felt the need to CONSULT with a respected Bishop. They did not feel the need to APPEAL to a higher authority. There is no evidence of the latter. Nothing in Clement's response suggests it. Believe it if you like. I don't. Let's leave it at that.

I don't know how two friends from different denominations settle matters of sin as between them (if that's your question). Personally, I have never tried to invoke Matthew 18:15 in resolving a matter of sin with a friend of another denomination than mine (Episcopalian). So I don't think I can add anything here.

 

[Illuminator]

WHY would the Church at Corinth appeal to - or "consult" the Bishop of Rome?

The matter at hand was that certain men were usurping the Authority of the local clergy. This is why they felt the need to appeal to a higher Authority.

In order to qualify as pope, one had to be the bishop of Rome. That's the point of citing Clement.
This aspect shouldn’t be lightly passed over. Why is it that Clement is speaking with authority from Rome, settling the disputes of other regions? Why don’t the Corinthians solve it themselves, if they have a proclaimed bishop or even if they didn’t claim one at the time? Why do they appeal to the bishop of Rome? These are questions that I think Redfan needs to seriously consider and offer some sort of answer for.

Redfan:
They felt the need to CONSULT with a respected Bishop. They did not feel the need to APPEAL to a higher authority. There is no evidence of the latter. Nothing in Clement's response suggests it. Believe it if you like. I don't. Let's leave it at that.

Not so fast.
St. Clement writes (I use the standard Schaff translation: no Catholic “bias” there!):

You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people. (57)
If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; . . . (59, my bolding and italics) Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. (63, my bolding and italics)

Clement definitely asserts his authority over the Corinthian church far away. (The distance between Corinth and Rome is 617 miles / 992.97 km) Again, the question is: “why?” What sense does that make in a Protestant-type ecclesiology where every region is autonomous and there is supposedly no hierarchical authority in the Christian Church? Why must they “obey” the bishop from another region (sections 59, 63)? Not only does Clement assert strong authority; he also claims that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are speaking “through” him.

That is extraordinary, and very similar to what we see in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:28 (“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things”: RSV) and in Scripture itself. It’s not strictly inspiration but it is sure something akin to infallibility (divine protection from error and the pope as a unique mouthpiece of, or representative of God).

It’s also worth noticing that Clement is involved in this situation at all. It’s clear from the outset of the letter, in which he apologies for being “somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us,” that it was actually the Corinthians who reached out to Clement and the Church at Rome. This isn’t a case of a meddlesome Roman bishop but of a Greek church reaching out to the Roman bishop to settle a strictly internal dispute. Consider also the reception of St. Clement’s letter. If the early Church were Protestant, we might expect them to pay little heed to St. Clement, treating him merely as another churchman or as a threat to the apostolic order . . . [T]he mere fact that there was a question on this point tells us something about how Church members beyond Rome viewed the bishops of Rome following St. Peter. . . .

What makes Pope Clement’s involvement in the Corinthian dispute more shocking is that it happened around the year 96, while the apostle John is still alive. In a colorful 1914 anti-Catholic sermon, pastor George Rutledge proclaimed to a crowd of about 1,500 people that the Catholic claims to the papacy couldn’t be true because “the apostle John lived a number of years after Peter’s death. Yet Rome declares a fellow by the name of Linus was made pope while an apostle was living!”

Rutledge argued that since apostles are the highest order within the Church (1 Cor. 12:28), St. John would have “had a just grievance and could have bankrupted the whole business.” Yet St. Clement’s letter is evidence that St. Peter’s successors did play a central role in the governance of the early Church, even during the lifetime of the apostle John—and that John, as far as is recorded, did not object. (“The Papacy in the Early Church”, Catholic Answers, 10-23-19)

I submit that the essential questions I have asked, remain: why does Corinth have to obey Rome? Who determined that set-up? Why does it even cross their mind to write to a local church far away to settle their problems, and why does Clement assume that they should obey him, and that it would be “transgression and serious danger” if they don’t? Why does Redfan pass over these crucial questions, that cry out for an answer?

Again, you didn't address the issue.

Presbyterian, Lutheran, Calvinist, Evangelical, non-denominational, etc. HOW to 2 friends from different denominations settle matters of sin as per Matt. 18:15-18?

I think each theology has their own definition of "binding and loosing". It's a RABBINICAL term; it didn't puzzle the Apostles and it's defined on any Jewish source. I think this is the point where Jesus transfers the authority from Moses' Seat to Peter and sanctifies binding and loosing authority.

 

[Zao is life]

The whole point is that Christ appointed twelve apostles to establish churches (plural) and establish doctrine, and this is what the apostles did.

Neither Christ nor any of His twelve apostles gave any church the right to teach false doctrine or begin practices which for some reason every non-Roman Catholic and non-Eastern Orthodox believer sees as horribly wrong - such as fashioning images for themselves of things in heaven or of things on earth - whether of humans or of animals, and then deciding that it's OK with God for people to stand before those images and "pray through them" to the spirit of some dead person (dead in the flesh) that they represent, in the extra-biblical and non-apostolic belief that this statue somehow passes the prayer to the spirit, and the spirit passes the prayer to Christ.

We have an aversion to it. We do not see it as Christian, and we never will.

Nor do we see the hierarchy of doctrinal "authority" established in the Roman Catholic Church as biblical, or as Christian, and we never will, because we never will see some of the doctrines of that church as biblical, or as Christian.

Also, any church that ever has, or that still does claim there is no salvation outside of their church, we see as a cult.

Then we get to the passage where Jesus called Simon a stone because the faith in Jesus he had just expressed was given to him by the God the Father (note: not by the church), and then referring to Himself, said, "and on this ROCK I will build my church". The keys and the power of binding or loosing (which until then in the hands of the Pharisees and lawyers of the law) were not given to Peter alone, but to the twelve, who established doctrine when they established the churches (plural) - and the doctrine of the twelve does not contradict - not one apostle's doctrine contradicts another's, which is why Paul once publicly accused Peter of being a hypocrite.

We will never accept the Roman Catholic doctrine regarding the Eucharist turning into the actual blood and actual body of Christ when blessed by a mortal and fallible human merely because the Roman Catholic Church tells us that's how Christ's words should be interpreted, because we do not believe what you say is true. End of.

We do not get why Roman Catholics believe that where there is a disagreement about the correct interpretation of scripture, the Roman Catholic Church holds the final "authority" on all doctrine - which is the apostles' doctrine. So obviously, neither do we believe that the Roman Catholic Church inherited this position from the apostles. The last generation with that authority was the apostles' generation - and the only people in their generation with that authority, was the apostles. Therefore we also do not and never will accept the Roman Catholic position on "Sola Scriptura". Nor do we accept or believe in the right of any Bishop or Pope to "loose" something - especially not something as serious as the blessing of gay marriage, which again is in denial and contradiction of the apostles' doctrine.

The point at which we start finding any Roman Catholic's debate regarding how anything in scripture should be interpreted and applied unpalatable, is precisely the point at which the Roman Catholic doing the debating claims doctrinal authority for the Roman Catholic Church on the matter.

Stick to scripture.

It isn't as though the Roman Catholic Church were not faithful, at least, with the preservation of the scriptures even after they began to introduce false doctrine. If they had not been, there would be no debate between the "sola scripturalists" and the Roman Catholic Church today. Maybe they feel the need to kick themselves for this today, but, praise God, they have been faithful with regard to the preservation of the scriptures and also of Church history - the writings of the early church fathers and volumes of other Christian history contained in the libraries of the Vatican, much of which is indispensable for the sake of apologetic and matters of doctrine - the apostles' doctrine, bearing in mind that the ECF did not all agree with one another on what the apostles' doctrine was in all respects, either.

Ephesians 4​

1 I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the calling with which you are called,
2 with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love,
3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling,
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all.

When one group claims the headquarters of their own group of congregations/ecclesia has authority over all others, then it is not conducive to promoting obedience to the above doctrine of the apostles.

 

[BreadOfLife]

They felt the need to CONSULT with a respected Bishop. They did not feel the need to APPEAL to a higher authority. There is no evidence of the latter. Nothing in Clement's response suggests it. Believe it if you like. I don't. Let's leave it at that.

There's a major flaw in that theory -
Corinth already HAD a Bishop.

Why would they geel the need to appeal to the Bishop of Rome?
Because of his ultimate Authority.

I don't know how two friends from different denominations settle matters of sin as between them (if that's your question). Personally, I have never tried to invoke Matthew 18:15 in resolving a matter of sin with a friend of another denomination than mine (Episcopalian). So I don't think I can add anything here.

Thatnk you for being honest.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The whole point is that Christ appointed twelve apostles to establish churches (plural) and establish doctrine, and this is what the apostles did.

Neither Christ nor any of His twelve apostles gave any church the right to teach false doctrine or begin practices which for some reason every non-Roman Catholic and non-Eastern Orthodox believer sees as horribly wrong - such as fashioning images for themselves of things in heaven or of things on earth - whether of humans or of animals, and then deciding that it's OK with God for people to stand before those images and "pray through them" to the spirit of some dead person (dead in the flesh) that they represent, in the extra-biblical and non-apostolic belief that this statue somehow passes the prayer to the spirit, and the spirit passes the prayer to Christ.

We have an aversion to it. We do not see it as Christian, and we never will.​

That’s because YOU don’t understand the Commandments in Scripture.

The Commandment against idols was exactly that – IDOLS.
When you read the entire Commandment, there is a context to it. It’s NOT the making of images that is forbidden. It is the making of them in order to WORSHIP them.

God commanded Moses to create 2 golden statues of Angels to place on top of the Ark. He also commanded him to create a Bronze Serpent to put before the people so that they would be cured.
It is only what they began to WORSHIP the serpent that it was considered “sinful”.

If ALL images were sinful – YOU’D be guilty for carrying a Driver’s License. You’d also be guilty for having pictures in your wallet and mantle at home, including any photos or paintings on your walls.

So can the hypocrisy . . .

Nor do we see the hierarchy of doctrinal "authority" established in the Roman Catholic Church as biblical, or as Christian, and we never will, because we never will see some of the doctrines of that church as biblical, or as Christian.

Also, any church that ever has, or that still does claim there is no salvation outside of their church, we see as a cult.
Then we get to the passage where Jesus called Simon a stone because the faith in Jesus he had just expressed was given to him by the God the Father (note: not by the church), and then referring to Himself, said, "and on this ROCK I will build my church". The keys and the power of binding or loosing (which until then in the hands of the Pharisees and lawyers of the law) were not given to Peter alone, but to the twelve, who established doctrine when they established the churches (plural) - and the doctrine of the twelve does not contradict - not one apostle's doctrine contradicts another's, which is why Paul once publicly accused Peter of being a hypocrite.​

That’s because you reject Christ.

There is NO salvation outside the Church because the Church IS Christ on earth (Acts 9:4-5). If you reject this fact from the Word of God – you reject HIM (Luke 10:16),

We will never accept the Roman Catholic doctrine regarding the Eucharist turning into the actual blood and actual body of Christ when blessed by a mortal and fallible human merely because the Roman Catholic Church tells us that's how Christ's words should be interpreted, because we do not believe what you say is true. End of.

We do not get why Roman Catholics believe that where there is a disagreement about the correct interpretation of scripture, the Roman Catholic Church holds the final "authority" on all doctrine - which is the apostles' doctrine. So obviously, neither do we believe that the Roman Catholic Church inherited this position from the apostles. The last generation with that authority was the apostles' generation - and the only people in their generation with that authority, was the apostles. Therefore we also do not and never will accept the Roman Catholic position on "Sola Scriptura". Nor do we accept or believe in the right of any Bishop or Pope to "loose" something - especially not something as serious as the blessing of gay marriage, which again is in denial and contradiction of the apostles' doctrine.​

Gee – MAYBE it’s because there are so MANY different and competing Protestant doctrines . . .

Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

What a mess . . .

 

[Zao is life]

That’s because YOU don’t understand the Commandments in Scripture.

The Commandment against idols was exactly that – IDOLS.
When you read the entire Commandment, there is a context to it. It’s NOT the making of images that is forbidden. It is the making of them in order to WORSHIP them.

God commanded Moses to create 2 golden statues of Angels to place on top of the Ark. He also commanded him to create a Bronze Serpent to put before the people so that they would be cured.
It is only what they began to WORSHIP the serpent that it was considered “sinful”.

If ALL images were sinful – YOU’D be guilty for carrying a Driver’s License. You’d also be guilty for having pictures in your wallet and mantle at home, including any photos or paintings on your walls.

So can the hypocrisy . . .

That’s because you reject Christ.

There is NO salvation outside the Church because the Church IS Christ on earth (Acts 9:4-5). If you reject this fact from the Word of God – you reject HIM (Luke 10:16),

Gee – MAYBE it’s because there are so MANY different and competing Protestant doctrines . . .

Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

What a mess . . .

You have excluded the Roman Catholic Church from the above list of churches of Christ, who are also in Christ.

So we are to assume that the Roman Catholic Church is neither of Christ, nor is it in Christ, since you do not include it in the churches of Christ.

 

[Illuminator]

You have excluded the Roman Catholic Church from the above list of churches of Christ, who are also in Christ.

So we are to assume that the Roman Catholic Church is neither of Christ, nor is it in Christ, since you do not include it in the churches of Christ.

So you too refuse to answer the questions in post #685, or are you just ill-equipped? Instead, you weigh in with the same stupid off topic canard of statue worship? That's been refuted every time it comes up in this forum??? Sometimes 3 times a week???

CRS' HISTORY IN SOUTH AFRICA​

In late 2000, at the invitation of the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference (SACBC), Catholic Relief Services opened an office in South Africa devoted to HIV and AIDS work. CRS South Africa works in close partnership with the SACBC and its counterparts to help reduce the impact of HIV and AIDS and promote peacebuilding across the country’s 29 dioceses.

South Africa is the second largest economy of Africa. A great divide exists, however, between the rich and poor — a daunting legacy of the country's recent past. South Africa also has 6.3 million people living with HIV, more than any other country worldwide. The epidemic is devastating poor and marginalized communities and has taken one or both parents from more than 2.4 million children. Catholic Relief Services is supporting the local Catholic Church to respond to this crisis and provide needed care and support to those most in need.

CRS supports HIV and AIDS programming that focuses on care and support for people living with and affected by HIV and AIDS, care for orphans and vulnerable children, prevention education (including lifeskill programs), stigma reduction, and voluntary testing and counseling.

The Justice & Peacebuilding projects that CRS supports focus on poverty alleviation, civic participation, conflict resolution, peacemaking, and advocacy.

A third programming area in which CRS was supporting the local partners is that of refugees and migrants, particularly in the light of the continued migration of migrants and refugees from Zimbabwe and xenophobic attacks on migrants.

Through its Church partners, CRS provides funding and support for projects and programs which:

• Respond to HIV and AIDS in the poorest, most remote areas of the country by providing home-based and community-based care for adults and children infected and affected by the disease.
• Offer lifeskills education to children and youth through Catholic schools as well as community-based programs in poverty-stricken rural areas that will help them in making decisions about their lives, and assist in protecting themselves from contracting the virus.
• Support the local Church to advocate for policies and programs that will decrease people’s vulnerability to HIV and AIDS and help families and communities to cope.

Support the South African Government’s efforts to provide antiretroviral therapy, thereby providing people with the means to live longer and bringing hope to families.
+++
Caritas South Africa is the official organization of the Catholic Church, created to carry out all social activities of the Church. It receives its mandate from the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC). Caritas South Africa forms part of the Department for Catholic Social Action and it is en-trusted with the task of coordination and implementation of various Caritas activities in the different Dioceses of the South Africa.

Vision and Mission​

Based on these guiding principles and the conviction to be with the poor, Caritas South Africa will strive to achieve this Vision.
Based on the Gospel values and Catholic Social Teaching, Caritas South Africa advocates peace and reconciliation, fighting all forms of poverty and discrimination, and empowering people to live with dignity.

Mission​

In order to achieve this Vision, Caritas South Africa works in line with the following Mission:

• To be committed to serve the human person in love and dignity
• To be in solidarity with the poor, Caritas South Africa will witness for justice and peace in the nation
• To have a strong commitment in promoting integration, social cohesion and mutual respect
• To take care of creation and environment

Tell us, Zao, what Gospel values does your little group of anti-Catholics do to benefit South Africans???
Aside from a single web page on the internet???

I suggest you climb out of your fundie ghetto and take a look down the street, where there are no statues.

 

[Zao is life]

So you too refuse to answer the questions in post #685, or are you just ill-equipped? Instead, you weigh in with the same stupid off topic canard of statue worship? That's been refuted every time it comes up in this forum??? Sometimes 3 times a week???

CRS' HISTORY IN SOUTH AFRICA​

In late 2000, at the invitation of the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference (SACBC), Catholic Relief Services opened an office in South Africa devoted to HIV and AIDS work. CRS South Africa works in close partnership with the SACBC and its counterparts to help reduce the impact of HIV and AIDS and promote peacebuilding across the country’s 29 dioceses.

South Africa is the second largest economy of Africa. A great divide exists, however, between the rich and poor — a daunting legacy of the country's recent past. South Africa also has 6.3 million people living with HIV, more than any other country worldwide. The epidemic is devastating poor and marginalized communities and has taken one or both parents from more than 2.4 million children. Catholic Relief Services is supporting the local Catholic Church to respond to this crisis and provide needed care and support to those most in need.

CRS supports HIV and AIDS programming that focuses on care and support for people living with and affected by HIV and AIDS, care for orphans and vulnerable children, prevention education (including lifeskill programs), stigma reduction, and voluntary testing and counseling.

The Justice & Peacebuilding projects that CRS supports focus on poverty alleviation, civic participation, conflict resolution, peacemaking, and advocacy.

A third programming area in which CRS was supporting the local partners is that of refugees and migrants, particularly in the light of the continued migration of migrants and refugees from Zimbabwe and xenophobic attacks on migrants.

Through its Church partners, CRS provides funding and support for projects and programs which:

• Respond to HIV and AIDS in the poorest, most remote areas of the country by providing home-based and community-based care for adults and children infected and affected by the disease.
• Offer lifeskills education to children and youth through Catholic schools as well as community-based programs in poverty-stricken rural areas that will help them in making decisions about their lives, and assist in protecting themselves from contracting the virus.
• Support the local Church to advocate for policies and programs that will decrease people’s vulnerability to HIV and AIDS and help families and communities to cope.

Support the South African Government’s efforts to provide antiretroviral therapy, thereby providing people with the means to live longer and bringing hope to families.
+++
Caritas South Africa is the official organization of the Catholic Church, created to carry out all social activities of the Church. It receives its mandate from the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC). Caritas South Africa forms part of the Department for Catholic Social Action and it is en-trusted with the task of coordination and implementation of various Caritas activities in the different Dioceses of the South Africa.

Vision and Mission​

Based on these guiding principles and the conviction to be with the poor, Caritas South Africa will strive to achieve this Vision.
Based on the Gospel values and Catholic Social Teaching, Caritas South Africa advocates peace and reconciliation, fighting all forms of poverty and discrimination, and empowering people to live with dignity.

Mission​

In order to achieve this Vision, Caritas South Africa works in line with the following Mission:

• To be committed to serve the human person in love and dignity
• To be in solidarity with the poor, Caritas South Africa will witness for justice and peace in the nation
• To have a strong commitment in promoting integration, social cohesion and mutual respect
• To take care of creation and environment

Tell us, Zao, what Gospel values does your little group of anti-Catholics do to benefit South Africans???
Aside from a single web page on the internet???

I suggest you climb out of your fundie ghetto and take a look down the street, where there are no statues.

You're a joke. Your ignorance is unbelievable.

There are many groups aside from Catholics in South Africa doing whatever it takes and whatever can be done to help the communities in this country. Many. Most do it silently, unlike your church blowing their own trumpets, as you have just done above.

Your church has a historical cooperation with the communist and terrorist-supporting political party running (ruining) the country that has impoverished the people they claim to be helping. The South African government is notorious for pocketing MOST of any money that gets donated for the needs of the community, and your church knows it - because everybody does. It's come out in the media over and over and over and too many times to count just how much money the South African ANC government has stolen that was donated for and should have been used for projects to benefit the needy and the communities around the country.

The amounts that have been stolen are staggering. Absolutely staggering. And you are proud of your church's historic cooperation with such a government?

Not too many years ago in Rwanda the Roman Catholic Church did a lot to help the Genocide that occurred there.

Pope Francis asks for forgiveness for church's role in Rwanda genocide

Pontiff acknowledges some Catholic priests and nuns ‘succumbed to hatred and violence’ by taking part in 1994 killings

www.theguardian.com

"Whichever way the wind blows" as the saying goes.

Do you think they would be any different in South Africa?

QUOTE
"At times, the church shares, out of interest, the government's perspective, as was the case in Rwanda in 1994. On the other hand, the church must be discreet when, for example, it represents a tolerated minority in a Muslim country." UNQUOTE

Any way the wind blows ..

Read more at: Why does the Catholic Church in Africa get so involved in politics?"

How has the Catholic Church historically fought against the corrupt governments in Africa? By giving them money!!

The claims of the Roman Catholic Church in ZA (as elsewhere) are as usual, a case of self-exaltation produced by their exaggerated self-importance, and imply that they are the only people doing anything good, and that they do more than anyone else.

I don't see all these so-called benefits for the impoverished people provided by the Roman Catholic Church happening around me.

Neither do the most impoverished who are around me all the time who I help however and whenever I can . I wonder why we don't see all this assistance from the Roman Catholic Church?

I don't see Roman Catholics risking their lives in the squatter camps and poorest areas sharing the gospel. I see Catholic churches closing their doors, or opening their doors to mosques and interfaith "prayer meetings".

You're a joke. Your self-exaltation and exaggerated claims about the good works of the Roman Catholic Church is not going to get even one sinner into heaven.

Come here to South Africa and then take me with you into the poorest and most dangerous areas and then if you like you can teach me how to share the gospel with the gangsters about to kill you for stepping into their territory. The Roman Catholic Church is nowhere to be seen where it's needed, I can assure you.

But I doubt you have ever shared the gospel of Jesus Christ with anyone. I doubt you even know what the gospel is, or have even heard it yourself. You've only heard the Roman Catholic corruption of the gospel, and this 'gospel' is the only gospel you believe, and this false gospel is the only gospel you teach, as you do here in these forums.

We Risk Being Called a “Republic of Corruption,” South African Prelate Cautions

A Catholic Prelate in South Africa has bemoaned increasing reports of graft in the country, a situation he says puts one of Africa’s largest economies at a great risk of being referred to as a failed state and a “Republic of Corruption.”

www.aciafrica.org

South African Church Leaders call for collective “Ownership of the fight against corruption”

sacbc.org.za

The real good works done by Christians in Africa are always done by people who plant the seed of the true and only gospel of God. They water, and God causes it to grow.

None of them are Roman Catholics. The Catholics don't even know the real and only true gospel of God.

 

[Zao is life]

That’s because you reject Christ.

God my Father, God the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus Christ knows that I both believe Jesus and believe in Jesus, and do not reject Christ.

And only God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus Christ knows whether my claim above is true or false.

And you are not God, you blasphemer.

Therefore you have once again exposed both yourself and the Roman Catholic Church to be guilty of blasphemy of the worst kind, claiming that the one who believes God must also believe in the Roman Catholic Church's "authority" (even in your authority to teach false doctrine and practice their idol-worship, etc) - though your organization is not God, since NONE OF YOU know who rejects Christ, and who does not, because only God knows.

This is proved by the fact that you are not God, you blasphemer, and are therefore completely unable to know whether or not I reject Christ, or whether or not Christ rejects me because I reject your church and it's false claim of authority.​

 

[Phoneman777]

HOGWASH.
If YOU actually believe that God’s Church did NOT grow from the acorn to the mighty OAK – then you have a very DIM view of Christ.

His Church started out with a HANDFUL of people whom He commanded to “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matt. 28:19-20).

Jesus never told His Apostles that they now knew everything they need to know. When the issue of the Judaizers cam about in Acts 15, they needed to discuss the matter and come to a conclusion.

He told these that the Holy Spirit would guide them to ALL truth (John 16:12-15) and that whatever they bind or loose on earth would be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15).

He also told them what whoever listens to or rejects THEM listens to or rejects HIM and the ONE who sent Him. THAT’S why there are so many fractured and perpetually-splintering faction among Protestantism.

Christ’s Church should be anything BUT identical to when it started.
It grew op and changed the world . . .

And, you wrote all that to prove absolutely nothing.

The primitive church kept the 2nd commandment, the 4th commandment, the 8th commandment, etc., but the catholic church through her catechisms and various papal encyclicals DISREGARDS these commandments and teaches contrary to them, thereby DISQUALIFYING the catholic church as God's "remnant" church, seeing that a "remnant" of a thing IDENTICALLY MATCHES the thing that was there in the beginning.

Abandon the Whore of Babylon and join God's true remnant church "which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony and the faith of Jesus Christ." - Revelation 12:17 KJV; Revelation 14:12 KJV

 

[Phoneman777]

EVERY ONE of us, being bon in sin – have ALL been a “satan” to Christ at one point of another.

Satan simply means “Adversary”. It’s NOT the name of the Devil, Einstein . .

That's why God can't build His church upon us - He builds it upon the unquestionable, infallible authority of God's Word which says "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God".

The Bible is clear that Jesus - not Peter - is the foundation upon which the church is built, Jesus being both the foundation and the chief cornerstone - while Peter was merely a racist, vacillating, crowd pleasing coward who Paul had to publicly smack down in front of everyone.

By that, the intrepid Godly man and evangelist Paul helped Peter go on to become one of the most prominent apostles ever, second only to the great apostle Paul, the "apostle to the Gentiles" and timeless hero to the Christian world.

 

[RedFan]

There's a major flaw in that theory -
Corinth already HAD a Bishop.

Why would they geel the need to appeal to the Bishop of Rome?
Because of his ultimate Authority.

Thatnk you for being honest.

Clement's letter suggests that their bishop had been deposed, or at least that there was a movement afoot to do so. Look at Chapter 44. Indeed, that apparently was the purpose of the consultation request by some in the Corinthian congregation, which sparked Clement's letter.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see anywhere in the letter an indication that Clement was wielding any ultimate authority -- or any authority at all -- in his response. And I hesitate to infer that Clement had such ultimate authority simply from the apparent existence of a now-lost-to-us missive from Corinth about their bishop being deposed.

 

[Marymog]

I beg to differ. In the following you defended Sunday sacredness by quoting the following scripture from 2 Thess. 2:15

... In order to somehow prove that Sunday was not a man-made tradition inspired doctrine, but apostolic and scriptural. Now follow what I'm saying. There is no written evidence in any epistle whereby any sparkle dated to change the 4th commandment. Therefore, you are inferring that Paul did so by word of mouth.

"Beg to differ" all you want, it doesn't change the truth.

YOU suggested that I was saying that PAUL "changed the 4th Commandment by word of mouth" when I quoted 2 Thess. 2:15!

1. Paul didn't begin his ministry until 3 years AFTER the death of Christ. Christians were practicing Sunday sacredness for 3 years BEFORE Paul came on scene. But you already know that because it's in Scripture.

2. Paul wasn't the catalyst for Sunday worship; Jesus was. The NT Christians practiced Sunday sacredness because He rose on Sunday, and they called it The Lords Day. But you already know that because it's in Scripture.

3. YOU alleged Sunday sacredness was a Church tradition and not based on Scripture. Well, I refer you back to #2 to show you that you are, once again, wrong. AND even if Sunday sacredness was a tradition started by The Church Scripture tells us to hold fast to the traditions. You are admitting it is a Church tradition AND Scripture says hold fast to Traditions but you say that you don't have to adhere to what Scripture says about traditions.

With all that said I will repeat what I said before which still holds true: The Church didn't change the Sabbath and have never said or inferred that Paul changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

I must say one thing that you are right about. Scripture at no time and no point says, "I hereby declare by the authority of God that all Christians will practice Sunday sacredness". You can continue to practice Saturday Sabbath. The rest of us will continue with Sunday Sabbath, The Lords Day, just like the Apostles did 2,000 years ago.

 

[Marymog]

Jesus called Peter "petros" which doesn't mean "rock" - it means something like "rolling pebble" pushed to an fro, and we see this later when Jesus calls Peter "Satan" for allowing Satan to sway his thinking concerning Jesus' path to Calvary.

What Jesus called "this Rock" were the words Peter had just spoken: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" - that is the Rock aka "Petra" upon which the church is built, not Peter.

Thanks Phoneman,

My research shows that your "rolling pebble" statement is not true: Petros, the greek name Petros

Strong's Greek: 4074. Πέτρος (Petros) -- "a stone" or "a boulder," Peter, one of the twelve apostles

πετρα | Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary (New Testament Greek)

A close look at the Greek word: πετρα | Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary (New Testament Greek)

www.abarim-publications.com

What is your interpretation of, "I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Mary

 

[RedFan]

What makes Pope Clement’s involvement in the Corinthian dispute more shocking is that it happened around the year 96, while the apostle John is still alive. In a colorful 1914 anti-Catholic sermon, pastor George Rutledge proclaimed to a crowd of about 1,500 people that the Catholic claims to the papacy couldn’t be true because “the apostle John lived a number of years after Peter’s death. Yet Rome declares a fellow by the name of Linus was made pope while an apostle was living!”

If I were in that crowd of 1,500 in 1914, I would have asked Rutledge: "I don't know that John was still alive in C.E. 96, much less that the Corinthian church of that year was aware of his still being alive, and where to find him. Is there any evidence of either?"

 

[Marymog]

Revelation 22

Dear Scott,

I am not concerned about your fantasy 'curse' or your twisted use of Scripture to intimidate me, for you see I have Psalm 46:5 on my side: God is within her, she will not fall;

Also, Scripture tells ME that, the Spirit of truth will guide ME into all truth (John 16).

So your fantasy that I will be cursed is just that; a fantasy. Clearly God will not allow it to happen since He will not allow me to fall. And Scott, when I tell you something you will KNOW it is the Truth since Scripture says that the Spirit will guide ME to all truth. Since the Spirit is guiding ME you better listen to ME.

Mary

 

[Augustin56]

What does the Bible say… that’s what’s important. I’m going to stick with the Bible, which is in contradiction to your religion.

Good question. What DOES the Bible say? If you have 100 people read the Bible through their own light, you get 100 different answers for some passages. Where does the buck stop? Is there a way to know, with certitude, that the interpretation of the Bible that you have is 100% correct?