Mystery, Babylon the Great...is this you?

[epostle1]

You'd think, then, that it would have been Peter who wrote so much of the NT. But, for some reason, Paul's letters were chosen as canon.

The canon was chosen by whom? If Paul was the boss, why did he go to Peter, James and John to verify his Gospel? Gal. 2:2

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jesus ought to know what He's talking about, don't you think?

This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

It has nothing to do with individuals deciding for themselves what the holy spirit is telling them, that's why we have 40,000 "holy spirits". The Church is a teaching Church, not a learning church.

Actually, it is my opinion that there are books that should have made the cut that were left out. I don't think the canon is infallible.

You can always make your own Bible

If I believed in the infallibility of the Church, I'd be a Catholic. However, I believe that the Church has some history she's going to have to answer for.

The gates of hell will not PREVAIL, Jesus did not promise the Church will never be attacked. (within and without)

When did the church go "off the rails"? Let's see...there were the Crusades. Yes, they started for a good reason...but they ended up being a power grab.

Modern scholarship has dismissed the popular Crusades myths. It was in the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century that the current view of the Crusades was born.
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tmadden_crusademyths_feb05.asp

There were the Inquisitions....brrr. Of course, you'll want to tell me about Protestant Inquisitions, as if spreading the guilt somehow makes the "infallible" Church less guilty.

Infallibility only deals with teaching faith and morals without error, it has nothing to do with complex medieval politics. In a nutshell, governments were executing people by the thousands because back then, heresy and treason was the same crime. The Church had to step in and give fair trials. The guilty were handed over to the state, the Church didn't execute anyone, contrary to urban legend. A corrupt bishop, to appease the English, had St. Joan of Arc executed, so there is more to the story than the bumper-sticker history that anti-Catholics promote.

There is perhaps no better trump card in the deck of anti-Catholic urban legends than "The Inquisition." The Inquisition is raised as banner proof that the Church is the intolerant, oppressive enemy of modern thought, science, and freedom.
Many people know nothing about what inquisition courts were or what purpose they served within different societies and at different periods in history. The only thing they know about the Inquisition is the caricature in Catholic urban legends. This is frequently the Catholic understanding as well.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/an-inquisition-primer
Fundamentalists writing about the Inquisition rely on books by Henry C. Lea (1825–1909) and G. G. Coulton (1858–1947). Each man got most of the facts right, and each made progress in basic research, so proper credit should not be denied them. The problem is that they did not weigh facts well, because they harbored fierce animosity toward the Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-truth-about-the-spanish-inquisition

Then there were all the corrupt popes...but let's not discuss their private lives, yes?

All ten of them. They were scoundrels. Some worse than others. But none of them taught an error. They didn't go running off inventing their own church. They stayed in the Church were sinners belong. But let's not discuss the moral deficiencies of the reformers, yes?

And all the priests who have molested children...for awhile there it got a bit messy, didn't it?

A shameful scandal. The worst crisis in Church history. This is from an American source:

We know from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice investigation into this matter that almost all of the cases of the sexual abuse of minors that took place in Catholic institutions occurred between 1965 and 1985. By contrast, in the last five years, the average number of credible accusations made against 40,000 priests is exactly 7.6. Quite frankly, there is no entity in the United States today, private or public, that can match this record..(Catholic League)

I'm willing to do the research and do a sex scandal comparison with Protestant and Catholic clergy IN THE LAST 5 YEARS. But I won't enjoy it, even though I'm confident that Protestant clergy CANNOT MATCH THE CATHOLIC RECORD.

The Catholic Church's record of aggressive and proactive protective measures is unparalleled in any organization today. Since the beginning of the abuse crisis, the Catholic Church:

• has instituted a "zero tolerance" policy in which any credibly accused priest is immediately removed from ministry. Law enforcement is also notified;
• has trained over 5 million children in giving them skills to protect them from abuse;
• has trained over 2 million adults, including 99 percent of all priests, in recognizing signs of abuse;
• has conducted over 2 million background checks, including those in the intensified screening process for aspiring seminarians and priests;
• has installed "Victim Assistance Coordinators" in every diocese, "assuring victims that they will be heard";
• has conducted annual independent audits of all dioceses to monitor compliance with the groundbreaking 2002 Charter for Protection of Children and Young People;
• has instituted in all dioceses abuse review boards – often composed of child welfare experts, child psychologists, and abuse experts – to examine any claims of abuse against priests.

No other organization (including yours) even comes close to implementing the measures the Catholic Church has taken to protect children in its care. In this regard, the Catholic Church in the 21st century is the model for other institutions to follow in the safeguarding of youth. Catholic sex abuse facts :: Fast Facts from TheMediaReport.com <not a Catholic site

Of course, the media continues to report on 50 year old scandals even after the priests are dead, and there will always be anti-Catholics who will never shut up about it. One more thing. 80% of the cases did not involve "children" as you pit it, but post-pubescent boys who were homosexual to begin with. It was constant hammering of the media that says they were all children. The whole populating is as deceived as you. Why? As to not to offend the homofascists.

The bloodshed in Ireland...but we Celts can be hot-headed, yes?
Etc, etc, etc.

I'm interested to see how you hold the Church responsible for the problems in Ireland, and give England a pass. That's not like a Celt.

And I say that no man can rule over God's Kingdom, period. Just the fact that there have been corrupt popes makes my point for me.

Infallibility (teaching without error) has NOTHING to do with impeccability (living without sinning)

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the "Way" prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Did Jesus plan the monarchical papacy? He did not plan for the sometimes corrupt, venal and worldly papacy that it has sometimes become down through history, but Jesus did plan for one man to be his royal delegate on earth. He did plan for one man to lead the others (Lk.22.32) He did plan for one man to take up the spiritual and temporal leadership of his church. This is shown not only through the famous passage from Matthew 16, but also in the final chapter of John’s gospel where Jesus the Good Shepherd hands his pastoral role over to Peter.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/authority-of-the-first-popes

Or the King of the Jews sits on His throne.
The Jews thought to throw Him off of His throne once before, remember?

This has nothing to do with Peter's primacy, which you cannot disprove. The best you can do is take shots at apostolic succession.

1Sa 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

To this day, they continue to look for a human Messiah.

And, evidently, so do some Christians...

No one claims the papacy to be messianic.

Didn't Jesus say that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church?
Notice....HIS church. HE is the Head of it.

The headship of Christ over the Church is not contested. Peter's appointment as leader of the Apostles is glaring in scripture and he and his successors are not competitors. The role of Jesus as head of the church in heaven and the role of the Peter/pope as head of the church on earth is related but IS NOT THE SAME. A presidential ambassador is not the president. It is a spirit of rebellion that makes this simple concept impossible for you to comprehend.

Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

We have a High Priest...

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

This has nothing to do with Peter's primacy.

Kepha, you are my brother in Christ, and I do love you.
I just cannot agree with you on these things...


I don't expect you to agree, but I hope you keep an open mind.

 

[Barrd]

Kepha,
You do not explain why Paul's epistles were chosen. You realize that much of "church policy" comes from those epistles? You say that Paul verified his gospel with Peter, James, and John. Wouldn't Peter alone have been the one to decide, since he, according to the RCC, was the pope, at the time?

Here is the verse I quoted:
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

How do you get from that the idea that the church ought to decide such moral issues as in vitro fertilization, cloning, etc? While I get that cloning people is not a great idea, is the church against cloning meat animals? Think, before you answer...there are an awful lot of hungry people in the world, and cloning could be an answer for them.
And why is in vitro fertilization forbidden? Surely it is not wrong for a barren couple to seek to have a child?

The Catholic church doesn't like to talk about those ten popes. But I think people ought to know the kind of leadership the church has had in the past:
Let's see...there was Pope Steven VI, who was Pope from 896 to 897. Fueled by his anger with Pope Formosus, his predecessor, he exhumed Formosus's rotting corpse and put "him" on trial, in the so-called "Cadaver Synod" in January, 897. From what I've read, it wasn't pretty.
Then there was Pope Benedict IX, who was Pope from 1032 to 1044, again in 1045, and finally from 1047 to 1048, the only man to have served as Pope for three discontinuous periods, and one of the most controversial Popes of all time. He had a habit of selling the papacy, only to take it back again. He also had a reputation for homosexuality and bestiality. Ugh!
Next up we have Pope Sergius III, who was Pope from 897 to 911, and has been the only pope known to have ordered the murder of another pope and the only known to have fathered an illegitimate son who later became pope; his pontificate has been described as "dismal and disgraceful."
I think my favorite is Pope John XII, who was Pope from 955 to 964. On 963, Holy Roman Emperor Otto I summoned a council, levelling charges that John had ordained a deacon in a stable, consecrated a 10-year-old boy as bishop of Todi, converted the Lateran Palace into a brothel, raped female pilgrims in St. Peter's, stolen church offerings, drank toasts to the devil, and invoked the aid of Jove, Venus, and other pagan gods when playing dice. He was deposed, but returned as pope when Otto left Rome, maiming and mutilating all who had opposed him. On 964, he was apparently beaten by the husband of a woman with which he was having an affair, dying three days later without receiving confession or the
sacraments. That guy knew how to party.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. You seem to think that these guys were fine leaders...after all, they never taught an error.

I have read about the steps the church has taken to protect children from sexual abuse, and while I congratulate them for taking these steps, I still decry the horrible abuse that made these steps necessary. And, to hear you saying that some of these kids were post-pubescent homosexuals does not make me feel a whole lot better about priests having sex with boys. Ugh! These are the men responsible for teaching the people about God? Not good, Kepha!
But perhaps if the church would allow its clergy to have normal married lives, they wouldn't be sexually frustrated in the first place, eh?
As for my organization...I belong to a small home church, Kepha. I've spoken about this elsewhere. I'm pretty sure that our kids are safe.

"Give England a pass"? It wasn't the English who were raping Irish children, Kepha. Evidently, the problem was worse in Ireland than anywhere else...and the Irish are not happy about it.

I will continue in the next post...

 

[tom55]

God certainly did not abandon us.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
What a precious promise! Jesus, Himself, will not leave us comfortless: He will come to us!
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
I trust Him.
Do you?
Where does Scripture say that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth?
If you mean 1 Tim 3:15, it speaks of the Church of God. God is the Head of it, not a man.

So once again we agree. God did not abandon us and He is the head of the church. But you seem to be saying that he did abandon us after He gave us scripture. You seem to be saying anyone can read scripture and if they have the Holy Spirit guiding them they can interpret the truth. You say YOU can't follow a man, using the Pope as an example. However, when you say YOU can read the bible and discern the truth from it you have made yourself your own Pope; a church of one. If you decide to attend the church down the street from you because you believe the pastor, John Doe, has interpreted the truth from the bible then you have just made John Doe your Pope. If you decide that Fred Phelps has discerned the truth from the bible and start following him then Fred Phelps is your Pope. If you join the Lutheran Church then their practices/doctrines and the leader of the Lutheran Church is your Pope. One way or another you are going to have a "Pope" in your life.

When you say things like this: "Actually, it is my opinion that there are books that should have made the cut that were left out. I don't think the canon is infallible." you have once again made yourself a Church of one. YOU have decided that the bible is not complete. YOU have decided that the canon is infallible. Catholics (or any church that has a hierarchal structure like the RCC) have left that authority to the Church. Catholics believe Jesus started the church when He said to Peter "on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven". That authority didn't stop with the apostles. It continues 2000 years later. God did not abandon us.

TheBarrd has created her own church. A church that the gates of hell will not prevail against and whatever she loosens or binds on earth will be loosened or bound in heaven. TheBarrd is the Pope of her own church. TheBarrd is a church of one. And if TheBarrd believes the canon is fallible then it seems to me you are saying the canon is not God breathed and YOU have to decide what is true in it and what is not true in it thus taking God out of scripture.

Respectfully....Tom

 

[Barrd]

Kepha,

Okay, let's look at the verses you posted.

Isa 35:8 And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.

The unclean shall not pass over it. So much for those corrupt popes, and those child molesting priests. 'Nuff said.

Isa 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.
Isa 54:14 In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee.

Again with the children...how much peace have those kids in Ireland enjoyed...among others.
Far from oppression? REALLY, Kepha? From terror? Honestly, Kepha...are we talking about the same church? The one with popes who complained that the screaming wasn't loud enough, like Uban VI? That church, Kepha?

Let's look at your verses from Acts:

Act 9:2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

Act 22:4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

First, we see Saul persecuting the early church...

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Act 24:22 And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way, he deferred them, and said, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter.

And after Jesus had his little talk with Him, here is Saul, now called Paul, embracing the church.

But where do you get that this is the Catholic church, specifically? Lots of other people call Christianity "The way"...it is not exclusive to Catholics. Did you know that there are Baptists who think that the first church was Baptist? And then, there is the Church of Christ, who are sure that they are the church of the New Testament...what makes your claim more valid than theirs?

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

It is strange that you would use this scripture, when it is here where Jesus tells Peter:

Luk 22:34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

And we know that ol' Peter did exactly that, while John hung tight... If either of those men deserved to be "pope" it should have been John, I would think...John, the loyal disciple.
Don't get me wrong...if I believed in "patron saints", Pete would be mine...always with his foot in his mouth. He is a lovable character...'The Big Fisherman' by Lloyd C. Douglas is one of my favorite books.

Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Ahh, the famous "keys to the kingdom" verse. Yes, Catholics love this one. So, tell me...if Peter were the undisputed holder of the keys, why did Paul stand against him?

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Another case of a corrupt pope, then? But in the end, Peter deferred to James:

Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me...

Interestingly, Peter seems to have changed his tune at that conference...

The last chapter of John. I take it you are referring to the scene where Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves Him, and Peter answers Him in the affirmative, and Jesus tells him to feed His sheep.
I always thought Jesus was allowing Peter to reaffirm his love three times as he had denied Him three times. I never saw the instruction to "feed my sheep" as being exclusive to Peter alone. Later, just before He leaves for the last time, He instructs all of His disciples to "go unto all nations"...in essence, to feed the sheep.

Whether Jesus sits on His throne or not has everything to do with Peter's primacy. If Jesus, through His Holy Spirit, is still the Head of His church, obviously, Peter is not.

Perhaps the church does not claim the papacy to be messianic, but they have put a man on God's throne, just as the Jews in Samuel's day did. And, as I recall, God did issue a warning through the mouth of Samuel as to what sort of leaders they could expect sinful men to be.
Is this where I get to say "He told you so"?

"Spirit of rebellion"? Here am I, insisting that Jesus is capable of leading His church without human help...and I am accused of rebellion?
But wisdom is justified of her children, I hear...

Jesus is our High Priest. Does this affect Peter's "primacy"? Peter was a great spokesman...but we have seen that he did not lead the church. It is my contention that Peter would be shocked indeed at what has been laid on his shoulders...

 

[Barrd]

So once again we agree. God did not abandon us and He is the head of the church. But you seem to be saying that he did abandon us after He gave us scripture. You seem to be saying anyone can read scripture and if they have the Holy Spirit guiding them they can interpret the truth. You say YOU can't follow a man, using the Pope as an example. However, when you say YOU can read the bible and discern the truth from it you have made yourself your own Pope; a church of one. If you decide to attend the church down the street from you because you believe the pastor, John Doe, has interpreted the truth from the bible then you have just made John Doe your Pope. If you decide that Fred Phelps has discerned the truth from the bible and start following him then Fred Phelps is your Pope. If you join the Lutheran Church then their practices/doctrines and the leader of the Lutheran Church is your Pope. One way or another you are going to have a "Pope" in your life.

Did you even read my post to Kepha, in which I named and described four of the worst popes in history? Supposedly, there were only ten corrupt popes...but those ten were literally monsters. There have been other popes with secret marriages and secret children. Evidently, breaking the rules doesn't make them "corrupt".
Ahh, well...it is a ridiculous rule anyway...
You say that anyone I respect is then my "pope"? That is utter nonsense. If all there is to becoming a pope is discerning the truth of the Bible, then how many popes are there right now?

When you say things like this: "Actually, it is my opinion that there are books that should have made the cut that were left out. I don't think the canon is infallible." you have once again made yourself a Church of one. YOU have decided that the bible is not complete. YOU have decided that the canon is infallible. Catholics (or any church that has a hierarchal structure like the RCC) have left that authority to the Church. Catholics believe Jesus started the church when He said to Peter "on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven". That authority didn't stop with the apostles. It continues 2000 years later. God did not abandon us.

Because I do not recognize the Catholic church's authority to decide what is and what is not scripture, does not mean that I do not believe what is written in the Bible. I do. But I still believe that there are other books that are also God-breathed, and deserve to be read.

TheBarrd has created her own church. A church that the gates of hell will not prevail against and whatever she loosens or binds on earth will be loosened or bound in heaven. TheBarrd is the Pope of her own church. TheBarrd is a church of one. And if TheBarrd believes the canon is fallible then it seems to me you are saying the canon is not God breathed and YOU have to decide what is true in it and what is not true in it thus taking God out of scripture.

Actually The Barrd belongs to a small house church that we have dubbed "Love Inc." You may say what you like about me, but please at least make it semi-true. I am not a church of one. And I never said that the books of the Bible were not God-breathed. I believe that everything written in it is true.

Including this:

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Respectfully....Tom

I kinda missed the "respectful" part.
Could you run it by me again?

 

[tom55]

Did you even read my post to Kepha, in which I named and described four of the worst popes in history? Supposedly, there were only ten corrupt popes...but those ten were literally monsters. There have been other popes with secret marriages and secret children. Evidently, breaking the rules doesn't make them "corrupt".
Ahh, well...it is a ridiculous rule anyway...
You say that anyone I respect is then my "pope"? That is utter nonsense. If all there is to becoming a pope is discerning the truth of the Bible, then how many popes are there right now?

Sounds like we agree once again! One can't argue with history. There were many corrupt Popes. However, there were/are many corrupt Protestants or leaders of other churches. Why don't you ever talk about what they did and research their atrocities? Do you have a special dislike for the Catholic Church? I don't. I think they are my Christian brothers.

I don't think I said that anyone you respect is your Pope. I said (or at least tried to say) whoever is the leader of your church is your "pope". If you are a church of one, then you are your own pope. (in my vernacular pope= the head of "a" church and Pope= head of the Catholic Church)

You ask "....how many Popes are there right now? You, TheBarrd, belong to a church called "Love Inc." Whoever is the elder or leader of your church is your 'pope'. Whoever is the leader of the local church in small town USA is their pope. The person who sits at home by themselves and discerns the truth of the bible with the help of the Holy Spirit; they are their own church and their own pope or elder or whatever title you want to use. So to answer your question of how many popes are there right now? Well, if every Christian in the world (let's just say3 billion) reads the bible on their own and interpret it on their own and set up their own truths (hence their own church), then are 3 billion popes right now. However, from what I have read, the Catholic Pope doesn't decide what Catholics believe. The Catholic Church does like they did in Acts at the Council of Jerusalem. Gather the leaders of the church together to discuss/interpret scripture. They then decide as a group what the truth is and one person (the Pope) makes the final announcement of what the group (guided by the Holy Spirit) decides the entire Church will believe. If you do this process on your own you are your own church, your own pope.

Because I do not recognize the Catholic church's authority to decide what is and what is not scripture, does not mean that I do not believe what is written in the Bible. I do. But I still believe that there are other books that are also God-breathed, and deserve to be read.

You have made my point again. You don't recognize the Catholic Churches authority/decision on what scripture is. So if no one has the authority to decide what is or what is not scripture (God breathed) then how do we know what books should be in the Bible? There is a difference between God-breathed words and the words that were written that deserve to be read. Both are written by man yet only one is called scripture. One is fallible the other is not.

The Catholic Church also believes that there are other "books" that "deserve to be read" for guidance to ascertain the fullness of truth. Like the Didache along with others. Maybe you are more Catholic than you thought.

I kinda missed the "respectful" part. Could you run it by me again?

Show me where I was disrespectful and I will apologize.

Sincerely respectfully, Tom

 

[Barrd]

Sounds like we agree once again! One can't argue with history. There were many corrupt Popes. However, there were/are many corrupt Protestants or leaders of other churches. Why don't you ever talk about what they did and research their atrocities? Do you have a special dislike for the Catholic Church? I don't. I think they are my Christian brothers.

I do not dislike the Catholic Church. Several of my best friends are Catholics. I have written at the request of Catholic friends.
I just do not agree with them, especially about the pope.
As for why I'm not talking about some other church's corrupt leaders...at the moment, we are not discussing the merits (or lack of same) of some other church.
Besides, no other church has ever had the kind of power the Catholic church once enjoyed. A corrupt Baptist, for instance, has very limited influence...
Catholics are our Christian brothers.
So are Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc, etc, etc...

I don't think I said that anyone you respect is your Pope. I said (or at least tried to say) whoever is the leader of your church is your "pope". If you are a church of one, then you are your own pope. (in my vernacular pope= the head of "a" church and Pope= head of the Catholic Church)

I'm glad you clarified that, Tom. I believe we will get on a bit better now.
As far as I am concerned, there is only one POPE (note the all-caps)...
And He is the Lord, Jesus Christ.

You ask "....how many Popes are there right now? You, TheBarrd, belong to a church called "Love Inc." Whoever is the elder or leader of your church is your 'pope'. Whoever is the leader of the local church in small town USA is their pope. The person who sits at home by themselves and discerns the truth of the bible with the help of the Holy Spirit; they are their own church and their own pope or elder or whatever title you want to use. So to answer your question of how many popes are there right now? Well, if every Christian in the world (let's just say3 billion) reads the bible on their own and interpret it on their own and set up their own truths (hence their own church), then are 3 billion popes right now. However, from what I have read, the Catholic Pope doesn't decide what Catholics believe. The Catholic Church does like they did in Acts at the Council of Jerusalem. Gather the leaders of the church together to discuss/interpret scripture. They then decide as a group what the truth is and one person (the Pope) makes the final announcement of what the group (guided by the Holy Spirit) decides the entire Church will believe. If you do this process on your own you are your own church, your own pope.

We do not have an "elder" or a "leader" in our little church. We take turns leading our services...yes, even us girls get to teach, and to preach (gasp!), and so do our kids, even the younger ones. We have a beautiful fellowship.

You have made my point again. You don't recognize the Catholic Churches authority/decision on what scripture is. So if no one has the authority to decide what is or what is not scripture (God breathed) then how do we know what books should be in the Bible? There is a difference between God-breathed words and the words that were written that deserve to be read. Both are written by man yet only one is called scripture. One is fallible the other is not.

There are a great many other books that bore the label "scripture" and that were inspired by God...that were "God-breathed". I'm thinking of the Dead Sea scrolls, for example.
Oh, and did you know that the Catholic Bible has a few more books than the Protestant Bible? Have you ever wondered about that?
I have...

The Catholic Church also believes that there are other "books" that "deserve to be read" for guidance to ascertain the fullness of truth. Like the Didache along with others. Maybe you are more Catholic than you thought.

I'm not just talking about a good novel to relax with, although there are plenty of those worth the reading...
I'm talking about, for instance, the Book of Enoch, or the Gospel of Peter.

I was actually raised in an Episcopal church...basically Catholic without the Pope. One of my Catholic friends calls it "Catholic Lite".

Show me where I was disrespectful and I will apologize.

Let me quote you:

"TheBarrd has created her own church. A church that the gates of hell will not prevail against and whatever she loosens or binds on earth will be loosened or bound in heaven. TheBarrd is the Pope of her own church."

For one thing, repeating "The Barrd" over and over again as you did felt a bit as if you were mocking me. Of course, this is the internet, and sometimes we do misunderstand each others' intentions.
Still, this did not strike me as being very nice...

Sincerely respectfully, Tom

:unsure: I'll take your word for it, my brother... :wub:

In Christian Love,
The Barrd

 

[tom55]

Oh, and did you know that the Catholic Bible has a few more books than the Protestant Bible? Have you ever wondered about that?
I have...

Historically speaking there were generally 73 books of the bible. The Protestant Reformation reduced that down to 66 books and Martin Luther wanted several others removed but his supporters voted him down. So historically speaking there was the "Catholic" Bible FIRST and the Protestant Bible SECOND so the Protestants took the books out, not Catholics. I am not taking sides here....just pointing out a historical fact.

Let me quote you:
"TheBarrd has created her own church. A church that the gates of hell will not prevail against and whatever she loosens or binds on earth will be loosened or bound in heaven. TheBarrd is the Pope of her own church."

For one thing, repeating "The Barrd" over and over again as you did felt a bit as if you were mocking me. Of course, this is the internet, and sometimes we do misunderstand each others' intentions.
Still, this did not strike me as being very nice...
:unsure: I'll take your word for it, my brother... :wub:

Got it....I can see where you would infer that. I say TheBarrd instead of saying "you" so that I can stress that I am talking about you specifically, not Christians in general. If that makes sense? I was not trying to be mean.

 

[Barrd]

Historically speaking there were generally 73 books of the bible. The Protestant Reformation reduced that down to 66 books and Martin Luther wanted several others removed but his supporters voted him down. So historically speaking there was the "Catholic" Bible FIRST and the Protestant Bible SECOND so the Protestants took the books out, not Catholics. I am not taking sides here....just pointing out a historical fact.

I have a copy of the Catholic Bible.
What I am wondering is this...how are some books "God breathed"....but not others? Who decides this?
Curious me....I want to read them all...

Got it....I can see where you would infer that. I say TheBarrd instead of saying "you" so that I can stress that I am talking about you specifically, not Christians in general. If that makes sense? I was not trying to be mean.

I never thought of you as being a mean person, Tom. In fact, I thought we got on fairly well with each other.
You know, friends can disagree and still be friends, right?

 

[epostle1]

Kepha,

You do not explain why Paul's epistles were chosen. You realize that much of "church policy" comes from those epistles? You say that Paul verified his gospel with Peter, James, and John. Wouldn't Peter alone have been the one to decide, since he, according to the RCC, was the pope, at the time?

You didn't answer my question: "Who chose the canon?"
Being the "First Among Equals" is a title that comes closer to explaining ecclesiology. Peter, James, and John were together when Paul went to Galatia. Their authority is collaborative, not competitive. Peter was always the spokesman for all the Apostles throughout the NT. 1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. It's not a contradiction because there are multiple metaphors for "Church".


Here is the verse I quoted:
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

How do you get from that the idea that the church ought to decide such moral issues as in vitro fertilization, cloning, etc? While I get that cloning people is not a great idea, is the church against cloning meat animals?

No, humans.

Think, before you answer...there are an awful lot of hungry people in the world, and cloning could be an answer for them.

Cloning animals is expensive and to my knowledge, it hasn't been very successful. I am not talking about animals.

And why is in vitro fertilization forbidden? Surely it is not wrong for a barren couple to seek to have a child?

While the Church’s judgment concerning in-vitro fertilization treatments may appear cruel and unfair, it is not. Children are a gift, not an entitlement. The Church teaches that

Marriage does not confer upon the spouses the right to have a child, but only the right to perform those natural acts which are per se ordered to procreation. A true and proper right to a child would be contrary to the child’s dignity and nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, "the supreme gift" (58) and the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a living testimony of the mutual giving of his parents. For this reason, the child has the right, as already mentioned, to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents; and he also has the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception. (Instruction on Respect for Human Life 8)
and
Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization). . . dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children." (CCC 2377)

The Catholic church doesn't like to talk about those ten popes. But I think people ought to know the kind of leadership the church has had in the past:

Let's see...there was Pope Steven VI, who was Pope from 896 to 897. Fueled by his anger with Pope Formosus, his predecessor, he exhumed Formosus's rotting corpse and put "him" on trial, in the so-called "Cadaver Synod" in January, 897. From what I've read, it wasn't pretty.
Then there was Pope Benedict IX, who was Pope from 1032 to 1044, again in 1045, and finally from 1047 to 1048, the only man to have served as Pope for three discontinuous periods, and one of the most controversial Popes of all time. He had a habit of selling the papacy, only to take it back again. He also had a reputation for homosexuality and bestiality. Ugh!
Next up we have Pope Sergius III, who was Pope from 897 to 911, and has been the only pope known to have ordered the murder of another pope and the only known to have fathered an illegitimate son who later became pope; his pontificate has been described as "dismal and disgraceful."
I think my favorite is Pope John XII, who was Pope from 955 to 964. On 963, Holy Roman Emperor Otto I summoned a council, levelling charges that John had ordained a deacon in a stable, consecrated a 10-year-old boy as bishop of Todi, converted the Lateran Palace into a brothel, raped female pilgrims in St. Peter's, stolen church offerings, drank toasts to the devil, and invoked the aid of Jove, Venus, and other pagan gods when playing dice. He was deposed, but returned as pope when Otto left Rome, maiming and mutilating all who had opposed him. On 964, he was apparently beaten by the husband of a woman with which he was having an affair, dying three days later without receiving confession or the
sacraments. That guy knew how to party.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. You seem to think that these guys were fine leaders...after all, they never taught an error.

I said they were scoundrels, some worse than others. If they taught an error, where is it?
YOU WANT TO LEAVE PETER BECAUSE OF JUDAS??? The Church doesn't hide the facts. We are painfully aware. But 99% of the popes have been holy servants of the Gospel. If your church was 2000 years old, do you think that 100% of its leaders would all be pure and righteous at all times.? The ratio of bad apostles is 11:1. The ratio of bad popes to good popes is 256:10. or, 25:1. Mathematically, it' a vast improvement.

The moral deficiencies of the original Protestant so-called "reformers" were the MOTIVE, for their apostasy. It was not merely that they were sinners. They were sinners who apostatized BECAUSE of their sins.

If Henry VIII did not want to divorce his sacramentally married wife, marry his chippie mistress, steal Church lands and use the money to pay off his personal debts, England would still be Catholic. Henry VIII made himself 'head of the Church" in England. He had more mistresses than wives and he killed several of those. He used his 'religious authority' to ignore the teaching of Our Lord and Savior on divorce and serve his own lusts. he was also guilty of greed, egoism, cruelty, murder, extortion, and irreligion.

If Martin Luther did not suffer from severe bipolar manic-depressant illness with frank psychosis during his periods of mania, he would never have invented a purely formal definition of 'righteousness' that was evacuated of all moral content and inspired millions of others to settle for a sub-Christian notion of discipleship…
Luther lived with his paramour for 1 1/2 years before marrying her. He was complicit in the bigamy of Philip of Hess. He encouraged gangs of thugs to invade convents and rape the nuns therein.

If Zwingli the priest had not been a sex crazed rogue who seduced the young women in his congregation... and frequented prostitutes...

If Calvin had not been an egomaniac who had murderous intent towards anyone who disagreed with him and in fact executed many people under horrendous conditions. he treated the Genevans so badly that they through him out of town, but in the social chaos that ensued they invited him back so he could use his form of dictatorial repression to stabilize the social disaster the 'reform' had created. And there are the credible charges of his own private vices...
If Knox had not been part of the assassination team that murdered Cardinal Beaton...

- Cranmer was Henry's foil to destroy the Church. He had a secret wife in Germany while he pretended to be a celibate priest...

All in all they were total moral reprobates and hypocrites. Forgive me for not finding them worthy to challenge Historic Christianity, especially when their false doctrines were at the service of their personal vices.

The faults of the so-called "reformers" are central to their apostasy.

To turn around and complain that some Catholics may not have been nice is besides the point. No matter how mean some of them were, they stayed in the Church. Jesus said that he had come to save sinners, not righteous people. In light of that, claiming that Catholics were sinners therefore someone needed to found a new church(s) makes no sense! Sinners need to be in THE Church and no other.

I have read about the steps the church has taken to protect children from sexual abuse, and while I congratulate them for taking these steps, I still decry the horrible abuse that made these steps necessary. And, to hear you saying that some of these kids were post-pubescent homosexuals does not make me feel a whole lot better about priests having sex with boys. Ugh! These are the men responsible for teaching the people about God? Not good, Kepha!

Agreed. They should be castrated and thrown in jail, never to see the light of day. But no Protestant church that I am aware of has instituted the strict reforms the Catholic church has. And just as main stream media has not made the public aware of the Church's reforms, they will not make the public aware of unchanged scandal rates of Protestant clergy. I would spend time researching, but the topic drains me and I find it disgusting.

But perhaps if the church would allow its clergy to have normal married lives, they wouldn't be sexually frustrated in the first place, eh?

There is no evidence to support this theory. Sex abuse is more common with married men than celibate priests, and public school teachers have the worst sex abuse rates than anybody. But that is rarely reported.

As for my organization...I belong to a small home church, Kepha. I've spoken about this elsewhere. I'm pretty sure that our kids are safe."Give England a pass"? It wasn't the English who were raping Irish children, Kepha. Evidently, the problem was worse in Ireland than anywhere else...and the Irish are not happy about it.

It's a cultural sickness that has affected all churches, doctors, dentists, and social workers. It's not been just a Catholic problem. But again, the Church has done her laundry, and is constantly in a state of renewal, while the world is in a constant state of accusation.



I will continue in the next post...

Kepha,

Okay, let's look at the verses you posted.

Isa 35:8 And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.

The unclean shall not pass over it. So much for those corrupt popes, and those child molesting priests. 'Nuff said.

Isa 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.
Isa 54:14 In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee.

Again with the children...how much peace have those kids in Ireland enjoyed...among others.
Far from oppression? REALLY, Kepha? From terror? Honestly, Kepha...are we talking about the same church? The one with popes who complained that the screaming wasn't loud enough, like Uban VI? That church, Kepha?

I will not be goaded into posting the same horrors inflicted by Protestant ministers. Don't pretend there aren't any. Sex abuse is diabolical no matter what collar they wear and the only thing a score sheet proves is the sickness of our culture. If you want to harp about this pope or that pope,, again, I remind you, will you leave Peter because of Judas?.

Let's look at your verses from Acts:


Act 9:2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

Act 22:4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

First, we see Saul persecuting the early church...

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Act 24:22 And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way, he deferred them, and said, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter.

And after Jesus had his little talk with Him, here is Saul, now called Paul, embracing the church.

But where do you get that this is the Catholic church, specifically? Lots of other people call Christianity "The way"...it is not exclusive to Catholics. Did you know that there are Baptists who think that the first church was Baptist? And then, there is the Church of Christ, who are sure that they are the church of the New Testament...what makes your claim more valid than theirs?

"The way" is a direction, not a church name.

 

[epostle1]

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

It is strange that you would use this scripture, when it is here where Jesus tells Peter:

Luk 22:34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

And we know that ol' Peter did exactly that, while John hung tight... If either of those men deserved to be "pope" it should have been John, I would think...John, the loyal disciple.
Don't get me wrong...if I believed in "patron saints", Pete would be mine...always with his foot in his mouth. He is a lovable character...'The Big Fisherman' by Lloyd C. Douglas is one of my favorite books.

Yes, three times Peter denied Him. What a dork. And what did Jesus do to heal Peter of his guilt and shame???

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” (try some contemplation and put yourself at the scene. Peter is bawling his eyes out) Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.[d]

If Jesus is the only head of the Church without Peter as earthly representative how does Peter obey Jesus' command to "feed My lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep" if Jesus does everything from heaven without Peter??? That makes no sense.
Who are the lambs and sheep?
And what are they being fed? Symbols???

Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Ahh, the famous "keys to the kingdom" verse. Yes, Catholics love this one. So, tell me...if Peter were the undisputed holder of the keys, why did Paul stand against him?

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Another case of a corrupt pope, then?

In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter's teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile's salvation in Acts 10,11.
With this rebuke, Paul is really saying "Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!" The verse really underscores, and not diminishes the importance of Peter's leadership in the Church.

But in the end, Peter deferred to James:

Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me...

Interestingly, Peter seems to have changed his tune at that conference...

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Pope spoke, all were kept silent.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching:

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 SIMEON HATH DECLARED how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

The last chapter of John. I take it you are referring to the scene where Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves Him, and Peter answers Him in the affirmative, and Jesus tells him to feed His sheep.
I always thought Jesus was allowing Peter to reaffirm his love three times as he had denied Him three times. I never saw the instruction to "feed my sheep" as being exclusive to Peter alone. Later, just before He leaves for the last time, He instructs all of His disciples to "go unto all nations"...in essence, to feed the sheep.

Jesus' directive to "feed my sheep" was given directly and personally to Peter, just as Jesus gave Peter and only Peter the Keys of the Kingdom, not 12 sets of keys. "All authority has been given to Me, THEREFORE go and teach all nations". There are no metaphors in the Great Commission. It has nothing to do with sheep or keys, but AUTHORITY given to the Church to teach (not learn). The Commission does not apply to individuals to declare heresies, anathematize, bind and loose etc. who think they have a direct line to God without the Church Jesus founded. Individualism is unbiblical in that sense. The Great Commission is addressed TO PETER, THE APOSTLES, AND THEIR SUCCESSORS.

Whether Jesus sits on His throne or not has everything to do with Peter's primacy. If Jesus, through His Holy Spirit, is still the Head of His church, obviously, Peter is not.

You still don't get it. You create a false dichotomy between Jesus as head of the Church from heaven and Peter and his successors as head of the Church on earth. It's both/and, not either/or. Your position it unbiblical.

Perhaps the church does not claim the papacy to be messianic, but they have put a man on God's throne, just as the Jews in Samuel's day did. And, as I recall, God did issue a warning through the mouth of Samuel as to what sort of leaders they could expect sinful men to be.
Is this where I get to say "He told you so"?

The papacy is not God's throne, that's just silly. Jesus promised the Apostles they would sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel IN UNION WITH HIM.

Matt. 19: 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
"when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne" can only mean after the Ascension. This in no way means the 12 will supplant "the Son of man's throne", and why does Jesus say "Son of man"?.
A throne is a chair. A chair is an office. An office without successors is not an office. If its not an office, then it's not a chair. If it's not a chair, it's not a throne either.

"Spirit of rebellion"? Here am I, insisting that Jesus is capable of leading His church without human help...and I am accused of rebellion?
But wisdom is justified of her children, I hear...

Oh relax, the rebellion occurred 500 years ago, I don't hold it against you. I use hyperbole sometimes.

Jesus is our High Priest. Does this affect Peter's "primacy"? Peter was a great spokesman...but we have seen that he did not lead the church. It is my contention that Peter would be shocked indeed at what has been laid on his shoulders...

The function of the pope in the New Testament is similar to, though not identical with, the function of the high priest in the Old Testament. For example, the high priest offered the greatest sacrifices to God (e.g., on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement) and functioned as the earthly leader of God’s people.
While Christ is our high priest with respect to sacrifices (he offered the great sacrifice of himself; see Hebrews 7-10) and is the ultimate head of all God’s people, he has left Peter here to serve as his visible representative in his absence. The pope, as the successor of Peter, thus has a function similar to that of the high priest as the earthly head of God’s people.
Infallibility (teaching without error) has nothing to do with IMPECCABILITY (living without sinning), and I can imagine how difficult this concept can be.

 

[epostle1]

heretoeternity and brakelight are devout followers of pope Dave Hunt and pope Jackkk Chickkk. By consuming large amounts of hate from them and their ilk, they have compromised their ability to reason. They are incapable of any meaningful discussion until God frees them from bondage. I have them on my ignore list, which, I think, is the most merciful thing to do.

 

[heretoeternity]

Yes put on ignore list so you have an excuse for not replying to the questions raised by the Roman church ignore so much of the Gospels and teachings of Jesus, and Revelation 17 description of it's corrupt system..

 

[iakov]

Perhaps the Roman global (catholic) religion should demonstrate some obedience to the word of God, and in particular His commandments before your posts can be taken seriously Kepka...until then this religion is just another pagan based statue worshipping religion with no christianity involved...

And your post is yet another example of the ignorant and hateful overflow of you Catholic-bashing liars.

Your fruit of lies and hate-mongering identify you.

Don't imagine that your bigotry represents anything like real Christianity.

Jesus said that the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love your neighbors.

Catholics are your neighbors.

Try practicing loving your neighbors and you just might eventually get as good at it as you are at hating them.

If you can't do that then try just keeping you mouth shut so that the vile overflow of your heart doesn't contaminate everyone around you.

Now would be a good time to start.

Maybe with an apology for badmouthing people you don't even know.

 

[heretoeternity]

False doctrine put out by a pagan based religious institution such as the Roman church should not be tolerated by any real Christian...The church of Rome breaks the first four commandments, and calls itself "christian"..you seem like a glowing abusive example of the pagan Roman system, which over the centuries killed more people in the name of "christianity" than all the wars put together...terrible deaths for those who would not go along with it's corrupt pagan based doctrines and religion...you sound like you would be willing to have the same thing happen again....well good news for you..you will....the pope is gearing up to make the Roman church the one world religion, and anyone who does not follow it will be dealt with harshly, just like the middle ages...so you will get your way, for a time..however thankfully God is in control and not "the holy father pope"..who will receive his just reward from God....read Revelation 17 and 18 in the Bible and see what God has in store for the Roman/Babylonian religious system!

 

[iakov]

That of course is the Roman Catholic Church, the leaders of which claim divine right power to rule the whole earth both religiously and temporally.

More ignorant religious bigotry. (sigh)

I'm not feeling your "Christian" love.

 

[heretoeternity]

More ignorant religious bigotry. (sigh)

I'm not feeling your "Christian" love.

You should pray for God to show you the truth, and it will make you free, as Jesus said....you would be free from the bondage of the Babylonian based Roman religion you are now following...your abusive tone of your posts indicates and is an example of the hate and arrogance behind that false religion...

 

[Veni_Creator_Spiritus]

And your post is yet another example of the ignorant and hateful overflow of you Catholic-bashing liars.

Your fruit of lies and hate-mongering identify you.

Don't imagine that your bigotry represents anything like real Christianity.

Jesus said that the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love your neighbors.

Catholics are your neighbors.

Try practicing loving your neighbors and you just might eventually get as good at it as you are at hating them.

If you can't do that then try just keeping you mouth shut so that the vile overflow of your heart doesn't contaminate everyone around you.

Now would be a good time to start.

Maybe with an apology for badmouthing people you don't even know.

 

[heretoeternity]

One can only have pity and compassion for the blind followers of the pagan Roman religious system..you are being misled and lied to by your religous teachings...many of us have friends and family members who are poor lost souls in the pagan Roman religious system. Many break free and come out of her as God said in Revelation 18 "come out of her my people"....

 

[brakelite]

I know Kepha has blocked me, but he did ask for this. Official evidence of Catholic heresy....though the rest of you may find it interesting. Oh, and this is just one small sample from the late 19th century...there is another 1500 odd years worth yet to come if anyone's interested.


The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX
Here is a quote from the authoritative "Catholic" Encyclopedia:

For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly. (Catholic Encyclopedia article Syllabus).
Errors Concerning the Church and Her Rights.
19. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights. —Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854, etc. (Condemned as error).
20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government. —Allocution "Meminit unusquisque," Sept. 30, 1861. (Condemned as error).
21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. —Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.(Condemned as error).
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. —Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863. (Condemned as error).
23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. —Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851. (Condemned as error).
24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. —Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851. (Condemned as error).
25. Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, other temporal power has been attributed to it by the civil authority granted either explicitly or tacitly, which on that account is revocable by the civil authority whenever it thinks fit. —Ibid.
26. The Church has no innate and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing property. —Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856; Encyclical "Incredibili," Sept. 7, 1863. (Condemned as error).
27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs. —Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862. (Condemned as error).
28. It is not lawful for bishops to publish even letters Apostolic without the permission of Government. —Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
29. Favours granted by the Roman pontiff ought to be considered null, unless they have been sought for through the civil government. —Ibid. (Condemned as error).
30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derived its origin from civil law. —Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851. (Condemned as error).
31. The ecclesiastical forum or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and against the protest of the Holy See. —Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. (Condemned as error).
32. The personal immunity by which clerics are exonerated from military conscription and service in the army may be abolished without violation either of natural right or equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a society framed on the model of a liberal government. —Letter to the Bishop of Monreale "Singularis nobisque," Sept. 29, 1864. (Condemned as error).
33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions. —Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.
34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages. —Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851. (Condemned as error).
35. There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city. —"Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851. (Condemned as error).
36. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil authority can assume this principle as the basis of its acts.—"Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.
37. National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established. —Allocution "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860. (Condemned as error).
38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. —Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851. (Condemned as error).
VI. Errors About Civil Society, Considered Both in itself and in its Relation to the Church.
39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits. —Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862. (Condemned as error).
40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society. —Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849. (Condemned as error).
41. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of "exsequatur," but also that of appeal, called "appellatio ab abusu." —Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851
42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails. —Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851 (Condemned as error).
43. The secular Power has authority to rescind, declare and render null, solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest. —Allocution "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860; Allocution "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850. (Condemned as error).
44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them. —Allocutions "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850, and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862. (Condemned as error).
45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth of a Christian state are educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers. —Allocutions "Quibus luctuosissimis," Sept. 5, 1851, and "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850. (Condemned as error).
46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority. —Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15,1856.
47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. —Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, "Cum non sine," July 14, 1864. (Condemned as error).
48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life. —Ibid. (Condemned as error).
49. The civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman pontiff. —Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862. (Condemned as error).
50. Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution, and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See. —Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
51. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops. —Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852, Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
52. Government can, by its own right, alter the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission. —Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856. (Condemned as error).
53. The laws enacted for the protection of religious orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, civil Government may lend its assistance to all who desire to renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life, and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of a advowson and subject their property and revenues to the administration and pleasure of the civil power. —Allocutions "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852; "Probe memineritis," Jan. 22, 1855; "Cum saepe," July 26, 1855. (Condemned as error).
54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. —Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851. (Condemned as error).
55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. —Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. (Condemned as error).
VII. Errors Concerning Natural and Christian Ethics.
56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God. —Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862. (Condemned as error).
57. The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority. —Ibid.
58. No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure. —Ibid.
59. Right consists in the material fact. All human duties are an empty word, and all human facts have the force of right. —Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces. —Ibid.
61. The injustice of an act when successful inflicts no injury on the sanctity of right. —Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.
62. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and observed. —Allocution "Novos et ante," Sept. 28, 1860. (Condemned as error).
63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them. —Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution "Quibusque vestrum," Oct. 4, 1847; "Noscitis et Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter "Cum Catholica." (Condemned as error).
64. The violation of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of country. —Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.
VIII. Errors Concerning Christian Marriage.
65. The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament cannot be at all tolerated. —Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851. (Condemned as error).
66. The Sacrament of Marriage is only a something accessory to the contract and separate from it, and the sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone. —Ibid.
67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority. —Ibid.; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. (Condemned as error).
68. The Church has not the power of establishing diriment impediments of marriage, but such a power belongs to the civil authority by which existing impediments are to be removed. —Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
69. In the dark ages the Church began to establish diriment impediments, not by her own right, but by using a power borrowed from the State. —Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.
70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which anathematize those who dare to deny to the Church the right of establishing diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic or must be understood as referring to such borrowed power. —Ibid.
71. The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the Council of Trent, under pain of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law lays down another form, and declares that when this new form is used the marriage shall be valid.—Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicae", August, 22, 1851.
72. Boniface VIII was the first who declared that the vow of chastity taken at ordination renders marriage void. —Ibid.
73. In force of a merely civil contract there may exist between Christians a real marriage, and it is false to say either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a sacrament, or that there is no contract if the sacrament be excluded. —Ibid.; Letter to the King of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852; Allocutions "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852, "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860.
74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil tribunals. —Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9 1846; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851, "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
IX. Errors Regarding the Civil Power of the Sovereign Pontiff.
75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are divided amongst themselves about the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power. — "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851. (Condemned as error).
76. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church. —Allocutions "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850. (Condemned as error).
X. Errors Having Reference to Modern Liberalism.
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.— Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855. (Condemned as error).
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. —Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. (Condemned as error).
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. —Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856. (Condemned as error).
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.—Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861. (Condemned as error).
The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquility of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation.... The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in such a way that to God is given what is God's (Matt. 22:21), and because of God to Caesar what is Caesar's, who is great because he is smaller than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme authority and its secular rights....
. . . Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging.... Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called Masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme Pastors of the Church! But this scourge, winding through sinuous caverns . . . deceiving many with astute frauds, finally has arrived at the point where it comes forth impetuously from its hiding places and triumphs as a powerful master. Since the throng of its propagandists has grown enormously, these wicked groups think that they have already become masters of the world and that they have almost reached their pre-established goal. Having sometimes obtained what they desired, and that is power, in several countries, they boldly turn the help of powers and authorities which they have secured to trying to submit the Church of God to the most cruel servitude, to undermine the foundations on which it rests, to contaminate its splendid qualities; and, moreover, to strike it with frequent blows, to shake it, to overthrow it, and, if possible, to make it disappear completely from the earth.
Things being thus, Venerable Brothers, make every effort to defend the faithful which are entrusted to you against the insidious contagion of these sects and to save from perdition those who unfortunately have inscribed themselves in such sects. Make known and attack those who, whether suffering from, or planning, deception, are not afraid to affirm that these shady congregations aim only at the profit of society, at progress and mutual benefit. Explain to them often and impress deeply on their souls the Papal constitutions on this subject and teach, them that the Masonic associations are anathematized by them not only in Europe but also in America and wherever they may be in the whole world.
To the Archbishops and Bishops of Prussia concerning the situation of the Catholic Church faced with persecution by that Government....
But although they (the bishops resisting persecution) should be praised rather than pitied, the scorn of episcopal dignity, the violation of the liberty and the rights of the Church, the ill treatment which does not only oppress those dioceses, but also the others of the Kingdom of Prussia, demand that We, owing to the Apostolic office with which God has entrusted us in spite of Our insufficient merit, protest against laws which have produced such great evils and make one fear even greater ones; and as far as we are able to do so with the sacred authority of divine law, We vindicate for the Church the freedom which has been trodden underfoot with sacrilegious violence. That is why by this letter we intend to do Our duty by announcing openly to all those whom this matter concerns and to the whole Catholic world, that these laws are null and void because they are absolutely contrary to the divine constitution of the Church. In fact, with respect to matters which concern the holy ministry, Our Lord did not put the mighty of this century in charge, but Saint Peter, whom he entrusted not only with feeding his sheep, but also the goats; therefore no power in the world, however great it may be, can deprive of the pastoral office those whom the Holy Ghost has made Bishops in order to feed the Church of God.