Is Catholicism Christian? Are Catholics Saved?

[Ernie07]

Ernie,
You have fallen into the trap of regarding the RCC as "the Church". I have a thread on '"The Church" and churches' which shows from Scripture that "the Church" consists of the blood-bought, blood-washed children of God, whether Jews or Gentiles. That is the Body, the Bride, and the Building of Christ.

And Christ has protected His Church by (1) exposing the false teachings of the RCC and (2) giving us His Holy Word to determine what is true and what is false.

Where did the title "Pontifex Maximus" come from? Pagan Rome.

Has the bishop of Rome always held on to this title within the Catholic Church? Absolutely.



Pontifex Maximus - New World Encyclopedia

The Church came before the New Testament. Most scholars agree that the earliest epistle was written in the 50's A.D. That means the Church operated for almost 20 years without a single written word that is considered the NT today. Many say the gospels weren't written until the 50's to 70's. So how were decisions made if no one had authority to know what is true and what is false? And why did it take 100's of years to agree on the 27 books that comprise the NT? By what authority were decisions made if the NT wasn't finalized until the 4th century?

If the truth is so easy to understand and if you know enough about history to know what the early Christian Church DIDN"T believe in (Catholic teachings) then you surely must know what they did teach. So what evidence do you have (don't transpose your beliefs on them) that they actually believed as you believe?

The pope is the head of Jesus' Church representing Jesus on earth protecting truth as Jesus promised He would. I don't get into titles too much rather I look to actions.

-Ernie-

 

[Inquistor]

My question to my belove catholic brothers and sister that remain un answere is

do you believe Jesus teach to brutally kill heresy?

No, Jesus taught exactly the opposite. In fact, He saved a woman caught in adultery, by telling those who were trying to stone her, "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone" . . . and they all left, one by one, without harming her! It was THEN that Jesus said, "Go and sin no more" INSTEAD OF "Go and sin strongly," which was what Martin Luther said to do, at the very beginning of PROTESTantism!

 

[mailmandan]

No, Jesus taught exactly the opposite. In fact, He saved a woman caught in adultery, by telling those who were trying to stone her, "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone" . . . and they all left, one by one, without harming her! It was THEN that Jesus said, "Go and sin no more" INSTEAD OF "Go and sin strongly," which was what Martin Luther said to do, at the very beginning of PROTESTantism!

Of course Jesus did not say go and sin strongly. I've seen people abuse and misuse the words of Jesus "go and sin no more" in John 8:11 to teach sinless perfection as well. Jesus was telling the woman to go and leave her life of sin, namely, she had been practicing adultery. Also, Jesus cannot compromise his perfect holy standard, so of course He is not going to say, "go and just sin a little bit."

 

[Magenta]

No, Jesus taught exactly the opposite. In fact, He saved a woman caught in adultery, by telling those who were trying to stone her, "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone" . . . and they all left, one by one, without harming her! It was THEN that Jesus said, "Go and sin no more" INSTEAD OF "Go and sin strongly," which was what Martin Luther said to do, at the very beginning of PROTESTantism!

Protests against the heresies and systematic abuses of the RCC did not begin with Martin Luther.

 

[lancaster]

Is Catholicism Christian? Are Catholics Saved? Please post with scripture.

Jesus said in the 3rd chapter of John that unless we are born of the water and of the Spirit we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. An example of this is illustrated in Acts chapters 2,8,10, and 19.

 

[valiant]

Hello everyone,

I will try to respond the best I can to all of the responses directed toward me, but I wanted to make an overarching point. All of you are very consistent in your disbelief in the Catholic Church and I truly commend you for your passion as I believe it is based on your love of Jesus and His Word. Although we disagree on an awful lot I think we can agree on loving Jesus and His Word!!

What I've been reading over and over is, in essence, "the Catholic Church is wrong because of what the Bible says...per my interpretation". And that's OK. There is nothing wrong with admitting the Bible needs to be interpreted (if not why so many varying versions of truth?). When it does get wrong is when anyone claims to be interpreting the Bible correctly when they're not. You would put the Catholic Church under the category of wrong while the Catholic Church would say that you're wrong. So whose interpretation is correct...yours or the Catholic Church?

But we ARE the Catholic church. You belong to an heretical section that went astray.

Let's do a quick intellectual comparison.

If the Catholic Church is correct it has evidence of being correct from the very early Christian Church.

Which Catholic church? The true Catholic church or the heretical Roman Catholic church.??

The Romans went astray from Paul as early as Clement of Rome who shows no evidence of understanding Paul. (Nor does he show any evidence of a sole bishopric at Rome).

Justin Martyr suggests a date for the first sole bishop of Rome c.140 AD

I can name individuals in every century where I believe like they believe.

You are naive in the extreme. What you mean is that on some points you agree.

I can turn to church council documents in most every century (there weren't councils in every century) and find evidence that I believe as they believe.

LOL so can we. But most of yours are forged

J

esus has truly protected this Church in the sense of unity as there is an unbroken chain of beliefs in all centuries.

Clement of Alexandria for example? LOL If you can produce an unbroken claim of beliefs by main churches then I am a Dutchman lol

What about Augustine of Hippo? The fourth century church was riven with disagreement.

I also can name heretics in most every century...Joahannites, Hippolytus of Rome, Marcion of Pontus, Theodotus and so many others including some church leaders like Paul of Samosata and Bishop Polycrates who did not believe as I believe and were excommunicated by the Church.

Those who disagree with you? Excommunicated by whom? Everybody was excommunicated by somebody in the fourth and fifth centuries. You want to learn TRUE church history not a late RC version,

Heresies were brought out into the light and dealt with just as the truth was.

Well at least the Roman Catholic church hadn't been formed then.

If you are all correct you have no evidence of being correct in the early Christian Church.

LOL the New Testament agrees with us.

From then on the church went further and further astray. With rare exceptions they showed that they did not understand the New Testament. This eventually led to the Roman Catholic church and its gross heresies,

You can name no individuals that believed as you believe in the first 1300 years of the Church.

Paul, Peter, John, Irenaeus, Augustine of Hippo?

You can turn to no church documents or any evidence at all that shows you believing as they believe.

The New Testament? Irenaeus (mainly)? Augustine of Hippo?

Not a shred of proof that anyone...not one person believed as you believe in the first 1300 years. It's as if your belief system was just made up one day.

You are both ignorant and stupid if you believe that.

Your belief system has resulted in the opposite of what Jesus prayed for in terms of unity as there is massive disunity among non-Catholics themselves yet alone the disunity caused by the splitting away from the Catholic Church as evidenced by the multitude of Christian denominations.

Jesus prayed that we may be one in unity and purpose. And we are. The evangelical church has presented a unity and purpose
that has covered all denominations.

Are you trying to tell me that The Roman Catholic church is at unity? LOL Compare the American version with the South American version for one.

For your belief system to be true you would have to admit that there is more evidence of heresy (Catholic beliefs) than truth (your beliefs) in Jesus' Church.

But there IS.

More evidence of idolatry than true worship.

There is a huge amount of evidence of idolatry in the worldwide Roman Catholic church.

More evidence of hate than love.

That can be widely documented.

That darkness completely overshadowed the light for centuries.

Its called 'the dark ages' LOL

To say that's not the case is to be completely intellectually dishonest or simply blinded.

You stand condemned.

And to say that paints Christ and the Church He said He would build and protect in an awful light.

Christ and the medieval church have little in common,

Stop reading hate sites and balance your research.

I suggest you read sites that tell the truth. not biased RC ones.

It's honestly not that hard and won't take a long time. I won't include sites out of respect, but if you desire some Catholic sites to balance your research I can provide them.

I bet you can. But most Roman Cathollc works were not considered accurate enough for the secular university which I obtained my degree from

 

[Jackson123]

Hi Jackson,

My point is that ANY teaching is up for interpretation. That is why we have court rooms to decide who is interpreting our laws correctly. The same for the Bible. You need someone or some group to be that final interpreter and Jesus said that that final authority would be His Church. And that Church can't have multiple versions of the truth. Imagine the chaos in our society if laws would be random with multiple versions of the truth? That is why precedent is so important...for unity, consistency and common understanding. The human version can be flawed, but Jesus' version is perfect. Bottom line is that your version is not perfect, neither is mine or anyone else's. Jesus didn't protect us individually. Rather, He protected His Church.

Jesus is the cornerstone of His Church and the ultimate leader. He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom as His representative knowing He would soon be ascending. Read Isaiah 22:22 to understand the reference Jesus was making regarding keys as it is the only 2 places in the Bible where the word "keys" are used. Jesus is the master who has given authority to His servant, Peter in this case. As Master, Jesus has given Peter authority which is well within His right as Master. It is all very biblical, but just not aligned with your interpretation.

I hope this helps.

-Ernie-

Hi Ernie,

i believe you try to say only vatican have the right to interprate bible, am I correct?

And vatican proven to be wrong.

for Example murder the heretic, i know It is wrong interpretation.

before and after vatican second council there is change in doctrine, It was only catholic save, than after second council, muslim save

Lumen gentium II/16

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraha, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,

change because It was wrong/ make correction mean admit It was wrong.

so why not read bible and ask Holy Spirit what It mean.

brother, people has they own agenda. Some say this lumengentium is preparation for one world religion, not honest interpretation, there is Vested interest in this interpretation. I hope you entrust your salvation directly to the word of God in the bible.

you say It Will be chaos If every body has his own interpretation, It proven vatican interpretation make chaos by killing heretic.

and If you read jesuit oath, It is chaos maker.

I know you do not agree with brutal murder brother, me too, I suggest you read jesuit oath and judge your self.

 

[Jackson123]

No, Jesus taught exactly the opposite. In fact, He saved a woman caught in adultery, by telling those who were trying to stone her, "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone" . . . and they all left, one by one, without harming her! It was THEN that Jesus said, "Go and sin no more" INSTEAD OF "Go and sin strongly," which was what Martin Luther said to do, at the very beginning of PROTESTantism!

If Jesus not teach to brutally murder heretic why there is inquisition, where RC kill some heretic?

I hope you read jesuit oath. It proven that vatican interpretion wrong.

 

[Ernie07]

All FALSE teachings before 8th century AD had to be pre-Roman Catholic false teachings. For there was no Roman Catholic church before 8th century.



This is not true if you mean by that a Christian church under a hierarchy. There is just 1 Christian church today, formed of true believers in Christ from many denominations. But the unity is a spiritual unity not a physical unity. Churches which are bound by a hierarchy are not and never have been the 'one true catholic (universal) church'.



The Pauline churches, the Johannine churches, the Petrine churches (NOT ROME) were all members of the one true 'catholic (universal) church' which was made up of independent churches round the world. READ the epistles.

It was not until late 2nd century that they began to gather into groups around a main center driven by persecution and to combat other groupings..

By 4th century there were groups of semi-independent churches gathered in different areas, one under Alexandria, the second under Antioch, the third under Carthage, the fourth under Rome, the fifth the Celtic churches, and so on. And the churches of Alexandria and Antioch claimed preeminence to Rome.

There WAS NO central recognised authority,

If this is true that, "All FALSE teachings before 8th century AD had to be pre-Roman Catholic false teachings. For there was no Roman Catholic church before 8th century" then what did the Christian Church prior to the 8th century believe? I get it that you believe these are false teachings because they don't conform with your interpretations so who believed as you believe in the first 8 centuries? If your version of the truth is in fact the actual truth then it must have been visible by someone somewhere in the first 800 years. I'm giving you 800 years!! Our Lord said His believers would be like a light shining on a hill not to be covered by a lamp shade so where are they in the first 800 years!?

So what did these Pauline, Johannine, and Petrine churches believe? What became of them in 300 or 500 A.D. and what evidence is there for who they are and what they believed?

Are you saying that the independent churches who gathered in different areas didn't recognize the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.? Because that's what you seem to be insinuating. Please clarify. And for whatever it's worth the council of Nicaea spoke for all Christian communities so please provide evidence that this isn't the case. For instance, if any of these communities disagreed there must be a statement from them that shows their break from the Christian Church.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

We must have cross posted, so I am glad you had a look at one of these. I’m not sure what more, other than checking the Bible against Catholic doctrine and documents one can do.

First, I consider the early church to be the church up till approximately the end of the first century BC, depending upon when you peg Revelation and John’s epistles as being written. The early church were the people in DIRECT contact with the living Jesus. That is why we can accept the books these people wrote as canon. Because they knew Jesus! Of course, Paul knew him after he was risen, but apparently Jesus taught him much after his conversion, which is why a good portion of the NT was written by him. For me, Paul is the founder of the church. “This rock” always cited by Catholics, is a bit different in Greek. Something to do with petros, vs petra.

”The New Testament was originally written in the Greek, from which the Latin, English, and other versions were translated. If you study the Greek text you will find that the word Peter and the word Rock on which Christ was to build His church are two separate and distinct words, each having a different meaning. The word Peter in Greek is petros, which means "a piece of rock; a stone; a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or roll*ing." The word rock is petra, which means "a rock; a cliff; a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; solid formation; fixed; immovable; enduring."

The word petros for Peter in the Greek is in the masculine gender and the word petra for the rock is in the feminine gender. Petros and petra are two distinct words in the Greek. Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while petra is a solid, immov*able rock. In the English language the gender is not specified by the article. We say the fork, the spoon, and the knife. The three words have the same article. In the Greek, as in many of the modern languages, each noun and corresponding article is in the masculine, feminine, or neuter gender. In many cases it is an arbitrary arrangement, regardless of sex.

The article in Greek is important. If one noun is in the masculine it must have a masculine article, and if it is in the feminine it must have a feminine article. The text under consideration in the Greek shows that petros is in the masculine, and petra in the feminine, proving that they are two distinct words; and each one has a different meaning. Now the question is, on which of the two, petros or petra, did Christ establish His church? Was it on petros, a movable stone, or petra, an immovable rock?

Let us quote the text again: "I say also unto thee [to Peter], That thou art Peter [petros, masculine gender], and upon this Rock [petra, feminine gender] I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The text indicates clearly that the church of Christ is built on petra and not on Petros.

Now, who is this petra or rock on which Christ built His true church? Let the Holy Bible again give the answer. If the Bible gives the answer, we make no mistake in accepting it because the definition is authentic. "They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock [petra, in the Greek] was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4). Here we have evidence that petra refers to Christ, and not to Peter, petros. Again we quote: "Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20) "He is the Rock, His work is perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4; 2 Samuel 22:2-3) (Douay, 2 Kings 22:2-3).

If Peter is the rock on which Christ was to build His church, Peter could not be overcome and the gates of hell could not prevail against him. But the fact is that he was overcome, and the gates of hell did prevail against him. Didn't he deny his Lord? This was after Christ told him that the Rock was not to be overcome. Jesus told Peter on one occasion: "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matthew 16:23). Peter himself gives the answer as to who the Rock is. He says Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Again, speaking of Christ, he says: "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders" (Acts 4:10-11); so Christ, the Son of God, must be the rock on which God built His church.

If Jesus would have built His church on Peter, petros, He would have said: "Thou art Petros, and upon this Petros [or upon it] I will build My church," but such is not the case. He plainly says: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build My church.” Paul tells us that the petra is Christ. He also says, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Peter is never designated by petra. Thus, Peter and Paul agree that Christ is the Rock; but the pope claims the title for himself. Which testimony should we accept? "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).”

Is The Church Built on

Thank you for your post, Angela. I've addressed this topic in an earlier post and because you were traveling you may have missed it. The person I wrote it to definitely missed the point so I'll try to re-do now.

The key point to understand is that the Greek was a translation from the Aramaic that Jesus spoke. The word for Peter in Aramaic is Kepha (also means rock) and there is no masculine or feminine form. So what Jesus said to Peter is, "You are Kepha and on this kepha I will build My Church". That is not disputed by anyone. It is in the translation that those who hate the Catholic Church start to rear their ugly heads. And I am not saying you are one of those people as I'm sure you are just a victim of hate teaching.

When what Jesus said is translated to a language (like Greek) that does have a masculine and feminine form then things get interesting. Translations are done not with what was meant in mind, but rather through appropriate linguistic considerations. In Greek, the masculine of Peter is Petros and the feminine is Petra. Linguistically no one cares about what Jesus meant. However, to give Peter the masculine form Petros makes all the sense in the world. For example purposes, imagine the name Pat and if you would ever call a man Patricia. Of course not as the primary form of Pat for a man is Patrick but certainly not Patricia.

You are making your point based on a translation. That is the extent people will go to prove their point...misleading and dishonest. Again, I'm referring to those who label themselves as experts and put this garbage out there and not you. I'm OK with people saying Jesus didn't mean Peter was the rock even though He said Kepha/kepha (and I would vehemently disagree and prove it based on scripture and Church history), but to use a translation to prove a case is just wrong. And those experts should know better.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

So was Peter the apostle a priest? I’ve heard it said by at least one pope, that since the apostles were all single, therefore, all priests should be single.

Except Peter had a mother-in-law, meaning he was married. And this incident of healing his MIL occurs three times in the Bible

”The healing of the mother of Peter's wife is one of the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels, reported in Matthew 8:14–15, Mark 1:29–31, and Luke 4:38–41. In the Gospels of Mark and Luke, this episode takes place after Jesus had been preaching at the synagogue of Capernaum.”

Further, I need some research and facts on what happened in the Catatombs. Baptising people with sprinkling is recommended in the Didache, in places which do not have water, like the desert. I can certainly see that purpose. But, no justification for baptizing infants in spite of Acts 16.

Yes, Peter was a priest. I'm not sure what pope said that, and I don't know the context in which it was said, but not knowing any better I would say he would be wrong. And this is a good opportunity to show what many non-Catholics don't understand about what pope infallibility really means. When the pope makes a personal statement, not speaking on behalf of the universal Church, it is OK for Catholics to disagree. A silly example would be if the pope said he was a fan of the Chicago Bears. Being a Lions fan I would vehemently disagree with him and that would be OK. But, when the pope speaks for the universal Church (only from the seat of Peter) on matters of faith and morals I am bound to agree because of the authority Jesus gave to Him per MT 16:18.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

growth of RC doctrine (some dates are approximate)
1 . Prayers for the dead . …………-------------------……300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints …………---------…….375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D.
6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus……………. .----------------------------------------- 431 A.D.
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1…………………………… .593 A.D..
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D.
11 Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ……………………………………………… … 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D.
21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…………………………………………----------------… 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ………------------……….1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals,proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……………………………-----------------------------------……1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.

I believe I'm responding to these from a similar post where it was copy and pasted from a Catholic bashing site. I'm doing my best to respond.

-Ernie-

 

[valiant]

The Church came before the New Testament.'

And what it believed is found in the Book of Acts. And it is far far different from the Roman Catholic church which was founded 700 years later.

Most scholars agree that the earliest epistle was written in the 50's A.D.

So???? But it was written by the apostles whose early teaching is reflected in them. NOTHING like the RC church teaches,

That means the Church operated for almost 20 years without a single written word that is considered the NT today.

But they had earlier writings which contained the teaching of Christ.(Luke 1.1-4). However the Apostles didn't need to read what they themselves believed. They KNEW. And it is a far cry from the absurdities of Roman Catholicism. It is also a far cry from the painful attempts to interpret it of the early fathers.

Many say the gospels weren't written until the 50's to 70's

.

But there were many writings which contained the teaching of Jesus (Lke 1.1-4)

So how were decisions made if no one had authority to know what is true and what is false?

By the Apostles who wrote the New Testament to preserve their teaching from being manipulated ?

And why did it take 100's of years to agree on the 27 books that comprise the NT?

The main NT, the four gospels, acts, Paul's epistles and 1 John was agreed in 1st century. Almost the whole canon was agreed in 2nd century (eg anti-Marcionite prologue).

Most churches had agreed their canon before 4th century. That was merely confirmation of one or two minor books to some.

By what authority were decisions made if the NT wasn't finalized until the 4th century?

LOL by the Gospels, Acts, Paul and 1 John which were finalised, the same as today.

If the truth is so easy to understand and if you know enough about history to know what the early Christian Church DIDN"T believe in (Catholic teachings) then you surely must know what they did teach.

If by the early church you mean the NT church we have it in writing. Any 'early church' literature after that was abounding in errors. (and there was little until late 2nd century). Read it for yourself in a reliable rendering. I have

S

o what evidence do you have (don't transpose your beliefs on them) that they actually believed as you believe?

LOL I hope I don't believe what Clement, an overseer at Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch believed. They had missed the whole point of Paul's teaching. Ignatius claimed some atrocious things. And there was no one else around their time (early second century).

The pope is the head of Jesus' Church representing Jesus on earth protecting truth as Jesus promised He would

.

Which pope? LOL. They all disagreed. And the early church knew NOTHING of a supreme head. There was no sole bishop of Rome in 1st century AD. Clement of Rome didn't know of one. Paul KNEW that Peter was neither at Rome, nor had any connections with it over twenty years after Christ's death. Even the Roman Catholic historian Duchesne speaks of 'the ghost of poly episcopacy in the Roman church'.

I don't get into titles too much rather I look to actions.

well that's the popes out LOL

-Ernie-

Are you a robot? That explains everything.

 

[Ernie07]

you have quote from late councils when heresy had set in. Read the NT and the earliest church.

growth of RC doctrine (some dates are approximate)
1 . Prayers for the dead . …………-------------------……300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints …………---------…….375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D.
6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus……………. .----------------------------------------- 431 A.D.
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1…………………………… .593 A.D..
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D.
11 Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ……………………………………………… … 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D.
21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…………………………………………----------------… 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ………------------……….1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals,proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……………………………-----------------------------------……1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.

You are proving nothing except for your ability to copy and paste from an anti-Catholic site. You seem to know what the early Christian Church didn't believe (based on your own interpretation of right and wrong) so now can you provide me evidence of what the early Church did believe? Please provide a similar list of dates for who first denied the belief in the Eucharist and Mary Mother of God just using 2 examples.

Surely there must be protests by "real Christians" who would have vehemently disagreed with the doctrine of supposed idolatry. There is evidence of a heresy the Church had to deal with concerning those that felt Christians who committed sin couldn't be redeemed. Surely, saying Jesus was in the form of bread would have elicited a far greater outcry and response and would have appropriately documented. Where's the evidence of those protestations?

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

as far AS I know, God protect Jesus by asking joseph go to agypt. I give the credit for God.

I can see what you're saying and ultimately all credit goes to God. But, are you also then saying that Joseph had no ability to not listen and obey God? I'm sure God would have chosen a different route to protect Jesus if Joseph had not obeyed, but still Joseph did likely protect Jesus and Mary along the route from a human standpoint. That's all I'm saying.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

i do not understand why in this prayer say defend the church? Is that during his life or forever?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking. If you could ask one more time I'll try to respond. Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

all of the 'saved ones' will only follow Jesus' Ways, and obey what He
has taught us through His prophets and Holy Ways/Words that He
obeyed/taught us through His Love for His Father and His Father's Love for Him...

Amen!!!!!!!!

 

[Ernie07]

Seem to me catholic believe Jesus teach to kill heretic, I do not know when Jesus teach that.

Um, wow...that took a bizarre turn...why would you believe that?

 

[Ernie07]

I never read in the bible Jesus teach to sadistically kill heretic. I believe this sadistic killer is heretic themselve.

Sadistic self declare that he is heretic, No need more evident. Because I love catholic people I have to tell the truth. You still have time to ponder, why follow sadistic killer.

Hi Jackson,

I'm starting to wonder if someone has hacked your account because this talk is very different than the Jackson I've been conversing with. Why the hate all of a sudden?

Scandalous Catholics have killed for the faith. Reformers have killed for the faith. Both are horribly wrong and neither teach this as an accepted form of their faith.

I truly don't understand where you're going with this hateful talk.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

Concerning Peter he is not the first pope.

Whether Jesus meant Himself as the rock the Church will be built upon,or Peter,it does not matter,but it could be that He meant Peter,but the Church is not built upon Peter,and that is why it does not matter for the Church is built upon Christ.

There is no other foundation that can be laid but Christ,who is the chief cornerstone,and the head of the Church,so how can the Church be built upon Peter,when it is built upon Christ.

If Christ meant Himself as the rock it is built upon Christ,for all the Church is built upon Christ,and no other,so how can the Church be built upon Peter,if no other foundation can be laid but Christ,and He is the chief cornerstone of the Church,so all the Church would have to be built upon Him.

If Jesus meant Peter it mean this.Paul said that we are all built upon each other,as bricks being laid upon each other,a lively building,so if Peter is the rock that the Church will be built upon it means that Peter is the first one added to the Church,built upon Christ,and then the saints that come after are built upon Peter.

But the whole Church is built upon Christ,but Peter is the first one added to the Church,and all the rest of the saints are built upon Peter.

Christ is the chief cornerstone,and foundation,and then Peter,and then all who came after in that order,building upon each other like a building.

But the Church cannot be built upon Peter,for the Church is built upon Christ,but Peter is the first one added to the Church,so the rest of the Church would be built upon Peter.

I believe that Jesus meant that Peter is the rock that the Church shall be built upon as the first one added to the Church,but no other foundation can be laid but Christ,who is the chief cornerstone,so all the Church is built upon Christ,who is the head of the Church,and King of kings,King of the saints,and the High Priest,where the saints are priests,for Jesus has made the saints kings and priests unto God the Father.

I do not believe that Peter is the first pope,for there is only one person that is solo in our spiritual walk with God,and that is Christ,and all others who would be bishops oversee a certain amount of Churches,but do not oversee them all,for Christ oversees them all.

And also the Bible says we are complete in Christ,so what can the pope do to benefit us if we are complete in Christ,for all we need is in Him.

The pope would only be a preacher at best,maybe looking after a few Churches,and not the person they make him out to be.

Concerning the positions of the Catholic Church,pope,cardinals,archbishops,and bishops,I can see the appeal of it to be given an honorary title,and position,that would be to the liking of many people,like the Pharisees that liked the praises of men more than the praises of God,and to be seen of men that they would look at them as something special because they claimed to be with God,but that is of the flesh.

Peter was not a pope,nor does the Bible say he was,nor does the Bible say God gave us a pope.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Paul told Peter to his face that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,and is Paul a pope,or above a pope,and who is Paul to be up in Peter the pope's face,and tell him what is up,and that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,and should not Peter the pope not have fallen to such disgrace that Paul who is beneath him had to tell him that he was in error according to the truth of the Gospel,and how could Peter the pope fall to such disgrace that Paul had to correct him,that said that he is less than the least of the saints.

Peter are you going to take that from Paul getting all up in your face,and telling you that you are in error according to the truth of the Gospel,from such a low life as Paul who said he is less than the least of the saints.Yes you are going to take it Peter because you are not a pope.

But despite Peter being in error he is saved,for at the New Jerusalem,the final destination of the saints,the names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb are written in the 12 foundations of the city,and his name would not be written in that holy place unless he were saved.

Thank you for that well thought out post, Matt. Just curious, how do you interpret Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom? If Peter was simply the first to be a part of Jesus' Church then why give him keys? And if you could answer in light of Isaiah 22:22 I'd appreciate it since those are the only 2 times the words "keys" are used.

Thanks.

-Ernie-