Catholic Heresy (for the record)

Jackson123 · Apr 30, 2015

That is not what I said, I said Jesus did not speak out against it,
so why do you criticise others for doing the same?

You - who preaches sola scriptura - so where is your scriptural basis for criticism?

So Who are you to presume to judge the conduct of others?
Here are the rules of Christianity.
Rule 1. Look for the beam in your own eye first Jackson
Rule 2. First learn rule 1.

The reality is, your post was yet another an attempt to attack RCC, with no foundation - in the hope that a smear will stick, and that being so , you are no longer worth responding to..

Do you think Jesus agree or not with slavery brother?

If yes please explain why?

Jackson123 · Apr 30, 2015

Is Jesus agree with kidnapping?

Jesus said love your neighbor like yourself, it is not clear enough to said don't kidnap your fellow man?

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/slavetrade.htm

"Most of the Negroes shipped off from the coast of Africa are kidnapped."Dr. Alexander Falconbridge served as the surgeon aboard a number of slave ships that plied their trade between the West African coast and the Caribbean in the late 1700s. He described his experiences in a popular book published in 1788. He became active in the Anti-Slavery Society and was appointed Governor of a colony established for freed slaves on the coast of modern-day Sierra Leone. His service was brief as he died in 1788 shortly after his appointment. We join his story as he describes the process through which the native African looses his freedom:

mikeuk · Apr 30, 2015

Jackson123 said:

It matters not what I think. I do not presume to know the mind of God.

What matters is I do not judge others, and that I should certainly not criticise anyone as you do for doing (or not doing) what our Lord did (or did not do) himself.

You accuse without authority or justification, you have seemingly failed to learn basic rules. "Judge not lest ye be judged". "Look for the beam in your own eye first"

I will no longer respond to unjustified rants, and it saddens me to see you engage in them.

Jackson123 · Apr 30, 2015

mikeuk said:

what is your definition of judge brother?

It is imply by your understanding what judge is, you judge me as well.

Read your red sentence and ponder it.

your judgement is sharper than mine isn't it?

To me to show whether it inline or not with the bible is not judge. It is love to open the catholic brother and sister here how lie the catholic doctrine is.

I hope you read why I talk about slavery. One of our Catholic brother said america has history of slavery, and slavery worse than inquisition.

That why I response that Catholic has history of slavery too.

Look the beam of you eyes first is apply to you as well brother.

mikeuk · Apr 30, 2015

Jackson, there is a difference between us.

I do not attack you: I respond to your attacks on others,
I point out you have no basis for them in scripture, and also, and more importantly, the fact of the attacks you make are too much a focus on others, rather than yourself. In which you sit in judgement.

That someone seeks to criticise RCC in the reference you mention, and he too lacks the scriptural authority to do so.? What business is that of yours?

You bring judgement to yourself in attacking others. It is not of my doing.

Jackson123 said:

john17 · Apr 30, 2015

Jimbone said:

Hey brother I think there is something you could study too when in regards to this topic. The difference between “sola scriptura” and “solo scriptura”. There is a difference and what you keep using as a basis for your argument is “solo scriptura” that says “is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.” That means what you’re saying that EVERYTHING has to be in scripture. “sola scriptura” means “is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.” This just means that scripture is the FINAL authority, that just mean that any traditions or beliefs we practice has to be backed by scripture, period. So the way you keep using “Sola scriptura” is just wrong so you know, and I’ve never seen anyone claim Solo scriptura on here.

But Sola Scriptura collapses to Solo Scriptura, if what determines to be "authoritative" tradition is based on one's own personal interpretation of Scripture. So there is no *principled difference* between the two.

john17 · Apr 30, 2015

Jeff_56 said:

How can you define heresy if you do not have a Magisterium? Who holds the correct set of doctrines in the Protestant Church to set the limits to know which beliefs are heresies and which are not? Where can we find this document?

john17 · Apr 30, 2015

Jeff_56 said:

did the pope and catholics say they sorry for murdering millions of christians and jews?

Pope admits the RCC killed millions of Christians

oooOOoOOops!
Sep 24, 1998 ... During the Inquisition, many Jews were forcibly converted and so-called heretics
... part of Pope John Paul II's effort to have the world's 1 billion
50 Million dead in Inquisition [Archive] - BaptistBoard.com

50 Million dead in Inquisition [Archive] - BaptistBoard.com

I have never studied the Inquisition by the Roman Catholic Church and ..... In the
St Bartholomew's day massacre - the RCC killed how many in ...
[PDF] The Beasts of Daniel and Revelation - Christianity beliefs

christianitybeliefs.org/.../The-Beast-of-Daniel-and-Revelation-060513.pdf‎

It is terrible and has shed much blood in conquering the world and killing
Christians. - It's different ... The RCC killed from 50-100 million people, many who
were.
Beasts Of Daniel And Revelation – Little Horn Of Daniel – Antichrist

christianitybeliefs.org/end-times.../the-beasts-of-daniel-and-revelation/‎
It is terrible and has shed much blood in conquering the world and killing
Christians. ... The RCC killed from 50-100 million people, many who were
Christians, ...
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican - Topix

www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TV910R5AL0932P9RK/p24462‎
Jan 17, 2014 ... "How many people has God killed because they didn't listen to the words ... and
on the other side of the coin, how many has the rcc killed in the ...

[TABLE="class: _rOc"]
[TR]
[TD="class: _sOc"]Drawing the line where God draws it[/TD]
[TD="class: _v9b"][/TD]
[TD="class: _v9b"]May 28, 2013[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: _sOc"]Can we trust CoC to have truth?[/TD]
[TD="class: _v9b"][/TD]
[TD="class: _v9b"]Mar 27, 2013[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: _sOc"]Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision[/TD]
[TD="class: _v9b"][/TD]
[TD="class: _v9b"]Jan 22, 2008[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
how come the RCC killed Joan of Arc, but then found her innocent ...

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid...‎

Jun 24, 2010 ... If the RCC was from God, then she would have been found innocent right? So isn
't that ... How come the RCC killed Joan of Arc, but then found her innocent,
AFTER they killed her? ... It was not till MUCH later they say oops.
All comments on Catholic Heresy - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?lc=CK...v...‎

My Bible is covert with blood from the millions of martyrs the RCC killed. How
many ...... "It has often been charged... that Catholicism is overlaid with many
pagan ...
All comments on The Reformation-Martin Luther - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=EFqWnEpZvjs&lc...‎

True luther hated jews, but how many did he actually kill? Now how many jews
has the rcc killed? A few were killed in the spanish inquesition i hear.
Stop The Pirates: The Vatican and your Birth Certificate.

stopthepirates.blogspot.com/.../the-vatican-and-your-birth-certificate.html‎

The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of tyranny and oppression. ... The
Inquisition began because many people were waking up to the tyranny and
oppression of ... The RCC killed these people due to their need to control
humanity.
Knights Of Columbus CEO Calls For 'The Next Great Awakening' In ...

cnsnews.com/.../knights-columbus-ceo-calls-next-great-awakening-address-national-catholic‎

Apr 19, 2012 ... He warned that when this happens, a nation “has no memory of its own self. ....
On that occasion many of us again recalled his words at the beginning of .... I
have problems with the undocumented assertion that the RCC killed ...
mystery, babylon the great - Bible Baptist Church

www.biblebaptistelmont.org/BBC/.../MYSTERY_BABYLON.html‎

Therefore, the "mother church" has many little harlot churches and religions ... Sir
Robert Anderson, of Scotland Yard, estimated that the RCC killed 50,000 ...
Catholic Heresy (for the record) - Page 223 - Christian Chat Rooms ...

christianchat.com/bible.../41911-catholic-heresy-record-223.html‎

Many a Catholic I have spoken to get around this by saying the thief ..... the rcc
killed many more Jews and gentiles than the 'protected', and
There are no angels., page 3 - Above Top Secret

There are no angels., page 3

Really? You want to start adding up numbers to see who has killed more people
through ... But all too many actively support the bloodshed. .... "...the RCC killed
and tortured over 50 million bible believing Christians during the ...
Catholic Answers Forums - The 7 missing books of the protestant bible

forums.catholic.com/printthread.php?t=490358&pp=15&page...‎
Jul 13, 2012 ... (The RCC killed anyone who disagreed with them, which delayed the
Reformation, because many people (including Luther!!) did not want to break off
of the ... The Catholic Bible has 7 more books than the Protestant Bible.
Pope and the New World Order - Grace Centered Magazine

www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/end-times.../40/?...‎

Dec 31, 2010 ... Well, one would have to ask why you are pimping out Catholic ... Nothing really
bad about it, and not that many people got killed. ... Try telling that to the
Albigensians and the Huguenots that the RCC killed by the thousands.

You are reading too much anti-Catholic propaganda with false historical claims. This is what Satan wants, to destroy the image of Christ's Church. That is why the Catholic Church is the most hated Church, just the way Christ was hated when He was on earth. So before believing this false historical claims, study them and hear what other historians take on these events. It doesn't help when you posts these claims from a baptist website since they will benefit from the destruction of the Catholic Church (Satan tries to break it for 2000 years to no avail!)

Sure, there were bad popes, but there were too few to count in our fingers. But they did not invalidate the Catholic Church any more than invalidating the judgement of Jesus by selecting Judas as one of his apostles. Despite there were bad popes, they did not teach heresy and no Catholic dogma has been overturned. Unlike the Protestant churches today that are too far away from the beliefs of the earliest Protestant reformers.

This unbroken Apostolic Succession from Pope St. Peter down to Pope Francis and the fact that no Pope overturned a previously defined dogma is one of the *motives of credibility* of the Catholic Church (in addition to the very long list of Catholic saints who lives a very holy life) and no institution, empire or kingdom (where is the Roman empire, the Ottaman empire, etc) has existed today for this long.

john17 · Apr 30, 2015

PeterJens said:

That is also the problem of the Catholic Church. Some people just go through the motions, without internalizing what is happening.

The Catholic Church also laments about this. But just because some people are just following the motions does not mean that this ceremonies do not move those serious in their faith or love of God. Abuse does not nullify the act. Also, do not judge Catholicism by those people not exercising their faith well. Just as we cannot judge the efficacy of a medicine from the people who don't seriously take the medicine.

Rather, look at all the saints of the Catholic Church and how they live their lives to the point of giving up their lives for Jesus. When I study the lives of these saints, I become more in love with Jesus, in that it gives me strength to turn away from sins since these people made it. I'm glad the Catholic Church canonizes saints for us to have a role model in living the Christian life.

john17 · Apr 30, 2015

To all Sola Scripturaist,

Consider the following two bible verses:

1. “I do not permit a woman to teach, nor have authority over a man.” (1 Timothy 2.12)
2. “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3.28)

If you are a Complementarian Passage #1 regulates your understanding of Passage #2 and you won't allow female pastors or priests. If you are an Egalitarian Passage #2 regulates how you understand Passage #1 and hence you will allow female pastors or priests.

But there is no way to resolve any debate between the two camps since these are meta-biblical choices, i.e. the choice is arbitrary and outside of scripture and just depends on the arbitrary choice of the reader.

How can Bible-alone believers know that their choice of the regulating text is the correct one?

valiant · Apr 30, 2015

mikeuk said:

so what does that show? It simply shows that Peter was the first to be called to be an Apostle. 'And passing along by the Sea of Galilee he saw Simon, and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea,---- and going on a little further he saw James, the son of Zebedee and John his brother ---' (Mark 1.16-19). Peter was called first so he regularly appears first. It does not give him pre-eminence. John had the favoured place at the Last Supper. Furthermore the disciples were still arguing about who was the greatest before and at the Last Supper. So they clearly did not see Peter as in a position of leadership. He was certainly prominent. He was that type, regularly pushing himself forward. But that is all we can say. In Jerusalem James was named first (Galatians 2.9). And it was James who controlled the 'council' in Acts 15 and did the summing up. So had James superseded Peter?

But the only record that we have is in Greek and it differentiates petros from petra. Why did it not use petros and petros which was equally possible? The Greek specifically distinguishes between the two. So you are making yourself superior to the inspired writer. The Greek speaking fathers all recognised this and saw the rock as what Peter had said or Christ Himself. Is your Greek superior to theirs?

Furthermore 'you are Peter does not mean 'I will call you Peter'. He had given Peter his name before He had called him (John 1.42). Jesus was simply playing with words. You are petros and upon THIS petra (what you have just said) I will build my church. This is acknowledged by all the Greek fathers.

Indeed the fact that Mark and Luke ignore this wordplay and lay all the stress on Peter's confession of Jesus confirms it. All the stress is on Peter's confession, 'you are the Christ, the Son of the living God'. THAT was the Rock.

It probably was as they were in a Greek speaking part of the world, and Jesus and His disciples were all bi-lingual. But it is not important. The only record we have is of the Greek text, the inspired Scripture. And that inspired Scripture made the distinction. IF it was spoken in Aramaic we do not know what exact words were used.

Peter spoke both Greek and Aramaic. How do you think he evangelised the Greek world? Both Greek and Aramaic were working languages in Galilee. But the important thing is that the inspired text is in GREEK.

but they are distinguished by the inspired author not by 'them'. He could have used petros in both cases. Both were good Greek words in regular use. He DELIBERATELY distinguished. And the Greek speaking fathers acknowledged the distinction.

But it does say 'THIS' not YOU (referring to the declaration). why did he not say 'upon YOU as Peter? and use petros?

you overlook that Matthew has already used petra of a rock, and there it mean the words of Jesus (Matt 7.25). The distinction drew attention to this. Elsewhere when petra is used it always refers to Jesus.

Or possibly taking Scripture seriously.

well you have never proved that, but even if they did it is irrelevant. They were not native Greek speakers. The Greek speaking early fathers all made the distinction including Augustine of Hippo.

It strange how you keep stressing the early fathers, but when they disagree with you, you are totally silent.

Do you really think that the inspired writer was that stupid? Why deliberately make a clear statement ambiguous? He made the distinction because he recognised the distinction.

Perfectly true.

In a sense Jesus IS the Davidic king. We can agree at last. But don't get excited, it won't last. I am not a heretic.

The keys of the kingly rule of Heaven are said by Jesus to refer to binding and loosing (Matt 16.16-17). The whole audience of Jews (the Apostles) would therefore relate it to the keys of knowledge mentioned by Luke which were given to Scribes when they graduated SO THAT THEY COULD BIND AND LOOSE.

But Eliakim had placed on his shoulder the key (singular) of the house of David (not of the kingdom). Why should anyone link Jesus' words back to such an obscure statement when the keys (plural) clearly referred to a current Jewish custom?

I would not say obsessive. But to Jews in the first century keys which enabled binding and loosing only indicated one thing. The keys given to Rabbis when they graduated so that they could bind and loose. And all the disciples were given the power to bind and loose. So all were given keys.

As the early father Chrysostom said, the keys were also held by John:
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven...(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).

And a recognised Roman Catholic historian says:

The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as—what is obvious to any one at first sight—they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74).

It is nothing of the kind. There was only ONE key of the house of David. And it was not 'given to him' it was placed on his shoulder. There is absolutely no reason to connect Jesus' words with that apart from Roman Catholic prejudice as they try to justify an erroneous doctrine.

Even the early fathers and RC historians do not agree with you

Yes it was handed down by the Apostles who had been with Jesus to the churches that they founded so that they would know the facts about the life and teaching of Jesus. This tradition was then recorded in the Gospels. The early church demonstrated that they only saw these as reliable tradition by excluding all other 'gospels'

no, they did not appoint 'a succession of bishops'. They appointed overseers (episkopoi) to oversee each church. No church had a single overseer. Then as one retired or died another would be appointed. They were practical appointments similar to the elders in the synagogue. At this stage ther was not thought of a single bishop.

It was the Holy Spirit Who empowered whom He chose, as He does today in free churches. They were not seen as 'clergy'. That distinction came much later.

which they did do to such an extent that that tradition was finally recorded in the New Testament. Once the basic New Testament Scriptures were complete by the end of the first century there was no further need for 'the tradition' apart from the New Testament, as the early church recognised. The early fathers all made the Scriptures their court of appeal.

Yes the Apostolic church based on the teachings of the Apostles, which had to be the arbiter until the New Testament recorded that truth. It could hardly mean that all the independent churches around the world were the pillar of the truth for ever. That would have been ridiculous. Nor did it refer to Antioch, Alexandria or Rome. Timothy was not in any of those places. It was the worldwide church as supervised by the Apostles. That was why God ensured that the New Testament was written before the Apostles died.

mikeuk · Apr 30, 2015

valiant said:

Galahad. To whom I addressed my answer.

Please consider the complete flaw in those the reasoning of the minority view of valiant.
Few protestants even agree with him, let alone others.

When Jesus said
Simon.......thou art rock , and upon this rock I will build my church.
Or if you like
Simon.......thou art peter , and upon this peter I will build my church.

For no better reason than they would rather scripture did not say what it obviously does, such as valiant split a hair over the fact that Rock (or peter) whichever you choose is declined slightly differently Petra vs Petros in greek, where no such distinction exists in aramaic at all, and in Greek it is used for effect to imply "large"

But even in Greek what they say does not make ANY sense in ordinary grammar to anyone but them!

You simply cannot in the ordinary rules of idiom of ANY language, change the subject of a sentence, without alerting the reader to the change using prepositions such as "other" or "but" here is what I mean, and certainly not if you want to be understood.

If I say to you.... "here is a car, and this big car I sell to you for one thousand dollars" you would find yourself in court and lose, if you tried to give them any other car the first.

So if you mean "another car" you have to say, "here is car, but this other car I sell for one thousand dollars" you make it clear, but YOU WOULD STILL NEVER SAY IT IN ANY LANGUAGE! Why would you refer to the first car, if the point you were making was about the second? Nobody does that. You would simply say "this car I sell for one thousand dollars" , not referring to any other.

So when they interpret it as " Simon, thou art rock but on this other rock I build my church" you can see they are simply manipulating words to try to avoid the blindingly obvious.

SO what they are saying does not exist in Aramaic, and is not even viable in Greek without other words./

They will also try to blind you saying it is "peters confession" , faith , whatever that is the Rock.
But that is not what it says. It says "thou art". So it is mindless nonsense.

Even CALVIN AND LUTHER on which most reformation doctrine is based, did not see it that way. They thought Peter was Rock.

Calvin for example, says it highlights that Peter was exemplary, exceptional, but tries to pretend it applies to all the apostles instead. WHich is still stretching the truth, but not nearly as badly as valiant.

Valiants postion is based on confirmation bias nothing else. He sees what he wants to see. He would not last five minutes in science, where you go where the evidence leads, not where you would rather it led.

So Galahad. There is the Rock. And that is why we hold it so. Of all the attempts at trying to make it say something else, Valiant and others like him, their position is quite the least sensible of all. Not that that will ever stop him. His rudeness exceeds his logic by a very large factor.

It is why I have stopped conversing with him.

So there it is Galahad. I respond only because you are polite and courteous, the rest can take a hike.

KenAllan · Apr 30, 2015

I have a question for Mikeuk, Mwc68, John17, and all the Catholics here.

“In what or in whom will you trust for your eternal destiny?”

Are you trusting in the teachings of the Catholic Church or Jesus and His word?

John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

John 17:17
17 Sanctify them by Your TRUTH. Your word is TRUTH.

John 18:37
37 Pilate therefore said to Him, "Are You a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the TRUTH. Everyone who is of the TRUTH hears My voice."

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Who or what are you putting your trust in?

mikeuk · Apr 30, 2015

Why do you have to ask Ken. If you had ever been a catholic in more than name you would KNOW it is in the catechism.

1817 Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. The Holy Spirit . . . he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life

It is shameful you have had the temerity to criticise catholicism whilst still knowing nothing about it.

KenAllan said:

valiant · Apr 30, 2015

john17 said:

Sola scriptura is based on the fact that the main essential doctrines are clear in Scripture and do not need anyone authoritative to pronounce on them. Only a fool (or a deceiver) reading Romans could not understand that in order to be a Christian we must be accounted as righteous by faith without works. God speaks through His word and makes clear to His people what He wants them to understand. Those who are spiritually blind are left in their blindness unless God decides to step in. We need no Big Daddy Pope to tell us what to believe. God tells us. You Roman Catholics limit God.

But on the whole Scripture is a living book designed to speak to our hearts in every day situations and to guide us through life as we read it in the presence of God with the guidance of His Holy Spirit.

valiant · Apr 30, 2015

mikeuk said:

Why do you have to ask Ken. If you had ever been a catholic in more than name you would KNOW it is in the catechism.

1817 Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. The Holy Spirit . . . he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life

It is shameful you have had the temerity to criticise catholicism whilst still knowing nothing about it.

you missed the bit out about praying to Mary because we believe that Jesus is to busy to hear us LOL

valiant · Apr 30, 2015

mikeuk said:

Here is a list of some of the 'few Protestants' who agree with me:

Augustine of Hippo

AS YOU WILL SEE AUGUSTINE ON MATURE THOUGHT CHANGED HIS MIND AND BELIEVED VALIANT LOL

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. (Retractations 20.1).

And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Augustine of Hippo Sermon 229).

John Chrysostom

‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd...For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (Philip Schaff,Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).

He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it...(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Chrysostom, On Matthew, Homily 82.3, p. 494).

So is it the case that Peter is now true, or that Christ is true in Peter? When the Lord Jesus Christ wished, he left Peter to himself, and Peter was found to be a man; and when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, he filled Peter, and Peter was found to be true. The Rock had made Rocky Peter true, for the Rock was Christ (John Rotelle, The Works of Saint Augustine (Brooklyn: New City, 1992),Sermons, Sermon 147.3, p. 449).

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven...(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).

Ambrose

Jesus said to them: Who do men say that I am? Simon Peter answering said, The Christ of God (Lk. ix.20). If it is enough for Paul ‘to know nothing but Christ Jesus and Him crucified,’ (1 Cor. ii.2), what more is to be desired by me than to know Christ? For in this one name is the expression of His Divinity and Incarnation, and faith in His Passion. And accordingly though the other apostles knew, yet Peter answers before the rest, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of God’...Believe, therefore, as Peter believed, that thou also mayest be blessed, and that thou also mayest deserve to hear, ‘Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven’...Peter therefore did not wait for the opinion of the people, but produced his own, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God’: Who ever is, began not to be, nor ceases to be. Great is the grace of Christ, who has imparted almost all His own names to His disciples. ‘I am,’ said He, ‘the light of the world,’ and yet with that very name in which He glories, He favored His disciples, saying, ‘Ye are the light of the world.’ ‘I am the living bread’; and ‘we all are one bread’ (1 Cor. x.17)...Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him (Commentary in Luke VI.98, CSEL 32.4).

Theodoret of Cyr

Let no one then foolishly suppose that the Christ is any other than the only begotten Son. Let us not imagine ourselves wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of the great Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for ‘On this rock,’ He says, ‘I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.’ Wherefore too the wise Paul, most excellent master builder of the churches, fixed no other foundation than this. ‘I,’ he says, ‘as a wise master builder have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ How then can they think of any other foundation, when they are bidden not to fix a foundation, but to build on that which is laid? The divine writer recognises Christ as the foundation, and glories in this title (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Volume III, Theodoret, Epistle 146, To John the Economus, p. 318).

Cyril of Alexandria

The Church is unshaken, and ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ according to the voice of the Saviour, for it has Him for a foundation (Commentary on Zacharias. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 143).

Hilary of Poitiers

A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only, and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles...whence I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar–Jona confessed to Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?...And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built...that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God.
This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven...The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father’s revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth....Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), On The Trinity, Book VI.36,37; Book II.23; Book VI.20

ALL PROTESTANTS TO A MAN LOL

valiant · Apr 30, 2015

mikeuk said:

if YOU HAVE ANY INTELLIGENCE YOU WILL KNOW THAT SLAVERY WS NOT A PROBLEM IN GALILEE AMONG THE PEOPLE JESUS PREACHED TO.

Jackson123 · Apr 30, 2015

mikeuk said:

1. I don't understand why you said I have no basis schripture.

Let me explain schematic chronology.

A said america has history of slavery, it is worse than inquisition.

I said catholic has history of slavery as well.

You said Jesus never mention about slavery,

I ask you : are you said Jesus agree with slavery?

I don't understand your answered in that if you can repeat it for me,

Are you said Jesus agree or not?

Why you said I have no scripture basis? On what? on slavery or what?

Do I critic catholic by post the fact that catholic has history of slavery?

If you said America has a president, is that criticize America?

Say the fact is not criticize any body, brother.

your own fellow catholic that say america has history of slavery, why don't you tell him like you tell me, he has no scriptural basis?

How about yourself brother, when you criticized me that I don't has scriptural basis?

By your own standard you are judge me brother.

fortunately I am not using your standard.

Judgement to me is if you set up a penalty. example of Judgement is inquisition.

To love and to tell the truth is not judgement.

For example, I make statement, Jesus is the only way to heaven.

It is automatically mean other, like Mary, Mohammad, Hindu Buddha, Islam and all the religion that not accept Jesus as a God and only savior is wrong.

It's may mean I criticized other religion, but is that a judgement?

No, I am not kill them, no inquisition involve here.

Do I have business to spread the gospel/ to spread that Jesus is the only way to heaven? Yes indeed.

What is gospel?

Gospel is the teaching of Christ, good news.

Christ teach to love not to kidnap people and make them a slave.

You love your child don't you. are you happy if one kidnap your child?

AgeofKnowledge · Apr 30, 2015

No, the entire Roman Catholic Church banned human slavery upon excommunication of all who engaged in the practice. Saint Thomas Aquinas (and many others) asserted that slavery was a sin and a series of popes upheld their position. Major pronouncements against slavery were issued by the RCC and eventually, the Congregation of the Holy Office (the Roman Inquisition) took up the matter issuing a bull excommunicating everyone from the RCC that reduced other humans to slaves while overseas Catholic missionaries fought vigorously against the practice on behalf of both Africans and Indians.

Truthfully, slavery began to decline in the latter days of the Roman Empire as a direct result of military weakness and the "fall" of Rome caused a further decrease in slavery which had never been a significant feature of Germanic societies. Soon, in most parts of Western Europe slavery declined and then virtually disappeared with the emergence of the feudal system, persisting only around the edges of medieval Europe-in Spain, in the vast Moslem world, in the Byzantine Empire, in Kievan Russia, etc... (see 20th century Harvard Professor George Lyman Kittredge's lectures on the history of slavery for more information).

With some exception, by far, the guilt for human slavery between the "fall" of the Roman Empire and the rise of New World slavery under colonialism rests on Muslims. Tens of millions of Caucasians and about one hundred and fifty million Africans, for example, were enslaved by Muslims and castration of males was dutifully executed upon a great many males while a great many females were forced into a life of sex slavery... both human utility slavery (male and female) and sex slavery (female only) being fully sanctioned in orthodox Islam (unlike Christianity).

As socio-historian Dr. Rodney Stark states in chapter four 'God's Justice: The Sin of Slavery' in 'For the Glory of God,' it was not until 1441 when a small Portuguese ship carrying twelve black slaves landed in Lisbon that the reemergence of human slavery took hold again in the Christianized West.

These Africans were a novelty as slavery had long since disappeared in most of Europe with the primary exception being in some areas of the Mediterranean, Spain, and Italy that were still under Moorish (Muslim) rule. In Italy, too, contact between Christians and Muslims sustained slavery-merchants in Venice who actually sold Europeans (mainly Slavs) to the Moors.

Jackson123 said:

Catholic Heresy (for the record)

Senior Member

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest

john17

Guest

john17

Guest

john17

Guest

john17

Guest

john17

Guest

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

mikeuk

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

AgeofKnowledge

Guest