Is the Catholic Church the True Church?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Is the Catholic Church the True Church?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 18, 2003

Answers

Before writing anything else I want to emphasize the following point. One of the first things that must be understood about the Catholic Church is this -- it is NOT the apostate church of Christ.

Catholicism developed and formed OUT OF the apostate church. It NEVER WAS THE LORD's CHURCH IN ANY WAY, FORM, OR FASHION WHATSOEVER. It is HUMAN in origin. Therefore, in reality, it is the oldest and longest existing sectarian DENOMINATION on record. I say this in the beginning of this article because I have often noted that Protestant denominationalists often refer to the Roman Catholic Church as, "the apostate Roman Catholic Church". The Catholic Church did NOT COME FROM OR FALL FROM ANYTHING SCRIPTURAL. It came from the fermented minds of men who were long separated from the church revealed on the pages of the New Testament. Having made and emphasized that important point I will now begin our study of Roman Catholicism.

In this brief study I will not attempt to investigate the many facets of the Roman Church. Such would be an impossible task in the limited space. Furthermore, such an exhaustive study is not necessary in order for one to see the FALSITY of Catholicism. I will, therefore, deal with the fundamental and foundational erroneous tenets of Catholicism. Thereby, I shall have proven that Catholicism is from man and not God.

SEVEN FOUNDATIONAL CATHOLIC ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT BIBLICAL SUPPORT:

The following seven stones in the foundation of the Catholic Church are mere ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT BIBLICAL SUPPORT. They are, 1. The church was built upon the apostle Peter. 2. Jesus gave the apostle Peter the authority of binding and loosing whatever laws he thought advantageous for the times as long as such laws remained within the structure of the basic teachings of Christ. 3. Jesus made Peter the head of the church and the vicar or chief ambassador of Christ and ruler of the universe. 4. Peter was made the Prince of the apostles. 5. The authority of Peter and his successors was universal in spiritual and temporal matters. 6. The authority of Peter and his successors was/is supreme and independent of all earthly authority. 7. Peter's office has been passed down to his successors throughout all the ages.

It should be emphasized that if I prove the first four assumptions in the previous list to be erroneous, the points in the remainder of the list are also false. Moreover, the whole superstructure of Catholicism will COLLAPSE with the failure of its foundation. Let us therefore, begin this study of Catholicism by examining the first four foundation points previously enumerated.

WAS THE CHURCH BUILT UPON PETER?

In their attempt to prove that the church was built on the apostle Peter, Catholics go to Matt. 16:18 where the apostle records that Jesus stated, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Let us examine the passage. In the Greek language "Peter" is in the masculine gender (petros). Petros means a small stone or pebble. Jesus used the feminine gender in the Greek language for "rock" (petra) when He said, "upon this rock I will build my church". Petra means a ledge or cliff of rock. In the light of the meaning of these two Greek words translated "rock" in Matt. 16:18, are we to conclude that Jesus built His church on a pebble or a cliff of rock? Indeed, Jesus built His church on the foundation rock of truth that Peter confessed, namely that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God", the New English Bible notwithstanding (Matt. 16:16).

Catholics try to attack the previous "gender argument" by pointing out that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek, that the book of Matthew originally appeared in Aramaic, and, unlike Greek, the genders are the same in Aramaic. I point out that it is Catholic tradition?nothing more, nothing less, or nothing else that says the book of Matthew originally appeared in Aramaic. It is merely a Catholic ASSERTION that such is the case.

Where is the proof?

Furthermore, if Jesus originally did speak the words of Matt. 16:18 in Aramaic, it was the Holy Spirit who infallibly guided Matthew to write Matt. 16:18 in Greek. Does anyone doubt that the Holy Spirit knew how to say infallibly in Greek what Jesus said infallibly in Aramaic and, thus the different tenses?

Please consider the following points regarding the tenses in Matt. 16:18. 1. The oldest Greek mss have the words "petros" and "petra" in this verse. 2. It is AGAINST sound rules of Biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) to have Peter being the doorkeeper and at the same time the foundation. At times Jesus is called the builder, the purchaser, the foundation, etc. of the church. However, inspiration NEVER has Jesus in a single figure occupying more that one position or place at any one time. 3. Where in the New Testament does one find the apostles and evangelists preaching, "Peter" as they planted churches? It would seem that such would be the case if Peter and not Christ was and is the foundation of the church. On the contrary, as they established churches they preached Christ as the ONLY FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. (1 Cor. 3:11). 4. If, as the Catholics ALLEGE, it were true that the church was built upon Peter the man, they would not be proving that the church rested on any so-called successor or office. However, if they mean that the church was built upon an "office", then, it was not built on "the man" Peter. Of course, NEITHER IS TRUE, but this is a good example of Catholic "HOCUS-POCUS".

WAS PETER AUTHORIIZED TO DEFINE LAWS FOR JESUS?

In the Catholic attempt to state that Peter and the popes to follow him were authorized to "define" our Lord's laws they go to Matt. 16:19. In the passage Jesus said, "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."

ALL the apostles of Christ HAD THE SAME AUTHORITY given to them by Jesus as did Peter (John 20:21-23). Among other things, in order to RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15), one must have and examine the TOTALITY of what the Bible says on any given subject before reasoning with the information and drawing a conclusion. Matt. 16:19 is only PART of what the Bible says on this matter (and the Catholics DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT).

Does not John 20:21-23 bear on the question of who and how many of the apostles received authority from Jesus Christ?

The TRUTH of the matter regarding what Matt. 16:19 literally says in the Greek language is as follows. Jesus said, "and whatever you forbid on earth must be what is already forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth must be what is already permitted in heaven." The Greek terms, "must be what is already forbidden" and "must be what is already permitted" are passive participles. The same is true of the grammar of Matt. 18:18. Thus, the TRUTH of the matter is that Jesus told the apostles that they were permitted to bind on earth ONLY what had already been bound in heaven and loose on earth only what had already been loosed in heaven.

The apostles of Christ are the ambassadors of Christ to earth "eyewitnesses" of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:20; Acts 1:8). They and they alone possessed plenipotentiary power. This is the authority that an ambassador from one government has in representing his government to another. It means that he alone may speak the official position of his government to another government. An ambassador may NOT change any part of what his government has previously determined. He may only state it accurately. The same is true of all the apostles (not just Peter) of Jesus Christ in representing the will of the court of heaven to men on earth (John 16:13; Luke 24:29; Acts 2:4; 1 Cor. 2:4; 2 Pet. 1:21; regarding Paul's apostleship see Gal. 1:11-17). Thus, Christians continue today in the apostles' doctrine. (Acts 2:42).

It is interesting to note that in 1870 when Pope Pius IX was "defined" by the Vatican Council to be "infallible" it was by a majority vote of the cardinal and bishops after many days of heated debate. The Holy Spirit had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION. There is NO SCRIPTURE that supports (1) Peter being given the authority Rome ASSERTS was given to him and (2) successors to Peter's office. Therefore, (3) how could Peter pass down to his successors that which he NEVER HAD?

DID CHRIST MAKE PETER HEAD OF THE CHURCH?

Catholics site John 21:15-17 in an attempt to prove their claim that Christ made Peter to be head over all the church. The scripture reads, "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

In interpreting this scripture three ASSUMPTIONS are made by Catholics:

1. That Jesus was asking Peter if he (Peter) loved Him (Christ) more than the other apostles love Him (Christ); 2. that Jesus had in mind the "laity" and the "clergy" when he told Peter to "Feed my lambs" and "Feed my sheep" According to Catholic doctrine, this was our Lord's way of telling Peter to take care of the whole church, "laity" and "clergy" and, 3. that such authority was to be handed down to the popes who succeeded to Peter's office.

It is important to understand that in the passage under consideration Jesus employed two Greek words for feed or tend. They are "boske" and "poimaine". Ordinarily Boske is rendered simply "feed." When used figuratively it means to "teach." The idea is the impartation of spiritual food. In the New Testament Poimaine is used several times and in most cases translated "feed." (Some versions render Poimaine into "tend"). Paul told the Ephesian elders to, "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). In this passage the elders are commissioned to the same thing that Peter was told to do. In this regard later Peter wrote, "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind" (1 Pet. 5:1, 2). "Feed" is translated from poimanate. Peter says it is the responsibility of all elders to do what he was to do. He was their "fellow-elder". There is NOTHING IN THE SCRIPTURES that indicates that Peter thought of himself as the Pope and, therefore, head of all the church. It is simply a FIGMENT of Catholic IMAGINATION.

WAS PETER MADE CHIEF OF ALL THE APOSTLES OF JESUS CHRIST?

The first scripture to which Catholics appeal to attempt to prove that Peter was made chief of all the apostles is Acts 8:14, 15. It reads, "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost."

Question: If Peter was "prince of the apostles" how was it that the other apostles sent him (Peter) on a special mission? Would not the "prince of the apostles" have been doing the "sending" rather than the "going"? Recently it was the Pope who called the American Cardinals to Rome, not the Cardinals calling the Pope to America.

In Acts 15:19-22 Luke records the meeting of the elders, apostles and others as well as the subsequent letter produced by them to be sent to the Gentile brethren concerning the relationship of the Law of Moses to the Gentiles. Peter did not run the whole shebang! Notice that the scripture reads that: "it seemed good to the apostles (NOT Peter alone) and the elders (NOT Peter alone), with the whole church" (NOT Peter alone). The Roman hierarchy does NOT operate this way today. In the case of the decision just noticed and the subsequent letter produced, the scripture reveals that, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." This means that the apostles, elders, and the whole church were in complete accord with what the Holy Spirit had revealed.

Paul by inspiration of the Holy Spirit declared that he was "not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles" (2 Cor. 11:5). How could Paul truthfully make the preceding point if Peter was the "prince of the apostles"? Moreover, in Gal. 2:11-14 we have the record of Paul rebuking Peter for his hypocrisy regarding not eating with the Gentile brethren at Antioch of Syria.

Question: What cardinal, archbishop, or bishop today would dare say or write what Paul did of Peter to the "infallible" "Right Reverend" "Holy Father" "prince of the Apostles" his "eminence," the Pope?

Literally, "tradition" is the only thing Catholicism has left to attempt to uphold the supremacy of Peter. However, the meaning of the word "tradition" is that which is handed down. And, if that which is handed down finds no support in the scriptures, then it has no weight and must be repudiated and rejected. (2 Tim. 2:15; 3:16, 17; James 1:25; John 12:48; Heb. 4:12; Eph. 6:17: Lk. 8:11). It would be nothing less or more than the tradition of men. Of such men Jesus said, "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9).

SOME QUESTIONS FOR CATHOLICS TO PONDER

1. Where in the Bible is the claim made that Peter was the ruler of the universe? 2. Where in the Bible did Peter ever claim any civil government power? 3. Where in the Bible did Peter ever claim any supremacy to any extent over the other apostles? 4. Where doe the Bible reveal that Peter ever claimed to hold "the place of God" on earth? (Pope Leo XIII, "Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae" [The Reunion of Christendom], June 20, 1894.) 5. Except as Peter was lead by the Holy Spirit, when did Peter ever claim to speak for Jesus? 6. Where is the proof the Peter was ever in the city of Rome? 7. Where does the Bible reveal that Peter established the "papal throne"? 8. Where does the Bible teach that Peter had any successors?

CONCLUSION

In this brief article we have seen that the scriptures do NOT teach that, 1. The church was built upon the apostle Peter. 2. Peter was given the authority of binding and loosing whatever laws he thought ought to be changed as long as they remained within the basic structure of the basic teaching of Jesus. 3. Peter was made the head of the church, Vicar of Christ, and ruler of the universe. 4. Peter was the prince of the apostles. 5. Peter and his successors' authority were universal in spiritual and temporal matters. 6. Peter and his successors' authority were "supreme" and "apart" from civil authority. 7. Peter's office and authority was passed down to his successors for all time.

As I wrote in the beginning of this article, if these seven previously listed and studied fundamental stones concerning Peter in Catholicism's foundation are erroneous, the whole of Catholicism FAILS AND FALLS TO THE GROUND. EVERYTHING?the organization of the Catholic Church, her FAKE MIRACLES, her celebration of Mass, her doctrine of Transubstantiation, her doctrine of Purgatory, her Confessional System, her Seven Sacraments, and on, and on?is utterly and forever DESTROYED.

It is my desire that all those who espouse the name of Jesus Christ as their Savior would turn to the Bible and the Bible only, knowing that it is capable of making Christians only ? members of the church of which we read in our own New Testaments ? the church of Christ (Acts 2:38, 41, 42, 47; Rom. 16:16).

Why not be a Christian ? nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else?

Why not renounce all sectarian denominationalism and have a "thus saith the Lord" for all you believe and practice (Col. 3:17)?

This is the way that is right and CANNOT be wrong.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 18, 2003.


Very good article.

I am confused though, because it seems that you didn't elaborate on *why* the Catholic Church can't be the apostate church prophesied about in the end times? You don't think that this Church still had its beginings through the apostles (though gone astray) even without apostolic succession?

I would be interested in your elaboration--as I agree with the rest of your article as far as biblical interpretation goes.

-- Faith (faith01@myway.com), October 18, 2003.


I would agree except for one very obvious thing: The Catholic Church is still going strong for over HOW MANY YEARS? It hasn't fallen apart and it looks as if it will continue to thrive.

rod..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 18, 2003.


"The Catholic Church is still going strong for over HOW MANY YEARS? It hasn't fallen apart and it looks as if it will continue to thrive"

Yea, and so has murder, rape, burglary, etc...Does that make them right too?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.


O Yes, The Holy Church Is Catholic!

The following is Sacred Truth:

830 The word "catholic" means "universal," in the sense of "according to the totality" or "in keeping with the whole." The Church is catholic in a double sense:

First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church."307 In her subsists the fullness of Christ's body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him "the fullness of the means of salvation"308 which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost309 and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

831 Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race:310

All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God's will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one. . . . The character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.311 Each particular Church is "catholic"

832 "The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament. . . . In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord's Supper is celebrated. . . . In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted."312

833 The phrase "particular church," which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession.313 These particular Churches "are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists."314

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome "which presides in charity."315 "For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord."316 Indeed, "from the incarnate Word's descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior's promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her."317

835 "Let us be very careful not to conceive of the universal Church as the simple sum, or . . . the more or less anomalous federation of essentially different particular churches. In the mind of the Lord the Church is universal by vocation and mission, but when she puts down her roots in a variety of cultural, social, and human terrains, she takes on different external expressions and appearances in each part of the world."318 The rich variety of ecclesiastical disciplines, liturgical rites, and theological and spiritual heritages proper to the local churches "unified in a common effort, shows all the more resplendently the catholicity of the undivided Church."319

~ the Catechism of the Holy Catholic Church



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.



How can you be so sure that the Roman Catholic Church is the same church that Jesus began, when Roman Catholicism didn't actually get its start until the time of Constatine--when he declared that the pagan state of Rome would now be Christian under his rule?

Jesus never even went to Rome--and the apostles began many churches in places other than Rome--long before their ministry finally reached Rome.

Don't forget that the Roman government was guilty of crucifying Peter...not to mention Jesus Himself. There really has never been much difference between the government and the church in Rome, ever since the time of Constatine.

Then consider all the evil that took place in the name of Christ during the middle-ages.

-- Faith (faith01@myway.com), October 19, 2003.


I do believe that Christ made the claim that no one is responsible for His crucifixion. The Jews get a bad rap of being responsible for Christ's crucifixion, too.

"Then consider all the evil that took place in the name of Christ during the middle-ages."

Faith? Don't forget the evil the Protestants did in the name of Christ, too.

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2003.


rod,

I think you get Christians and non Christians that wanted freedom from the Church of Rome confused. A true Christian will never do the heresies the Roman Church did in the name of God; But a poor starving non-Christian person that wanted to be free from control of the Church of Rome might.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.


rod..

I realize that Jesus had to die to fulfill Scripture and that it was His choice. Surely He could have saved His skin simply by calling on the angels of heaven. But he didn't.

That still does not change the facts though. Rome authorized His crucifixion. Rome also did the same with respect to Peter..., and didn't Paul also die at their hands? Yes.., I know that he did.

Also.., if Peter was Bishop of Rome.., why could he be crucifed there then?

And why doesn't Paul acknowledge Peter at Rome in His letter to the Romans? He doesn't even greet Peter--which is a strange ommision if Peter was in Rome, let alone Bishop there.

-- Faith (faith01@myway.com), October 19, 2003.


Hi Faith,

Welcome to our forum. How's your day been?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.



Hi Faith,

Welcome to our forum. How's your day been?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.


Hi David....

Thank you.

My day is wonderful. How about you?

I love the Lord and I find theology amazing. I hope we are allowed to speak here honestloy where we can ask questions and learn from each other without fear of being deleted. I have had too many bad experiences with that kind of dictatorship among moderators.

I just stumbled onto this site by accident. It seems a little difficult to post to particular people though. I guess I can get used to it though : )

Nice to meet you.

I am about to help my kids carve some pumkins. Something I( really don't like anymore--but I don't want my kids to resent our faith, so we carve cute pumkins.

-- Faith (faith01@myway.com), October 19, 2003.


David, the Witch Burnings?
David, the Pilgrims could have stayed with the Anglican Church, yes?
David, Henry VIII killed off some of his most closest people.

Why don't you mention the Protestants?

Because you are so bent on the Catholic Church that you refuse to study history! We've been over this before. You do not want to expand your "horizons in Christianity"!!

Yes, hi Faith, but we've met before. Catholics are "hated" in this forum. I have learned this the hard way, I suppose. I hate no one.

I think the Church may still consider me a Catholic.

rod..

..<

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2003.


My day is so-so, I'll live. I'm still tired from yesterday's competition.

Everyone here is free to post any opinion they have; I believe that both sides of the arugment should be heard and I won't delete or ban anyone just because they don't like my church or don't agree with me. I do have a problem when people start using profanity.

Faith wrote,"It seems a little difficult to post to particular people though. I guess I can get used to it though : )"

Well, the way we usually do it to post to a particular person is just to address the message to him. (ex. rod, you said..) General responses don't need this.

Anyways, nice to meet you too. God Bless!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.


David-

Or, we can try to make mutliple attempts until we are acknowledged or answered.

Thank you very much, David. My day has been really nice too.

Ok.......how did you all do at Pigskin, David?

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2003.



rod?

I am confused by this?

David, the Witch Burnings? David, the Pilgrims could have stayed with the Anglican Church, yes? David, Henry VIII killed off some of his most closest people. Why don't you mention the Protestants?

Because you are so bent on the Catholic Church that you refuse to study history! We've been over this before. You do not want to expand your "horizons in Christianity"!!

Yes, hi Faith, but we've met before. Catholics are "hated" in this forum. I have learned this the hard way, I suppose. I hate no one.

I think the Church may still consider me a Catholic.

rod.. ***************

We have met before? May I ask where?

Where are Catholics hated? On this forum? I thought this is a Catholic site?

-- Faith (faith01@myway.com), October 19, 2003.


Ooops..., okay, I see.

I'm on the *Ask Jesus* site. LOL!! I got confused...

-- Faith (faith01@myway.com), October 19, 2003.


rod,

You confused me alot of times too. I do not hate Romanists, I hate the Roman Religion.

Faith,

No this is not a Catholic site. This forum was revived after I was banned from the "Catholic" forum because the moderator couldn't handle the opinions of us "heretics".

I am not a Catholic either, I am a Christian.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.


Hey, I wonder if we can change the name of the forum. What would be a good name for it?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.

rod,

We got a Division II at Pigskin. Mission Memorial and Edinburg Eco. were the only bands to get Division II's, the rest got Division I's.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 19, 2003.


Let's call it "Purgatory". Yes, bad joke.

Faith-

I am currently carrying on a discussion with you in th "Catholic Forum".

David-

I'm glad I don't have to mess with UIL anymore. Too stressful!

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2003.


What am I saying? I do have UIL, but at the elementary level, which is even an added stress of a different kind.

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2003.


LONG WINDED ,,,,,

true church? arent they all true??? including Mine ?? or are you too narrow minded to think for yourselves and have to be lead like a bunch of sheep to slaughter?

-- Welp (satanswelp@HELL.org), October 19, 2003.


You are confused, Welp. That should be cast into the swine and fallen into the sea. And, you forgot the "nashing of teeth". But, you still have time to repent. The road to Hell is wide; the narrow path leads to eternal life. Possession is the spiral fall to damnation. Free Will is the choice we all have to believe or to reject God. Do you still have a Free Will, Welp? Or, has your "father" taken care of that for you?

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2003.


Hi Faith,

The Holy Roman Catholic Church got a head start before Emperor Constantine issued his famous Edict of Milan in A.D 313, which legalized Catholic Christianity :

A.D. 32-67 St. Peter was the very first Catholic Pope.

"The Pope which means head bishop of the Church, is referred to a a "Rock" of the Church, or as a "Shepherd" of the Church. Jesus used that terminology when he appointed the Apostle Peter the first head bishop of His Church, saying : "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona ... Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my church." (Matthew 16:17). "There shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16). "Feed my lambs ... feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17). The words "rock" and "shepherd" must apply to Peter, and they must distinguish him as head Apostle, otherwise Christ's statements are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Certainly other Apostles understood Peter had authority from Christ to lead the Church, for they gave him the presiding place every time they assembled in council (Acts 1:15, 5:1-10), and they placed his name first every time they listed the names of the Apostles. (Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:13-14, Acts 1:13)" ~ says Paul Whitcomb, an ex-Protestant Minister, now a Catholic

St. Peter was Pope for 35 years. He died as a Martyr (crucified upside down because he did not feel worthy to be crucified as Jesus Christ did) in Rome.

ST. LINUS (A.D. 67-76) who succeeded St. Peter was the Second Catholic Pope for next 9 years

The succeeding Popes:

3. ST. ANACLETUS (CLETUS) (76-88) 12 years 4. ST. CLEMENT I (88-97) 9 years 5. ST. EVARISTUS (97-105) 8 years 6. ST. ALEXANDER I (105-115)10 yars 7. ST. SIXTUS I (115-125) 10 years 8. ST. TELESPHORUS (125-136) 11 years 9. ST. HYGINUS (136-140) 14 years 10. ST. PIUS I (140-155) 15 years 11. ST. ANICETUS (155-166) 11 years 12. ST. SOTER (166-175) 9 years 13. ST. ELEUTHERIUS (175-189) 14 years 14. ST. VICTOR I (189-199) 10 years 15. ST. ZEPHYRINUS (199-217) 10 years 16. ST. CALLISTUS I (217-22) 5 years 17. ST. URBAN I (222-30) 8 years 18. ST. PONTAIN (230-35) 5 years 19. ST. ANTERUS (235-36) 1 year 20. ST. FABIAN (236-50) 14 years 21. ST. CORNELIUS (251-53) 2 years 22. ST. LUCIUS I (253-54) 1 year 23. ST. STEPHEN I (254-257) 3 years 24. ST. SIXTUS II (257-258) 1 year 25. ST. DIONYSIUS (260-268) 8 years 26. ST. FELIX I (269-274) 5 years 27. ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283) 8 years 28. ST. CAIUS (283-296) 13 years 29. ST. MARCELLINUS (296-304) 8 years 30. ST. MARCELLUS I (308-309) 1 year 31. ST. EUSEBIUS unclear-309 or 310 less than one year 32. ST. MILTIADES (311-14) approx 3 years

Time of Emperor Constantine, as you mentioned

33. ST. SYLVESTER I (314-35) 21 years 34. ST. MARCUS (336) less than 1 year 35. ST. JULIUS I (337-52) 15 years 36. LIBERIUS (352-66) 14 years 37. ST. DAMASUS I (366-83) 17 years 38. ST. SIRICIUS (384-99) 15 years 39. ST. ANASTASIUS I (399-401) 2 years 40. ST. INNOCENT I (401-17) 16 years 41. ST. ZOSIMUS (417-18) 1 year 42. ST. BONIFACE I (418-22) 4 years 43. ST. CELESTINE I (422-32) 10 years 44. ST. SIXTUS III (432-40) 8 years 45. ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-61) 21 years 46. ST. HILARIUS (461-68) 7 years 47. ST. SIMPLICIUS (468-83) 15 years 48. ST. FELIX III (II) (483-92) 9 years 49. ST. GELASIUS I (492-96) 4 years 50. ANASTASIUS II (496-98) 2 years 51. ST. SYMMACHUS (498-514) 16 years 52. ST. HORMISDAS (514-23) 9 years 53. ST. JOHN I (523-26) 3 years 54. ST. FELIX IV (III) (526-30) 4 years 55. BONIFACE II (530-32) 2 years 56. JOHN II (533-35) 2 years 57. ST. AGAPETUS I (535-36) 1 year 58. ST. SILVERIUS (536-37) 1 year 59. VIGILIUS (537-55) 18 years 60. PELAGIUS I (556-61) 6 years 61. JOHN III (561-74) 7 years 62. BENEDICT I (575-79) 4 years 63. PELAGIUS II (579-90) 11 years 64. ST. GREGORY I THE GREAT (590-604) 14 years 65. SABINIAN (604-606) 2 years 66. BONIFACE III (607) less than 1 year 67. ST. BONIFACE IV (608-15) 7 years 68. ST. DEUSDEDIT (ADEODATUS I) (615-18) 3 years 69. BONIFACE V (619-25) 6 years 70. HONORIUS I (625-38) 13 years 71. SEVERINUS (640) less than 1 year 72. JOHN IV (640-42) 2 years 73. THEODORE I (642-49) 7 years 74. ST. MARTIN I (649-55) 6 years 75. ST. EUGENE I (655-57) 2 years 76. ST. VITALIAN (657-72) 15 years 77. ADEODATUS (II) (672-76) 14 years 78. DONUS (676-78) 2 years 79. ST. AGATHO (678-81) 3 years 80. ST. LEO II (682-83) 1year 81. ST. BENEDICT II (684-85) 1 year 82. JOHN V (685-86) 1 year 83. CONON (686-87) 1 year 84. ST. SERGIUS I (687-701) 14 years 85. JOHN VI (701-05) 4 years 86. JOHN VII (705-07) 2 years 87. SISINNIUS (708) less than 1 year 88. CONSTANTINE (708-15) 7 years 89. ST. GREGORY II (715-31) 16 years 90. ST. GREGORY III (731-41) 10 years 91. ST. ZACHARY (741-52) 11 years 92. STEPHEN II (752) 1month 93. STEPHEN III (752-57) 5 years 94. ST. PAUL I (757-67) 10 years 95. STEPHEN IV (767-72)5 years 96. ADRIAN I (772-95) 23 years 97. ST. LEO III (795-816) 21 years 98. STEPHEN V (816-17) 1 year 99. ST. PASCHAL I (817-24) 7 years 100. EUGENE II (824-27) 3 years 101. VALENTINE (827) less than 1 year 102. GREGORY IV (827-44) 17 years 103. SERGIUS II (844-47) 3 years 104. ST. LEO IV (847-53) 8 yars 105. JOAN as JOHN ANGLICUS (853-55) 2 years 106. BENEDICT III (855-58) 3 years 107. ST. NICHOLAS I THE GREAT (858-67) 9 years 108. ADRIAN II (867-72) 5 years 109. JOHN VIII (872-82) 10 years 110. MARINUS I (882-84) 2 years 111. ST. ADRIAN III (884-85) 1 year 112. STEPHEN VI (885-91) 6 years 113. FORMOSUS (891-96) 5 years 114. BONIFACE VI (APRIL 896) 1 month 115. STEPHEN VII (896-97) 1 year 116. ROMANUS (897) less than 1 year 117. THEODORE II (897) less than 1 year 118. JOHN IX (898-900) 2 years 119. BENEDICT IV (900-03) 3 years 120. LEO V (903) less than 1 year 121. SERGIUS III (904-11) 7 years 122. ANASTASIUS III (911-13) 2 years 123. LANDO (913-14) 1 year 124. JOHN X (914-28) 14 years 125. LEO VI (MAY-DECEMBER 928)less than 1 year 126. STEPHEN VIII (929-31) 2 years 127. JOHN XI (931-35) 4 years 128. LEO VII (936-39) 3 years 129. STEPHEN IX (939-42) 3 years 130. MARINUS II (942-46) 4 years 131. AGAPETUS II (946-55) 9 years 132. JOHN XII (955-63) 8 years 133. LEO VIII (963-64) 1 year 134. BENEDICT V (MAY-JUNE 964) less than 1 year 135. JOHN XIII (965-72) 13 years 136. BENEDICT VI (973-74) 1 year 137. BENEDICT VII (974-83) 9 years 138. JOHN XIV (983-84) 1 year 139. JOHN XV (985-96) 11 years 140. GREGORY V (996-99) 3 years 141. SYLVESTER II (999-1003) 4 years 142. JOHN XVII (JUNE-DECEMBER 1003) less than 1 year 143. JOHN XVIII (1003-09) 6 years 144. SERGIUS IV (1009-12) 3 years 145. BENEDICT VIII (1012-24) 12 years 146. JOHN XIX (1024-32) 8 years 147. BENEDICT IX (1032-45) 13 years 148. SYLVESTER III (JANUARY-MARCH 1045) less than 1 year 149. BENEDICT IX (APRIL-MAY 1045) less than 1 year 150. GREGORY VI (1045-46) 1 year 151. CLEMENT II (1046-47) 1 year 152. BENEDICT IX (1047-48) 1 year 153. DAMASUS II (JULY-AUGUST 1048) less than 1 year 154. ST. LEO IX (1049-54) 5 years 155. VICTOR II (1055-57) 2 years 156. STEPHEN X (1057-58) 1 year 157. NICHOLAS II (1058-61) 3 years 158. ALEXANDER II (1061-73) 12 years 159. ST. GREGORY VII (1073-85) 12 years 160. BL. VICTOR III (1086-87) 1 year 161. BL. URBAN II (1088-99) 1 year 162. PASCHAL II (1099-1118) 19 years 163. GELASIUS II (1118-19) 1 year 164. CALLISTUS II (1119-24) 5 years 165. HONORIUS II (1124-30) 6 years 166. INNOCENT II (1130-43) 13 years 167. CELESTINE II (1143-44) 1 year 168. LUCIUS II (1144-45)1 year 169. BL. EUGENE III (1145-53) 12 years 170. ANASTASIUS IV (1153-54) 1 year 171. ADRIAN IV (1154-59) 5 years 172. ALEXANDER III (1159-81) 22 years 173. LUCIUS III (1181-85) 4 years 174. URBAN III (1185-87) 2 years 175. GREGORY VIII (1187) less than one year 176. CLEMENT III (1187-91) 4 years 177. CELESTINE III (1191-98) 7 years 178. INNOCENT III (1198-1216) 18 years 179. HONORIUS III (1216-27) 11 years 180. GREGORY IX (1227-41) 14 years 181. CELESTINE IV (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 1241)less than 1 year 182. INNOCENT IV (1243-54) 11 years 183. ALEXANDER IV (1254-61) 7 years 184. URBAN IV (1261-64) 3 years 185. CLEMENT IV (1265-68) 3 years 186. BL. GREGORY X (1271-76) 5 years 187. BL. INNOCENT V (JANUARY-JUNE 1276) less than 1 year 188. ADRIAN V (JULY-AUGUST 1276) less than 1 year 189. JOHN XXI (1276-77) 1 year 190. NICHOLAS III (1277-80) 3 years 191. MARTIN IV (1281-85) 4 years 192. HONORIUS IV (1285-87) 2 years 193. NICHOLAS IV (1288-92) 4 years 194. ST. CELESTINE V (JULY-DECEMBER 1294) less than 1 year 195. BONIFACE VIII (1294-1303) 9 years 196. BL. BENEDICT XI (1303-04) 1 year ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

197 .CLEMENT V (1305-14) 9 years - This Frenchman established the Papacy in Avignon, France where he was made Pope. 198. JOHN XXII (1316-34) 18 years - In Avignon 199. BENEDICT XII (1334-42) 8 years - In Avignon 200. CLEMENT VI (1342-52) 10 years - In Avignon 201. INNOCENT VI (1352-62) 10 years - In Avignon 202. BL. URBAN V (1362-70) 8 years - In Avignon 203. GREGORY XI (1370-78) 8 years - Returned Papacy to Rome in 1377 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

204. URBAN VI (1378-89) 11 years 205. BONIFACE IX (1389-1404) 15 years 206. INNOCENT VII (1405-06) 1 year 207. GREGORY XII (1406-15) 9 years 208. MARTIN V (1417-31) 14 years 209. EUGENE IV (1431-47) 16 years 210. NICHOLAS V (1447-55) 8 years 211. CALLISTUS III (1445-58) 13 years 212. PIUS II (1458-64) 6 years 213. PAUL II (1464-71) 7 years 214. SIXTUS IV (1471-84) 13 years 215. INNOCENT VIII (1484-92) 12 years 216. ALEXANDER VI (1492-1503) 11 years 217. PIUS III (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1503) less than 1 year 218. JULIUS II (1503-13) 10 years 219. LEO X (1513-21) 8 years 220. ADRIAN VI (1522-23) 1 year 221. CLEMENT VII (1523-34) 11 years 222. PAUL III (1534-49) 15 years 223. JULIUS III (1550-55) 5 years 224. MARCELLUS II (APRIL 1555) less than 1 year 225. PAUL IV (1555-59) 4 years 226. PIUS IV (1559-65) 6 years 227. ST. PIUS V (1566-72) 6 years 228. GREGORY XIII (1572-85) 13 years 229. SIXTUS V (1585-90) 5 years 230. URBAN VII (SEPTEMBER 1590) less than 1 year 231. GREGORY XIV (1590-91) 1 year 232. INNOCENT IX (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 1591) less than 1 year 233. CLEMENT VIII (1592-1605) 13 years 234. LEO XI (APRIL 1605) less than 1 year 235. PAUL V (1605-21) 16 years 236. GREGORY XV (1621-23) 2 years 237. URBAN VIII (1623-44) 21 years 238. INNOCENT X (1644-55) 11 years 239. ALEXANDER VII (1655-67) 12 years 240. CLEMENT IX (1667-69) 2 years 241. CLEMENT X (1670-76) 6 years 242. BL. INNOCENT XI (1676-89) 13 years 243. ALEXANDER VIII (1689-91) 2 years 244. INNOCENT XII (1691-1700) 9 years 245. CLEMENT XI (1700-21) 21 yearrs 246. INNOCENT XIII (1721-24) 3 years 247. BENEDICT XIII (1724-30) 6 years 248. CLEMENT XII (1730-40) 10 years 249. BENEDICT XIV (1740-58) 18 years 250. CLEMENT XIII (1758-69) 11 years 251. CLEMENT XIV (1769-74) 5 years 252. PIUS VI (1775-99) 24 years 253. PIUS VII (1800-23) 23 years 254. LEO XII (1823-29) 6 years 255. PIUS VIII (1829-30) 1 year 256. GREGORY XVI (1831-46) 15 years 257. VEN. PIUS IX (1846-78) 32 years 258. LEO XIII (1878-1903) 25 years 259. ST. PIUS X (1903-14) 11 years 260. BENEDICT XV (1914-22) 8 years 261. PIUS XI (1922-39) 17 years 262. PIUS XII (1939-58) 19 years 263. JOHN XXIII (1958-63) 5 years 264. PAUL VI (1963-78) 15 years 265. JOHN PAUL I (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1978) less than 1 year

The 266th Pope of Christendom : JOHN PAUL II (1978 to pesent)



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 20, 2003.


Hi Rod, a Catholic Christian,

Catholics are hated Everywhere ~ especially in the 21st Century United States ~ especially in Saudi Arabia : to be persecuted is the hallmark of true Christianity ~ we wear Jesus Christ's Crown of Thorns as Catholics.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 20, 2003.


Hi Rod and David,

Catholics call Protestants our "separated brethren" ~ in other words, our Christian brothers and sisters, although separated. This is because Protestants are not in full communion with the Pope (many Protestants hate the Pope). Some Protestants actually behave more Christ-like than some Catholics do (and vice versa). However, no matter how Christ-like a Protestant may be, this does not negate the Truth about The Church. The fullness of the Truth was inherited from Jesus by St. Peter and the Holy Apostles and passed on to the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit preserves the Catholic Church from error throughout the milleniums in matters of Faith and Morals. The teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is Sacred and free from any error because of the Guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Being a Catholic has many advantages:

the Fullness of the Truth and Means of Salvation

the Complete Set (7) of the Holy Sacraments including the priceless opportunity to eat the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ actually present in the Sacred Host, (Protestants usually lack faith in this one but Jesus Himself instituted this Sacrament during the Last Supper ~ and all the Apostles and early christians gather for the meal of Sacred Host)

the Powerful Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph and All the Saints who are in the presence of the Most Holy Trinity (the Protestant notion that Mary is dead is a great mistake for she is Shining in Glory in the Presence of her Son Jesus ~ think about it, if Enoch and Elijah can be assumed into Heaven, how much more Jesus' Mother! By the way, we Catholics do not worship Mary ~ we Honor her, we only worship the Most Holy Trinity and no one else (and the doctrine of the Trinity came from the Catholic Church. Also, we do not worship idols ~ the pictures and statues are a tradition of the early christians ~ they represent the persons in Heaven whom we honor (think of them as photographs, it would be silly to worship a photograph, but one may kiss a photograph of a beloved in love and honor of that beloved ~ this tradition of the early christians, among others, was kept by the Catholic Church)

Tangible Weaponry against the Enemy : Holy Water, Holy Oil, Holy Salt, Scapulars, Medals (especially the St. Benedict Medal which has a prayer of exorcism inscribed on it in Latin) ,etc.

A Treasury of Prayers (we do not pray "repetitiously" as Protestants accuse us; we pray from the heart excellent traditional prayers handed over to us by the early christians,

the Prayer of Jesus: the Our Father (no extemporaneous prayer supercedes this one)

the Prayer of Angel Gabriel and St. Elizabeth : the Hail Mary (see Luke 1 ~ the Hail Mary is a prayer straight from Heaven from Angel Gabriel and straight from the Holy Bible from St. Elizabeth) (no extemporaneous prayer supercedes this one either)

and a whole slew of Excellent Prayers, Litanies, Chaplets, for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,etc

Catholics do also pray extemporaneously like Protestants do.

Plenary Indulgence ~ you have to be a Catholic to gain this one. Basically, plenary indulgence is the remission of the punishment for sin obtained from the spiritual treasury of the merits of Jesus, Mary, and all the Saints. The simplest explanation would be let's say a Murderer killed someone. Now, when he goes to confession, he is forgiven for his sins by the priest (the priest was given Authority by Jesus to "bind and loose" ~ Yes, we can go directly to God and ask for forgiveness but let us not forget that not only God was offended by our sins but also The Church; so we also go to the priest ~ who represents God and The Church for forgiveness; besides, we will feel better if we actually verbalize our sins to another human being ~ in this case yes, a human being but also a priest ~ who represents the priesthood of Jesus ~ ordained by God). However, the murderer still has to spend time in jail for his punishment. Plenary Indulgence is the remission or pardon of that punishment (Purgatory time, yes purgatory exists and is not a hoax) In order to obtain Plenary Indulgence, a Catholic has to fulfill the steps accurately ... 1. have the general intention to gain it 2. Say a prayer for the intention of the Pope ~ 1 Our Father and 1 Hail Mary 3. go to Confession 4. go to Communion 5. perform the prescribed work, for instance, Reading the Bible for 30 minutes with the invocation of the Holy Spirit, praying the Rosary in Church with a group, Eucharistic Adoration (worshiping the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist) for 30 minutes; meditating on the Stations of the Cross (14 stations) in Church and 6. Have no attachment to sin even venial sins (have no attachment to sin even minor sins). Plenary Indulgence is doctrinally correct and Sacred.

a Complete Bible, meaning, including the Sacred books of Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch ~ The early christians used these books, and so do we.

and so on.

Peace.



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 20, 2003.


I'm still Catholic in my life. I don't believe that I can ever remove Catholicism from myself. I always wind up there. My house still looks Catholic and so do my prayers. My faith has taken a complete circle and I'm back where I've started. This is my most honest realization. I really need to find a priest and see if I can truly reconcile with the Church. My fears are that.....well, let's wait and see.

Elpidio can you relate to any of this? My dream has manifested itself, perhaps?

This is what is so amazing: My 8 yr. old son and 4 yr. old daughter have wanted to attend mass with my parents. The mass is the attraction. I watch mass on t.v. and my kids get interested and focused on the mass. I am not pushing them, at least not yet. I do push the Scriptures and church service attendance, but the mass seems to be calling them. This is amazing to me.

rod..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 20, 2003.


For james:

About the Rock.....

Is Cephas really the same as "The Rock?" as in the head of Christ's church and the foundation of His ministry??

The Bible always reveals that God is the Rock.., and Jesus is God, so also the Rock, as revealed in the New Testament.

Yet the Catholic Church ignores this and insists that Peter (Petros) is the Rock of the church.

The Rock (Petras) or foundation of Christ's church--is more likely the *proclamation* that Peter made, and not Peter himself.

Peter answered Jesus when Jesus asked, "who do you say that I am?" Peter replied, "You are the Christ--the Son of the living God."

Jesus basically responded back by pointing out that He (Jesus) says about Peter--"And you are Petros"..small pebble, or disciple, part of the foundation... But, "I, says Jesus, am going to build my church on this Petras (Larger Rock and foundation), which is the declaration that you (Petros) just made about Me (Jesus)., which is that I (Jesus) am the Christ!

The Catholic Church will argue that Peter is called Cephas in Aramaic. But that is just because there is no other word for rock, whether big-small..or masculine-female.

Proof that Cephas does not mean anything close to what the Catholic Church declares--is in 1 Corinthians..the very verses they use to prove that Peter was called Cephas also disproves their claim that Peter was head of the Church.

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Appollos"; another, I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1: 10-13)

Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly--mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow Paul"; and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?

What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it--but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid--which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:1-11)

Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a *fool* so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future--all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God. (1 Corinthians 3:18-23)

-- Faith (faith01@myway.com), October 20, 2003.


Faith,

Sorry it took so long to get back to answering your question about the article. The apostasy began shortly after the Apostle Paul died for he said in Acts 20:29-30, "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves."

The Bible plainly reveals that there would come a great "falling away" (2 Thess. 2:1-12) or "departing from the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1-5).

This departure from the faith continued and ended up in manifesting the "man of sin" (the Pope) just as prophesied in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 21, 2003.


I do think that the Church of Christ teaches that once the Apostles died, so did all of the charisms and signs because their mission was completed. This puts an end to any idea of the succession, which the Catholic Church disagrees with.

rod..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2003.


BLAH BLAH BLAH,,,,,,,,,,

-- Welp (satanswelp@HELL.org), October 22, 2003.

rod,

Your post is correct!!! The Catholic Church can disagree all they want, for this is the doctrine that the Bible teaches!!! The Bible does NOT teach that there were any successors to the Apostles so, the Catholic Church does LIE when they state that they are the successors to them.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 22, 2003.


I am not asserting that one or the other is a lie, though.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2003.

Welp, the goat, is at it again. Goats will eat anything, especially trash. Use english or spanish or german or latin, but get rid of the goat language, Welp.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2003.

I'll bet that "rod" is a child molestor, arent you rod? Are you a "preist" of your so called "true faith"?

-- Stan (sopal@net-pert.com), October 23, 2003.

God please give me the patience to suffer the mean spirited-ness of these lost souls as they allow evil into their hearts and minds, Welp and Stan. They wish to drag me into the bowels of the place where they dwell. God have mercy on their souls. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, amen.



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2003.


Stan? Why not bring goodness to this forum?

You could be like a "Gold Finch" that flies in the Spring and add beauty to the world or this forum.

rod the "priest"? hmmm....



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2003.


http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-post-reply-form.tcl I like cars too!

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2003.


Hi Rod,

God does Great Things beyond our understanding (Job 37:5).

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 23, 2003.


rod...?

Don't you think your public forum prayer sounds just a little condesending and hypocritical?

What did Jesus say about that kind of praying??

-- Faith (faith01@myway.com), October 23, 2003.


I think you are the hypocrite, Faith.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 23, 2003.

Faith, I've noticed that now you have targeted me. I have also noticed that you have not taken any action against those who take blasphemy against our Saviour. You are offended by my prayer and take action against me. You are not offended by the filth asserted on God?

What kind of title is "Faith" if you cannot stand with me against evil words and deeds? There are only two alternatives: good and evil. There is no in-between. You are either with us or against us when evil rears its ugly face. My prayers are sincere, but I prove nothing to you nor the devil. Which will it be, Faith? Will you continue to critize my belief and actions because of my faith in God or join in with the evil ones and provide them with more ammunition for their attacks on me and everyone who truly fears God?

rod..<

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2003.


You believe in God, Faith. I would stand by your side and pray with you. We may not agree on many doctrinal or theological issues, but we believe in Jesus as our Saviour. That is more than enough for me to stand next to you and fight for good. When the victory is done, we can go back to our pews or dwellings and continue to worship Him in our styles/rituals.

This is just a little forum and look how evil can bring division. Let's practice some of your doctrine, Faith. Let's behave as if we were truly in that "invisible" church and stand together.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2003.


Yes, James and Elpidio. I have noticed a smoldering degree of pressure entering my life since my "Chranel" event. I have spoken with friends and they warned me about what to expect. It has been and will be a wild and crazy ride. But, things are becoming much clearer.

rod..

..

It is amazing! If one searches the Greenspun forums for any prayers posted by me, they will find only this one. I do not tolerate satanists! I thought I made that clear. I never dreamt that my prayers would become an issue. Amazing! My faith has toughened my skin.

rod..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2003.


Rod,

Don't mind "Faith."

She's/He's just here for the ride.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 23, 2003.


rod...?

I looked through this thread to find these attacks against my Lord and Savior--but I can't find any.

Surely I will stand up against any attacks on Jesus Christ.

Would you kindly point them out to me. Thank you in advance.

-- Faith (faith01@myway.com), October 24, 2003.


Hi Faith.

Evidently, you have arrived at this forum with the advantage of not having seen the blasphemy provided by Welp. David eventually deleted or censored the evidence. Had you seen the filth you would probably have understood my stand against Welp and now Stan, who is practically calling me a "child molestor". It also seems that I may have jumped to gun in thinking that you were well aware of the "incident". Every coin has two sides; I'm usually on one side.

rod..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 24, 2003.


...and Faith, my first reaction was to fight fire with fire. Instead, I chose to do the alternative. This would mean fighting my own nature with some help from above. Some people need "cleaning out" and a fresh beginning.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 24, 2003.

I understand, rod.

I am also all for praying for people.

But maybe if you do it like Jesus said, and go behind a closed door and pray in secret to your Father in heaven. There, God will honor your sincere requests.

-- Faith (faith01@myway.com), October 24, 2003.


I admire your sincere kindness, Rod, but I think you got reeled in.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 24, 2003.

"Faith,"

What exactly is wrong with a sincere (non-hypocritical) prayer in public?

Is it non-biblical? (I am not asking if it is non-traditional.)

Would you kindly point them out to me. Thank you in advance.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 24, 2003.


"reeled" yes. I made the comment about being "goated". I am not going to allow anyone to make comments about Jesus without any corrective measure on my part--reeled or unreeled. Those evil comments do not belong in this forum. And, if David is gonna sit by and let it go, I say get rid of the posters. I think David was extremely busy and could not censor the message on my time table.

rod It still stands, Faith. I offended you with a prayer, amazing!



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 24, 2003.


Yes, James, I know. I shouldn't fall for their tricks, but there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed, in my opinion. I've said some stupid things in my quest for answers, but not in a quest for a fight. There is a difference. David and Kevin are not the fighting type; they are true believers and defenders of their faith. And, they will tell us that their faith is the true faith. Every man/woman has a free will. I do accept that free will.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 24, 2003.


james..

There would be nothing wrong with a sincere prayer in public.

I object to hypocritical prayers that people recite to puff themselves up trying to look holy or something.

-- Faith (faith01@myway.com), October 24, 2003.


My friend Rod, I meant reeled in by Sola "Faith."

I'm with you in the fight against Welp and Stan.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 24, 2003.


"Faith,"

I'm glad we agree that there is nothing wrong with sincere prayer in public.

However, why did you immediatedly assume that Rod's prayer was "condesending and hypocritical" ?

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 24, 2003.


Faith?

I am a sinner. I am just a baby when it comes to understanding the Scriptures. You have a ton more knowledge than me in many things; I can tell. I wish I could have as strong a faith as David and Kevin have. I wish I could be as Catholic as James. I really did mean it when I wrote that I was in "limbo". The only puffy-ness I have is in my eyes due to lack of sleep. But, I can understand how someone who knows very little of me could interpret my words in such a way to see me as "puffed up". If it bothers someone to view my prayers, than David can delete them. God doesn't need this forum when He knows our every thought and prayer. My motives were to shutdown those evil deeds; I think it may have worked, but I'm not the person to thank--of course.

Those who know me well will find me at the back of the room, back of the line, or the last one off the ground. David please delete as you please. Let's have it Faith's way.

rod..

-- Rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 24, 2003.


SACRED TRUTH :

THE ROCK ~

THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE 2000 YEAR OLD MOST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS :

TRUE FAITH WITHOUT ERROR

Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command (Mk 16:15). They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."

In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."

The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

"The Roman Pontiff, The Pope, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.


The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of succession which affirms that the authority of the apostles was transmitted to authorized successors. We are taught of God not to go beyond the things which are written (1 Cor. 4:6). We must abide in the doctrine of Christ or we don't have God (2 John 9). We must not take from, add to, or pervert the gospel or the curse of God will rest upon us (Rev. 22:18-19; Gal. 1:6 9). Thus, if Catholics are to sustain their doctrine of successors, they must produce the passages which openly and plainly reveal it. This they have NOT DONE.

Please notice the following from a Catholic source:

"...The Christian faith has been taught, and was intended by its Divine Founder to be taught, in all ages on the same plan that was adopted in the beginning; that is to say, by authorized human teachers, whose adherence to it has been secured by a special Divine assistance, as that of the apostles was in the beginning." (Plain Facts For Fair Minds, pp. 29 30).

His argument is that the gospel was once in the inspired teachers and therefore must be learned from authorized human teachers today. No Bible was cited to prove his contention. His argument is unreasonable as well as unscriptural. We might as well argue that Adam and Eve were created and therefore "in all ages on the same plan that was adopted in the beginning" men are brought forth into the world. However, we know that the miracle of creation was temporary and provisional; it was for the first pair alone. All others have come into the world by means of natural birth. In like manner the gospel was revealed by miracle to the apostles and prophets. The inspired word was for many years in the inspired men, but once the New Testament was completed and duly confirmed, the spiritual gifts that had brought the word and confirmed it ceased.

Notice the following quote from a Catholic source:

"The guidance of Christ was, therefore, to continue with their successors. This is clearly disclosed by the words of Christ: 'Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.' Since the Apostles were not to live until the end of the world, Christ promised to be with them in the person of their successors unto the end of time." (The Faith of Millions, p. 137).

The above Catholic writer quotes a passage of Scripture Matt. 28:20 and declares that it discloses that the apostles were to have successors.

Another Catholic writer quotes the same passage and asserts that Jesus was teaching that the church would never teach error. Not .the following: "Why can't the Catholic Church ever teach error? Because Jesus promised to be always with His church to protect it from error. 'Go therefore, nad make disciples of all nations...teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you: and behold, I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world' (Matthew 28:19 20). (A Catechism For Adults, p. 56).

Does it not seem strange to you that these Catholic officials can make the same passage teach two different doctrines when the passage says nothing about either? The promise of Christ was to the apostles and to them alone.

In what way would he be with them unto the end of the world? Notice the context; just before he declared, "I am with you all days," he said, "...Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.'' Thus, Christ would be with them in the teaching of his commandments. The apostles themselves would not remain forever, but their teachings, the commandments of Christ which they delivered, would. The same is taught in parallel passages. "For you have been reborn, not from corruptible seed but from incorruptible, through the word of God who lives and abides forever. For, 'All flesh is as grass, and all its glory as the flower of grass; the grass withered, and the flower has fallen -but the word of the Lord endures forever. ' Now this is the word of the gospel that was preached to you. " (1 Pet. 1:23 25).

Also, Christ would be with them always in the same sense he is with all faithful Christians. He dwells in them while they live here on earth (John 14:23), and after death they depart to be with him (Phil. 1:21 23).

The following illustrates that Catholics are without Scriptural authority for their doctrine of successors.

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES: Eph. 2:20, "You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief corner stone. ''

Eph. 3:5, "...Now it has been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit. "

2 Cor. 5:20, "On behalf of Christ, therefore, we are acting as ambassadors, God, as it were, appealing through us. "

1 John 4:6, "We are of God: he that knoweth God listens to us; he who is not of God does not listen to us. "

John 20:21 23, "As the Father hast sent me, I also send you. When he has said this, he breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. ' "

John 17:20, "Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their word are to believe in me. "

THAT WHICH THEY NEED BUT DON'T HAVE:

"...You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets AND THEIR SUCCESSORS with Christ Jesus himself as the chief corner stone."

"...Now it has been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets AND SUCCESSORS in the Spirit."

"On behalf of Christ, therefore, we AND OUR SUCCESSORS are acting as ambassadors, God, as it were, appealing through us."

"We are of God: he that knoweth God listens to us AND OUR SUCCESSORS; he who is not of God does not listen to us."

"As the Father has sent me, I in me." also send you AND YOUR SUCCESSORS.

When he had said this, he breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you AND YOUR SUCCESSORS shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you AND YOUR SUCCESSORS shall retain, they are retained.' "

'Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their AND THEIR SUCCESSORS' word are to believe.

All men will be judged in the last day by the things which the apostles and prophets bound upon us (John 12:48; Rom. 2:16; James 2:12; Rev. 20:12). All things which they bound are recorded in the New Testament. The New Testament constitutes "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). What the apostles and prophets bound on earth was bound in heaven. Who will affirm that it has been loosed again? What the apostles loosed on earth was loosed in heaven. By whom has it been bound again? The only excuse men could have for pretending to be successors to the apostles is that they want to bind upon earth what the apostles have loosed, or they want to loose on earth what the apostles have bound. There are no successors to the apostles and prophets. The alleged Catholic doctrine of "apostolic succession" is not taught in the Bible.

There is no need for successors to the apostles and prophets. They were God's chosen ambassadors to deliver "the faith" unto mankind and their work has been completed. No one today possesses their qualifications. No one has their spiritual gifts and miraculous powers; no one can work the signs and wonders which they did. By inspiration of the Holy Spirit they were guided into all truth as Jesus promised. When we read the things which they wrote, we can understand their knowledge in the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3:34). All things of the will of Christ are recorded in the New Testament of Christ (2 Tim. 3:16 17; 2 Pet. 1:3). It contains all that God has bound upon us and all by which we will be judged.

No man on earth today has authority to forgive sins. The apostles did not have the authority to arbitrarily say to penitent sinners, "I absolve you," but by the Holy Spirit revealed to penitent sinners how their sins were to be forgiven or retained. The apostles did not instruct us to confess our sins to a priest. In the New Testament all Christians are priests (1 Pet. 2:5, 9).

Notice the following passages from the Word of God which solemnly warn against false apostles and prophets.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone forth into the world " (l John 4: 1).

"I know thy works and thy labor and thy patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men; but hast tried who say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them false" (Rev. 2:2).

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them" (Matt. 7:15 16).

"For they are false prophets, deceitful workers, distinguishing themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself disguises himself as an angel of light. It is no great thing, then, if his ministers disguise themselves as ministers of justice" (II Cor. 11:13-15). Note: It is the Catholics who CLAIM to be SUCCESSORS to the Apostles (false prophets, deceitful workers, disginguishing themselves as apostles of Christ).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 28, 2003.


Most excellent post.. Did you say that you were banned from the Catholic forum? I can see why they banned you (If it was you who said that). They know what you say is right.

I love to read things that harmonize as truth in accord with God's Word. It just flows......

Thanks : )

-- Faith (faith01@myway.com), October 28, 2003.


Faith,

Yes, I was banned fromt the Catholic forum.

It is obvious that they couldn't handle the truth!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 28, 2003.


Oops,

My space bar didn't work correctly.

The last post should have read:

Faith,

Yes, I was banned from the Catholic forum.

It is obvious that they couldn't handle the truth!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 28, 2003.


Dear Mr. Walker,

With all due respect, the Holy Catholic Church has been handling heretics for 2,000 years. You really are a lightweight compared with many of the major heretics of the past. You were banned from the Catholic forum because of your hostile, irrational manner, and your utter unwillingness to discuss any issue with openness, charity, and mutual respect. Many other members of manmade denominational religions post on the Catholic forum regularly, and are not banned as a result.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 07, 2003.


Paul, (aka Catholic Moderator),

You wrote, "Dear Mr. Walker, With all due respect, the Holy Catholic Church has been handling heretics for 2,000 years."

Unfortunately for you Paul, the ONLY thing "holy" about the Catholic Church are here doctrines which have NO basis in the Word of God.

You wrote, "You really are a lightweight compared with many of the major heretics of the past. You were banned from the Catholic forum because of your hostile, irrational manner, and your utter unwillingness to discuss any issue with openness, charity, and mutual respect."

Really now Paul?? I was NOT banned because I was "unwilling to discuss any issue with openness, charity, and mutual respect" now was I??? This is a flat out LIE Paul. I provided Scriptural answers to everything that was thrown at me in your forum and all I got in return was called all sorts of names and did NOT get my questions answered. It seems that the same thing is happening to several people who are posting at this time in your forum (Eric Hallek, Faith to name a few). It seems that those who DISAGREE with your doctrine are classed in a sub-human level (for that is EXACTLY how the posted replies read) and dismissed as ignorant.

Here is a small example of what I was called in your forum. Those who have posted such things ought to be ashamed of themselves (especially since they call themselves Christians):

I have been called: - one of the most horrible human beings ever to disgrace this forum. - a literal fundamentalist - An uninformed, rank amateur - a mass of prejudice, unable to judge anything accurately - a bibliolater - A protestant - the worst biblical scholar ever to enter our forum - a slow learner - an idiot - a DOPE - a duped fool - a brainwashed cultist who is convinced that he has an answer for everything you may offer - STUPID - a poor soul full of holes - a blind fool Had the following said about me: - Your faith, I suppose, you found at the bottom of a well in your back yard. After you fell in! HAAA!! - You worship the Bible - In just about every aspect of spiritual awareness, you are bereft of grace - You have no authority whatever to expound on the Bible. NONE! - You have no scriptural ''success'', because the Church hasn't been your teacher - You are an envelope without the stamp, address and letter - Your stupidity is no longer welcome here - You humor me with your foolish wit - In terms of intelligence, you are to be ranked under fence posts. Every appeal to your intelligence has been stumped by the bibliolatry of your church. You don't need God at all; you have the Book. --Now you're waiting for the movie! Poor Kevin! - Saint Paul said, the letter KILLS. The Spirit gives LIFE. Why don't you get a life, kevin? - Your type and method of translation of Biblical facts is like a loose cannon pointing in many directions without a real target to hit. You have clearly shown me and the others in this forum that you really do not know how to read a bible - May God's grace descend upon Kevin, and all those others like him who have idolized the Book but simply can't understand it - You are in opposition to the Holy Bible by your antagonism toward Christ's Holy Church - Oh I forgot you have no Tradition to rely upon. Just the Bible. Wake up and die right - You have your poor nose in the meat-grinder. It's fine with me, if you wish to have it cut in little pieces. Lol - I am thoroughly convinced that you are DIABLO. You are totally ignorant of the history of the world and of the Church as well. You read the Biblical history in reverse as instructed by the devil and it shows clearly. We as Catholics have the full truths and you have the lies and that is it. - As far as I am concerned you are not welcome and in my view the most obstinate, foolish jerk to ever appear in this forum - You are in grave danger, Kevin. In your error, you waste all the graces that God sheds on you - He is Pope Kevin I of the "coC." - GYMNASTICS? He's better than a troup of Chinese juggling gymnastics! ''THE GREAT--KEVINNNN! - You are a mere mouse without a hole to crawl into - You are the Blasphemous one and you proved it to me previously in Black and White. You owe GOD an apology - You were unscripturally separated from the LIVING apostolic succession of the Apostles. With no license to sow any seed - You are in a false religion, and all your claims are illegitimate; most of all your so-called love of the Bible - You are about as alarming to the Catholic as peanuts are to a family at the ballpark. We chew you up, and buy another bag - You are wasting our time for the way you write is just plain useless garbage and a useless way to treat Scripture. TOTALLY USELESS, and Sir, you are becoming useless too - You see, Kevin is a member of the very damaging, fundamentalist Protestant sect known as the "Church of Christ," - I think that YOU won't be judged by Sacred Tradition. How could you? You'll be with the heathens and the publicans (Matt, 18:17-18). They might have invincible ignorance to fall back on. But then, the Bible doesn't explicitly say that either - YOU; just a Seth Pecksniff. Don't smile or your face might crack into forty pieces, Lol - You understand precious little - Do you take pleasure in getting slapped around with true knowledge - Your opinion, and it's ridiculous - You are wasting your time in here with that book of false teachings that you are carrying around - Since when did you die and become GOD's holy instructor - You sir are now making up doctrines - Kevin, how stubborn and narrow can you be, to declare immersion the sole manner of Baptism - You are very welcome to your own Bible, kevin. Even if you can't interpret much in it correctly - I seriously doubt that Kevin will read the OT. He lost it on the way to the bank - You are the ass that expects Jesus carry HIM into Jerusalem in glory on Palm Sunday - Kevin is merely flamebait. Just leave him alone; the sad legions of him and his type will consume themselves - I knew what a total waste of time it would be to engage a CoC-boy about religion. Their minds are shut tighter than a Fort Knox vault. Only God can open them. Just as Jesus said that only prayer and fasting can drive some devils out, so only prayer and fasting can bring Kevin out of the hellish CoC-pit to which he has consigned himself - You SIR are in deep doo doo and are in dire need of salvation and if you don't wake up soon, will someday walk up looking at a bottomless pit without anything to stop your fall - You have nothing but hate in your veins - You are a stupid jackass Kevin. You are taking GOD's word and interpreting them with the help of Satan. You have been duped well on how to decieve others in the real truths of GOD and his real Church - What poor Kevin does is recite the scriptures. He is the parrot who learned to open the Book. Now he squawks the verses in the Book. It thrills him to hear his own squawking; but the Book is still a mystery to Kevin - Kevin belongs to a Campbellite community, I understand. He calls this being a Christian. The Christian Church however is the Catholic Church. Kevin is on the outside looking in - You, Kevin, are indeed satan and I am advising you to leave this forum immediately - Will you please get this idiot out of here. He is such an insult to our God and his Lovely Church and his Immaculate Mother, Mary. I think he has said enough of his fumbled non-Catholic spiel. I think we need real Christians in here. No the blasphemous rubbish that is being presented here by this fool. He is damaged goods not worth saving - In a bible interpreting contest, Gene Chavez would likely mop the floor with Kevin Walker, or any CofC champ as it is; taking on all comers. Bunch of saps - You are a total disgrace to all the people who gave their lives so that the word of GOD would survive. You are just a selfish, greedy bunch of fools with no real knowledge. You have the Word in your hand. But you have empty souls due to lack of respect of the ones who died for the Word of GOD.

Now Paul, whose manner was "hostile" and "irrational"???

You wrote, "Many other members of manmade denominational religions post on the Catholic forum regularly, and are not banned as a result."

Yea, and they have to put up with all of the abuse, name calling etc...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 07, 2003.


Kevin,

Are you bestowing heroism upon yourself? conferring knighthood upon your own shoulders?



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.


James,

No I am not.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 12, 2003.


Kevin, I am sure they meant those insults in a, what was it, "openness, charity, and mutual respect" kind of way.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.

Luke, I am sure Kevin meant his insults to Holy Mary in a, what was it, "openness, charity, and mutual respect" kind of way.



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 25, 2003.


Will Luke mention anything about the anti-Catholic comments made in this forum?

Or, have the ground rules been made that only Protestant comments are acceptable, even if they are anti-Catholic comments?

I imagine that it would be best to refrain from any comments that are intentionally made to "sucker punch" a person.

rod...

...



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.


Will rod mention the anti-Christian remarks made in this forum?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 25, 2003.


First off, why are we asking questions that allow Luke to answer in the 3rd person?

Secondly, there is a difference between insults and anti-such and such comments. I have seen anti-(insert beliefs here) comments directed from everyone to everyone (not everyone individuals, protestant, catholic, mormon, etc...). Maybe I'm in the wrong threads, or maybe I skim over long sections of pointless name-calling. I have read some heated discussions, but, with the help of El Morderato, I haven't seen any "you are stupid" or "your mamma this and that." I have no reason to comment on anything I haven't seen for myself, plus, how do I know any of you are really saying the things it says you said? anyone it seems could just enter my own email addy and name, then get me in trouble shouting off pointless banter.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.


I know of a man who is a friend of a friend who is related to the friend of the cousin who is married to the employee next door to the sister of the wife who was cousin from a distance who had three kids that two were twins tell me that if a person truly believes in their theology and doctrine, their comments are going to sound anti-everything else. I have no problem with that. It is the "going to Hell" stuff that needs to be carefully weighed before it is hurled at someone. Some people are honestly confused or on the brink of converting--to Protestantism or Catholicism or "any-ism"--so, any "going to Hell" comments are not only ineffective, but useless. Unless, of course, it is a fight or we know that such a target is indeed hell bound--we never truly know without knowing the person's true motives. Well, at least, that's what that third to the umpteenth power person told me...Uh...it must have been me talking to myself, now that I think about it.

rod..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.


Hi Rod, thank you for "praying for your enemies" as Christ prescribed, rather than returning insult for insult. You are a good man and to be commended.

Faith, I am afraid your cover is blow and the mask removed, to reveal yet another anti-Catholic, fundamentalist bigot. You would prefer to side with pure evil, rather than give your fellow Christian (Rod, the Catholic) a helping hand. It would be funny if it were not so downright pitiful!

Gail

P.S. Rod, and James, take my advice, don't waste your time!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 25, 2003.


Naw!

You're a library, Gail. I'm just a brochure.

Yes, I know what some are thinking and NO! I'm not one of those "tracts". The "chicks" around my house live in nests, not bookshelves.

rod...

...



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.


You are right, Gail. I've witnessed "Faith's" slithery maneuvers ~ nothing but rhetoric ~ in the Catholic Forum. S/he likes to debate at ANY cost: Debater for debate's sake.



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 25, 2003.


Gail typed : "Faith, I am afraid your cover is blow and the mask removed, to reveal yet another anti-Catholic, fundamentalist bigot. You would prefer to side with pure evil, rather than give your fellow Christian (Rod, the Catholic) a helping hand. It would be funny if it were not so downright pitiful!

You typed this immediate following: "Hi Rod, thank you for "praying for your enemies" as Christ prescribed, rather than returning insult for insult. You are a good man and to be commended.

Can you not see the hypocritical messege there? You claim to know what Christ would of wanted, yet you turn right around and call Faith a "anti-Catholic, fundamentalist bigot." You think Rod is a good man and should be commended? That is fine. But by the judgement you used to rate his actions, you have made yourself look foolish. Pity yourself.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.


"Hi Rod, thank you for "praying for your enemies" as Christ prescribed, rather than returning insult for insult. You are a good man and to be commended. Faith, I am afraid your cover is blow and the mask removed, to reveal yet another anti-Catholic, fundamentalist bigot. You would prefer to side with pure evil, rather than give your fellow Christian (Rod, the Catholic) a helping hand. It would be funny if it were not so downright pitiful!

Gail

P.S. Rod, and James, take my advice, don't waste your time! "

Hey, that's the same advice I gave Faith.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 25, 2003.


While we are here picking at our wounds, those satanists are in the chicken coop devouring the young. I think we've missed our targets and instead we shoot holes in our feet. Let's just draw a line on the ground and step over it not to return to those bloody puddles. There are cleaner grounds to sit in.

rod.....

....



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.


Luke,

You can be sure that most of the time the people who post are the people they claim to be. I check your IP addresses to make sure no one impersonates someone. If a obscene comment from a regular poster, or a out of character comment, it is mostly from an imposter.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 26, 2003.


The debate between Protestants, and Catholics, just goes "round and round, and where it stops, nobody knows".

Just goes to show, that invincible ignorance, does not apply here, indeed ,if it does anywhere at all.

-- arthur (arthur@yankel.com), November 29, 2003.


In a word the answer is NO. The answer lies in the instruction given to Peter found in

Matthew 16: Verses 13-19. 13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not [revealed] it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon [this] rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Our Lord stated emphatically that his Gospel and Church would be built on a solid foundation , a "rock".

This "rock" is the rock of revelation, God revealing His Word to all mankind if they should spare the time to ask Him, then listen for the answer and then obey.

This does not mean that anyone can set up their own Church, as God was to set up His Church built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. Ephesians 2: 20.

Peter himself revealed the Lord's way of doing this and gave instruction regarding the need for this to take place, after Christ's crucifiction, after all things had been restored to the same system Christ set up.

Acts 3:Verse 20-21 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Prophets are sent to reveal the Lord's word to all mankind through the process that Christ set up and by no other way. Vernon7.

-- Vernon L Morgan (vernon7@clear.net.nz), June 22, 2004.


The "Rock" was obviously the Apostle Simon. (You do know that his name was Simon up to this very moment, right?) Jesus asks "who do you say I am?", and based upon the special divine revelation given to Simon, Jesus looks Simon right in the eye and says Simon, because you have received this direct revelation from my Father, I say unto you that "YOU ARE ROCK, and upon this Rock [which I have just identified] I will build my Church". (You do know that "Peter" means "rock", right?) From that moment on, Simon becomes known as "Simon Peter" - "Simon the Rock". "Thou art Rock" is pretty difficult to misinterpret. "Thou" means "you". It can't mean anything else. It doesn't mean "your profession of faith", or "your revelation". It means "YOU". Jesus could not have identified Simon as the Rock, and then in the same sentence said He would build His Church on some other rock. If that were so, why did He change Simon's name to "Rock"? A joke? A meaningless gesture? Suppose I said to you "you are the winner, and I am giving this winner a thousand dollars". You'd be pretty happy about that. Unless I said, oh no, the winner I'm giving the money to is not the winner I was talking about in the beginning of that sentence". That would make no sense at all.

After changing Simon's name and making him the foundation of the Christian Church, Jesus follows this up by giving to "Simon the Rock" those special gifts he would need to fulfill his new ministry - the power of binding and loosing, and possession of the keys to the kingdom, the universal symbol of authority.

Consider the flow of the verse, based on your interpretation ... "Blessed are you Simon! My Father has singled you out to receive this profound revelation! However, I am not assigning you any special place in my Church, but am building my Church on someone else. But that's ok because whatsoever you bind upon earth is bound in heaven. Oh, and even though you will not be in a position to use them, here are the keys to my kingdom". I sense a bit of inconsistency there.

The passage does flow beautifully when properly interpreted ... "Blessed are you Simon! My Father has singled you out for a unique purpose, symbolized by this special revelation. Therefore I say to you, YOU ARE ROCK, and will be the Rock upon whom I build my Church. You will need unique gifts to fulfill this divine calling; therefore whatsoever you bind upon earth is bound in heaven. Symbolic of this singular authority, I give to you the keys to my kingdom." Whoa! What a powerful passage, when not diluted by private interpretation!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 25, 2004.


The ROCK upon which the church is built is Jesus Christ NOT Peter.

This is the ONLY verse that Catholics run to in order to prove their doctrine of the Pope.

If Peter were the ROCK as Catholics allege, then MANY other passages would be able to PROVE this to be the case.

There are NONE to be found.

The TRUTH of the matter is the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles (PLURAL) and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. (Ephesians 2:20).

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), June 25, 2004.


Like one of the subscribers to this column, I too found it by mistake, but feel I have some worthwhile contributions to make. I have already stated that I do not accept the catholic church as being the true Church. However this also eliminates the protestant factions as well, as they simply broke away from the catholic faith and have borrowed their so called authority just as the catholic faith does. Peter speaks of a restitution, which indicates that something had to take place that would make a restitution necessary.

Acts Chapter 3 in part reads: 18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

It would appear that after Christ had carried out His purpose for coming to the earth, the major part being the braking of the bonds of death and thereby making a universal ressurection possible for all, unbelievers as well as believers, that there would be a great [apostasy] or [falling away] from the true faith.

An article in these pages concludes that the catholic faith is NOT the apostate church, I venture to say that the catholic church IS one of the apostate churches, the Church of Rome, led the way. The Church Christ set up was prophesied to fall at first and then as Christ Himself is, would be ressurected as well, but when Christ was ready and not before. Peter is mentioned quite often by the catholic church in defence of their line of authority, but another apostle whom the Lord referred to as His Beloved, none other than John the Revelator, was still around after Peter's death. Surely if the authority was to be passed on then John would be the next in line and not some obscure other person. After all none other than Christ himself chose John.

So does that place the catholic people out side of Christ's love and concern ?. Not at all, all who would repent and come unto Christ would be welcomed with open arms and love unfeigned. And what of the protestants, the same applies. As does every other person living or dead who has, does and will walk this earth. Ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you. Vernon7

-- Vernon L Morgan (vernon7@clear.net.nz), June 26, 2004.


The church that Christ began is not of this world--it is spiritual in nature. It consists of all of those who have, by faith, confessed- repented and received Christ as their Lord and Savior. We are universal--and not until Christ returns, will we be established in the physical--when Christ sets up His kingdom...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 27, 2004.

Faith wrote, "The church that Christ began is not of this world--it is spiritual in nature."

Faith is half right.

Jesus said in Mark 9:1, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power."

Jesus was speaking to the Apostles and there are NO 2,000 year old Apostles.

The Apostles of Christ made this same mistake when they asked Jesus in Acts 1:6, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"

Jesus responded in Acts 1:7, "And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority"

What did Jesus tell them??? "Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with POWER from on high." (Luke 24:49).

Acts 1:8 is the clincher, "But you shall receive POWER when the HOLY SPIRIT HAS COME UPON YOU; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

The kingdom of God came with POWER to this earth and prophecy was fulfilled in Acts 2:2-4, "2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

The church that Christ began IS spiritual and IS on this earth today!!!

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), June 27, 2004.


For now--the kingdom of God is in the hearts of all true believers.., and this kingdom is growing steadily with new believers being added daily.

But it will not be a physical reality until the end of this age....

Consider the parables in Matthew 13

The Parable of the Weeds

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. "The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' " 'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' " 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "

The Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Yeast

He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches." He told them still another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough." Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."

The Parable of the Weeds Explained

Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field." He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear. *****************************

In those parables I can see that the kingdom is spiritual and exists for now in the world--but is mixed into the world., so that it isn't always obvious who are the true believers from the false believers. Jesus will separate us in the end and then establish His kingdom in the physical.........

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 27, 2004.


Faith,

You wrote, "For now--the kingdom of God is in the hearts of all true believers.., and this kingdom is growing steadily with new believers being added daily."

This is a TRUE statement for God said in Luke 17:20-21, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU."

This is the SPIRITUAL kingdom that Jesus spoke about.

You wrote, "But it will not be a physical reality until the end of this age...."

Jesus will NOT set up a physical kingdom for he said in John 18:36-37 "My kingdom is NOT of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."

The parables you quoted have NOTHING to do with a FUTURE physical kingdom.

You wrote, "Jesus will separate us in the end and then establish His kingdom in the physical........."

This is NOT true. Since the earth and ALL the works that are in it will be BURNED UP (2 Peter 3:10), there will be NO place for a physical kingdom.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), June 27, 2004.


Wrong Kevin--

Though this earth will be destroyed--it will also be renewed. There will be a new heaven and a new earth....

But also--Jesus will set up his kingdom of believers to rule for a thousand years as well--before He even renews everything.

The kingdom is made-up of the *church* Christ's body [of believers].....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 28, 2004.


Faith wrote, "Wrong Kevin--Though this earth will be destroyed--it will also be renewed. There will be a new heaven and a new earth...."

Actually Faith, you are the one who is mistaken. When Jesus returns a second time, it will be for salvation (Heb. 9:28), NOT to set up His kingdom. Jesus is a King NOW on His throne and is waiting till ALL of His enemies are made a footstool. When Jesus returns, He will GIVE up His kingdom to God the Father. Compare Hebrews 10:12-13 with 1 Corinthians 15:20-28.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), June 28, 2004.


Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:11-15)

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia in length, and as wide and high as it is long. He measured its wall and it was 144 cubits thick, by man's measurement, which the angel was using. The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, the fifth sardonyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of pure gold, like transparent glass.

I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. (Rev 21:1-27)

Who is the Alpha and Omega--the First and the Last--the Begining from the End??

Rev. 1:8

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Rev. 1:17-18

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Jesus and God are one in the same...........

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 29, 2004.


"I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband."

This is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It's the archetype of all archetypes, Faith. Scripture uses many, but the chief and foremost is called the Divine Analogy which permeates Holy Scripture from cover to cover. It has primarily to do with fidelity, with Faith and faithfulness; in the analogy it addresses the single-heartedness of the Bride, the Church, for the bridegroom who is Christ. It's all about perserverance in fidelity until the wedding feast of the Lamb.

Turn in your Bibles, please... (just kidding) to Canticles, or Song of Songs at the center of your bible and if you have eyes to see it, you'll see it:

"There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and young maidens without number. One is my dove, my perfect one is but one, she is the only one of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her. The daughters saw her, and declared her most blessed: the queens and concubines, and they praised her. Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?

The She is the Catholic Church, the bride of Christ. ONE. This has a direct connection to the Woman clothed with the sun in the book of Apocalypse, and in direct opposition to the harlot of Chapter 17. The woman of Chapter 12 is clothed with the sun, the sun being Truth and the rising Sun of Justice. This is why we face our altars East.

"It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End."

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was made flesh, the Christ. The Christ became incarnate by the power of the Holy Ghost because of the perfect response of a particular woman to His proposal, as seen in Luke Chapter 1. This woman is archetypical, in turn, of Bride of Christ, the Church, and the response of all the faithful to the will of God mirrors her style of acceptance.

Etc., etc. One could literally go on and on forever showing how both everything Catholic is in Holy Scripture, and how everything in Holy Scripture is Catholic. Unless someone simply refuses to see it per the book of Wisdom, Chapter one.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 29, 2004.


Hi Emerald..,

The point of my post above yours--was to address Kevin's claim that Jesus will not be setting up His kingdom on earth.

He., Kevin that is--also claims that Jesus is not God.

But as to what you say--the Bride of Christ is indeed His church--His body of believers..Christ's Holy catholic and apostolic church is not the Roman Catholic Church per say...

Also Emerald., I saw your note on jake's board telling me to use another handle and you said that I was not the original Faith. But that was me--Faith.,the original Faith-- and I came on board that site long before the next Faith who came along and took my handle after I was banned.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 29, 2004.


Emerald,

Did they ban you from the Catholic forum?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), June 29, 2004.


HI Emerald.

I hope you remember me.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.


Faith said: He., Kevin that is--also claims that Jesus is not God.

Faith, I think you may be confusing Kevin with Elpidio. While Elpidio denies Jesus' divinity, Kevin believes Jesus is God and actually said recently that he wants to prove to Elpidio that Jesus is God. I just wanted to clarify in case there was any confusion, and to clear Kevin on this.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.


Oh..,okay.,my mistake.

I got confused when Kevin went out of his way to point out that it isn't Jesus who establishes his kingdom/heaven--but God.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 29, 2004.


Hi Dave, yeah, a while back. But it was irritating me a bit towards the end, and I wanted to switch to other things anyways.

Of course, rod. In particular, that thing where you took the sentence and made it corrupt line by line on down so that it said something entirely different at the bottom... that was you, right? That was good. You still have that?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 29, 2004.


Do I still have it? Here it is:

Gradual change over time will eventually make the original disappear. Gradual change over time will eventually make the original appear. Gradual age over time will eventually ake the riginal appear.
Gradual change ov time will event make he or pear.
Grad an over I'm will vent make the rig sap.
Dual hang overt ill all a he gin a pear.
U al hangover ill all gin.
Hangover, gin.

Traditions should stay traditional.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.

The original post dealt with the debate about Traditions remaining unchanged or something like that.

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.


Yep, that's it! That's a great one.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 29, 2004.

Up until now I have had no convincing reponses to give me reason to think other than that the catholic church is NOT the true church.

The very shaky ground on which the catholic church basis its line of authority leads me to consider if the foundation on which it is built is not simply sand.

I mentioned the name Peter in a previous comunication and found this information and I quote..

Paul M. (You do know that his name was Simon up to this very moment, right?)

and further on when referring to Christ's comunication with Peter.. From that moment on, Simon becomes known as "Simon Peter"

The scriptures tell us otherwise.

Matthew 4:Verse 18 18 ¶ And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called [Peter], and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

[Simon] called [Peter], and Andrew, his brother , now could Andrew be called [Peter] also?

Acts 10:Verse 5

5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose [surname] is Peter:

Acts 10: Verses 17-18

17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

(This Simon was a tanner and is not Simon Peter)

18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was [surnamed] Peter, were lodged there.

Now one scripture is before the intervention of Jesus Christ and the others afterwards, but what has changed ?

Vernon7

-- Vernon L Morgan (vernon7@clear.net.nz), June 30, 2004.


Vernon, it was all written after Jesus' death. The Peter references could've simply been to clarify to whom the text was referring, especially since his named changed after that, and everyone knew him as Peter. It was for the benefit of the author's contemporaries.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

Emily, You put up a reasonable argument about the record being written after Christ's death, however it was also translated from the original scripts and it would have been convenient to keep to one name.

However, many times, even Christ kept to the name Simon.

Matthew 17:Verse 25 25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, SIMON? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

Mark 14:Verse 37 37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, SIMON, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?

John 21: Verse 15-17

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, SIMON, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, SIMON, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, SIMON, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

It would appear from the above that SIMON was a preferred name Jesus used.

On the other hand it would appear that on many of the occasions the name Peter is used, it is given by a recorder, narrator, or commentator, and is accompanied many times with the name Simon.

It is well recorded that to recognise a place or an action outlined in scripture, a child is named and this name used to emphasise and remind.

Should the name Peter(a rock), be given to Simon it would seem more than logical that it was given to be a reminder to all who would take the time to look , that this would apply here as well.

Which leads me back to the rock Christ was referring to, and the rock which I have always believed He meant. The Rock of Revelation.

God speaking to his offspring today as He has in times past.

So a scripture says that [we] cannot add to or take from His word. But dare we try to prevent [God] from adding to His own word.

Vernon7

-- Vernon L Morgan (vernon7@clear.net.nz), July 01, 2004.


Well of course Jesus addressed the Apostle Simon by that name! Why wouldn't He? It was the man's given name, the name he had been known by since he was born! Jesus addressed the rest of the Apostles by their given names too. However, Jesus never said "John, you are Rock", or "Andrew, you are Rock", or "Phillip, you are Rock". In contrast, Jesus looked the Apostle Simon straight in the eye and said to him "Simon,YOU are Rock, and upon this rock I will build by Church". (Matthew 16:18) (You do realize that "Peter" literally means "Rock", right? And that the Apostle Simon was never known as "Peter" - "Rock" - until this very moment?) "Peter" was not the Apostle's name. It was a title conferred upon him by God Himself on this occasion, and which was used to describe Simon thereafter - but never before.

You state that "on many of the occasions the name Peter is used, it is given by a recorder, narrator, or commentator, and is accompanied many times with the name Simon."

A: Yes, exactly! The title "Peter" - "Rock" - doesn't replace the Apostle's given name. It is used in conjunction with his name, as any title would be - "Simon Peter", which literally means "Simon the Rock" - by every recorder, narrator, or commentator who wants to emphasize the unique place Simon held among the Apostles after Jesus stated that Simon was the human foundation upon which God would build His Church. Thereafter the Apostles, equal in authority up to this point in time, become known as "Peter and his companions" - the Rock and his companions - the one who alone holds the keys of the Kingdom, and his companions.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 04, 2004.


Paul M. I see you have convinced yourself that you view is correct. This is your right. No one is trying to do otherwise.

2 Peter 1:Verse 20-21

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any [private interpretation].

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The way I read this and other scriptures is that those who profess to be of God, will rely on the Holy Ghost to REVEAL to them God's will.

I would have thought that it would be quite easy to understand what Christ was doing in stating that the Rock upon which He was to build His Church was the Rock of Revelation, but it would appear that some have great difficulty in accepting this. Fair enough, once again that is their right. However would it not be much easier to Ask God than to rely on our own understanding ?

Matthew 7: Verses 7-8

7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

James 1:Verse 5-7

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

Some powerfull instructions in those verses, and well worth the effort in following wouldn't you think?

Vernon7.

-- Vernon L Morgan (vernon7@clear.net.nz), July 04, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ