just men claiming to speak for God. and how convenient that they "divinely" decided that they themselves should have all the power, lmao!

Exactly.

Lula, while I LOVE your dedication and your tenacity, I believe it's misplaced. Of course the CC is going to say Peter is the beginning of the CC. Have you ever read the reformers? They think otherwise. Calvin was a Catholic Priest. Have you ever read his refutation to what you're saying? How about Luther? He was very dedicated...one of the best. Have you ever read his refutation either? There are others as well. You are buying what you've been taught, hook line and sinker. Just as surely you think you have the right church, so does the JW's and the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists. They all believe they are the ONLY way that is the right way. You are also tied to what the CC allows you to read and believe.

I am not. I am free to read any translation or listen to any priest, prophet or pastor and make a determination based on what the Holy Scriptures say. You are not allowed such priviledges. I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from more than you know.

Here in our town, a lady set up a clinic to help unwed mothers keep her babies. She's enlisted the help of area churches to help finanicially, emotionally, physically and every which way. It's not about religion but about putting your belief where your mouth is. It's where the rubber meets the road. Her goal is to keep babies from being aborted. We have signed on board to help her. I just found out that while the local E.A.S CC was very interested in this they all backed out when the priest told them not to help out because in her statement of faith it mentions the bible as the infallible word of God. He asked that she put in the CC as well in HER statement of faith. When she said no she didn't believe that to be true, he told his people not to go to help this clinic.

Imagine that. The wording in a statement of faith is stopping them from helping unplanned pregnancies and these young ladies keep their babies. What do you suppose Jesus would say to that? Isn't this legalism over grace?

*shakes my head* It sounds very oxymoron to me. Maybe you can explain this?

As far as Peter being asked by Jesus to feed his lambs and sheep as evidence of CC Popery...this was not a call to start the CC. I can show you in scripture where Peter wasn't the one to start the church in Rome easily. You can start by reading the last chapter of Romans. It's a very big clue. No mention of Peter at all.

Peter denied Christ three times. Three times Peter was asked to feed Jesus' flock. Jesus was saying to Peter that failure isn't final. He was recommissioning Peter back into service...not necessarily for CC service.

Besides Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not Peter. "For I speak to you Gentiles inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles,..Rom 11:13. Peter dealt primarily with the Jewish Christians. In fact Paul said this in Acts:

"Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood."

He wasn't talking to Peter. He was talking to the elders of Ephesus. These were house churches scattered about. Anyone that is an overseer of God's people are called Shepherds and the food they feed the flocks is the Word of God.

double post....  

KFC POSTS: Lula, while I LOVE your dedication and your tenacity, I believe it's misplaced. Of course the CC is going to say Peter is the beginning of the CC. Have you ever read the reformers? They think otherwise. Calvin was a Catholic Priest. Have you ever read his refutation to what you're saying? How about Luther? He was very dedicated...one of the best. Have you ever read his refutation either? There are others as well. You are buying what you've been taught, hook line and sinker. Just as surely you think you have the right church, so does the JW's and the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists. They all believe they are the ONLY way that is the right way. You are also tied to what the CC allows you to read and believe.

KFC, a couple of times now, you have called me a "sold out" Catholic and I take that as quite a compliment. I do try to know and live the Faith, even though in your mind, it’s “misplaced”.

I can see that you are also dedicated and tenacious about defending Protestantism although I can't tell which church based on what you say. You must be aware that since the Protestant Revolution there have been thousands of varieties of Protestant churches formed each variety containing true things mixed with particular errors. I’ve noticed though, there is one thing in common in which they all agree -----in protesting or condemning the claims of the Catholic Church. For the most part, I think that happens, not out of malice, rather because Protestants really do not understand the Church or the Catholic Faith they attack.

As Christians, are we to believe what Christ taught, or is each man to believe whatever he likes, according to his type of mind? You’re correct, you are free to be able to think out ideas and make your own determinations....and so am I. Praise God. But here, it is a question of God’s teaching and neither your opinion nor my opinion have any value if they contradict that. Catholic doctrine is not my opinion. It’s His doctrine who sent the Church to teach in His Precious Name. So long as man arranges for himself what he will believe, there will inevitably be continuous division, many varieties of churches, and many different voices....this ends in religious babel (chaos) or no belief (religion) at all. How can this be right when Christ prayed for unity that all might be one?

With all due respect, KFC, faith in one’s own powers of discernment is not faith in Christ. Christ said, “I am the Truth.” And we are told, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” Phil. 2:5. If all had the mind of Christ, that would be the end of different varieties of doctrine. And it is clear that there is something very much wrong with a principle which leads to different churches. I’m simply pointing out that truth is consistent and that Christ did insist that unity would be an outstanding characteristic of His Church. The unity of Catholicism is certainly as striking as its absence from Protestantism.

In St.Matthew, Jesus said, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My church." And another time, Jesus said, I will build My Church and the gates of Hell will never prevail." KFC, have you noticed whenever Christ speaks of His Church, it is always in the singular. You are well navigated Bible reader. Here He said, “I have built My Church upon a rock”---not My churches. Or when He said, “Hear the Church”----not hear the churches. He established one Church, not thousands of churches.

Whenever He speaks, whether in figures or parables of His Church, He always conveys to the mind, a oneness, a union, a unity. This can only be of the one, true, catholic and Apostolic Church. Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches, (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible said the Church is the bride of Christ. Jesus can have but one spouse, and His spouse is the Catholic Church. (not spouses---Congregationalist, Presbyteriaist, Methodist, etc.) His Church teaches one set of doctrines which must be the same as those taught by the Apostles. This is unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2.) He speaks of His Church as a sheepfold, in which there is but one Good Shepherd--and the sheep are made to follow His voice: “other sheep I have who are not of this fold.” One fold, one doctrine (Faith), you see.


Truth requires consistency and God has a right to be believed when He reveals a definite doctrine. Protestantism differences on His doctrine cannot all be teaching the truth. That’s not the way the Holy Spirit works. This is a problem which must be faced and not simply dismissed. It is quite evident from Scripture that differences in doctrine do matter very much and that compromise in such things is impossible. Check out Gal. 1:8, 1Tim.1:3; 1Tim.6:3.


By His grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as He is holy. This doesn’t mean each member is holy for He said there would be both good and bad members in the Church St. John 6:70. It means that with the charism of infallibility the Church jealously guards and teaches His divine and moral precepts. The Church is holy because God has given her His authority to minister special means of grace instituted by Him for this purpose namely, the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass and the 7 Blessed Sacraments Eph. 5:26.

I am familiar with Martin Luther than of Calvin. Both were priests who ditched their religious vows and apostated from the Church. What started as reform turned into a complete breakaway from the Catholic Church. That is there condemnation for there could never have been a valid reason for leaving the Church established and guaranteed by Christ. Luther ditched the Holy Mass, the Blessed Sacraments and established his own church, wrote his own Bible to conform with his new doctrines. I’ll agree that he was dedicated. But the lasting memory of Luther will become less pleasant as the facts concerning him become known. Those who idealize him can do so only by ignoring an immense amount of inconvenient information. He was the most intolerant of men. Far from granting liberty of conscience, he refused to anyone to think differently from himself. Lutheranism was imposed upon the people...or else. Christ predicted that heresies would arise, but distinctly forbade man to abandon the Church and originate them.

In my view there are many ways of approaching the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism in order to determine which is the true religion of Christ. The simplest way is the historical way. Christ founded a Church (not churches) and said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it and also that He would be with it all days until the end of the world. His Church must have been since His time. That rules out all the other churches except the Catholic Church for all the other churches came into existence long after Christ and have not existed all days since Christ.

Christ said, “If you love me, keep My commandments”. Not a single one of His commandments can be excluded. Take as a test if you will, the commandment to hear and obey the Church. What Church is He talking about? What Church do you obey? The very consideration of those questions forces any serious Christian to look round in order to find “the Church”. I’ve found it, in fact, I’m “sold out” on it. Thank you, KFC for noticing. Blessing and peace of Christ today and always.

KFC POSTS: Here in our town, a lady set up a clinic to help unwed mothers keep her babies. She's enlisted the help of area churches to help finanicially, emotionally, physically and every which way. It's not about religion but about putting your belief where your mouth is. It's where the rubber meets the road. Her goal is to keep babies from being aborted. We have signed on board to help her. I just found out that while the local E.A.S CC was very interested in this they all backed out when the priest told them not to help out because in her statement of faith it mentions the bible as the infallible word of God. He asked that she put in the CC as well in HER statement of faith. When she said no she didn't believe that to be true, he told his people not to go to help this clinic.

Imagine that. The wording in a statement of faith is stopping them from helping unplanned pregnancies and these young ladies keep their babies. What do you suppose Jesus would say to that? Isn't this legalism over grace?

*shakes my head* It sounds very oxymoron to me. Maybe you can explain this?

I won't comment on this because I am not familiar with what happened or the circumstances behind which you describe.

Catholic doctrine is not my opinion. It’s His doctrine who sent the Church to teach in His Precious Name. [/quote] no, that's an opinion. That is there condemnation for there could never have been a valid reason for leaving the Church established and guaranteed by Christ.[/quote] again, you have not proved that nor established that. the juxtoposition that the CC is either true or even of christ is arguable, at best. it is merely the churches own opinion that it is the only true church,,,again,,,how convenient. [quote]. The simplest way is the historical way. Christ founded a Church (not churches) and said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it and also that He would be with it all days until the end of the world. His Church must have been since His time. That rules out all the other churches except the Catholic Church for all the other churches came into existence long after Christ and have not existed all days since Christ. again, you interepret this verse differently than many others. and on another level...if (for sake of argument) we accept this "promotion" for peter, in the very next verse, he takes it back. then, on another level...why wouldn't christ just tell him and the other apostles that pete is "in charge." why must it be a vague metaphorical reference that no one else hears? the 2 commandments that jesus gives his followers is to "love God with your whole heart, mind, etc..." and "love your neighbor as thyself." no vagueness, no mystery. and christ also essentially voided the entire old testament when he announced them by telling the disciples that they were ready for a new covenant. there was no announcement of any new church to replace the established jewish church. [quote]Christ said, “If you love me, keep My commandments”.

where does the bible say that everyone has to follow the catholic church? i hope you are not refferring to that same verse about peter, as that has already been shown to not be an indisputable verse, to say the least.

And the beat goes on...........Is seems that truth is finally begun to emerge with the canonization process of Pius XII, which was opened by Pope John Paul II.

As an addendum to my comments on Pope Pius XII, I would like to add in a recent issue of the National Review Online, a former high ranking KGB officer, General Ion Mihal Pacepa, who defected from the Soviet bloc, recounts how the Kremlin and KGB in the 60’s were set on executing a smear campaign about the CC and the main target was Pope Pius XII.

In 1960 and shortly after the Pope died, figuring that dead men can’t defend themselves, Nikita Krushchev approved a plan for destroying the Vatican’s moral authority. The operation against the Pope was Seat-12. Pacepa said the KGB wanted to depict him as an anti-Semite who had encouraged Hitler’s holocaust. The plan was for the KGB to “slightly modify” some Vatican documents by falsely informing the Vatican that Romania was ready to restore its broken relationship with the Holy See. Between 1960 and 62 the Romanian spy sent hundreds of documents to the KGB even though, Pacepa claims, that none of the documents were incriminating in themselves.

The KGB used the documents to produce a powerful play attacking Pius, entitled The Deputy but when it got to the stage in Germany, in 1963, was called The Deputy, A Christian Tragedy. It proposed that Pius had supported Hitler and encouraged him to go ahead with the Jewish holocaust.

In 1964, the play ran in New York and translated into 20 languages. The play then led to a flurry of books and articles falsely accusing Pius. As a result, many people are sincerely convinced that Pius hated the Jews, was silent, and even helped Hitler do away with them. Pacepa writes, “As KGB chairman Yury Andropov, the unparalleled master of Soviet deception, used to tell me, people are more ready to believe smut than holiness.”

For the most part, I think that happens, not out of malice, rather because Protestants really do not understand the Church or the Catholic Faith they attack. [/quote] Luther? Calvin? They were priests. Of course they understood it. My husband? He was going to be a priest? Yes they did understand it. But I do understand where you're coming from. You have to believe this for it to make sense to you. I can see that you are also dedicated and tenacious about defending Protestantism although I can't tell which church based on what you say.[/quote] That's just it. My faith is not based on Protestantism nor on any man-made religious organization. If I imagine myself in the dark ages, before Protestantism, and I had access to the scriptures which would be quite hard I know, I would be one that was burnt at the stake by the mighty powerful CC. The current denomination I belong to now and one that I believe is teaching the truth of scripture more than most is on the brink of splitting over doctrine even as we speak. I don't know if they will or if they will settle it before that, but it's an undercurrent even now. The CC has changed over the years. Offshoots have come out from there as well. Some of the things I remember as a catholic child is not done or mentioned anymore like it was then. The unity of Catholicism is certainly as striking as its absence from Protestantism. com'on they're not united any more than Prostestants are. You have your liberal CC. You have your conservative CC. You have your Charismatic CC. Doesn't Mel Gibson belong to another offshoot of the CC? I've met many priests as well as laymen that don't agree with all the doctrine of the CC. KFC, have you noticed whenever Christ speaks of His Church, it is always in the singular. You are well navigated Bible reader. Here He said, “I have built My Church upon a rock”---not My churches. Or when He said, “Hear the Church”----not hear the churches. He established one Church, not thousands of churches. *banging my head against the wall*.....it's singular because the church is HIS BODY. He has ONE body. Like arms, legs, hands, feet. It's not about denomination. It's about HE is the head and the church is HIS body. The book of Col I already told you is ALL about his supremacy...he being the head. The book of EPH is all about the body. We, the church, is his body. Nowhere does either book speak of the CC nor does even Peter talk about being the head of any organized religion. I absolutely believe Peter is rolling around in his grave (so to speak) knowing he was made to be the Apostle of the CC. You just are not "getting" what I'm saying because you have CC dogma on the brain...Lula. [quote]Both were priests who ditched their religious vows and apostated from the Church. What started as reform turned into a complete breakaway from the Catholic Church. That is there condemnation for there could never have been a valid reason for leaving the Church established and guaranteed by Christ. Luther ditched the Holy Mass, the Blessed Sacraments and established his own church, wrote his own Bible to conform with his new doctrines. I’ll agree that he was dedicated more than dedicated. Luther was trying to help his CC. He wanted reform. He saw the errors but was powerless to go up against this mighty institution. His life was even in danger they wanted to kill him as well. He loved his CC and he still had many of their ways ingrained in him that he brought with him to his death. I believe Luther as well as all the reformers were heroes. Many faced death because of their dedication in getting God's word to the little people. [quote]Take as a test if you will, the commandment to hear and obey the Church. What Church is He talking about? What Church do you obey?

First, tell me where you are getting this from. It's not scriptual. We have NEVER been told to obey the body. We are to obey Christ who is the head of the body.

*****"That's just it. My faith is not based on Protestantism nor on any man-made religious organization."*****

LOL... I can't help but laugh at that every time you say it. Your faith is the cumulative expression of 2000 years of human thought. Your particular strain sprang up in the 1800's, and has changed over the years to become what it is now.

The idea that your doctrine is the same as those in Palestine 1900+ years ago is silly, given we can plot the different councils and theologians that made the decisions about your beliefs down through the centuries.

*****"Luther was trying to help his CC. He wanted reform. "*****

And what Lula won't admit is that they DID reform their "infallible" doctrine after Luther, addressing one of Luther's biggest gripes, the sale of indulgences, at the Council of Trent. Reform is a problem for Lula, because each time Catholics have to explain why that particular edict wasn't infallible. Coming up with all these excuses is a full time job, that's why the CC pays so many people to do it.


(P.S. the quote function appears to be broken at JU for the time being.)

where does the bible say that everyone has to follow the catholic church?

Just because I am a stinker, and I like to throw poop bombs.....

Who WROTE the Bible? At least the New Testament?

There were NO protestants around in the 4th and 5th century.

(P.S. the quote function appears to be broken at JU for the time being.)

Just for big ones. It seems to work for short ones.

"Is it that...[/quote] ... ...or is it for multiple... ... [quote]...quotes in the same post?

Yeah, I think it is any time you use more than one quote per post.

SEAN CONNERS POSTS:
and on another level...if (for sake of argument) we accept this "promotion" for peter, in the very next verse, he takes it back.

Are you referring to St. Mark 8:31-33? "And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men."

This is the first occasion when Jesus tells his disciples about the suffering and death he must undergo. He does it twice more later on. The Apostles are surprised becasue they cannot and do not want to understand why the Master should have to suffer and die, much less that he should be so treated by the elders, the chief priests and the scribes. But Peter, with his usual spontaniety, immediately begins to protest. Peter's love for Christ could not bear the thought of this. Our Lord appreciated the sympathy which prompted Peter's protest, but insisted strongly that such things MUST be. (Jesus all through this was doing God's will.) Notice that Jesus replies to him using the same words He addressed to the devil when he tempted HIm St. matt.4:10. He wants to affirm once again, that His mission is spirutual, not earthly, and that therefore it cannot be understood by using mere human criteria. It is governed by God's design, which is that Jesus redeem us through His Passion and Death.

In no way did Jesus withdraw any official standing from Peter. If you think He did because these words are subsequent to the promise, and certainly subsequent to the rebuke, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you that he might sift you like wheat. but I have prayed for thee Simon, that thy faith fail not, and do thou being converted, confirm thy brethren."

Our Lord had previously told Peter that he was the rock. Now, at this solemn when His Death approaches, and He has just instituted the Sacrifice of the New Testament, our Lord renews His promise to Peter to give him primacy. Peter's faith, despite his fall, cannot fail becasue it is supported by the efficacious prayer of Our Lord, Himself. Jesus is giving Peter a privilege which is both personal and transferable. Peter will publicly deny his Lord in the high priest's house, but he will not lose his faith. "and do thou being converted" means, that after you repent, confirm your brethren for I have made you leader of the Apostles. This is the task given to you; you with Me are the strength and the rock of My Church.

The word satan must be taken literally in its literal sense of adversary. It is applied to the devil as the adversary of God and of man. In this appropriated sense it does not apply to Peter. His protest, dictated by his love and affection for CHrist that Christ should not suffer, was adverse to the will of God.

BAERSTREET POSTS:
And what Lula won't admit is that they DID reform their "infallible" doctrine after Luther, addressing one of Luther's biggest gripes, the sale of indulgences, at the Council of Trent. Reform is a problem for Lula, because each time Catholics have to explain why that particular edict wasn't infallible.


yes, I did admit that the Church reformed, look back to the earlier posting of mine when I said:

"Sale of indulgences"......Oh, c'mon, Indulgences have never been for sale and never will be for sales far as the CC is concerned....she has however long recognized the existence of abuses that occurred long ago associated with the doctrine of Indulgences...and taken care of those with disciplinary measures and reforms.

Catholic reform in this area was a good thing that came out of the Protestant Revolution. The CC addressed the abuses assoicated with the remittances of Indulgences. I haven't had a chance to make more comment on that ...yet, but I will. The doctrine of Indulgences was given by Christ and so it is infallible.

Sugar coat it any way you want, but they sold indulgences, massive amounts of them. Some of the earliest documents we have that were printed on presses are indulgences printed up by the church with the name blank to be filled in by the priest. You give me money, I give you an indulgence. If you don't call that selling, then you're living in a false reality.

You challenged me on the other blog with 'name and date, name and date', and not only did I provide some, I pointed out that there was no policy AGAINST it until the council of Trent.

Apparently indulgences have been devalued over the years WWW Link