KFC POSTS: nowhwere does it say...."thou art Peter and your successors.... upon this rock I will build my church....
even if you believe Peter is the Rock; the one to start the CC...nowhere does it say that his successors would carry on.



With all due respect to you, KFC, you have been blind sighted by Protestant oral tradition. The doctrine of Apostolic succession is yet another one that the Protestant forefathers, Luther and Calvin, denied because it stands squarely in the way of the Protestant religion(s) they founded and that were founded after that. You read Scripture according to what they said the Bible says.


The doctrine of Apostolic succession means that the mission and sacred power to teach, rule and sanctify that Christ conferred on His Apostles perpetuated in the Church's episcopate. The fact that only the twelve Apostles proclaimed the new revelation doesn’t mean that the Apostles couldn’t have successors in their pastoral mission to preach, baptize, forgive sin, and teach men to observe all that Christ had commanded. When Christ gave them the commission, He promised He would be with them “all days, to the end of the world.” St. Matt.28:20. The promise of abiding divine assistance given in the context of the apostolic mandate implies that the mandate itself was to endure.

The twelve Apostles were sent by Christ to lay the first foundation of His Church, the Catholic Church. With Christ as the Head cornerstone, Peter was chosen as the foundation rock and the Apostles the foundation stones. The first 10 chapters in Acts show us in what sense Peter was the foundation of the early Church. In 1Peter 2:7-8, Peter is saying that the Church is like a spiritual building of which Christ is the cornerstone, that is the stone which supports the entire structure. Again, “the Church” is not physical buildings, rather the kingdom of God, its members as the Mystical Body of Christ and united under Him with one faith and one baptism Eph.4:5.

Christ intended “the Church” to be the new Israel, whose authority was to endure until the end of time. Just before Jesus ascended into heaven, His parting words are these,"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world." St. Matt. 28:19-20. So with the power Christ claimed in heaven and on earth, as Son of God, He sent them to evangelize all the world.

The Church is apostolic means that it is the same community, the same doctrines as the early Church of the Apostolic age. Since Christ promised that His Church would endure until the end of time and that He would be with it always, the Church had to have apostolic continuity, teaching always what the Apostle's taught The Apostles, in order that the mission confided to them by Christ would continue after their deaths, appointed other men to continue the work they had begun.

Following the example of Christ, who had sent them out to continue His work, the Apostles in turn chose other men and shared with them their mission and Apostolic authority. Throughout their travels, they preached the Good News and baptized converts into “the Church”. They celebrated the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass by reading or reciting the Psalms and other OT verses. They continued as Christ commanded to offer sacrifice to Him by consecrating the bread and wine into His Body and Blood and eating of it. Through their work, “the Church”, the Kingdom of God was established, developed, and perpetuated. Christendom was well on its way.

By the will of God, the Apostles were given the authority to bind and loose. "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." This is confession of sins. St. John 20:23. This authority, within its own sphere, is guaranteed against error by divine power. The successors of the Apostles in this divinely given authority are the Bishops. “The Church”, the kingdom of God, is a hierarchical society ruled by Bishops, but also a monarchical society, with a head that was to rule both Bishops and the people. Peter was chosen by Christ as the first head, that is, the first Bishop of Rome, later in history called the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.

The Apostles acted collectively as officers of “the Church” which would become known as the Catholic Church. It got its name for a bishop passing through Smyrna on his way to Rome to die for “the faith of Jesus Christ.” Rom. 3:26. They exercised the 3 fold power of teaching, governing and sanctifying. Acts 1:12-26; 2:37-43; 4:35-37; 5:1-11; 28-41; 8:14-20. In Acts 5, there were 72 disciples appointed to carry on the work of the Apostles.

St. Peter tells us in his letter that upon the death of these successors other proven men should be appointed to succeed them 1St. Peter 2: 9, 12, 25; 5 . Under the Apostles, a hierarchy began to appear with bishops, presbyter (priests) and deacons. Acts 6 relates to the appointment by the Apostles of the "seven". This is the second identifiable group of disciples entrusted to the ministry of the Early Church. V.6 The Apostles establish the seven in their office or ministry through prayer and the “laying on of hands”, a rite that the early Church had adopted as a symbol of the conferring of a spiritual grace of office. The authority to carry out the ministry which implies a calling from God, is something he must receive through ordination, which the Apostles confer. (Today, it’s called the Sacrament of Holy Orders). God, not men, gives them a spiritual power which equips them to govern and teach the Christian community, administer the Sacraments, including the Mass and consecration of the Eucharist and preach the Word.

In chapter 13:3, Sts. Paul and Barnabas are ordained. In 2Tim.1:6, Timothy received the grace of his ministry through the laying on of hands." from St.Paul. 1TIm. 4:14 tells us that others were with St. Paul when he conferred the fullness of the priesthood on Timothy. He also ordained Titus. Both Timothy and Titus were sent out and they ordained priests and deacons. 1Tim. 3:1; 5:17-22; Tit. 1:5.

St. Ignatius' writing in 107 AD supposes that the Episcopate has been instituted for some time. He asserts that there is one bishop in every church to whom the presbyters (priests) and deacons must be subject. Other Church Father’s writings confirm the same and trace the line of bishops, priests and deacons down to the first century, even to the Apostles. Thus, a continuous hierarchy was established to continue the work of the Twelve. These men were given the Greek name, Episkopas, literally overseer, and in English, we term "bishop".

After St. Peter is St. Linus, then St.Cletus, and then St.Clement of Rome. I won’t here, but can name all 265 Popes and give the dates of their pontificate. Pope Clement rebukes them for a schism that had broken out among them. It's historical significance is shows the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), intervening authoritatively in the affairs of the Church to settle a dispute and indicates the primacy that was given to a successor of St. Peter. The epistle of Clement to the Corinthians witnesses to the belief of the Church in the last decade on the 1st century, with their ministry. He speaks of these bishops as having been constituted either by the Apostles themselves or that the Apostles had made provision for a succession in their ministry. Clement says that the Apostles installed bishops, and then laid down the rule that when these men passed on, others should be ordained and continue subsequently by “other eminent men”.

There is no doubt that from the writings of the Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus, and with evidence from Scripture, that within 3 decades of the death of Christ, the Church had already hierarchically organized just as I have described. Thus the apostolic succession is maintained through the popes, who are successors to Peter as the Vicar of Christ, the bishops, successors to the Apostles, the priests, successors to those early priests, and the deacons.

Christ was with His original Apostles, and now through His promise of the Holy Spirit, is with Pope Benedict and all the bishops, priests and deacons, and with us too. We are all members of “the Church”, the Mystical Body of Christ. Pope Benedict XVI is the 265th successor to St. Peter. He now holds the key to the kingdom of God. He is your Pope, he's everyone in the world's Pope, only you and many others reject him and his authority. But, because you refuse to accept him doesn't change truth and reality.

And besides that, the following is taken from the Didache. 14:1, 3, 4 which testifies that the Church's present teaching is that of Apostolic times: "On the Lord's own day, {the first day of the week: (Apoc.1:10; Acts. 20:7; 1Cor. 16:1-2) assemble to Bread and offer thanks (the Greek word for thanksgiving is Eucharist); but first confess your sins, so that you are pure.” It is the Sacrifice which the Lord has said (Mal. 1:11), "In every place, at every time, a clean oblation shall be offered to my Name, for I am a great king and my name is great among the Gentiles." For there is one flesh in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and one chalice that brings union in His Blood of the New Covenant as there is one altar, as there is one bishop, with the bishops, priests and deacons in union with him keeping the one sheepfold.

It is the episcopal college that succeeds the apostolic college. Bishops are by divine right the successors of the Apostles.

There is no doubt about the fact that from the 2nd century to the 16th century Protestant Revolution, Christianity unanimously recognized in its bishops the divinely-established successors of the Apostles.

There's reason for things, and the reason you cannot see Apostolic Succession laid out so well in Scripture is because you believe in Protestant dogma of Luther----that Scripture interprets itself. You are forbidden to believe anything the Reformers denied. Protestant oral Tradition replaced Apostolic Tradition. It dictates the terms. Protestant oral Tradition is used to justify their own established religion opposed to the one Christ founded. The Bible is never permitted to contradict the Reformers and becomes a slave to holding up their dogmas.

PETER said it...not Luther. Have you read Peter's writings yourself Lula? Luther was getting it from Peter and Paul. You WANT to believe we're following LUTHER because you think he's the enemy...planted by Satan to try and bring disharmony to the CC.



Forbidden? By Whom?



No, the Apostles wrote the NT. That's what I'm going on. Peter, Matthew, John, Paul, they were all Apostles. They spoke, and they wrote down what they were speaking. So not sure what you mean by Protestant oral tradition. The diff between the Protestant (there you go again) and the CC is that the Protestant doesn't go by tradition as a rule. At least not the fundamental evangelicals. Their belief is based on biblical doctrine...sola scriptora. Perhaps you've heard of it?

No, it's the CC that relies heavily on tradition. This way they can call it what they want. All they have to do is rely on tradition. When it comes down to scripture vs tradition, tradition wins. I can't think of any tradition I rely on as truth without it being scriptural.



Well I see it this way...the reformers did not permit themselves to contradict the scriptures. That's why they are called reformers. They went back to reform what was being taught. Over time the CC had, in the reformers mind, distorted the scriptures and turned the church into a business for their own gain whether it be power, money, pride etc.



I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but this is actually an anti-semetic statement. The church did not replace Israel. Paul made that quite clear in Romans especially. Read Chap 9-11. You may want to read the promise made to Abraham. Israel is God's chosen Nation. Period. It's not the gentiles. It's not the CC. See the CC has taken that on but it's poppycock. We as gentiles are grafted into the Abrahamic Tree. It's more like we are now Jews in a sense, being adopted into God's family from outside Israel. So it's the other way around.

"Has God cast away his people? God forbid, for I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham.....God has not cast away his people which he foreknew......God has given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that should not see and ears that they should not hear.....have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid (NO) but rather through their fall, salvation is come to the Gentiles to provke them to jealously." Rom 11.

We see that later the Jews eyes will be opened and they will see the Messiah for who he really was. Until then, the church is coming to salvation.

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. 1 Cor 10:32.

There is always a distinction between the groups. What you are describing is replacement theory and it's hogwash. But don't worry, the CC is not alone here. This has been thought to be true in other groups as well. I know the Adventists believe as well as the JW's in RT among other I presume.

KFC POSTS on Feb.3: I agree with what you're saying as far as the church not being buildings; and that there is only one faith given and taught by Jesus. Absoulutely. The diff is I don't see anywhere in scripture including Peter's own writings that lends itself to an earthly kingdom or religion set up here on earth.

Eph. 4:5 “There is one body, and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.” I believe that Catholicism is the revealed religion of the Bible and that the Catholic Faith is the same one faith given and taught by Christ and handed down through His Apostles and their successors. Recognition of there being only one faith, one baptism and one Lord who is the supreme head of the mystical body underlies unity which is what Christ prayed for, “that we may all be one”. All its members are solidly built on Christ when they confess only one faith---the faith He taught and which the Apostles and the Church have expressed in clear statements of doctrine and dogma. Certainly, you will admit that there is no “one faith” and no “one baptism”, as Eph. 4:5 describes, in the Protestant religion with all the various hundreds of Protestant churches each with their own set of theology. So, how can we be--- as you say in your Feb. 6 comment --- "unified by the Spirit"?


KFC POSTS on Feb. 3: Like someone already said Jesus basically destroyed the earthly establishment already in place. All that's happened is another went up in it's stead. This time it was the CC. It’s all man-made.

That someone was Sean Conner’s post on Feb. 1, “the CC merely replaced the jewish temple that Christ tore down as earth’s biggest misrepresentation of God.”

First, in the first line of your post you said that we agree with what I said that “the Church” was not buildings. And here, you revert that by comparing the Jewish Temple (an building) to “the Catholic Church” which is not a building, rather “the Church” is the Mystical Body of Christ, Christ’s kingdom of God on earth. (We do worship God at the Holy Mass in a church building.) You know well that according to the Bible, Jesus destroyed the Temple, yet He built “His Church” and the gates of Hell will not prevail. So how can you dogmatically assert that “the Church” is all man-made?
And secondly, God gave us the Christian religion which the Jewish religion foreshadowed. He declared that His Christian religion was not a preparation for a further and more perfect revelation, but that it would last, just as He had given it, till the end of the world. That Christian religion is Catholicism. It has lasted in the Catholic Church which has existed ever since His time and will until the end of the world according to His promise.


KFC POSTS: This time it was the CC. No diff than the religion of the Pharisees. I see no diff at all.

Here you go again with another slam against the one Faith of Christ’s Church.
You see no difference between Catholicism and the religion of the Pharisees? I do. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were 2 sects among the Jews. The Pharisees were for the most part notorious hypocrites. The Sadducees were a kind of free thinkers.

There is more than enough historical and Biblical evidence to accept the fact that God has revealed----through Scripture and through Apostolic Tradition---the Christian religion. Now, admitting the fact of revelation, I also believe the contents of that revelation. Like it or not, agree or not, the contents of Christian revelation include supernatural mysteries which, though aren’t against human reason, are above it. I believe the contents of that revelation show Catholicism to be the one, true Christian religion. In reality, revelation rightly signifies only the religion of Christ correctly and completely presented as Christ presented. Therefore, the Christian religion revealed by Christ while He walked on earth and through the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, is protecting and assisting to this day and will until the end of the world is neither a man-made religion, nor a false one, nor one laden with doctrinal errors.

There is no doubt that the Christian religion rests on a coordinated series of facts from Adam to St. Peter, the first Pope and now to Pope Benedict XVI. The Jewish religion was really prepatory Christianity, its whole genius being a looking forward to the coming of Christ. As a prepatory religion, Judaism was the true religion of God until such time as the Messiah should come. Judaism and the Old Covenant was abrogated when all that it foreshadowed was realized.

The difference between Catholicism and Pharisetical sect is that Catholicism declares that God Himself came into the world to redeem mankind and has given the mandate to preach that “to all nations”, while the Pharisees (as does modern Judaism) absolutely denied it. Jesus' teachings like the one at the synagogue in Carpharnum St.John 6:48, 55,61, 65 when He said, “I am the Bread of life...He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life”. And v.65, “But there are some of you who believe not”. Those Jews didn’t believe Him and found this teaching “too hard’ to accept and left Him.

And then, there is Christ’s teaching of the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, when He said, “This is my Body,... this is my Blood. Do this in remembrance of me.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Reformers reject this teaching (as the Jews) and haven’t Protestant denominational sects followed the Reformers tradition ever since and deny the Real Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist? It seems to me that the Protestant religion(s) are more closely aligned with the Pharisees at least in the rejection of Christ’s teaching. And for that matter, aren’t Protestants more closely aligned with the Sadducces with their “free thinking”, I.e. picking and choosing which of Christ’s Biblically revealed doctrines to accept or reject. Christ says “This is..”.....and the unbelieving Jewish disciples as well as those who follow Protestant oral Tradition say, “No, this isn’t”. I’ve heard that some Protestant Evangelical ministers preach and teach this from the pulpit. That leaves me wondering if Protestantism is restricted to declaring what he does not believe?

Of similarities and fundamental differences between Catholicism and Judaism.........
The Jewish religion was a religion revealed by God. Not all Jews rejected Christ, but a majority did. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled. Christ said He came to fulfill the Law.

A difference between Catholicism and Judaism is that modern Judaism, in practice, is essentially a national religion while the Christian religion was meant by God to be a universalist one. I think that theoretically, Israel of the OT was meant by God to gather into one flock and be a universalist religion, but the Jews had national character in their minds. They saw promise in Jesus as being an earthly king, and when they saw that He was talking of eternal things, they bolted.

Christianity when rightly understood rises above all national considerations and insists that it is intended for every human soul that they might gain eternal salvation.

Another difference is the Jewish and Christian outlook on life. The former is material and temporal, while the latter is spiritual and eternal; neither, of course, is exclusively so.

no, it's not. it's a private corporation that sells it's brand of religion. just like most other sects. you can't have it both ways.

God's true church is within the individual. the body of christ and his kingdom can only be found in our hearts.

Lula, the ONE faith and the ONE baptism is this.....ONE FAITH....we as united Christians believe in CHRIST. That's the one faith. Our faith is in him. Our faith is only as good as the object its in. People have faith in many things, as Christians our faith is in him.. one faith.

ONE SPIRIT-we all are baptized into one spirit. ONE. It's not WATER baptism. That's where you're getting hung up on. You are looking at the physical and Christ and Paul were talking the spiritual. We are unified in Christ connected and baptized by the HS.



His church is not man-made. Religion is. The CC is a religion.



you've got that wrong Lula. I can tell you I accept them all. It's the CC church that does not. That's why their tradition usurps written scripture anytime there's a controversy.



I agree with you but not how you want. Look at the verses you just picked from Chap 6. I've been around a long time debating this with other Catholics over the years and there's one thing that is so predictable. They always, always, always omit scripture to back up their belief. Always. Do you notice that you did not include v63 in your above quote? Why not? Because it puts a crimp in your message.



No Christianity is not Jusaism fulfilled. Where are you getting that from? Yes, Christ did say he came to fulfill the law. But he did not come to replace the Jews. Big diff



YES. WE AGREE.



I think the Jews might have an issue with this. They also were a spiritual people and still are, not a belief in Christ but a strong belief in Jehovah God of the OT.

KFC POSTS on Feb.6 How did I arrive at the conclusion that Christ's Church must be a unified-----not a segmented ,many churches--body? I correlated those texts above with these:
"there shall be one fold and one shepherd" St. John 10:16. "And the glory that thou, Father, has given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one." 17:22. "You are called in one body...one spirit....one hope...one Lord....one faith...one baptism" Eph. 4:4-5.There it is in Scripture, as plain as can be, at least to me, that Christ's true Church was constituted as one---one in every respect: one in membership, one in belief, and one in worship and one in government.
you are way too entrenched to even "get" what I'm saying Lula. I don't have the energy nor the time to go thru the whole Peter/Petros thing.

Of “getting” what you are saying? C’mon KFC, give me more credit than that! Getting it and buying it are 2 different things.
As far as going through the whole Peter/Petros thing? I think you will find that most Protestant scholars agree that there is no argument used in the Latin or Greek translation that will avail. Did you notice that most of the quotes I cited were from Protestant scholars---Baptist I believe?
-------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS on Feb.6 Did you ever go to a reliable source outside the CC to find the he/she controversy in Gen 3:15? I think you need to check with a Hebrew scholar on that one and I'm absolutely sure you'll find out it's "he."

Of Gen.3:15, you are referring to something I posted on another site having to do with the doctrine of Original Sin. The verse in question is “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed, she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” I brought the fact that St.Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and the Douay Rheims Bible translation is “She shall crush” and "lie in wait for her heel " while all the more modern Bibles have the same parts of the verse translated as “He shall crush” and “his heel”. Another problem with the modern translations is it doesn’t cover the "lie in wait" part at all---it's just gone, not there, not addressed in every one of them.

“She shall crush” and “her heel” comes from St. Jerome Latin Vulgate and the Douay Rheims which I have good reason to believe are the most authentic and accurate translations of the originals that are available today. St.Jerome was considered a linguistic genius and was fluent in Hebrew. I’m content to trust in St.Jerome’s translation which by the way was the verse accepted by all of Christendom up until the 16th century.

Having said that, I can see where you are coming from re: “She shall crush thy head”. The Douay Rheims footnote has the explanation of “She” as the verse coming from St. Jerome’s translation of Ipsa, meaning the woman. Some Church Fathers read it as ipsum, viz, the seed. The sense is the same for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head. So from this, I’ve seen it both ways in Catholic commentaries, that is, that Christ crushes the serpent by His Cross and Mary does in the sense as described by the Church Fathers in this footnote. From this I’m left with the notion that the modern versions are all mis-translations. If you want to discuss this further, I’ll be glad to, however, we’ll have to get beyond translation and into interpretation of the entire context of the verse and how that relates to the final battle when Satan will be crushed for good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS on Feb. 6 But I want to address just the quote above.
I agree Christ's church is to be unified. But it's not to be unified physically. It's not to be unified in one physical churchbuilding or denomination. It's to be unified by the spirit. It's the spirit that gives life said Christ. Christ did not come to this earth to make bad people good. He came to give dead people life. We get life from the HS. That's what unites us. We are alive where before we were dead.


Yes, it is the Holy Spirit that will be doing the unifying....but unifying in what? In the “one faith”, that’s what.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


KFC POSTS: The one shepherd, the one worship is all about Christ. He is the one that is the good Shepherd. He is the one that ALL Christians are to worship. That's where the unity comes from. Not the CC. That's bogus. That's a lie.


The only ones who universally worship God in unity of the “one faith” are Catholics-----by virtue of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which Christ instituted at the Last Supper.
If it’s “all about Christ”, then why do Protestants selectively decide which of His teachings and commands they will obey? One example is when Jesus said, “Take and eat...This is my Body...this is my Blood”. Yet, Protestants say “No Jesus, you’re wrong, “this” isn’t your body; “This” is just a symbol of your body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: He is the one that ALL Christians are to worship. That's where the unity comes from.


Yes, absolutely all Christians are to worship Jesus. So, when and how do Methodists, Congregationalists, or Baptists, just to name a few, actually worship God? Is there unity in the different denomination’s worship? I have always thought Sunday service was more about fellowship than worship. Am I wrong?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Look what Peter said himself to the elders in his day:
The elders which are among you, I exhort who am also an elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ....Feed the flock of God.....neither as being lords over God's heritage but being examples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd (Christ) shall appear you shall receive a crown of glory......1 Peter 5:1-4

From the Douay Rheims Bible V.1 “The ancients (senior priests) that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ; also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come. V2. Feed the flock of God, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God.....V.3 Neither as lording over the clergy but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart.”

The Acts of the Apostles 14:23 tell us that Paul and Barnabas ordained priests in the various churches of Asia Minor to which St.Peter is now writing this letter.

When the full context of chapter 5 is read, we see that Peter was acting as the one in authority (yes, presbyteroi was elders and later designated priests) because he was the one doing the exhorting to the others. Although he refers to himself as one of them, he also distinguishes himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ and a partaker of the glory of God that is to be revealed”. V2. “Feed the flock, taking care of it..”--- here Peter is doing exactly what Christ told him to do after the Resurrection. Christ told Peter his duties and as head of the Church, Peter is telling the pastors of their duties and how to carry them out being mindful that they should display true priestly and pastoral ministry. V4. He tells them if they approach their duties in this way they will have no reason to fear the Judgment. That if they imitate the Good Shepherd, Jesus, in taking care of their flock, they will gain an unfading crown of glory in Heaven. Christ gave St.Peter his teachings and the teaching is being handed on through St.Peter to others in the ministry of Christ.
V.5-11 The Apostle concludes his exhortation with a call to humility and watchfulness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: never was there supposed to be any hierachy. Never.

With all due respect, KFC, this dogmatic assertion is more regurgitation of Protestant oral tradition. That’s exactly what the Reformers said. Again, you are being consistent with what the Reformers denied. In order to propound their own doctrines the submission and the authority of the Pope as successor of St. Peter had to be eliminated.

I’ve just posted a rather lengthy explanation showing Apostolic Succession from a Biblical standpoint.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Even Peter put himself at the same level as these other elders as a fellow elder. Here was his chance to tell them that he was elevated among them as the "head" of the church. He says no such thing in either of his two letters.


Actually, St. Peter did tell them, but in a very humble way. I’ve just explained that. False pride, as you know, is a great evil force in the world. God, Himself, has said that “he resists the proud and gives His grace to the humble”. In this instance, St. Peter was a man who humbled himself in this situation. That may be one of the reasons why God who He has absolute sovereignty over the Church chose him and delegated this particular authority to him as head of His Church.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Some Pastors don't even like an elevated pulpit because they think it violates what Jesus would have wished. And Lording over the people...com'on Lula you know the CC as an organization has famously erred in this regard.

Well, you can’t accuse St. Peter, even though he was head and had the authority, of “lording over the people” then. He exhorted the priests against being domineering and to be a good example to the flock. I admit that the Church’s history throughout the ages shows those religious from the top down who have behaved in ways woefully contrary to the exhortation of St. Peter. And for that, they will have to face the Judge.


KFC POSTS: Also, I just thought of this. The CC loves the quote in Matt 16 about Peter being the rock instead of Christ.


According to the Magisterium of the Church, St.Matt.16 taken with the whole of the Gospels, affirms that Christ is the Cornerstone and St.Peter is Rock of the Apostles and one of the 12 foundation stones. See Apoc. 21:14 as well. On the other hand, the Reformers interpret the rock in St.Matt.16:18 is either Christ Himself or Peter’s confession of faith. They attack and deny the Primacy of St. Peter and spurn the CC for these stand in the way for their own doctrines to work. They threw out 7 Books of the Bible in an attempt to make their doctrines work, but we see here that St. Matthew saying that Peter is the rock is still in their way. The Reformers recognized that apart from the Church Fathers, whom for the most part, they either ignore or misrepresent, the chief witness for the primacy of St. Peter is Holy Scripture. According to Protestant oral Tradition, St. Matthew must be telling us something that isn’t, i.e. Peter isn’t the Rock, the keys of the kingdom really aren’t and the authority to bind and loose are fictitious incidents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Well don't you think it odd it's not in Mark? Mark wrote the gospel thru Peter's eyes. Basically Peter wrote the book of Mark and he didn't even put that in there. Don't you think that's a bit odd?

Bringing up that the fact that Peter is the rock is not in St. Mark’s Gospel is another one right out of the Protestant oral tradition handbook. Do they wish their readers to think that if all four Gospels do not report the same thing, it did not happen even once?

The Magisterium of the Church tells Catholics to look at the unity of Scripture as a whole. This principle is based on the fact that because God is the principle author of the Bible, there is a fundamental unity about them even though it may not always be immediately apparent. Clearly, Scripture can carry different emphases, can put the stress on different aspects of something, whether a narrative or a doctrinal passage, due to the way Revelation gradually unfolds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KFC POSTS: Mark wrote the gospel thru Peter's eyes. Basically Peter wrote the book of Mark and he didn't even put that in there

I don’t know what you mean “that Peter wrote the book of Mark”. I know that St.Mark wrote chiefly from St.Peter’s own teachings; so what it isn’t found in St.Mark?


My research tells me that the greeting at the start of the letter 1StPeter1:1, gives the author as the Apostle, St. Peter. Throughout Christian antiquity, no doubts were raised about the Petrine authorship of the letter or about its being a canonical, inspired text. That means, at least to Catholics, that what St.Peter said in it is binding to all the Church. Certain things point to the letter having been written around the year 64. The opening greeting of the letter implies that Christianity had already spread through Asia Minor and after St.Paul’s last journey in the region. St. Irenaeus of Lyons quotes from it several times, attributing it expressly to St. Peter. The same is true of Clement of Alexandria, 214, the author of the first commentary on the letter. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Lula, you, yourself said the church was a supernatural entity, not necessarily temporal and not necessarily 100% spiritual. It's not "the people" so much as it is something... else.

So, is there the smallest chance that "the church" may be made up of a LOT of people from diverse beliefs, but who share a commonality? Do our distinctions define the church FOR God, or does God define the church?

BAKERSTREET POSTS:
So, is there the smallest chance that "the church" may be made up of a LOT of people from diverse beliefs, but who share a commonality? Do our distinctions define the church FOR God, or does God define the church?

Q1--Yes, "the church" in the situation you are decribing is Protestant in nature. According to dogmatic decree of Protestant oral tradition (POT), the definition of "Church" is all believers in every church (except the CC). I think the main commonality of "believers" in the various denominations (a euphemism of sects) is their declaration of "faith" which is------ believers need only believe that they are saved i.e. "I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior." Then comes the "personal relationship" and they are saved without effort and this "faith" is what saves them. None of this is found in the Bible by the way...and therefore, those POT distinctions define the church for God.

To Catholics, "the Church" is the visible society of the validly baptized faithful, united together in one organic body with Christ as the Supreme Head, by the profession of the same Christian faith, by the participation of the same Sacrifice (Holy Eucharist), and the same 7 Sacraments, under the authority of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. Another way of saying that "the Church" is comprised of the living faithful, united under an earthly head, who is the VIcar of Christ, who Himself is the Cornerstone Ps. 86:5, It is the body of Christ, who is the head of the Church Eph.5:23, which completes and continues Christ's mission. Col.1:24 that is for the salvation of all men. God has defined "His Church" and His holy religion in Sacred Scripture.

Here is "the visible Church" founded by our Lord: "In the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted abouve the hills, and all nations shall flow into it" Is. 2:2. Of this Church, the Church of all nations, He dsaid, You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. St.Matt.5:14 What cannot be hid, can be seen. St.Paul asks, "What have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge" 1Cor.5:12-13. The early Church, sometimes called primitive and sometimes called infant, was one visible Church, whose members were within the Church, sinners, saints and all. Those who were not in the Chruch were "without".

St. Paul speaks of "the Church" 17 times. St.Luke 8 times, and St.Peter and St.John once each. "The Church of God" appears 11 times, "in the Church" 12 times, "of the Church" 18 times, and "to the Church" , 5 times. The "whole Church" is seen 3 times. There's more,but you get my drift. The writers of the NT point to this visible body, the Church in 110 references. In the Gospels, "Church" occurs only twice, in St.Matt.16:18, and 18:17. In every other case, it is spoken as the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, and sometimes simply as 'the kingdom'. In St. Matt. "the Church" is spoken of 36 times as 'the kingdom". So the visible Church, with its good fish, bad fish and cockle in the wheat St.Matt. 13 is the kingdom of God.

During the very time "the Church's" bishops were writing what we call the NT, as confirmed by Apostolic Tradition, "the Church" was a functioning organism. Surviving documents and the Church Fathers testify to the one true Church with one set of unchanging doctrines, identical to those which have continued up to our time in the CC. Scripture is divinely inspired testimony to the fact that God reveals Himself in order to save the people of Israel and, later ,all mankind, through His Son made man, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Accomplished once and for all the Death and Resurrection of Christ, this salvation is constantly made present here and now through "the Church". "The Church" exists for the salvation of men.

there's tons in the bible.....but for brevity sake....try Eph 2:8-9

For by grace are you saved thru faith; and not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; Not of works lest any man should boast."

Thru faith ....faith is the vehicle that gets us there.

how about this one...

But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Which were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:12-13.

It's all God Lula. Salvation is all Grace and All Faith. It's not our effort but his effort that saves us.

KFC POSTS: For by grace are you saved thru faith; and not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; Not of works lest any man should boast."

I totally agree that salvation is the work of God, a gratuitous gift that originates with God's Infinite mercy. It acts in man by faith, that is man's acceptance of the salvation offered him in Jesus. But, even faith is a divine gift that man cannot merit (work for; earn) on his own .

Now, let's put your beautiful quote above with the "one faith, one baptism" in Eph. 4:5 and see what we come up with.

So one who has faith has been given a gift. "The precious gift of faith shall be given to Him." Wisdom 3:14. The infused virtue of faith enables him to perform an act of (faith): he believes what God has revealed for the simple reason that God has revealed it."I give you to understand...that the Gospel that was preached by me is not according to man; for neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:11-12.

KFC POSTS: The diff between the Protestant (there you go again) and the CC is that the Protestant doesn't go by tradition as a rule. At least not the fundamental evangelicals. Their belief is based on biblical doctrine...sola scriptora. Perhaps you've heard of it?


Catholic belief (Deposit of Faith) is based on written revelation (Sacred Scripture) and on Christ's oral teachings (Apostolic Tradition). Catholic theology rests on the literal interpretation of St. Matt. 16:18; St. John 3:5; 6:53; 20:23; St. Luke 22:19; 1St.Peter 3:21 and Romans 6:3.

Most, if not all, of the sects within Protestantism deny these truths either fully or in part. That's why I said that you are forbidden to believe anything the Reformers denied. For example, the Protestant forefathers denied the Real Presence of Christ's Body, BLood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist when they were setting up their own doctrines, and therefore, as a Protestant, you are forbidden to believe this as well.


I wonder when you say that fundamental evangelicals base their beliefs on the bIblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, does their "beliefs" mean the same as their "faith"?

Sola Scriptura is Latin for, "by Scripture alone". You say that fundamental evangelicals base their belief on the biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Would you explain to me where the Bible teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? Can you prove it from the Bible?

they didn't deny it...they just read scripture and figured it out all by themselves....John 6:63 was pretty plain.

I am not forbidden to believe anything. Please believe me if you believe nothing else I say.

I am not tied to a denomination that says I have to believe what they teach.



all scripture is God breathed...you know the verse in Timothy? That's the famous one. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Also if you read Colossians you see Paul pleading with them not to go outside of what they've been taught and that everything they needed was in Christ and Christ alone. He was sufficient. Nothing else needed to be added to make their lives more complete.

Jesus is the word. He is the word that became flesh says John 1:1.

KFC POSTS: The diff between the Protestant (there you go again) and the CC is that the Protestant doesn't go by tradition as a rule. At least not the fundamental evangelicals. Their belief is based on biblical doctrine...sola scriptora. Perhaps you've heard of it?

all scripture is God breathed...you know the verse in Timothy? That's the famous one. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Also if you read Colossians you see Paul pleading with them not to go outside of what they've been taught and that everything they needed was in Christ and Christ alone. He was sufficient. Nothing else needed to be added to make their lives more complete.


C'mon, KFC, you can do better than this wishy-washy non answer to my question. You haven't explained where or how the Bible teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You said that fundamental Evangelicals belief is based on biblical doctrine...sola scriptura. I'm thinking biblical doctrine of sola scriptura?? What? Where do you find that in Scripture KFC? C'mon, you've stated your claim, now prove it, show where/how the BIble teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If the verses in Timothy and Colossians prove what you claim, then show it.

I don't think you can because Sola Scriptura is a purely human construct that has been passed on as Protestant oral traditon. Sola Scriptura is one of the pillars on which the theology of the Protestant Reformation was founded. The other one was Sola Fide, Luther's claim that we are saved by faith alone. We'll have to contrast those pillars with the one that St.Paul teaches in 1Tm. 3:15.

LULA PILGRIM POSTS: And for that matter, aren’t Protestants more closely aligned with the Sadducces with their “free thinking”, I.e. picking and choosing which of Christ’s Biblically revealed doctrines to accept or reject.

KFC POSTS IN REPLY: you've got that wrong Lula. I can tell you I accept them all. It's the CC church that does not. That's why their tradition usurps written scripture anytime there's a controversy.

LULA POSTS: Jesus' teachings like the one at the synagogue in Carpharnum St.John 6:48, 55,61, 65 when He said, “I am the Bread of life...He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life”. And v.65, “But there are some of you who believe not”. Those Jews didn’t believe Him and found this teaching “too hard’ to accept and left Him.

KFC POSTS IN REPLY: I agree with you but not how you want. Look at the verses you just picked from Chap 6. I've been around a long time debating this with other Catholics over the years and there's one thing that is so predictable. They always, always, always omit scripture to back up their belief. Always. Do you notice that you did not include v63 in your above quote? Why not? Because it puts a crimp in your message.

LULAPILGRIM POSTS IN REPLY:

Here is the entire narrative, St.John 6: 22-72 from the Douay Rheims Bible with commentary. That should take care of your concern that I somehow purposely omitted v.63. Once the entire narrative is read carefully, it is easily understood that Jesus truly means that we take His Words literally in this case. You shall see that He tried repeatedly to convince the Jews, and when He finally did, they found the teaching 'hard' and left Him while the Apostles didn't fully understand, but having faith, believed.

St.John 6:22-24: "The next day the multitude that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other ship there but one, and that Jesus had not entered into the ship with his disciples, but that his disciples were gone away alone. But the other ships came from the Tiberias ; nigh unto the place where they had eaten the bread, the Lord giving thanks. When therefore the multitude saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they took shipping, and came to Capharnaum seeking for Jesus."

The narrative opens on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee with the feeding of the 5,000, the only miracle recorded in all 4 Gospels. After the people were fed, Jesus withdrew to the hillside to be alone. Night fell, and the disciples went down to the lake without Him, and embarking on the only boat available sailed for Capharnaum, which was on the Western shore.

V25-26:"and when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him: Rabbi when camest thou hither? Jesus answered them and said: Amen, Amen, I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves are were filled."

They found Jesus and asked him when (but not how) he had made his way there apparently thinking he had walked around the lake. Jesus did not answer their question, but uttered to them a reproach which proved Him to be a discerner of their hearts. They sought Jesus for bread to sustain mortal life, however, Jesus fed them such that faith being awakened, they might be prepared to receive the bread (His Body and Blood) which will give them everlasting life.

V27:Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of Man will give you. For Him hath God, the Father sealed."

He told them to work to earn food which gives eternal life. Jesus had provided them their fill of natural bread, now He began to speak of supernatural bread. Here, meat is referred back by the word "that". "Meat" refers to His Body, His Flesh. "Which the Son of Man will give you." can only refer to Jesus, in this case as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus, the Son of Man, gives us His Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist. Through the eating of His Body and Blood in the reception of the Holy Eucharist, our divine faith is strengthened by the grace of having God present in us.

V28: They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"
V29: "Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent."
V. 30: “They said therefore to him: what sign dost thou show , that we may see, and may believe in thee? What dost thou work?”

With verse 30 the colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capharnaum begins. The Jews ask him what signs (miracles) He could perform and as a challenge they, they noted V. 31.

V31: "Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: "He gave them bread from heaven to eat."

Could Jesus top that they were asking?.


V32-33:"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen I say to you. Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my father fiveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world."

Jesus told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. And that He was the fulfillment of all that Moses did and stood for. The change from the past tense, gave, to the present, giveth, is significant. The bread of the past--the manna in the desert--satisfied the Israelites' physical needs and sustained them for the journey to the promised land. Now, the new bread---the Son of God--is in their midst, and He has promised so much more than manna. He has come to satisfy every hunger the human heart could ever know. Jesus is greater than Moses. Moses gave them a food that perished every night, and he led them to an earthly promised land. Jesus, however, gives Himself as the bread of eternal life.

V34:"They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread."

Give us this bread they insisted.
"give us always" --The Jews being fleshly-minded, could not perceive of the Lord's words. They thought He was promising some miraculous earthly food, such as the manna, and that it would take away all necessity of providing for their daily bread.

V35: "And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst." .

But Jesus told them , It is I who am the bread of life.
"of life"--thus Our Lord promised: to give i.e. to sacrifice His Body for the life of the world. 2.) to give His Body to be our food and in this sense the Jews, as we shall see, understood His words. Jesus is the Bread of Life who satisfies every hunger and thirst. Both the OT and the NT speak about God as "bread" that gives life to God's people. In the Last Supper, Jesus chose bread as the sign and instrument of the greatest of gifts, that is, His life in the Eucharist. St. Luke 22:19-20.

V36-37: But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will not cast out."

Christ continues to make His point with the Jews getting more explicit.

V38:"Because I come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me."
V39: "Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day."
V40: " And this is the will of my Father who sent me: that everyone who seeth the Son, and believeth in Him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day."

Jesus promises that He will not lose anyone whom the Father gives Him. He will raise them up to new life.

V41-42: The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which come down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven?"

Jesus was getting more and more explicit and the Jews started to complain and question, but still understood Him to be speaking metaphorically. Jesus repeated what He said before, then summarized. "I myself am the bread that has come down from heaven."

V43-44: "Jesus therefore answered and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves." No man can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him in the last day."

"Draw him"--not by compulsion, nor by laying the free will under any necessity, but by the strong and sweet motions of His heavenly grace. We cannot come to Jesus unless the Father draws us--unless the Father stirs us to hope in His mercy and love. This is a free gift of God, however, we have to love God and want to truly be with Him.

V45: "It is written in the prophets: and they shall all be taught of God. Everyone that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me."

V46-47: "Not that any man hath seen the Father, but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. Amen, Amen, I say to you: He that believeth in me hath everlasting life."

V48-51:"I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven."

Notice that Jesus repeated what He had said before. I myself am the bread that has come down from heaven.

V52-53:"If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

If anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever. And now, what is this bread I am to give? It is my flesh, given for the life of the world. Then the Jews ask, incredulously, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Setting aside all respect for Him, they spoke of Him as "this man" and loudly disputed with one another, how it was possible for Jesus to give them His flesh to eat. Our Lord wished them to believe the fact, and leave the how to Him.
At last, they understood Him literally and were stupefied.

V. 54-57: "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen, I say unto you; Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed; and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him."

Christ repeats His words with extra ordinary emphasis, so much so that only now does He introduce the statement about drinking His Blood.
Here Jesus repeats and explains even further. He tells us we can have no life in ourselves unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood. The man that eats My flesh and drinks My blood enjoys eternal on the last day. My flesh is real food, My blood is real drink. The man who eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives continually in Me and I in him.
And there was no attempt to soften what was said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings", for there were none. His listeners understood Him quite well. No one of them any longer thought He was speaking metaphorically, or symbolically. If they had, why was there no correction? On other occasions, whenever there was a confusion, Christ explained what He meant. Here, where any misunderstanding would be catastrophic, there was no effort to correct. Instead, Christ repeated what He said becoming more and more explicit.

KFC, you are keeping company with the disbelieving Jews when you say this isn’t literal. Even the Jews took Jesus literally after He repeated it enough. Many times over He said He was the bread that came down from heaven; four (4) times He said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood". John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper--it was a promise that could not be more explicit.

V58-60:"As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that come down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead He that eateth this bread, shall live forever. These things he said teaching in the synagague, in Capharnaum."
"live by me"--Because Christ's flesh and blood are inseparably united to Himself, the Son of God. So intimate is the union with Him of those who receive Him that He compares it to the union between the Father and the Son.

V 61-62: "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it said: This saying is hard and who can hear it? But Jesus knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?"

"Who can hear it?"---Or who can believe it? And these were His disciples, people who were already used to His remarkable ways having seen His miracles. They took Him literally and wouldn't believe Him. They would not accept faith and believe in Him, in what He says He is and what He says He will do. Here, "If then" means ---Our Lord makes one more attempt to win them to faith. "Does this offend or scandalize you?"---But if you see me, the Son of Man, go up to heaven with my glorified body, will you not then believe that I can give my body to you to be your Food?

V 63-64:"If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
“If then” Jesus made one more attempt to win them to faith.
“Son of man ascend” means but if you see me the Son of man go up to Heaven with my glorified Body, will you not then believe that I can give My Body to you to be your food?
Christ by mentioning His Ascension, would confirm the truth of His power and divinity that he had before asserted. As on other occasions, Jesus speaks about future events to help His disciples believe: “I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place, you may believe. St.John 14:29. And, at the same time, He warns them not to think of eating His flesh and drinking His blood in a gross, carnal manner and receive His words badly.

“the flesh profiteth nothing” Flesh, as flesh cannot give life, but you must not think of the dead flesh, for it is a question of the Flesh of the Son of man, in which dwells the Spirit of God, gloryifying it, and filling it with divine power. My Flesh, united to the Spirit of God, has life-giving power.
"spirit and life" For the Flesh which I mean (that you eat) is penetrated by the Holy Spirit and united to the living God.

V65-66: But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given it be given him by my Father."
Judas betrayed Him and he was one of the Twelve. Christ knew that some would not believe, including the one "who he was that would betray Him". It is here in the rejection of the Holy Eucharist that Judas fell away.

V67: "After this many of his disciples went back; and walked with him no more."

They went back to their ordinary way of living and to their various occupations. Their chief object in following Our Lord had been the hope which they built on an earthly Messias and they cared nothing for our Lord's spiritual and supernatural promises. They now formed a part of the unbelieving mass of Jews. However, besides the 12 Apostles, there still remained the 72 disciples whose sending forth by Our Lord is later in the chapter 41, as well as some other disciples and some holy women. Thus His disciples were sifted. Those whose vocations were real and whose faith was firm, remained with Jesus. Whereas many of the weak and wavering could not stand the test to which their faith was put and left Him.

This is the only record we have of any of Christ's followers forsaking Him for doctrinal reasons. If they merely had misunderstood Him, if they foolishly had taken a metaphor in a literal sense, why did He not call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews and the disciples who had accepted everything up to this point would have remained had He told them He meant no more than a symbol. But He did not correct these first protesters, He let them go.

V68: "Then Jesus said to the Twelve: Will you also go away?"
"will you also go away?" Jesus made no further attempt to keep back those who wished to leave Him. On the contrary, He searchingly asked the Apostles: "Will you also go away?" He left it to their free will to forsake them if they chose, and forced them to make a clear and open declaration of their intentions.

V69-72:" And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray Him, whereas he was one of the twelve."
St.Peter said this because of his faith. He believed Jesus was God, and he told him so, "thou art the Christ." "We have believed and have known".

This is what this whole discourse is about--- belief and faith. Who has it and who doesn’t. Simon Peter answered in the name of the rest of them. "Who but thou can lead us unto life?" They know Jesus is the only one to eternal life, even if they cannot understand the mysterious words that Jesus spoke, they still did not doubt them. They remained true to Our Lord, openly confessed Him to be the Son of God, and placed themselves in opposition to their unbelieving fellow-countrymen. If that isn't giving God the glory, then what is?
Christ's revelation in this discourse is utterly remarkable. He fulfilled every one of His promises at the Last Supper when He instituted the most Holy Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist.

KFC, you comment that 6:63 is omitted as though that was intentional becasue that puts a crimp in my message. KFC, I have no message here. Christ is the one doing the talking. Either you believe what He said as the Apostles did even though they at least at the time didn't really understand what He was saying. They believed and understood on faith. Some of the Jews on the other hand, had no faith and wanted more temporal things from Christ. Even after they fully understood what He was saying, they left. Christ wasn't speaking in a spiritual sense. He was speaking plainly, clearly, and with great emphasis that He said what He meant and He meant what He said.
Later, at the Last Supper, He would raise the bread, and say, take and eat, "This is My Body,....this is My Blood." Do this in remembrance of me."

Are we to deny God’s omnipresence because we cannot conceive how He does it? If Christ, who was on earth as a natural body and now reigns in heaven in a glorified body, certainly He can make bread and wine into His own Body and Blood. We can’t limit God’s acts to our own understanding.

Douay Rheims V 63-64:"If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

I’ll even give the same verse in the King James Version, so you feel right at home. (Please note that DR has 72 verses in all and that’s becasue 51 and 52 are combined into one verse in the KJV as 51.)

KJV V. 62-63: “what and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

You appeal to Verse 63, in an attempt to repudiate or disprove Christ’s revelation that He is present, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Holy Eucharist. This was the same verse that anti-Catholic Jimmy Swaggart used in a 1984 debate on the question, “Is the Real Presence real?” By citing V.63, do you think that Christ, who had just commanded His disciples to eat His flesh, now said there doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh profiteth nothing” means? And were the disciples to understand the line, “the words I have been speaking to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution, and a fairly clumsy one at that, for “symbolic”.

In St.John 6:64 the word “flesh”, is not used in the same sense as in 53-59. It’s being used more in the Pauline sense in which it is contrasted with “spirit”. The contrast is between unaided nature and nature elevated by grace. Compare St.John 3:6, “what is born by natural birth is a thing of nature, what is born by spiritual birth is a thing of spirit.”

After carefully reading the entire narrative, Jesus undoubtedly promises that He will give us His very flesh to eat. Twelve months later, He kept that promise, at the Last Supper taking bread and saying, “This is my Body...” The word of God is power unlike anything that we can fathom. And when He held the bread and said, ‘This is my Body..., His physical body was present. Now since the appearances or qualities of bread did not change, there was only one way left in which the bread could become His body, and that was according to substance. The logic is clear enough. Could God do it? Yes. Did He do it? Yes, for His words to the Jewish disciples bear no other logical explanation. I admit that the Real Presence of Christ’s body in the Holy Eucharist is as much of a mystery to be believed as an act of faith as the mystery of the Holy Trinity. The difficulties in my mind as to how God could do this is of no value against the fact that He did do it. If you believe Genesis literally, then it follows that you can’t say the omnipotent God did not do this, for He who created substance out of nothing , can put it through any subsequent changes that He might wish.

Finally, if you accept from this narrative that Christ can walk upon the waters, and that He could amplify 5 small loaves of ordinary bread to feed thousands of people and that Christ could act independently of natural laws, then despite your inability to see how He could do so, you must accept that He gave His very flesh to eat in the substance of bread. It all comes back to the question of searching the truth and asking yourself, do I really have faith in Christ or not?

KFC, earlier, I asked that you admit that there is no “one faith” and no “one baptism”, as Eph.4:4-5 describes, within Protestantism with all its thousands of Protestant churches each with their own set of theology. To which you posted:

KFC POSTED on Feb. 9: Lula, the ONE faith and the ONE baptism is this.....ONE FAITH....we as united Christians believe in CHRIST. That's the one faith. Our faith is in him. Our faith is only as good as the object its in. People have faith in many things, as Christians our faith is in him.. one faith. ONE SPIRIT-we all are baptized into one spirit. ONE. It's not WATER baptism. That's where you're getting hung up on. You are looking at the physical and Christ and Paul were talking the spiritual. We are unified in Christ connected and baptized by the HS.


I was following along half convinced until you said--it’s not WATER baptism. That’s when you you blew your entire argument. This proves that Protestants themselves aren’t theologically united according to Eph. 4:4-5. You can’t profess to be “unified in Christ connected and baptized by the HS”, yet widely differ in teaching that Baptism is necessity for salvation or not, that water is necessary or not, that infants may not be baptized or not, etc. It can’t be this way because truth is consistent and Christ prayed for unity. It’s quite evident from the NT that differences in doctrine do matter very much. Gal.1:8; 1Tim.1:3; 6:3.


Your acquantanice with St.Matt 16 which shows that Christ established a Church, and not churches, ought to bring you to the realization that Protestant churches, not one or all of them combined, can be theologically united according to Eph. 4:4-5, “one faith, one baptism..”. The reason: each church (by your definition “all believers”) has its own theology based upon the Luther and Calvin’s principle of Sola Scriptura and private instead of authoritative interpretation.


On the other hand, the Catholic Church alone contains the theological unity of Eph.4, one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all. In full continuity with historical Apostolic Christianity, the most diverse types of people drawn from different nations, those who have disagreed on everything else, are at one on the fact that Catholic docrtrine is correct with the infallible authority of God Himself.


Baptism is an essential doctrine of Christianity. To Catholics, Baptism is one of the 7 Sacraments instituted by Christ and one of the constant teachings of the Church. Concerning your statement, “It’s not WATER baptism”, let’s consider the passages of 1St.Peter3: 20-21 and St.John 3:5.

1St.Peter3:20-21 highlights the sacramental manner in which God gives His grace through Baptism. We are told that God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built wherein only 8 souls were saved by water. Baptism which corresponds to this now saves you; not the putting away of filth from the flesh but the pledge of a good conscience toward God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Notice the words in bold. To Catholics, it makes perfect sense because Christianity from the beginning has always taught that Baptism is essential for salvation. We draw from a wealth of other Biblical passages that continuously and consistently teach the doctrine of Baptism. Take St.John 3:5, “Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” Now that’s direct and clear language.

This has always been understood to mean water baptism until descendants of the Protestant forefathers denied it and came up with new interpretations. We’ve heard everything from that the water refers to the water of the womb, the word of God, or even a synonym for the Spirit, (as in, “water, even the Spirit”).

Ever since the Protestant Revolution, Protestants, acting like the free thinking Sadducees, have been picking and choosing which Biblical doctrines they choose to accept or reject. Baptism is one of those doctrines.
When I pressed you on accepting or rejecting Biblically revealed doctrines, KFC, you told me, “you've got that wrong Lula. I can tell you I accept them all. It's the CC church that does not. That's why their tradition usurps written scripture anytime there's a controversy.”

As you can see from these 2 passages, the doctrine of Baptism is biblical and I haven’t brought Apostolic Tradition into it other than to point out that the doctrine of Baptism is a constant, unchanged teaching of the Church and has been from her beginning at Pentecost and throughout her history.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------