Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

To all you Catholic bashers...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 726-750 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 2:57:34 PM PDT
libloon2 says:
Jay Runner says: //When you mentioned the hypothetical "if Alexandria had triumphed"//

When I quoted that, I was ignoring the POLITICAL situation at that time. - I was, instead, referring to the RELIGIOUS centers at that time.

Rome had receded, politically, and now Constantinople was coming to the forefront, in place of Rome. Only the RELIGIOUS remnant was RELIGIOUSLY active, in Rome.

That's why, (maybe I'm ignorant) I see the religious competition as being between Alexandria (in Egypt) and Rome, in Italy.

When you mention Irenaeus, I was taught (in Catholic School), that it was him, who really decided on the "four" gospels that we currently have.
What are your learnings on this?- I would like to know.
(And that's ignoring all the other posters who ALREADY know, and don't want to know anything that might comflict.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 3:22:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2012 3:30:36 PM PDT
Raulito says:
Edward,

"Peter, to whom Jesus was talking, clearly understood what Jesus was saying when he said "upon this rock I will build my church. The rock was Jesus"

The text does not say this. You do.

Please explain how Peter could be the rock upon which the church was built, when he himself did not understand that he was the rock and instead calls Jesus the rock?

Jesus says to Peter "you are rock.." Mt 16;18. In John 1;42, Jesus says to Peter "...you are to be called Cephas..." John gives the Aramaic name "cephas" which translates as rock. It is the only time when Peter is liteterally called "rock" in the Aramaic, and it appeas in John 1:42.

You won't find a single respectable Protestant scholar who denies Peter was called "rock" by Jesus.

Lutheran theologians say "But to the best of our knowledge, the name Rock was not an ordinary name either in the Hebrew-Aramaic or in Greek..." Pg 91.

Peter in the New Testament, A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars. 1978. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 4:20:53 PM PDT
Some days I start to think there are really only about 3 or 4 different people on these forums.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 4:22:52 PM PDT
A Customer says:
You're just projecting. The rest of us don't use sock-puppets.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 4:25:12 PM PDT
Maybe everyone on here is really me like they say about all the characters in a dream.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 6:22:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2012 6:26:55 PM PDT
QUESTER says:
Raulito says:
Edward,

"Peter, to whom Jesus was talking, clearly understood what Jesus was saying when he said "upon this rock I will build my church. The rock was Jesus"

The text does not say this. You do.

Please explain how Peter could be the rock upon which the church was built, when he himself did not understand that he was the rock and instead calls Jesus the rock?

Jesus says to Peter "you are rock.." Mt 16;18. In John 1;42, Jesus says to Peter "...you are to be called Cephas..." John gives the Aramaic name "cephas" which translates as rock. It is the only time when Peter is liteterally called "rock" in the Aramaic, and it appeas in John 1:42.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter's own words ...

1 Peter 2

2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Per Peter, we're all stones and Jesus is the cornerstone.

Posted on Jul 1, 2012 6:26:35 PM PDT
Hoo-Zen!! says:
Down with Jeroboamites (ie Protestants) [see 1 and 2 Chronicles] long live Jesus and Mary!
Oh Yeah, have a nice day Y'all.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 6:40:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2012 6:43:24 PM PDT
Edward says:
Dear Quester:

You are correct when you say:"Per Peter, we're all stones and Jesus is the cornerstone."

The issue is who is the rock upon which the church is built. Peter clearly states that Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built. Jesus is the chief corner stone, not Peter. Peter understood that fact. If Peter thought that he was the rock upon which the church was built, he would have said that he was the rock upon which the church was built. He did not say that. Instead, he identified the rock as Jesus Christ.

"Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. ... the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence." 1 Peter 2:2-8.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 8:00:44 PM PDT
Edward -

JESUS is the One Who said He was building His Church on Peter the rock...

That DOESN'T mean it's Peter's Church - it is most assuredly Christ's. However, please remember that Jesus DID also delegate the responsibility to Peter THREE TIMES, to feed His sheep.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 8:01:42 PM PDT
LOL!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 8:04:47 PM PDT
Hoo-Zen!!

I wouldn't want to say that...

Maybe ProtestantISM - but not the people. That's not what Jesus wants.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 8:20:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2012 8:56:16 PM PDT
Bohemian Man says:
Jon Astro,

The basis of my argument rests on the fact that at the Council of Nicea, it was established what would be Christian orthodoxy.

That orthodoxy became the measuring rod for determining the validity of any given books of scripture that were circulating.

From the agreed upon gospels, the Catholics then interpreted things THEIR way as protestants did theirs centuries later.

However, it WAS a Catholic counsel, organized by Constantine, that started the whole ball rolling concerning the OFFICIAL ORTHODOX VIEW. Later that view would determine what books would be accepted.

There was never unanimous agreements on which books were inspired. Hebrews only made it in by one vote. And as time went on, publishers decided what was inspired (though the gospels stayed in place). King James 1st edition included the Apocrapha, then removed it later.

My whole argument is "why bash the Catholics"? Yes, they believe tradition is equal to scripture. Protestants wish James didn't exist. Who cares what side of the theological fence you sit on? It's apples and oranges. It's ALL been a man made project from the beginning.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 8:21:04 PM PDT
Jay Runner says:
libloon2,

The Coptic church in Egypt and the Ethiopian Orthodox church nearby do not accept any of the Gnostic writings, and they have roots in Alexandria. By tradition Mark, writer of the second Gospel, founded the church at Alexandria. If headquarters had moved from Rome to Alexandria imo there would be little difference in the canon, and no difference in the Gospels. The Ethiopian Orthodox do include in their canon the Jewish pseudepigraphic book of Enoch, but so do the Ethiopian Jews.

The reason the Coptics (Coptic language is their language) broke off from Rome was the controversy over monophysitism. They believed that the Divine Nature of Christ overwhelmed and swallowed up the human nature, leaving Christ with a Divine Nature only. The Latin church would never agree to that.

Irenaeus was the first to mention that there could not be fewer nor more than the four Gospels. It is in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book III, ch. 11, 8, written c. 175.

"It is not possible the the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds. Now, the church is scattered throughout the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the church is the Gospel. Therefore it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and renewing men afresh."

As bishop of Lyon he did not have the authority to decide for the church, but ultimately the Council of Carthage did enact as canon only the four Gospels.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 8:43:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 7:24:19 PM PDT
Ed, Cephas is Aramaic for rock, as Jesus renamed Simon as rock. (John 1:42), just as Abraham was ALSO called rock. (Isaiah 51:1,2) and Christ is indeed the Eternal rock. Also, just as Christ is the Eternal Shepherd, (Ezekiel 34;12,14), so TOO David and Peter, (2 Samuel 5:2, John 21:17), offices that were indeed succeeded. Did david as Shepherd, deny that God was the Eternal Shepherd? We have a choice, to claim the bible alone, or to follow the Authority Christ vested in Peter the rock that determined which of the over 75 letters written, were to be included in the new testament and which were not, the same Church authority in Peter that put an end to all the debating at the assembly of baptized believersd, since "Scripture alone" could not. (Acts 15:12, Matthew 16:16-19, John2 1:17, Luke 22:31, 1 Thessalonians 5;12, Luke 10:16) for the manifold Wisdom of God is revealed through the Church. (Ephesians 3:10). Peace always in the Most Precious Blood of Jesus our Great God and Savioour

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:19:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 2:29:45 AM PDT
Jon Astro says:
Bohemian Man.
Firstly,the source to go to on the purpose,extent and motif of the Council of Nicea,is the scholars who have devoted their time to assessing all the

documents related to that Council.And secondly to the men who were responsible for its orchestration. I am afraid that neither of these sources will

yield any of the claims you make that that Council had anything whatsoever to do with determining whether the books of the Canon were to be excluded or

included,or the extent of doctrine for the Church Catholic,for all ages in all matters.Let alone matters relating to the schism between Catholics and Protestants.

Rather it answered concerns relating to a schism started by Arius,who said the nature and being of the Son cannot be the same as that of the Father.

So the end of the Nicene formula supported what Protestants,Catholic and Eastern Orthodox have all agreed upon, in relation to the nature of the Son to the Father.

Arius taught the Son had a beginning.The aim of the Council was to call that notion what it is,heresy.Such a statement is and always has been agreed

upon by all of Christendom since,except the few who broke away and kept to Arianism in some form.

The Nicene Creed which is recited in Churches today is much longer than that formed by the Council,and differs in some key matters.All present signed

an agreement concerning "homoousia",relating to the fact that the Son is begotten of the Father of the same,(not similar) substance with the Father.

Eusebius of Nicomedia also signed,and Eusebius of Caesarea had been anxious to clear his name as one in support of Arius.Among other matters discussed

at the Council was the date to celebrate Easter,and a ruling on the Melitian schism in Egypt.The anti-Arianism was later confirmed both by the 381ADCouncil of Constantinople and Athansius' efforts to stamp the heresy out.

None of this determined anything more,than the universal agreed upon position on the Trinity, which had already been universally accepted,except for

Origen and the Arian schismatics.It ADDS NOTHING TO THE Catholic versus Protestant debate. Check works of Eusebius and the Philip Schaff's Works of

Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers.

There is as I have already explained, NO COUNCIL in the first five centuries that determines the validity of any given books except the Council of Hippo

Regius 393AD, and Carthage 397, which as F.F.Bruce states,simply confirmed what had been the universal practice of reading and accepting all the books

in the New Testament,adding acceptance to the previously disputed books such as Jude and Revelation.

The 'Official Orthodox view' of which these councils formulated doctrine or dogma,were with no exception, limited to those matters considered basic to the

very foundation of Eastern and Western Christendom.Both were in unity in the first seven centuries after Constantine.So both West and Eastern Councils in

that period, strived to achieve universal agreement among Christians on the BASIC foundational teachings of the Apostles,on major doctrinal issues.If for

example Arianism took hold,it could have destroyed the basic teaching that Jesus is God,and ruined Christendom.Of this no Catholic or Protestant today

disagrees on.This view NEVER determined the books,as they were only officially CONFIRMED by the Council of Carthage,NOT determined.

On the apocrypha you should purchase William Webster's fine work on that topic,it was not considered as inspired by the early Church in the first five cent-

uries as the rest of the Canon.This is why it was called 'Deutero-Canon',a second canon,not as authoritative as the first.One of its books,2 Esdras chap 7

opposes prayers offered to the dead.This section of the book was secretly abolished by a monk in the middle ages and later discovered in the 18th cent-

ury.This contradicted Maccabees, another Apocryphal work which supported prayers for the dead.This embarrassing fact is little known even among Cath-

olic apologists.In any case many Catholic theologians and prominent priests today do not hold the Apocrypha as equal in inspiration as the rest of the Canon.(See also Bruce Metzger on Apocrypha,and his Oxford Dictionary of the Bible.)

The statement that there "never" was unanimous agreements,on which books were inspired,is neither here nor there. Within the Churches from the late

fourth century there was no longer any dispute concerning the books in the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation.Concerning other non-canonical

books,there were others such as Gnostics and Nestorians who would wish to include certain apocrypha, plus certain pseudepigrapha such as Enoch.But

this does not add or take away from your initial argument in any way.It simply is irrelevant.The Gnostics are not accepted by either Catholic or Protestant

traditions.

Why bash the Catholics? My parents were sincere Catholics and I have known many friends who are Catholic,and I couldn't agree more,they should not be

"bashed". Something tells me you are not talking about the Protestant attack on the people,but their teaching. If they believe tradition is equal to Scripture

and historian after historian shows that that tradition includes bad Popes' declarations and contradictions, from one Pope to his successor,why should not a

historian not think that this is on a par with claims for purity of Scripture?? You give no reason for thinking Protestants are any more guilty than agnostic

historians in doubting this claim by Catholics. Where you get the notion that Protestants wish James "didn't exist", when only Martin Luther doubted it,but

later accepted James,leaves me wondering about whether you read only popular critics in the general libraries,and that's all.Any Protestant College library

in U.S. or in Europe, is replete with Protestant commentaries on James,praising it as one of the finest supports for the spirit of Paul in Romans.Check that

out.(See Word Christian books for a list of commentaries for example.Amazon will produce some of these as well.Some of the best Protestant sermons in

history have been on the book of James.John Calvin wrote a commentary on this in his collected works.See also Norman Geisler and Ralph E MacKenzie,

Roman Catholics and Evangelicals,out of print,but at Amazon.)

Posted on Jul 2, 2012 1:34:14 AM PDT
I am a Roman Catholic..
And Proud to be...
It was the faith that I was born into and a faith that I have come to love..
not always understand or agree with ..
BUT it is MY faith and MY choice...
Bash me if you want..Because I really don't care what RC bashers think!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 2:23:46 AM PDT
Jon Astro says:
Jay Runner.
Will Durant was without question ,a lay scholar with no credentials in his day as a professional historian.In some matters many professional historians have

pointed out that he was inaccurate in particulars.And his biases crept in to the extent of distorting and fabricating what was said.Nevertheless,none of

what you quote,including the quote from Ignatius refutes the fact, that the Catholic doctrine on Transubstantiation does not rest on the early Father's

notion of real presence,(which they were not unanimous on at all),and is a response to disputes given rise to, by Ratramnus and Radbertus.If you check

the more authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia and New Catholic Encyclopedia,you will find that there is no dispute that Paschasius was pivotal to the

evolution of the doctrine,which was not fully finalized until Trent in the 16th century.Which is more than 1000 years after the Church became 'universal' by

Constantine,and nearly 15 centuries after the Apostles.In other words that doctrine is the sole invention of the Roman Catholic Church,long after Ignatius,

who never would have heard of it.Your first quote by Ignatius simply says what Protestants all agree upon,that the Eucharist is celebrating one Lord Jesus

who had one flesh,(Schismatics argued his flesh was only apparent,not real,or that the Resurrected flesh was not human,etc.,)No where does this quote

support any claim that the bread changed into the flesh. There was mostly one bishop per church at that time,and no Popes whatever.The first claim for

the Roman bishop to become head of the Church, occurred in the third century,but was opposed by those in Alexandria and Antioch.Not until the first

Pope,Leo 1 in 440AD to 461AD,do we see the Roman bishop made the head of other bishops,but ONLY in the west.The east never accepted the western

pope as head of the churches in the East.And after the 1054 split between East and West,this was only solidified.The papacy did exert some world power

from the12th to the 14th century,(despite there been three popes at the same time on one occasion),but after this, its influence and power began to

wane.Nowone can find literally millions of Catholics, who in poles, do not think the Pope any longer represents how they see Christians should practice the faith.

The statement in the second quote by Ignatius,I have just read in my copy of his letter,and it is not clear that the words,"the Eucharist is the flesh of",

have anything to do with the idea that Christ is the elements,or rather in or with the elements,or any such peculiar distinctions.Rather,the context of

his words again support the context of the first quote,that the Eucharist is ,as the word defined from the Greek," thanksgiving" of Christ's flesh offered on

our behalf,against those who in Ignatius' time doubted Jesus was God in the flesh.Or said his flesh was apparent not real.

In any case the Anglicans,not the Catholic Church is responsible for introducing the term,"Real Presence",to oppose the Reformers who shied away

from it, because of a misguided notion it supported in ONE TRAIT ONLY the Catholic doctrine.But it didn't even do that.Lutherans and many Anglicans today

support the real presence, without in any way thinking that it supports in the slightest, the doctrine of Transubstantiation.Some Anglicans who join the

Catholic fold, hold onto the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,but reject Transubstantiation.Certainly, the early fathers differed widely on the idea

of Christ's presence in the Eucharist,but none can with clarity be used to argue for Transubstantiation,which evolved much later.So what your argument

with me is,is yet unclear.Is still not demonstrated,and yet you use many words.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 2:26:57 AM PDT
Jon Astro says:
Birutegal.
I am still trying to sort out who is from what tradition,and arguing for what.Some seem to contradict their own Church's position.God speed!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 2:40:56 AM PDT
Jon Astro says:
Angela. I am certainly against bashing Catholics,it does not add anything to the differences between the Christian traditions.But I am all for Catholics

being informed about the beliefs they choose to hold to.Where they come from,did Christ Himself or the Apostles teach them? Are they inventions by

Popes that even modern Popes admit,and the Catholic Encyclopedia explains, were 'bad' Popes? Do you care what you choose to accept or reject?? etc.,I

was born a Roman Catholic.But that did not make me pleasing to Christ or aware of what Scripture says,and how it differs from Catholic teaching.

In any case,nice to see your input to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 3:07:27 AM PDT
Why bash Catholics? Because deep down they know they should come back, but they're too proud, angry, unaware to.

We'll take you back! Come on home! Love to all my protesting Protestant brothers and sisters!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 3:33:54 AM PDT
QUESTER says:
Faith says:
Edward -

JESUS is the One Who said He was building His Church on Peter the rock...

That DOESN'T mean it's Peter's Church - it is most assuredly Christ's. However, please remember that Jesus DID also delegate the responsibility to Peter THREE TIMES, to feed His sheep.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And Peter did just that.

Jesus said He was building His church upon a particular rock whose identity is, at best, unclear.

Peter clears it up for us in his writings.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 5:10:36 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 5:19:20 AM PDT
Jay Runner says:
John Astro,

We're all plowmen and have the right to intrepret Scripture individually as we see fit. This is the byword of the Reformation.

I'm going to add to that that we're all plowmen and have the right to interpret history as we see fit.

You are correct that Paschasius did have influence, and a significant commentary on his work was made by Sylvester II about a century and half later.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 5:34:03 AM PDT
QUESTER says:
Jay Runner says:
John Astro,

We're all plowmen and have the right to intrepret Scripture individually as we see fit. This is the byword of the Reformation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't responsibility for one's salvation individual in nature ???

Why should I trust my eternal soul to the unexamined words of anybody but Jesus ???

Doesn't it make sense that I should seek to be led by Christ's own words ???

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 6:19:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 6:20:47 AM PDT
Edward says:
Dear Faith:

You stated: "JESUS is the One Who said He was building His Church on Peter the rock..."

Jesus said no such thing. That is your interpretation. Peter, to whom Jesus was talking, clearly understood that the rock to whom Jesus was referring when he said "upon this rock I will build my church," was Jesus Christ himself.

In Matthew 16:16 Jesus asks his disciples "whom say ye that I am?" When Peter answers that he is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." That answer reveals the rock upon which God would build his church, Jesus Christ (the rock). It was after that response by Peter that Jesus said: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18.

The rock was the rock spoken by Peter when he identified Jesus as "the Christ the Son of the living God."

Please explain how Peter could be the rock upon which the church was built, when he himself did not understand that he was the rock and instead repeatedly calls Jesus the rock and chief corner stone of the church?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 6:22:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 6:43:34 AM PDT
Edward says:
Dear Raulito:

I asked: "Please explain how Peter could be the rock upon which the church was built, when he himself did not understand that he was the rock and instead calls Jesus the rock?"

Your reply was not responsive to my question. Please explain why Peter repeatedly refers to Jesus as the rock and the chief corner stone of the church if Peter was supposed to be that rock.

Peter refers to Jesus as the "the stone," "the head of the corner," (Acts 4:10-12)"a chief corner stone," "the stone which the builders disallowed," "a stone of stumbling," and "a rock of offence." (1 Peter 2:6-8).
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Christianity forum


Active discussions in related forums  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  92
Total posts:  2900
Initial post:  Jun 16, 2012
Latest post:  Mar 15, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions