Anyone On Here Raised As A Catholic?

[Braveheart91 0]

To MSOUCPMANAre you Anglican (Episcopal) or some variation of such?What exactly does your church's theology say about the Pope?Are you aware of the scriptural basis for the papacy?I started out an atheist up until I was 23-ish. After many debates and arguments, I set out to debunk theism in general and specifically Christianity. After much research and handwrenching, I acquiesced and accepted God as God. I wasn't too terribly thrilled about it, given my lifestyle, but I couldn't ignore the evidence (some see it, some don't). Given that I was surrounded by Baptists, of the RBC variety, I naturally found myself in midst of Baptist theology. I wanted to learn as much as I could and studied incessantly. I tried to delve as deeply as my intellect would allow me into every facet of doctrine. When I couldn't find satisfactory answers on a given topic, I would put it aside. I began to study the messianic movement, Calvinism versus Arminianism, and denominational variations. Throughout this time, I remained convinced that the Catholic Church was the "whore of Babylon" (thank you very much, Tim Lahaye). The arguments were so convincing (unless you do any real research into the claims). I became increasingly annoyed by the fact that all of us were so busy fighting with each other to be a true witness to the world, but I was also guilty of this too (gotta love irony). Through this time several questions occurred to me;1) What happened to the jewishness of the Church?(The church after all is a fulfillment not replacement)2) Shouldn't we be united3) With all of the varying doctrines and practices (some very fundamental, some not so much) who was right? (Someone has to be!)Well, I would find the answers in a very unlikely place. I befriended a woman at my part-time job (I'm a police officer and was working loss prevention on the side) and discovered that she was a christian. After talking to her for a few minutes, I managed to insult her twice, first on the Catholic front and then on the Charisamatic front, despite that we became good friends. (Always had a talent for sticking my foot in my mouth) We debated incessantly (I can be a bit pit-bullish in my technique) and I usually "won" our little back and forths. One day we were having our usual battle and she clocked me with one I couldn't answer. Well, I responded with a vow to disprove her silly Catholicism. I had already read many anti-catholic books, but never read one that defended catholicism (who could defend the indefensible?) I set out to study as much as I could about the Church, in order to pick it apart from there. As I began to delve, many of the questions I had developed on my own journey were being clearly and reasonably answered. I saw in the Church the echoes of the Jewish worhsip it fulfilled. I found clear answers to many of the doctrinal disputes that plague protestantism. I saw what the church was meant to be a united body with a Christ established authority that led the faithful and had the ability settle disputes authoritatively. At first, I thought it was all clever deceit, then I started noticing paassages of scripture that I never noticed before (I've posted some of them here previously). When I began to find scriptural basis for these things, I knew what was inevitable. I wasn't happy about it, but I knew. So after a year and a half journey, I happily call myself catholic. Sorry a bit windy (or is it inky or even pixelly?) but felt it was fair to let you know where I was coming from.

[theresa113 0]

Braveheart91 can I just say welcome to the forum. You are a breath of fresh air.

[brvheart 1,752]

The one and only brvheart can I just say welcome to the forum. You are a breath of fresh air.

thank you. I appreciate that.

[mcsoupman 0]

To MSOUCPMANAre you Anglican (Episcopal) or some variation of such?What exactly does your church's theology say about the Pope?Are you aware of the scriptural basis for the papacy?

No, just an evangelical, like the type Rosie O'Donnel thinks will be the destruction of the world. Many in my church are not so fond of the C church as I have mentioned previously. I apologize, I am not interested in dialoging about Christian denominational or theological concerns issues in this forum. I should have put that in check before.

[Mattnxtc 0]

i promise you that the catholic church as we see it today is not the church that Jesus started or that that was around in the early days...

[Braveheart91 0]

I received some requests relating to scriptural passages that support distinctively catholic beliefs. So let me first address what I feel is the most crucial element, authority. If we can recognize that Jesus left us an earthly authority as "sacrament" of unity, then the rest falls into place in fairly short order.Old testament (OT) authority: I will provide an overview and cite scriptural passages for the really meaty stuff.There were several covenants in the OT, each successive covenant fulfilling the previous covenant. In each of those covenants there was an earthly authority or mediator.Adam in the Adamic covenantNoah in the Noahic covenantAbraham in Abrahamic covenant (Anyone seeing a pattern develop?)Moses in the Mosaic covenantDavid in the Davidic covenantChrist in the New Covenant (Finally a beak in the monotony)Each of these covenants represent a progression of clues to the New Covenantculminating in Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. MarriageFamilyClan or tribeNationKingdomKingdom of God (Family of God as well)The Mosaic and Davidic Covenants also added the element of subordinates with authority, Aaron and the priests for the Mosaic. Eliakim, the palace adminstrator, in the Davidic. Each of these covenants saw the mediator role (Moses and David) have successors as well successors to the subordinates.Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of all of these covenants and the roles these mediators embodied (Husband, Father, Tribal chief, Judge, King).That is just an overview from a Catholic perspective.Now we see that the established covenants built upon another keeping the elements of the preceding covenant, with that in mind;On the Papacy:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."Now the examination:Jesus renames Simon "Rock" (Kepha in the aramaic, Petros in the Greek, masulinized version of "petra") and says that he will build His church "upon this rock". Then he goes on to give Peter binding and loosing authority (a rabbinical term for the authority to define doctrine), the Keys to the Kingdom (from the Davidic Kingdom the palace administrator had the keys to the kingdom, meaning in the King's stead he operated with the King's authority), and the promise that the gates of Hell shall never overcome the church His is establishing. The protestant argument for a different interpretation is "Petros" means small insignificant stone or pebble and Jesus was contrasting that with mountainous rock that is Christ Himself (or the confession of Christ as Messiah, heard it both ways) as the rock upon which the Church is built.Problem is, even if acquiecse the definitional dispute, you are left the plain wording sequence that clearly states that Christ was referring to Peter and not Himself (or Peter's confession). Build upon that the specific authorities he lays upon Peter's shoulders and what you see is a special commision bestowed on Peter. This also fulfills an Old testament prophecy.Isaiah 22:2020 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. This prophecy refers to Eliakim (palace adminstrator) and talks about the authority (keys of the kingdom and binding/loosing) that are laid on his shoulder. Now, this passage cannot refer to Christ because Christ is the coming King [wouldn't ned (ned? I mean need) to be granted those authorities].This authority to bind and loose is then granted to the remaining apostles, creating a collegial authority with Peter at the helm, given the order of granting and the special commission given to Peter. Echoing the past covenants of Moses and David.Now to show that this authority of Moses was an active presence at the time of Christ's earthly ministry I will refer to this passage.Matthew 231 THEN JESUS said to the multitudes and to His disciples,2 The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat [of authority].3 So observe and practice all they tell you; but do not do what they do, for they preach, but do not practice.The authority of Moses was still binding, even by the awful men who succeeded to his role. Furthermore, when the first major rift in the doctrine came along, a council was convened, the matter was decided, and a decree was issued. (Much like the Pope and the Magisterium do to this day.)(Forgive me this is lengthy)Acts 15 The Council at Jerusalem1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:16 " 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,17 that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'18 that have been known for ages.19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23 With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.Sorry about the length of the citation, but felt it deserved fullness. If you put together these pieces you see foreshadowing, commissioning, functioning of this authority. This is how the Church functioned from the beginning to this day, despite the various schisms. As an apostle died another assumed his place, as was done in Acts 1 (after Jesus had ascended).Sorry for the lengthy post, I have almost maxed out. I felt the topic needed more than just a few quotations strewn about. As I wrote in the preface, this may be the most important issue in the Catholic/Non-Catholic (Orthodox-Protestant-Evangelical) Divide. If this authority was established and remains to this day, then the rest is pretty simple.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Very good stuff. What book did those first citations come from Brv? I don't think it was included.Brvheart (old-school), that passage we were talking about earlier is quoted in the above post.

[Braveheart91 0]

The first part is historical covenant theology, actually pretty standard. The most readily accessible and probably most readable is Scott Hahn's "A Father who keeps His promises" (Get out the MLA book, I can't remember the appropriate format for book title) I used much of his format for simplicity sake. He also has a website Salvation History with free courses and resources. He is a professor at Franciscan University (a wonderfully evangelical Catholic university, thats right I said evangelical) in Steubenville, Ohio and a convert himself.

[DonkSlayer 1]

The first part is historical covenant theology, actually pretty standard. The most readily accessible and probably most readable is Scott Hahn's "A Father who keeps His promises" (Get out the MLA book, I can't remember the appropriate format for book title) I used much of his format for simplicity sake. He also has a website Salvation History with free courses and resources. He is a professor at Franciscan University (a wonderfully evangelical Catholic university, thats right I said evangelical) in Steubenville, Ohio and a convert himself.

Yeah but i meant the first set of passages didn't have the Bible book above it. Which one is it? Matthew?

[Braveheart91 0]

Whoops, my faux pas. It comes from Matthew 16:15-

[Loismustdie 0]

i promise you that the catholic church as we see it today is not the church that Jesus started or that that was around in the early days...

Absolutely 100 percent true. It is the only church that is biblically talked about, in that the bible actually names things that they would teach and says don't follow it. Everybody else is guilty by inference.

The first part is historical covenant theology, actually pretty standard. The most readily accessible and probably most readable is Scott Hahn's "A Father who keeps His promises" (Get out the MLA book, I can't remember the appropriate format for book title) I used much of his format for simplicity sake. He also has a website Salvation History with free courses and resources. He is a professor at Franciscan University (a wonderfully evangelical Catholic university, thats right I said evangelical) in Steubenville, Ohio and a convert himself.

Notice how I never quote anything but the bible, or mention schools? He says the bible is so simple even a fool cannot ere therein. Maybe- just maybe- a Catholic school just MIGHT paint catholocism in a good light?

[Loismustdie 0]

true that. Although some would say it is hard to remain truely christian and Catholic, referring to worshiping or praying to saints and such.Not sure if you realize that you just validated my comments. Am I reading this right?

No, it doesn't. Bible directly contradicts catholocism. If they had control when it was translated- they didn't- it would be spun towards them- it isn't. Unless they are incredibly stupid.(They are.) You have pope worship, you have sign seeking, you have commanding men to not marry- which is unscriptual and we see where THAT leads. You have the use of a man as a mediator to god for forgiveness- christ is the mediator and we go directly to god through him. You have nuns, which are found nowhere in the bible, penence which is found nowhere in the bible- hail marys, our fathers, non existent. Father abraham is weak as hell- he was the FATHER of Isreal. That's about as easy as it gets. Priests don't exist, at least not in the New Testament, ony preachers and teachers. McSoup, not all of this was at you, some was at Braveheart91. Good luck.

[Braveheart91 0]

Lois,If you can PROVE one doctrine of the Catholic church to be fasle. I will join your church tomorrow. Just one and I am there. Braveheart911

[Loismustdie 0]

Lois,If you can PROVE one doctrine of the Catholic church to be fasle. I will join your church tomorrow. Just one and I am there. Braveheart911

Laugh out freakin loud. There priest rape children- an astonishing number of them- and there hierarchy continued to cover it up. I shouldn't even waste my time, but here you go:Matt.238] But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.[9] And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Self explanatory. Even a fool could figure that out.1Tim.4] Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;[2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;[3] Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. Sound familiar? Truthfully I wish he it would have mentioned the raping your children thing, but you can still see who it is he is talking of.1Cor.161] Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.[2] Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. How many collections are taken on average at a catholic church on any given week? Not to mention that he says to give as you purpose in your heart, and catholics tithe- that's not quite purposeing, is it? That's a religous jack move. Not o mention paying money to get poeple out of purgatory- which doesn't exist biblically by they way. That's just ridiculous- actually telling some distraught person that yes, there relative died a sinner but he is not quite in hell yet, and if you pay money you can stop the hammer of god from falling. That's just sick and wrong. Jas.516] Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Doesn't say anything about confessing to a priest. Show me a hail mary in the bible and I will eat it, live webcast to prove it. This is to easy. It's also the hardest, because of the deep family ties that run in this relgion- people in cathlocism are not so much blind as just plain bound.

[Loismustdie 0]

I received some requests relating to scriptural passages that support distinctively catholic beliefs. So let me first address what I feel is the most crucial element, authority. If we can recognize that Jesus left us an earthly authority as "sacrament" of unity, then the rest falls into place in fairly short order.Old testament (OT) authority: I will provide an overview and cite scriptural passages for the really meaty stuff.There were several covenants in the OT, each successive covenant fulfilling the previous covenant. In each of those covenants there was an earthly authority or mediator.Adam in the Adamic covenantNoah in the Noahic covenantAbraham in Abrahamic covenant (Anyone seeing a pattern develop?)Moses in the Mosaic covenantDavid in the Davidic covenantChrist in the New Covenant (Finally a beak in the monotony)Each of these covenants represent a progression of clues to the New Covenantculminating in Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. MarriageFamilyClan or tribeNationKingdomKingdom of God (Family of God as well)The Mosaic and Davidic Covenants also added the element of subordinates with authority, Aaron and the priests for the Mosaic. Eliakim, the palace adminstrator, in the Davidic. Each of these covenants saw the mediator role (Moses and David) have successors as well successors to the subordinates.Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of all of these covenants and the roles these mediators embodied (Husband, Father, Tribal chief, Judge, King).That is just an overview from a Catholic perspective.Now we see that the established covenants built upon another keeping the elements of the preceding covenant, with that in mind;On the Papacy:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."Now the examination:Jesus renames Simon "Rock" (Kepha in the aramaic, Petros in the Greek, masulinized version of "petra") and says that he will build His church "upon this rock". Then he goes on to give Peter binding and loosing authority (a rabbinical term for the authority to define doctrine), the Keys to the Kingdom (from the Davidic Kingdom the palace administrator had the keys to the kingdom, meaning in the King's stead he operated with the King's authority), and the promise that the gates of Hell shall never overcome the church His is establishing. The protestant argument for a different interpretation is "Petros" means small insignificant stone or pebble and Jesus was contrasting that with mountainous rock that is Christ Himself (or the confession of Christ as Messiah, heard it both ways) as the rock upon which the Church is built.Problem is, even if acquiecse the definitional dispute, you are left the plain wording sequence that clearly states that Christ was referring to Peter and not Himself (or Peter's confession). Build upon that the specific authorities he lays upon Peter's shoulders and what you see is a special commision bestowed on Peter. This also fulfills an Old testament prophecy.Isaiah 22:2020 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. This prophecy refers to Eliakim (palace adminstrator) and talks about the authority (keys of the kingdom and binding/loosing) that are laid on his shoulder. Now, this passage cannot refer to Christ because Christ is the coming King [wouldn't ned (ned? I mean need) to be granted those authorities].This authority to bind and loose is then granted to the remaining apostles, creating a collegial authority with Peter at the helm, given the order of granting and the special commission given to Peter. Echoing the past covenants of Moses and David.Now to show that this authority of Moses was an active presence at the time of Christ's earthly ministry I will refer to this passage.Matthew 231 THEN JESUS said to the multitudes and to His disciples,2 The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat [of authority].3 So observe and practice all they tell you; but do not do what they do, for they preach, but do not practice.The authority of Moses was still binding, even by the awful men who succeeded to his role. Furthermore, when the first major rift in the doctrine came along, a council was convened, the matter was decided, and a decree was issued. (Much like the Pope and the Magisterium do to this day.)(Forgive me this is lengthy)Acts 15 The Council at Jerusalem1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:16 " 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,17 that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'18 that have been known for ages.19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23 With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.Sorry about the length of the citation, but felt it deserved fullness. If you put together these pieces you see foreshadowing, commissioning, functioning of this authority. This is how the Church functioned from the beginning to this day, despite the various schisms. As an apostle died another assumed his place, as was done in Acts 1 (after Jesus had ascended).Sorry for the lengthy post, I have almost maxed out. I felt the topic needed more than just a few quotations strewn about. As I wrote in the preface, this may be the most important issue in the Catholic/Non-Catholic (Orthodox-Protestant-Evangelical) Divide. If this authority was established and remains to this day, then the rest is pretty simple.

Acts 15 actually says this:0] But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.[21] For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.[22] Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:[23] And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:[24] Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:[25] It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,[26] Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.[27] We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.[28] For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;[29] That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. These scriptures are reffering to blood sacrifice- that is why it talks of idols, not meat for consumption. Notice how it says-"To lay upon you no greater burden than these neccesary things"- the inferrence being that there were people teaching what they thought, and not neccesarily what Christ had in mind. Basically they are saying keep it simple, as christ did. The meaning changes when you change the words from the KJV. It would then read that you should not eat certain meats- but, that would be incontradiction of the scripture that I gave earlier, where it says that all meat was good.

[Loismustdie 0]

I received some requests relating to scriptural passages that support distinctively catholic beliefs. So let me first address what I feel is the most crucial element, authority. If we can recognize that Jesus left us an earthly authority as "sacrament" of unity, then the rest falls into place in fairly short order.Old testament (OT) authority: I will provide an overview and cite scriptural passages for the really meaty stuff.There were several covenants in the OT, each successive covenant fulfilling the previous covenant. In each of those covenants there was an earthly authority or mediator.Adam in the Adamic covenantNoah in the Noahic covenantAbraham in Abrahamic covenant (Anyone seeing a pattern develop?)Moses in the Mosaic covenantDavid in the Davidic covenantChrist in the New Covenant (Finally a beak in the monotony)Each of these covenants represent a progression of clues to the New Covenantculminating in Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. MarriageFamilyClan or tribeNationKingdomKingdom of God (Family of God as well)The Mosaic and Davidic Covenants also added the element of subordinates with authority, Aaron and the priests for the Mosaic. Eliakim, the palace adminstrator, in the Davidic. Each of these covenants saw the mediator role (Moses and David) have successors as well successors to the subordinates.Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of all of these covenants and the roles these mediators embodied (Husband, Father, Tribal chief, Judge, King).That is just an overview from a Catholic perspective.Now we see that the established covenants built upon another keeping the elements of the preceding covenant, with that in mind;On the Papacy:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."Now the examination:Jesus renames Simon "Rock" (Kepha in the aramaic, Petros in the Greek, masulinized version of "petra") and says that he will build His church "upon this rock". Then he goes on to give Peter binding and loosing authority (a rabbinical term for the authority to define doctrine), the Keys to the Kingdom (from the Davidic Kingdom the palace administrator had the keys to the kingdom, meaning in the King's stead he operated with the King's authority), and the promise that the gates of Hell shall never overcome the church His is establishing. The protestant argument for a different interpretation is "Petros" means small insignificant stone or pebble and Jesus was contrasting that with mountainous rock that is Christ Himself (or the confession of Christ as Messiah, heard it both ways) as the rock upon which the Church is built.Problem is, even if acquiecse the definitional dispute, you are left the plain wording sequence that clearly states that Christ was referring to Peter and not Himself (or Peter's confession). Build upon that the specific authorities he lays upon Peter's shoulders and what you see is a special commision bestowed on Peter. This also fulfills an Old testament prophecy.Isaiah 22:2020 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. This prophecy refers to Eliakim (palace adminstrator) and talks about the authority (keys of the kingdom and binding/loosing) that are laid on his shoulder. Now, this passage cannot refer to Christ because Christ is the coming King [wouldn't ned (ned? I mean need) to be granted those authorities].This authority to bind and loose is then granted to the remaining apostles, creating a collegial authority with Peter at the helm, given the order of granting and the special commission given to Peter. Echoing the past covenants of Moses and David.Now to show that this authority of Moses was an active presence at the time of Christ's earthly ministry I will refer to this passage.Matthew 231 THEN JESUS said to the multitudes and to His disciples,2 The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat [of authority].3 So observe and practice all they tell you; but do not do what they do, for they preach, but do not practice.The authority of Moses was still binding, even by the awful men who succeeded to his role. Furthermore, when the first major rift in the doctrine came along, a council was convened, the matter was decided, and a decree was issued. (Much like the Pope and the Magisterium do to this day.)(Forgive me this is lengthy)Acts 15 The Council at Jerusalem1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:16 " 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,17 that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'18 that have been known for ages.19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23 With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.Sorry about the length of the citation, but felt it deserved fullness. If you put together these pieces you see foreshadowing, commissioning, functioning of this authority. This is how the Church functioned from the beginning to this day, despite the various schisms. As an apostle died another assumed his place, as was done in Acts 1 (after Jesus had ascended).Sorry for the lengthy post, I have almost maxed out. I felt the topic needed more than just a few quotations strewn about. As I wrote in the preface, this may be the most important issue in the Catholic/Non-Catholic (Orthodox-Protestant-Evangelical) Divide. If this authority was established and remains to this day, then the rest is pretty simple.

Matt.166] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.[19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[20] Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.[21] From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.[22] Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.[23] But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Yep- he gave him the keys to heaven- and you, and me, and anyone else that care to follow. I like how he then calls his annointed pope Satan, and tells him he is an offense. Quick turn of events, huh? You would think he would see that coming and maybe go with someone else. How absurd. So, this is what God had in mind? Send his only son to die for our sins and then hand the controls over to a man? The proof of how retarded that is is in the results- a religion in dissaray, without the sense to condemn childmolesters. There is no way in hell God created a position for a man to oversee his glorious church.

[theresa113 0]

How absurd. So, this is what God had in mind? Send his only son to die for our sins and then hand the controls over to a man? The proof of how retarded that is is in the results- a religion in dissaray, without the sense to condemn childmolesters. There is no way in hell God created a position for a man to oversee his glorious church.

OK... I will be the first to admit, that I have not read the bible in 20 plus years nor do I go to church. But... If I remember correctly, God made man in his image. If that is correct, than why wouldn't God let man oversee his church? I mean, I would let my son take care of my house when I am away because I tought him the things I know. Why would there be a difference? Not trying to stir things up, I just don't understand your point of view.

[DonkSlayer 1]

There is no way in hell God created a position for a man to oversee his glorious church.

A KJV-banger saying he knows exactly what was meant to happen is no different.

[Loismustdie 0]

OK... I will be the first to admit, that I have not read the bible in 20 plus years nor do I go to church. But... If I remember correctly, God made man in his image. If that is correct, than why wouldn't God let man oversee his church? I mean, I would let my son take care of my house when I am away because I tought him the things I know. Why would there be a difference? Not trying to stir things up, I just don't understand your point of view.

Theresa, your smarter than that. God is reffering to man being a spirirt being. This flesh is temporary. My P.O.V. is easy- man is fallable, as it has been shown in how the Catholic church handles buisness, or any other church for that matter. God is not behind these decisions, and if he was I would have to quickly take side with Tim, Crow, and every other atheist on this board. Read the scripture that is being used to "prove" this idea and just look at how ridiculous it reallly is. Here, I am making you the chief decision maker for my church. Whoops, get behind me Satan you are an offense. It doesn't add up in the least. Also, here is a thought- show me a scripture where Peter was called in to make a decision about anything. I can't recall one. So,basically the guy you call the first Pope, never did anything and had no power.

A KJV-banger saying he knows exactly what was meant to happen is no different.

Looks like you put alot of thought into this. Good job.

[Braveheart91 0]

Well, I am happy to see I can remain catholic.Lois, you have not proven anything (other than that you are not a charitable christian)Although it does not merit response, there have been cases of pedophilia in protestant churches, non-church enviroments, etc. You are not implying that they give a class on molestation in seminary, are you?Tithing is not required in the Church, even if it were, the passage you are referring to wouldn't preclude it.The Roman rite of the Catholic Church requires priests to remain celibate, in keeping with Jesus's exhortation**. Priests of other rites of the Catholic Church can be married. Also this is a discipline not a doctrine.**Matthew 1911 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage* because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."* or have made themselves eunuchs People are not forbidden to marry and only to abstain from meats on Friday as an act of fasting. Certainly you do not think fasting is anti-biblical.The point of my citing Acts 15 had little to do with the particular decrees they handed down, but to demonstrate the process, which remains to this day, that the church employed to handle doctrinal disputes. So the difference between the NIV, KJV, NASB, NLT, NIrV, NKJV, NJB, NAB, etc. (ad nauseum) is irrelevant in the context of the citation.The Hail Mary "Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus"It is a prayer taken from scritpure "Ave [Maria] gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus" That is from the Vulgate which was the principal biblical text used for over a thousand years of the Church. Gratiae plena, literally translated, means "FULL OF GRACE". It CAN be translated "most highly favored one", but this is where bias comes in (do you choose the most literal translation or do you choose what suits your theology better?)As to Matthew 16,You're point witht the "Get behind me Satan" was...? Peter denied Christ 3 times and was restored by Christ, none of that negates the plain and simple meaning of the passage I presented. In the passage, Jesus talking to Peter. You imply that Jesus granted us all the authority to bind and loose (which again is the authority to rule on matters of doctrine).

Yep- he gave him the keys to heaven- and you, and me, and anyone else that care to follow.

Sorry, but you cannot derive that from the text. Doesn't sound like Sola Scriptura to me, but what do I know.Actually, Jesus appointed 12 guys, granted them with authority, and commissioned them to oversee the Church. If you look you will see in your KJV the word bishop, which comes from the greek word "episkopos", which means overseer. So I would caution you to retract your statement about no way in "Hell". As a plain matter of fact, you are attacking a straw man (not really the thing, but a caricature of it.) not really addressing any of the doctrinal issues and what you do attempt to take apart is very clumsily attempted and poorly executed.

[theresa113 0]

Theresa, your smarter than that.

Wow. Quite condescending. Anyway, is there something that states that God created man in his image in spirit only? And if so, are we not spiritual beings? If we were not spiritual beings, than why we would even have this debate? I know my questions may seem simplistic but my point is that the love of God is simplistic. Debating over passages and words is a thing of man, not an act of God. But I degress as did my original point of this thread. The most vocal person on this thread was not raised Catholic. Instead, found opportunity to fill his own agenda instead of starting his own thread. Though I always support opposing views, I still do not like that what I hoped to be a thread of healing and growth turned into this is the way it is and has so much anti-Catholicism.

[Loismustdie 0]

Wow. Quite condescending. Anyway, is there something that states that God created man in his image in spirit only? And if so, are we not spiritual beings? If we were not spiritual beings, than why we would even have this debate? I know my questions may seem simplistic but my point is that the love of God is simplistic. Debating over passages and words is a thing of man, not an act of God. But I degress as did my original point of this thread. The most vocal person on this thread was not raised Catholic. Instead, found opportunity to fill his own agenda instead of starting his own thread. Though I always support opposing views, I still do not like that what I hoped to be a thread of healing and growth turned into this is the way it is and has so much anti-Catholicism.

Admitedly you haven't read the bible in twenty years and don't go to church. Why even have an opinion? We know that God is not human, but spirit- therefore if he created man in his image by inference we know that we are spirit. The love of God is simplistic, sure, but it also comes with a price- your servitude. In order to be able to do that maybe you ought to get to know his word? It can't get any more basic than that. I was not being condescending- I believe that you are smarter than that, that is why I said it. As far as me being the most vocal, kind of hard not to me- my opinions cross others so it becomes debate, which God actually commands in scripture, to reason out his word so we can come to understanding and agreement. I am just doing my part.

[Loismustdie 0]

Well, I am happy to see I can remain catholic.Lois, you have not proven anything (other than that you are not a charitable christian)Although it does not merit response, there have been cases of pedophilia in protestant churches, non-church enviroments, etc. You are not implying that they give a class on molestation in seminary, are you?Tithing is not required in the Church, even if it were, the passage you are referring to wouldn't preclude it.The Roman rite of the Catholic Church requires priests to remain celibate, in keeping with Jesus's exhortation. Priests of other rites of the Catholic Church can be married. Also this is a discipline not a doctrine.Matthew 1911 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage* because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."* or have made themselves eunuchs People are not forbidden to marry and only to abstain from meats on Friday as an act of fasting. Certainly you do not think fasting is anti-biblical.The point of my citing Acts 15 had little to do with the particular decrees they handed down, but to demonstrate the process, which remains to this day, that the church employed to handle doctrinal disputes. So the difference between the NIV, KJV, NASB, NLT, NIrV, NKJV, NJB, NAB, etc. (ad nauseum) is irrelevant in the context of the citation.The Hail Mary "Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus"It is a prayer taken from scritpure "Ave [Maria] gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus" That is from the Vulgate which was the principal biblical text used for over a thousand years of the Church. Gratiae plena, literally translated, means "FULL OF GRACE". It CAN be translated "most highly favored one", but this is where bias comes in (do you choose the most literal translation or do you choose what suits your theology better?)As to Matthew 16,You're point witht the "Get behind me Satan" was...? Peter denied Christ 3 times and was restored by Christ, none of that negates the plain and simple meaning of the passage I presented. In the passage, Jesus talking to Peter. You imply that Jesus granted us all the authority to bind and loose (which again is the authority to rule on matters of doctrine). Sorry, but you cannot derive that from the text. Doesn't sound like Sola Scriptura to me, but what do I know.Actually, Jesus appointed 12 guys, granted them with authority, and commissioned them to oversee the Church. If you look you will see in your KJV the word bishop, which comes from the greek word "episkopos", which means overseer. So I would caution you to retract your statement about no way in "Hell". As a plain matter of fact, you are attacking a straw man (not really the thing, but a caricature of it.) not really addressing any of the doctrinal issues and what you do attempt to take apart is very clumsily attempted and poorly executed.

Sure. The Catholic church is a bastion of godliness. What was I thinking? See, Theresa? THATS being condescending. The NT was written for christians- therefore when Peter is being talked to by Jesus who is being talked to? Christians. The body of christ does make decisions regarding scripture, doctine, together- there is no 12 men or 1 that handles it anymore, because they are all dead. In fact, the first Pope wasn't even elected until was it 303 or 606 A.D.? Here is an idea- Lets see a biblical example of confessing sins to a man, and then saying some type of penanace. How about a biblical example of a pope, and the way he carries himself? Did Jesus have a security detail, a popemobile? No- he was a man of the people. How about an example of a Nun? How about Peter, the supposed Pope, being involved in anything substantial? The argument could be made quite easily that if you were to choose a Pope, or a leader, that would be the worst choice. How about Good friday? Where is it mentioned? How about a chapter in Revelation that specifically foretells of Catholocism and calls her the Mother of Harlots? That you will actually find, although I would bet that only Matt could do it. How about a scripture that talks about how God does not like repetetive prayer? Probably only Matt on that one too. How about Idol worship? Are we to pray to the cross?Who are we to pray to? Are we to seek signs- no Church is more guilty of this that the Catholic church, and God specifically warns against it. Probabaly only Matt on that one too. Doctrine is what you teach,not neccesarily what you believe. You can believe that it's best that you not eat meat on fridays but you can't teach it if it's not biblical, that is where the line is crossed. Fasting is not a bad thing, but it's not neccesary. How many ideas are taught that are directly from man and not scriptual at all? To many. I remember one time in the Church of Christ on a trip we did to another congregation a man touched one of the woman inappropriately while he thought she was asleep. He is no longer around- he was rebuked openly, and he never set foot in our building again. I would imagine that it wasn't shame- shame would bring forth change, and he went his way to be what he was- evil. Which is what many of your priests should be called, loudly, in front of everyone by the body of that church but you are in such dissarray that you actualy argure and say, and this isn't a quote but you said.. " Hasn't anyone ever raped a child in your church? " That was actually your defense,and if you cannot see what a joke that is, it will take an act of God to turn you around.

[Flack_attack 0]

The Our Father is quoted directly from scripture.

[Loismustdie 0]

The Our Father is quoted directly from scripture.

Sure- which one again?