[Tj3]

Yes I’ve noticed the exponential growth of the Protestant denominations. If Protestant’s have a moral authority, then why do their numbers continue to grow? Do they not claim they get their authority from the Holy Spirit? If so why is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic in His revelation; giving one denomination a set of moral virtues, and another denomination a different set of moral virtues?

First of all, you may not have noticed that the topic here is Catholicism.

Second, as you have been told before, I am not a protestant.

Third, your response indicates that you read nothing of my last post or chose not to address any of the points that I raised, so I see no reason to respond to yours further. I can only assume that you did not attempt to respond to the points that I raised because you have no rebuttal, so my points stand.

[classyT]

Ok maybe I am just really ignorant on this topic. But when I read Paul 's epistles I see nothing of catholicism. I don't really know why the Catholic church thinks they were the frist? Paul lays out who the Church is, and how they are to function. Am I to believe that the churches he wrote to were CATHOLIC? I go to a non demonminational church because I don't want a name of any sort given to me. I am a CHRISTIAN... period. And if you read where the first church was formed in Anitioch... they called themselves CHRISTIANS. ( not catholics) Paul had the same problem back then when he said some say they follow me.. others follow someone else. The apostle Paul is the apostle who was given the revelation of the church... NOT PETER... who the apostle Paul had to get after from time to time because he struggled with mixing law with grace. Now how "out there" am I on this?

[Fr_Chuck]

I guess the Catholic Church believes it is the first since all of the early church leaders evolved into the formal Catholic Church, the local church leaders as they grew formed structure and this became the Catholic and Orthodox Churches we know today.

A sort of off comparison would be the early explorers who came to America were not US citizens but did they not form what becamse the US. While of course in the early time there was just the Church, the formal group that came from this was the Catholic Church. The term Catholic, which of course means universal came about to show that it included all christians everywhere at that time.

[classyT]

Fr_Chuck,

I am not good at Church History outside of the WORD. I only know what the Apostle Paul wrote. He wrote nothing of Priests ( other than our HIGH PRIEST.. Jesus). He worte nothing of what I believe Catholicism is today. If you read what he says about the assemblies and how they function... I just don't believe Catholics were the first church.. not the ones the Apostle Paul was writing to. Maybe after he died it evolved but
That wasn't what Paul was setting up. Am I wrong?

And having said that... what we have in Christendom today isn't what it is suppose to be... but I believe there are those that TRY to follow him as best as they can.

[JoeT777]

Ok maybe i am just really ignorant on this topic. But when I read Paul 's epistles I see nothing of Catholicism. I don't really know why the Catholic Church thinks they were the first? Paul lays out who the Church is, and how they are to function. Am I to believe that the churches he wrote to were CATHOLIC? I go to a non denominational church because I don't want a name of any sort given to me. I am a CHRISTIAN...period. And if you read where the first church was formed in Antioch...they called themselves CHRISTIANS. (not Catholics) Paul had the same problem back then when he said some say they follow me..others follow someone else. The apostle Paul is the apostle who was given the revelation of the church....NOT PETER...who the apostle Paul had to get after from time to time because he struggled with mixing law with grace. Now how "out there" am I on this?

I believe it was Cardinal John Henry Newman who said something like, people don’t hate the Catholic Church so much as they hate what they “think” the Catholic Church is. You might be interested in reading how the Catholic Church views the role of Peter. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Pope

The following are a few Scriptural references showing Peter was the designated the head of the Church. And, logic dictates that if there is a head there must be a body. Catholics hold that part of Christ’s presents on earth was to commission his Church, establishing the new covenant.

Mt 16:18-19 – Simon is designated head of the Church, called Peter (the rock), given the keys to bind and loose.

Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32 – Scriptural evidence that the other Apostles viewed Peter at the “first.” He’s always mentioned first and foremost.

Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69 - Peter addresses the Apostles from a position of authority.

Jn 21:17 - It was Peter Christ commanded to "feed my sheep"

Jn 1:42 - Simon is referred to as Cephas (Aramaic: Kepha for rock).

Acts 2:14-40 – At the Pentecost: Peter was the first to stand, “14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you and with your ears receive my words...”

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter worked first healing, in the name of Christ he said “arise and walk”.

Acts 10:46-48 – It was Peter that it was revealed that gentiles were to be included in baptism.

Lk 22:31-32 - And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm [strengthen] thy brethren.

JoeT

[classyT]

Joe777,

Well we disagree. First.. I don't hate the catholic church.. I just don't understand all of it. 2nd... I disagree with Peter being the founder of the church... it is PAUL that was given the revelation of the Church PERIOD.. not peter.. and by the way.. who were"MY SHEEP" and "thy brethren"... the JEWISH PEOPLE.

If you read Paul's epistles you will see where he lays out who the Church is, and how they are to worship... he also gives instructions on the Lord's Table, discipline.. anything you want to know concerning how the church should run.. read HIS epistles. He had to get after peter for returning to the law... You get all your verses in the gospels and a few in ACTS when Peter was still clueless about the CHURCH and the Period of Grace that we live in right now. He was waiting for Jesus to come and set up the Kingdom, he had NO IDEA what was to come.

Where does the Apostle Paul fit into all of this catholic doctine... I don't know? what do you do with his epistles?

[JoeT777]

Joe777,
Well we disagree.

Obviously.

first.. I don't hate the Catholic Church

I wasn’t implying that you hated the Catholic Church. I was pointing out that you obviously didn’t understand what “Catholic Church” meant.

.. I just don't understand all of it. 2nd... I disagree with Peter being the founder of the church... it is PAUL that was given the revelation of the Church PERIOD.. not peter

.. and by the way.. who were "MY SHEEP" and "thy brethren"... the JEWISH PEOPLE.

“Feed my lambs;” “Feed my lambs;” “Feed my Sheep.” These words were given to Peter only and indicate his spiritual supremacy over the entire flock. The lambs signify all believers, not just the Jew.

If you read Paul's epistles you will see where he lays out who the Church is, and how they are to worship... he also gives instructions on the Lord's Table, discipline.. anything you want to know concerning how the church should run.. read HIS epistles.

Yes Paul wrote letters giving good instruction, but nowhere in the Scriptures is he drawn on as an “authority” as the Vicar of Christ as is Peter.

He had to get after peter for returning to the law

And it was Peter’s authoritative decision that settled the issue.

Where does the Apostle Paul fit into all of this Catholic doctrine... I don't know? what do you do with his epistles?

Paul’s 14 letters fit between Acts and James.


The Catholic Church has always understood the Scripture to give Primacy to Peter. This was illustrated in a letter written by Pope Clement I (third in succession to Peter and had personally known Peter) to the Corinthians (circa) 95 AD claiming authority over Corinth. St. Irenaeus tells the second hand account from St. Polycarp where John was heard to say “the faithful wo are everywhere must agree with this Church (Rome) because of its more important principality.” During the Councils and Synods surrounding the early heresies the Popes decision settled the matter. This is illustrated in 431 AD. Where the Bishops responded to Pope Celestine’s decision, “He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successor’s gives judgment.”

Only after 1520 some have asked why this reference is only found in one Gospel and not the others, Warren Carroll suggest the rather simple answer: “Why are Christ’s words to Peter found only in Matthew, and not in the other gospels? Because Mathew was there, with Peter and the Twelve, on the road to Caesarea Philippi in the summer of 29 A.D.: he heard the dialogue himself, in his own Aramaic language. Mark the Evangelist was not there; his information came from Peter, and we have very early testimony that out of humility Peter did not include Christ’s praise of him in his catechesis. John had the other gospels before him as he wrote, and rarely repeated what they had already reported.. . “ That the words don’t appear in Mark’s Gospel was influenced by Peter’s humility. It would be easy to suggest this as speculation however Victor of Antioch, the first commentator of Mark, mentions it as does Eusebius of Caesarea. Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 338. (see also footnote 139)


JoeT

[classyT]

Joe,
Well you need to understand the Gospels are not really the "gospel". They are Jewish.. not christian. Christianity doesn't come until later.. in Acts.

See here in lies my problem and why I think that Christianty is different than catholicism... I don't care what Pope Clement I said... I only care about what the WORD of GOD says. Popes are just men that need to be saved like me (well I am a woman but you know). I do not mean to sound disrespectful but other than the written Word of GOD.. known as the BIBLE 66 books... I have no other authority. The particular church that I attend preaches only from the Word. If it isn't in the Word than in my mind... God isn't trying to reveal it. Because everything he wants me to know.. he has in there. There is NO mention of the Catholic church or some of their ways.. i.e. the pope, priests, nuns, rosary, having Mary intereceed for us... the list goes on. That is why I started this thread. I think main stream Christianity and Catholicism are really different.

Yes, I understand where Paul's epistles are placed but I don't know where they fit in your church. I don't know where you get your orders? With no disrespect, it isn't the Bible.

[Tj3]

Fr_Chuck,

I am not good at Church History outside of the WORD. I only know what the Apostle Paul wrote. He wrote nothing of Priests ( other than our HIGH PRIEST..Jesus). He worte nothing of what I believe Catholicism is today. If you read what he says about the assemblies and how they function....i just don't believe Catholics were the first church..not the ones the Apostle Paul was writing to. Maybe after he died it evolved but
that wasn't what Paul was setting up. Am I wrong?

You are correct. A priest is a go between between man and God. Jesus did away with the priesthood because, as we who are believers are all priests, we no longer need a mediator between us and God.

There was no denomination not Catholic or anything else in the first century. There were efforts to align all churches into one organization but that did not come to fruitition until 325AD under Constantion. There were prior efforts to force control on all churches from Rome which failed.

[JoeT777]

Joe,
Well you need to understand the Gospels are not really the "gospel".

Uhm…Ok, the Gospels are not the Gospels. They are what?

They are Jewish.. not christian. Christianity doesn't come until later.. in Acts.

And on what date did Christianity come into being, by what means, and who is responsible? Didn't Christ have a role in it?

See here in lies my problem and why I think that Christianity is different than Catholicism... I don't care what Pope Clement I said... I only care about what the WORD of GOD says. Popes are just men that need to be saved like me (well I am a woman but you know).

Pope Clement was the second Pope. He recognized Peter’s authority; he took on the responsibility of that authority as the 2nd Pope. So, we can conclude there was a hierarchy sometime before Peter died, so he could pass that authority on to his successor.

You indicated that there was no church, that it was individual congregations. How can this be if Peter was the First Pope and Clement was the second Pope?

I do not mean to sound disrespectful but other than the written Word of GOD.. known as the BIBLE 66 books... I have no other authority.

Where did those 66 books come from? Did they just fall out of the sky in the 14th century?

The particular church that I attend preaches only from the Word. If it isn't in the Word than in my mind... God isn't trying to reveal it. Because everything he wants me to know.. he has in there.

So you worship a book called the Bible?

There is NO mention of the Catholic church or some of their ways.. i.e. the pope, priests, nuns, rosary, having Mary intercede for us... the list goes on. That is why I started this thread. I think main stream Christianity and Catholicism are really different.

But if you don’t believe the Gospels aren’t really the Gospels how do we move the discussion forward? I joined the discussion to see how you define “Christianity”; how you define “Catholicism”; and what difference you’ve managed to find. So far you haven’t suggested anything of substance to suggest a difference. I’ll go a step further and suggest that Christianity is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church you call the Roman Catholic Church. History shows that all others are schismatic in nature.

Yes, I understand where Paul's epistles are placed but I don't know where they fit in your church. I don't know where you get your orders? With no disrespect, it isn't the Bible.

Paul’s epistles have the same weight as all the Scriptures. If it’s not the Bible what is it? Where did it come from?

JoeT

[wildandblue]

Peter and Paul knew each other, but Jesus did not choose
Paul as an Apostle (one of the Twelve) Paul persecuted the early Church until he met the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. After that he worked just as hard to build the Church up.
Jesus called Peter the Rock. Was he comparing him to God? (Psalm 18) no, just as in Joshua 24:25--28 Peter was to be a witness betrween the people and their God, having heard all the words Jesus had spoken on earth.
So when the churches later split off at the Reformation they were denying the primacy of Peter.

[classyT]

JOE...

LOL I enjoyed that.. OK I never said that the gospels weren't the gospels... I said they are not the GOSPEL. ( no S) In other words, you won't find out how to get saved reading them. The plan of salvation comes later...

Christ is why we call ourselves Christian so I guess I think he had the ONLY role in it. But he doesn't reveal the plan until later. The disciples were clueless as to what was happening... they didn't understand why he died and even after he rose again.. you can find that in the Gospels... you won't find the Gospel though..

I worship Jesus Christ . My point is that Catholicsim isn't found in those 66 books. No, I don't think they fell from the sky... I believe they were written by Man, inspired my God. AND NOT some pope.

If pauls epistles have the same weight.. could you point me to the verses about popes? NO? k... how about Priest in the Church.. no? Hmmmm? Ok.. hows about NUNs? NO? Golly gee wiz... ok how about this.. just point me to where the verse that says... PETER was the FIRST POPE! It ain't in those 66 books.

[classyT]

Yes, I understand where Paul's epistles are placed but I don't know where they fit in your church. I don't know where you get your orders? With no disrespect, it isn't the Bible.

Paul’s epistles have the same weight as all the Scriptures. If it’s not the Bible what is it? Where did it come from?


Ok... I think you got confused there... I meant you weren't getting your orders from the Bible. AND if you meant to rile me up saying that Chrisitanity is the ONE, HOLY,CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC church... you didn't. That just made me giggle. :) it is ridiculous.

[JoeT777]

Yes, I understand where Paul's epistles are placed but i don't know where they fit in your church. I don't know where you get your orders? With no disrespect, it isn't the Bible.

Paul’s epistles have the same weight as all the Scriptures. If it’s not the Bible what is it? Where did it come from?


Ok ...i think you got confused there...i meant you weren't getting your orders from the Bible. AND if you meant to rile me up saying that Chrisitanity is the ONE, HOLY,CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC church...you didn't. That just made me giggle. :) it is ridiculous.

I wasn’t giggling. However, not having an appreciation, I can understand how it might seem funny.

Everything Catholics hold as truth is either Scriptural based or based on Apostolic teachings (Tradition). Furthermore, both Scripture and Tradition must be in harmony. And to relieve you of the false notion; the Pope doesn’t go though every line of Scripture and mandate how a Catholic is to understand it. Rather, there are only a few concepts (doctrine) that are held based on Scripture and Tradition.

The foundation and the founder of the Church is, of course, Jesus Christ. “Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, [the Roman Catholic Church] teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.” DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH, LUMEN GENTIUM

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church” (the teachings of the Church) has nearly 3,000 entries. (Now you can giggle!) But, most every tenet is scripturally based. The point I’m making here is that to explain the Catholic Church would be a monumental undertaking – which of course has already been done. In fact you would have to explain all of Christianity, because that’s what she is.


JoeT

[Tj3]

Peter and Paul knew each other, but Jesus did not choose
Paul as an Apostle (one of the Twelve)

Actually, Jesus DID choose Jesus as one of the twelve.

Acts 9:2-5
3 And as he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
NKJV

Jesus called Peter the Rock.

Jesus called Peter a stone, not a Rock.

So when the churches later split off at the Reformation they were denying the primacy of Peter.

There never was any primacy of Peter. Such a concept is not found in scripture.

[Tj3]

Everything Catholics hold as truth is either Scriptural based or based on Apostolic teachings (Tradition).

Scripture says not to go beyond what is written.

[classyT]

Tj3,

I agree with you on everything you have stated. Scripture is clear about adding to it. And I don't understand how one could think Paul wasn't a chosen apostle... he wasn't one of the 12 but he was chosen. The poor guy had to defend his Apostleship way back then too.

I really don't see many similarities with mainstream Christianity and Catholics. To me, it is like night and day.

That is NOT to say, I do not believe that Catholics can't be true Christians.. anymore than I think everyone who claims to be one is. Did that make sense.. oh well, it is late. :)

[Tj3]

I really don't see many similarities with mainstream Christianity and Catholics. To me, it is like night and day.

That is NOT to say, I do not believe that Catholics can't be true Christians..anymore than i think everyone who claims to be one is. Did that make sense..oh well, it is late. :)

That does make sense and I agree with what you said.

[classyT]

Hey JoeT777,

Don't think I didn't notice that you never gave me Bible verses regarding the way the Catholic church operates. That's OK.. I already know it isn't in there. Hey, I am NOT putting the Catholic faith down.. I'm just saying the things that you guys do ain't in the BIBLE. That's all. :)

[JoeT777]

Hey JoeT777,

Don't think i didn't notice that you never gave me Bible verses regarding the way the Catholic church operates. Thats ok..i already know it isn't in there. Hey, I am NOT putting the Catholic faith down..i'm just saying the things that you guys do ain't in the BIBLE. Thats all. :)

I was remiss in my reply. I should have listed "THE Catholic” verse. If you want to read "THE Catholic” verse I'd suggest that you start at Gen 1:1 and stop when you get to Rev. 22:21; there's no need to go beyond that.

JoeT