BAKERSTREET POSTS:
But doctrinally and morally the people who are in charge of the church have not been infallible.

Papal infallibility does not mean the the Pope cannot make a mistake or commit a sin, or that he can teach without error on any subject or that he is inspired by God.

It means that under certain conditions, very specific conditions the Pope when speaking officially, is preserved from error, namely:
When he speaks, ex cathedra, as shepherd and teacher of all Christians and as the successor of St. Peter.
When he defines a doctrine, , i.e. he makes it clear that the doctrine must be believed with a firm, interior assent of faith.
When the doctrine defined concerns faith and morals, when it belongs to the doctrinal teachings or the moral principles of the Catholic religion as found in Scripture and Tradition.
When he speaks to the whole Church intending to bind all its members throughout the world.

Unless all those conditions are met, the Pope is not speaking under the charism of infallibility.

To my knowledge, the last time that an infallible pronouncement was made was when Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, pronounced that the CC would not have any women priests.

Bakerstreet your statement is based on a common misunderstanding that infallibility (the inability to formally or officially teach error) equals impeccability (the inability to commit sin).

The Catholic doctrine of infallibility has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pope's state of sinfulness or sanctity. Papal infallibility is grounded on the principle of Christ being true to His promise to guide and protect the Church, in particularly through the ministry of St.Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome. St.Matt.16: 18-19; St. Luke 10:16. The sins any Pope commits do not negate the power of God's grace, through the Holy Spirit, to protect him from teaching error.

Every one desires certitude in regard to the important fundamentals to which only religion can supply the answers. In the CC, alone, will we find certitude in matters of faith and morals. Where there is certitude, there is unity in truth; unity in faith. That is one of the signs of the CC, one faith, one doctrine, one shepherd, one flock. The CC is a remarkable gift from God.

No, again, infallibility means:

1 : incapable of error : UNERRING

Again, may I say....there is no, not one, person that is infallible walking around on two legs. NO, NOT ONE!!

In all of history there was only one infallible man that walked this earth and he ended up on the cross. Other than that, you're wasting your time looking. It ain't gonna happen again.

Baker, your definition fits perfectly the only man that can claim infallibility.

KFC POSTS:
on that rock i shall build my church" line as referring to building it on the individual rather than the structure and organized hierarchal church that he tore down and stood against.

exactly....hey we agree on sumptin. I'd go one step further tho and say the church was built on HIM. He is the rock. Upon this rock.....himself. If you just take a concordance and look up rock you'd see especially in the Psalms God is always the rock. It's not Peter. It's not an institution. It's Christ. The church would be built based on the cofession of Peter. "You are the Christ, the son of the Living God." basically saying...."you are the rock."
--------------------------------------------------------

You are referring to St.Matt. 16:18-19 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kindgom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Many Protestants believe the 2 "rocks" in the Greek text have different meanings. "thou art Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church."
They believe Petros, the first "rock" refers to a small rock (Peter) and petra, the second "rock" means a massive boulder---either Jesus or Peter's confession of faith. This is what KFC has just laid out as an interpretation of this verse. Thus the argument concludes that Jesus did not build His Church upon Peter but upon Himself or Peter's Faith.

This is not how Catholics interpret this passage. Tim Staples from This Rock Magazine outlines 10 reasons why we believe that Peter is undeniably the rock of the Church.
I'll give only 2 for starters.

There is good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. More importantly, and more certainly, Jesus would have spoken His discourse of Matthew 16 in Aramaic, not Greek. Although Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, most of the Jewish people Jesus spoke to were not fluent in it. They spoke Aramaic.

There is also Biblical evidence in St. John 1:42, that Jesus used Aramaic in the naming of Peter. [Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said,"So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic name Kepha, which simply means "rock". There was no small rock to be found in Jesus' original statement to Peter. Christ said, ""Thou art "Kepha", and upon this "Kepha", I will build My Church." The word was exactly the same of each occasion. And it was becasue Christ used the word "Kepha" that we sometimes find Peter called, "Cephas", a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic wrod itself. No argument from the forms employed in the Latin or Greek translations can avail. All reputable scholars today, both Catholic and Protestant agree on this point. Baptist scholar D.A. Carson writes: The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable' at most probably kepha was used in both clauses (you are "kepha", and "on this kepha") since the word was used both for the name and for a "rock".


And then we can look at masculine and feminine forms of the word. In Koine Greek (the dialect used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are the masculine and feminine form of a word with the same root and the same definition---"rock". Therefore, there is no "small rock" in the Greek text either. So why did Matthew use 2 different words for "rock" in the same verse?

Petra was a common word for "rock" in Greek. It is used 15 times to mean "rock", "rocks", or "rocky" in the NT. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never otherwise used in the NT except when Jesus changed Peter's name from Simon to Peter. It follows that when the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Greek, petra would have been used for 'rock', but 'petra' is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter "petra" and so "petros", the masculine form was used for his name.

Speaking of names--------

A simpler line of reasoning is found in the context of the passage. Our Lord says to Peter, "Blessed are you....and I say to you, you are Peter....I will give you the keys to the kingdom......Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven." Jesus uses the word "you" 7 times in just 3 verses. It doesn't follow that Jesus would address so much of this passage to Peter, and then say, "But I will build my Church upon me." The context is clearly one in which Jesus is communicating a unique authority to Peter.

In addition, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, "I will build my Church." Jesus is "the wise man who built his house upon this rock." St. Matt. 7:24.

BAKERSTREET POSTS:
No, again, infallibility means:

1 : incapable of error : UNERRING
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

It looks to me as though your definintion #3 is the way I described the certain conditions for papal infallibility. Except I don't quite get the "touching" part of definition #3! Perhaps, you can clarify that?

Greek, petra would have been used for 'rock', but 'petra' is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter "petra" and so "petros", the masculine form was used for his name.

exactly. The feminine was used because the church is always used in the feminine form. The bride of Christ is feminine. The bride of Christ is the church. Petra is right.

Is that also why the feminine is also used for the "Whore of Babylon", KFC?

Is that also why the feminine is also used for the "Whore of Babylon", KFC?

and what's that supposed to mean? Are you getting cranky?

No, I just wondered if we are all talking about the same rock here, or at least which house is built on it...

oh, I thought you were getting cranky....since it's the time of the owls right now.

Lula and I disagree. She, of course, believes the confession of Peter in Matt 16 delegates Peter as the rock the church of Christ is built upon. This is the basis for the Catholic Church being the true church. I say no. The rock is Christ. The church is built upon the rock of Christ and the gates of Hell will not prevail. The only diff is I don't believe it's any man-made religion. The church is built up on the confession of Peter. Any that stand by Peter's confession belong to the church of God.

Lula, you should study or read two letters Paul wrote. One is Colossians which deals with the head of Christ. It's only 4 chapters. The other is Ephesians which deals with the body of Christ, which is the church. WE, the church, are his body. It's not a building. It's not a Pope. It's not a creed. It's his people. We are his body. We are the church.

As far as the whore of Babylon? Yes, she is depicted as a woman as well. She, in contrast to the true bride of Christ is found to be the adultress or the whore trying to take the bride away from her bridegroom. She is the mother of harlots. I take that to mean she gives birth to many that bear her likeness.

Who do you thing the Whore of Babylon is Baker?

I don't think there is such a thing. I know that I have heard it stated over and over, though, that it is the Catholic Church.

I'm hesitant to get into a discussion with you concerning "Indulgences" because you don't understand infallibility.....yet.

he understands it just fine...it is the CC that has tried to spin and twist the definition for it's own purposes. and your "superiority" pattern is consistant and very unchristian lula. quoting catholic spokespeople like tim staples hardly gives you a "higher understanding" of anything. i've read his stuff and many other writers who defend catholicism. need i remind you that i was raised catholic, did catholic school both in grammar school and a catholic university. your points are not new. his points are not new. they are merely parroted and rephrased preachings. i didn't buy em then, and i don't buy em now.

your definition of infallability is much like the rest of the CC's arguments. it's like trying to glue together a broken vase where all of the pieces don't quite fit right again and every once in awhile, in an attempt to force it back to a whole, it all comes crashing down again. the bible and the catholic church are both not of God. they are both man made things that man tries to represent as God. they have both been corrupted and in my view (which is all that counts as far as God and me are concerned) have little to do with God most of the time. there is only one place that you can find God, and it is within yourself. not in a book, not in a church, not from another man. to find God, one must have a personal relationship with him, not one proxied thru a priest. as far as God is concerned, a church or a priest is not only unnecessary, but a barrier when it comes to any sacrement or expression of love and devotion for God.

the fact is that Christ spent his life showing man just how corrupt and fallible any church of man is, and he tore it down. and i don't believe that he did it to start up his own corrupt corporation in his name. Christ represents the individual who believes in him. churches represent earthy powers of which God is dissinterested. the CC merely replaced the jewish temple that Christ tore down as earth's biggest misreprentation of God.

WE, the church, are his body. It's not a building. It's not a Pope. It's not a creed. It's his people. We are his body. We are the church.

yes, we do agree on something KFC,,,always good to find common ground:)

There is good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic.

and there is good evidence it wasn't.

from wikepedia,,,

There are numerous testimonies, starting from Papias and Irenaeus, that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew letters, which is thought to refer to Aramaic. The 16th-century Erasmus was the first to express doubts on the subject of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." Here Erasmus distinguishes between a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew letters and the partly lost Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, from which patristic writers do quote, and which appear to have some relationship to Matthew, but are not identical to it. The Gospel of the Ebionites also has a close relationship to the Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, and hence some connection to Matthew. The similarly named Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew has almost nothing to do with Matthew, however, and instead is a combination of two earlier infancy Gospels.

Most contemporary scholars, based on analysis of the Greek in the Gospel of Matthew and use of sources such as the Greek Gospel of Mark, conclude that the New Testament Book of Matthew was written originally in Greek and is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic.[2] If they are correct, then the Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome possibly referred to a document or documents distinct from the present Gospel of Matthew. A smaller number of scholars believe the ancient writings that Matthew was originally in Aramaic, arguing for Aramaic primacy. These scholars normally consider the Peshitta and Old Syriac versions of the New Testament closest to the original autographs.

Biblical scholar Stephen L. Harris of the Jesus Seminar mentions that the claims of Matthew Levi being the author could actually be references to "an early Christian, perhaps named Matthew, who assembled a list of messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, a collection that the creator of our present gospel may have used."[9] The Jesus narrative would then have been assembled around these Tanakh (Old Testament) verses.

KFC Posted: Wednesday, January 31, 2007
The church would be built based on the cofession of Peter. "You are the Christ, the son of the Living God." basically saying...."you are the rock."
KFC Posted: Thursday, February 01, 2007
Lula and I disagree. She, of course, believes the confession of Peter in Matt 16 delegates Peter as the rock the church of Christ is built upon. This is the basis for the Catholic Church being the true church. I say no. The rock is Christ. The church is built upon the rock of Christ and the gates of Hell will not prevail. The only diff is I don't believe it's any man-made religion. The church is built up on the confession of Peter. Any that stand by Peter's confession belong to the church of God.

Yes, KFC, I say the primacy of St. Peter as the head , the "rock", of the early Church and which would later be called Catholic, was declared by Christ, in St. John 1:42, after Peter made his confession of faith. Jesus used Aramaic in the naming of Peter. Jesus looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter from the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek respectively).

"Cephas" is the Greek transcription of the Aramaic word meaning rock. St. John, writing in Greek, has to explain the meaning of the word Jesus used. Cephas was not a proper name, but Our Lord put it on Peter to indicate his new role as His vicar, which He will later on reveal St.Matt. 16: 16-18. And although he didn't know it at the time, Simon was destined from that moment to be the rock of the Church.....and indeed, he was.

The solemn Magisterium of the Church, in the FIrst Vatican Council, solemnly defined the doctrine of the primacy of Peter and his successors in these terms:

"We teach and declare, therefore, according to the testimony of the Gospel that the primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church was immediately and directly promised to and conferred upon the Blessed Apostle Peter by Christ the Lord. For to Simon, Christ had said, "You shall be called Cephas. Then after Simon had acknowledged Christ with the confession, You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, St.Matt.16:16, it was to Simon alone that the solemn words were spoken by the Lord: "Blessed are you Simon Bar Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church and the powers of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. St.Matt. 16:17-19.
After His Resurrection, Jesus conferred upon Simon Peter alone the jurisdiction of shepherd and ruler over His whole fold with the words, "Feed my lambs.....feed my sheep." St.John 21:15-17.
"(Canon) Therfore, if anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ the Lord as the prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church Militant, or that he received immediately and directly from Jesus Christ Our Lord only a primacy of honour and not a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction: let him be condemned."



"Now, what Christ the Lord, Supreme Shepherd, and watchful guardian of the flock, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual safety and everlasting good of the Church must, by the will of the same, endure without interruption in the Church which was founded on the rock and which will remain firm until the end of the world. Indeed, no one doubts, in fact it is obvious to all ages, that the holy and most Blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, the pillar of faith, and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour, and Redeemer of the human race; and even to this time and forever he lives and governs, and exercises judgment in his successors (Council of Ephesus), the bishops of the holy Roman See, which he established and consecrated with his blood. Therefore, whoever succeeds Peter in this Chair hold's Peter's primacy over the whole Church according to the plan of Christ Himself. For this reason, "because of its greater sovereignty', it was always necessary for every church, that is the faithful who are everywhere, to be in agreement with the same Roman Church......
"(Canon) Therfore, if anyone says that it is not according to the institution of Christ our Lord, Himself, that is, by divine law, that St.Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy of the whole Church; or if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of St. Peter in the same primacy: let him be condemned.


We think it extremely necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God deigned to join to the highest pastoral office. "And so, faithfully keeping to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian Faith, for the glory of God the Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of Christian peoples, We, with the approval of the sacred council, teach and define, that it is a divinely revealed dogma; that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, in infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His CHurch to be endowed in defining doctrine concering faith and morals; and that such definitions of the Rman Pontiff are therefore irreformable becasue of their nature, but not becasue of the agreement of the Church.
"(Canon) But if anyone presumes to contradict this our definition (God forbid that he do so): let him be condemned" Vat. I, Pastor aeternus, chaps. 1,2 and 4.

The solemn Magisterium of the Church, in the FIrst Vatican Council, solemnly defined the doctrine of the primacy of Peter and his successors in these terms:

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

double post....  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Who WROTE the Bible? At least the New Testament?

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

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

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