"Is it that...[/quote] ... ...or is it for multiple... ... [quote]...quotes in the same post?

Yeah, I think it is any time you use more than one quote per post.

SEAN CONNERS POSTS:
and on another level...if (for sake of argument) we accept this "promotion" for peter, in the very next verse, he takes it back.

Are you referring to St. Mark 8:31-33? "And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men."

This is the first occasion when Jesus tells his disciples about the suffering and death he must undergo. He does it twice more later on. The Apostles are surprised becasue they cannot and do not want to understand why the Master should have to suffer and die, much less that he should be so treated by the elders, the chief priests and the scribes. But Peter, with his usual spontaniety, immediately begins to protest. Peter's love for Christ could not bear the thought of this. Our Lord appreciated the sympathy which prompted Peter's protest, but insisted strongly that such things MUST be. (Jesus all through this was doing God's will.) Notice that Jesus replies to him using the same words He addressed to the devil when he tempted HIm St. matt.4:10. He wants to affirm once again, that His mission is spirutual, not earthly, and that therefore it cannot be understood by using mere human criteria. It is governed by God's design, which is that Jesus redeem us through His Passion and Death.

In no way did Jesus withdraw any official standing from Peter. If you think He did because these words are subsequent to the promise, and certainly subsequent to the rebuke, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you that he might sift you like wheat. but I have prayed for thee Simon, that thy faith fail not, and do thou being converted, confirm thy brethren."

Our Lord had previously told Peter that he was the rock. Now, at this solemn when His Death approaches, and He has just instituted the Sacrifice of the New Testament, our Lord renews His promise to Peter to give him primacy. Peter's faith, despite his fall, cannot fail becasue it is supported by the efficacious prayer of Our Lord, Himself. Jesus is giving Peter a privilege which is both personal and transferable. Peter will publicly deny his Lord in the high priest's house, but he will not lose his faith. "and do thou being converted" means, that after you repent, confirm your brethren for I have made you leader of the Apostles. This is the task given to you; you with Me are the strength and the rock of My Church.

The word satan must be taken literally in its literal sense of adversary. It is applied to the devil as the adversary of God and of man. In this appropriated sense it does not apply to Peter. His protest, dictated by his love and affection for CHrist that Christ should not suffer, was adverse to the will of God.

BAERSTREET POSTS:
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.


yes, I did admit that the Church reformed, look back to the earlier posting of mine when I said:

"Sale of indulgences"......Oh, c'mon, Indulgences have never been for sale and never will be for sales far as the CC is concerned....she has however long recognized the existence of abuses that occurred long ago associated with the doctrine of Indulgences...and taken care of those with disciplinary measures and reforms.

Catholic reform in this area was a good thing that came out of the Protestant Revolution. The CC addressed the abuses assoicated with the remittances of Indulgences. I haven't had a chance to make more comment on that ...yet, but I will. The doctrine of Indulgences was given by Christ and so it is infallible.

Sugar coat it any way you want, but they sold indulgences, massive amounts of them. Some of the earliest documents we have that were printed on presses are indulgences printed up by the church with the name blank to be filled in by the priest. You give me money, I give you an indulgence. If you don't call that selling, then you're living in a false reality.

You challenged me on the other blog with 'name and date, name and date', and not only did I provide some, I pointed out that there was no policy AGAINST it until the council of Trent.

Apparently indulgences have been devalued over the years WWW Link

BAKERSTREET POSTS ON JAN.30 I'm just wondering what the "Church" in that sense is composed of. As she says, it isn't the buildings or the vestments, either. There seems to be another entity of some sort, or just the "idea" of the Church. Functionally, it seems like that just allows a religion to do everything it wants and still retain the purity.


By, george, Bakerstreet, I think you're getting it. In a comment or two before this, I said that the Church is not the buildings, but is all the people who practice the one Faith as given and taught by Jesus and handed on down through the ages by his Apostles and their successors.

The true Christian and Catholic doctrine is that the eternal Son of God became man in the Incarnation, thus commencing a life at once divine and human. And this life of Christ continues its activity by the Church, which is a kind of permanent social "incarnation'. As there is one continuous life of humanity by heredity, so the life of the Church is continuous by succession and Tradition and will be until the end of time. This is the promise and guarantee of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

"I said that the Church is not the buildings, but is all the people who practice the one Faith as given and taught by Jesus and handed on down through the ages by his Apostles and their successors."

In order for you to back up your idea of infallibility, though, you have to be free from error in the circumstances you describe. The Catholic Church isn't.

"I said that the Church is not the buildings, but is all the people who practice the one Faith as given and taught by Jesus and handed on down through the ages by his Apostles and their successors

nowhwere does it say...."thou art Peter and your successors.... upon this rock I will build my church....

even if you believe Peter is the Rock; the one to start the CC...nowhere does it say that his successors would carry on.

the only one that is infallible is Christ. Not the church. Not the people; not the popes certainly not the priests. Nobody is infallible here on earth.

I agree with what you're saying as far as the church not being buildings; and that there is only one faith given and taught by Jesus. Absoulutely. The diff is I don't see anywhere in scripture including Peter's own writings that lends itself to an earthly kingdom or religion set up here on earth. It's all man made. Like someone already said Jesus basically destroyed the earthly establishment already in place. All that's happened is another went up in it's stead. This time it was the CC. No diff than the religion of the Pharisees. I see no diff at all.

BAKERSTREET POSTS ON JAN. 30: But doctrinally and morally the people who are in charge of the church have not been infallible.
AND AGAIN ON JAN. 30: I’m not even arguing against it as much as I am addressing a limited set of its propositions. Like the infallibility of the Church. To me Lula’s perspective sets up a situation where everyone in the faith could go off and be totally evil, from the Pope down, but the “Church” would still be infallible.

BAKERSTREET POSTS: In order for you to back up your idea of infallibility, though, you have to be free from error in the circumstances you describe. The Catholic Church isn't.


Everyone in the Church, including the Pope and all the bishops are definitely not infallible. It is the Popes’ and bishops’ in union with him ex cathedra pronouncement when defining, clarifying or teaching matters of doctrine and morals made under very specific conditions that is guaranteed as true and without error under the gift of infallibility. To the Pope in his official capacity as successor of St. Peter Our Lord’s words apply, “I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, and do thou confirm thy brethren.” God can certainly preserve the Pope from making a wrong definition on doctrine and morals, and He has promised to do so.


Infallibility of the Church does not depend on human prudence. It depends ultimately upon the assistance of the Holy Spirit which He promised would abide with the Church forever. St.John 14:16. St. Paul clearly manifests this doctrine, “....behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth. 1Tim.3:15. The early Church Fathers insist upon infallibility of the Church and reason also tells us that the unity of the Church could not be maintained if she would fail in her teaching of the truth; her holiness forbids heresy to enter; her catholicity demands expansion without loss of the teaching and her apostolicity requires perpetual duration of an unchanged Apostolic doctrine.


BAKERSTREET POSTS ON JAN. 30: Had you been alive during the time when they were selling indulgences, would you have defended them? Was that not doctrine?
ALSO ON FEB.1: Historically, there can be no debate that indulgences were SOLD, offered, in advance to anyone who wanted to “donate” money, and there is not doubt that Popes offered indulgences for sins that HADN’T been committed yet.


Now, on the Doctrine of Indulgences:

History shows that the doctrine of Indulgences is, at best, simply misunderstood and, at worst, used in an attempt to discredit or attack Popes, papal authority and the Church’s doctrines.

Christ bestowed upon the Church not only the power of forgiving sin and the eternal punishment due to sin, but also the power of remitting the lesser, or temporal punishment due to sin. This power of remitting temporal punishment (spiritual debt) was claimed and exercised from Apostolic times. An Indulgence is a remission before God in whole or in part of temporal punishment due to sin whose guilt has already been forgiven. "Temporal punishment" to Catholics is "chastisement" to Protestants. That is, it’s pain unto life such as Scripture refers to when it tells us God punishes all those he loves as his children. Heb.12:5-6. In short, temporal punishment is part of how God redeems our sinful actions and turns their consequences into occasions of sanctity rather than damnation. Indulgences depend on the "treasury of merit" which today is called "fruitfulness." We are graced to bear fruit by the work of Christ. In bearing fruit is not about "works salvation" but about cooperation with grace. One of the manifestations of grace is the charism or spiritual gift. Spiritual gifts are graces given via the members of the Church so that the Body is built up in love Rom.12:1; Cor.12; Eph.4:11-16. The Church has been graced with spiritual gifts such as tongues, prophecy, healing, as well as the gift of mercy Rom.12:8. An indulgence is a formal apostolic enactment of the gift of mercy. It is directed at members of the Catholic communion under Apostolic authority through their baptism into the Church. That means that Indulgences are not a form of earned justification (since that was already freely given in baptism), but are instead given to lessen the temporal punishment due to sin already forgiven. In short, they are an aid to growing in holiness, not a “coupon” for “buying” the forgiveness of God. Christ gave the Church complete power of binding and loosing. After His Resurrection from the dead, He breathed on His disciples, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. St.John 20:22-23. The Church has the right, therefore, to loose or to remit some of the expiation due to God by a sinner after the guilt of his sin has been forgiven. St.Paul did this in the case of the sinful man in Corinth. 2Cor. 2:6-7, 10. Here, the Church is using her spiritual gifts, especially the gift of mercy, in remitting Indulgences. The principle underlying the Indulgence grant is based on the doctrine of the Communion of Saints and the solidarity of all Christians in the Mystical Body of Christ 1Cor.12:21-26.
Penitents must make some satisfaction for their sins by doing a “penance”. The penances imposed by the early Church were often very severe. These could last months or even years with the result that many a penitent died before he could fulfill his penance. From the eighth century onwards, the severe penances were often commuted to prayers, fasting, pilgrimages and other pious practices, particularly almsgiving.


An Indulgence is granted only in the sense that a person has fulfilled all conditions of the Church: by going to Confession 7 days before or 1 day after the day he gains the plenary Indulgence; by contrition of sin.; that is, by raising one’s heart to God amidst the duties and trials of life and making a pious invocation; by voluntarily depriving oneself of something pleasing, in a spirit of penance; by reciting various prayers such as acts of faith, hope, charity and contrition and by almsgiving, that is, by giving of oneself or one’s goods for a good work. When the Church remits an Indulgence, her action, according to the declaration of Christ, is ratified in Heaven. St.Matt.16:19; 18:18.
In the 11th century, Popes, bishops, and priest-confessors remitted the Indulgence grant to those who in fulfilling their penance in the spirit of almsgiving would contribute to the support of the churches, schools, hospitals, and pilgrimages.


It is true that there were grave abuses connected with the almsgiving in the Middle Ages, but some of the notions still current about the nature of Indulgences are very far removed from the truth. An Indulgence is not a pardon for sin, permission to commit sin, exemption from any law or duty, nor the purchase of the release of a soul from Purgatory. The Church has never given her authority to the proposition that an Indulgence can be applied to any given soul with unfailing effect. In fact, Pope Sixtus IV, in 1477, taught expressly that Indulgences for the dead are applied “by way of suffrage" i.e. by way of petition to God and depending on His acceptance for the intended poor Soul. The intercession for the Souls in Purgatory is very effective, but it is entirely up to God as to what poor Soul will benefit by a person’s prayers and Indulgences offered for a particular soul thought to be in Purgatory.


The granting of Indulgences to those who would contribute alms towards a various charitable work in itself is quite all right as Scripture tells us to redeem our sins by almsgiving. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an Indulgence, men could contribute to some pious cause such as the building of churches, the endowment of hospitals and to the support of the Crusades. To give money toward the glory of God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and when it is done for the right motives, will not go unrewarded.


However innocent almsgiving is in itself, this practice was gravely abused. There were corrupt ecclesiastical officials such as Pope Leo X who were tempted to abuse the condition of almsgiving and misuse at least a portion of the money that was meant for the purpose of the work of building St. Peter's. They debuted other religious who in their preaching they went far beyond the doctrines of the Church even to the point of saying that any offering would immediately secure the release of a departed Soul in Purgatory. These abuses are not a part of the Church’s doctrine of Indulgences.

The Church did take disciplinary actions to stop those abuses. They were condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. In 1268, Clement IV forbade the bishops to overstep their authority reserved the interpretation of the Indulgence grant to the Holy See. The Popes, notably John XXII and Boniface IX, censured the bishops and other religious for having unduly extended the privileges granted by the Holy See. Special Jubilees with Indulgences were proclaimed at the election of each new Pope and on other momentous occasions. Martin V reprimanded the archbishop of Canterbury in 1420 for “presumption and sacrilegious audacity in daring to issue a plenary indulgence in the same form as that of the Roman Jubilee.” Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa at the Council of Magdeburg in 1450 condemned the error that Indulgences remit the guilt of sin; and Sixtus IV in 1478 took measures as well. Duke George of Saxony opposed the improper use of alms giving in preaching Indulgences, but not the doctrine of Indulgences. As did Cardinal Ximenes in 1513 forbade them in Spain. He saw that the monetary contribution overshadowed the spiritual aspect and that this was a grave error of the Church’s Apostolic doctrine of Indulgences.


While it cannot be denied these abuses were widespread and even when corruption was at its worst, these spiritual grants were being properly used by sincere Christians, who sought them in the right spirit and by priests who took care to insist on the need for true repentance. Therefore, the Church instead of abolishing the practice of Indulgences, aimed rather at strengthening it by eliminating the evil elements of mankind for mischief. The doctrine itself has no natural or necessary connection with pecuniary profit, as is evident from the fact that the abundant Indulgences from the Council of Trent to the present day are free from this evil association. The only conditions required are the saying of certain prayers or the performance of some good work or some practice of piety.


The Council of Trent repudiated such abuses and enacted disciplinary measures to correct them. At the Council, the right of the Church to grant Indulgences was reaffirmed and the practice of granting Indulgences was retained. In 1567, St.Pius issued a Bull which tightened even more those disciplinary measures and because of it, the abuses relating to the remitting of Indulgences became rare. Clement VIII in 1605 and Paul V in 1621 appointed officials to supervise the publication of Indulgences. In 1669, Clement IX canonically established the Congregation of Indulgences. Today, those abuses are virtually nonexistent.

Apostolic Indulgences------(Note: this goes to Dr. Donald’s post and link).
Apostolic Indulgences are those that the Holy Father, or those having the faculty, attach to religious articles by blessing them . In the beginning of his pontificate, each Pope publishes through the Sacred Penitentiary a list of Apostolic Indulgences he wishes to grant.
To make the Apostolic Indulgences available to us as many as possible, The Code of Canon Law grants Cardinals, bishops the faculty to bless religious articles and to attach the Apostolic Indulgences. Priests may obtain the same faculty by applying to the Sacred Penitentiary. Their petitions should have the previous approval of their ordinaries. Apostolic Indulgences can be attached to religious objects, such as rosaries, crosses, crucifixes, statuettes and medals. The Saints represented must have been canonized or mentioned in the official martyrologies. The Indulgences are not personal. It suffices to keep them in a respectable place in the home. To attach the Apostolic Indulgences, a single sign of the Cross is sufficient. ....Although Pope Urban II in the 11th century and succeeding Popes in later centuries granted special indulgences for almsgiving and visiting churches, the Apostolic Indulgences as known today go back to the Bull Laudemus viros gloriosos of Sixtus V, issued Dec.1,1587, 41 years after Luther’s death. The doctrine of Indulgences from Apostolic times remains the same to this day.


In my view, one of the best books ever written that touches on the subject of the doctrines of Infallibility and Indulgences is by John L. Stoddard, “Rebuilding a Lost Faith by an American Agnostic.” In it he writes, “If Luther had merely protested against such practices, as was his right, and if, while remaining in the Church, he had worked with others to reform them, he could have done great work. But to seek to destroy the Church because of some faulty members, and to attack a beautiful dogma because of some abuses which had gathered round it, is as unwise as to desert a ship because its keel is fouled with barnacles.”

No offense, Lula, but you could have saved your time and written "Huh uh". You spend a lot of time writing things that I already know, as if knowing the Church's excuses will make some sort of a difference to me. It won't.

Re: Infallibility, you've just set up a situation where you can claim infallibility after the fact, and deny it on anything you want. They don't say, "Okay, here it comes, I'm going to issue something infallible now" because they know later it may prove to be in error.

So it is like fortune tellers, who only tell you they predicted something after it has happened.

Re: Indulgences, you could write twenty more pages and it wouldn't change the fact that the Church sold them, wholesale, advertising beforehand, for the sins of both the living and the dead, at funerals, for sins BEFORE THEY WERE COMMITTED, etc. From the Pope down. All the copy and paste in the world won't change it.

SEAN CONNERS POSTS: 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?

Christ told Peter that he was “in charge” as you say, or the special head, when He told him, “you Cephas, are the ‘rock’ upon which I will build My Church. All the rest of his followers understood this as well. Indeed, Peter acted in that capacity and exhibited that authority as well.

There are an overwhelming number of Scriptural episodes that point to a special primacy amongst the Apostles that St.Peter had.
1--Whenever the Apostles are listed by name as a group, Peter is always first and Judas, the Lord’s betrayer is always last. If the Apostles aren’t mentioned by name, we see phrases such as “Peter and the others” which indicates that it was understood that Simon Peter represented the college of Apostles.
2---Only Simon, among all those of the NT, received a name change. St.Matt.16:18-19. This signified a status as the “rock” upon which Christ would build His Church. He was also the only one chosen by Christ to receive the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. While the rest of the Apostles received the power of binding and loosing in a general way St.Matt. 18:18, it was Simon Peter alone that Christ conferred this power. St.Matt. 16:18-19.
3---It was Peter that Christ called to come out of the boat and walk on water. St.Matt.14:25-33. It was from Simon Peter’s fishing boat that Christ preached to the crowds St.Luke 5:3. St.John deferred to Peter at the tomb, even though he was younger and ran faster and got there first. He waited for St.Peter to enter ahead of him. St.John 20:6. It was to Simon Peter, fist among all the Apostles, that Christ’s Resurrection was revealed and the first to whom Christ appeared after His Resurrection. St.Mark 16:7.
4----I have already mentioned how in St.Luke 22:31-32, that Jesus conferred a special role by praying for just for him, I.e. “I have prayed for you..” The same with what Christ says directly to Peter later in that verse. 3 times Christ says, “Feed my sheep.” which is an indication of his special role as the pastor of the flock.
5---In Acts 1:13, we are told that Peter leads the other Apostles in choosing a replacement for Judas who committed suicide. It’s Peter who preaches the first sermon after Pentecost leading some 3,000 people into the Church through Baptism. It’s Peter who performs the first miracle after Pentecost. In Acts 4:1-12, it’s Peter who led the Apostles and faced down the Sanhedrin.
6---In Acts 10:9-16, God delivers revelation to Peter that Gentiles could now enter the Church without the need to observe Jewish Kosher food laws, and this teaching Peter made binding the whole Church at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Throughout the NT, Peter is shown to have had a unique primacy and authority among the Twelve. That fact is shown in Gal. 1:18 when St.Paul, after his conversion to Christ spent time in prayer and preparation, did not begin his own public ministry until he had first gone up to Jerusalem and checked in with St.Peter.

you will not find...."you Cephas" anywhere in the Gk. Is it in the CC version or the Latin Vulgate?

KFC POSTS: you Cephas, are the ‘rock’ upon which I will build My Church. All the rest of his followers understood this as well. Indeed, Peter acted in that capacity and exhibited that authority as well.
you will not find...."you Cephas" anywhere in the Gk. Is it in the CC version or the Latin Vulgate

BAKERSTREET POSTS:
"John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone."



There are several words the inspired writer could have used for “rock” or “stone” in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common and interchangeable. Any connotation of small or large depends on context.

In the Septuagint, in Joshua 5:2-3, God said to Joshua, “Make flint knives and circumsize the people of Israel again the second time.” One cannot make flint knives out of a boulder, but it can be done out of a small rock by hand.

It can be argued that lithos is more commonly used for “small rock” or ‘stone”, there are examples of it being used as “large stone” as well. St. Matt. 28:2, it’s used for that large stone that sealed the tomb of Christ. Christ refers to Himself as a ‘stone’ in St.Matt.21:42-44. It is used as a small stone in 4:3 when the devil shows Jesus some small stones (Greek lithoi) and tempts Him to turn them into bread. In St. John 10:31, certain Jews pick up lithoi to stone Jesus. In 1Peter2:5, Peter uses lithoi to describe the people of God as “living stones.....built into a spritual house” (ooohh--that’s a good one, KFC, as in “living stones” meaning people (body of Christ) and “spiritual house” meaning the Church!). He does not call the body of Christ petroi. The only word that is never used to denote ‘small stone’ or ‘small rock’ in the NT is petros.

St.Peter had a chance to use that word, but he didn’t. The word ‘petros’ is uniquely applied to Peter in Scripture and is never used to denote ‘small rock”. The Baptist scholar, D.A. Carson that I mentioned in an earlier post said that the large/small distinction is found only in ancient Greek, which was used from the 8th to the 4th century BC and even then it was largely confined to poetry. The NT was written in Koine Greek from the 4th century BC to the 5th c. AD. He says there was no distinction between petros and petra.

KFC---this is a quote from one of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals. Maybe you’ve heard of it or own it. Gerhard Kittel’s, Theological Dictioinary of the NT. About St.Matt. 16:18, “The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text....suggests a material identity between petra and Petros....it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. ....Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession...the idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable...for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build My Church” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name “Rock”. To this extent, Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” Vol. 6, Erdmans, 98-99, 108.

KFC POSTS: you will not find...."you Cephas" anywhere in the Gk. Is it in the CC version or the Latin Vulgate?


We know Christ spoke in Aramaic. He said, Thou art "Kepha" and upon this "Kepha", I will build My Church." It was becasue Christ used the word "Kepha" that we sometimes see Peter called "Cephas" which is a Greek translation of the Aramaic word itself.

As for the use of "Cephas" in the Douay Rheims version, I found that word used 8 times. They are as follows:
St.John 1:42 "thou shalt be called Cephas"
1Cor. 1:12 "I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and"
3:22 "whether it be Paul or Apollo or Cephas"
9:5 "and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas"
15:5 "he was seen by Cephas and after that"
Gal. 2:9 "James and Cephas and John, who seemed"
2:11 "but when Cephas was come to Antioch"
2:14 "I said to Cephas before them all: if"

I cross referenced those with the King James Version and found that all the verses used "Cephas" except the 2 verses in Gal. 2: 11 and 14. Here, the KJV uses "Peter" instead of "Cephas". Why do you think that is? Is it because it was "Cephas", that is, the "rock" of the Church and an important indication of St.Paul's recognition of the primacy of St. Peter as the "rock" or foundation stone of the Church?

so "secular" sources are only ok when they agree with you, eh? lol

OF LULAPILGRIM'S POST: 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.

KFC POSTS: *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.


Thank you, KFC for the good suggestion of reading Colossians and Ephesians which have to do with the structure or the composition of the Church. Christ's true Chruch, as revealed in Col. and Eph., is a body, , however, not only a body of people as you describe. It's more than that. Christ's true Church is an organic and spiritual entity like the body of a person (physical matter and spiritual soul). Also this body, the true Christian Church, is not strictly a human body but is akin to being a divine body.....this is by virtue of the fact that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ Himself.

In a very true sense, the true faithful constitute the members of Christ's Church body while He reigns in Heaven as the Head of His Church body. These passages bear this out. "Again, he is the head of his body, the Church" Col. 1:18. "Now you are the body of CHrist, member for member." 1Cor.12:27. "We are members of His body, made from His flesh and from his bones." Eph.5:30.
How did I arrive at the conclusion that Christ's Church must be a unified-----not a segmented ,many churches--body? I correlated those texts above with these:
"there shall be one fold and one shepherd" St. John 10:16. "And the glory that thou, Father, has given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one." 17:22. "You are called in one body...one spirit....one hope...one Lord....one faith...one baptism" Eph. 4:4-5.There it is in Scripture, as plain as can be, at least to me, that Christ's true Church was constituted as one---one in every respect: one in membership, one in belief, and one in worship and one in government.

That was the way Christ's Church was originally constituted and that is the way it will have to remain if it was always to be identified as His body. In my view, St. Peter was not only a member but also appointed as the first head of the one Christian body on earth.

How can all the hundreds of churches that have sprung up since the Reformation, each one different in name,in belief, in government and to an extent, mode of worship possibly be consonant with the one body, one spirit, one faith, one shepherd concept as described in the Bible?

the only way it can is when people realize that NO SECT OR FAITH will get them there. the only way is directly thru him and having a personal relationship. putting people in between, no matter who they are, or what they claim only distorts, corrupts and dilutes God's messages.

Because if you read Paul, you'll find that while there is a thread of sameness among the many schools of thought, there is also a lot that is secondary, and about which we differ. There is also things that Paul calls "custom" that have nothing whatsoever to do with God or Christianity. I think the majority of the differences will be within those topics, regardless of the fact that many believe them to be of huge importance.\

That doesn't change the fact that Protestantism is a defined, established belief; that man does not need anyone else to have a relationship with God, and all the 'authority' of the church is meaningless in terms of that which is immortal and spiritual. A lot of ritual and temporal power.

you are way too entrenched to even "get" what I'm saying Lula. I don't have the energy nor the time to go thru the whole Peter/Petros thing. Did you ever go to a reliable source outside the CC to find the he/she controversy in Gen 3:15? I think you need to check with a Hebrew scholar on that one and I'm absolutely sure you'll find out it's "he."

But I want to address just the quote above.

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

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

Look what Peter said himself to the elders in his day:

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


never was there supposed to be any hierachy. Never. Even Peter put himself at the same level as these other elders as a fellow elder. Here was his chance to tell them that he was elevated among them as the "head" of the church. He says no such thing in either of his two letters. Some Pastors don't even like an elevated pulpit because they think it violates what Jesus would have wished. And Lording over the people...com'on Lula you know the CC as an organization has famously erred in this regard.

the word "elders" is "presbuteros" and where we get the word Presbyterian from. The word "shepherd" is "poimaino". The same word is translated in the English as Pastor in Ehp 4:11.

Poimen (Pastor) is to rule, lead, guide, comfort, correct, and strengthen.

Also, I just thought of this. The CC loves the quote in Matt 16 about Peter being the rock instead of Christ. Well don't you think it odd it's not in Mark? Mark wrote the gospel thru Peter's eyes. Basically Peter wrote the book of Mark and he didn't even put that in there. Don't you think that's a bit odd?

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Forbidden? By Whom?



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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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



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



YES. WE AGREE.



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