The NT does not say anything about a pope and there is no mention of Rome being the center of the church. The churches were mostly localized, although Paul and others did establish many of them. In fact, Jerusalem was the center of attention for at least part of the early history of the church (speaking broadly) as recorded in Acts.

See, your spirit is not Christian there in that post, in fact your tactics mirror BTD's behavior in it.

No, I am not being evasive, in fact I could point out that you seem to be ignoring my very simple point.

But more significant, you really are copying BTD's bullying manner, refusing to show respect much less consideration for any opinion that is not your own.

And by the way, that 'let's go really slowly' is an implied insult about intelligence or scriptural comprehension. It's out of place if you want to really have a conversation.

In the past, I have been lured into some bitter arguments by bullies, so I decline to engage with you if you choose such a manner for your posts.

One thing I really dislike in this thread is the habit of some to treat different opinions with arrogance and attacks. The pleasant exceptions are BUDOS and FLBear; even if I differ with them on politics I find their minds open and courteous in matters of faith, even though FLBear's faith is different from my own. On the other hand, BTD often takes positions which I find appealing doctrinally, but his spirit is so bitter and malicious I cannot commend his tactics.

TLDR - I have been a practicing Christian for most of my life, and I have studied Scripture and Theology more than most people I know. But the people I found closest to Christ in spirit have always been humble and gracious first, and so I am trying to be more like them. Those whose behavior displays hubris and malice, I must needs treat as dangerous on more than one level.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

True. The only real leader of Christianity is Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church and the popes list any claim to universal authority (they y to get never really had) centuries ago due to pervasive corruption.

---

Of course, Jesus is the founders and supreme leader of Christianity.

I'll bite, who was the first human leader of the Christianity?
Who do you recognize as the first leader / pope / bishop of Rome of the Catholic Church?
When did it get pervasively corrupted?

---

Jesus was/is the human leader of Christianity.

Scripture shows He appointed eleven men as Disciples during His ministry on earth, plus another names to replace Judas Iscariot.

There are also a number of local leaders and missionaries named in the New Testament.

A church was founded in Rome, but Jesus was not a Pope guy.

---

Are you denying what Jesus said in Matt 16:18 that he made Peter the rock on which he would build his church?

What biblical evidence do you have that proves that "Jesus was not a Pope guy?"

---

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?"

"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."

16 Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."

17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

This verse tells me Peter is in charge of the early church far more than the "on this rock, I build my church" verse.

He makes a clear distinction each of the three times asking Peter to become Shepherd of his flock.

Based on things recorded in Acts, Peter was the leader.

historian said:

---

The NT does not say anything about a pope and there is no mention of Rome being the center of the church. The churches were mostly localized, although Paul and others did establish many of them. In fact, Jerusalem was the center of attention for at least part of the early history of the church (speaking broadly) as recorded in Acts.

---

The term 'Pope" just means "father," as in spiritual father.

It's not in the bible. Neither are the words, "Bible" or "Trinity."

Are you saying that there was no early church in Rome?

And I'll ask again -

• Who do you recognize as the first leader / pope / bishop of Rome of the Catholic Church?
• When did it get pervasively corrupted?

You made the corrupted claim. I'll fully admit to having some serious scoundrels in the Church, but I'd like to hear your claim about the first corruption.

Oldbear83 said:

---

See, your spirit is not Christian there in that post, in fact your tactics mirror BTD's behavior in it.

No, I am not being evasive, in fact I could point out that you seem to be ignoring my very simple point.

But more significant, you really are copying BTD's bullying manner, refusing to show respect much less consideration for any opinion that is not your own.

And by the way, that 'let's go really slowly' is an implied insult about intelligence or scriptural comprehension. It's out of place if you want to really have a conversation.

In the past, I have been lured into some bitter arguments by bullies, so I decline to engage with you if you choose such a manner for your posts.

One thing I really dislike in this thread is the habit of some to treat different opinions with arrogance and attacks. The pleasant exceptions are BUDOS and FLBear; even if I differ with them on politics I find their minds open and courteous in matters of faith, even though FLBear's faith is different from my own. On the other hand, BTD often takes positions which I find appealing doctrinally, but his spirit is so bitter and malicious I cannot commend his tactics.

TLDR - I have been a practicing Christian for most of my life, and I have studied Scripture and Theology more than most people I know. But the people I found closest to Christ in spirit have always been humble and gracious first, and so I am trying to be more like them. Those whose behavior displays hubris and malice, I must needs treat as dangerous on more than one level.

---

Apologies if you don't think that I've been gracious. I offered to have a discussion with you. I humble offered you the first question. - I see no question in your post -

I provided you the topic on which I was going to base my first response. I even asked you to call me out IF I evaded your question.

If that's bullying you, then I can't help you. I'm sorry that I made you feel that way.

I am always open to discuss what the Church actually teaches. Not my views - unless asked. I, in the spirit of the amazing apostolate, Catholic Answers, will do my best to present what the Church truly teaches - not my opinion.

If you, at some point, would like to re-engage, please let me know. I will do my best to respond. I tend to post in waves with my schedule.

Please note, if you do address one of my posts with a snarky response void of substance or clarity, I will call that out and remind you of your post above.

As always, Peace and God Bless!

4th and Inches said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

True. The only real leader of Christianity is Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church and the popes list any claim to universal authority (they y to get never really had) centuries ago due to pervasive corruption.

---

Of course, Jesus is the founders and supreme leader of Christianity.

I'll bite, who was the first human leader of the Christianity?
Who do you recognize as the first leader / pope / bishop of Rome of the Catholic Church?
When did it get pervasively corrupted?

---

Jesus was/is the human leader of Christianity.

Scripture shows He appointed eleven men as Disciples during His ministry on earth, plus another names to replace Judas Iscariot.

There are also a number of local leaders and missionaries named in the New Testament.

A church was founded in Rome, but Jesus was not a Pope guy.

---

Are you denying what Jesus said in Matt 16:18 that he made Peter the rock on which he would build his church?

What biblical evidence do you have that proves that "Jesus was not a Pope guy?"

---

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?"

"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."

16 Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."

17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

This verse tells me Peter is in charge of the early church far more than the "on this rock, I build my church" verse.

He makes a clear distinction each of the three times asking Peter to become Shepherd of his flock.

Based on things recorded in Acts, Peter was the leader.

---

I would agree that your passage from Luke that Jesus put Peter in charge.

Thank you for your response.

4th and Inches said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

True. The only real leader of Christianity is Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church and the popes list any claim to universal authority (they y to get never really had) centuries ago due to pervasive corruption.

---

Of course, Jesus is the founders and supreme leader of Christianity.

I'll bite, who was the first human leader of the Christianity?
Who do you recognize as the first leader / pope / bishop of Rome of the Catholic Church?
When did it get pervasively corrupted?

---

Jesus was/is the human leader of Christianity.

Scripture shows He appointed eleven men as Disciples during His ministry on earth, plus another names to replace Judas Iscariot.

There are also a number of local leaders and missionaries named in the New Testament.

A church was founded in Rome, but Jesus was not a Pope guy.

---

Are you denying what Jesus said in Matt 16:18 that he made Peter the rock on which he would build his church?

What biblical evidence do you have that proves that "Jesus was not a Pope guy?"

---

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?"

"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."

16 Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."

17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

This verse tells me Peter is in charge of the early church far more than the "on this rock, I build my church" verse.

He makes a clear distinction each of the three times asking Peter to become Shepherd of his flock.

Based on things recorded in Acts, Peter was the leader.

---

None of what Jesus said to Peter in that passage expressly indicates that Peter was "in charge of the early church". There appears to be some reading into the passage going on there. Were not the other apostles also "taking care of" and "feeding" Jesus' sheep in their own respective ministries?

The question is this: does this view that Peter was made head of Jesus' church actually play out that way in the rest of Scripture? Peter does seem to have a leadership role, but more as a "first among equals" amongst the apostles, rather than as the jurisdictional head. This is how much of the early church viewed Peter's role.

But in Acts, for instance, when the apostles convened in Jerusalem to decide on doctrinal matters, it was James who appeared to have the final say. If not the final say, then one must at least admit it was equal to that of Peter's.

Also, the apostle Paul seemed to operate independently of any jurisdictional Christian head. He didn't really answer to any human person, let alone Peter, as he traveled extensively and started churches in various areas. None of his epistles to the churches he started ever indicated there was a singular human "head" of Christianity. Neither did any of the other books of the NT, for that matter - even Peter's own books themselves. Peter never even mentions himself as the leader of all of Christianity, he only refers to himself as a "fellow elder". Paul even rebukes him, "to his face". Doesn't sound like Paul considered Peter to be the supreme leader, does it?

You would think that such a thing of critical importance to Christianity like Peter being the head over all of Christianity would have at least been mentioned somewhere. The fact that it isn't, is akin to looking in the historical books about America's nascent years... and there being NO mention anywhere of a President of the United States.

***And if there ever was a perfect opportunity for Scripture to reveal to us the existence of a "pope" or supreme leader of Christianity, SURELY it would have taken place in the book of Revelation, where the entire ecclesial collective (all the churches in existence, represented by the the seven churches in Asia) is seen collectively receiving infallible revelation, instruction, and praise/admonition from heaven above. But did this come to the churches via a singular "pope"? No, it came from Jesus Christ himself, through the prophet John. The transmission occured thusly: Jesus Christ ==> the prophet John ==> the individual "angel" of each church (either an actual angel, or the head elder/pastor/bishop) ==> the congregation. There is no single, human leader over the whole church mentioned in that transmission process at all.

So does the idea that Jesus assigned Peter the role of "leader of the whole Christian church" actually play out in Scripture? Considering all the above, I just don't see how anyone can say yes.

Coke Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

The NT does not say anything about a pope and there is no mention of Rome being the center of the church. The churches were mostly localized, although Paul and others did establish many of them. In fact, Jerusalem was the center of attention for at least part of the early history of the church (speaking broadly) as recorded in Acts.

---

The term 'Pope" just means "father," as in spiritual father.

It's not in the bible. Neither are the words, "Bible" or "Trinity."

Are you saying that there was no early church in Rome?

And I'll ask again -

• Who do you recognize as the first leader / pope / bishop of Rome of the Catholic Church?
• When did it get pervasively corrupted?

You made the corrupted claim. I'll fully admit to having some serious scoundrels in the Church, but I'd like to hear your claim about the first corruption.

---

I never said there was no early church in Rome. Paul wrote one of his greatest letters to them. That's a red herring or implying I said something that I never even thought.

The pope is no one's spiritual father, God is. As Christians we have a direct connection with God and need no intermediary. Christ Himself taught that repeatedly, including with the Lord's Prayer. Our only intercessor is Jesus Himself and there is no need for any other. Besides, no one can replace God in any way. Satan and his followers have been trying ever since they rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven.

Historically, the first pope was centuries after Peter. He was long dead by the time that that position and title came into use and the political role of the Roman church. The early churches were self governing, as described in the Book of Acts and Paul's letters.

As with all matters, the authority on such things comes from scripture itself. No person or thing can supersede scripture and any such effort risks falling under Christ's condemnation in Revelation 22 about adding to or taking away from scripture.

I see nothing wrong with using commentaries or other side when studying the scriptures. There is plenty of wisdom from church leaders (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc) and modern scholars (Spurgeon, Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, etc) that can be useful. But we need to use them carefully, understanding that they were human, make mistakes, and nothing they say can replace scripture.

Yes, the term "Trinity" is not used in scripture. Neither is "rapture". But both concepts are clearly described even if it's through different terminology. They are not extra-scriptural. That cannot be said of the use of "pope."

The popes, and Catholic Church in general, has had plenty of corruption historically. It's similar to modern churches that lost their focus by looking more to the worldly more than the spiritual. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church experienced periods of corruption roughly every century. A reforming pope would arise who would clean up the mess, often associated with the establishment of a new monastic order demonstrating dynamism of the medieval church. After the Schism and the "Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy", there was no such reformer for over a century. That is, not until Martin Luther protested against the pervasive corruption which the pope and the church refused to do anything about. Instead they condemned and excommunicated Luther and the Protestant Reformation dramatically transformed Europe.

Eventually, the Catholic Church did make some reforms with the Council of Trent and the establishment of the Jesuit's. But they also doubled down on their political claims and done questionable doctrines which helped to usher in a century of bloody religious wars that did not end until 1648. Reconciliation was no longer possible because both sides were stubborn and Rome was unwilling to relinquish any of their claims to power.

The Catholic Church offers multiple examples of the axiom that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton)

Coke Bear said:

---

• Who do you recognize as the first leader / pope / bishop of Rome of the Catholic Church?
• When did it get pervasively corrupted?

You made the corrupted claim. I'll fully admit to having some serious scoundrels in the Church, but I'd like to hear your claim about the first corruption.

---

First, outside of the claim of the Roman Catholic church based on its specific interpretaion of Matthew 16:18-19, there is no third party evidence that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. I know this is probably shocking for protestant readers to hear, but understand that the reformation came out of Roman Catholicism. Much of what you know about Roman Catholicism is the result of Roman Catholic history known by the reformers, separated from the knowledge of the schism by 600 years in a world without thee printing press or internet.

There is patristic evidence that both Sts. Paul and Peter were involved in the evangelistic apostolic ministry in Rome. St. Irenaeus, writing in 180 A.D., gives a list of Bishops in Rome that begins with Saint Linus in 67 A.D:

"The blessed apostles [plural], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy."

So the specific identification of St. Peter as the first Bishop of Rome cannot be independently verified outside of the Roman Catholic Church's claims about him.

As far as the corruption in the Roman Patriarchate, I'd recommend reading E.R Chamberlain's excellent book The Bad Popes. It is well researched and paints a picture of the creeping corruption that infected and ultimately overwhelmed the Latin church in 1054 A.D. over a period of hundreds of years. What you see today within Roman Catholicism isn't the result of a single historical event or something new that came out of Vatican 2. It's the final common pathway of a thousand year departure from the conciliar Christianity of the church of the first millenium.

Roman Catholic polemicists often describe Eastern Orthodoxy as "calcified" and "unwilling to change". The Orthodox response would be, "of course". The point of the Church is to preserve the faith once delivered to the saints. If you church is blowing here and there with the winds of modernity, it has probably lost its lampstand.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

.

Happy Lord's Day everyone! I hope you all found a good Christ Centered, Bible believing Church today and attended!
...

historian said:

---

I never said there was no early church in Rome. Paul wrote one of his greatest letters to them. That's a red herring or implying I said something that I never even thought.

---

My apologies.

historian said:

---

The pope is no one's spiritual father, God is. As Christians we have a direct connection with God and need no intermediary. Christ Himself taught that repeatedly, including with the Lord's Prayer. Our only intercessor is Jesus Himself and there is no need for any other. Besides, no one can replace God in any way. Satan and his followers have been trying ever since they rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven.

---

St Paul would disagree about Jesus God being the ONLY spiritual father

• 1 Corinthians 4:15: Paul writes directly to the Corinthian church: "For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel."
• 1 Timothy 1:2 & Titus 1:4: Paul refers to Timothy and Titus as his "true child in the faith" and "true son in our common faith," using parental language for his close disciples
• Philemon 10: Paul refers to Onesimus as "my child, whom I begat while in my chains"
• 1 Thessalonians 2:11: He reminds the church that he dealt with them "as a father deals with his own children.'

He would also disagree with you about Jesus being the only intercessor

1 Timothy 2:1 "I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people "

Some protestant's favorite verse that you are you are probably thinking about is 4 verses later when he states that there is only "one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus."

historian said:

---

Historically, the first pope was centuries after Peter. He was long dead by the time that that position and title came into use and the political role of the Roman church. The early churches were self governing, as described in the Book of Acts and Paul's letters.

---

The term "Pope" wasn't USED until for until the 4th or 5th century for the Bishop of Rome; however, by the end of the first century, we have evidence, in 1 Clement, that the Bishop of Rome was settling disputes in other churches even when John was still alive.

Peter, himself, in Acts settles the matter at the Council of Jerusalem. Clement of Alexandrea, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Eusebius, several other Church fathers all state that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. (Quotes listed in next post …)

historian said:

---

As with all matters, the authority on such things comes from scripture itself. No person or thing can supersede scripture and any such effort risks falling under Christ's condemnation in Revelation 22 about adding to or taking away from scripture.

---

This is incorrect. Where did authority come from before scripture was written? There is at least a 20-30 year gap BEFORE a word is written down. Jesus gave authority to his apostles. His word was transmitted orally for decades. When the word was written down, the apostles' (and their successors') authority didn't end. It was shared.

historian said:

---

I see nothing wrong with using commentaries or other side when studying the scriptures. There is plenty of wisdom from church leaders (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc) and modern scholars (Spurgeon, Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, etc) that can be useful. But we need to use them carefully, understanding that they were human, make mistakes, and nothing they say can replace scripture.

---

No Catholic is arguing to replace scripture. But someone needs to interpret scripture correctly. Else, we have new churches popping up every day based on someone's personal beliefs.

historian said:

---

Yes, the term "Trinity" is not used in scripture. Neither is "rapture". But both concepts are clearly described even if it's through different terminology. They are not extra-scriptural. That cannot be said of the use of "pope."

---

Just a side note here the modern "rapture" is a completely made up (and a huge, biblical misunderstanding) that was created in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby. Praise be to God, it is slowly falling out of favor. Even Kirk Cameron, from the Left Behind series, has walked away from that false belief.

historian said:

---

The popes, and Catholic Church in general, has had plenty of corruption historically. It's similar to modern churches that lost their focus by looking more to the worldly more than the spiritual. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church experienced periods of corruption roughly every century. A reforming pope would arise who would clean up the mess, often associated with the establishment of a new monastic order demonstrating dynamism of the medieval church. After the Schism and the "Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy", there was no such reformer for over a century. That is, not until Martin Luther protested against the pervasive corruption which the pope and the church refused to do anything about. Instead they condemned and excommunicated Luther and the Protestant Reformation dramatically transformed Europe.

---

I fully admit to the Church having some bad Popes (10-12 or so), bad bishops and priests; however, the Church has never taught error. The human element will fail (a lot), but the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error.

historian said:

---

Eventually, the Catholic Church did make some reforms with the Council of Trent and the establishment of the Jesuit's. But they also doubled down on their political claims and done questionable doctrines which helped to usher in a century of bloody religious wars that did not end until 1648. Reconciliation was no longer possible because both sides were stubborn and Rome was unwilling to relinquish any of their claims to power.

The Catholic Church offers multiple examples of the axiom that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton)

---

For those that left the Church, all they needed to do was go back. They didn't REFORM anything. They left and created new churches.

The Church of England had NO desire to do so once they killed all the bishops and priests, seized all of the cathedrals and lands the Church once held.

There was no way the King of England was giving up that. I'd say that there's your example of "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Realitybites said:

---

First, outside of the claim of the Roman Catholic church based on its specific interpretaion of Matthew 16:18-19, there is no third party evidence that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. I know this is probably shocking for protestant readers to hear, but understand that the reformation came out of Roman Catholicism. Much of what you know about Roman Catholicism is the result of Roman Catholic history known by the reformers, separated from the knowledge of the schism by 600 years in a world without thee printing press or internet.

There is patristic evidence that both Sts. Paul and Peter were involved in the evangelistic apostolic ministry in Rome. St. Irenaeus, writing in 180 A.D., gives a list of Bishops in Rome that begins with Saint Linus in 67 A.D:

"The blessed apostles [plural], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy."

So the specific identification of St. Peter as the first Bishop of Rome cannot be independently verified outside of the Roman Catholic Church's claims about him.

---

Who else was around to make the claim? Baptists, Methodist, Lutherans, LDS, etc.?

I hope you would agree that the apostles were ALL bishops. If not, then you have to renounce Apostolic Succession. You agree that Peter was involved in the evangelistic apostolic ministry in Rome; therefore, he was a bishop of Rome.

"Committed into the hand of Linus" You are actually making my point. After Peter was martyred, Linus was next-man-up. Irenaeus' list picks it up from there.

We have several Church fathers that attest to Peter being the Bishop of Rome CENTURIES before the 1054 split:

Clement of Alexandera - "When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it" (Fragment in Eusebius, Church History 6:14:1 [circa A.D. 200]).

Tertullian - "Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John" [the Baptist, by being beheaded] (The Prescription Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

Cyprian of Carthage - "After such things as these, moreover, they still dare a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access" (Letter 54:14 [A.D. 252]).

Eusebius - "The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).

Also, add the fact that Peter's bones were literally found directly beneath the high altar of St. Peter's Basilical.

Not accepting this evidence is akin to atheists arguing that there's no evidence of Jesus' resurrection outside the bible.

Realitybites said:

---

As far as the corruption in the Roman Patriarchate, I'd recommend reading E.R Chamberlain's excellent book The Bad Popes. It is well researched and paints a picture of the creeping corruption that infected and ultimately overwhelmed the Latin church in 1054 A.D. over a period of hundreds of years. What you see today within Roman Catholicism isn't the result of a single historical event or something new that came out of Vatican 2. It's the final common pathway of a thousand year departure from the conciliar Christianity of the church of the first millenium.

---

The Church didn't split over corruption. It split due to theological differences, political and cultural divide, and failed human egos on both sides. Any book that pretends otherwise is simply trying to gloss over the true events.

It is interesting that you have to point out the failures and corruption of the Catholic Church and you cite a book to read. As I've said MANY times, I've never run from the charge of human corruption in the Church. We've had many scoundrels in the Church, but we still can kill the Church that Christ founded.

A better read about the split the book, Answering Orthodoxy - A Catholic Response to Attacks from the East by Michael Lofton.

Realitybites said:

---

Roman Catholic polemicists often describe Eastern Orthodoxy as "calcified" and "unwilling to change". The Orthodox response would be, "of course". The point of the Church is to preserve the faith once delivered to the saints. If you church is blowing here and there with the winds of modernity, it has probably lost its lampstand.

---

But the Orthodox have allowed changes in their stances on allowing for two or three divorces and Non-Abortifacient birth control. The Catholic Church has remained firm on those grounds.

The only changes have been in development of doctrine (which many Orthodox accept, but not at the level of official teachings.

Coke Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

I never said there was no early church in Rome. Paul wrote one of his greatest letters to them. That's a red herring or implying I said something that I never even thought.

---

My apologies.

historian said:

---

The pope is no one's spiritual father, God is. As Christians we have a direct connection with God and need no intermediary. Christ Himself taught that repeatedly, including with the Lord's Prayer. Our only intercessor is Jesus Himself and there is no need for any other. Besides, no one can replace God in any way. Satan and his followers have been trying ever since they rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven.

---

St Paul would disagree about Jesus God being the ONLY spiritual father

• 1 Corinthians 4:15: Paul writes directly to the Corinthian church: "For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel."
• 1 Timothy 1:2 & Titus 1:4: Paul refers to Timothy and Titus as his "true child in the faith" and "true son in our common faith," using parental language for his close disciples
• Philemon 10: Paul refers to Onesimus as "my child, whom I begat while in my chains"
• 1 Thessalonians 2:11: He reminds the church that he dealt with them "as a father deals with his own children.'

He would also disagree with you about Jesus being the only intercessor

1 Timothy 2:1 "I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people "

Some protestant's favorite verse that you are you are probably thinking about is 4 verses later when he states that there is only "one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus."

historian said:

---

Historically, the first pope was centuries after Peter. He was long dead by the time that that position and title came into use and the political role of the Roman church. The early churches were self governing, as described in the Book of Acts and Paul's letters.

---

The term "Pope" wasn't USED until for until the 4th or 5th century for the Bishop of Rome; however, by the end of the first century, we have evidence, in 1 Clement, that the Bishop of Rome was settling disputes in other churches even when John was still alive.

Peter, himself, in Acts settles the matter at the Council of Jerusalem. Clement of Alexandrea, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Eusebius, several other Church fathers all state that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. (Quotes listed in next post …)

historian said:

---

As with all matters, the authority on such things comes from scripture itself. No person or thing can supersede scripture and any such effort risks falling under Christ's condemnation in Revelation 22 about adding to or taking away from scripture.

---

This is incorrect. Where did authority come from before scripture was written? There is at least a 20-30 year gap BEFORE a word is written down. Jesus gave authority to his apostles. His word was transmitted orally for decades. When the word was written down, the apostles' (and their successors') authority didn't end. It was shared.

historian said:

---

I see nothing wrong with using commentaries or other side when studying the scriptures. There is plenty of wisdom from church leaders (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc) and modern scholars (Spurgeon, Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, etc) that can be useful. But we need to use them carefully, understanding that they were human, make mistakes, and nothing they say can replace scripture.

---

No Catholic is arguing to replace scripture. But someone needs to interpret scripture correctly. Else, we have new churches popping up every day based on someone's personal beliefs.

historian said:

---

Yes, the term "Trinity" is not used in scripture. Neither is "rapture". But both concepts are clearly described even if it's through different terminology. They are not extra-scriptural. That cannot be said of the use of "pope."

---

Just a side note here the modern "rapture" is a completely made up (and a huge, biblical misunderstanding) that was created in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby. Praise be to God, it is slowly falling out of favor. Even Kirk Cameron, from the Left Behind series, has walked away from that false belief.

historian said:

---

The popes, and Catholic Church in general, has had plenty of corruption historically. It's similar to modern churches that lost their focus by looking more to the worldly more than the spiritual. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church experienced periods of corruption roughly every century. A reforming pope would arise who would clean up the mess, often associated with the establishment of a new monastic order demonstrating dynamism of the medieval church. After the Schism and the "Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy", there was no such reformer for over a century. That is, not until Martin Luther protested against the pervasive corruption which the pope and the church refused to do anything about. Instead they condemned and excommunicated Luther and the Protestant Reformation dramatically transformed Europe.

---

I fully admit to the Church having some bad Popes (10-12 or so), bad bishops and priests; however, the Church has never taught error. The human element will fail (a lot), but the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error.

historian said:

---

Eventually, the Catholic Church did make some reforms with the Council of Trent and the establishment of the Jesuit's. But they also doubled down on their political claims and done questionable doctrines which helped to usher in a century of bloody religious wars that did not end until 1648. Reconciliation was no longer possible because both sides were stubborn and Rome was unwilling to relinquish any of their claims to power.

The Catholic Church offers multiple examples of the axiom that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton)

---

For those that left the Church, all they needed to do was go back. They didn't REFORM anything. They left and created new churches.

The Church of England had NO desire to do so once they killed all the bishops and priests, seized all of the cathedrals and lands the Church once held.

There was no way the King of England was giving up that. I'd say that there's your example of "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

---

A whole lot of words without adding much of substance.

On the Pope: There is no record in scripture of Peter even going to Rome, much less being bishop there. There is no scripture suggesting any Christian leader should have the kind of authority that the popes have claimed for centuries. Again, the early Christian churches were self-governing. To the extent that Paul, Barnabas, or anyone else visited them it was to offer guidance and direction and not for political governance.

On the authority of Christian leaders: Yes, Christ gave authority the apostles and others to do His work, not to be political leaders and control churches everywhere. Christ gave no human such authority. And no bishop, whether in Rome or Jerusalem, has administrative authority of churches across Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas, or anywhere else.

On intercession: There is a huge difference of one Christian praying FOR another and someone praying TO someone who has been dead for centuries. One is intercessory prayer, the other is a form of idolatry. Nowhere in scripture is anyone commanded to pray to anyone other than God. There is no interpretation of scripture that legitimize it.

On Martin Luther and other 16th century reformers: As I said before, Luther drafted the 95 Theses in an effort to promote reform within the Catholic Church. The corrupt popes and other leaders were uninterested and did nothing except condemn Luther and try to thwart him. Only then did he and other start new churches. When the Catholic Reformation finally came, reforming the corruption and especially extra-biblical doctrines were not as important as the political goals of trying to reimpose authority. This resulted in decades of blood religious wars. Both sides were guilty of bloodshed and atrocities but all of these events were sparked by the corruption of the church and the lack of adequate reform.

The reformers had no reason to return to a church establishment that had rejected them and their efforts to focus on scripture and God's authority. No doubt they made many mistakes themselves and some, like Henry VIII, were motivated primarily by politics and their own ambitions. There is plenty of blame to go around for all the mess that has followed. This is true for all of human history.

To this day, many Catholics act as if they are the only real Christians, the Pope still has universal authority, and that all of their practice contrary to scripture are legitimate. They often come up with elaborate "proofs" to justify them although some of it contradicts scripture and violates John's warning in Revelation 22. Sometimes they even invent fanciful ideas that make no sense.

Wow. Thank you for your thoughts on this.

historian said:

---

A whole lot of words without adding much of substance.

On the Pope: There is no record in scripture of Peter even going to Rome, much less being bishop there. There is no scripture suggesting any Christian leader should have the kind of authority that the popes have claimed for centuries. Again, the early Christian churches were self-governing. To the extent that Paul, Barnabas, or anyone else visited them it was to offer guidance and direction and not for political governance.

---

You've now moved the goal posts, stating that there's no record in scripture of Peter even going to Rome. You are falling into the false believe of sola scriptura, which can't even prove itself from the bible.

But in actuality, evidence does exist

1 Peter 5:13 "Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark."

Babylon was code for Rome in the early letters.

I've demonstrated that many EARLY church fathers document that Peter was in Rome. Add to that, there is the fact that the obelisk in Vatican City marks the spot where he was martyred. Finally, the fact that archeologists have found his bones directly under St Peter's Bacillica.

Peter lived in Rome.

Your point about nothing in "scripture suggesting any Christian leader should have the kind of authority that the popes have claimed for centuries," is a non sequitur.

The org chart of Apple when Steve Jobs was building computers out of his garage looks a WHOLE lot different than the org chart today 50 years later. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the structure of Christianity when there were only a 100 or so Christians look a whole lot different 100 years later, 500 years later, or specially today? Doesn't an acorn look vastly different from an Oak tree?

historian said:

---

On the authority of Christian leaders: Yes, Christ gave authority the apostles and others to do His work, not to be political leaders and control churches everywhere. Christ gave no human such authority. And no bishop, whether in Rome or Jerusalem, has administrative authority of churches across Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas, or anywhere else.

---

In Clement of Rome's letter, 1 Clement, we see him instructing the church in Corinth, to restore the elders to their positions and follow them. This happened even though they had a leader in Corinth and John the Apostle may have still been alive.

historian said:

---

On intercession: There is a huge difference of one Christian praying FOR another and someone praying TO someone who has been dead for centuries. One is intercessory prayer, the other is a form of idolatry. Nowhere in scripture is anyone commanded to pray to anyone other than God. There is no interpretation of scripture that legitimize it.

---

Once again, you are falling for the unbiblical sola scriptura.

Having said that, you are confusing what exactly PRAYER is and you have a misunderstanding of idolatry.

Prayer is NOT worship. It can a small part, but it is NOT worship. To "pray" simply means "to ask." That's what intercessory prayer is. When you pray for someone at your church to recover from an illness or for a remission of cancer, you're not worshipping someone. You are ASKING God to heal them.

Similarly, when a person askes a Saint in heaven to pray for them or someone else, we are NOT worshipping the Saint. We are asking the Saint to pray for that person.

James 5:16 "The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective."

Who is more righteous than those in heaven? No one on earth, that's for sure.

Rev 5:16 " But nothing unclean will enter heaven …"

historian said:

---

On Martin Luther and other 16th century reformers: As I said before, Luther drafted the 95 Theses in an effort to promote reform within the Catholic Church. The corrupt popes and other leaders were uninterested and did nothing except condemn Luther and try to thwart him. Only then did he and other start new churches. When the Catholic Reformation finally came, reforming the corruption and especially extra-biblical doctrines were not as important as the political goals of trying to reimpose authority. This resulted in decades of blood religious wars. Both sides were guilty of bloodshed and atrocities but all of these events were sparked by the corruption of the church and the lack of adequate reform.

---

The Church certainly should have handled the situation better. Many Catholic theologians agree that the 95 Theses had many valid points about the abuse that was happening in SOME parts of the Church.

The 95 Theses had nothing to do with "extra-biblical" doctrines or the authority of church tradition. They dealt with abuse in the Church. As time passed, Luther's own personal issues (Scrupulosity and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Clinical Depression, & Acute Anxiety) led him to change his beliefs.

His scrupulosity and OCD led him to create sola fide. Even after confession, Luther would run immediately back if he has one "impure" thought. He confessor would routinely tell him to leave and that he already confessed.

His depression led him to create sola scriptura - his internal feelings were a storm of doubt and terror, he needed an unshakeable, external, objective anchor to hold onto. So he used the Bible-alone as that anchor.

As I stated, the Church handled the whole situation poorly and to compound it, they handled it slowly. (Of course, the Church never moves fast.) The Council of Trent TRULY reformed the Church, but by that point, it was well too late. Pandora had already opened the box.

historian said:

---

The reformers had no reason to return to a church establishment that had rejected them and their efforts to focus on scripture and God's authority. No doubt they made many mistakes themselves and some, like Henry VIII, were motivated primarily by politics and their own ambitions. There is plenty of blame to go around for all the mess that has followed. This is true for all of human history.

---

Satan divided us. He prayed upon our weaknesses and egos on both sides.

historian said:

---

To this day, many Catholics act as if they are the only real Christians, the Pope still has universal authority, and that all of their practice contrary to scripture are legitimate. They often come up with elaborate "proofs" to justify them although some of it contradicts scripture and violates John's warning in Revelation 22. Sometimes they even invent fanciful ideas that make no sense.

---

I'm sorry if you feel as if (or see) Catholics act like they are the only true Christians. Most of the Catholics that I know (and many Catholic personalities) don't' feel that way at all. They embrace their protestant brothers and sisters in Christ on many projects like Pro-Life marches, stance against same-sex marriage and IVF. They work together politically to help curb the insanity of men in women's sports, etc. We admire their evangelization vigor and love of scripture.

Hopefully, the last few popes have tried to be more ecumenical. Before becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger met with the Lutheran World Federation and worked out the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification which mutually agreed that salvation is a completely unmerited gift of God's grace through faith in Christ, and that good works are the natural fruit of that faith, not its cause.

This wasn't a change in Catholic theology. It was an better understanding of language and terms. The Church has NEVER taught that works can save anyone.

Recently, Pope Leo XIV met with some Orthodox to discuss various topics. Our reconciliation with them was hampered by Pope Frances.

If you really believe that the Church must have "elaborate "proofs" to justify" it practices, I'm happy to discuss anyone of them ONE at a time and the actual history behind them.

BTW, one could argue that Altar Calls and the Sinner's Prayer are also non-biblical practices.

This is scriptural:

"salvation is a completely unmerited gift of God's grace through faith in Christ"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

** Folks, CokeBear and others like him repeatedly rehash the same, defeated arguments and recycle the same defeated talking points, and they're doing it again here. They absolutely refuse to deal with the clear and easy to understand reasoning that clearly shows they're wrong. So I'm addressing this to anyone willing to consider these points with honesty, clarity, and a heart for seeking the truth rather than defending a church at all costs.

---

** Folks, BTD17 and other like him repeatedly rehash the same, defeated arguments and recycle the same defeated talking points, and he's doing it again.

Many Catholics on here have explained with charity and clarity what the Church actually teaches. Unfortunately, BTD continues to ignore what the church ACTUALLY teaches. He presents straw man fallacies and deploys Red Herrings to distract you from the truth. I will point out a few of these in this TLDR post.

I am addressing his talking points with honesty, clarity, and heart for providing what the Church ACTUALLY teaches rather than defending my personal interpretations at all costs.

We've seen this most recently in the discussion about the Fruit of the Holy Spirit, for those of you the read part of that. A non-Catholic called out BTD when he tried to add "anger" and "hate" as fruits of the Holy Spirit when those attributes are clearly in contrast with those Fruit listed in Galatians.

BTD tripled, if not quadrupled-down on his assertation, even when others called him out. This is the type of personality that we are dealing with here. He will consistently twist scripture into his own destruction.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "disciples that left" after Jesus "bread of life" discourse were just people who were following Jesus at the time. They were not THE original twelve. Some of those who left, maybe all of them, included the ones who Jesus had just said weren't true believers (John 6:64). "THE disciples" refers to the original twelve only. They didn't leave. We need to be careful with the language.

---

No one is arguing that.

In actually, you are making my point. Everyone knew what Jesus meant in the Bread of Life discourse. They ALL took him literally. The unbelievers left. But those who believed, even though it was a difficult teaching, stayed with him. They BELIEVED what he said about his flesh and blood.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And those other "disciples" leaving Jesus doesn't automatically mean that their literal interpretation was correct. This is yet another one of the many non sequiturs that the Roman Catholic Church bases its errant views on. They fallaciously argue that since Jesus allowed them to leave without correcting them, it meant that their literal understanding was correct. But Jesus had specifically told his disciples that he would talk in parables (metaphorically and figuratvely) so the unbelieving people would be "hearing but never understanding" in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy (Matthew 13). So Jesus had no problem with their leaving with a wrong interpretation. He allowed the disciples to wrongly believed that he was talking about the literal Temple when he said "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it", and he never corrected them. He allowed the woman at the well to misinterpret "living water" as actual water, and he never corrected her.

---

Yes, Jesus was using a metaphor here.
The metaphor is, "I am the Bread of Life." No one believe that Jesus look a loaf of bread.

He goes on to explain the metaphor in saying in John 6:51:

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Metaphor explained and they start to grumble and then they leave when repeats himself at least 4 more times doubling down on his use of language using the Greek phago "to gnaw on (like an animal)" to hammer is point about eating his flesh. They ALL got it.

The point being, Jesus used the metaphor and then explained it in graphic terms.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

However, in contrast to those who left, to THE original twelve (and now, to US who have their written testimony, i.e. Scripture), Jesus told them "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given". That's why Jesus later explained to the twelve that he was talking in spiritual terms, NOT in literal, physical terms, and why he didn't correct the false thinking of those who left.

---

Jesus wasn't speaking in parables here. He was speaking in direct terms to all the disciples in the Bread of Life Discourse (BoLD). No passage ever states that Jesus later explained the BoLD to apostles. Any attempt to state that is an eisegesis on your behalf.

Also, spiritual doesn't mean symbolic. ANYWHERE.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

***WE KNOW that the original twelve did not believe Jesus was being literal about his flesh and blood - in Acts, they convened in a council, and commanded the Gentile believers to "abstain from blood" which would be very odd, if they truly did take Jesus literally, and that literally drinking Jesus' blood was absolutely required for salvation. During the Last Supper, Jesus still referred to the wine as "the fruit of the vine" even AFTER he declared "This is my blood". And if the Passover bread and wine were literally the flesh and blood of Jesus, the disciples would have been breaking their Law if they consumed it, and Jesus would have sinned by instructing them to; and thus, he would have disqualified himself as the perfect Messiah and the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

---

The abstaining from blood in Acts, was pastoral accommodation to preserve peace between Jewish and Gentile Christians at the time. It no longer applies today.

Also, Jesus' body was not altered by them consuming his body and blood in the substance of the bread and wine. His substance is not diminished by consuming the Eucharist. He wasn't missing a finger or toe or any part of his body. It was a miracle. Similar to the manna from heaven.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Moreover, NOWHERE in Scripture do we see any of the apostles saying anything about having to literally eat and drink Jesus' flesh and blood in order to be saved. You would think that something absolutely required for salvation would have been mentioned in clear, explicit terms. Rather, what WAS clear and explicit were the examples of people being saved without eating or drinking a thing (the sinful woman in Luke 7, the thief on the cross, the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipian jailer, and the house of Cornelius).

---

Jesus tells us this. Is His Word not good enough for you?

Except, He did
Matt 26:27-28 - Then he took a cup, gave thanks,* and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
1 Corinthians 11 St Paul warns Christians that eating and drinking "in an unworthy manner" brings judgment, with some in Corinth falling sick or dying as a result.
1 Corinthians 10:16-21 - St Paul asks whether the cup of blessing is "a participation in the blood of Christ" and the bread "a participation in the body of Christ."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ForWhere Cokebear says the literal interpretation "has been a consistent belief for nearly 2000 years", this may actually be true - a consistently incorrect belief. Where he says that the literal interpretation "wasn't challenged until the 16th century" - that's completely false. Some of you may recall the debate about Augustine (4th century) where I CLEARLY showed that Augustine held to to a symbolic/spiritual view rather than a literalist view. And he was far from being the only one. It is either done out of ignorance or a flat out lie to say that there were no competing views to the literalist view through all of church history. Augustine pretty much said that to "eat Jesus flesh" meant that you believe in him. He clearly and explicitly said that Jesus was being figurative, not literal. These literalist folks, whose traditions are dependent on church history always supporting their side, will flatly deny all the clear and obvious evidence against their view, and attempt a completely ridiculous and laughable argument where they pretty much try to gas light you, essentially telling you to not believe your lying eyes. They have no other choice. They'd rather defend the infallibility, and thus authority, of their Church and will repudiate obvious, easily discernible truth and logic in order to do so. They are trapped in deception.

---

You keep stating your opinion on Augustine. Many other Catholic here and I have demonstrated that you're are incorrect in your thinking. We have shown way your thinking is a complete misunderstanding of Augustine. We have illustrated as a Doctor and a the Church and a prominent and historic religious order within the Catholic Church. The Church would NEVER allow a religious order to be established and named after a man who didn't believe the in the Real Presence. But hey, keep preaching. I'm not sure why your ego won't let go of this unless it is a lynch pin in your theology that you've made up.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Folks,the literalist interpretation simply fails in all points - Scripturally, logically, and historically.And yet, the Roman Catholic Church considers transubstantitation something you MUST believe or you go to Hell. Yes, that's right - even if you believe the gospel with all your heart and put your full faith and trust in Jesus for your salvation, even if you never sinned and acted perfectly.... if you don't believe in the literalist interpretation of "this is my body", you still go to Hell. I ask anyone with a rational and honest mind - does this sound like something that actually came from God? Does this sound anything at all like the gospel of Jesus, who said "whosoever believes in me has eternal life"?? According to the Roman Catholic belief, you can truly believe in Jesus - but if you don't believe he was being literal with regard to "eating his flesh", then you still go to Hell. This would make Jesus' statement false, even a lie.

---

Folks, here is one of the straw man fallacies that BTD tries to employ to scare you away from the evil Catholic Church that wants to send you to hell! He continues to misrepresent what the Church actually teaches.

The bolded part above is the straw man fallacy.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Finally, consider this all-too-important point: ***can we trust the interpretation of a church that officially sanctions and supports this prayer?:

"MARY, you delivered me from Hell, and in your hands I place my salvation; you are the salvation of my soul, and I promise to serve you willingly forever."

Folks, it's absolutely clear.

---

Folks, here's the Red Herring I discussed. This is what BTD believe is his "magic bullet", but really it's just the last little arrow in his quiver. He deploys this tactic to use your protestant leanings to sway you from the truth.

• It is a prayer from St. Alphonsus Liguori's, 1750 book The Glories of Mary. It has been presented to him, too many times to count, the following;
• It was written in a different time, on a different continent, reflecting a highly affectionate, poetic, and intense style of prayer common in Baroque-era Italy.
• It is NOT official Church teaching
• It is a private devotion
• It is NOT required to be prayed by anyone
• Catholics aren't worshiping Mary, nor do they think is God.
• They are asking her for her intercession.
• All "Glory" to Mary is only in done because of what Jesus did for her.

Luke 1:46-47 My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
99% of Catholics have never heard or even seen this prayer before. I hadn't until he posted it here.

I fully admit that it certainly sounds strange to our modern ears. I don't pray it, but I don't blame others who do because they understand the context.

Even Paul used language that appears to usurp Jesus in the following:
1 Corinthians 9:22 - "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."
Romans 11:1314 - "I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them."

We know what Paul means here. Jesus is our savior. To claim that Alphonsus is giving worship to Mary or claiming that she saves us (any more than Paul) is ignorant at best or dishonest and deceitful at worst.

If BTD would bother to read the BEGINNING of the book, he would see what Alphonsus Liguori's dedication said,

Quote:

---

"My most loving Redeemer and Lord Jesus Christ, I thy poor servant knowing how pleasing to thee are those who seek to glorify thy most holy mother, whom thou lovest so much, and dost so much desire to see loved and honored by all men..."

---

The entire book is dedicated to Jesus to honor his Mother as he loved her.

Rest assured, sadly, you will see BTD release this tactic again.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Open your eyes, and know them by their fruits.
Those who truly belong to Jesus, who are true believers and thus are indwelled with the Holy Spirit, know that what I'm saying here is true.
Thank you for reading, and sorry for the long post. A long list of falsehood and deception requires a long explanation with truth and clarity, unfortunately.

---

Let's look briefly at his bolded portion here "I know what I'm saying is true." I believe in my heart BTD THINKS what he' saying is true. But these are just his OPINIONS about the Church. Many of the these "issues" have been explained to him ad nauseum but he refuses to accept them on face value. He is content to live with HIS personal interpretation. He is NOT willing to understand or change. It is evident in his "I KNOW" comment. He's making himself infallible in HIS interpretation.

He consistently twists the truth into his version of what the Catholic Church is as I've demonstrated above. Satan is the father of half-truths. Please don't be swayed by them.

Finally - YES, please know the Catholic Church by her real fruits! I ask, I implore, I beg you to know the Church by her fruits.

No other organization has given so much to society:

• Invention of evolution of the modern hospital
• Birth of the higher education system
• Institution of global human aid - Mother Teresa, Catherine Drexel, Elizabeth Ann Seton, etc.
• Saved Europe from Muslim take over - Battle of Tours, Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Vienna, Siege of Malta, The Recapture of Spain, etc.
• Scientific advancements
• Father of genetics - Augustinian friar, Gregory Mendel
• Big Bang Theory - Georges Lematre, a Belgian Catholic priest and physicist
• Gregorian Calendar Pope Gregory XIII
• Father of Astrophysics: Fr. Angelo Secchi, a 19th-century Jesuit priest
• Art David, the Piata, Trevi Fountain, many masterpieces from Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Caravaggio, and Bernini were all commissioned by the Church
• Music - Birth of Modern Music Notation by Benedictine monk named Guido d'Arezzo invented the musical staff
• Architecture - Romanesque and the Roman Revival (10th12th Century) & The Gothic Revolution (12th16th Century) Some of the most beautiful and amazing cathedrals around the world where anyone can worship God: St Peter's Basilica, St Patrick's (NYC), Notre Dame, Cologne Cathedral
• The most brilliant theologians Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius, Aquinas, Gregory of Nazianzus, Anselm of Canterbury, etc.

I could go on and on about the good that the Church as done throughout history. I fully recognize the damage and evils that people in the Church have committed. I won't cover that up.

Please note that the Church isn't museum for saints. It's a hospital for sinners.

Lastly, I am always open to fruitful, honest, and charitable discussion about the Catholic Church and her teachings.

historian said:

---

This is scriptural:

"salvation is a completely unmerited gift of God's grace through faith in Christ"

---

True, "working thru charity."

That has nothing to do with grace or salvation.

" I could go on and on about the good that the Church as done throughout history. I fully recognize the damage and evils that people in the Church have committed. I won't cover that up."

You should stop and think about that statement. Pretending officials in a group do not represent the group in an attempt to whitewash the group's reputation is blatantly hypocritical.

Please understand I am not condemning the entire Roman Catholic denomination, anymore than I blame all Protestant evangelists for Jim Bakker's acts or anyone else for Benny Hinn's fraud. But any organization is ultimately accountable for its officials, especially at the top, so if you have a bad pope, your group needs to address his crimes and make changes.

Denial is not a Christian quality,

Quote:

---

We've seen this most recently in the discussion about the Fruit of the Holy Spirit, for those of you the read part of that. A non-Catholic called out BTD when he tried to add "anger" and "hate" as fruits of the Holy Spirit when those attributes are clearly in contrast with those Fruit listed in Galatians.

BTD tripled, if not quadrupled-down on his assertation, even when others called him out. This is the type of personality that we are dealing with here. He will consistently twist scripture into his own destruction.

---

Folks, CokeBear is asserting that I am incorrect that hate and anger can be fruits of the Holy Spirit.

Yet I have repeatedly and openly challenged him and all others who disagree with me to simply answer the following questions:

• In a believer who is indwelled with the Holy Spirit, is their Spirit-moved empathy, compassion, understanding, charity, and desire to share the gospel with others fruits of the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
• In a believer who is indwelled with the Holy Spirit, is their Spirit-moved hatred of their own sin (and sin and evil in general) a fruit of the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
• Do the fruits of a Holy Spirit make a believer become more like Jesus, thus making that believer hate everything that Jesus hates?

There still is no answer to this question, by CokeBear, or anyone else who disagreed with my statement. It's pretty clear why not. They have been stumped and realize that they have lost the argument, and they don't want to show it.

Therefore, I consider this a concession by him and all others who disagreed that the statement I made was correct. All of their claims contrary to this fact are invalidated as long as they fail to answer the question.

And by the way, the "non-Catholic" CokeBear is referring to is BUDOS, who very much like him, refuses to call out the obvious heresy and idolatry in that marian prayer I posted - which NO TRUE CHRISTIAN would have ANY problem discerning as heresy and idolatry and calling it out as such. So is it any surprise that they are together on this against me?

^^ Know them by their fruits, folks. And know the spirit behind it all.

Oldbear83 said:

---

See, your spirit is not Christian there in that post, in fact your tactics mirror BTD's behavior in it.

No, I am not being evasive, in fact I could point out that you seem to be ignoring my very simple point.

But more significant, you really are copying BTD's bullying manner, refusing to show respect much less consideration for any opinion that is not your own.

And by the way, that 'let's go really slowly' is an implied insult about intelligence or scriptural comprehension. It's out of place if you want to really have a conversation.

In the past, I have been lured into some bitter arguments by bullies, so I decline to engage with you if you choose such a manner for your posts.

One thing I really dislike in this thread is the habit of some to treat different opinions with arrogance and attacks. The pleasant exceptions are BUDOS and FLBear; even if I differ with them on politics I find their minds open and courteous in matters of faith, even though FLBear's faith is different from my own. On the other hand, BTD often takes positions which I find appealing doctrinally, but his spirit is so bitter and malicious I cannot commend his tactics.

TLDR - I have been a practicing Christian for most of my life, and I have studied Scripture and Theology more than most people I know. But the people I found closest to Christ in spirit have always been humble and gracious first, and so I am trying to be more like them. Those whose behavior displays hubris and malice, I must needs treat as dangerous on more than one level.

---

I agree with you that we need to please keep the discussion respectful. Let's remember that this is not personal. This is a way to hopefully come to an understanding of our differences.

This is not the only site I attend. I also belong to another site called Football Guys. I have been banned until Jan 1, 2027 because the folks there like to attack me and I guess I got feed up and started defending myself. If you decide to visit there, I am Paddingdon over there and my thread there is 'A Prayer Of Salvation.' The moderator there keeps it all on a short leash and you get banned for fighting or talking politics. The Liberals over there are trying to get my thread shut down because they can't handle the gospel going out and diversified opinions.

Check out football guys if you want to see how other sites restrict free speech. I am thankful that this site doesn't do that.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

See, your spirit is not Christian there in that post, in fact your tactics mirror BTD's behavior in it.

No, I am not being evasive, in fact I could point out that you seem to be ignoring my very simple point.

But more significant, you really are copying BTD's bullying manner, refusing to show respect much less consideration for any opinion that is not your own.

And by the way, that 'let's go really slowly' is an implied insult about intelligence or scriptural comprehension. It's out of place if you want to really have a conversation.

In the past, I have been lured into some bitter arguments by bullies, so I decline to engage with you if you choose such a manner for your posts.

One thing I really dislike in this thread is the habit of some to treat different opinions with arrogance and attacks. The pleasant exceptions are BUDOS and FLBear; even if I differ with them on politics I find their minds open and courteous in matters of faith, even though FLBear's faith is different from my own. On the other hand, BTD often takes positions which I find appealing doctrinally, but his spirit is so bitter and malicious I cannot commend his tactics.

TLDR - I have been a practicing Christian for most of my life, and I have studied Scripture and Theology more than most people I know. But the people I found closest to Christ in spirit have always been humble and gracious first, and so I am trying to be more like them. Those whose behavior displays hubris and malice, I must needs treat as dangerous on more than one level.

---

I agree with you that we need to please keep the discussion respectful. Let's remember that this is not personal. This is a way to hopefully come to an understanding of our differences.

This is not the only site I attend. I also belong to another site called Football Guys. I have been banned until Jan 1, 2027 because the folks there like to attack me and I guess I got feed up and started defending myself. If you decide to visit there, I am Paddingdon over there and my thread there is 'A Prayer Of Salvation.' The moderator there keeps it all on a short leash and you get banned for fighting or talking politics. The Liberals over there are trying to get my thread shut down because they can't handle the gospel going out and diversified opinions.

Check out football guys if you want to see how other sites restrict free speech. I am thankful that this site doesn't do that.

---

Good evening, Frodo, and thank you for your post. I both agree and disagree with your position.

I agree with the importance of showing respect, especially when discussing a matter as important as personal faith and how we defend our beliefs. I disagree somewhat, because there are some members who regularly use insults and attacks against people they do not like. And I see that as bad for the purpose of constructive debate and building real understanding.

Before I go on, I may be something of an outlier here, as I started as a Christian when I was young, lost my faith in my young adult years because of some very bad injustices I saw, but after exploring a number of different faiths and atheism as well, I came back to Christ through some personal experiences I consider The Holy Spirit making it impossible for me to ignore Him. So I have some experience considering the reasonable quality of doubt, cynicism, faith, and apologetics.

Like some here, I put a lot of trust in Scripture. I trust God to protect His Word, and there is a lot of reason to be wary of trusting any person or group of humans pretending that this human leader or that is "infallible". I also believe in paying attention to the character of a believer's spirit; I have been blessed to know many individuals whose faith has borne fruit in the lives of people they touched. I therefore look for that spirit in the posts of those I speak with, and I am happy to say there are some here who I believe are very pleasing to our Lord in not only what they do, but their manner and character. I hope one day I may be more like them in my own walk.

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

See, your spirit is not Christian there in that post, in fact your tactics mirror BTD's behavior in it.

No, I am not being evasive, in fact I could point out that you seem to be ignoring my very simple point.

But more significant, you really are copying BTD's bullying manner, refusing to show respect much less consideration for any opinion that is not your own.

And by the way, that 'let's go really slowly' is an implied insult about intelligence or scriptural comprehension. It's out of place if you want to really have a conversation.

In the past, I have been lured into some bitter arguments by bullies, so I decline to engage with you if you choose such a manner for your posts.

One thing I really dislike in this thread is the habit of some to treat different opinions with arrogance and attacks. The pleasant exceptions are BUDOS and FLBear; even if I differ with them on politics I find their minds open and courteous in matters of faith, even though FLBear's faith is different from my own. On the other hand, BTD often takes positions which I find appealing doctrinally, but his spirit is so bitter and malicious I cannot commend his tactics.

TLDR - I have been a practicing Christian for most of my life, and I have studied Scripture and Theology more than most people I know. But the people I found closest to Christ in spirit have always been humble and gracious first, and so I am trying to be more like them. Those whose behavior displays hubris and malice, I must needs treat as dangerous on more than one level.

---

I agree with you that we need to please keep the discussion respectful. Let's remember that this is not personal. This is a way to hopefully come to an understanding of our differences.

This is not the only site I attend. I also belong to another site called Football Guys. I have been banned until Jan 1, 2027 because the folks there like to attack me and I guess I got feed up and started defending myself. If you decide to visit there, I am Paddingdon over there and my thread there is 'A Prayer Of Salvation.' The moderator there keeps it all on a short leash and you get banned for fighting or talking politics. The Liberals over there are trying to get my thread shut down because they can't handle the gospel going out and diversified opinions.

Check out football guys if you want to see how other sites restrict free speech. I am thankful that this site doesn't do that.

---

Good evening, Frodo, and thank you for your post. I both agree and disagree with your position.

I agree with the importance of showing respect, especially when discussing a matter as important as personal faith and how we defend our beliefs. I disagree somewhat, because there are some members who regularly use insults and attacks against people they do not like. And I see that as bad for the purpose of constructive debate and building real understanding.

Before I go on, I may be something of an outlier here, as I started as a Christian when I was young, lost my faith in my young adult years because of some very bad injustices I saw, but after exploring a number of different faiths and atheism as well, I came back to Christ through some personal experiences I consider The Holy Spirit making it impossible for me to ignore Him. So I have some experience considering the reasonable quality of doubt, cynicism, faith, and apologetics.

Like some here, I put a lot of trust in Scripture. I trust God to protect His Word, and there is a lot of reason to be wary of trusting any person or group of humans pretending that this human leader or that is "infallible". I also believe in paying attention to the character of a believer's spirit; I have been blessed to know many individuals whose faith has borne fruit in the lives of people they touched. I therefore look for that spirit in the posts of those I speak with, and I am happy to say there are some here who I believe are very pleasing to our Lord in not only what they do, but their manner and character. I hope one day I may be more like them in my own walk.

---

Well over at the other site, most of them agree that they do not like my approach of just telling them the cold facts. They think I am too harsh. I don't know of any other way to tell the truth other than to tell them.

This thread is exploding here. I have you all to thank for it for your great discussions. It keep it interesting and allows masses of people to get the gospel. Please keep it going. At the otehr site, there is also discussion, but Intend to be the center of it, which I do not like. I end up responding to rude comments and false accusations about Christians only to be the one who gets punished for finally fighting back. I guess that isn't your problem, but maybe some of you would like to also go over there and discuss this topic. I am banned though until January 1, 2027.

historian said:

---

That has nothing to do with grace or salvation.

---

Interesting - Saint Paul sees it a little differently...

Most protestants love to quote Ephesians 2:8-9 -

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast."

They conveniently forget about the NEXT verse, 10 -

"For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

St Paul explicitly states in Gal 5:6: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love"

1 Cor 13:2 - "If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

Romans 2:6-8 - God "will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."

If a person has faith in Jesus, but still commits unrepented, grave sins, that's not a way to get to heaven.

Truly, we're on the same side here. We both (all of us should) agree that salvation is a completely unmerited gift from God. No one can earn their salvation.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" I could go on and on about the good that the Church as done throughout history. I fully recognize the damage and evils that people in the Church have committed. I won't cover that up."

You should stop and think about that statement. Pretending officials in a group do not represent the group in an attempt to whitewash the group's reputation is blatantly hypocritical.

Please understand I am not condemning the entire Roman Catholic denomination, anymore than I blame all Protestant evangelists for Jim Bakker's acts or anyone else for Benny Hinn's fraud. But any organization is ultimately accountable for its officials, especially at the top, so if you have a bad pope, your group needs to address his crimes and make changes.

Denial is not a Christian quality,

---

I'm not sure the response that you are looking for here. I have fully admitted (many times) that the Church has had about 10-12 truly awful Popes. Of the 267 popes, that's less than 5%.

81 former popes have been declared Saints in the Church. That's a hair over 30%. In a bell-shaped curve, that heavily skewed to the left, leaving 65% of the remaining popes either good or at least neutral.

Succeeding Popes, like Pope Adrian VI - (15221523) have acknowledged and condemned the corruption of Church by previous Renaissance popes (like the Borgias and Medicis.)

Other Popes, like JPII, openly confessed that "we cannot not recognize the betrayal of the gospel committed by some of our brothers," referring directly to leaders and members of the Church who abused power, caused historical divisions, used violence, and failed in their Christian witness.

What more would you like the Church to do? Seriously.

They've admitted extreme wrong-doing in the Church and ask for forgiveness.

That's not whitewashing or being hypocritical. That's taking accountability and apologizing.

The Church was charged by BTD with "you will know them by their fruits," so I responded with the some of the many positives in the history of the Church and how she shaped western civilization. I'd say, the good FAR outweighs the bad.

Coke Bear: "I have fully admitted (many times) that the Church has had about 10-12 truly awful Popes. Of the 267 popes, that's less than 5%.

81 former popes have been declared Saints in the Church. That's a hair over 30%. In a bell-shaped curve, that heavily skewed to the left, leaving 65% of the remaining popes either good or at least neutral."

Seriously, stop and look at your claim. At least two-third of the popes were neutral or better, even super wonderful, specifically because your own denomination said so?

Just think how you would react if Lutherans used their own opinion as the litmus for whether their leaders were faithful in the eyes of our Lord, or the Baptists, et cetera?

Circular arguments more than miss the point.

I have been clear, but I think you do not like the message: Every man is flawed and cannot pretend to be Christ's representative. Those who do serve the Lord speak and act in a manner consistent with Scripture.

We see this even in Scriptural accounts. All of the kings of Israel and Judah were at one time or another sinful, even the ones who generally pleased the Lord. And in the New Testament, even Peter, though he clearly had the Holy Spirit within him, was wrong about sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles - Paul had to correct him (this should not be taken to mean Paul was Peter's superior). All men are fallible.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Folks, CokeBear is asserting that I am incorrect that hate and anger can be fruits of the Holy Spirit.

Yet I have repeatedly and openly challenged him and all others who disagree with me to simply answer the following questions:

• In a believer who is indwelled with the Holy Spirit, is their Spirit-moved empathy, compassion, understanding, charity, and desire to share the gospel with others fruits of the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
• In a believer who is indwelled with the Holy Spirit, is their Spirit-moved hatred of their own sin (and sin and evil in general) a fruit of the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
• Do the fruits of a Holy Spirit make a believer become more like Jesus, thus making that believer hate everything that Jesus hates?

There still is no answer to this question, by CokeBear, or anyone else who disagreed with my statement. It's pretty clear why not. They have been stumped and realize that they have lost the argument, and they don't want to show it.

Therefore, I consider this a concession by him and all others who disagreed that the statement I made was correct. All of their claims contrary to this fact are invalidated as long as they fail to answer the question.

---

Folks, the exact quote that BTD issued to OldBear83 at 5:55 PM, Oct 6 was:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Did it ever occur to you that HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit?

---

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/123613/replies/4643396

In his post above, he is twisting and turning his original statement into a series of challenge questions with he claims "victory" by me (us) not responding to his latest revision of his original statement.

I'm not going to play that game.

As I mentioned earlier, in Galatians 5:19-21, he lists: "enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy..." He calls these works of the flesh.

He immediately follows up with Gal 5:22-23, -
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."

These fruit are in DIRECT conflict with anger and hate.

I fully understand was BTD is getting at. It is understandable to have righteous anger and hatred of sin. But to call them a "Fruit of the Holy Spirit" is in direction opposition of the real Fruit.

I'm done responding to this topic, so can call this a "concession to his argument" if that helps him sleep better at night.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And by the way, the "non-Catholic" CokeBear is referring to is BUDOS, who very much like him, refuses to call out the obvious heresy and idolatry in that marian prayer I posted - which NO TRUE CHRISTIAN would have ANY problem discerning as heresy and idolatry and calling it out as such. So is it any surprise that they are together on this against me?

^^ Know them by their fruits, folks. And know the spirit behind it all.

---

Wow! I mentioned to you all in my previous post that we would see this again. I didn't think it would be in his next post.

Once again, this is another Red Herring and Strawman argument. He is trying to distract us from the real point at hand (calling Hate and Anger a Fruit of the Holy Spirit) while hurling a strawman argument, wrapped in a "No True Scotsman fallacy" of "heresy and idolatry" at a poetic prayer. Truly sad.

Friends, I've explained it to this group several times.

I, personally, do not care for the extremely, poetic language in the prayer, but I don't reject it fully, because I understand when and why it was written. I also understand that Alphonsus Liguori dedicated the prayer TO JESUS to honor HIS Mother. He was not taking anything away from Jesus. She is like the moon which only shines because of the Sun (Son.)

I have NEVER once said the prayer, nor do I know anyone that is familiar with the prayer. I've never seen the prayer offered corporately (in a church or church setting).

Unfortunately, BTD can't and won't passed it. I'm not asking him to pray or even accept the prayer. I'm merely asking him to understand that it is NOT "heresy and idolatry."

His consistent and persistent misunderstanding here remind me of a truly sad YouTube that was making the rounds last week of a protestant pastor, Jonathan Shelley at Steadfast Baptist Church in Texas, that had children smash statues of Angels and the Virgin Mary with hammers (without safety glasses, mind you) to "smash idolatry."

Would this same pastor smash a statue of a cross with a hammer? A crucifix? A statue of Jesus? If statues of angels and our Blessed Mother are "idolatry," then so are the cross and statue of Jesus. So are nativity scenes.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "I have fully admitted (many times) that the Church has had about 10-12 truly awful Popes. Of the 267 popes, that's less than 5%.

81 former popes have been declared Saints in the Church. That's a hair over 30%. In a bell-shaped curve, that heavily skewed to the left, leaving 65% of the remaining popes either good or at least neutral."

Seriously, stop and look at your claim. At least two-third of the popes were neutral or better, even super wonderful, specifically because your own denomination said so?

Just think how you would react if Lutherans used their own opinion as the litmus for whether their leaders were faithful in the eyes of our Lord, or the Baptists, et cetera?

Circular arguments more than miss the point.

I have been clear, but I think you do not like the message: Every man is flawed and cannot pretend to be Christ's representative. Those who do serve the Lord speak and act in a manner consistent with Scripture.

We see this even in Scriptural accounts. All of the kings of Israel and Judah were at one time or another sinful, even the ones who generally pleased the Lord. And in the New Testament, even Peter, though he clearly had the Holy Spirit within him, was wrong about sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles - Paul had to correct him (this should not be taken to mean Paul was Peter's superior). All men are fallible.

---

I don't know or care if Lutheran or Baptists declare their leaders good.

I understand your message about all men being flawed. I got. I agree (with the exception of our Blessed Mother, but that's not the point.)

Yes, MAN is flawed, but it didn't stop Jesus from appointing a leader of his Church.

I do need to point out one small error in your comment about Peter being "wrong about sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles."

That's not what happened.

In Acts 10 after God gives Peter the vision of a sheet filled with unclean animals, where a voice tells Peter, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane"

Immediately he visits the house of Gentile Roman centurion named Cornelius and says, "You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call any man profane or unclean."

Next in Acts 11, Peter defends himself from the strict Jewish believer from eating with the uncircumcised Gentiles. He concludes his defense with a definitive rhetorical question:
"If then God gave to them the same gift that he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?"

At the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15, he makes the definitive ruling about preaching to the Gentiles "… that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the good news and believe..."

As you know your bible well, I know that you know this.

Please note that Peter was not rebuked by Paul about 'about sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles." Peter would not eat with the Gentiles in front of the Jews so as to not cause scandal. Paul, rightfully, called him out.

Having said that, Peter's actions were wrong and he received "filial correction" from Paul.

Back to your point, yes, Peter was a sinner. We're all sinners. But that doesn't negate the fact that Jesus left Peter in charge of his Church.

Jesus knew Peter would sin and that's why in Luke 22:31-32, Jesus says -

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have y'all, that he might sift y'all like wheat, but I have prayed for YOU that your faith may not fail; and when YOU have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Jesus gives Peter the "keys to the Kingdom" in Matthew. These are the same keys mentioned in Isiah 22, when the Key is removed from the shoulder of the wicked servant, Shebna, and given to Eliakim in verses 21-24 to become the palace administrator.

When the King (Jesus) was away, the palace administrator (Peter), was completely in charge.

"I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshootsall its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars."

This language mirrors and is a foreshowing of the Jesus giving Peter the keys and telling he what he binds on earth with be bound in heaven and what he loosens on earth will be loosed in heaven. Like any typology in the bible, the new is superior to the old. Eliakim was just in charge of the limited holding of the king while he is out. Peter is in charge of all of Jesus' kingdom until he returns.

You don't accept it. I get. But MANY Church fathers draw on this parallel more than 1200 years before Protestantism started.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "I have fully admitted (many times) that the Church has had about 10-12 truly awful Popes. Of the 267 popes, that's less than 5%.

81 former popes have been declared Saints in the Church. That's a hair over 30%. In a bell-shaped curve, that heavily skewed to the left, leaving 65% of the remaining popes either good or at least neutral."

Seriously, stop and look at your claim. At least two-third of the popes were neutral or better, even super wonderful, specifically because your own denomination said so?

Just think how you would react if Lutherans used their own opinion as the litmus for whether their leaders were faithful in the eyes of our Lord, or the Baptists, et cetera?

Circular arguments more than miss the point.

I have been clear, but I think you do not like the message: Every man is flawed and cannot pretend to be Christ's representative. Those who do serve the Lord speak and act in a manner consistent with Scripture.

We see this even in Scriptural accounts. All of the kings of Israel and Judah were at one time or another sinful, even the ones who generally pleased the Lord. And in the New Testament, even Peter, though he clearly had the Holy Spirit within him, was wrong about sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles - Paul had to correct him (this should not be taken to mean Paul was Peter's superior). All men are fallible.

---

I don't know or care if Lutheran or Baptists declare their leaders good.

I understand your message about all men being flawed. I got. I agree (with the exception of our Blessed Mother, but that's not the point.)

Yes, MAN is flawed, but it didn't stop Jesus from appointing a leader of his Church.

I do need to point out one small error in your comment about Peter being "wrong about sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles."

That's not what happened.

In Acts 10 after God gives Peter the vision of a sheet filled with unclean animals, where a voice tells Peter, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane"

Immediately he visits the house of Gentile Roman centurion named Cornelius and says, "You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call any man profane or unclean."

Next in Acts 11, Peter defends himself from the strict Jewish believer from eating with the uncircumcised Gentiles. He concludes his defense with a definitive rhetorical question:
"If then God gave to them the same gift that he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?"

At the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15, he makes the definitive ruling about preaching to the Gentiles "… that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the good news and believe..."

As you know your bible well, I know that you know this.

Please note that Peter was not rebuked by Paul about 'about sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles." Peter would not eat with the Gentiles in front of the Jews so as to not cause scandal. Paul, rightfully, called him out.

Having said that, Peter's actions were wrong and he received "filial correction" from Paul.

Back to your point, yes, Peter was a sinner. We're all sinners. But that doesn't negate the fact that Jesus left Peter in charge of his Church.

Jesus knew Peter would sin and that's why in Luke 22:31-32, Jesus says -

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have y'all, that he might sift y'all like wheat, but I have prayed for YOU that your faith may not fail; and when YOU have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Jesus gives Peter the "keys to the Kingdom" in Matthew. These are the same keys mentioned in Isiah 22, when the Key is removed from the shoulder of the wicked servant, Shebna, and given to Eliakim in verses 21-24 to become the palace administrator.

When the King (Jesus) was away, the palace administrator (Peter), was completely in charge.

"I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshootsall its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars."

This language mirrors and is a foreshowing of the Jesus giving Peter the keys and telling he what he binds on earth with be bound in heaven and what he loosens on earth will be loosed in heaven. Like any typology in the bible, the new is superior to the old. Eliakim was just in charge of the limited holding of the king while he is out. Peter is in charge of all of Jesus' kingdom until he returns.

You don't accept it. I get. But MANY Church fathers draw on this parallel more than 1200 years before Protestantism started.

---

You make the same mistake that you blame in other sects, that is taking this verse and that and sticking them into a collage so you can pretend God is what you want to make Him become.

Indeed I do not accept it.

Have you considered why there are all those books in the Bible? There are sixty-six books in the commonly accepted canon, and each of them matters to the whole. It's one reason solid churches make it imperative for believers to study Scripture.

Not just the well-known ones. Not just the New Testament.

Everything matters, every verse counts.

Peter was a great servant of Christ, and a true follower in faith and follow through. But Peter was one of a group of disciples, and just as it is evil to worship Mary or treat her as a co-Redeemer, so it is wrong to worship Peter as something he never claimed to be, or to build a pantheon of humans like religious action figures.

Paul stated the opposite. My statement was largely based on verses from Paul's letters but consistent from all of scripture. That's apparent from the passage from Ephesians when taken in context. Funny how you use Paul's words to argue something else but in none of them does he say what you seem to think he says.

Works follow from salvation but do not save.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "I have fully admitted (many times) that the Church has had about 10-12 truly awful Popes. Of the 267 popes, that's less than 5%.

81 former popes have been declared Saints in the Church. That's a hair over 30%. In a bell-shaped curve, that heavily skewed to the left, leaving 65% of the remaining popes either good or at least neutral."

Seriously, stop and look at your claim. At least two-third of the popes were neutral or better, even super wonderful, specifically because your own denomination said so?

Just think how you would react if Lutherans used their own opinion as the litmus for whether their leaders were faithful in the eyes of our Lord, or the Baptists, et cetera?

Circular arguments more than miss the point.

I have been clear, but I think you do not like the message: Every man is flawed and cannot pretend to be Christ's representative. Those who do serve the Lord speak and act in a manner consistent with Scripture.

We see this even in Scriptural accounts. All of the kings of Israel and Judah were at one time or another sinful, even the ones who generally pleased the Lord. And in the New Testament, even Peter, though he clearly had the Holy Spirit within him, was wrong about sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles - Paul had to correct him (this should not be taken to mean Paul was Peter's superior). All men are fallible.

---

I don't know or care if Lutheran or Baptists declare their leaders good.

I understand your message about all men being flawed. I got. I agree (with the exception of our Blessed Mother, but that's not the point.)

Yes, MAN is flawed, but it didn't stop Jesus from appointing a leader of his Church.

I do need to point out one small error in your comment about Peter being "wrong about sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles."

That's not what happened.

In Acts 10 after God gives Peter the vision of a sheet filled with unclean animals, where a voice tells Peter, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane"

Immediately he visits the house of Gentile Roman centurion named Cornelius and says, "You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call any man profane or unclean."

Next in Acts 11, Peter defends himself from the strict Jewish believer from eating with the uncircumcised Gentiles. He concludes his defense with a definitive rhetorical question:
"If then God gave to them the same gift that he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?"

At the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15, he makes the definitive ruling about preaching to the Gentiles "… that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the good news and believe..."

As you know your bible well, I know that you know this.

Please note that Peter was not rebuked by Paul about 'about sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles." Peter would not eat with the Gentiles in front of the Jews so as to not cause scandal. Paul, rightfully, called him out.

Having said that, Peter's actions were wrong and he received "filial correction" from Paul.

Back to your point, yes, Peter was a sinner. We're all sinners. But that doesn't negate the fact that Jesus left Peter in charge of his Church.

Jesus knew Peter would sin and that's why in Luke 22:31-32, Jesus says -

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have y'all, that he might sift y'all like wheat, but I have prayed for YOU that your faith may not fail; and when YOU have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Jesus gives Peter the "keys to the Kingdom" in Matthew. These are the same keys mentioned in Isiah 22, when the Key is removed from the shoulder of the wicked servant, Shebna, and given to Eliakim in verses 21-24 to become the palace administrator.

When the King (Jesus) was away, the palace administrator (Peter), was completely in charge.

"I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshootsall its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars."

This language mirrors and is a foreshowing of the Jesus giving Peter the keys and telling he what he binds on earth with be bound in heaven and what he loosens on earth will be loosed in heaven. Like any typology in the bible, the new is superior to the old. Eliakim was just in charge of the limited holding of the king while he is out. Peter is in charge of all of Jesus' kingdom until he returns.

You don't accept it. I get. But MANY Church fathers draw on this parallel more than 1200 years before Protestantism started.

---

You make the same mistake that you blame in other sects, that is taking this verse and that and sticking them into a collage so you can pretend God is what you want to make Him become.

Indeed I do not accept it.

Have you considered why there are all those books in the Bible? There are sixty-six books in the commonly accepted canon, and each of them matters to the whole. It's one reason solid churches make it imperative for believers to study Scripture.

Not just the well-known ones. Not just the New Testament.

Everything matters, every verse counts.

Peter was a great servant of Christ, and a true follower in faith and follow through. But Peter was one of a group of disciples, and just as it is evil to worship Mary or treat her as a co-Redeemer, so it is wrong to worship Peter as something he never claimed to be, or to build a pantheon of humans like religious action figures.

---

You don't accept it. Fair enough. But to claim that I am taking verses Matthew 16 " and sticking them into a collage so you can pretend God is what you want to make Him become," is completely false.

Many Church fathers affirm that Peter was given the keys and that had significant responsibility.

St. Hippolytus (d. ~235 AD) Saint Hippolytus wrote: "We are all bound by God to profess the faith which is guarded by the Chair of Peter."

Tertullian (d. ~240 AD) Writing around 211 AD, Tertullian affirmed: "the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]."

Origen (d. ~254 AD) "For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens."

Ambrose of Milan (d. 397 AD) Ambrose connected the keys directly to the Petrine succession: "They [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.'"

The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, declared: "There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins."

This isn't something that the Church made up. This is something that has been believe since the beginnings of the Church.

The Catholic Church does look at the Bible as a whole (all 73 books). She doesn't pick and choose which verses to believe.

Finally, Catholics don't worship Mary or Peter. If you can't understand that, you're no better than BTD.

I don't understand your comment - "build a pantheon of humans like religious action figures." Care to explain this better, or it another snarky comment accusing Catholics of creating false Gods? If so, I mentioned that I would call you out when you made comments like this AFTER you bemoaned about me "bullying you." If I read that wrong, I apologize. I would care to hear your explanation.

historian said:

---

Paul stated the opposite. My statement was largely based on verses from Paul's letters but consistent from all of scripture. That's apparent from the passage from Ephesians when taken in context. Funny how you use Paul's words to argue something else but in none of them does he say what you seem to think he says.

Works follow from salvation but do not save.

---

Again, the Catholic Church has never said that works cause salvation.

The Church agrees with Paul, that salvation is a free gift of God's grace, received through a living faith that expresses itself through love.

Please tell me where this is wrong.