$1 challenge. Any takers?

[D46]

D46,

You continuosly post this stuff about married preists and popes like it is a big dilema for us. i've answered it many times and do wonder if you read my posts. Most certainly you don't engage your mind but keep trumpting the same old straw men and red herrings. I know you sick of hearing that but stop doing it. It's silly. I am embarrassed for you and your prejudicial disposition that allows you and your friend Gary to post such nonsense.
Do you have some point here? It's not doctrine that Popes, Bishops and priests are celibate today. In fact not all are. The eastern rite Catholics have many married priests. There are married priests in the latin rite who have come in from other religios and have been allowed to be preists. Celibacy is a discipline and has not been universal throughout the history of the Church. Once again you only show your ignorance of Catholicism and post off topic points that are simply straw men. You don't understand how the Catholic Church operates. You speak out of prejudice rather than understanding. That's a simple fact. I welcome such posts because for the one who really wants to analyze between your brand of protestantism (one of the thousands) and the unity of Catholicism there is no contest, though you certainly think there is.

I don't continuously post about this...I thought it fit rather nicely here in that we're talking about papal succession. As for the docteriine of celibacy, if it were dogma a thousand years ago, it should be for today as well. Rome never changes from what she proposes...semper eadem remember? Howbeit, many doctrines have changed and been added over the centuries -so much for "never changes". When are you going to come to the realization that you just MIGHT be wrong, Thess? Is there no place for that possibility in your deceived mind? You're not hopeless but, you may well be bordering on it until you see that religious system you're in just might be totally wrong. Do you believe that the countless websites, thousands of programs, books, tapes, and more importantly the Bible itself, has pointed to the errors of Rome and what an amalgamation of various beliefs she has fostered and decieved billions with for so long?

I think the "simple fact" is that you don't understand how the Catholic Church operates. If you did, you would leave it. Perhaps you are so programmed and brainwashed, you can't see it. Have you never questioned the possibility that all the posts on this board against the fallacies and errors of Catholicism may have some credence to them? If someone wrote the amount of books, tapes, had websites, etc. about my church, questioning why so many doctrines my church upheld that was not in the bible, I sure would be looking into the possibility that perchance something was awry here and search for myself. You apparently have no desire for that and wish to contend rather than seek the truth.

 

[Imagican]

No Thess, I think Martin Luther did nothing but expose some of the wickedness of the Catholic Church and then turn around and carry much of the wickedness right along with him. He only had an inkling of what the 'truth' was.

I have tried to explain to you that in my eyes there are denominations and then there are others that choose to follow Christ instead of men. To you, any others beside the Catholics are Protestants, for in your belief, the Catholic Chuch is the ONE, ONLY and FIRST true Church. I hold no such convictions, and as for the Protestants, I offer that I protest against THEM too. If a Protestant I must be, then let me be known as 'The Protestor' of ALL the denominations.

And Thess, you know me well enough to know that I was jokin' with you. It seemed as I read through the posts on this thread that everyone here was ganging up on you. Thus, my reply that you seemed to be 'up against the ropes'. You do know that I was joking, right? If not, forgive me brother. If so, just laugh along with me.

I couldn't care less whether there have always been popes or not. I think that many times the world was probably in better shape when there weren't any. But whether or not the chain was broken seems of little importance. Unless, of course, the purpose for pointing it out may prove another set of 'un-truths' offered by the CC.

 

[gingercat]

You guys perceptions of the Catholic Church and how it operates is so skewed by prejudice and the distortions that have been pumped in to your head about the iron hand of the popes and the zombie followers throughout the world that you post nonsense yet do not know it. You ridicule without understanding. It's shear buffoonery. Imigican, you think I am on the ropes like the team that has lost every game thinks they can beat the team that is going to win national title. It's good for you to be positive about your situatio but it's not reality. I will respond in more detail later when I have time. Not that I think it will do much good because your really not interested in hearing what a Catholic has to say. All your really interested in is mocking and ridiculing so you can remain in your same divided every man and his Bible and my theology is better than your theology state of confusion that is rooted in the reformation and martin luther thinking he was the greatest theologian that ever lived and 1500 years of Church history be damned. Sorry for the run on sentence. You look at it with the wisdom of men. God would not select a horrible sinner like Peter to be the leader of his Church. No way! Look at the wretch. That's what I heard yesterday from one poster who has even posted on this very thread. We're all wretches dudes and God chooses us.

Blessings :o

Thess,

That's why the Bible tells us to look for the fruit. we have thousands of denominations including the Catholics. If we are not fully committed to Him we are not able to see or don't care about fruit either. Which one are we? Christianity is not popularity. :wink:

 

[gingercat]

It is hard to believe Peter was wearing a pope's hat. Was he wearing gorgeous clothes too?

 

[Gary]

Interesting that Thessalonian was unable to answer. What is a small gap and what is a large gap?

Thessalonian, you claim:

There is no problem if there is a small gap in the papacy...

Therefore, by definition, there WOULD be a problem if there was a LARGE gap in the papacy.

What would you call a small gap? 1 month, 2 months.... 4 months

What would you call a large gap? 1 year, 2 years.... 4 years



You have admitted that there were at least 5 gaps. Has this always been the case or has the Roman Catholic "church" ever updated their list of popes?

P.S The stake is now $3.00....

How long was the Great Western Schism of 1378-1417?

(that is a trick question as well!! :o :o Was it a small gap or a large gap?)

:-D

 

[ttg]

Wow, with all these awful people as Popes, you would think the Church would have folded by now.

Strangely enough, its the world's largest Christian denomination.

Go figure.

 

[gingercat]

Wow, with all these awful people as Popes, you would think the Church would have folded by now.

Strangely enough, its the world's largest Christian denomination.

Go figure.

Christianity is not popularity. :wink:

 

[thessalonian]

Wow, with all these awful people as Popes, you would think the Church would have folded by now.

Strangely enough, its the world's largest Christian denomination.

Go figure.

Yes, the gates of hell did not prevail ins spite of some of the leaders.

 

[thessalonian]

Wow, with all these awful people as Popes, you would think the Church would have folded by now.

Strangely enough, its the world's largest Christian denomination.

Go figure.

Christianity is not popularity. :wink:

In case you hadn't noticed Catholics and Catholicism are hardly popular on this board and in the world. The media hates the Catholic Church worse than evangelical Christians.

 

[thessalonian]

Interesting that Thessalonian was unable to answer. What is a small gap and what is a large gap?

Thessalonian, you claim:

There is no problem if there is a small gap in the papacy...

Therefore, by definition, there WOULD be a problem if there was a LARGE gap in the papacy.

What would you call a small gap? 1 month, 2 months.... 4 months

What would you call a large gap? 1 year, 2 years.... 4 years



You have admitted that there were at least 5 gaps. Has this always been the case or has the Roman Catholic "church" ever updated their list of popes?

P.S The stake is now $3.00....

How long was the Great Western Schism of 1378-1417?

(that is a trick question as well!! :o :o Was it a small gap or a large gap?)

:-D

Gary, you are only proving ignorance. Why do you prove the premise of your OP rather than trying to raise other issues you think are valid. You decieve and mock, not knowing what you are talking about. Leadership in the Catholic Church is not exclusive to the Popes. The Bishops as a body are also equal to the papacy. Not Matt 16:18 Peter is given authority by himself. Yet in Matt 18, all the Apostles together are given complete authority. When there is no Pope it does not mean the Church has no authority. The Popes are not these kings that you think of them as, always making demands on the Church. Their rule is more in the role of a father, guiding. Rarely do them make dogmatic decisions. They do make decisions of discipline but I doudt that is what your getting at with all that. Though I don't think you know the difference either. Keep posting Gary. You will only continue to show that you really have little concern for souls and only for riducule and mocking of Catholics and their faith. You will only show your ignorance based on prejudice. Of course you will not admit you are wrong.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

It is hard to believe Peter was wearing a pope's hat. Was he wearing gorgeous clothes too?

Is 22
[20] In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,
[21] and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
[22] And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

I doudt you understand why I post this verse. :-?

 

[thessalonian]

As for the docteriine of celibacy, if it were dogma a thousand years ago, it should be for today as well. Rome never changes from what she proposes...semper eadem remember?

D46, LET ME SAY IT AGAIN, PRIESTS ARE NOT CELIBATE AS A DOCTRINAL MATTER BUT AS A PRACTICE. You don't seem to get the difference. It's not that hard. My kids are to honor and obey their parents. That is doctrinal. It has scriptural reasons behind it. Now celibacy does have scriptural background if you check Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7 but it is more like my telling my kids to make their kids every day as a discipline. Under the God given authority as a parent I can order them to do this. But it is not doctrinal or dogmatic. If tommorrow I tell them they don't have to make their beds it's not going to make them think the world has come to an end and I am no longer their parent. Try engaging your mind just once. I will respond to more of your post later. There isn't really much you know about me.

 

[JM]

Prove that there is an unbroken line (no missing years or months) in the line of "popes" from the so-called first pope Peter to the current pope.

No altering history now like the Roman Catholic church has tried to do.

Have you had to pay up yet? :

 

[Gary]

Interesting that Thessalonian was unable to answer. What is a small gap and what is a large gap?

Thessalonian, you claim:

There is no problem if there is a small gap in the papacy...

Therefore, by definition, there WOULD be a problem if there was a LARGE gap in the papacy.

What would you call a small gap? 1 month, 2 months.... 4 months

What would you call a large gap? 1 year, 2 years.... 4 years



You have admitted that there were at least 5 gaps. Has this always been the case or has the Roman Catholic "church" ever updated their list of popes?

P.S The stake is now $3.00....

How long was the Great Western Schism of 1378-1417?

(that is a trick question as well!! :o :o Was it a small gap or a large gap?)

:-D

Gary, you are only proving ignorance. Why do you prove the premise of your OP rather than trying to raise other issues you think are valid. You decieve and mock, not knowing what you are talking about. Leadership in the Catholic Church is not exclusive to the Popes. The Bishops as a body are also equal to the papacy. Not Matt 16:18 Peter is given authority by himself. Yet in Matt 18, all the Apostles together are given complete authority. When there is no Pope it does not mean the Church has no authority. The Popes are not these kings that you think of them as, always making demands on the Church. Their rule is more in the role of a father, guiding. Rarely do them make dogmatic decisions. They do make decisions of discipline but I doudt that is what your getting at with all that. Though I don't think you know the difference either. Keep posting Gary. You will only continue to show that you really have little concern for souls and only for riducule and mocking of Catholics and their faith. You will only show your ignorance based on prejudice. Of course you will not admit you are wrong.

Blessings

Still unable to decide?

What is a SMALL and what is a LARGE gap??

:roll: :roll:

 

[Gary]

..When there is no Pope it does not mean the Church has no authority.

What happens when there are two popes at the same time?

:bday: :bday:

How do the faithful know (at the time) which one is the :evil:

:o

 

[Gary]

Prove that there is an unbroken line (no missing years or months) in the line of "popes" from the so-called first pope Peter to the current pope.

No altering history now like the Roman Catholic church has tried to do.

Have you had to pay up yet? :

:D I think my $1 is safe.... unless the Roman Catholic church change their lists of popes again. They have done that several times already.

 

[Gary]

The Popes are not these kings that you think of them as, always making demands on the Church. Their rule is more in the role of a father, guiding.

Thank God my father was not like many of the popes!

How can you EVER consider them to be "fatherly" and "guiding"??

They murdered, committed adultery, had concubines, had young boys as lovers, showed nepotism, were drunkards, ran brothels, robbed the poor, gambled, had illegitimate children, supported the inquisition, committed incest, instigated the crusades, had their "opponents" tortured, several were bi-sexual or homosexual, several murdered and/or harassed true Christians etc etc

:o

 

[Gary]

Leadership in the Catholic Church is not exclusive to the Popes. The Bishops as a body are also equal to the papacy. Not Matt 16:18 Peter is given authority by himself. Yet in Matt 18, all the Apostles together are given complete authority. When there is no Pope it does not mean the Church has no authority.

More misleading information from the Roman Catholic, Thessalonian.

Let us see what the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) says:

CCC 882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, 'is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.' 'For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.'

Can you now see Thessalonian's deception?

It does NOT say that the bishops have EQUAL power or authority as the pope. The CCC says that the pope has "full, supreme and universal power."

So if there is no pope, then there is no "full, supreme and universal power."

Secondly, this quote totally destroys Thessalonian's "small gap" theory. The CCC says that the pope 'is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.' Therefore, if the pope does not exist for a few years (as has happened several times) or if there are two "popes" ruling (as has happened a few times as well), then the "perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful", the pope, is not in place.

So perpetual does not mean perpetual!!!

• If Thessalonian and his Roman Catholic revisionalists would like to modify the meaning of "perpetual", then maybe they could also explain what Mary's "perpetual" virginity would mean IF she had several "small gaps" in her "perpetual" virginity like their are "small" (2 year) gaps in the "perpetual" line of popes!!!

:o :o

It would also be interesting to see how Thessalonian reconciles his remark here:

...When there is no Pope it does not mean the Church has no authority.

.... with the Roman Catholic's CCC #833

CCC 883 'The college or body of bishops has NO AUTHORITY unless united with the Roman pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head. As such, this college has 'supreme and full authority over the universal church; but this power CANNOT be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.'

i.e when there is no pope (like several times in history), the bishops CANNOT exercise their authority!!

:wink: :wink: :wink:

 

[Gary]

Thessalonian: Keep posting Gary. You will only continue to show that you really have little concern for souls and only for riducule and mocking of Catholics and their faith.

Gary: It is because I have a concern for souls that I will try to lead as many Roman Catholics as I can out of their RCC bondage to true, saving knowledge and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. So I will keep posting.

 

[gingercat]

It is hard to believe Peter was wearing a pope's hat. Was he wearing gorgeous clothes too?

Is 22
[20] In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,
[21] and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
[22] And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

I doudt you understand why I post this verse. :-?

I thought these verces is talking about Jesus. Am I wrong everyone?