Defending the faith: A discussion of Catholic Doctrine

[Paul Timothy]

The one who holds the keys of the kingdom is the prime minister over the other ministers

Where is that definition in the Bible?
Where is that definition in any literature... outside the RCC?
New one to me.
I thought the one who holds the keys can lock and unlock things... usually at the order of their boss.

 

[donadams]

That isn't the least bit true at all. Protestants and Roman Catholics do not agree on 75% of their Dogma at all.

And lest we forget, Protestants are not perfect either, and have never been perfect at all. Martin Luther started out to Protest Abuses as he saw them in the R.C.C., and thus that is how the Protestant Reformation got it's name, from it's initial start as a protest against R.C.C. corruption and abuses. And as a result, Martin Luther became the accidental symbolic father of the Reformation, when he was merely it's initial spark.

I don't like Martin Luther, and never will. Personally I think he was an idiot. But hey, for all his education, he was initially raised as a Roman Catholic, so I shouldn't have expected much more from him. For when he finally became the Protestant he became, riding the wave of the protest he started, he came to such crazy conclusions, such as rejecting the Book Of Revelation, because he couldn't see Jesus in it because of it's judgements? Really? the book screams of Jesus from end to end, but I guess Luther was some snowflake pacifist, who could not see that God has the right to eventually Judge people and or the world? etc.., So I personally, for all of his education, think Luther was nuts.

And I could go on. But lets skip personalities, and go right to the heart of the matter. Very quickly the Pope, in due time,

in very short order Excommunicated All of the Protestants!

He Excommunicated them all.

And the Protestants likewise in short order returned the favor.

The Protestants declared the Pope the Antichrist. And not the Final Antichrist yet, but the succession of them, quoting John, in writing there would be many antichrists.

It was an all out war to the death, where kings and queens and kingdoms tried to kill each other over it. In England, and King Henry VIII was nuts, and his children were real pieces of works as well. And so his two daughters Elizabeth, and Mary respectively, when they had chances to succeed each other, as Elizabeth was Protestant, and Mary Catholic, took turns in buring the other sides peeps at the stake.

Catholic Spain tried to destroy Henry's England, and sent an entire Spanish Armada to destroy England, but the Spanish Armada got destroyed instead.

So the Reformation was really more of a war, and a real hot mess over time. And the R.C.C. eventually created a Counter Reformation where they sent the Jesuits into several countries for a great deal of subterfuge and sabotage internally within those nations, who came to feel they were so bad, that a great many nations felt like the Jesuits were like an Illuminati, or somesuch.

And when the dust eventually settled, I don't think both sides should have reconciled. The whole burning everyone else at the stake was a bit much. It was very wrong indeed. But we can't settle our differences at all. This current air where both sides grow closer and closer, is very evil indeed, as the world seems to head towards a one world great apostacy of falsely alleged mutual worship and interests.

But as any student of history also knows, the best lies are built upon at least some truths. The Devil has always been a very clever liar in the Garden of Eden, to the tempting of Christ. But Jesus, as God in the form of the Son, would have none of that, and none of Satan misquoting either scripture, or authority. Satan may indeed have had authority over the kingdoms of the world at the time, but Jesus thru his faithfulness, and obedience to the truth, has the ultimate authority over the ony kingdom that matterts.

So no, I for one, will never reconcile with the Cult of Rome, and would be more than happy to go thru their blasphemies, one by one

Thanks
Ok how about the Dogma that Jesus Christ is the only savior?

What is your source of authority?
Or truth and faith? “Bible alone”?

 

[donadams]

Is this dogma also blasphemy?
95. Christ by His Sacrifice on the Cross has ransomed us and reconciled us with God.

 

[Randy]

Is this dogma also blasphemy?
95. Christ by His Sacrifice on the Cross has ransomed us and reconciled us with God.

The dispute appears to be in how that grace is received. By grace through faith in Christ as enabled by Gods Holy Spirit or enabled through sacraments. Paul preached Christ as the only mediator between God and man when Jesus was already in heaven. Why would he do so if its no longer held true as you state?

 

[donadams]

LOL!!! Try reading your Bible instead of listening to your fallible priests. John 6:39-40, "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I [Jesus] should lose nothing of all that he has given me but raise it up on the last day. This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day.” So, why do you not believe what Jesus said?

I do but it does not mean your saved
Why not believe him in matt 24:13

 

[donadams]

Yes, that's absolutely nuts, and 100% certifiable to think one needs a priest to be saved.

And please don't take our arguing personally. I'm a bit nuts. Maybe not a porkchop short of a mixed grill, but nuts just the same, and can get a bit crazy, like that puppy that gets his bone, and goes bonkers

It’s all good as long as we’re working towards a biblical understanding
Actually the answer is no you cannot be saved without a priest cos Jesus Christ the only savior is a priest heb 7:17
Next how many kinds of priests are there in the new covenant

 

[donadams]

There is nothing to explain? Your point please? What does Matt 17:24-27 have to do with the debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics? So unless I'm missing something, that question has no relevance at all, unless you're suggesting that because Jesus told Peter to pay the tax on behalf of the both of them, that that somehow suggests that Jesus was elevating the status of Peter as a result? LOLOL Sorry, I couldn't help getting a little snarky / and sarcastic, but still don't understanding what you are asking?

There is nothing to explain? Your point please? What does Matt 17:24-27 have to do with the debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics? So unless I'm missing something, that question has no relevance at all, unless you're suggesting that because Jesus told Peter to pay the tax on behalf of the both of them, that that somehow suggests that Jesus was elevating the status of Peter as a result? LOLOL Sorry, I couldn't help getting a little snarky / and sarcastic, but still don't understanding what you are asking?

We were speaking about Peter the first leader of the apostles

I thought Jesus was the only mediator, why is Peter acting in Christ’s role?
Why does Jesus identify himself with Peter in this intimate way even to perform a miracle but to the exclusion of the other apostles?

 

[Paul Timothy]

We were speaking about Peter the first leader of the apostles

I thought Jesus was the only mediator, why is Peter acting in Christ’s role?
Why does Jesus identify himself with Peter in this intimate way even to perform a miracle but to the exclusion of the other apostles?

Still no Biblical references to backup your statements.
I still don't see you providing references.
That is all we ask.

 

[jaybo]

So you now deny the Church, authority and the existence of apostles?
And again you over reach on your interpenetration of the verse you quote.
Where is there any reference to exclusivity in Matt 16:18.
Implied exclusivity is not guaranteed exclusivity.

And in Matthew 16:21-23, it says, "From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me, for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

Clearly Jesus did not want "Satan" to be the leader of His church. And in reference to "on this rock", Jesus also said to Peter "you are a stumbling block to me". (Matthew 16:23b).

a) This is just more Catholic denomination mythology.
b) Catholics claim that sola scriptura is false (even though it is one of five solas) yet quote the Bible to try to prove their doctrine. It's a joke!

 

[jaybo]

I thought Jesus was the only mediator, why is Peter acting in Christ’s role?
Why does Jesus identify himself with Peter in this intimate way even to perform a miracle but to the exclusion of the other apostles?

Read my previous post #449.

 

[jaybo]

There are no man made sacraments, the sacraments are the fruit of the sacrifice of Christ, his grace and merits
You oppose and accuse Christ here for he instituted the seven sacraments of grace

Baptism: (initiation into the covenant)
Mk 16:16 Jn 3:5 acts 2:38-39 8:36
1 Corinthians 12:13 2 pet 1:11
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The Eucharist: (holy communion)
Mt 26:26-39 Jn 6:51-58 1 Cor 11:23-25

Confession of sins:
Jn 20:23 / 1 Jn 1:9 / 2 cor 5:18

Confirmation
Lk 22:32 acts 8:14-17
acts 14:22

Marriage:
Matt 19:4-6

Holy orders: (priesthood)
Jesus Christ continues HIS ministry in His new covenant church thru His priesthood in Peter, the apostles, and their successors with the same mission, power, and authority!
Mt 10:1-8 Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13
Jn 20:21-22 acts 1:17 acts 6:4 acts 8:26
2 Cor 5:18 1 Tim 4:14 Eph 2:20

Extreme unction: (anointing with oil)
1 Tim 4:14 James 5:14

The ark of salvation: one, holy, catholic, (universal) and apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter and the apostles!

Why do you write something like "the sacraments are the fruit of the sacrifice of Christ, his grace and merits"? That is meaningless jabber.

The bread and wine were shared by Jesus with those who had dinner with Him. He said that they should remember Him when He was no longer with them (as should we). Nothing more.

Infant baptism is absurd. Confirmation is just a latter-day Bar Mitzvah. Confession should be said to others whom one has offended, not to priests. Marriage is not restricted to Catholics. "Anointing of the sick" is akin to practicing medicine. Holy orders is nonsense.

"Catholic Christians believe that the sacraments are channels for God's grace". This is unBiblical!

"The ark of salvation: one, holy, catholic, (universal) and apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter and the apostles" is unScriptural propaganda. Where (anywhere) in the Bible is the Catholic denomination mentioned?

 

[jaybo]

Is this dogma also blasphemy?
95. Christ by His Sacrifice on the Cross has ransomed us and reconciled us with God.

What is the meaning of "95"?

 

[jaybo]

I do but it does not mean your saved
Why not believe him in matt 24:13

So being saved doesn't mean having eternal life? Is that what your priests tell you? If it doesn't, what is anyone saved from?

 

[jaybo]

It’s all good as long as we’re working towards a biblical understanding
Actually the answer is no you cannot be saved without a priest cos Jesus Christ the only savior is a priest heb 7:17
Next how many kinds of priests are there in the new covenant

The Catholic priesthood is just a repeat of the OT priesthood: a priesthood separate from the rest of the population, given the responsibility of performing all kinds of rituals in the temple for the forgiveness of sins while collecting money from the population.

It is blasphemous to claim that you cannot be saved without a priest. John 3:16 -- perhaps the most famous verse in the entire Bible says “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world but in order that the world might be saved through him." Absolutely no mention of a priest! Neither is there the mention of a priest in Ephesians 2:8-10: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we may walk in them." This directly contradicts the claim that "you cannot be saved without a priest!

Your denomination has created all kinds of myths that clearly contradict the word of God. It is not surprising in the slightest that you claim that your priests are right and the Bible is wrong!

 

[RudolfRed]

We were speaking about Peter the first leader of the apostles

I thought Jesus was the only mediator, why is Peter acting in Christ’s role?
Why doYes Jesus identify himself with Peter in this intimate way even to perform a miracle but to the exclusion of the other apostles?

You are nuts Peter is not given a greater role than anyone. Jesus interacted with everyone, and sometimes with Peter. But after Pentecost, Gal 2:8and thus the beginning of the Church, and Peter like the rest witnessed Christ and the new covenant in Him, up to the point where Peter and Paul wrote of each other as being important, and scripture in their writings, and as such Paul in Gal 2:8 even wrote of their God given evolving roles, where Peter was named as a Witness to the Jews, while Paul to the Gentiles.

And Christ Jesus did not Elevate Peter or his role, because when challenged, Jesus allowed Peter to pay a tax. That's it, you are saying Peter was elevated because he paid taxes?

Answer me this, if Peter was so important, then why did God allow Paul to write 13 known epistles to be canonized into our Bible, while Peter was allowed to write only two?

If Peter was so important, than why did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, write the four gospels and acts rather than Peter?

If Peter was so important, then why did God allow John to write a gospel, three epistles, and the Book Of Revelation?

If Peter Was So Important Than Why Did God Allow John To Write Revelation And Not Peter????

 

[donadams]

I wasn't saved by sacraments but by grace through faith in Christ. And the sign that you are in the faith, belong to Christ and one who God calls His children is Christ in us. If that Spirit isn't in you I don't care how many sacraments you follow you don't belong to Christ and are not in the faith Paul spoke of. Washed and sanctified by the inward dwelling of the Spirit of Christ. A personal relationship with God. A child of God. Oneness with Christ.
Those who belong to God hear what God says. Jesus informed those who didn't believe in Him was because they didn't belong to God.

Not by sacraments but by Gods Spirit one comes to Christ.

It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.
“I have revealed you a to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of b your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by c that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

You are not saved… no one is saved until the end. Matt 24:13
Mk 13:13

Yes it is by God’s grace merited in the sacrifice of Christ but applied to our souls in the sacraments

Faith yea but not “faith alone” and baptism and the sacraments are part of the faith we must believe

 

[donadams]

Its a no brainer to know Jesus, who judgments by His righteousness, will welcome the souls of innocent infants who pass into heaven. He has that authority.

Yes I agree but you can’t teach that cos He has not revealed it
The church can only teach what Christ has revealed

 

[donadams]

Yes and to sit on one of twelve thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel is not for man to give. Paul was set aside from birth. That one other I repeat "1" other had all ready been chosen by God. The Apostles weren't aware of it at that time and didn't wait for a answer of their prayer. They prayed and immediately cast lots for one of "their" two chosen candidates. For a office that exists beyond the life of the body. Sitting on a throne of judgment. 12 foundations of the new Jerusalem with their names written on them.

concerning Judas who betrayed and abandoned his office.
For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:

“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’
and,

“‘May another take his place of leadership.

Yes we agree

 

[RudolfRed]

We were speaking about Peter the first leader of the apostles

I thought Jesus was the only mediator, why is Peter acting in Christ’s role?
Why does Jesus identify himself with Peter in this intimate way even to perform a miracle but to the exclusion of the other apostles?

Peter was not acting in Jesus's role, because of some minor interactions during the earthly ministry of Christ. Peter was not elevated by Christ, for fishing for a coin which God provided, so Peter could pay a tax? That's nuts and just plain blasphemous on your Part to claim Peter was elevated to even being close to Christ in hid role.

The Role Of Christ was to come to earth, as God, in the form of the Son of God, as a stumbling block for those who refuse to repent and believe, as per 1 Cor 1:, and to die for our sins, and ransom those who believe within the entire world offer and completed sacrifice, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of glory, seated again by God the Father, all completed by and thru Christ, as per Isa 53:, and Eph 2:8-10, etc.., etc.., etc.., ......In which nowhere does Peter matter, or fit in, above any other apostle, as the mere servants and thus witnesses, baptizing all who would believe in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, where water baptism is symbolic of that faith, with the baptism of the Holy Spirit symbolizing one's baptism into salvation, has nothing to do with the Pretend Authority you givePeter.

If Peter was so important then why did John write Revelation, rather than Peter writing it?

 

[donadams]

I have never said such a thing.
You are making things up and trying to put it in my mouth?

You said you have authority to study scripture and decide your own doctrine, make your own faith, that’s the point of the Bible alone, each man is his own arbiter of truth as opposed to the universal faith of Christ taught by his apostles

The successors is the only part I have questions about.

The church has existed 2000 years the original apostles can’t live that ling so the must have successor’s like Mathias taking the place of Judas acts 1

Just because you include references(out of context) does not clarify your point.
Or are you wishing to confuse your point with random references.

I am not looking up any of your references as I have proven in past posts that you reference things way out of context.
Pick ONE reference I a believe you will misrepresent it.
You pick.

Thought you accept the Bible alone? Now you want to add interpretation?