Ask a Catholic

[shava]

Yes, Peter's name means a small stone or pebble. And Jesus is the rock. So Jesus is telling Peter that he is just a small stone and the church will be built on the rock of Jesus. Notice Jesus never told Peter that the church would be built on "you". He said, Peter you are a little stone and the church will be built on me ( the rock). Any church that has a human for it's foundation is not God's church. God's church is built on the foundation rock of Jesus.

Well said.
The first 64 men listed by Rome as a succession of popes never made any such claim for themselves; nor were they in any sense ever regarded as Universal Patriarchs and heads of the church; on the contrary, both they and their associates repudiated such a pontifical office as anti-scriptural and anti-canon.
Prior to the year 606 A. D. there never was a church in Rome regarded as "mother", nor a Bishop regarded as the head of the universal church..”
“The Pope's Claim To Authority - No. 3” by W. Wallace Layton, April 13, 1950 issue of Gospel Guardian.

 

[VioletVortex]

In my interpretation of Satanism, Demons are very important. Are angels of any importance in Catholicism and Christianity in general?

 

[shava]

Why does the Bible say that the fatherless & the widow should be visited in their affliction but not that the motherless and the widower should be visited in their affliction.

The Catholic church is the biggest deceiver of mankind with the Islam religion right behind them, as there both man made false religious entities teaching false doctrine.
James 1:27 ESV / 244 helpful votes

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Isaiah 1:17 ESV / 152 helpful votes
Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.

1 Timothy 5:1-6:21 ESV / 69 helpful votes
Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity. Honor widows who are truly widows. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God. She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day,
There's only one true church, that's the churches of Christ, Romans 16:16, which was established in AD33, whereas the Catholic church had it's beginning in AD325.

 

[metis]

Well said.
The first 64 men listed by Rome as a succession of popes never made any such claim for themselves; nor were they in any sense ever regarded as Universal Patriarchs and heads of the church; on the contrary, both they and their associates repudiated such a pontifical office as anti-scriptural and anti-canon.
Prior to the year 606 A. D. there never was a church in Rome regarded as "mother", nor a Bishop regarded as the head of the universal church..”
“The Pope's Claim To Authority - No. 3” by W. Wallace Layton, April 13, 1950 issue of Gospel Guardian.

I don't have the time, but let me just post this link, and please read the section on "History": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

Also, you might check this out dealing with "apostolic succession", especially noting what's written under #2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

The Bishop of Rome has always had a special designation, which even shows up in Ignatius of Antioch's letter to Clement in Rome at the beginning of the 2nd century. And just a reminder that it was under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome that helped to orchestrate the selection of the canon in the 4th century that formed the Bible you have.

Why do you continually make up your own "history"?

 

[metis]

There's only one true church, that's the churches of Christ, Romans 16:16, which was established in AD33, whereas the Catholic church had it's beginning in AD325.

Check out the link I provided on my last post dealing with "apostolic succession". And just a reminder the Paul kept insisting that the church was "one body". With 300 denominations and thousands of independent churches today, it's hardly "one body". Even Luther recognized and acknowledged that, which is why he had hoped to eventually reunite with the CC.

 

[metis]

The Catholic church is the biggest deceiver of mankind with the Islam religion right behind them, as there both man made false religious entities teaching false doctrine.
James 1:27 ESV / 244 helpful votes

This is the kind of religious bigotry I grew up hearing all too often that was partially instrumental with me leaving the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is the kind of religious bigotry I grew up hearing all too often that was partially instrumental with me leaving the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in.

Do you consider the RCC as more of a religious, or political organization?

 

[metis]

Do you consider the RCC as more of a religious, or political organization?

Definitely much more religious, and all religions have a "political organization" of some sort.

Part of the problem with the RCC historically was especially when they got too intertwined with the political leadership, and this also happened with most forms of Protestantism historically. It was the emergence of the "peace churches" that began to break that long-standing and deplorable, imo, tradition.

 

[shava]

Check out the link I provided on my last post dealing with "apostolic succession". And just a reminder the Paul kept insisting that the church was "one body". With 300 denominations and thousands of independent churches today, it's hardly "one body". Even Luther recognized and acknowledged that, which is why he had hoped to eventually reunite with the CC.

It is one body, all others are man made, that's why.

 

[shava]

Do you consider the RCC as more of a religious, or political organization?

The latter.

 

[shava]

This is the kind of religious bigotry I grew up hearing all too often that was partially instrumental with me leaving the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in.

Metis, I don't consider it bigotry, as the scriptures prove it to be a man made religious entity, as they claim there oral traditions to be inspired by God, as I believe only the Holy Bible to be inspired. The bible speaks of traditions, but the traditions of the Catholic church are contrary to the word of God, such as original sin, baptizing of infants to remove original sin when an infant has no sin or original sin according to the bible.
Ezekiel 18:20King James Version (KJV)

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Matthew 19:14King James Version (KJV)

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

[shava]

Check out the link I provided on my last post dealing with "apostolic succession". And just a reminder the Paul kept insisting that the church was "one body". With 300 denominations and thousands of independent churches today, it's hardly "one body". Even Luther recognized and acknowledged that, which is why he had hoped to eventually reunite with the CC.

The answer is that since there is only one God (the Father of all who believe, Ephesians 2:12) and only one Lord (the Lord Jesus Christ, Ephesians 1:2f.), and only one Spirit (the Holy Spirit poured out from the Father by the Son, Acts 2:33) and only one faith (faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, Ephesians 1:13, 15) and only one baptism (into Christ in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19f.), and only [one body] (the church of God gathered with Jesus as the head, Ephesians 4:15)—since there is only one God and one faith, we must take the news of this God and this faith to the nations. "There is no other name under heaven," Peter said, "given among men by which we must be said" (Acts 4:12).

 

[shava]

I don't have the time, but let me just post this link, and please read the section on "History": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

Also, you might check this out dealing with "apostolic succession", especially noting what's written under #2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

The Bishop of Rome has always had a special designation, which even shows up in Ignatius of Antioch's letter to Clement in Rome at the beginning of the 2nd century. And just a reminder that it was under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome that helped to orchestrate the selection of the canon in the 4th century that formed the Bible you have.

Why do you continually make up your own "history"?

The bible states the first church was established in AD33, and was referred to as the churches of Christ, Romans 16:16. The problem is that the Catholic church doesn't follow the teachings of the New Testament, as many of the things they believe are not found in the bible, so, why is that one must ask, don't you think?

 

[metis]

It is one body, all others are man made, that's why.

So, do you think Paul was lying or delusional when he was criticizing local leaders for not following the directives from the Twelve? Where do you see anything that says that each church should or could operate independent from the Twelve?

 

[metis]

Do you consider the RCC as more of a religious, or political organization?

The latter.

What a pathetically bigoted statement. It's one thing to disagree with many or even most of the RCC's teachings, as I do btw, but it's another to "bear false witness" by declaring an obvious religious organization as being mostly "political".

 

[metis]

The bible states the first church was established in AD33, and was referred to as the churches of Christ, Romans 16:16. The problem is that the Catholic church doesn't follow the teachings of the New Testament, as many of the things they believe are not found in the bible, so, why is that one must ask, don't you think?

As I said in a recent post today, the local churches, which is what is mentioned in Romans 16:16, were still operating under the teachings of Jesus through the Twelve, and this is why Paul kept on insisting that they follow the directives of the Twelve as "one body".

Common sense should show one this because Jesus must have appointed the Twelve for a reason, and when Judas was out of the picture, they appointed someone to replace him. If operating as "one body" wasn't important, then they could have said that they'll step out of the picture and just let local churches decide all such matters. But they didn't.

Therefore, your position not only doesn't make sense, it ignores the NT that you say you believe in. Right from Jesus' appointing the Twelve, the church was to follow his and their teachings, and they in turn appointed others to replace themselves-- something we call "apostolic succession", which actually was the litmus test for leadership in the 1st and 2nd century church and beyond. And this process eventually produced the Bible that you say you believe in. It's unfortunate that you claim the RCC doesn't follow what's written, but you are actually doing what you've accused them of.

 

[shava]

So, do you think Paul was lying or delusional when he was criticizing local leaders for not following the directives from the Twelve? Where do you see anything that says that each church should or could operate independent from the Twelve?

The twelve were in complete unity In teaching , which was of Christ, so what other teaching would they be teaching if it wasn't that of Christ, may I ask

 

[shava]

As I said in a recent post today, the local churches, which is what is mentioned in Romans 16:16, were still operating under the teachings of Jesus through the Twelve, and this is why Paul kept on insisting that they follow the directives of the Twelve as "one body".

Common sense should show one this because Jesus must have appointed the Twelve for a reason, and when Judas was out of the picture, they appointed someone to replace him. If operating as "one body" wasn't important, then they could have said that they'll step out of the picture and just let local churches decide all such matters. But they didn't.

Therefore, your position not only doesn't make sense, it ignores the NT that you say you believe in. Right from Jesus' appointing the Twelve, the church was to follow his and their teachings, and they in turn appointed others to replace themselves-- something we call "apostolic succession", which actually was the litmus test for leadership in the 1st and 2nd century church and beyond. And this process eventually produced the Bible that you say you believe in. It's unfortunate that you claim the RCC doesn't follow what's written, but you are actually doing what you've accused them of.

Show me in the scriptures where it says we are to baptize infants for original sin, praying to the dead, purgatory, a need for a Pope, and on and on, please show me by book, chapter or verse, or your claim is totally flawed. Your oral traditions are not inspired, that's why there called " ORAL TRADITIONS. " Your oral traditions are man made, thus cannot be inspired. The traditions Paul is talking about are those in the New Testament, not what the Catholic church decides to add. So prove by book, chapter and verse, or your claim is null and voided.

 

[metis]

The twelve were in complete unity In teaching , which was of Christ, so what other teaching would they be teaching if it wasn't that of Christ, may I ask

No, you're missing the point. My point, which I thought was quite clear, is that the apostles were the "organization" appointed by Jesus to head the church. So, either you have misinterpreted my question, accidentally or intentionally.

So, what do you think happened to that organization of the apostles, shava? Do you think they disbanded and left everything up for theological grabs with just the local churches?

 

[metis]

Show me in the scriptures where it says we are to baptize infants for original sin, praying to the dead, purgatory, a need for a Pope, and on and on, please show me by book, chapter or verse, or your claim is totally flawed. Your oral traditions are not inspired, that's why there called " ORAL TRADITIONS. " Your oral traditions are man made, thus cannot be inspired. The traditions Paul is talking about are those in the New Testament, not what the Catholic church decides to add. So prove by book, chapter and verse, or your claim is null and voided.

I wasn't talking about of these, shava, so why are you throwing these red herrings at me?

If you aren't willing to do the homework, and it's obvious that you'd rather believe in "lies made by men" from those that run your church/denomination, then you simply will never know the reality. You have the church of the apostles disappearing, except that it didn't, and we know that as a historical fact. And even basic common sense has it that this organization that you believe disappeared somehow selected the Bible you now read. It didn't select itself, and some organization had to be "divinely inspired", according to your belief in divine inspiration, because it was the CC that chose it.