Question for Catholics

[Guru of Nothing]

Show me where the Church responded to Luther's 95 Theses.

Show me your denomination.

Is your first name Noel?

[GopherSA]

Early Christians recognized Peter as the rock on which Jesus declared he would build his Church; that this gave Peter a special primacy; and that Peter traveled to Rome, where he was martyred. In this tract we will show that the Fathers also recognized that the bishop of Rome—the pope—continued to serve in Peter’s role in subsequent generations of the Church.


Irenaeus

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).


Tertullian

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).


The Little Labyrinth

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).


Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).


Pope Julius I

"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such su ion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the cons utions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).


Council of Sardica

"[I]f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).


Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

[GopherSA]

What about the Bible?

The Catholic Church was the first Christian denomination to commission a mass printing of the Bible by asking Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, to do so in 1447.

Non-Catholic Christians may accuse the Catholic Church of not allowing the common people to read the Bible before the Reformation, but what good would it have done for the Catholic Church to widely distribute the Bible to the masses when over 90% of the common people were illiterate and couldn't read anyway?

The Catholic Mass has always included Scriptural readings from both the Old and New Testaments and Catholic priests have always "preached" the Word of God to the common people throughout history.

[GopherSA]

I'll address the Martin Luther issue later. You see, this Catholic was raised Lutheran.

But this Catholic also has to go to work in the morning.

[travis2]

Lies to Refute I -- The Real Presence

I wrote this essay a while back to get my thoughts down on paper as to why I believe the Real Presence. I've drawn from a few sources, but my main source of information was www.catholic.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------

John 6:51-58 says "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

In many places in the Gospels, Jesus repeated Himself whenever he wanted to drive home a point. This is one of those places. When questioned about what He said, He did not change His words, He did not try to "soften the blow"...He said what He meant and He meant what he said.
This is further emphasized when the Apostles questioned Him about it. Verses 60-69 say: Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

Again, He didn't try to explain, He didn't reword it. He said what he meant and he meant what he said.

Luke 22:19: Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." Jesus did NOT say "This is in place of my body". Nor did He say "This is a symbol of my body". Nor any other cir locution. He said "This is my body".

Paul accepts the Real Presence in his own letters. In 1 Cor 11:23-29, he writes: "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. "

He is not speaking figuratively here; he is speaking of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, something the early Church already knew to be true. And note one particular phrase in there..."will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord". In Paul's day, this phrase meant to be guilty of homicide. How can you be guilty of homicide if all you are doing is eating a piece of bread? No...the only thing that makes sense is that you truly are eating the body and blood of Christ...and to do so unworthily is to call judgement upon yourself.

The early Church fathers also recognized the Real Presence. Around the year 110, Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of John) wrote the following in a letter to the Smyrnaeans:

"...they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again."

Another early Church father, Justin Martyr, wrote in his "First Apology" (about 40 years after the above quote)...

"Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

These are but 2 of many writings on the Eucharist by men who had reason to know the early truth...these were men removed from witnessing Jesus' ministry by only a few generations. The teachings of Jesus, as spread by Paul and the Apostles, were still fresh and new...and even then the Real Presence of Christ was recognized as a central truth.


Lie refuted

[travis2]

Lies to Refute II -- The Church Didn't Allow Parishioners to Read the Bible

This lie is often perpetrated by those who take Boettner at his word in his work "Roman Catholicism". In here, he claims the Bible was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia in 1229.

Several problems arise. From www.catholic.com:

"...Boettner has his history completely wrong. The first thing to note is that the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1559, so a council held in 1229 could hardly have listed a book on it.

The second point is that there apparently has never been any Church council in Valencia, Spain. If there had been one, it could not have taken place in 1229 because Muslim Moors then controlled the city. It is inconceivable that Muslims, who were at war with Spanish Christians, and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later, 1238. So Valencia is out.

But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation..."

Another point to make...In some places you will read that Bibles were kept under chain, lock and key in churches. This is absolutely true. But why? To keep the unwashed and unworthy from reading it? Hardly. As is usual with lies fomented and advanced in bigotry, the truth is easily explained and rather boring.

Before the invention of the printing press, Bibles were (of course) hand-crafted and very expensive. There was only one Bible to a church...if that church was lucky. If a church lost its Bible, it could be years before they could get it replaced...assuming they could. So...they were treated as any reasonable person would treat an item of high value...they were usually chained to a platform in church where it could be accessed, but not removed.

Lie refuted.

This leads to the third lie to refute...

[travis2]

Lies to Refute III -- The Church Didn't Allow Bibles in Vernacular Languages

An oft-repeated lie is that the Protestant churches were the first to produce a Bible in the native tongue of the people who would read it. Once again, the truth is easily obtained.

At least portions of the Bible were available in Old English as far back as the 7th century. In the 9th century the Bible was available in Old Slavonic. There were also French and German translations, at least in part.

Once again, one problem was that Bibles were hand-copied, not printed. To produce a vernacular version, first the translation from Latin had to occur. As is proven prima facie by the approved existence of non-Latin Bibles, approval of a translation was possible. However, it was very inconvenient.

You may hear the names Wycliff and Tyndale associated with a supposed ban on English Bibles. The truth is not very favorable towards these gentlemen (which explains why you might not have heard it). John Wycliff produced an English Bible that was, yes, condemned by the Catholic Church. Because it was in English? No...because Wycliff was a heretic. Most notably, he denied the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Tyndale, you might hear, was executed by the Church for producing an English Bible. Once again, not true. His translation was also full of errors and heresies, so it (like the Wycliff Bible) was condemned. Further, the Church did not execute him...the Holy Roman Emperor did.

A brief story of Tyndale for www.catholic.com:

"...It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff"). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

Which, as it turns out, is just what William Tyndale did. Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.

Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the "father of the English Bible." But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609)..."

Lie refuted

[The Ressurrected One]

Uh, umm..."Ressurrected"...there is.

John, Chapter 6:

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”

This saying, or something similar to it, is given in three of the four gospels and in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In all accounts, Jesus is quoted as saying, "this is My body" referring to the unleavened bread and "this is My blood of the covenant" referring to the cup. However, it is obvious (to most) that from the situation that these words were not meant to be taken literally. How could Jesus, still present in His own body, say that bread and wine were His body and blood? Jesus told them to commemorate His sacrifice and New Covenant by using the bread and wine as symbols of His body and blood.

The primary passages cited to support the doctrine of transubstantiation, as provided by GopherSA:

Jesus therefore said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.”

But, if that is literal, why do we have darkness? After all, in John 8:12 Jesus said,

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Where is the gate in the Catholic Church?

Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. … I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.”

And, when is it, in our spiritual life, and what form does the sacrament take that we drink the “living water” offered to the Samaritan woman?

Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

Does this mean that we should ins ute a church ordinance in which water is given to people in order to be saved? This is the most obvious example that Jesus was talking about the same thing in John 4 as John 6. In both instances, He used the term "living." Jesus is the "living bread" and the "living water." Neither example was referring to a physical reality, but to spiritual truth. Like the Jews in John 6, this Samaritan woman had no clue about what Jesus was talking about. As bread is required for physical life, so water is also required for physical life. Jesus provides the living (spiritual) water that is required for eternal life:

Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

Jesus used many different physical, earthly examples of physical life in order to convey the reality of how to achieve spiritual (eternal) life. The bread, given in John 6, is just one of those examples of using an earthly example to convey spiritual truth. Jesus Himself defined His terms quite clearly as symbolic spiritual truth.

Reading John 6:53-56 out of context makes it look like Roman Catholics have a good point that Jesus indicated that you must eat His body and blood. However, you will find a different meaning when we examine the entire chapter in the context of what Jesus was saying. So, get out your Bible and follow along as we look at John 6 to determine if it really is literal or symbolic.

The chapter begins with the feeding of the 5,000 with bread and fish. It is not coincidence that this event, which takes place at the beginning of the chapter is referenced again at the point that Jesus declares Himself to be the bread of life. The crowd that had been fed real bread at the beginning of the chapter were back to get another free handout:

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. “

The crowd then asked Jesus, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

You will notice that He did not mention anything about eating, but only about believing.

If we interpret the verses that you must literally eat Jesus' body and blood, we run into some obvious problems. First, the verses claim that you must eat His body and drink His blood to have eternal life. Over and over again in this chapter, Jesus made it clear that eternal life came from believing in Him. We "eat" Jesus only in a spiritual sense. Eating is not a spiritual act - only believing. The thief on the cross did not eat Jesus' body or drink His blood, so Jesus lied when He told him that He would be with Him in heaven that very day. Of course Jesus did not lie! The man believed in Jesus and was given eternal life without eating His body and drinking His blood. In John chapter 6, Jesus was illustrating spiritual truths with earthly examples. Eternal life comes from belief, not eating the Eucharist.

The second problem is that if one were to interpret the entire discourse in terms of the Eucharist, Jesus would have been talking utter nonsense to the Jews. Why would Jesus be telling the unsaved Jews about the Eucharist, which was to be given to the church, but had not even been ins uted yet? He wasn't! Jesus was trying to make them understand that belief in Him (the bread from heaven) was the only way gain eternal (spiritual) life.

Jesus ends the discourse by telling them that He was talking about spiritual truths:

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

Jesus establishes the metaphor He will use throughout the sermon that coming, believing, eating, drinking - all of these lead to eternal life. They are not different things but the same thing. Jesus is directing those who were seeking merely physical benefits from Him to the fact that He does not promise such things: He promises spiritual nourishment to all who come to Him as their source.

Has the Catholic Church always believed in transubstantiation?

Pope Augustine, in commenting on John 6:53-56 said:

Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but you are in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby you are refreshed, does not fail. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; you will have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, It is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life."

Augustine also indicated that the sacrament was to be commemorated, but not relived:

"Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament.

Then, you have the question of why is Christ only physically present at the Eucharist? Roman Catholics take comfort in the idea that Jesus is with them at communion. However, before He left Earth, Jesus promised to be with us always, until He returns in glory:

”Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Jesus is with each believer at all times, not just when we take communion. I find that very reassuring and trust that it is true.

[travis2]

I took care of your concerns about literal/metaphorical interpretations in my #1 post. I can only assume you didn't read it.

[The Ressurrected One]

I took care of your concerns about literal/metaphorical interpretations in my #1 post. I can only assume you didn't read it.

First, I was responding to Gopher's post from yesterday and second, no you didn't...you just repeated church dogma.

I won't quibble over whether or not the church allowed bibles...I do believe the Inquisitions and the violent response to Luther's theses demonstrate how oppressive, intolerant to dissention, and evil the church was in the 16th century. Not to mention the exploitation of the poor and illiterate by selling indulgences and other such nonsense so the Roman Cardinal could rebuild the Vatican treasure (after he had plundered it) and raise St. Peter's Basillica.

But, I see absolutely no reason to believe there is an unbroken lineage between the current Pope and Peter and, frankly, I think my post to Gopher answers your "lie refuted" post on transubstantiation quite well, thank you.

And, I know this is a question the Catholic Church has struggled with over the centuries.

And, frankly, considering the character and pure debauchery engaged in by many of the Pontiffs over the course of history, I cannot imagine any of them being in a lineage with one of the original apostles.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I think the Catholic Church is a big money corporation that must perpetuate the myths of their origin in order to remain viable.

That's the only thing that would explain why they would abdicate their inherited moral imperative to do right and good and just when faced with costly Priest pedophilia crisis. A true Christian church would have accepted responsibility and lived with the consequences.

[travis2]

First, I was responding to Gopher's post from yesterday and second, no you didn't...you just repeated church dogma.

Uh...no, I didn't.

I won't quibble over whether or not the church allowed bibles...I do believe the Inquisitions and the violent response to Luther's theses demonstrate how oppressive, intolerant to dissention, and evil the church was in the 16th century. Not to mention the exploitation of the poor and illiterate by selling indulgences and other such nonsense so the Roman Cardinal could rebuild the Vatican treasure (after he had plundered it) and raise St. Peter's Basillica.

Uh, nothing such is demonstrated except you merely believe and perpetuate the worst anti-Catholic bigotries. History proves you wrong.

But, I see absolutely no reason to believe there is an unbroken lineage between the current Pope and Peter and, frankly, I think my post to Gopher answers your "lie refuted" post on transubstantiation quite well, thank you.

Ummmmm...you completely ignored much of the Scriptural proof I gave, so I must respectfully disagree.

And, I know this is a question the Catholic Church has struggled with over the centuries.

Define "struggle". If you mean that there have always been those on the anti-transubstantiation side of the fence, you would be correct. If you mean it was ever a major question in the Church, you would be wrong.

And, frankly, considering the character and pure debauchery engaged in by many of the Pontiffs over the course of history, I cannot imagine any of them being in a lineage with one of the original apostles.

Have there been scoundrels? Of course. The Pope is still but a man. However, your "imagining" has nothing to do with reality.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I think the Catholic Church is a big money corporation that must perpetuate the myths of their origin in order to remain viable.

That's the only thing that would explain why they would abdicate their inherited moral imperative to do right and good and just when faced with costly Priest pedophilia crisis. A true Christian church would have accepted responsibility and lived with the consequences.

Please provide your proof (sources please) that the Catholic Church is any worse than any Protestant church in this regard.

And your assertion that it's the "only thing" is hardly logical.

You of course are free to disagree with what the Church teaches. I merely ask that you learn the facts instead of engaging in bigotry and hateful rhetoric. Many non-Catholics disagree with the Church on many issues and don't have to stoop to such things.

[GopherSA]

Believe as you wish, TRO.

It's your call. Just don't spew recycled hatred when you discuss my church. There are many, many things that could be said about protestant sects. I've not brought them up...mainly because you've not identified which group is yours (Lutheran, Baptist, LDS, Witnesses).

Are you not comfortable admitting your affiliation?

It's easy to attack others when you refuse to provide information about yourself. It's the John Kerry playbook. Attack, don't provide information -- and, in doing so, remain immune from people commenting on the weakness of your own history and/or positions you support.

[DrRich]

Not to mention our entire mass is founded in Scripture. TRO, You may want to get some unbiased reading under your belt before you start condemning the entire Catholic Church. No one is disputing the fact that all churches including the Catholic Church has made midstakes. Thank goodness, we accept our fellow protestant brothers and sisters in Christ; too bad its not always reciprocated. Bottom line, we are all Christians and believe that Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins and rose from the dead for our salvation.

[NeoConIV]

Imagine where we would be had the Catholic Church never existed.

Wrap your brain around that!


But I think for better dialogue, it would be nice to know if TRO belongs to a particular denomination.

[travis2]

To be fair, TRO has stated he is a member of one of the Reformed churches. To me, that explains many of his views concerning the history of the Church (Lorraine Boettner was a Reformed cleric).

[GopherSA]

"Reformed" is broadly defined. It could be just about anything from a major movement like Lutheranism to a televangelist group to a bumpkin holding "services" in his garage.

[The Ressurrected One]

Ummmmm...you completely ignored much of the Scriptural proof I gave, so I must respectfully disagree.

I don't think you addressed the Pope's lineage in any of your posts.

Define "struggle". If you mean that there have always been those on the anti-transubstantiation side of the fence, you would be correct. If you mean it was ever a major question in the Church, you would be wrong.

So, Augustine's declaration of it being a "commemoration" isn't a major question in the Church?

Have there been scoundrels? Of course. The Pope is still but a man. However, your "imagining" has nothing to do with reality.

No, the Pope is, according to the Church, God's vicar on Earth. A Holy Father. While not Christ, he is more than just a man.

Saul was just a man. A murderous, contemptable, persecutor of Christ's followers...until God spoke directly to him on the road to Damascus. He became Paul and, to my knowledge, never committed another di able act in his life. Did he sin? Probably.

But, Here we have a church that elevates a mortal to Pontiff, declares them infallible, and then -- when he turns out to be just a man after all (and, in many cases, a murderous, contemptable, man) -- they have to change doctrine to account for the disparity.

Please provide your proof (sources please) that the Catholic Church is any worse than any Protestant church in this regard.

Pope Leo X.

But, your question is somewhat unanswerable because there are no Protestant Churches structured like the Catholic Church...and, I would stipulate that those that are probably aren't much different than the Catholics.

In my denomination, all members are peers...some are equipped with certain gifts that allow them to carry out the church's work. Pastor's receive training and are ordained in the Holy Word and Sacraments so the sacraments of baptism and communion will be properly administered -- according to scripture -- however, all other positions and duties in the church can be accomplished by lay people as well as ordained ministers, elders, and deacons.

There is no "head" of the church in Protestantism...Christ is the head of the church.

And your assertion that it's the "only thing" is hardly logical.

Okay, what possible other explanation is there for the settlements with accusers and the stonewalling by the Vatican and the hemhawing by all other church officials?

Was there not one principled Catholic Bishop that would stand up and say, "My God! We have committed an unspeakable act of evil -- forgive us and let us set about making it right!" No. Why? Because to do so would have bankrupted the church.

And, my point was that if you have faith in Christ and your work is Holy, you can endure even that. That the Catholic Church wasn't willing to take that risk shows how void of true faith in Christ they are...

You of course are free to disagree with what the Church teaches. I merely ask that you learn the facts instead of engaging in bigotry and hateful rhetoric. Many non-Catholics disagree with the Church on many issues and don't have to stoop to such things.

This whole thread started with me asking a simple question of how true Catholics (that are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage) can reconcile their faith with their position and still remain Catholic. Because the church condemns both practices and those who support either.

That led to a discussion on the moral authority of the church and I merely posited many of the problems I, as a non-Catholic, see with the Church. I didn't realize I was "quoting" Boettner, but I do believe the Catholic church was by and large a totalitary, intolerant, evil, and oppressive force for many centuries and that, because of that, they moved so far away from the principles of Christ's teachings for so long that nothing they claim to directly tie them to the 12 apostles is credible.

As late as WWII, you had Pontiff's complicit with Nazi Germany in selling out the Jews knowing full well what their demise would be. That's pure Evil incarnate.

At least John Paul II, whom I believe to have been a decent and Godly man, apologized for that atrocity...but, yet, he remained silent on the pedophilia. Why? Because it would have spelled financial ruin and probably the end of the papacy as you know it.

So, in direct contradiction of all Christ taught us, the Church perpetuated an evil for self-preservation.

Yes, other churches have done the same...and, I hold them in the same contempt.

[travis2]

"Reformed" is broadly defined. It could be just about anything from a major movement like Lutheranism to a televangelist group to a bumpkin holding "services" in his garage.

True...however, the Reformed "family" is generally (broadly) considered to consist of Reformed, various Presbyterian churches, Congregational, and United Church of Christ.

The common thread is a Calvinist theology.

[The Ressurrected One]

Oh, I'm Presbyterian.

[travis2]

I don't think you addressed the Pope's lineage in any of your posts.

So, Augustine's declaration of it being a "commemoration" isn't a major question in the Church?

No, the Pope is, according to the Church, God's vicar on Earth. A Holy Father. While not Christ, he is more than just a man.

Saul was just a man. A murderous, contemptable, persecutor of Christ's followers...until God spoke directly to him on the road to Damascus. He became Paul and, to my knowledge, never committed another di able act in his life. Did he sin? Probably.

But, Here we have a church that elevates a mortal to Pontiff, declares them infallible, and then -- when he turns out to be just a man after all (and, in many cases, a murderous, contemptable, man) -- they have to change doctrine to account for the disparity.

Pope Leo X.

But, your question is somewhat unanswerable because there are no Protestant Churches structured like the Catholic Church...and, I would stipulate that those that are probably aren't much different than the Catholics.

In my denomination, all members are peers...some are equipped with certain gifts that allow them to carry out the church's work. Pastor's receive training and are ordained in the Holy Word and Sacraments so the sacraments of baptism and communion will be properly administered -- according to scripture -- however, all other positions and duties in the church can be accomplished by lay people as well as ordained ministers, elders, and deacons.

There is no "head" of the church in Protestantism...Christ is the head of the church.

Okay, what possible other explanation is there for the settlements with accusers and the stonewalling by the Vatican and the hemhawing by all other church officials?

Was there not one principled Catholic Bishop that would stand up and say, "My God! We have committed an unspeakable act of evil -- forgive us and let us set about making it right!" No. Why? Because to do so would have bankrupted the church.

And, my point was that if you have faith in Christ and your work is Holy, you can endure even that. That the Catholic Church wasn't willing to take that risk shows how void of true faith in Christ they are...

This whole thread started with me asking a simple question of how true Catholics (that are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage) can reconcile their faith with their position and still remain Catholic. Because the church condemns both practices and those who support either.

That led to a discussion on the moral authority of the church and I merely posited many of the problems I, as a non-Catholic, see with the Church. I didn't realize I was "quoting" Boettner, but I do believe the Catholic church was by and large a totalitary, intolerant, evil, and oppressive force for many centuries and that, because of that, they moved so far away from the principles of Christ's teachings for so long that nothing they claim to directly tie them to the 12 apostles is credible.

As late as WWII, you had Pontiff's complicit with Nazi Germany in selling out the Jews knowing full well what their demise would be. That's pure Evil incarnate.

At least John Paul II, whom I believe to have been a decent and Godly man, apologized for that atrocity...but, yet, he remained silent on the pedophilia. Why? Because it would have spelled financial ruin and probably the end of the papacy as you know it.

So, in direct contradiction of all Christ taught us, the Church perpetuated an evil for self-preservation.

Yes, other churches have done the same...and, I hold them in the same contempt.

*sigh*

If you wish to be closed-minded, there is of course nothing I can do about that but bid you farewell. God knows I tried.

[The Ressurrected One]

Thank goodness, we accept our fellow protestant brothers and sisters in Christ; too bad its not always reciprocated. Bottom line, we are all Christians and believe that Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins and rose from the dead for our salvation.

That begs the question though, even if you "accept" protestant religions, do you believe they will receive salvation without engaging in the Catholic rituals?

Because, that is the bottom line. It's not really about the Catholic church...it's about Salvation.

If Catholics are ready to "accept" other Christian religions on the basis that we all, "...believe Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins and rose from the dead for our salvation...," then what's the point to the rest of your doctrine?

Frankly, I think that's true, by the way...we are saved by the Grace of God alone and that if we will just believe in Him, we will have eternal life. Period. it's nothing more complicated than that.

If you believe in Christ, and by virtue of that belief, follow His lessons of Love for God and toward one another -- then, there is nothing else you can do to "earn" salvation.

[The Ressurrected One]

*sigh*

If you wish to be closed-minded, there is of course nothing I can do about that but bid you farewell. God knows I tried.

Okie dokie...

[DrRich]

That begs the question though, even if you "accept" protestant religions, do you believe they will receive salvation without engaging in the Catholic rituals?

Because, that is the bottom line. It's not really about the Catholic church...it's about Salvation.

If Catholics are ready to "accept" other Christian religions on the basis that we all, "...believe Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins and rose from the dead for our salvation...," then what's the point to the rest of your doctrine?

Frankly, I think that's true, by the way...we are saved by the Grace of God alone and that if we will just believe in Him, we will have eternal life. Period. it's nothing more complicated than that.

If you believe in Christ, and by virtue of that belief, follow His lessons of Love for God and toward one another -- then, there is nothing else you can do to "earn" salvation.

But my brother , it is not by faith alone that we obtain salvation. We must have works to go along with that faith.

I don't, and I believe Gopher and Travis would agree with me, have a problem with other denominations; it is they that have a problem with us.

We will all also agree that there have been things in the past that we are all not too proud of, but sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. Eventhough the pope is believed to be infallable, he is still human. BTW, I'm sure your church is not perfect either.

[The Ressurrected One]

Imagine where we would be had the Catholic Church never existed.

God only knows...

The Crusades were engaged for the survival of Christiandom.

The Inquisitions, for the survival of the Church.

The Reformation, for survival.

[travis2]

But my brother , it is not by faith alone that we obtain salvation. We must have works to go along with that faith.

I don't, and I believe Gopher and Travis would agree with me, have a problem with other denominations; it is they that have a problem with us.

We will all also agree that there have been things in the past that we are all not too proud of, but sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. Eventhough the pope is believed to be infallable, he is still human. BTW, I'm sure your church is not perfect either.

You are correct. I don't go out of my way to disagree with non-Catholics. They have to find me and start the fight.