[greggy53]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Venerating/worshipping images. Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches.

Catholic Christians do not worship statues / images. The holy Eucharist is worshipped because we know that it is the body of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We worship God, not images or statues.Whats wrong with candles?? Are baptist forbidden to have candles in their homes?

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them.

If you check your OT you will find that God had the Hebrews make a graven image of a serpant so that when they looked upon it they would be healed. It's in the Bible.
We do not worship statues, or Mary. We bow to the presence of God.

I was sent a letter stating that my my post above was an infraction and not allowed. I was just setting the record straight on some misinformation about Catholics. Sorry, I thought maybe some of you may be interested in an honest search for the truth. I belong to a Caholic forum where the discussion is open and all faiths are welcome to give their opinions and share the Gospel. Come see us at Catholic.com...[satanic links deleted] I'm greggy53. Drop by and say hi.

[James Dewitt]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I was sent a letter stating that my my post above was an infraction and not allowed. I was just setting the record straight on some misinformation about Catholics. Sorry, I thought maybe some of you may be interested in an honest search for the truth. I belong to a Caholic forum where the discussion is open and all faiths are welcome to give their opinions and share the Gospel. Come see us at Catholic.com...SATANIC LINK REMOVED .....I'mIgreggyggy53. Drop by and say hi.

Well at least you did not call your self a Christian. And we know all we need to about you Pope and his army of Pedophile Priests, now go away Papist! Mary worshippers cant live with, and we cant shoot them

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Peter is not the Rock. His FAITH in Jesus is the rock. Peter in Greek is Petros - a small stone. The word Jesus uses is Petra - a large rock. The foundation of the church is confessing Jesus is the Christ.

The Greek distinction you bring up is of little relevance for two reasons:

1) Jesus would have spoken this phrase in Aramaic, which leaves no room for a differentiation between the “rocks” spoken of in this passage. See that the only Aramiac word for this context “rock” is kepha: “You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”


2) It would not be appropriate to translate the original Aramaic phrase saying “kepha” to the Greek word meaning “large rock” (petra), because this would be giving St. Peter a feminine name. Furthermore, even though some of the original wordplay was lost during this translation, not once do we see any early Church Fathers, including those that with Greek as their native tongue, having any confusion as to who this “rock” is: Peter.

1 Peter 2:3If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

I see no confliction here with Peter being the rock upon which the Church was built. You understand the two natures of the Church? Visible and Invisible? Peter is the rock upon which the earthly Church is built. But when referring to the Church being the spiritual body of Believers in Christ, of course Christ himself is that Rock.

If Christ were to establish his earthly Church upon himself, why chose apostles? Why give Peter the keys to the kingdom? Why give them all the power to bind and loose? Why give them the power to forgive sins? This all seems superfluous if Christ himself will be the present visible head for a Church to be constructed…

Furthermore, immediately after declaring Peter to be the “rock”, Christ gives to him the gift of the “key to the Kingdom of Heaven.” Let’s look at you’re interpretation

“Peter, your faith is but a small stone, remember your humility, and the Church will be built upon me, Petra, not you, small stone. Now, I give unto you, insignificant stone, the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and the authority to bind and loose. But remember, Peter, you are but an insignificant stone.”

What a way to teach Peter humility! Giving him the Keys to the very Kingdom of Heaven, which in itself dictates a passage of power and authority! By claiming the significance of this insignificant diffentiation from the original Aramaic, you make Jesus seem contradictory!

But why stop there? Let’s examine some other verses, just so you can be sure…

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that you faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” (Luke 22:31-32)

Satan would come to try all of the Apostles, seeking for their faith to fail, but see how Christ specifically prays for Peter. Why? Because the Apostles will need a Rock to stand on when He is gone. This is why Peter must “strengthen [his] brethren.”

“When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me more that these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ A second time he said to him, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me’ He said to him, ‘Yes Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’ He said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ And he said to him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.’ (John21:15-17)

Wow! How much more clearly could Christ speak? Who “feeds lambs” and “tends sheep” but the Shepherd? And who is the Shepherd but the leader of the flock? Even though Christ calls himself the “Good Shepherd”, he clearly commands Peter to be the Shepherd of His Flock on Earth, in His place. Can you say, “Vicar of Christ”?

And since you seem to care so for what those early church fathers state, how about this:

Chrysostom says thus: “Upon this rock,” not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Hilary (who ironically you also quote) says: To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, “Thou art the Son of the living God.” Therefore, the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church.

Source? I am unable to find these phrases in any Early Church documents.
And I have no recollection of quoting a “Hilary”… So wherever you pasted this from, you should cite your source

Was Peter supreme among the apostles?

Luke 22: 24And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
28Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Does that put Peter in a special spot?

No, but it does not forbid it either. Specifically:

but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

Jesus calls himself a servant, and he is clearly greater than all of us. Yet, his word is divine word, and his authority is that given by God. He has authority, gives commands, will sit upon a throne in heaven, yet calls himself a servant. Similarities between Christ and the Papacy, yet again!!
If this were our sole verse to conclude the Primacy of Peter, I can understand some confusion, but we have the Key to the Kingdom, and the institution of Peter as the Shepherd of His Flock.

And it's not just Protestants saying this. What do you think the great schism between the east and west was about? So much for your strong undividable church.

Who said “undividable”? I never said that… Bible doesn’t say that… Catechism doesn’t say that. In fact, many apostasies are foretold in the NT!

You quote Acts 15 saying that shows Peter had authority. But Paul and Barnabas are the first to talk

Which led to an outrage of rabble and argument. Until Peter stood up and spoke, after which “the entire assembly fell silent”, because of his authoritative pronouncement.

and James has the last word.

Would you conclude for this reason that James is the Head of the Church? Head of the Jerusalem Church indeed, but he was made so only after Peter had left the city (Acts 12:17). Perhaps the words of James “seemed good to the Apostles and elders” as we see in the next verse, Acts 15:22. Indeed, if James possessed such Authority to make Church enveloping decisions, why, in the first 12 Chapters of Acts (excluding 6-7), is Peter depicted in such a leadership position? And James mentioned only briefly, and never in a leadership role? Why waste all this time with Peter’s adventures when James is probably doing great works as leader of the Church??
The answer is simple, Peter was doing great works as Leader, not James (Acts 1:13-26; 2:14, 2:41; 3:6-7; 5:1-11; 8:21; 9:36-41; 10:9-16; 10:44-48).

How about this which Paul wrote:

Galatians 2: 9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
It was customary to place the name of the most important person first, but Paul didn't seem to think Peter was anymore important in the church then James or John. Peter also is not held in supremacy in any of the following verses:

First, the title “pillar” does not undercut the title of “rock” which was exclusively handed to Peter.

Second, I’m happy that you acknowledge the significance of listing the most important names first. Therefore, do you think it coincidence that throughout the entire Gospels, as well as Acts, that Peter is listed “first” among the Apostles? (Mt 1:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13) We even see Peter speaking for the disciples in Mk 16:7. This cannot be passed off as coincidence, we therefore must look critically at Paul’s word order, discerning why he would not list Peter first, as was customary.

The above quote from Galatians may be explained because Paul might have had the intention to undercut the claims of the Judaizers, who, along with other Jewish conservatives, had a deep respect for James as the spiritual shepherd of the Jerusalem church at this time. By stressing that James endorsed his message, Paul shows that the Judaizers have no official backing from Jerusalem, even from its most conservative leadership, whom they hold in such high regard (By the way, this is not a sign that Peter was not held in supremacy by the Jerusalem Church, no more than Irish Catholic’s hold St. Patrick over the current Pope. They simply hold that particular saint in high regard, because they feel an intimate connection with him).

1 Corinthians 1: 12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

And here you effectively destroy your own argument, as you will notice Christ’s name at the end of the list.

1 Corinthians 3: 22Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's;

The customary act of listing significant names first here is not relevant. As the sentence is not speaking of the actual people in such a sense as Galatians (notice how Apollos is included), but rather in an act of hyperbole to show that all things belong to the Corinthians through Christ, there is no need to list in order of importance, as the actual physical person and/or their actions are not depicted. Galatians, however, dictates a real world event or actuality.

If you would like to argue that the significance of name order here is relevant, then first explain why Christ’s name appears last in 1 Corinthians 1:12, which you cited and is of the same context.

John 1: 44Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

Again, insignificant. This implies nothing of relevance to Peter, in fact, the subject of the sentence is Bethsaida, therefore the order following should not matter.

However, if you’d like to debate this one too, please refer first to 1 Corinthians 1:12.

Furthermore, when this is compared to the obviously intentional use of Peter as head of the apostles in Mt 1:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13, you will see that you are grasping at straws here.

And hey, if Peter was only preaching to those of the circumcision, what was he doing being bishop in Rome? Seems being in charge of the ministry to Jews does not make him head of the universal church. Looks like God divided authority up between them.

Peter was, in fact, the first to preach to the Gentiles in ACTS 10:25-48.

Furthermore, 1 Pet 5:13, specifically states that Peter writes from Rome, which is cryptically referred to as “Babylon.”

Paul doesn't seem to hold Peter as having any special authority, and often disagrees with him:

Galatians 2: 11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Often? You conclude this as “often” from one occurrence?

St. Paul correcting St. Peter for weak behavior is no different from St. Catherine of Siena correcting weak popes in the Middle Ages. There was no doctrine involved. St. Peter himself had settled the issue at the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul corrected St. Peter for being unwilling to confront the Judaizers from Jerusalem. Remember, St. Paul was among those who “fell silent” at the Council of Jerusalem once St. Peter spoke.

Paul considered himself Peter's and the other apostles equal:

Galatians 2: 8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

This does not mean they’re authority is equal, only that God made them both able to fulfill their respective roles as Apostle to the Jews and Gentiles. They both received the gift of Apostleship, but Peter’s gift is different. The Pope is still a priest of the Church, still an apostle of Christ, and he has no more “power” to transubstantiate the bread and wine into His Body and Blood than any ordinary priest, but notice how his authority as Shepherd is an entirely gift, of which, Paul makes no claim.

Jesus left no man with authority over the others, only He was supreme:

Matthew 23: 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

Would you draw from this that we are not to have teachers, as only God has such authority (You say “Jesus left no man with authority over others”)? If this were the case, then either :

1) Christ is a terrible teacher, as his students have been swept across the earth in over 30,000 different ideologies after learning from Him.

2) Christ did, in fact, leave the apostles to teach others (the obvious conclusion). To do so, they would need authority, just as a Professor of a university needs certification in the form of a doctorate, so the apostles need to speak with Christ’s voice. (“whoever hears you, hears me”)

9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (hey, what's the origin of the word Pope?)

Your interpretation yields God as a hypocrite in light of Heb 12:7-11

1 Corinthians 4:15 and Philemon 10 show spiritual “fathers” in the Church.

10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

You have already quoted this passage, and it has been addressed above.

“27For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.”

To which I wrote:

“Jesus calls himself a servant, and he is clearly greater than all of us. Yet, his word is divine word, and his authority is that given by God. He has authority, gives command, will sit upon a throne in heaven, yet calls himself a servant. Similarities between Christ and the Papacy, yet again!!”

Peter was not infallible:

Galatians 2: 14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

You’ve already mentioned this passage. It has already been addressed, see above.

Peter was ordered about by the others;
Acts 8: 14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

Ordered? If you cannot find passage after passage of Peter being subjected to the will of his brothers, then I would say you’re, yet again, pulling at straws here.

Even further, lest the “apostles” mentioned above no longer include Peter and John within their ranks, then you would be forced to assert that Peter and John, as apostles, had some decision in the matter, as it was the “apostles” that “sent unto them Peter and John”.

I understand you people often kneel before Popes and kiss their rings. Well, here's what Peter says:
Acts 10: 25And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Kneeling and ring-kissing does not entail worship, which this passage speaks of, and as we have already discussed on this thread.

Peter did not claim to have the power to forgive sins, but left that power to God:

Acts 8: 22Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

God forgives sins through the priest, not the priest on his own. God merely chose to impart this gift through the priests (John 20:22). You show clear misunderstanding of this verse, as well as Catholic Doctrine.

Peter never refered to himself as having a special position:

1 Peter 1: 1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

He calls himself “Peter”, which means “Rock”, the title given to him by Christ. The author, as well as everyone in the Early Church, would know this.

However, what else matters except the end result? That the right man is chosen in the end?

1 Peter 5: 1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

I fail to see your point, please rephrase?

Wasn't Peter married?

1 Corinthians 9: 5Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Priest celibacy is a western Catholic discipline (NOT DOCTRINE) that was adopted some time later. Peter did, however, leave his family behind for the sake of the Kingdom.

Christ's vicar on earth is the Holy Spirit

Matthew 28: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

A vicar is not a spiritual guide but a visible, authoritative representative. The Holy Spirit is neither of these. Rather, it guides the visible Vicar, unto all truth.

Yes Jesus told Peter to strengthen His brethren and feed His sheep, but not because only He would have these duties. It was for Peter was the one who stumbled most by denying Christ three times.

I could easily say that, because of Peter’s significance, the Devil “demanded to have him” (Luke 22:31) and put him through extra trial, hoping to offset the Rock upon which Christ would build his Church. This entire argument is then fruitless, as neither you nor I know who the devil tempted and to what extent.

Jesus needed to reinforce these lessons to him specifically:

Luke 22: 32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Then why pray that he “strengthen thy brethren”, lest they NEED Peter to come strengthen them? Lest their own faith is failing and Peter, even AFTER sinning against Christ, will be the one to turn and become the Rock for which the others to stand.

Jesus was the chief shepherd:

1 Peter 5: 4And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

And yet...

"The Vatican Council defines as an article of faith that ... Christ 'conferred upon Peter alone the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor [shepherd] and Ruler over all the flock'" (Question Box, p. 147).

If the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, then he fulfills the role of Chief Shepherd until the Second Coming.

And Peter was not the only one told to feed the flock:

Acts 20: 28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The Visible Catholic Church is hierarchal. All are called to bring back lost sheep and feed the young lambs in the knowledge of Christ. In this sense, all fulfill some role of shepherd. But the Peter and the popes are the Shepherds of the entire flock until His return.

Peter was not the only one to strengthen the brethren:

Acts 18: 23And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.

You forget the context of Luke 22:32. Peter is told to strengthen the other APOSTLES, meaning that their faith is wavering and need his support. This is a much greater commandment that to simply strengthen the common sheep of the fold.

In the lists of the Apostles, Peter is not singled out as special.

Actually, it is. Mt 1:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13

Matthew 19: 28And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The role of Shepherd is different that this authority that the apostles will have to “judg[e] the twelve tribes of Israel.” This has been addressed above, to which I wrote:

“This does not mean they’re authority is equal, only that God made them both able to fulfill their respective roles as Apostle to the Jews and Gentiles (In this case, God made them all equally capable of giving God’s judgment, which an Apostle requires no special authority to administer, only knowledge, imparted by God). They both received the gift of Apostleship, but Peter’s gift is different. The Pope is still a priest of the Church, still an apostle of Christ, and he has no more “power” to transubstantiate the bread and wine into His Body and Blood than any ordinary priest, but notice how his authority as Shepherd is an entirely gift, of which, Paul (Or in this case, the other Apostles) makes no claim.”

Jesus is the only head of the church:

Ephesians 1: 22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Jesus is the supreme Head. However, Jesus had to ascend into heaven, leaving us without a Shepherd. He therefore, quite thoughtfully, left us an administrator to guide us until his return, upon which, even that vicar will bow in worship.

There is no office of Pope in the Bible. Only three offices in the church are named: Apostles, Elders/Bishops, and Deacons.

Ephesians 4:11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Presbyter is not within this list, though we know very well that the Apostles established many presbyters. We see elsewhere that this ministry role is ordained, similar with the role of Pope, which verses I have already referenced.

Consider this, of your supposed great unbroken line of Papal successsion:

"In the first twelve centuries of her existence the Church was disturbed some twenty-five times by rival claimants of the Papacy. The strife thus originated was always an occasion of scandal, sometimes of violence and bloodshed ... For forty years (in the 14th century) two and even three pretenders to the Papacy claimed the allegiance of Catholics: whole countries, learned men and canonised saints, ranged themselves on different sides, and even now it is not perhaps absolutely certain who was Pope..." (Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, p. 869).

There were many others claiming to be the messiah as well. So many that the rabbis wrote “If your neighbor tells you that the messiah has come, finish plowing your field, then see if the messiah has really come.” How do you know you follow the right one? Because you have faith that God would not let you go astray.

And if you're going by number of times a name is mentioned, well Paul's name is mentioned many more times. Maybe Paul is the Pope?

If Christ wanted Paul to represent Himself on earth as Vicar, he would have created him so that he was born among the Jews in Palestine, and he could therefore establish him as firsthand successor.

Yet, God chose Paul’s birthplace to be away from Palestine, and indeed, for Paul to never even witness His ministry.

Jesus chose 12 apostles, He could have elected to have Paul right there with him, for He is God, but this was not the role he wanted for Paul.

Among the 12 that Jesus chose, Peter is always spoken as their leader.

"Both we and Catholics deny that Paul was ever a Pope, but if we used the kind of reasoning that is used to "prove" Peter to be Pope, we could make a better case that Paul was Pope.
* Paul was not married (1 Corinthians 7).

Already addressed Peter’s celibacy and that of the Priesthood.

* Acts talks about Paul more than about Peter.

Yet the Gospels talk more about Peter… AND Acts shows Peter completing all of the Church’s “firsts” such as the preaching on Pentacost, the first healing, excommunication, conversions etc.

* Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-14); nowhere in Scripture did Peter rebuke Paul.

Already addressed.

* Paul cared for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).

This verse states, “there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches.” This does not say that Paul is responsible for the care of the churches, rather that he cares ABOUT them. The responsibility for their leadership rests solely upon the Vicar of Christ.

* Paul was not behind any apostle (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Peter never made such a claim for himself.

In the context you will see that Paul is speaking of False Apostles in the Corinthian churches.

* Paul wrote 3/4 of the New Testament books. Peter wrote only 2 little ones.

Merely because Peter’s role did not dictate that he write numerous letters to various churches does not mean that he was any less leader of the church. Perhaps Peter was a man of action while Paul was a man of words. Can you prove otherwise?

Further, if divine authority is to be derived based on how many works of the Apostle were to be divinely inspired, then the majority of the apostles could be considered fruitless, as could Christ Himself, as they did not write at all.

* Peter cited Paul's letters as authority (2 Peter 3:15,16), but Paul never cited Peter's letters as authority.

Rather, Peter writes here that Paul’s letters can be difficult to understand, requiring cautious interpretation. Verse 16: “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

This is hardly a reference for authority. In fact, it might even show that Peter is the better preacher here, able to convey his message without confusion.

Furthermore, Paul even says that he must go “confer with Cephas” to ensure his teachings are correct in

Galatians 1:18 “Then after three years I went upo to Jerusalem to visit Ce’phas, and remained with him fifteen days.”

The Greek expression seen here “to visit” is more precise in says that Paul “interviewed” Peter, as well as “made his acquaintance.” He, therefore, wanted to ensure his teachings were in line with that of Peter and the Apostles.

* Scripture expressly tells us Paul was in Rome, but never says Peter was there.

Already addressed -- Peter wrote from “Babylon”, which was how they commonly referred to Rome.

* Paul's labors exceeded those of other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:23).

Verse 21 notes that the following passage Paul will be speaking “as a fool.”

The Bible canon was already generally agreed upon by the 2nd century. That your church later made an official decision on this means nothing.

Source? This is my understanding:

The widely accepted table of contents for the Holy Bible was officially declared universal for all Christians at the councils of Carthage and Hippo in the late fourth century by the Roman Catholic Church.

Source: Columbia University. “The Old Testament Canon.” N.p. n.d. 23 April 2010. Web.

And I conclude that this would not have been necessary unless there was still disagreement over the canon. I.e. You don’t find Church Council’s declaring that there is a heaven and an earth, because this universally agreed upon.

Furthermore, what gave them the right to “agree” upon which books were inspired unless God gave the bishops that authority? Then you must conclude that there is a divine authority outside of scripture.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

tldr

You are a Mary-worshipping papist; you are going to Hell.

Exodus 20:3 (King James Version)

3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Can you say, “Vicar of Christ”?

Can you say "ouch" a billion times? Because that is what you will do while Satan is barbecuing you in hell!

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

The pope is a senile, cross-dressing, baby raping faggot. He will burn in Hell with the rest of his cathylicker, Mary-worshipping cultists. In Hell, the devil will lift up that frumpy dress he wears and widen his anus so much you could drive a Winnebago through it.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

tldr

You are a Mary-worshipping papist; you are going to Hell.

Exodus 20:3 (King James Version)

3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Amen.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

tldr

Too Long, Don't Remember?

You are a Mary-worshipping papist; you are going to Hell.

Exodus 20:3 (King James Version)

3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

catechism
1. a manual of instruction in the principles of the Christian religion, usually in question and answer form.
2. catechetical instruction. — catechist, n. — catechetical, adj.

source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catechism

If Catholic's truly worship Mary or have "other Gods" you will find these "secrets" in the Catholic Catechism, which is "a manual of instruction in the principles of the [Catholic] religion."


See here:

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS346&=&q=search+the+Catholic+Catechism&btnG=Google+Search

I have done you the courtesy of running a google search so that you may find an online catechism for which you can search for "other Gods" that Catholics worship.

But I have done you an even FURTHER convenience, and have located a passage detailing the Catholic worship of only the one true God:

Paragraph 266

"Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal" (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).

Source: *SATANIC LINK REMOVED*

We have already concluded on this thread that worship requires specific spiritual intent; it cannot happen accidentally. Therefore, if the correct intent of a legitament Catholic is to "worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity" then we can conclude that Polytheism is not a Catholic practice.

I invite you now to challenge my claim to Peter's primacy, or forfeit the topic so we can move on.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I invite you now to challenge my claim to Peter's primacy, or forfeit the topic so we can move on.

Again? The primacy of Rome was never established. Besides, it's clear Peter probably didn't die in Rome, hence why the New Testament is written in Greek and not Latin.

I suppose that's why it only took hundreds of years to translate the Bible into Latin by Jerry.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Again? The primacy of Rome was never established.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showpost.php?p=554520&postcount=499

If you truly find it so untouchable, feel free to leave it untouched

Just let me know if that's your intention!

[Levi Jones]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showp...&postcount=499

If you truly find it so untouchable, feel free to leave it untouched

Just let me know if that's your intention!

Again, Rome has no primacy in anything. There is no central church. There was no intention of one ever. Maybe.. maybe the Bishop of Antioch, but Rome did not truly factor into the equation until Damasus.

The rest of Christiandom didn't care what Rome had to say until Clovis converted to catlickism and forced the rest of them to at sword point.

SH, you should come around more often. I miss our endless bickering.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Source? I am unable to find these phrases in any Early Church documents.
And I have no recollection of quoting a “Hilary”… So wherever you pasted this from, you should cite your source

You think I made up and copied and pasted this. You sad, sad little Catholic. You are so full of evil you see your own actions reflected in all of those around you

The quote on Chrysostom comes from his 53rd Homily on St Matthew (and the fact that he was a flaming papist does not undermine his saying he believed the rock to be Peter's faith).

The quote from Hilary comes from On The Trinity, Book VI, 36, 37.

And yes, you DID quote a Hilary. Right here:

St. Hilary (c. 4th century) - "In the Scriptures our people are shown to be made one, so that just as many grains collected into one and ground and mingled together, make one loaf, so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we know there is one holy, in which our whole company is joined and united" (Treatise 62, 13)

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?p=401939&highlight=hilary#post40193 9 (Note, this was from you first account that was banned. We have been very merciful to you, allowing you to continue posting here, and still you mock us and spit in our faces with your slander)

Maybe you don't recall it because, in fact, YOU copy and pasted something without reading all of it first!



Enjoy hell, hypocrite.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Again, Rome has no primacy in anything. There is no central church. There was no intention of one ever. Maybe.. maybe the Bishop of Antioch, but Rome did not truly factor into the equation until Damasus.

The rest of Christiandom didn't care what Rome had to say until Clovis converted to catlickism and forced the rest of them to at sword point.

SH, you should come around more often. I miss our endless bickering.

Instruction for Levi on proper rebuttals:

1) Quote relevant passage from opposing argument.

2) Rebut with scholarly facts and reason.


Supported Facts Used: ---

Unsupported Opinions:

1) Rome has no primacy in anything.
2) There is no central church.
3) There was no intention of one ever.
4) Maybe.. maybe the Bishop of Antioch.
5) Rome did not truly factor into the equation until Damasus.
6) The rest of Christiandom didn't care what Rome had to say until Clovis converted to catlickism.
7) Clovis converted to catlickism and forced the rest of them to at sword point.

Let's do this right Levi, you are more than capable.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

The quote on Chrysostom comes from his 53rd Homily on St Matthew (and the fact that he was a flaming papist does not undermine his saying he believed the rock to be Peter's faith).

Here is a link to Chrysostom's 53rd Homily on St. Matthew:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200153.htm

Peter is not mentioned. Nor is "Rock".

The quote from Hilary comes from On The Trinity, Book VI, 36, 37.

This book can be found here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330206.htm

And is also void of your "quote."

And yes, you DID quote a Hilary. Right here:

[/I]

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?p=401939&highlight=hilary#post40193 9

My apologies, I thought we were speaking of this conversation.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Let's do this right Levi, you are more than capable.

We have been at this almost a year now. Use the thread search. It has all been posted.

For example, the council of Carthage where the Northern African churches essentially laughed Rome's representative out of the room.

Another example would be the ruthless suppression of the Aryans and Gnostics under the Franks.

Third would be the fact that Damasus was the first to come up with the concept of the the Bishopric of Rome being the final authority in church matters.

The information is in this thread and on the internet.

Plus, your idea of "scholarly" is to copy and paste endless walls of catlicker propaganda.

You have done almost zero except fling bull stuff from catholics.com and askacatholic.com.

You are bringing nothing new to the table and you are not going to change anyone's mind here.