[True Disciple]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Tell me, does "this book" refer to [A] the entire Bible, or [B] the book of Revelation?

If you answered A, then you are incorrect, for the Word of God cannot be changing in nature, just as God cannot be changing in nature. When John first wrote the Book of Revelation, it was separate from the rest of Scripture, and therefore the phrase "this book" could only refer to the contents of Revelation. To say that the meaning changed upon adding the rest of Scripture changes the meaning of the passage. Furthermore, if we were say this applied to the early forms of the Bible, then the Reformation would be damned for removing the deuterocanon. And even more, if we are to take the phrase "this book" to have this "power" to extend to all pages found within the same book, then I could add the book of Revelation to the appendix of any book and the same rule would apply, following this shallow logic.

Are you stupid? You seem to be forgetting the nature of the Book of Revelation, it was a prophecy, shown by God to John, a prophecy of the future. So John knew that Revelation would be incorporated in Scripture, and therefore was able to see it as a part of it. Therefore, John knew about the modern canon when he wrote those words down (inspired by God, of course, Who also knew the modern canon), and this Passage applies to the entire Bible.

And if the Word of God is not changing in nature, why is your catechism?

You will find the duties of the American citizen and the Universal Christian to be in perfect accord.

No, you won't, because liberals have been adding unchristian ideas to our constitution, like that ungodly "separation from church and state," which they invoke every time when they attempt to persecute Christians, like when they banned prayer from schools.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

The entire apocrypha was included in all non catlick Bibles until the 1880's.

Levi, does it matter that they maintained these books, slipped into the final pages of the the Bibles, until the 1880s? This was over 100 years ago. You are, therefore, still guilty of their removal

At what point did you catlicks only go down to the deuterocanon? The entire apocrypha was included in the Latin Vulgate despite the protests of Gerome. Iraneus made him keep it in there.

An irrelevant point.

The early Church did not deem the rest of the apocrypha to be divine revelation. Whether it was stuffed into bibles as extra reading material is irrelevant.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I accept your admission of defeat

[James Dewitt]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

The early Church did not deem the rest of the apocrypha to be divine revelation. Whether it was stuffed into bibles as extra reading material is irrelevant.

Who gave the RRC the authority to deem what is and what is not divine revelation?

Given all the trouble that your church is in, I would think you might have better things to do, like keeping the Great Pedophile Pope out of the news and possibly jail.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

An irrelevant point.

The early Church did not deem the rest of the apocrypha to be divine revelation. Whether it was stuffed into bibles as extra reading material is irrelevant.

I think it is highly relevant. Your "Saint Gerome" didn't consider any of the apocrypha or the deuterocanon to be canonical. Why do you still have those books in your "Bible" if even the original translator of the vulgate did not believe them to be the inspired Word of God?

Because the murderous lecherous "ear tickler" said so? That's a good enough reason for you?

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Well then, you sir, by your own definition, are a HERETIC, teaching against the Catechism!

Article 841 of the Catechism - The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

The bible teaches that you must believe in Jesus and obey the Gospel for salvation, and that it's by the grace of God, not Mary or Rome, that we are saved.

But, the Roman Catholic leaders today are even saying that you don’t really need to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved!

This a quote, Heathen Basher, as is cited on footnote 330 on that website above. And it would behoove you to read it in its original context.

Look up the Lumen Gentium, section 13, read through to section 16 and you should find understanding.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Are you stupid? You seem to be forgetting the nature of the Book of Revelation, it was a prophecy, shown by God to John, a prophecy of the future. So John knew that Revelation would be incorporated in Scripture, and therefore was able to see it as a part of it. Therefore, John knew about the modern canon when he wrote those words down (inspired by God, of course, Who also knew the modern canon), and this Passage applies to the entire Bible.

If John so knew this, why is he utterly silent about the new canon for which he is "prophesying"?

Furthermore, you will find a more accurate translation from the Greek text to be "scroll" rather than "book", meaning that John more accurately said "do not add or remove from this scroll."

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Who gave the RRC the authority to deem what is and what is not divine revelation?

First, it doesn't matter because whether you like it or not, the early RCC decided that very thing at the councils of Hippo and Carthage. To be Christian, you are forced to acknowledge their authority upon that decision.

Second, the answer is God. He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Given all the trouble that your church is in, I would think you might have better things to do, like keeping the Great Pedophile Pope out of the news and possibly jail.

I invite you to look up the recent letter from our pope to the church in Ireland, then reconsider your accusation.

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I think it is highly relevant. Your "Saint Gerome" didn't consider any of the apocrypha or the deuterocanon to be canonical. Why do you still have those books in your "Bible" if even the original translator of the vulgate did not believe them to be the inspired Word of God?

Because this man does not posses the authority. The the Church does, however. It is by their authority that the Biblical canon was decided.

Because the murderous lecherous "ear tickler" said so? That's a good enough reason for you?

Who is this murderous lecherous "ear tickler"?

[Levi Jones]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Because this man does not posses the authority. The the Church does, however. It is by their authority that the Biblical canon was decided.

Interesting.. You mention the Council of Carthage.

Two synods, in 255 and 256, held under Cyprian, pronounced against the validity of heretical baptism, thus taking direct issue with Stephen I, bishop of Rome, who promptly repudiated them. A third synod in September 256, possibly following the repudiation, unanimously reaffirmed the position of the other two. Stephen's pretensions to authority as bishop of bishops were sharply resented, and for some time the relations of the Roman and African Churches were severely strained.

You can see that even the early church leaders did not consider Rome to be the final authority on anything.

Who is this murderous lecherous "ear tickler"?

Edit: Damasus

[True Disciple]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

If John so knew this, why is he utterly silent about the new canon for which he is "prophesying"?

Why should he say anything about it? There are lots of things which aren't in the Bible. I don't see why I have to find an explanation why things aren't in the Bible. Is this some kind of catholic logic?

Furthermore, you will find a more accurate translation from the Greek text to be "scroll" rather than "book", meaning that John more accurately said "do not add or remove from this scroll."

Trivial details, friend.

First of all, if the KJV 1611 says "book," then book it is.

But even if this weren't so, you're still nitpicking about trivialities. Back in the day, Isidore of Seville wrote about the distinction between "codexes, books and scrolls:"

A codex is composed of many books (librorum); a book is of one scroll (voluminis). It is called codex by way of metaphor from the trunks (caudex) of trees or vines, as if it were a wooden stock, because it contains in itself a multitude of books, as it were of branches.
- Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae (VI.13), 7th Century

You see, the Latin word "libra," book, meant something which consisted of one scroll. A nice example would be that of the Sefer Torah: this consists of one scroll as well. So, there is no reason why the word "scroll" in this case can't refer to the entirety of the Bible. And if it can, it likely does, as John, possessing knowledge of the future, realized that his book was going to be the last of the Bible.

By the way, you still haven't made clear to me why your catechism is updated every now and then, while the Bible states that Jesus doesn't change (Hebrews 13:8). This is the second time you ignored this question. Why were the crusades okay back in the day, but not anymore now?

Second, the answer is God. He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Peter is someone different from the catholic church, friend. What proof do you have that Peter indeed founded the catholic church?

I invite you to look up the recent letter from our pope to the church in Ireland, then reconsider your accusation.

And I invite you to quote the relevant parts here, friend. Just like in your answer to Brother Basher, you attempt to distract Brother James by giving him a very long letter and telling him: "here you are, spend an hour finding out why I'm right," hoping to drown him in an overabundance of information to silence him.

My friend, that is not a reasonable way of bringing forth an argument. When I say you are wrong because you violate Scripture, I quote the relevant Passage, I do not say: "open your Bible and find out for yourself."

[Sacred Heart]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Interesting.. You mention the Council of Carthage.

Originally Posted by wickedpedia
Two synods, in 255 and 256, held under Cyprian, pronounced against the validity of heretical baptism, thus taking direct issue with Stephen I, bishop of Rome, who promptly repudiated them. A third synod in September 256, possibly following the repudiation, unanimously reaffirmed the position of the other two. Stephen's pretensions to authority as bishop of bishops were sharply resented, and for some time the relations of the Roman and African Churches were severely strained.

You can see that even the early church leaders did not consider Rome to be the final authority on anything.

I would have to disagree with you. Merely because there was disagreement between what the pope taught and the general opinion of the churches in Africa does not mean that all Church Fathers dissented from the Roman Bishop. You commit the fallacy of hasty generalization. There were many disagreements in the Early Church, such as over the trinity and the incarnation, but this did not cause dissension.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that on all doctrinal affairs that Rome's word was always final. There was never a point where the pope dogmatically declared something, which was rejected by the Catholics who then moved on like nothing happened.

And finally, some real evidence of the Early Fathers' view of the Roman Church:

If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Pope Clement I

"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Hermas

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Ignatius of Antioch

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I would have to disagree with you. Merely because there was disagreement between what the pope taught and the general opinion of the churches in Africa does not mean that all Church Fathers dissented from the Roman Bishop. You commit the fallacy of hasty generalization. There were many disagreements in the Early Church, such as over the trinity and the incarnation, but this did not cause dissension.

Yes, well actually when the Catholic Church was created in the 4th century, there was plenty of dissension. The dissenters were executed by the heads of the new state religion as heretics. It's easy to avoid dissension when you kill everyone who disagrees. You guys also wanted to do that 500 years ago, but thankfully the Lord preserved the truth.


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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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


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 supremecy in any of the following verses:

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.

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;

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


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.

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.

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

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.
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?)
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.

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?


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:

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.



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.

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,

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.

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?

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.


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. 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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.


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:


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).

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?

"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).
* Acts talks about Paul more than about Peter.
* Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-14); nowhere in Scripture did Peter rebuke Paul.
* Paul cared for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).
* Paul was not behind any apostle (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Peter never made such a claim for himself.
* Paul wrote 3/4 of the New Testament books. Peter wrote only 2 little ones.
* Peter cited Paul's letters as authority (2 Peter 3:15,16), but Paul never cited Peter's letters as authority.
* Scripture expressly tells us Paul was in Rome, but never says Peter was there.
* Paul's labors exceeded those of other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:23).
Now if, despite all these facts, we properly conclude that Paul was not a Pope, then surely we can see that the evidence offered for Peter as Pope is equally unconvincing."


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

[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.

[James Dewitt]

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?

We never used candles, but have regular batteries for the radio, and rechargeable batteries that kept their charge for night lighting.

A former African witchdoctor who practiced witchcraft for over twenty years said that demons are attracted to the substance candles are made out of. Candles were a part of his witchcraft. It does not matter what color, shape, or smell they have. When lit, the smell of the candle also calls on another big time demon. Is it a wonder why the candle business is in the Billions of dollars a year! No wonder too that so many churches have candles all over the place.
Get rid of all your candles. You may just be getting rid of some of your problems. This also pertains to incense.
For those Bible researchers who read that "candles" were mentioned in the Bible, look in your Strong's concordance. The Original term is "lamp" "oil" or "oil lamp", NOT "candle". The menorah tradition goes back to 165 B.C. They did not use candles, but used oil.
After you get rid of the candles, command all the demons to leave you and your property, in the name of Jesus, JUST IN CASE.
What if the lights go out, you say? Use a flashlight!