[Levi Jones]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

Catechism the True Inspired Word of God that must be accepted 100% by all real Christians (aka Catholics).

The catlickism states.

The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.

Let's see what The Bible actually says on the matter.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13

He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life…John 5:24

He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9-10

Sorry, we don't need the man in the dress and the pointy hat for Salvation.

[James Peter]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

Matthew 16: 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

Matthew 16: 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

So true. Then Peter was called to Heaven. I'm not sure what your point is.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

Matthew 16: 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Congratulations! As a servant of the antichrist, you have been taught well by your satanic master! You have been taught to quote verses without the full context. However, we True Christians know better:

M't:16:15: He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
M't:16:16: And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
M't:16:17: And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
M't:16:18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
M't:16:19: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
M't:16:20: Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

The words in bold show what Jesus was saying, i.e. He would build a church upon the rock of the fact that He was, “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

He was not suggesting that Peter alone should be the church. What of the other disciples and why would he later recognize the fallibility of Peter? Note also Jesus says,

M't:16:23: But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Then, of course there is the fact that the word “pope” appears nowhere in the Bible. Peter was never pope, Peter never went to Rome, Peter did not create nor indicate papal succession thus creating a satanic dynasty and the pope is elected by men – men who had no Holy legitimacy and were not included in anything Jesus said – Jesus never said anything like, “And by the way Peter, have a vote to see who’ll take over when you buy the farm.”

The Church has no earthly head; Christ is the Church’s only foundation, in any possible sense of that term.

The papacy arose out of fifth- or sixth-century politics; it has no connection with the New Testament. At best the papacy is a con-trick; at worst, satanic. In any case, it is an institution designed to give the Catholic Church an authority it doesn’t have.

[James Peter]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

Your interpretation of that passage really makes no sense. Peter comes from Petros, the Latin word for Rock. According to the Bible, he was also called Cephas, the Greek for rock. Since the Bible was first written in Greek, and Peter was originally called Cephas, the passage would have sounded like this when Jesus spoke it "You are Cephas (rock), and on this Cephas (Rock) I shall build my church."

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

Catechism the True Inspired Word of God that must be accepted 100% by all real Christians (aka Catholics).

Are you even a Catholic to say something this stupid?

Do keep in mind many of us are ex-Catholics (as in escaped the bonds of Mary Worship).

[James Peter]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

So you are apostates and will burn in hell. It's just a shame we don't live in Medieval times when we knew how to take care of heretics like you.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

Your interpretation of that passage really makes no sense. Peter comes from Petros, the Latin word for Rock. According to the Bible, he was also called Cephas, the Greek for rock. Since the Bible was first written in Greek, and Peter was originally called Cephas, the passage would have sounded like this when Jesus spoke it "You are Cephas (rock), and on this Cephas (Rock) I shall build my church."

There are none as blind as those who will not see.

Jesus's words indicated the basis upon which Christianity was to flourish. i.e. That He was God. Show me how and where Ratslinger is a legitimate successor to anyone.

Tell me the story of the popes - the iniquitous, the covetous, the liars, the whoremongers, and tell me that they were the servants of God.

Tell me how the mother of whoredoms has changed her mind on matters of doctrine each and every year for political gain.

Tell me how transubstantiation has changed over the years.

But most of all, explain why in Babylon the bishops are not married!

1Tm:3:2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Tm:3:3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Tm:3:4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Tm:3:5: (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Now heed the words of Archbishop Ussher

[He]called a meeting of the Irish bishops in his house in November of 1626, the result being the "Judgement of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of Ireland". This begins: "The religion of the papists is superstitious and idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous and heretical; their church in respect of both, apostatical; to give them therefore a toleration, or to consent that they may freely exercise their religion, and profess their faith and doctrine, is a grievous sin."

That, my satanic minion, is God speaking through the Archbishop.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

So you are apostates and will burn in hell. It's just a shame we don't live in Medieval times when we knew how to take care of heretics like you.

Just come and try it pagan. That is why we live in a gated community, because of persecution from atheists and pagans like you.

Now run along and pray to your false goddess because Jesus is going to come soon and lay down some righteous judgment real soon.

[James Peter]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

There are none as blind as those who will not see.

Jesus's words indicated the basis upon which Christianity was to flourish. i.e. That He was God. Show me how and where Ratslinger is a legitimate successor to anyone.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9101fea2.asp

In view of the conservatism of all Christian groups at this time--that is, the vehement claims of all parties to be resisting innovation--the burden of proof would seem to lie with the historian who wishes to maintain that the idea of papal jurisdiction over the whole Church, recognized so widely by fifth-century conciliar fathers, was a novelty which would have been repudiated by their predecessors at Nicaea and Constantinople. Such a historian, I think, would find it difficult to discharge this burden of proof.

Tell me the story of the popes - the iniquitous, the covetous, the liars, the whoremongers, and tell me that they were the servants of God.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Tell me how the mother of whoredoms has changed her mind on matters of doctrine each and every year for political gain.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

In answering these questions, the Church facilitates the development or maturing of doctrines. The Blessed Virgin Mary models this process of coming to an ever deeper understanding of God’s revelation: "But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart" (Luke 2:19). It’s important to understand that the Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it "invent" new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been "once for all delivered to the saints." New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up.

Tell me how transubstantiation has changed over the years.

Transubstantiation (the teaching that during Mass, at the moment of consecration, the substance of the bread and wine becomes, through a miraculous change wrought by God’s grace, the substance of the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, though the appearances of bread and wine remain) is another example of a doctrine that had always been believed by the Church, but whose exact meaning was understood more clearly over time. In the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, the Eucharist is promised by Jesus. If this chapter is read in conjunction with the accounts of the Last Supper, it is easy to see why the first Christians knew that the bread and wine are transubstantiated into Christ’s actual body and blood. The Bible clearly says this change happens (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29), but it is silent about how it happens.

The technical theological term "transubstantiation" was not formally adopted by the Catholic Church until the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215. This was not the addition of a new doctrine, but was the Church’s way of defining what it had always taught on this subject in terms that would be so exact as to exclude all the incorrect explanations proposed over the years to explain what happens at the moment of consecration. Because people gave a lot of thought to the meaning and implications of Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, because they tried their best to draw true inferences from this true doctrine, and because not all of them were adept at that, disputes arose, and a formal definition by the Church became necessary.

But most of all, explain why in Babylon the bishops are not married!

1Tm:3:2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Tm:3:3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Tm:3:4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Tm:3:5: (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104sbs.asp

The point of Paul's teaching is not that a man must be married in order to be a bishop, but that a bishop may not be married more than once. If this passage meant that a bishop had to be married, Paul would have been in violation of his own rule (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 9:5). A rule forbidding a man to have more than one wife does not order him to have at least one. A man who never marries does not violate the rule. Also, Paul, being a bishop who ordained other men to be bishops (cf. 1 Tim. 1:6), would have been a hypocrite if he enjoined such a rule ("to be a bishop you must be married") and then, by his own admission (1 Cor. 7:8-9) ignored his own rule.

Now heed the words of Archbishop Ussher That, my satanic minion, is God speaking through the Archbishop.

So what do I care what he says? He isn't a CATHOLIC Archbishop, so he has no authority.

[Jenni111]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

[…] Such a historian, I think, would find it difficult to discharge this burden of proof.

Not really, even given your errant translation for political purposes, only Peter could have appointed successors – there is nothing to show that the conclave “is Peter”

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously.

Yes, that’s what I did, relying upon 2nd Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2nd Corinthians 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example.

That last sentence – bullseye!

New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up.

I’m sure this is a great comfort to those whose beliefs had they put to death yet now who are forgiven for the Church has “cleared up some obscurities.”

Transubstantiation [waffle deleted] The Bible clearly says this change happens (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29), but it is silent about how it happens.

Easton’s Bible Dictionary: Communion: fellowship with God (Gen. 18:17-33; Ex. 33:9-11; Num. 12:7, 8),

between Christ and his people (John 14:23), by the Spirit (2Cor. 13:14; Phil. 2:1), of believers with one another (Eph.4:1-6). The Lord's Supper is so called (1 Cor. 10:16, 17),because in it there is fellowship between Christ and his disciples, and of the disciples with one another.

It is about communing – not about fermented grapes turning to hemoglobin…

The point of Paul's teaching is not that a man must be married in order to be a bishop, but that a bishop may not be married more than once.

Have you got a different bible to me – I have KJV1611.

If this passage meant that a bishop had to be married,

Yes, I admit, A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife is confusing particularly bearing in mind, 1Tm:3:4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Tm:3:5: (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
But then I suppose a lot of Catholic Bishops have children...

Paul would have been in violation of his own rule(1 Cor. 7:7-8, 9:5)

Can you show me where Paul was a bishop? […]

Also, Paul, being a bishop who ordained other men to be bishops (cf. 1 Tim. 1:6),

1Tm:1:6: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; ???

[James Peter]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

Your persecution and mockery of the late Holy Father only proves that he is a child of God.

[Christiansoldier]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

Your persecution and mockery of the late Holy Father only proves that he is a child of God.

How am I not suprised you can't come up with any real arguements? You're getting demolished by a pretty lady who only has to use pictures !

[Levi Jones]

Re: Why Protestant Stooges Are NOT Christians!

Your persecution and mockery of the late Holy Father only proves that he is a child of God.

Jimmy Peter,
It's nice how you ducked the entire question of Peter having never been in Rome nor ever personally setting up a succession system for the entire church.

Now, I thoroughly expect you to copy and paste something from here or come up with some quip like,

Where does it say he didn't?
\

Don't disappoint me, boy.