It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simon Peter and Apostolic Succession

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
One of the pillars that the Rome Catholic Church states that they are the first and true church of Christ that had there beginning from the apostle Peter. They claim that the line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. In its concrete form, apostolic succession is the line of bishops that goes from Rome stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops claim to have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles; specifically the apostle Simon Peter who is stated to be the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in The Bible.

Today, as we look at The Bible and the Roman Catholic Church we can see that there are many differences concerning doctrine. These differences are not a simple misunderstanding but at times appear to be the complete opposite of The Bible. When one studies out the major differences between the Church of Rome and The Bible it is not difficult to see that they have not preserved the doctrine of Christ or The Bible. If anyone were to study such subjects as infant baptism, the mass, Immaculate Conception of Mary, eternal torment in hell, graven images, or the Sunday Sabbath they would not be able to support these ideas from The Bible. In fact, as stated earlier, these doctrines are completely opposite of The Bible. These ideas and practices have their roots in Paganism and Babylonian religions.

Where did the departure of simple Bible truth enter the church? Like any seeker of truth, let’s go back to the beginning to see where these false doctrines came into the church. With the claim of apostolic succession, we’ll go back to the apostle Peter himself and see how the departing of the truth came to be. When we look in The Bible there is no recorded of the apostle ever being in Rome much less being the head of the church. There are countless supposed historical accounts that Peter was in Rome but they all come from Catholic sources and are not first hand accounts. The earliest accounts are of Catholic fathers but even they do not agree with The Bible. So let’s look to The Bible and see why the apostle Peter was never in Rome and couldn’t be the founder of the Roman Catholic Church.

Below are eleven major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. These biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive!

PROOF ONE: We should consider Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles.

"The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:7-8).

Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN’T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] 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" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."

PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."

PAUL Established the Only TRUE Church at Rome during the apostolic era.

PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter –who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.

PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. Peter Not in Rome

PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn’t there!

PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter’s meeting with Paul.

Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!

PROOF SEVEN: When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ‘‘as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn’t.

Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. No Mention of Peter in Paul’s Letters

PROOF EIGHT: After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn’t there!

PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paul’s two year’s imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul’s trial, is untenable!

PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!

PROOF ELEVEN: Peter’s death is foretold by Christ himself (John 21:18-19.) “. When you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Hmm, it sounds like Christ himself said that Peter would die of old age. Why would Peter’s death in old age glorify God? Peter was the one that ran from Christ the night of his trial and crucifixion. This exchange is after Christ rose from the tomb and Peter was forgiven three times, just as he denied his master three times before the cock crowed that fateful night of Christ’s trial.

Where was Peter the apostle of Christ? At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows that he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention to God’s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!

Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.

At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. As previously mentioned there are many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome but none of them are first hand accounts and should not be put above the many accounts of The Bible.

We know from The Bible that the apostle Peter was not in Rome. There was a Simon Peter in Rome after the death of Christ but it is not the apostle Peter that was a fisherman from Jerusalem. Who is this Simon Peter that was in Rome during the middle of the first century? This is how the great false Church of Rome got its start; along with the first leader Simon Peter not the apostle Peter.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by orangeman dave
 


You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Peter was the keeper of the rites, the Jewish heritage and tradition and apostolic succession. All the apostles and Paul served as priests, or as we would understand modern day bishops, extending that apostolic succession forward.

Sts. Peter and Paul were both called to serve and both did in ways that were nearly superhuman in their tenacity and strength. If you are a believer this is proof of the intercession of the Holy Spirit guiding them as it still does us to this day. Your revisionist history had a flavor of bitterness and condemnation, which is very difficult to understand, when you undoubtedly understand the good works both men brought for for Christendom through their work. When you condemn the Catholic church you are condemning the decisions of St. Peter, St. Paul, the apostles and the great bishops who attended the Council of Nicea.

Rewriting who the first pope should have been is in line with saying Constantine was not really the leader of the Holy Roman Empire. Get over yourself. Greater scholars than we have proven the exact opposite of your premise. It is the history of the western world.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


Yes If you believe this you are gullible their is not a shread of evidence oh i forgot they opened up the vault but didn't let any of the outside world see.

The Epistle written to the Romans warned them about the heresies that would rise up from within that church and they have all came to pass. In Romans 1 they are warned about exalting the creature above the Creator, and that as a result of creature-worship God would give them up to uncleaness, verse 24, vile affections and unnatural lusts, verse 26, and eventually over to a reprobate mind, verse 28. The Cult of Rome worship Mary the creature and the Unholy Usurper who dares to call himself the 'Holy Father' and the recent revelations coming out of Ireland has exposed their filthiness and their fornication and perversity for all the world to see. Indeed she made the Irish to drink her Babylonian wine as the Agents of Rome have committed horrible fornication against Irish women and kids throughout that country, Revelation 17 v 2-3, and she is indeed become the habitation of devils, the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird, Revelation 18 v 2.

In Romans 3 the Apostle Paul outlines the doctrine of Total Depravity, verses 9-18, and the Cult of Rome in the Council of Trent pronounces curses upon those who teach and believe in that doctrine which is clearly taught throughout the Scriptures. The doctrine of Justification by Faith is also clearly taught in chapter 3, verses 19-28, and the Cult of Rome pronounces curses upon God's people who know that their only hope before God is in the Lord Jesus Christ as He is revealed in the scriptures. The self-righteous popeheads have no understanding of sin and corruption and of what they are by conception by birth and by nature so they don't need the Son of God as the One Mediator between God and Man.

In Romans 4 Paul outlines the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness without works, verse 6, and again Rome pronounces curses upon God's people who know that they have no righteousness of their own and that they need Christ's Perfect Righteousness given to them to make them acceptable to God. This chapter clearly teaches that Old Testament saints were saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Christ Alone, verses 13-16, and again the Cult of Rome pronounces curses upon those who hold to these Gospel Truths. The bead-beaters think that rattling a few beads and saying a few prayers and abstaining from lawful sexual pleasure and meat on a friday makes them righteous before God.

In Romans 5 we are taught about the fall of man and that we all fell in Adam and how that Christ came as the Second Adam as the Federal Head and Representative of God's Elect but the Cult of Rome pronounces curses upon those who believe that Christ is the Representative of chosen men and chosen women. The bead-rattlers worship the Pope and they want the Pope to be their Representative and they think that God will accept the Anti-Christ but the scriptures teach that God will only accept those represented by His Son,the Second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ as He is revealed in the scriptures.

In Roman 7 we are taught that God's Elect are men and women who have two natures, and that in our sinful flesh dwelleth no good thing, verse 18, and that we have a continual struggle with sin and corruption, 14-25, as the flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit lusteth against the flesh but despite our horrible evils the Lord Jesus Christ will eventually deliver us from this body of death. The Cult of Rome denounces those who hold to these truths as heretics as she teaches that it is possible to reach a state of Sinless Perfection while we live upon this earth but the truth is Rome's teaching is heretical and totally foreign to the scriptures.

In Romans 8 we are taught the Absolute Sovereignty of God, verse 28, the doctrine of Predestination, verse 29, and that God has chosen His people and that God has justified His people, verse 33, and that nothing will separate God from His people, verses 34-39. The Cult of Rome pronounces curses upon those who believe in Predestination and those who believe in Election and upon those who believe in the Preservation and Perseverance of the Saints.

In Romans 9 the Apostle Paul deals with the matter of Free-Will and that salvation is not dependant upon man's will but God's Will, verse 15, and before Jacob and Esau were even born God had set His love upon Jacob, verse 11, and it is God's right as God to make vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath, verse 21-23. The Cult of Rome promotes Free-Willism as Free-Willism is at the very core of their teaching and she pronounces curses upon those who believe in the Sovereignty of God in Salvation and that Salvation is dependant upon God's Sovereign Will and not man's puny free-will.

In Romans 11 we are taught that salvation is altogether the work of God's Free Grace and that man's works have nothing whatsoever to do with the Grace of God, verse 6, and that God will give His Free Grace to His Elect, verse 7, and when all is said and done God's Spiritual Israel gathered in from both the Jews and the Gentiles will all be saved, verse 26. Yet again the Cult of Rome detests such teaching as they promote Free-Will/Works religion and that is why they are arrogant and full of pride and self-righteousness and their hatred of God's Free Grace causes them to pronounce curses upon the Elect of God who believe God's Truth.

The Cult of Rome has butchered God's Elect for hundreds of years and she has mass-murdered so many she is said to be drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, Revelation 17 v 6. The martyred saints are crying out for Venegeance, Revelation 6 v 9-11, and it appears that God is taking His time in avenging His slaughtered sheep, Luke 18 v 6-7, but when His time comes He will avenge them speedily, verse 8. God will turn the hearts of the nations against Rome, Revelation 17 v 16-18, and He will bring her to ruin in a very short space of time, Revelation 18, and when He utterly destroys her the whole of God's Elect in heaven will rejoice, Revelation 19.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
The holy roman catholic church evolved from the all the pagan religions rome practiced at the time. Constantine backed christianity as a way of "going with the flow". It was groing with tenacity, and he thought he'd better pick the strong religion, make it official, and make himself look good.
The popes and those in power that backed them, changed doctrines constantly throughout the ages. It comes down to power, control, money, etc.., whatever it takes to keep the gold and silk coming.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by orangeman dave
 


Nice work. I completely agree (not that agreeing is the issue...its right there in the book) with all of this. Jesus' church is supposed to be one that exalts the power of God and His closeness to us, not not to mention one to reform thr Jewish church first and foremost. To me, even having a pope dressed in expensive clothes in an expensive mansion presiding over all sounds like a king of men, not a profit of God. Save the speaches of liars; ill take the red letters over any man's words or doctrines.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   


One of the pillars that the Rome Catholic Church states that they are the first and true church of Christ that had there beginning from the apostle Peter.

The beginning came from Jesus Christ, not Peter. Or more correctly, the Holy Trinity - God, Son, and Holy Ghost.



Today, as we look at The Bible and the Roman Catholic Church we can see that there are many differences concerning doctrine. These differences are not a simple misunderstanding but at times appear to be the complete opposite of The Bible.


Complete opposite of the Bible? Considering the billions of dollars in relief, charitable works, and missionary work that Catholic charities give throughout the world - including charity work to some of the most impoverished areas of the world - this sure seems to be quite a bold, blanket statement.



When one studies out the major differences between the Church of Rome and The Bible it is not difficult to see that they have not preserved the doctrine of Christ or The Bible.


Let's see.. They run most of the major soup kitchens across our major metro areas. They run thousands of private schools, colleges, and universities to educate our young. They send missionaries to remote places of the world where no other government or charitable organization would even consider attempting to help. Most of their monks and nuns run completely self-sufficient organizations without government assistance of any kind whatsoever. They fight for peace during most wars - Heck, even the Pope officially came out against the Iraq war for crying out loud.

How exactly have they - the Catholic Church - not preserved Christ's core teaching, which is to "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you?" Have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is right in line with Biblical teaching?



If anyone were to study such subjects as infant baptism, the mass, Immaculate Conception of Mary, eternal torment in hell, graven images, or the Sunday Sabbath they would not be able to support these ideas from The Bible. In fact, as stated earlier, these doctrines are completely opposite of The Bible.


Baptism - This is most definitely in the Bible, as evidenced by John the Baptist's baptizing of the Jesus Christ in the New Testament. The only reason why Catholics advocate infant baptism is to try to save the soul of a young one at as early an age as possible. This has Jewish roots - Jesus' parents Mary and Joseph presented Jesus in the Temple shortly after Jesus was born.

The Mass? Do you not recall Jesus stating to "Do this in memory of me" when he broke the bread at the Last Supper? The Mass is completely centered around this spiritual act, as demonstrated by Christ himself at the Last Supper. This was a direct command from Christ himself to institute the sacrifice of the Mass. Going back even further, into the Old Testament, there are countless acts of sacrifice to God - even back to the time of Moses.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is in the New Testament as well.

Catholics don't worship "graven images", statues, or the Pope, by the way. Catholics worship the Holy Trinity.

Do some research on the Sabbath, and why it was changed from the traditional Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath), to Sunday, as the early Church Fathers decreed.

Don't believe in eternal damnation, eh? Well, I hope you enjoy telling that to your Creator on the day you pass away from this world and face final judgment. It certainly will be a false charge you will regret for all eternity.



Where did the departure of simple Bible truth enter the church?


The Catholic Church is as close to the original Church as you will find anywhere on the planet. Especially if you attend a traditional Mass in Latin. There is no "departure from simple Biblical truth" as you indicate.



When we look in The Bible there is no recorded of the apostle ever being in Rome much less being the head of the church.


Jesus Christ himself named Peter as his first successor. It really doesn't matter where Peter was located at the time, or in future times. Jesus called Peter, "the Rock", on which the Church would be built. Paul (formerly Saul) made great strides in spreading Christianity, even to the Gentiles.



So let’s look to The Bible and see why the apostle Peter was never in Rome and couldn’t be the founder of the Roman Catholic Church.


Again, see my comment above. Christ himself charged Peter to be his first successor.


PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.


Peter was the successor to Jesus Christ, and given this succession by Christ himself. Place - whether in Rome, Jerusalem, or Timbuktoo - does not negate this fact.

Regardless, Peter - after breaking free from prison in Jerusalem - traveled extensively. He died in Rome.

If you want details on his travels, and several details regarding his latter days in Rome, here is a great article from the Catholic Encyclopedia with extensive supporting documentation:

www.newadvent.org...



Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!


Certainly, you are smart enough to realize that the Roman Catholic Church was not organized in the same manner and to the degree of recognition as in modern times (priests, cardinals, bishops, etc.). Peter was the successor to Jesus Christ - the first successor at the infancy of the Church. In today's vernacular, we might call him a "Bishop of Rome". He didn't wear regal attire at time - I think that's a fair statement.

St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   


The Cult of Rome worship Mary the creature and the Unholy Usurper who dares to call himself the 'Holy Father' and the recent revelations coming out of Ireland has exposed their filthiness and their fornication and perversity for all the world to see. Indeed she made the Irish to drink her Babylonian wine as the Agents of Rome have committed horrible fornication against Irish women and kids throughout that country, Revelation 17 v 2-3, and she is indeed become the habitation of devils, the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird, Revelation 18 v 2.


First, it's called the Roman Catholic Church, not the "cult of Rome" as you put it. Secondly, Mary is the Mother of God, not a "creature". The Pope is not an "Unholy Usurper" - he is the uninterrupted successor and leader of Jesus Christ's Church.

As far as "fornications and perversities", you ought to be careful about categorizing and indiscriminately labeling many devout Catholics worldwide who are not engaged in these depravities. In any institution - church, synagogue, military, government, schools, etc. - you will have sin. We all sin - regardless of our faith.

The Catholic Church is not the "habitation of devils" as you indicate. First, you provide no evidence. Secondly, your rant reads like a diatribe by a zealot with an agenda. You are, quite simply, not making your case.




The bead-beaters think that rattling a few beads and saying a few prayers and abstaining from lawful sexual pleasure and meat on a friday makes them righteous before God.


You need some anger management counseling. Easy, tiger.



The bead-rattlers worship the Pope


In a word, no. This is completely untrue. I can't think of a Catholic anywhere that "worships" the Pope. They worship the Holy Trinity, not the Pope. Since when is anger and hostility a Christian trait? You harbor a lot of unfounded hatred and resentment towards Catholicism.

One more thing - You might try reading some of the many works of the current Pope Benedict. He has written extensively on various spiritual matters. What you "claim" the Church teaches, it does not:

Example:



In Romans 11 we are taught that salvation is altogether the work of God's Free Grace and that man's works have nothing whatsoever to do with the Grace of God,


Yes, salvation comes from the grace of God. If you think for a moment, however, that you can disobey the Ten Commandments because you are one of the "chosen", and disregard God's Laws in general because "man's works have nothing whatsoever to do with the Grace of God", you are in for a rude awakening.

This is why the Catholic Church advocates avoiding sin, and following a straight and narrow path of religious prayer, Mass, confession, etc. The Church has never negated "God's Grace" - instead, it definitely believes that God saves sinners, but that does not entitle the sinner to live a carefree life of sin, murder, and mayhem because "God will forgive".

Another example:



The Cult of Rome promotes Free-Willism as Free-Willism is at the very core of their teaching and she pronounces curses upon those who believe in the Sovereignty of God in Salvation and that Salvation is dependant upon God's Sovereign Will and not man's puny free-will.


Where on Earth does the Catholic Church teach a doctrine of free will? Since when has the Church condemned those that believe in the sovereignty of God?

This teaching - as you allegedly claim - is not found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and is most definitely NOT Church teaching. The Church believes that the Holy Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - are the ultimate sovereign authority over all of humanity.

Yet another:



The Cult of Rome denounces those who hold to these truths as heretics as she teaches that it is possible to reach a state of Sinless Perfection while we live upon this earth but the truth is Rome's teaching is heretical and totally foreign to the scriptures.


I have never, ever read that the Church believes that a human can reach a state of "Sinless Perfection". In fact, if anything, the Church teaches that it is impossible to live a perfect life without sin - Hence, the need for regular Confession, prayer, Mass, etc. The only "Sinless Perfection" that ever walked the Earth was Jesus Christ. I can assure you that the Catholic Church is well-known for inculcating guilt for even the smallest of sins in most Catholics that follow the faith, with constant reminders of humanity's imperfections and sinful state.



The Cult of Rome has butchered God's Elect for hundreds of years and she has mass-murdered so many she is said to be drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, Revelation 17 v 6.


You must be confusing the Catholic Church with pro-abortionists. In fact, the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the only religious organization that I ever hear that publicly denounces abortion.

Who is the Church "butchering" exactly? Are you referring to the Crusades or other religious wars of ages past? The Church of today has no army.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by CookieMonster09]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
The chatolic church worships Mary as a deity. She deserves no worship. All the glory goes to God.

The chatolic church does not even know who God is. They worship "the holy trinity." Which is foolish.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is ONE Lord.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

Peter knew that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was Jesus Christ. So therefore, if he founded the chatolic church. They would know that as well. He was not declared to be the first pope until two hundred years after his death. I am sorry to say, there are going to be a lot of chatolics sitting around after the rapture, wondering what happened.

The chatolic Bible is dangerous business...

(KJV)Revelation 22:
18 For I testify unto every man that hearth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the word of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by daysofnoe
The chatolic church worships Mary as a deity. She deserves no worship. All the glory goes to God.

The chatolic church does not even know who God is. They worship "the holy trinity." Which is foolish.


Is the term 'chatolic' a typo or some abstruse insult?

The Catholic Church does not worship Mary, nor does it encourage it's members to do so.

If you have any questions about this or any other Catholic position, I would refer you to the Catechism, which can be found free and online here:

www.vatican.va...

Would it be safe to assume that you do not believe in the Holy Trinity?

Eric



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
It was a miss spelling on my part. I am not the best speller.... My stepdad was a catholic growing up. They worship Mary with 'Hail Marys'. Praying to her as if she has the power to answer them. Having statues of the virgin Mary, is also worship.

I thank you, but I do not desire to learn any more than what I know about the catholic church.

And yes, I believe wholly on the oneness of God, that Jesus Christ is the Lord.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I see a lot of false comments about the Catholic Church in general and the Pope. For all those bigots who hate the Church and its followers, I strongly recommend Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A scriptural handbook on the Papacy by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess.

Stop the hate, stop the bigotry and inform yourselves before spitting out false, hateful and ignorant comments.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by daysofnoe
It was a miss spelling on my part. I am not the best speller.... My stepdad was a catholic growing up. They worship Mary with 'Hail Marys'. Praying to her as if she has the power to answer them. Having statues of the virgin Mary, is also worship.

I thank you, but I do not desire to learn any more than what I know about the catholic church.

And yes, I believe wholly on the oneness of God, that Jesus Christ is the Lord.


Intercession is the keyword.

We, Catholics, DO NOT WORSHIP MARY



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by daysofnoe
It was a miss spelling on my part. I am not the best speller.... My stepdad was a catholic growing up. They worship Mary with 'Hail Marys'. Praying to her as if she has the power to answer them. Having statues of the virgin Mary, is also worship.

I thank you, but I do not desire to learn any more than what I know about the catholic church.

And yes, I believe wholly on the oneness of God, that Jesus Christ is the Lord.


Thanks for the quick reply!

I understand your desire not to learn more about the Catholic Church if you believe that it teaches a deceptive gospel. I would, however, respectfully suggest that you attempt to corroborate what you believe that you already know. You might be surprised to learn that the Church does not teach something that you thought it did.

You might be surprised to learn that the (imho) most important part of the Hail Mary is the request that Mary pray for us. You are absolutely correct that Mary, by herself, can not do anything for us except pray. And that is what we ask of her in the Hail Mary.

This brings to mind the question of whether or not the departed in Christ can hear your entreaties, which is a reasonable and legitimate debate, but it certainly isn't worship.

Eric



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   


The catholic church worships Mary as a deity.


Mary is the Mother of God. She is not worshiped as a deity in the Catholic Church.

Catholics do say the prayer, "Hail Mary", but she is not worshiped as a deity. Instead, she is shown reverence, praise, and thanksgiving for being the Mother of our Lord - a very special, and unique blessing and calling.

The prayer, "Hail Mary" is a prayer praising Mary's humility, grace, and her unique calling by the Lord to be the Mother of Christ. The prayer goes on to call on her to pray for all sinners - both now, and at the time of our death.

She is never referred to as God, Deity, or the Supreme Being. In fact, I would challenge you to show me anywhere in the Catholic Catechism that explicitly or implicitly states that Mary is worshiped as a Deity. You will find no such thing in the Catechism.



The catholic church does not even know who God is. They worship "the holy trinity."


Untrue. The Holy Trinity consists of God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

God the Father is well-established in the Old Testament. He sent his only Son, Jesus Christ, as our Lord, Savior, and Redeemer. The Holy Ghost came upon the Apostles as flames or tongues of fire, and stayed with the Apostles when Christ ascended to heaven and could no longer be with his disciples on Earth.

Just because you don't understand the mystery of the Holy Trinity, does not mean that Catholics don't "know who God is". A ridiculous claim.




Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is ONE Lord.


This is the Old Testament. Not the New Testament. Luke 3: 21-22:

"21 Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened; 22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon him; and a voice came from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

God acknowledged, through the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape in the form of a dove, that Jesus Christ was his beloved Son.



He was not declared to be the first pope until two hundred years after his death.


No. Jesus Christ himself appointed Peter as his successor and leader of the Church, long before 200 years had passed.



The catholic Bible is dangerous business...


Which Catholic Bible exactly? There are several. Do you even speak or read Latin, Hebrew, Greek?

What makes you an authority on the Bible?

I assume you have some formal credentials from an accredited university in Theology, right? What are your credentials then?



Having statues of the virgin Mary, is also worship.


No. A statue, in and of itself, is not an act of worship. It is a symbol.

No Catholic worships statues - That would be ridiculous. Statues are simple reminders and symbols - nothing more.



My stepdad was a catholic growing up.


Bingo. I think this explains the reason for your hatred and bigotry. Go seek professional counseling and stop blaming Catholicism for your anger.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09


My stepdad was a catholic growing up.


Bingo. I think this explains the reason for your hatred and bigotry. Go seek professional counseling and stop blaming Catholicism for your anger.



WHAT?!?!? HAHAHAHHA You are funny. I made a simple statement explaining my knowledge of the catholic faith. I have NO hatred. I am certainly not a bigot in any sense. Your last sentence does not even make any sense, so I have no idea how to respond to it, other than I have been in a catholic church once in my life, when I was like 8, before my mother was married. I am free from anger, because the Lord is not the author of anger. I did not believe in God for so long in my life, and I did not blame religion for it. But, this year I was filled with the Holy Ghost and blessed with truth.

If we are quoting Jesus: "My Father and I are ONE."


The Holy Ghost is the presance of God that dwells with one. Like in the OT when the Tabernacle would fill with the a cloud. He came so that we could go beyond the veil and be in the presance of God ourselves. The saints are the sons of God. Jesus was "the only begotten of God" which does not claim that He was the son of God. Jesus called on The Father so much, because He was guiding us in the way we should conversate with the Him. We are supposed to live like Jesus. Calling upon the Father, who was the son of man. The Holy Spirit was around when David wrote the Palsms. Because the Holy Ghost is Jesus is God and they all are one and forever.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   


I made a simple statement explaining my knowledge of the catholic faith. I have NO hatred. I am certainly not a bigot in any sense.


I beg to differ. Here's what you said:

"The catholic church does not even know who God is. They worship "the holy trinity." Which is foolish."

"The catholic Bible is dangerous business..."

"They worship Mary with 'Hail Marys'. Praying to her as if she has the power to answer them. Having statues of the virgin Mary, is also worship."

How else would you explain these bigoted, anti-Catholic statements?



Because the Holy Ghost is Jesus is God and they all are one and forever.

I thought you stated that you didn't believe in the Holy Trinity. You're changing your tune.



The saints are the sons of God. Jesus was "the only begotten of God" which does not claim that He was the son of God.


Jesus was the Son of God. Not the saints.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
You should re-read the quote that was left right above where I said, I was making a simple statement. I was not talking about my whole post being a simple statement.

I am anti-religion is you want to know the truth of it. My life is about a relationship with God, not religious veiws.

I am not changing my tune. Jesus is The Father and The Holy Ghost is Jesus. They are ONE.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

1John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   


You should re-read the quote that was left right above where I said, I was making a simple statement. I was not talking about my whole post being a simple statement.


I don't care whether you call your derogatory statements against the Catholic Church "simple" or not - They are insulting and disrespectful, and could easily be labeled hate speech.



I am not changing my tune. Jesus is The Father and The Holy Ghost is Jesus. They are ONE.


First, you insult Catholics by making fun that they believe in the Holy Trinity. Then you turn around and say that you believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as being one and the same - i.e., the Holy Trinity.

So which is it? Do you believe in the Holy Trinity and retract your insult, or not? And I quote:

"The catholic church does not even know who God is. They worship "the holy trinity." Which is foolish."



John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name


Buddy, there is a massive difference between the Son of God - Jesus Christ (that is, "Son" with a capital "S"), and "sons of God" (with a lower case "s'"). If you don't know or understand the difference, I suggest you ask a priest who can properly inform you.

And I quote:

"Jesus was "the only begotten of God" which does not claim that He was the son of God."

Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior. The saints don't even come close to this category of spirituality.

I repeat: Jesus in THE "Son of God". The saints are not the "Son of God". The saints might aptly be called "sons of God", but they are not THE "Son of God". Only Christ can properly be titled the one and only "Son of God".

[edit on 10-8-2009 by CookieMonster09]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Trinity means three. I believe in the ONEness of Jesus the Lord God.

Hate speech... I repeat, YOU ARE FUNNY.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join