Who is the Whore of babylon

[Marymog]

The number of parishes and priests has fallen dramatically in the US.

As well remember all this data is from a Catholic source.

How many Roman Catholics are there in the world?
View attachment 5254

The number of parishes and priests has fallen dramatically in the US.

As well remember all this data is from a Catholic source.

How many Roman Catholics are there in the world?
View attachment 5254

Your original statement just said "Catholicism". Did you mean Catholicism in the US? Did you miss-speak?

Mary

 

[CoreIssue]

Your original statement just said "Catholicism". Did you mean Catholicism in the US? Did you miss-speak?

Mary

My group, nondenominational, is the fastest-growing. Why, because we reject denominational doctrine and are Bible only.

So now, I did not misspeak.

Europe is walking away even faster than the US.

 

[Marymog]

My group, nondenominational, is the fastest-growing. Why, because we reject denominational doctrine and are Bible only.

So now, I did not misspeak.

Europe is walking away even faster than the US.View attachment 5255

Lol.....OK CoreIssue!!

You NOW want to talk about Catholicism in the United States ONLY and pretend you didn't say "Catholicism" (singular which means world wide). That's fine.....I didn't expect you to admit you miss-spoke. Pride is a hard thing to overcome.

Scripture clearly sets up a hierarchal Church. Does your "Bible only" church adhere to this teaching in Scripture?

Since there was no Bible for many years until after Jesus died how did the Christians during that time frame of NO BIBLE have a "Bible only" church?

Curious Mary

 

[CoreIssue]

Lol.....OK CoreIssue!!

You NOW want to talk about Catholicism in the United States ONLY and pretend you didn't say "Catholicism" (singular which means world wide). That's fine.....I didn't expect you to admit you miss-spoke. Pride is a hard thing to overcome.

Scripture clearly sets up a hierarchal Church. Does your "Bible only" church adhere to this teaching in Scripture?

Since there was no Bible for many years until after Jesus died how did the Christians during that time frame of NO BIBLE have a "Bible only" church?

Curious Mary

After Scandals, Ireland Is No Longer 'Most Catholic Country In The World'

After Scandals, Ireland Is No Longer 'Most Catholic Country In The World'

All the letters and books of the Bible were being copied and distributed since Old Testament times.

Bible simply means they were brought together in one binding.

The Catholic Church did not create the Bible.

Take the blinders off.

Europe is very secular. The Asian countries never liked Catholicism to start with.

 

[Marymog]

After Scandals, Ireland Is No Longer 'Most Catholic Country In The World'

After Scandals, Ireland Is No Longer 'Most Catholic Country In The World'

All the letters and books of the Bible were being copied and distributed since Old Testament times.

Bible simply means they were brought together in one binding.

The Catholic Church did not create the Bible.

Take the blinders off.

Europe is very secular. The Asian countries never liked Catholicism to start with.

Oh....Now we are moving onto Ireland as evidence?

Soooo here is what it boils down to with all your dancing and weaving and dodging.......you just can't acknowledge the FACT that Catholicism is NOT in decline? You want to point out the places it is in decline and disregard all the places it is increasing which OVERALL shows no decline?
Your killing me...with laughter;)

When was the Bible brought together in one binding? Who decided the table of contents? If the CC didn't "create" the bible, who did?

Curious Mary

BTW.....I agree with you that the CC didn't create the bible.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Stop posting Catholic claims. I've heard them already over the years as well as the disproofs.
You cannot post a single verse that ever says Peter was in Rome. Not one.
With Paul so active in Rome why does he ever mention Peter being there?
Post manuscript evidence from non-Catholic sources stating Peter was ever in Rome. You cannot.
In fact Peter wanted nothing to do with Gentiles.

Peter had to die and be buried somewhere; and the OVERWHELMING CHRISTIAN TRADITION has been in agreement, from the EARLIEST TIMES, that it was actually in Rome that Peter died.
F. J. Foakes-Jackson, in his book Peter: Prince of Apostles, states "that the tradition that the church [in Rome] had been founded by...Paul was well established by A.D. 178. From hence forth there is NO DOUBT whatever that, NOT ONLY AT ROME, but throughout the Christian church, Peter's visit to the city was an ESTABLISHED FACT, as was his martyrdom together with that of Paul" (New York, 1927. P. 155.).

Historian Arthur Stapylton Barnes agrees:
The strong point in the evidence of the [church] fathers is their UNANIMITY. It is QUITE CLEAR that no other place was known to them as claiming to have been the scene of St. Peter's death, and the repository of his relics. -- St. Peter in Rome, London, 1900. P. 7.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge corroborates this by saying:
Tradition seems to maintain that Peter went to Rome toward the end of his life and there suffered martyrdom UNDER NERO. NO SOURCE describes the place of Peter's martyrdom as other than Rome. It seems most probable, on the whole, that Peter died a martyr's death IN ROME TOWARD THE CLOSE OF NERO'S REIGN, sometime AFTER the cessation of the general persecution. -- Article, "Peter."

John Ignatius Dollinger claims that the evidence "St. Peter worked in Rome is a FACT SO ABUNDANTLY PROVED and so deeply imbedded in the earliest Christian history, that whoever treats it as a legend ought in consistency to treat the whole of the earliest church history as LEGENDARY, or, at least, QUITE UNCERTAIN" (The 1st Age of Christianity and the Church, London. 1867. P. 296).

As author James Hardy Ropes states:
The tradition, however, that Peter came to Rome, and suffered martyrdom under Nero (54-68 A.D.) either in the great persecution which followed the burning of the city or somewhat later, rests on a different and FIRMER basis....It is UNQUESTIONED that 150 years after Peter's death it was the COMMON BELIEF at Rome that he had died there, as had Paul. The "trophies" of the two great apostles could be seen on the Vatican Hill and by the Ostian Way...a firm local tradition of the death at Rome of both apostles is attested for a time NOT TOO DISTANT FROM THE EVENT. -- The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism. New York. 1908. Pp. 215-216.

The belief that Peter was martyred in Rome was NOT due to the vanity or ambition of the LOCAL Christians, but was ADMITTED, at an early date, THROUGHOUT THE CHURCH. No testimony later than the middle of the 3rd century really needs to be considered; by this time the Roman church claimed to have the body of the apostle and NO ONE DISPUTED THE FACT.

It is more than interesting to realize that there IS NOT ONE SINGLE PASSAGE or utterance to the contrary in ANY of the literary works dealing with the foundations of Christianity -- until AFTER the Reformation. Don't you think that's odd? Don't you think SOMEONE would have seized upon this claim of Rome, and used it as a point of contention if there were ANY doubt at all regarding its validity? Don't you think the eastern churches would have gotten UNLIMITED PROPAGANDA MILEAGE out of this claim if it were not true? For centuries the eastern churches were in almost CONSTANT conflict with Rome over Easter, the Sabbath, and many other doctrinal issues. If they could have seized upon Rome's claim that Peter had worked and died there, they SURELY would have used this against the Roman church! But they didn't. WHY? Because there was ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER about Rome being the site of Peter's death!

Adds William McBirnie:
We certainly do not even have the slightest reference that points to any other place besides Rome which could be considered as the scene of his death. And in favor of Rome, there are important traditions that he did actually die in Rome. In the second and third centuries when certain churches were in rivalry with those in Rome it never occurred to a single one of them to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. -- The Search for the Twelve Apostles. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois. 1973. P. 64.

Unger's Bible Dictionary states unequivocally that "the evidence for his [Peter's] martyrdom there [in Rome] is COMPLETE, while there is a TOTAL ABSENCE of any contrary statement in the writings of the early fathers" (3rd Edition, Chicago. 1960. P. 850).

George Edmundson, in his book The Church in Rome in the 1st Century, dogmatically repeats the same conclusion:
We do not have even the SLIGHTEST TRACE that points to any other place which could be considered as the scene of his [Peter's] death....It is a further important point that in the second and third centuries, when certain churches were in rivalry with the one in Rome, IT NEVER OCCURRED TO A SINGLE ONE OF THEM to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. Indeed, even MORE can be said; precisely in the east, as is clear from the pseudo-Clementine writings and the Petrine legends, above all those that deal with Peter's conflict with Simon the magician [Magus] THE TRADITION OF THE ROMAN RESIDENCE OF PETER HAD A PARTICULARLY STRONG HOLD. -- London. 1913. Pp. 114-115.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I didn't ask you to prove to me the "catholic church" goes back to Peter. I said the "RCC" (Roman Catholic Church). They are NOT the same no matter how much you want them to be. When Peter was supposedly commissioned as the first Pope (a lie) there were no believers in Rome. The Roman church came sometime later. The church at Rome that Paul wrote to was NOT the Roman Catholic Church either.

And this shows your complete ignorance . . .

There is NO SUCH THING as the "RCC" or "The Roman Catholic Church".
The term "Roman Catholic" simply refers to one of TWENTY RITES that comprise the Catholic Church.

The official name of the Catholic Church is: "The Catholic Church" - NOT the "Roman Catholic" Church.

When Catholic Church has a sign outside that says: "St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church" - it is referring to the RITE.
Some of the other Rites incluse the Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, Coptic, Ruthenian, etc.

Do your HOMEWORK before embarrassing yourself any further . . .

Blatant idolatry!

Worshiping Christ is idolatry??
Your lack of faith is pathetic . . .

 

[gadar perets]

And this shows your complete ignorance . . .

There is NO SUCH THING as the "RCC" or "The Roman Catholic Church".
The term "Roman Catholic" simply refers to one of TWENTY RITES that comprise the Catholic Church.

The official name of the Catholic Church is: "The Catholic Church" - NOT the "Roman Catholic" Church.

When Catholic Church has a sign outside that says: "St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church" - it is referring to the RITE.
Some of the other Rites incluse the Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, Coptic, Ruthenian, etc.

So, where in Scripture are we told the "church" that Yeshua established is the "Catholic Church"? Where are we told that his "church" is divided into twenty rites? It is all man-made and unscriptural.

Worshiping Christ is idolatry??

You said, "In those seven Letters, Ignatius describes a Church that:
Worships the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ".

First, Ignatius did NOT use the word "worship". Second, the "Eucharist" (when referring to the bread and cup) are symbols of Yeshua's body and blood. They are not literally "Christ". You can choose to believe (falsely) that they literally turn into his flesh and blood, but even that false notion does not make them "Christ". Any time one worships symbols whether they be a brazen serpent, crosses, crucifixes, plastic "saints" on a car dashboard, imagined images of Mary, etc., it is blatant idolatry.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So, where in Scripture are we told the "church" that Yeshua established is the "Catholic Church"? Where are we told that his "church" is divided into twenty rites? It is all man-made and unscriptural.

Acts 9:31 talks about how the Early Church grew throughout the region. The language used here describes the Catholic Church:

“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.”

According to Strong’s Greek Concordance – the verse is translated as:
“The true Church throughout all Judea . . .”

Here is the phrase in Greek:
η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας

The Catholic Church gets its name from the GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal” - εκκλησια καθ ολης, which is pronounced “ekklesia katah-holos”.

Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly; CHURCH
Καθ (katah) - Through out, according to
Ολης (holos) - All, whole, completely
"Ekklesia Kata-holos" = CATHOLIC CHURCH.

You said, "In those seven Letters, Ignatius describes a Church that:
Worships the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ".

First, Ignatius did NOT use the word "worship". Second, the "Eucharist" (when referring to the bread and cup) are symbols of Yeshua's body and blood. They are not literally "Christ". You can choose to believe (falsely) that they literally turn into his flesh and blood, but even that false notion does not make them "Christ". Any time one worships symbols whether they be a brazen serpent, crosses, crucifixes, plastic "saints" on a car dashboard, imagined images of Mary, etc., it is blatant idolatry.

The fact that YOU reject the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ is completely irrelevant.
I showed you that the Early Church believed this because YOU asked for proof. WHO cares if YOU reject it??

As for the Rites of the Church - they're not "divisions" like we find in tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects of Protestantism that all teach different doctrines. They are largely cultural differences and nothing more.

 

[brakelite]

My group, nondenominational, is the fastest-growing.

In America perhaps. But Christianity is a global faith. It must be. And there are only two true global religious faiths. Catholicism and Seventh Day Adventism. Adventism is growing globally by at least 1/20th every year. That equates to the current level of over 1 million each year in an over-all membership of roughly 25 million.

 

[gadar perets]

Acts 9:31 talks about how the Early Church grew throughout the region. The language used here describes the Catholic Church:

“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.”

According to Strong’s Greek Concordance – the verse is translated as:
“The true Church throughout all Judea . . .”

Here is the phrase in Greek:
η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας

The Catholic Church gets its name from the GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal” - εκκλησια καθ ολης, which is pronounced “ekklesia katah-holos”.

Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly; CHURCH
Καθ (katah) - Through out, according to
Ολης (holos) - All, whole, completely
"Ekklesia Kata-holos" = CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Seriously? Why isn't your church called the "Kata-holos Church"? Why do you take Acts 9:31 out of context and apply "kata-holos" to the whole world rather than the churches in Israel?

The fact that YOU reject the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ is completely irrelevant.
I showed you that the Early Church believed this because YOU asked for proof. WHO cares if YOU reject it??

I never said I reject the Body and Blood of Christ. I reject worshiping the bread and the fruit of the vine. It is idolatry. And no, you did not show me the "Early Church" believed they were to "worship" the "Eucharist". You showed me a quote from Ignatius who did NOT use the word "worship".

 

[brakelite]

"Ekklesia Kata-holos" = CATHOLIC CHURCH.

That's new.

 

[CoreIssue]

There is nothing in the Bible BOL will not try to spin to Catholicism.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That's new.

Nothing "new" about it.
STUDY your Bible . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is nothing in the Bible BOL will not try to spin to Catholicism.

Read it for yourself, Einstein . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Seriously? Why isn't your church called the "Kata-holos Church"? Why do you take Acts 9:31 out of context and apply "kata-holos" to the whole world rather than the churches in Israel?

Just a rudimentary explanation of the Greek.
NOT that difficult to research . . .

I never said I reject the Body and Blood of Christ. I reject worshiping the bread and the fruit of the vine. It is idolatry. And no, you did not show me the "Early Church" believed they were to "worship" the "Eucharist". You showed me a quote from Ignatius who did NOT use the word "worship".

The Didache refers to the Eucharist as “SACRED”. Mere bread and wine are NOT “Sacred” . . .
The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) (AD 50)
"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is SACRED".

Ignatius of Antioch refers to the Eucharist as the actual flesh and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ – flesh that suffered for our sins and was resurrected. This is WORSHIP because it states that the Eucharist is GOD:
St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (AD 107)
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."
"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."
Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

Justin Martyr states that the Eucharist is “Jesus Christ our Savior” and “The Word made Flesh”.
This is WORSHIP because they are references to GOD.
St. Justin Martyr
"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

Irenaeus claims that after the blessing the bread and wine are NO LONGER bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who is GOD. This is WORSHIP because he is claiming that this substance is GOD.
St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons
"So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ."

The testimonies go on like this for MANY centuries – but there is not enough room on this post to list them all . . .

 

[gadar perets]

The Didache refers to the Eucharist as “SACRED”. Mere bread and wine are NOT “Sacred” . . .
The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) (AD 50)
"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is SACRED".

I believe the bread and cup are "sacred" if the meaning of "sacred" is "holy".

As for your quotes, I reject them as false teachings.

At what point does the wafer that is manufactured somewhere actually become the flesh of Christ? When it comes off the assembly line? When the priest blesses it? When it enters the mouth?

If the cup is actually the blood of Christ and the bread is actually the flesh of Christ, how do you harmonize eating them in light of the fact that believers are not to drink blood or partake in cannibalism?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I believe the bread and cup are "sacred" if the meaning of "sacred" is "holy".

As for your quotes, I reject them as false teachings.

At what point does the wafer that is manufactured somewhere actually become the flesh of Christ? When it comes off the assembly line? When the priest blesses it? When it enters the mouth?

If the cup is actually the blood of Christ and the bread is actually the flesh of Christ, how do you harmonize eating them in light of the fact that believers are not to drink blood or partake in cannibalism?

I LOVE being compared to the Early Christians - and that's exactly what YOU'VE done here.
The pagan Romans accused the Early Christians of "cannibalism" - which was one of the reasons they had no problem butchering them.

As for WHEN the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ - unless you have a serious reading problem, I already explained that to you in my LAST post. As the quotes from the ECFs attest - after they are blessed, that's when the substance is changed.

Finally - I don't really care if you reject the Eucharist because it is irrelevant to the conversation.
YOU asked for proof about the Early Church - and I gave it to you. Protestants deviated from this belief 1500 years later . . .

 

[epostle]

I wonder if the Catholic Church offers classes on how to sound arrogant and superior when talking to non-Catholics.

If you read bold font and CAPS as arrogant and superior, you have the problem, not BoL. Many in here criticize his style, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DEAL WITH HIS CONTENT.

 

[CoreIssue]

If you read bold font and CAPS as arrogant and superior, you have the problem, not BoL. Many in here criticize his style, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DEAL WITH HIS CONTENT.

His content is exactly what I deal with.