What is the one true Church?

[BreadOfLife]

Too bad GOD didn’t in His book…

And I don't see ANY mention of a Protestant Revolt in His Book, either . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

There are a few excuses for someone thinking that Peter was the leader of the Apostles.
1. Don't have a Bible.
2. Don't read the Bible.
3. Cannot read or have reading comprehension issues.

And by the way you lose as soon as you post because you present your ignorance, your character and manners. So it does not really matter what you say its coming from someone that would not know what the spirit of Christianity is about. It is very sad that you represent the Catholic Church on this forum.

I'd rather be in th company pof a true intellectual like J.N.D. Kelley than an angry little revisionist on an obscure little online forum.

J.N.D. Kelley, you ain't . . .

 

[Michiah-Imla]

And I don't see ANY mention of a Protestant Revolt in His Book, either . . .

It’s here:

“…brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Romans 16:17-18)

 

[Michiah-Imla]

I'd rather be in th company pof a true intellectual like J.N.D. Kelley

Someone might be interested in addressing these spelling errors…

Cc @Jim B

;)

 

[Grailhunter]

I'd rather be in th company pof a true intellectual like J.N.D. Kelley than an angry little revisionist on an obscure little online forum.

J.N.D. Kelley, you ain't . . .

There are a lot of people on this forum that think that the Catholic Church is the Anti-Christ and you're continual rude behavior fuels that belief. You address people in a rude manner in bold red letters. The Catholic Church deserves better representation. As far as this debate on Peter being the leader of the Apostles we are just repeating what we have said. So the more pressing matter at hand is to educate you on manners so for you it is a course on Catholic manners and we will start at the adolescent level...

(Slideshow) 10 Essential manners for today’s child

(Slideshow) 10 Essential manners for today’s child

aleteia.org

 

[Illuminator]

It’s here:

“…brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Romans 16:17-18)

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism (and @Grailhunter) that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).

The one true Church is and always will be in harmony with God’s inspired revelation, the Bible. Thus, we reject any form of Protestantism, because they fail this test. It’s not a matter of one thing being “under” the other. All of that is the invention of the 16th century and the biblically bankrupt and meaningless notion of sola Scriptura. The Bible presents Scripture-Tradition-Church as a “three-legged stool”: the rule of faith. All are in harmony; all work together.

This is why we reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God’s Word in Holy Scripture, and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.

Therefore, heresies and Protestantism either had to play games with history in order to pretend that it fits with their views, or ignore it altogether.

Paul was under Church authority, in various ways. Of course, all authority ultimately comes from God (Paul was called before he was born: Gal 1:15). It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Dialogue With A Calvinist: Was Paul A "Lone Ranger"?

Paul went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem, to be confirmed in his calling (Gal 1:18), & later was commissioned by Peter, James, & John (Gal 2:1-2, 9).

www.patheos.com

 

[Illuminator]

There are a lot of people on this forum that think that the Catholic Church is the Anti-Christ and you're continual rude behavior fuels that belief. You address people in a rude manner in bold red letters. The Catholic Church deserves better representation. As far as this debate on Peter being the leader of the Apostles we are just repeating what we have said. So the more pressing matter at hand is to educate you on manners so for you it is a course on Catholic manners and we will start at the adolescent level...

(Slideshow) 10 Essential manners for today’s child

(Slideshow) 10 Essential manners for today’s child

aleteia.org

You got to be kidding. You talk about manners while you insult the papacy with no historical or biblical support, representing the worst form of revisionism I've ever seen. BofL has a firmness in his post with emphasis, (that I don't always agree with), because the skulls in here are so thick. But most of the replies he gets are stupid off topic zingers and more whoppers, so it's no wonder he gets more emphatic.
The only thing you support your anti-Peter arguments is with one denial after another, which is stupid, rude and insulting. Your litany of lies is a waste of screen space, and that's why I have you on ignore. But I peek once in a while to get a good laugh, at never-before-seen denials and arrogance. Modernists have no manners, like a malignant cancer.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

@Illuminator

The earliest “church” was destroyed by God because of corruption.

“But go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh, where I set my name at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel.” (Jeremiah 7:12)

“For they provoked him to anger with their high places, and moved him to jealousy with their graven images. When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel: So that he forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which he placed among men…” (Psalms 78:58-60)

The Roman Catholic Church has certainly fallen into corruption looong ago and their graven images have provoked God as well!

 

[Grailhunter]

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism (and @Grailhunter) that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).

The one true Church is and always will be in harmony with God’s inspired revelation, the Bible. Thus, we reject any form of Protestantism, because they fail this test. It’s not a matter of one thing being “under” the other. All of that is the invention of the 16th century and the biblically bankrupt and meaningless notion of sola Scriptura. The Bible presents Scripture-Tradition-Church as a “three-legged stool”: the rule of faith. All are in harmony; all work together.

This is why we reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God’s Word in Holy Scripture, and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.

Therefore, heresies and Protestantism either had to play games with history in order to pretend that it fits with their views, or ignore it altogether.

Paul was under Church authority, in various ways. Of course, all authority ultimately comes from God (Paul was called before he was born: Gal 1:15). It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Well you are wrong. But at least you present your wrong beliefs as a Catholic gentleman that is semi intelligent. Kudos!
The fixation on Peter is an example that all denominations can learn from....it is wrong thinking.
The focus on Peter is the desire to present him as the supreme authority and then ride on his coat-tails....the supreme pontiff.
There is no such thing as a infallible human. As Pope Francis pointed out.
This religious focus on a person is one of the definitions of a cult.
Webster's dictionary....Devoted attachment to, or admiration for a person.
This practice of standing on the shoulders of Peter fueled the Church's desire for supremacy of authority and power was was the catalyst that lead them down the road of corruption and atrocities.
No church is infallible and no church has supreme authority. The whole thing is wrong thinking and leads to disaster.
All of the Apostles were great but they were just men. Men that made their mistakes along the way.
The Bible and history proves that James was the overseer of Jerusalem and as such was the leader of the twelve Jewish-Apostles.
Paul was the leader of the Gentile-Christians and wrote or influenced most of the New Testament texts. That includes the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, because Luke was a disciple of Paul. And they were great.
But still Christianity is not about a focus on men, Christianity is about a focus on Christ.
All Christian churches have the same authority and responsibility and that is to preach the Gospel.

 

[Grailhunter]

You got to be kidding.

No I am not kidding.

You talk about manners while you insult the papacy with no historical or biblical support, representing the worst form of revisionism I've ever seen.

Telling the truth about the historical evolution of the Church is not an insult....it is a correction. As far as the papacy....there is some of the history regarding the Popes that really does suck. And you know I have no interest in the Vatican. The best part of the Catholic Church from the past and now is in the pews.

BofL has a firmness in his post with emphasis,

There no excuse for BOL's behavior.

The only thing you support your anti-Peter arguments is with one denial after another, which is stupid, rude and insulting. Your litany of lies is a waste of screen space, and that's why I have you on ignore. But I peek once in a while to get a good laugh.

For one I am not anti-Peter as with a lot people he is one of my favorites. But for some Catholics truth is lies and their faith is about believing the lies.

 

[Illuminator]

We interrupt this topic for another brief reminder . Let no man woman or child follow the RCC .
Okay back to the topic at hand .

Your blind hatred for Catholicism is based on what you imagine the CC is. It's not based on reality but on a warped imagination. You have no pastor because you have too much pride to submit to any authority other than yourself. You've been poisoned by the lies of Alexander Hislop, and legions of other anti-Catholic bigots. Your problem is not so much about religion as it is a mental problem. You need professional pastoral counselling to deal with your irrational prejudice, but you won't do that because your are afraid of any Protestant clergy with an education. Educated Protestant ministers stopped teaching your garbage a long time ago, but you refuse to grow up.

Today, there are 4 million Catholics in Texas, and you are afraid of all of them, especially on-fire Catholics, that you never met. Instead, your whole anti-Catholic platform is based on fear and misinformation, because it meets some sick need.
So you remain a spiritual infant until you get healed of your pathetic prejudice.

Serving the Needy of San Angelo​

Sponsored by the five Catholic parishes in San Angelo & working in concert with local churches of various denominations and city social service agencies, COS offers a place where needy citizens can get food, clothing and assistance with such things as rent & utility or medical bills. Food, clothing and funding comes almost exclusively from parish support and private donations. With the exception of a full-time paid director, Catholic Outreach depends entirely on dedicated volunteers and part-time employees to keep its doors open.

Catholic Outreach Services
410 N Chadbourne
San Angelo, TX 76903
(325) 658-4124

https://holyangelssanangelo.org/catholic-outreach-services

I'm proud to be associated with what your sick mind calls the Whore of Babylon. So why don't you climb out of your fundie ghetto and do something to help out and act like a Christian instead of wasting time with your insane Catholic bashing.

What church or community do you associate with (if you have one) wouldn't dare have anything to do with Catholics in the city you live in????
Catholic Outreach Services is a few blocks south of E 16th St., one of the main drags of the city you live in. Are you going to tell me you never heard of it???

I wrote "...in concert with local churches of various denominations and city social service agencies..." so claiming you never heard of it casts doubt on your credibility. If you exclude yourself from them, you exclude yourself from the entire Christian population, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox.

If you have heard of Catholic Outreach Services through various denominations, and dismiss them all as heretics/apostates for working with Catholics, it stands to reason that you are anti-Protestant.

 

[Marymog]

I am quoting the Bible. I am not re-translating it to make it say something other than what its says.

Yup Jim B, you quoted the bible............and then provided your interpretation. Thank you. I did the same thing.

Getting back to the subject at hand: Peter as the leader of the church after the death of Jesus.

What is the significance of Jesus giving Peter, and only Peter, the keys?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

I still can’t find the scriptures that taught that any assembly leader should make, design, and wear this garb:

View attachment 31739

Can you find in Scripture that it is forbidden?

Do the elders of your church anoint the sick with oil?

Curious Mary

 

[Jim B]

Yup Jim B, you quoted the bible............and then provided your interpretation. Thank you. I did the same thing.

Getting back to the subject at hand: Peter as the leader of the church after the death of Jesus.

What is the significance of Jesus giving Peter, and only Peter, the keys?

Curious Mary

You didn't quote it accurately. Yoi claimed that Peter was "Simeon" in Acts, but is not the case. Peter is called either Simon or Cephas, but never Simeon.

What is the significance Of Jesus calling Peter "Satan" and calling him a stumbling block (the opposite of a rock on which to build His church)?

Many people "built" the early church.

 

[Illuminator]

I still can’t find the scriptures that taught that any assembly leader should make, design, and wear this garb:

View attachment 31739

Red is a symbolic color commemorating the blood of the martyrs. What's the matter??? Can't you find THAT in scriptures??? Besides, religious garb are CUSTOMS, not DOCTRINES. Grow up.

 

[Illuminator]

You didn't quote it accurately. Yoi claimed that Peter was "Simeon" in Acts, but is not the case. Peter is called either Simon or Cephas, but never Simeon.

What does "Cephas" mean? Do I need to paste from multiple concordances and dictionaries to get it through to you that it means ROCK??? It's an Aramaic word. Look it up. Why does Paul use an Aramaic word 6 times to Greek speaking communities? Why doesn't he use a Greek word for "ROCK"??? Why does Jesus use an Aramaic name when He addressed Peter as "Cephas" in John 1:42?? I don't need Matthew 16:18 to prove Jesus changed Simon bar Jonah when He plainly called him ROCK in John 1:42.
John 1:42
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called "Cephas” (which means Peter).

What is the significance Of Jesus calling Peter "Satan" and calling him a stumbling block (the opposite of a rock on which to build His church)?

Jesus didn't change Simon bar Jonah's name to Satan. He called Peter's misunderstanding "Satan". Why isn't Peter called "Satan" anywhere else in the NT? Please, grow a brain cell.

Mark 8:33 – you arrogantly use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

Then Jesus does what? He teaches about redemptive suffering in the next verse, a concept totally absent in Protestantism.
Mark 8:34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.
Does anybody call you "Satan" for your lack of understanding???

Luke 22:31-32 – Jesus also prays that Peter’s faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles – “Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
Explain why Jesus singles out Peter and no other Apostle. Did the Father ignore Jesus prayer for Peter? Is Jesus talking to Peter or to Satan??? Oh, sorry, I forgot. Anti-Catholic brain damaged bigots don't answer questions.

Many people "built" the early church.

Does Jesus build the Church on a ROCK, or on many? Chapter and verse please.
Oops, I forgot again.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There are a lot of people on this forum that think that the Catholic Church is the Anti-Christ and you're continual rude behavior fuels that belief. You address people in a rude manner in bold red letters. The Catholic Church deserves better representation. As far as this debate on Peter being the leader of the Apostles we are just repeating what we have said. So the more pressing matter at hand is to educate you on manners so for you it is a course on Catholic manners and we will start at the adolescent level...

Interesting . . .

So, it’s “rude” for me to chastise people for falsely claiming that I -
Worship statues as idols?
Worship Mary?
Worship the Pope?
Engage in pagan rituals?
Belong to the Whore of Babylon?
Pay for Indulgences?

And THIS you call “Good behavior”??
My position is that LYING is abominable behavior – and that is GOD’S position as well
(Exod. 20:16, Prov. 6:16-19, Rev. 21:8). And I’ve warned YOU about this multiple times since you’re one of the biggest offenders.

My advice to YOU is that maybe you should climb off of your high horse, get a mice big mirror and stand in front of it with some of your fellow Catholic-hating friends. I say “hating” because that is the ONLY reason I can fathom for the LIES you guys vomit out.
And I will continue to expose lies from people like YOU in bold RED CAPS for ALL to see.

How’s that for a behavior lesson?

 

[amigo de christo]

 

[amigo de christo]

 

[amigo de christo]

The next time anyone of you sit in a church that hollers gay marriage is good
and that allows muslims and buddists and whaterverist to remain in their sin of unbelief
Just remember you do as what was written in EZEKIEL thirteen verse twenty and two . FIGURE IT OUT fore its too late