Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus is the head of His Church. However, things still need to run down here for over a billion people, hence the earthly leader of His Church, the Pope.
Well, whither RCC or protestant hierarchy, they are not the Keys to the Kingdom. Truth is. Jesus said to Peter I give you the Keys to the Kingdom not that you are the Keys. One might ask. What did He give to the others, locked doors? No, He gave them the Keys of Truth also and Power to spread the Gospel with the same Keys that Peter got making sometimes independent and sometimes collaborative efforts to spread the Gospel.
A couple of things that was unique to Peter however was that Peter got the church off the ground and also convinced the others that the Gentles were also accepted of God but he did that with the Keys of Truth. Paul also did that especially among the Gentles with whom he established many churches with the same Keys and he did not answer to Peter or the council at Jerusalem to any great extent but rather to Christ and doctrines given Him by Christ. Which things Peter himself learned from and advised that others not twist the writings of Paul to their own destruction even though some things he said were hard to understand. Some Keys were not given to Peter first hand but he learned much from Paul.
The Keys are to the Kingdom not to any particular denomination because as Jesus said, "Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the mist of them" Those two or threes' might not even call themselves according to any denominational name but are simply out and about drawing people to the Lord and then letting the Lord guide their lives. Local churches need to run their own affairs according to the doctrines laid down by the Scripture [Keys] and all other wisdom given by God.
Well, whither RCC or protestant hierarchy, they are not the Keys to the Kingdom. Truth is. Jesus said to Peter I give you the Keys to the Kingdom not that you are the Keys. One might ask. What did He give to the others, locked doors? No, He gave them the Keys of Truth also and Power to spread the Gospel with the same Keys that Peter got making sometimes independent and sometimes collaborative efforts to spread the Gospel.
A couple of things that was unique to Peter however was that Peter got the church off the ground and also convinced the others that the Gentles were also accepted of God but he did that with the Keys of Truth. Paul also did that especially among the Gentles with whom he established many churches with the same Keys and he did not answer to Peter or the council at Jerusalem to any great extent but rather to Christ and doctrines given Him by Christ. Which things Peter himself learned from and advised that others not twist the writings of Paul to their own destruction even though some things he said were hard to understand. Some Keys were not given to Peter first hand but he learned much from Paul.
The Keys are to the Kingdom not to any particular denomination because as Jesus said, "Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the mist of them" Those two or threes' might not even call themselves according to any denominational name but are simply out and about drawing people to the Lord and then letting the Lord guide their lives. Local churches need to run their own affairs according to the doctrines laid down by the Scripture [Keys] and all other wisdom given by God.
This is a very good post!
There is no need to seek Jesus through the Catholic Church and the apostolic succession. Christ is available to anyone.
However, the thread is about trying to prove that the Catholic Church was not the first church. So it becomes a matter of history rather than who has more direct access to Jesus. Obviously we Catholics think other denominations have access to Christ.
It simply gets tiring to hear non-Catholics stating over and over again we are not true Christians, that our church is not the original church, and that we are not saved.
There is no need to seek Jesus through the Catholic Church and the apostolic succession. Christ is available to anyone.
However, the thread is about trying to prove that the Catholic Church was not the first church. So it becomes a matter of history rather than who has more direct access to Jesus. Obviously we Catholics think other denominations have access to Christ.
It simply gets tiring to hear non-Catholics stating over and over again we are not true Christians, that our church is not the original church, and that we are not saved.
I can not claim to know the full history but it does seem like the RCC was the one of the first if not the first to use a denominational name and certainly the biggest in organizational structure and indeed had much to do with propagating the Gospel in spite of a long history of doctrinal and other abuses. Even if it were the first, it does not mean however that RCC is infallible in doctrine or that they alone have the Keys exclusively by inheritance from Peter. Even Paul said that others would come in with damnable doctrines after he was gone. The Keys only must be adhered to as the standard. And that is why we have the written Word to council with for a standard.
If you believe in and live by Christ you are a Christian whither RCC or other. It is written, "He that confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is born of God" and "Everyone who does what is right is righteous even as He is righteous."
There is no need to seek Jesus through the Catholic Church and the apostolic succession. Christ is available to anyone.
However, the thread is about trying to prove that the Catholic Church was not the first church. So it becomes a matter of history rather than who has more direct access to Jesus. Obviously we Catholics think other denominations have access to Christ.
It simply gets tiring to hear non-Catholics stating over and over again we are not true Christians, that our church is not the original church, and that we are not saved.
No one has the right to say you are not saved. However, the RCC is not the true church no matter how you and others claim it to be. The RCC cannot be found in the Bible. Nor can it be found in early church history. There was no pope nor a single bishop of Rome in the Bible or in the second century.
No one has the right to say you are not saved. However, the RCC is not the true church no matter how you and others claim it to be. The RCC cannot be found in the Bible. Nor can it be found in early church history. There was no pope nor a single bishop of Rome in the Bible or in the second century.
Katie
Katie:
You reverted back to your very initial words in the thread.
Are you not considering the words in Acts?
Are you denying the first council in Jerusalem?
Are you denying what Jesus told Peter?
Are you denying that Peter was not a church leader?
Katie:
In the eyes of God all churches are equally valid. You are doing the old "my religion is better than yours" routine.
As a Catholic I am simply defending my faith, cultural heritage, as well as historical facts. Catholics never put down other religions. In fact we believe Jews and Muslims are also saved. Our view of the grace of God is different.
No one has the right to say you are not saved. However, the RCC is not the true church no matter how you and others claim it to be. The RCC cannot be found in the Bible. Nor can it be found in early church history. There was no pope nor a single bishop of Rome in the Bible or in the second century.
Katie
Katie, just as you conveniently ignore or distort history, did you conveniently ignore my post? Please look at post #300 on page 30 and tell me what you think. I cite non-Catholic sources there.
I have a few questions. I learned recently that there is a statue of Peter at the Vatican (I believe?) and this statue's feet are being worn down over time due to the kisses of faithful Catholics who visit or pilgrimage to the Vatican.
Now I have a serious question - how would Peter himself feel about this?
After all, he himself told Cornelius not to bow down to him, for he is also a man. Acts 10
I am also interested in knowing why the Catholic church exalts "sacred tradition" to the same place as "sacred Scripture"? Catholic tradition has been added to over and over throughout the years. Did the apostles not have the whole counsel of God given to them? Were we not given all that we need pertaining to life and godliness through their writings?
And my final question goes back to the evil popes... Jesus Himself says that a prophet will be known by his fruit - Matt 7:15-20. So, if it is conceded that several popes have been workers of evil while holding office, why have they been acknowledged as true vicars of Christ?
I have a few questions. I learned recently that there is a statue of Peter at the Vatican (I believe?) and this statue's feet are being worn down over time due to the kisses of faithful Catholics who visit or pilgrimage to the Vatican.
Now I have a serious question - how would Peter himself feel about this?
After all, he himself told Cornelius not to bow down to him, for he is also a man. Acts 10
Quote:
It is a sign of respect, not worship. It's all in the intent. But I suspect that Peter would be against it, if only because it may confuse christians who are not strong in the faith yet. The RCC does not force any one to do it...we are not obligated to bow to statues or our leaders, even the Pope, or to kiss their feet or rings, these are all just voluntary signs of respect and honor for their position, much like one would used to do with a monarch. But it is not obligatory. If it bothers you, you don't have to do it.
I am also interested in knowing why the Catholic church exalts "sacred tradition" to the same place as "sacred Scripture"? Catholic tradition has been added to over and over throughout the years.
Did the apostles not have the whole counsel of God given to them?
Quote:
Yes.
Were we not given all that we need pertaining to life and godliness through their writings?
Quote:
That is a protestant viewpoint. Not a Catholic one. No, not everything is in Scripture, the Apostles said so themselves
.
And my final question goes back to the evil popes... Jesus Himself says that a prophet will be known by his fruit - Matt 7:15-20. So, if it is conceded that several popes have been workers of evil while holding office, why have they been acknowledged as true vicars of Christ?
I believe Jesus was saying that the bad fruit would be preaching a false doctrine, getting people to believe a false doctrine. Good fruit would be believing in the true Gospel and be on the way to salvation. In that context, then no, the "evil popes" did not bear bad fruit. Besides that, not all popes were "evil." Many of their predecessors and succesors were good, morally-upstanding even holy people, so how would that nullify the office of the Papacy?......Please go here for sincere answers to your questions. You will only get prosylitizing Catholic-haters and some Catholics, like me, who do not have the time to answer all these questions, though the answers do exist: Browse Results | Catholic Answers
Hi cmforte ... Thanks for the links you shared. I found this page (above) which explains the Catholic church's position on sacred tradition and Scripture. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that apostolic tradition is a very helpful means of elucidating the Scriptures, I would describe apostolic tradition more precisely than the RCC, and have a difficult time accepting the conclusion put forward in this article:
"The indefectible Church
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church" ... In other words, let the church tell you what traditions to hold to, and don't question them when they bring in something new? Hmmm.... Didn't the religious leaders of Jesus' day take a similar line?
Furthermore, the article indicates that there is no problem with traditions which do not contradict the commandments of God. That is a fantastical assumption! According to Mark 7 and Matthew 15, even futile traditions that are added to God's commandments (but not contradictory) are opposed by Jesus. They threaten to distract us, cloud our vision, and move our hearts away from the simplicity of Christ. I would suggest that the subtle introduction of extra traditions into the life of a believer and the life of the church can certainly make God's true laws ineffectual in someone's life (Matthew 15:6-9) and God stands opposed to this. Even though you say that kissing the statue's feet is not a commandment (obligatory), I am certain that many who do this and devoutly observe other traditions within the Catholic church consider themselves good Catholics, compared to others who are perhaps more nominal and don't do the same. Really, all this amounts to is just a different spin on the issue Jesus had with the Pharisees when He rebuked them for teaching as commandments the traditions of men. To get hung up on the semantics of whether the traditions are actually taught as commandments is to miss the whole point. If a Catholic sees the tradition as something valuable and worth holding to, then hasn't it become a commandment to them?
Just so you don't think I am trying to be unfairly hard on Catholicism, what I said about tradition goes for Protestantism as much as Catholicism. Protestant traditions may not be as obvious, but they are definitely there, in different shapes and forms, and just as shockingly opposed to Jesus' and apostolic teaching.
Hi cmforte ... Thanks for the links you shared. I found this page (above) which explains the Catholic church's position on sacred tradition and Scripture. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that apostolic tradition is a very helpful means of elucidating the Scriptures, I would describe apostolic tradition more precisely than the RCC, and have a difficult time accepting the conclusion put forward in this article:
"The indefectible Church
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church" ... In other words, let the church tell you what traditions to hold to, and don't question them when they bring in something new? Hmmm.... Didn't the religious leaders of Jesus' day take a similar line?
Quote:
Well I researched the RCC before voluntarily joining it, so I knew what its teachings or "traditions" were, and besides that, why would I question it? If you can't trust your Church, why be a member of it? Besides that, there are a plethora of Scripture verses attesting to the Church's authority. When I have more time, I can get those to you.
Furthermore, the article indicates that there is no problem with traditions which do not contradict the commandments of God. That is a fantastical assumption! According to Mark 7 and Matthew 15, even futile traditions that are added to God's commandments (but not contradictory) are opposed by Jesus. They threaten to distract us, cloud our vision, and move our hearts away from the simplicity of Christ. I would suggest that the subtle introduction of extra traditions into the life of a believer and the life of the church can certainly make God's true laws ineffectual in someone's life (Matthew 15:6-9) and God stands opposed to this. Even though you say that kissing the statue's feet is not a commandment (obligatory), I am certain that many who do this and devoutly observe other traditions within the Catholic church consider themselves good Catholics, compared to others who are perhaps more nominal and don't do the same. Really, all this amounts to is just a different spin on the issue Jesus had with the Pharisees when He rebuked them for teaching as commandments the traditions of men. To get hung up on the semantics of whether the traditions are actually taught as commandments is to miss the whole point. If a Catholic sees the tradition as something valuable and worth holding to, then hasn't it become a commandment to them?
Just so you don't think I am trying to be unfairly hard on Catholicism, what I said about tradition goes for Protestantism as much as Catholicism. Protestant traditions may not be as obvious, but they are definitely there, in different shapes and forms, and just as shockingly opposed to Jesus' and apostolic teaching.
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.
Quote:
Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.
He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).
Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
