Catholism

[shepard]

I have been studying the Catholic religion for about a month now. I am having problems with the concept of the Popes supreme autority, its history and the concept of peter being named the succesor of Christ and in turn the pope following this succesion. I would love to debate this issue with everyone as well as anyone who is of the Catholic faith. I have been baseing my study from the KJ bible.

[precept]

Originally Posted by shepard

I have been studying the Catholic religion for about a month now. I am having problems with the concept of the Popes supreme autority, its history and the concept of peter being named the succesor of Christ and in turn the pope following this succesion. I would love to debate this issue with everyone as well as anyone who is of the Catholic faith. I have been baseing my study from the KJ bible.

When Christ was on earth He was the Eternal Sacrifice and Originator of the concept that humans can be forgiven for sinning against God and humanity. This forgiveness would only be possible if humanity accepted that He Jesus Christ was the Son of God and that only through Him could forgiveness of sins be possible.

Christ Himself taught this foreign concept to the leaders of Judaism, who rejected outright that any human could be God's Son or that such a human person could forgive sins. Undaunted, Christ gathered around Himself twelve disciples to whom He taught this new concept of Salvation from sins to all who repented of said sins; and who also in turn forgave those who sinned against them.

These twelve men were equally taught and were equally equipped to teach this new gospel of salvation. None had the responsibility to lead the other;seeing all were equally informed about the total gospel of salvation.

Peter, the most vocal of the twelve; and probably the least read[seeing from his profane fisherman's language] vociferously denied that he ever knew who Jesus was; this he did not once but three times using his most profane of fisherman's language.
His contribution to the literary writings of the gospel of salvation as taught to him by Jesus is limited to eight chapters of 1st and 2nd Peter. This is in contrast to Paul who did not even accept the teachings of Jesus until forced through conversion, and that; after Jesus had returned to heaven; but yet Paul had a multiplicity of teachings far in excess of what the disciples conceived of as the gospel of salvation....which would make Paul and not Peter the defacto leader; if such was the intent of Christianity and or the mission of Jesus.
Yet; not even Paul accepted that the church of Christ needed any such cult leading personality. Paul made this clear in his writings that there is to be no distinction between any member of Christianity that reflected any preference in rank.....in his words "we are all one in Christ Jesus". Galatians 3:28

The uniqueness of the gospel of salvation in its universally and equally embracing every sinner willing to repent, leaves no room for the insertion of any human between the Mediator of said human's salvation- and Our Father God. Paul makes quite clear that though he the greatest expositors of the gospel of salvation compared to the handpicked twelve of the Saviour Himself; yet he Paul was "least of the apostles". 1 Corinthians 15:9.
To leave no doubt as to how the church of Jesus Christ ought to be run; he gave directions that hierachy of spiritual relevation proceeds first through the APOSTLES, then the PROPHETS, followed by TEACHERS, who are followed themselves by those with the gift of performing MIRACLES, who are then also followed by those who have the gift of healing[as in doctors] who themselves are followed by WORKERS in helps, church governments,and those with the gift of speaking different languages. 1 Corinthians 12:27-31. In 1 Corinthians chapter 12 verse 12...Paul leaves no doubt that no one member of the whole body of Christ is any more important than the other.

In his writings to the Ephesians....He Paul said "And he gave some, apostles; and some prophets, and some evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;".... Here again is evidence that a particular body of Christian believers could be edified spiritually, be any one of "apostle", 'prophet", "evangelist","pastor" and "teacher"...but with all working towards the self same objective to the "perfecting of the saints, the "perfecting of the Christian believer"...Ephesians 4:11-15. Paul then points everyone of the prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, apostles to the only One Head Christ Jesus Himself; in verse 15 of Ephesians chapter 4.

The idea that the church of Christ needed a visible human head did not originate with Paul nor with the twelve disciples of Christ. They, the original twelve chose a "leader" who himself was never part of the inner circle of Christ and His twelve disciples. They chose as "leader" James the brother of Jesus who led the the two Councils of Jerusalem in Acts chapters 15 and 21...But whose contribution to the writings of the gospel of salvation was even less than that of Peter...just 5 chapters as found in the book of James..
Showing that though "leader" his importance was unimportant as it concerned the gospel of salvation.

The scriptures therefore promotes no such ecclesiastical figure as one who represents in essence, Christ or who is vested with such authority as to be seen as Christ's choice for leading His Christ's flock.
Though the Roman Catholic church uses Christ's charge to Peter to "feed His flock"; yet they omit to chastize Peter as Paul did when Peter withdrew from serving the Christian Gentile converts-re Jewish prejudice against Gentiles--see Galatians 2:11-21 Or when Peter would have refused to "feed " the Gentile Cornelius had not God first given him Peter a vision to do "feed" the Gentile Cornelius. If therefore the charge given to Peter to "feed His Christ's flock" was that of leadership; Peter failed miserably everytime "Christ's flock" included Gentiles; which would indicate that Christ made a bad choice for Peter as leader. The scriptures without any doubt do show that no such "leader" existed nor was necessary in the earliest and original founding of the Christian church.



precept

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by shepard

I have been studying the Catholic religion for about a month now. I am having problems with the concept of the Popes supreme autority, its history and the concept of peter being named the succesor of Christ and in turn the pope following this succesion. I would love to debate this issue with everyone as well as anyone who is of the Catholic faith. I have been baseing my study from the KJ bible.

I'd be happy to discuss the Catholic way with you Shepard.

First the Age of Catholic Christianity, (or birth of) commenced between 70 and 312 AD (or ACE). During this time Chirstianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and eastward. This was a rapidly expanding movement which Christians called "catholic", suggesting that it was universal. These were also trying times with the ridicule of the "pagans" and Roman persecution. To face these challenges, Christians turned more and more to their bishops for spiritual leadership. Catholic Christianity, therefore was identified by a universal vision, by orthodox beliefs, and by episcopal church government.

Peter as Pontifex Maximu:

During the first Vatican Council (1870), Jesus Christ (it was declared), established the papacy with the apostle Peter: and the Bishop of Rome as Peter's successor bears supreme primacy over the whole church. Both Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches deny both of these claims however.

Though the Cahtholic Church lists 43 "Popes" before Leo I (440-461 AD), Leo is a major figure in the Papal process because he provided for the first time, biblical and theological bases of the papal claim (consider the story of successful negotiations between Leo I and Attila the Hun for peace).

How's that for a debate starter?

v/r

Q

[precept]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I'd be happy to discuss the Catholic way with you Shepard.

First the Age of Catholic Christianity, (or birth of) commenced between 70 and 312 AD (or ACE). During this time Chirstianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and eastward.

Christianity from its inception, on or about 33 AD was completely Jewish. On or about 34-35AD Christianity reached out to the Gentile world with its being introduced by mainly one individual, the apostle Paul. The Jewish world was evangelized by the majority of Christ's twelve disciples. One but needs to compare the effectiveness of both Paul's and the twelve disciples' ministry of evangelization. In one speech Peter won over more than three thousands of Jews to Christianity; while in all of Paul's three or more years of his mission to the Gentile world; his total converts numbered no more than 1500.
Therefore to suggest a "spread of Christianity"; one must put in perspective that such a spread must be taken to mean; that though unpopular in Judaism as well as in paganism, Christianity still was effective in gaining converts not only in Judea but also in the "uttermost parts of the earth".

This was a rapidly expanding movement which Christians called "catholic", suggesting that it was universaL.

In the Roman empire Between 34-64AD Christianity became more and more associated with the unpopularity that the Jews and their religion of Judaism enjoyed....culminating in the expulsion of the Jews from Rome during the reign of the emperor Claudius....Acts 18:2.
As the unpopularity of Christianity[being of Jewish origin; and being considered by the Roman world, as a cult of the main religion of Judaism]..so as the unpopularity of Christianity grew alongside the Jews...Nero in 62-64AD killed the leaders of Christianity including Peter and Paul...he tried killing the apostle John but was unable; hence he banished the apostle John to live in solitude on the isle of Patmos. Nero also mounted his persecution of the Christians in the Gentile world killing many and reputedly started a conflagration in Rome which he blamed on the Christians...for this accusation, the Christians paid dearly with their lives.

After Nero came Titus in AD 70 who destroyed the country of Judea and the Jewish Temple and mercilessly killed hundreds of thousands of Jews, putting to rest the constant rebellion of the Jews against their Roman occupyers.
It must be bourne in mind that the Romans made no distinction between Christianity and Judaism; to them both Christianity and Judaism was one and the same..and so Titus destroyed all and every Jew who withstood him; except, ofcourse. if the Christian Jew heeded the admonition of Jesus to flee Jerusalem and Judea when "the abomination that made desolate stood in the holy place"..if he so heeded Jesus' admonition, no Christian Jew would have been included in the slaughter carried out by the Roman army of legions.

Christianity was in the main still run by Jewish leadership till 130AD. and its headquarters was in Jerusalem; but in 130AD Hadrian the Roman emperor had had enough of the continuing Jewish rebellions and he expelled all the Jews from Judea and repopulated the kingdom of Judea with Gentiles. ...."and thus when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, aand the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Aelia......."He even renamed Jerusalem;giving Jerusalem the pagan name Aelia, " in honor of the emperor Aelius Adrian."
And as the church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the "bishops of the circumcision"[the Christian Jewish leadership] was "Marcus".
[Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 1.]

It was at this time that the minority Gentile Christians took up the void left with the expulsion of the Christian Jewish leadership from Jerusalem; and thus began the gradual move to transplant Christianity as practiced by the Christian Jews of Judaism with Christianity as practiced by Gentile Christianity.
Gentile Christianity, now, in order to win the favors of the Roman empire, began distancing itself from the hated Jews of Judaism, and gradually became more pagan in its appearance, adopting pagan practices and Christianizing these practices, by practicing eg the ritual of "passover" which occurred at the same time as Easter; and which they called "easter" while practicing it as "passover".

The "tainted" Christian church had now, in the main, replaced the "True" Christian church; and this the tainted Christian church was adopted by the Roman empire, who eventually replaced its own pagan church with the tainted Christian church.

This, the tainted Christian church became the religion of the Roman empire under the rule of the emperor Constantine, who forced nations at the point of the sword to convert to Christianity.
Eastern and Western Europe had as its imposed state religion, Christianity, with all Christianity, including the middle east following the dictates of the emperor Constantine, including his calling the church councils eg the council of Nicea, though himself still a "Pagan"...and as a "Pagan" presiding over the council of Nicea, in which he made decisions for Christianity for his "Christian stooges"; who bowed and followed their "Pagan" emperor.

It's in this regard and this regard only that Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire between AD130-AD322

These were also trying times with the ridicule of the "pagans" and Roman persecution. To face these challenges, Christians turned more and more to their bishops for spiritual leadership. Catholic Christianity, therefore was identified by a universal vision, by orthodox beliefs, and by episcopal church government.

With the gradual decline of the Roman empire around AD400-AD450..and beyond...the empire became to be ruled by different forms of rulership under different emperors, who sometimes ruled from Constantinople and sometimes from Rome and sometimes ruled under two rivaling emperors from both Constantinople and Rome.
Under the emperor Diocletian, for example; "Dioceses" were used to rule the orchestrated divided empire...This name as well as practice was eventually adopted by the tainted Christian church and continues to be used to this day.

The term "bishop" was first introduced by Paul to the fledging Gentile Christian Church during the inception of Gentile Christianity. This term was comparable to the term "ruler of the synagogue" as used for the same job description by the Jews. The Jews used this terminolgy to describe the person in charge of the day to day running of their synagogues. This person had no ecclesiastical function; and in only as so far as to present to the next speaker on sabbath the scriptures that were to be read; as welll as to choose whom that speaker was to be.
The "bishop", the Christian Gentile counterpart to the "ruler of the synagogue" was to "oversee" the "house churches" as in ["synagoguies"]...His qualifications, like that of the ruler of the synagogue had to be that he must be "blameless as a Steward of God, Not selfwilled, Not soon angry, Not given to wine[a drunkard]No striker[doesn't beat his wife] Not given to filthy lucre[not a bribe taker].
Such was the dsecription of a bishop and his responsibility to keep alive and functioning the "house churches" as begun by Paul in his Christian missionary incursions in the Gentile world of Eastern and Western Europe. 1 Timothy chapter 3 describes well the responsibility of the bishop in that he must be able to rule his own household, if he planned to "oversee'/"take care of the church of God"...Hardly the description of today's "bishop"! Which is but Another change the tainted Christian church made to the clear directions as given by the apostle Paul re the function and responsibilities of a bishop.

Again; these bishops had no ecclesiastical function as can be seen in Paul's hierachal ecclesiastical exclusion of bishops from the hiearchy of "first "apostles" then 'prophets", then "teachers" etc in the spiritual feeding of the Christian church.

The "turning of the faithful to their bishops" was another departure from the directives of Paul...and which in turn gave ecclesiastical leadership to "bishops" in the tainted Christian church..rather than to the "apostles" "prophets" and "teachers" etc. as commanded by Paul.

This "turning to the bishops" and each with his adopted Roman empire "Diocese" became the kingdom of tainted Christianity; with the bishop of Rome proclaiming himself top bishop by the then bishop of Rome, Victor in the AD190s. The Eastern bishops refused to recognize the Roman bishop Victor as top bishop and the schism continues to this day.
In the mid-third century Bishop Stephen of Rome of Rome "asserted that all should observe the tradition of Peter and Paul"...Or the tradition of succession of rulership of the "tainted christian church" to the bishop of Rome...This was the first in a series of similar declarations that the bishop of Rome invoked to "justify his primatial jurisdiction". It was not until Innocent the 3rd on or about AD1216 that the "successor of Peter" became the "vicar of Christ"....[the Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity]

Peter as Pontifex Maximu:

During the first Vatican Council (1870), Jesus Christ (it was declared), established the papacy with the apostle Peter: and the Bishop of Rome as Peter's successor bears supreme primacy over the whole church. Both Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches deny both of these claims however.

And not only has the Roman Catholic church assumed the position of "top bishop'; but they have also assumed supreme rulership over the entirety of Christendom, including "the separated brethren" who can still worship in their own Christian denominations and churches as long as they recognize the Roman Catholic pope as head and "top bishop" over all of Christendom. This broadbased recognition has now expanded to include all Abrahamic religions such as Islam and Judaism. In other words the Roman Catholic "top bishop" by his claim as "vicar of Christ'[Innocent 3rd] is now made the "overseer' of God's church which in his theology include Islam and Judaism and Christianity... [according to the theology of the recently deseased pope John Pall 2]

Though the Cahtholic Church lists 43 "Popes" before Leo I (440-461 AD), Leo is a major figure in the Papal process because he provided for the first time, biblical and theological bases of the papal claim (consider the story of successful negotiations between Leo I and Attila the Hun for peace).

This period of "(440-461AD)" to which you allude is the period when the Roman empire was ruled by "emperors ruling over carved out portions" of the Roman empire; an empire now in serious decline. Attila, the Hun and other barbarians such as the Vandals wreaked havoc by sacking Rome with impunity. The people of Rome then looked to the "bishop" who ruled ecclesiastically over the entire city of Rome--"his Diocese"-their not being recognizeable governing officials as important as the ecclesiastical bishop... and so on several occasions it was the "bishop of Rome" that led the army of Rome against the marauding barbarians.
This assumption of political leadership by the ecclesiastical bishop eventually made him depose and crown different kings in Europe who sought his favor in order to rule the predominant Roman Catholic devotees of Western Europe,..his church-the church he led as "top bishop".

How's that for a debate starter?
v/r
Q

How is it? A good start! I might add.


precept

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by precept

How is it? A good start! I might add.


precept

Yes, but I must ask. Before I go on, are you Messianic? That makes quite a bit of difference, since then I am dealing with three books of knowledge (and a person with a unique mind set of who Jesus is). If you choose not to answer, so do I. It would be unfair to those reading.

But from a strictly gentile come Christian perspective, I await Shepard's response, or questions.

v/r

Q

[precept]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Yes, but I must ask. Before I go on, are you Messianic? That makes quite a bit of difference, since then I am dealing with three books of knowledge (and a person with a unique mind set of who Jesus is). If you choose not to answer, so do I. It would be unfair to those reading.

But from a strictly gentile come Christian perspective, I await Shepard's response, or questions.

v/r

Q

If by Messianic you mean..."was I born a Jew"; who later accepted Christianity...the answer to that query is: I was not born Jewish....I however, became a Jew by Paul's standard. ..."He is not a Jew, whose circumcision is of the foreskin; but He Is a Jew whose circumcision is of the heart"...[Romans 2:28-29]I am such a Jew; because my heart is circumcised to the gospel of Christ.


precept

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by precept

If by Messianic you mean..."was I born a Jew"; who later accepted Christianity...the answer to that query is: I was not born Jewish....I however, became a Jew by Paul's standard. ..."He is not a Jew, whose circumcision is of the foreskin; but He Is a Jew whose circumcision is of the heart"...[Romans 2:28-29]I am such a Jew; because my heart is circumcised to the gospel of Christ.


precept

My bad. one more question. Are you or have you ever been a Roman or Orthodox Catholic. Simple question, simple answer...

v/r

Q

[precept]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

My bad. one more question. Are you or have you ever been a Roman or Orthodox Catholic. Simple question, simple answer...

v/r
Q

Now that would be telling! Wouldn't it?

In a debate one looks at the argument...not at the debater!


It makes no difference to me, re your Christian beliefs or reasons for such. The important question is, on what do you base your Christian beliefs! If those beliefs are based on the solid foundation laid by the prophets and apostles of the holy scriptures, you should have no difficulty in proving that your Christian belief is on a solid foundation. On the other hand, if your beliefs are based on the presumptions of humans who are in conflict with the positions of the prophets and apostles; then you have beliefs that are not of Christ and consequently, not Christian!...as such your argument will not stand on "Thus saith the Lord"....The Lord of scripture.


precept

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by precept

Now that would be telling! Wouldn't it?

In a debate one looks at the argument...not at the debater!

I beg your pardon. I asked a simple question. I expect a simple answer before I launch into anything near and dear to my heart.

But that is ok. Your answer (or lack of) is sufficient.

r
Q

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by precept

If by Messianic you mean..."was I born a Jew"; who later accepted Christianity...the answer to that query is: I was not born Jewish....I however, became a Jew by Paul's standard. ..."He is not a Jew, whose circumcision is of the foreskin; but He Is a Jew whose circumcision is of the heart"...[Romans 2:28-29]I am such a Jew; because my heart is circumcised to the gospel of Christ.


precept

But Paul has no authority or value according to you, yes? So Q's question remains: Are you Messianic?

It's a good question.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

But Paul has no authority or value according to you, yes? So Q's question remains: Are you Messianic?

It's a good question.

Thank you. Abo.

Shepard, I hope we can continue this conversation.

v/r

Q

[precept]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

But Paul has no authority or value according to you, yes? So Q's question remains: Are you Messianic?

It's a good question.

If I quote Paul...and if I quote him re my accepting and adhering to his standards...then if you as you say that I say that 'Paul has no authority or value"; you then have an obligation to show where I stated that 'Paul had no authority or value".
Strange as it may sound; I don't expect that such proof will be forthvoming. And why am I not surprised; because the debate is slowly moving away from its original intent due to lack of argument from the side opposite.


precept

[precept]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Thank you. Abo.

Shepard, I hope we can continue this conversation.

v/r
Q

"Q"....I'll award you the benefit of the doubt and concede that you are withholding your arguments re Catholicism because of your doubts as to my identity. As such I will pledge to you that I will not participate in the discussion between you and Shepard unless invited to do so.

Let the arguments begin!


precept

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by precept

"Q"....I'll award you the benefit of the doubt and concede that you are withholding your arguments re Catholicism because of your doubts as to my identity. As such I will pledge to you that I will not participate in the discussion between you and Shepard unless invited to do so.

Let the arguments begin!


precept

Thank you for your kindness, but I fear the good Shepard has decided to leave this conversation.

v/r

Q

[brucegdc]

Folks, figured I should put my 2c in here...

Precept, and others - please remember CR is a place where some degree of tolerance is required towards other viewpoints, and although there is room for critical viewpoints, generally mutual respect of some degree is required. This isn't a soapbox to put down others - it's a place to discuss, and when posts are made that come across as attacks on anothers religious beliefs, it's hard to have a discussion...

We now return to your regularly scheduled conversation...