Scandals in the Roman Catholic Church....

To Thunder:

My only reply is that everything I have showed you is something that the Catholic Church has held as true and has taught to Christians for the past 2000 years. Your "interpretations" are relatively "new" as compared to the teachings of the Church, thanks to Martin Luther's efforts to allow anyone to read anything he wants to in the Bible.

Like I've suggested before, start reading some early Church history. Sacred Tradition, and the leadership of Peter existed long before that New Testament in your hands was even canon.

Again, Matthew 16: 16-19, as I have quoted before. "Simon Peter said in reply, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus said to him in reply, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood hs not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shal be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'"

That entire dialogue, Jesus is speaking directly to Peter, nobody else. And remember, Jesus RENAMED Simon to Peter, up until then it was never used as a NAME before. He said, "You are ROCK, and upon this ROCK I will build my church."

It doesn't get any PLAINER than that. You can twist it, turn it, justify it, have Jesus point at different things, have him change the conversation in mid-sentence and then back again. It's SCRIPTURAL, though, 100% in the Bible. And again, writings from the Early Church fathers have reinforced this teaching from the time of the Apostles.

You are not obliged to agree. However, neither are you qualified to judge Catholics WRONG for believing in this.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

I believe that the Universal Church is the body
of born again believers being redeemed by the
final sacrafice of her Lord Jesus Christ. I believe
that the Bible is the written word of God and
Jesus is the literal Word of God. I do not hold
the traditions of men to have any redeeming
value. I am a Christian not because of my
participation with any organization but because
of my adoption by God through my Lord Jesus
Christ. That either makes me a brother with
you or your adversary. It all depends on where
Jesus fits in your life and not your denominational
affiliation.

Hello VOW,
I already showed how it was misinterpretted by the Catholics, and it appears that they built their entire church on that teaching. It appears to me that the Catholic church was the first break away from the teachings of the true original church. Peter and Paul went travelling around spreading the gospel, to both the Samaritans and the Gentiles. You said what your church believes, but I again will say that, that does not make it true. The true church was born on Pentecost. That's where they received the comforter (Holy Spirit) and power to overcome the evil forces in this dark world. That is in my Bible, and I would also believe that it is in yours as well. You still have not answered my previous questions.

Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER


The true and original Church was born on the day of Pentecost. No where in my Bible do I find that Peter was the first Pope. Nor does it say that we should be true to the Catholic church. In fact, neither the word "Pope" or "Catholic" can even be found anywhere in my Bible. When was the Catholic church born?? Where did the Catholic church receive it's authority?? Who said that we should honor the teachings of the Catholic church??

You said, "If Catholics are true to their faith, and true to their church, they don't put their faith in Peter, they believe the teaching of their church". My dear sister, please take a close look at what you just said. They believe (faith) the teaching of their church. We should have faith in Christ, not our churches, or their teachings. Maybe your church does believe that, but does that make it true?? It may well be HISTORY in your church, but that doesn't make it the truth.

Click to expand...

Hello VOW,
You have not answered these questions.

Hello VOW,
Just one more question if you don't mind. In what year do you think the church was born, and when was Peter appointed Pope, or father of the church??

To Thunder:

I have indeed answered your questions in previous posts. I invite you to go back and re-read them. However, I must warn you that in no place do I agree with your personal, private interpretation of Scripture, so be warned that my answers conflict with what you hold to be true. That does NOT make my answers wrong, Thunder. I do not accept your personal authority to interpret Scripture for me.

I used Matthew 16: 16-19 as to how Jesus selected Peter to lead his Church. I explained the use of the word "Rock" and how Jesus renamed Simon to "Rock." This is the "birth" of the Catholic Church, and the authority being vested in Peter by Jesus himself.

I used 1 Timothy 3:15 to show how the CHURCH is to be the pillar and foundation of truth.

It appears to me that the Catholic church was the first break away from the teachings of the true original church.

Click to expand...

Again, I point you to the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. The interpretation that I have shown you here, and in previous posts, and that I will CONTINUE to show until my dying breath, is the very same teaching of the Early Church Fathers. YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION was not even in existence until after the mid-1500s. There was no "breakaway" by the "Catholic Church" from the "true original church." The Catholic Church WAS the true original church.

And it is these very same Early Church Fathers, of the true original church, who assembled the texts and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and using the Original Deposit of Faith, selected the very books of the New Testament you hold in your hand today.

If you re-read this thread, and look VERY CLOSELY at the information posted by Wolseley, you'll find he has told you exactly the same things I have.


It is so sad, so HEARTBREAKING that some people are so anti-Catholic they cannot appreciate the common history we all share from the church that Jesus established.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Hello VOW
In my encyclopedia it says that your first Pope did not come until A.D.42. That is 10 years after Christ was crucified. Is this also when you think the church was born??

To Thunder:

Do you want a LIST of the popes? I have one inside my Bible here, but it would take a while to type out. The first pope was St Peter, who died AD 67. The next one is St Linus, pope from 67-76. The third one was St Anacletus I, 76-88.

The TITLE of Pope may not have been used until AD 42. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

The Church was BORN when Jesus said to Peter, "You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church." Peter stands in place of Christ, who is the Head of the Church. Peter is the shepherd over the Body of Christ here on earth, until Jesus comes again. When He does appear, in all His glory, the Pope will gladly abdicate all responsibility to Him. So the Church was created when Jesus renamed Peter, but Peter did not take over the management of the Church until Jesus ascended. The Pentecost falls about a week after the day that Jesus ascended. On the Pentecost, the Apostles received the gift of the Holy Spirit, which empowered all of them to go forth and spread the Gospel, as Christ had commanded them to do. By the time of the Pentecost, Peter had already asserted his leadership position, by announcing that Judas needed to be replaced so that the original number of twelve disciples could be maintained. All of the disciples prayed, and then voted, and Matthias was selected.

Which, by the way, is how a new pope is chosen when one dies: the Cardinals assemble and consider the names of those who are proposed as candidates. They pray for guidance by the Holy Spirit, and then votes are cast.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Hello VOW,
If Peter is the shepherd over the body of Christ until Christ returns, what happens to us that don't take Peter who is no longer with us, or the Pope as our shepherd?? Are you saying that only the Catholics are part of the church??

I'm sure that you probably won't care for this next statement, but here goes anyway. I believe that there is a great possiblity that the next Pope will be the False Prophet, that is spoken of in Revelation.

I guess that we probably won't be able to agree on a lot of things.

One more question VOW,
If Peter is over the church until Christ returns, then why did Paul, who wasn't even a believer when Christ was crucified, do most of the teaching in the New Testament??

To Thunder:

Yeah, we're gonna disagree, LOL.

The Catholic Church believes that our Protestant brethren are all members of the Body of Christ, but are not in full fellowship with the Church that Jesus created. By this I mean, you don't avail yourself of all the Sacraments created by Christ to strengthen the Body for our Life's Journey. (and truthfully, this would be more effectively addressed in another thread, okay?) But we ALL are members of the Body of Christ, and we will all gather in Glory to praise God for all eternity.

The "False Prophet" and "Anti-Christ" are labels which have been associated with the Pope since the beginning of Time. People have even spread tales that the Pope has somehow been branded with "666" somewhere on his head or body or clothing. I guess I could see how some might interpret the possibilty that the Pope could be the "Anti-Christ," but remember, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, and said the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. Since Catholics believe that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, they consider the "Anti-Christ" scenario highly unlikely.

If you want my PERSONAL opinion, do some research into the Mormon Church (Latter Day Saints). The money and the power of the Present day Prophet and his Quorum of Twelve, and the presence of devout Mormons in US government is enough to give you chills.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit which all
Christians possess. You will not be able to blame
the "Church" or a "Pope" for false interpretation.
God will hold each and every Christian accountable
for our dependence on Him. God expects us to
study to show ourselves approved unto God and
not depend on the study of others. That is how
corruption happens---by giving our duty over to
others...

A Christian & Rolling Thunder, what you fail to see is that not everyone here holds the Bible as infallible or as the final authority.
Some of these posters see the Bible as having flaws, but the Catholic church is their final authority, based on 1 or 2 scripture verses about Peter.
What the Vatican says is more important than what the Bible says, to many Catholics. I WAS one.
Wosely, The word Rapture comes from the LAtin:"rapturo" which was used to describe the "gathering" mentioned in Thess. & elsewhere to describe us being gathered together to meet the Lord in the air.
"Personal relationship" comes from JEsus saying,"whosover shall believe in me shall have eternal life" and "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". Many more verses refer to a personal acceptance of Jesus as Saviour, & none refer to a denomination. "Ye must be born again" is obviously speaking of a personal relationship with Christ, not a denomination.
"altar call" refers to "whosoever shall confess HIs sins before men..." & other verses.
Hope, I was raised Catholic too, when I started reading the Bible I left. A non denominational church that uses the Bible as it's final authority will suit your needs to properly worship, IF the Bible is your final authority as it should be for every CHristian.
The Pope just released a statement which in part said," THis is a grave scandal... I wish I could do something for the victims... These priests give the other fine priests a bad name."
He has sympathy for the victims & does not deny the priests admitted to molesting children. Amen.
The reason people claim the Next Pope may be the False Prophet is from Rev. 17=the great harlot, mystery Babylon, sits on 7 hills. What city sits on 7 hills? The only one we know of is Rome. It's religious leader is the Pope who controls the beliefs of people all over the world. (THis is a different person than the ANtichrist).
So it appears that if the Bible is not the final authority of lots of Catholics worldwide, it would be cunning for satan to use the Pope as the False Prophet. WE know this Pope is not a false prophet, but many, many years ago a man with the gift of prophecy predicted the names & numbers of the Popes to become appointed . This man has been 100% correct thus far. According to him, there is only one Pope left after this one.

To Debbie:

Actually, Wolseley has posted elsewhere in this forum a lengthy list of cities in the world situated on seven hills.

If you are referring to Nostradamus, his "predictions" are only accurate after the fact, when the vagueness of them can be applied to an event. Someone who receives revelations by staring into the patterns formed by oil floating on the surface of a bowl of water isn't really what I would consider to be a reliable source.

Nowhere in Scripture does it state that Scripture Alone is to be the final authority. Read 1 Timothy 3:15, "you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." The Catholic Church believes in the infallibility of Scripture, but it also holds to Sacred Tradition, together they form the Original Deposit of Faith created by the Apostles. Scripture makes no reference to a denomination, because denominations did not exist for the first 1500 years of Christian history. All that existed was "the Church."

Sacred Scripture was assembled by the Early Church Fathers, who used the guidance of the Holy Spirit AND Sacred Tradition, to discern those writings which today form the New Testament.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

St. Malachy, (1094-1148), was a Catholic Saint with the gift of prophecy, whose list of Popes can be found on many Catholic websites.
His predictions include the city of 7 hills being Rome, destroyed during the reign of the last Pope, Peter the Roman. Before him, reigns "The Glory of the Olives", & before him, our current Pope.
I was offering information as to why some feel the last Pope would be the false prophet. I am not saying it is written in stone.
The Catholic church is certainly not the pillar and foundation of truth, as the previous post seems to indicate. Examples can be given. "SCRIPTURE" indicates 2 verses above, in 1 Tim.3:13 that "...the faith which is in Christ Jesus" is the pillar & foundation of truth mentioned in verse 15, not the Catholic denomination.
In the next book, 2Tim., verse 16 does say the Bible is the final authority:" All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Every denomination is to be corrected by scripture for it's doctrine & instruction, per scripture. Jesus Christ quoted scripture verbatim. Was HE wrong or confused?
Per scripture, Jesus is "the Word made flesh".
1 John 2:27- "We have no need of any man's teaching, for the Holy Spirit teaches us."
If the Bible is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me. If anyone wants to believe in their heart that any church is their final authority instead of the "WORD", feel free.
Prov.29:26- "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool".

Debbie writes:

"The reason people claim the Next Pope may be the False Prophet is from Rev. 17=the great harlot, mystery Babylon, sits on 7 hills. What city sits on 7 hills? The only one we know of is Rome. It's religious leader is the Pope who controls the beliefs of people all over the world. (THis is a different person than the ANtichrist)."




This kind of thing drives me crazy. One of St. Peter's epistles quite clearly refers to Rome as Babylon, so there is no doubt that for the Christians of this time Babylon was a code word for Rome. And looked at from the Jewish point of view, that makes perfect sense. Babylon had destroyed the first temple and carried the Jews off to Babylon. When was the Book of Revelation written? My research shows it was written in about 67AD. This was about three years before the destruction of the Temple. And who destroyed the Jewish people and their temple in the year 70? Rome. This letter of St. John was intended as a prpohecy of this, and as an indication of how these events were to be interpreted. It gave this truly calamitous event meaning. Clearly it would have beeen suicidal to write all this plainly, just as it would have been to openly prophesy the end of the USSR during the fifties and sixties. So John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote a letter in code to all the Churches warning them of the things to come, and heartening them at the same time.

So when you see the word Babylon in scripture think of the Roman Empire, the soldiers destroying the temple. Think of Gladiator, think of the early Christians being sewn in animal skins and thrown to the lions, facing bears and leopards, think of Christian women and girls being sentenced to bordellos. Yes, Rome was Babylon for them, and St. John in this letter prophesies the fall of Babylon and its rulers, meaning the fall of the Roman Empire. The Greek letters had numerical value and every Christian could readily divine that the beast was Nero, for Kaisar Neron (Nero Caesar) added up to 666.

But there is a larger pattern at work here. Just as Adam was tempted by a woman and disobeyed God through eating the fruit of the tree, God raises up a new Adam born of a woman, and he carries his obedience so far as to die on a tree. Was Rome /Babylon a source of death and destruction for Israel and the Church? Yes. Then in that very place the Lord will set up his throne. Peter comes to Rome as its bishop. In the persecutions Christians die by the thousands in the Coliseum, but this is how Christians triumph over evil, by carrying their obedience and faith to the point of death. They utterly conquered Rome by their joy in the face of death. They went to the lions singing, as if in triumph. By their bloodand the word of their testimony they literally brought Rome to its knees, and Babylon was no more.

The very last gladitorial contest in the Coliseum was interupted when a Christian monk, Telemachus, leapt from the stands and came between the two gladiators. They hacked him to pieces, but Rome was so sickened by this brutality that the gladitorial contests were ended. By such means did Christ utterly conquer Rome.

Have you ever been there? The signs of His triumph are everywhere.

It is this Roman Catholic Church who utterly vanquished the Roman Empire by her teachings, her martyrdoms and her saints, and sent missionaries out to all the former holdings of the empire, thereby creating Christendom, that you in your are pleased to think of as the harlot of Babylon. But Revelation was not written by an irritated monk in Germany in 1517, but by an apostle on the Island of Patmos in the year 67AD.

Lee

What really happens in these threads is that people will make an absolute statement or a personal belief which leads to replies. For instance, I see posts by Catholics who make assertions that their church is the original Church, or that Peter was the first pope. Now if I disagree with this and post challenging questions, is it mud-slinging? To me its not.

Statements like this:

. YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION was not even in existence until after the mid-1500s. There was no "breakaway" by the "Catholic Church" from the "true original church." The Catholic Church WAS the true original church.

Click to expand...

I see in this post 2 things: false history and the true church theory.

It's false history because there was not just one "church" until the 1500s. There were numerous churches all over the world ever since Christians started establishing them. The Ethiopian man in Acts 8 went back to Ethiopia after being converted by Philip. Evidently he (or other missionaries) started a church there, since that area of the world was largely Christian all throughout the past 2000 years (there are still alot of Christians in southern Sudan). That particular church, or group of Christians, existed before the church of Rome, yet according to you its not the true church. That Ethiopian man had his own copy of Scriptures, providing evidence that the Bible is and always was sufficient for believers. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2Tim 3:16

Churches existed all over in Asia, Africa, and Europe. There were early Christians as far away as England, India, west Africa and Russia. None of these churches were a part of the Roman Catholic system. The Waldenses who lived in Italy and France were Christians not subject to Rome. Same with the Paulicians , Donatists, and Anabaptists. The Roman Church had no more authority than any other church until 313 AD when Constantine made it the official state religion.

I'd also like to know how the apostle's "successors" are supposed to have special authority? The Lord Jesus gave his apostles, including Peter, authority to bind/loose, cast out devils, heal, etc.. but nothing was ever said about anyone after them. I think apostolic authority is just like their miraculous gifts, which ended a long time ago.

I don't believe the book of Revelation was intended for the day of Nero . He did not cause everyone to recieve a mark on their hand or forehead with his number on it. It had to have been a physical mark so that it could be determined who could buy or sell.