SALVATION

[fhansen]

When wanting to get my dad's attention always used "daddy" or "dad" whether a child, teenager or adult. Same with my son and daughter when referring to me.

So you expect us to believe you and your wife (if married with children) taught your child/children to say "father" instead of "daddy" or "dad" and that you still prefer that you are addressed more formally as "father" instead "dad'? Some born again Christians might refer to you as a "stuffed shirt" Roman Catholic.

Plenty of people have used the more formal term, even my children for fun. But this a word game as well-or at least a case of desperately splitting hairs- since father and daddy mean the same thing. "Abba" might actually be closer to "daddy", in fact. And the EO use the term in the same way as well. But you'll keep regurgitating the same kind of nonsense anyway apparently due to a misguided desire to promote a skewed gospel-and deny the gospel as known and understood by God's people from the beginning. And no one gives priests the sort of virtual cult worship I've seen given to come Protestant pastors. "Father", as used in Scripture to describe the leadership relationship between Christ's disciples and those they lead and mentor, is a term of respect, as is the term "Pastor", which means "shepherd", a leader of the flock.

But back to the OP, which is a simple question about truth as it pertains to salvation, not about who might possess that truth most fully which is a topic for another thread.

 

[AbbaLove]

So an indoctrinated member of a Roman Catholic church sees no problem with referring to his/her parish priest as (for example) "Father" O'Malley out of respect for being a stand-in representativ for Christ. What would Peter have to say about RCC parishoners addressing their priest(s) as "Father"... but that makes little difference because the Roman Catholic Popes have been conned to believe they are the Vicar of Christ and can do whatever they want in the best intersts of the RCC (not Protestant) is God's true church on earth ... in spite of its corruption. It's possible that the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic church will not be exempt from Matthew 7:22-23 ...

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?​

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

​

Have you ever addressed a Catholic priest as "father"? Then apparently you have more allegaince to the RCC than you do to the Words Of Christ.​

​

The Op comes across as if he knows more about SALVATION being of Roman Catholic religion than say a born again Protestant. Maybe, he even believes that when an infant of Catholic parents is springled with holy water by a priest that the child grows up to believe he/she is born again. That's possibly why a Catholic priest likes to be addressed as "Father" having represented Father God in bringing SALVATION to an infant.​

​

If so the religiousity of the Roman Catholic church has grown to big for its Christian britches (i.e. conceited, self-important)​

 

[Valletta]

Have you ever addressed a Catholic priest as "father"? Then apparently you have more allegaince to the RCC than you do to the Words Of Christ.

​

Yours is a misinterpretation of the Bible. As I mentioned, Paul and Abraham are referred to as spiritual "fathers" in the Bible. Thus says the Word of God.

 

[fhansen]

So an indoctrinated member of a Roman Catholic church sees no problem with referring to his/her parish priest as (for example) "Father" O'Malley out of respect for being a stand-in representativ for Christ. What would Peter have to say about RCC parishoners addressing their priest(s) as "Father"... but that makes little difference because the Roman Catholic Popes have been conned to believe they are the Vicar of Christ and can do whatever they want in the best intersts of the RCC (not Protestant) is God's true church on earth ... in spite of its corruption. It's possible that the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic church will not be exempt from Matthew 7:22-23 ...

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?​

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

​

Have you ever addressed a Catholic priest as "father"? Then apparently you have more allegaince to the RCC than you do to the Words Of Christ.​

​

The Op comes across as if he knows more about SALVATION being of Roman Catholic religion than say a born again Protestant. Maybe, he even believes that when an infant of Catholic parents is springled with holy water by a priest that the child grows up to believe he/she is born again. That's possibly why a Catholic priest likes to be addressed as "Father" having represented Father God in bringing SALVATION to an infant.​

​

If so the religiousity of the Roman Catholic church has grown to big for its Christian britches (i.e. conceited, self-important)​

All you have is private personal opinion and speculation. Meanwhile you're speaking as authoritatively as you denounce others for doing. And they at least have history on their side but you speculate about all that too. Yours is the viewpoint of presumption. And you lack the courage to do the historical research on your own that just might prove you wrong.

I began with a clean slate, open to truth wherever I might find it. And I found it in the Bible and began to understand the faith better and better. It was only because that understanding finally coincided with the understanding of the ancient churches and the early fathers that I became impressed with them at all.

And all throughout this thread I've supported my positions with scripture, and sometimes but rarely offering teachings directly from the church or early fathers.

 

[AbbaLove]

All you have is private personal opinion and speculation. Meanwhile you're speaking as authoritatively as you denounce others for doing. And they at least have history on their side but you speculate about all that too. Yours is the viewpoint of presumption. And you lack the courage to do the historical research on your own that just might prove you wrong.

My personal opinion is based on His Word. As far as their (RCC) history it is nothing to brag about. The idea that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope of the RCC or that he was addressed as "Father" is nonsense. Such nonsense is one reason why more than a few born again Christians are not impressed with the history of the RCC.

It's obvious from your posts that your search was for the denominational [religious] church you believe is most helpful in securing one's eternal life and as the most impressive Christian religious denomination on earth.

I began with a clean slate, open to truth wherever I might find it. And I found it in the Bible and began to understand the faith better and better. It was only because that understanding finally coincided with the understanding of the ancient churches and the early fathers that I became impressed with them at all.

God would prefer that we are first and foremost impressed with Him and not our search for what we think is the better/best Christian denomination. My Catholic friend rooms with other Catholics who disagree as much as agree on RCC doctrine.

Hopefully, in time you wiii find that you had as much faith in the RCC as Christ for your SALVATION. Even now you are trying so intently on convincing yourself.

Yours is a misinterpretation of the Bible. As I mentioned, Paul and Abraham are referred to as spiritual "fathers" in the Bible. Thus says the Word of God.

So have you also swallowed the proverbial "hook, line and sinker" that RCC spiritual "fathers" are more annointed than Protestant spiritual "fathers" ??

The OP is trying so intently on convincing himself that the RCC is a better denomination than say Protestant when it comes to God's "chosen called out ones" (ekklesia) receiving eternal life. The centuries of corruption within the RCC contributed to the Protestant Reformation. Yet religious man is impressed by the beautiful churches of the RCC and the religiousity like a Pope, Bishops and Priests that are addressed as "Holy Father" and "Father" even though to do so is a No-No ...

And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.​

in spite of its (RCC) corruption. It's possible that the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic church will not be exempt from Matthew 7:22-23 ...

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

A Catholic friend once made the comment to me that even the Pope will have to spend some time in purgatory for seemingly not repremanding (demoting) a Bishop or Priest for practicing sins of sexual child abuse. Even so the RCC is an impressive religion in spite of its shortcomings.

 

[fhansen]

My personal opinion is based on His Word. As far as their (RCC) history it is nothing to brag about. The idea that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope of the RCC or that he was addressed as "Father" is nonsense. Such nonsense is one reason why more than a few born again Christians are not impressed with the history of the RCC.

It's obvious from your posts that your search was for the denominational [religious] church you believe is most helpful in securing one's eternal life and as the most impressive Christian religious denomination on earth.

God would prefer that we are first and foremost impressed with Him and not our search for what we think is the better/best Christian denomination. My Catholic friend rooms with other Catholics who disagree as much as agree on RCC doctrine.

Hopefully, in time you wiii find that you had as much faith in the RCC as Christ for your SALVATION. Even now you are trying so intently on convincing yourself.

So have you also swallowed the proverbial "hook, line and sinker" that RCC spiritual "fathers" are more annointed than Protestant spiritual "fathers" ??

The OP is trying so intently on convincing himself that the RCC is a better denomination than say Protestant when it comes to God's "chosen called out ones" (ekklesia) receiving eternal life. The centuries of corruption within the RCC contributed to the Protestant Reformation. Yet religious man is impressed by the beautiful churches of the RCC and the religiousity like a Pope, Bishops and Priests that are addressed as "Holy Father" and "Father" even though to do so is a No-No ...

And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.​

in spite of its (RCC) corruption. It's possible that the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic church will not be exempt from Matthew 7:22-23 ...

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

A Catholic friend once made the comment to me that even the Pope will have to spend some time in purgatory for seemingly not repremanding (demoting) a Bishop or Priest for practicing sins of sexual child abuse. Even so the RCC is an impressive religion in spite of its shortcomings.

You're not quite getting it. Wherever you have more than zero humans gathered you will have sin/corruption. I experienced it firsthand in Protestant churches as well. The beauty of God's plan is that He ensures that we have the faith preserved intact despite human weaknesses limitations and sin. So no one is impeccable, including the Pope.

The faith is about God, not about people. And most popes know that better than anyone even if some popes haven't at times in the past where human pride and selfishness and greed took over instead. But again you'll find scandal everywhere you find humans even as we rightfully hope that God's people would always hold to the higher standard that they're called to.

I don't care where the truth comes from! Only that we know what it is. We need knowledge, revelation, so that we'll know, so that we'll know God and His will for us to the greatest extent that we can, and as correctly as we can. That's why He gives it to us. And with scripture alone sincere and well-intentioned people disagree over its meaning all day long.

But this is not a thread about one denomination over the other even if you want it to make it that way. Plenty of people, going by scripture alone, also come to the same conclusions that were stated in the OP. And that is what we are debating. If you want to bash Catholicism start another thread, "Why I hate Catholicism", etc.

 

[Valletta]

My personal opinion is based on His Word. As far as their (RCC) history it is nothing to brag about. The idea that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope of the RCC or that he was addressed as "Father" is nonsense. Such nonsense is one reason why more than a few born again Christians are not impressed with the history of the RCC.

It's obvious from your posts that your search was for the denominational [religious] church you believe is most helpful in securing one's eternal life and as the most impressive Christian religious denomination on earth.

God would prefer that we are first and foremost impressed with Him and not our search for what we think is the better/best Christian denomination. My Catholic friend rooms with other Catholics who disagree as much as agree on RCC doctrine.

Hopefully, in time you wiii find that you had as much faith in the RCC as Christ for your SALVATION. Even now you are trying so intently on convincing yourself.

So have you also swallowed the proverbial "hook, line and sinker" that RCC spiritual "fathers" are more annointed than Protestant spiritual "fathers" ??

The OP is trying so intently on convincing himself that the RCC is a better denomination than say Protestant when it comes to God's "chosen called out ones" (ekklesia) receiving eternal life. The centuries of corruption within the RCC contributed to the Protestant Reformation. Yet religious man is impressed by the beautiful churches of the RCC and the religiousity like a Pope, Bishops and Priests that are addressed as "Holy Father" and "Father" even though to do so is a No-No ...

And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.​

in spite of its (RCC) corruption. It's possible that the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic church will not be exempt from Matthew 7:22-23 ...

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

A Catholic friend once made the comment to me that even the Pope will have to spend some time in purgatory for seemingly not repremanding (demoting) a Bishop or Priest for practicing sins of sexual child abuse. Even so the RCC is an impressive religion in spite of its shortcomings.

You really should not criticize the Word of God, which contains many examples of spiritual fatherhood. Jesus is saying realize that God the Father is the one true father of us all, not banning anyone from using the term.

 

[fhansen]

You really should not criticize the Word of God, which contains many examples of spiritual fatherhood. Jesus is saying realize that God the Father is the one true father of us all, not banning anyone from using the term.

Ah, yes, but you're threatening to interfere with a cherished gotcha moment. 1500 years after the fact, reformers grabbed onto that verse and realized that the big bad dumb Catholic Church and by association the Eastern Orthodox who both studied and taught from the writings and together assembled the canon of scripture made a fatal mistake, and, duh, forgot that teaching while blasphemously using the term "father" for bishops and priests.

 

[Valletta]

Ah, yes, but you're threatening to interfere with a cherished gotcha moment. 1500 years after the fact, reformers grabbed onto that verse and realized that the big bad dumb Catholic Church and by association the Eastern Orthodox who both studied and taught from the writings and together assembled the canon of scripture made a fatal mistake, and, duh, forgot that teaching while blasphemously using the term "father" for bishops and priests.

Yes, the Church that chose the books of the Bible, preached and preserved the Bible over all of those centuries, and translated the Bible into so many common languages would have a desire to do just the opposite of what the Bible supposedly tells us. It doesn't take a deep knowledge of the Bible to be aware of at least some of the instances in the Bible where there are spiritual fathers and children.

 

[AbbaLove]

You really should not criticize the Word of God, which contains many examples of spiritual fatherhood. Jesus is saying realize that God the Father is the one true father of us all, not banning anyone from using the term.

My critique is on the extent of religiousity in the RCC. Primarily how the Pope as the "Vicar of Christ" can interrupt and amend the Word of GOD to satisfy the religious dogma of the RCC ... even when contradicting the Words of Jesus (Matthew 23:9). Such as addressing the Pope as "Holy Father". There is to be no earthly Holy Father as is plainly evident in these two Catholic Bible editions. The NABRE is an excellent translation from the OT Hebrew ...

The NABRE, released in 2011, is the result of a thorough revision of the Old Testament. The team of dozens of Catholic scholars undertook the project to make the translation even more literal and aligned to the original underlying text, while still rendering the Scripture in smooth contemporary English.​

Now if only these RCC scholars would dare to add a footnote the following verses to read ... "The Pope is the Holy Father on earth as the Vicar of Christ" ... to bolster the religious tradition(s) of the RCC.

Matthew 23:9 (New Catholic Bible)​

Call no one on earth your father, for you have but one Father, and he is in heaven.​

Matthew 23:9 (NABRE)​

Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.​

​

Catholicism is the most impressive Christian religion with all its beautiful cathedrals and graven images. It is no wonder why many loyal Catholics will overlook the above verses having a substitute "Holy Father" on earth.​

​

Just to be correct "Polycarp" was an early EO Christian bishop of Smyrna (not RCC) even though the RCC goes so far as to consider Peter their first [Jewish Messianic] Pope.

Shabbat Shalom​

 

[Valletta]

My critique is on the extent of religiousity in the RCC. Primarily how the Pope as the "Vicar of Christ" can interrupt and amend the Word of GOD to satisfy the religious dogma of the RCC ... even when contradicting the Words of Jesus (Matthew 23:9). Such as addressing the Pope as "Holy Father". There is to be no earthly Holy Father as is plainly evident in these two Catholic Bible editions. The NABRE is an excellent translation from the OT Hebrew ...

The NABRE, released in 2011, is the result of a thorough revision of the Old Testament. The team of dozens of Catholic scholars undertook the project to make the translation even more literal and aligned to the original underlying text, while still rendering the Scripture in smooth contemporary English.​

Now if only these RCC scholars would dare to add a footnote the following verses to read ... "The Pope is the Holy Father on earth as the Vicar of Christ" ... to bolster the religious tradition(s) of the RCC.

Matthew 23:9 (New Catholic Bible)​

Call no one on earth your father, for you have but one Father, and he is in heaven.​

Matthew 23:9 (NABRE)​

Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.​

​

Catholicism is the most impressive Christian religion with all its beautiful cathedrals and graven images. It is no wonder why many loyal Catholics will overlook the above verses having a substitute "Holy Father" on earth.​

​

Just to be correct "Polycarp" was an early EO Christian bishop of Smyrna (not RCC) even though the RCC goes so far as to consider Peter their first [Jewish Messianic] Pope.

Shabbat Shalom​

First, the Bible is the book of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries. No Catholic Church--no Bible. Realize that the more literal the translation into English, the more difficult a language can be to understand to a person who lacks knowledge of the various idioms and nuances of a culture and language. In this case to "call" someone by a name means to recognize the very essence of a person. What the phrase means is that God in Heaven is the one true Father of us all. It is NOT a ban on using the word "father" or "teacher" except for God. The three factors at play in your misinterpretation of Matthew are anti-Catholicism, a lack of Hebrew tradition and language understanding, and a blindness to references in the Bible to spiritual fathers and children. An association with God causes the word "holy" to be used. Moses stood on "holy ground." Because Jesus, in words paralleling Isaiah 22, renamed Simon and created the position of pope, the word "holy" is properly used--thus "holy father." The position is holy, popes are sinners and can go to Heaven or hell. One pope denied Our Lord three times!

 

[AbbaLove]

The three factors at play in your misinterpretation of Matthew are anti-Catholicism, a lack of Hebrew tradition and language, and a blindness to references in the Bible to spiritual fathers and children.

If only those Catholic scholars of their New Catholic Bible or their New American Bible (NABRE) would have more spiritual insight so as to translate the Greek so it wouldn't be misinterpreted (by say ... Protestants).

That's why i suggested that perhaps a footnote to clarify Mathew 23:9 to a more correct interpretation of the RCC, like Jimmy Swaggert's "Expositor's Study Bible" with it's many redline additions to every NT verse (as if he were Pope). If Jimmy can add further meaning to scripture for clarification then why not as the sovereign supreme pontiff (Vicar of Christ) so that Protestants aren't so easily led stray and labeled as Christian appostates.

An association with God causes the word "holy" to be used. Moses stood on "holy ground." Because Jesus, in words paralleling Isaiah 22, renamed Simon and created the position of pope, the word "holy" is properly used--thus "holy father." The position is holy, popes are sinners and can go to Heaven or hell. One pope denied Our Lord three times!Faather

Is there any footnote reference in a Catholic published Bible to Moses or Pope Peter being recognized as "Holy Father."? Christ Jesus is never referred to as "Holy Father" and yet the Pope is considered the "Holy Father" on earth by the RCC. Born again Christians whether of a RCC persuasion or Protestant persuasion believe that Christ is the physical mnifestation of Father God. Yet where is Christ ever referred to as Holy Father. And yet the RCC see fit to refer to the Apostle Peter and Popes (Vicar of Christ) as "Holy Father"

It's becoming more apparent from this thread that the OP believes even infant sprinking of holy water (baptism) by a RCC Priest can spirituality enhance a child's "born again" SALVATION experience. However, there is always the possibility he no longer believes in some of the past dogma of the RCC.

 

[Valletta]

It's becoming more apparent from this thread that the OP believes even infant sprinking of holy water (baptism) by a RCC Priest can spirituality enhance a child's "born again" SALVATION experience. However, there is always the possibility he no longer believes in some of the past dogma of the RCC.

1 Peter 3:20-21 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. RSVCE

Catholics believe the Bible is the Word of God, indeed the Bible says we are saved through Baptism. The water is the normal sign of the sacrament, it does not have to be performed by a priest. The Didache gives a description of how Christians were baptized in the first century:

CHAPTER 7

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;

7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;

7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.

The Didache,The Teaching Of The Twelve Apostles

 

[AbbaLove]

More than a few reform Baptists (Calvinist persuasion) don't believe water immersion baptism is necessary for one's SALVATION, and yet they consider themselves a Baptist (Go Figure?) They also seem conflicted on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in an unknown heavenly tongue.

Whereas it's not uncommon for a United Pentecostal to speak in an unknown tongue when coming up out of the water after a water immersion baptism. It's understandable why Catholics may consider Protestants to be confused and conflicted when it comes to one's SALVATION.

Do you believe an infant baptism (RCC) with the sprinkling of holy water by a qualified Priest is helpful to an infant's SALVATION for enhancing a spiritual relation with God?

How would you describe the purpose of infant baptism with the sprinkling of holy water by a Catholic priest if not for an infant's SALVATION? Wasn't this the dogma within the RCC for centuries ... and may still be RCC theology dogma?

One gets the impression that the OP believes born again Catholics (even infants) are more favored by God for SALVATION than are born again Protestants. Maybe the OP believes only Catrholics can be truly born again and truly annointed with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Valletta]

Do you believe an infant baptism (RCC) with the sprinkling of holy water by a qualified Priest is helpful to an infant's SALVATION for enhancing a spiritual relation with God?

How would you describe the purpose of infant baptism with the sprinkling of holy water by a Catholic priest if not for an infant's SALVATION? Wasn't this the dogma within the RCC for centuries ... and may still be RCC theology dogma?

One gets the impression that the OP believes born again Catholics (even infants) are more favored by God for SALVATION than are born again Protestants. Maybe the OP believes only Catrholics can be truly born again and truly annointed with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter says nothing about God not saving infants. Indeed, if you know your Bible you remember Jesus wants the children to come to Him. I have no idea what gave you such a faulty impression, the sacrament of Baptism saves Catholics and non-Catholic Christians.

 

[setst777]

1 Peter says nothing about God not saving infants. Indeed, if you know your Bible you remember Jesus wants the children to come to Him. I have no idea what gave you such a faulty impression, the sacrament of Baptism saves Catholics and non-Catholic Christians.

According to Lord Jesus' Gospel Commission for all nations, does a person first have to become a disciple before being baptized?

Matthew 28:19-20 (NRSVCE) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [disciples] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them [disciples] to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

And so, is baptism just for repentant believers [disciples]?

Acts 2:37-38 (NRSVCE) 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Valletta]

According to Lord Jesus' Gospel Commission for all nations, does a person first have to become a disciple before being baptized?

Matthew 28:19-20 (NRSVCE) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [disciples] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them [disciples] to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

And so, is baptism just for repentant believers [disciples]?

Acts 2:37-38 (NRSVCE) 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

No, there is no explicit requirement in the Bible. But the Catholic Church for almost 2000 years has required at least one adult in a household to first accept Jesus Christ before baptizing infants in the family.

 

[AbbaLove]

No, there is no explicit requirement in the Bible. But the Catholic Church for almost 2000 years has required at least one adult in a household to first accept Jesus Christ before baptizing infants in the family.

Pope Peter must have learned just enuf latin to make it official when sprinkling an infant for their baptism of SALVATION. If he spoke Greek wouldn't he be recognized as a Greek Orthodox bishop before being officially recognized as western Christianity"s 1st Pope around 590 - 600 AD.

The Roman Catholic church had not yet emerged as Western Christianity's administrative center prior to 590 AD. The Bible clearly sets forth the one, True Church which was founded by Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18,19), being Spiritually founded long before the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican didn't exist before 1500 AD.

According to "The Moody Handbook of Theology," the official beginning of the Roman Catholic church occurred in 590 C.E., with Pope Gregory I. This time marked the consolidation of lands controlled by the authority of the pope, and thus the church's power, into what would later be known as "the Papal States." The Vatican didn't exist before 1500 AD

Catholics believe that the Pope is the head of the Christian church on earth so that any laws he set forth, even if those laws are contrary to scripture, must stand as being authoritative. Years ago, I had a discussion with a priest in the Catholic church which centered around their law forbidding marriage. I referred him to 1 Timothy 4:1-3 which clearly shows that the doctrine which forbids marriage is of the devil. His only response was that since the Pope had decreed that priests are not to marry, they cannot marry. The Pope (as Vicar of Christ) has the final word because he is the representative of Christ on earth. Catholics believe that whatever he binds on earth is bound in heaven.​

That's why some Catholics are still advised not to study their Catholic Bibles as certain scrpture may contradict a Pope's (Vicar of Christ) decree when it comes to receiving one's SALVATION.

 

[Valletta]

Pope Peter must have learned just enuf latin to make it official when sprinkling an infant for their baptism of SALVATION. If he spoke Greek wouldn't he be recognized as a Greek Orthodox bishop before being officially recognized as western Christianity"s 1st Pope around 590 - 600 AD.

The Roman Catholic church had not yet emerged as Western Christianity's administrative center prior to 590 AD. The Bible clearly sets forth the one, True Church which was founded by Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18,19), being Spiritually founded long before the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican didn't exist before 1500 AD.

According to "The Moody Handbook of Theology," the official beginning of the Roman Catholic church occurred in 590 C.E., with Pope Gregory I. This time marked the consolidation of lands controlled by the authority of the pope, and thus the church's power, into what would later be known as "the Papal States." The Vatican didn't exist before 1500 AD

Catholics believe that the Pope is the head of the Christian church on earth so that any laws he set forth, even if those laws are contrary to scripture, must stand as being authoritative. Years ago, I had a discussion with a priest in the Catholic church which centered around their law forbidding marriage. I referred him to 1 Timothy 4:1-3 which clearly shows that the doctrine which forbids marriage is of the devil. His only response was that since the Pope had decreed that priests are not to marry, they cannot marry. The Pope (as Vicar of Christ) has the final word because he is the representative of Christ on earth. Catholics believe that whatever he binds on earth is bound in heaven.​

That's why some Catholics are still advised not to study their Catholic Bibles as certain scrpture may contradict a Pope's (Vicar of Christ) decree when it comes to receiving one's SALVATION.

C.E.? You should stay away from any publication that does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. I have said things I should not have too, you can always pray to God for forgiveness and apologize to the priest and tell him you have learned that Paul, as per Corinthians below, recommended celibacy:

"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. . . . So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better." (1 Cor. 7:32-35, 38).

There are married priests. Catholics set rules for their religious, one rule is that those who have a vocation for the priesthood must go to seminary and also, as a discipline following the Apostle Paul's recommendation, if they are not married they are to remain celibate. This rule can change, just like the time or place for mass can change.

Catholics are encouraged to study the Bible. There are online courses available and my parish has offered Bible study. The St. Paul Center offers free Bible courses online. The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church and all Catholics are encouraged to study the Bible. It was the Catholic Church that chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

As to the Vatican, the first St. Peter's Basilica was completed in 329 A.D. The current Basilica is on the exact same site. In fact you can get a tour and go a number of levels below the main floor and see the location where St. Peter was buried. From there you can look straight up into the current altar area of the Basilica.

 

[setst777]

setst777 said:
According to Lord Jesus' Gospel Commission for all nations, does a person first have to become a disciple before being baptized?

Matthew 28:19-20 (NRSVCE) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [disciples] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them [disciples] to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

And so, is baptism just for repentant believers [disciples]?

Acts 2:37-38 (NRSVCE) 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

No, there is no explicit requirement in the Bible. But the Catholic Church for almost 2000 years has required at least one adult in a household to first accept Jesus Christ before baptizing infants in the family.

I am still amazed how the clear command and instructive of Lord Jesus and His Apostolic Writers are laid aside, and explained away, whenever or wherever it disagrees with traditions and teachings of others who claim to be Christians. I say this not only of the RCC but any Church sect or denomination that does likewise.

Romans 16:25-27 (NIV) 25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the {{{prophetic writings}}} by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith – 27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

Colossians 2:2 My purpose is that they may have the full riches of COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING, in order that they may know the Mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may DECEIVE YOU BY FINE-SOUNDING ARGUMENTS. . . 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on HUMAN TRADITION and the basic principles of this world – RATHER THAN ON CHRIST

Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

2 Corinthians 1:13 (NIV) 13 For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand.

1 Corinthians 4:6 Do not go beyond what is written.