RE: Protestant vs. Catholic

[KephaMeansRock]

This is aphisherofmen,

What happened to the protestant v. Catholic debate forum that was going on here?

I just worked last night for over an hour on a post, and now it's gone, and my account is deleted!!!

Did we break a rule'? We were on topic and being respectful....

Anybody? HELP?!

[KephaMeansRock]

OKAY, so apparently the whole site got hacked...I get it...I wasn't banned...

Well, here are my responses...

magnus wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that tradition is not binding, but you'll have to elucidate on your second set of questions. Why does the question of what is and is not protected by the Holy Spirit produce a Catholic picture? If you look at the kerygmatic Christian communities and the Churches as described in the Epistles, I would almost say the picture becomes very Anabaptist.


I cannot find one group that practiced exclusively adult baptism, or that denied apostolic succession (except maybe a few Gnostics, but I don't think that's the route you want to go), or who denied that the eucharist was really Christ's flesh.

You can say that if you want - and if you've really studied and come to that conclusion in all truth and honesty, fine and well - but I really don't think an honest reading of the ECFs and the epistles could lend itself to Anabaptism; and the fact that they appeared late on the scene is problematic for me too. For Christ is not like the foolish builder who set out to build a tower and had not the supplies; and the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, so it ought to be accessable to all. Neither of those claims work within the confines of Anabaptist claims about the church.
Quote:
Jesus rebuked them because their offices as apostles meant them to be servants to their community, and that personal honour and glory were not important. That much I follow. I also grant that there is a place for oversight. But there seems to be a disconnect between the rhetoric and the realities of the Catholic Church in this matter. The Pope has in the past been seen almost as a divinity and is hedged about with a hierarchy that is seen to make himself look more important than the average layman. Many Popes have not (and the current one certainly has not) conducted themselves with attitudes of servitude, but rather attitudes fitting more with the Sanhedrin


I'd cut it short at divinization, but I'll agree that some popes and bishops and laypeople across the board have been in it for themselves and not for Christ. But Christ himself still says that regardless of behavior, those God puts in place are in power until he himself removes them (cf Matt 23), and that so long as they are in their office, they do wield the power associated with it. That's why the Jews were to listen to the scribes and pharisees until Christ himself removed them and gave authority to his disciples.
Quote:
Perhaps it's just my Protestant reading of the statements made by Ratzinger et al. on topics like the DaVinci Code, Islam in Europe etc., but even so I think the question can be legitimately asked, 'what gives?'


I'd need to see which comments before i can comment, but given what you're saying, I'm pretty sure it's more reasonable than you think given the source...
Quote:
Okay, but how does this equate to the need for intercessors? It seems to me to be a non-sequitur.


If Christ says "whoever hears you hears me" then He is explicitly giving us people through whom we hear his message.

But more over, St. Paul exhorts others to pray for each other, acting as intercessors (not mediators). You cannot worship for me, but you can intercede for me before God in Christ.
Quote:
Fine, but this is also tangential to my question. What does it mean to be a 'ministerial priest', or a 'universal priest'? Do the 'ministerial priests' get to have direct contact with God while the 'universal priests' don't?


The universal priesthood brings God to the world; the ministerial priesthood in a special way brings God to the universal priesthood.
Quote:
So are you saying that for the first four centuries of the existence of the Christian Church, no believer was ever called upon to defend someone else?


No. We have records of some doing just that. What was it that Jesus said:

"But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)
Quote:
I find this a remarkable assertion, especially in view of what Christians were called to do in the service of the poor and outcast, but it is the logical end of your argument. Yet apparently for four hundred years the Christian Church was able to reconcile the need to protect the innocent with the principles of nonviolence and antimilitarism. These principles were integral to the Christian tradition, but were lost with the 'conversion' of Constantine, and left to be reclaimed by various people and groups, notably St. Francis of Assisi, Menno Simonszoon and Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.


I don't think that's quite right. There are times when laying down the sword IS the right thing to do, but there are times when it is not; when all other recourses have been had, the virtuous must be willing to lay down their lives for others.
Quote:
Therein lies what (in my mind) is one of the core problems with Catholicism. Once doctrine on something like the substance or metaphysical nature of God becomes more important than the core messages of Christ and his Gospel (to love one's neighbour and to love God), that's a heresy of a different colour, and one which seems to have ended up throwing out the babe with the bathwater.


Where do you draw the line?

Does it matter if you think Christ wasn't God? Does that make worshiping him then Idolatry?

The Truth is what sets us free, and Christ gave us the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" that we might know it solidly and soundly.
Catharsis wrote:
The statement that we agree on everything but the Papal Primacy is very naive. It is the Roman Catholic Church that insists merely on Papal Primacy, while overlooking other issues. The Orthodox Church is "deficient" and "lacking something" simply because of this one issue: Papal Primacy. Looks like we're ganging up on you but I have to ask: Is there anything else that we're lacking or is that the ONLY thing that separates us?


Well, the Filioque clause is one you could site, though I think the scriptures are quite clear that the spirit does proceed from the Son also (cf John 20:20ish)

I'm sure there are others, but I was differentiating Protestantism from Catholicism, and I don't view the Orthodox as Protestants strictly speaking.

But it was the Orthodox in the Council of Nicea I which themselves affirmed that the Bishop of Rome had a special authority over all other bishops that wasn't merely honorific.
Samuel wrote:
Actions held and pursued by the leadership of the church for over 600 years to me qualify as a teaching of the church.


Well, they don't qualify as per the Church. In fact, they don't qualify by linguistics. They are not TAUGHT, but merely done by members (all of whom are sinners). ALL church leaders sin. Peter sinned. Does that disqualify him? Paul?
Quote:
My Father was born there and I still have Family there. Did you ever know a Harley H. WILLIAMS?


No, sorry.
Quote:
What were you before?


Agnostic.
Quote:
Yes. The Septuagint was the basis of the Christian Bible since most could read Greek and not Hebrew. However the Hebrew is better in that it is best to go to the original language instead of another translation.


Yes, but the point is that the books were considered scripture.

The Sadducee quoted to Christ a story they rejected but he accepted to disprove the resurrection, the story of Tobit (or rather Tobiah's Wife), who was married to 7 brothers and each died leaving her childless.

St. Paul quotes in his Hebrews 11 list of OT saints people being tortured for the sake of a better resurrection, and that comes directly from Maccabees and nowhere else in the OT, even though EVERY OTHER PERSON he cites comes directly from the OT...Did he throw in one random example for the sake of it, or did he USE THOSE BOOKS!
Quote:
The fall was not complete nor all of a sudden. The RCC still has many Christian Doctrines and teachings. But the leadership departed from truth when it combined with state to force others to believe and murdered those who disagreed. At that point the leadership had chosen a downward path.


I don't think so. Rather I see in the Church the fulfillment to a degree of what God did with Israel. He gave Israel cities they did not build, and he gave his Church an entire empire (this time the only blood shed was that of Christians too, not of other people!). Some risks came with that certainly, including people seeking office for the sake of power (simony), but that doesn't discredit the leadership at large.

Your choice is the authority of the Bishops and ONE FAITH, or the authority of the believer and 30,000 denominations each conflicting with one another. I chose the ONE FAITH handed on from the 1st century on. None of those teachings has changed in the Catholic church.

Just as an example, one teaching that EVERY protestant denomination has changed has been the issue of Contraception. Even the reformers taught that it was a grave evil, but today its practically a sacrament...except that the Catholic Church has continued to teach what she's taught since the beginning. She alone has not backslid (though today some denominations are coming around - often however it is only particular members, and often they wind up Catholic after investigating this issue further, like Scott Hahn and his wife)
Quote:
When the office is made more then the Bible declares it to be and that office is used for evil purposes. Then I disbelieve the office is correct.


And I'd both disagree that that has happened, and I'd disagree that the office is based upon the scriptures - for the office PRECEDED the scriptures and the scriptures were written ABOUT the offices that already existed to give guidelines for them.
Quote:
Today I could agree. Although I do not read the hearts of men. But when Simony was the norm and the average office was sold to the highest bidder by the Kings that was not true.


As someone who is a medievalist at heart I have to object that the VAST MAJORITY of bishops at ALL times have come legitimately to office, and have been godly men. Read the writings of the saints throughout history! See what they said. And when abuse happened, the multitudes cried out often calling it precisely that. That men, even ordained men, are sometimes slow to act (especilly in days without a postal service, let alone internet and phone) must not be anachronistically blamed upon them as necessarily a fault.
Quote:
Agreed. But if the office is set up and made powerful by wicked men. Then these same men establish traditions which help keep them and vindicate them. Though I do not understand why those who came afterward support the tradition.


The offices were not set up NOR made powerful by wicked men. Wicked men sought offices because they already existed and had some sort of authority which came naturally (like the deference you give your pastor, only magnified over 500 to 1000 to 1500 years)
Quote:
It works as a good excuse. But it does not track. Simply making it okay for them to put the wives of other priests in prison why the popes kept more then concubine. In a PBS special on the Vatican it showed some of the lavish apartments Popes kept their concubines in while the majority of people were starving to death on a daily basis.


Sinners, to be sure. So what? Where does scripture state that sin invalidates the very office held? At MOST you can claim that it invalidates the individual (which scripture still doesn't claim)...
Quote:
A mark may be there but it does not guarantee correctness in doctrine or behavior or a place in heaven.


No, that's the holy spirits job...
Quote:
Down through history nothing was done about many popes who turned. Agreed some popes were much worse then others. Five is the standard list of the worst popes. But many were less bad does not make them good.


And that many were bad at all (a very debatable point I'm not going to concede except for the sake of argument) does not invalidate the fact that these offices exist and are protected by the Holy Spirit from TEACHING FORMALLY error.

You might enjoy this site for more information:

Pope Fiction, especially number 10.
Quote:
If you check the PBS special on the Inquisition then you will find that if false from the Vatican’s on records. Most did not kill that many. They mainly just murdered a few. Some murdered the pervious popes to get the office. Others just murdered their rivals and enemies.


The inquisition had little to do with popes per se, especially with succession of office. I've not seen this special, though I'm looking for it on line. I've not seen much on that PBS site, but maybe I'm missing where I should click...
Quote:
Here is part of the problem. Just as the Jewish people thought they were always protected just because they were chosen does not make it so. Do you understand in the Bible O.T. about the remnant concept?


I understand that Christ himself said that the people were obliged to obey those who sat on the seat of moses, even if they were sinners, and that he gave BINDING and LOOSING authority to his church.
Quote:
Nor can we worship them by praying to them. Although the RCC puts a difference in the adoration. The J. Witness make the same distinction that JESUS was not truly worshipped as GOD. Both of you to me do not properly use the Greek words and Jewish understanding on which basis the New Testament was written.


All we do when we "pray" to the saints is say "St. ______, PRAY FOR ME", just like if I said "Samuel pray for me". I'm not saying "Samuel, you are the greatest of the great, the one ineffable source of all creation and my very being, blessed be your name".

It is utterly consistent with scripture and the 1st century practice of the church.
Quote:
But Paul does not bow down and ask them instead of praying to JESUS nor does he say they have special ways to GOD not available to others. We are to pray to the Father in the name of JESUS.


We don't ask them INSTEAD of. If I'm asking you to pray, it's not because I'm circumventing Christ in any way whatsoever.
Quote:
Do you know what the doctrine of Conditionalism is?


Vaguely, why?
Quote:
The Bible uses Scripture to show what is true. Some examples John 2:22 - When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Joh 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Joh 20:9 - For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. Ac 1:16 - Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. Ac 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. Ro 4:3 - For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.


Interestingly, these all are events outside (at the time) of scripture, being used to look back at scripture.

Certainly scripture was given for a reason (to be read/heard and meditated upon)...
Quote:
I disagree. James the Brother of JESUS was the leader of the Council and Peter had to report to him. Paul was the main Apostle to the gentiles.


Because James' territory WAS Jerusalem, while Peter hadn't settled. Yet Peter alone is the voice recorded as speaking, and James cites him as scripture.

Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48). Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48). And Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.
Quote:
But the records are strong enough to prove millions. But not the 20 million some say.True.


Some estimates disagree....
Quote:
But the rules of Sanitation and health regulations are still good to be followed. They help us to live longer healthier lives.


Do you wear polyester/cotton blends? Or are all your clothes pure cotton or pure wool?

The Levitical code may have some basis in health, but it was primarily a way to shoe the Israelites that they were separate from the other nations. It is not binding upon Christians (most of us gentiles anyway); hence the method of the vision given to Peter in acts 11, and the rulings of the council in acts 15 (the only prohibitions were ones that were geared towards offending others - for one thing prohibited was the meat sacrificed to idols, but Paul explicitly permits this because such idols are non-existent to begin with, but also concedes that though it's permitted, if it gives scandal it should be avoided for the sake of the brother offended))
Quote:
Righteousness is by Grace alone. I agree to that. We follow the moral laws because they are a sin to break. We follow the health regulations because GOD is smarter then we are.


Actually, you're reading into them if you call them "health regulations" (except for the ones like handling leprosy) because they're never called that in the OT. That's biblical exegesis that may have some basis in scientific musing (e.g. too much shellfish CAN be bad, but lobster on occasion is fine), but God has not revealed that they were matters of health; the message repeated throughout the Torah is that "You are a nation set apart for me" and that this was to be drilled in by everything israel did. It was to be a reminder "as a sign on the forehead and on the right hand" (Deut 6:8), meaning in thought and deed.

***

Sorry my reply took so long...Things have been getting busier here...

Pax Christi,

-Justin
***************

To aphisherofmen

Praying to saints is like the Bush twins asking a traffic cop for permission to enter the White house.

Then asking others (like you) to do so is the exact same...yet very biblical. St. Paul exhorts such practice...

No. The twins have permission to go into the White House anytime they want to. But they could ask their Grandpa to come with them. That would be okay. But they do not ask their Grandfather permission for something they have the right to do. Also getting on your knees and praying to a dead person is not the same as asking a friend to pray for you or with you. Prayers are directed to GOD in the name of JESUS. You do not go to the cop instead of your Father.

God already knows before you ask, but you still should ask because such actions BENEFIT YOU. So to does the body of Christ benefit by praying for it's members; and the body is one, and it includes those in heaven.

True GOD already knows. The prayer to your father benefits you for you are in communion with GOD. But how does prayer to a dead person benefit you?

It would be like the Bush Twins asking the traffic cop that GW himself appointed to guard the door. They could call him themselves, or they could go through the guard. Both would have the same effect of them entering the White House, but one builds a relationship with someone else important to the father.

You changed my point from a traffic cop to a Secret Service agent guarding the door. You also made a major difference. Now the Agent has to be a go between. Since you no longer have direct access without his permission. You have placed humans between you and GOD. Which is the point of praying to saints since in many you cannot go to GOD directly. You must have people holier then you intercede for GOD is too Holy to listen to us directly. That is good medieval theology. But it is antibiblical.
[/u]

When we ask ANYBODY to pray for us, we are simply asking for their petitions before the Father through the Son, IN ADDITION TO THE PRAYERS WE ARE OFFERING.

But how does prayer to a dead person benefit you?

A) They're not dead but alive in Christ and
B) The same way your prayers benefit me.
C) More so, given that the prayers of the righteous availeth much" according to St. James' Epistle.

As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them!

In any event, it is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding.

The Bush analogy breaks down from the get-go, because while the Bush girls, if there was a traffic accident, might HAVE to go through the traffic cop, you are correct that WE NEVER DO.

NEVER do we HAVE to ask others to pray for us, either of those on their earth or the saints in heaven. BUT it is PERMISSIBLE (so long as it DOESN'T devolve into idolatry), and even LAUDABLE for it builds up the body in a real way.

Pray for me, and I'll pray for you!

"Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).

[MagusYanam]

I cannot find one group that practiced exclusively adult baptism, or that denied apostolic succession (except maybe a few Gnostics, but I don't think that's the route you want to go), or who denied that the eucharist was really Christ's flesh.

You can say that if you want - and if you've really studied and come to that conclusion in all truth and honesty, fine and well - but I really don't think an honest reading of the ECFs and the epistles could lend itself to Anabaptism; and the fact that they appeared late on the scene is problematic for me too. For Christ is not like the foolish builder who set out to build a tower and had not the supplies; and the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, so it ought to be accessable to all. Neither of those claims work within the confines of Anabaptist claims about the church.

Must you always pick at the minutiae? The Anabaptists practise believer's baptism, true - you will find that the baptism of adults has major references in Scripture as well as in the early Christian communities - but this was never a major point of doctrine; it was a point of controversy, and thus got more attention. There is a difference there: the practise of believer's baptism led the civil authorities to think that the Anabaptists were dangerous anarchists intent on destroying civil society, which they weren't (since most taxes were collected based not on civil censuses but on baptismal records).

And, let's face it, many Christians throughout history have realised the simple fact that the presence of apostolic succession is no indication of a church that is healthy or sound, and yet Catholics tend to use it as a catch-all, even when the person who is considered the successor to St. Peter is wrong. Does the name Urban II ring any bells?

When I say that the early Christian communities looked fairly Anabaptist, I didn't mean minor doctrinal quibbles like insistence on believer's baptism or chiliasm. I meant that these early Christian communities were open, they were democratic, and they were just that - communities. The vast majority of early Christians (by all historical and archaeological analysis available) practised nonviolence and the Early Church Fathers (with the exception of Augustine) had antimilitarist tendencies.

As for the Anabaptists appearing late on the scene, I appeal to your historian's sensibilities here and implore you to look at the context. Their appearance coincided with, or followed on the heels of, a resurgence in Western Christian scholarship (both Catholic and Reformed) in the post-Crusade era. You know, the one which led to the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Scientific Revolution. Hulderich Zwingli wasn't some rabble-rouser and he wasn't some rube, nor was he some flaming fanatic seeking to bring down the Catholic Church (for that matter, neither was Luther) - he was a Scriptural scholar and he was a democrat (the latter not being surprising, since he was, after all, Swiss), and he believed in the power of concepts and the necessity of community and a discipline of obedience, as did his fellow scholars.

I'd cut it short at divinization, but I'll agree that some popes and bishops and laypeople across the board have been in it for themselves and not for Christ. But Christ himself still says that regardless of behavior, those God puts in place are in power until he himself removes them (cf Matt 23), and that so long as they are in their office, they do wield the power associated with it. That's why the Jews were to listen to the scribes and pharisees until Christ himself removed them and gave authority to his disciples.

Wow.

I have never seen someone interpret St. Matthew 23 to mean the exact opposite of what it says before.

So, what do you think it all means: 'You are not to be called teacher, for you have one teacher and you are all students' and 'You are not to be called father, for you have one father - the one in heaven'? Now, as a scholar I admit I could be wrong about this, but I simply can't take this to mean that Jesus was making an endorsement for the office of the scribes and Pharisees, or for those who would take their place and conduct themselves as the scribes and Pharisees conducted themselves.

Jesus was telling them to follow the law, not to follow the scribes and the Pharisees who propounded their own version of it. And then he goes on this rant against these selfsame religious authorities that would make any self-respecting socialist proud. So tell me, what do you make of this?

If Christ says "whoever hears you hears me" then He is explicitly giving us people through whom we hear his message.

But more over, St. Paul exhorts others to pray for each other, acting as intercessors (not mediators). You cannot worship for me, but you can intercede for me before God in Christ.

Not to be glib, but don't the four Evangelists qualify?

To the second (as you describe it), that fits in perfectly with the Anabaptist discipline of obedience to one another, but it doesn't mean that one can only speak to God through specially-designated intercessors.

We have records of some doing just that. What was it that Jesus said:

"But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

And what did Jesus say to Peter in St. Matthew 26 when Peter drew that sword in his defence?

I don't think that's quite right. There are times when laying down the sword IS the right thing to do, but there are times when it is not; when all other recourses have been had, the virtuous must be willing to lay down their lives for others.

Like Dirk?

Laying down one's life for another does not suppose violence.

Where do you draw the line?

Does it matter if you think Christ wasn't God? Does that make worshiping him then Idolatry?

The Truth is what sets us free, and Christ gave us the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" that we might know it solidly and soundly.

And of whom is the Church comprised? I still hold that it is an improper emphasis when doctrine becomes more important than the needs of people, and so, apparently, did the man we call God (see St. Matthew 12).

[samuelbb7]

To MagusYanam

You wrote well and correctly. I loved the story of Dirk a true Christian hero. Thank you.

Now the first post was so long I missed some points.

Samuel wrote:
Actions held and pursued by the leadership of the church for over 600 years to me qualify as a teaching of the church.

Well, they don't qualify as per the Church. In fact, they don't qualify by linguistics. They are not TAUGHT, but merely done by members (all of whom are sinners). ALL church leaders sin. Peter sinned. Does that disqualify him? Paul?

An action by an individual is very different then the action of the whole church. Policy is based on the teaching of the Church. The Policy was to kill anyone who got in the way by what ever means possible. Today President Bush actions are considered due to his policies or teachings.

Second Paul gave up murdering Christians Peter repented. These popes did not. They felt that they had the right to murder, steal, rape and do what ever they felt like.

I did enjoy the Pope fiction. As an SDA we recently published an article about how we made the mistake about the Pope and his title. It was widely annouced and spoken of in our churches. I saw the special on Pope Joan. It was I an not sure it was true. But it was one of those could be? So to me it is a good questions. Point 3 was and remains an assertion that does not hold water. Yes the Bishops of rome claimed special authority. But as to all following them. You have to ignore the Great Schism to get that. So that is a lot of history to just throw out.
Peter being in Rome. Maybe not a good reason to reject the RCC though too weak in proof. And finally fiction one. YOu do not even come close to proving that he was not just one of the 12.

Mat 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
Mat 7:14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Mat 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn {bushes} nor figs from thistles, are they?
Mat 7:17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Mat 7:19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.}
Mat 7:22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

Those who practice being free from the law of GOD as the Popes and many leaders in the RCC today are false.

Will come back when I can.

[samuelbb7]

To aphisherofmen

When we ask ANYBODY to pray for us, we are simply asking for their petitions before the Father through the Son, IN ADDITION TO THE PRAYERS WE ARE OFFERING.

You are changing praying to asking. You can ask anyone you wish. But you should never get on your knees at the dead bodies of saints or their statues or pictures and pray to them. We are to pray to the Father in the name of the Son.

A) They're not dead but alive in Christ and
B) The same way your prayers benefit me.
C) More so, given that the prayers of the righteous availeth much" according to St. James' Epistle.

A person buried in the ground is dead. You can teach that their souls are alive in heaven but that does not remove the fact they are dead. You do not have to pray to me to get me to pray for you. I do pray for you and would be happy to have you pray for me. We each have equal access to the Throne room of GOD.

Hbr 10:19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
Hbr 10:20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,
Hbr 10:21 and since {we have} a great priest over the house of God,
Hbr 10:22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled {clean} from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

Rev 5:8 When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

24 elders is not thousands of Saints.

Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them!

So what if the 24 can hear our prayers? That does not qualify them as being the ones we pray to.

In any event, it is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding.

Notice also the living creatures. This is probably symbolic. The underlying problem is still that we do not pray to humans.

NEVER do we HAVE to ask others to pray for us, either of those on their earth or the saints in heaven. BUT it is PERMISSIBLE (so long as it DOESN'T devolve into idolatry), and even LAUDABLE for it builds up the body in a real way.

Believe me after listening to many who pray to mary and after reading the history of prayers to the Saints. It long ago became idolatry.

[Catharsis]

Magus wrote:
>>>...many Christians throughout history have realised the simple fact that the presence of apostolic succession is no indication of a church that is healthy or sound, and yet Catholics tend to use it as a catch-all...<<<

Magus, the presence of apostolic succession is very important, and Protestantism is a good example why this is so.

Since Luther, Protestantism has disintegrated into thousands of different and sometimes dogmatically opposite denominations within itself. Miraculously, each group separately insists that it has not strayed from the dogma of the Holy Bible, and that it accepts only whatever the Holy Bible says - nothing less and nothing more. This disintegration exhibits that Protestantism lacks the unifying power of the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Bible by itself was never a statute of the faith.

[samuelbb7]

And the Pope did not stop the Great Schism he in fact caused it and even with the help of the armies of the Nations killing those who dissented could not hold Christiandom under his control. So the fault for the many schisms is that the Pope did not lead in such a way that Christians could follow. So the reason for all the splits is the so called apostolic leaders.

[KephaMeansRock]

Sorry, I've been really busy this week...

Must you always pick at the minutiae? The Anabaptists practise believer's baptism, true - you will find that the baptism of adults has major references in Scripture as well as in the early Christian communities - but this was never a major point of doctrine;

Sure it was, why else are they called the ANABAPTISTS? It's where their very name derives from...

Sure, adult baptism has it's place in scripture, because at that time the vast majority of Christians were CONVERTS; but in a Christian society, it's different.

And in the NT we can clearly see that infants were baptized, for entire households were baptized (which would include children), and Paul even draws the analogy between circumcision and baptism: When circumcision was introduced, it was mostly adult males who underwent it because they all had to enter the covenant, but it also applied to their children; and as the covenant grew, more and more the adults were already circumcised and only children - males 8 days old - were in need. SO too with circumcision. In fact, in the early church, the debate over infant circumcision centers not over whether children should be baptized (unambiguously 'yes') but whether the customary 8 days was necessary.

There is a difference there: the practise of believer's baptism led the civil authorities to think that the Anabaptists were dangerous anarchists intent on destroying civil society, which they weren't (since most taxes were collected based not on civil censuses but on baptismal records).

That sounds like it could be true, but I've never heard it before and would like some 3rd party confirmation... Doesn't legitimize them, however...

And, let's face it, many Christians throughout history have realised the simple fact that the presence of apostolic succession is no indication of a church that is healthy or sound, and yet Catholics tend to use it as a catch-all, even when the person who is considered the successor to St. Peter is wrong. Does the name Urban II ring any bells?

The popes have never been wrong when speaking in their office. If you can show me where they have, I'll convert.

When I say that the early Christian communities looked fairly Anabaptist, I didn't mean minor doctrinal quibbles like insistence on believer's baptism or chiliasm. I meant that these early Christian communities were open, they were democratic, and they were just that - communities.

Democratic? Show me...

The church has always had leaders - bishops, priests and deacons - who took active roles in shepherding the flock.

The vast majority of early Christians (by all historical and archaeological analysis available) practised nonviolence and the Early Church Fathers (with the exception of Augustine) had antimilitarist tendencies.

The vast majority of the Catholic church has always been pacifistic in the truest sense - i.e. MEEK. But true meekness isn't weakness, it's mediated anger; Jesus was being meek when he made a whip and drove out the money-changers.

"Anti-militarist tendencies" do not equate with a doctrinal position utterly upposed to action when necessary...

As for the Anabaptists appearing late on the scene, I appeal to your historian's sensibilities here and implore you to look at the context. Their appearance coincided with, or followed on the heels of, a resurgence in Western Christian scholarship (both Catholic and Reformed) in the post-Crusade era. You know, the one which led to the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Scientific Revolution. Hulderich Zwingli wasn't some rabble-rouser and he wasn't some rube, nor was he some flaming fanatic seeking to bring down the Catholic Church (for that matter, neither was Luther) - he was a Scriptural scholar and he was a democrat (the latter not being surprising, since he was, after all, Swiss), and he believed in the power of concepts and the necessity of community and a discipline of obedience, as did his fellow scholars.

The reformation was late on the scene, because only at the end of the 1400 did we have Guttenburg's Press, allowing for mass distribution of the scriptures, which in turn allowed each individual to read them and come to their own conclusions apart form the Church (an utterly un-biblical method).

That Zwingli and Luther could read and write show that they were smart fellows. Luther was, at least, a rather base fellow, however - most of his writings reference flatulence and fecal matter which utterly offended sensibilities 500 years ago...and he was rather hateful at times...

Luther, however, interestingly regretted all he did towards the end of his life precisely because of this 'democratic' sense of authority... he wrote "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."

I have never seen someone interpret St. Matthew 23 to mean the exact opposite of what it says before. So, what do you think it all means: 'You are not to be called teacher, for you have one teacher and you are all students' and 'You are not to be called father, for you have one father - the one in heaven'? Now, as a scholar I admit I could be wrong about this, but I simply can't take this to mean that Jesus was making an endorsement for the office of the scribes and Pharisees, or for those who would take their place and conduct themselves as the scribes and Pharisees conducted themselves.

No sir. It says "THEREFORE DO ALL THAT THEY TELL YOU..." and the reasoning for that is because of their place on "THE SEAT OF MOSES". The Jews were OBLIGED as Jews to listen to them.

The quotes against "teacher" and "father" as titles must be taken with a grain of salt, for Christ himself speaks of "Father Abraham", as does Stephen, and so too do Paul and John and Peter assume a "spiritual fatherhood". Moreover Ephesians 4 speaks of some being given as "teachers"

Those passages, however, were not referencing the pharisees, but the former (matt 23:1-3) was because it explicitly cites them. They were, however, the old wine-skins, which the new wine was not poured into.

Jesus was telling them to follow the law, not to follow the scribes and the Pharisees who propounded their own version of it. And then he goes on this rant against these selfsame religious authorities that would make any self-respecting socialist proud. So tell me, what do you make of this?

No. He was speaking of the Jewish obligation to follow their appointed leaders.

"The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses, therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example."

Not to be glib, but don't the four Evangelists qualify?

Huh?

To the second (as you describe it), that fits in perfectly with the Anabaptist discipline of obedience to one another, but it doesn't mean that one can only speak to God through specially-designated intercessors.

NOBODY has EVER stated that one MUST pray through intercessors. EVER. You can live your entire life as a Catholic and NEVER pray to the saints or to Mary and be just fine.

BUT the possibility is there and laudable, and has been practiced since the NT.

And what did Jesus say to Peter in St. Matthew 26 when Peter drew that sword in his defence?

He said to put it away, for HE HIMSELF was FREELY GIVING HIMSELF UP. We have the RIGHT (not the obligation) to defend outselves, and Christ was WAVING that right, so as to fulfill all righteousness...

So, if you were married and had kids, and you came home to your children mutilated and being sexually assaulted, and your spouse dead, would you just say "oh, please stop" or would you try to stop them physically? These things happen in the real world, and they are UNJUST and IMMORAL, and using ACTION to stop them is NOT wrong, or else Jesus himself was wrong for driving out the money changers with a whip.

Like Dirk?

Laying down one's life for another does not suppose violence.

Not in that instance. What about in the one I cited above?

And of whom is the Church comprised? I still hold that it is an improper emphasis when doctrine becomes more important than the needs of people, and so, apparently, did the man we call God (see St. Matthew 12).

Doctrine is never "more important" than "the needs of the people" - it is one of their needs. And no doctrine of the church works against the needs of the people.

I loved the story of Dirk a true Christian hero. Thank you.

It IS a good story, and a true model of Christian Charity.

An action by an individual is very different then the action of the whole church. Policy is based on the teaching of the Church. The Policy was to kill anyone who got in the way by what ever means possible. Today President Bush actions are considered due to his policies or teachings.

A) The policy was never "to kill anyone who got in the way", and if you study history from a non-anti-catholic perspective you'll see this. The church was never as monolithic as you probably think...

B) Even IF certain bishops DID behave accordingly, so what? Again, being bishop does not remove free will - they can still sin (and even go apostate)

Second Paul gave up murdering Christians Peter repented. These popes did not. They felt that they had the right to murder, steal, rape and do what ever they felt like.

Yes, because they wanted power, not to serve God. To cite the OT, that you have a bad king does not invalidate the office of the King. So too that a pope is a scoundrel does not invalidate the office of the bishop of Rome or any other bishopric.

Point 3 was and remains an assertion that does not hold water. Yes the Bishops of rome claimed special authority. But as to all following them. You have to ignore the Great Schism to get that. So that is a lot of history to just throw out.

No, I don't. I do not ignore the Great Schism. But I deny the side which claims that the chair of peter does not have primacy, because that very side had conceded in council 600 years prior that it DID have primacy, and the Early Church all support this notion - as do the scriptures.

Peter being in Rome. Maybe not a good reason to reject the RCC though too weak in proof. And finally fiction one. YOu do not even come close to proving that he was not just one of the 12.

Um, sure you do.

Those who practice being free from the law of GOD as the Popes and many leaders in the RCC today are false.

The law of God is not the Levitical code, and it is not binding upon Christians - most of whom are of Gentile Origin. The Law cannot save you.

You are changing praying to asking. You can ask anyone you wish. But you should never get on your knees at the dead bodies of saints or their statues or pictures and pray to them. We are to pray to the Father in the name of the Son.

You are changing what I'm saying. There is a catagorical difference between "prayer" and "worship". Prayer is petition, and when we "pray to saints" we are asking them to ask with us. It is never an end in itself, just as when I ask you to pray for me, it's not an end in itself.

A person buried in the ground is dead. You can teach that their souls are alive in heaven but that does not remove the fact they are dead. You do not have to pray to me to get me to pray for you. I do pray for you and would be happy to have you pray for me. We each have equal access to the Throne room of GOD.

Well, we know that at least Moses (who was transfigured), Samuel (who was brought before Saul), Elijah and Enoch (who were assumed) and the multitude who rose upon the death of Christ in Matthew 26

. I do pray for you and would be happy to have you pray for me. We each have equal access to the Throne room of GOD.

If we have equal access (which I'm not denying) , why ask you to pray for me?

Why go through you?

elders is not thousands of Saints.

No, but it does show that their ability to offer our prayers exists.

So what if the 24 can hear our prayers? That does not qualify them as being the ones we pray to.

You confusing analogous uses of the word pray.

We pray to them, asking them for their intercession. It is little different from me asking you to pray for me, to intercede for me...

We pray to God, asking him for all good things.

We worship God alone, praising him for his glory and majesty.

Believe me after listening to many who pray to mary and after reading the history of prayers to the Saints. It long ago became idolatry.

Careful.

I will admit that some may improperly idolize the saints - but that is only because they are DISREGARDING the Church's teaching on this issue, not living it out...

Since Luther, Protestantism has disintegrated into thousands of different and sometimes dogmatically opposite denominations within itself. Miraculously, each group separately insists that it has not strayed from the dogma of the Holy Bible, and that it accepts only whatever the Holy Bible says - nothing less and nothing more. This disintegration exhibits that Protestantism lacks the unifying power of the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Bible by itself was never a statute of the faith.

Again, see that quote by Luther I cited above...

And the Pope did not stop the Great Schism he in fact caused it and even with the help of the armies of the Nations killing those who dissented could not hold Christiandom under his control. So the fault for the many schisms is that the Pope did not lead in such a way that Christians could follow. So the reason for all the splits is the so called apostolic leaders.

Are you talking about the Orthodox/Catholic split or the Protestant/Catholic split?

[samuelbb7]

To KephaMeansRock

Sure, adult baptism has it's place in scripture, because at that time the vast majority of Christians were CONVERTS; but in a Christian society, it's different.

Also the first Christians were all Jews. So they looked at the Bible and the rite of Baptism which they knew to be immersion.

And in the NT we can clearly see that infants were baptized, for entire households were baptized (which would include children), and Paul even draws the analogy between circumcision and baptism: When circumcision was introduced, it was mostly adult males who underwent it because they all had to enter the covenant, but it also applied to their children; and as the covenant grew, more and more the adults were already circumcised and only children - males 8 days old - were in need. SO too with circumcision. In fact, in the early church, the debate over infant circumcision centers not over whether children should be baptized (unambiguously 'yes') but whether the customary 8 days was necessary.

Actually no. It is an assumption that there were infants. It is not stated. The reason for the circumcision on the 8th day is medical. For that is when the Blood clotting factor is highest. Infant baptism is comparable to circumcision. But the Bible only speaks of believer’s baptism. So the other is a tradition based on doctrines not found in the bible.

The popes have never been wrong when speaking in their office. If you can show me where they have, I'll convert.

Can we hold you to that? I know there is an escape clause you have built here. For the popes have said many things wrong. But you insist I point to where they were wrong when they were speaking excathedra. But you refuse to believe they can be wrong when they do that. So are you being honest in this statement? How about the statement of JESUS about people.

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Yet the popes say you can and did as if you can and proclaimed as you can. So which is correct?

The reformation was late on the scene, because only at the end of the 1400 did we have Guttenburg's Press, allowing for mass distribution of the scriptures, which in turn allowed each individual to read them and come to their own conclusions apart form the Church (an utterly un-biblical method).

For an individual to come to their own conclusions alone is unbiblical. But with a body of believers is biblical. Tradition taking the place of scripture is unbiblical.

Scripture cannot be set aside. John 10:35
Consecrate them in the truth; Your word is truth. John 17:17
1Cr 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. NASB
Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver. Proverbs 30:5-6
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
God must be true, though every human being is a liar. Romans 3:4
NKJV - Isa 8:20 - To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

That Zwingli and Luther could read and write show that they were smart fellows. Luther was, at least, a rather base fellow, however - most of his writings reference flatulence and fecal matter which utterly offended sensibilities 500 years ago...and he was rather hateful at times...

Martin Luther was a professor and taught theology at a leading Catholic University. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther Zwingli was a priest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldrych_Zwingli It is hard to not be hateful when people are tying to burn you alive at the stake. He should have done better.

Luther, however, interestingly regretted all he did towards the end of his life precisely because of this 'democratic' sense of authority... he wrote "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."

Which would not have happened if the pope who caused the Great Schism which is the break with the orthodox had been following GOD and repented of his sins and the sins of the church? Popes bought their office Simony and sometimes murdered to get in. So the Vicar of CHRIST kills another Vicar of Christ to become the new one and that is okay with you?

No sir. It says "THEREFORE DO ALL THAT THEY TELL YOU..." and the reasoning for that is because of their place on "THE SEAT OF MOSES". The Jews were OBLIGED as Jews to listen to them.

Yes they were telling the people to obey the laws of GOD and follow the Bible. The popes told people they could not hear the word of GOD and to follow tradition.

No. He was speaking of the Jewish obligation to follow their appointed leaders.

But that changed when the Church was established. For if they had followed their leaders above the Bible and the Apostles then there would have been no Christian church. When leaders teach and do wrong we are not to follow them.

NOBODY has EVER stated that one MUST pray through intercessors. EVER. You can live your entire life as a Catholic and NEVER pray to the saints or to Mary and be just fine.

Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation ….Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the [Roman Catholic] Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. CCC para 969

If you wish I can look up a number of Middle ages Catholic scholars who argued that JESUS was too holy to approach directly. It was a common doctrine then.

BUT the possibility is there and laudable, and has been practiced since the NT.

I do not remember any of the Early Church Fathers teaching to pray to the dead instead of JESUS. In the New Testament JESUS said pray in his name to the Father. No where is that changed.

Doctrine is never "more important" than "the needs of the people" - it is one of their needs. And no doctrine of the church works against the needs of the people.

When people are told that their sins are forgiven if they look at a relic they get time out of purgatory. That is against the needs of the people for it provides a false way of salvation.

A) The policy was never "to kill anyone who got in the way", and if you study history from a non-anti-catholic perspective you'll see this. The church was never as monolithic as you probably think...

Then you are saying the Pope was not really in charge? In even Catholic histories as admitted by John Paul 2 they killed many people. The papal wars for one thing. The Crusades against protestants. True the RCC had the government often execute the people for not paying church taxes. Since to do so would have robbed them of enough money to live on.

B) Even IF certain bishops DID behave accordingly, so what? Again, being bishop does not remove free will - they can still sin (and even go apostate)

True. But many took offices by buying them to get rich. So they entered Apostate and did not change.

Yes, because they wanted power, not to serve God. To cite the OT, that you have a bad king does not invalidate the office of the King. So too that a pope is a scoundrel does not invalidate the office of the bishop of Rome or any other bishopric.

Which is why GOD would remove one king and set up a different one? Which is why the Roman Catholic church fell from it’s position and the Protestants assumed it.

No, I don't. I do not ignore the Great Schism. But I deny the side which claims that the chair of peter does not have primacy, because that very side had conceded in council 600 years prior that it DID have primacy, and the Early Church all support this notion - as do the scriptures.

Wrong. The Pope was not even called pope for many decades. He was a Bishop equal to all bishops. Talk to any orthodox scholar.

The law of God is not the Levitical code, and it is not binding upon Christians - most of whom are of Gentile Origin. The Law cannot save you.

Grace saves us. Which the Roman Catholic church had protestants murdered for saying. True the Law is not the Levitical code. But it is and does include the Ten Commandments. It does include all the prophets of the entire Bible.

You are changing what I'm saying. There is a categorical difference between "prayer" and "worship". Prayer is petition, and when we "pray to saints" we are asking them to ask with us. It is never an end in itself, just as when I ask you to pray for me, it's not an end in itself.

Do you not give adoration to the Saints? Do not people bow down before statues of them and their dead bodies? The Greek word for prayer in the New Testament is for many of the words directed only to GOD as directed by JESUS.

Well, we know that at least Moses (who was transfigured), Samuel (who was brought before Saul), Elijah and Enoch (who were assumed) and the multitude who rose upon the death of Christ in Matthew 26

I will agree that Moses was resurrected. Elijah and Enoch translated and the many who arose at the resurrection of JESUS. I will agree to these. That leaves Mary in the grave until the 19th century when a pope declared she had been translated. This is not a Biblical doctrine. On Samuel that was a demon impersonating him. Sevents of GOD do not obey sevents of the devil.

If we have equal access (which I'm not denying) , why ask you to pray for me?
Why go through you?

You are not going though me. I am not going through you. We are in joining in agreement. As brothers in Christ. Equal before GOD.

You confusing analogous uses of the word pray.
We pray to them, asking them for their intercession. It is little different from me asking you to pray for me, to intercede for me...

You did not pray to me asking for my intercession. You did not get down and bow down to me or an image of me. We are equal in the sight of GOD. You asked me. That is not the same as prayer.

We pray to God, asking him for all good things.
We worship God alone, praising him for his glory and majesty.

So do I.

I will admit that some may improperly idolize the saints - but that is only because they are DISREGARDING the Church's teaching on this issue, not living it out...

The church does not stop it. It has encouraged it and does not teach against it. In fact in history the name of pagan goddess have been applied to Mary. In China a Chinese house goddess had the same exact image as Mary in the church.

[KephaMeansRock]

Also the first Christians were all Jews. So they looked at the Bible and the rite of Baptism which they knew to be immersion.

I disagree...Baptism was NORMATIVELY done via immersion, but this was not mandated, and the NT and ECFs show that non-immersive baptisms were viewed as valid from the beginning...

Actually no. It is an assumption that there were infants. It is not stated. The reason for the circumcision on the 8th day is medical. For that is when the Blood clotting factor is highest. Infant baptism is comparable to circumcision. But the Bible only speaks of believer’s baptism. So the other is a tradition based on doctrines not found in the bible.

No, it's not. When they say "entire households" and then compare this to circumcision which applied to the "entire household", then we have no reason to believe that infants were excluded.

Can we hold you to that? I know there is an escape clause you have built here. For the popes have said many things wrong. But you insist I point to where they were wrong when they were speaking excathedra. But you refuse to believe they can be wrong when they do that. So are you being honest in this statement?

I refuse to believe they can be wrong for the same reason I refuse to admit that St. Mark penned error in his eponymous Gospel, nor Luke nor Matthew nor John, nor St. Paul nor St. Peter, nor Jude, nor James....

The popes - i.e. the bad ones - have never sought to teach error...often they never sought to teach a thing. I'm not saying that bad popes aren't a scandal - they most certainly ARE. That is something I myself had to come to terms with when I converted to Catholicism. But I don't think that it is the end-all that you think...

How about the statement of JESUS about people.

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Yet the popes say you can and did as if you can and proclaimed as you can. So which is correct?

What about it?

I'm willing to admit that some popes may be in hell. No news flash there. Being pope doesn't prevent them from sinning, even gravely. That bad men have occupied the office does not negate the office...

Israel had many wicked kings, and the office was never revoked until God himself took it away from Zedekiah through the Babylonian conquerers...

For an individual to come to their own conclusions alone is unbiblical. But with a body of believers is biblical. Tradition taking the place of scripture is unbiblical.

And when two bodies of believers conflict in an "essential" truth, what then? To whom do you appeal?

Scripture cannot be set aside. John 10:35
Consecrate them in the truth; Your word is truth. John 17:17
1Cr 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. NASB
Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver. Proverbs 30:5-6
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
God must be true, though every human being is a liar. Romans 3:4
NKJV - Isa 8:20 - To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

None of this contradicts what I am saying. Scripture holds a certain PRIMACY in teaching - but the interpretation of scripture is ultimately subservient to the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of the truth, the same one founded by Christ on the apostles and visible in every century from the 1st to the 21st...

If my own interpretation tells me that Jesus was just a man, but the church has said otherwise, you better believe I'll listen to the church for that is her role (cf. 1 tim 3:15, Ephesians 4, and also here.)

Martin Luther was a professor and taught theology at a leading Catholic University. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther Zwingli was a priest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldrych_Zwingli It is hard to not be hateful when people are tying to burn you alive at the stake. He should have done better.

Here, of course, we see that being ordained is no guarantee against apostasy...

Which would not have happened if the pope who caused the Great Schism which is the break with the orthodox had been following GOD and repented of his sins and the sins of the church?

And? Attacking the character of an admittedly bad pope (though you've not named him) does not reflect upon the office of the successor of Peter, who carries the keys to the kingdom (Matt 16:16-18)

Popes bought their office Simony and sometimes murdered to get in. So the Vicar of CHRIST kills another Vicar of Christ to become the new one and that is okay with you?

No. It most definitely is not "okay" with me, but I understand the difference between the office and the office holder. Judas' office didn't go away because he sinned most grieviously against Christ. Neither did the office of the holder of the Key of the Kingdom go away merely because the office holder himself went astray (Isaiah 22:20ff)

Yes they were telling the people to obey the laws of GOD and follow the Bible. The popes told people they could not hear the word of GOD and to follow tradition.

False, and false.

But that changed when the Church was established.

Only in as much as there were new leaders.

For if they had followed their leaders above the Bible and the Apostles then there would have been no Christian church. When leaders teach and do wrong we are not to follow them.

You do realize that there was no "bible" except the OT scriptures for the first generation, and no canonized set of scriptures until the end of the FOURTH CENTURY, right? They HAD to rely on the Church, which PRECEDED the NT scriptures and explained what the OT scriptures pointed to.

Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation ….Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the [Roman Catholic] Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. CCC para 969

If you wish I can look up a number of Middle ages Catholic scholars who argued that JESUS was too holy to approach directly. It was a common doctrine then.

I see no problem with the quote given, and I care not what "catholic scholars" thought because "catholic scholars" do not decide what the Church teaches (except indirectly, when their words are used by a council or pope to better expound upon a doctrine, like St. Thomas Aquinas' word "Transubstantiation".)

I do not remember any of the Early Church Fathers teaching to pray to the dead instead of JESUS. In the New Testament JESUS said pray in his name to the Father. No where is that changed. (emphasis added)

The church NEVER TAUGHT THAT YOU MUST PRAY TO THE SAINTS IN STEAD OF CHRIST! I cannot make that clearer - and on the off chance that they did, then they were contradicting the church's teachings on this matter.

No offense, but I'm threw arguing this point unless you can correctly state the teachings of the church. Your throwing out straw men to knock down, and non-catholic straw men at that...

When people are told that their sins are forgiven if they look at a relic they get time out of purgatory. That is against the needs of the people for it provides a false way of salvation.

No, that is a misunderstanding of:

1) Confession
2) Penance
3) Purgatory
4) Indulgences.

Confession was provided by Christ in John 20:19ff, when he breathed on his 11 remaining apostles and gave them the spirit and the "ministry of reconciliation" (as st. paul called it) saying "whose sins you forgive are forgiven, and whose sins you retain are retained".

Penance is us working to better ourselves and to increase our contrition for sin.

Purgatory is what Paul explains to us, that when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

Moreover the Church has NEVER stated that there even IS time in purgatory, so cutting back "time" spent there is silly.

Finally Indulgences are probably the most misunderstood pieces of Catholic Theology precisely because of the uproar and din these past 500 years. They reduce some of OUR "duration" or "time" or "experience" in purgatory, because the whole point of purgatory is to cleanse our souls of the attachment to sin which they retain until the day we die. Some will need more cleansing, others less - this may be a matter of time, but it may also be a matter of subjective time (i.e. the harder cases will seem to take longer or be more intense)...

The church's teaching on purgatory is pretty small, but it is very clear that it is a real place.

That's why St. Paul prayed for his deceased friend Onesiphorus in (2 tim 1:16-18)

Then you are saying the Pope was not really in charge? In even Catholic histories as admitted by John Paul 2 they killed many people. The papal wars for one thing. The Crusades against protestants. True the RCC had the government often execute the people for not paying church taxes. Since to do so would have robbed them of enough money to live on.

Stop leveling general, sweeping accusations...anyone can do that...give me particular instances.

There was never a "crusade" against protestants. The pope did at one time become the ruler of some lands, and as the ruler of the lands fought to protect his people. I'm not saying this was right or wrong. I don't care about the individual sins of individual popes, but only their teachings and whether or not they were right or wrong (and how we can even know that).

True. But many took offices by buying them to get rich. So they entered Apostate and did not change.

They changed. St. Paul warned Timothy not to lay hands too hastily (1 tim 5:22) precisely BECAUSE a real change is effected even if they're not worthy of the office.

Which is why GOD would remove one king and set up a different one? Which is why the Roman Catholic church fell from it’s position and the Protestants assumed it.

Huh?

First off, the church never "Fell". It's still there, thriving, growing, teaching, as she's always done. She is still the largest church in the world (though a minority amidst the world).

Second, how did the "protestants" assume it's position? Which ones? They teach conflicting doctrines, so do they all take the lead?

Wrong. The Pope was not even called pope for many decades. He was a Bishop equal to all bishops. Talk to any orthodox scholar.

The title of "pope" matters not. It's Italian for "papa".

What matters is whether or not the SUCCESSOR OF PETER, who's office settled in Rome, has a primacy or not.

Said 1st century bishop Ignatius of Antioch, on his way to be fed to the lions (!):

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which holds the presidency in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..."

Clement, 4th bishop of Rome wrote in 80AD:
The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.

This same Clement wrote:

And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44)

Who was Clement?

Ignatius clarifies:

"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?"

The order went Peter, then Linus, [Anacletus, or Cletus], Clement...

Linus ...was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there...Clement also, who was appointed third bishop [after Linus] of the church at Rome." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24, (A.D. 325).

"If the lineal succession of bishops is to be considered with how much more benefit to the Church do we reckon from Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it!' For to Peter succeeded Linus, Clement...Damsus, Sircius, Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is too be found." Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400).

This is nothing new, and it came WELL before the Great Schism of 1054...

Grace saves us. Which the Roman Catholic church had protestants murdered for saying. True the Law is not the Levitical code. But it is and does include the Ten Commandments. It does include all the prophets of the entire Bible.

Obviously you've never read the Council of Trent, which EMPHATICALLY affirmed salvation by grace.

Do you not give adoration to the Saints?

No. No. NO. No. NO. NO.... um...no.

Do not people bow down before statues of them and their dead bodies?

Sometimes. So what? We're paying them homage, for they are great imitators of Christ. If I kiss a picture of my wife, am I committing adultery? NO!

The Greek word for prayer in the New Testament is for many of the words directed only to GOD as directed by JESUS.

Three words are used. "Latria" refers to worship. Dulia refers to reverence and respect. Hyperdulia refers to a greater sense of dulia. But neither dulia nor hyperdulia are latria.

We're mashing too many languages together here. Know this:

WORSHIP is reserved to God Alone, who knows all of our prayers even before we ask. We can however still ask of him, and ask with others in the Body, be they alive with us or "absent from the body and present with Christ".

I will agree that Moses was resurrected. Elijah and Enoch translated and the many who arose at the resurrection of JESUS. I will agree to these. That leaves Mary in the grave until the 19th century when a pope declared she had been translated.

Translated? Assumed you mean? This is a much older belief than you may think. The church only formally defines things when they are being doubted on a wide scale...

This is not a Biblical doctrine. On Samuel that was a demon impersonating him. Sevents of GOD do not obey sevents of the devil.

God may permit it to teach a lesson. Samuel curses Saul for doing this...I doubt a Demon would do that...

You are not going though me. I am not going through you. We are in joining in agreement. As brothers in Christ. Equal before GOD.

If that is your language, fine. That is all we do with the Saints in heaven.

You did not pray to me asking for my intercession. You did not get down and bow down to me or an image of me. We are equal in the sight of GOD. You asked me. That is not the same as prayer.

I prayed of you to pray for me...to pray means to ask.

We kneel because we are in prayer to god, and we invoke the heavenly hosts to pray with us as we pray. We may look at a statue for inspiration, as a soldier might look at a picture of his wife, or even kiss it because he loves his wife - but he has not thereby committed adultery.

If I loved you so greatly, and you were so holy, I might greet you with a kiss (though in American culture that's less permissible than in other western cultures...)

The church does not stop it. It has encouraged it and does not teach against it. In fact in history the name of pagan goddess have been applied to Mary. In China a Chinese house goddess had the same exact image as Mary in the church

Which goddess? Not that it matters. Mary is NOT a goddess. She is a creature, though a most blessed creature. She is the Ark of the New Covenant, for she bore Christ, the bread from heaven, the word made flesh, the fulfillment of the law, who is the high priest who rules with the rod! The old Ark carried the manna from heaven, the law on the tablets, and the rod of Aaron, the high priest, which had budded.

If anyone does worship her, then they sin grievously...

Pax Christi

-Justin