The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : John Paul II's Legacy

Text Size

Quin Hillyer has made an airtight case that Pope John Paul II was objectively a great man. As with any great man, there are aspects of his career that are difficult to understand in the light of his accomplishments.

Of course, the most important was his handling or mishandling of the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. Jason Berry, one of the journalists most responsible for shining a light on the abuses in the American Church, presents, in a book excerpt published in the Nation, a persuasive argument that the late Pope’s handling of the sex abuse scandal should at least slow down Catholics in a rush to declare JPII a saint. (He will be beatified on Sunday: beatification is the last step before canonization, which establishes sainthood.)

Not all of Berry’s criticisms are fair, but he identifies a real and serious shortcoming of JPII’s papacy. It’s one that is hard to square with Quin’s observations about JPII’s role in defeating Communism and also with more personal stories about him, such as this one from his longtime photographer:

VATICAN CITY (AP) - It was May 4, 1984 and Pope John Paul II was visiting Sorok Island off South Korea, a one-time leper colony where several hundred people with the disfiguring disease were receiving care.
Arturo Mari was there, as he was on all the pontiff’s trips, a silent witness to almost every papal audience, Mass, vacation and dinner party, public or private.

As the pope’s personal photographer, Mari had nearly unrestricted access to John Paul’s 27-year papacy, and his verdict as the pontiff’s beatification approaches is unwavering: He was a living saint.

The protocol that day in 1984 called for John Paul to enter the Sarok pavilion where the patients were gathered, give a brief speech on the meaning of suffering, then leave. But after surveying the scene, John Paul brushed aside a cardinal who tried to speed him along, and set to work.

“He touched them with his hands, caressed them, kissed each one,” Mari said. “Eight hundred lepers, one by one. One by one!”

“For me he was a man of God,” the 71-year-old Mari said in an interview this week inside his apartment just steps from the Vatican.

“I can guarantee you he was a living saint, because everything I could see with my eyes, hear with my ears, you cannot believe that this man could do so much.”

How could someone like this have as big a blind spot as JPII did to the sex scandal?

View all comments (99) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Quin| 4.29.11 @ 4:16PM

I thank Joe for his comments. They particularly hit home because Jason Berry happens to be a good friend of mine. He is anything but a conservative, but he is a wonderfully thoughtful man, a talented writer on many subjects, and (from what I can tell) a man of deep faith as well. His criticisms are worth considering. I still maintain, though, that JPII's saintliness (as an adjective, not as an official designation) supersedes the flaws that Jason Berry lays at his feet. Joe Lawler is quite right, though, to add necessary context to my essay.

Frisbee| 4.29.11 @ 9:47PM

I heard that one of the reason's JP2 did not always believe the stories about homo priests was that this was the classical hatchet job accusation used behind the iron curtain. If he had a blind spot, this could explain it. Ben16 does not have such a blind spot.

Dan| 4.29.11 @ 4:17PM

Predatory homosexuals should have been crushed, just crushed, and entire orders should have been reformed, or jettisoned.

The vine must be occasionally pruned, as can be gleaned from a perusal of the message of Christ.

And for someone so steeped in Polish history, someone aware of how the West was saved by the exploits of Polish lancers, how could he be so deliberately clueless about mohammadenism?

Clint| 4.29.11 @ 4:45PM

"Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.
These are findings from national surveys by Christian Ministry Resources (CMR), a tax and legal-advice publisher serving more than 75,000 congregations and 1,000 denominational agencies nationwide.
James Cobble, executive director of CMR, who oversees the survey, says the data show that child sex-abuse happens broadly across all denominations and that clergy aren't the major offenders.

"The Catholics have gotten all the attention from the media, but this problem is even greater with the Protestant churches simply because of their far larger numbers," he says.

Of the 350,000 churches in the US, 19,500 5 percent are Roman Catholic. Catholic churches represent a slightly smaller minority of churches in the CMR surveys which aren't scientifically random, but "representative" demographic samples of churches, Dr. Cobble explains.

Since 1993, on average about 1 percent of the surveyed churches reported abuse allegations annually. That means on average, about 3,500 allegations annually, or nearly 70 per among the predominantly Protestant group, Cobble says."

more later.....

Teflon93| 4.29.11 @ 4:53PM

The Catholic Church is not a dictatorship. The bishops have real authority---this is what the principle of subsidiarity means---and the scandal was of course the worst where the bishops simply refused to address it. Pope John Paul II did assign Cardinal Ratzinger---now Pope Benedict XVI---to investigate the scandal, a years-long endeavor Ratzinger referred to as his "Friday penance".

Compare and contrast how the Catholic Church responded with how various Protestant denominations have responded---that is to say, they largely haven't---or how the American educational system responded---it didn't. More children are being abused to this very day in Protestant communicaties and in the public school system than Catholic children in the worst depths of the abuse---which, oh by the way, was in the 1970s.

Pope John Paul II also addressed the root cause of the abuse by rooting out those homosexual priests who infested seminaries during the period at the behest of American liberals. Prior to John Paul II, actively homosexual priests were not too difficult to find. After, they are a thankfully rare breed even in the American church. The call to honor vows of chastity was an important piece of the solution; the rebuke of left wing priests like the Sandinista bishop was another. People might like to recall before leaping to arms that 80% of the acts of sexual abuse reported were homosexual in nature and that the overall incidence rate has declined precipitously since the 1970s.

The fragmentation of Protestantism and the leftism of the American educational system makes similar effective response to child sexual abuse highly unlikely in these communities. What is equally unlikely is these groups getting held to the bar the Catholic Church---and John Paul II---are being held to.

The Catholic Church being the Church of Christ, it SHOULD be held to the highest standard. But people who care about the safety and dignity of children ought to show a little more concern over the prevalence of sexual abuse wherever it occurs---after all, Catholics do remain a minority in this country.

Nick| 4.29.11 @ 7:24PM

Teflon93,

Excellent rebuttal of Mr. Lawler's myopic view of Pope John Paul the Great. Why is it so hard for reporters to understand that it is the bishop of an archdiocese who is the ruler of his particular See, not the Holy Father?

The Catholic Church is not a democracy, this is true. But, the Pope is the final word on faith and morals, not the temporal, day-to-day operations of every archdiocese. There is a strict judicial system to handle administrative malfeasance, in almost 3,000 dioceses, worldwide. Is this not clear to you, Mr. Lawler?

Far from "mishandling" the problem of perversion in the priesthood, and much like his role in destroying Soviet communism, John Paul II was the right man at the right time.

Instead of being informed by a liberal source on this scandal, try a conservative one. Like The Wanderer, which has been covering this travesty from the beginning. I first started learning about the pervasiveness of these crimes, in-depth, from The Wanderer in the mid-90s, with their coverage of the cover-up going on in Dallas.

They also showed that it was the liberal bishops, who like to dissent from Church teaching, for the most part, that had the biggest problems with priestly abuses. These bishops were also the most prone to shuffle the guilty priests around, pressure the parents not to bring charges, and cover-up their deeds when the scandal broke 10 years ago, i.e. Cardinal Mahoney.

Orthodox bishops rarely had a sexual abuse problem, because they dealt with it when allegations were raised.

The whole sexual abuse scandal was a leadership failure of some bishops, not of the papacy of John Paul the Great.

Frisbee| 4.29.11 @ 9:51PM

Hi Nick: good to see you here! I think one of the problems in the 50's and 60's is that educated people thought psychology could cure everything. So give a pedophile a little counseling, and presto.

Nick| 4.29.11 @ 11:21PM

Thanks Frisbee!

Good point. That was definitely a problem where Cardinal Law of Boston was concerned, from what I've read.

He believed the psychologist's assertions that these troubled priests could be cured, to his own detriment.

Although, the abuses of seminary applicants and instruction, and shuffling the priests around was happening long before Cardinal Law became bishop of the Archdiocese of Boston.

Clint| 4.29.11 @ 5:06PM

"According to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher of a little-remembered 2004 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, "the physical sexual abuse of students in ( public) schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

After effectively disappearing from the radar, Shakeshaft’s study is now being revisited by commentators seeking to restore a sense of proportion to the mainstream coverage of the Church scandal.
According to the 2004 study “the most accurate data available at this time” indicates that “nearly 9.6 percent of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.”

"In Brooklyn, New York, home of the largest Orthodox Jewish community outside Israel, a recently founded team of prosecutors, counselors and religious leaders is working to combat sexual abuse, and there are 25 cases currently being investigated by the District Attorney – up from virtually zero

"If you're a pedophile, just go to one of the orthodox communities. You're probably safest there," said New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, himself an Orthodox Jew. "It's sad for me to say that, but it's true."

Assemblyman 'Inundated' With Calls from Alleged Sex Abuse Victims

When Hikind broached the subject of sexual abuse on his weekly radio show last year, he said he was "inundated" with calls from alleged victims from the United States, Israel and parts of Europe.

ABC News has spoken to Orthodox Jews who claim they were victims of abusers in New York, Baltimore and Illinois, who shared stories of alleged molestation followed by what they described as hostility from community leaders when they sought help. "

Derek Leaberry| 4.29.11 @ 5:26PM

Pope John Paul II had his flaws. At Assisi, he kissed the Koran and accepted voodoo priests as equals. Some of his appointments were terrible, men like Archbishops Law and Mahoney. He surrendered to the Catholic Left on the protestantization of the Mass, Eucharist in the hand, girl altar boys and Eucharistic ministers. He should have acted sooner and more sternly on the sexual abuse scandal and the homosexualization of the clergy. Yet he was a formidable opponent of world communism. He was strongly pro-life when the modern culture turned it's collective back on God and plain common decency. And he was wise enough to know of the profound wisdom and skills of Cardinal Ratzinger, our current Pope. The world was made better by Pope John Paul II.

Occam's Tool| 4.29.11 @ 7:15PM

He was a very, very good man. An excellent role model of pastor.

Nick| 4.30.11 @ 6:38PM

Occam's Tool,

On behalf of Catholics WORLDWIDE, I thank you!
(This includes Tim*/Skinflint Clint.) Ha-ha!

Clint| 5.1.11 @ 7:54AM

The Detroit Fruit, Little Nicky blows a kiss to his Israel Firster Boyfriend,Tool Job.

Get A Motel Room, Girls.

Nick| 5.1.11 @ 5:46PM

Happy Easter to you, too, Tim*/CINO Skinflint Clint!

Clint| 5.1.11 @ 6:58PM

Thank You RINO-CINO-CINO Israel Firster Low Hangin' Fruit Fondler.

Greta| 4.30.11 @ 12:32AM

The Pope does not have the absolute power that many think he does in the Church. If he did, the Church in America would be vastly different. When Humane Vitae was released, a large number of priest and religious signed a full page ad in the New York paper saying the Pope was wrong on birth control. This was back in the 1960's, about the time the sex abuse scandal was starting to boil over. If the Pope had all the power some think he has, then Pope Paul VI could have brought these folks to Rome and told them to recant or face excommunication. Many think he should have done this to stop the outright dissent that was to become wide spread in the future. Nothing was done and the liberal dissenters, some of whom were homosexual, saw an open door to remake the Catholic Church. They opened the doors wide at the seminaries to homosexuals and in the process turned some of them into places of deviancy magnified, with some bishops reportedly engaged in the scandal directly. Those who montored who could come in, refused those who held views that were directly in line with the actual teaching of the Catholic Church. So you had a scandal waiting to happen and when it did, the medical community at the time was changing their definitions on homosexual from deviant to normal and that those who were attracted to teenage boys called twinks in the gay community, could be cured of that just like any other medical problem. That is the advice that was being given. The orthodox bishops who lived the teaching of the Church did not allow homosexuals into their semnaries and so during this time frame were largely immune from the scandals.

Multiple times over the decades, seeing the abuse, the Pope and Vatican agencies sent strong wording advising the bishops not to allow this type of deviancy to be allowed and also that the results of these medical treatments was obviously flawed as there were repeat offenders. If the Pope had such power, why were the bishops able to dissent and flat out ignore and disobey the Pope on matters right at the heart of Catholic teaching. The media loved and supported these liberal bishops and routinely trashed the conservative or orthodox leaders. The USCCB was taken over by the most liberal and they brought in groups that were of the same ilk to all the various agencies of the church in the USA. We see some of them still supporting the democratic positions that are in direct conflict with settle faith and moral issues of the Church.

Thanks to JPII, we are seeing an influx of conservative JPII priests and the old liberal bishops are falling by the boards. It is springtime in the Church thanks to JPII and now Benedict XVI..

Nick| 4.30.11 @ 6:34PM

Greta,

Excellent post!

This, as I'm sure you are aware, is nothing new in the Church. At one time (I forget the century) most of the Church's bishops were Arian heretics. But, as Christ told us, the "gates of Hades" did not prevail against Mother Church.

Dissenters have been attacking Christ's Church from the beginning, i.e. Gnosticism. Satan will never stop his attacks. We have the assurance of Our Lord that the Enemy will always fail.

Praise be to God, and, as John Paul the Great would say, "Be Not Afraid."

Margie| 5.1.11 @ 3:54PM

Sorry, Nick but the Catholic Religion is not the "Mother church".
Jesus says that those who OBEY HIS WORDS are His brothers, sisters and mothers. Mt. 12:48.
Since the Catholic Religion is filled with abominable false doctrine, it does not obey the Word of God.

Nick| 5.1.11 @ 6:31PM

Dearest Margie,

We've been over this ground before, so I will only ask a simple question: Which church is obeying the Word of God today? They can't all be teaching the whole and complete Truth of Christ, right? Or else, there wouldn't be over 36,000 Christian denominations in the world today, correct?

If the Catholic Church is teaching "abominable false doctrine," aren't all the rest of the denominations, with which you disagree, also teaching false doctrine that is aboninable? Do you agee with everything that the Baptists teach? Or, the Lutherans?

I would invite you to read the early Church Fathers. Men like Saints Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Irenaeus. They were taught by the Apostles, or, by men who were taught by the Apostles.

From these men you will see why the Catholic Church claims that some of Her teachings, which aren't explicitly in the Bible, do go back to the beginning of the Christian era. Teachings like the Holy Trinity.

You may not agree with all of these teachings, I'm sure. I have no problem with that, we have agreed to disagree. But, wouldn't you agree, that these theological differences are debatable amongst Christians, and not abominations to God Almighty?

Say "Hi!" to Victor from me.
God Bless, and Happy Easter!
Christ IS Risen, Praise be to God!

Margie| 5.1.11 @ 7:00PM

Hello Nick,

To answer your question about which church is obeying the Word of God today~ it isn't Catholicism.

And when you say, which church~ the definition of church is that it is people, not places.

Jesus says wherever two or three are gathered in His Name, He is in the midst of them. Mt. 18:20.

The true church are those individuals who obey His Words the world over.

As to denominations ~ they aren't the will of God. The Bible tells us we are supposed to be of one mind. This isn't possible with denominations. I've never been part of one and never will. I stick to what the Bible says, because Jesus says that if we don't continue in His Word, we cannot be His disciples.

I take that very seriously.

Catholicism teaches horrendous doctrine. It is not following His Words. Anyone who reads the Bible can see that plainly.

As to the early church fathers, some were outright insane. I have read some of them. Have you ever read the book, Martyr's Mirror? Polycarp and thousands more are in there and testimonies of how they were tortured and killed for sticking to the Bible. Thousands because they refused to go along with Catholicism.

The early church fathers ~ some of them, wrote horrific false doctrines, such as praying to the dead, and hundreds more that are not Biblical and that God hates.

The early church fathers that stuck to what the Apostles actually taught are a joy to read about, but not the others who came up with doctrines not pleasing to God.

Nick| 5.1.11 @ 8:48PM

Margie,

When I used the word church, I only meant denominations. Not buildings. The are over 36,000 Christian denominations in the world today. All of them interpreting the Word of God differently.

I forget how you refer to yourself. Are you a Bible Christian, with no House of Worship? Or, do you belong to a Bible church? Or, do you belong to a non-denominational church that meets on Sunday? Sorry, for my lack of recall.

Whichever it is, there are others just like yourself, who use the same nomenclature, but who believe differently from yourself. All are sincerely asking the Holy Spirit for discernment, but yet, they believe that Scripture says different things.

So, since the Holy Spirit can't decieve, and we're not all following Satan, the answer must be that we supplant our own thinking for what the Spirit is trying to reveal to us. I do this all the time. It is a bad habit to break. Luckily, the Lord shows me the error of my ways.

But, my main point was that we can have these theological differences about the meaning of God's Word without assigning malicious intent. You don't believe everything Ken (Old Texican) believes, right? Do you tell him that his church's teachings are "horrendous" or "abominable?" Or, any other Protestants that you know?

I'm not trying to change your beliefs about the Catholic Church, I can't do that. I know your beliefs are sincere, and that you worry about my soul, and I appreciate that very much.

And, I know Skinflint Clint is a jackass! (Ha-ha) So, I understand why you give him both barrels. He deserves it.

I'm just asking for some equal consideration, that's all.
God Bless!

Margie| 5.1.11 @ 11:31PM

Nick,

You're decent, and I know you believe in Jesus, but you strongly defend Catholicism.

You say that we all aren't serving Satan but what if some are? What if you really are, Nick? The Devil has a lot of people fooled by the niceties and pomp and circumstance of Catholicism. Yet the doctrines are clearly not Biblical. A lot of people are sincere, but sincerely wrong.

As to equal consideration~ I don't attack you personally, just the doctrines, and I always have done that here. With the Clint/Tim* ilk you are right, he is strong in his personal attacking so I am strong in my response. I do try and stick to the Bible.. which he hates so all the more he attacks~ and always on a personal level. The man is despicable, and certainly no Christian.

And yes, I tell others that a doctrine is wrong if it so happens I am in conversation with them, no matter what the denomination, or who the person is, or what they represent. God's Truth remains the same, it never changes, not for me or anyone.

And yes, I actually do say when they (a doctrine) is horrendous and abominable if it's against the Word of God, as His words are clearly written in the Bible, and I will show anyone exactly where and how it is so. Shouldn't ALL Christians be doing the same?
Isn't it a matter of living to please God and not self?
How can we do this if we aren't in agreement with His own Words?
Without faith it's impossible to please Him but it's also impossible to be at odds with the Scriptures and please Him as well.

You're so right about supplanting our thinking with His, God says that our thoughts aren't His~and that's why I always stick to what is actually written.

As I mentioned in my post about the denominations~ and you said it~ they all interpret His Words differently, and therein lies the problem. Since God says that His Words are not a MATTER of anyone's interpretation, that they are plainly written for all to see~ why is it that some choose to add or take away from them?

Real Christians don't do that.

Nick, if you think that the Holy spirit shows you the error of your ways, then He would be showing you that you are following another gospel, and not that of Jesus Christ, because Catholicism preaches a different gospel~ one of works.

God says we don't need Religion, He says we need Him. We're saved by the Grace of God, not by works. which is what Catholicism teaches. It teaches that Grace is given through the church. But God says He gives it directly to men.
How then, can this be reconciled? It cannot.

And to answer your other question, I am simply a Christian, no denomination, as God wants me to be. Since the Bible says that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and so wherever two or three are gathered together, there is church, then that is my church~ other Christians, the Body of Christ. Wherever that may be. Anywhere in the world, at any time. And the only requirement, according to the New Testament, is for there to be an assembling together of one another, and not to neglect it. That is all. No pomp, no circumstance, no burning of incense, no praying to statues, or to the dead, or repeating words by rote out of a book.

God wants our hearts and our minds, not our religious ceremony.

"All these things My hand has made, and so all these things are Mine, says the LORD. But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at My Word." Is. 66:2.

God bless you!

Nick| 5.2.11 @ 8:02PM

Margie,

As I stated at the end of my first post: We agree to disagree.

I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. I will pray for you, and you will pray for me.

And, only the Holy Spirit will lead us to the Truth. I think we both agree on this point.

God Bless!

Margie| 5.1.11 @ 7:49PM

"I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
The Grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen." Rev. 22:18-21.

Nick| 5.1.11 @ 9:09PM

Saint John's Revelation is a perfect example!

Do you know more than two people who agree on what is happening in the Book of Revelation? This proves that the Bible is not self-revealing or self-educating.

It needs to be taught, learned, and prayed over for inspiration. And, Christ founded His Church to do just that. In Matthew 16, Christ founds His Church on Kephas, the Rock, and gave him the power "to bind and loose."

Saint Kephas could not make a doctrine that would contradict Christ's teaching. The Holy Spirit made sure of this. And, the Spirit has made sure Saint Kephas' successors haven't contradicted the Word of God for almost 2,000 years.

Although, the Catholic Church does not have a definitive teaching on the whole Book of Revelation.

Also, I haven't read the Martyrs Mirror, but, I will look at it.

Margie| 5.1.11 @ 11:52PM

Nick,

Hello again. :^)

Just because two or more people cannot agree with what is written in ANY part of the Bible does NOT mean that the Bible isn't self interpreting!

Of course it is! Remember how God says that He isn't a God of confusion?

Every single verse in the O.T. has a reference in the N.T. and vise-versa. Revelation is difficult, yes, but it still isn't a matter of one's own interpretation. Do you really think that God would leave us to not be able to know His will?

Yes, it is right and good to pray before studying the Bible, and do so in absolute awe! But it is self-interpreting because God gave it to us in order to know His mind, and His plan and to be able to distinguish between truth and lies.

God founded His church upon Jesus Christ, the Cornerstone that makes men stumble:

(Rom. 9:33: "as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a Stone that will make men stumble, a Rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in Him will not be put to shame.").

There is no such thing as a handed down to the physical successors from Peter on down. That isn't Biblical!

The successors, according to the Bible, are everyone who is born of (regenerated by) God. Every single Christian since Pentecost who has received the Holy Spirit and been baptized is a child of God, and has the authority to be same.

"But to all who received Him, who believed in His name, He gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Jn. 1:12 & 13.

Catholicism has wrongly taught (and has NEVER repented of it) that only THEY can know the Bible or have the authority over it. This is another huge lie and an abomination since it goes exactly against what the Bible (God's own Words) says.

You will love reading the awesome testimonials of the Martyrs and it will inspire you greatly. You will be in awe of the Spirit of God and how He caused each Christian to be able to withstand the cruelty that was inflicted upon their bodies for the sake of the gospel.

Polycarp is in there, and all of the Apostles. There were even children who were tortured and yet testified to Glory of God.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 12:11AM

P.S. Nick,

Have you an interlinear Bible? I have one that has the Greek (Textus Receptus), and translated into English with Strong's concordance numbers.

Here is what the actual Greek says concerning the church:

"And I also say to you, You are Peter, and on this rock I will build of Me the church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against her." Mt. 16:19.

So you see that the church is built "of Me", not "of Peter."

And the Greek word for Peter is Strong's #4074 which is petros or stone.
But the rock Jesus referred to in the second part of the verse is Strong's #4073, which is petra, or a large rock or ledge.
In other words, Christ Himself.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 6:57PM

Well, Nick~ what says you to the truth which I posted?
Do you still choose to stick to what the Big Lie tells you?

Jesus is Lord.

He rules.

His Truth abides forever!

Nick| 5.2.11 @ 8:35PM

Margie,

I know I should let my above post stand, but, I just can't resist.

As I'm sure you are aware, Christ did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. So, when He changed Simon's name, He called him Kephas. This is perfectly clear in Saint John's Gospel (John 1:42) and Saint Paul's letters (Gal 2:11.)

Kephas only has one meaning in Aramaic: Rock. So, Matthew 16 should be read like this: "And I also say to you, You are Rock [Kephas], and on this rock [kephas] I will build of Me the church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against her."

Hardly anyone tries to deny that it was Saint Peter on whom Christ was building His church. The stone/pebble/rock debate has been over for a long time.

And, of course, Christ is the center of His Church. How can He not be? But, He also left someone in charge of it, while He departed for a time.

Just like the kings of ancient Israel did when they left Jerusalem. They would leave their Prime Minister in charge. The P.M. had the keys of the kingdom. They were also given the power to bind and loose. If the P.M. died, a successor was appointed to fill the office. Sound familiar?
(see Genesis 41:40-44; Isaiah 22:15-23)

God Bless!

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 8:45PM

Jesus was referring to Himself~ He is the Rock that makes men stumble, the Cornerstone, the Author and Perfecter of our faith.

There is NO handing down of the office as you say~ except for the fact that He gave all of His children that authority, all who believed and received His Holy Spirit.

Do you not know that? And that we are all priests, in fact a Royal Priesthood? And not in the sense that Catholicism has priests.

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." 1 Pe. 2:9.

Nick| 5.4.11 @ 12:30AM

Margie,

Yes, Christ is many times alluded to with rock imagery. Especially, in the Old Testament.

But, in chapter 16 of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Christ is replacing Simon's name with Kephas, not His own. The sentence doesn't make sense if Christ is saying that He is the Rock. Why change Simon's name to Kephas/Rock if Simon is not the Rock upon whom Christ will build His Church?

Christ knew He was going to die, and, therefore, would not be around much longer. Why would He make Himself the Rock, when He wasn't going to be around to build His Church?

You are going to have to come up with a reasonable explanation of why Christ would change Simon Peter's name to Rock, if Christ was the Rock upon which His Church would be built. Why did Christ change Simon Peter's name to Kephas?

By the way, it is important to remember that Christ called Simon, bar Jonah, the Rock, and gave him the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose, immediately after Simon Peter confessed that Jesus was the Messiah promised by God through the prophets.

Nick| 5.4.11 @ 1:34AM

Margie,

Yes, we are a Royal Priesthood, as Saint Peter states. And, it is not the same as the ministerial priesthood. Are you sure you're not Catholic?

We are called to participate in the Royal Priesthood of the High Priest, Christ Jesus. But, our calling is different than that of the bishops and priests.

The office of bishop was to be filled with the death of previous office holder. Matthias was elected to fill the office held by Judas after his death. And, as I showed, in ancient Israel, the office of Prime Minister was also filled when there was a vacancy. Did you read Isaiah 22?

"And I will drive you out from your station, and depose you from your ministry. 20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will strengthen him with your girdle, and will give your power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open." (Emphasis mine.)

Christ is quoting from these verses of Isaiah 22, when He renames Simon the Rock, in Matthew 16.

Here is a rather long, but, more exhaustive explanation of the primacy of Peter, by a Protestant convert to the Catholic faith, if you are interested:

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Margie| 5.14.11 @ 1:36AM

Nick,

Is. 22:22 is talking about Jesus!
"And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open."

You must not leave off the following verses in order to show this prophecy about Him:

vs. 23-25:

"And I will drive him as a nail in a sure
place; and he shall be for a throne of glory
to his father’s house.
And they shall hang on him all the
glory of his father’s house, the offspring
and the offshoots, all small vessels, from
vessels of cups even to all vessels of jars.
In that day, a statement of Jehovah of
Hosts, the nail that is driven in the sure
place shall be removed, and be cut down,
and fall. And the burden that was on it shall
be cut off. Jehovah has spoken."

Further proving it is about Jesus Himself in Revelation:
"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the Holy One, the True One, Who has the key of David, Who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens." Rev. 3:7.

And so you see, the Bible IS self interpreting.

What do you think?

Nick| 5.15.11 @ 2:19AM

Margie,

I think all three Scripture verses are related to each other. But, I think it is important to read them in the order they were written, in order to see how they are related.

In Isaiah 22:15-25, the prophet is telling Shebna that he will lose his office as King Hezekiah's Prime Minister (for being ostentatious) to Eliakim, when the Assyrians lay siege to Jerusalem.

Eliakim will be in charge of the peace negotiations. This is attested to in 2 Kings 18: 18,26,37; and other verses. So, Isaiah is explaining how the prime minister has the authority of the king, in the king's absence (the power to shut and open.) The king is still the King, and holds the key of David, as his heir. But, when the king is not present, the keys (and authority) are given to his prime minister.

In chapter 16 of Saint Matthew's Gospel, when Christ re-names Simon as Kephas, He gives Kephas the keys to the kingdom. This is a direct allusion to Isaiah 22. Christ is making Peter His Prime Minister, His right-hand man. Just as all the Davidic kings, also, had prime ministers. And, the P.M. had the power to bind and loose, open and shut, when the King wasn't present. Christ is preparing His Kingdom for His absence.

In Revelation 3:7, Saint John quotes from Isaiah 22. This is not surprising. Most of the Book of Revelation quotes from the Old Testatment. Especially, from Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel. Also, Revelation was written well after Christ's Ascension to Heaven.

As I stated above, the King still remains King, and holds the key of David, as the rightful Heir to David's throne. And, it is He, Jesus Christ, Who ultimately "opens and no one shall shut, shut and no one shall open." This is why John quotes Isaiah 22, t0 show Christ is in Heaven ruling over the whole Kingdom of God, as the Son of David.

But, He is bodily absent on Earth, having bodily Ascended to Heaven. He ceased giving the Apostles commands, as He had during His ministry. This was all part of His plan.

He sent the Holy Spirit to keep the Apostles, and their disciples (cf 1 Cor 3:10,) from error. And, as the Davidic kings had many ministers, they had one Prime Minister, who officiated over the daily business of the king's court; and spoke for the king, when the king was not present, to render judgements.

God set up the Davidic kingdom. Does it not make sense that He would base His Church on the same principles and structure that He used to make Israel a great kingdom?

"The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New."
- St. Augustine of Hippo

Sorry for the length, but, I wanted to be as clear as possible.
God Bless!

Nick| 5.15.11 @ 2:25AM

p.s. I remember reading, a while back, that in the Davidic kindom of which Isaiah is describing, the prime minister wore an actual key to signify his office. He also had a signet ring to seal royal documents and decrees.

Margie| 5.15.11 @ 12:01PM

Nick,

I know that Catholicism wants to and indeed does connect the giving of the keys only to Peter in order to justify the hierarchy of the church, but this is a false assumption because Jesus gave the "keys of the Kingdom" to ALL of the disciples.

If you read Mt. 18 you see who Jesus was addressing as to who is the "greatest" in His Kingdom, and He was addressing ALL of the disciples, and ending with Mt. 18:18.

It is incorrect and indeed a blasphemy to try and make Eliakim a sort of prototype for the Pope.
Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus or God want any one man to be worshipped or bowed down to in a manner that is idolatrous.

When Jesus said He was going to send the Holy Spirit to dwell in the hearts of men, He meant ALL the hearts of men, and ALL who obey His Words are His disciples, He means it.

"Jesus answered him, "If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word, and my Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.
"These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you.
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Jn. 14:23-26.

He is addressing ALL of the disciples. And even when Paul said to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing, and not listen to anything taught by anyone but them, that goes to the same point.

Nick| 5.17.11 @ 1:40AM

Margie,

I need you to clearify what you mean when you write "All of the disciples."

Are you referring to the Apostles and disciples during Christ's ministry? Or, are you including the disciples of the Apostles after Christ's Ascension? Or, do you mean all of us professed Christians through the ages?

Also, I don't know how that is blasphemy. Catholics don't worship the pope. Bowing is just showing respect, like when people bow and curtsy for the Queen of Great Britain.

The Holy Father is a man like any other. He is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching errors on Faith and Morals, just as the Apostles and their disciples were.

Any other subject the Pope speaks about, other than Faith and Morals, I am free to disagree with him.

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 6:59PM

Thank God for the internet where Christians are now able to do their own research and books like Martyrs Mirror are now online:

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/

Despeville | 5.14.11 @ 4:29PM

They can't all be teaching the whole and complete Truth of Christ, right? Or else, there wouldn't be over 36,000 Christian denominations in the world today, correct?"

@Nick,

As to your assertion about 36, 000 "Christian" denominations... You repeat this lie without even realizing what is the source that is being used for that outlandish, misrepresented and fallacious
claim. More importantly, you repeat this lie without realizing that the VERY same source: "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world "
by David B. Barrett, George T. Kurian, Todd M. Johnson Oxford University Press, 2001 is very much incriminating yours - "the only one and true" religion of Rome...

LINK: http://www.amazon.com/World-Ch.....0195079639

Pretty sad to see you so manipulated and so uninformed as so many Roman Catholics are. The same source which statistics are used by Rome PR Spin Doctors in order to "poison the well" and siphon the gullible to "mother Rome" as explained again here on page 16
prints that there are.......... 242 Roman Catholic denominations and predicts that in a year 2025 there will be 245 Roman Catholic denominations... So are you willing to accept
this count for Roman Catholic denominations? No? Why not? If you are not and if you want to be consistent and honest then stop peddling misrepresentation about 36,000 or even 30,000Protestant denominations because of funny arithmetic of the same source on page 10...

Analysis of the source that you use so indiscriminately and lopsidedly: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm
Still not convinced? Just a on the next page, that is on page 11 same source so lovingly quoted by your half cooked Roman Apologists from "Catholic Answers" and alike states that Roman Church is DIRECTLY responsible for murdering and a martyr death of 4,951,000 Biblical Christians...Are you going to accept that? No? Why not? If you are not willing to accept this statistics from page 11 of World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in The Modern World by what logic and by what morality are you
going to accept the 30, 000 (or 36, 000 as it grows by "he said she said" factor :-) ) number of Protestant denominations from the prior page of the same source and that is on page 10?

Just because you do not like Biblical Christians? Just because of your denominational bias? That is inconsistent and dishonest. I am sure you did not know about it but know you DO know and DO remember that when you will attempt top tell somebody else about "36, 000 Protestant Denominations" And if you do that make sure you tell them as well that by the same token and source there are 242 Roman Catholic Denominations and that the Church of Rome is DIRECTLY responsible for almost 5 million murders on innocent Christians. Of course you will disclose that only if you want to be honest and consistent and factual...

Coram Deo,

Despeville

Nick| 5.15.11 @ 2:33AM

Despeville,

I am well aware of the criticism of theWorld Christian Encyclopedia. I am also aware that critics readily admit that the 36,000 number is extremely conservative, if you include all the self-described Bible churches out there.

There are so many straw-men in your incoherent rant, I will only address one. Where did I ever state that I do not like Bible Christians?

I love all my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Despeville | 5.15.11 @ 11:17PM

"There are so many straw-men in your incoherent rant, I will only address one. Where did I ever state that I do not like Bible Christians?"

Nick,

You just gave a perfect example of a massive straw man above... And by the way did you see the question mark at the end of my question? Let me refresh your memory:

"Just because you do not like Biblical Christians?"

Let us go back to the REAL issue and away from your straw men. Shall we? If you would like to be factual then let us look at the substance and not your smoke and mirrors.

And the factual issue and the substance documented in the source quoted by you in your attempt to DEMEAN Biblical Christianity by your assertion of 36,000 shenanigans is not whether or not this: "36,000 number is extremely conservative" but are you going to be actually honest about the source you use and are you going confirm and quote from THE SAME SOURCE that:

A. there are 242 Roman Catholic denominations.

B. Roman Catholic Church martyred 4,951,000 Biblical Christians.

That is the issue here. So unless you confirm and quote that information along with the other then all you do is manipulate and cherry pick data which is nothing else but pure hypocrisy and dishonest inconsistency... Think it through and outside of your emotions and outside of your religious allegiances.

Coram Deo,

Despeville

Nick| 5.17.11 @ 1:54AM

Despeville,

I must do no such thing, as I am not cherry-picking anything.

I stated that there were "OVER 36,000" Christian denominations. I sided with the critics who claim that the World Christian Encyclopedia's count is conservative.

So, I will now state, unequivocally, that their claim that the Catholic Church martyred nearly 5 million Christains is completely BOGUS.

Hope that clears things up for you.
God Bless!

Despeville | 5.17.11 @ 3:57PM

"So, I will now state, unequivocally, that their claim that the Catholic Church martyred nearly 5 million Christains is completely BOGUS."

Dear Nick,

Maybe not completely but on that scale it is...
The bottom line is when you STATE the BOGUS number of 36,000 "Christian" denominations do not forget to STATE 242 Roman Catholic denominations and if you cannot state the second number then do not state the first either otherwise you are engaging in misinformation and manipulation and I am sure you do not want to do that consciously and now you know it and are aware of it...

Nick| 5.18.11 @ 2:18AM

Despeville,

I WILL continue to state that there are OVER 36,000 Christian denominations in the world. And, I won't bat an eye.

If makes you feel better, what if I say, "There are over 36,000 Christian denominations in the world, minus 241?"

You have seemed to miss the point here. It is not whether there are more than 36,000 Christian denominations in the world, or, that there are less than amount.

The point is that God desires there be "One Lord, ONE FAITH, one baptism" as Saint Paul tells us in Ephesians 4:5. If there are two faiths, that is one faith too many.

Whatever the actual number of denominations, it is not the will of Christ that there be so many. All the different denominations can't all be teaching the truth, because they're ALL teaching different truths.

It is the responsibility of every follower of Christ to find out which church is teaching the Truth. The only way to do that is with deep, heartfelt prayer to the Holy Spirit.

God Bless!

Despeville | 5.19.11 @ 1:35PM

"I WILL continue to state that there are OVER 36,000 Christian denominations in the world. And, I won't bat an eye."

And that will make you a hypocrite will it not? For you will use that fallacious number to demean someone's faith while at the same time you will be perfectly aware that the VERY SAME SOURCE does not count your Roman Religion as one but as 242... but you will not tell that for that would defeat the purpose of your manipulative demeaning...

"If makes you feel better, what if I say, "There are over 36,000 Christian denominations in the world, minus 241?"

It will only make you honest before God and fellow man if you state the truth about it and not being manipulative and selective as He hates that... Personally, it will do nothing for me and your refusal to be honest about it is no surprise for me for obviously your religious agenda drive overrides factual honesty.

"If there are two faiths, that is one faith too many."

And how do you know that it is not yours? ONE is qualified all over the place in the Scriptures. For example in John 17. It is so easy to read INTO the text your presuppositions...It is another matter to substantiate them with the whole witness of the Scriptures.

"Whatever the actual number of denominations, it is not the will of Christ that there be so many."

Really? So you believe in helpless and frustrated God? He does not will it but it is there? Wow. What He is going to do that "God" for that is a different "God" from the God who reveled Himself to us in His revelation of truth - His Word...

'All the different denominations can't all be teaching the truth, because they're ALL teaching different truths."

Not necessarily, that depends on the subject.

"The only way to do that is with deep, heartfelt prayer to the Holy Spirit."

Nonsense for the same is claimed for example by Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses. I give you a clue to what determines and how the truth is found and defended and by no means this is disassociated from the true work of the Holy Spirit:

"Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?"
~ Jeremiah 23:29 ESV

Nick| 5.20.11 @ 12:36AM

Despeville,

Okay, you tell me, what is the correct number? How many Christian denominations are there in the world today? Also, I don't think you understand the definition of the word hypocrite.

"And how do you know that it is not yours?"

Because, I read the early Church Fathers, that's how.

"So you believe in helpless and frustrated God?"

No, I do not. God permits evil, we all have free will. So, just because His children are quarrelling, and He permits it, does not mean that it is His Will. God also allows murder and theft. Does this make Him "helpless?" The last part of that paragraph is incoherent.

"Not necessarily, that depends on the subject."

This makes no sense. The subject is Christian doctrine. The reason there are different denominations is because they all have different doctrines.

I don't know how Jeremiah 23 applies to me. I don't claim to be a prophet or priest. Nor, do I use the phrase, "The burden of the LORD."

Unless, your point is that I pervert the Word of God. If that is the case, then so do all the Protestant denominations with which you disagree.

Answer my original question to Margie, "Which Christian denomination is teaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ?" Which church is teaching the "one faith" that Saint Paul preached in Ephesians 4:5? Which church did the gates of Hades NOT prevail against? As Christ promised all of His followers.

Despeville | 5.20.11 @ 2:28PM

"Answer my original question to Margie, "Which Christian denomination is teaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ?" Which church is teaching the "one faith" that Saint Paul preached in Ephesians 4:5? Which church did the gates of Hades NOT prevail against? As Christ promised all of His followers."

Nick,

First of all I should not answer anything for you given how you CLEARLY PLAY EVASION game with SELECTIVELY quoting SAME SOURCE that you use for your manipulative scheme of demeaning Christian Faith while purposefully not stating there is 242 Roman Catholic denominations according to SAME SOURCE...

But I will be gracious to you and look past your manipulations so here it is:

Every one of so called "denominations" is teaching the truth which truly stands on the Word of God as the Highest revelation of Truth popularly known as Sola Scriptura as to the doctrine of salvation - soteriology in light the true nature of God - biblical theology and true nature of man - biblical anthropology. In reality there is only A FEW Christian "denominations" and they very only on NON SALVIFIC, secondary type of issues like eschatology or the nature of one of the two sacraments - baptism.

Every Church is teaching one faith delivered for all which is teaching and standing on the Word of God as the Highest revelation of Truth popularly known as Sola Scriptura as to the doctrine of salvation - soteriology in light the true nature of God - in biblical theology and true nature of man - in biblical anthropology.

There is one victorious and universal Church of Christ which is teaching and standing on the Word of God as the Highest revelation of Truth popularly known as Sola Scriptura as to the doctrine of salvation - soteriology in light the true nature of God - in biblical theology and true nature of man - in biblical anthropology. The succession of the truth is THE ONLY TRUE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION and is in this universal Catholic Church passed along and down through the ages via teaching, exegeting and glorifying the Word of God. Notice here that I said Catholic and not Roman Catholic for those two are NOT the same nor the Church of Rome is fulfilling any of above descriptions...

This Church is from the beginning one by God's will and this is of whom and for who Christ was and is praying:

"“I am not praying only on THEIR behalf, but also on behalf of THOSE who believe in me through THEIR testimony, that they will ALL BE ONE, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that THEY will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me."
~ John 17:20-21 NET

THEY WHO ALL BE ONE is qualified in the immediate context of Christ words and here is the key to this qualification given by Christ:

"I have given them YOUR WORD, and the world has hated them, because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world."
~ John 17:14 NET

The WORD given by Christ - THE GOSPEL is the qualification of this group, this church.
The very same Word from which the Church of Rome apostated a long time ago and which apostasy you reaffirm by stating this as your "authority":

"Because, I read the early Church Fathers, that's how."
:) Non sequitur ... and a GIANT one... :)

A. Fathers WERE NOT inspired by the Spirit to write AUTHORITATIVE revelation of truth therefore whatever they say is only subservient to the INSPIRED Word of God - The Scriptures insofar as what they say is in COMPLIANCE with the Word of God.
B. Fathers wrote much on many issues and not enough on other issues. Many of them wrote ortodax commentaries and teachings in alignment with the Word of God many of them wrote some of the things that were and are heretical as many of them were influenced by pagan ideas like Gnosticism (Justin Martyr hugely influenced by it for example).
C. Fathers are hugely abused and especially Roman Catholics protagonists who massacre their writings by "search and rip" tactics in brutish attempt to justify many neopagan practices and teachings of Rome. Of course they can find some of that in the errors made by some of the fathers and in some periods of their lives yet that does not trumps the INSPIRED SCRIPTURES who debunk those errors and Rome utilization of those errors.
D. There is plenty of Fathers and their solid teachings which DEBUNK and DISMANTLE errors and false teachings of Rome.
E.Fathers were not Roman Catholic as you were lead to believe nor were they Protestant. They were a mixed bunch and mixed writings full of truth but also having plenty of errors. If you concentrate on finding those errors and using them to support errors of Rome that does not make them any better or true it just make you more confused and duped.

Some of the issues:
"No, I do not. God permits evil, we all have free will."
Really? How much of a "free will" Paul had on the road outside Damsacus or Jonah on the ship to Spain... :)

"I don't know how Jeremiah 23 applies to me."

Applies to what TRUTH is and how the TRUTH is verified so you write in that regard and your approach it does not apply to you...

Nick| 5.21.11 @ 1:34PM

Despeville,

I'm glad you decided to respond. May I ask, is English your second language? I don't ask to be snide, it's just that some of your phraseology is hard to understand.

They are not "so-called" denominations, they have distinct dogmas concerning the nature of Christ and how He is to be worshipped. Are you saying that there is not much of a difference between Lutherans (depending on which Lutheran you're talking about) and Baptists (depending on which Baptist you're talking about?)

Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox don't cling to Sola Scriptura, they appeal to tradition almost as much as we Catholics. They also revere Our Lady, Mary the Mother of God.

"[...] they very [sic] only on NON SALVIFIC, secondary type of issues like eschatology or the nature of one of the two sacraments - baptism."

Baptism is not salvific? Didn't Christ tell Nicodemus that one must be born again of water and Spirit to enter the Kingdom of God? (John 3:3-8)

Where was this One church for 1500 years while the Catholic Church (both Latin and Greek) was spreading the Gospel across Europe and Asia, preserving civilization after the fall of the Roman Empire, and beating back the Moslem hoards?

I read the early Church Fathers to find out what the first Christains were teaching. And, they were teaching Catholic doctrines. A few them did get blinded by the heresies of their time. Luckily, I have the Church to show me exactly where they went wrong.

So, Paul and Jonah didn't have free will? How did this happen? And, where is this in the Scriptures?

God Bless!

Despeville | 5.23.11 @ 2:55PM

Nick,

"I don't ask to be snide, it's just that some of your phraseology is hard to understand."

Perhaps not phraseology but the terms used :) Well theology uses quite a number of them Nick.

"Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox don't cling to Sola Scriptura, they appeal to tradition almost as much as we Catholics. They also revere Our Lady, Mary the Mother of God."

And that is one of the marks of the apostate church.

"Baptism is not salvific? Didn't Christ tell Nicodemus that one must be born again of water and Spirit to enter the Kingdom of God? (John 3:3-8)"

NO, IT IS NOT. If it would be then the works earn salvation which is not the Gospel. I know you have been lead to believe this lie but mentioned text does not talk about baptism and just because water is mentioned that does not imply baptism. This is your isogesis (term again).
Read Romans 9:16 or Ephesians 2:8-9 they would have to be declared lies for your works salvation to be true...

"Where was this One church for 1500 years while the Catholic Church (both Latin and Greek) was spreading the Gospel across Europe and Asia, preserving civilization after the fall of the Roman Empire, and beating back the Moslem hoards?"

Wow, so the true Church role is to "Beat back" Moslems... ? How is that any different from pagans and their jihad violence? Is that the Gospel? Ever heard about Protestant Churches in Brazil in mid of XVI which were destroyed by RC? Same all over the Europe from Romania to Scotland? Ever heard about 2100 Churches planted in 10 years in France by missionaries from Geneva? But then again you have much in common with heathen as your Catechism states and CONFIRMS:

"841: The Church's relationship with the Muslims:
"The plan of salvation also INCLUDES those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and TOGETHER with US they ADORE the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Point 841 of the Catechism of Roman Catholic Church.
You "adore" same God with heathens who deny the Cross and deny Jesus.

"I read the early Church Fathers to find out what the first Christains were teaching."

Really? well read something past RC compilations prepared for you by your RC salesmen... from Catholic Answers and such.

One example:

"The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ.

Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well.

For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth,—while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith in Christ unreasonable."

Athanasius (297-373)
Vol. IV, Against the Heathen, Part I, §1-3

"SACRED SCRIPTURES ARE SUFFICIENT TO DECLARE THE TRUTH"

Do you see that? I am sure that was not included in your RC Church Fathers marketing compilations... Or was it?

"So, Paul and Jonah didn't have free will? How did this happen? And, where is this in the Scriptures?"

You DID NOT answered my questions...Did Paul got to stay at persecuting Christians as it WAS HIS WILL? Did Jonah got to cruise to Spain as it WAS HIS WILL???

Yes or No. It is that simple. Do not play your evasions with the Word of God. Ultimately you can have free God or free man only. One of the two. And you have believed in the wrong one...

Where is that? It is ALL OVER THE SCRIPTURES and surely in the book of Jonah and Paul's account of conversion which I ALREADY mentioned... :) They had will but only according to their nature...

Study the Word more. One final clue for the person who needs it so much:

NET© 9:16 So then, 1 it does not depend on human desire or exertion, 2 but on God who shows mercy.
NIV© 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
NASB© 9:16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
ESV© 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

Clint| 5.1.11 @ 4:03PM

The Lapsed Catholic, Anti-Catholic Apocalyptic Crank Ladt Victor-Margie got an Arrested Developmental Fixation with Smearing The Catholic Church, because Her Catholic Mommy & Daddy took Her to Church with them.

Now,tell all The Practicing Jews & Muslims, where You Say they go when they die.

You're Up Agendist Phoney Truth Teller Bigot Broad From Joisey.

Margie| 5.1.11 @ 4:18PM

The Papal Inquisitor crawls out from under his rock once again to accuse the Bible believing Christian of insanity!

Straight out of the book of Martyrs.
Read Martyr's Mirror or Foxe's book of Martyrs to find out how the Popes of old did this while torturing and murdering Christians who stood on the Word of God.

Clint/Tim* has a problem with the Word of God, Whom he rejects utterly.

Clint| 5.1.11 @ 4:59PM

Lapsed Catholic, Anti-Catholic Bigot Broad from Joisey, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie has A Serial Chronic Problem with Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Mormons & almost Everybody Else's Religion.

"King Henry VIII is responsible for the deaths of over 70,000 Catholics including hundreds of priests and Bishops.

Queen Elizabeth I, had thousands of Catholics put to death in England. She ordered that Catholic Mary Queen of Scots be executed in 1587. She had thousands more killed in Ireland.

Oliver Cromwell is responsible for starting the English civil war and the subsequent beheading of Catholic King Charles I, and for the killing of thousands of Catholics in that war of 1642-1649.

Thousands of Catholics were murdered in Ireland by the English in the 19th century simply because they attended the Catholic Mass. The Protestant English redcoats were also responsible for confiscating the food from the Irish people and for leaving them only with potatoes which were blighted and unfit to eat. In the mid 19th century this caused the deaths by starvation of an estimated 1-1.5 million Irish Catholics, and the emigration of about 2 million more. It was a case of either leave the country or die of starvation."

Now, tell all The Practicing Jews & Muslims where You say they go when they die, Cowardly Phoney Truth Teller White Trash Bigot Broad From Joisey.

Margie| 5.1.11 @ 7:02PM

And your point is?

Greta| 5.2.11 @ 2:09AM

Margie, you are very poorly informed on the Catholic Church. I will just assume your hatred of the Catholic Church is based on ignorance of what the Catholic Church actually believes.

It is always amazing to me when some get into the Bible and the Catholic Church as being anti bible. Which Church was that who copied and preserved the Bible over the centuries? What Church do you belong to and when did it start? Christ gave simon the name Peter or rock and said he would build his church on that rock. In Rome, Peter is buried under the altar of St Peters. It is the one true and apostolic church in existence tracing back from Benedict XVI to Peter, good Popes and bad.

Without leadership, the protesting churches have split into the thousands and each has their own truth. I will stick with the one founded by Christ on the Rock, Peter, the one that for centuries copied and preserved the bible all the others use. Or maybe you have an original manuscript from the apostles in their own handwriting. NOT...

Margie| 5.2.11 @ 6:56PM

Greta,

You are the one who is extremely poorly informed as to what the Bible says.

I suggest you actually plug yourself into it.

That is, if you care. But you'd have to set aside your haughty and condescending attitude first, and it ain't looking too good for that.

Despeville | 5.23.11 @ 7:43PM

Greta,

I wish I had a time to the bunch of shenanigans you are trying to smuggle here as "facts." It is really sad to see you so misinformed and so cliched, Wow!

Greta| 5.2.11 @ 2:11AM

Great day for the Catholic Church with millions in Rome for the beatification of Blessed John Paul II. What a great leader and wonderful servant of Christ on earth and now in heaven. We are blessed to have the Papacy and the Church which goes from our current Pope all the way back to Christ.

Margie| 5.3.11 @ 8:37PM

There is no Popery in the Bible. You believe a lie that has been taught to you.

And if this Pope or any other teaches or has taught the lies and false doctrine of Catholicism, they have a very rude awakening on the other side of eternity.

The true church of God are those who listen and obey His Words, which are written in the Bible for all mankind. These teachings do not include the false doctrines of Catholicism.

They aren't in the Bible!

Wake up from your sleep, for it is full time now that you do so.

Jesus is coming soon bringing His recompense to all who refuse to obey His Words.

Nick| 5.23.11 @ 5:58PM

Despeville,

(1) Since you did not deny it, I will assume that English is not your first language. I was being charitable by using phraseology. What I really meant was grammar, or, lack thereof. Some of your statements are unintelligible. Like this one:
"What He is going to do that 'God' for that is a different 'God' from the God who reveled Himself to us in His revelation of truth - His Word..."

(2) "And that is one of the marks of the apostate church."

You wrote that "[e]very one of so called [sic] 'denominations' is teaching [...] Sola Scriptura [...]." I simply showed that this statement was not true.

(3) John 3 is certainly talking about baptism. So is Mark 16: "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believes not shall he condemned."
See also:
"Not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost." - Titus 3:5
"That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life" - Ephesians 5:26

Also, have you ever read Saint James' epistle?

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Do you see that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and NOT by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers and sending them out another way? 26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead." - James 2:21-26

Despeville | 5.23.11 @ 8:01PM

"Since you did not deny it, I will assume that English is not your first language. I was being charitable by using phraseology. :

You get of me Sir and get on the facts... and arguments presented. That is the first rule of any civilized etiquette in civilized discussion: "DISCUSS THE ISSUE and NOT THE PERSON WHO ATTEMPTS TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOU..." I know your passion for ad hominem rhetoric but that will not cover up your complete lack of substance...

I have noticed that you went completely DARK and SILENT as to the arguments and quotations provided. Instead you are coming up with new ones not even bothering to respond to what was given to you. Typical evasion and manipulation that I have seen in thousands from all types of evaders...

I shouldn't even answer any of those before you fully respond to my arguments but for the sake of other I will shortly address you shenanigans...
Before you butcher James 2 like you do read Genesis 15:6 and Genesis 22:12 because James is using that to support his point and realize that 30 years have passed between those two accounts yet Abram in Genesis 15 is JUSTIFIED 30 years prior to his work which REFLECTED that justifying faith... That is the timeline yet you got it backwards...

I will only address the texts which you referenced. Titus 3:5 has nothing to do with saving anyone by baptism that is so evident that is not even funny to see you violating the context like that...

Ephesians 5:26 makes a reference to Jewish ritualistic washings with water which are used as analogy of washing with the Word of God as pure and clean. Something that you should embrace and depart from soiling yourself with man made bogus and anti biblical traditions of fallen men.

Do not plaster more "arguments" here before you respond to what was presented to you prior. I have no time for evaders and manipulators.

Nick| 5.23.11 @ 10:02PM

Despeville,

(1) I am not discussing "THE PERSON," i.e. YOU. I asked you a simple question, because SOME of your statements are hard to follow.

(2) "I have noticed that you went completely DARK and SILENT as to the arguments and quotations provided."

Umm....in case you didn't notice, I numbered each rebuttal to your "arguments," just so I could keep track of them. Even the non-relevant tangents you went on, like adoring the same God with heathens.

For every argument, to a quote of mine, that you provided in your comment @ 2:55PM, I provided a numbered response. So, I have no idea what you are talking about when you claim I haven't addressed your points.

(3) I am fully aware of how Protestants try to use Romans to defend Sola Fide. What about Rahab the harlot? Saint James asks, "was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers and sending them out another way?" Also, did you miss verse 26?

Actually, Abram had faith before Genesis 15. God tells Abram to leave his country and his father's house, in Genesis 12:1, and he obeys (faith and works, working hand in hand.) God then makes three promises to Abram, Gen 12:2-3, which He ratifies in 3 Covenants (cf Gen 15; 17; & 22.) Your interpretation of James 2:21-26 is not corroborated by the Scriptures.

Saint James' epistle is a complete refutation of the false doctrine of Sola Fide. This was why Martin Luther wanted to remove it from the Biblical Canon.

Saint Paul, in Titus 3:5, says it is by water and Spirit that Christ "saved us." Paul was repeating what Christ told Nicodemus in John 3:3-8. Your only retort to this is, "It doesn't mean that, because I say so." Not much of an "argument" really.

"Ephesians 5:26 makes a reference to Jewish ritualistic washings [...]."

Why? Because you say so? Or, because some mere man, in whom you trust, says so? Again, this not a rebuttal, and not much of an "argument."

But, please keep trying.
God Bless!

Despeville | 5.24.11 @ 1:53AM

"But, please keep trying"

Nope, I will not until you go back to the post @ 2:28PM and answer all arguments presented there.

Nick| 5.24.11 @ 4:16PM

Despeville,

I'm sorry, which arguments did I not answer, in my post of 5.21.11 @ 1:34PM?

Nick| 5.23.11 @ 6:15PM

Despeville,

I split this reply into two comments to cut down the length.

(4) Try reading paragraphs 839-845 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to see the whole context of what the Church teaches about non-Christians. All men are called by God to know Him. Moslems profess belief in the One, True God of Abraham. This puts them closer to God than Buddhists, Hindus, or atheists.

(5) I agree with everything Athanasius says. All revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, Saint John. The writings of the early Church Fathers claim no new revelation. They only further explain the Truths set forth in the Scriptures. As Saint Paul commanded the Thessolonians: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word of mouth or by our epistle." - 2 Thessolonians 2:15

(6) I am not evading anything. God intervenes in history all the time. This does not negate free will. Paul and Jonah were still free to disobey God. And they chose not to disobey. Paul could have kept on persecuting Christians. Christ made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

(7) Yes, faith is a merciful gift from God. We all must first ask for, and, then, accept His gift. But, when we sin, we turn our back on God, and must be reconciled with Him. We must both believe and be baptized to enter the Kingdom of God. Baptism is most definitely needed for salvation. God gives us the tools to be saved in His Church.

God Bless!

Margie| 6.20.11 @ 9:49PM

""Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word of mouth or by our epistle." - 2 Thessolonians 2:15"

Nick,

It does not say that.
It says:

"So, then, brothers, stand firm and
strongly hold the teachings you were
taught, whether by word or by our letter."

This is from the original Greek. You are wishing to include the "early church fathers" in this and other verses, which isn't right. You see what the original says~ and it does not include future "teachers and/or teachings".

Despeville | 5.23.11 @ 8:18PM

"All men are called by God to know Him. Moslems profess belief in the One, True God of Abraham. This puts them closer to God than Buddhists, Hindus, or atheists"

CLOSER does not cut it Sir... If it would then Christ would not come for you could get closer on your own. And how much close it is since they deny the very core of Christian faith yet are INCLUDED IN PLAN OF SALVATION WITH YOU... and you ADORE WITH THE SAME GOD as your Church teaches... Closer:

"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain."
Surat An-Nisā' 4:157
Qu'ran

As far as 2 Thessalonians 2:15 by what possible trick can you read into it or are allowed to read into that text and that "traditions" your hundreds and thousands of years later men developed traditions that the audience of that letter in that context never heard about and never dreamed about? This is a text book example of crude eisegesis. Just because you or Catholic Answers found this word it does not mean that those traditions are equal or same with your current or even a 1000 years old traditions. Broad context qualifies the words and not single words qualify the broader context... You got it backwards just like you do with James 2 and its qualifying example from Genesis 15:6 and 22:12

Nick| 5.24.11 @ 12:14AM

Despeville,

Yes, I wrote "closer", not that Moslems WERE Christians. Again, read the whole section of the CCC, paragraphs 839-845. The Jews are the closest, obviously. Then, the Moslems. Then, all other non-Christians who profess belief in a Creator. Last would be atheists.

It is not eisegesis, it is exegesis. This interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 goes all the way back to the early Church Fathers:

"If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders— what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice." (Emphasis mine.)
- Saint Papias (A.D. 115-140)
as recorded by Eusebius
Church History, Book III, chapter 39

"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Emphasis mine.)
- Saint Irenaeus (A.D. 189)
Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 4, sec. 1

"Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken." (Emphasis mine.)
- Saint John Chrysostum (A.D. 347-407)
Homilies on Second Thessalonians, Homily IV

I can list many, many more quotes from the Fathers, if you would like.

As Saint Paul commanded Timothy: " And the things which you have heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also." (Emphasis mine.)
- 2 Timothy 2:2

Saint Paul is referring to FOUR generations of apostolic succession in this verse. Paul's own generation, the first; Timothy's, the second; the men Timothy will teach, the third; and those who will be taught by them, the fourth.

This would include Saints Polycarp, Ignatius, Papias, and Irenaeus. Was Timothy a heretic and teach false doctrine to the succeeding generations?

Nick| 5.24.11 @ 12:26AM

Oops! That should be: Was Timothy a heretic and TEACHING false doctrine...

Despeville | 5.24.11 @ 1:28AM

"I can list many, many more quotes from the Fathers, if you would like."

Go ahead but I hope that you do better than this because NOTHING that you have quoted above establishes your extra and anti-biblical traditions or allows you to import them into the traditions that the text alludes to which were in sync with the Bible and Bible supporting... You fail to understand that and fail miserably at that all the way while trying to smuggle in your later men made developments... Just because you saw your red flag with the word "traditions" and you charge happily at it does not mean you can actually stuff it with your hundreds and thousands of years later Roman Catholic traditions.

"- 2 Timothy 2:2 Saint Paul is referring to FOUR generations of apostolic succession in this verse"

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT????
This was written around 66 or 67 so the generation had to be about 8 years... :) Seriously, what did they tell you as far as the date of this letter? This is by far one of the biggest shenanigans you have said so far... It makes me really want to quit this very unfortunate, unproductive and imprecise conversation.

Nick| 5.24.11 @ 5:49PM

Despeville,

"Go ahead but I hope that you do better than this [...]."

I quoted the early Church Fathers to answer this question of yours: " [...] and that 'traditions' your hundreds and thousands of years later men developed traditions that the audience of that letter in that context never heard about and never dreamed about? [sic]" (Emphasis mine.)

I did this to show that the second, third, and subsequent generations of Christians were following both the Scriptures and Traditions of the Apostles. And, if you read what they were teaching, you will find that it was Catholic. So, these were not Traditions invented hundreds, or thousands of years later. These teachings were there at the beginning.

"WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT????"

I spell something out, step by step, and you still can't understand it? You seem to be unaware that I was not speaking about familial or Biblical generations, but, generations in the sense of the next generation of computer or software.

Paul was an Apostle (i.e. one who is sent) of Christ. Timothy was appointed Bishop of Ephesus by Paul. This makes Timothy a Christain disciple 2.0, in today's parlance. The people Timothy taught were disciples 3.0. And, the Christians taught by the 3.0 disciples were disciples 4.0.

This how Saint Paul's command to Timothy is properly read:
"And the things which you [i.e. Timothy, 2nd generation]
have heard of me [Paul, 1st generation]
by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men [3rd generation, e.g. Irenaeus]
who shall be fit to teach others [4th generation, e.g. Hippolytus of Rome] also."

The fact that some of these 4th, 5th, and subsequent generations of Christians succumbed to heresy, i.e. Origen and Tertullian, does not mean we can dismiss ALL of the early Christian writings. That would be bad scholarship.

And before you bring it up, I'm well aware that Saint Hippolytus of Rome apostatized and was anti-pope. But, he reconciled with the Church and died a martyr.

Finally, I never claimed that I use the early Church Fathers as my only source for my belief that the Catholic Church is the One, True, Holy, and Apostolic Church. There are also all of the Church Councils, beginning with the Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15.

Through the Holy Scriptures AND the councils AND the writings of the early Christians, ALL inspired by the Holy Spirit, we have everything we need to know about ALL that was taught by Christ to His disciples during His ministry.

Nick| 5.24.11 @ 6:37PM

Oops! Bad editing on my part!

Ignore the part about the writings of the early Christians being "inspired by the Holy Spirit."

It should have read like this: Through the Holy Scriptures AND the Church Councils (ALL inspired by the Holy Spirit,) AND the writings of the early Christians, we have everything...

My apologies, if this caused any confusion.

Nick| 5.25.11 @ 6:57PM

This, also, might make this part easier to read:

This is how Saint Paul's command to Timothy is properly read:
"And the things which you [i.e. Timothy, 2nd generation]
have heard of me [Paul, 1st generation] by many witnesses,
the same commend to faithful men [3rd generation, e.g. Irenaeus]
who shall be fit to teach others [4th generation, e.g. Hippolytus of Rome] also."

Despeville | 5.23.11 @ 8:30PM

Roman Catholic doctrine of "Closer" juxtaposed with FACTS...

DENIAL OF CROSS BY MUSLIMS

The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.

Point 841
Catechism of Roman Catholic Church

AFFIRMATION OF SAME MUSLIMS AS INCLUDED IN THE PLAN OF SALVATION ALONG WITH THEIR DENIAL OF CROSS AND AFFIRMATION OF THEIR WORSHIP AS TRUE AND VALID IN THAT DENIAL AND OF SAME KIND WITH WORSHIP OFFERED BY ROMAN CATHOLICS...

videre licet...

Nick| 5.24.11 @ 12:15AM

Why do you constantly repeat yourself?
Do you like to type this much?

Nick| 5.24.11 @ 12:16AM

Or, should I ask, do you like to cut 'n paste this much?

Despeville | 5.24.11 @ 1:46AM

To show your evasion and lack of substance in addressing obvious and documented FULL APOSTASY of your Roman Church... The truth hurts does it not? Especially when you cannot manipulate it away.

I will give you more that you are completely oblivious to... Did you hear about "days of unity" in some Roman Catholic countries in Europe? I am sure you did not. Well once a year (usually in January) Muslim Clerics come INSIDE Roman Churches and participate in Roman Mass and worship with Roman clergy and people and PRAY WITH THEM... The question is to whom since they deny Jesus and deny Triune God of the Bible.

I already documented denial of the Cross of Jesus by Muslims which does not stop Roman Church to call them included in the plan of salvation and to worship with Roman Church the SAME God. Now let me demonstrate for you the denial of the divinity of Jesus and the denial of Triune nature of God by Muslims who worship with you the SAME God. As you now know this acceptance of Islam and its full denial of Christian Faith is not in the Catechism of Rome only but also in its Churches in Europe...

"O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs."

Surat An-Nisā' 4:171
Qu'ran

And again let us juxtapose of above lie with its affirmation in your Catechism:

'The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Point 841
Catechism of Roman Catholic Church

How is that for repeating? And look what you have learned about your church in the process of repeating.

Nick| 5.24.11 @ 6:28PM

Despeville,

Trust me, I have learned nothing from you.

I was already familiar with Moslem beliefs about Christ and Our Lady, Mary, the Mother of God. I was also well aware of the Catholic teaching about Islam and all non-Christians in the CCC.

As far as your assertion that Moslem clerics are participating at Mass, I find this dubious.

First, there are no "Roman Catholic countries" in Europe anymore. You could maybe argue that Poland and Italy are....maybe. But, even those two countries are as secular as the U.S. They still have large Catholic populations, but, their societies, as a whole, are dominated by a secular humanist world view.

Second, no Moslem cleric, today, would set foot in a Catholic church to worship. Unless, he had a death wish.

Finally, a quick search of "days of unity" along with "Catholic" and "muslim cleric" (and other search terms,) yielded no results. So, unless you can provide an actual source for this allegation, I will ignore it.

So, continue to repeatedly paste over, and over, again. This is not an argument or rebuttal, and, it persuades no one.
God Bless!

Despeville | 5.31.11 @ 10:37PM

"Second, no Moslem cleric, today, would set foot in a Catholic church to worship. Unless, he had a death wish."

Nick,

You are ignorant and rely on Google for your "knowledge"... Days of Unity between Rome an d Islam are happening exactly in..........Poland, in January each year. That's all I have to say to you and good bye for I have no time for Google Scholars...

Nick| 6.8.11 @ 8:12PM

Depeville,

This proves that this is a mere assertion on your part, or, you would provide a source. You have no time for me because you have nothing with which to rebut my facts.

p.s. How do look up stuff on the internet?

Nick| 5.27.11 @ 4:37PM

Where'd you go, Despeville?

Nick| 6.21.11 @ 1:08PM

Margie,

I don't see a huge difference between both of our translations. I agree that teachings and traditions are the same thing.

I wasn't using this Scripture as proof of "future teachers." My point for using this quote was to show that Saint Paul taught his Gospel (v. 14) by both "word of mouth or letter."

So, according to Paul, there were teachings that were not written down. Remember how Saint Paul taught. He would enter a town, go to the synagogue, read the Scriptures, i.e., the Old Testament (the Law, Prophets, and the Writings) and explain how Christ was the promised Messiah.

For the Jews who were still interested, and the Gentiles, Paul would preach the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Gospel. These instructions were oral and written. Given the cost of paper back then, I would argue that his teachings were probably mostly oral.

Remember, also, the end of Saint John's Gospel: "But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written."

So, this is a very long, and wordy, explanation of my belief that Paul admitted that he and his disciples didn't write down everything they taught about Christ. How could they? There weren't enough books in the world, according to Saint John.

Nick| 6.21.11 @ 2:53PM

I should add that I did use 2 Timothy 2:2 to prove Saint Paul's anticipation of "future teachers."

I explained this to Depesville, above, in this way:

This is how Saint Paul's command to Timothy is properly read:

"[a]nd what you [i.e., Timothy, 2nd generation]
have heard from me [Paul, 1st generation] before many witnesses,
entrust to faithful men who [3rd generation, e.g. Irenaeus]
will be able to teach others also [4th generation, e.g. Hippolytus of Rome]."
(I used a different translation here, RSV-CE)

Generation is not used in the family sense, but, in the sense of computer software versions. Paul was an Apostle (i.e., one who is sent) of Christ. Timothy was appointed Bishop of Ephesus by Paul. This makes Paul a 1.o Christian disciple (like the Twelve) and it makes Timothy a 2.0 disciple, in today's parlance. The people whom Timothy taught were 3.0 disciples. And, the Christians taught by the 3.0 disciples were 4.0 disciples. (I hope that this isn't too confusing?)

Through this Scripture I believe Saint Paul was teaching that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was to be taught to others, who would then teach it to, yet, others, and so on and so on, down to our own time.

This also explains Paul's strong admonition to those who will come after him, and build upon his foundation, in 1 Corinthians 3:10-23. Those who taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ as did Paul (and the other Apostles,) their work on the foundation would survive (v. 14). If they didn't preach what the Apostles taught, i.e. "wood, hay, stubble", their work would burn up (v. 15).

Now, I know that Paul is referring here, specifically, to what will happen to each builder's soul on "the Day" (v. 13) of Judgement. But, in verse 6, Paul states: "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth." The context of chapter 3 is the growth of the Church and the men God will use to accomplish His plan.

In other words, if these future teachers will preach the truth of Christ, as taught by the Apostles, they will bear good fruit (Matthew 7:17). (I know you know this Scripture well!)

History shows that in the first couple of centuries after Christ's death and Resurrection, Christianity exploded and spread across the known world. Many of the early Church Fathers, and those whom they taught, suffered martyrdom in the name of Christ.

If "[e]very tree that brings NOT forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire" (Matthew 7:19), and the early Church Fathers preached a false gospel (as I think you believe,) how did Christianity spread as far (and as fast) as it did after the Apostolic Age?

Margie| 6.22.11 @ 2:07AM

""[a]nd what you [i.e., Timothy, 2nd generation]
have heard from me [Paul, 1st generation] before many witnesses,
entrust to faithful men who [3rd generation, e.g. Irenaeus]
will be able to teach others also [4th generation, e.g. Hippolytus of Rome]."

Nick,

The point I want to make, or show you is how Paul was talking about what HE has taught them~ that God's truth as spoken by HIM (Paul) be passed down to other faithful men.

The gospel has been added to by some of the early church fathers, teaching that do not agree with the gospel, the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

See, now you added Irenaeus in there, but Paul wasn't talking about listening to that man's teachings, he was talking about his own~ and those teachings being passed to other Christians who would teach His (Paul's) teachings~ NOT anyone's else's.

I just spent a few hours looking up and reading about Irenaneus and it is now 2 a.m. He is indeed an example of someone who is not to be listened to, and someone who made things up, and I will go so far to say was loony.

Will write some more tomorrow, Lord willing.
Nick, remember I told you about my Mother in law awhile back? That she's a survivor of a Nazi camp? Well please pray for her, she is dying right now and we are going to see her tomorrow.
Thanks and God bless,
Margie

Nick| 6.22.11 @ 12:09PM

Dear Margie and Victor,

The prayers are on their way.

May Our LORD and Savior give you strength, during this most stressful of times.
God Bless.

Nick| 6.22.11 @ 7:56PM

Margie,

I forgot to add, I'm sorry that my posts kept you up so late! Forgive me. Try to get as much sleep as you can during these trials that you and Victor are going through. I speak from experience, as I lost my mother seven and a half years ago.

Here is my response, when you find the time.

I completely agree with you that Saint Paul was talking about what he had taught to Saint Timothy. But, what exactly did Paul teach?

Paul taught "our gospel" (2 Thess. 2:14)/"my gospel" (2 Tim. 2:8) to the Church. Paul preached the Good News of Jesus Christ both orally and in writing (2 Thess. 2:15), and, his Gospel was the same as the four Evangelists, because Paul was taught God's Truth by Christ Himself.

It was the same teaching that was in Matthew's Gospel (an Apostle and eyewitness,) and Mark's (which is really Peter's Gospel, since John Mark was Peter's scribe,) and John's (also an Apostle and eyewitness.) Luke's Gospel is basically the Gospel according to Saint Paul, since Luke was converted by Paul.

I think we can agree that the Twelve, Paul, and the rest of Christ's disciples all preached and taught the same Gospel of Christ, as there is only one Truth. But, the four written Gospels don't impart exactly the same information and stress different teachings of Christ, because they were written for different audiences.

Did Luke add to the Word of God because he includes information not found in Matthew and Mark? No, his audience was different from their's. Luke tells the Nativity story from the Virgin Mary's view, the biological, giving Jesus' lineage back to Adam, because Paul preached to the Greeks. While Matthew tells the Nativity story from Joseph's view, the legal, to show his Hebrew audience that Christ was heir to the Davidic kingdom.

Now, we know that the four Gospels were written years after Christ's Ascension. The four Evangelists didn't sit down and write their Gospels as soon as Christ left this world (Mark and Luke weren't even disciples yet.) This means that the Good News was preached orally for years (probably at least a decade) until Matthew was inspired to put his Gospel in writing. The same is true for the other three Gospels.

So, Paul taught Timothy, Titus, Luke, et al, the teachings of Christ (his gospel) and told Timothy to teach "faithful men" who were "to teach others also" the Good News, which Paul had taught to Timothy originally. Paul's teachings were both oral and written. Timothy, et al, would also have taught by word and letter, as Paul had done. The faithful men Timothy taught, would have done likewise.

Paul's words are even more poignant when you remember the context of 2 Timothy. Paul is in prison again, for the final time. In chapter 2 he is trying to give Timothy a pep-talk, because others whom Paul taught had turned their backs on him. He knows the day will come when he won't be with his pupils, so, they must be loyal to God, through Christ's Teachings, which Paul has taught to Timothy, et al.

"See, now you added Irenaeus in there [...]."

Saint Irenaeus is exactly the type of man Paul was talking about. Irenaeus was one of the faithful men Paul referred to in 2 Timothy, albeit he was not taught by a pupil of Paul's. This was the actual history, according to the Church Fathers:

- 1st to 2nd Generation: Saint John the Apostle teaches Sts. Polycarp and Papias the teachings of Christ.
- 2nd to 3rd Generation: Polycarp teaches Iranaeus and Florinus what John taught, i.e., the Gospel.
- 3rd to 4th Generation: Iranaeus teaches Hippolytus of Rome what Christ taught, as handed down by John, through Polycarp.

So, Iranaeus was, as you wrote, one of those "other Christians who would teach His (Paul's) teachings~ NOT anyone's else's." Except, Iranaeus received his teaching about Christ from the Apostle John, through Polycarp, not from Paul.

The teachings of the Apostles, and therefore of Christ, were preserved by the faithful men who came after them, because these men (Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus) died rather than renounce what they had been taught. Martyr means witness in Greek, and, these men witnessed unto death for the Truth of Christ.

p.s. Sorry for the length, but I wanted to be precise.

Margie| 6.22.11 @ 10:12PM

Nick,

We thank you for your prayers. I have not yet lost a parent. Dad's 79 and Mom's a few yrs. younger. Vic's Dad died in '85, and I didn't know Vic then. Julia is 86. I've never known a lovelier human being.

As to everything you said about the teachings of the Apostles, yes I agree and realize that goes for all of them as to that which we are to listen to.

But when you get to the men who came after, they began teaching things not from the teachings of the Apostles or the Scriptures.

I will have to now post tons of their words in order to prove this I suppose, but I have posted many of these things here before and o one seems to care. They will just go on practing and believing them and this will only cause them to follow the deception that will be the Anti-Christ. For if they are now practicing these false and unbiblical teaches how will they not be willing to accept the mark of the Beast? It is the very thing that the Apostles warned of and the reason WHY we are not to accept false teachings not taught by the Apostles and the Scriptures.

I do believe that you know these teachings well for you study them.

These men that you mentioned though they may have been taught by the Apostles, who learned directly from Jesus Himself, and may have read the Scriptures but if what they taught others and chose to believe themselves is not according to same then they were deceived and deceivers plain and simple.

To begin with~ the entire church Hierarchy. Here's just one link for you to take a look at. It's up to you to what you decide to do with it, but it is the truth. And this is just the beginning.

Will talk soon again,
God bless you,
Margie

Nick| 6.23.11 @ 3:08AM

Margie and Victor,

You are entirely welcome. May the LORD grant Julia her prayers, and strengthen your family with His love, in this time of woe.

When my mother was sick, I found a lot of solace in the Book of Wisdom, or, the Wisdom of Solomon, as it is also known. I read the whole book before she passed, and it gave me great strength. I also read the Psalms.

I don't think I had ever read a verse of the Book of Wisdom before. But, one night, I was watching a show on the Catholic network EWTN, and someone mentioned it, in connection with dealing with adversity. God works in mysterious ways.

I will continue to pray for the brave and heroic Julia, and your kind family.
God Bless.

p.s. My niece is named Julia. She is six.

Margie| 6.24.11 @ 2:33AM

Thank you, Nick. Reading God's own Words is strengthening indeed. They take away all of my worries and fears, and never fail to encourage me. That and prayer~ how utterly amazing it is that God would have anything to do with any of us, and yet He does.

The book of Psalms is really comforting.
Thanks so much.
Nite.

Margie| 6.22.11 @ 10:14PM

Oops. Here's the link:

http://www.therealchurch.com/a.....thers.html

Nick| 6.21.11 @ 4:20PM

Margie,

I almost forgot!

Here is your post, along with my response and questions, about Isaiah 22, from above:

"Nick,

"I know that Catholicism wants to and indeed does connect the giving of the keys only to Peter in order to justify the hierarchy of the church, but this is a false assumption because Jesus gave the 'keys of the Kingdom' to ALL of the disciples.

"If you read Mt. 18 you see who Jesus was addressing as to who is the 'greatest' in His Kingdom, and He was addressing ALL of the disciples, and ending with Mt. 18:18.

"It is incorrect and indeed a blasphemy to try and make Eliakim a sort of prototype for the Pope.
Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus or God want any one man to be worshipped or bowed down to in a manner that is idolatrous.

"When Jesus said He was going to send the Holy Spirit to dwell in the hearts of men, He meant ALL the hearts of men, and ALL who obey His Words are His disciples, He means it.

"'Jesus answered him, "If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word, and my Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.
"These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you.
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.' Jn. 14:23-26.

"He is addressing ALL of the disciples. And even when Paul said to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing, and not listen to anything taught by anyone but them, that goes to the same point."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Margie,

"I need you to clearify what you mean when you write 'All of the disciples.'

"Are you referring to the Apostles and disciples during Christ's ministry? Or, are you including the disciples of the Apostles after Christ's Ascension? Or, do you mean all of us professed Christians through the ages?

"Also, I don't know how that is blasphemy. Catholics don't worship the pope. Bowing is just showing respect, like when people bow and curtsy for the Queen of Great Britain.

"The Holy Father is a man like any other. He is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching errors on Faith and Morals, just as the Apostles and their disciples were.

"Any other subject the Pope speaks about, other than Faith and Morals, I am free to disagree with him."

Margie| 6.22.11 @ 10:15PM

Nick, this one is a whole 'nother ball of wax so to speak. Will discuss later.

Nick| 6.23.11 @ 2:40AM

Margie,

Thank you so much for the link. I found it very helpful in understanding the mind-set of a Bible-only church member. This concept is fairly new to me. I was aware of non-denominational churches and Bible churches, but, until I started talking to you, I hadn't heard of this Bible-only house church movement.

There is much of Mr. Job's essay with which I disagree. (I know, big surprise, huh?) I could probably go on for way too long arguing my side, but, I will try to keep this short.

At first, as I was reading, I didn't realize that Mr. Job had other articles on the site. So, I thought he wasn't providing specifics. He seemed to be making many assertions without much proof, stating things like: "We have already seen from the New Testament [...]." So, I will have to read his other articles to understand his total argument.

When I got to the end, Mr. Job provided multiple quotes from different sources to bolster his arguments. But, what struck me were the things he didn't discuss.

He never mentioned Saint Polycarp. Ignatius and Polycarp were students of John the Apostle, and good friends. Mr. Job never mentions the diaconate, either. He also states that the position of elder/bishop was not an office. But, one of the quotes he cites at the end, from A. M. Renwick, states that elder was an office in the early Church.

Then, the last sentence, in the second-to-last paragraph, made my mouth drop open: "You don't have to take my word on it, just read the Bible and check it out with the scholars." (Emphasis mine.) So much for "Bible only" I thought.

This was after admonishing an Anglican minister for saying this: "'I can justify staying in the Church of England because it is committed to the teaching of the Bible and the Early Church Fathers.' (Italics [Mr. Job's].)"

Why is adhering to the Bible and the Early Church Fathers wrong, but, appealing to the Bible and the Late Church Fathers, i.e. the Scholars that Mr. Job is fond of quoting, okay? I find Mr. Job being a little hypocritical here.

This is what all of these arguments always come down to: Authority. Who has it, and who doesn't? Mr. Job appeals to the scholars he quotes. I appeal to the Fathers. Some of the Fathers knew the Apostles. Mr. Job's scholars didn't.

The saddest part about Mr. Job's argument is that it implies that Christ failed. The gates of Hades did prevail against His Church, in contradiction to Christ's own Words, before Saint John even died. Satan ruled for the last 1900 years, not God. In no way can I agree with this.

I have more I could say, but this is already too long, sorry! I would just ask this question: Do you believe that the four Gospels were written by the men to whom they are ascribed, and, if yes, why?

None of the Gospel writers identify themselves. Only the Gospel of John comes close, when the author states this: "This is that disciple who gives testimony of these things and has written these things: and we know that his testimony is true." (John 21:24)

How can we trust that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? How do we know that the so-called Gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Judas are false gospels?

Again, sorry for the length.
God Bless!

Margie| 6.24.11 @ 2:25AM

Hi Nick,

First, I do not know or subscribe to the man's site, I just found it to be truthful as to what he said. There are thousands of sites who present truthful info, biblical info as to these early Christians since the Apostles, and what they taught.

First, it doesn't matter where Christians meet together, as long as they do. As it is written God does not dwell in houses made by Hands, and wherever two or three are gathered in His Name He promises to be in the midst. (Acts 7:48, Mt. 18:20), so that right there takes care of that issue.

And actually he did mention Polycarp. He said Iraneus studied under him but this was about the very begininng of explaining about the hierarchy of the church, where it all started and how it was wrong. How these individuals that cam after the Apostles went astray from what the Apostles taught.

"This is what all of these arguments always come down to: Authority." Yes it does, and the only Authority is what has been taught by the Spirit of God as taught in the Scriptures and by Jesus and the Apostles. And by the way there is a difference between teachings and Traditions. Teachings are the things that are taught by the Spirit of God, Traditions of men are just that~ made up by Men.
The Holy Spirit said teachings, not traditions. He says through the Apostles that we are to listen only to the teachings given by them. NOT the traditions of the men who came after, nor their teachings if they do not comport with those already written and taught by the Scriptures, Jesus and the Apostles.

The original Greek word that is used is teachings, not traditions. Big difference.

The words that I read indicated not that Christ failed, only that men failed. They failed in that they were not faithful to what Jesus and the Apostles taught. The men that came after them taught horrible things and these things are still being taught today, just as Jesus and the Apostles taught they would. Even in their day men were doing this. Jesus and the Apostles warned constantly about the wolves in sheeps clothing that would come in. Ravenous wolves. And what can you say about the 7 churches that Jesus addresses in Revelation? Those who would not listen to His Word?

The gates of Hades has not prevailed against His church! the true church is the Body of Believers in Christ the world over who,no matter where they gather in His Name are practicing the Words of God as taught by Jesus and the Apostles~ the very words we now have in our Bibles, and rejecting all other doctrines that do not agree with those Words.

just because men knew the Apostles does not nec. mean they were faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

And as to your question to how do we know which are the true gospels or how do we know who to listen to?

Because the Holy Spirit spoke through the Prophets of old and Jesus fulfilled their words. The Apostles appointed by Jesus were filled with the Holy Spirit and their words agreed with everything that was written in the Scriptures.

"For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough." 1 Cor. 11:4.

Beware false teachers, no matter how far they go back, or who they knew. If what they say did not match up with what the Scriptures, Jesus and the Apostles taught~ then to accept them is to accept a different gospel.

God bless you.

Nick| 6.25.11 @ 9:08PM

Margie,

"First, I do not know or subscribe to the man's site [...]."

I didn't mean to imply that you agreed with everything Mr. Job wrote. I was just giving my opinion as to where I thought his argument was weak.

"First, it doesn't matter where Christians meet together [...]."

The Catholic Church agrees. A Mass can be celebrated anywhere, even outside, as long as certain precepts and norms are followed.

"And actually he did mention Polycarp."

I meant that Mr. Job didn't mention Polycarp's teachings, such as on the duties of the office of presbyters and deacons. Sorry, for not being more specific. My fault entirely.

"The words that I read indicated not that Christ failed, only that men failed."

If the men taught by the Apostles failed, as did Phygelus, Hermogenes, and Demas (2 Tim. 1:16; 4:10), and the "faithful men" who were taught by Timothy failed; who are the men who did not fail? Where are their writings? Where was their church?

If all authority (and Divine Revelation) ended with the death of the John, the last Apostle, wasn't the church left rudderless? If the Apostles couldn't pass-on their authority, how were the Christians to know who was preaching Christ's Truth and who was lying?

Remember, almost everyone could not read back then. And, the Gentiles were ignorant of the Hebrew Scriptures. How were these people supposed to figure out who had the Truth of Christ?

This was another of Mr. Job's flawed arguments. He acted as if the New Testament just arrived one day in the 3rd or 4th century. He asked how well he would have done with only a few books of the New Testament? This assumes he could've read those Scriptures, and explained them, let alone afford them!

"The gates of Hades has not prevailed against His church!"

The Church that thrived and survived the persecutions of, first the Jewish authorities, and then the Romans, was the Church of the early Fathers. If the authority Christ gave the Apostles ended after their deaths, and the men taught by the Apostles were deceived by Satan, and their church spread over the known world, and ruled for the next 1900 years, how didn't the gates of Hades prevail against the church?

Where was the true church for the past 1900 years?

"And as to your question to how do we know which are the true gospels or how do we know who to listen to?"

It was also the Church of the early Fathers that decided which books went into the New Testament. This is what I meant by my question about the Gospels. It is through Tradition that we know who wrote the four Gospels, not because the Scriptures tell us. If you accept that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the authors of their Gospels, then you are accepting the Tradition of the early Fathers.

They didn't always agree on which books were canonical for the first few centuries. No one questioned the authenticity of Saint Peter's first epistle, for instance. But, whether Peter was the author of the second letter was doubted by many, up until the fourth century; and therefore, whether it belonged in the Canon of Scripture at all. In fact, the authorship is still debated today.

There has to be an authority to which we Christians can turn, in order to answer these questions. At least for me there does. I don't have the time to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Neither did most of the Christians for the past 2o centuries.

Sorry for the length! I had more, so I split into two posts.

Nick| 6.25.11 @ 9:19PM

Margie,

Here's the rest. Kind of my own conversion story.

Did Christ really expect all Christian converts to learn to read several languages in order to figure out the truth? This was a question I had to ask myself, over a decade ago, when I began to research these things. I think I've told you before that even though I was raised a Roman Catholic, I wasn't instructed very well about what the Church actually taught. Nor, the Scriptures.

When I started my studies, I was introduced to apologetics. This was when I stated to learn what non-Catholics taught. I was approaching 30 then.

I decided that I had to ask myself if I believed these things because I was raised in the Catholic Church, or, because they were the truth. So, I studied with an open mind.

I eventually came down on the side that becoming a disciple of Christ is a matter of the heart as much as the mind. The more I prayed, the more answers I received. Any doctrines with which I had problems or doubts were given explanations, even if it took years.

I finally had to ask the question I alluded to above. Did Christ intend to leave us leaderless? Did He become man in the flesh, perform miracles, establish a church, and die a horrendous death for our sins, just to have it all fall apart before the end of the first century A.D.?

Did Christ really intend for all of mankind to have to complete the studies of several Ph.D.'s in order to be confident that He was the Way, the Truth, and Life? Or, did He set up an organization that would be protected by the Holy Spirit, so that mankind could worship Him the way He intended and conquer death?

Christ knew men's hearts. Why didn't He have all the Apostles write down Gospels to teach the faithful? Why didn't He write down His Gospel, Himself? Because He knew there would always be those who'd refuse to believe. There were many who saw the miracles that He, the Apostles, and those after them, performed in Christ's name, including raising people from the dead; and they still refused to believe.

So, there would always be those who would disagree with what the Scriptures portend to say. Only the Holy Spirit can bring souls to the Church that Christ founded. I try to pray often that all will come home to His Church.

I continue to pray for your family.
God Bless.
Yours in Christ, Nick

Nick| 6.25.11 @ 6:05PM

Margie,

"The original Greek word that is used is teachings, not traditions. Big difference."

I'm not a linguist, but, teaching and tradition can be synonymous. Many Bibles translate 2 Thess. 2:15 as "traditions". I found this non-Catholic site where they list many Bibles that use "traditions", as well as "teachings":

http://bible.cc/2_thessalonians/2-15.htm

One commentary explains the using of the word "tradition" as Saint Paul's way of signifying the teachings handed down by Christ, as opposed to those that were his own opinion or teaching.

Interestingly, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary entry acknowledges that the "Fathers are valuable witnesses to historical facts, which give force to the intimations of Scripture" like infant baptism. They also state that "Rome has become the forerunner and parent of the Antichrist." Just to show you where they're coming from!

I also found this definition of the Greek from that Strong's Concordance from which you often quote:

"From paradidomi; transmission, i.e. (concretely) a precept; specially, the Jewish traditionary law -- ordinance, tradition." (Emphasis mine.)

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3862.htm

These are just a few thoughts I had while looking into some answers to your objections. I'll elaborate more later.
God Bless!

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 3:34PM

Nick,

Thanks again for your prayers for Julia, they are greatly appreciated.

The Apostles told us, warned us NOT to accept any teachings that did not agree with what they taught.

"I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them." Rom. 16:17.

You seemed to have looked up the word Tradition.

The word Teaching is here:

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1322.htm

And there IS a difference. The teachings of the Apostles is what Jesus taught them, and all is the truth of God as witnessed by the Holy Spirit.

The traditions of men, taught by men that came after them, and are not in accordance with their words, should be rejected. And that is what Bible believing Christians do~ reject them.

Things like prayer to the dead, Transubstantiation, Mass, asking a "Priest" for absolution of sin, Mary as the "Mother" of God. These are NOT what Jesus or the Apostles taught.

And there are many versions of the Bible. That's why I prefer the Greek. Hebrew Interlinear where the words are translated directly from the original languages. The original Greek says Teachings, not traditions.

Traditions would leave a way to allow the traditions of men to be accepted, The Holy Spirit is very precise, and leaves no room for deceit.

"Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents." Heb. 13:9.

"Finally, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God, just as you are doing, you do so more and more." 1 Thess. 4:1.

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths." 2 Tim. 4:3 & 4.

"..in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." Mk. 7:7.

"So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent me; if any man's will is to do His will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on My own authority.
He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of Him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood." Jn. 7:16-18.

"And they devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." Acts 2:42.

It all really is all a matter of who you choose to listen to~ the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, or the traditions of men.

Each person decides. And I choose to obey the Word of God as written in the Bible as taught by Jesus and the Apostles themselves. And the Old Testament Scriptures agree with the New.

The men who came after the Apostles~ I look to see what they wrote, and in more cases than not~ their words do not agree with what has been taught.

I know you think they do~ you think Catholicism does, but it does not. But there is no talking to you because you have chosen what you have chosen. My prayer for you is that God will open up your eyes so that you can see that you've been deceived by the Deceiver himself. You know I say this out of love, don't you?

Nick, I do love you as a brother in Christ, but I know that the doctrines of Catholicism are wrong. At least we can talk about it without you accusing me of hate.

I am telling you also that Ken/Old Tex has sent me a "warning" e mail. He says I'm a Pharisee and told me to stop posting here. He doesn't want me here because I stand on God's Word. He accuses me of bloodying others.
Well, Jesus tells me I am to "thrust them through" with the "Sword of His Truth", and I obey Him. Ken warns he is going to "out" me for using the version of the Bible I use. The version I use is taken directly from the original languages. I am sorry that he sees fit to reject it, and that he sees fit to reject me.

He is kin to your brethren who are the present day Papl Inquisitors. Perhaps God will see fit to use this for you to see a clear division between Bible believing Christians~ and those who simply "hold the form of Religion, but deny the Power of it".

God bless you, brother. I hope I see you in Heaven soon~ as we all will be able to recognize one another.

Margie| 6.28.11 @ 5:40PM

P.S. Nick,

If Ken succeeds and if he seeks to have me banned, you may e mail me and Vic here if you do wish to continue the discussion.

wehavetoomuchstuff@gmail.com.

Nick| 6.29.11 @ 12:57AM

Margie,

You are very welcome. Thank you and Victor, for trusting me enough to share such personal info.

I am confused as to why your translation has didaché, and mine has paradosis.

Would you please give me the link to Greek Interlinear site you are using? Is there more than one Greek Interlinear translation? (I really didn't look past the first one that popped up, sorry.) Because here is the site that I found, and it uses traditions, in 2 Thess. 2:15 :

http://www.scripture4all.org/O.....f/2th2.pdf

It clearly uses the Greek paradosis, παράδοσις, tradition. The Douay translation that I use, which provides the Greek and Latin, along with the thees and thous, also uses the same word: παραδόσεις. I am truly perplexed.

I saw your answer to my queries, from the other thread, about Ken. I'm sorry that you two are quarreling.

I will have to cut this one short. I will respond to your other comments tomorrow.
God Bless!

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 5.24.13

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|40 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|58 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|83 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|32 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|25 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online