My wife and I are expecting our first Child in April :D. It is really positively overwhelming to realize that I am going to be a dad in less than 3 months!

We are planning to baptize our son (yes, we found out it is a boy - unless it was the umbillical cord the ultrasound tech saw!) but I wnat to clarify some points concerning this.

In the rite of baptism today, is the baby immersed or is the water poured over the head of the infant? Also, in the rite, is the baby in some way exorcized or not?

Also, on another topic, is adult immersion baptism encouraged by the Churchor not, just wondering what you info-buffs have in your files!

PS: I am very impressed by the quality of posts on this site, God Bless you all!

Joe

-- Joseph Carl Biltz (jcbiltz@canoemail.com), January 13, 2003

Answers

Dear Joe,

Congratulations!

Infusion - the pouring of water over the forehead three times while reciting the required form - is the usual method of baptism in the Catholic Church, especially for infants.

Yes, the baptismal rite includes a prayer of exorcism. Of course this is not related to the matter of demonic possession, but is simply a prayer that the child be protected from evil, and grow strong in the faith.

Immersion is also an approved method of baptism in the Catholic Church, as it has always been. It has fallen into disuse largely because of practical or logistic considerations, rather then doctrinal issues. Also, it is seldom used for infants, for obvious reasons. It is currently undergoing a renewed popularity, though still to a limited extent. In some newly constructed Catholic churches, the baptistery includes a pool for immersion. Some Catholics see this as a concession to Protestantism, but that is not true. In spite of the insistence on immersion by many Protestant sects, all legitimate forms of baptism were Catholic for a very long time before they were adopted by Protestants.

Peace! Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 13, 2003.

Paul writes:

"In some newly constructed Catholic churches, the baptistery includes a pool for immersion. Some Catholics see this as a concession to Protestantism, but that is not true. In spite of the insistence on immersion by many Protestant sects, all legitimate forms of baptism were Catholic for a very long time before they were adopted by Protestants. "

In Italy, whole buildings adjacent to large churches served to house pools for Baptism. The Buildings are called baptistries. They were here long before Protestantism. :-)

Baptistry pictures Enjoy,

Mateo.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 13, 2003.

To clarify further - "solemn exorcism" or "major exorcism", which was once used in conjunction with the rite of baptism, is no longer used, as Jake indicated. However, "When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism" (CCC). It is such a "minor exorcism" which is still used as part of the baptismal rite.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 13, 2003.

Jake, That rite of baptism, is beautiful and indeed complete. I went to a baptism last year, where the ceremony took about a minute, and the deacon, was saying something about "welcome into the community", Nothing even close to what you gave. I do not doubt validity, but something there was short changed.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 13, 2003.

I just read a news item from the Momtreal Gazette of Jan. 12, 2003. It seems that the Presbyter in the Diocese of St Jerome, and also the laymen, were mixed up on the baptismal rites, and 300 babies were invalidly baptized.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 13, 2003.

Jake,

That was so beautiful!

I have not been to a baptism in many years....how I appreciated reading your posts..

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), January 13, 2003.

Jake,

Are unbaptized babies possessed of unclean spirits? If not, what is the need to remove them?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 13, 2003.

Are unbaptized babies possessed of unclean spirits? If not, what is the need to remove them?

The purpose of baptism, regardless of what you might be reading in your weekly parish bulliten, is twofold:

1) to remove the stain of original sin and

2) to instill sanctifying grace.

So, the unbaptized, while not "possessed of unclean spirits" in the manner you attempt to portray, do not have the life of Christ in them. They do not have the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Scripture and Tradition have taught this clearly through the centuries. Without sanctifying grace, the soul is powerless against the forces that would wil to bring it to ruin, i.e., the Devil and his angels. Hence, the need for exorcism.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), January 14, 2003.

For more information on the Sacrament of Baptism, read this.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), January 14, 2003.

Ed writes:

"I just read a news item from the Momtreal Gazette of Jan. 12, 2003. It seems that the Presbyter in the Diocese of St Jerome, and also the laymen, were mixed up on the baptismal rites, and 300 babies were invalidly baptized."

Just curious: what made their baptisms invalid?

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), January 14, 2003.

It seems that they did not use proper form. I know that they must say, while pouring the water , on the forehead, "I baptize you, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit". No Amen should be used. Apparently, they did not do so. Some tried to say that it was valid anyway, but that is not so.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 14, 2003.

Well, Ed, you are partly right. I just found the article at the Montreal Gazette's web site. Here's the link, http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx? id=5f6b38c1-0567-45e7-a612-c0d0adc22845, and here's the reason they gave for the baptisms being invalid:

"Instead of having one designated person sprinkle the child with holy water while proclaiming "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit," a priest handled the water while a lay person, properly designated to do baptisms, recited the sacred line, according to a Presse Canadienne report."

I'm not sure where you got the part about them saying "Amen" -- there's nothing about that in this article. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 14, 2003.

Also, just to add this in case someone says, "Hey, I thought lay people were allowed to perform baptisms!", again according to the same article, the requirement is that the same person who pours the water must also say the words, "I baptize you ..." etc., but in this case, one person poured the water and another person said the words - which isn't permitted. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 14, 2003.

Christine, I did not say that they said "amen" I just meant that in baptism, the baptizer should not say "amen". I did not know why they were invalid, I was just theorizing why it was not valid. I have seen one where , not the actual baptizing was invalid, but a lot of unrelated words were spoken afterward. Water must be poured on the forehead, and not only on the back of the head.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 14, 2003.

Based on the article CL posted, I'd say that there was enough deviation from the proper form to make validity doubtful. For the local church to say that the parents could have the children rebaptized is they wished is evidence enough of this. It's an admission that the sacrament was improperly administered.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), January 14, 2003.

Jake,

My point about the unclean spirits is that I don't think one needs a lengthy formal exorcism if no evil spirit is thought present. "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" should be enough. We put lots of "necessities" on things, but it's best to remember that the sacrament itself is more important than the rite used.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 14, 2003.

it's best to remember that the sacrament itself is more important than the rite used.

True in some respects, but the rite still has its importance. The Mass is so much more than the words of consecration, to cite an example. Also, if the trappings are of so little importance, why have the modern en-masse baptisms within the course of the liturgy, surrounded by such pomp & circumstance in front of the whole congregation? Seems to me that the Old Rite carried fewer bells & whistles.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), January 14, 2003.

Jake,

The mass is not "just" a sacrament though, is it?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 15, 2003.

The mass is not "just" a sacrament though, is it?

No, and that's precisely my point. Neither is baptism just the pouring of water and the utterance of the words. That's the essential part, yes, but there's more going on. Holy Mother Church is teaching us lessons while She does what She does.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), January 15, 2003.

Can you please show me where infusion is mentioned in the Bible. I would also like some scriptures on original sin.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 09, 2003.

Was the thief on the cross baptised? If I'm not mistaken Jesus said "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." That was solely based on his belief in Christ not a baptism. So if the thief on the cross went to Heaven without a Baptism does that mean I don't need to be baptised to go to Heaven. Because if I do need to be baptised then Jesus must have lied to the thief. However I don't think Jesus can lie because he is God. I'm confused can someone explain this all to me.

-- Al (curious@aol.com), February 09, 2003.

The Church also recognizes "baptism by desire," and "baptism by blood." Baptism by desire might be acquired by say, a soldier going into battle, who desires to be baptized, but has not been given the actual sacrament. Baptism by blood might be acquired by someone who, although not baptized with water, lays down his life in defense of the Faith. Perhaps St. Dismas, the good thief, acquired baptism while suffering on the cross through one of these means. Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), February 09, 2003.

Dear Ric,

Neither infusion nor immersion is mentioned in the Bible - only Baptism. The fact that Jesus "came up out of the water" after He was baptized is not a reference to immersion. It simply means he didn't stay in the river after he was baptized, but came back up onto dry land, from which he had previously "gone down into the water". Read Acts 8:38-39, which makes this particular wording very clear. So, since the method of Baptism in the early Church is not provided by scripture, we have to look at other historical writings of the early Church to answer this historical question; and when we do, we discover numerous writings by early Church Fathers describing Baptism by infusion. Case closed! Of course, the Catholic Church does not forbid Baptism by immersion, and fully appreciates the powerful symbolism of the method; but there is absolutely no reason, either scriptural or Traditional, to insist upon it.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 09, 2003.

Did something happen to Jake's post around January 13th? Did it get inadvertently deleted? Lots of comments of agreement and praise, but I don't see his post! As my baby is being baptized in less than a week, I would have liked to read it! Thanks. Pax Christi <><

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), February 09, 2003.

Righto Anna!

The thief on the cross is a prime example of a person receiving Baptism of Desire. His expression of faith in Jesus necessarily carried with it an inherent commitment to follow Jesus, and to obey Him, and that would necessarily include the desire to be baptized, since Jesus Himself said a person cannot enter the Kingdom without the graces of Baptism. Therefore the fact that Jesus promised the thief He would be with Him in Paradise that very day stands as proof positive that the thief must have received the same graces he would have received through water Baptism, by his sincere desire coupled with the circumstantial impossibility of receiving water baptism.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 09, 2003.

Paul,

Not once is Baptism by Blood nor Baptism by Desire mentioned IN THE BIBLE. The verses you pointed me to only FURTHER emphasis what I said. Here they are...

Acts 3:38

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Acts 3:39

And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

The first verse mentions them coming upon water and stopping so that the Ethopian eunuch could be baptisted. IT SAYS CLEARLY THAT THEY WENT INTO THE WATER. The second verse shows then coming OUT of the water. That is IMMERSION. The Spirit of the Lord takes PHILIP away much like when Enoch was taken into Heaven. The EUNUCH was the one that was baptised and HE stayed where he was and REJOICED. Baptism is merely symbolic. The thief on the cross clearly went to heaven. No where in the BIBLE does it say he was baptised in ANY way shape or form. The thief was saved SOLELY by his belief in Christ not by something that was SYMBOLIC.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 10, 2003.

God's way of baptise, as the BIBLE states it.

Romans 6:4

"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

That CLEARLY shows that the IMMERSION is a symbol of burial. WE ARE SYBOLICALLY BURIED through IMMERSION in baptism. THE Bible clearly says how to baptise.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 10, 2003.

The problem with your theory, Ric, is that Jesus Himself said that baptism was necessary. "Unless you be baptized WITH WATER AND THE SPIRIT," you cannot enter heaven." So Baptism can't be "just" symbolic.

Yes, the Church does admit the possibility that those who want to, but are unable to be baptized can still be saved, but that's the *Exception* and not the rule. The RULE is, "You must be baptized with water and the Holy Spirit."

On the other hand, while baptism by immersion certainly seems to be the preferred method in Scripture, nowhere does Our Lord command that as the only method. He didn't say, "You must be baptized BY IMMERSION in water and the Holy Spirit."

Think about it - some people can't possibly be immersed in water. Bedridden, dying people for example. If someone decides on their deathbed that they want to be baptized, what are you going to do, pull out all the wires and haul them to the bathtub? No, you just put some water on your fingers and make the sign of the Cross on their foreheads. Remember, He "tempers the wind to the shorn lamb". :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 10, 2003.

You are refering to John chapter 3. You have misquoted that verse. It is when Nicodemus questioned Jesus. Jesus said the following.

3:3 "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

3:5 "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Born of water is the PHYSICAL birth. When a mother gives birth to her child that is "born of water". Born of the Spirit is when you accept Christ as you saviour. If you are going to point to places in the Bible please quote them correctly.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 10, 2003.

Well, I don't have time to get into all the doctrine right now, Ric, but I do know that your theory that the water is just the water of birth was rejected by ALL Christian theologians prior to the Reformation.

Maybe someone who hasn't been spammed can go into greater detail - my computer seems to have been "targeted". :-(

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 10, 2003.

Theory?

I just quoted to you the verses.

John Chapter 3

1. There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2. The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

3. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

That is not THEORY. That is CLEARLY what the Jesus said. Verse 6 CLEARLY says "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit". The BIBLE plainly says this. How can you not see it?

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 10, 2003.

So, "Born of Water" means physical birth?? Just imagine the scene - the crowd is gathered around Jesus, pressing in on Him, hanging on his every word! He is about to reveal to them what they must do in order to have eternal life! WOW! He opens his lips - they lean forward in eager expectation - and Jesus speaks. "In order to have eternal life, in the Kingdom of God", He tells them ... "the first thing you must do is ..... EXIST!" DUH! Kind of self-evident, isn't it. If you don't exist (are not born), you can't enter the Kingdom! Well now, there's a real revelation! If Jesus had said something that silly, his listeners would have gotten up and left right then and there! Besides, notice that the people Jesus was speaking to were ALREADY BORN, so what possible reason would Jesus have for telling them they must be born in order to enter the Kingdom? No, Jesus was telling these people exactly what THEY must do in order to enter the Kingdom. THEY had to be born of water and the Spirit! That was the clear message He was speaking.

The sheer absurdity of the personal interpretations people will try to force onto a simple, straightforward passage in a futile effort to support their other personal interpretations is simply astounding! Maybe that's why the Bible tells us that scripture is not for private interpretation! Well, once you have rejected the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, what are you gonna do?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 10, 2003.

Paul,

If you have nothing that you can quote out of the Bible nor back up scripturally please refrain from posting. Your anger is clouding your judgement and causing you to become quite confrontational.

You said, "Maybe that's why the Bible tells us that scripture is not for private interpretation!"

Joshua 1:8

"This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."

Clearly you are supposed to MEDIATE on the Bible DAILY.

John 16:13

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

John 14:26

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Once you read and meditate the Holy Ghost will give you the interpretation. The Bible is clear. I will requote what it says ,it is CLEARLY there. Jesus CLEARLY explained it HIMSELF. This is not what I am saying this is what JESUS said. You can not refute what is SAID IN THE BIBLE. I agree wholeheartedly when you say the Bible is NOT for personal interpretation. God gives the interpretation.

John 3

Verse 5

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Verse 6

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Verse 7

"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

Jesus explains verse 5 with verse 6. Its NOT a matter of interpretation. Jesus LEFT NOTHING in that verse to be interpreted he CLEARLY explained. Jesus clearly said "YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN". In order to be "born again" obviously you had to be born a first time (physical). Jesus CLEARLY stated this.

Nicodemus asked "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"

Clearly "born of water" refers to physical birth. "Born of the Spirit" means Spiritual birth. That is 2 births.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 11, 2003.

Ric, just curious. Are you aware that this is a chat board by and for Catholics? Are you familiar with what our Church teaches about Baptism and the other sacraments?

Among other things, Catholics don't use "proof texts" from the Bible to create doctrines. We got them all from Jesus Christ - THEN we wrote the Bible. ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 11, 2003.

I think that if you all do some more research that "born of the water" just may be referring to Christ. He tells us in the Bible that you will thirst no more for he is the living water. Trusting in Christ is all that is required to go to Heaven. The Bible states it very clearly!! It does not matter what religious back ground you belong to, it is stated clearly. Trust and have faith that Christ died for our sins and that the third day he arose from his grave. Baptism is not a requirement; it is a sign of obedience toward Christ. That is why is usually referred to believers baptism, not get baptized and go to heaven baptism.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

-- John (wardjr@juno.com), February 11, 2003.

"Trusting in Christ is all that is required to go to Heaven. The Bible states it very clearly!!"

The Bible states very clearly that trusting in Christ (faith) is totally useless unless you also LIVE as though you trust Him - which means DOING the things He requires of us. James tells us repeatedly that faith without works is futile - worse than futile - DEAD - useless. Matt 25 tells us that anyone who shows up with faith alone, and without works "will go off to everlasting punishment".

"It does not matter what religious back ground you belong to"

No, it doesn't matter - unless truth matters. In that case the Church you belong to matters a great deal, for conflicting beliefs cannot both be true, and Jesus said it is the TRUTH that will set us free. He also promised the Church He founded, and no other, that the Holy Spirit would guide it to ALL truth.

"Baptism is not a requirement; it is a sign of obedience toward Christ."

This 16th century tradition of men conflicts directly with the teaching of Christ, who clearly said you cannot enter the Kingdom without Baptism.

"That is why is usually referred to believers baptism, not get baptized and go to heaven baptism".

Really? Could you direct me to one passage that refers to it as "believers baptism"? Or do you just mean it is usually referred to that way in your tradition, not in Biblical teaching?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 11, 2003.

"The Bible states very clearly that trusting in Christ (faith) is totally useless unless you also LIVE as though you trust Him - which means DOING the things He requires of us."

Guess you never read Ephesians.

2:8

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

2:9

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 11, 2003.

"This 16th century tradition of men conflicts directly with the teaching of Christ, who clearly said you cannot enter the Kingdom without Baptism."

You must have missed what was posted previously. You might want to scroll up. "Born of water" is not baptism.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 11, 2003.

Dear Ric,

"If you have nothing that you can quote out of the Bible nor back up scripturally please refrain from posting".

A: If you have nothing that you can quote from the Bible that says I have to back up everything from the Bible, please refrain from posting such unbilical ideas.

"Clearly you are supposed to MEDIATE on the Bible DAILY".

A: Certainly! And Catholics do meditate on the revealed truth of scripture. What they do not attempt to do is define Christian doctrine from their own personal meditations. Which is why the Catholic Church has not fraghmented into thousands of conflicting denominations based on the personal ideas of men.

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Once you read and meditate the Holy Ghost will give you the interpretation."

A: NO, He will NOT give YOU the interpretation! The doctrinal chaos of Protestantism stands as tragic proof of that! But the Holy Spirit WILL give the correct interpretation to those to whom Christ made the above promises - the leaders of the Church He founded! Jesus never made any such statement while preaching to the crowds at large.

"You can not refute what is SAID IN THE BIBLE."

A: Why would I want to refute what is in the Bible, when my Church put it there in the first place?? However, there is a big difference between what is said in the Bible, and what private interpreters may THINK is said in the Bible.

"I agree wholeheartedly when you say the Bible is NOT for personal interpretation. God gives the interpretation."

A: Yes He does - to His Church. Surely you are not holding God responsible for all the contradictory beliefs of Protestants??

"Jesus explains verse 5 with verse 6".

A: More to the point, Jesus explains verse 3 with verse 5! In verse 3 Jesus is speaking of being BORN AGAIN - nothing else. In verse 4, Nicodemus says that he doesn't understand that term. He assumes wrongly that Jesus is speaking of a physical birth, and asks Jesus to clarify his meaning. In verse 5, Jesus responds to that request, telling Nicodemus that by the term "born AGAIN", he does NOT mean a physical birth, but rather means being born "of water and the Spirit"! Thus Jesus makes a clear distinction between physical birth, which is what Nicodemus THOUGHT he was speaking of, and being born of water and the Spirit, which Jesus identifies as the means of being BORN AGAIN!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 11, 2003.

I did not mean it to sound like a Biblical statment. You will not find it said in the Bible anywhere.(believers baptism) I simply stated that it is done in obedience to Christ and that it isn't required to go to heaven. Only trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ will get you into heaven, not works or being good or thinking you are good enough. The Bible tells you that in Romans.

-- John (wardjr@juno.com), February 11, 2003.

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? (James 2:14)

Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. (James 2:17)

But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? (James 2:20)

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not DO this for one of the least of these, you did not DO it for Me. These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matt 25:454-46)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 11, 2003.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

-- John (wardjr@juno.com), February 11, 2003.

If you think that works will save you, you are in for a hot trip south of the boarder. God's grace is not earned it is a gift to all of us who chose to take it.

-- John (wardjr@juno.com), February 11, 2003.

NEWSFLASH-The Church was NOT built on Peter.

Matthew 16:18

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Peter was translated from the word Petros. Meaning SMALL ROCK/Pebble. When Christ mentions "this rock" he uses the word petra (rock/cliff/MAJOR stone). When Christ said "this rock-petra" he was talking ABOUT HIMSELF not PETER.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 11, 2003.

Ric, the reason there are so many thousands (millions?) of different Protestant denominations is that each one of them was founded by a man who insisted that HIS interpretation of a particular Scripture verse was the correct one and everyone else's was wrong.

That's why Jesus Christ gave us the TRUE Church, founded on Peter, so that in the middle of this Babel of conflicting voices, those who really seek Him and His Truth will always know where to turn. :-)

May Jesus Christ, our Lord and our Saviour, lead you into all truth.

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 11, 2003.

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? (James 2:14) Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. (James 2:17) But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? (James 2:20) You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

You forgot the most important verse to end you statement. What James is clearly stating here is that your faith in Christ will show in your works. Not your works will make your faith. A man living for Christ will show Christ like works, after all the Holy Spirit is dwelling within us after salvation, so would that not mean that the works that we do would be for or to him(Christ).

Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

-- John (wardjr@juno.com), February 11, 2003.

Catherine,

I honestly feel for you. You believe everything that "The Church" feeds you. You are spoonfed. Read Matthew 16:18 in the ORIGINAL language it was written in Hellenistic Greek. It clearly shows that the Church was built on Christ not Jesus.

Heres something interesting...Why was Peter married? Popes can't be married but Peter was.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 11, 2003.

I don't think any of us said that "works" creates "faith". You're putting words in our mouth. That's bad works. ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 11, 2003.

LOL! Typo...

This should read...

It clearly shows that the Church was built on Christ not Peter.

not... " It clearly shows that the Church was built on Christ not Jesus"

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 11, 2003.

Then explain to me what Paul is quoting in his last post please.

-- John (wardjr@juno.com), February 11, 2003.

LOL! Typo...

Happens to the best of us, Ric ... ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 11, 2003.

No-one claimed that works will save us. Unfortunately, someone DID claim that faith will save us. Catholics believe that our Savior alone saves us - not the works we do, and not the faith we show. Salvation is a free gift which cannot be merited or earned. But, like any gift, it must be accepted. Faith and works are repeatedly described in scripture as the required ways of accepting the gift of salvation. Which is why Jesus Himself said that those who don't do good works will go to hell (Matt 25). Pretty straightforward.

NEWSFLASH - Peter is translated from the masculinized form of Petra, which means a massive rock or cliff. Since Petra is a feminine noun, it cannot be used for a man's name unless it is first masculinized by adding the masculine suffix "os". Hence, the word used in both places in this sentence is the SAME word. Only the gender of the word is changed. This is apparent when we see that any scripture scholar who translates these two words FROM Greek INTO any other language ALWAYS translates them the SAME! Apparently they know something you don't know. But now you do.

"Your faith will show in your works" is a nice sentiment, and hopefully it is true in our lives - but it isn't an optional extra. James went a lot farther than that. He said that if your works are lacking, you CANNOT be saved. So did Matthew. The Word of God.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 11, 2003.

"NEWSFLASH - Peter is translated from the masculinized form of Petra, which means a massive rock or cliff. Since Petra is a feminine noun, it cannot be used for a man's name unless it is first masculinized by adding the masculine suffix "os"."

LOL! That is QUITE laughable. To avoid such gender issues the word "Petros" would have been used TWICE. It was not however. Jesus called himself petra (major rock) and proceded to say that he built the church on HIMSELF. Jesus clearly wanted the DISTINCTION. He used the words Petros and Petra SPECIFICALLY. We all KNOW Peter is a man (masculine). Jesus called Peter a pebble and he called himself the ROCK. Jesus SPOKE THE GREEK WORDS PETROS AND PETRA. Much like he said the GREEK WORDS ALPHA AND OMEGA.

-- Ric (94SupraTT@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Ephesians 2:20

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"

Clearly that says the JESUS CHRIST is the CHIEF CORNER STONE not PETER.

Psalms 18:31

"For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?"

I don't see Peter mentioned in either of those verses. He is NOT the rock which the church was built on.

Futhermore PETER HIMSELF CALLED JESUS the chief corner stone!

Acts 4

Verse 10

"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole."

Verse 11

"This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner."

Jesus was REJECTED "set at nought of you builders" by his own but is NOW the HEAD OF THE CORNER. Peter HIMSELF called Jesus the corner stone.

-- Ric (94SupraTT@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

You still have not answered why Peter was married? Go ahead give it a shot.

-- Ric (94SupraTT@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

I'm guessing that Peter was married because he found a woman who had a thing for fishermen.

:-)

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 12, 2003.

Mateo,

You are missing my point. Clergy are not suppose to marry. Yet Peter the "First Pope" was married.

Pope Gregory VII said the following.

"the church cannot escape from the clutches of the laity unless priests first escape the clutches of their wives."

Ok, If the Pope is infallible that would mean he is perfect and anything he says would not need to be changed.

Pope John Paul II said.

"Celibacy is not essential to the Priesthood."

One Pope contridicting what another said. There is a PROBLEM there. The problem is ONE got away from the word. God is unchanging.

Hebrews 13:8

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." God is unchanging. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Furthermore why did Pope John Paul II in October 1992 apologize for Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII silencing of Galileo? That is admitting that one Pope MADE A MISTAKE.

Pope John Paul II

quote

"the underlying problems of this case concern both the nature of science and the nature of faith...one day we may find ourselves in a similar situation, which will require both sides to have an informed awareness of the field and the limits of their own competencies."

-- Ric (94SupraTT@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

There is no evidence that Peter was married as an apostle. All we know is that he had been married at some point in his life, since he had a mother-in-law. He may well have been a widower. In any case it is irrelevant, since the Church can allow priests to be married, and there are many married Catholic priests today! It is a matter of discipline (rules made by the Church, which can therefore be changed by the Church), not doctrine.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Galileo was disciplined (if you can call house arrest at a sumptuous Mediterranean villa discipline) because he published a paper in which he stated that the planets and stars could have come into existence without God's involvement. The discipline did not involve his scientific findings. However, if it had been based purely on his science, then it would not have been a matter of doctrine, and the Pope is infallible only on doctrinal issues, so the fact that he might have made a mistake on such an issue is again irrelevant.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Ric,

Sorry to disappoint you, but Jesus did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic, in which nouns do not have gender-specific suffixes as they do in Greek and Latin. In Aramaic, the one word for Rock is Kepha, and Jesus used that same word in both places in his sentence spoken to Simon. It was the writers of the New Testament, writing in Greek, who had to translate the words of Jesus from Aramaic into Greek, and who therefore realized that in translating Kepha into Petra, the Greek word would have to be masculinized, in accord with Greek grammatical structure, where Jesus actually changed Simon's name to Rock, by saying THOU ART ROCK. Every competent scripture scholar recognizes this, which is why every Biblical translator from Greek into another language has always treated the two words identically - because they are identical. Where have you ever seen a Bible that read "Thou art pebble, and upon this rock I will build my Church"? If the Rock Jesus was going to build on was not Simon, then WHY dide Jesus change Simon's name to Rock in the very same sentence??

In any case, the passage taken in context would sound ridiculous if translated that way ... "BLESSED are YOu Simon! No mere man has revealed this to you! Because you are so highly BLESSED, I say to you that you are an insignificant pebble, and I am going to ignore you and build my Church on someone else. But even though you are insignificant, and I am ignoring you in building my Church, I'm giving you the keys to my Kingdom anyway. Oh and by the way, whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, though you won't be in a position to use this gift".

Read things in context! One verse obviously builds on the next. "You are blessed ... You are favored by My Father ... You are Solid in the Faith ... You are Rock ... My Church needs a firm foundation ... Therefore I am building it on you, the Rock ... And you will need special gifts to meet the demands of that position ... So I give them to you ... the keys to the Kingdom, and the power to bind and loose". See how logically and smoothly it flows?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Dear Ric,

Celibacy has never been a universal tradition of the Catholic Church.

Here are some previous discussions:

Link 1

Link 2

Celibacy Article at Catholic.com

God Bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 12, 2003.

"There is no evidence that Peter was married as an apostle."

Really???

Mark chapter 1

Verse 30

"But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her."

Verse 31

"And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them."

Thats odd sure does look like SIMON PETER'S MOTHER IN LAW HAD A FEVER and then JESUS HEALED HER. Simon Peter was MARRIED when he was an apostle. Nice try.

-- Ric (94SupraTT@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

"Sorry to disappoint you, but Jesus did not speak Greek."

Yet again you humor me. Jesus Christ IS GOD, to say he did not speak Greek when he ONLY CREATED ALL LANGUAGES is quite funny to me. What was the dominant language at the time...Riiiight Greek. Jesus healed the Greek woman's daugher. You mean to tell me he spoke Aramaic to a Greek woman?

Matthew 15

Verse 21

"Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon." TYRE WAS A GREEK CITY.

Verse 22 "And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil."

They were in a GREEK CITY, she spoke to Jesus IN GREEK.

Verse 26 "But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs."

Verse 27 "And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."

Verse 28 "Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour"

Jesus had a CONVERSATION WITH A GREEK WOMAN and made her daughter whole. He obviously SPOKE Greek.

Jesus was multilingual. The original NT manuscripts were written IN GREEK. Futhermore, you still have not answered why PETER HIMSELF CALLED JESUS THE CORNER STONE.

Acts 4:10-11 "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole."

"This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner."

Peter said BOTH of those verses in reference to Christ. Calling Christ the corner stone NOT himself.

-- Ric (94SupraTT@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Re: Peter - yes, Scripture does mention his mother-in-law, but never mentions his wife. It's entirely possible that by the time he met Jesus, Peter was a widower. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 12, 2003.

Oh, and Ric, would you mind not writing to us in ALL CAPS? It sounds like you're shouting at us, and I'm sure you don't mean to do that - right? :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 12, 2003.

Dear Ric,

If your wife dies before her mother dies, you still have a mother-in-law, but you are no longer married. Anyway, as I already explained once, it is inconsequential whether Peter was married or not.

GOD created all langauges??? On which day of creation did that happen? Did Adam and Eve speak all the languages known today? And all the languages that have been lon forgottten today? MEN created languages, not God! Yes, Jesus is God, but while He was on earth He was a man like us in all things but sin. When He was born, He couldn't speak at all. He could only cry, drool, and spit up. He had to learn Hebrew like any other Jewish kid. To say He spoke all languages because He was God is plain silly. His parents were Jewish. They taught Him Hebrew; and being plain, uneducated folks they spoke the Aramaic dialect. So did Jesus.

Obviously when the Apostles spoke of "the corner stone", they were speaking of Jesus. Which is EXACTLY what makes it so significant that Jesus, the cornerstone, THE ROCK, used the SAME term in addressing Simon! In telling Simon "THOU ART ROCK", Jesus made it clear that Simon was not simply to be an administrator, but was in fact to stand in the place of Jesus Himself. How else could all of Simon's binding teaching be bound in heaven? How else could a mere man hold the Keys to the Kingdom? Simon is the only Human being whom Jesus, the Rock of our Salvation, ever addressed as Rock. Hopefully you do realize that "THOU" means "YOU". Therefore when Jesus looked Simon straight in the eye and said to him "THOU ART ROCK", He was not speaking to Himself, but to Simon.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

By the way, Ric, I didn't mean to imply that you are the only one doing the ALL CAPS thing. Just in my "can't we all get along" mode today. ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 12, 2003.

Paul,

You still haven't answered me. Jesus spoke Greek to a Greek woman. How did he do that if he didn't speak Greek?

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

(1) Of course Christ Jesus, being God, could speak any language He chose, including Greek. If one of us could somehow obtain a time machine and transport ourselves back to 1st century Judea, we could certainly hold a conversation with Him in English. So you're correct about that, Ric.

(2) However, regardless, you do seem to be taking verses out of one book of Scripture in order to refute verses from other books of Scripture. That's called "proof texting", and once again, are you aware that Catholics don't do that? We take the Scripture *as a whole*, which is why the fact that Paul says "we are saved by faith and not works" while James says "faith without works is dead", is not a major hassle for us. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 12, 2003.

"GOD created all langauges??? On which day of creation did that happen? Did Adam and Eve speak all the languages known today? And all the languages that have been lon forgottten today? MEN created languages, not God!"

Genesis Chapter 11

Verse 6

"And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

Verse 7

"Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."

Verse 8

"So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city."

Verse 9

"Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."

I think that answers your question Paul :)

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Okay, Ric, could you please answer *my* question now? ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 12, 2003.

Christine,

What was your question? I didn't see a question mark :D Thanks for not being as confrontation as Paul has been I truly appreciate it.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Matthew 27:46

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"

THAT is ARAMAIC.

When Jesus spoke to Peter he did NOT speak ARAMAIC in Matthew 16:18. The Bible is CLEAR when ARAMAIC is used.

1 Corinthians 9:5

Peter is called Cephas in THIS verse however NOT in Matthew 16:18.

"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

There was a distinction in the Greek between Petros and Petra for a reason. Even Christine agrees that Jesus spoke Greek.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Ric, my question was about whether you understand that this is a Catholic board, and that the Catholic Church does not prove its doctrines in the same way that you do. i.e., we don't "proof text" (pulling a verse out of Scripture and building a doctrine around it). (oops, sorry - forgot the ? ? mark! ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 12, 2003.

Christine,

The irony in the statement that you made is... without Matthew 16:18- 20 the Papacy DOES NOT exist. The Catholic Church gets its authority from those verse. The authority that the Papacy thinks it has is a fallacy. The Greek clearly proves this. In turn Matthew 16:18 IS the Catholics PROOF TEXT.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Actually, Ric, the Papacy -- and the Church itself -- existed before Matthew or any of the other Gospels were written.

The Church produced the Scriptures you are quoting from, not the other way around.

Sorry, that's just history. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 12, 2003.

Feel free to back that up with Scripture out of the Bible :-)

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

"When Jesus spoke to Peter he did NOT speak ARAMAIC in Matthew 16:18. The Bible is CLEAR when ARAMAIC is used".

A: Ahhh, so Simon, an uneducated Jewish fisherman, ALSO spoke Greek? NOT likely - but for the sake of discussion, assuming that these two Jewish commoners had both taken a correspondence course and managed to learn a language that almost no other Jews knew - WHY would they be addressing each other in a foreign language, since they were both Jewish and had both spoken Aramaic since childhood??

"There was a distinction in the Greek between Petros and Petra for a reason."

A: Yes there was, and I explained to you exactly what the reason was. Sorry if the facts conflict with your preconceived notions about the Catholic Church.

"Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."

A: "Confound - to cause to become confused or perplexed" (American Heritage Dictionary). In the simple statement that God caused people to be confused, you find the notion that He caused one of them to speak French, another Japanese, and another Swahili??? It's an interesting, if far-fetched, idea - but please consider it in light of the known facts. Most of the 6,000+ languages currently spoken on this planet did not come into existence until many centuries after the "Babel" incident. In fact, many modern languages evolved from Latin, which itself did not exist for centuries after the "Babel" incident. God did not create these languages. The human origins of many of them are well documented!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Feel free to back that up with Scripture out of the Bible :-)

LOL, Ric - I think you're gettin' the hang of this place! ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 12, 2003.

"A: Ahhh, so Simon, an uneducated Jewish fisherman, ALSO spoke Greek? NOT likely - but for the sake of discussion, assuming that these two Jewish commoners had both taken a correspondence course and managed to learn a language that almost no other Jews knew - WHY would they be addressing each other in a foreign language, since they were both Jewish and had both spoken Aramaic since childhood??"

He told Simon in Greek because he wanted to be specific so Simon Peter would not think he was the rock. Jesus said it IN GREEK so you would not be confused like you are now. If you want I can show you numerous times in the Bible where Apostles understood Greek. It was the dominant language. I've already proven that JESUS SPOKE GREEK, you have been wrong once. Read John chapter 18 and 19. Pontius Pilate spoke to Jesus. Take a WILD guess as to what language Pilate spoke in, it wasn't ARAMAIC.

John 19

Verse 6

"When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him."

Verse 7

"The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."

Hmm...Thats a ROMAN saying that he found NO fault in Jesus, and the JEWS answering a ROMAN. These are COMMON Jews like Peter. Obviously they had a language in common. That language was GREEK.

You are wrong yet again. Will you admit might that?

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Hey Paul, something I keep noticing about your post is that you keep referring to the world or man. The issue is if Christ (GOD) spoke Greek. I would say that if he created all: (John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.) Then I think that he could have spoken Greek or any other language. And as for the Tower of Babel, would you not be confused if no one could understand you??? I mean each kind went his way(after their kind) after the Lord took care of Babel.

Gen 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

It is stated quite clearly that the "LORD confound (confuse/perplexed) the language of all the earth." It is really simple to understand what happen. I really feel that the Holy Spirit is telling my heart that all the earth started something different; man now had many languages instead of a common language of the time. I could not really care about what man has dated or said when something started. Man did not do anything that the LORD did not allow man to do. God knows when it started and he knows when it will end. That is not for man to decide, GOD already has decided.

-- John (wardjr@juno.com), February 12, 2003.

"He told Simon in Greek because he wanted to be specific so Simon Peter would not think he was the rock"

WHO would not think he was "the rock"? Simon Peter you say? Well, since "Simon Peter" literally means "Simon the Rock", and he was referred to that way from the moment Jesus gave him that name, it would be pretty difficult for him to forget.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Ric writes:

"You are wrong yet again. Will you admit might that?"

Huh?

Dear Ric, may Our Lord give you peace and inspire the virtue of humility in you.

Paul, I see that Our Lord has already given you patience. :-)

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 12, 2003.

"WHO would not think he was "the rock"? Simon Peter you say? Well, since "Simon Peter" literally means "Simon the Rock", and he was referred to that way from the moment Jesus gave him that name, it would be pretty difficult for him to forget."

Yup Simon Peter does mean Simon the rock (Petros) I agree with you there. LITTLE rock. Where did Jesus give him that name? I've already proven you wrong once Paul. Honestly do you want me to prove you wrong again? And you still won't admit that you were wrong in denying the fact Jesus as well as the apostles spoke Greek. Why do you keep avoiding this? Jesus spoke Greek, many Jews spoke Greek. Why are you dodging this issue?

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Ric, I think that you have shown great patiences with our topic here. I mean this is why the board is here to post our views, is it not? I mean we all can not be right can we? I think we should embrace each of our views and see how that they can reflect them on us. GOD's word is the most right thing that we have here, we are all different in our thoughts and interpitions. That is what makes us different. I still must side with Ric on most if not all that he has posted. Paul I can follow some of what you wrote but when you one line some of your quotes of the Bible it can easily be taken out of context. Like Christine stated that would be proof text and that is not what it is all about. Yes we will have our own ideals but I do not think that any of us can be 100%, we did not write the Bible so we can not possibly understand everything that we read without devine help. RIC I think you so far have been right on the mark!!! I look forward to more posts with you.

-- John (wardjr@juno.com), February 12, 2003.

Besides the "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" Scripture reference, which Ric refuses to accept, there are many other Scriptural references which he must also be willing to ignore or refute. Ric, consider that whenever the apostles are listed, Peter is ALWAYS named first. This is because he had been established by Christ as the leader of the apostles. When he and John run to Christ's tomb on Easter morning, John arrives first, but waits for Peter to arrive, and Peter enters the tomb first. Why did John wait, and follow Peter in? Of what importance would that be, that it should be retained in Holy Scriptures, if not to make a point? Peter's shadow heals. And multitudes who speak different languages all understand when Peter speaks. Peter speaks to Christ on behalf of the other apostles, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life." Peter pronounces Christ as the Messiah... Can you find a verse in the Bible which indicates that Peter is NOT the primary apostle? Instead of trying to beat people over the head with the Bible, why don't you simply ask the Holy Spirit to fill your heart and enlighten you, and then read it with a humble heart? We are certain here that Christ established the papacy, and that the first pope was Peter. The apostles believed this also! They certainly observed the apostolic succession of subsequent popes. They did not branch out and found "other denominations." They remained "on the rock." History, tradition, and Scripture all support Peter as the first pope and Christ's establishment of the papacy. Sorry that you can't see it, but the rest of us can, and Catholics have seen it that way for over 2000 years... How old is your Church? Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), February 12, 2003.

John writes:

"Ric, I think that you have shown great patiences with our topic here."

John, forgive me, but isn't the thread's topic that a man and his wife are going to baptize their son?

Seriously, if Ric (or you, John!) have any questions about basic Catholic teachings, good netiquette dictates that you create a new thread. Here's how to ask a new question.

Forgive me for presuming to know Joe's thoughts; but I don't think he was looking for a Protestant to tell him that the Catholic Church shouldn't baptize children. Re-read his initial post. What was he asking and to whom was he directing his question?

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 12, 2003.

If memory hits me right. Peter was the oldest of the apostles. It was proper in that time that the oldest would be first, In all instances. At dinner or at any other group related event. John waited to enter probably due to respect to his elder. I guess you can call it a chain of command, while you read the Word you should notice this in the Old Testement. In Job when his friends come to talk there was a order, oldest to youngest. I could list many more and will save time and space.

-- John (wardjr@juno.com), February 12, 2003.

Mateo if you have read all the above we did not change the topic. Just simply responded to what was posted in the thread. If I have offend thee then I am sorry, my posts were not to do that. But there are many other post that are listed in this post that are not to the topic and should have also been pointed instead of just Ric and myself. We are just responding to what was posted, not trying to be player haters, just posting like everyone else, thier own views.

-- John (wardjr@juno.com), February 12, 2003.

Anna Peter was the OLDEST apostle nothing more.

Acts 22:24-34

And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

22:27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

22:28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.

22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

22:33 And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

22:34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

Hmm. That would have been a PERFECT time for Jesus to appoint him head of the Church. Jesus knew he was going to die and told Peter this "And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me."

That doesn't sound like a vote of confidence to me.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

So this is what they mean by Orange Alert.

haha! j/k. When is St. Patrick's day again? I like green...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

Oh, Emerald. You crack me up! :-)

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 12, 2003.

I'll leave this stuff to you guys; I usually limit myself to arguing with Catholics. For instance, I'm married to one.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 13, 2003.

Ric writes: "Anna Peter was the OLDEST apostle nothing more."

I thought it was Simon Peter, not Anna Peter! J/K. Well Ric, this is a new Protestant interpretation of the Bible--order is based on age. I have to admit, I've never heard this one.

Emerald writes: "So this is what they mean by Orange Alert."

Oh, Emerald. You crack me up! :-)

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 13, 2003.

Sorry for the repeated comment. BTW, sorry for the repeated comment. :-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 13, 2003.

BIBLICAL examples of how Peter was EQUAL to ALL the other apostles.

Matthew 19

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

All twelve had equal thrones.

Ephesians 2

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

The foundation was the apostles and prophets, the corner stone was Jesus.

2 Corithians 11:5

Paul said.

"For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles"

Someone forgot to tell Paul that Peter was of higher authority then him OOPS! Paul said this because PETER WAS NOT of any higher authority.

Galatians 2

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Hey look James, Cephas(Peter) and John where all pillars. All equal. Hmm. Thats strange the Bible lists James BEFORE PETER oh no! And look they are all mentioned as being the same, all pillars!

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Paul OPENLY SILENCED Peter. Someone better tell Paul not to do that!

I can go on and on and point to numerous passages that show Peter was no greater then ANY of the other apostles.

-- Ric (94SupraTT@cox.net), February 13, 2003.

Ric, Ric, Ric...

Please read these articles to learn more about St. Peter, as taught by the Church through the ages, quoting early Church Fathers. If you have any more questions about St. Peter (or any other Catholics), please feel free to start a new thread here.

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 13, 2003.

I wonder why the bible refers to the apostles as "Peter and his companions". Seems like someone saw him as head and shoulders above the rest. Paul certainly did - he visited Peter and sought his direction before swetting forth on his own ministry.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 13, 2003.

I'm going to bow out of this and just let you men butt heads for a while. Ric, God bless you. Do you love Jesus Christ? So do I. I'm praying for you, and hope you'll do the same for me. And that we'll meet in Heaven someday. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 13, 2003.

Paul,

I am honestly stating to believe you have a problem with reading comprehension.

2 Corithians 11:5

Paul said.

"For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles"

Paul did not think Peter nor ANY apostle was greater then he. You can not use scripture to back this fallacy of yours.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 13, 2003.

Christine,

I will see you in Heaven. I do believe solely on the Lord Jesus Christ. His blood and my faith in him as my saviour is what will get me there. Thank you for your input and ladylike attitude.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 13, 2003.

You're welcome, Ric.

If you get a chance, please get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I think it will answer a lot of your questions about what we believe and why, even if you don't agree with our teachings. God bless ya! :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 13, 2003.

Dear Ric,

The problem here is not with reading comprehension, but with reading selectivity. You, like most Protestants, appear to decide what you want to believe, then search for an isolated scripture passage which, read out of context, appears to support your chosen beliefs. Catholics don't believe anything that is not in full agreement with EVERY passage of scripture. Of course, scripture is Catholic teaching, so one might expect that nothing in scripture would be a problem for a Catholic.

You tell me Paul said "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles". There are two main problems with this. First, Paul here clearly states that all apostles are not of equal rank. Some of them, he says, are "chiefs" over the others. Secondly, you apparently have enough familiarity with scripture to know that Paul also said "I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God". But this scripture doesn't support your point of view, so you just ignore it. Now, I'm not suggesting that either of these passages says anything about Paul's relationship to the Peter, the head of the apostles. They don't. I am just pointing out a glaring example of the essentially dishonest approach Protestants are forced to take, to try to convince themselves that their traditional beliefs are valid. Look and see what SCRIPTURE in its totality has to say - not just one "proof text" you have discovered - before you start preaching your beliefs.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 13, 2003.

Netiquette????

-- Jon (wardjr@juno.com), February 13, 2003.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Paul OPENLY SILENCED Peter. Someone better tell Paul not to do that!

You still have not answered that. Don't worry this is a quick reply I just didn't want you to think I wasn't going to answer everything you said. I'm not sure what makes you think I was a Protestant because I am not. My long-winded reply is coming :D

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 13, 2003.

LOOK!!! Now you went and done it. He is going to suck up all the internet bandwidth with this reply.:) :D

-- Jon (wardjd@juno.com), February 13, 2003.

Paul,

You just PROOF TEXTED yourself. You CONVIENTLY left out the next verse in 1 Corithians 15:8, YOU LEFT OUT verse 10.

1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which [was bestowed] upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Paul you started the proof texting. You pointed me to Acts chapter 8 which went against your own beliefs. You now pointed to 1 Cor. 15:9 however LEFT out verse 10 because it went against your beliefs. You said Jesus did not speak Greek. I proved you wrong through the scriptures. Do you honestly want the word of God to continuously prove you wrong? Everytime you go to scripture it BACKFIRES on you. You still won't admit that you have been wrong and you still CONTINUE to be wrong.

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 13, 2003.

Ric writes:

"Everytime you go to scripture it BACKFIRES on you. You still won't admit that you have been wrong and you still CONTINUE to be wrong."

Ric, you've got pride issues.

"I'm not sure what makes you think I was a Protestant because I am not. My long-winded reply is coming..."

Save your wind.

Ric, this is a Catholic Forum. You may think you can quote the Bible; but I find your posts absent of Christian virtue.

If you have problems with Catholic teachings, start a thread. I would be happy to lead you to the Truth given to us by Our Lord; but I'd like to see you show some better netiquette.

May Our Lord shower us with grace.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 13, 2003.

Ric and Jon,

I've created a new thread dedicated to the discussion of St. Peter. Here's the thread.

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 13, 2003.

[b]"Ric, you've got pride issues."[/b]

No I just have an issue with the word of God being more important that what any one Church choses to teach.

Paul said Jesus did not speak Greek. The word of God proved that Jesus did. Mateo can you refute that fact? Now, I am sure that you will avoid this question that I am posing and run off on some tangent. Paul was wrong. Not the apostle Paul. Paul on this message board.

-- Ric (94SupraTT@cox.net), February 13, 2003.

Mateo,

Explain this verse that is in reference to Peter.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

-- Ric (94SupraTT@cox.net), February 13, 2003.

Ric,

I've created a new thread on St. Peter. Please post any questions you have there.

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 14, 2003.

Dear Ric,

I didn't quote 1 Cor 15:10 because it had nothing to do with the point being discussed. You said Paul considered himself equal to the other apostles, including the Vicar of Christ. I offered a direct quote from Paul in which he identified himself as LEAST of the apostles, and unworthy to be an apostle. Verse 10, which I did not quote, says that Paul worked very hard and was blessed by God's grace. Obviously true! And obviously irrelevant to the point being made!

Why are you so intent upon proving that Paul and Peter had a disagreement? The text clearly says they did. So what? Do you think all the bishops of the world today agree with every idea the Pope has? Any bishop may state his opinion on any matter, especially on non-doctrinal issues like the one Peter and Paul disagreed over, specifically to whom they should preach. As has already been stated for your benefit, Popes can make mistakes on such issues. They simply cannot err when officially promulgating doctrine binding on the universal church. Obviously Peter was not doing that in the case you are beating to death, so infallibility was not even an issue! Isn't there something more relevant you could attack?? Or if not relevant, at least REAL?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 14, 2003.

I can honestly say I have had quite an entertaining time. Not matter how earnestly either side of this debute argues neither side budges. I have pointed to many passages, scriptures, and verses yet you are still blind. Mateo, pointing me to anything written by the Catholic church will not sway me in any shape or form. I believe and know in my heart the the God built his Church upon the ONLY sinless man to walk the face of this Earth. That man being our Lord Jesus Christ. That is what is important here. If I were to go to Mormon board they would try to convince me that had a Priesthood most likely the Melchizedek. They would attempt to point to verses that they as well as their "elders" believe support this. However, what does it matter? What truly matters is that we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as our saviour. Its quite obvious neither side will agree with the other. However, JESUS DID SPEAK GREEK :-) The most important thing is that we believe in Christ. All the disagreement in the world about doctrine, Popes, Priests, Baptisms, rites, etc. do not prevent nor get any of us to Heaven. That being said all of those which have read this and accepted Christ as their saviour I look forward to seeing you in Heaven. God Bless!

-- Ric (94SupraTT@cox.net), February 14, 2003.

You forgot the word "personal".

It gives it that, I don't know, sovereign feel you know... many Personals, like a democracy. Kind of a unity of dissimiliars united in diversity. Not at all like the unity of the mystical body of Christ.

Personal.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2003.

Dear Ric,

You write: "I have pointed to many passages, scriptures, and verses yet you are still blind."

Satan also pointed Our Lord to passages in the Bible during His forty days in the desert. The devil also claimed that Our Lord couldn't understand his interpretations.

I'm disappointed that you couldn't make the switch to a thread that actually discusses the topic of St. Peter. Are you new to Internet? Could you not follow my link?

Ric writes:

"All the disagreement in the world about doctrine, Popes, Priests, Baptisms, rites, etc. do not prevent nor get any of us to Heaven."

Actually, doctrines do matter!!! Well, anyway, it sounds as if you love Jesus, even if you aren't in His Church. He is calling...

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 14, 2003.

If disagreement over doctrinal issues = blindness, then please tell me which one of the 20,000+ conflicting Protestant sects is the one that sees clearly! Wait ... let me guess ... yours ... right?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 14, 2003.

Paul,

I would appreciate it if you would STOP calling me Protestant. I AM NOT Protestant. You assumed that since I was not Catholic that I was Protestant that is not the case. Just like you assumed that Jesus did not speak Greek. That is twice you have been wrong. Regardless this debate is pointless, and fruitless for both sides. I know where I am going when I die. Hopefully you do as well. Any attempts to get me to respond again are pointless. So...God Bless!

Mateo,

His "church" is not calling me. Through my personal saviour Jesus Christ I am in the body of Christ. 1 Corithians chapter 12 clearly says that. I would quote it however you would all say I'm proof texting...lol Church membership/affliation will do NOTHING for my soul. Only the blood shed on the cross of Calvary by our saviour Jesus Christ will save anyone. If you want to argue amongst yourselves feel free. Goodbye and God Bless!

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 20, 2003.

Ric writes:

"His "church" is not calling me."

You are correct, Ric. Our Lord is calling you to His Church. The following are the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch:

"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons." (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

We are all called to be one in Christ's Mystical Body, His Church.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 20, 2003.

Mateo,

God bless you and if Christ is your saviour I will see you in heaven. God bless!

-- Ric (94supratt@cox.net), February 21, 2003.

This has been a great discussion to read. Such "certainties" on all sides -- and all ridiculous.

The True Church is, of course, the Orthodox. Rome and other schismatics are in great peril, if St. Ignatius is to be believed.

Return to the True Church, while there is still time. Rome is merely a young upstart that cannot accept equality between the churches, and her children cannot even stand each other.

-- Origen (chadi81@hotmail.com), February 21, 2003.

chadi81 writes:

"The True Church is, of course, the Orthodox."

This begs the question: which Orthodox Church?

"Rome is merely a young upstart..."

Yeah, 2000 years and She's still a youthful Church. Thank Our Good Lord.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 21, 2003.

I spoke a bit facetiously -- the Church of Rome is not young per se; but it is the youngest of the original churches.

Unfortunately, you are right about the Orthodox faith; it is badly fragmented, at least in government. (Such is human nature. The Catholic church is not without its schisms as well -- deny it not, for history, ancient and modern, is quite clear on that.)

But in general, the Orthodox churches accept one another as equals. And they would extend that to Rome, except that Rome believes it is the original church with primacy over all others.

A more serious question arises, however: upon what do you base the assumption or belief that Peter was the first bishop of Rome? I've read a fair amount on the subject, but I've found no objective evidence of this assertion. Just traditions, which conveniently justify the assertion.

Asserting that Rome's authority comes from Peter doesn't make it so.

-- Origen (chadi81@hotmail.com), February 21, 2003.

One slightly puzzling thing - the Upstart Holy Catholic Church appears by name in historical documents of every century since the beginning of the 2nd century. Try as I might, I cannot find a single historical reference to an "Orthodox Church" until a thousand years later. Kind of redefines the term "upstart", doesn't it?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 21, 2003.

Are you proposing that Christianity started in Rome? I thought the Biblical text said it started in Jerusalem -- and then, perhaps, Antioch. Roman Christianity came later.

Not that this really matters much, unless one places great importance on "who was first?".

The Orthodox ("True Worship") churches are merely the Eastern parts of what can be called a "Catholic", "universal" church. But "Catholic" does not mean "Roman Catholic" except in the denominational sense.

Even the word "Orthodox" ultimately means little, "for everyone is orthodox unto himself", as Locke wrote.

To my mind, many Catholics think they have a monopoly on being part of "the true church". They are not alone in this presumption. If there is such a thing as "the true church", it is known only to God. Earthly institutions have their place as a guide to humanity, but none can claim exclusivity of God's authority or favour.

Arguments for such are smoke and mirrors that disappear upon any deep examination.

-- Origen (chadi81@hotmail.com), February 21, 2003.

chadi81 writes:

"But in general, the Orthodox churches accept one another as equals."

This is just not true. Early after the Great Schism, Constantinople was the center of the Orthodox Universe. When it fell, Russian Orthodox were the "top dog" Orthodox Church.

"The Orthodox ("True Worship") churches are merely the Eastern parts of what can be called a "Catholic", "universal" church. But "Catholic" does not mean "Roman Catholic" except in the denominational sense."

This is not true. The Uniate Churches are the Eastern Catholics. Catholic includes the Latin Rite/Tradition, but it is not limited by it. The Pope is accepted as the Vicar of Christ for all Catholics, not merely by the Western Catholic Tradition.

chadi81 writes:

"Even the word "Orthodox" ultimately means little, "for everyone is orthodox unto himself", as Locke wrote. "

Here's the definition of Orthodox. Capital "O" Orthodox means one thing. I am a lower-case "o" orthodox Catholic (well, I try). The quote seems to be a good definition for Protestants who pick-and-choose their beliefs. Effectively, they are saying, "I am my own lord."

chadi81 writes:

"To my mind, many Catholics think they have a monopoly on being part of "the true church". They are not alone in this presumption. If there is such a thing as "the true church", it is known only to God. Earthly institutions have their place as a guide to humanity, but none can claim exclusivity of God's authority or favour.

Arguments for such are smoke and mirrors that disappear upon any deep examination."

Chadi81, we also believe that Jesus Christ is truly the only Son of God. I have no doubt that many people deny Our Lord's divinity with the same confidence that you deny His Church's authority, given by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I also believe that He founded the Catholic Church. I do not believe He intended to found thousands of churches that teach conflicting doctrines. Outside of the Catholic Church, a believer must accept relativism and mutually contradictory "Truths."

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 21, 2003.

"Are you proposing that Christianity started in Rome? I thought the Biblical text said it started in Jerusalem -- and then, perhaps, Antioch. Roman Christianity came later".

A: Not much later! I assume you have read Paul's letter to the Church in Rome? It is believed to have been written about 55 AD - 20 to 25 years after the death of Christ - to a community which was already well established at that time.

"The Orthodox ("True Worship") churches are merely the Eastern parts of what can be called a "Catholic", "universal" church".

A: The schismatic Orthodox Churches separated themselves from the original Church. How can a body be "universal" with some members who accept its leadership, and others who reject it? The Eastern Rites of the universal Church are still fully Catholic, and are still under the headship Christ provided for them - the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Blessed Peter.

"Even the word "Orthodox" ultimately means little, "for everyone is orthodox unto himself", as Locke wrote".

That quote makes as much sense as the ever-popular "what's true for you may not be true for me", and is just as silly. Truth is truth even if no-one believes it. "True for me" is a meaningless phrase. If something is true, it is true for everyone, even though some may remain ignorant of that truth, or refuse to accept it. And if what is "true for me" is opposed to the objective truth, then I am WRONG, and "true for me" simply means "untrue".

"If there is such a thing as "the true church", it is known only to God. Earthly institutions have their place as a guide to humanity, but none can claim exclusivity of God's authority or favour".

A: Nonsense! Christ spoke repeatedly of "The Church". Of what value would that teaching be if we could not identify the church of which He spoke? In fact, anyone can know the identity of the True Church, by a brief honest look at scripture and history. The True Church can indeed claim God's authority, for Christ gave authority to one Church only, an event which is clearly recorded in scripture, and that Church is easily identifiable by anyone who truly wants to know. The Church however does not claim exclusivity of "God's favour". God loves and calls all men to himself, not only those who belong to the Church He provided for all men.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 22, 2003.

For Mateo:

Your post amuses me because almost every Catholic I know, even (especially?) the religious, pick and choose those beliefs that suit them and ignore those that don’t. This is simply natural in a free society. The religious often are careful what they say in public, lest they suffer Matthew Fox’s fate and get driven out of “the church”, but they have their own thoughts on many things.

Fortunately, most of us live in free societies where we can follow what seems best to us.

You seem to have a Protestant phobia. In truth, Protestants are merely the children of the Roman Catholic church who cling to the truths they find in the Bible and their religious experiences but who reject the “authority” of the hierarchy of the Roman church over practically every aspect of their spirituality (and other aspects of life). You find it comforting; they do not. You may find it a comfort to believe God or Christ works through one agency on earth; others find God in other ways.

Most of the criticisms leveled by Roman Catholics and Protestants at each other are really family squabbles. Both come from the same traditions, though they have had an irredeemable parting of the ways.

Intellectually, any exclusivity in religious matters is a house of cards. It may be a comfort and guide to many, but it is not objectively true. All humanity are God’s children; the most that any religion can do is to teach us to be more aware of that reality and live more fully in it. The Catholic faith, at its best, is good at this.

Personally, I have a great respect for Catholic modes of worship, much for some of their modes of spirituality and traditions of theology, but none for their positions on gender and sexual issues, which border on the criminal. The most recent court cases on sexual abuse in the US generated a “blame the victims” response from a very prominent cardinal, a spokesman for the Vatican, who could have instead offered some path to healing or sense of justice to the victims. Now, surely Christ’s sole agency on earth can do better?

(I know; other churches have their problems, too.)

John Locke’s point about claiming to be “Orthodox” (or he could have said “Catholic”, or “truly Christian”, or whatever) was that it is naïve to claim that being “orthodox” justified one’s position (and, in his context, giving them to right to judge and persecute others). Practically everyone believes he is following the true way, even when it is heresy to others. But claiming that one’s way is “orthodox” really means nothing but that one thinks it is the right way.

I would say claiming to be “catholic”, except for its denominational meaning, is much the same. All Christians believe they are part of the “universal” church, even if they think their part of it is the only true expression of it. Even some parts of the Roman church periodically go their own way (and are usually excommunicated by Rome), but they continue to believe that they are “Catholic”.

Yes, thinking people generally choose their beliefs, based on what seems reasonable and consistent with their experience. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that beliefs “choose us”. To just accept what is given by others, even the most venerable institutions, is simply to stop thinking. This may be comforting to many, but it is not intellectually honest.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 22, 2003.

For Paul:

The poor guy who posted a question about his kid’s baptism must be wondering what’s going on. But actually, I appreciate your openness to a bit of honest debate.

Ha! I’ve now learned that extremist Catholics don’t like John Locke any better than fundamentalist Christians.

No, Locke doesn’t argue for relativism. His point was that claiming your viewpoint was accurate because it was “orthodox” (and I would add, “Catholic” or “Christian” or whatever) doesn’t make it right. Everyone believes his/her viewpoint to be the true one. Locke was writing after a time of extreme religious persecution, in which the persecutors claimed theirs was the “orthodox” (or, at times, “Catholic”) teaching and therefore was backed by God’s authority, and therefore could be forced upon others even using torture. Locke’s argument was great sanity in an insane time.

He argued that if anyone was really so concerned about other men’s souls, they should arm themselves with love and good works as Jesus himself did.

But Locke defeats his own point a bit by being intolerant of Roman Catholics (and atheists!), so I can see why he may have few fans in the Roman church. But his thought was invaluable in the development of modern culture and democracy.

As to the Roman church being the first church: obviously it wasn’t. That it followed the older ones after a generation or less, I agree.

As to there being only “one church”: The New Testament does have a vision of all Christ’s followers being united in love and faith – I’m thinking especially John 17:6-26. We’ve done a rather poor job of that on all sides, don’t you think? No doubt some more of both would help.

How to recognize the “true church”? Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? I would argue that the “true church” is where the presence of Christ is evidenced by Christ-like character. External signs are only that: external. And that was my point: only God sees what is inside.

As to the Roman Catholic Church being the “true church”: I’m still waiting to see some objective evidence for that. . Personally I don’t see them being either more or less “true” than other churches. To me it seems the crux of the argument is based on the presumption that 1) all Christ’s authority passed to Peter, 2) Peter’s authority passed to his successors and 3) these successors are the Popes. All three assertions are questionable. I’m not saying one can’t believe them (for obviously you do), but I see no evidence sufficient for any of them.

As to the Orthodox being schismatics: They think they are the “true church”, and that Rome is schismatic. They see the apostolic ministry as being based on through their bishops, not just the Bishop of Rome (by whatever title). I see no basis for judging between Rome and the Orthodox (and they wouldn’t care if I did). But this “authority of Rome” thing is a very sore point for Orthodox Christians; they don’t accept it, and they resent the presumption. You might feel the same way if the bishop of Antioch (for instance) claimed authority over you.

By the way, I’ll point out that the claim that the Roman Catholic church wrote the New Testament invalidates any claims of legitimacy based upon “scripture”. For if one writes one’s own history to justify one’s claims to authority, it is circular argument.

That the New Testament was written by early Christians is clear – though “how early” is a hotly debated question, as is practically everything else about them – by “Catholic”, “Protestant” and “secular” scholars alike. But few serious scholars of any persuasion take a literal reading of the New Testament, such as you’ve often presented in this thread, seriously. Unfortunately, such literal readings are the basis of most of the church’s traditional teachings – both Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches alike.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 22, 2003.

origenmoscow writes:

"Yes, thinking people generally choose their beliefs, based on what seems reasonable and consistent with their experience. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that beliefs “choose us”. To just accept what is given by others, even the most venerable institutions, is simply to stop thinking."

According to your logic, following Jesus Christ is a choice to stop thinking.

I don't believe that you have shown that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Until you can, most of your opinions here are mere blind faith in your own convictions. You don't know why you believe what you believe...

origenmoscow writes:

"Practically everyone believes he is following the true way, even when it is heresy to others. But claiming that one’s way is “orthodox” really means nothing but that one thinks it is the right way."

The fact that people have contradictory beliefs does not mean that an Absolute Truth does not exist. Catholics believe that an Absolute Truth exists.

origenmoscow writes:

"You seem to have a Protestant phobia."

I am not "afraid" of Protestants. I believe that the philosophy behind Protestantism is flawed. Moral relativism doesn't work. It fails in theory and in practice.

Origenmoscow, you're starting to use silly emotional buzz-words. Relativism is "natural in a free society." "Thinking people" are relativists. Those who are not relativists have a "phobia." Fear...closed minded...why don't you keep tugging on our emotional strings.

origenmoscow writes:

"Personally, I have a great respect for Catholic modes of worship, much for some of their modes of spirituality and traditions of theology, but none for their positions on gender and sexual issues, which border on the criminal."

I have no idea what you mean by saying that you respect a "mode of worship." Do you like all the nice candles and incense?

If you think the Catholic Church's moral teachings are criminal, get in line: two thousand years ago, a crowd condemned Jesus Christ as a criminal and crucified Him because of His teachings.

You seem to be advocating the Orthodox cause; but then you seem pro-Liberation Theology (as if the Church should primarily focus on temporal issues); and you seem to be against all Christian moral teachings. I don't believe that the Orthodox Patriarchs have changed their moral teachings too much from traditional Christian teachings. If you are Orthodox, is your patriarch a champion of Liberation Theology? Is he blessing homosexual unions? Or are your priests closed minded old men with homophobia? How many women priests has your patriarch ordained?

Or maybe you're Episcopal? They have candles and incense, too. Maybe you're a fan of Bishop Spong?

Anyway, you just seem to be throwing out random thoughts. If you have any specific questions about the Catholic Church, I'd recommend that you start a new thread so that everyone sees the question. Otherwise, your questions are buried in a thread about Baptism.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 22, 2003.

For Mateo:

Mateo writes: “According to your logic, following Jesus Christ is a choice to stop thinking. I don't believe that you have shown that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Until you can, most of your opinions here are mere blind faith in your own convictions. You don't know why you believe what you believe...”

Where did I say that to follow Jesus Christ is to stop thinking? But I would argue that thinking people should use their head just as much as their heart. The point, which I think you’re missing, is that Jesus Christ isn’t the exclusive property of the Roman Catholic Church. Lots of people find faith in Christ without that tradition, or sometimes without that of any other church.

To accept a system of belief blindly IS to stop thinking, almost by definition. You must question what you are taught to see whether it is really true – that’s our duty, if we have the intellect for it.

Blind faith in my own convictions? Not really. My convictions tend to change as I find evidence or experience to do so. I think most people’s do.

You don’t really want to get into an epistemology debate, do you? We’d probably both end up dredging up some Aquinas – maybe the same passages. ;^)

Mateo writes: The fact that people have contradictory beliefs does not mean that an Absolute Truth does not exist. Catholics believe that an Absolute Truth exists.

I wouldn’t argue that Absolute Truth does not exist – just that it is much harder to get to than most people think. I suspect that much of what you take to be Absolute Truth is actually “relative truth” – true for you, and perhaps for many others, but not necessarily objectively true.

Mateo writes: I am not "afraid" of Protestants. I believe that the philosophy behind Protestantism is flawed.

“Protestantism” in the sense of being a reaction against “Catholicism” is indeed incomplete in itself. That’s why many non-Roman Catholic Christians like to jettison the term and just go by the category “Christian”. They don’t feel they are “protesting” anything – that parting came centuries ago.

But I said you were afraid because you launched into some Protestant bashing when reading my Locke quotation. Why bring it up if it’s not haunting you?

Mateo writes: Moral relativism doesn't work. It fails in theory and in practice. Origenmoscow, you're starting to use silly emotional buzz-words. Relativism is "natural in a free society." "Thinking people" are relativists. Those who are not relativists have a "phobia." Fear...closed minded...why don't you keep tugging on our emotional strings.

Free thinking is not relativism. Where in the world do you and Paul get that idea? But I do think that in a free society, people are much more free to think and express those thoughts without fearing for their wellbeing or livelihood. For that, we all should be grateful (for I’ve lived in some societies where that is not true).

Mateo writes: I have no idea what you mean by saying that you respect a "mode of worship." Do you like all the nice candles and incense?

Yes. I also like most other aspects of Roman Catholic liturgy. I call it a “mode” since there are many ways to worship – and the current liturgy, as you know, is largely relatively new (post Vatican 2).

Mateo writes: If you think the Catholic Church's moral teachings are criminal, get in line: two thousand years ago, a crowd condemned Jesus Christ as a criminal and crucified Him because of His teachings.

Yes, and we would do well to be in such august company as Christ himself. But what I mean by “bordering on the criminal” is the teaching that effective birth control is wrong (condemning countless millions to poverty and abject misery), teaching that sexual intercourse is sinful in general unless it’s for procreation within church-recognized unions, teaching that the 5-10% of humanity that is homosexually oriented is committing a deadly sin for any union outside of marriage (however loving and committed), excluding women (no matter how spiritual or talented) from any priestly ministry, by teaching that divorced people can never remarry, etc.

The sexual abuse cases that have recently surfaced (but are not new) are a definite crossing of that “criminal” border. And we both know that the publicized cases are only the tip of iceberg.

The Roman Catholic church is not alone in many of these “bordering on criminal” doctrines and practices. But I don’t think that Jesus Himself would endorse any of them, so don’t use Him as a shield.

Unfortunately Jesus’ few recorded words on the subject of “putting away” have been badly taken out of context and applied in a way that just adds to human misery.

Having one’s own moral questions about these things is a good start to correcting of our (church and society’s) sins of the past and present. Far from making one an “moral relativist”, as you put it, some thinking puts one closer to some moral clarity.

Mateo writes: You seem to be advocating the Orthodox cause; but then you seem pro- Liberation Theology (as if the Church should primarily focus on temporal issues); and you seem to be against all Christian moral teachings. I don't believe that the Orthodox Patriarchs have changed their moral teachings too much from traditional Christian teachings. If you are Orthodox, is your patriarch a champion of Liberation Theology? Is he blessing homosexual unions? Or are your priests closed minded old men with homophobia? How many women priests has your patriarch ordained? Or maybe you're Episcopal? They have candles and incense, too. Maybe you're a fan of Bishop Spong?

No, I’m not Orthodox, and I don’t agree with them on many things. I just used them to pick on you since they are also big on the “we’re the true church” thing. I live in a predominantly Orthodox country, and I used to live in a mostly Catholic country (Italy), and I find the contrasts and similarities pretty interesting. In former Yugoslavia the theological and “ethnic” conflict between the two got very bloody! (Not that I blame either church for that, but they didn’t help much, either.)

Liberation theology? I understand there are more teachers of that in the Roman Catholic church than anywhere else, though the Vatican does not officially accept it and sometimes disciplines those who teach it. I think it makes some good points, and some mistakes, but where have I said anything about any of it until now? You’re projecting some strange things onto me.

Yes, I mostly like Bishop John Spong’s books. His “Liberating the Gospels” is a real treasure. I wish he were more into, or able to teach, a more experiential spiritual practice. For that, Thomas Merton is much better – and hey, Merton wasn’t afraid to sit down with some Buddhists and learn a few things about contemplation.

Me, against all “Christian moral teachings”? No, just the ones I don’t believe are very Christian – those that teach fear, hate, prejudice, shame, etc. The ones that teach or practice faith, hope, love, the gifts and fruit of the Spirit, etc. I wholeheartedly endorse.

Mateo writes: Anyway, you just seem to be throwing out random thoughts. If you have any specific questions about the Catholic Church, I'd recommend that you start a new thread so that everyone sees the question. Otherwise, your questions are buried in a thread about Baptism.

No, I’ve tried to address (in my no doubt convoluted way) what you and Paul had been writing in this thread. My only questions about the Catholic church are the intellectual backgrounds or rationale that lie behind the ideas you’re expressing. So far I’m just getting bashed, with few answers of any substance.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 22, 2003.

"the religious, pick and choose those beliefs that suit them and ignore those that don’t. This is simply natural in a free society."

A: CORRECT! Thank God the Church is not a "free society", where untruth can be taught alongside truth, often overwhelming it. Jesus did not set up the Church as a democracy, for exactly the reason you state. The fullness of truth is in the Church, clear, full, complete, and perfect. That can never happen in a "free society" where people pick and choose from all the competing options. Whether or not individual members of the church accept the fullness of truth is a matter of their personal free will. But the truth is still the truth.

"Fortunately, most of us live in free societies where we can follow what seems best to us."

A: That is fortunate indeed - in society. But it would be disastrous in the Church. Indeed, it would be the end of the Church, reducing it to a mere human institution where you can believe whatever suits your fancy, just like denominational religion.

"Protestants are merely the children of the Roman Catholic church who cling to the truths they find in the Bible and their religious experiences but who reject the “authority” of the hierarchy of the Roman church"

A: That is what they claim. However, what they actually cling to are their own personal interpretations of the Bible, which are frequently quite distant from the actual truths of the Bible. We know objectively that their interpretations are not truth because they all contradict one another, and truth cannot contradict truth.

"Intellectually, any exclusivity in religious matters is a house of cards. It may be a comfort and guide to many, but it is not objectively true."

A: I'm sorry, but any actual objective truth is exclusive of all contradictory positions. That doesn't mean that persons holding conflicting beliefs cannot work together for a common good. It just means that their conflicting beliefs cannot all be objectively true.

"All humanity are God’s children; the most that any religion can do is to teach us to be more aware of that reality and live more fully in it."

A: Not just to teach us OF that reality, but also to teach us ABOUT it - and that means knowing the truth about it - because if you are not teaching the truth about a reality, you are not making people more aware of the reality, but are rather steering them away from it, toward a fictitious, or at best incomplete substitute.

"Personally, I have a great respect for Catholic modes of worship, much for some of their modes of spirituality and traditions of theology, but none for their positions on gender and sexual issues"

A: Then you need to consider the words of Christ spoken to His Church ... "He who hears you hears Me"; The Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth"; "Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". To reject the teaching of the Church is to reject the words of God Himself.

"Practically everyone believes he is following the true way, even when it is heresy to others. But claiming that one’s way is “orthodox” really means nothing but that one thinks it is the right way."

A: Practically everyone believed the earth is flat. You are right that merely claiming orthodoxy is meaningless unless that claim canm be backed up by hard facts. The history of the Catholic Church reveals the fact that it was founded by God, and that God guaranteed the truth of its teaching. Therefore the Catholic Church is in a position to claim orthodoxy with authority.

"Yes, thinking people generally choose their beliefs, based on what seems reasonable and consistent with their experience."

A: If, by "thinking people" you mean people who reduce everything to logic, then I suppose that is sadly true for them. However, thinking people who also have an awareness of greater realities, and access to them through faith, recognize that there is much objective truth that simply doesn't break down into simple rational principles accessible to limited human logic. These people choose their beliefs the same way most of us choose our medical, political, scientific, financial, and other beliefs - by looking to higher authority, in this case the ultimate authority - God.

"claiming your viewpoint was accurate because it was “orthodox” (and I would add, “Catholic” or “Christian” or whatever) doesn’t make it right. Everyone believes his/her viewpoint to be the true one."

A: Agreed, as stated above, and subject to the conditions outlined there.

"if anyone was really so concerned about other men’s souls, they should arm themselves with love and good works as Jesus himself did."

A: Expressing love and concern for others is an essential element of following Christ - but not at the expense of truth. Both are essential.

"As to the Roman church being the first church: obviously it wasn’t."

A: You avoid the issue by referring to the "Roman Church". No-one claims that the Church at Rome necessarily predated that at Thessalonica or Corinth. That is not the issue at all. The issue is that the CATHOLIC Church was the first Christian Church. The "churches" at Rome, Thessalonica, Corinth, etc. were all part of that ONE Church, and that ONE Church looked to the apostles, and specifically the head of the Apostles, Peter, for authority. Had Peter later become bishop of Corinth, then Corinth would be the location of the Papacy. It is Peter, not Rome, who was appointee chief shepherd. And it is his successors, not Rome's, who still hold the keys today.

"How to recognize the “true church”? Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? I would argue that the “true church” is where the presence of Christ is evidenced by Christ-like character."

A: Ghandi had "Christ-like character", but he was not a member of the True Church. The True Church is that founded by GOD, and the only means of accurately identifying it are (1) comparison to Jesus' description of what His Church would be like, combined with (2) historical record. Both these avenues lead directly to the Catholic Church.

"the presumption that 1) all Christ’s authority passed to Peter, 2) Peter’s authority passed to his successors and 3) these successors are the Popes."

A: These are not presumptions. They are the inevitable logical conclusions any reasonable person must draw from an honest assessment of the available scriptural and historical evidence. The passing of authority to Peter is recounted in detail in scripture. The lineage of Popes from Peter to the present day is well documented historically. And Jesus did not give his Church any temporary gifts. He said the Church would endure until the end of time, and that means the Church as He set it up.

"As to the Orthodox being schismatics: They think they are the “true church”, and that Rome is schismatic."

A: That is roughly equivalent to saying that England broke away from the United States. Sorry, England was there first.

"But this “authority of Rome” thing is a very sore point for Orthodox Christians; they don’t accept it"

A: Neither do Protestants; but that doesn't change the fact that Jesus said it, and history fully supports it.

"the claim that the Roman Catholic church wrote the New Testament invalidates any claims of legitimacy based upon “scripture”. For if one writes one’s own history to justify one’s claims to authority, it is circular argument."

A: That would be true if the Bible were merely a history of human origin. But Christians universally accept that God is the actual author of scripture, working through human writers. My point was simply that the New Testament writers God used were Catholic writers. Therefore the use of scripture to assess authority is not using "one's own history". Rather it is using the revealed word of God.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 22, 2003.

The Roman Catholic Church can err and contradict itself as much as it wants to (anti-Semitism, selling indulgences, Popes and councils contradicting one another, etc.), yet still be "Infallible Mother Church." If anybody brings up these errors, we need to either "put the past behind us" or realize that every error of the Roman Catholic Church is "unofficial." There's no definite, consistent criteria by which to determine which actions of the RCC are "official" and which are "unofficial," but it's generally a matter of anything obviously erroneous being "unofficial." So we must wait to see whether the Roman Catholic Church is correct on an issue before deciding whether the Roman Catholic Church is acting "officially." The Roman Catholic Church is acting officially only when it's correct. And since the Roman Catholic Church has always been correct every time it's acted officially, we should be impressed with this amazing record of infallibility.

-- official (official@official.com), February 23, 2003.

origenmoscow writes:

"To accept a system of belief blindly IS to stop thinking, almost by definition."

So how long ago did you stop thinking? :-)

origenmoscow writes:

"I suspect that much of what you take to be Absolute Truth is actually “relative truth” – true for you, and perhaps for many others, but not necessarily objectively true."

I believe in the Absolute Truth that Jesus Christ is the Only Son of God. He is True God and True man. Bishop Spong believes this is "relative truth." True for me, and for many others...but not necessarily objectively true.

origenmoscow writes:

"The sexual abuse cases that have recently surfaced (but are not new) are a definite crossing of that “criminal” border."

Sexual abuse against children is another case of a Christian value restricting "freedom." We Christians believe that it is immoral for adults to sexually abuse children. Thankfully, most societies agrees with us. Right now, the local papers have seen another string of public school teachers sexually assaulting students. What does any of this have to do with your criticism of Christian moral teachings? Nothing...just like your bringing up the sexual abuse scandal has nothing to do with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Among other things, homosexuality is immoral and artificial birth control is immoral.

origenmoscow writes:

"I just used them to pick on you since they are also big on the “we’re the true church” thing."

Your statement was, "The True Church is, of course, the Orthodox." ASCII has a way of hiding sarcasm.

origenmoscow writes:

"...but where have I said anything about any of it [Liberation theology] until now? You’re projecting some strange things onto me. "

You came to the defense of Matthew Fox, a champion of liberation theology. I'm not projecting. Further, you're coming across as highly sympathetic to themes of liberation theology.

origenmoscow writes:

"My only questions about the Catholic church are the intellectual backgrounds or rationale that lie behind the ideas you’re expressing."

You begin with the assumption that those who disagree with you must have a phobia. That's not intellectually honest.

As I wrote, if you have any specific questions about the Church, you should make them; but don't throw out a bunch of random, unsupported positions and expect them to be addressed methodically. Make use of the threads to separate discussions. This allows us to focus on a single topic without dealing with Thomas Merton on a thread whose topic is, "Baptism of our baby."

Here's the way to start a new thread with your specific questions (for example, Matthew Fox, contraception, women's ordination, homosexuality).

Ask a single question when you create a new thread.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 23, 2003.

Dear official,

There are plenty of times the Church has erred while acting officially, including some of the examples you mentioned. However, mistakes in official decisions of administration, discipline, church government, etc. have no bearing on infallibility, since infallibility has no bearing on such issues. Infallibility applies ONLY to official doctrinal teachings binding on the universal Church. The truth of ALL such teachings were categorically guaranteed by Jesus Christ Himself. This is clearly and repeatedly stated in the written Word of God. No Pope or Council has ever overturned, refuted, denied, or contradicted ANY such teaching. The Holy Spirit will not allow it. Otherwise, Jesus lied when He told the Church that the Holy Spirit would guide it to ALL TRUTH.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 23, 2003.

I think it is odd that the Catholic Church can err however if another Church errs in anyway Catholics say it is not the "true church". Its hypocrisy. The Catholic church can err as much as it wants as long as its not official binding doctrine. Tell that to any other Christian and they will laugh. Catholics make the rules, so therefore they can interpret and use them as they see fit. Its sad that Catholics base their church on Peter however most other major Christian faiths base their faith solely on Jesus. However Catholics feel that they are right to go through Peter and not directly to God himself.

-- Official (Official@official.com), February 23, 2003.

Official writes:

"Its sad that Catholics base their church on Peter however most other major Christian faiths base their faith solely on Jesus."

You have things reversed. Jesus based His Church on St. Peter. Catholics put their faith in Jesus. Specifically, only Catholics believe that Jesus kept His promise to establish a real Church on Earth that would last until He comes again. Protestants believe Jesus lied (at the very least, Protestant rigid literalism is silent) in the following passage:

Matthew 16:18 - "And so I [Jesus] say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

Official writes:

"However Catholics feel that they are right to go through Peter and not directly to God himself."

Huh?

Official, maybe you shouldn't presume you can speak for Catholics. You'd do better asking us what we think instead of telling us what you incorrectly think we believe.

Enjoy,

Mateo

PS--Thank you Origenmoscow for creating new threads when discussing new topics!

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 23, 2003.

"I think it is odd that the Catholic Church can err however if another Church errs in anyway Catholics say it is not the "true church"."

A: Any institution made up of human beings can and will make mistakes. Jesus only promised to protect His Church from doctrinal mistakes. Had He not done so, no-one on earth would have any way of knowing what is true and what is not, and His own Church would inevitably have fragmented into thousands of conflicting sects, just like manmade traditions which do not have His promise of infallible teaching. We do not claim that other churches are not the True Church BECAUSE they make doctrinal errors. We claim that other churches are not the True Church because that is what both history and scripture plainly reveal - and it is BECAUSE of that historical fact that they do make so many doctrinal errors!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 23, 2003.

Mateo,

If Peter were not the 1st Pope then what authority would the Catholic church have? None. That was the point I was making. Sorry I didn't spell it out for you. The point is only Catholics believe that the church was based on Peter.

-- official (official@official.com), February 24, 2003.

Official writes: "If Peter were not the 1st Pope then what authority would the Catholic church have?"

Since the Bible supports what the Church teaches, I have no reason to be concerned with this hypothetical. It's a little bit like saying "Tides wouldn't happen if the moon weren't revolving around the Earth."

The moon does revolve around the Earth. The tides do happen. St. Peter was the first pope. The Catholic Church has the authority handed down from Jesus Christ. :-)

Official writes: "The point is only Catholics believe that the church was based on Peter."

You're using passive voice ("was based"), the subject is missing. Who based the Church on St. Peter? Jesus Christ based the Church on St. Peter, the rock.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 24, 2003.

Much like Catholics like to say that "thats your interpretation" to other Christians. Its the Catholics "interpretation" that Christ based his church on Peter. Catholics are the ONLY Christians that believe Christ based his church on him.

-- official (official@official.com), February 24, 2003.

If Catholics are the only Christians who believe that, perhaps it's because Catholics are the only Christians who follow the entirety of Christ's teachings, rather than just the ones they happen to agree with. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 24, 2003.

Dear official,

Saying "only Catholics believe that" is just another way of saying "All Christians believed that until the onset of manmade religion". In fact, until a few hundred years ago, "Catholic" and "Christian" were simply synonymous. That's how Jesus founded it, and that's how He intended it to remain until the end of time.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 24, 2003.

In other words, Official, the Protestant sects have been splitting and splitting and splitting ever since they first split away from the One True Church, founded by Jesus Christ, on Peter, the Rock. (That's why there are sooooo many "Christian" denominations, and One True Church.)

May Our Lord Jesus Christ lead you to the fullness of Truth.

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), February 24, 2003.