Why I Am Catholic

[siebersusi]

First, there is a God

Second, the soul of a man is immortal

Third, all men are obliged to practice religion

Fourth, the religion God has revealed through Christ is worthy of belief

Fifth, Christ established a church which all are obliged to join

Sixth, The only true church of Christ is the Catholic Church

[Circle_Master]

Why I am not a Catholic. Our reason points out the TRUTH!!!

First, there is a God

Second, the soul of a man has eternity set in it (Ecclesiastes)

Third, all men know there is a God (Romans 1)

Fourth, all Scripture inspired by God and recorded is worthy of belief and study for it will make one complete.

Fifth, Christ established the church at pentecost that He desires all to be in

Sixth, The only true church is that which consists of all who have "called on the name of the Lord"

.... really... how about some productive debate than just spouting your opinion

[Norseman82]

Sixth, The only true church is that which consists of all who have "called on the name of the Lord"

So, if that's truly the case, and since Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, you are logicaly inferring that potestants are subject to the Pope as well!!

[Circle_Master]

So, if that's truly the case, and since Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, you are logicaly inferring that potestants are subject to the Pope as well!!

I don't understand your logic. Yes Peter brought the Jews and the Gentiles and the Samaritans into the church with the keys. I agree with that, and the conclusion because of that is that me as a Gentile have the full promises of Christ (Ephesians 2, 3).

The part about the pope has no relation here because the keys never had any purpose of being the head of a hierarchy. This is shown in Acts 15 when James has authority over Peter.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Yes Peter brought the Jews and the Gentiles and the Samaritans into the church with the keys. I agree with that, and the conclusion because of that is that me as a Gentile have the full promises of Christ (Ephesians 2, 3).

The part about the pope has no relation here because the keys never had any purpose of being the head of a hierarchy. This is shown in Acts 15 when James has authority over Peter.

Honest, unbiased scholarship recognizes that the text of Mt 16:19 refers to a bestowal of authority and primacy upon St. Peter. You can find many protestant sources that reject the faulty interpretation that some protestants try to make (conditioned by an anti-catholic bias and not allowing the text to speak for itself) that this refers to Peter bringing the gentiles, jews, etc. into the Church with the keys or that he was the first to preach at Pentecost. Keep in mind that the primacy of Peter and the reality of Apostolic succession is a fact that was taken for granted in the Church from the very beginning. The protestant case against this is very weak indeed. And it was not until relatively recent times that the Papal primacy and Apostolic succession was even challenged, by certain heretical groups (namely some protestants) who had rejected the authority of the Church and had a Theological agenda to uphold. I would suggest reading a book on the evidence (Biblical, Patristic and Historical). I challenge you to read either Upon this Rock By Steve Ray or Jesus, Peter and the Keys from Queenship publishing. I don't have time at the moment to present a full, systematic exposition of the staggering case for Papal Primacy but I assure after reading one or both of these texts that you will realize that your position does not hold any water. This is in fact a promise. Read the comments from protestant (and ex-protestant) scholars on the back of Jesus, Peter and the Keys before you open the text so you know what you will be getting into. Sorry if you feel I haven't treated your post with proper respect. I'm actually on a public email station and don't have time to write much, maybe later. Since I've been on PM I've actually rather enjoyed your posts, more than most! You have a good mind, I just think you don't have all the facts at your disposal. Peace my brother.

[Bruce S]

Why I'm NO LONGER a *Romanist Denomination Version* catholic:

First, there is a God, in THREE PARTS, and not one of them lives in Rome.

Second, the soul of a man is immortal, nor needs man to mediate and assist in assurance of salvation.

Third, all men are obliged to practice religion, some look to man made rules, others prefer God made rules.

Fourth, the religion God has revealed through Christ is worthy of belief, but God revealed NO "religion" in fact, the one that He most likely DID reveal, Judaism, failed utterly in getting what God wanted revealed and done, basically put man between God and his word.

Fifth, Christ established a church which all are obliged to join, the church of those who read the RED LETTERS and follow what they taught. Not the CCC, and "revealed truth" and talking statues and bleeding host versions.

Sixth, The only true church of Christ is the Catholic Church - and that is what is wrong. They want to make denomination the key to salvation, and instead, for much of the world it is the cheif BARRIER to salvation.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Yes Peter brought the Jews and the Gentiles and the Samaritans into the church with the keys. I agree with that, and the conclusion because of that is that me as a Gentile have the full promises of Christ (Ephesians 2, 3).

The part about the pope has no relation here because the keys never had any purpose of being the head of a hierarchy. This is shown in Acts 15 when James has authority over Peter.

Circle,

As I said, I don't see how you can assert this minimalist position because the quotes I gave, from objective protestant scholars, affirm that the keys are a "symbol of authority", the symbol of keys as it appears in the Bible, ALWAYS means a real, dominion and authority, how do you pull your interpretation out of that? And don't forget about binding and loosing.

"Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to "condemn" or "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent. (also keys/steward,rock)

You have merely made an unfounded assertion and have not backed it up with any sort of exigesis. The protestant quotes I gave in the other post are an exigetical foundation for the Catholic position. In the words of John Calvin "The keys of the house are delivered to those who are appointed to be stewards, that they may have the full power of opening and shutting according to their own pleasure." The stewardship was the highest position of authority! Joseph in Genesis was the vizier or steward of Pharoah. This is what Peter is, the chief steward of the Church. This does not mean that he is beyond reproach or the sole dictator of the Church. The Church teaches that the Pope is the first among equals (meaning among the Bishops), as Peter was first among equals from among the Apostles. Also the bestowal of the power of binding and loosing only makes sense exigetically as a bestowal of real, power and authority. The Apostles founding churches and appointed men with authority in those communities (eg., presbyters and deacons) and bestowed this authority in the Church through the laying on of hands which gives them a share in the Apostolic authority that Christ gave to those who were to lead His Church. All of the Bishops of the Church (and the Eastern Orthodox) have recieved their authority through the laying on of hands in the Sacrament of Holy Orders in an unbroken chain of succession that goes all the way back to the Apostles. Some can even trace their succession directly to an Apostle (eg., the Pope being the direct successor of the Apostle Peter, the Patriarch of Constantinople being the direct successor to the Apostle Andrew). When did Christians suddenly make this up? Why do the earliest Christian writings attest to the fact of Apostolic succession? Your assertions have little or no real exigetical or historical support whereas the Catholic position has utterly incontrovertible support (scope the books I mentioned, there are others too of course).

The early Church considered Apostolic succession the basis of authority and correct doctrine. Those with Apostolic succession were those who were entrusted with the role of teaching the true faith and you were an outsider and heretic if you were not in union with the Church hierarchy. You were not in Christ's church. The Bishops were the teachers and shepherds, the fathers. Priests and deacons have authority only because they are appointed by a Bishop and whatever authority they have to teach and govern comes from participating in the authority Christ gave to His Apostles and which they perpetuated through the laying on of hands. These doctrines are in Scripture though not in a systematic form because that's not what Scripture is, it's not a blue-print for the Church like many protestants try to make it, the Church was established and living, no blueprint is necessary. The Church precedes the New Testament writings and the Apostolic authority of the Bishops, as you know, decided the Canon.

Also you should realize that the Pope is not a despotic monarch (Caesaro-Papism was an abuse of the office of the Papacy). The Pope is the first among equals and the local Bishop is the head of his diocese. The Pope can ratify things that are binding on the whole Church (such as councils and Papal decrees), but the Pope does not micro-manage other Bishop's dioceses. This is especially true in the case of 'sui juris' churches (such as Eastern Catholic Churches) who have an independent hierarchy that is in union with Rome. This is why your thing about James wouldn't contradict a correct understanding of the Papacy (although I think your interpretation is forced). Things like what you assert about Acts 15 can happen. The Pope will pronounce something and then a local Bishop or Bishop of a particular 'sui juris' church will decree it for his Church and it expresses his union with the Pope of Rome. It does not mean that the other Bishop has 'authority' over Peter (the Pope), it just means that the Bishop has the authority in his diocese and the Pope, as the first among equals, respects that. This is part of the tension with the Eastern Orthodox, they recognize the Primacy of Peter and all of that, but they think that Rome has abused that and made the Pope more than he is supposed to be. While there have been abuses in the past in that regard, the Church has never taught that the Pope is the dictator of the Church. He is the servant of the servants of God and the first among equals. He is the cancellor of vicar of the King while we await His return in Glory. This is why I firmly believe the East and West will be united, because much of the problem is based on misunderstandings and juridical structures which can rightly be adapted. Soloviev (a Russian Orthodox genius who became in union with Rome) is good to read for inderstanding these issues.

I must again say however, that I think your asserted meaning of Acts 15 is totally unfounded.

"And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this

matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

"Then all the multitude kept silent and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon (Peter) hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets;"

It seems pretty clear to me that Peter's declarations on the matter were considered definitive and authoritative. I fail to see how your assertion as to what this passage is saying is the true sense of the text.

To summarize, the Church from the very beginning had a authoritative hierarchy. This is seen clearly in Scripture and attested undeniably by the earliest Christian writings from the Apostolic era onward. The Apostle's were given authority (binding & loosing) in the Church as the chief teachers and authorities. Peter alone was given the keys which indicate his stewardship or primacy. Also he is the 'rock' which indicates his primacy. (The NT implies this primacy time and time again).

The Pope is not a despotic dictator but the first among equals in a primarily pastoral role (yes, throughout history temporal power and abuses were mixed in but these are not the meaning of the papacy as an office in the Church).

These are biblical, patristic and historical facts.

Read these protestant quotes again because I don't think you read them (or at least not very carefully), they go against your assertion about Peter (and I can produce many more quotes too).

"The image of keys (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church (which is not what the kingdom of heaven means; see pp.  45-47) but an authority derived from a 'delegation of God's sovereignty.'" - Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), pg 256.

"The keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa. 22:20-25, ..). The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus, who has taught with authority (7:29) and has given his authority to his disciples (10:1,8) here gives his primary disciple the authority to teach in his name." - The New Interpreter's Bible. vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abington Press, 1995), pg 346.

"The 'kingdom of heaven' is represented by authoritative teaching, the promulgation of authoritative Halakha that let's heaven's power rule in earthly things...Peter's rold as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church." - M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew", in Pheme Perkins and Others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible. vol 8, (Nashville, TN: Abington Press, 1995), pg 346.

"Isaiah 22:15 undoubtedly lies behind this [Matthew 16:19] saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux (Ancient Israel, pg 129) rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah;...and Jotham as regent is also described as 'over the household'(II Kings 15:5)." - W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), pg 196.

Other honest, objective protestant quotes of interest:

David Hill

Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely. (“The Gospel of Matthew,” The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.)

Suzanne de Dietrich

Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon,” the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community. (The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.)

Craig L. Blomberg

Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification. (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)

Donald A. Carson III

Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter. (Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 78.)

Gerhard Maier

Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)

William Hendriksen

Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view. (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)

Other things to ponder:

Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the "first" (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he ("Cephas") is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32).

Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).

Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).

Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27).

Christ teaches from Peter's boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a "fisher of men" (cf. Mt 4:19).

Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).

Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).

Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The "bark" (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.

Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).

Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).

Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the gospel" in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!

Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).

Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

The whole Church (strongly implied) offers "earnest prayer" for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).

Paul distinguishes the Lord's post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8). The two disciples on the road to Emmaus make the same distinction (Lk 24:34), in this instance mentioning only Peter ("Simon"), even though they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus within the previous hour (Lk 24:33).

Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).

Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67 ff.).

Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples (Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).

Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1 ff., Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24 ff.).

Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!

Peter's proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the "House of Israel" (2:36) - an example of "binding and loosing."

Peter was the first "charismatic", having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called "visitation of the churches" (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn't traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders."

Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).

Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. "Babylon" (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Bruce, your last post was neither intelligent nor reasonable. It was not in anyway a basis for a discussion, it just seemed like some rude venting to me. I don't appreciate it. Sorry if you're mad at the Church or something but please try to be more charitible, this is a Catholic site afterall.

Peace.

[CICCIO]

i dotn understand what circle master is aying in his first post...specificaly the last point

[Laudate_Dominum]

i dotn understand what circle master is aying in his first post...specificaly the last point.

I believe Circle was trying to suggest (as other protestants have) that the keys represent being able to open the doors of the kingdom to people, like the gentiles. This interpretation is deviant and completely false as any objective protestant scholar will admit. The symbol of the keys as used in the Scripture and rabbinic thought, is always one of real administrative and teaching authority, it represents an office, like the office of chief steward of the kingdom (see Isa 22) which is the exegetical basis of understanding the meaning of Jesus' words in Mt 16:19. Also the context of the 'keys of the kingdom' and the 'binding and loosing' (as well as the 'opening and shutting' of Isa 22) indicate this fact of a real office of authority, these phrases indicate a power to legislate and rule as a person in authority, not let people in and out of doors like a porter. The false interpretation that Circle was alluding to does not have a legitimate exegetical basis and is just a minimalist assertion motivated by an anti-Catholic bias and a misinterpretation of Biblical and Rabbinical terminology. Read my lengthy post above for more details.

Ah, "his first post", my bad. (But I'm not erasing what I've already bothered typing). Where he said "Sixth, The only true church is that which consists of all who have "called on the name of the Lord". That just means that he holds to some idea of Christ's Church as an invisible body of believers who just "call on the name of the Lord". This kind of thinking has become common in protestantism because of the division and individualism of that particular brand of heresy (the whole "it's me & Jesus" mentality which flies in the face of Scripture). I don't think his criteria, taken at face value work either, since "not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord' will be saved." In his favor, there is a sense in which the Church (not the earthly institution but the Church Triumphant) will be made up only of the elect, the "saved" if you will. But the visible Church on earth is wheat and weeds together. His statement was not entirely false based on Catholic doctrine although the way he intended to pit it against the Catholic Church is false.

Edited January 25, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[phatcatholic]

i say everyone just abandon this thread. i would agree w/ circle that it was not very conducive to debate at its onset. (probably something more suitable for the Open Mic section). also, it has already proved to be unproductive.

i'm not participating, at the very least.

just my thoughts........

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[Laudate_Dominum]

What do you mean phatcatholic? This thread seems fine to me.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I hope this thread gets some play from the protestants.

[BLAZEr]

Laudate, Laudate, Laudate . . .

Seriously, you are just what Circle needs, and apologist who hasn't grown tired and cynical . . .

[Laudate_Dominum]

Laudate, Laudate, Laudate . . .

Seriously, you are just what Circle needs, and apologist who hasn't grown tired and cynical . . .

LOL! We'll see how long the inspiration lasts. :spit: