 
Catho and Proty: A Discourse Between Zealots

By

Mark Richard Masters

Smashwords Edition

Copyright 2014 Mark Richard Masters

Please check out further works at Smashwords.com or follow this link

https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/markrichardmasters
This is a true conversation between two people who zealously believe in what they wrote. It is put down in this book as it unfolded via messaging on a popular social media site. Only the names of the participants have been changed and a little formatting, so it could be an ebook. Otherwise it is exactly (warts and all) as it still exists on the social media website. No use of this is allowed without crediting it. If you wish a friend to have a copy please suggest they get one from Smashwords.
INDEX

Preface

PART ONE

PART TWO

PART THREE

PART FOUR

PART FIVE

PART SIX

PART SEVEN

PART EIGHT

PART NINE

PART TEN

PART ELEVEN

PART TWELVE

PART THIRTEEN

PART FOURTEEN

PART FIFTEEN

ABOUT THE PRESENTER

ALSO BY MARK MASTERS ON SMASHWORDS

Preface

Between October 16, 2010 and April 11, 2011 two men who fervently believe in the positions that they championed had a discussion. Neither would budge, and both tried to put forth compelling information. Information that I believe belongs out in the world that needs it. In this ebook you will find that conversation with nothing added, and only the bare minimum changed. Those changes being formatting and the changing of both their names. For I am sure that both of them would wish for the focus to be on God and His Church.

For that reason I am also offering this for free. I shall accept not even a red cent for it. So if you paid something, other that library fees or such, you have been ripped off.

PART ONE
Proty October 16, 2010 at 7:19pm

I see that you are a Catholic that believes all other denominations are false. Am I right?

Catho October 16, 2010 at 7:24pm Report

It depends what you consider False, the Denominations or the Teachings in the Denominations? Didn't Paul say that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Church? (I Tim 3:15)When there was a doctrinal dispute, Paul submitted to Peter (Acts 15)

As a clarification of Acts 15, read it carefully. Peter gives the doctrinal definition, and then James, as the local bishop, gives the pastoral application.

So, yes, any group of believers can start a work, but then, according to Paul's pattern, it must be under submission to the whole church. If not, then what standard can there be? Scripture? But if it's scripture, why can't the Arminians and Calvinists agree on predestination and free will? Why can't the Pentecostals and Baptists agree on tongues? Why can't the Baptists and Presbyterians agree on the question of infant baptism? All use the same method to understand scripture.

I'm sorry, however, that you pick and choose which parts of scripture you'll accept. Paul Says "ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness", not just the parts we want to accept. .

Catho October 16, 2010 at 8:07pm Report

I hope your now following this Saints, very Wise advice. "If you do not learn to deny yourself, you can make no progress in perfection."

\- St. John of the Cross (1591 †) .

Proty October 17, 2010 at 10:17pm

Before Answering this I prayed for understanding for me, and you for no one can have too much understanding of the Bible.

I do not know why Arminians and Calvinists can not agree other than in the case of Calvinists they follow what 1 man believed about the Bible. I do not know however becuase I am neither. What is an Arminian anyway? And as for Baptists and Pentecostals agreeing on tongues I am not either of those. I know I have trouble with tongues because a church near where I live utter meaningless babel while rolling on the floor and call it tongues. I know that in the Bible it is said God gives us a spirit of self control. (Titus 1:8 and 2 Timothy 1:7 for example)

As for Infant baptism, please tell me where it is located in the Bible? I have looked in all 66 books and I do not see it. I do see that you need to understand that you are a sinner to be baptized.

I have read Acts 15 carefully, a couple times, and I ask you Brother, Did I miss something? I read that "Some men had come down from Judea and Antioch". These men were telling the Gentile Christians that they needed to be Circumcised to be saved. Paul and Barnabas refuted that, so they and some other believers went to Jerusalem to see the Apostiles and the Elders about it. Yes Peter said what God had done through him to convert Gentiles, and Yes James agreed. But it then states that the Apostles, Elders, and the WHOLE church (Acts 15:22-23) decided to send some men and a letter back with Paul and Barnabas. It also seemed to me that Peter and Paul were in agreement on this so how did Peter submit to Paul?

May God bless you. .

Catho October 17, 2010 at 10:26pm Report

I will get back to this, tommorrow night, thanks for the courtesy, and charity, its late and I must sleep, and I will be glad to answer you, then. In Christ Catho .

Catho October 17, 2010 at 10:36pm Report

Here is food for thought, and I will answer what you posted in a more specific way, tommorrow nite, but until then, meditate on this. Please!

The true Church of Christ must be one in unity and doctrine:

First, it cannot be that the true Church is divided of belief in opinion, as God would no longer be its author. God, a God of Truth, could not possibly have revealed a plurality of religions, or a multitude of varying Christianities. Our Lord taught one religion and founded one Church, not multiple ones. The Protestant denominations clearly fall into this category with their thousands of denominations, all with beliefs opposing the other. How can we call thousands of opposing denominations a reformation of the Church? Our Lord's threat of damnation for not believing clearly condemns the opposing Protestant denominations that have formed since the Protestant reformation.

Consider the verse, "And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25. Are not Protestant denominations divided among themselves with little hope to reunite?

Consider the verse, "And let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you are called in one body: and be ye thankful." Colossians 3:15. One body is one Church, and cannot possibly be thousands of opposing denominations.

When the Protestant reformers brought forward the belief that each was to interpret Scripture on his own, that made each person on earth equivalent to the next. Under this belief a lay person is equivalent to a priest or minister, therefore it is optional for a lay person to consult them. This situation inevitably leads to conflicts between all of these "equal" people claiming their interpretation is correct, which inevitably leads to different denominations which inevitably leads to multiple doctrines. As already mentioned above, nowhere is it found in Scripture that we are to interpret Scripture on our own, rather Scripture does clearly indicate Our Lord instructed His Apostles to, "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." Matthew 16:15. Clearly we must believe in one religion as taught by the Apostolic successors to be saved, not to believe two unknowns like Luther or Calvin, or any other number of reformers claiming different doctrines.

Looking at all the Catholic Church has been through with respect to heresies and persecution, the same faith remains in Catholics century to century. Looking at any random point in the history of the Catholic Church, if there was ever a difference in opinion relating to faith or morals, a General Council or the Roman See, guided by the Holy Ghost, has always determined what the correct belief should be, and you will see every Catholic has always submitted to their decisions and argued no more. The Protestant denominations do not have this structure, and therefore they will forever be in disagreement and will forever have multiple doctrines. Can one really call this introduction of contradicting doctrines a reformation of the Church? This is not the teaching of Our Lord.

The Protestant reformers such as Luther and Calvin did not even agree on the same canon of Scriptures from the start of the Reformation. They also differ in opinion on things such as number of Sacraments and other beliefs. For example, Protestant denominations are as much divided among themselves regarding Justification than they are divided with the Catholic Church, with no hope of ever coming to an agreement. Scripture cannot be their judge because it is concerning Scripture that they are in disagreement. From the start of the Reformation this was clearly a red flag that this so-called reformation of the Church was not sent from God, as why would God suddenly decide to spin off multiple denominations with opposing doctrines? Why didn't Jesus teach, approve or ever hint of such a thing?

Those who have a diversity of canon, that are divided into thousands of opposing denominations with different beliefs, cannot "add up" to one true Church, and neither can they be called by the name of "Church" like the Catholic Church can who has one same head, the same canon of the Scriptures, and one like rule for interpreting them. "He that is not with me, is against me" Matthew 12:30.

It is very common these days to get a variety of answers when asking Protestants if their denomination holds the truth over other Protestant denominations. We've heard some Protestants claim "Our denomination is not 100% correct". If not, then we ask why are you a part of that denomination? If your denomination is not the true Church as Christ gave to us, which denomination IS the true Church, the pillar of truth? We know it must exist somewhere because Christ promised us it would always exist.

We have also heard some Protestants claim that it is not for them to place judgment on the correctness of any denomination. We ask, why not? Our Lord clearly laid out what the truth is and how we are to be saved, why are you now unsure about it, and most of all why are you indifferent about it? Here we present two points against these illogical claims:

1) For one to claim they are a Lutheran or Presbyterian or some other Protestant, but yet be indifferent and not claim their religion is the true or correct religion is absurdity. How can one be indifferent in what they believe? This is the same as believing truth and error are both acceptable. Are mathematicians indifferent in the outcome of their equations? Are scientists indifferent in their studies? If they were, they would not have the respect of their peers and would not be mathematicians or scientists. Where would we be if every scientist or mathematician or doctor were to be indifferent in their work and always produce uncertain results generation to generation? What you believe in must be the truth from your perspective or you cannot claim you believe in it. The fact of the matter is, if no one is an authority and if everyone is open to their own interpretation of Scripture, this inevitably leads to indifferentism, for who knows who is right! Nowhere else in the world will you see the concept of indifferentism accepted as we see with Protestant denominations. It is just as wrong to deny the faith than it is to be indifferent about searching for it!

2) If one Protestant denomination believes in the real presence in the Holy Eucharist, and another believes it to be a symbol only, these are directly opposing views and only one can be the truth. If the Symbolic point of view were true, then the believers in the real presence would be guilty of idolatry among other things and if the real presence is true, the symbolic believer would be following a false religion. How can Protestants be indifferent about denominations when critical beliefs such as this separate them? How could Protestants be neutral on a belief that would decide whether we are saved or damned? Only one belief is true according to Our Lord. To say one religion is as good as another when such massive differences exist between each of them is to say truth and error are acceptable to Our Lord, which is simply absurd. Our Lord never taught multiple doctrines! .

Catho October 18, 2010 at 10:05pm Report

As for the book of acts, consider this, my friend! How would Protestants know what the Catholic Church of the first Century was like since Protestants did not exist at that time to see for themselves & keep records or anything? No existence of Protestantism until Martin Luther in the 16th century. The entire new testament is the early Catholic Church. Protestants did not exist in the first century. Protestants choose not to see the Catholic Church in the new testament.

The whole base of Protestantism rests on the false man made doctrine of bible alone. The Church in the book of Acts could not have been using the book of Acts. If Protestants want to imitate the Church they now read about in the book of Acts Protestants would have to not have a book of Acts at all to use or a new testament.

The Church you read about in the book of Acts did not believe in the false Protestant man made doctrine of bible alone like Protestants do. Since the whole base of Protestantism rests on the false Protestant man made doctrine of bible alone; the Church you read about in the book of Acts absolutely positively does not resemble Protestantism which is based on the false Protestant man made doctrine of bible alone. How could the Church in the book of Acts been using the book of Acts.

Do you think the Church in the book of Acts had the book of Acts and they sat around & read it & were trying to use it to try to get around the reality of the Catholic Church by deliberate misinterpretation of it.

The spirit of pride & protest causes the protestant to choose to be blind to the clear reality of the new testament being the early Catholic Church.

An Altar: Rev 8:3-4 & Heb 13:10[3] And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; [4] and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

[10]We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.

Priests: Rev 4:4[4] Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads.

Vestments: Rev 4:4[4] Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads.

Consecrated celibacy: Rev 14:4[4] It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb.

Lamp stands & candles :Rev 1:12[12] Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands.

Censer & Incense: Rev 8:3[3] And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne;

The sign of the cross: Rev 14:1[1] Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.

Chalices: Rev 15:7[7] And one of the four living creatures gave the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God who lives for ever and ever;

The marriage supper of the lamb :Rev 19:9 & 17[9] And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are true words of God."

[17] Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in midheaven, "Come, gather for the great supper of God."

The spirit of protest & the false Protestant man made doctrine of private interpretation of the bible has caused you to overlook the reality of the new testament being the early Catholic Church. How would Protestants know what the Catholic Church of the first Century was like since Protestants did not exist at that time to see for themselves & keep records or anything? No existence of Protestantism until Martin Luther in the 16th century. The entire new testament is the early Catholic Church. Protestants did not exist in the first century. Protestants choose not to see the Catholic Church in the new testament.The whole base of Protestantism rests on the false man made doctrine of bible alone. The Church in the book of Acts could not have been using the book of Acts. If Protestants want to imitate the Church they now read about in the book of Acts; Protestants would have to not have a book of Acts at all to use or a new testament. The Church you read about in the book of Acts did not believe in the false Protestant man made doctrine of bible alone like Protestants do. Since the whole base of Protestantism rests on the false Protestant man made doctrine of bible alone; the Church you read about in the book of Acts absolutely positively does not resemble Protestantism which is based on the false Protestant man made doctrine of bible alone. How could the Church in the book of Acts been using the book of Acts? Do you think the Church in the book of Acts had the book of Acts sat around & read it & were trying to use it to try to get around the reality of the Catholic Church by deliberate misinterpretation of it.The spirit of pride & protest causes protestants to choose to be blind to the clear reality of the new testament being the early Catholic Church. An Altar: Rev 8:3-4 & Heb 13:10[3] And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; [4] and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. [10] We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. Priests : Rev 4:4[4] Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads. Vestments: Rev 4:4[4] Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads. Consecrated celibacy: Rev 14:4[4] It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb. Lamp stands & candles. Rev 1:12[12] Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands. Censer & Incense: Rev 8:3[3] And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; The sign of the cross: Rev 14:1[1] Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. Chalices: Rev 15:7[7] And one of the four living creatures gave the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God who lives for ever and ever; The marriage supper of the lamb Rev 19:9 & 17[9] And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are true words of God." Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in midheaven, "Come, gather for the great supper of God, The spirit of protest & the false Protestant man made doctrine of private interpretation of the bible has caused you to overlook the reality of the new testament being the early Catholic Church. .

Proty October 19, 2010 at 7:49am

I will send you a message later when I have time to go through your two long messages. But something struck me. I asked two questions based on a previous message from you. Instead of a reply I get what looks like it was suppose to be an attack upon my faith. I refered to Acts because YOU told me to read ACT 15 carefully. I can not help that you were TOLD Peter was the supreme authority and Acts 15 says he was one of many and not leader.

Catho October 19, 2010 at 8:15pm Report

Sorry, if it appears, this is an attack. I didn't mean it that way. The council of Jerusalem, is simple to understand, it was the first Council, and Didn't Paul say that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Church? (I Tim 3:15)When there was a doctrinal dispute, Paul submitted to Peter (Acts 15)

As a clarification of Acts 15, read it carefully.Peter gives the doctrinal definition, and then James, as the local bishop, gives the pastoral application.

Proty, for 1500 years, the Church was set up, exactly as the Church is set up today. Nothing has Changed. The same Church you see in Pentecost, you see, today. With the Eucharist, and the Holy mass, and the other Sacraments, right in the center...all the Apostles, went out into the World, and started HUGE, WORLD WIDE, Catholic Churches, from day one....I did not mean to sound like I was attacking you, I value are discussion.... .

Catho October 19, 2010 at 8:16pm Report

As for the book of acts, consider this, my friend! How would Protestants know what the Catholic Church of the first Century was like since Protestants did not exist at that time to see for themselves & keep records or anything? No existence of Protestantism until Martin Luther in the 16th century. The entire new testament is the early Catholic Church. Protestants did not exist in the first century. Protestants choose not to see the Catholic Church in the new testament. .

Catho October 19, 2010 at 8:24pm Report

Brother read this, carefully when you get a moment, this will REALLY HELP YOU!

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility

www.newadvent.org

In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith an...

.Share.

Proty October 20, 2010 at 10:19pm

I will get back to you Thursday or Friday I need a little time to be able to look at your messages. It has been a bit hectic right now.

Nor was there Catholics at that time ( I will get to that later ) and I am not a Protestant, Lutherin, Baptist, Catholic, Nazerene, etc. I am a Non-denomination Christian. What does that mean? I and the Church I go to follow what is in the Bible and are extremely careful not to add anything. As for the 66 book Bible I think you might find its history to hold a BIG surprise for you. .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 3:56am Report

Nor was there Catholics...I think you will be quite surprised to realize, at the Pillar and Base of the Universal Church, is the Apostles. So the entire Christian movement, with the Lord at the Helm, is all Catholic. You just don't know, what the Catholic Church is, or what scripture teaches. And I don't mean that as an insult. Alot of Catholics don't know....you might start with, the definition of a Church! Which Church was the Lord speaking off, in this scripture sequence. "Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, 'Who do men say that the Son of Man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of the prophets'." Rather impressive testimony because these people constitute the Old Testament Hall of Fame of Saints, here. "He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?'" And as is characteristic throughout Matthew's gospel, Peter steps forward, or I should say, speaks up. Peter is the only one to walk on water. Peter is the one who often speaks up, representative of the twelve disciples. Verse 16, "Peter replied, 'You are the Christ,' -- the Christos, the Anointed One in Greek or the Messiah in Hebrew, 'the Son of the Living God. You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven, and I tell you, you are Peter (Petra) and on this Rock (Petros), I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.'" And then He strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that He was the Christ. .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 7:34am Report

I and the Church I go to follow what is in the Bible and are extremely careful not to add anything. As for the 66 book Bible I think you might find its history to hold a BIG surprise for you......I will show you history, brother. We can go there next. .

PART TWO
Catho October 21, 2010 at 7:37am Report

Notice my friend, the Catholic Church you claim is NOT found in History, or in the Book of Acts, IS ACTUALLY THE ONLY CHURCH FOUND! Read this carefully and look at each council within the Church, the Magesterium, which is headed by the Risen Lord. I end it, on where your own bible, was Cannonized.

Church History

c. 33: First Christian Pentecost; descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples; preaching of St. Peter in Jerusalem; conversion, baptism and aggregation of some 3,000 persons to the first Christian community.

St. Stephen, deacon, was stoned to death at Jerusalem; he is venerated as the first Christian martyr.

c. 34: St. Paul, formerly Saul the persecutor of Christians, was converted and baptized. After three years of solitude in the desert, he joined the college of the apostles; he made three major missionary journeys and became known as the Apostle to the Gentiles; he was imprisoned twice in Rome and was beheaded there between 64 and 67.

39: Cornelius (the Gentile) and his family were baptized by St. Peter; a significant event signaling the mission of the Church to all peoples.

42: Persecution of Christians in Palestine broke out during the rule of Herod Agrippa; St. James the Greater, the first apostle to die, was beheaded in 44; St. Peter was imprisoned for a short time; many Christians fled to Antioch, marking the beginning of the dispersion of Christians beyond the confines of Palestine. At Antioch, the followers of Christ were called Christians for the first time.

49: Christians at Rome, considered members of a Jewish sect, were adversely affected by a decree of Claudius which forbade Jewish worship there.

51: The Council of Jerusalem, in which all the apostles participated under the presidency of St. Peter, decreed that circumcision, dietary regulations, and various other prescriptions of Mosaic Law were not obligatory for Gentile converts to the Christian community. The crucial decree was issued in opposition to Judaizers who contended that observance of the Mosaic Law in its entirety was necessary for salvation.

64: Persecution broke out at Rome under Nero, the emperor said to have accused Christians of starting the fire which destroyed half of Rome.

64 or 67: Martyrdom of St. Peter at Rome during the Neronian persecution. He established his see and spent his last years there after preaching in and around Jerusalem, establishing a see at Antioch, and presiding at the Council of Jerusalem.

70: Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

88-97: Pontificate of St. Clement I, third successor of St. Peter as bishop of Rome, one of the Apostolic Fathers. The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, with which he has been identified, was addressed by the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth, the scene of irregularities and divisions in the Christian community.

95: Domitian persecuted Christians, principally at Rome.

c. 100: Death of St. John, apostle and evangelist, marking the end of the Age of the Apostles and the first generation of the Church.

By the end of the century, Antioch, Alexandria and Ephesus in the East and Rome in the West were established centers of Christian population and influence.

c. 107: St. Ignatius of Antioch was martyred at Rome. He was the first writer to use the expression, "the Catholic Church."

112: Emperor Trajan, in a rescript to Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, instructed him not to search out Christians but to punish them if they were publicly denounced and refused to do homage to the Roman gods. This rescript set a pattern for Roman magistrates in dealing with Christians.

117-38: Persecution under Hadrian. Many Acts of Martyrs date from this period.

c. 125: Spread of Gnosticism, a combination of elements of Platonic philosophy and Eastern mystery religions. Its adherents claimed that its secret-knowledge principle provided a deeper insight into Christian doctrine than divine revelation and faith. One gnostic thesis denied the divinity of Christ; others denied the reality of his humanity, calling it mere appearance (Docetism, Phantasiasm).

c. 144: Excommunication of Marcion, bishop and heretic, who claimed that there was total opposition and no connection at all between the Old Testament and the New Testament, between the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians; and that the Canon (list of inspired writings) of the Bible consisted only of parts of St. Luke's Gospel and 10 letters of St. Paul. Marcionism was checked at Rome by 200 and was condemned by a council held there about 260, but the heresy persisted for several centuries in the East and had some adherents as late as the Middle Ages.

c. 155: St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and disciple of St. John the Evangelist, was martyred.

c. 156: Beginning of Montanism, a form of religious extremism. Its principal tenets were the imminent second coming of Christ, denial of the divine nature of the Church and its power to forgive sin, and excessively rigorous morality. The heresy, preached by Montanus of Phrygia and others, was condemned by Pope St. Zephyrinus (199-217).

161-80: Reign of Marcus Aurelius. His persecution, launched in the wake of natural disasters, was more violent than those of his predecessors.

165: St. Justin, an important early Christian writer, was martyred at Rome.

c. 180: St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons and one of the great early theologians, wrote Adversus Haereses. He stated that the teaching and tradition of the Roman See was the standard for belief.

196: Easter Controversy, concerning the day of celebration — a Sunday, according to practice in the West, or the 14th of the month of Nisan (in the Hebrew calendar), no matter what day of the week, according to practice in the East. The controversy was not resolved at this time.

The Didache, whose extant form dates from the second century, is an important record of Christian belief, practice and governance in the first century.

Latin was introduced as a liturgical language in the West. Other liturgical languages were Aramaic and Greek.

The Catechetical School of Alexandria, founded about the middle of the century, gained increasing influence on doctrinal study and instruction, and interpretation of the Bible.

202: Persecution under Septimius Severus, who wanted to establish a simple common religion in the Empire.

206: Tertullian, a convert since 197 and the first great ecclesiastical writer in Latin, joined the heretical Montanists; he died in 230. .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 7:37am Report

215: Death of Clement of Alexandria, teacher of Origen and a founding father of the School of Alexandria.

217-35: St. Hippolytus, the first antipope; he was reconciled to the Church while in prison during persecution in 235.

232-54: Origen established the School of Caesarea after being deposed in 231 as head of the School of Alexandria; he died in 254. A scholar and voluminous writer, he was one of the founders of systematic theology and exerted wide influence for many years.

c. 242: Manichaeism originated in Persia: a combination of errors based on the assumption that two supreme principles (good and evil) are operative in creation and life, and that the supreme objective of human endeavor is liberation from evil (matter). The heresy denied the humanity of Christ, the sacramental system, the authority of the Church (and state), and endorsed a moral code which threatened the fabric of society. In the 12th and 13th centuries, it took on the features of Albigensianism and Catharism.

249-51: Persecution under Decius. Many of those who denied the faith (lapsi) sought readmission to the Church at the end of the persecution in 251. Pope St. Cornelius agreed with St. Cyprian that lapsi were to be readmitted to the Church after satisfying the requirements of appropriate penance. Antipope Novatian, on the other hand, contended that persons who fell away from the Church under persecution and/or those guilty of serious sin after baptism could not be absolved and readmitted to communion with the Church. The heresy was condemned by a Roman synod in 251.

250-300: Neo-Platonism of Plotinus and Porphyry gained followers.

251: Novatian, an antipope, was condemned at Rome.

256: Pope St. Stephen I upheld the validity of baptism properly administered by heretics, in the Rebaptism Controversy.

257: Persecution under Valerian, who attempted to destroy the Church as a social structure.

258: St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, was martyred.

c. 260: St. Lucian founded the School of Antioch, a center of influence on biblical studies.

Pope St. Dionysius condemned Sabellianism, a form of modalism (like Monarchianism and Patripassianism). The heresy contended that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not distinct divine persons but are only three different modes of being and self-manifestations of the one God.

St. Paul of Thebes became a hermit.

261: Gallienus issued an edict of toleration which ended general persecution for nearly 40 years.

c. 292: Diocletian divided the Roman Empire into East and West. The division emphasized political, cultural and other differences between the two parts of the Empire and influenced different developments in the Church in the East and West. The prestige of Rome began to decline.

303: Persecution broke out under Diocletian; it was particularly violent in 304.

305: St. Anthony of Heracles established a foundation for hermits near the Red Sea in Egypt.

c. 306: The first local legislation on clerical celibacy was enacted by a council held at Elvira, Spain; bishops, priests, deacons and other ministers were forbidden to have wives.

311: An edict of toleration issued by Galerius at the urging of Constantine the Great and Licinius officially ended persecution in the West; some persecution continued in the East.

313: The Edict of Milan issued by Constantine and Licinius recognized Christianity as a lawful religion in the Roman Empire.

314: A council of Arles condemned Donatism, declaring that baptism properly administered by heretics is valid, in view of the principle that sacraments have their efficacy from Christ, not from the spiritual condition of their human ministers. The heresy was condemned again by a council of Carthage in 411.

318: St. Pachomius established the first foundation of the cenobitic (common) life, as compared with the solitary life of hermits in Upper Egypt.

325: Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (I). Its principal action was the condemnation of Arianism, the most devastating of the early heresies, which denied the divinity of Christ. The heresy was authored by Arius of Alexandria, a priest. Arians and several kinds of Semi-Arians propagandized their tenets widely, established their own hierarchies and churches, and raised havoc in the Church for several centuries. The council contributed to formulation of the Nicene Creed (Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople); fixed the date for the observance of Easter; passed regulations concerning clerical discipline; adopted the civil divisions of the Empire as the model for the jurisdictional organization of the Church.

326: With the support of St. Helena, the True Cross on which Christ was crucified was discovered.

337:Baptism and death of Constantine.

c. 342: Beginning of a 40-year persecution in Persia.

343-44: A council of Sardica reaffirmed doctrine formulated by Nicaea I and declared also that bishops had the right of appeal to the pope as the highest authority in the Church.

361-63: Emperor Julian the Apostate waged an unsuccessful campaign against the Church in an attempt to restore paganism as the religion of the Empire.

c. 365: Persecution of orthodox Christians under Emperor Valens in the East.

c. 376: Beginning of the barbarian invasion in the West.

379: Death of St. Basil, the Father of Monasticism in the East. His writings contributed greatly to the development of rules for the life of Religious.

381: Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (I). It condemned various brands of Arianism as well as Macedonianism, which denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit; contributed to formulation of the Nicene Creed; approved a canon acknowledging Constantinople as the second see after Rome in honor and dignity.

382: The Canon of Sacred Scripture, the official list of the inspired books of the Bible, was contained in the Decree of Pope St. Damasus and published by a regional council of Carthage in 397; the Canon was formally defined by the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

382-c. 406: St. Jerome translated the Old and New Testaments into Latin; his work is called the Vulgate version of the Bible .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 7:40am Report

Now, notice what comes next IN HISTORY, MY FRIEND. We have just seen major Church Councils, that ruled against, circumcision, and in favor of Christ being God, and the correct interpretation of Baptism, and the Cannons in your own bible. What comes next? Here is history my friend.

396: St. Augustine became bishop of Hippo in North Africa.

410: Visigoths under Alaric sacked Rome and the last Roman legions departed Britain. The decline of imperial Rome dates approximately from this time.

430: St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo for 35 years, died. He was a strong defender of orthodox doctrine against Manichaeism, Donatism and Pelagianism. The depth and range of his writings made him a dominant influence in Christian thought for centuries.

431: Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. It condemned Nestorianism, which denied the unity of the divine and human natures in the Person of Christ; defined Theotokos (Bearer of God) as the title of Mary, Mother of the Son of God made Man; condemned Pelagianism. The heresy of Pelagianism, proceeding from the assumption that Adam had a natural right to supernatural life, held that man could attain salvation through the efforts of his natural powers and free will; it involved errors concerning the nature of original sin, the meaning of grace and other matters. Related Semi-Pelagianism was condemned by a council of Orange in 529.

432: St. Patrick arrived in Ireland. By the time of his death in 461 most of the country had been converted, monasteries founded and the hierarchy established.

438: The Theodosian Code, a compilation of decrees for the Empire, was issued by Theodosius II; it had great influence on subsequent civil and ecclesiastical law.

451: Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. Its principal action was the condemnation of Mono-physitism (also called Eutychianism), which denied the humanity of Christ by holding that he had only one, the divine, nature.

452: Pope St. Leo the Great persuaded Attila the Hun to spare Rome.

455: Vandals under Geiseric sacked Rome.

484: Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople was excommunicated for signing the Henoticon, a document which capitulated to the Monophysite heresy. The excommunication triggered the Acacian Schism which lasted for 35 years.

494: Pope St. Gelasius I declared in a letter to Emperor Anastasius that the pope had power and authority over the emperor in spiritual matters.

496: Clovis, King of the Franks, was converted and became the defender of Christianity in the West. The Franks became a Catholic people.

520: Irish monasteries flourished as centers for spiritual life, missionary training, and scholarly activity.

529: The Second Council of Orange condemned Semi-Pelagianism.

c. 529: St. Benedict founded the Monte Cassino Abbey. Some years before his death in 543 he wrote a monastic rule which exercised tremendous influence on the form and style of religious life. He is called the Father of Monasticism in the West.

533: John II became the first pope to change his name. The practice did not become general until the time of Sergius IV (1009).

533-34: Emperor Justinian promulgated the Corpus Iuris Civilis for the Roman world; like the Theodosian Code, it influenced subsequent civil and ecclesiastical law.

c. 545: Death of Dionysius Exiguus who was the first to date history from the birth of Christ, a practice which resulted in use of the B.C. and A.D. abbreviations. His calculations were at least four years late.

553: Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (II). It condemned the Three Chapters, Nestorian-tainted writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa.

585: St. Columban founded an influential monastic school at Luxeuil.

589: The most important of several councils of Toledo was held. The Visigoths renounced Arianism, and St. Leander began the organization of the Church in Spain.

590-604: Pontificate of Pope St. Gregory I the Great. He set the form and style of the papacy which prevailed throughout the Middle Ages; exerted great influence on doctrine and liturgy; was strong in support of monastic discipline and clerical celibacy; authored writings on many subjects. Gregorian Chant is named in his honor.

596:Pope St. Gregory I sent St. Augustine of Canterbury and 40 monks to do missionary work in England.

597: St. Columba died. He founded an important monastery at Iona, established schools and did notable missionary work in Scotland. By the end of the century, monasteries of nuns were common; Western monasticism was flourishing; monasticism in the East, under the influence of Monophysitism and other factors, was losing its vigor.

613:St. Columban established the influential monastery of Bobbio in northern Italy; he died there in 615.

622: The Hegira (flight) of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina signalled the beginning of Islam which, by the end of the century, claimed almost all of the southern Mediterranean area.

628: Heraclius, Eastern Emperor, recovered the True Cross from the Persians.

649: A Lateran council condemned two erroneous formulas (Ecthesis and Type) issued by emperors Heraclius and Constans II as means of reconciling Monophysites with the Church.

664: Actions of the Synod of Whitby advanced the adoption of Roman usages in England, especially regarding the date for the observance of Easter. (See Easter Controversy.)

680-81: Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (III). It condemned Monothelitism, which held that Christ had only one will, the divine; censured Pope Honorius I for a letter to Sergius, bishop of Constantinople, in which he made an ambiguous but not infallible statement about the unity of will and/or operation in Christ.

692: Trullan Synod. Eastern-Church discipline on clerical celibacy was settled, permitting marriage before ordination to the diaconate and continuation in marriage afterwards, but prohibiting marriage following the death of the wife thereafter. Anti-Roman canons contributed to East-West alienation.

During the century, the monastic influence of Ireland and England increased in Western Europe; schools and learning declined; regulations regarding clerical celibacy became more strict in the East.

711: Muslims began the conquest of Spain. .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 7:42am Report

Now we move into the Crusades....at the end of this post.

726: Emperor Leo III, the Isaurian, launched a campaign against the veneration of sacred images and relics; called Iconoclasm (image-breaking), it caused turmoil in the East until about 843.

731: Pope Gregory III and a synod at Rome condemned Iconoclasm, with a declaration that the veneration of sacred images was in accord with Catholic tradition.

Venerable Bede issued his Ecclesiastical History of the English People.

732: Charles Martel defeated the Muslims at Poitiers, halting their advance in the West.

744: The Monastery of Fulda was established by St. Sturmi, a disciple of St. Boniface; it was influential in the evangelization of Germany.

754: A council of more than 300 Byzantine bishops endorsed Iconoclast errors. This council and its actions were condemned by the Lateran synod of 769.

Stephen II (III) crowned Pepin ruler of the Franks. Pepin twice invaded Italy, in 754 and 756, to defend the pope against the Lombards. His land grants to the papacy, called the Donation of Pepin, were later extended by Charlemagne (773) and formed part of the States of the Church.

c. 755: St. Boniface (Winfrid) was martyred. He was called the Apostle of Germany for his missionary work and organization of the hierarchy there.

781: Alcuin was chosen by Charlemagne to organize a palace school, which became a center of intellectual leadership.

787: Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (II). It condemned Iconoclasm, which held that the use of images was idolatry, and Adoptionism, which claimed that Christ was not the Son of God by nature but only by adoption. This was the last council regarded as ecumenical by Orthodox Churches.

792: A council at Ratisbon condemned Adoptionism.

The famous Book of Kells ("The Great Gospel of Columcille") dates from the early eighth or late seventh century.

800: Charlemagne was crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day.

Egbert became king of West Saxons; he unified England and strengthened the See of Canterbury.

813: Emperor Leo V, the Armenian, revived Iconoclasm, which persisted until about 843.

814: Charlemagne died.

843: The Treaty of Verdun split the Frankish kingdom among Charlemagne's three grandsons.

844: A Eucharistic controversy involving the writings of St. Paschasius Radbertus, Ratramnus and Rabanus Maurus occasioned the development of terminology regarding the doctrine of the Real Presence.

846: Muslims invaded Italy and attacked Rome.

847-52: Period of composition of the False Decretals, a collection of forged documents attributed to popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Gregory II (714-731). The Decretals, which strongly supported the autonomy and rights of bishops, were suspect for a long time before being repudiated entirely about 1628.

848: The Council of Mainz condemned Gottschalk for heretical teaching regarding predestination. He was also condemned by the Council of Quierzy in 853.

857: Photius displaced Ignatius as patriarch of Constantinople. This marked the beginning of the Photian Schism, a confused state of East-West relations which has not yet been cleared up by historical research. Photius, a man of exceptional ability, died in 891.

865: St. Ansgar, apostle of Scandinavia, died.

869: St. Cyril died and his brother, St. Methodius (d. 885), was ordained a bishop. The Apostles of the Slavs devised an alphabet and translated the Gospels and liturgy into the Slavonic language.

869-70: Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (IV). It issued a second condemnation of Iconoclasm, condemned and deposed Photius as patriarch of Constantinople and restored Ignatius to the patriarchate. This was the last ecumenical council held in the East. It was first called ecumenical by canonists toward the end of the 11th century.

871-c. 900: Reign of Alfred the Great, the only English king ever anointed by a pope at Rome.

910: William, duke of Aquitaine, founded the Benedictine Abbey of Cluny, which became a center of monastic and ecclesiastical reform, especially in France.

915: Pope John X played a leading role in the expulsion of Saracens from central and southern Italy.

955: St. Olga, of the Russian royal family, was baptized.

962: Otto I, the Great, crowned by Pope John XII, revived Charlemagne's kingdom, which became the Holy Roman Empire.

966: Mieszko, first of a royal line in Poland, was baptized; he brought Latin Christianity to Poland.

988: Conversion and baptism of St. Vladimir and the people of Kiev which subsequently became part of Russia.

993: John XV was the first pope to decree the official canonization of a saint — Bishop Ulrich (Uldaric) of Augsburg — for the universal Church.

997: St. Stephen became ruler of Hungary. He assisted in organizing the hierarchy and establishing Latin Christianity in that country.

999-1003: Pontificate of Sylvester II (Gerbert of Aquitaine), a Benedictine monk and the first French pope.

1009: Beginning of lasting East-West Schism in the Church, marked by dropping of the name of Pope Sergius IV from the Byzantine diptychs (the listing of persons prayed for during the liturgy). The deletion was made by Patriarch Sergius II of Constantinople.

1012: St. Romuald founded the Camaldolese Hermits.

1025: The Council of Arras, and other councils later, condemned the Cathari (Neo-Manichaeans, Albigenses).

1027: The Council of Elne proclaimed the Truce of God as a means of stemming violence; it involved armistice periods of varying length, which were later extended.

1038: St. John Gualbert founded the Vallombrosians.

1043-59: Constantinople patriarchate of Michael Cerularius, the key figure in a controversy concerning the primacy of the papacy. His and the Byzantine synod's refusal to acknowledge this primacy in 1054 widened and hardened the East-West Schism in the Church.

1047: Pope Clement II died; he was the only pope ever buried in Germany.

1049-54: Pontificate of St. Leo IX, who inaugurated a movement of papal, diocesan, monastic and clerical reform.

1054: Start of the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches; it marked the separation of Orthodox Churches from unity with the pope.

1055: Condemnation of the Eucharistic doctrine of Berengarius.

1059: A Lateran council issued new legislation regarding papal elections; voting power was entrusted to the Roman cardinals.

1066: Death of St. Edward the Confessor, king of England from 1042 and restorer of Westminster Abbey.

Defeat, at Hastings, of Harold by William, Duke of Normandy (later William I), who subsequently exerted strong influence on the life-style of the Church in England.

1073-85: Pontificate of St. Gregory VII (Hildebrand). A strong pope, he carried forward programs of clerical and general ecclesiastical reform and struggled against German King Henry IV and other rulers to end the evils of lay investiture. He introduced the Latin liturgy in Spain and set definite dates for the observance of ember days.

1077: Henry IV, excommunicated and suspended from the exercise of imperial powers by Gregory VII, sought absolution from the pope at Canossa. Henry later repudiated this action and in 1084 forced Gregory to leave Rome.

1079: The Council of Rome condemned Eucharistic errors (denial of the Real Presence of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine) of Berengarius, who retracted.

1084: St. Bruno founded the Carthusians.

1097-99: The first of several Crusades undertaken between this time and 1265. Recovery of the Holy Places and gaining free access to them for Christians were the original purposes, but these were diverted to less worthy objectives in various ways. Results included: a Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1187; a military and political misadventure in the form of a Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1204-1261; acquisition, by treaties, of visiting rights for Christians in the Holy Land. East-West economic and cultural relationships increased during the period. In the religious sphere, actions of the Crusaders had the effect of increasing the alienation of the East from the West. .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 7:42am Report

915: Pope John X played a leading role in the expulsion of Saracens from central and southern Italy.

955: St. Olga, of the Russian royal family, was baptized.

962: Otto I, the Great, crowned by Pope John XII, revived Charlemagne's kingdom, which became the Holy Roman Empire.

966: Mieszko, first of a royal line in Poland, was baptized; he brought Latin Christianity to Poland.

988: Conversion and baptism of St. Vladimir and the people of Kiev which subsequently became part of Russia.

993: John XV was the first pope to decree the official canonization of a saint — Bishop Ulrich (Uldaric) of Augsburg — for the universal Church.

997: St. Stephen became ruler of Hungary. He assisted in organizing the hierarchy and establishing Latin Christianity in that country.

999-1003: Pontificate of Sylvester II (Gerbert of Aquitaine), a Benedictine monk and the first French pope.

1009: Beginning of lasting East-West Schism in the Church, marked by dropping of the name of Pope Sergius IV from the Byzantine diptychs (the listing of persons prayed for during the liturgy). The deletion was made by Patriarch Sergius II of Constantinople.

1012: St. Romuald founded the Camaldolese Hermits.

1025: The Council of Arras, and other councils later, condemned the Cathari (Neo-Manichaeans, Albigenses).

1027: The Council of Elne proclaimed the Truce of God as a means of stemming violence; it involved armistice periods of varying length, which were later extended.

1038: St. John Gualbert founded the Vallombrosians.

1043-59: Constantinople patriarchate of Michael Cerularius, the key figure in a controversy concerning the primacy of the papacy. His and the Byzantine synod's refusal to acknowledge this primacy in 1054 widened and hardened the East-West Schism in the Church.

1047: Pope Clement II died; he was the only pope ever buried in Germany.

1049-54: Pontificate of St. Leo IX, who inaugurated a movement of papal, diocesan, monastic and clerical reform.

1054: Start of the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches; it marked the separation of Orthodox Churches from unity with the pope.

1055: Condemnation of the Eucharistic doctrine of Berengarius.

1059: A Lateran council issued new legislation regarding papal elections; voting power was entrusted to the Roman cardinals.

1066: Death of St. Edward the Confessor, king of England from 1042 and restorer of Westminster Abbey.

Defeat, at Hastings, of Harold by William, Duke of Normandy (later William I), who subsequently exerted strong influence on the life-style of the Church in England.

1073-85: Pontificate of St. Gregory VII (Hildebrand). A strong pope, he carried forward programs of clerical and general ecclesiastical reform and struggled against German King Henry IV and other rulers to end the evils of lay investiture. He introduced the Latin liturgy in Spain and set definite dates for the observance of ember days.

1077: Henry IV, excommunicated and suspended from the exercise of imperial powers by Gregory VII, sought absolution from the pope at Canossa. Henry later repudiated this action and in 1084 forced Gregory to leave Rome.

1079: The Council of Rome condemned Eucharistic errors (denial of the Real Presence of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine) of Berengarius, who retracted.

1084: St. Bruno founded the Carthusians.

1097-99: The first of several Crusades undertaken between this time and 1265. Recovery of the Holy Places and gaining free access to them for Christians were the original purposes, but these were diverted to less worthy objectives in various ways. Results included: a Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1187; a military and political misadventure in the form of a Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1204-1261; acquisition, by treaties, of visiting rights for Christians in the Holy Land. East-West economic and cultural relationships increased during the period. In the religious sphere, actions of the Crusaders had the effect of increasing the alienation of the East from the West. .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 7:43am Report

1098: St. Robert founded the Cistercians.

1108: Beginnings of the influential Abbey and School of St. Victor in France.

1115: St. Bernard established the Abbey of Clairvaux and inaugurated the Cistercian Reform.

1118: Christian forces captured Saragossa, Spain; the beginning of the Muslim decline in that country.

1121: St. Norbert established the original monastery of the Praemonstratensians near Laon, France.

1122: The Concordat of Worms (Pactum Callixtinum) was formulated and approved by Pope Callistus II and Emperor Henry V to settle controversy concerning the investiture of prelates. The concordat provided that the emperor could invest prelates with symbols of temporal authority but had no right to invest them with spiritual authority, which came from the Church alone, and that the emperor was not to interfere in papal elections. This was the first concordat in history.

1123: Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (I), the first of its kind in the West. It endorsed provisions of the Concordat of Worms concerning the investiture of prelates and approved reform measures in 25 canons.

1139: Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (II). It adopted measures against a schism organized by antipope Anacletus and approved 30 canons related to discipline and other matters; one of the canons stated that holy orders is an invalidating impediment to marriage.

1140: St. Bernard met Abelard in debate at the Council of Sens. Abelard, whose rationalism in theology was condemned for the first time in 1121, died in 1142 at Cluny.

1148: The Synod of Rheims enacted strict disciplinary decrees for communities of women Religious.

1152: The Synod of Kells reorganized the Church in Ireland.

1160: Gratian, whose Decretum became a basic text of canon law, died.

Peter Lombard, compiler of the Four Books of Sentences, a standard theology text for nearly 200 years, died.

1170: St. Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, who clashed with Henry II over church-state relations, was murdered in his cathedral.

1171: Pope Alexander III reserved the process of canonization of saints to the Holy See.

1179: Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (III). It enacted measures against Waldensianism and Albigensianism (see year 242 regarding Manichaeism), approved reform decrees in 27 canons, provided that popes be elected by a two-thirds vote of the cardinals.

1184: Waldenses and other heretics were excommunicated by Pope Lucius III.

1198-1216: Pontificate of Innocent III, during which the papacy reached its medieval peak of authority, influence and prestige in the Church and in relations with civil rulers.

1208: Innocent III called for a crusade, the first in Christendom itself, against the Albigensians; their beliefs and practices threatened the fabric of society in southern France and northern Italy.

1209: Verbal approval was given by Innocent III to a rule of life for the Order of Friars Minor, started by St. Francis of Assisi.

1212: The Second Order of Franciscans, the Poor Clares, was founded.

1215: Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (IV). It ordered annual reception of the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist; defined and made the first official use of the term transubstantiation to explain the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; adopted additional measures to counteract teachings and practices of the Albigensians and Cathari; approved 70 canons.

1216: Formal papal approval was given to a rule of life for the Order of Preachers, started by St. Dominic.

The Portiuncula Indulgence was granted by the Holy See at the request of St. Francis of Assisi.

1221: Rule of the Third Order Secular of St. Francis (Secular Franciscan Order) approved verbally by Honorius III.

1226: Death of St. Francis of Assisi.

1231: Pope Gregory IX authorized establishment of the Papal Inquisition for dealing with heretics. It was a creature of its time, when crimes against faith and heretical doctrines of extremists like the Cathari and Albigenses threatened the good of the Christian community, the welfare of the state and the very fabric of society. The institution, which was responsible for excesses in punishment, was most active in the second half of the century in southern France, Italy and Germany.

1245: Ecumenical Council of Lyons (I). It confirmed the deposition of Emperor Frederick II and approved 22 canons.

1247: Preliminary approval was given by the Holy See to a Carmelite rule of life.

1270: St. Louis IX, king of France, died.

Beginning of papal decline.

1274: Ecumenical Council of Lyons (II). It accomplished a temporary reunion of separated Eastern Churches with the Roman Church; issued regulations concerning conclaves for papal elections; approved 31 canons.

Death of St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, of lasting influence.

1280: Pope Nicholas III, who made the Breviary the official prayer book for clergy of the Roman Church, died.

1281: The excommunication of Michael Palaeologus by Pope Martin IV ruptured the union effected with the Eastern Church in 1274.

1302: Pope Boniface VIII issued the bull Unam Sanctam, concerning the unity of the Church and the temporal power of princes, against the background of a struggle with Philip IV of France; it was the most famous medieval document on the subject.

1309-77: For a period of approximately 70 years, seven popes resided at Avignon because of unsettled conditions in Rome and other reasons; see separate entry.

1311-12: Ecumenical Council of Vienne. It suppressed the Knights Templar and enacted a number of reform decrees.

1321: Dante Alighieri died a year after completing the Divine Comedy.

1324: Marsilius of Padua completed Defensor Pacis, a work condemned by Pope John XXII as heretical because of its denial of papal primacy and the hierarchical structure of the Church, and for other reasons. It was a charter for conciliarism (an ecumenical council is superior to the pope in authority). .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 7:43am Report

1337-1453: Period of the Hundred Years' War, a dynastic struggle between France and England.

1338: Four years after the death of Pope John XXII, who had opposed Louis IV of Bavaria in a years-long controversy, electoral princes declared at the Diet of Rhense that the emperor did not need papal confirmation of his title and right to rule. Charles IV later (1356) said the same thing in a Golden Bull, eliminating papal rights in the election of emperors.

1347-50: The Black Death swept across Europe, killing perhaps one-fourth to one-third of the total population; an estimated 40 per cent of the clergy succumbed.

1374: Petrarch, poet and humanist, died.

1377: Return of the papacy from Avignon to Rome.

Beginning of the Western Schism

1409: The Council of Pisa, without canonical authority, tried to end the Western Schism but succeeded only in complicating it by electing a third claimant to the papacy; see Western Schism.

1414-18: Ecumenical Council of Constance. It took successful action to end the Western Schism involving rival claimants to the papacy; rejected the teachings of Wycliff; condemned Hus as a heretic. One decree — passed in the earlier stages of the council but later rejected — asserted the superiority of an ecumenical council over the pope (conciliarism).

1431: St. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake.

1431-45: Ecumenical Council of Florence (also called Basle-Ferrara-Florence). It affirmed the primacy of the pope against the claims of conciliarists that an ecumenical council is superior to the pope. It also formulated and approved decrees of union with several separated Eastern Churches — Greek, Armenian, Jacobite — which failed to gain general or lasting acceptance.

1438: The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges was enacted by Charles VII and the French Parliament to curtail papal authority over the Church in France, in the spirit of conciliarism. It found expression in Gallicanism and had effects lasting at least until the French Revolution.

1453: The fall of Constantinople to the Muslims.

c. 1456: Gutenberg issued the first edition of the Bible printed from movable type, at Mainz, Germany.

1476: Pope Sixtus IV approved observance of the feast of the Immaculate Conception on Dec. 8 throughout the Church.

1478: Pope Sixtus IV, at the urging of King Ferdinand of Spain, approved establishment of the Spanish Inquisition for dealing with Jewish and Moorish converts accused of heresy. The institution, which was peculiar to Spain and its colonies in America, acquired jurisdiction over other cases as well and fell into disrepute because of its procedures, cruelty and the manner in which it served the Spanish crown, rather than the accused and the good of the Church. Protests by the Holy See failed to curb excesses of the Inquisition, which lingered in Spanish history until early in the 19th century.

1492: Columbus discovered the Americas.

1493: Pope Alexander VI issued a Bull of Demarcation which determined spheres of influence for the Spanish and Portuguese in the Americas.

The Renaissance, a humanistic movement which originated in Italy in the 14th century, spread to France, Germany, the Low Countries and England. A transitional period between the medieval world and the modern secular world, it introduced profound changes which affected literature and the other arts, general culture, politics and religion.

1512-17: Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (V). It stated the relation and position of the pope with respect to an ecumenical council; acted to counteract the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges and exaggerated claims of liberty by the Church in France; condemned erroneous teachings concerning the nature of the human soul; stated doctrine concerning indulgences. The council reflected concern for abuses in the Church and the need for reforms but failed to take decisive action in the years immediately preceding the Reformation.

1517: Martin Luther signaled the beginning of the Reformation by posting 95 theses at Wittenberg. Subsequently, he broke completely from doctrinal orthodoxy in discourses and three published works (1519 and 1520); was excommunicated on more than 40 charges of heresy (1521); remained the dominant figure in the Reformation in Germany until his death in 1546.

1519: Zwingli triggered the Reformation in Zurich and became its leading proponent there until his death in combat in 1531.

1524: Luther's encouragement of German princes in putting down the two-year Peasants' Revolt gained political support for his cause.

1528: The Order of Friars Minor Capuchin was approved as an autonomous division of the Franciscan Order; like the Jesuits, the Capuchins became leaders in the Counter-Reformation.

1530: The Augsburg Confession of Lutheran faith was issued; it was later supplemented by the Smalkaldic Articles, approved in 1537.

1533: Henry VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon, married Anne Boleyn, was excommunicated. In 1534 he decreed the Act of Supremacy, making the sovereign the head of the Church in England, under which Sts. John Fisher and Thomas More were executed in 1535. Despite his rejection of papal primacy and actions against monastic life in England, he generally maintained doctrinal orthodoxy until his death in 1547. .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 7:45am Report

Notice at the end of this, post...the Lord is sovereign, and he brings into play, one of his most powerful, soul, and tools to Evangelize, and strengthen the Church. HIS MOTHER.

1536: John Calvin, leader of the Reformation in Switzerland until his death in 1564, issued the first edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion, which became the classical text of Reformed (non-Lutheran) theology.

1540: The constitutions of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola, were approved.

1541: Start of the 11-year career of St. Francis Xavier as a missionary to the East Indies and Japan.

1545-63: Ecumenical Council of Trent. It issued a great number of decrees concerning doctrinal matters opposed by the Reformers, and mobilized the Counter-Reformation. Definitions covered the Canon of the Bible, the rule of faith, the nature of justification, grace, faith, original sin and its effects, the seven sacraments, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the veneration of saints, use of sacred images, belief in purgatory, the doctrine of indulgences, the jurisdiction of the pope over the whole Church. It initiated many reforms for renewal in the liturgy and general discipline in the Church, the promotion of religious instruction, the education of the clergy through the foundation of seminaries, etc. Trent ranks with Vatican II as the greatest ecumenical council held in the West.

1549: The first Anglican Book of Common Prayer was issued by Edward VI. Revised editions were published in 1552, 1559 and 1662 and later.

1553: Start of the five-year reign of Mary Tudor who tried to counteract actions of Henry VIII against the Roman Church.

1555: Enactment of the Peace of Augsburg, an arrangement of religious territorialism rather than toleration, which recognized the existence of Catholicism and Lutheranism in the German Empire and provided that citizens should adopt the religion of their respective rulers.

1558: Beginning of the reign (to 1603) of Queen Elizabeth I of England and Ireland, during which the Church of England took on its definitive form.

1559: Establishment of the hierarchy of the Church of England, with the consecration of Matthew Parker as archbishop of Canterbury.

1563: The first text of the 39 Articles of the Church of England was issued. Also enacted were a new Act of Supremacy and Oath of Succession to the English throne.

1570: Elizabeth I was excommunicated. Penal measures against Catholics subsequently became more severe.

1571: Defeat of the Turkish armada at Lepanto staved off the invasion of Eastern Europe.

1577: The Formula of Concord, the classical statement of Lutheran faith, was issued; it was, generally, a Lutheran counterpart of the canons of the Council of Trent. In 1580, along with other formulas of doctrine, it was included in the Book of Concord.

1582: The Gregorian Calendar, named for Pope Gregory XIII, was put into effect and was eventually adopted in most countries: England delayed adoption until 1752.

1605: The Gunpowder Plot, an attempt by Catholic fanatics to blow up James I of England and the houses of Parliament, resulted in an anti-Catholic Oath of Allegiance.

1610: Death of Matteo Ricci, outstanding Jesuit missionary to China, pioneer in cultural relations between China and Europe.

Founding of the first community of Visitation Nuns by Sts. Francis de Sales and Jane de Chantal.

1611: Founding of the Oratorians.

1613: Catholics were banned from Scandinavia.

1625: Founding of the Congregation of the Mission (Vincentians) by St. Vincent de Paul. He founded the Sisters of Charity in 1633.

1642: Death of Galileo, scientist, who was censured by the Congregation of the Holy Office for supporting the Copernican theory of the sun-centered planetary system. The case against him was closed in his favor in 1992.

Founding of the Sulpicians by Jacques Olier.

1643: Start of publication of the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum, a critical work on lives of the saints.

1648: Provisions in the Peace of Westphalia, ending the Thirty Years' War, extended terms of the Peace of Augsburg (1555) to Calvinists and gave equality to Catholics and Protestants in the 300 states of the Holy Roman Empire.

1649: Oliver Cromwell invaded Ireland and began a severe persecution of the Church there.

1653: Pope Innocent X condemned five propositions of Jansenism, a complex theory which distorted doctrine concerning the relations between divine grace and human freedom. Jansenism was also a rigoristic movement which seriously disturbed the Church in France, the Low Countries and Italy in this and the 18th century. .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 7:45am Report

1673: The Test Act in England barred from public office Catholics who would not deny the doctrine of transubstantiation and receive Communion in the Church of England.

1678: Many English Catholics suffered death as a consequence of the Popish Plot, a false allegation by Titus Oates that Catholics planned to assassinate Charles II, land a French army in the country, burn London, and turn over the government to the Jesuits.

1682: The four Gallican articles, drawn up by Bossuet, asserted political and ecclesiastical immunities of France from papal control. The articles, which rejected the primacy of the pope, were declared null and void by Pope Alexander VIII in 1690.

1689: The Toleration Act granted a measure of freedom of worship to other English dissenters but not to Catholics.

1704: Chinese Rites — involving the Christian adaptation of elements of Confucianism, veneration of ancestors and Chinese terminology in religion — were condemned by Clement XI.

1720: The Passionists were founded by St. Paul of the Cross.

1724: Persecution in China.

1732: The Redemptorists were founded by St. Alphonsus Liguori.

1738: Freemasonry was condemned by Clement XII and Catholics were forbidden to join, under penalty of excommunication; the prohibition was repeated by Benedict XIV in 1751 and by later popes.

1760s: Josephinism, a theory and system of state control of the Church, was initiated in Austria; it remained in force until about 1850.

1764: Febronianism, an unorthodox theory and practice regarding the constitution of the Church and relations between Church and state, was condemned for the first of several times. Proposed by an auxiliary bishop of Trier using the pseudonym Justinus Febronius, it had the effects of minimizing the office of the pope and supporting national churches under state control.

1773: Clement XIV issued a brief of suppression against the Jesuits, following their expulsion from Portugal in 1759, from France in 1764 and from Spain in 1767. Political intrigue and unsubstantiated accusations were principal factors in these developments. The ban, which crippled the society, contained no condemnation of the Jesuit constitutions, particular Jesuits or Jesuit teaching. The society was restored in 1814.

1778: Catholics in England were relieved of some civil disabilities dating back to the time of Henry VIII, by an act which permitted them to acquire, own and inherit property. Additional liberties were restored by the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1791 and subsequent enactments of Parliament.

1789: Religious freedom in the United States was guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Beginning of the French Revolution which resulted in: the secularization of church property and the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1790; the persecution of priests, religious and lay persons loyal to papal authority; invasion of the Papal States by Napoleon in 1796; renewal of persecution from 1797-1799; attempts to dechristianize France and establish a new religion; the occupation of Rome by French troops and the forced removal of Pius VI to France in 1798.

This century is called the age of Enlightenment or Reason because of the predominating rational and scientific approach of its leading philosophers, scientists and writers with respect to religion, ethics and natural law. This approach downgraded the fact and significance of revealed religion. Also characteristic of the Enlightenment were subjectivism, secularism and optimism regarding human perfectibility.

1801: Concordat between Napoleon and Pope Pius VII is signed. It is soon violated by the Organic Articles issued by Napoleon in 1802.

1804: Napoleon crowns himself Emperor of the French with Pope Pius in attendance.

1809: Pope Pius VII was made a captive by Napoleon and deported to France where he remained in exile until 1814. During this time he refused to cooperate with Napoleon who sought to bring the Church in France under his own control, and other leading cardinals were imprisoned.

The turbulence in church-state relations in France at the beginning of the century recurred in connection with the Bourbon Restoration, the July Revolution, the second and third Republics, the Second Empire and the Dreyfus case.

1814: The Society of Jesus, suppressed since 1773, was restored.

1817: Reestablishment of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Propaganda) by Pius VII was an important factor in increasing missionary activity during the century.

1820: Year's-long persecution, during which thousands died for the faith, ended in China. Thereafter, communication with the West remained cut off until about 1834. Vigorous missionary work got under way in 1842.

1822: The Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith, inaugurated in France by Pauline Jaricot for the support of missionary activity, was established.

1829: The Catholic Emancipation Act relieved Catholics in England and Ireland of most of the civil disabilities to which they had been subject from the time of Henry VIII.

1832: Gregory XVI, in the encyclical Mirari vos, condemned indifferentism, one of the many ideologies at odds with Christian doctrine which were proposed during the century.

1833: Start of the Oxford Movement which affected the Church of England and resulted in some notable conversions, including that of John Henry Newman in 1845, to the Catholic Church.

Bl. Frederic Ozanam founded the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in France. The society's objectives are works of charity.

1848: The Communist Manifesto, a revolutionary document symptomatic of socio-economic crisis, was issued.

1850: The hierarchy was reestablished in England and Nicholas Wiseman made the first archbishop of Westminster. He was succeeded in 1865 by Henry Manning, an Oxford convert and proponent of the rights of labor.

1853: The Catholic hierarchy was reestablished in Holland.

1854: Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the bull Ineffabilis Deus.

1858: The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to St. Bernadette at Lourdes, France .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 7:47am Report

Now notice, here, another massive miracle, and event, the Soveriegn Lord, brings his Blessed Mother in again, in Fatima...in 1917.

1864: Pius IX issued the encyclical Quanta cura and the Syllabus of Errors in condemnation of some 80 propositions derived from the scientific mentality and rationalism of the century. The subjects in question had deep ramifications in many areas of thought and human endeavor; in religion, they explicitly and/or implicitly rejected divine revelation and the supernatural order.

1867: The first volume of Das Kapital was published. Together with the Communist First International, formed in the same year, it had great influence on the subsequent development of communism and socialism.

1869: The Anglican Church was disestablished in Ireland.

1869-70: Ecumenical Council of the Vatican (I). It defined papal primacy and infallibility in a dogmatic constitution on the Church; covered natural religion, revelation, faith, and the relations between faith and reason in a dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith.

1870-71: Victor Emmanuel II of Sardinia, crowned king of Italy after defeating Austrian and papal forces, marched into Rome in 1870 and expropriated the Papal States after a plebiscite in which Catholics, at the order of Pius IX, did not vote. In 1871, Pius IX refused to accept a Law of Guarantees. Confiscation of church property and hindrance of ecclesiastical administration by the regime followed.

1871: The German Empire, a confederation of 26 states, was formed. Government policy launched a Kulturkampf whose May Laws of 1873 were designed to annul papal jurisdiction in Prussia and other states and to place the Church under imperial control. Resistance to the enactments and the persecution they legalized forced the government to modify its anti-Church policy by 1887.

1878: Beginning of the pontificate of Leo XIII, who was pope until his death in 1903. Leo is best known for the encyclical Rerum novarum, which greatly influenced the course of Christian social thought and the labor movement. His other accomplishments included promotion of Scholastic philosophy and the impetus he gave to scriptural studies.

1881: The first International Eucharistic Congress was held in Lille, France.

Alexander II of Russia was assassinated. His policies of Russification — as well as those of his two predecessors and a successor during the century — caused great suffering to Catholics, Jews and Protestants in Poland, Lithuania, the Ukraine and Bessarabia.

1882: Charles Darwin died. His theory of evolution by natural selection, one of several scientific highlights of the century, had extensive repercussions in the faith-and-science controversy.

1887: The Catholic University of America was founded in Washington, D.C.

1893: The U.S. apostolic delegation was set up in Washington, D.C.

1901: Restrictive measures in France forced the Jesuits, Benedictines, Carmelites and other religious orders to leave the country. Subsequently, 14,000 schools were suppressed; religious orders and congregations were expelled; the concordat was renounced in 1905; church property was confiscated in 1906. For some years the Holy See, refusing to comply with government demands for the control of bishops' appointments, left some ecclesiastical offices vacant.

1903-14: Pontificate of St. Pius X. He initiated the codification of canon law, 1904; removed the ban against participation by Catholics in Italian national elections, 1905; issued decrees calling upon the faithful to receive Holy Communion frequently and daily, and stating that children should begin receiving the Eucharist at the age of seven, 1905 and 1910, respectively; ordered the establishment of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine in all parishes throughout the world, 1905; condemned Modernism in the decree Lamentabili and the encyclical Pascendi, 1907.

1908: The United States and England, long under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith as mission territories, were removed from its control and placed under the common law of the Church.

1910: Laws of separation were enacted in Portugal, marking a point of departure in church-state relations.

1911: The Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America — Maryknoll, the first U.S.-founded society of its type — was established.

1914: Start of World War I, which lasted until 1918.

1914-22: Pontificate of Benedict XV. Much of his pontificate was devoted to seeking ways and means of minimizing the material and spiritual havoc of World War I. In 1917 he offered his services as a mediator to the belligerent nations, but his pleas for settlement of the conflict went unheeded.

1917: The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to three children at Fatima, Portugal.

A new constitution, embodying repressive laws against the Church, was enacted in Mexico. Its implementation resulted in persecution in the 1920s and 1930s.

Bolsheviks seized power in Russia and set up a communist dictatorship. The event marked the rise of communism in Russian and world affairs. One of its immediate, and lasting, results was persecution of the Church, Jews and other segments of the population.

1918: The Code of Canon Law, in preparation for more than 10 years, went into effect in the Western Church.

1919: Benedict XV stimulated missionary work through the decree Maximum Illud, in which he urged the recruiting and training of native clergy in places where the Church was not firmly established.

1920-22: Ireland was partitioned by two enactments of the British government which (1) made the six counties of Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom in 1920 and (2) gave dominion status to the Irish Free State in 1922. The Irish Free State became an independent republic in 1949.

1922-39: Pontificate of Pius XI. He subscribed to the Lateran Treaty, 1929, which settled the Roman Question created by the confiscation of the Papal States in 1871; issued the encyclical Casti connubii, 1930, an authoritative statement on Christian marriage; resisted the efforts of Benito Mussolini to control Catholic Action and the Church, in the encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno, 1931; opposed various fascist policies; issued the encyclicals Quadragesimo anno, 1931, developing the social doctrine of Leo XIII's Rerum novarum, and Divini Redemptoris, 1937, calling for social justice and condemning atheistic communism; condemned anti-Semitism, 1937.

1926: The Catholic Relief Act repealed virtually all legal disabilities of Catholics in England.

1931: Leftists proclaimed Spain a republic and proceeded to disestablish the Church, confiscate church property, deny salaries to the clergy, expel the Jesuits and ban teaching of the Catholic faith. These actions were preludes to the civil war of 1936-1939. .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 7:47am Report

1933: Emergence of Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. By 1935 two of his aims were clear, the elimination of the Jews and control of a single national church. Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. The Church was subject to repressive measures, which Pius XI protested futilely in the encyclical Mit brennender sorge in 1937.

1936-39: Civil war in Spain between the leftist Loyalist and the forces of rightist leader Francisco Franco The Loyalists were defeated and one-man, one-party rule was established. Many priests, religious and lay persons fell victim to Loyalist persecution and atrocities.

1939-45: World War II.

1939-58: Pontificate of Pius XII. He condemned communism, proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in 1950, in various documents and other enactments provided ideological background for many of the accomplishments of the Second Vatican Council. (See Twentieth Century Popes.)

1940: Start of a decade of communist conquest in more than 13 countries, resulting in conditions of persecution for a minimum of 60 million Catholics as well as members of other faiths.

Persecution diminished in Mexico because of non-enforcement of anti-religious laws still on record.

1950: Pius XII proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

1957: The communist regime of China established the Patriotic Association of Chinese Catholics in opposition to the Church in union with the pope.

1958-63: Pontificate of John XXIII. His principal accomplishment was the convocation of the Second Vatican Council, the twenty-first ecumenical council in the history of the Church. (See Twentieth Century Popes.)

1962-65: Ecumenical Council of the Vatican (II). It formulated and promulgated 16 documents — two dogmatic and two pastoral constitutions, nine decrees and three declarations — reflecting pastoral orientation toward renewal and reform in the Church, and making explicit dimensions of doctrine and Christian life requiring emphasis for the full development of the Church and the better accomplishment of its mission in the contemporary world.

1963-78: Pontificate of Paul VI. His main purpose and effort was to give direction and provide guidance for the authentic trends of church renewal set in motion by the Second Vatican Council. (See Twentieth Century Popes.)

1978: The thirty-four-day pontificate of John Paul I.

Start of the pontificate of John Paul II; see Index.

1983: The revised Code of Canon Law, embodying reforms enacted by the Second Vatican Council, went into effect in the Church of Roman Rite.

1985: Formal ratification of a Vatican-Italy concordat replacing the Lateran Treaty of 1929.

1989-91: Decline and fall of communist influence and control in Middle and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

1991: The Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches went into effect.

The Gulf War was waged to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

1992: Approval of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Vatican closed officially the case against Galileo Galilei.

1994: Initiation of celebration preparations of the start of the third Christian millennium in the year 2000.

1997: Pope John Paul II issued an apology for any anti-Semitism by Catholics; a conference on anti-Semitism was also held in Rome and a number of Catholic leaders in Europe issued apologies for historical anti-Semitism.

1998: Pope John Paul II visited Cuba and secured the release of over 300 political prisoners.

The Vatican issued a white paper on Anti-Semitism, titled: We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah.

Twentieth anniversary of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II; he became the longest reigning pontiff elected in the 20th century.

2000: The Catholic Church celebrated the Holy Year 2000 and the Jubilee; commencement of the third Christian millennium. Pope John Paul II issued apology for the sinful actions of the Church's members in the past. Pope John Paul II traveled to the Holy Land.

2001: Pope John Paul II traveled to Greece and Syria. He also named 44 new members to the College of Cardinals in an unprecedented consistory.On September 11, the World Trade Center was destroyed and the Pentagon attacked by Islamic terrorists who hijacked several planes and used them as weapons of mass destruction. The attacks launched a global war on terror.

2003: Pope John Paul II appealed for a peaceful resolution to the Iraq War. A coalition headed by the U.S. removed Saddam Hussein. .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 7:48am Report

You might want to rethink, your statement, on History with a knowlegable Catholic my brother. lol...get back to me, when you have time...in Christ Catho .

Catho October 21, 2010 at 9:11am Report

Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible

Pentecost (30/33AD)

The beginning of the Church; the Church exists before a determination of a canon or a definitive list of books of what was later called the Bible. The NT was not even written yet. The Bible is the book of the Church, we are not a church of the Bible.

Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170)

Produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

Council of Laodicea (c. 360)

A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

Council of Rome (382)

Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.

Council of Hippo (393)

Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Council of Carthage (397)

Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)

Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.

Council of Carthage (419)

Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)

Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent

Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)

The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 46 books in the OT; 27 in the NT; "Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority." The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.

Vatican I Council (1869-1870)

Reaffirmed the decree of Trent. The Church holds the books of Holy Scripture as sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them, nor because they contain revelation without error, but precisely because "having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself."

Providentissimus Deus (1893), Pope Leo XIII, Bishop of Rome, 1878-1903

Inaugurated a new era in Roman Catholic biblical studies. Presented a plan for biblical study; Defined inspiration: "By supernatural power God so moved and impelled the human authors to write - he so assisted them in writing - that the things he ordered and those only they first rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth."

Pascendi Dominica Gregis (1907), Pope Pius X, Bishop of Rome, 1903-1914

Refuted the errors of the Modernists; Scored erroneous teaching on the origin and nature of the Sacred Books, on inspiration; on the distinction between the purely human Christ of history and the divine Christ of faith; on the origin and growth of the Scriptures.

Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), Pope Benedict XV, Bishop of Rome, 1914-1922

Commends modern critical methods in biblical studies. All biblical interpretation rests upon the literal sense. Goal of biblical studies is to learn spiritual perfection, to arm oneself to defend the faith, to preach the word of God fruitfully.

Divino Afflante Spiritus (1943), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939-1958

Permitted scholars to use original text of Scriptures. No claim was made that the Vulgate is always an accurate translation, but that it is free from any errors in faith or morals. The scholar must be principally concerned with the literal sense of the Scriptures; search out and expound the spiritual sense; avoid other figurative senses. Literary criticism should be employed. Stated that there are but few texts whose sense was determined by the authority of the Church (only seven biblical passages have been definitively interpreted in defending traditional doctrine and morals--Jn 3:5, Lk 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24, Jn 20:22, Jn 20:23, Rom 5:12, Ja 5: 14); this counteracts the frequent misunderstanding that Catholics have no freedom interpreting the Scriptures.

Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939 - 1958

Instructs scholars on evolution, polygenism and OT historical narratives

Vatican II Council (1962-1965)

The decree, On Divine Revelation, declares that there is one source of Divine Revelation, Jesus Christ; that there are two modes of handing on revelation: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition : "in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end," and "it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything that has been revealed." Concerning Inerrancy of Scripture: "The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. "Emphasized that "in order to see what God wanted to communicate in Scripture, we must investigate the intention of the sacred author, and one way to do this is by paying attention to the literary form employed by the sacred writer." .

PART THREE
Proty October 21, 2010 at 11:03pm

All that history fails to prove one thing though. What we call Protestant, Lutherin, CATHOLIC, Baptist, etc did not exist then.

I looked at that item about Church infallibilty and I had to shake my head. I knew the Matthew 16:18 verse was going to come up. I also knew that it was going to use the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Which is true as did Matthew. So Matthew knew which gender Jesus was using each time that he said Kepha ( which is gender neutral, gender male, or gender female). He used Greek for his writtings of the New Testament (as did all the others) to avoid the confussion that 1 word with 3 meanings would cause. Since Matthew was a Disciple/Apostle, present at the time the statement was made, and Inspired by GOD we can take what Matthew wrote as truth. And he recorded it as:

Matthew 16:17-18

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (Petra) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it"

The words in the () are the Greek words that the New testament was written in. I will not point out the obvious problem but the more subtile one to the claim that Jesus was going to build HIS Church upon Peter. If Jesus meant to say I am building my church on you Peter, Why did he not say it outright? I mean he was not speaking in parables at the time. He was direct about where Peter's knowledge for his confession came from. It would be a simple matter to say, you will head my Church. He did not say it because he did not mean that.

Also Jesus knew the fate in store for Peter and that Peter was not strong enough to stand as his disciple when he was crucified.

No Jesus meant for only one to be the HEAD of his Church. It is found in Colossians 1:18 where we are told Jesus is the HEAD of the body, the Church. By the way this Letter was written around 55 ad. No the pattern that Jesus gave and that the Apostles passed on to each new Church was one under Jesus, led by a group/council of elders being helped by Deacons. For as followers of Christ we are NOT to conform to this world. Lording position over one another, and having a form of government running the Church. That is why in Acts 15 you see the question about circumsion answered by the Apostles and Elders. And why Peter calls himself and Elder in his first book near the end where he says "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder". True during the events in ACTS they did not have the BOOK OF ACTS, but they did pass information along to each other and the book of Acts was likely finished and in circulation around 63 ad. Another point to Jesus Christ is the HEAD of the Church is a verse that Call Christ the Rock and is translated rock from the word Petra is 1 Corinthians 10:4, which was in circulation around 55 ad, 12 years before Peter's death. .

Proty October 21, 2010 at 11:04pm

I will reply more tomorrow .

Proty October 22, 2010 at 11:13pm

Is there only one true Church. Yes. And can it be divided? No. Which to an extent ALL churches these days are. INCLUDING Catholics ( ie Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Just plain Orthodox, and plain Catholic)

As for Matthew 12:25, it is a great verse, used a bit out of context, but relevent. Unfortunately it is ALSO against the Catholics ( Near me are 4 different DENOMINATIONS of Catholics: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Just plain Orthodox, and plain Catholic. I do not live in a HUGE city where there are likely to be even more.) Which makes it a house divided.

Another great choice with Colossians 3:15, but as I pointed out already, the Catholic Church is DIVIDED.

As for a lay person and a priest being equal. YES THEY ARE. Are they not both human? Are they not both sinners? Did Jesus die for both? If you did not answer yes to all 3 questions, I think you should step back and examine your spiritual walk. As for everyone teaching, yes. See Colossians 3:16 and the great commission. But you can not teach if you have not learned, and you can not learn if you do not study. This means a person need to study the scriptures carefully to learn what it says, NOT what a person wants it to say. Does a Minister or Priest have some special gift that makes them able to understand the scriptures, while us lay people can never hope to? NO, and if anyone tells you that, it is a lie. The Bible (GOD'S WORD) tells us in several verses that Christians study the scriptures, and it talks about the Christians ( not Priest, or Elders, or Ministers, Or Deacons, or Rabbis only). The verses are:

2 Tmothy 3:16-17 (for how can we do these things if WE do not understand)

1 Peter 2:2 (Those well learned would not call themselves Babes in Christ. So it is to the UNDERTRAINED that it is telling to CRAVE the Word.)

Acts 17:11 (The first Century Church searched the scriptures daily, and it DOES NOT say a priest read it to them.)

1 John 4:1 and 2 Peter 2:1 (How can you know the truth when confronted by a false prophet or teacher if you do not KNOW the Scripture.)

And THAT is the point. We are to KNOW what is in the Scripture, not twist it to what we want it to say. And many do. As you DID in your quoting of Matthew 16:15 which was not the Great Commision but <When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?">. The Great Commission is found in Matthew 28. Matthew 28:16-20 to be exact.

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

These verses, nor what you wrote speaks of the Apostles having Successors. But I do agree that We can not be saved if we do not believe in what JESUS told his disciples to do as it is in the BIBLE. At least I hope you believe that.

I noticed you say the same Catholic faith remains true from the beginning until now. Then why are there different denominations in YOUR Church? Seeing that I can not agree with you that ALL Catholics submitted to the Vaticans decission. Or else there would not be at LEAST 4 different denominations near me.

As for is the Church I go to 100% correct? No, we try but we do have Elders, Deacons, and a singular teaching Minister. Which is not totally in sync with the Bible. But we do Judge ourselves and the Doctrine of all in our Church.

More to come. .

Catho October 23, 2010 at 6:24am Report

Is there only one true Church. Yes. And can it be divided? No. Which to an extent ALL churches these days are. INCLUDING Catholics ( ie Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Just plain Orthodox, and plain Catholic)

At Pentecost, the first 3000 converts, all did this: They were baptized, the prayed and read scripture. They submitted to the Apostles, and they broke bread. This is the Church. The Universal Church started at Pentecost. At the Council of Jerusalem the Apostles which are the Pillar and Bulwark of the Universal Church was led by St. Peter. As a clarification of Acts 15, read it carefully.Peter gives the doctrinal definition, and then James, as the local bishop, gives the pastoral application. Now what do you see from Here? What do you see, the very first Disciples of the Apostles teaching? And Doing. By the way, the breaking of Bread, is the Eucharist. And the first Council at Jerusalem formed the Magesterium. This is the development of the ONE CHURCH, the Universal Church, the Historical Church. You brothers WERE NOT even represented until the 15th Century. Now lets look at what came out of the early Church.

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ---they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Chuch--they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. 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(θυσιαστήριον ), as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons. 375 Letter to the philadelphians, 3:2-4:1; NPNF, v,1.pp.80-81

Commentary: For the word "ALTAR" Ignatius uses the Greek word. θυσιαστήριον, the same word used in Hebrews 13:10 and 1 Corinthians 10:18 in referring to the altar on which the Eucharistic consecration is performed.St. Irenaeus certainly would have no problem with the Holy See making the appointments of bishops...and he's very early first millennium - A.D. 189..

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as thisthe succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, inwhatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition".

St. Irenaeus

(disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John)

(Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian of Carthage A.D.251, again well within the first milleniumn,

"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ' [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Here is the problem brother. When you say the True Church is made up of Elders, Deacons and a singular teaching Minister. Then you MUST BE able to show me THAT TRUTH CHURCH, that started at Pentecost, as is offering Salvation worldwide in each Generation in each Civilization for 2000 years, UNBROKEN. There is NO SUCH CHURCH. If you look at EVERY EARLY CHURCH, IT HAD AN ALTAR AND BAPTISMAL FOUNT. IF YOU LOOK AT EVERY COUNCIL THAT WAS IN FULL AUTHORITY AFTER THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM IN THE YEAR 50, you see this. Now brother. IF YOU ELDER ONLY MODEL WAS IN FULL AUTHORITY, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SHOW ME, HISTORICAL POWER IN THE MOST IMPORTANT TIMES.... Development of the New Testament Canon

Chronology of the Apostolic Age and the Development of the New Testament Canon

A chronology is now appropriate in order to present a sequence of events both biblical and extra-biblical which affect the canon of the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament. It is said that no two scripture scholars will agree on one apostolic chronology. Hence what is presented here is acceptable to some but not universally. It serves to give points of reference for the events that took place and their consequences.

EVENT DATE WORK

Preaching of John the Baptist 27

Outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Church 30

Stephen is stoned to death. 36/37

The conversion of Paul

Paul's first missionary journey 45/49

Council of Jerusalem 50

Paul's second missionary journey 50/52

51 1 and 2 Thessalonians written

Paul's third missionary journey 53/58

54-57 Galatians written

57 1 and 2 Corinthians written

58 Romans written

The voyage to Rome 59/60

Paul's first Roman imprisonment 61-63 Philemon written

Colossians written

Ephesians written

Philippians written

James written

65 Mark written

1 Timothy written

Titus written

The Apostle James is martyred

Paul taken to Rome 63/64

Peter in Rome 64 1 Peter written

Paul's second imprisonment and death 67 2 Timothy written

Peter's death; Linus is Bishop of Rome Hebrews written

The destruction of Jerusalem 68-70

70s Matthew written;

Luke and Acts written

Anacletus is Bishop of Rome 78

70s/90s Jude written

90s John written

1, 2, and 3 John written

Revelation written

Clement is Bishop of Rome 92-101 1 Clement written

John's death at Ephesus 98

END OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE

EVENT DATE WORK

Council of Rabbis at Jamnia 99-100 Palestinian Canon in Hebrew

First Christian Canon of the Old Testament c. 100 Alexandrian Canon in Greek

100-125 2 Peter written

Didache written

Melito, Bishop of Sardis c. 170 Produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list uses the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus Esther.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons 185 Developed a New Testament Canon (without 3 John, James or 2 Peter)

c. 200 Muratorian Fragment contained a canon similar to Trent

Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea c. 325 History of the Church written; referred to James, Jude,2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John as "disputed, yet similar to most."

Council of Laodicea c. 360 List of books similar to Trent's canon.

Pope Damasus 382 Decree listing the books of Trent's canon.

Council of Rome 382 Prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.

Council of Hippo (North Africa) 393 Approved a list of OT and NT Canon (same as later Trent)

Council of Carthage (North Africa) 397 Approved a list of OT and NT Canon (same as later Trent)

Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse 405 Wrote to Pope Innocent I requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the Trent canon. .

PART FOUR
Catho October 23, 2010 at 6:28am Report

NOW PLEASE BROTHER. I am not at ALL impressed by a straw man church. Let me tell you what a straw man church is. A straw man Church is a church that didn't exist until Scripture became the Authority, instead of the True Church. Scripture is a product of the Church my friend. Its NOT the other way around. Go back before the 15th Century, back to the Early Church Fathers, and start your research there. You have the Apostles going Worldwide. Starting Churches, that are all submitted through St. Paul to the First Council, and then each Council in the next Century's makes up the Authority of the Church. THERE IS NOT A CHURCH SET UP, LIKE YOUR ELDER ONLY MODEL ANYWHERE IN HISTORY. THE BIBLE DIDN'T COME FROM YOUR MODEL, AND WHAT IS SO FUNNY IS THIS. WITHOUT THE CHURCH, THE BIBLE IS NOTHING BUT A BOOK THAT CONTRADICTS ITSELF. To prove what I am saying. Please show me, a detail report of your Elder only Churches, in the first 1000 years. .

Catho October 23, 2010 at 6:43am Report

You have a serious problem with your Elder only Church, simply because I have the very first Disciples and there Teachings, and your straw man Church is NOWHERE. I suggest you GET OUT, of the Anti-Catholic web sites. And start studying what was on the ground. Every Early Church, and every Church Father, for 8 century's, in the Orient, Africa, Rome, the Middle East, all of Europe, the entire world, all had the Eucharist and the Holy Mass, in the center of There Worship system, not to mention the Sacraments. AND THIS IS THE SAME TODAY, IN ALL THE CHURCHES BOTH EAST AND WEST. It wasn't until Martin Luther and Calvins, who by the way, had about as much authority as Don Knotts, and Andy Griffith, to change anything, concerning the Church and the deposit of faith, came along and attacked the Church, leading a band of Protestors, to abolish all the Lord had established. THEY FAILED. The Catholic Church is based on the Rock, St. Peter, with the other Apostles forming the Base and Pillar, and Christ in Heaven is pulling the strings....through the Paraclete....More to come. .

Catho October 23, 2010 at 9:13pm Report

You might find alot of interesting stuff here, and it might answer alot of your questions, especially considering this is coming from a very serious Catholic who was once a protestant....

James Akin

www.ewtn.com

When I was an Evangelical, I originally held the same view of the priesthood that my opponent does. I viewed it as a man-made institution which robbed the faithful of their place as God's priests. I even quoted the same verses that my opponent doesthe ones about us being a "kingdom of priests"

.Share.

Catho October 23, 2010 at 9:51pm Report

You might also find this very interesting. Wait till the truth hits you, its really exciting...if your open to it....watch this....

What still divides Protestantism and RC sola scriptura

www.youtube.com

A debate between 3 protestants and 3 Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholic link: http://www.surprisedbytruth.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=120 The Reformed Protestant Link: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/specialoffers/welcome.htm And article by someone who witnessed the debate: http://www.touchsto/..Share.

Proty October 24, 2010 at 7:15am

There is NO DETAILED report of any church in the first 1000 years. No you have bits and pieces of your own writings ( can they prove anything since they are considered biased?). I could find such myself if I had the resources but they would also be fragmented. And actually I would look in the first 100 years. But like I said, it mentions CHRISTIANS but not the church structure. Except in ACTS which is an account of the Early church. Yes I said ACCOUNT not the other way around. As for me being a Protestant because I use a 66 book bible So did your SAINT ATHANASIUS. It is his 39th Festal letter which mentions the list of books back around 376 ad. .

Catho October 24, 2010 at 8:05am Report

Proty, think about it for a moment. If Christ is going to Start a Church, and then send that Church out to baptize the entire world in the name of the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit, it SHOULD NOT, be very difficult, to see that world wide Church. You might have heard of us. There are a little over 1 Billion of us, in every Country in the World. And Proty, don't make the Mistake of quoting St. Athanasius. He like every other Church Father, believed in the Primacy of the Pope in Rome. The Eucharist. Purgatory. Confession. All the Sacraments. One of the BIGGEST mistakes I see Calvinists, and Baptists these days, try and do, is take a certain Saint and misrepresent who he was, and what he believed. And Proty. The book of Acts, is nothing more than a representation of the Early Universal Church, the Catholic Church. .

Catho October 24, 2010 at 8:23am Report

I use a 66 book bible So did your SAINT ATHANASIUS. It is his 39th Festal letter which mentions the list of books back around 376 ad.

And Proty I don't want to offend you. But if I am going to accept YOUR VERSION of history, than I have to accept a Muslims, a Mormons, a Jehovah Witness, not to mention every other tom, dick and harry, that is interpreting "Whatever" , all of it, Proty has one thing in common. Sola Scriptura. Its a straw man argument. You HAVE NO IDEA, no offense which bible was really being used in 376 AD. Brother, your simply going from the information passed on to you, by a Pastor in your protestant Church. A Church that didn't even exist in the first 1500 years. All of Protestantism started in the 15th Century. Its just another type of Heretical belief system, that is totally flawed. PLEASE, take some time, to understand, I am posting many video's, that will clear much of this up. UNLESS...PROTY, PRIDE IS YOUR BEST FRIEND. And if so, my friend. Your about to get to know your major sins, ALOT better. Pride is wicked. I have seen it blurr the vision and common sense, of MANY...MANY...MANY...PROTESTANTS, who actually DESERVE the Lord's Church, but they truly sadden many of us, because they prefer pride and vainglory instead. I suggest you seriously...and I mean seriously take about 5 years, and truly research, a Church that claims, she is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth: 1 Timothy 3:15 .

Catho October 24, 2010 at 8:43am Report

And I have no problem IF your serious about talking Truth, concerning the first 100 years, and the first 300 years, if you want. Lets start here.

" Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ---they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church--they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. 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( θυσιαστήριον ), as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons. 375 Letter to the philadelphians, 3:2-4:1; NPNF, v,1.pp.80-81

Commentary: For the word "ALTAR" Ignatius uses the Greek word. θυσιαστήριον, the same word used in Hebrews 13:10 and 1 Corinthians 10:18 in referring to the altar on which the Eucharistic consecration is performed.

Ignatius certainly would have no problem with the Holy See making the appointments of bishops...and he's very early first millennium - A.D. 189..But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as thisthe succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, inwhatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition".

St. Irenaeus

(disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John)

(Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian of Carthage A.D.251, again well within the first milleniumn,

"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ' [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). .

Catho October 24, 2010 at 8:45am Report

What I just posted we will continue to look at much deeper. These are the DIRECT DISCIPLES OF ST. JOHN.....I must run for now...this is where we can start, IF YOUR REALLY SERIOUS. .

Catho October 24, 2010 at 10:34am Report

Next my friend Proty. We can start if your willing to dialog on why this is a FACT. This was sent to me, by Steve Ray, a BAPTIST, I am posting his facebook wall...you might check him out. Read this carefully. I am going to the Greek Islands, and Rome with him, in 10 days. And I will keep you update on what I find.

Great work Catho! Got your voice message today — I was on a plane back from Israel. Thanks for defending me and sorry I have no time :-(

What you will find in the old ruins of churches at Patmos and other ancient sites is theatre seating with cushioned chairs with cappachino cup holders and movie screens for $150,000 a year preachers :-)

What you find in EVERY ANCIENT CHURCH is a baptismal font, an altar and everything Catholic. .

Proty October 24, 2010 at 9:55pm

No offense taken brother but I read The saints letter. This is where I got that info not what was passed on to me by anyone. It mentions exactly what books he considered cannon. I also found a book by Oxford University, which was done by their PHD's (not Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Protasant, or any other religion. Totally neutral History) that talks about the early church. It talks of the early churches structure. Not what I thought. .

Catho October 25, 2010 at 4:36am Report

So you are gathering your opinion from reading the letter of a Saint? And your convinced that a so-called book from an Oxford University, done by a PHD has any authority whatsoever? lol....brother Proty. Take your time. There is NO hurry my friend. Let me point you in the right direction. Watch these youtube video's its a good place to start.

The Catholic Church Builder of Civilization, The Church & Science Ep 1 [Part 1]

www.youtube.com

The extraordinary series on the true history of the Catholic Church as the great Builder of Western Civilization, hosted by distinguished World Historian, Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., author of the best-selling book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization." Filled with little-known hist..Share.

Catho October 25, 2010 at 4:39am Report

This is just a start my friend Proty. I attend a great Catholic Church here is boise, and our director of initiation, is named Jerry. He is a very strong Christian, brought up in the 7th day Adventist movement, but he is also a fundamentalist born again. It took him almost 10 years, and 40 steps to become a Catholic. Its not a Church, that you can go to the Library to find out about. lol....watch this series and see what you think.....

The Catholic Church Builder of Civilization, The Church & Science Ep 1 [Part 2]

www.youtube.com

The extraordinary series on the true history of the Catholic Church as the great Builder of Western Civilization, hosted by distinguished World Historian, Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., author of the best-selling book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization." Filled with little-known hist..Share.

Catho October 25, 2010 at 4:44am Report

You also might find this brother extremly interesting. I would high advice you watch this. I am going to warn you. There are massive movements, that go back in history, and try to remove everything Catholic from these Church Fathers. And its REALLY easy to fall into that nonsense. This is a really recognized brother, within the Church. The Universal Church. PLEASE Proty, watch this series. You will find it very fascinating. I am going to Rome and Greece in about 10 days, and will keep you posted.

Early Church Fathers: Who are the Early Church Fathers?

www.youtube.com..Share.

Catho October 25, 2010 at 4:52am Report

All of these video's are excellent. It will give you a very fast grasp of what the TRUE HISTORICAL CHURCH IS.....and who is part of her.

Early Church Fathers: St. Augustine's Conversion

www.youtube.com..Share.

Catho October 25, 2010 at 4:52am Report

Early Church Fathers: St. Ignatius & Martyrdom

www.youtube.com..Share.

Catho October 25, 2010 at 4:54am Report

If you send me your P.O. box, mailing address....I will send you a copy of this AMAZING BOOK, it will BLOW YOUR MIND. And you will realize instantly who the Catholic Church is.....this book alone will change your life Proty.

Amazon.com: Jesus of Nazareth (9780385523417): Pope Benedict XVI: Books

www.amazon.com

Amazon.com: Jesus of Nazareth (9780385523417): Pope Benedict XVI: Books..Share.

PART FIVE
Proty October 25, 2010 at 10:35pm

I find that interesting. I mention that I am looking at unbiased sources for the historical truth (since we do not agree) and without trying to find out what it said or ask me what the AUTHORS (plural) credentials are you dismiss them. Do you dismiss doctors from practicing medicine unless they say they are Catholic? Do you do that with dentists also? I do believe I mentioned it was totally neutral history. They were writing about it as a cultural event, not talking about what it meant or what the Religious Truth was. Especially after you wrote "THERE IS NOT A CHURCH SET UP, LIKE YOUR ELDER ONLY MODEL ANYWHERE IN HISTORY". Or are you saying that only history that is PRO-CATHOLIC is allowed as history?

As I said I am searching for unbiased evidence. I could send you video links as well but would you consider them unbiased? Why do you expect me to as you would not? .

Catho October 25, 2010 at 10:37pm Report

There is NOTHING BIASED ABOUT THE TRUTH MY FRIEND.... .

Catho October 25, 2010 at 10:40pm

Knock yourself out with this Proty....this is history, go back in the first 800 years of the Church, and show me, your teachers, and evangelists, and Saints, and Early Church Fathers...not some commentary...I want to see, the actually goodies....big difference..there is nothing biased here, my friend.

CHURCH FATHERS: Home

www.newadvent.org

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

.Share.

Catho October 25, 2010 at 10:42pm Report

The only reason Proty, your calling my sources Biased is because you can't produce any sources...its impossible, YOU HAD NO CHURCH IN THE FIRST 1500 YEARS. Your caught in a sect, that started when Luther and Calvins, rebelled against the Catholic Church.... .

Proty October 25, 2010 at 10:48pm

I will tell you this, the book tells why the Church starting right after Jesus death has an altar. It is on page 497. But you do not believe it, do you? Or were you prideful and rash in your judgement? .

Proty October 25, 2010 at 11:06pm

Wrong I am calling it biased because I showed you proof and you do not believe. So I go outside the Bible to a source that has no connection to either of us. You dismiss it without even a thought. You say this is history but I show it to you and you refuse to look. How is that not biased? Therefore any video I must figure is as biased. As I said I have shown you, I can also support my proof outside the Bible like you. I can also prove your point. LOL but you appear to be wearing blinders. I CAN PROVE BOTH OF US. I respect your right to believe what you want, to bad that even when shown proof, you are unable to do the same. .

Catho October 25, 2010 at 11:08pm Report

Proty St. Paul teaches the church has an Altar...in both corinthians and Hebrews...and every Church in the first century, world wide had an altar and a baptismal fount...simply because the Eucharist(John 6) and Baptism are two sacraments, given to the Church by the Lord...and every Church Father, and direct Disciple of the Church all revieved the Eucharist and the Holy Mass, was at the center of the church....nite. .

Catho October 25, 2010 at 11:09pm Report

Proty, you call that Proof? show me on the ground, historically your churches, and Church fathers...there writings...show me, buildings..and 2000 year old Churches, all over the world...not something from a book? nite .

Catho October 25, 2010 at 11:10pm Report

I dismiss it witout a thought, because I know history....nite .

Catho October 25, 2010 at 11:15pm Report

Would you care to guess, who St. Clement was? Brother do you really think, I would be spending my time, chatting with you, if I didn't know that, the Church that exploded worldwide out of Pentecost, the one the Lord commissioned to GO...into all the world, and baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit....wasn't Catholic? I am not stupid brother. Trust me....your not dealing with a naive Christian my friend...you ran into the real deal...here...nite...

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

www.newadvent.org

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

.Share.

Catho October 25, 2010 at 11:16pm Report

You more than likely won't accept what I am telling you...I am sad to admit...but thats not my problem my friend...Christ makes it clear. Only those who become like little Children can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Humility is a must....this is NOT YOUR PROGRAM, PROTY...its the Lords....and He is not hiding, nor is His Church...ITS IN PLAIN SITE.....nite.... .

Proty October 25, 2010 at 11:24pm

Hebrew 13:10 is it? And verse 11 talks about the high priest taking the blood of the sacrifices in to the most high place and burning the bodies outside the camp. This is an Old Testament reference to the Jews living under the Torah. Or does the Catholic Church sacrifice animals? Of course not. 1 Corinthians 10:18 is also a reference to Jews living under the Torah. Do you live under the Torah? .

Catho October 26, 2010 at 7:08am Report

Proty, it is useless to try and interpret scripture, without the Church involved. Didn't Paul say that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Church? (I Tim 3:15)When there was a doctrinal dispute..., Paul submitted to Peter (Acts 15)

As a clarification of Acts 15, read it carefully.Peter gives the doctrinal definition, and then James, as the local bishop, gives the pastoral application.

So, yes, any group of believers can start a work, but then, according to Paul's pattern, it must be under submission to the whole church. If not, then what standard can there be? Scripture? But if it's scripture, why can't the Arminians and Calvinists agree on predestination and free will? Why can't the Pentecostals and Baptists agree on tongues? Why can't the Baptists and Presbyterians agree on the question of infant baptism? All use the same method to understand scripture.

I'm sorry, however, that you pick and choose which parts of scripture you'll accept. Paul Says "ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness", not just the parts we want to accept.

Picking a scripture OUT OF CONTEXT PROTY, and without the submission to the whole Church, is meaning less. Just as St. Paul teaches. And then tell him, lets look at what St. Paul is REALLY TEACHING, in Hebrews 10. But lets look at that scripture in its entirety....

Because of the insufficiency of the sacrifices of the law, Christ our high priest shed his own blood for us, offering up once for all the sacrifice of our redemption. He exhorts them to perseverance.

[1] For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things; by the selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never make the comers thereunto perfect: [2] For then they would have ceased to be offered: because the worshippers once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer: [3] But in them there is made a commemoration of sins every year. [4] For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away. [5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me:

[2] "They would have ceased"... If they had been of themselves perfect to all the intents of redemption and remission, as Christ's death is there would have been no occasion of so often repeating them: as there is no occasion for Christ's dying any more for our sins.

[6] Holocausts for sin did not please thee. [7] Then said I: Behold I come: in the head of the book it is written of me: that I should do thy will, O God. [8] In saying before, Sacrifices, and oblations, and holocausts for sin thou wouldest not, neither are they pleasing to thee, which are offered according to the law. [9] Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth. [10] In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once.

[11] And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. [12] But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, [13] From henceforth expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool. [14] For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. [15] And the Holy Ghost also doth testify this to us. For after that he said:

[16] And this is the testament which I will make unto them after those days, saith the Lord. I will give my laws in their hearts, and on their minds will I write them: [17] And their sins and iniquities I will remember no more. [18] Now where there is a remission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin. [19] Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ; [20] A new and living way which he hath dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh,

[18] "There is no more an oblation for sin"... Where there is a full remission of sins, as in baptism, there is no more occasion for a sin offering to be made for such sins already remitted; and as for sins committed afterwards, they can only be remitted in virtue of the one oblation of Christ's death.

[21] And a high priest over the house of God: [22] Let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with clean water. [23] Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering (for he is faithful that hath promised), [24] And let us consider one another, to provoke unto charity and to good works: [25] Not forsaking our assembly, as some are accustomed; but comforting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching.

[26] For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, [27] But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. [28] A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: [29] How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? [30] For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.

[26] "If we sin wilfully"... He speaks of the sin of wilful apostasy from the known truth; after which, as we can not be baptized again, we can not expect to have that abundant remission of sins, which Christ purchased by his death, applied to our souls in that ample manner as it is in baptism: but we have rather all manner of reason to look for a dreadful judgment; the more because apostates from the known truth, seldom or never have the grace to return to it.

[31] It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. [32] But call to mind the former days, wherein, being illuminated, you endured a great fight of afflictions. [33] And on the one hand indeed, by reproaches and tribulations, were made a gazingstock; and on the other, became companions of them that were used in such sort. [34] For you both had compassion on them that were in bands, and took with joy the being stripped of your own goods, knowing that you have a better and a lasting substance. [35] Do not therefore lose your confidence, which hath a great reward.

[36] For patience is necessary for you; that, doing the will of God, you may receive the promise. [37] For yet a little and a very little while, and he that is to come, will come, and will not delay. [38] But my just man liveth by faith; but if he withdraw himself, he shall not please my soul. [39] But we are not the children of withdrawing unto perdition, but of faith to the saving of the soul. .

Catho October 26, 2010 at 7:11am Report

This might help also, Proty, Notice the Douey Rheims, says, the word Sanctified, in 10:10, lets look at this closer. From reading Hebrews, I get the impression that the author didn't believe that the benefits of Christ's sacrifice (forgiveness) should be applied more than once to the same person:

"For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins?" (Hebrews 10:1-2)

The author seems to point out that if the temple sacrifices could make atonement, then they would've ceased to have been offered, since having once been cleansed (forgiven), then they would no longer have any guilt of sin (and thus no need for sacrifice).

I've had this question bothering me for sometime now, and I was hoping if you could put my mind at ease.

Sincerely,

Joel

This is a really good question, and a topic that no doubt bothers many Protestants. The key here is Heb 10:14:

"For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."

The phrase "are sanctified" is one word in the Greek (hagiazomenous). It is a passive present participle. In other words, the sacrifice of Christ is one but the sanctification of His people is continuously being applied.

Hebrews 10:2 in particular seems to be a baptismal reference ("cleansed"), and it's true that baptism removes original sin and that it cannot be repeated. Regardless of how you interpret Heb 10:2, it should be read in the context of Heb 10:14, which indicates the present aspect.

I read it as saying that we don't need another sacrifice (e.g. a new bull, a new goat, or even new Savior) every time we sin as in the Old Covenant. We must remember that the author of Hebrews is writing those tempted to return to the Temple sacrifices of the Old Covenant. Christ's death is sufficient and continues to sanctify us. Our sins might be repeated, but Christ's death cannot be repeated or supplemented by another.

It goes without saying that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a true re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice - not a different sacrifice. .

Catho October 27, 2010 at 8:38pm Report

This helped me alot, Proty. .

The Letter to the Hebrews teaches that the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ is an ongoing eternal event. Most protestants have drastically misunderstood Hebrews as teaching Christ's death is the totality of His Sacrifice. To read 9:23's mention of "sacrifices" as referring to Christ's death ignores the context.

Hebrews 7:23-25 states, "Those priests were many because they were prevented by death from remaining in office, but he, because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away. Therefore, he is always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them."

The author of Hebrews has compared Christ to Melchizedek and argued that Christ is a priest forever, superior to the levitical priests. He offers ONE sacrifice, whereas they offered many repeated ones. He lives forever, so His role of High Priest continues forever, and he ETERNALLY makes intercession. Hebrews 7:25 says, "Therefore, he is always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them."

In the context, Christ's "making intercession" is described as something ONGOING and ETERNAL, happening because, as the author argues, He "lives forever." It is NOT referring solely to a past action, such as Christ's death. Protestants usually understand this in a non-sacrificial manner because they have ALREADY presupposed that Christ's sacrifice is just His death. Christ offers Himself "once" but something that happens "once" can be CONTINUOUS, especially if it is happening forever. Scripture says God "rested" on the seventh day, but does not indicate that He "stopped" resting on the seventh day. In fact, God CONTINUED to rest, which is why the author of Hebrews can describe Heaven itself as the heavenly sabbath rest in Hebrews 4. Additionally, the Son is begotten ETERNALLY of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds ETERNALLY from the Father. These can be DESCRIBED as onetime actions, while being eternal and continuous.

Next, Hebrews 8:1-6:

"The main point of what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle that the Lord, not man, set up. Now every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus the necessity for this one also to have something to offer. If then he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are those who offer gifts according to the law. They worship in a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, as Moses was warned when he was about to erect the tabernacle. For he says, "See that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." Now he has obtained so much more excellent a ministry as he is mediator of a better covenant, enacted on better promises."

Pay close attention to the main point the author has in mind, rather than the main point my opponent has had in mind. Christ's role of High Priest is EXPLICITLY tied to His role as minister in the heavenly sanctuary. It even speaks of a necessity for this one, Christ, to have something to offer. The author would not say that if the heavenly Christ was offering NOTHING! The author even goes so far to argue that if Christ was on earth, He WOULD NOT BE A PRIEST. If that's the case, then how can the author of Hebrews be zeroing in on Christ's death, which we all admit happened on earth? Clearly, Hebrews is focusing on Christ giving a heavenly sacrificial offering, "once for all" but continuous since He "lives forever to make intercession for them."

Chapter 9 of Hebrews is all about comparing and contrasting the Jewish sacrifice of Yom Kippur (Lev 15) with Christ's Sacrifice. Hebrews 9:11-12 is not referring to anything that happened on earth. The author of Hebrews has explained that the Jewish earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly, and portrays Christ as ENTERING the heavenly sanctuary. He is the slaughtered Lamb, and brings His blood into the heavenly sanctuary to offer before the Father. Hebrews 9:19-22 speaks little of the death of the animals and a lot about the liturgical, sacrificial rituals which were done with their blood following their death. It speaks about how Moses sprinkled blood of animals on everything in the earthly sanctuary. Verse 23 then states, "Therefore, it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified by these rites, but the heavenly things themselves by better sacrifices than these." The copies had to be purifies by those rites because the shedding of blood was necessary for purification. The latter part of the verse is referring to heavenly sacrifices. It refers to the "heavenly sanctuary" and how it is purified by rites analogous to, but superior than, the earthly ones, because of superior sacrifices. Since "sacrifices" was used to refer to the liturgical rites in the earthly sanctuary in this context, "sacrifices" is also being used to describe Christ's actions in the HEAVENLY sanctuary. Such is indisputable if one actually reads the text carefully, without inserting theologically prejudiced presuppositions.

Verse 24 seals the deal, saying, "For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf."

Verse 23 clearly was talking about THIS, about Christ entering "heaven itself," not about the cross. The author even says "that he might NOW appear before God on our behalf." Given the context, this "appearance" is one of not just plain old intercession, but sacrificial intercession, since that is what a High Priest inside a sanctuary actually did. Hebrews 7:25 indicates that Christ offers His priestly intercession forever, and 9:24 indicates that He is before God on our behalf in Heaven, doing the SAME THING He is described as doing in 9:23. If one actually pays attention to the context, such is clear. .

Proty October 29, 2010 at 9:04am

Ok. Now I am a bit confused. I bring you info from a source and without even hearing it you disregard it and call the source not credible. Yet the source you send me to for the CHURCH INFALIBILITY item has nothing but glowing things to say about the source. Did your source lie? Do you not believe in your own source? Or were you hasty? Especially since with hardly without hardly looking I found confirmation of one of the points in the book on the site.

Catho October 29, 2010 at 9:09am Report

Actually Proty. Now I am the one confused. What part off, your Church or so-called Churches are all man made, and didn't exist until the reformation, don't you understand? Maybe we can go at this a different Way. Lets start with a few questions. Please enlighten me, on these very direct questions. .

PART SIX
Catho October 29, 2010 at 9:12am Report

The Questions:

Can I ask you just what do you mean when you say you believe in the "Bible alone"?

Doesn't someone have to interpret the Bible to determine what it means, even if it's only the person reading it? Doesn't that compromise the purity of the Bible's message?

To understand the meaning of Bible texts, don't you listen to sermons, participate in Bible studies, and read Christian books?

Are those sources Scripture? Do the pastors, Bible teachers, and authors guarantee that their interpretations are free from error?

Without that guarantee, isn't it true that there's no way to tell for sure if you've been given the correct interpretation?

If you can't know the truth with certitude by using the Bible alone, how can the Bible possibly be enough?

Do you know what renowned Protestant pastor A. W. Tozer said on this subject? He said, "I suppose more people would like me to declare that I preach the Bible and nothing but the Bible. I attempt to do that, but honesty compels me to say that the best I can do is to preach the Bible as I understand it" (The Tozer Pulpit, vol. 2, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, PA, [1994], 10–11).

Do you know what Pastor Tozer wished he had to insure that he'd come to the right understanding of Scripture? He would liked to have heard from "one of the apostles or any of the great early fathers of the church" (ibid., 9).

Do you think that the apostles' interpretation of Scripture would be reliable? More reliable than your pastor's? Would you accept the apostolic teaching on scriptural topics like baptism and Communion if it were possible to know it?

The Point:

Practically speaking, it is impossible to rely on the Bible alone. Those who claim to do so are in fact continually looking to other sources in an attempt to understand the Bible. And those sources do not guarantee that they will always give a correct explanation, i.e., one intended by the Holy Spirit.

No Protestant, "Bible-alone" Christian or denomination claims that they will always interpret Scripture without error. The result, which they may not often contemplate, is that they can never be completely sure of arriving at the truth. How can they know with certainty that their view of Scripture is correct and that the interpretation of the pastor down the block, which disagrees with theirs, is mistaken? The Bible alone can't resolve this dilemma.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has never lost the reliable apostolic interpretation of Scripture. This authentic interpretation, found within the Church, enables all who will heed it to have the word of God in "full purity" (Dei Verbum 9), free from the admixture of human error—that ever-present danger that those who rely on the "Bible alone" must face continually. .

Catho October 29, 2010 at 9:13am Report

The Questions:

Where did the teaching come from of relying on the Bible alone? Can you show me when it started?

Did the first-century Christians bring their Bibles with them to church?

No? So the doctrine of "Bible alone" doesn't go back to the beginning of Christianity? It wasn't started by Jesus or the apostles nor practiced in the early Church?

If Christians were intended by our Lord to rely only upon the Bible for truth, then from the start Bibles would have to have been available to the average believer, don't you agree?

So when was the Bible available to the average believer?

In order to have the Bible, it was necessary first to determine which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit, right? Otherwise, how would a person know that what they're reading was the word of God?

Did you know that the canon of Scripture wasn't fully settled until the end of the fourth century?

But even after that, the average Christian couldn't have gotten his hands on a Bible, because the printing press wasn't invented until the fifteenth century—and even then most people couldn't read. Since it was impossible for the vast majority of Christians to have regular access to a Bible for at least the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, how could the doctrine of "Bible alone" have been the teaching of the early Church and the standard for Christianity?

Have you ever heard of the doctrine of "Bible alone"— sola scriptura—being a part of Christian teaching before the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century?

Since it began with the Protestant Reformers and over the course of Christian history was not practiced by the vast majority of believers, on what grounds do you claim that sola scriptura should be the standard for all true Christians?

The Point:

Clearly, the doctrine of "Bible alone" was not part of early Christianity. Nor could it have been the standard practice of Christians for at least fifteen centuries. The Reformation did not bring back the teaching of sola scriptura; the Reformation brought it about. .

Catho October 29, 2010 at 9:14am Report

The Questions:

Would you say that you consider the early Church—the New Testament Church—to be the model of authentic Christian belief and practice?

We've already seen that, practically speaking, it was impossible for these first believers to rely on the Bible alone as their sole guide to truth, but certainly they were not without the truth. The question then becomes, what was their source of truth?

In a number of places in Scripture we see that the source of truth for the first Christians was the oral teaching of the Apostles (e.g., Acts 2:42, 16:4; 2 Tim.1:11–14). Do you think this apostolic teaching was a valid and reliable guide? Even when this teaching was given orally and not in writing (2 Thess. 2:15)?

Paul went so far as to commend the Thessalonians for the fact that they received this apostolic teaching "which you heard from us [the apostles] . . . not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13, emphasis added). Would you agree with Scripture that the teaching of the apostles, which they received from Christ, was the word of God?

So then, like you, the early Christians looked to the word of God for the truth. The difference is that they recognized the word of God as being found in the teaching of the apostles—most of it passed on orally and not in writing. Would you say they were wrong? If we really want to be like the early Church, shouldn't we follow their example?

Were those first Christians true Christians even though they didn't rely on the Bible alone as their source of truth? Do you think those who follow the teaching of the apostles—oral and written—like the first believers should be thought of as lesser Christians than those who rely on the Bible alone?

Does the Bible say that there would come a time when we should no longer follow the teaching of the apostles handed on in the Church and look only to written Scripture? Or does it support the validity of the apostolic teaching?

Is the Holy Spirit is able to preserve the oral teaching of the apostles as he has the written word? And if he has, would you want to know it?

Although it may seem too good to be true, what if I were to tell you that the Holy Spirit has preserved the apostolic teaching in full—oral and written? Would it be worth the effort to investigate and find out? What if, as we see in the New Testament, God has given us more than the Bible alone as a means to know the truth? Would you accept it?

By the way, do you know what that Tradition is you hear Catholics talk about? It's not referring to manmade customs, but to the very thing we've been discussing: the teaching of the apostles handed on and lived in the Church. We use the word Tradition because it means "a handing on."

The Point:

From the witness of New Testament, we see it was not the Bible alone that was the Christian's guide to truth, but the teaching of the apostles, preserved and handed on within the Church. If we really want to be like the early Christians, we should continue to follow the teaching of the apostles—written and oral, Scripture and Tradition—and not just the Bible alone. If God gave more than the Bible alone, shouldn't we accept it gratefully?

A final mind-bender: If you don't believe the Holy Spirit infallibly guides the Catholic Church, how can you believe the Bible is the word of God? This very Church discerned and declared which early writings were Scripture and which were not. Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible. And do you know what, according to the Bible, is the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15)? Scripture? No—the Church. Who, then, can do without it? .

Proty October 29, 2010 at 11:19am

I see you did NOT answer my questions. As to your question, are you saying the apostiles taught something more and/or different than what is in the Bible?

Proty October 29, 2010 at 12:29pm

And without actual proof it is expected to be believed more authoritative than the Bible? As for the books of the Bible, yes bishops chose which books. Then other bishops chose other books, and then again. No man did not choose what the Bible would be, in spite of man, burnings, controversy, and time. The Holy Spirit protected it and guided its forming.

Proty October 29, 2010 at 12:29pm

And without actual proof it is expected to be believed more authoritative than the Bible? As for the books of the Bible, yes bishops chose which books. Then other bishops chose other books, and then again. No man did not choose what the Bible would be, in spite of man, burnings, controversy, and time. The Holy Spirit protected it and guided its forming.

Proty October 29, 2010 at 2:50pm

Why do Catholics call their priests Father? No I seriously want to know.

Proty October 29, 2010 at 2:52pm

Sorry about 5 seperate messages but these came to me not all at once.

Catho October 29, 2010 at 4:35pm Report

I am working on a letter right now, I will post it soon... .

PART SEVEN
Catho October 29, 2010 at 8:05pm Report

Bread and Wine from Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI.

Whereas water is a basic element of life for all creatures on earth, wheat bread, wine, and olive oil are gifts typical of Mediterranean culture. The creation Psalm 104 first of all mentions the grass that God has appointed for the cattle and then goes on to speak of the gifts God gives to men through the earth: the bread that man produces from the earth, the wine that gladdens his heart, and finally the oil that makes his face shine. It then returns to speak of the bread that strengthens man's heart (cf. Ps 104:14f.) Along with water, the three great gifts of the earth subsequently became the basic elements of the Church's sacraments, in which the fruits of creation are transformed into bearers of God's hirstorical action, into "Signs" in which he bestows upon us his special closeness. Each of the three gifts has a special character that sets it apart from the others, so that each one functions as a sign in its own way. Bread, in its simplest form prepared from water and ground wheat---thorugh the element of fire and human work clearly have a part to play---is the basic foodstuff. It belongs to the poor. It represents the goodness of creation and of the Creator, even as it stands for the humble simplicity of daily life. Wine, on the other hand, represents feasting. It gives man a taste of the glory of creation. In this sense, it forms part of the riturals of the Sabbath, of Passover, of marriage feasts. And it allows us to glimpse something of the definitive feast God will celebrate with man, the goal of all Israel's expectations: "On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined" (Is 25:6). Finally, oil gives man strength and beauty; it has the power to heal and nourish. It signifies a higher calling in the anointing of prophets, kings, and priests.

As far as I can see, olive oil does not figure in John's Gospel. The precious "Oil of nard" that Mary of Bethany uses to anoint the Lord before he enters upon his Passion (cf. Jn 12:3) was throught to be of Oriental origin. In this scene, it appears, first, as a sign of the sacred extravagance of love and, second, as a reference to death and Resurrection. We come across bread in the scene of the Multiplication of the loaves, which the Synoptics also document in great detail, and immediately after that in the great Eucharistic discourse in John's Gospel. The gift of new wine occupies a central place in the wedding at Cana (cf. Jn 2:1-12), while in his Farewel Discourses Jesus presents himself to us as the true vine (cf. Jn 15:1--10). Let us focus on these two texts. The miracle of Cana seems at first sight to be out of step with the other signs that Jesus performs. What are we supposed to make of the fact that Jesus produces a huge surplus of wine---about 520 liters---for a private party? We need to look more closely to realize that this is not at all about a private luxury, but about something much greater. The first important detail is the timing. "On the third day there was a marraige at Cana in Galilee" (Jn 2:1). It is not quite clear what previouis date this "third day" is realated to---which shows all the more plainly that what matters to the Evangelist is precisely the symbolic time reference, which he gives us as a key to understanding the event. In the Old Testament, the third day is the time for theophany, as, for example, in the central account of the meeting between God and Israel on Sinai: "On the morning of the third day there were thunders and lightenings....The Lord descended upon it in fire"(Ex 19:16--18). At the same time what we have here is a prefiguring of history's final and decisive theophany: the Resurection of Christ on the third day, when God's former encounters with man become his definitive irruption upon earth, when the earth is torn open once and for all and drawn into God's own life. What John is hinting at here, then, is that at Cana God first reveals himself in a way that carries forward the events of the Old Testament, all of which have the character of a promise and are now straining toward their definitive fulfillment. The exegetes have reckoned up the number of the precedings days in John's gospel that are taken up with the calling of the disciples (e.g., Barret, Gospel, p. 190). The conclusion is that this "third day" would be the sixth or seventh day since Jesus began calling the disciples. If it were the seventh day, then it would be, so to speak, the day of God's feast for humanity, an anticipation of the definitive Sabbath as described, for example, in the prophecy of Isaiah cited above. There is another basic element of the narrative linked to this timing. Jesus says to Mary that his hour has not yet come. On an immediate level, this means that he does not somply act and decide by his own lights, but always in harmony with the Father's will and always in terms of the Father's plan. More particualrly, the "hour" designates his "glorification," which brings together his Cross, his Resurrection, and his presence throughout the world in word and sacrament. Jesus' hour, the hour of his "glory" begins at the moment of the Cross, and its historical setting is the moemnt when the Passover Lambs are slaughtered---IT IS JUST THEN THAT JESUS, THE TRUE LAMB, POURS OUT HIS BLOOD. HIS HOUR COMES FROM GOD, BUT IT IS SOLIDLY SITUATED IN A PRECISE HISTORICAL CONTEXT TIED TO A LITURGICAL DATE---AND JUST SO IT IS THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LITURGY IN "SPIRIT AND TRUTH." When at this juncture Jesus speaks to Mary of his hour, he is connecting the present moment with the mystery of the Cross interpreted as his glorification. This hour is not yet come; that was the first thing that had to be said. And yet Jesus has the power to anticipate this "hour" in a mysterious sign. This stamps the miracle of Cana as an anticipation of the hour, tying the two together intrinsically. How could we forget that htis thrilling mystery of the anticipated hour contines to occur again and again? Just as at his mother's request Jesus gives a sign that anticipates his hour, and at the same time directs our gaze toward it, so too he does the same thing ever anew in the Eucharist. Here, in repsonse to the Church's prayer, the Lord anticpates his return; he comes already now; he celebrates the marriage feast with us here and now. In so doing, he lifts us out of our own time toward the coming "hour."

We thus begin to understand the event of Cana. The sign of God is overflowing generosity. We see it in the multiplication of the loaves; we see it again and again---most of all, though, at the center of salvation history, in the fact that he lavisly spends HIMSELF for the lowly creature man. This abundant giving is his "glory." The superabundance of Cana is therefore a sign that God's feast with humanity, his self-giving for men, has begun. The framework of the event, the wedding, thus becomes an image that points beyond itself to the messianic hour: The hour of God's marriage feast with his people has begun in the coming of Jesus. The promise of the last days enters into the Now.

This links the story of Cana with Saint Mark's account of the question posed to Jesus by the disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees: Why don't your disciples fast? Jesus answers: "Can the wedding guests fast so long as the bridegroom is among them?" (Mk 2:18f.). Jesus identifies himself here as the "bridegroom" of God's promised marriage with his people and, by doing so, he mysteriously places his own existence, himself, within the mystery of God. In him, in an unexpected way, God and man become one, become a "marriage," though this marriage---as Jesus subsequently points out---passes thorugh the Corss, through the "taking away" of the bridegroom. There remain two aspects of the Cana story for us to ponder if we wish in some sense to explore its Christological depth---the self--revelation of Jesus and his "glory" that we encounter in the narrative. Water, set aside for the purpose of ritual purification, is turned into wine, into a sign and a gift of nuptial joy. This brings to light something of the fulfillment of the Law that is accomplished in Jesus' being and doing. The Law is not denied, it is not thrust aside. Rather, its inner expectation is brought to fullfillment. Ritual purification in the end never sufficient to make man capable of God, to make him really "pure" for God. Water becomes wine. Man's won efforts now encounter the gift of God, who gives himself and thereby creates the feast of joy that can only be instituted by the presence of God and his gift. This is part 1 .

Proty October 29, 2010 at 9:00pm

HUH????????????????

I ask a few specific questions, and the answer I get is a long treaty on nothing that I asked. Do you read what I ask? Or do you have no answers? I believe I have been quite specific with you. Could you do me the same honor? Or was this message for another and sent to me by mistake?

Catho October 29, 2010 at 9:01pm Report

Proty...your completely clueless aren't you. .

Catho October 29, 2010 at 9:06pm Report

Click on this link...and go read these books...and then we MAYBE will have something to chat about.

Amazon.com: The Early Church Fathers (38 Vols.) (9781565630819): Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson,

www.amazon.com

Amazon.com: The Early Church Fathers (38 Vols.) (9781565630819): Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, Philip Schaff, Henry Wace: Books

.Share.

Catho October 29, 2010 at 9:08pm Report

And without actual proof it is expected to be believed more authoritative than the Bible? As for the books of the Bible, yes bishops chose which books. Then other bishops chose other books, and then again. No man did not choose what the Bible would be, in spite of man, burnings, controversy, and time. The Holy Spirit protected it and guided its forming...

Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible

Pentecost (30/33AD)

The beginning of the Church; the Church exists before a determination of a canon or a definitive list of books of what was later called the Bible. The NT was not even written yet. The Bible is the book of the Church, we are not a church of the Bible.

Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170)

Produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

Council of Laodicea (c. 360)

A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

Council of Rome (382)

Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.

Council of Hippo (393)

Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Council of Carthage (397)

Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)

Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.

Council of Carthage (419)

Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)

Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)

Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent

Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)

The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 46 books in the OT; 27 in the NT; "Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority." The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.

Vatican I Council (1869-1870)

Reaffirmed the decree of Trent. The Church holds the books of Holy Scripture as sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them, nor because they contain revelation without error, but precisely because "having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself."

Providentissimus Deus (1893), Pope Leo XIII, Bishop of Rome, 1878-1903

Inaugurated a new era in Roman Catholic biblical studies. Presented a plan for biblical study; Defined inspiration: "By supernatural power God so moved and impelled the human authors to write - he so assisted them in writing - that the things he ordered and those only they first rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth."

Pascendi Dominica Gregis (1907), Pope Pius X, Bishop of Rome, 1903-1914

Refuted the errors of the Modernists; Scored erroneous teaching on the origin and nature of the Sacred Books, on inspiration; on the distinction between the purely human Christ of history and the divine Christ of faith; on the origin and growth of the Scriptures.

Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), Pope Benedict XV, Bishop of Rome, 1914-1922

Commends modern critical methods in biblical studies. All biblical interpretation rests upon the literal sense. Goal of biblical studies is to learn spiritual perfection, to arm oneself to defend the faith, to preach the word of God fruitfully.

Divino Afflante Spiritus (1943), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939-1958

Permitted scholars to use original text of Scriptures. No claim was made that the Vulgate is always an accurate translation, but that it is free from any errors in faith or morals. The scholar must be principally concerned with the literal sense of the Scriptures; search out and expound the spiritual sense; avoid other figurative senses. Literary criticism should be employed. Stated that there are but few texts whose sense was determined by the authority of the Church (only seven biblical passages have been definitively interpreted in defending traditional doctrine and morals--Jn 3:5, Lk 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24, Jn 20:22, Jn 20:23, Rom 5:12, Ja 5: 14); this counteracts the frequent misunderstanding that Catholics have no freedom interpreting the Scriptures.

Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939 - 1958

Instructs scholars on evolution, polygenism and OT historical narratives

Vatican II Council (1962-1965)

The decree, On Divine Revelation, declares that there is one source of Divine Revelation, Jesus Christ; that there are two modes of handing on revelation: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition : "in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end," and "it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything that has been revealed." Concerning Inerrancy of Scripture: "The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. "Emphasized that "in order to see what God wanted to communicate in Scripture, we must investigate the intention of the sacred author, and one way to do this is by paying attention to the literary form employed by the sacred writer." .

PART EIGHT
Proty October 29, 2010 at 9:15pm

Excuse me?

That reply had what to do with why you call your priest "father"? It had what to do with "Why your oral traditions should be considered more valid than the Bible"? That had to do what with "Do you believe in the source you sent me to, even though it says nothing but good about Oxford University, and you discount them"? I did not see any of that in there. Where did I miss it? Clueless? I have been direct with you, but you have not. I shall pray for you.

Catho October 29, 2010 at 9:29pm Report

Proty...I highly doubt you have taken the time, to read one thing I posted, thats why I am getting a little impatient...and I appreciate your prayers. But let me ask you a question. When was the Last time, you went to Confession or went to the Holy Mass? No offence brother. But if you have not been to confession your whole life, than your more than likely full of Mortal sin. Only the prayers of a righteous man, prevail much my friend, you have NO SIN OFFERING BROTHER. I have almost 1 Billion brothers and sisters, who are married to Jesus Christ. We have 7 very powerful sacraments, that are perfecting us, into Holy Saints. So with all do respect. I don't need your prayers my friend. in Christ Catho .

Proty October 29, 2010 at 9:41pm

But my Brother do I know that the Catholic Church is right? No. No offense meant, but I have serious doubts. Why then would I follow that path? My questions are intended to answer or confirm my doubts. But how can I when I do not get straight answers? I can not. So I MUST go with the Bible. And tho I understand there are a lot of Catholics, that doesn't solve anything. There are A LOT of unrepenent sinners. That does not make living in sin right.

Catho October 29, 2010 at 9:42pm Report

Proty, your bible is meaningless, without the Church...to interpret it...I must go.... .

Proty October 30, 2010 at 7:17am

But if the Bible says something plainly no matter what translation it must be true. Right? So no person or Church should violate it right?

Catho October 30, 2010 at 7:24am Report

Are you familiar with what the bible says, to a Jehovah witness or someone who doesn't believe Jesus is God, or a muslim? Your missing half of what I am telling you, because your NOT paying attention. So what does this scripture mean? It means, Proty the Catholic church was not a Church that started in the 3rd or 4th Century by Constantine, or anyone else. IT STARTED AT PENTECOST, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY ON THE CROSS.

Didn't Paul say that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Church? (I Tim 3:15)When there was a doctrinal dispute, Paul submitted to Peter (Acts 15)

As a clarification of Acts 15, read it carefully.Peter gives the doctrinal definition, and then James, as the local bishop, gives the pastoral application.

So, yes, any group of believers can start a work, but then, according to Paul's pattern, it must be under submission to the whole church. If not, then what standard can there be? Scripture? But if it's scripture, why can't the Arminians and Calvinists agree on predestination and free will? Why can't the Pentecostals and Baptists agree on tongues? Why can't the Baptists and Presbyterians agree on the question of infant baptism? All use the same method to understand scripture.

I'm sorry, however, that you pick and choose which parts of scripture you'll accept. Paul Says "ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness", not just the parts we want to accept.

Christ said we need to eat His Body and drink His Blood. .Christ gave Peter and the Apostles the authority to bind and loose. that's more than your statement indicates.For that matter, the Mormons believe in Christ and Him crucified. Are they acceptable in your vision?

Does that Church affirm that it's a sacrifice? If not, it's at odds with Paul.There are, historically, 4 views on the nature of the Lord's Supper.Not going back to the scripture text (which all use, but disagree about):There is the one explicitly taught earliest is that held by all the Churches which predate the Reformation - that in some way beyond our understanding, but in a literal sense, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.Luther's view is that the bread and wine don't change, but the Body and Blood are "above, below, and around" them. It's called consubstantiation.Calvin came up with the novel idea that the bread and wine are transformed, but only in a spiritual manner.And Zwingli said it's merely a memorial.But Jesus said, "This IS my Body, This IS my Blood"; and the Pharisees argued with him, saying that He was talking about cannibalism. But He never backed down - ""I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." Jn 6:53And that's the only way that it really makes sense for Paul to compare the Cup of the Lord with the Jewish and Pagan sacrifices (I Cor 10). And, if the Levitical Sin Sacrifice looked forward to Christ's sacrifice, what other meaning can be given to the fact that a portion of the sin sacrifice was eaten? .

Proty October 30, 2010 at 7:45am

Yes I do know and believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17. And THAT is the problem. How can I accept a Church that directly goes against an order from Jesus? In Matthew 23:9 Jesus orders us not to call anyone father for we have one father, and he is in Heaven. That is the main problem I have.

Catho October 30, 2010 at 4:50pm Report

Now Proty, PLEASE don't just read this, meditate on it, use your bible to confirm it....take your time....

Call No Man "Father"?

Many Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as "father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

In his tract 10 Reasons Why I Am Not a Roman Catholic, Fundamentalist anti-Catholic writer Donald Maconaghie quotes this passage as support for his charge that "the papacy is a hoax."

Bill Jackson, another Fundamentalist who runs a full-time anti-Catholic organization, says in his book Christian's Guide To Roman Catholicism that a "study of Matthew 23:9 reveals that Jesus was talking about being called father as a title of religious superiority . . . [which is] the basis for the [Catholic] hierarchy" (53).

How should Catholics respond to such objections?

The Answer

To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn't forbidding this type of use of the word "father."

In fact, to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God's role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.

But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.

For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).

Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

A Change with the New Testament?

Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it's no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.

First, as we've seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one's biological father. It also doesn't exclude calling one's ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn't intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called 'rabbi,' for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called 'masters,' for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ's teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."

Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christ's words.

So What Did Jesus Mean?

Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called 'rabbi' by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees' proud hearts and their g.asping after marks of status and prestige.

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying. .

Catho October 30, 2010 at 4:50pm Report

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.

Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual's supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.

This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus' day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.

He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.

The Apostles Show the Way

The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.

Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).

He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy's worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).

Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul's literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.

Spiritual Fatherhood

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul's statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).

John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).

By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest's spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles' biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).

All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ's ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact. .

Catho October 30, 2010 at 4:59pm Report

2 Timothy 3:16-17: This is what that scripture is actually teaching brother.

16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

[16] "All scripture,"... Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.

I want you to REALLY TAKE YOUR TIME, and study this next great article. It will show you, what your own bible, History, and tradition teaches as to how the Church is set up.

Stewards of the Kingdom

Authority in the Early Church

By Fr. Dwight Longenecker

Some time ago an acquaintance from my days as a Fundamentalist sent me an e-mail. Kevin had become a Baptist pastor and was disappointed that I had been "deceived by the Catholic Church." He wanted to know my reasons for becoming Catholic.

I get such e-mail from time to time, and rather than get involved in arguments about purgatory or candles or Mary worship or indulgences, I usually cut straight to the point and try to engage my correspondent with the question of authority in the Church.

Kevin told me that to follow the pope was an ancient error, and when I asked where he got his authority, he promised to send me a book called The Trail of Blood. This book, written by Baptist pastor J.M. Carroll, explains that Baptists are not really Protestants because they never broke away from the Catholic Church. Instead they are part of an ancient line of "true and faithful biblical Christians" dating right back through the Waldensians and Henricians to the Cathars, the Novatians, Montanists, and originating with John the Baptist. This view is called Baptist Successionism or Landmarkism, and it is also taught by John T. Christian in his book The History of the Baptists.

Baptist Successionism is a theory more theological than historical. For proponents, the fact that there is no historical proof for their theory simply shows how good the Catholic Church was at persecution and cover-up. Baptist Successionism can never be disproved because all that is required for their succession to be transmitted was a small group of faithful people somewhere at some time who kept the flame of the true faith alive. The authors of this "history" skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith. It is sufficient that all these groups were opposed to, and persecuted by, the Catholics.

Most educated Evangelicals would snicker at such bogus scholarship, and many more are totally ignorant of the works of J.M. Carroll and the arcane historical theories of Baptist Successionism. Nevertheless, the basic assumptions of Successionism provide the foundation for most current independent Baptist explanations of early Church history, and these assumptions are the foundation for the typical independent Baptist understanding of the Church. The assumptions about the early Church are these:

Jesus Christ never intended such a thing as a monarchical papacy.

The Church of the New Testament age was decentralized.

The early Church was essentially local and congregational in government.

The Church became hierarchical only after the conversion of Constantine in the fourth century.

The papacy was invented by Pope Leo the Great, who reigned from 440 to 460.

Facts vs. Fancy

The basic assumptions the typical Evangelical has about the papacy are part of the wallpaper in the Evangelical world. Brought up in an independent Bible church, I was taught that our little fellowship of Christians meeting to study the Bible, pray, and sing gospel songs was like the "early Christians" meeting in their house churches. I had a mental picture of the Catholic pope which I had pieced together from a range of biased sources. When I heard pope, I pictured a corpulent Italian with the juicy name of "Borgia" who drank a lot of wine, was supposed to be celibate but kept mistresses, and who had sons he called "nephews." This pope held big banquets in one of his many palaces, was very rich, rode out to war when he felt like it and liked to tell Michelangelo how to paint. That this pope held an office invented by the corrupt Catholic Church was simply part of the whole colorful story.

But of course, the idea that the florid Renaissance pope is typical of all popes is not a Catholic invention, but a Protestant one. Protestantism has been compelled to rewrite all history according to its own necessities. As French historian Augustin Thierry has written, "To live, Protestantism found itself forced to build up a history of its own."

We can correct the five basic assumptions of non-Catholic Christians about the papacy by looking at the history of the early Church. To examine the claims put forth by adherents of independent Evangelical churches, we'll have to put on one side any preconceptions about Borgia popes and get down to facts.

1. Did Jesus plan a monarchical papacy?

Jesus certainly did not plan for the inflated and corrupt popes of the popular imagination. He intended to found a church, but that Church was not democratic in structure. It was established with clear individual leadership. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Simon Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it." So, Jesus established his Church not on a congregational model, but on the model of personal leadership.

Was this a monarchical papacy? In a way it was. In Matthew 16:19, Jesus goes on to say to Peter, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." This is a direct reference back to Isaiah 22:22, where the prophet recognizes Eliakim as the steward of the royal House of David. The steward was the prime minister of the kingdom. The keys of the kingdom were the sign of his personal authority delegated by the king himself.

Jesus never intended a monarchical papacy in the sense of the pope being an absolute worldly monarch, but the Church leadership Jesus intended was monarchical because it was based on his authority as King of Kings. Matthew's reference to Isaiah 22 shows that the structure of Jesus' kingdom was modeled on King David's dynastic court. In Luke 1:32-33, Jesus' birth is announced in royal terms. He will inherit the throne of his father David. He will rule over the house of Jacob and his kingdom shall never end. Like Eliakim, to whom Jesus refers, Peter is to be the appointed authority in this court, and as such his role is that of steward and ruler in the absence of the High King, the scion of the House of David. That Peter assumes this preeminent role of leadership in the early Church is attested to throughout the New Testament: from his first place in the list of the apostles, to his dynamic preaching on the day of Pentecost, to his decision-making at the Council of Jerusalem and the deference shown to him by St. Paul and the other apostles.

Did Jesus plan a monarchical papacy? He did not plan for the sometimes corrupt, venal, and worldly papacy that history has occasionally recorded. But Jesus did plan for one man to be his royal delegate on earth. He did plan for one man to lead the others (Lk 22:32). He did plan for one man to take up the spiritual and temporal leadership of his Church. We see this not only in Matthew 16, but also in the final chapter of John's Gospel, where Jesus the Good Shepherd hands his pastoral role over to Peter.

2. Was the early Church decentralized?

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early Church was decentralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they were independent of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication were rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed, even if it were desirable. .

Catho October 30, 2010 at 5:00pm Report

A straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this assumption to be untrue, and a further reading of early Church documents shows it to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles, we find a Church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles into the Church, he refers back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2).

The mission of the infant Church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22, 27). The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide the Gentile question, and the council sent a letter of instruction to the new churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:23). Philip, John, Mark, Barnabas, and Paul travel to and from Jerusalem, providing a teaching and disciplinary link between the new churches and the church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James, the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. Now, authority is not centered in Jerusalem, but rather vested in Peter and Paul as apostles, as their epistles to the various churches attest. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St. Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch, wrote to the Romans in the year 108, affirming that their church was the one that had the "superior place in love among the churches."

Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn't write as the Bishop of Rome. Even if this is so, Duffy confirms that the early Church believed Clement to be the fourth Bishop of Rome and viewed Clement's letter as supporting centralized Roman authority. Duffy also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid-second century, the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers shows that the whole Church—from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain—affirms the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.

The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true Church, so St. Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid-300s,

I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul . . . My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the Rock on which the Church is built! (Letter 15)

3. Was the early Church local and congregational?

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning the churches were ruled by elders (bishops). The New Testament describes the apostles appointing these elders (see Acts 14:23, Ti 1:5). The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle (1 Pt 1:1, 5:1). Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, has pointed out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.

In the early Church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. In the first two centuries there was no Bible as such, for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes, "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop's office. Therefore for this reason . . . they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians, 44). Ignatius of Antioch writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans, "be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ . . . that there may be unity."

This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The successors to the apostles reject the idea of a church being independent, local, and congregational. Thus, by the late second century, Irenaeus writes,

Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world . . . therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies . . . by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned apostles Peter and Paul . . . for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world. (Against Heresies, 3:3)

4. Did the Church only become hierarchical after Constantine?

Independent Evangelicals imagine that the church only became hierarchical after it was "infected" by Emperor Constantine's conversion in 315. At that time, they argue, the monarchical model was adopted from the court of the emperor and the Church changed from independent, local, and congregational to a centralized, hierarchical arm of the Roman Empire.

Again, this theory has no relation to reality. As we have seen, the idea of a monarchical papacy was there from the beginning in Jesus' identity as the great scion of David the King, with Peter as his steward. The steward, like the king he served, was to be the servant and shepherd of all, but he was also meant to rule through the charism of individual leadership. This form of governance was hierarchical from the beginning for it is grounded in Jesus' own concept of the Kingdom of God. A kingdom is hierarchical through and through, and the Church, as Christ's kingdom, is hierarchical from its foundations. Furthermore, the leadership of the Jewish church (on which the Christian Church was modeled) was similarly hierarchical, with its orders of rabbis, priests, and elders.

Obedience to the bishop as the head of the Church was crucial. Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Christians at Smyrna and condemns congregationalism using language that is clearly hierarchical: .

Catho October 30, 2010 at 5:00pm Report

All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles; respect the deacons as ordained by God. Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one who he has delegated . . . it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love feast independently of the bishop. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)

The hierarchical nature of the Church is confirmed and sealed through apostolic succession. Church leaders are appointed by the successors of the apostles, and there is a clear chain of command which validates a church and its ministry. So Ireneaeus writes:

It is our duty to obey those presbyters who are in the Church who have their succession from the apostles. . . the others who stand apart from the primitive succession and assemble in any place whatever we ought to regard with suspicion either as heretics and unsound in doctrine or as schismatics . . . all have fallen away from the truth. (Against Heresies, 4:26)

The New Testament and the writings of the apostolic Fathers portray the Church as centralized, hierarchical, and universal. The need for unity is stressed. Heresy and schism are anathema. Allegiance to the hierarchical chain of command guarantees unity: God sent his Son Jesus. Jesus sent the apostles. The apostles appointed their successors. The bishops are in charge. So Clement of Rome writes:

The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the apostles from Christ. In both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God. (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42)

5. Was St. Leo the Great the real first pope?

The term pope is from the Greek word pappas, which means "Father." During the first three centuries, it was used of any bishop. Eventually the term was applied to the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally, by the sixth century it was reserved for the Bishop of Rome. Therefore it is an open question which bishop was first designated by the term pope.

But critics of the Catholic Church aren't really worried about when the term pope was first used. What they mean when they say that Leo the Great was the first pope is that this is when the papacy began to assume worldly power. This is, therefore, simply a matter of definition of terms. By pope, Evangelicals mean what I thought of as pope after my Evangelical childhood. In other words, they equate the word pope with "corrupt earthly ruler." In their understanding of the word, Leo should be considered the first pope because as the Roman Empire disintegrated, he was the first to involve himself in temporal matters.

To view the pope, however, as a mere temporal ruler is to take a simplistic view. Catholics understand the pope's power to be spiritual. While certain popes did assume temporal power, they often did so reluctantly—and they did not always wield that power in a corrupt way. We may argue whether popes should have assumed worldly wealth and power. We can agree that every pope should have known that the Kingdom of the Lord they served was not of this world. Their rule was to be hierarchical and monarchical in the sense that they were serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords—not in the worldly sense.

The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fifth-century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. After the Church attained official status during Constantine's reign, the Church hierarchy did indeed become more influential in the kingdoms of this world, but that is not the essence of the papacy. The essence of the papacy lies in Jesus' ordination of Peter as his royal steward, and his commission to assume the role of Good Shepherd in Christ's absence. The idea, therefore, that Leo was the first pope is a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the pope's true role.

Same as It Ever Was

From the Reformation onward, Protestant Christians have fallen into the same errors as the Reformers—the idea that the existing Church has become corrupt and departed from the true gospel and that a new church that is faithful to the New Testament can be created. These sincere Christians then attempt to "restore" the church by creating a new church. The problem is each new group of restorationists invariably create a church of their own liking, usually subject to their contemporary cultural assumptions. They then imagine that the early Church was like the one they have invented.

All of the historical documents show that, in essence, the closest thing we have today to the early Church is actually the Catholic Church. In these main points the Catholic Church is today what she has always been. Her leadership is unapologetically monarchical and hierarchical. Her teaching authority is centralized and universal, and the pope is what he has always been, the universal pastor of Christ's Church, the steward of Christ's kingdom and the Rock on which Christ builds his Church. .

PART NINE
Proty October 30, 2010 at 5:23pm

As this is the first time we have discussed this, I will take your comment about grumbling to mean some have continually pestered you on it. And thank you. This did bring up my next concern though. I do not understand Catholic priests telling people how much to pay and how many "Hail Marys" a person needs to do to be forgiven a sin in confession. How can that be, especially in light of 1 John 2:1-2?

Catho October 30, 2010 at 5:31pm Report

Its not the hail marys or how many that bring the grace of god, through the sacrament. Its the fact, there is a witness(Priest) who has the Power through the Priesthood to forgiven sins, and sin is so dis-tasteful to a serious Catholic, that they get in there car, drive many miles, and stand in line, for confession, this can take hours, and it needs to be done weekly if necessary. God respects this act, and Sacrament, more than you can ever imagine. Its the total opposite, of the lip service, green Jesus Card, that the fundamentalists have...who think they are Saved even if they commit mortal sin, ect. Every born again Christian I know...is a mess....simply because they don't have this sacrament... .

Proty October 30, 2010 at 7:14pm

But how can a man that is sinful (as EVERY person is) REPLACE Jesus as our mediator with God? For that is what someone is doing when they forgive anothers sin when it is not directed at them. Then are they not simply forgiving the insult/trespass and not the sin agaist God? And EVERYONE is suppose to do that. Also where in the Bible does it say you can lose your salvation, I did not see it?

Proty October 30, 2010 at 7:14pm

But how can a man that is sinful (as EVERY person is) REPLACE Jesus as our mediator with God? For that is what someone is doing when they forgive anothers sin when it is not directed at them. Then are they not simply forgiving the insult/trespass and not the sin agaist God? And EVERYONE is suppose to do that. Also where in the Bible does it say you can lose your salvation, I did not see it?

Catho October 30, 2010 at 7:17pm Report

The bible doesn't preach or teach, once saved always saved anywhere. That is another Sola Scriptura heresy. We can deal with that another time. The Lord started a Church. He gave the Apostles authority, to forgive sin....he gave the Apostles the Priesthood, and this priesthood has the stewardship, and the Keys to the kingdom of heaven. What do you think Jesus Christ is doing at the Last Supper. .

Catho October 30, 2010 at 7:18pm Report

Read what I just posted above... .

Catho October 30, 2010 at 8:56pm Report

Jesus' hour, the hour of his "glory" begins at the moment of the Cross, and its historical setting is the moemnt when the Passover Lambs are slaughtered---IT IS JUST THEN THAT JESUS, THE TRUE LAMB, POURS OUT HIS BLOOD. HIS HOUR COMES FROM GOD, BUT IT IS SOLIDLY SITUATED IN A PRECISE HISTORICAL CONTEXT TIED TO A LITURGICAL DATE---AND JUST SO IT IS THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LITURGY IN "SPIRIT AND TRUTH." .

Catho October 30, 2010 at 8:59pm Report

But how can a man that is sinful (as EVERY person is) REPLACE Jesus as our mediator with God? A priest is not replacing Jesus. He is standing in for Jesus. .

Catho October 30, 2010 at 9:03pm Report

In John 20:19–23. Let me read it: "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

OBJECTOR: That's an interesting passage, but it doesn't say anything about Jesus giving his priesthood to men. I didn't hear him say, "I make you priests." And even if he did make them priests, he didn't give them the power to forgive sins.

CATHOLIC: Then what do you think Jesus meant when he said in verse 23, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained"? To me, that sounds like he is giving the apostles .

Catho October 30, 2010 at 9:06pm Report

CATHOLIC: In John 20:19–23. Let me read it: "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

OBJECTOR: That's an interesting passage, but it doesn't say anything about Jesus giving his priesthood to men. I didn't hear him say, "I make you priests." And even if he did make them priests, he didn't give them the power to forgive sins.

CATHOLIC: Then what do you think Jesus meant when he said in verse 23, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained"? To me, that sounds like he is giving the apostles authority to forgive sins. .

Catho October 30, 2010 at 9:32pm Report

We are not Guaranteed Salvation; We Hope For Salvation

Heb. 7:27, 9:12,26;10:10; 1 Pet 3:18 - Jesus died once and redeemed us all, but we participate in the application of His redemption by the way in which we live.

Heb. 9:12 - Christ's sacrifice secured our redemption, but redemption is not the same thing as salvation. We participate in and hope for salvation. Our hope in salvation is a guarantee if we are faithful to Christ to the end. But if we lose hope and fail to persevere, we can lose our salvation. Thus, by our own choosing (not by God's doing), salvation is not a certainty. While many Protestant churches believe in the theology of "once saved, always saved," such a novel theory is not found in Scripture and has never been taught by the Church.

Rom. 5:2 - we rejoice in the "hope" (not the presumptuous certainty) of sharing the glory of God. If salvation is absolutely assured after accepting Jesus as Savior, why would Paul hope?

Rom. 5:5 - this "hope" does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit. Our hope is assured if we persevere to the end.

Rom. 8:24 - this "hope" of salvation that Paul writes about is unnecessary if salvation is guaranteed. If salvation is assured, then why hope?

Rom. 10:1 - Paul prays that the Jews "may be saved." Why pray if it's guaranteed? Further, why pray unless you can mediate?

Rom. 12:12 - rejoice in your "hope" (not your certainty), be patient in tribulation, and be constant in prayer.

2 Cor. 3:12 - since we have a "hope" (not a certainty), we are very bold. We can be bold when we are in God's grace and our persevering in obedient faith.

Gal. 5:5 - for through the Spirit by faith we wait for the "hope" (not the certainty) of righteousness.

Eph. 1:18 - that you may know what is the "hope" to which He has called you, what are the riches of His glorious inheritance.

Eph. 4:4 - there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one "hope" (not the one certainty) that belongs to your call.

Eph. 6:10-17 – Paul instructs the Ephesians to take the whole armor of God, the breastplate of righteousness, and the helmet of salvation, in order "to stand," lest they fall. Paul does not give any assurance that the spiritual battle is already won.

Phil. 3:11 - Paul shares Christ's sufferings so that "if possible" he may attain resurrection. Paul does not view his own resurrection as a certainty.

Phil. 1:20 - as it is my eager expectation and "hope" (not certainty) that I shall not be at all ashamed before Christ.

Col. 1:5 - Paul refers to the "hope" (not guarantee) that Christ laid up for us in heaven.

Col. 1:23 - provided that you continue in the faith, not shifting from the "hope" of the gospel which you heard.

Col. 1:27 - to them God chose to make known His mystery, which is Christ in you, the "hope" (not the certainty) of His glory.

1 Thess. 1:3 - remembering before our God your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of "hope" in Jesus Christ.

1 Thess. 2:19 - for what is our "hope" or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?

1 Thess. 5:8 - we must put on the helmet of "hope" (not of certainty) of salvation.

2 Thess. 2:16 - the Lord Jesus and God our Father who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good "hope" through grace.

1 Tim. 1:1 - Paul describes Christ Jesus as our "hope" (not our guarantee). We can reject Him and He will allow this.

1 Tim. 4:10 - Paul says we toil and strive because we have our "hope" (not our assurance) on the living God. This is not because God is unfaithful, but because we can be unfaithful. We toil and strive for our salvation.

1 Tim. 5:5 - she who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her "hope" (not her assurance) on God. Our hope is a guarantee only if we persevere to the end.

1 Tim. 5:15 – Paul writes that some have already strayed after satan, as God Himself tells us in 1 Tim. 4:1. They were on the right path, and then strayed off of it.

2 Tim. 2:10 - Paul endures for the elect so that they "may also obtain salvation." This verse teaches us that even the "elect," from the standpoint of human knowledge, have no guarantee of salvation.

Titus 1:2 - Paul says that he is in the "hope" (not the certainty) of eternal life. Paul knows that his hope is a guarantee if he perseveres, but his ability to choose sin over God makes his attainment of eternal life less than an absolute certainty until it is actually achieved.

Titus 2:13 - awaiting our blessed "hope," the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Titus 3:7 - Paul says we have been given the Spirit so we might become heirs in the "hope" (not the certainty) of eternal life.

Heb. 3:6 - we are Christ's house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our "hope" (not our certainty).

Heb. 6:11 - we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of "hope" (not certainty) until the end.

Heb. 6:18 - we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the "hope" (not the certainty) that is set before us.

Heb. 6:19 - we have a "hope" that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone before us.

Heb. 7:19 - on the other hand, a better "hope" (not certainty) is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

Heb. 10:23 - let us hold fast the confession of our "hope" without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.

Heb. 11:1 - now faith is the assurance of things "hoped" for (not guaranteed), the conviction of things not seen (heaven).

Heb. 12:1 – let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us.

Heb. 12:15 – see to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no root of bitterness spring up and cause trouble, and by it many become defiled.

James 1:12 - we must endure trial and withstand the test in order to receive the crown of life. It is not guaranteed.

1 Peter 1:3 - by His mercy we have been born anew to a living "hope" through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

1 Peter 1:13 - set your "hope" (not assurance) fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 1:21 - through Him you have confidence in God, who raised him from the dead so that your faith and "hope" are in God.

1 Peter 2:2 - like newborn babes, long for spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation. How can you grow up to something you already possess?

1 Peter 3:15 - always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the "hope" that is in you.

1 John 3:3 - and everyone who thus "hopes" in Him purifies himself as He is pure. These verses teach us that we must cooperate with God's grace and persevere to the end to be saved. We can and do have a moral certitude of salvation if we persevere in faith, hope and love.

Proty October 31, 2010 at 8:03am

Ok, I do agree and know that salvation is not a guarenty. But as for that passage in John you forgot a question/objection. Where in the Bible does it show an apostile forgive the sin of another? If they have that authority would they not use it? Take the case of Cornelius and his family, they prayed and feared God. Would Peter, who was called to go to them, not forgive their sin? No, he told them the Gospel of how they could be Forgiven through Jesus Christ and his Sacrifice. Then the Holy Spirit was poured out on them. Would that also not make them priests? As per the JOHN passages. Also how can a priest NOT be considered replacing Jesus? Jesus is alive and it only takes a prayer to reach him, or else when we pray and accept Jesus into our hearts as our Lord and Savior it is an empty prayer. As would the Bible calling him our mediator be an empty statement and 2 Timothy says otherwise. I am sorry but it did not work out in the Old Testament, how could it be expected to now. I also noticed and confirmed it after I read the passages you supplied about why you call priests father and I noticed all said son, none of them had another refer to a person as their father (Spiritual or Physical)

Catho October 31, 2010 at 8:10am Report

Hey great questions, OK, I will get back to you on this, brother. I am off to Holy Mass...I will try to reply later....in Christ Catho .

Proty October 31, 2010 at 8:43am

Thank you Brother and I pray Mass norishes you.

In Christ Proty

Catho October 31, 2010 at 11:16am Report

It did, and I will get back to you, soon. Just got home, I like to rest, and listen to some Gregorian Chant....and count my blessings. Give me awhile, I will get back to you. In Christ Catho .

Proty October 31, 2010 at 1:42pm

Take your time. I will be looking forward to it. I got to help out with the Lord's Supper today and that is always a blessing (often times I think more so for me than the congregation).

PART TEN
Catho October 31, 2010 at 2:45pm Report

This is a pretty good article explaining Confession. Notice how straight forward, the versus from St. James are. And the Sacrament he is giving the Church. Remember my friend. Almost every protestant I know, fails to understand, that Jesus Christ started a Church. He didn't set up, individual Churches, he started ONE CHURCH. Read this carefully. "Only God Can Forgive Sins"

The Logical and Scriptural Reasons for the Sacrament of Penance

MARIO DERKSEN

The sacrament of Reconciliation, commonly referred to as "confession," has always been an object of great opposition for Protestants. Many of them still misunderstand the teaching. The priest does not forgive sins on his own power, as if he were God. It is never the priest who forgives the sin, but Christ using the priest to bestow forgiveness on his beloved children. Just as Jesus lets us have a share in creation (by equipping us with genitalia), so he also lets his people share in the bestowal of the forgiveness of sins. This latter blessing or power, however, Jesus did not give to everybody, but only to people ordained to the priesthood, as will be shown. The key passage to note is John 20:21-23:

Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

The first thing to note here is that Jesus breathes on his disciples. This is the second time in all history that God breathes on man (the first time was when he gave man the breath of life, in Genesis 2:7). Surely, something significant is happening. Christ then goes on to say that if they (the Apostles) forgive the sins of people, then they are forgiven. If they do not forgive them, they are not forgiven. Here Protestants object by saying that the original Greek should be translated as "If you forgive men's sins, they have been forgiven them...." Well, I am not a Greek scholar and it is unfitting for me to say whether it should be translated this way rather than the way it has been, but I do know that the original Greek word is in a perfect tense [of the verb aphiemi], suggesting near past. But either way, it does not change the fact that Jesus is here giving his Apostles the power to forgive and retain sins. If they forgive them, then God has forgiven them. If they retain them, then God has retained them. You see that by the mere changing of tenses, the context and meaning is not altered in the least.

Many, if not all, Protestants have tried to find their way around John 20:21-23. They try to make it Jesus' words mean something like, "If God forgives their sins, then you proclaim them forgiven" or, "If you deliver the Gospel to people, then they shall be freed from their sins." However, this is not what Jesus said. He said plainly and simply: "If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven. If not, then they are not." These are the Lord's Words, not mine. Jesus had ample opportunity to state what he said in all kinds of different ways. He did not, however.

How do we know that Jesus gave this power to his Apostles ONLY and not to everybody? To answer this question, we must first note that John's Gospel nowhere uses the term "Apostles" as a reference to the Twelve. So the omission of that term here is insignificant. At least the power was only explicitly given to the disciples that were in the upper room, that is for sure (see verse 19). We can further reason that from the context the term "them" in verse 22 is used in the same sense as it is in verse 24 where it refers to the Twelve.

One might wonder how St. Thomas, who was not present at the time Jesus conferred the sacramental power of Penance to the Apostles, received this gift. There are several theories: (1) Jesus gave it to him afterwards, but it is just not mentioned; or (2) St. Peter, who has the Keys to the Kingdom (Matthew 16:19), gave it to him.

Of course, the typical Protestant response to all of this is, "But only GOD can forgive sins!" And that is true. Of course. But the Sacrament of Penance does not deny this. We're not saying the priest forgives the sins instead of God. Rather, and AGAIN, God works through the priest. Neither do we believe that we should go to confession INSTEAD of "praying straight to God," but rather, one should do BOTH, not either/or.

Let us take a look at Matthew 9:5-8:

For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins"-he then said to the paralytic-"Rise, take up your bed and go home." And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Here we have it from the BIBLE. Look at the bold parts. Jesus says he forgives sins in his human, not his divine, capacity (wherefore he uses the term "Son of MAN" vs. "Son of God"). We then read that God had "given such authority to MEN." This proves it all right there. God gave the authority/power to absolve from and retain sins to MEN. Note it says MEN, not MAN (the Greek word used is anthropois, and that is plural). He was not referring to only Jesus.

Biblical Examples of Confession

Old Testament

In the Old Testament, we read about mandatory confession of one's sins to a priest:

Leviticus 5:5-6:

When a man is guilty in any of these [sins], he shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

This passage implies auricular confession to a priest because the priest did not know what sacrifice to offer for atonement unless he was told the sin by the penitent.

New Testament .

Catho October 31, 2010 at 2:45pm Report

In the New Testament, there is a lot more that has to do with confession:

2 Corinthians 5:18-19:

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Note that St. Paul says his is a ministry of reconciliation; it is, therefore, not merely a message. He actually does a service in order for the people to get reconciled to God. This is only explicable by admitting that he acted as a confessor--that is, people came to him, confessed their sins, and he absolved them.

2 Corinthians 2:10-11:

What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

Wow! Here St. Paul says he has forgiven people's sins....and he even explains that this was in the name of Christ, that is, he was present in him. It was, then, not Paul himself who absolved, but Christ acting through Paul. The addendum "to keep Satan from gaining advantage over us" might beyond that actually indicate that Paul was aware of the graces that are obtained through the reception of the sacrament of Penance.

There is also an appeal to confession in 1 John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." St. John is very plain here. He says it flat out.

James 5:14-16:

Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

Here we have an example of forgiveness of God through a priest in action. St. James tells us that, if we are sick, we are to call for the priests (=elders) of the church. By the prayer of that priest, the sick person's sins will be forgiven; that's what the text says plainly!! Then James goes on to say, "Confess your sins to one another." Here, however, Protestants make the mistake of lifting the whole verse out of context by insisting that it means "everybody is to confess his/her sins to anybody." Not true. Let's stick with the context. It refers to the sick person confessing his/her sins to the priest and vice versa (the priest can, after all, encourage the sick person to confess his/her sins by letting him/her know about some of his own sins). Thus, verse 16 concludes or summarizes the preceding verses.

The Bible itself, then, proves that God has given human beings the authority to absolve others from sins--not on their own authority, but as tools of God Most High.

Besides all of those biblical reasons, there are also a few reasons that quite simply appeal to logic. In his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating notes five of them (pp.188-89). Let me list and explain each of them briefly.

We ought to receive the Sacrament of Penance because...

(1) It is the way Christ intended forgiveness to be sought

Jesus never engaded in doing vain acts. He would not have instituted this sacrament if he had wanted us to seek forgiveness by praying "straight to God," by simply not receiving it. Since we have seen, though, that Christ did institute this sacrament, i necessarily follows that he wants us to make practical use of it.

(2) You learn to be humble

It is always valuable to look for the reasons why people behave the way they do. Why do many people avoid confession? Because it is a humble experience to tell one's sins to a priest and be honest about one's sinfulness! Very often it is the case that people who do not want to go to confession do not go there not because they don't believe in the sacrament's theology, but rather because they're trying to escape their own sinfulness. But here we remember Christ's words: "Whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (Mt 23:12). It is, then, a very good idea to learn a lesson in humility by going to confession. The sacrament humbles us. Consequently, we shall be exalted.

(3) The penitent receives sacramental graces

By receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation, certain graces are obtained which, quite naturally, are not received when confession is omitted. The sacrament restores our spiritual life and, with it, pours out the gifts of the Holy Spirit on us. Who would not want to take part in such an event?

(4) You have assurance of forgiveness

We have all probably doubted now and then whether God has forgiven a particular sin. Maybe we weren't contrite enough, sincere enough, or did not have the necessary faith. This confusion does not occur when one is absolved of one's sins by a priest, because if you are not properly sorry for your sins, you would not go to confession to begin with. Furthermore, you can be sure your transgressions have been blotted out because Christ himself, speaking through the priest, has said so.

(5) You can get advice on how to avoid future transgressions

Malachi 2:7 reminds us that "the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts." After we have confessed our sins, we do not only get absolved from them, but we also

obtain advice on how to behave, that is, what to do, what not to do, etc., in order to lead a spiritually good life. One can ask the priest questions about things that are unclear. Such is not an option for somebody who refuses to receive Reconciliation.

So, confession is very important for our spiritual life. The Bible teaches it, and it also follows from logic.

Jesus wants you to be as spiritually healthy as possible, and therefore he instituted this consoling and grace-giving sacrament. Now it's up to you to make use of it. .

Catho March 29 at 10:34pm Report

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYJQPPIZQTg&feature=player_embedded#at=201

The Liturgical Ritual of the True Church of Christ (2)

www.youtube.com

From the "Letter & Spirit" program on EWTN. With Dr. Scott Hahn (former protestant minister)...Share.

Catho March 29 at 10:34pm Report

Tell me what you think of that, brother .

Proty March 30 at 6:29am

I will pray then watch it soon as I have access to a comp with fb and youtube.

Proty March 31 at 1:47pm

Ok, I have had the chance to watch the video. But because of a very recent experience with another Catholic, I feel I must ask, do you really wish to know what I think?

Catho March 31 at 1:56pm Report

Lol! First of all tell me what you think the video is saying! .

Proty March 31 at 2:48pm

In a nutshell I think it was saying that because Jesus was born a Jew, and the Apostles were Jews there will be a certain amount of ritialism in Christ's church.

Catho March 31 at 4:51pm Report

Ok, let me go to dinner, and I will chat with you when I get back, but first let me show you who Dr. Hahn is...read this, and I will chat with you later. .

Catho March 31 at 4:51pm Report

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0088.html

The Scott Hahn Conversion Story

www.catholiceducation.org

An internet library of journal articles, essays, book excerpts, and other texts chosen for their objective, concise, and clear presentation of Catholic teachings, history, and culture...Share.

Catho March 31 at 4:51pm Report

This is not your run of the mill, convert. He is a superstar... .

Proty March 31 at 5:23pm

He may be a superstar, but that SHOULD make him make fewer mistakes right?

Proty March 31 at 5:23pm

He may be a superstar, but that SHOULD make him make fewer mistakes right?

Catho March 31 at 6:13pm Report

Read his conversion Story. He is on the same level as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Benedict XVI, these guys, are all doctors of the Church. .

Catho March 31 at 6:14pm Report

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

Dr Scott Hahn on the Papacy | Catholic-Pages.com

www.catholic-pages.com

Articles about the papacy and the current Pope, Pope John Paul II, including summaries of his encyclicals, and an article on how Popes are elected...Share.

Catho March 31 at 6:15pm Report

What I suggest you do, my friend. Is take someone like Dr. Hahn, and study him. See if he makes sense. .

Catho March 31 at 6:16pm Report

When I said, superstar, I should said, Doctor of the Church. .

Catho March 31 at 6:17pm Report

Here is probably one of the most incredible converts, other than Hahn, he is simply unreal. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/john-henry-cardinal-newmans-importance.html

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: John Henry Cardinal Newman's Importance and Influence

socrates58.blogspot.com

Christian, Catholic biblical apologetics, theology, history, exegesis, Bible discussion, and analysis of Protestantism, led by apologist and author Dave Armstrong..Share.

Catho March 31 at 6:18pm Report

Pope Benedict XVI, just announced on national television, at CANTERBURY, after being invited there, by the Queen of England last year, that Newman was going to become a Cannonized Saint. Read a little bit about Newman. These are the Saints, in the Catholic Church, the converts. With incredible story's. .

Catho March 31 at 6:18pm Report

I will get to the video on Hahn, in a bit. Let me rest for awhile. .

Proty March 31 at 6:25pm

No rush. Have a good rest.

Catho March 31 at 6:26pm Report

Sent you a friend request, do a quick read of Newman also...I think you will be impressed .

Proty March 31 at 6:40pm

I will check those out sometime tonight when I am on a computer. When you check out Dr. Hahn's video please note his comments about John chapter 12 and Acts chapter 7 these do not seem to agree with the Bible ( any translations I have or can look up.)

Catho March 31 at 6:53pm Report

Ok, go ahead, and post them, for me, so I can see them. Please. .

Catho March 31 at 7:00pm Report

Oh, I see what your saying. Yes what Hahn is doing is reading the Gospel of John, but doing so, WITH the Jewish festivals, and feast days, going on in the back ground. I will try to find more on this... .

Proty March 31 at 7:03pm

Ok. He said that the Eucharist in John Chapter 12 ends the Old and establishes the New (I believe he meant Covenant which though disputable is neither here nor there), however the Eucharist was not until Chapter 13. He also laying on of hands happened in Acts 6 and 7 but there are no instances of laying on of hands in Acts 7

Catho March 31 at 7:15pm Report

What Hahn is teaching is John is revealing how all of the Jewish Traditions, the Feasts and Festivals, are all being fullfilled by Christ the Paschal Lamb. He is teaching that what Jesus is doing, and teaching can't be comprehended unless one understands the Jewish Old Testament, Traditions. For example. John 6 is teaching us to LITERALLY eat the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ .

Catho March 31 at 7:17pm Report

Hahn is teaching that Christ didn't eliminate all the OT festivals and the Liturgy, Jesus fullfilled them, and they are NOW PERFECTED IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.... .

PART ELEVEN
Catho March 31 at 7:23pm Report

Whats hard, Proty for someone that ISN'T used to view Christ as the Paschal lamb, is to try and visual the New Testament, in context to what the Jews are doing. For example, when Christ is performing his "Signs" and Miracles, many in the Church, the Church Fathers, see the typology in all this. There is a story going on Proty, that can't be interpreted, UNLESS one understands, the Typology, and the Jewish Traditions. Second, we have the Passover, the most significant event for the people of the Old Testament. For a full account of the Passover ritual, read Exodus 12. Here are some highlights that relate to the Eucharist.

We note that a lamb without blemish must be sacrificed according to how much each man could eat. We know from the lips of John the Baptist that Jesus is, "...the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). We also know Jesus is the lamb without blemish. Pilate proclaimed, "I find no guilt in him" (John 18:38). It is also the case that we must eat the lamb. "...Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you" (John 6:53). The whole assembly was to gather together to sacrifice the lambs. We too are called to assemble for the sacrifice of the Eucharist, the new Passover celebration. Then they were to take the blood of the lamb and put it on the lintels and doorposts where they were going to eat the lamb with unleavened bread. The blood was to be a sign of deliverance of the first born sons of Israel.

We are called to receive the blood of Christ, the only begotten son of the Father, and eat the Bread of Life as a sign of our deliverance from slavery to sin. Exodus goes on to say, "This day shall be a memorial feast for you, which all your generations shall celebrate with pilgrimage to the Lord, as a perpetual institution" (Exodus 12:14). They are also required to keep a feast of unleavened bread, "as perpetual institution" (Exodus 12:17). In the Eucharist, all these elements are combined to make up Mass as our keeping of the memorial feast of Christ: "Do this in memory of me" (Luke 22:19). It might also be noted that after God prescribes for them what to do, "the people bowed their head and worshipped" (Exodus 12:27). The eucharistic sacrifice is where we are called to worship the Lamb of God, in spirit and truth. Another crucial point is that the Eucharist was instituted during the feast of the Passover.

Third, we have God supplying manna and quail for the Israelites in the desert. While the people are in the desert after the Exodus, they murmur against God, accusing him of murderous plans by means of starvation. God responds, "I will rain down bread from heaven for you. Each day the people are to go out and gather their daily portion..." (Exodus 16:4) During the feast of Passover, the year before the Eucharist was instituted at the Last Supper, Jesus says, "...it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven...I am the bread of life..." (John 6: 32, 35). It is no coincidence that "the Jews murmured about him" just as they did in Moses' day (John 6:41). Many Catholics in our day murmur about this as well. In the morning God will give the bread to eat, and "the Lord gives you flesh to eat in the evening" (Exodus 16:8). In the Eucharist, we know that the bread becomes Jesus' flesh for the life of the world (cf. John 6:33). The Israelites were to eat the flesh, and be filled with bread. In receiving the Eucharist, we, too, must believe Jesus' words, "Whoever comes to me will never hunger" (John 6:35).

If it was not clear before, it should be clear now, that our Father knows how to teach his children. In our study of the faith, we can never, ever do away with the Old Testament. In studying the New Testament we must remember the words of the catechism, "...the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love...'in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way'" (CCC 122).

Catho March 31 at 7:24pm Report

What the Gosple of John is doing, Proty. According the Catholics like Hahn, is tell a story, that connects Jesus totally with the Jewish Feast days, and Festivals he is perfecting. So what does that mean to us now? The Holy Mass, is the New Testament, if you will, Passover.... .

Catho March 31 at 7:36pm Report

I think I see your point, in this article. Interesting. http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0306.asp

From Passover to Eucharist: God's Liberating Love - Catholic Update March©2006

www.americancatholic.org

Explore the connections between the central liturgical ritual among Catholics, the celebration of the Eucharist, and the Jewish celebration of Passover. This Update examines the meaning of the Last Supper and how both the Eucharist and Passover are celebrations of liberation, life and God's saving l..Share.

Catho March 31 at 7:37pm Report

A Passover meal?

One problem is that scholars are not sure whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal or not. The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) indicate that it was, but John's Gospel places the Last Supper on the night before Passover. In John's Gospel, Jesus is crucified at the same time that the Passover lambs were being slaughtered at the temple for the meal that would follow that evening.

For many years, scholars assumed that the Synoptic version was more accurate historically, but recently a consensus seems to be developing that sees John as very concerned about dates and times. This view suggests that John's dating is correct and that the other writers recast the meal as a Passover meal to make a point about the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection.

The issue cannot be definitively settled at this point, but it should make us careful about assuming that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Moreover, the descriptions of the meal that come to us from the Gospels do not sound much like the Passover. There is no mention of lamb, or bitter herbs or any of the other elements that were unique to the Passover. (Actually, we're not too sure how the Passover ritual was celebrated in the time of Jesus, since the first detailed descriptions we have of the Passover ritual are from a later date.)

To further complicate matters, Luke's Gospel indicates a different pattern for the meal than Mark and Matthew. Luke relates the sharing of a cup first, then the bread and then another cup, a pattern that matches a common Jewish festive meal, but not necessarily the Passover.

Another key point is that Passover is celebrated only once a year, not weekly as the Christian Eucharist was celebrated from the beginning. It is also instructive to note that the Passover required unleavened bread, while Christians used leavened bread for the Eucharist for a millennium in the West and to this day in the East. Scholars suggest that the Eucharist stems more from the common meals Jesus shared with his disciples, especially after the Resurrection, than from the Passover ritual. Not as simple as it seems, is it! .

Catho March 31 at 8:22pm Report

Ok, now watch this video...when you get time...http://www.the4thcup.com/ .

Catho April 2 at 6:23am Report

What do you think St. Paul is teaching here? The Meaning of the meal

Whether the Last Supper was or was not a Passover meal, the early Christians saw it as the fulfillment of the Passover. As we noted above, the Synoptic Gospels cast the meal itself as a Passover supper, while John sees Jesus as the paschal lamb sacrificed on the cross. St. Paul also links Christ's death and resurrection with the Passover in First Corinthians: "Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough, inasmuch as you are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor 5:7-8). .

Catho April 5 at 3:33pm Report

Ok...one last one, and this is a biggy....http://www.holytrinityparish.net/Links/EucharistNscriptureI.pdf .

Catho April 5 at 3:49pm Report
Part 2...http://www.holytrinityparish.net/Links/EucharistNscriptureIIb.pdf

http://www.holytrinityparish.net/Links/EucharistNscriptureIIb.pdf

www.holytrinityparish.net

.Share.

Proty April 8 at 7:01pm

Ok. I see where you are going with this. You are saying that the Catholic Church is the TRUE Church because it practices the Eucarist/Communion/Lords Supper as Jesus had taught and established it. After all look at John 6:53-56. Right?

Catho April 8 at 7:04pm Report

Well, let me put it another way. Here is the commission. "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." (Matt. 28:18-20)

NOW, you tell me, Proty. What Christ meant, by GO AND TEACH...? .

Catho April 8 at 7:07pm Report

Let look at what St. Paul is teaching, the Church at Corinth, for example. I find this, truly amazing. .

Catho April 8 at 7:15pm Report

Ok Proty. Now in all the letters, St. Paul is sending the Churches. I don't see, ANYWHERE, a Billy Graham, type sermon. I don't see, St. Paul teaching anyone the Sinners prayer. .

Catho April 8 at 7:15pm Report

On the contrary, look at what St. Paul is actually teaching...Last, St. Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 11.23-29 is also strong evidence in support of the Real Presence.

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Again, how telling! Note how as early as the time St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians around AD 56 the Eucharist was understood literally. Also, if the bread and wine used for the Mass remained merely bread and wine, it wouldn't make sense for St. Paul to have stressed that receiving Communion unworthily would bring down a stern judgment on us.

Catho April 8 at 7:16pm Report

St. Paul, is literally, in your own bible, Proty. TEACHING THE CHURCH AT CORINTH, the WORDS USED TO concencrate the wine and the bread, at a Holy Mass...its right in your bible. For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. .

Catho April 8 at 7:19pm Report

What St. Paul is doing, Proty. Is he is establishing, VERY SACRAMENTAL CATHOLIC CHURCHES, why? Because Jesus Christ, and the Holy Mass, are at the center of the True Church. The Church at Corinth, as well as other Churches, needed, PROOF, from the Apostle Paul, or guidance, because they were having many abuses in that Church. So St. Paul sent them, this letter...which as you can see, is not teaching, what you would expect...its the Holy Mass. Unless a person, is Catholic, they don't have a clue, whats going on here .

Catho April 8 at 7:25pm Report

So Jesus says, to do this...Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." (Matt. 28:18-20) And St. Paul is doing exactly that...and teaching this... For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself......now what is at the heart of this...the Eucharist.. .

Catho April 8 at 7:26pm Report

And it just happens to be...the Catholic Church is still doing, this...worldwide today. As a matter of fact, Proty. There is NO OTHER FORM OF WORSHIP, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, FOR THE FIRST 1500 YEARS, then this... For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. .

Catho April 8 at 7:28pm Report

Paul is teaching, the Church at Corinth, to duplicate, what Jesus did, at the Last Supper, which is the Passover meal. Now guess what. If you go back, to the first century, guess what you find. Everyone, all the Church Fathers, all the direct disciples, and all the Churches...are ALL, teaching, Christ is literally in the Eucharist. So now we have, History and Scripture agreeing. And its all Catholic... .

Catho April 8 at 7:52pm Report

This is from a book I am reading, called the Apostles by Pope Benedict XVI. APPEAL TO ISRAEL: With their very own existence, the Twelve--called from different backgrounds--- become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fullfillment of the ancient one. The fact that he entrusted to his Apostles, during the Last Supper and before his Passion, the duty to celebrate his Pasch, demonstrates how Jesus wished to transfer to the entire community, in the person of its heads, the mandate to be a sign and instrument in history of the eschatological gathering begun by him. In a certain sense we can say that the last Last Supper itself is the act of foundation of the Church, because he gives himself and thus creates a new community, a community united in communion with himself.(The Apostles pg 12.) .

Catho April 8 at 7:59pm Report

What makes, the Catholic Church so powerful, Proty. Is we believe Christ is literally in the communion. Think about that for a moment. THE COMMUNION, only in the Roman Catholic Church is literal. If that is true. Every other Church is incomplete. Some not really even Churches, at all. .

Catho April 8 at 8:11pm Report

Dale Alquist's "The Apostle of Common Sense" It is amazing to me that although he died in 1936 he is able to rightly describe the problems of our society today and the solution: The Catholic Church". He rightly describes each protestant sect and collectively that each one adopts one of the characteristics of the Church and distorts it.

He also rails against secularism as really being atheistic and exchanging faith for fashion. How often do we hear "oh that was so last year, decade" or other. He explains how Catholicism is mocked by the world if any evil can be found in it but all evil goes for the world itself, he says this proves that the world knows that indeed Catholicism is "The Thing". .

Catho April 10 at 11:47am Report

Proty, what in the world, is going on here? All the Apostles, are establishing, VERY sacramental Catholic Churches. This is a pretty good break down, of the Eastern Church. These are SACRAMENTAL CHURCHES....http://www.maryourmother.net/Eastern.html

THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

www.maryourmother.net

There are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church, the Roman or Latin Western and 21 Eastern Catholic Churches...Share.

Catho April 10 at 12:08pm Report

Here is your basics. Now if you went back, and studied, each of these Saints, lives. Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, ect. Guess what you would find. Just like St. Paul, they all followed a very Eucharistic liturgy. As I have attempted to show you, Proty. St. Paul is clearing teaching the Eucharist and the Holy Mass, to the Church at Corinth. All the Churches, were the same. All sacramental, just like today. http://jesuschristsavior.net/History.html

HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIANITY

jesuschristsavior.net

The top 25 events in the History of Christianity are presented, beginning with Jesus Christ our Savior...Share.

PART TWELVE
Proty April 10 at 12:34pm

Ah, I see you are using the Douay-Rheims.

As for what did Jesus mean in Mat 28:18-20, that is obvious. We are to GO and MAKE DISCIPLES (be it in our own back yard or everywhere), baptizing them, TEACHING them WHAT JESUS TAUGHT, and then sending them out to do the same.

Notice that this command removes the OLD COVENANT Priest/Laity divisional line. For Jesus would not command it if he meant that it was the function of SOME BUT NOT ALL to teach and lead others to Christ.

Ah, 1Cor 11:17-34. Why do people NOT SEE the words remembrance there? For if the did, knowing full well what it means, the would see Paul was using symbology. As did Jesus in Luke 22:19-20. For Jesus said DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. As a REMEMBRANCE is done in memory or honor of, just like bringing flowers to a grave or setting up a memorial fund. So no, it was far from literal, even in the Douay-Rheims. Besides in Luke how can the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus be in the Bread and Cup, when he is VERY REALLY PRESENT IN BODY right then?

As for the Church at Corinth needing proof, No! But they did need guidance for verse 21 tells us some ate like pigs and others drank to get drunk. Is this remembering Jesus sacrifice? No!

So these people would rightly bring Judgment upon themselves.

As for the Eucharist being the same as practiced from 1st century? Sorry, but the very Catechism does not bare that out. The earlist info that Catechism gives is from mid to late 3rd century not 1st. Now if the 1st century church fathers practiced and wrote about transubstantiation, why is it not in the Catechism? I know I would have put a couple 1st century quotes instead of a couple 3rd century ones. BTW, which 1st century fathers wrote about it and to who, so I can look it up?

Catho April 10 at 12:37pm Report

Lol...Proty, your trying to say, Christ is a symbolic Sacrifice. Its simply because you fail to understand, what happened at Calvary, you fail to understand, WHY Christ could NOT be a symbolic Sacrifice. NO WHERE, do you see, Christ even hinting, its a symbolic sacrifice. .

Catho April 10 at 12:38pm Report

I also, challenge you to show me, YOUR BIBLE ONLY, NONE SACRAMENTAL CHURCHES started by the Apostles. You can't, I know it, and you know it. .

Catho April 10 at 12:40pm Report

What you have failed to do, Proty. Is adequately study, history. If you had, and I expect you will, study, the last historical link I just gave you, and then try and tell me, that Christ is a symbolic Sacrifice. In all honesty, Proty. That believe, would have been considered heresy, in the first 1500 years. NO CHURCH, anywhere, in the first 1500 years, believe Christ in the Eucharist, is symbolic. Only after the reformation, which was a total revolt of the True Church did you see, a symbolic Communion. Paul is not teaching one, nor is Jesus Christ. The bible, actually teaches, the total opposite. .

Catho April 10 at 12:42pm Report

You don't know my friend, who Jesus of Nazareth was, or what happened in the Upper Room, or what the Sedar meal is, Jesus Christ, Proty didn't come to abolish and remove the Jewish Traditions, Christ came to perfect them. Jesus Christ didn't eliminate the OT priesthood, he created the NT priesthood, and gave the Catholic Church, and her priesthood, his Authority. The bible, my friend. Is a child of the Catholic Church. It was written, for the Catholic Church. .

Catho April 10 at 12:45pm Report

At the cross, Proty. IT WAS FINISHED, was just half the Sacrifice. Just like the OT, the Priest completed the rest of the Sacrifice, by taking the Victim(Lambs) blood into the Tabernacle, the Sanctuary, and sprinkled the Atoning blood on the Mercy Seat. Thats exactly what Jesus Christ did, AT THE 2ND PART OF THE SACRIFICE. And thats exactly what, Christ as High Priest, is doing, ascending with his Blood, in Hebrews. The first century Churches, Proty, are exactly like the 21 Century, Roman Catholic Church. Thats why, Proty, almost 70 percent of Christianity, today. If not more, believes the same way, I believe. You my friend, are in a man made, minority Church. I strongly suggest you seriously study, the link I just gave you on history. .

Catho April 10 at 12:57pm Report

You see my friend. I understand, the Do this in remembrance of me. Is bringing the Liturgy of the Passover, PRESENT. That takes Authority and a Priesthood. Just the fact, you don't understand, what Do this in Remembrance of me, means. Or what the Passover Liturgy is, completely confirms, what I allready knew. You don't understand, TRADITION. Your taking the Catholic Book, reading it, and trying to interpret it, BUT your not taking into account, what ALL of Christianity, has deposited, in a huge deposit of Teaching. Your not agreeing, with Great early Saints, like, St. Ignatius or St. Polycarp. Or St. Clements, or St. Augustine. In order, Proty to be honest, with what true Christianity, really is. Your going to have to show me, WHERE ALL THE HISTORICAL CHURCHES, both in East and West, the massive worldwide Church, that was started by the Apostles, is a BIBLE only movement. That can't be done. .

Catho April 10 at 1:01pm Report

You don't understand, what the Pasch Lamb is. You don't understand, that It wasn't finished, on the Cross. If it was, in the way, your thinking, then why would we need a High Priest, in heaven, continuing, to make Present his one time sacrifice here on earth? Hebrews is clear. The reformers, were totally reacting, to abuses within the Church. I knew it immediatly Proty. Because my friend. I KNOW FOR A FACT, guys like you, or Jimmy Swaggart, or your pastor, ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO TEACH, or interpret scripture. God didn't set his Church up that way. You were just like me, at one time. Following the traditions, the very man made Traditions, like the rapture and saved by just a profession of Faith and thats it. You don't find, any bible only Christianity, anywhere in history. Its just not there. Christ said, we must EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD...its a literal communion. Its really just that simple. The Cross is the NEW TREE OF LIFE. .

Catho April 10 at 1:03pm Report

Or I should say, sorry. I was just like you at one time. But not nearly as slow, or stubborn. Once I realize, that the entire early Church, was anything BUT fundamentalists Churches, all running around, with the Bible as there authority, I said...WWHHAAATTT! There is abolutely no Authority, in your movement. .

Catho April 10 at 1:05pm Report

This is probably about the truest statement, I have read in a long time! Dale Alquist's "The Apostle of Common Sense". It is amazing to me that although he died in 1936 he is able to rightly describe the problems of our society today and the solution: The Catholic Church". He rightly describes each protestant sect and collectively that each one adopts one of the characteristics of the Church and distorts it.

Catho Thursday at 7:11pm · Like ·

He also rails against secularism as really being atheistic and exchanging faith for fashion. How often do we hear "oh that was so last year, decade" or other. He explains how Catholicism is mocked by the world if any evil can be found in it but all evil goes for the world itself, he says this proves that the world knows that indeed Catholicism is "The Thing". .

Catho April 10 at 1:05pm Report

Lets try that again .

Catho April 10 at 1:06pm Report

This is probably about the truest statement, I have read in a long time! Dale Alquist's "The Apostle of Common Sense". It is amazing to me that although he died in 1936 he is able to rightly describe the problems of our society today and the solution: The Catholic Church". He rightly describes each protestant sect and collectively that each one adopts one of the characteristics of the Church and distorts it.

He also rails against secularism as really being atheistic and exchanging faith for fashion. How often do we hear "oh that was so last year, decade" or other. He explains how Catholicism is mocked by the world if any evil can be found in it but all evil comes for the world itself, he says this proves that the world knows that indeed Catholicism is "The Thing". .

Catho April 10 at 1:07pm Report

Notice, Proty what your trying to do, with the Douey Rheims, and what "Do this in remembrance of me" actually means. Next your going to try and do it, with the Church Fathers. Dale Alquist, nailed it, when he accurately describes, the Protestant movement. He rightly describes each protestant sect and collectively that each one adopts one of the characteristics of the Church and distorts it. .

Catho April 10 at 1:20pm Report

And last but not least...this fits perfectly. PROTY, Jesus didn't establish, HIS CHURCH, with a born again Preacher and the Bible at the center of it. He established, a Church, with the Prophets and the Apostles, led by St. Peter, with Christ as the Capstone, as the plan of Salvation. The Keys were given to St. Peter, and his successors. To accomplish, the Goal of bringing in the Kingdom of God. There was NO Authority, in the reformation. This is why your meeting such a serious defense, from Catholics. We all know the fullness of Truth. The true Gospel is BOTH Jesus and His Church, the CHURCH IS HIS BODY AND BRIDE. Not just Jesus alone. Jesus certainly didn't set things up that way. God does not send men books but messengers, and by the fact that He chooses individual men for this ministry He institutes the preaching office. Not every Christian is called to preach. A preacher is not a reporter who narrates his own experiences, but the deputy of a superior, whose will he loudly and clearly proclaims. Preaching without vocation and mission is an absurdity, even a fraud ; for it simulates what is not present. If there is no mission, preaching about Christ is only propaganda, not apostolate....... G. Friedrich, art. cit., p. 712. For the Catholic exegesis of the same text, see R. Comely, S.J., CommentaHus in s. Pauli apostoli epístolas 1 (2d d.; Paris, 1895; reprinted 1927) 561;Κ. Η. Schelkle, Jüngerschaft und Apostelamt (Freiburg, 1957) p. 67 .

Proty April 10 at 2:01pm

Catho, Catho, Catho for the upteenth time I am not Protestant (you do know there is a denomination called that right?), Nor am I Pentecostal, Baptist, Methodists, Catholic, Presbyterian, or any other denomination. I am a non-denominational. I will tell you what that means sometime if you were to ask. Now what of the around a dozen things that you brought up do you want me to go into?

Catho April 10 at 2:17pm Report

Proty. Why on earth, would the only reply you could must right now, would be what you are or what your not? Let me make this easy to you. Are you in the same Church, that Christ started, that St. Paul established, and that St. Peter died for? If your not? Why? .

Catho April 10 at 2:19pm Report

When you attend, service if its daily or if its once a week. Do your recieve the Literal, body, blood, soul and divinity, of the Lord. Holy Communion, Proty, established by Christ himself, is continual. And LITERAL. If your NOT in a Church, and there is only one. That offers this. Than your not, in the Body of Christ. You might be connected by Baptism. But your not in full communion. Its really just that simple. .

Catho April 10 at 2:23pm Report

Christ established, the NEW EXODUS which is the New Covenant, just like the Old Testament Exodus, Proty. Led by Moses, both have passovers. The first exodus, with Moses, was a foreshadow, of what was coming. The second Passover, Proty, is Christ the Good shepard, leading his Church into heaven, not with a preacher and a bible. Thats man made, Proty. He is leading, his ONE, Body with One Bread, one Baptism, all united with Him, as Head. With a Literal Communion. This is the Church that Christ started. No Holy Mass, thats literal. No Church. .

Catho April 10 at 2:28pm Report

So it hardly matters Proty, whether you even go to church, or whether you in a denomination, or not in a denomination, a mormon, or SDA, or whatever. All of those, institutions are man made. Christ perfected the OT, traditions. He didn't eliminate the Levite Priesthood. He Ordained His Apostles, and made them Bishops. The Cross is the New Tree of Life. Anything you see, in any other Christian, denomination, that rejects a literal communion, is man made, and false. Its really just that simple. Confession, along with 6 other Sacraments, were given to the Church, through the Apostles, by Jesus Christ. There essential for Salvation. Eliminate, any of the 7 Sacraments, and your eliminating, a vital part of what the Lord established. There is NO such thing, as a Jesus only relationship. As a matter of fact, it horrify's the Lord. The Lord, established, a Church! A very visible Church, that he is feeding, with a Literal Communion. St. Paul taught a literal communion and so did Jesus Christ, and so did, every Church Father, and so did every direct disciple. Anything else, is rolling the dice. .

Proty April 10 at 2:31pm

Ok, here we go with about another dozen. which of the about 24 do you wish me to answer and/or discuss?

Catho April 10 at 2:32pm Report

Proty, what do you think, is going on, when the worldwide Church performs the Holy Mass? Where do you think, the Priesthood and Bishops came from? Where do you think, the Church came up, with the concept, that Communion was Literal? I will tell you a secret that will change your life. The bible, Proty. Almost half of it, was written by St. Paul, who instantly understood, that Christ the Paschal Lamb, was fullfilling the OT, Passover. .

Catho April 10 at 2:33pm Report

I don't want to discuss any of them, yet. Your not ready for a discussion. I don't think, you understand, the basics yet. What part, of the Literal communion don't you understand. And what makes you think, anything is symbolic? You don't honestly expect me, to seriously consider, a source, of a symbolic communion, that differs, with Jesus do you? .

Catho April 10 at 2:35pm Report

Jesus said, Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood. Thats Literal. He is the Paschal Lamb. Anything, that you bring into the discussion Proty, can only come from you, or a source, with no Authority. Calvins had no Authority! Who sent, John Calvins Proty!? We can start there. Who layed hands, on John Calivns, from the Apostalic Church and commissioned him to teach! .

Catho April 10 at 2:38pm Report

If your going to bring your pastor, in...then show me, who commissioned him, from the Apostalic Church. Show me, a direct line of Teaching, that dates all the way, back from generation to generation. If your going to rely on your own, interpretation, Proty. Than I will ask the same, from you. Who gave you the Authority to teach. Are you teaching, infallibly? Is what your teaching, found in "All" of Christianity, worldwide, for 2000 years. Can I go back, to the 3rd Century, and look at an Ecumenical Council, and determine, that what Proty is teaching, is what was being taught in the world wide Church! If not, Proty. What honestly do you expect to teach, me or anyone else? .

Catho April 10 at 2:38pm Report

You have to have, been sent, Proty to Teach. Your missing that my friend. .

Catho April 10 at 2:42pm Report

Now you can deny, Catholic Teaching, I am fine with that. You can say, I only need Christ and his Bible, I am fine with that. A mormon, can say, what he believes. A Jehovah witness, and a Muslim can also say, what they believe. Its a free world. But I am interested in, WHO SENT, you or your pastor. Otherwise, Proty. I highly suspect, that your involved in a man made Tradition, that has literally nothing to do, with the Apostles, or with Jesus of Nazareth. I would guess, your involved, like all fundamentalists, or protestants, in a man made movement. That was created by 1 man, without one bit of Authority from God. In other Words, they are not in the True Church. At best, they are loosely connected with Baptism. Thats not good enough .

Catho April 10 at 2:44pm Report

So instead of spending a great deal of time, in a discussion, my friend. Show me, first who gave you the Authority, to teach or discuss anything, that has to do, with Christ's Church, and HIS Salvation plan. No offense. But maybe, you should be "Listening" and not teaching or discussing. If you want, to look deeper at what I am saying, thats another thing. But what I am telling you, Proty, is not from my own teaching. Its the Deposit of Faith, that the Apostles, gave the True Church. .

Catho April 10 at 2:44pm Report

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church of Picayune, MS - Faith - Catechism of the Catholic Church

www.scborromeo.org

Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church in Picayune, Mississippi - Faith - Catechism of the Catholic Church..Share.

Catho April 10 at 2:46pm Report

Thats the deposit of faith, 2000 years of Church history, compiled by the Church Doctors, and Saints, that includes, all 12 Apostles, and Christ himself. The Catechism of the Catholic Church can be summed up in one word. Jesus Christ .

Catho April 10 at 2:46pm Report

Read that, Proty And get back to me. Then we can start our discussion. .

PART THIRTEEN
Catho April 10 at 2:55pm Report

It takes, an easy 10 years, for most Christians to convert. It took almost 10 years for me. You certainly don't approach, "Do this in Remembrance of Me", as just a memory, event. Like looking back, fondly at the day, you went the Hawaii. No, you need to start your research, there Proty. Christ is literally making himself, present, in the Cup that is Blessed. The Apostles, are being commissioned as Bishops, to "Make the 1 time sacrifice present" To the Lord's Church. The bible, Proty. Is an instruction manual, of the Catholic Church. If you try to interpret anything from the bible, OUTSIDE THE MAGESTERIUM, of the Church. Your totally waisting your time. Thats the first place to start. IF you can't accept that, my friend. Then we can part as friends. For me, Proty. All I had to do, was find one thing, that was true, in my investigation. Once I accomplished that. I looked for the next mystery. And guess what, I found that also True. And so on. If your not willing to actually, seriously investigate what I am telling you on your own. Then its pointless. Your going to insist and believe your in a new Testament Church, and your Church is exactly like a Church, St. Paul established. If so, I am fine with that. But considering, I know for a fact, St. Paul was Catholic, Roman Catholic, and he taught, the exact same, Holy Mass to the Church at Corinth, we partake in today. WHERE DO YOU THINK, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GOT ITS HOLY MASS...IT WAS FROM ST. PAUL AND JESUS. If you don't think, thats possible, than, I am afraid, there isn't alot to discuss. Like I said, brother. Over 1 Billion Christians, in every Country in the World, are worshipping, just as I am. So I don't have the Burden of Proof. I am just the messanger. I am showing, you a Literal communion. The Cross is the Tree of Life. Take your time. If you want, to discuss, I am fine. But I am extremely busy. I pretty much have layed it all out. If, you want to disagree...thats on you. But your disagreeing, with all of Historical Christianity, for 2000 years. The HOLY MASS, WITH A LITERAL COMMUNION, BROTHER IS AT THE CENTER OF THE CHURCH. I have to head to Mass. Take a few months, and read what I have shared. God Bless, in Christ Catho .

Catho April 10 at 2:55pm Report

I am not saying, your not a true Christian, Proty. You just need, the rest of the Body of Christ. The Church

Proty April 10 at 3:36pm

Ok, here we go. I have lost count of the number of points to discuss, but only using a phone in a few minute chunks will do that. As for accepting that the Catholic Church or any Church is the Final and only Teaching Authority, sorry but when a Church violates itself, that is hard. And when it violates the Bible? Then how can I consider it THE AUTHORITY?

Catho April 10 at 6:14pm Report

Lol...take your time! How can a literal Communion established by Christ violate itself? .

Catho April 10 at 6:16pm Report

How can a Church that is being built by Jesus, Violate itself or the Bible? And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven, and I tell you, you are Peter (Petra) and on this Rock (Petros), I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.'" And then He strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that He was the Christ.

Catho April 10 at 6:18pm Report

Jesus said, I will build my Church. That was his words. So how can Jesus Violate his own "Self", his own project? Look at the scripture I just posted. .

Catho April 10 at 6:23pm Report

Now Proty, rejecting the Authority of either the Church OR Jesus is nothing new. We are going to get to his little shocker, soon or later. We might as well, deal with this now. Considering we are discussing Authority. "many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him." ......Aw, Yes...The JOHN 6:66 club. Those who do not believe in the teaching of the Eucharist. Now when I say, Eucharist here, Proty. Its pretty obvious the disciples, left him, for some reason. And unless, you can come up, with a satisfactory reason, then I am going to stick, with the obvious. They left him, because they full understood, he was speaking, literally, when he told them, to eat his flesh and drink his blood. There your very first case of rejecting Christ's Authority .

Proty April 10 at 7:36pm

How can a Church built by Jesus violate itself or Jesus? It can't. So then if the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus built, why does it directly violate what Jesus said in Matthew 23:9. Also the Bible is clear, we have ONLY ONE INTERCESSOR between us and God the Father and that is Jesus. So then why does the Catholic Church teach that Mary, the Saints, and the Martyrs intercede for us? I do not REJECT JESUS NOR THE CHURCH HE BUILT. I do not believe that the Catholic Church is it. If it is, it is falling.

Catho April 11 at 1:40am Report

Proty, if Christ established the Priesthood, and made the Apostles Bishops, which he did. And the Catholic Church was started at Pentecost, which is was. Then one of two things, is happening here. Your following the traditions of man, and I am following, Apostalic succession. As far as Christ saying, there is only one mediator, correct. But how does the Priesthood violate that? James, is giving the Church, a Sacrament, that can only be performed through a Priesthood, Jesus is giving, multiple Sacraments, to His Church, that can only be performed, through a Priesthood. As far as the Church falling? Are you sure about that? Your movement, is dividing, and dividing..the Lord's Church has never been stronger. There is a serious Change, the East will reunite with the West. As far as your not believing the Catholic Church is the Church that started at Pentecost. Why is it, I can fill a football field, neck deep full of historical proof, it is the Catholic Church, and you can't fill a shoe box... .

Catho April 11 at 1:41am Report

Now answer my question. You obviously have a pastor. Now tell me who sent him. Who layed hands on him, and gave him, the Authority, to Teach, and be a Pastor. .

Catho April 11 at 1:53am Report

The following bible passages established that in the Sacrament of Holy Orders God ordains priests to offer up sacrifice for sins, to forgive sins, and to govern His Church:

"Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God..." (Acts 20:28) "For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins... Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was." (Heb. 5:1-4). "And taking bread, he gave thanks, and broke; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me." (Luke 22:19). " ...the disciples were gathered together... Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you... As the Father that sent me, I also send you... Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." (John 20:19-23). "And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed." (Acts 14:22). "For this cause I [Paul] left thee [Titus] in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee..." (Titus 1:5). "For which cause I [Paul] admonish thee [Timothy], that you stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands." (2 Tim. 1:6). "Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood." (1 Tim. 4:14.).

Catho April 11 at 1:55am Report

This is your problem Proty...your very naive, as to what really happened, in the first century's of Christianity. St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) speaks of

"....the bishops, who have been appointed throughout the world, are the will of Jesus Christ....It is fitting, therefore, that you should live in harmony with the will of the bishop...." (Letter to the Ephesians 3:2; 4:1); "Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles..."; "...Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the Apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and in spirit." (Letter to the Magnesians 6:1; 13:1-2); "...do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope..."; "In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of Apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church." (Letter to the Trallians 2:2; 3:1);

"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2)

St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 AD) on the Catholic Church:

"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress is separated from the promises of the Church; nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his Mother... Does anyone believe that in the Church this unity which proceeds from the divine stability and which is welded together after the heavenly patterns, can be divided, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? Whoever holds not fast to this unity holds not to the law of God; neither does he keep faith with the Father and the Son, nor does he have life and salvation." (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6-7)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386 AD) on the Catholic Church:

"[The Church] is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth; and because it teaches universally and infallibly [or completely] each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body; and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description....And if ever you are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the House of the Lord is -- for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens the Houses of the Lord -- nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to his holy Church, the Mother of us all, which is the Spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God." (Catechetical Lectures 18:23,26)

St. Augustine (c. 354-430 AD) on the Catholic Church:

"In the Catholic Church, not to speak of that purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life... I say of that wisdom which you do not believe is present in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which, most properly, can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very See of the Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after His resurrection, gave the charge of feeding His sheep [Jn 21:15ff], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And at last, the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called Catholic, when a stranger inquired where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house." (Against Letter of Mani 4:5, AD 397)

Catho April 11 at 1:59am Report

You need to show me, Proty, where these MIGHTY MEN OF GOD, the direct line of successors, all of them, either Martyrs, or Cannonized Saints, or both, layed hands, on whoever it was, that started your Church, otherwise, David Letterman, has as much authority, to teach, and preach, as your pastor does...its really just that simple. The Church, has an unbroken line, 2000 years old. Its pefect, Proty. And what, St. Paul taught, we teach today. What Christ established, I am in communion with, every day, if I want. The Communion, is Literal. .

Proty April 11 at 7:05am

Really. All Catholic Priests were laid hands on? Btw you consider the Catholic Church perfect even though it directly violates what Jesus (The Head and Builder of the Church) said in Matthew 23:9 (no matter what HUMAN almost 80 years later says)? And that it teaches opposite the scriptures which says that helps us to pray and JESUS intercedes. If God meant as the Catholic Church teaches (Mary, the Saints, and the Martyrs also intercede) why does it not also include this in the book of Hebrews which was written around 63-64ad include this as there were at least 3 martyrs at that time?

Catho April 11 at 8:44am Report

Proty, your throwing opinions at me! .

Catho April 11 at 8:47am Report

Your asking me, indirectly Proty. To choose, who is correct. YOU, or the direct disciple of the Apostle John. Not to mention, ignore, the fact, every Apostle, historically, started Orthodox Catholic Churches. Your asking me, to simply say. This incredible statement, by St. Ignatius, must be a fraud? or it doesn't Matter? Or I should just ignore it, to please, who Proty? Your Pastor? St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) speaks of

"....the bishops, who have been appointed throughout the world, are the will of Jesus Christ....It is fitting, therefore, that you should live in harmony with the will of the bishop...." (Letter to the Ephesians 3:2; 4:1); "Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles..."; "...Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the Apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and in spirit." (Letter to the Magnesians 6:1; 13:1-2); "...do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope..."; "In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of Apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church." (Letter to the Trallians 2:2; 3:1);

"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2) .

Catho April 11 at 9:04am Report

Proty, if you want to take the incredibly common and very lacking approach, that all we need is the bible. I am fine, with that. If you choose, to become serious in any of this, you might actually look at what, materializes and why, out of the 1st Century. First of all, we know for a fact that whenever Ignatius uses the term "episkopos" ("bishop"), he always means the singular leader of a city-church. And, in Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter III, he writes:

"...as also bishops, SETTLED EVERYWHERE to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ." (Ignatius to the Ephesians Chap III)

Now, I'd say that Rome is part of the "utmost bounds of the earth," wouldn't you? :-) And, indeed, Clement and Ignatius wrote within about a decade of each other. Thus, do we see the same three-fold ministry reflected in Clement??? :-) We sure do. Look:

"Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the Divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate Sacrifices and services (the Eucharist), and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly ....He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons (the appointed presbyters) whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed times are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest (the bishop) his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests (the presbyters) the proper place has been appointed, and on the Levites (the deacons) their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity. ......Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices." (1 Clement to the Corinthians, 44:4)

Here, it should be pointed out that the early Church frequently referred to its deacons as "Levites," as we see in the following example of St. Athanasius:

"You shall see the Levites (i.e., deacons) bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- "Sermon to the Newly Baptized" ante 373 A.D.

So, the three-fold ministry was indeed recognized by Clement of Rome. He speaks of it in the same way we see Ignatius speaking of it, writing:

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. ....Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. .....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." (St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians 3:2-4:1)

"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2)

And who was the bishop for these Smyrneans? It was Polycarp! And Polycarp is the one who gives us the key to understanding our dispute here. For, as we know, Ignatius speaks of Polycarp several times as "the bishop of Smyrna." And Polycarp never objects to this, or acts as if he does not possess monarchial authority in Smyrna. Yet, when Polycarp writes to the Philippians, he does not call himself "the bishop," but rather introduces himself saying,

"Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi: Mercy to you, and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior, be multiplied."

Thus, we see what was really going on here. In the days of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, the TERMS "bishop" and "presbyter" were still being used interchangeably IN EUROPE! :-) Indeed, it was Ignatius himself who first used the TERM "bishop" to distinguish the leading presbyter of a city-church from the other presbyters. And this TERMINOLOGY was an Asian phenomenon, whereas the PRACTICE of a monarchical leader was common throughout the universal Church (as Ignatius makes clear in his Epistle to the Ephesians above). However, the TERMINOLOGY of distinguishing the office of what we call a "bishop" from what we call a "presbyter" (or "priest") had not yet spread to the West. Rather, the West was still using the TERMS interchangeably, as we see in Scripture:

Titus 1:5-7: "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless, not arrogant..." etc. (compare to 1 Tim 3:1-7 & 5:17-22)

Acts 20:17-28: "From Miletus he (Paul) had the presbyters of the church of Ephesus summoned. When they came to him, he addressed them, ' ...Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (i.e., "bishops"), in which you tend the Church of God..."

1 Peter 5:1: "So I exhort the presbyters among you as a fellow presbyter and a witness to the sufferings of Christ ..."

2 John 1: "The Presbyter to the Chosen Lady (i.e., the Church) and to her children whom I love in truth."

3 John 1: "The Presbyter to the beloved Gaius whom I love in truth."

Yet, even in NT times, while the TERMS "bishop" and "presbyter" were still being used interchangeably, it is also clear that each city-church possessed an "arch-presbyter" (what we would call a "bishop") -- a singular leader of the church. For example, this was clearly the role of James in Jerusalem:

Acts 21:17-19: "When we reached Jerusalem the brothers welcomed us warmly. The next day, Paul accompanied us on a visit to James, and all the presbyters were present. He greeted them and proceeded to tell them in detail what God had accomplished among the Gentiles through his ministry."

Galatians 2:12: "For until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles..."

Similarly, Timothy held the office of monarchical leader in Ephesus. For, using the singular "you" in Greek, Paul instructs Timothy how to manage the Ephesian church saying,

1 Tim 5:17-22 -- "Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor ...Do not accept (you singular) an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. Reprimand (you singular) publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid. I charge you (singular) before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels to keep these rules without prejudice, doing nothing out of favoritism. Do not lay hands (you singular) too readily on anyone..."

Therefore, Timothy was the one who both ordained presbyters and sat in judgment of them.

So, while there was yet no distinction between the TERMS "bishop" and "presbyter," the practical distinction of the offices was already fully established.

PART FOURTEEN
Proty April 11 at 9:10am

No, I DO NOT matter. My pastor DOES NOT matter. JESUS MATTERS. I have shown you Jesus own words. Who has given Ignatius the Authority to tell Jesus that he is mistaken and therefore wrong? And if WE have a HOST of intercessors, why is that not in the Scriptures? As for all Catholic Priest being sent out by being laid on of hands, sorry but I asked the Catholic Priest here (Saint Rose of Lima) he said that no one did that for him.

Catho April 11 at 9:10am Report

And again Proty. You won't see, Jesus establishing, any Church, without a head, or without succession. The OT certainly was set up, with Moses or David as the Head. .

Catho April 11 at 9:11am Report

Well, Proty IF you truly are interested in what Jesus has to say, you can't deny, who he places in Authority .

Catho April 11 at 9:11am Report

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON ST. PETER AND THE "PRIMACY OF ROME"

From Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (1986) under Peter, St, Apostle (page 5-6)

"The papacy, through successive popes and councils, has always traced its origins and title-deeds to the unique commission reported to have been given by Jesus Christ to Peter, the chief of his Apostles, later to be martyred when organizing the earliest group of Christians at Rome....According to Matt 16:13-20, when Jesus asked the disciples whom they took him to be, Simon answered for them all that he was the Messiah, the Son of the living God; in reply Jesus pronounced him blessed because of this inspired insight, bestowed on him the Aramaic name Cephas (= 'rock'), rendered Peter in Greek, and declared that he would build his indestructible church on 'this rock', and would give him 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven' and the powers of 'binding and loosing' ....

"[In the first half of Acts]...Peter was the undisputed leader of the youthful church. It was he who presided over the choice of a successor to Judas (1:15-26), who explained to the crowd the meaning of Pentecost (2:14-40), who healed the lame beggar at the Temple (3:1-10), who pronounced sentence on Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11), and who opened the church to Gentiles by having Cornelius baptized without undergoing circumcision (10:9-48). He was to the fore in preaching, defending the new movement, working miracles of healing, and visiting newly established Christian communities...

"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'Babylon' is a code-name for Rome, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome."

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans, 1910) --

"Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese." (Schaff, volume 2, page 157)

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states \--

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, volume 2, page 158)

The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is --

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)

St. Linus (67-76)

St. Anacletus (76-88)

St. Clement I (88-97)

St. Evaristus (97-105)

St. Alexander I (105-115)

St. Sixtus I (115-125)

St. Telesphorus (125-136)

St. Hyginus (136-140)

St. Pius I (140-155)

St. Anicetus (155-166)

St. Soter (166-175)

St. Eleutherius (175-189)

St. Victor I (189-199)

"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)

Schaff then proceeds to list the Bishops of Rome just as I have them above, along with the corresponding Roman Emperors. St. Irenaeus gives this exact list of successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome up to his time (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3 c. 180-199 AD), as does St. Hegesippus up to his time (about 20 years earlier, c. 160 AD) cited in the first History of the Church by Eusebius.

Catho April 11 at 9:12am Report

If your going to deny, Christ's Authority on Earth, then your not heeding, or being obedient to Christ, is really just that simple .

Catho April 11 at 9:12am Report

So by rejecting, His Church your rejecting him. This isn't an individual salvation plan, Proty. Its communion, with Christs Church .

Catho April 11 at 9:13am Report

Thats why Christ said this. "He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me."

– Luke 10:16

Catho April 11 at 9:14am Report

So when you reject, what St. Ignatius stands for, Proty. Your rejecting what Christ established! This isn't ALL about Proty. Its about, obedience, and following Christ. Who prayed, at the Last Supper, for ALL OF US TO BE ONE. I belong, to the ONE Church, the same one, as St. Ignatius. .

Catho April 11 at 9:35am Report

"Even the Heretics appear to have Christ, for none of them denies the name of Christ. Yet, anyone who does not confess all that pertains to Christ does in fact deny Christ." St. Ambrose of Milan .

Catho April 11 at 10:08am Report

Proty, I am going to leave you with, the reality, of what I am trying to show you. One of us is correct, and one of us is wrong. The consequences, are Eternal. Either The Catholic Church invented herself. Or the Catholic Church is exactly what Catholics say, she is. I will chat with you again, meditate on what I have shown you.

One Holy, Whole Catholic Church

G. K. Chesterton

He also recognizes that every Protestant "sect" is indeed a "section" of the wholeness of the Catholic Church. Every heresy has taken some part of the truth and discarded the rest. Thus, the Lutherans became obsessed with "faith alone," Calvinists with the sovereignty of God, Baptists with the Bible, Seventh Day Adventists with the Sabbath, and so on. Meanwhile they stand outside the Church and throw stones from all sides. The Catholic Church is attacked for being too austere or too gaudy, too material or too spiritual, too worldly or too otherworldly, too complicated or too simplistic. Catholics are criticized for being celibate but also for having too many babies, criticized for being unfair to women but also because "only women" go to Mass. The modernists complain that the Catholic Church is dead, and complain even louder that it has so much power and influence. The secularists admire Italian art while despising Italian religion. The world rebukes Catholics for their sins, and worse still, for confessing their sins. Protestants say Catholics don't take the Bible seriously and then criticize them for being so literal about the Eucharist. Yet, as Chesterton points out, they take off their hats in churches even while denying that Christ is present on the altar. Ultimately every attack on the Church is an attack on the priesthood and the Eucharist. Every attack on the Church is an attack on Christ, God who came in the flesh, and who founded a Church and who held up the bread and the cup and said, "This is my body. This is my blood." Chesterton says there is only the Catholic Church and its enemies. Long before his conversion he said that if every man lived a thousand years, "every man would end up either in utter pessimistic skepticism or as member of the Catholic creed." He knew that everyone outside of the Church is either moving toward it or away from it. Just like everyone outside of heaven. We are making our choice for or against God. Chesterton defended the Church even when he was still an outsider. Ironically, today we sometimes have to defend the Church against insiders, against Catholics who would undermine their own faith. Chesterton says there have been times in the Church's history when it has been too much wedded to the world. But when it has been wedded to the world, he says, it has always found itself widowed by the world. When Chesterton died in 1936, Pope Pius XI called him a Defender of the Faith. He is still a defender of the faith, an apologist for right reason and divine revelation, as his words are still effective weapons against the attacks that come from all sides. He flings his opponents off with ease. He is still a maker of converts, turning his enemies into friends, his opponents into allies, wrestling with angels and refusing to let go.

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion. .

Proty April 11 at 10:20am

Consider me a Heretic as YOU wish. For I stand on Galatians 1:6-10 here. I DO NOT matter even when you confuse yourself into thinking I am important. JESUS CHRIST is the only ONE THAT MATTERS. So my objection to the Catholic Church is not a rejection of Christ. It is an OBJECTION to a Church that teaches a different Gospel. Jesus is the HEAD of the Church he built, not any man, for NO MAN is equal to God. At least I am SURE you are agreeing to that. Right? As for my Authority, I claim NOTHING FOR ME, I follow JESUS COMMAND in the Great Commision (Mat. 28:18-20, and Mark 16:16-16)

Catho April 11 at 10:23am Report

Lol...Proty, my child. All the Apostles started Catholic Churches. Why do you keep quoting them? St. Paul was Catholic, St. Peter was the first Pope, who Christ gave ALL his Authority to. Its pretty useless, to quote, scripture, considering, the bible was written to instruct the Catholic Church. YOUR in a man made, movement Proty. Christ is making a HUGE effort, to bring you into full communion with him. I truly pray, that full communion, will not be in Purgatory. .

Catho April 11 at 10:28am Report

Here is what, YOUR very Catholic Apostles with Jesus's full Authority, and Participation, established. The institution of the Eucharist

1337 The Lord, having loved those who were his own, loved them to the end. Knowing that the hour had come to leave this world and return to the Father, in the course of a meal he washed their feet and gave them the commandment of love.163 In order to leave them a pledge of this love, in order never to depart from his own and to make them sharers in his Passover, he instituted the Eucharist as the memorial of his death and Resurrection, and commanded his apostles to celebrate it until his return; "thereby he constituted them priests of the New Testament."164

1338 The three synoptic Gospels and St. Paul have handed on to us the account of the institution of the Eucharist; St. John, for his part, reports the words of Jesus in the synagogue of Capernaum that prepare for the institution of the Eucharist: Christ calls himself the bread of life, come down from heaven.165

1339 Jesus chose the time of Passover to fulfill what he had announced at Capernaum: giving his disciples his Body and his Blood:

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the passover meal for us, that we may eat it. . . ." They went . . . and prepared the passover. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.". . . . And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."166

1340 By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus' passing over to his father by his death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church in the glory of the kingdom.

"Do this in memory of me"

1341 The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words "until he comes" does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.167

1342 From the beginning the Church has been faithful to the Lord's command. Of the Church of Jerusalem it is written:

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. . . . Day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.168

1343 It was above all on "the first day of the week," Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection, that the Christians met "to break bread."169 From that time on down to our own day the celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we encounter it everywhere in the Church with the same fundamental structure. It remains the center of the Church's life.

1344 Thus from celebration to celebration, as they proclaim the Paschal mystery of Jesus "until he comes," the pilgrim People of God advances, "following the narrow way of the cross,"170 toward the heavenly banquet, when all the elect will be seated at the table of the kingdom. .

PART FIFTEEN
Proty April 11 at 10:57am

Really, The Apostiles started the Church. Which one died on the Cross for our sins? You just confessed the an Apostile as your saviour. And Why do you call God and Jesus a man? For Jesus Christ Started the Church not Peter. Peter started the spreading of it. And you ignore what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 all the while claiming it. For he calls Simon Peter (Petros), and says he will build HIS Church upon this rock (Petra). In 1 Cor. 10:4 we are told the Spiritual rock (Petra) is Jesus. And yes they spoke Aramaic, but there are seperate gender specific words for rock in that language, so no mistake by Matthew. As for me Quoting Galatians 1:6-10, note it includes all but God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in its warning.

Catho April 11 at 11:59am Report

Of course they did Proty! The Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth:1Tim:3:15! The Apostles were ordained by Christ to carry the Sacraments to the Lords Church! The bible can't be interpreted correctly without the Church! Christ started the Catholic Church at Pentecost! Paul is setting up, liturgical Churches! Christ didn't eliminate the Passover and Jewish traditions, he perfected them! There was no man made protestant Churches anywhere! .

Catho April 11 at 12:03pm Report

Bible only! Christ only churches! Are total fabrications! There nothing but pre-Churches at best! A group of believers! The literal communion, the Eucharist is at the center of the Lords Church! The cross is the New Treevof Life! Christ is the Paschal lamb! John 6 is literal! James is teaching, a totally Catholic gospel! Everything in your bible including Mary is all Catholic! .

Proty April 11 at 12:38pm

So then if Jesus started the Church, you were in error when you said the Apostles started the Church. As you also failled to notice that if Paul (who received the Gospel DIRECTLY FROM JESUS) or anyone changes the Gospel it is to their Damnation. These are Paul's own words in Galatians. As you (the Catholic Church) also change Jesus words in Matthew 16:18.

Catho April 11 at 2:41pm Report

Proty, the 12 Apostles, are the NEW Covenant, 12 Tribes of Israel. Jesus IS NOT, eliminating anything from the OT. He is perfecting it. He is NOT ELIMINATING, THE PRIESTHOOD, he is perfecting the Priesthood. Christ is the High Priest in heaven, he has established, the Church, led by Bishops, who are teachers, and Priests. So the Lord's ONE TIME SACRIFICE, can be made Present, to his ENTIRE MYSTICAL BODY, HIS CHURCH. The Church is constructed, with the Apostles and Prophets at the Base, and Jesus is the Cap Stone. There is ONLY one Church, my friend. The Catholic one. The very base of it, is made up, just as I said. .

Catho April 11 at 2:43pm Report

Here is whats is essentially missing, from your man made, symbolic Churches. Look at this again. 1339 Jesus chose the time of Passover to fulfill what he had announced at Capernaum: giving his disciples his Body and his Blood:

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the passover meal for us, that we may eat it. . . ." They went . . . and prepared the passover. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.". . . . And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."166

1340 By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus' passing over to his father by his death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church in the glory of the kingdom.

"Do this in memory of me"

1341 The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words "until he comes" does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.167

1342 From the beginning the Church has been faithful to the Lord's command. Of the Church of Jerusalem it is written:

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. . . . Day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.168

1343 It was above all on "the first day of the week," Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection, that the Christians met "to break bread."169 From that time on down to our own day the celebration of the Eucharist has been continued so that today we encounter it everywhere in the Church with the same fundamental structure. It remains the center of the Church's life.

1344 Thus from celebration to celebration, as they proclaim the Paschal mystery of Jesus "until he comes," the pilgrim People of God advances, "following the narrow way of the cross,"170 toward the heavenly banquet, when all the elect will be seated at the table of the kingdom. .

Catho April 11 at 2:45pm Report

The Bible, Proty, is simply an instruction manual, written to instruct, a very sacramental Catholic Church, all of these "Signs", are teaching, the Eucharist. THE EUCHARIST IN THE ECONOMY OF SALVATION

The signs of bread and wine

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took the cup filled with wine. . . ." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.155

1334 In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt; the remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread of the Word of God;156 their daily bread is the fruit of the promised land, the pledge of God's faithfulness to his promises. The "cup of blessing"157 at the end of the Jewish Passover meal adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup.

1335 The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist.158 The sign of water turned into wine at Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus' glorification. It makes manifest the fulfillment of the wedding feast in the Father's kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has become the Blood of Christ.159

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"160 The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. "Will you also go away?":161 the Lord's question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life"162 and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself. .

Proty April 11 at 3:15pm

Really? So me in the Bible one place (where the words DO NOT need to be stretched) that says it is only an instruction manual to show the Eucharist. BTW, that view demotes what Jesus did on the Cross to only minor importance. And how does Peter Denying he knows Jesus 3 times show the Eucharist?

Catho April 11 at 3:27pm Report

Proty..the killing of the Victim, in the OT Sacrifice, was only half the Sacrifice. The priest then, took the Blood of the Animal, into the Holy Of Holy's...to the Mercy seat. .

Catho April 11 at 3:28pm Report

The Early part of the Sacrifice, was finished on the Cross. Christ rose from the Dead, and as High Priest, took his blood, to the Mercy seat in heaven, the Reformers got it wrong...the Catholic Church has been correct all along .

Catho April 11 at 3:28pm Report

The Earthly part..typo .

Catho April 11 at 3:29pm Report

If you understood, Typology, Proty, and what the Church Fathers taught, you would understand, what Jesus is actually doing here..this is after he rose from the Dead. The Cross, was only half the Sacrifice....This is what we see in Hebrews 9:11-28:

But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer's ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God. For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. Now where there is a will, the death of the testator must be established. For a will takes effect only at death; it has no force while the testator is alive. Thus not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. When every commandment had been proclaimed by Moses to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves (and goats), together with water and crimson wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is 'the blood of the covenant which God has enjoined upon you.'" In the same way, he sprinkled also the tabernacle and all the vessels of worship with blood. According to the law almost everything is purified by blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Therefore, it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified by these rites, but the heavenly things themselves by better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf. Not that he might offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters each year into the sanctuary with blood that is not his own; if that were so, he would have had to suffer repeatedly from the foundation of the world. But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sin by his sacrifice. Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment, so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him."

What sanctuary is being referred to? Not the earthly sanctuary. The heavenly one, as we see in Hebrews 8:5.

The author proceeds to describe Christ's "interceding for those united to Him in light of His finished work" in the same SACRIFICIAL LINGO that we see in Leviticus. Atonement is not made soley by Christ's life functions ceasing. It is made, according to Hebrews, as a result of Christ entering the Heavenly sanctuary to prepare the way for us by His blood.

WHY is there this elaborate description if Christ's death was "it"? Why is the term "sacrifices" in Hebrews 9:23 used to describe these actions Christ takes in Heaven? His heavenly action is not merely the presentation of a completed work; it is the capstone, the completion of that very work.

Where the text says, "But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sin by his sacrifice" it is not referring to His death. It is referring, in context, to His presence in the heavenly sanctuary. Christ appears before God on our behalf, SACRIFICIALLY, just as the High Priest appeared before God on behalf of the Israelities in the inner sanctuary of the Temple when he actually FINISHED making atonement...in contrast to the Protestants View!

Catho April 11 at 3:31pm Report

What you fail to grasp, my friend, is what the Jewish Traditions are, like the day of Atonement, and the Passover. You simply, believe, as the reformers, that Christ, eliminated all the OT, traditions, including the Priesthood...nothing could be farther from the Truth...Christ perfected all of them...YES, ITS A ONE TIME SACRIFICE, but that Sacrifice, and its merits, are being MADE PRESENT, to us, right now, at the Holy Mass... .

Catho April 11 at 3:31pm Report

The communion, is LITERAL .

Catho April 11 at 3:32pm Report

We are not eating, a dead person. We are receiving, eternal life. Just as Christ promised in John 6. We are receiving, the Body, blood, soul and divinity, from Christ, the Fruit, from the New Tree of Life... .

Proty April 11 at 3:57pm

Ok I am still waiting for you to show me just one place in the Scriptures (that the words DO NOT need to be stretched) that says it is an instruction manual to show the Eucharist. Also if you explained how Peter disowning Jesus 3 times shows the Eucharist I missed it.

Catho April 11 at 3:58pm Report

Proty, the ENTIRE BIBLE, front to back, is all Eucharist...it just hasn't been revealed to you..there is NO STRETCHING, none..your reading everything, literally... .

Catho April 11 at 3:58pm Report

Peter disowning Jesus 3 times, what does that have to do with anything? .

Catho April 11 at 4:02pm Report

There is NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE, Proty, for the most part, that doesn't teach the Eucharist. The entire OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT, are Eucharistic, teaching. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 3

www.scborromeo.org

Second Edition English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Index, Cross-references and Search Utility

.Share.

Proty April 11 at 5:23pm

You said the Bible is nothing but an instruction manual showing the "signs" and the Eucharist. So what does Peter disowning Jesus 3 times have to do with the Eucharist? So as there is NOTHING in the Scriptures saying that, why DO YOU say that it is only an Eucharist instruction manual, when it does not so? Look at 2 Timothy 3:17. Notice it says "equiped for every good work" not just one.

Catho April 11 at 5:25pm Report

Proty...give me a break...2 Timothy 3:17 is being written for the Catholic Church. .

Catho April 11 at 5:29pm Report

Proty, I don't know how to say, it any clearer. Jesus Christ started the Catholic Church, but to understand the Catholic Church, you have to understand, the Economy of the Church. You have to understand, Mary as the New Eve, and the New Ark of the Covenant, you have to understand, just by the very fact, that John 6, is totally teaching, that Christ, is Literally saying, we MUST eat his Flesh and Drink His blood, completely changes, how to read the bible. You keep talking about Stretching Scripture. Actually, the Reverse is true. You Proty, have to twist and Stretch Scripture, remove books, change History, and totally deny, all the Church Fathers, and direct Disciples, in order to be comfortable, with a Bible only mentality... .

Catho April 11 at 5:31pm Report

Your bible only Church, or so-Called Church, is only a phantom. There is certainly NOT one, that reflects scripture, there is not one, that can be seen, anywhere in history. There is not one, taught by any of the Church Fathers, or first disciples...its really just that simple .

Catho April 11 at 5:35pm Report

On the contrary, ALL of scripture, reveals, A SACRIFICE, the Father is Sacrificing his Son..Its definitely not FINISHED ON THE CROSS, the Passover, is Finished, but the Atonement, is continual, AFTER Christ raises, Hebrews, is crystal Clear. Christ, the ETERNAL HIGH Priest, is now Taking His Blood, to the Tabernacle, in Heaven, to offer HIS Atoning Blood on the Mercy Seat of God the Father. Revelations, clearly shows, Mary, the Queen of Heaven is there. Mary is appearing all over the World, in might ways...The Communion, Proty, would logically be Literal. The Holy Mass, perfectly fits all of scripture. You caught, in silly little traps, like Peter denying, Jesus Three times...as if that means, there is no succession? Please. .

Catho April 11 at 5:38pm Report

So much for Peter denying, Christ 3 Times. Your problem, Proty is your in a man made Church, probably the Church of Christ, and your founder, has convinced you, YOUR IN AN ACTUAL NEW TESTAMENT, CHURCH, and the Catholics are nuts...lol...WRONG...Unfortunately, for your pastor, he is going to have a REALLY HARD TIME, explaining, why HIS CHURCH, CAN'T FOUND ANYWHERE, AND ST. Peters, is as clear as a bell. ROME...my friend, ever heard of it? ONE OF THESE DAYS, PROTY, YOU WILL ACTUALLY SPEND, JUST A SMALL AMOUNT OF YOUR TIME, ACTUALLY DOING YOUR OWN, RESEARCH..... CONCLUSION ON "KEYS" OF ISAIAH 22 AS PARALLEL TO MATTHEW 16

Thus the prime minister or chief steward of the house of David had successors. He is described as being "over the household" and "in charge of the palace" (Isa 22:15; 36:3; 1 Kings 4:6; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18); as for his authority "what he shall open, no one shall shut...and what he shall shut, no one shall open" (Isa 22:22; Matt 16:19; Rev 3:7). The prime minister had an incredible amount of authority, what can only be called a supreme or plenary authority beside that of the King. This is the language of the "keys," "binding," and "loosing" that Jesus was using in Matthew 16:19. Peter was given the "keys" just as the prime minister had the "key to the house of David" (Isa 22:22). And this is important in seeing the parallel to Matthew 16:19 -- the prime minister was an office of dynastic succession (Isa 22:19,22). In other words, when the prime minister or chief steward died, another one would be selected to fill the office and take his place. Jesus recognizes the office of prime minister or chief steward ("manager" NIV) in his parables, as one who has been placed in charge and set over the household (Matt 24:45ff; 20:8; Luke 12:42; 16:1ff; cf. Gen 41:40ff; 43:19; 44:4; 45:8ff).

Just as the prime minister or chief steward (other terms include major domo, grand vizier, royal chamberlain, or palace administrator) had the "keys" and the other ministers did not, the Lord made Peter the prime minister in His visible Church, making him the visible head of the apostles over the Church, giving him the "keys of the kingdom" with a special and unique authority in Matthew 16:18-19. The office of prime minister was one of dynastic succession, and this is the language Jesus borrows from Isaiah 22:15ff. While Protestant scholars (such as those I have cited) typically would try to deny the full Catholic conclusions from the passage, it is clear St. Peter did have successors in the Bishops of Rome. That is how the Catholic Church of the earliest centuries came to understand the ongoing ministry and authority of Peter in the Church (the Bishop of Rome was the "Chair [or See] of Peter" or simply "the Apostolic See"). The historical evidence for the unique primacy of Peter and the Bishop of Rome will be discussed next.

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON ST. PETER AND THE "PRIMACY OF ROME"

From Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (1986) under Peter, St, Apostle (page 5-6)

"The papacy, through successive popes and councils, has always traced its origins and title-deeds to the unique commission reported to have been given by Jesus Christ to Peter, the chief of his Apostles, later to be martyred when organizing the earliest group of Christians at Rome....According to Matt 16:13-20, when Jesus asked the disciples whom they took him to be, Simon answered for them all that he was the Messiah, the Son of the living God; in reply Jesus pronounced him blessed because of this inspired insight, bestowed on him the Aramaic name Cephas (= 'rock'), rendered Peter in Greek, and declared that he would build his indestructible church on 'this rock', and would give him 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven' and the powers of 'binding and loosing' ....

"[In the first half of Acts]...Peter was the undisputed leader of the youthful church. It was he who presided over the choice of a successor to Judas (1:15-26), who explained to the crowd the meaning of Pentecost (2:14-40), who healed the lame beggar at the Temple (3:1-10), who pronounced sentence on Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11), and who opened the church to Gentiles by having Cornelius baptized without undergoing circumcision (10:9-48). He was to the fore in preaching, defending the new movement, working miracles of healing, and visiting newly established Christian communities...

"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'Babylon' is a code-name for Rome, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome."

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans, 1910) --

"Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese." (Schaff, volume 2, page 157)

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states \--

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, volume 2, page 158)

The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is --

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)

St. Linus (67-76)

St. Anacletus (76-88)

St. Clement I (88-97)

St. Evaristus (97-105)

St. Alexander I (105-115)

St. Sixtus I (115-125)

St. Telesphorus (125-136)

St. Hyginus (136-140)

St. Pius I (140-155)

St. Anicetus (155-166)

St. Soter (166-175)

St. Eleutherius (175-189)

St. Victor I (189-199)

"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)

Schaff then proceeds to list the Bishops of Rome just as I have them above, along with the corresponding Roman Emperors. St. Irenaeus gives this exact list of successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome up to his time (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3 c. 180-199 AD), as does St. Hegesippus up to his time (about 20 years earlier, c. 160 AD) cited in the first History of the Church by Eusebius.

Catho April 11 at 5:40pm Report

I strongly suggest, Proty, some day, you save your penny's, and try and make it to Rome. I love the Eternal City. History, my friend, doesn't lie. I have never understood guys, like you, Proty. It took me about 2 days, to actually discern...YUP, the Bible, didn't just land in the lap, of millions of Illiterate fundamentalist Christians, after Pentecost..as a matter of fact, the bible, wasn't even in circulation, the entire time, these Popes, were running the Lord's Church...The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is --

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)

St. Linus (67-76)

St. Anacletus (76-88)

St. Clement I (88-97)

St. Evaristus (97-105)

St. Alexander I (105-115)

St. Sixtus I (115-125)

St. Telesphorus (125-136)

St. Hyginus (136-140)

St. Pius I (140-155)

St. Anicetus (155-166)

St. Soter (166-175)

St. Eleutherius (175-189)

St. Victor I (189-199)

"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)

Schaff then proceeds to list the Bishops of Rome just as I have them above, along with the corresponding Roman Emperors. St. Irenaeus gives this exact list of successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome up to his time (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3 c. 180-199 AD), as does St. Hegesippus up to his time (about 20 years earlier, c. 160 AD) cited in the first History of the Church by Eusebius. .

Catho April 11 at 5:42pm Report

The Letters to the Church at Corinth, WENT TO JUST THAT CHURCH, the rest of St. Paul's Church were running smoothly. They were all jewish, and they understood, the Passover perfectly. The Jewish, traditions, didn't end Proty...Christ just perfected them. Like I said, as long as you view the Bible, as being IN THE HANDS, of Christians, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE, you won't understand, HOW FAR, your movement, truly is..to Christ .

Catho April 11 at 5:45pm Report

That difference, between, great Converts, like Dr. Scott Hahn, or Steve Ray, or other fundamentalists, now Catholic..is simple. They immediately realized, the incredible blessing it truly was, to have, the Church Fathers, and direct Disciples, and there writings..to study. You on the other hand, for WHATEVER BIZARRE REASON, seem to think...THERE NOT ESSENTIAL, after all, ONLY THE BIBLE, IS IMPORTANT? My question is....WHO IN THE HECK, CONVINCED YOU OF THAT??????????????????????????? lol...thats pure stupidity. No offense...your picking and choosing Proty. Determining, WHAT fits and doesn't fit...and with who's Authority? .

Catho April 11 at 5:46pm Report

Your actually Proty...trying to convince yourself...THAT NO ONE, HAD ANYTHING CORRECT, FOR ALMOST 15 CENTURY'S...lol...oh boy .

Catho April 11 at 5:49pm Report

Last post, Proty...let me give you the answer, to Peter denying the Jesus Three times...the succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is \--

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)

St. Linus (67-76)

St. Anacletus (76-88)

St. Clement I (88-97)

St. Evaristus (97-105)

St. Alexander I (105-115)

St. Sixtus I (115-125)

St. Telesphorus (125-136)

St. Hyginus (136-140)

St. Pius I (140-155)

St. Anicetus (155-166)

St. Soter (166-175)

St. Eleutherius (175-189)

St. Victor I (189-199)

"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)

Schaff then proceeds to list the Bishops of Rome just as I have them above, along with the corresponding Roman Emperors. St. Irenaeus gives this exact list of successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome up to his time (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3 c. 180-199 AD), as does St. Hegesippus up to his time (about 20 years earlier, c. 160 AD) cited in the first History of the Church by Eusebius. .

THE END

ABOUT THE PRESENTER

Mark Richard Masters was born in Northern California, but his family moved to Oregon when he was very young. After they finally settled down in a very small town, his family fractured. Shortly after that Mark began to write. For many years he would alternate between writing and not. Finally he decided to try to make money off of his hobby.

While Mark is not, nor has he been, a student at any accredited college of Religious study, he has studied. He has taken many online courses and spends time in the Word and in prayer. What he would ask is that you do not lightly take his word but check it out in the Bible.
ALSO BY MARK MASTERS ON SMASHWORDS

Returning to God (a Christian poetry echapbook)

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/279557

A Call to Witness (a Christian poetry echapbook)

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/289178

Jesus Chapbook (a Christian poetry echapbook)

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/291409

I also write some genre poetry and prose!

