Standing Up To Rome

Cruciform

New member
It's often alleged by people ignorant of RCC history...
Now WH is going to present himself as a supposed "expert" on Catholic Church history...

...that the Church has always believed that "this rock" about which Christ spoke at Matt 16:18 is Peter.
As even a cursory reading of the Early Church Fathers makes clear (see Post #228 above).

Rome’s rule for explaining the Scriptures and determining doctrine is the Creed of Pius IV. This Creed binds Rome to explain the Scriptures only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
That is, of the early scholars and leaders of the Catholic Church during its first eight centuries or so.

In the year 1870 when the Fathers gathered and the Pope declared his infallibility, the Cardinals were not in agreement on Matt 16:18.
Sorry, but 19th-century Cardinals are not part of the Early Church Fathers. Try again.

They held no less than five differing interpretations.
Catholics acknowledge a few related meanings of Mt. 16:18, though none of them negates or denies the fact that Peter himself is the "Rock" upon which Christ would build his Church.


Everything in your post is addressed in detail in Post #228 above.


Also, if you're going to post this type of information, you need to include your source as well. Post the URL for the above content, please.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

WeberHome

New member
-
Neither the word purgatory, nor a specific teaching about a purgatory, is
actually in the Holy Bible; so Rome points to certain passages that, although
they don't actually prove without a shadow of a doubt the existence of a
purgatory, they allude to (suggest the possibility of) a purgatory. For
example:

In 2Mcc 12:38-46 a Jewish military commander named Judas Maccabeus
made an attempt to atone for his dead soldiers' pagan amulets which he
believed is a crime against God for Jews to wear. So Judas passed the hat
among his surviving men and collected about 2,000 silver drachmas which
were sent to Jerusalem intended for a sacrifice to expiate his dead men's sin
so that it wouldn't jeopardize their resurrection.

Although Judas meant well; what he did was itself a violation of the very
Law that he sought to appease. There are no sacrifices stipulated in the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy for expiating the sins that people take with
them over to the afterlife.

The very Law he sought to appease makes it a crime to either amend,
embellish, add to, revise, edit, upgrade, update, or subtract from the
covenant.

†. Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take
anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God
that I enjoin upon you.

†. Deut 5:32-33 . . Be careful, therefore, to do as the LORD, your God, has
commanded you, not turning aside to the right or to the left, but following
exactly the way prescribed for you by the LORD, your God,

†. Deut 26:16 . . This day the LORD, your God, commands you to observe
these statutes and decrees. Be careful, then, to observe them with all your
heart and with all your soul.

Therefore, had the priests at Jerusalem accepted Judas Maccabeus' 2,000
silver drachmas for the purpose he intended, they would have been cursed.

†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who fails to fulfill any of the provisions of this
law!

The phrase "cursed be" is grammatically present tense; so that when Yhvh's
people beak any one of the laws stipulated in the covenant, they incur an
instant curse upon themselves-- no delay, and no waiting period.

Bottom line: What Judas Maccabeus did was just as pagan as the amulets
that his men were wearing when they died.

Q: How can you doubt the truth of 2Mcc 12:38-46? It’s in the Holy Bible!

A: Just because somebody's personal beliefs are recorded in the Bible does
not make their personal beliefs eo ipso truth. Judas believed it was possible
for living Jews to offer sacrifices for the sins of dead Jews. Is it? No;
absolutely not! Were it possible, then a procedure for that purpose would be
stipulated in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Atonements for the dead fall into the category of sins of presumption; viz:
unauthorized behavior.

If 2Mcc 12:38-46 teaches anything at all it’s that the Israel of Judas
Maccabeus’ day was spiritually decadent-- just as decadent as it was in the
days of the Judges when every man did that which was right in his own eyes
rather than Yhvh's eyes; and they were still at it even in Christ's day and
age.

†. Mark 7:6-9 . . And Jesus said to them: Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you
hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors me with their lips, but their
heart is far away from me. In futility do they worship me, teaching as
doctrines the precepts of men. Neglecting the commandment of God, you
hold to the tradition of men.

†. Mark 7:13 . . You invalidate the word of God by your tradition which you
have handed down; and you do many things such as that.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
Last edited:

WeberHome

New member
-
One of the Church's earliest official proclamations regarding a Purgatory was
Pope Leo X's Bull of Exurge Domine. In the year 1520 he stated, along with
some other things, that death is the termination not of nature but of sin, and
this inability to sin makes [purgatorial souls] secure of final happiness; viz:
according to Leo X, the occupants of a Purgatory are unable to sin;
subsequently, they are sinless and will not commit new sins while
undergoing purgatorial discipline and purification.

It wasn't till Vatican 1, held 1869-1870AD, that a Church Council decreed
the infallibility of the Pope when, speaking as shepherd and teacher of all
Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the
whole Church. Vatican 1's decree was enacted 350 years after Leo X's Bull.

The laws of God enacted ex post facto are not retroactive. This is easily
proven by Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17.

Therefore it would be presumptuous to accept Leo's Bull as ex cathedra; viz:
it should not be accepted by conscientious Catholics as the God's truth;
especially in light of the historical fact that Leo X's personal life, and also his
deplorable dealings in an official capacity, almost single-handedly totally
destroyed people's confidence in the papacy. Men like Leo X are not above
fabricating "truth" right out of thin air as a means to their own ends.

Sigismondo Tizio, whose devotion to the Holy See is undoubted, wrote
truthfully: "In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her
Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of
paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over their
misfortunes."

Von Reumont said; "Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that
faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating
powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men
could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church."

Regarding the concept of a zero-propensity to sin in a Purgatory: none of the
Church's Ecumenical Councils— beginning with Nicaea 1 in 325AD till Vatican
2 in 1962-65AD, a total of twenty-one Ecumenical Councils in all —have
taken in hand to write Leo's concept into the Catechism; yet it isn't
uncommon for professing Catholics to refer to Leo's Bull as the teachings of
the Church. I have a hunch there will come a day when the concept of
sinless purgatorians will be stricken from Catholicism just as Limbo already
has.

However, I'm sure you can see right off just how essential it would be for
souls in a Purgatory to be incapable of sinning, because if they weren't, then
Rome’s promise in CCC.1030, of an assured eternal salvation for
purgatorians, would be a tenuous guarantee indeed since each new sin
committed while interred in a Purgatory would add time to the penitent’s
original sentence; with the very real possibility of potentially snow-balling to
the point where they would never be released.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
-
Neither the word purgatory, nor a specific teaching about a purgatory, is
actually in the Holy Bible; so Rome points to certain passages that, although
they don't actually prove without a shadow of a doubt the existence of a
purgatory, they allude to (suggest the possibility of) a purgatory. For
example:

In 2Mcc 12:38-46 a Jewish military commander named Judas Maccabeus
made an attempt to atone for his dead soldiers' pagan amulets which he
believed is a crime against God for Jews to wear. So Judas passed the hat
among his surviving men and collected about 2,000 silver drachmas which
were sent to Jerusalem intended for a sacrifice to expiate his dead men's sin
so that it wouldn't jeopardize their resurrection.

Although Judas meant well; what he did was itself a violation of the very
Law that he sought to appease. There are no sacrifices stipulated in the
covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy for expiating the sins that people take with
them over to the afterlife.

The very Law he sought to appease makes it a crime to either amend,
embellish, add to, revise, edit, upgrade, update, or subtract from the
covenant.

†. Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take
anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God
that I enjoin upon you.

†. Deut 5:32-33 . . Be careful, therefore, to do as the LORD, your God, has
commanded you, not turning aside to the right or to the left, but following
exactly the way prescribed for you by the LORD, your God,

†. Deut 26:16 . . This day the LORD, your God, commands you to observe
these statutes and decrees. Be careful, then, to observe them with all your
heart and with all your soul.

Therefore, had the priests at Jerusalem accepted Judas Maccabeus' 2,000
silver drachmas for the purpose he intended, they would have been cursed.

†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who fails to fulfill any of the provisions of this
law!

The phrase "cursed be" is grammatically present tense; so that when Yhvh's
people beak any one of the laws stipulated in the covenant, they incur an
instant curse upon themselves-- no delay, and no waiting period.

Bottom line: What Judas Maccabeus did was just as pagan as the amulets
that his men were wearing when they died.

Q: How can you doubt the truth of 2Mcc 12:38-46? It’s in the Holy Bible!

A: Just because somebody's personal beliefs are recorded in the Bible does
not make their personal beliefs eo ipso truth. Judas believed it was possible
for living Jews to offer sacrifices for the sins of dead Jews. Is it? No;
absolutely not! Were it possible, then a procedure for that purpose would be
stipulated in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Atonements for the dead fall into the category of sins of presumption; viz:
unauthorized behavior.

If 2Mcc 12:38-46 teaches anything at all it’s that the Israel of Judas
Maccabeus’ day was spiritually decadent-- just as decadent as it was in the
days of the Judges when every man did that which was right in his own eyes
rather than Yhvh's eyes; and they were still at it even in Christ's day and
age.

†. Mark 7:6-9 . . And Jesus said to them: Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you
hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors me with their lips, but their
heart is far away from me. In futility do they worship me, teaching as
doctrines the precepts of men. Neglecting the commandment of God, you
hold to the tradition of men.

†. Mark 7:13 . . You invalidate the word of God by your tradition which you
have handed down; and you do many things such as that.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Crux has a catholic website for everything.
 

Cruciform

New member
Crux has a Catholic website for everything.
No doubt you would prefer I appeal to an ANTI-Catholic source, as you do? No thanks. I'll stick with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church.

Also, I don't notice you disproving the content of any of my sources. If you disagree with Catholic teaching, feel free to actually disprove it. And if you can't, then you really have no business commenting about Catholicism on a public forum.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
 

WeberHome

New member
-
I've found that the best way to deal with cults like Catholicism and Jehovah's
Witnesses is not to quarrel and/or debate and argue; but instead just simply
show folks that the cults' interpretations aren't the only interpretations out
there to choose from. In other words; offer folks something akin to a second
opinion and let them make up their own minds. If there is one thing I really
hate it's a bigoted cultist.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
Last edited:

brewmama

New member
-
I've found that the best way to deal with cults like Catholicism and Jehovah's
Witnesses is not to quarrel and/or debate and argue; but instead just simply
show folks that the cults' interpretations aren't the only interpretations out
there to choose from. In other words; give folks something akin to a second
opinion and let them make up their own minds. If there is one thing I really
hate it's a bigoted cultist.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

:rotfl: Pot, kettle...
 

WeberHome

New member
-
Easter week commemorates the most important event in the history of
mankind-- Christ's resurrection.

If Jesus hadn't revived, absolutely nobody would have the slightest chance
of escaping the wrath of God. Why? Because the Bible says that Christ was
raised again for our justification (Rom 4:25).

The New Testament Greek word for *justification is: dikaiosis (dik-ah'-yo
sis) which means: acquittal. Webster's defines "acquittal" as a setting free
from the charge of an offense by verdict, sentence, or other legal process.

So then, although Jesus was "delivered for our offenses" (Rom 4:25), his
crucifixion alone wasn't quite adequate to fully liberate sinners from their
due retribution. It was only after he was raised from the dead that sinners
could be guaranteed full and complete immunity from the wrath of God.

†. 1Cor 15:17 . . And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in
your sins!

Christ's resurrection makes it possible for all human beings everywhere to
escape the wrath of God; because via the combined effects of his crucifixion
and resurrection, it is now possible for even the most heinous of sinners to
obtain a full, and complete pardon.

But did his mom believe he would be back from the dead? I don't think so.
Search the list of names of the women who went out to Christ's gravesite on
Easter morning, and you will not find her mentioned among them. None of
Christ's original disciples believed he was going to recover from crucifixion,
so it shouldn't surprise anyone that Christ's mom didn't believe either. It's
not like she committed some kind of heinous atrocity or gross sin. Her doubt
was simply status quo among Christ's followers.

There's really very few plausible Bible reasons why Christ's mom wasn't out
in the cemetery waiting to greet her son Easter morning.

1• She didn't believe he was coming back

2• She didn't believe he could come back

3• She forgot he said he was coming back

4• She didn't know he said he was coming back

5• She was indisposed when he came back

6• She was out of town when he came back

In regards to #1; because normal mothers are so bonded to their own flesh
and blood, this reason seems to me the most likely.

In regards to #2; the physical mess Jesus was in after his ordeal makes this
a likely possibility; but no excuse.

In regards to #3; that actually happened to a number of the disciples-- but
would a normal mother forget something like that?

In regards to #4; it's highly unlikely Jesus would confide such an important
matter with his disciples and not his own mom-- the alleged Queen Of
Heaven and the Mother Of All Christians?

In regards to #5; there's nothing in the Gospel narratives suggesting
Christ's mom was indisposed.

In regards to #6; it's highly unlikely Christ's mom would leave Jerusalem if
she knew her boy was going to recover from crucifixion. Any truly loving
mother would want to be on hand when her boy was restored to life and his
injuries healed. Surely that would be just as much cause for a joyous
reunion as a son coming home alive and well from the war in Afghanistan.

I don't know if you have any children of your own, but I can tell you from
35+ years of parental experience with a very sensitive woman, that if my
son were to be killed, and his mother expected him back in three days; she
would have been camped out in that cemetery all three of those days
waiting for him; and threats to cut her throat wouldn't persuade her
otherwise. Any normal mother would have been out there in that cemetery3
even if there was only a remote chance their boy might recover. I know,
because I've seen that kind of mother's love right here in my own home.

If Christ's mom truly believed her boy would recover, and truly expected him
to; then if she was even half the mother my wife is; she would have been
out there at the very least on the third day waiting for him with food and
water and fresh clothing; but alas, she wasn't: not because she didn't love
her son; but simply because she didn't believe he'd be there.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
 

WeberHome

New member
-
Webster's defines "acquittal" as a setting free from the charge of an offense
by verdict, sentence, or other legal process.

The "legal process" aspect of the acquittal available by means of Christ's
crucifixion is very important because God never just arbitrarily sweep sins
under the rug. That wouldn't be justice; no, that would be a miscarriage of
justice.

The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). That sentence has to be carried out:
it cannot be waived.

People have a couple of options for satisfying Rom 6:23. They can either go
to their deaths in the lake of flaming sulfur depicted at Rev 20:10-15 or they
can opt to go their deaths with Christ.

†. Rom 6:3 . . Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

†. Rom 6:6 . . Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him

†. Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ

†. Col 3:3 . . For you died when Christ died

So then, the acquittal available by means of Christ's crucifixion isn't an
arbitrary pardon like when governors take it upon themselves to commute
the sentences of men and women on death row in state prisons. No, the only
way off of God's death row is the gallows. One way or another, God gets His
pound of flesh: either on the cross, or in the lake of flaming sulfur.

Now: if I have fully satisfied justice for myself by death with Christ on his
cross; then what do I need Rome for? What does Rome have to offer me
that's better than what I've already obtained on the cross?

I honestly believed at one time that my affiliation with Rome protected me
from the wrath of God. Boy was I fooled. Rome can't even protect its Popes;
let alone John and Jane Doe pew warmer.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
rome is still standing
it can be found
it doesn't have many waters
it was never know for its trade
it was never a mystery
everyone knew it had seven hills
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No doubt you would prefer I appeal to an ANTI-Catholic source, as you do? No thanks. I'll stick with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church.

Also, I don't notice you disproving the content of any of my sources. If you disagree with Catholic teaching, feel free to actually disprove it. And if you can't, then you really have no business commenting about Catholicism on a public forum.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Purpose of the Council of Trent.

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-council-of-trent
 
Top