Is The Bible Reliable?

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1287706536' post='2181463']
I smell troll. It's making me hungry. For troll.
[/quote]

I'm new, so I don't know what eating troll means. It's obviously not something complimentary. But it seems to me that it must have something to do with being surprised that someone has the nerve to disagree with you. May I not do so? When I came across this website, it says "debate", and I don't see any debate going on---just Catholics agreeing with one another.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287705988' post='2181461']
[size="3"]Your statement that Jesus established the [s]Roman[/s] Catholic Church and that it's reflected in Scripture, is untrue.[/quote]
I improved this statement for you. It's still wrong, but it now says what you meant it to say.

You're welcome.


[quote]
When He made that statement to Peter, Rome was 1500 miles away, and the last thing on His mind was setting up a religious superstructure in Italy as His headquarters.[/size]
[/quote]
Nobody thinks the Vatican is a magical place. If the Vatican completely ceased to exist, the Church would still exist.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1287781405' post='2181633']
I improved this statement for you. It's still wrong, but it now says what you meant it to say.

You're welcome.



[quote]

Excuse me? One wonders why a Roman Catholic is trying to escape his affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church!


CCC #834. "From the incarnate Word's descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [[color="#222222"]at[/color] [color="#222222"]Rome[/color]] to be their only basis and foundation.. ."

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287785956' post='2181641']

Excuse me? One wonders why a Roman Catholic is trying to escape his affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church!


CCC #834. "From the incarnate Word's descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [[color="#222222"]at[/color] [color="#222222"]Rome[/color]] to be their only basis and foundation.. ."
[/quote]
"Roman" is merely the rite. Did you really mean to oppose only one rite within the Catholic Church? If so, then I was in error. Perhaps you prefer the Maronite or Ukrainian rite? One of the others?

Yes, Roma locuta est...I got that. I understand the full meaning of that. And it ain't geography.

I gotta add that when I help you make your statements accurate, you shouldn't attack me. You should thank me. I even assumed you were a really courteous person by putting my "you're welcome" in the same post.

I also gotta add that I wish my edits didn't show up. It could really make people doubt their sanity if there were no notation of me editing stuff.

Also, one [i]what [/i]wonders?

Edited October 22, 2010 by Winchester

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1287786581' post='2181642']
"Roman" is merely the rite. Did you really mean to oppose only one rite within the Catholic Church? If so, then I was in error. Perhaps you prefer the Maronite or Ukrainian rite? One of the others?

Yes, Roma locuta est...I got that. I understand the full meaning of that. And it ain't geography.

I gotta add that when I help you make your statements accurate, you shouldn't attack me. You should thank me. I even assumed you were a really courteous person by putting my "you're welcome" in the same post.

I also gotta add that I wish my edits didn't show up. It could really make people doubt their sanity if there were no notation of me editing stuff.

Also, one [i]what [/i]wonders?
[/quote]

First of all, I needn't "thank you" for making my statements accurate (at least in this case), and will thank you at the proper time should I need correction.
Second, I am aware of the other rites, but they are insignificant. My point, which was [i]accurate, [/i]as confirmed by the catechism, is that Rome considers herself the "Mother & Mistress of [i]all[/i] churches". Do you deny this? Therefore, Protestants are by no means out of order in throwing our darts at [i]her [/i]in particular.
Third, the catechism most definitely was making a geographical reference, so who knows what you mean by saying, "it ain't geography". And so one [i]still [/i] wonders why you crossed out the word "Roman". I'm quite familiar with Catholic doctrine, so I would advise you to support your contentions with facts.
Do you not believe that Peter was pope of Rome? Vatican 1 said that Christ bestowed upon Peter an "immediate primacy of jurisdiction" which, according to them, was where this "confirmation" took place, and which you believe extended ultimately to Rome. So we are indeed talking "geography".
([i]On the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in Blessed Peter, [/i]ch. 1).

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287795693' post='2181669']
First of all, I needn't "thank you" for making my statements accurate (at least in this case), and will thank you at the proper time should I need correction.
Second, I am aware of the other rites, but they are insignificant. My point, which was [i]accurate, [/i]as confirmed by the catechism, is that Rome considers herself the "Mother & Mistress of [i]all[/i] churches". Do you deny this? Therefore, Protestants are by no means out of order in throwing our darts at [i]her [/i]in particular.
Third, the catechism most definitely was making a geographical reference, so who knows what you mean by saying, "it ain't geography". And so one [i]still [/i] wonders why you crossed out the word "Roman". I'm quite familiar with Catholic doctrine, so I would advise you to support your contentions with facts.
Do you not believe that Peter was pope of Rome? Vatican 1 said that Christ bestowed upon Peter an "immediate primacy of jurisdiction" which, according to them, was where this "confirmation" took place, and which you believe extended ultimately to Rome. So we are indeed talking "geography".
([i]On the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in Blessed Peter, [/i]ch. 1).
[/quote]
Rome is the See. When you use Roman Catholic Church, you're not referring to the See of Peter, but to the Rite.

You're welcome.


Again.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287795693' post='2181669']
I'm quite familiar with Catholic doctrine, so I would advise you to support your contentions with facts.

[/quote]
I noticed this whilst returning to my own vomit and giggled like a school girl.

I now have two posts in a row. Your argument is invalid.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287705988' post='2181461']
[size="3"]Your statement that Jesus established the Roman Catholic Church and that it's reflected in Scripture, is untrue. When He made that statement to Peter, Rome was 1500 miles away, and the last thing on His mind was setting up a religious superstructure in Italy as His headquarters.[/size]
[/quote]
Jesus didn't establish a particularly "roman" church, he established a universal church. If Peter had settled in Antioch,and the following heads of the churches had stayed there, it would be the Antiochan church. If Constantinople had been the head of the Empire, that would be the seat of the church. The location is not important, where the follower of St Peter is, there is the seat of the universal Church.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1287797334' post='2181678']
Rome is the See. When you use Roman Catholic Church, you're not referring to the See of Peter, but to the Rite.

You're welcome.


Again.
[/quote]

[size="4"]By the way, I have no idea what you mean in your other post that you returned to your own vomit. You don't appear to write in clear sentences; only to say that my argument is invalid. [/size]
[size="4"]When I refer to the Roman Catholic Church, I may [i]indeed [/i] refer simutaneously to the See of Peter! A web definition for the Holy See: It is, "[/size][i][size="4"]the episcopal [/size][u][size="4"]jurisdiction[/size][/u][size="4"] [so we again we're talking geography] of the Bishop of Rome forming the central government of the church (Roman Curia)." [/size][/i]
[size="4"]You appear to be playing some sort of semantic game. The main headquarters of the [i]rite [/i]of the Roman Church is in Rome, Italy, just as Jehovah's Witnesses set up their charade somewhere in N.Y. I know perfectly well that if someone was a Maronite Catholic or any one of (I think at least a dozen) other rites, they are at liberty not to be called "Roman". But at the end of the day, [i]who cares?! [/i] They are all in subjection to ROME, and there can be nothing wrong with calling them [i]Roman Catholics, [/i] since your own literature demands a distinctly [i]Roman identity.[/i][/size]


[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="5"]
[size="2"]Mainland Chinese party officials might well regard it as more charitable and polite to designate their totalitarian regime the "People's Republic of China," but I'll stick with "Red China."

Mormons might find it more charitable and polite if we called them "Christians" rather than "Mormons." After all, the self-designation of their cult is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." I'll stick with "Mormons".


Likewise, the abortion lobby prefers to peddle euphemisms like "woman's choice" or "medical procedure." Does charity or courtesy oblige me to be a party of their agenda? As far as I'm concerned, they're having an [i]abortion, and that's that.[/i]
[/size]

As for Roman Catholics, if the shoe fits, wear it.
"I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and [u]Roman[/u] Church, the mother and mistress of all the Churches." ([url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM"][color="#5588aa"]First Vatican Council, 2:12[/color][/url])


"They adopted an attitude of opposition and, prodigal of their good name and enemies to their own honour, they strove to their utmost with pestilential daring to rend the unity of the holy [u]Roman[/u] and universal church and the seamless robe of Christ', and with serpent-like bites to lacerate the womb of the pious and holy mother herself." ([url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM"][color="#5588aa"]Council of Florence, session 9[/color][/url])[/size][/font]

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1287802563' post='2181690']
Jesus didn't establish a particularly "roman" church, he established a universal church. If Peter had settled in Antioch,and the following heads of the churches had stayed there, it would be the Antiochan church. If Constantinople had been the head of the Empire, that would be the seat of the church. The location is not important, where the follower of St Peter is, there is the seat of the universal Church.
[/quote]


[size=3]Well, I would argue that the evidence is quite persuasive that Peter didn't "settle" in Rome at all (altho he may have died there). His ministry was primarily to the Jews (Gal 2:1-10), so it's difficult to imagine that God would appoint him to be prime minister of [/size][i][size=3]Gentile Rome, which of course the Bible does not even hint at, contrary to Roman claims. [/size][/i]
[i][size=3]
[/size][/i]
[i]
[/i]
[i][size=3]If Peter [/size][size=3]was bishop and pastor of Rome[/size][size=3], and it was Paul's missionary practice, "[i]to preach the gospel where Christ was [/i][/size][u][size=3][i]not[/i][/size][/u][size=3][i] known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation"[/i] (Rom 15:20; 2 Cor 10:16), why does Paul declare that he had longed to come to Rome[/size][size=3] and had purposed many times to come there, "so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong" and "in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the Gentiles" (Rom 1:11-13). Would not such activity among them on Paul's part have been both a denial of his own missionary policy as well as an affront to Peter's [/size][size=3]ministry? Do not his words suggest that Paul knew of no apostle having labored in Rome?[/size][size=3]

Paul wrote his letter to Rome [/size][size=3]circa 57 AD. but he didn't address the letter to Peter[/size][size=3] or refer to him anywhere in it as its pastor! And in the last chapter he extended greetings to no less than 26 specific friends in the Imperial City, but makes no mention of Peter.[/size][size=3] He also gave no indication of what V-1 claims had [/size][u][size=3]always[/size][/u][size=3] been the case; namely: [/size][i][size=3]"wherefore it has at all times been necessary that every particular church--that is to say, the faithful throughout the world--should agree with the [u]Roman[/u] Church..." [/size][/i][size=3]("On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of Blessed Peter in[/size][size=3] the Roman Pontiffs", chapter 2).[/size][/i]
[i][size=3]
[/size][/i]
[i]
[/i]
[i]
[/i]
[i]
[/i]

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287802968' post='2181691']
[size="4"]By the way, I have no idea what you mean in your other post that you returned to your own vomit. You don't appear to write in clear sentences; only to say that my argument is invalid. [/size]
[size="4"]When I refer to the Roman Catholic Church, I may [i]indeed [/i] refer simutaneously to the See of Peter! A web definition for the Holy See: It is, "[/size][i][size="4"]the episcopal [/size][u][size="4"]jurisdiction[/size][/u][size="4"] [so we again we're talking geography] of the Bishop of Rome forming the central government of the church (Roman Curia)." [/size][/i]
[size="4"]You appear to be playing some sort of semantic game. The main headquarters of the [i]rite [/i]of the Roman Church is in Rome, Italy, just as Jehovah's Witnesses set up their charade somewhere in N.Y. I know perfectly well that if someone was a Maronite Catholic or any one of (I think at least a dozen) other rites, they are at liberty not to be called "Roman". But at the end of the day, [i]who cares?! [/i] They are all in subjection to ROME, and there can be nothing wrong with calling them [i]Roman Catholics, [/i] since your own literature demands a distinctly [i]Roman identity.[/i][/size][/quote]

If you are as familiar with Catholic doctrine as you claim to be, then you would realize that the distinction between "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" is important.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_I"]Peter 5:13[/url] - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1287805660' post='2181696']If you are as familiar with Catholic doctrine as you claim to be, then you would realize that the distinction between "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" is important.[/quote]Care to elaborate?

[KnightofChrist]

Catholicism 101: "Catholic Church" refers to the whole of Mother Church whilst "Roman Catholic Church" refers to the Roman Rite, one of many within the bosom of Mother Church.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287806083' post='2181700']
Care to elaborate?
[/quote]

There are many Rites of the Catholic Church, Rome being one of them.