Is The Bible Reliable?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287816433' post='2181736']
There is no OFFICIAL NAME for the Church. That is one definition for the word "[i]catholic[/i]", but I will agree that it's more of a Catholic focused definition.

But it changes nothing. Unless they admit this creed, reaffirmed by two councils, that they belong to the "[i]Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church[/i]"... they are not in good standing or union with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

As I admitted, the term is frequently misused and misunderstood. Also that we are the Latin Rite ([i]sometimes called the roman rite, though infrequent and a bit inappropriate[/i]). KnightofChrist, again you just thumb your nose at the Church when it's convenient for you. I'm starting to think you need a phisy tag.
[/quote]

There is no need for personal attacks. Again Latin and Roman are interchangeable they mean the same exact thing. The Church is as much Roman as it is Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287817147' post='2181737']There is no need for personal attacks. Again Latin and Roman are interchangeable they mean the same exact thing. The Church is as much Roman as it is Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian.[/quote]IF you like it or not the Church when she refers to herself as Roman, she is usually referring not to a single rite when using this term. Though avoiding admission to the Holy Roman Church is getting a bit disturbing, but I hope you just missed that second part of my previous post... It's not a personal attack.

I think you need to read the Phourm Guidelines to be reminded what a personal attack is.

But if the Church is as Roman as it is all these other things, why the heck doesn't the Church seem to think so in her documents, creeds, and councils?

Edited October 23, 2010 by Mr Cat

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287817528' post='2181738']
IF you like it or not the Church when she refers to herself as Roman, she is usually referring not to a single rite when using this term. Though avoiding admission to the Holy Roman Church is getting a bit disturbing... It's not a personal attack.

I think you need to read the Phourm Guidelines to be reminded what a personal attack is.
[/quote]

Your need to focus upon my person and make my Catholicism or lack thereof in your eyes, the topic of this debate is very strange, and yes a personal attack. Because you are no longer debating/attacking the topic but rather me personally.

The Church calls herself Universal, because she is Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian. I agree with all of the terms so do cease your questioning of my Faith in Mother Church.

Edited October 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287817911' post='2181739']Your need to focus upon my person and make my Catholicism or lack thereof in your eyes, the topic of this debate is very strange, and yes a personal attack. Because you are no longer debating/attacking the topic but rather me personal. [/quote]Well it's odd that you would devote so much time to denying an authoritative and binding creed of the Church upon the faithful, reaffirmed by two councils that calls the Church specifically "Roman" ([i]even without the phrase "catholic"[/i]). It would seem to me that just saying, "Yeah, I'm cool with the creed, but I don't feel a need to hyperfocus on the word Roman." And I would be like, "Yeah dude, even I said that in saying it was a misused and misunderstood term, with resistance to it being used." Then we both could go drinking... and... stuff... BUT NO... That's IMPOSSIBLE!

You have a very "[i]us vs them[/i]" mentality. I think if I told you that your home was burning down, I have the feeling you would sit inside calmly being burned alive just to spite me.[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287817911' post='2181739']The Church calls herself Universal, because she is Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian. I agree with all of the terms so do cease your questioning of my Faith in Mother Church.[/quote]Odd that the Church in her documents, creeds, or councils doesn't call herself the litany you have created for yourself. But they definitely call her Roman... I wonder why...

Just another situation you backed yourself into... Which the only reason I can imagine you doing this is... You have problems with me, real or imagined. I'm the enemy to you, you can't agree with the enemy because the enemy is wrong...

Edited October 23, 2010 by Mr Cat

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287818345' post='2181740']
Well it's odd that you would devote so much time to denying an authoritative and binding creed of the Church upon the faithful, reaffirmed by two councils that calls the Church specifically "Roman" ([i]even without the phrase "catholic"[/i]). It would seem to me that just saying, "Yeah, I'm cool with the creed, but I don't feel a need to hyperfocus on the word Roman." And I would be like, "Yeah dude, even I said that in saying it was a misused and misunderstood term, with resistance to it being used." Then we both could go drinking... and... stuff... BUT NO... That's IMPOSSIBLE!

You have a very "[i]us vs them[/i]" mentality. I think if I told you that your home was burning down, I have the feeling you would sit inside calmly being burned alive just to spite me.Odd that the Church in her documents, creeds, or councils calls herself the litany you have created for yourself. But they definitely call her Roman... I wonder why...

Just another situation you backed yourself into... Which the only reason I can imagine you doing this is... You have problems with me, real or imagined.
[/quote]

I believe the Church to be Universal. By being Universal I believe she is also Roman, nor do I deny that she is also Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian because she is, again, Universal.

I will pray that you cease your obsession over constantly questioning and denying my faith in Mother Church as this is not the first, second, or even third time you have denied my Catholicism.

Even though I fear you will mock me for saying so...

may the Peace of Christ be with you, Brother in Christ. ✠

Edited October 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287819083' post='2181741']I believe the Church to be Universal. By Universal I believe she is Roman, nor do I deny that she is also Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian.

I will pray that you cease your obsession over constantly questioning and denying my faith in Mother Church as this is not the first, second, or even third time you have denied my Catholicism.

Even though I fear you will mock me for saying so...

may the Peace of Christ be with you, Brother in Christ. ✠[/quote]If you consider this mocking, then I hope you never upset me... I am chiefly perceptive, not judgmental, honestly I am FAR more indifferent to you than you might imagine. Honestly I don't care what you think about me either... Though you like to pretend I do...

But I am seeing a definite pattern in your treatment of the authority and ministry of the Church... of people on Phatmass... and otherwise.

If you can't explain why the Church SPECIFICALLY defines herself as Roman, but not any of the other Rites that you have mentioned ([i]except Latin, don't like the Latin Rite?[/i])... then where is the argument?

Edited October 23, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Guest Shadyrest]

[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]

And I could tell you that if you were familiar with basic linguistics, you should realize that that the Roman Catholic church has wrongly appropriated to itself the term, "Catholic".
Why?
Because it is self-contradictory to call a body "Roman" (which is [i]particular) [/i]and at the same time, [i]"Catholic"[/i], (which means [i]universal). So the term "Roman Catholic" is a contradiction in terms, strictly speaking.[/i]
All those who believe in Christ, are in fact, members of the Christian catholic church. Rome has no monopoly on the word.

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287805715' post='2181697']
[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.
[/quote]



While Peter may have been in Rome, it is completely gratuitous to say the Lord wanted to establish His church there because it was the center of the world. On the contrary, the Lord has repeatedly shown He does not use the wildly popular extravagant things of the world in numerous places, not the least of which is the incarnation and His ordaining that the hotels at the time would filled to capacity, unable to accommodate the birth, so the next best option had to be employed. Then, when we recall that Jesus told the disciples that the kings of the world excercise their authority over others, [i]"but it shall not be so with you", [/i] then the gargantuan "Vatican" spectacle in Rome, Italy, surely could not be what He had intended.
In addition, you are reading too much into 5:13. The word "Rome" is mentioned around 10 times, and no where is Peter's name mentioned in connection with establishing a "See". As usual, Catholics have to desperately scrounge around and find "code word" evidence to support her doctrines, and I am not impressed.

[Archaeology cat]

First off, welcome to the phorum, Shadyrest.

As others stated, the place of Rome isn't necessarily important. Had Peter stayed in Antioch, then his successors would be in Antioch, and that would be where the Pope lived. What we do see in the Bible is Jesus building His Church upon Peter (Matthew 16). And we also see that Peter ends up in Rome, and thus that his successors are in Rome.

Sorry to keep it so short, but I have a baby sleeping on me.

God bless!

[Winchester]

[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]


[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]
[/quote]
Wow, lots of text formatting. Looks like an appeal for money for a political campaign or a sweepstakes entry form. Nice.

See versus rite. The "Roman Church" refers to the See. The problem is, you didn't use this correctly. You weren't talking about the Roman Church or the Roman Rite, but the Catholic Church as a whole, all of whom are subject to the "Roman Church" in different senses of both words, which end up meaning the See of Peter. Are you arguing that in a chain of command, everyone is essentially the general? Or perhaps you're arguing that there are not multiple ways to use the same word. Both?


I referenced the Bible with the "vomit" quote. I thought you'd appreciate that. I am disappoint.


And when I mashed the backspace button, but had forgotten I was no longer in this window and therefore went all the way back to the secret Roman Catholic Devilbase website, when I forwarded back to here, all my witticisms were present still. Thank you, Firefox!

[ardillacid]

[img]http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b155/ardillacid/roflbot-ts6h.jpg?t=1287843148[/img]

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287831579' post='2181753']
Because it is self-contradictory to call a body "Roman" (which is [i]particular) [/i]and at the same time, [i]"Catholic"[/i], (which means [i]universal). So the term "Roman Catholic" is a contradiction in terms, strictly speaking.[/i]
[/quote]

Which is precisely what Knight explained in Post #89. Please read the thread.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287819247' post='2181742']
If you consider this mocking, then I hope you never upset me... I am chiefly perceptive, not judgmental, honestly I am FAR more indifferent to you than you might imagine. Honestly I don't care what you think about me either... Though you like to pretend I do...

But I am seeing a definite pattern in your treatment of the authority and ministry of the Church... of people on Phatmass... and otherwise.

If you can't explain why the Church SPECIFICALLY defines herself as Roman, but not any of the other Rites that you have mentioned ([i]except Latin, don't like the Latin Rite?[/i])... then where is the argument?
[/quote]

It is a personal attack. By questioning his faith and loyalty to Holy Mother Church you are taking a "discredit the man, discredit the argument" approach. He has already explained why the Church is not first and foremost the "Roman Catholic Church". She DOES define herself as other Rites. I am a Roman Catholic but my friend is a Byzantine Catholic. She does not call herself a "Byzantine Roman Catholic".

[KnightofChrist]

To deny that Holy Mother Church, the Body of Christ is not only defined by the Church of Rome but all of her Sui Juris Churches, is to deny the Universality of the Church, and in effect spiritually decapitating the Body of Christ, Christ Himself.

The whole Church is not Roman just as a whole body is not just a head, arm or foot. If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? And if they all were one member, where would be the body? (1 Corinthians 12)

Mother Church is Universal, she is Roman as well as Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian. There are many members indeed, yet one body.

Edited October 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287832956' post='2181758']
While Peter may have been in Rome, it is completely gratuitous to say the Lord wanted to establish His church there because it was the center of the world. On the contrary, the Lord has repeatedly shown He does not use the wildly popular extravagant things of the world in numerous places, not the least of which is the incarnation and His ordaining that the hotels at the time would filled to capacity, unable to accommodate the birth, so the next best option had to be employed. Then, when we recall that Jesus told the disciples that the kings of the world excercise their authority over others, [i]"but it shall not be so with you", [/i] then the gargantuan "Vatican" spectacle in Rome, Italy, surely could not be what He had intended.
In addition, you are reading too much into 5:13. The word "Rome" is mentioned around 10 times, and no where is Peter's name mentioned in connection with establishing a "See". As usual, Catholics have to desperately scrounge around and find "code word" evidence to support her doctrines, and I am not impressed.
[/quote]

Peter was clearly in Rome aka Babylon, the Bible, the written word of God, says so, thus I believe it. I would encourge you to also fully submit to its Teachings.

Why would God not want to convert Rome to His Sacred Heart? Rome was the center of the known world, from there the early Christians could easily go forth into all nations baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Convert Rome and the entire empire would be converted, and that is just what happened. In a relativity short time after Peter, by the will of God, established the Primatial See in Rome, and was martyred in Rome like Paul, the whole of the empire was converted to Christianity. It was no less a miracle and the work of God Himself, that pagan Rome would be converted by a Jew.

I do not understand non-Catholic Christians need to attack and deny this miracle of God and historical fact. No I should say I do understand the reason. It is to discredit and attack the authority and primacy of Peter the first Pontiff. The danger in that is when you attack the authority of Peter, you attack the Church, and when you attack the Church you attack God. Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.

Also, God often used His people to convert souls in large capital cities. Daniel and the King of Babylon is one example.

Edited October 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist