St. Ephraem the Syrian (ca. A.D. 350):

"Then Peter deservedly received the Vicariate of Christ over His people."

(Ephraem, Sermon de Martyrio. SS. App. Petri et Pauli)

[As if spoken by Jesus:] "Simon my follower, I have made you the foundation of My holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of all who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them.

You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is the life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be the executor of all My treasures. I have given you the keys of My Kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all My treasures!

"To whom, O Lord, didst Thou entrust that most precious pledge of the heavenly keys? To Bar Jonas, the Prince of the Apostles, with whom, I implore Thee, may I share Thy bridal chamber...

Our Lord chose Simon Peter and appointed him chief of the Apostles, foundation of the holy Church and guardian of His establishment.

He appointed him head of the Apostles and commanded him to feed His flock and teach it laws for preserving the purity of its beliefs."

(Ephraem, Homilies, 4:1, 350 A.D.)

Well bros chukwudi all these are not necessary

@ poster i was once in your position pls dont become a catholic due to peer pressure study word of god and compare it with the catholic faith then you will know there is only one christ founded church CATHOLIC and you can contact me at dadabode07@yahoo.com if you have any question or go to scripturecatholic.com

chukwudi44:


St. Ephraem the Syrian (ca. A.D. 350):

"Then Peter deservedly received the Vicariate of Christ over His people."

(Ephraem, Sermon de Martyrio. SS. App. Petri et Pauli)

[As if spoken by Jesus:] "Simon my follower, I have made you the foundation of My holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of all who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them.

You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is the life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be the executor of all My treasures. I have given you the keys of My Kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all My treasures!

"To whom, O Lord, didst Thou entrust that most precious pledge of the heavenly keys? To Bar Jonas, the Prince of the Apostles, with whom, I implore Thee, may I share Thy bridal chamber...

Our Lord chose Simon Peter and appointed him chief of the Apostles, foundation of the holy Church and guardian of His establishment.

He appointed him head of the Apostles and commanded him to feed His flock and teach it laws for preserving the purity of its beliefs."

(Ephraem, Homilies, 4:1, 350 A.D.)

Sir,what actually is this ^^^ you posted?? And how does it relate to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Is the Church of Christ physical,or is it a spiritual reality in our lifes?.

Well to all d catholics on ere, try and open dis link: www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/mary_worship_a_study.htm
After reading it, i bet u, ur eyes are gonna be opened to the sheer heresy of catholicism. And its even d words of a former nun who has now realised dat d catholic church is nothing but a mary worshiping heretical church.
No offence, but pls try to open d link and read it.

@olabode

My posts were directed @ enigma. I posted this quotations to display the kind of beleifs that early christians had.According to enigma the RCC and their teacings only came after the council of chalcedon.I only posted this quotes to refute him

booqee: Well to all d catholics on ere, try and open dis link: www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/mary_worship_a_study.htm
After reading it, i bet u, ur eyes are gonna be opened to the sheer heresy of catholicism. And its even d words of a former nun who has now realised dat d catholic church is nothing but a mary worshiping heretical church.
No offence, but pls try to open d link and read it.

The only heresy I see here is you depriving yourself of the use of your God given intellect in failing to verify what you read (wondering what it is you find convincing in that sentimental write-up). I suggest you spend a little time to verify intents & contents of references that form its bases. Don't be like our brothers who take -sinker, hook and line- the mind cocktail dished to them by "elites" and then foolishly go out to blow themselves and others up for an eternal promise that apparently seems suited only for the poor and less privileged.

Shalom!

To those who say catholics pray to dead saints in john 11:25 jesus asks you a question' i am the ressurection and life whoever believe in me even though he dies will live and whoever lives and believe in me will never die. DO YOU BELIEF THIS?' if your answer is yes then you believe the saints who believes in jesus though are dead still live and can pray for us. If your answer is no then you do not believe in jesus

Ogozirim:

The only heresy I see here is you depriving yourself of the use of your God given intellect in failing to verify what you read (wondering what it is you find convincing in that sentimental write-up). I suggest you spend a little time to verify intents & contents of references that form its bases. Don't be like our brothers who take -sinker, hook and line- the mind cocktail dished to them by "elites" and then foolishly go out to blow themselves and others up for an eternal promise that apparently seems suited only for the poor and less privileged.

Shalom!

Well i most definitely knew catholics like u would not momentarity put aside ur belief and really look at d flaws inherent in ur doctrine.
1. Firstly i'm a christian not a muslim so i'm not part of those who "foolishly go out to blow themselves and others up for an eternal promise".

2. What dyu mean by "verify intents and content of reference"?? Why should u have any kind of reference outside of d bible?? What kinda reference should be authentic if not the bible?? Well u should be ashamed in saying dat...you've not only proved dat ur church is not a bible believing church, but a church dat gets his doctrine from d mere words of men like you..d pope's and d likes.

3. I don't just take things hook, line and sinker. I checked every single bible reference d nun gave in dat writeup that contradicts d catechist teaching or whatever its called. And they were absolutely true! Ur church is still wat it is..heretical and mary worshiping!

Pls what dyu have to say of d pope calling on d name of mary on his death bed, and giving all d glory to same mary when he recovered??even when d bible says all glory be given unto God??
What kinda religion is dis?!!

guess wat, i asked a former catholic friend why he's no more a catholic, and he said his wife gave him something to read. And dat link right up dere, is wat she gave him to read. The first thing he said was dat, d writeup made him realise he'd been given more worship and praise to mary dan to God! And he felt ashamed. He showed me the writeup and i decided to post it ere immediately for those fanatical catholics before u find ur self in hell.

>pls just remind me never to step into any catholic church whenever i see one.

so far protestant have used this trend to attack the holy Catholic church. among issue they have include..

booqee: just as frosbel said, God has no mother!
Wtf?!
The incarnation of Christ on earth meant dat Jesus was both fully man and both fully God. Mary was only d mother of Jesus as man(i.e when he was on earth), and not d mother of Jesus as God. Acc to the bible, John1vs1, in d beginning was d Word, and the Word was with God, and d Word was God. We all know dat Jesus is d Word here. This suggest dat Jesus had been since d beginning of existence. And this was long before mary was ever born. So how then can she be the MOTHER OF GOD?!!! Chei!

yes mary is the mother of Jesus and if you believe in the trinity you would know that Jesus is God.
this was isaiah prophecy about Christ 'For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.' isaiah 9 vs 6
se you can see the word mighty God, proves Christ being God which means mary the mother of Christ could be called could be called Mother of God.
it is the same Christ that simeon was kept alive to see. luke 3 vs25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah.
vs 34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against,
as you can see simeon refered to Mary as Christ's mother
from the refrence in the bible you see that she is the mother of Christ who is God.

chukwudi44: @olabode

My posts were directed @ enigma. I posted this quotations to display the kind of beleifs that early christians had.According to enigma the RCC and their teacings only came after the council of chalcedon.I only posted this quotes to refute him

Nna bros, I have not said or argued that the RCC came after the Council of Chalcedon.

Rather my argument is:

1. The Roman Catholic Church is to be distinguished from the [b]c[/b]atholic Church (or the Church [b]c[/b]atholic or the universal Church); and

2. It was not the Roman Catholic Church that "compiled" the Bible but rather it was the [b]c[/b]atholic Church (or the Church [b]c[/b]atholic or the universal Church); and

3. Similarly the Nicene Council (on the formalisation of the Trinity doctrine) was not a council of the Roman Catholic Church but of the [b]c[/b]atholic Church (or the Church [b]c[/b]atholic or the universal Church).

booqee:
>pls just remind me never to step into any catholic church whenever i see one.

You stand reminded, girl

Come on guys let's throw in the towels before we miss the point.

A persons religion is a core attribute of his person and must be respected if respect is valued at all. It is best to keep personal opinons to one's self unless they are dispassionately conveyed driven by a motive born out of love and understanding, knowing that you see the world differently from your vantage position in life.

Leave the judging to God. In my view, tolerance is an essential quality of christianity without which you can not fullfil the great commision - soul winning.

Shalom!

@enigma

Your "catholic" and "Catholic" churches are only a figment of your imagination.Maybe one day you will tell me that nigeria is not the same thing as Nigeria.where did you read this thrash from?

This is highly unlike you.Why didn't you adress the questions I raised.To add to that what is/are the differences between your "catholic church" and the roman catholic church's beleifs and practices?

When was the RCC founded and by whom?

Was st Augustine a catholic or Catholic

Was the religious teachings of st Augustine differant from the RCC.

I hope you I am deliberating mentioned St Augustine since he presided over the church council of hippo that decided the books of the bible

^^^

Bros, I suggest that we let the issue rest, bo.

The two viewpoints are on the thread; let each of us continue to examine our positions, let others consider the issues, arguments and analyses and decide where to pitch their tents.

One thing I will do is to leave a link here on the thread which has a concise yet reasonably detailed presentation of the line of argument I have put forward.

http://truthsaves.org/doctrine/bible-from-catholics.shtml

In philosophy there is something called The Problem of Identity. When can something be said to be the same thing and when does it stop being the same thing.

eg a man has a cutlass. Over time the handle erodes. So he fixes a new handle onto it. Can we really say that his cutlass is the same cutlass?

What if a year later, the blade erodes and so he replaces the blade. Can we say it is the same cutlass?


What if a man loses his hand at war? You fit him with a prosthetic hand. Is he still the same man?

How many changes does something have to undergo before it stops being the same thing?

If an amoeba splits in two, which one was the original amoeba?



Now whether or not we identify [i]C[/i]atholic church with [i]c[/i]atholic church the main point is the accusations levelled at the RCC. Accusations of iconolatry, etc etc etc. Which of the churches that resulted from the original [i]c[/i]atholic church practise things any differently. Which of the churches in the apostolic tradition reject the use of icons, and use exact same bible as the KJV?

The fact still remains that the enthusiastic attackers of the RCC are just upstarts with no apostolic basis. There is no apostolic church that they can turn to and say 'we identify with them because they keep the true traditions'. They're are on their own. Even amongst themselves they keep fracturing into smaller and smaller denominations until finally there are as many denominations as there are inventive interpretations of the bible.

@ at nl, Did anybody bothered to give the op a reasonable answer?

@ at nl, Did anybody bothered to give the op a reasonable answer instead of this age long argument?

Ah "lol" ---- just like that.

Members of the Anglican Church and Communion and people of the Reformed tradition and even "evangelicals" happily say the line below from the Nicene Creed as amended/updated.

I/We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Anyone with a proper intellectual and historical understanding would not say that by the word "catholic" they mean The Roman Catholic Church or even The Catholic Church.

Similarly with the word "apostolic" which cannot be taken to mean the denomination/s known as The Apostolic Church.

Dr young: @ at nl, Did anybody bothered to give the op a reasonable answer instead of this age long argument?

Different people have made suggestions irrespective of the arguments about the Roman Catholic Church.

One thing we all need to realise is that salvation is not found in a particular "church" or "denomination" or for that matter "abomination".*

Salvation is to be found in the person of Jesus Christ.

(*On a previous occasion some time ago, I pointed out the folly of a particular "G.O." making an 'altar call' and saying that even people who had been "saved" elsewhere should come forward for "the genuine salvation". )

@enigma

Please stop beating around the bush and provide answers to my questions.I thought you said we should bury the argument why have you ressurected it again.Has the apostolic church ever claimed. Any apostolic origin?

What the beleifs and practices of the group of people you call "catholics" any differant from the RCC?

As pastor AIO pointed out which group of the differant apostolic church can you identify yourself with?

So if a group of people leaves a church,the one left now becomes an entirely new entity?

Using your analogy when the non-chalcedonians left the catholic church it bame an entirely new organisation also when the eastern orthodox churches left the catholic church in 1024 an entirely new organisation was born.if I were to take this your analogy further an entirely new organisation arose in the sixteenth century during the protestant reformation when the lutherans,calvinists,anglicans and others left the catholic church

What a way to reason!!!you can also tell me a new RCCG was born when tunde bakare left the church and what we have today is not the one founded by fadayomi

^^^ You are right I said we should close the argument. Sorry, something came up, well disappeared really, is what caused me to make one more post. lol

The answers to all of your questions are contained in the various links that I've provided. I could and can answer them very easily but where will it lead us? Probably going round in circles and fostering animosity unnecessarily. I think the attention that I've paid to the particular point that I've sought to address is enough.

I will remind you that I have not and have not even tried to antagonise or malign The Roman Catholic Church.

I am sorry I couldn't find any answers in the link you provided,you may wish to post the seeming answers you found there for clarity.All I saw was a write up from a site dedicated to anticatholic teaching

^^^ In my post of Aug 16 at 9.33, there are several links ---- none of them to an anti-Catholic website. Even the link that I believe you are maligning is pretty much factual and not one devoted to anti-Catholic doctrine.

I add one more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church

I was talking about this link

http://truthsaves.org/doctrine/bible-from-catholics.shtml

There is nothing in that wikipedia link that answererd my questions.hope you don't mind highlighting the relevent portions of that link

bottomline: There is a direct line of succession in the RCC from the catholic and apostolic church that wrote the Nicene creed (I believe in one catholic and apostolic church) and also compiled the bible. Other churches, namely the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Ethiopian orthodox churches can also trace a line of succession from this original catholic church.

Everybody else are just pompous upstarts with no grounding, no tradition and no leg to stand on. The arrogant impetuosity of trying to be all 'holier than thou' is really quite repulsive.

Pastor AIO: bottomline: There is a direct line of succession in the RCC from the catholic and apostolic church that wrote the Nicene creed (I believe in one catholic and apostolic church) and also compiled the bible. Other churches, namely the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Ethiopian orthodox churches can also trace a line of succession from this original catholic church.

Everybody else are just pompous upstarts with no grounding, no tradition and no leg to stand on. The arrogant impetuosity of trying to be all 'holier than thou' is really quite repulsive.

You know, when I used to debate, I'd ask people what denomination they were. If they said anything else but catholic, I would first ground them in christian history, to show them first that they had no leg to stand on. That was usually sufficient as I find that most people have no idea of where their religion comes from. They usually try to dispute these facts and end up looking bad eventually.

jayriginal:

You know, when I used to debate, I'd ask people what denomination they were. If they said anything else but catholic, I would first ground them in christian history, to show them first that they had no leg to stand on. That was usually sufficient as I find that most people have no idea of where their religion comes from. They usually try to dispute these facts and end up looking bad eventually.

You must have been lucky with the people that you've been debating with because some of the attackers that I know do 'usually try to dispute these facts and end up looking bad' but they seem to not realise how bad they look and they continue with threats and cajoling and ignoring the facts (that is after they've failed to dispute them).

I do not mind if they claim a 'road to Damascus' style origin of their denomination and base everything from that, but to try to lay claim to the apostolic tradition, to the bible, to the Church . . . ?
This verse comes to mind:


"But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!' -Luke 13:27

This is the best decision you will ever take. If you go in with a clean heart and find a good preist, your life will change forever. If you are faithful, you will never be forsaken nor shall your generation. I tried to go the way of pentecostals because they always boast of being bible believing. I went there with a clean mind, but I must tell you I have never seen such greed and selective preaching in the house of God in my life before I made that mistake. I ran back and prayed to God for forgiveness. Goodluck

[b][/b]

booqee:
Well i most definitely knew catholics like u would not momentarity put aside ur belief and really look at d flaws inherent in ur doctrine.
1. Firstly i'm a christian not a muslim so i'm not part of those who "foolishly go out to blow themselves and others up for an eternal promise".

2. What dyu mean by "verify intents and content of reference"?? Why should u have any kind of reference outside of d bible?? What kinda reference should be authentic if not the bible?? Well u should be ashamed in saying dat...you've not only proved dat ur church is not a bible believing church, but a church dat gets his doctrine from d mere words of men like you..d pope's and d likes.

3. I don't just take things hook, line and sinker. I checked every single bible reference d nun gave in dat writeup that contradicts d catechist teaching or whatever its called. And they were absolutely true! Ur church is still wat it is..heretical and mary worshiping!

Pls what dyu have to say of d pope calling on d name of mary on his death bed, and giving all d glory to same mary when he recovered??even when d bible says all glory be given unto God??
What kinda religion is dis?!!

guess wat, i asked a former catholic friend why he's no more a catholic, and he said his wife gave him something to read. And dat link right up dere, is wat she gave him to read. The first thing he said was dat, d writeup made him realise he'd been given more worship and praise to mary dan to God! And he felt ashamed. He showed me the writeup and i decided to post it ere immediately for those fanatical catholics before u find ur self in hell.

>pls just remind me never to step into any catholic church whenever i see one.

Well am new on NL. So am not yet used to style of posting . So pardon this my crude way. I decided to reply to this topic or general anti-catholic bashing which are sometimes borne out of ignorance or pure malice . I will begin with the most intolerable act of catholics which Protestants can't stomach : Marian piety. First of all when it comes to catholicism the whole army of segregated Protestants/pentecostals team up to disproved of catholic piety. They accuse the church of worshipping Mary who they believe is no less than their mother.

There is what is called in catholic dogma the immaculate conception ...the dogma has alwayz been believed from antiquity...by earliest Christians ...it means mary was conceived without the least stain of original sin at the first instance of her conception in view of the merit of Jesus christ....if the first woman who caused our fall was a pure virgin without sin before her fall, it was rational that the woman who will undo the disobedience of Eve wud be a virgin and sinless, not under the domain of satan. However many anti-catholics who are oblivious of the wisdom of the church as guarded by the holy spirit will be quick to point out Luke 1v47(mary called God her saviour...meaning only a sinner called God saviour)
It only shows their narrow-minded heart when scriptural exegesis matters. Mary indeed needed a saviour...but she ws saved in a most extraordinary way that of prevention from contacting sin by virtue she will bear Jesus. Who will be more grateful ? A man whose attempt to be kidnapped ws foiled without experiencing the harrowing anguish in kidnappers' den and subsequently paying ransom money or the one who ws tealeased after being kidnapped and paying ransom money? ...both of them were saved...but one ws saved in a preventive manner. Mary indeed needed a saviour but her saving grace ws preventive ours ws curative ...so luke 1v 47 doesn't negate the immaculate conception . The immaculate conception is not same as virgin birth...the virgin birth is the conception of our Lord tru the power of the Holy spirit. Pope Pius 1X only deem it fit to define it as authentic Christian teaching in 1850s when the doctrine was been misunderstood .he never invented it.
Also Gen 3 v 15, God said he will put an enmity btw the devil represented by the serpent and the woman. Surely the enmity ws not btw the devil and evil coz evil already under the power of sin...sin conquered her ...she ws now a slave to sin (Roman 6 v16, 2Pet. 2v19). The enmity wud be btw the serpent ancient dragon and the woman (cf Rev. 12. The woman clothed with the Sun). While the enmity wud be btw the devil and the new Eve , Mary(the woman), another enmity wud be btw the seed of the devil(sin) and the seed of the woman(Jesus christ) Gen 3v15. So what has been taught for two millennia...what has been taught by the holy apostles, doctors and martyrs, magisterium though not explicit in the holy writ can't be wrong in the 21st centuries coz some over-zealous but misled reformers do not agree with it and doesn't agree with Their idea of solar scriptural.
If catholics are to be consigned to hell for practising unscriptural doctrines then so with the entire non-catholic by virtue of the facts that they worship on Sunday cox the catholic church made Sunday the day of worship...celebrating Christmas and Easter cos these were not celebrated in the bible, using the bible coz the catholic church codified the bible , wud later divide it into chapters and verse by Stephen cardinal langton- cardinal archbishop of Canterbury in the later part of the 13th century...so many other practices of the church which they carry out...is it the civil calender in use today...Pope Gregory X111 comes to mind in 1582...read how the catholic church influenced western civilisation...then u will shove aside ur bigotries....any observation I will gladly attend to ...but be civil .tnx.

Just like one of the friends that joined Mega Churches In United States