@kayemjay,

How body? Me, I no too much oh! Combining a hard day's work with book/studies no easy - I agree; but nobody ever said it is 'impossible', abi? Fortunately for me, na part time I dey do the Juniper, so I got loads of time inbetween. As for the pic. . .hmm, time neva come yet for that one, hehe. Enjoy.

kayemjay:

@pilgrim1
you too much oh! even with my knowledge of these things you are writing I cant debate this long I appreciate your skills. cant really belive you're into IT, you go get time so? o girl e no easy for my end I'm into IT too.

I for say make you marry me but I dey fear se you go get sense pass me! but girl you too much put your pic lets see you now

However, I don't see where anything you said has established the idea that Peter was the foundation of the Church. Not a single convincing line you offered has made the point. Let's see:

Hey Pilgrim

I was wondering if this would help.

Galatians 2:9

9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:

The early christians regarded Peter as Bishop Of Rome and Pope of the Church there has never been any question about that. All churches with direct links to the early christians hold this belief, it is not just the Catholic Church that holds that belief. Whether or not they are in union with Rome, they hold the belief that Peter is the first Pope and that he has always been regarded as the first among equals.

I am still waiting on someone to show me documents from early christianity that disputes Peter as the Pope. All of them come after the reformation. 1500 years later.

Was it Peter alone that fed the lambs? Was he the only apostle with responsibility to tend the flock? By the way who chaired the Jerusalem council? Wasn't it James, and not Peter?

could you kindly show me the passage about the council in jerusalem that was chaired by James and not Peter.

The Bible does not teach that Peter is the foundation of the Church. That is the basic point being made by those you're trying to query. However,

the problem here is that you view the foundation of peter as separate from the foundation of christ, the catholics don't view it as such. we view it in light of christ, not apart from it. so if you will question us, question us on what we believe not what we don't believe.

Third, please note that even in Paul and Peter's day, there were several BISHOPS, not just one. Yes, I remember you said "Bishop of Rome"; but you may want to remind yourself that the Church did not begin in Rome but rather in Jerusalem (Acts 2). The previous chapter (Acts 1) makes the case clear enough - they were to begin witnessing in Jerusalem, and then in all Judaea, and then in Samaria, before other parts of the world. Having seen Christ ascending, they returned "unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey" (verse 12). It was from there that the Church was established, and not in Rome

This has absolutely no relevance to the fact that Christ established a papacy. The church not beginning in rome does not negate a papacy. It is not the location of the papacy it is the person of the papacy. if peter was in Abuja then he would have been the bishop of abuja and still be pope. the location is of lno relevance. Peter was bishop of antioch before he became bishop of rome, he was still the pope as bishop of antioch. Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven, and not Rome, or Jerusalem, or Nigeria, he gave a person not a location, so wherever that person is is the papacy. it was decided upon rome bcus that was the last See of Peter and that's where he died. He could have been in Botswana for all we care, he would still be the Pope.

To be built "around" someone does not make that person the foundation of the Church. Please quote us some specific statements from Irenaeus that points to Peter being the foundation of the Church; and we shall patiently look into it and show you what you're missing.

Ephesians 2:20
20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone

(b) Tertullian in your quote also said: "it is plain as we have said that heretics are not allowed to appeal to the scripture since they have no claim to it." The funny thing to note is that even these fellows making Peter the foundation of the Church were not even appealing to Scripture in the first place! It would indeed be dishonest for them to make appeal to Scripture with mere pretences of quotes that are not found in Scripture at all.

you mean they didn't follow what wasn't available during their time?

We have noted that Augustine of Hippo is often quoted as asserting that Peter was the foundation of the Church. But are you aware, chukwudi44, that the same Augustine also affirmed that Christ is the foundation of the Church? It's seems confusing, until you understand that Augustine meant that:
(i) Peter was the visible foundation; while
(ii) Christ was the invisible foundation of the Church

How does this differ from what the church teaches?

However, of the Church itself, who did Augustine proclaim as her Head? Was it Peter. . or rather CHRIST Himself? People who are quick to cite Augustine for Peter often fail to realize that infact Augustine declared numerous times that Christ was indeed the Head of the Church. This presents serious problems for the papacy-inclined faithfuls; but I shall refer you to check the facts for yourself from any authentic source of your choice for the following especially: "St. Augustine of Hippo - Expositions on the Psalms, PSALM III. " (you can view an example here).

How does this differ from what the church teaches? Where has the church ever said that Christ is not the head of the church?

"The Virgin Mary is both holy and blessed, and yet the Church is greater than she. Mary is a part of the Church, a member of the Church, a holy, an eminent – the most eminent – member, but still only a member of the entire body. The body undoubtedly is greater than she, one of its members. This body has the Lord for its head, and head and body together make up the whole Christ. In other words, our head is divine – our head is God." [read it from this source]

Don't mean to sound redundant but how does this differ from Catholic teaching?

If you're trying to prove that the Catholic church teaches something different from what the church fathers wrote, you have failed miserably. all the more reason why i say understand the church's teaching first.

There are so many other instance in which the same Augustine does not discuss Peter as either the foundation or the Head of the Church, whether visible or invisible; rather in such works he often referred to Christ alone as the foundation and Head of the Church. Does this not make you think for a minute who's been playing politics about Peter being the foundation of the Church for the sake of appeasing groups like the Donatists?

Then in that case myself and every other catholic has been playing politics with you all eh?

I'm sorry, the Bible does not teach being in the Roman Catholic Church is what actually saves a person - that is just a tradition repeatedly offered as part of Catholicism. Salvation is found in the Son of God alone, for it is in His name alone that salvation is offered to humanity. The apostle Peter didn't preach the Catholic Church for the salvation of any man, but rather preached the Lord Jesus Christ to save people (Acts 4:12). In another place, the same Peter acknowledged that all the prophets pointed to Jesus Christ for salvation, rather than to any church (Acts 10:42-43). Your idea that if one is not a Catholic to be saved is re-affirming the debunked doctrine of the Roman papacy.

Actually it does, but not in those exact words. If you understand what "The Church" means you would understand that it is by the Catholic church that one is saved.
Christ said whoever hears you hears me, whoever rejects you rejects me. He didn't say whoever reads the bible hears me or whoever rejects the bible rejects me, he spoke it to people, to the apostles, to his church. It is that church that you know today as the Catholic church. If you do not accept the full truth of Christ as he taught his apostles and his apostles handed down to us today then you are not a part of his church. you can try as much as you can to say that as long as u accept christ u can be saved, infact that can't be proven from the bible, you won't be saved.

The statistics quoted earlier was about Catholicism - is that a different thing from Roman Catholicism? What makes up the structure of the Catholic Church that you've been arguing if there's nothing to talk about its priests? Perhaps you're seeking to just excuse this point as you may never have guessed such an observation was possible.

No it is not different, however the Roman Catholic Church is but one church in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church consists of 23 Churches, 22 eastern churches and one western church. All in union with the Bishop of Rome.

When we speak, we aren't speaking of the RCC alone but of the Catholic Church.

I'm quite familiar with the works of those names you mentioned; and you're not quite correct to say that the 'epistles of clement, ignatius and polycarp were regarded with the same authourity with the pauline epistles'. Read again your quote of Tertullian: "That doctrine is evidently true which was first delivered. On the contrary, that is false which is of a later date." Unless you have a magical way of making Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp to be Paul's contemporaries, I think Tertullian should do nicely in deflating your idea.

"those of a later date" is not in reference to those who preach what the apostles preach but in reference to heretics. those that taught what the apsotles taught were not cosidered of a later date. and in actuality he wasn't talking about people he was talking about messages. the messages of a later date were false not the messages that were passed on from the apostles, and if infact u wish to see it in that light, that throws your belief under the bus as it would mean that you shouldn't follow in the footsteps of martin and co in your belief as they are even much later than the church fathers.

You're misreading me, as I did not disparage Augustine. I only showed you the prevailing circumstances of his day and the conditions that led him to form his opinions of both visible and invisible foundation for the Church - not because that is what the 'scriptures' teach, but simply because that is the mantra being sung in Roman Catholic traditions.

Your assertion here is highly flawed.
1) Because you are of the assumption that all has to go by scripture alone, scripture refutes that, and history of christianity refutes that.
2) You are of the assumption that the scripture fell from the sky
3) You are of the assumption that Jesus wrote the scripture
4) You are of the assumption that Catholic tradition contradicts scripture.
5) You are of the assumption that by the time Augustine wrote, the Bible was already defined.

What you fail to realise is that Catholic tradition is what you call the Bible/scripture today. The Bible you read was written from these same traditions that you claim the Bible refutes. How can the Bible refute its source? Or do u seriously think the Bible fell from the sky?

Could you tell us then why those same letters were not canonized?

Because most of the writings at the time of canonization were not complete. Check the criteria for determining the canon.

Lol, this is awesome, chukwudi44! It seems queer that since Clement's epistles predated John's writings and regarded with the same authority, it was nonetheless rejected as an appropriate document to be considered canonized. You and I know that by the statement "that is false which is of a later date", Tertullian was not meaning that John's writings that "came later" than Clement's was therefore false. So, I wonder why you keep circling round these points. More than that, how does this very point in your quote answer the primary question of Peter being the foundation of the Church? hmm?

How about we set the standard for what tertullian was talking about. he wasn't talking about John or clement as both John and clement wrote the same message, he was talking about those who had a different message than the apostles.
if that's the case then Paul's writings that were written later than his other ones shouldn't be trusted as the one's written before.
It isn't about the person it is about the message. Get the interpretation of Tertullian's writing first and then continue with your point.

Okay, calm down sir. First, I'm not one of those who's "heavily" disputing those books. Second, none of those books/epistles ever declared that Peter was the foundation of the Church. If you find a verse that says so, please share so we can all learn.

The one where Christ tells him "You are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my church" Rock=foundation. that has been shown many times. in order to prove that jesus didn't call him foundation/rock, u'll have to prove that Peter doesn't mean rock or rather should I say Kephas doesn't mean rock as aramaic is what Christ spoke and we know he called Peter, Kephas.

Okay, I hear. Question: it's often boasted that the Catholic Church canonized the Bible - why then were the more popular books (bearing the same authority) rejected in favour of the epistles of the apostles? I'm not contesting anything about the Bible - I love it with all my heart; but I'm asking you to apply a bit of reason at the implication of your concerns.

In case you haven't noticed the Church doesn't quite care for popularity. But that's besides the point.
1) Because most of the books by the time of canonization were incomplete
2) Because why have those who learnt from the apostles when you can have the direct apostles themselves

Isn't it quite strange that the Catholic Church could not sieve out just 1 out of those 100 epistles (some of which you claim were "more popular" and canonize it among the books of the NT? Stranger yet that those books which were canonized do not teach the idea that Peter was the foundation of the Church.

you know very well that this statement is very ridiculous, it's like saying why then didn't the letter of St. Paul to the Laodecians make canonization. Were the other letters better than the letter to the laodecians.

There was only one question/request that has taken us this far. Good exercise on your part, and I'm not being tedious to you. I'd thought you had something other than the RCC tradition to help solve the mystery. . and thanks for your efforts all the same

he gave you scripture. and um scripture is Catholic tradition. so let go of scripture since u don't agree with it.

Hi ~Lady~

How are you? Enjoying God's grace, no doubt, yes? If so, glory be to God.

I've patiently gone through your comments on the issues I offered chukwudi44. Unfortunately, you have not added anything crucial to substantiate a reasoned answer to the question, but rather have towed the same style as in his posts. No worries, I'll just highlight the essential points again so the gist doesn't get lost in unrelated issues. First, let me disabuse your mindset from non-essentials, some of which you had tried to read into my posts unfoundedly:

~Lady~:

You're misreading me, as I did not disparage Augustine. I only showed you the prevailing circumstances of his day and the conditions that led him to form his opinions of both visible and invisible foundation for the Church - not because that is what the 'scriptures' teach, but simply because that is the mantra being sung in Roman Catholic traditions.

Your assertion here is highly flawed.
1) Because you are of the assumption that all has to go by scripture alone, scripture refutes that, and history of christianity refutes that.
2) You are of the assumption that the scripture fell from the sky
3) You are of the assumption that Jesus wrote the scripture
4) You are of the assumption that Catholic tradition contradicts scripture.
5) You are of the assumption that by the time Augustine wrote, the Bible was already defined.

Just compare what you quoted from me with your comments following the quote: where did you see such "assumptions" in my quote? I don't think it helps to be unnecessarily miscalculating to read your mindset into other people's posts, ~Lady~. That is not a healthy way to discuss, and it doesn't help your understand at all (if you'd try to understand others). I say this respectfully, not slyly; and my appeal is that you simply follow what others are saying and dialogue on what you read, and not reading your own "assumptions" into their posts to make it look like it happened that way.

That said, a few other comments before the main issue:

~Lady~:

the problem here is that you view the foundation of peter as separate from the foundation of christ, the catholics don't view it as such. we view it in light of christ, not apart from it. so if you will question us, question us on what we believe not what we don't believe.

. . . This has absolutely no relevance to the fact that Christ established a papacy

This is the essential point: where Christ ever established a Papacy. Indeed, Catholics may believe it is so; and I don't have a problem with anyone believing what they want to, regardless of the fact that they may be sincerely mistaken. All the same, my question zeroes in on what you believe, and not on what you don't believe. One thing , though, since the dichotomy of 'seperate foundations' is not mine, you're absolutely wrong to infer that idea into my position. Perhaps you meant Augustine of Hippo, and not pilgrim.1 of this forum.

~Lady~:

I am still waiting on someone to show me documents from early christianity that disputes Peter as the Pope. All of them come after the reformation. 1500 years later.

Perhaps those few that have been cited already may serve as a reminder. Following chukwudi44's referral to Augustine of Hippo, I already observed how sancta (in trying to proffer answers to the question: "What is the Papacy?" told us pointedly:

[list][li]"St. Peter was made the chief of the Apostles and visible head of the Church by Jesus Christ."[/li][/list]

It was for this reason that I later pointed out the fact that there were documents which saw Christ as Head instead of Peter:

[list]

"St. Augustine of Hippo - Expositions on the Psalms, PSALM III. " (you can view an example here).

In such works of Augustine, we read the unmistakable assertion several times that Christ (not peter) is the Head of the Church:

'This Psalm can be taken as in the Person of Christ another way; which is that whole Christ should speak? I mean by whole, with His body, of which He is the Head, according to the Apostle, who says, "Ye are the body of Christ, and the members." He therefore is the Head of this body; wherefore in another place be saith, "But doing the truth in love, we may increase in Him in all things, who is the Head, Christ, from whom the whole body is joined together and compacted'


"The Virgin Mary is both holy and blessed, and yet the Church is greater than she. Mary is a part of the Church, a member of the Church, a holy, an eminent – the most eminent – member, but still only a member of the entire body. The body undoubtedly is greater than she, one of its members. This body has the Lord for its head, and head and body together make up the whole Christ. In other words, our head is divine – our head is God." [read it from this source]

[/list]

There are quite a number of such documents (as you requested) that point to Christ, not Peter, as the Head of the Church. Of course, you quoted the second part of in my answer and queried:

~Lady~:

"The Virgin Mary is both holy and blessed, and yet the Church is greater than she. Mary is a part of the Church, a member of the Church, a holy, an eminent – the most eminent – member, but still only a member of the entire body. The body undoubtedly is greater than she, one of its members. This body has the Lord for its head, and head and body together make up the whole Christ. In other words, our head is divine – our head is God." [read it from this source]

Don't mean to sound redundant but how does this differ from Catholic teaching?

Lol, dear ~Lady~, you were being reactive unnecessarily. The link I cited there was actually a Catholic weblink! I wasn't quoting a non-Catholic weblink for you any other RCC to suppose how it "differs", but you simply missed the reason why I offered that link. Calm down and go take another look, and come back to understand that this fits in perfectly to show you the simple fact that many documents reverred by Catholics themselves point to Christ as the Head of the Church, rather than to Peter! Unless you want to make TWO Heads of ONE Body, then I would see why your reactive response. Yet, we all know that there is ONLY ONE Head taught in Scripture for the Body of Christ - ONLY ONE, not two.

~Lady~:

No it is not different, however the Roman Catholic Church is but one church in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church consists of 23 Churches, 22 eastern churches and one western church. All in union with the Bishop of Rome.

When we speak, we aren't speaking of the RCC alone but of the Catholic Church.

You need to go back and see what sancta has been saying, because he does not seem to agree with your idea:

[list]"i beg you in the name of God, forget about them for now and try to know what the true catholic faith is all about and hold unto it since you are still with the vatican II sect which is claimning to be the catholic church and misleading people"[/list]

As well the same point he expressed to chukwud44:

[list]"The Catholic Church is the mystical body of Christ, and those who believe all her infallible teachings are her member. Vatican two council (1962-1965)was heretical because it denies the Catholic Faith in so many piont"[/list]

Earlier, though, he had made the same point several times:

[list]"Thank you so much lady. I sincerely wish you the very best. Above all I pray for the gift of the true catholic faith for you from my heart since you truly love it though are at the wrong side which is the Vatican II sect that has brought up the counterfeit church hence deceiving people in making them believe they are Catholics. The truth is that the people who go along with the new Vatican II religion do not have the true faith. To be saved, they need to come to the traditional Catholic faith.

. . . . Notice that it says heretics are also outside the Catholic Church. And who is a heretic? It is any baptized person who rejects a dogma of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, after the 2nd Vatican council which took place btw 1962-65, the church ( its pope from John XXIII – Benedict XVI together with their bishop and priest) that has arisen from there have embraced and constantly taught heresy. They even deny this dogma and its sad that people embrace their teachings thus becoming heretics as well."[/list]

There are more; but in summary, sancta does not stand alone: he is only one among many, many "Catholics" who reject other Catholics - and if for these former group, the "Vatican II sect" is a counterfeit church and deceiving people, would it be correct to say that you guys are in common league? (that is, are you sure that your assertion "All in union with the Bishop of Rome" fits the things that sancta addressed to your consideration?) It does not appear that a Catholic who says that "the people who go along with the new Vatican II religion do not have the true faith" would at the same time be in "union" with the Bishop of Rome that he views as nothing other than a "counterfeit church". I don't mean to stir up any uncertainties, but it's just not tenable to make a statement for all Catholics as you did.

These are merely the unrelated issues; and I'll go on to address and focus more on the one question that have been of concern to me, which informed my dialogue with chukwudi44.

Now, let's review the verse you quoted to answer the basic question that has brought us so far:

~Lady~:

However, I don't see where anything you said has established the idea that Peter was the foundation of the Church. Not a single convincing line you offered has made the point. Let's see:

Hey Pilgrim

I was wondering if this would help.

Galatians 2:9

9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:

The early christians regarded Peter as Bishop Of Rome and Pope of the Church there has never been any question about that. All churches with direct links to the early christians hold this belief, it is not just the Catholic Church that holds that belief. Whether or not they are in union with Rome, they hold the belief that Peter is the first Pope and that he has always been regarded as the first among equals.

Carefully look again at the Galatians 2:9 you quoted and ask yourself what correlation it bears to your commentary. That verse does not say that Peter is the foundation of the Church, unless there's a serious confusion in our minds between a 'pillar' and a 'foundation' - they're clearly not the same! When chukwudi44 quoted the same Galatians 2:9, I made the same observation, and up until now there's not been a pointer from any Catholic demonstrating that "pillar" is the same as "foundation".

If we carefully and honestly observe that verse, you'd notice it does not mention Peter alone; it rather mentions him second between three names: "James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars".

Second, the word "pillars" is in the plural, not singular - indicating that it was not only Peter that "seemed to be" addressed as such, but that the very same thing is said about James and John. Surely, if you use this verse to argue that Peter was the pillar and therefore the foundation of the Church, then by the same inference we could say that James and John were also "the foundations" as effectually as they were referred to as "pillars". What is more, it was James that was mentioned first in that verse before Peter (Cephas). We therefore see that Galatians 2:9 does not call Peter the foundation of the Church, in as much as Scripture does not confuse "pillar" for "foundation".

Third, isn't it peculiar that it was not Rome that the apostle Paul referred to in that chapter, but rather to Jerusalem? This is obvious in carefully reading verse 1 - "I went up again to Jerusalem"; and those whom he described as "pillars" in verse 9 are clearly explained in verse 2 simply as "them which were of reputation". The word 'pillars' (verse 9) was Paul's way of identifying those who were 'of reputation' (verse 2) - which establishes the fact that he was not referring to only one person, but several persons (". . them which were of reputation". Thus, Paul certainly did not mean to call Peter "the foundation" of the Church; and by "pillars", he was not confusing them (James and John) for the "foundation" either.

Perhaps I should quickly mention two very important points here, that -

(a) while the same apostle Paul never once called Peter the foundation of the Church, he yet categorically affirmed that there was only one foundation - Jesus Christ - and there is none other (1 Corinthians 3:11).

(b) on apostle Peter's part, he bears out the same fact that 'the foundation' was not himself, but rather Jesus Christ. No informed believer doubts for an instance that when Peter said: "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone" (1 Peter 2:6), he certainly was referring to such texts of the OT as the following -

[list]"Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD,
Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone,
a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation:
he that believeth shall not make haste" - (Isaiah 28:16)[/list]

You can see by comparing those verses (1 Peter 2:6 and Isaiah 28:16), it's obvious Peter was not referring to himself as that foundation at all, but was pointing to Christ Himself. It would have laid the matter simple and clear for Catholics if the apostle Peter had written in his own epistle that he himself (Peter) was the very foundation spoken of in Scripture - he didn't do so, nor did any other apostle describe him as such.


That, ~Lady~, as is obvious, is the main issue here, and not the other unrelated comments on other subjects. As regards the idea that Peter was ever called the foundation of the Church, neither Galatians 2:9 or any other text calls him so - even he himself did not say so, but pointed rather to Christ in harmony with what the prophets had declared.

Shalom.

@pilgrim1
this girl don kill me oooh! I dont know what is wrong with NL site I am the owner of the post that NL claimed to be 'kayemjay's well I cant explained what happened my IT sense never reach there. You really get time for this people am justing sitting down since morning IT no be garri O!. please we need to talk I need to know more I am an ardent student of history but I av seen someone (you) that cant combine knowlegde with constructive debate and argument, but I de fear girl we get sense pass me oH!

but really you need to be commended!

@rich_john (kayemjay),

rich_john:

@pilgrim1
this girl don kill me oooh! I dont know what is wrong with NL site I am the owner of the post that NL claimed to be 'kayemjay's well I cant explained what happened my IT sense never reach there. You really get time for this people am justing sitting down since morning IT no be garri O!. please we need to talk I need to know more I am an ardent student of history but I av seen someone (you) that cant combine knowlegde with constructive debate and argument, but I de fear girl we get sense pass me oH!

but really you need to be commended!

U sef, you go notice say for sometime now I been take 'unannounced leave' - I jus "resume" when the IT heat become less. When we talk behind the curtains, you go know how far - but no expect much from me (as you see me na im you go take me, abi?). Hala me email (check my profile). God go bless you plenty-plenty and nothing go take your blessing away - in Jesus Name. Amen.

pilgrim your email is hidden (checking your profile), put it now so I send you a mail sharp sharp on my laptop na on top server I dey browse

Readers, make una no vex, we don't mean to derail the subject of this thread.

___________


No vex - I assumed it was active. I'll comply pronto (note: there's an underscore ( _ ) between the first letter 'p' and the rest of the addy).

rich_john:

pilgrim your email is hidden (checking your profile), put it now so I send you a mail sharp sharp on my laptop na on top server I dey browse

- - - - -

Edit:

Done!

@ Pilgrim
The words of the Lord made it clear in matt:16,and John 21 that Peter is the foundation of the christian church.The testimonies of the fathers of the early church equally agrees with this interpretation.If you think Jesus or the early church fathers did not get it right you may go and correct them.

chukwudi44:

@ Pilgrim
The words of the Lord made it clear in matt:16,and John 21 that Peter is the foundation of the christian church.The testimonies of the fathers of the early church equally agrees with this interpretation.If you think Jesus or the early church fathers did not get it right you may go and correct them.

@chukwudi44,

I don't think that returning that excuse is hardly going to fit in as an appropriate answer to the simple enquiry I offered you earlier. You would observe my inputs were not trying to 'correct' the apostles or early church fathers - that was why I posited that both the apostle Paul (in Galatians 2:9) and even Peter himself in their own epistle, never once called Peter the foundation of the Church. Thank you for your efforts, but you've hardly solved your problem.

chukwudi44:

sancta
I want you to know that Jesus clearly stated in mattew 16 ,that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church.
I know that there some school of catholics who claim that the church was polluted after vatican ii,I dont want to agree with that.Johnpaul ii was perhaps the greatest pope we have had in over 1000 years.The resolutions of the vatican does not in anyway negatively impact on the modern catholic worship.

You are totally wrong on thi[/b]s chukwudi44. For sure the gates of hell would never prevail against the Catholic Church. If you believe in JP II, B XVI, then you are asserting that the gates of hell have prevailed against the church because heretics are the gates of hell as taught by the church and a heretic can never be a pope. These are dogmatic statements.

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553:
“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said [b]the
gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing
tongues of heretics)…”

Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and
upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”

St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to
silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.” (Intro. To Catena Aurea.)

And as we all know, heretics are not members of the church.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics,
but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no
one is saved.”

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp.
305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his
dignity and out of the Church, "

WHAT THEN ARE THE HERESIES OF JPII?

1. He practiced religious indifferentism and extolled all false religions. E.G John Paul II, General Audience, Jan. 11, 1995:
“I gladly take this occasion to assure those who follow[b] the Buddhist religion of my deep respect and sincere esteem.”

On August 8, 1985, John Paul II prayed with African Animists (witch doctors).[/b] John Paul II recalled the meeting:
“Particularly noteworthy was the prayer meeting at the sanctuary of Our Lady of Mercy at Lake Togo where, for the first time, I also prayed with a group of Animists.”

[b]On Oct. 27, 1986, John Paul II invited the major leaders of all the false religions of the world t[/b]o come to Assisi, Italy for a World Day of Prayer for Peace. John Paul II prayed with over 100 different religious leaders of various false religions, thereby repudiating the teaching of Scripture and the 2000-year teaching of the Catholic Church which outlaws such prayer with false religions.
The entire day of prayer with the pagans, infidels and heretics was John Paul II's idea. During this meeting the Dalai Lama placed a Buddhist statue on the tabernacle in the church of St. Francis. Among the various false religious leaders at Assisi there were rabbis, Islamic muftis, Buddhist monks, Shintoists, assorted Protestant ministers, Animists, Jainists and others.
During the meeting, a member of each false religion came forward and offered a prayer for peace – blasphemous prayers, for instance, as the Hindu prayer said: “Peace be on all gods.” (The Animist leader prayed to the “Great Thumb.”) But their gods are devils, as we saw above, so peace was being prayed for all the devils (who created these false religions) at the Vatican-sponsored World Day of Prayer for Peace! The Vatican II religion wants you to be in communion with devils.

In 1928, Pope Pius XI authoritatively condemned this inter-religious activity and denounced it as apostasy from the true Faith.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10): “So, Venerable Br

“…Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”

2. John Paul II asked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam!
On March 21st, 2000, John Paul II asked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam (the religion of the Muslims), which denies Christ and the Trinity, and keeps hundreds of millions of souls in the darkness of the Devil.
John Paul II, March 21, 2000:
“May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan, ”
This is to ask St. John to protect the denial of Christ and the damnation of souls.
Don’t forget that on May 14, 1999, John Paul II bowed to and kissed the Koran. The Koran is the Muslims’ holy book which blasphemes the Most Holy Trinity and denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ. To revere the holy book of a false religion has always been considered an act of apostasy – a complete rejection of the true religion.

John Paul II, New Catechism (paragraph 841):
“… Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

This means Jesus Christ will not judge mankind on the last day, but rather the god whom the Muslims worship will. This is a denial of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to judge the living and the dead.
Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome, 382, Can. 15:
“If anyone does not say that He Jesus Christ… will come to judge the living and the dead, he is a heretic.”

3.John Paul II praised Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Hus
John Paul II also praised the greatest enemies that the Catholic Church has ever known, including the Protestant revolutionaries Luther and Calvin. In Oct. 1983, John Paul II, speaking of Martin Luther, stated: “Our world even today experiences his great impact on history.” And on June 14, 1984, John Paul II praised Calvin as one who was trying to “make the Church more faithful to the will of the Lord.” To patronize, support and defend heretics is to be a heretic. To praise the worst heretics in Church history, such as Luther and Calvin, is beyond heres

Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical, May 8, 1844:
“But later even more care was required when the Lutherans and Calvinists dared to oppose the changeless doctrine of the faith with an almost incredible variety of errors. They left no means untried to deceive the faithful with perverse explanations of the sacred books, ”
4. He taught that non-Catholics can receive Communion , that non-Catholic sects have Saints and Martyrs. He approved of the practice of Altar Girls which Pope Benedict XIV, Pope Gelasius and Innocent IV forbade[/b]Chukwudi,

[b]John Paul II said that Heaven, Hell and Purgatory are not actual places
In a series of speeches in the summer of 1999, reported in the official Vatican newspaper, John Paul II said that Heaven, Hell and Purgatory are not actual places.
At his general audience on July 21, 1999, John Paul II said that Heaven is not an actual place.140
On July 28, 1999, John Paul II said:
1) "It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation of Hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life."
2) "By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will 'weep and gnash their teeth', The images of Hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy."

John Paul II carrying the “Broken Cross”
Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have carried a cross that very few have understood – the sinister bent or broken cross on which the Body of Christ is displayed as a repulsive and distorted figure. This bent or broken cross was used by black magicians and sorcerers in the sixth century to represent the Biblical term “mark of the beast.” Satanists in the fifth and sixth centuries, as well as black magicians and sorcerers of the Middle Ages (476-1453), used such figurines to represent their hatred for Christianity. The fact that the broken cross was used for occult purposes can be seen in the Museum of Witchcraft in Bayonne, France.
So Mr. Chukwudi, of what use is it trying to convert the Protestants in this argument if you yourself does not hold onto the true catholic faith. That’s why I’ve advised that you help yourself first and foremost.
Pray earnestly your rosary that our lady enlightens you in this great time of apostasy.
The monks website is perfectly exposing and telling people what they must do. If you are confused, why not mail them but above all, take time to see their materials of which I have also promise to help those that need it.

To truly convice you of what these men are, see what Pope Pius XI said
Pope Pius XI, Rite expiatis (# 6), April 30, 1926: “…heresies gradually
arose and grew in the vineyard of the Lord,
propagated either by open heretics or by sly deceivers
who, because they professed a certain austerity of life and gave a false
appearance of virtue and piety, easily led weak and simple souls astray.”

Find out the origin of the Roman Catholic Church in the link below:

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

@OLAADEGBU

Find out the origin of the Roman Catholic Church in the link below:

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

Lol, rubbish

Answer me this:  Why do all of the Apostolic Churches (Ethiopian, Orthodox, Indian, Chaldean, Egypt/Coptic, Roman) all have basically the same belief and understanding of what it means to be Christian (e.g., the sacraments, communion of the saints, apostolic succession)?  You can't possibly believe that all of the apostolic churches "Christianized the pagan religions and paganized Christianity".

Omenuko:

@OLAADEGBU

Lol, rubbish

Answer me this:  Why do all of the Apostolic Churches (Ethiopian, Orthodox, Indian, Chaldean, Egypt/Coptic, Roman) all have basically the same belief and understanding of what it means to be Christian (e.g., the sacraments, communion of the saints, apostolic succession)?  You can't possibly believe that all of the apostolic churches "Christianized the pagan religions and paganized Christianity".

The ability to trace one's church back to the “first church” through apostolic succession is an argument used by a number of different churches to assert that their church is the “one true church.”  The Roman Catholic Church makes this claim. The Greek Orthodox Church makes this claim.  Some Protestant denominations make this claim.  Some of the “Christian” cults make this claim.  How do we know which church is correct?  The biblical answer is – it does not matter! To know what it means to be a Christian and what the first and original church is click on the link suggested below for more details.

http://www.gotquestions.org/original-church.html

OLAADEGBU:

The ability to trace one's church back to the “first church” through apostolic succession is an argument used by a number of different churches to assert that their church is the “one true church.” The Roman Catholic Church makes this claim. The Greek Orthodox Church makes this claim. Some Protestant denominations make this claim. Some of the “Christian” cults make this claim. How do we know which church is correct? The biblical answer is – it does not matter! To know what it means to be a Christian and what the first and original church is click on the link suggested below for more details.

http://www.gotquestions.org/original-church.html

It might interest you to know that these apostolic churches were once part of the catholic church,They agree with the catholic church in most of their teachings.They don't also contest the fact that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

The coptic church of Alexandria only left the catholic church in AD 451 after the council of chalcedon,the orthodox church on the other hand left in AD 1054

chukwudi44:

It might interest you to know that these apostolic churches were once part of the catholic church,They agree with the catholic church in most of their teachings.They don't also contest the fact that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

The coptic church of Alexandria only left the catholic church in AD 451 after the council of chalcedon,the orthodox church on the other hand left in AD 1054

Can you show me the similarities or anything close to what the Apostles practised and preached that the RCC are also preaching? Start with the Apostle's Creed and compare them with what you practise in your church today.

http://www.gotquestions.org/original-church.html

OLAADEGBU:

Can you show me the similarities or anything close to what the Apostles practised and preached that the RCC are also preaching? Start with the Apostle's Creed and compare them with what you practise in your church today.

http://www.gotquestions.org/original-church.html

Why don't you post you church here ,then we will begin to compare who has deviated from the faith.

pilgrim.1:

Dear sancta,

Thank you for your calm response to my rejoinder to chukwudi44, and the offer you made to log on to the website in your reply. I'm grateful.

To be honest, I have not done so, and will find the time to consider your offer. However, what answers particularly would you hope to present to my objections?

Hello Pilgrim. 1

Quite a long time. I hope you must have visited the site: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com as regards your major objections with chukwudi. The book I promised to send you (THE BIBLE PROVES THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH) will get to us here in Nigeria hopefully by next week. If you are still interested in it (though I pray you should), you can send me your mailing address via my mail salvesancta@yahoo.com so I can send it to you. I also believe the DVD’s: Creation And Miracles, Death And The Journey Into Hell and their audios on MP3 would be of immense value to you. If you need them as well, don’t fail to let me know. All are for free.

When you eventually get them, read and watch with a calm and humble spirit and should you have a doubt on any issue, don’t fail to ask the monks. If you visit the E-Exchanges (Questions, Comments and Answers) section of the site, you would easily see that even Protestants are converting to the true catholic faith.

Like I once said and I still maintain my grounds based on the teaching magisterium of the Catholic church that the Catholic Church still exists though reduced to a remnant which are holding onto the true faith whole and entire. For in truth, the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining her doctrines. Even if there is one true priest and few Catholics faithful to tradition, they are the ones who make up the Catholic Church. I am also happy you keep on reminding others what I have always said. All those of goodwill will definitely see the truth in all these but then I sometimes wonder how they would see this when they obstinately refuse to look at what the Catholic Church has always taught which the monks present on their site.

I earnestly pray that Our Lady enlightens you in all this and enable you see the truths of the Catholic faith. Amen.

chukwudi44:

Why don't you post you church here ,then we will begin to compare who has deviated from the faith.

This is the church I belong to which is the true and original church. Begin to compare your Catholic faith with what my church stands for in the link below and let's see who has gone off tangent:

http://www.gotquestions.org/original-church.html

sancta:

Hello Pilgrim. 1

Quite a long time. I hope you must have visited the site: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com as regards your major objections with chukwudi. The book I promised to send you (THE BIBLE PROVES THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH) will get to us here in Nigeria hopefully by next week. If you are still interested in it (though I pray you should), you can send me your mailing address via my mail salvesancta@yahoo.com so I can send it to you. I also believe the DVD’s: Creation And Miracles, Death And The Journey Into Hell and their audios on MP3 would be of immense value to you. If you need them as well, don’t fail to let me know. All are for free.

Hi sancta,

Please forgive me, I didn't ignore you at all (the long delay was unintensional). I've actually been taking my time to read through articles on the website you recommended, and thank you for the offer to make some other materials available to me upon request. I definitely would have occasion at some point to request further materials, if for nothing else but to help my research in other areas. Yes, I guarantee that your offer would be treated with utmost respect and discretion. Many thanks again, and regards.

I don't know why Christians still waste their precious time debating about which church is the true church of Christ. What is happening here could be similar to what happened at Corinth that mandated Apostle Paul to write 1 Cor 3:4;

For when one person says,"I follow Paul," and another person says, "I follow Apollos," you're following your own human nature, aren't you? (NIV)

For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? (King James)

Did the Catholic or any Protestant church die for you?I cant speak for anyone, but can only attest for myself that Christ died for me and him alone I follow. The most important think is not the church you attend but your personal relationship with God that matters. Attend any church your heart leads you to but most importantly read, follow and practice the teachings of the Bible.

Discussions of this nature will take no one anywhere. Please, use your God-giving time, knowledge and eloquence to preach the Salvation of Christ to unbelievers instead.

wisedge:

I don't know why Christians still waste their precious time debating about which church is the true church of Christ. What is happening here icould be similar to what happened at Corinth that mandated Apostle Paul to write 1 Cor 3:4;

For when one person says, "I follow Paul," and another person says, "I follow to Apollos," you're following your own human nature, aren't you? (NIV)

For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? (King James)

Did the Catholic or any Protestant church die for you?I cant speak for anyone, but can only attest for myseft that Christ died for me and him alone I follow. The most important think is not the church you attend but your personal relationship with God that matters. Attend any church your heart leads you to but most importantly read, follow and practice the teachings of the Bible.

Discussions of this nature will take no one anywhere. Please, use your God-giving time, knowledge and eloquence to preach the Salvation of Christ to unbelievers instead.

Did you read the link that I suggested at all? If you did you would have realised where I am coming from and where I am heading.

Did you read the link that I suggested at all?  If you did you would have realised where I am coming from and where I am heading.

I didnt before my post but just read it here; http://www.gotquestions.org/original-church.html . Explained my position more eloquently.

wisedge:

I didnt before my post but just read it here; http://www.gotquestions.org/original-church.html . Explained my position more eloquently.

It is a wise thing not to jump to conclusion before you understand a matter.
chukwudi44 claimed that his church is the original church and challenged me to identify my own church, and my response was to direct him to the link of the church that I am part of which I believe is the original true church.  You then jumped to the conclusion it is neither Apollos nor Paul that died for us.  Since you claimed that the post that I suggested explained your position eloquently can you now tell me what church I belong to?

It is a wise thing not to jump to conclusion before you understand a matter.
chukwudi44 claimed that his church is the original church and challenged me to identify my own church, and my response was to direct him to the link of the church that I am part of which I believe is the original true church.  You then jumped to the conclusion it is neither Apollos nor Paul that died for us.  Since you claimed that the post that I suggested explained your position eloquently can you now tell me what church I belong to?

I jumped to conclusion because I understood the matter contrary to what you want to make us believe. Take it easy! Check my initial post and you can confirm that it wasnt particularly directed at you. It was a general statement that I made. I don't know why you have taken it personal. I am not chukwudi44, neither have I claimed that my church was the original one.

It is not my concern to identify the church that you attend or subscribe to. However, from the few posts I have read bearing your name, I can say that you preach and believe in the message of the Bible. That is enough for me, the church you belong to is irrelevant.

wisedge:

I jumped to conclusion because I understood the matter contrary to what you want to make us believe. Take it easy! Check my initial post and you can confirm that it wasnt particularly directed at you. It was a general statement that I made. I don't know why you have taken it personal. I am not chukwudi44, neither have I claimed that my church was the original one.

It is not my concern to identify the church that you attend or subscribe to. However, from the few posts I have read bearing your name, I can say that you preach and believe in the message of the Bible. That is enough for me, the church you belong to is irrelevant.

I sincerely apologise for misunderstanding your post, I hope you will forgive me.

I sincerely apologise for misunderstanding your post, I hope you will forgive me.

You don't need to apologise because you have done me no wrong. However, to make you feel at ease due to your humility and sincerity, I humbly say 'I have forgiven you'.

You guys keep attacking yourselves, who is right now na, me I am confused oh, who will I follow!

Chrisbenogor:

You guys keep attacking yourselves, who is right now na, me I am confused oh, who will I follow!

Follow Banom.

Pastor AIO:

Follow Banom.

You got a phone number, I aint following no God without an email addy