italo:

Thanks for affording me this opportunity to talk about our Catholic faith. What a pleasure! I will now go ahead and attend to your concerns. However, I will like us to work with some sort of 'soft rules' - so to say.

1. I will answer all your questions clearly and concisely...but you have to answer all my questions the same way too.

2. Lies are a no-no. If it is proved that one of us has said something false, he must admit and take back the statement.

Of course, no lies should be entertained.

First, i think you misunderstand the teaching. Papal infallibility doesn't mean the Pope cannot fall (sin). That would be "impeccability," not "infallibility," the way the Church sees it.

Papal infallibility means, when the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable."

The evidence for papal infallibility comes from three sources.

Sorry first for misunderstanding the teaching.

On one occasion the apostle Paul found it necessary to reprove Peter (Cephas) publicly for having taken a course not in keeping with true Christian faith. The fact that Peter was wrong on this matter involving faith and morals and also that Paul felt free to correct him publicly shows that Peter was not looked to as an “infallible” head of the apostles or of the early church. (Gal. 2:11-14) In the true church there is only one Head, Jesus Christ, who, since his resurrection, is “alive forever,” and so needs no successors.—Heb. 7:23-25

Furthermore, many had to become priests [in succession] because of being prevented by death from continuing as such, 24 but he because of continuing alive forever has his priesthood without any successors. 25 Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them.

was Peter fallible in faith and morals?

Bishop of Bosnia bears his mind on the subject:

[b]“Well, then, venerable brethren, here history raises its voice with authority to assure us that some popes have erred. You may protest against it or deny it as you please, but I will prove it! Pope Victor (192) first approved of Montanism, and then condemned it. Marcellinus (296-303) was an idolater. He entered into the temple of Vesta, and offered incense to the goddess [her temple was the oldest pagan temple in Rome]. You will say that it was an act of weakness; but I answer, a vicar of Jesus Christ dies rather than become an apostate. Liberius (358) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, and made a profession of Arianism, that he might be recalled from his exile and reinstated in his see. Honorius (625) adhered to Monothelitism: Father Gratry has proved it to demonstration. Gregory I (785-90) calls anyone Antichrist who takes the name of universal bishop, and contrariwise Boniface III (607- made the parricide Emperor Phocas confer that title upon him. Paschal II (1088-99) and Eugenius III (1145-53) authorized duelling; Julius II (1509) and Pius IV (1560) forbade it. Eugenius IV (1431-39) approved of the Council of Basle and the restitution of the chalice to the church of Bohemia; Pius II (1458) revoked the concession. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII (1800-23) condemned them. Sixtus V (1585-90) published an edition of the Bible, and by a bull recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of it. Clement XIV (1700-21) abolished the order of the Jesuits, permitted by Paul III, and Pius VII re-established it.[/b]

Another papal bull was the one Pope Urban VIII made when excommunicating the great scientist Galileo for teaching the truth that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. Other glaring contradictions appear in the edicts of Innocent I, Gelasius I, Pelagius I, Nicholas I, Stephen II (III), Celestine II, Innocent III, Nicholas II, etc.—McClintock & Strong’s Cyclopædia, vol. 4, pp. 571, 572; vol. 10, p. 673.

With all these, can you affirm that these teaching is still correct?

SCRIPTURE

Such passages as: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven", and "Do you love me, Peter. Feed my sheep", and "I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren", have always been taken to refer to a special role for Peter in the establishment of the Church, and special divine protection for Peter in the exercise of his authority.

Jesus simply mentions his name, and stated that it was on that Rock which Peter identified, ie the Christ that he will build his "Church".

Peter Still identified Jesus as being the Rock. 1Pet. 2:4-6

Coming to him as to a living stone, rejected, it is true, by men, but chosen, precious, with God, 5 YOU yourselves also as living stones are being built up a spiritual house for the purpose of a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it is contained in Scripture: “Look! I am laying in Zion a stone, chosen, a foundation cornerstone, precious; and no one exercising faith in it will by any means come to disappointment.”

Compare Eph. 5:23 and see who the head of the "church" is.

There is no evidence in the Scriptures that Peter was the head of the church. That he was not is clear from the record of the first church council that was held in Jerusalem, about 49 C.E. Rather than presiding over the council, Peter addressed it as did Barnabas and Paul, but it was James who summed up the matter under discussion and made the recommendation that was followed by the council.—Acts 15:6-29.


The Catholic revere Augustine so much. what has he to say?

In his Retractationes, written toward the end of his life, Augustine restated his position on Matthew 16:18 in this way: “In my first book against Donatus I mentioned somewhere with reference to the Apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him whom Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and as meaning that Peter, having been named after this rock, figured this person of the Church which is built upon this (rock) and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art the rock,’ but ‘Thou art Peter.’ But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom (even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these two interpretations is the more likely to be correct, let the reader choose.”6 In view of the fact that Augustine shows it to be his later view that Christ, not Peter, is the Rock spoken of in Matthew 16:18, it is clear that this is the position he believed to be right.

Because of his zeal and initiative, Peter doubtless played a “considerable” role, as Alberigo writes. Jesus gave him “the keys of the kingdom of the heavens.” (Matthew 16:19) He used these symbolic keys to open up to Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles the opportunity to enter into the Kingdom of the heavens. (Acts 2:14-40; 8:14-17; 10:24-48) He was also given the responsibility of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing,’ a task he shared with the other apostles. (Matthew 16:19; 18:18, 19) He was to shepherd the Christian congregation, something that all Christian overseers must do.—Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2.

HISTORY

From the earliest times we see the bishops of Rome acting with special authority in succession from St. Peter, and we also see the rest of the Church accepting their authority because they knew it was genuine. Pope Clement wrote to settle a problem in the Church of Corinth before the end of the 1st century. During the first few hundred years in the Church, many who were accused of heresy appealed from every corner of the known world to Rome for vindication or condemnation. The Early Church Fathers too repeatedly attest to the authority of the Roman See. And the Popes always had the decisive word at general councils, as when the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon said in response to the Papal definition of the two natures of Christ, "Peter has spoken through Leo" -- and accepted it unhesitatingly.

First of all I disagree with Peter being the cornerstone. Secondly, there is no word in the scripture that supports the idea that Peter would have a successor. Even if he would have, the list compiled by Catholic is not the possible successors, because Apostle John who is among the pillars then was alive. I wonder who could give to Cyril, Clement or however this list was compiled.

What did the early Christians believe?

Professor Alberigo answers: “In the early centuries, no doctrinal elaboration or pragmatism exists for the figure and the functions of the pope. . . . The possibility of an ‘episcopus episcoporum’ [bishop of bishops] was an aberration for Cyprian [a third-century writer], as he affirmed at the synod of Carthage.”
When did the doctrine of the papacy take root? Professor Alberigo says: “Toward the end of the fourth century, the Roman church’s claim to an apostolic function, that is, of coordination for the western churches, becomes more insistent.” It was “during the episcopate of Leo I [fifth century],” adds Alberigo, that “the concept of Peter’s ‘princedom’ among the apostles, founded on Mt 16:18,” was developed. “One finds in the NT no indications by Jesus concerning the successors of Peter or of the other apostles"

LOGIC

It is clear from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith -- he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.

Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed "my" (Christ's) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ's absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master's return is very much to the point.

Just as clearly, Peter's authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means -- eventually, election by the college of cardinals.

Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.

For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. As I indicated above, this authority was excercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ's will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition)

Partly culled from http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm edited by me

The bolded. Peter was not the only one given the privilege to bind what will be bound in heaven. Matt. 18:18, 19

Peter used the keys he was given while alive as I indicated above.

Jesus didnt say he was going to be with Peter till the end, but to all the apostles. Matt. 28:20

I can NEVER believe you that Peter would pass the power to any other person other than John who was among the Pillars then, assuming your claim was correct. This authorities which you believe in was never upheld by the then christians. Never did the apostles take orders from Peter rather Peter took orders from others.

This tradition must be false as the scripture is more reliable than this traditions. for example the scripture never used Pope for Peter for ones, nor call him by that title. Dont you think that this traditions should be jettisoned?

italo: Now before I go to question 2, I have a question for you:

You have stated many times that you are fallible.

Does that mean that you can possibly teach something that is wrong on faith and morals...and/or misinterprete what scripture is saying?

Or are you always correct when you teach on faith/morals and/or interprete scripture?

This is about Catholic and your defense.

italo:

Priestly celibacy is not a Catholic doctrine, only a discipline.

Can we narrow it down to Catholic doctrine?

that wont be necessary if you understand my question. ok, does this discipline restrict any who is a catholic from becoming a bishop even if he meets the scriptural requirement for being a bishop?

kcjazz: Nice thread so far...

Meanwhile my question is... Since the Catholic church is regarded as the "one true "church, whats the churches stand on other Christians (secessionists) making heaven?

^^^ You raise an interesting question and perhaps Roman Catholics will give their own answers later on.

The current Roman catholic position is that other "Christians" too can obtain salvation. However, it is not that straightforward!

Historically, they have held that other Christians are heretics and anathema and in effect are all going to hell. Strictly speaking this position still remains on their books and some more "traditional" Catholics say it is the only position. Now one also has to understand the background: the Roman Catholic organisation and the papacy became quite powerful (especially after the Great Schism with the Eastern Orthodox) and they ruled over almost everyone in the West including kings and emperors. If they threatened to excommunicate a king or emperor, they could bring the king/emperor down! It was in this era that they were declaring left right and centre that no one could be saved unless he submitted to the "pope"!

However, Martin Luther threw a big spanner in the works by triggering the Reformation. The Roman Catholics then for long thought they could still threaten and scare people with hell, excommunication and all that. They were declaring anathemas left right and centre especially with certain councils known as "Trent" and Vatican I.

However, around 1962, they took a softer approach at a "council" called Vatican II. Really, what they should have done was to say that all those anathemas of Trent and Vatican I were nonsense. BUT if they said so openly they would have destroyed the whole of Roman Catholicism as we know it ---- for they would have admitted that infallibility is a lie among many other things.

So Vatican II fudged matters in some "clever" ways and now recognises that other Christians (and even non-Christians) can be saved. So "other Christians" sort of "graduated" and though we are still "heretics" and "schismatics", we are now to be called "separated brethren".

EDIT By the way, there is some confusion still in Roman Catholic teaching here: the teaching also suggests that those who know what Roman Catholics claim and reject it cannot obtain salvation. That is, even Moslems or people ignorant of Roman Catholic doctrine may be better off than informed people who reject Roman Catholicism! Na so!

Personally, I am watching Bergoglio carefully and wish he could really do a Vatican III to undo much of the rubbish of Trent and Vatican I especially. However, it is a very tough task as it would mean destroying much that Roman Catholicism is made of.

Yet, without undoing much of Trent and Vatican I, there will simply not be Christian unity. Trent and especially Vatican I are such terrible things!

italo:

No Catholic tradition is AGAINST Bible teaching. Not one.

Your restricting a Catholic from being a priest, is it scriptural? Is the title Pope scriptural? Is apostolic succession scriptural?

Compare the following with Scriptures.


“In the final analysis, the
Catholic doctrine on purgatory
is based on tradition, not
Sacred Scripture.”—New Catholic
Encyclopedia, Volume 11,
page 1034.


Compare with Eccl. 9:5, 6, 10

Psalms 146:4

His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground;
In that day his thoughts do perish

italo:

None that we know of...just like we know of no Scripture that supports that Christ told his apostles to write any books or compile any book and call it "bible." However, we know from other writings by the apostles/their successors and Church tradition that Peter had successors. These men were the ones who also handed down tradition to the men who handed it to the men who compiled the Bible.

And we all know that Sacred Tradition is true.

St Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to oral tradition. He also tells Timothy to pass on the oral tradition to other faithful men.

I said which scripture supports the belief. writing scripture is not a belief.

We cannot say for sure what these traditions were. Whatever it is, it wont be contra to the written scripture. however, the bible stated that ALL scripture is enough for you to be a competent man of God.

16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

Wouldnt it be rather wise to stick to what is written since we cant confirm this claimed tradition? Of course you know that many oppose this apostolic succession tradition when it appeared. And we still do not have any biblical support.

Remember that Paul warned that apostasy will enter the congregation after their death. It was even at work during their time, even human tradition.

Col. 2:8
Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.

italo:

Purgatory was "invented" by God.

What do you mean by "unscriptural?"

“In the final analysis, the
Catholic doctrine on purgatory
is based on tradition, not
Sacred Scripture.”—New Catholic
Encyclopedia, Volume 11,
page 1034.

Is it bible based or not?

[quote author=italo]

2 Machabees 12:40-46. When Judas and his men came to take away for burial the bodies of their brothers who had fallen in the battle against Gorgias, "they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten...And making a gathering, he [Judas] sent twelve [al. two] drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep in godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." The inspired author expressly approves Judas's action in this particular case, and recommends in general terms the practice of prayers for the dead. There is no contradiction in the particular case between the conviction that a sin had been committed, calling down the penalty of death, and the hope that the sinners had nevertheless died in godliness — an opportunity for penance had intervened.

But even for those who deny the inspired authority of this book, unequivocal evidence is here furnished of the faith and practice of the Jewish Church in the second century B.C. — that is to say, of the orthodox Church, for the sect of the Sadducees denied the resurrection (and, by implication at least, the general doctrine of immortality), and it would seem from the argument of which the author introduces in his narrative that he had Sadducean adversaries in mind. The act of Judas and his men in praying for their deceased comrades is represented as if it were a matter of course; nor is there anything to suggest that the procuring of sacrifices for the dead was a novel or exceptional thing; from which it is fair to conclude that the practice — both private and liturgical — goes back beyond the time of Judas, but how far we cannot say. It is reasonable also to assume, in the absence of positive proof to the contrary, that this practice was maintained in later times, and that Christ and the Apostles were familiar with it; and whatever other evidence is available from Talmudic and other sources strongly confirms this assumption, if it does not absolutely prove it as a fact (see, v.g., Luckock, "After Death", v, pp. 50 sq.). This is worth noting because it helps us to understand the true significance of Christ's silence on the subject — if it be held on the incomplete evidence of the Gospels that He was indeed altogether silent — and justifies us in regarding the Christian practice as an inheritance from orthodox Judaism.

This Maccabees is not catalogued by the jews, as such it is unreasonable to assume that it was used by the apostles or even Jesus, who equally never quoted from it.

There is no clear and explicit Scriptural text in favour of prayers for the dead, except the above text of II Machabees. Yet there are one or two sayings of Christ recorded by the Evangelists, which are most naturally interpreted as containing an implicit reference to a purgatorial state after death; and in St. Paul's Epistles a passage of similar import occurs, and one or two other passages that bear directly on the question of prayers for the dead. When Christ promises forgiveness for all sins that a man may commit except the sin against the Holy Ghost, which "shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come" (Matthew 12:31-32), is the concluding phrase nothing more than a periphrastic equivalent for "never"? Or, if Christ meant to emphasize the distinction of worlds, is "the world to come" to be understood, not of the life after death, but of the Messianic age on earth as imagined and expected by the Jews? Both interpretations have been proposed; but the second is far-fetched and decidedly improbable (cf. Mark 3:29); while the first, though admissible, is less obvious and less natural than that which allows the implied question at least to remain: May sins be forgiven in the world to come? Christ's hearers believed in this possibility, and, had He Himself wished to deny it, He would hardly have used a form of expression which they would naturally take to be a tacit admission of their belief. Precisely the same argument applies to the words of Christ regarding the debtor who is cast into prison, from which he shall not go out till he has paid the last farthing (Luke 12:59).

Christ was stating that blasphemy will not be forgiven in the system to come. Yes during the thousand year reign of Christ.

Passing over the well-known passage, 1 Corinthians 3:14 sq., on which an argument for purgatory may be based, attention may be called to another curious text in the same Epistle (15:29), where St. Paul argues thus in favour of the resurrection: "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized form them?" Even assuming that the practice here referred to was superstitious, and that St. Paul merely uses it as the basis of an argumentum ad hominem, the passage at least furnishes historical evidence of the prevalence at the time of belief in the efficacy of works for the dead; and the Apostle's reserve in not reprobating this particular practice is more readily intelligible if we suppose him to have recognized the truth of the principle of which it was merely an abuse. But it is probable that the practice in question was something in itself legitimate, and to which the Apostle gives his tacit approbation.

1. I have responded to the bold in one of our discussion. It refers to the living.

2. In writing about the heavenly resurrection, the apostle Paul penned a most intriguing passage. In the King James Version, we read: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” And The New Jerusalem Bible renders this passage: “What are people up to who have themselves baptised on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, what is the point of being baptised on their behalf?”—1 Corinthians 15:29.

Was Paul here suggesting that living people be baptized on behalf of those who died in an unbaptized state? So it might seem from these and some other Bible translations. However, a closer examination of both the Scriptures and the original Greek used by Paul suggests another conclusion. Paul meant that anointed Christians are baptized, or immersed, into a course of life that will lead to a death of integrity like that of Christ. Afterward, they would be raised to spirit life as he was.

The Scriptures support this explanation. In his letter to the Romans, Paul wrote: “Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3) In his letter to the Philippians, Paul spoke of himself, saying: “Sharing in [Christ’s] sufferings, submitting myself to a death like his, to see if I may by any means attain to the earlier resurrection from the dead.” (Philippians 3:10, 11) Paul was pointing out that the life of an anointed follower of Christ involves a course of integrity-keeping under test, a daily facing of death, and finally a death of integrity, followed by the heavenly resurrection.

It is noteworthy that these and other scriptures that directly mention death in connection with baptized ones refer to living individuals who had been baptized and not to those who had died. Paul also told fellow anointed Christians: “You were buried with him in his baptism, and by relationship with him you were also raised up together through your faith in the operation of God, who raised him up from the dead.”—Colossians 2:12.

The Greek preposition hy·per′, translated “for” or “on behalf of” in various Bible versions at 1 Corinthians 15:29, can also mean “for the purpose of.” In harmony with other Bible texts, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures therefore correctly renders this verse: “What will they do who are being baptized for the purpose of being dead ones? If the dead are not to be raised up at all, why are they also being baptized for the purpose of being such?”

In his Second Epistle to Timothy (1:16-18; 4:19) St. Paul speaks of Onesiphorus in a way that seems obviously to imply that the latter was already dead: "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus" — as to a family in need of consolation. Then, after mention of loyal services rendered by him to the imprisoned Apostle at Rome, comes the prayer for Onesiphorus himself, "The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day" (the day of judgment); finally, in the salutation, "the household of Onesiphorus" is mentioned once more, without mention of the man himself. The question is, what had become of him? Was he dead, as one would naturally infer from what St. Paul writes? Or had he for any other cause become separated permanently from his family, so that prayer for them should take account of present needs while prayers for him looked forward to the day of judgment? Or could it be that he was still at Rome when the Apostle wrote, or gone elsewhere for a prolonged absence from home? The first is by far the easiest and most natural hypothesis; and if it be admitted, we have here an instance of prayer by the Apostle for the soul of a deceased benefactor.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04653a.htm

Onesiphorus may simply have been away from home, or Paul may have included him in the greetings sent to his entire household.

the believe that there is special significance in the statement: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from Jehovah in that day.” And that these words justify intercessory prayers in behalf of departed souls living and perhaps suffering in some spiritual realm. However, such an idea conflicts with the Scriptural teaching that the dead are not conscious of anything. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) Even if Onesiphorus had died, Paul was simply expressing a wish that his friend would find mercy from God. “That wish we are entitled to entertain for all,” says R. F. Horton. “But to pray for the dead, and to offer Masses for them, is a thought remote from the [apostle’s] mind.”

italo:

You mean the Saints - the living?

the dead interceding for the living.

italo:
Who said that? Evidence please.

[b]Roman Catholic Church[edit]

When in 1525 Martin Luther, an ex-monk, married Katharina von Bora, an ex-nun, his enemies[who?] said that their offspring would fulfill an old tradition that the Antichrist would be the son of such a union. Erasmus remarked that the tradition could apply to thousands of such children.[18]

In 1771 Bishop Charles Walmesley published, under the nom de plume of "Signor Pastorini",[19] his "General History of the Christian Church from Her Birth to Her Final Triumphant State in Heaven Chiefly Deduced from the Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist".[20] In it he attributed to what he called the fifth age of the Church a duration of 300 years, beginning with the Protestant Reformation in 1520 or 1525.[21] This was widely interpreted as predicting the downfall of Protestantism by 1825.[22] In fact, just four years later, the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 brought to a culmination the process of Catholic Emancipation throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.[/b]

As the Creed infallibly teaches, the Second Coming is associated with the end of the world and the Last Judgment. Therefore, it is NOT associated with any earlier time - such as to establish a "Millennium." The Catholic Church specifically condemns "millenarianism," according to which Jesus will establish a throne in this world and reign here for a thousand years [CCC 676]. She teaches instead that Jesus already reigns in eternity (1 Cor. 15:24-27, Rev. 4 & 5) and that in this world His reign, established as a seed, is found already in the Church [CCC 668-669]. This is the 1000 years, which is the Hebrew way of indicating an indefinite long time - in this case, the time between the first and second comings, the era of the Church, in other words the last days in the broadest sense.The Book of Revelation situates this era between the persecutions of the Roman antichrists of the first century and the final unleashing of evil at the end

How can the thousand years be in effect and Satan is still at work? Rev. 20:3

secondly, Concerning Papias, who reportedly suffered martyrdom in Pergamum in 161 or 165 C.E., The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, a disciple of St. John, appeared as an advocate of millenarianism. He claimed to have received his doctrine from contemporaries of the Apostles, and Irenæus narrates that other ‘Presbyteri’, who had seen and heard the disciple John, learned from him the belief in millenarianism as part of the Lord’s doctrine. According to Eusebius . . . Papias in his book asserted that the resurrection of the dead would be followed by one thousand years of a visible, glorious earthly kingdom of Christ.”

what about the oral traditions?

interpret this for us please
2 john 1:12
There are several things I have to tell you, but I have thought it best not to trust it to PAPAER and INK. I hope instead to visit you and talk to you personally so that our joy may be complete

JMAN05: This thread is made so that Italo will discuss his believes with others, since he prefers it when his name is not attached to the subject. let us see another reason he has to dodge.


6. which Scripture authorise your church to pray for the dead?

7. which Scripture supports intercession by the dead?

Let's start from there. more remains.

I don't get question 6
as for question 7 what are you talking about? who is asking intercession by the dead ?

chukwudi44:

communique issued after the compilation of the bible in 419CE

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
•Genesis.
•Exodus.
•Leviticus.
•Numbers.
•Deuteronomy.
•Joshua the Son of Nun.
•The Judges.
•Ruth.
•The Kings, iv. books.
•The Chronicles, ij. books.
•Job.
•The Psalter.
•The Five books of Solomon.
•The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
•Isaiah.
•Jeremiah.
•Ezechiel.
•Daniel.
•Tobit.
•Judith.
•Esther.
•Ezra, ij. books.
•Macchabees, ij. books. ◦The New Testament. ■The Gospels, iv. books.
■The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
■The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
■The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
■The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
■The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
■The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
■The Revelation of John, j. book.



Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm



KINDLY RESTRICT YOUR NEXT QUESTIONS TO THE TOPIC AS I DO NOT WANT TO DERAIL THIS THREAD

Oga the bible was not canonized on that date. before that date first, the jews have catalogued there canon during the great synagogue and these was no doubt what the apostles used, though they may also have had the greek translation of it.

Secondly, the canon of the "NT" has been there before this date. the fact that this council came to state which one is canonical or not is as a result of controversy, not all agreed with some of the books listed there. The contents of some of these books shows that they lack inspiration.

POPE II: interpret this for us please
2 john 1:12
There are several things I have to tell you, but I have thought it best not to trust it to PAPAER and INK. I hope instead to visit you and talk to you personally so that our joy may be complete

If you understand my write ups, you wont say this.

POPE II:
I don't get question 6
as for question 7 what are you talking about? who is asking intercession by[from] the dead (persons) ?

6 - Do you pray for the departed so that they could pass through purgatory?

7 - I inserted "from" in place of "by" in your question above. also note the "persons" in parenthesis. Do you now understand?

JMAN05:

If you understand my write ups, you wont say this.

why?

JMAN05:

6 - Do you pray for the departed so that they could pass through purgatory?

7 - I inserted "from" in place of "by" in your question above. also note the "persons" in parenthesis. Do you now understand?

@ 6 yes , anything wrong with that?

7 I understand your question now, but I still don't know what you mean we don't ask any intercession from the dead

JMAN05:

This is about Catholic and your defense.

This thread is going fine for now. Pls don't make your own thread difficult.

I am not attacking or asking you to defend your doctrine. I am only asking to know what you believe.

Even in the thread where you were supposed to answer for JWs, you asked questions which I answered...I only refused when you questioned Catholic doctrine because that wasn't the place for that.

If you want me to defend Catholic doctrine, isn't it fair that you let me know the ideology I am defending it against? Do I just defend against the unknown? I want to know what you believe please...and I need you to also answer my questions the way I am answering all of yours.

You have stated many times that you are fallible.

Does that mean that you can possibly teach something that is wrong on faith and morals...and/or misinterprete what scripture is saying?

Or are you always correct when you teach on faith/morals and/or interprete scripture?

adsonstone:

my answer: NO

Kindly re-read Italo's post that prompted that reply.

By the way, He has replied and his respose is quite satisfactory.

He means, out of 27 books, we can only point to one that was commanded to be written by Jesus.

Yet we read all of them because they were Chosen by the Church.

Because we know that Sacred Tradition is true.

adsonstone:

If the principles for applying the oral traditions are taught in the scripture, then the scripture is still a reference source for oral tradition.

Then, I have this question for you concerning your reply.

Is the new testament canon a doctrine/tradition?

Both. Here it is from the CCC.

The New Testament

124 "The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament"96 which hand on the ultimate truth of God's Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church's beginnings under the Spirit's guidance.

125 The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures "because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior".

126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."

2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed."

3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."

127 The fourfold Gospel holds a unique place in the Church, as is evident both in the veneration which the liturgy accords it and in the surpassing attraction it has exercised on the saints at all times:

There is no doctrine which could be better, more precious and more splendid than the text of the Gospel. Behold and retain what our Lord and Master, Christ, has taught by his words and accomplished by his deeds.
But above all it's the gospels that occupy my mind when I'm at prayer; my poor soul has so many needs, and yet this is the one thing needful. I'm always finding fresh lights there; hidden meanings which had meant nothing to me hitherto.

kcjazz: Nice thread so far...

Meanwhile my question is... Since the Catholic church is regarded as the "one true "church, whats the churches stand on other Christians (secessionists) making heaven?

The Church teaches that other Christians can be saved if they don't know the Catholic Church to be the one true Church and willingly reject it.

Same goes for people of other religions and evev Atheists.

@ JMAN, so do me the favour. I'm ready to fly but na you hold me for checkpoint.

This is only the first question I'm asking after I answered 9 of yours and you're already shifting back.

Pls answer my question and I'll answer yours.

At least now no one can accuse italo of dodging anything.

JMAN05:

Oga the bible was not canonized on that date. before that date first, the jews have catalogued there canon during the great synagogue and these was no doubt what the apostles used, though they may also have had the greek translation of it.

Secondly, the canon of the "NT" has been there before this date. the fact that this council came to state which one is canonical or not is as a result of controversy, not all agreed with some of the books listed there. The contents of some of these books shows that they lack inspiration.

Bros kindly back up youir claims with links and not justy making assertions.This canon was first decided @ hippo in 393 CE.I know that the jewish council of Jamnia in 90CE did not approve it so also did it not approve Jesus or any of the NT books in that vein should we also regard the NT books as non-canonical since the jews did not approve it?

BTW have you heard of the septuagint? Do you know how and who compiled it and the books included in its canon.BTW do you mind pointing out the contents of the books that shows it lack inspiration? Do not give me any cut and join canon ,do not borrow me some sets of books from someone's canon and add to another set in another canon.Give me links just like I have done proving the canonisation of your 66 books as the authentic canon.

Don't even give me the Athanasian canon crap aas you obviously do not even abide by his private canon just like no other church does.Like I said before I do not want cut and join cano

Telling me the apostles also used some of these books is all balderdash as they also quoted books which was later no included in the bible.I never said these books did not exist before these councils,I simply said the canons did not exist.I ll also like to read up about this your great synagogue

italo:
Both.

alright then.
We're moving fine so far.

If all traditions' principles are found in the bible and the only one left out is the NT itself, now, those who use the bible (applying its principles) and make use of the NT (having exactly 27 books), can it be concluded that they follow tradition?

*finding a place to fix my self*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
#following#

adsonstone: If all traditions' principles are found in the bible and  the only one left out is the NT itself,

My earlier statement regarding this is not a categorical statement meaning the principle for the Canon of the NT is not in the Bible. I said, 'if I must give you one tradition that isnt in the Bible.' I deliberately pointed that out because you Protestants expect everything "scriptural" to be explicitly spelt out in Scripture. So based on your Protestant belief, none of you can tell me that the Canon of the New Testament is scriptural, rather, it is Tradition, yet you adhere to it. That's the point I was trying to drive home.But indeed, the Principle for every Tradition can be found in scripture, to one degree or another, even the Canon of the NT.

adsonstone: now, those who use the bible (applying its principles) and make use of the NT (having exactly 27 books), can it be concluded that they follow tradition?

That's the contradiction in their theology we have been pointing out for ages.In sticking to the 27 books (not explicitly listed in the Bible), they put their faith in Catholic Tradition.In even accepting the authorship and authenticity of the books of the NT, they put their faith in Catholic Tradition. But in the usage and interpretation of the same books, they reject and then demonize Catholic Tradition.That is the gross contradiction and hypocrisy that we complain about.

I have a question and the question is: why do the catholic worship rotten flesh?

Ah, interesting that Roman Catholics on this thread now seem to have abandoned the claim that Damasus was the first to "canonise" the Bible at some council of Rome in 382. Of course that claim has to be abandoned because, as we have shown, it is a lie based on a forged document.

But then we still see the claim that "the canon was first decided at Hippo". This is another lie of course but the Roman Catholics have to hang onto it because otherwise the false claim that the Roman Catholics canonised the Bible in the 4th century is completely shattered. Let us set the lie in stark relief for the benefit of people genuinely interested in understanding these matters.

1. There is no canon that Roman Catholics can produce from Hippo! Some of them try to claim that they can use the later councils of Carthage to "reconstruct" what must have happened at Hippo. They are not to be trusted as it is believed that they are even tampering with the documents from Carthage!

2. Neither Hippo nor Carthage was a Roman Catholic council. They were only regional or "provincial" African councils as even leading Roman Catholics including "Cardinal" Cajetan admit!

3. If we stick to the 4th century alone, the canon and list presented by Athanasius in AD 367 came before anything that Roman Catholics can claim as a canon that they made.

4. In any event, the canon of the Bible dates back to the late first century before there was any such thing as either "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church.

I have another question and the question is: why do the catholic add their traditional and tales by moonlight story book to their bible?

Concerning the canon presented by Athanasius and which Roman Catholics like to denigrate because it completely shatters the lie that Roman Catholics made the canon in the 4th century, here is something I posted previously about how even more genuine "Catholics" than Roman Catholics see Athanasius' contribution.

And naturally, the Eastern orthodox (unlike the Roman Catholics) give quite some respect to Athanasius' role in developing the canon of the Bible. Well, he was one of theirs after all.

From http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/orthodox_catechism_of_philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41

The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church

31. How many are the books of the Old Testament?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. (Athanas. Ep. xxxix. De Test.; J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. c. 17.)

33. How do St. Cyril and St. Athanasius enumerate the books of the Old Testament?

As follows: 1, The book of Genesis; 2, Exodus; 3, Leviticus; 4, the book of Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, the book of Jesus the son of Nun; 7, the book of Judges, and with it, as an appendix, the book of Ruth; 8, the first and second books of Kings, as two parts of one book; 9, the third and fourth books of Kings; 10, the first and second books of Paralipomena; 11, the first book of Esdras, and the second, or, as it is entitled in Greek, the book of Nehemiah; 12, the book of Esther; 13, the book of Job; 14, the Psalms; 15, the Proverbs of Solomon; 16, Ecclesiastes, also by Solomon; 17, the Song of Songs, also by Solomon; 18, the book of the Prophet Isaiah; 19, of Jeremiah; 20, of Ezekiel; 21, of Daniel; 22, of the Twelve Prophets.

Meanwhile, I see a Roman Catholic talking about "Athanasian canon crap"!

Ah, maybe Athanasius is no longer a "church father" with quotations "of pertinence" --- because his list proves that Roman Catholics are lying when they say they made the canon in the 4th century!

Anyway, Athanasius did not see the canon he presented as "crap" of course; instead he saw it as divine!

As posted before:

And on the claim about Athanasius' list being "private", here is one I made earlier

Athanasius list "private"! lol lol

Yeah right, something he said was divine, and delivered to the fathers by eyewitnesses from the beginning' that one don become "private".

An extract from that statement of Athanasius I referred to. While identifying and listing the books of "the Bible" in AD 367 (long before anything that the Roman Catholics can claim) he referred to:

"... the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine ....... "

When it suits them the Roman Catholics claim "tradition". When Athanasius shows the world tradition that exposes Roman Catholic lies, they turn their backs to "tradition".