Some Basic Truths and Facts that Catholics must know ( all taken from www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com . I urge all who claim to profess the "catholic" faith to log on to this site and know the truths of the catholic faith in this time of great apostasy.
should you also get interested in any of their Dvd's Audios or books, contact me on salvesancta@yahoo.com and i'll send them free of charge to you. Also if you have complex questions, you could also ask the monks on their email - mhfm1@aol.com




Since very few still have the faith and even fewer preach it, there is a widespread ignorance of even the basic truths of the Catholic Faith in our day.



Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4), June 26, 1754:

“See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”



We will now review some of them:



The Trinity and the Incarnation



There is one God in Three Divine Persons (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; yet they are not three gods, but One God. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Son of God, assumed a human nature and became man from the flesh of the Virgin Mary. Our Lord Jesus Christ is one Divine Person with two natures: divine and human. He is God and man. The Trinity (One God: Father, Son and Holy Ghost) and the Incarnation are the two most essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith which no one above reason can be ignorant of and be saved.



St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”



Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”



All who die in mortal sin will go to Hell



Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to Hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”



Catholics must also know that all who die in mortal sin will go to Hell forever. Mortal sins include: murder, fornication (i.e. sexual acts outside of marriage or acts leading up to sex outside of marriage), lying, drunkenness, consenting to impure thoughts, masturbation, looking at pornography, adultery, cheating, taking God’s name in vain, birth control (NFP) or artificial contraception, assisting the propagation of heresy, funding heretics, dishonoring the Sabbath, breaking the commandments, etc. If someone were to commit a mortal sin and then go to Confession, he must have the firm resolution never to commit the sin again. This is called the firm purpose of amendment. If a person commits a mortal sin and doesn’t have the firm purpose of amendment when he goes to Confession, he commits a sacrilege and the Confession is invalid. Most souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh. Those who are committing sins of the flesh need to stop immediately if they don’t want to perish forever in the fires of Hell.



St. Alphonsus on the damnation of the impure: "Continue, O fool, says St. Peter Damian (speaking to the unchaste), continue to gratify the flesh; for the day will come in which thy impurities will become as pitch in thy entrails, to increase and aggravate the torments of the flame which will burn thee in Hell: 'The day will come, yea rather the night, when thy lust shall be turned into pitch, to feed in thy bowels the everlasting fire." (Preparation for Death, abridged version, p. 117)



What is the Papacy?



Many of those who claim to be Catholics also don’t understand the Papacy. We’ve discovered from experience that many of those who even claim to be “traditional” Catholics don’t even know that the Papacy is. The Office of the Papacy is the office that Christ instituted in St. Peter (see Mt. 16:18-20; John 21:15-17). St. Peter was made the chief of the Apostles and visible head of the Church by Jesus Christ. The Office of St. Peter (the Papacy) is occupied by every true and lawful Bishop of Rome, who becomes a successor to St. Peter in the primacy over the universal (Catholic) Church of Jesus Christ. This means and guarantees that every time there is a true and valid occupant of the Office he is endowed by Christ with infallibility (in his authoritative and binding teaching capacity, not in everything he says or teaches); he is endowed with supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church; and he is the visible head of the Church. That remains true for every true and lawful occupant of the Papal Office. Those teachings proclaimed by the popes in history with their binding authority (such as the Council of Trent or the Council of Florence or a solemn Papal Bull on faith, etc.) constitute the deposit of faith – the unchangeable teachings to which Catholics must submit, and on which they base what they believe as the faithful transmission of the teaching of Scripture and Tradition. The Papacy doesn’t mean that the Church will have a true pope at all times, as Church history and more than 200 papal vacancies prove, nor does it mean that antipopes reigning from Rome are an impossibility (such as Antipope Anacletus II, who reigned in Rome from 1130-1138) – as is the case today.

Very few are Saved and most of the world, including most Catholics, are damned

Catholics must also understand that few are saved. Our Lord Jesus Christ revealed that the road to Heaven is straight and narrow and few find it, while the road to Hell is wide and taken by most (Mt. 7:13).

Matthew 7:13- “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life, and few there are that find it!”

Luke 13:24- “Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.”

Scripture also teaches that almost the entire world lies in darkness, so much so that Satan is even called the “prince” (John 12:31) and “god” (2 Cor. 4:3) of this world.

1 John 5:19- “We know that we are of God, and the whole world is seated in wickedness.”

It is the sad fact of history that most people in the world are of bad will and don’t want the truth. That is why almost the whole world lies in darkness and on the road to perdition. This has been the case since the beginning. It was the case when only eight souls (Noe and his family) escaped God’s wrath in the deluge that covered the entire earth, and when the Israelites rejected God’s law and fell into idolatry over and over again.

The truth is that for those who truly believe in God, accept His full truth (the Catholic Faith), don’t compromise it and want to do the right thing, it’s not hard to reach Heaven. As Christ said, “My yoke is sweet and My burden light” (Mt. 11:30). The reason that so few make it is not because it’s that hard, but because they refuse to believe the simple and easy things He has revealed, and do the simple and easy things He has commanded. Those who do what God wants and believe what He says realize that they are much happier than they were before.

But the sad truth is that almost all people are of bad will. This is why the saints and Doctors of the Church have consistently taught only a very small percentage of people are saved. In fact, the saints and Doctors of the Church, even during the ages of faith, taught that most adult Catholics are lost.

St. Leonard of Port Maurice [A.D. 1676-1751], on the fewness of the saved: “After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent study of the matter, he [Suarez] wrote, ‘The most common sentiment which is held is that, among Christians [Catholics], there are more damned souls than predestined souls.’ Add the authority of the Greek and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, Saint John Chrysostom. What is more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon Stylites and that after this revelation, it was to secure his salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness for everyone. Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, "Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom." Saint Anselm declares, "There are few who are saved." Saint Augustine states even more clearly, "Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned." The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: "Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence."

When St. Leonard of Port Maurice uses the term “Christian,” he means Catholics, not heretics. St. Leonard is repeating the consistent teaching of the Fathers and Doctors: most adult Catholics (not even including the non-Catholic world) are lost. If this was the sentiment about the salvation of Catholics in the ages of faith, what would they say today? If you have trouble accepting the truths presented on this website because “it’s just too hard to believe that this many people could be wrong or deceived,” consider the teaching of Our Lord and the saints above. Consider how much more true the teaching on the fewness of the saved is today:

“Lucia found Jacinta sitting alone, still and very pensive, gazing at nothing. ‘What are you thinking of, Jacinta?’ ‘Of the war that is going to come. So many people are going to die. And almost all of them are going to Hell.’” (Our Lady of Fatima, p. 94; p. 92 in some versions)

Jacinta of Fatima, who had visions of future events, said that of those who would die in World War II almost all of them would go to Hell.

St. Anselm: “If thou wouldst be certain of being in the number of the elect, strive to be one of the few, not of the many. And if thou wouldst be quite sure of thy salvation, strive to be among the fewest of the few… Do not follow the great majority of mankind, but follow those who enter upon the narrow way, who renounce the world, who give themselves to prayer, and who never relax their efforts by day or by night, that they may attain everlasting blessedness.” (Fr. Martin Von Cochem, The Four Last Things, p. 221.)

Act of Contrition



O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.

Awww you can always tell a Catholic, they back up their sayings with sources. Thanks for that luv.


A word to all my Catholics out there.

Matthew 5
11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:

44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you

John 15
20 Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.

The Lord tells us that they will persecute us even more than they did him. And well isn't that the truth. The only accepted prejudice today is anti-catholicism, isn't that a shame.

Matthew 16
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
This is the promise of Our Lord, remember there are those that have gone before us and they have fought the good fight, and now it is our turn to persevere. They will jeer at you and call you evil, they will attack your person, it's not because you speak false things but because you speak the truth that they cannot accept. Continue in your faith and stand firm, eternal life is worth it.

There are many pastors that have prayed for the downfall of the Catholic Church, and look how the Lord makes a fool of them. Their churches have passed away, and so have they, but God's Church still stands in the face of adversity as the "light to the world, a city seated on a mountain that cannot be hidden" (Matthew 5:14)

Remember the Beatitudes most especially

Matthew 5
10 Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:
12 Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.
13 You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men.
14 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid.
15 Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.
16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

And remember that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and teaches her ALL TRUTH, not some truth, but ALL TRUTH
John 16
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

Pray for those who have left the Church, who bought into the lies of the devil who is the master twister of the scriptures, for clearly he tempted Our Lord with the scriptrues. Pray for our Protestant brothers and sisters, that they may come to know the fullness of the truth. Pray for those who do not know the Lord and do not want to know him. Pray for the Church that she will continue to stand firm.

Sancta, God bless you for this truth!!!

Please pray for me, I have final exams this week and it's the week of my graduation, so please pray for me, thank you.

Jesus loves you
Mary loves you
I love you

oh one more thing, I found this pls enjoy reading it

http://catholickey..com/2009/04/we-are-at-war-bishop-finns-gospel-of.html

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. -- Matthew 16:18

Let us consider the above verse and see how it throws more light on the heretical teachings that has sent many people to an godless eternity.

Matthew 16:18
Peter. The Lord is here making a play on words; in the Greek, “Peter” is petros, meaning a small stone, whereas “rock” is petra, meaning a great rock mass, solid and immovable.  Even if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, in which both meanings are expressed simply by Cephas, He was making a distinction between the two (perhaps by gestures) which Matthew picked up and (under divine inspiration) translated by the two different Greek words.

The massive rock foundation on which Christ would build His Church was Peter’s great confession of Jesus as the Creator and the Son of the living God.  Peter (representing the twelve and, indeed, all who would make the same confession) would be living stones in the church built on the foundation of such confession (I Peter 2:5; Ephesians 2:19-22).

Matthew 16:18
my church.  This is the first, and definitive, use of the word “church” (Greek ekklesia, or “out-called assembly”) in the New Testament.  This church built by Christ clearly consists of all who acquiesce volitionally and spiritually in Peter’s great confession.  This is neither an invisible church, for it is composed of real people, nor a universal church, relative to the world as a whole, but always only a “little flock” (Luke 12:32).  The church can never assemble together as a whole until it gathers in heaven as “the general assembly and church of the firstborn” (Hebrews 12:23).  It is represented, however, as a “local assembly” in each time and place where “two or three are gathered together in my name” (Matthew 18:20), for Christ Himself, by the Holy Spirit, is there “in the midst of them.”  Normally such gatherings would be formally structured as local churches (of the 115 occurrences of ekklesia, at least 85 refer specifically to local churches), with members, officers and organized programs of winning, baptizing and teaching converts.

Matthew 16:18
gates of hell. “Hell” here is the Greek hades, not the ultimate lake of fire but the present pit in the heart of the earth where the souls of the lost, as well as a host of fallen angels, are confined awaiting judgment. When Christ spoke these words, the souls of believers were also there, but during His three days in the grave, Christ stormed the gates of Hades and set these redeemed captives free, taking them with Him to paradise (Ephesians 4:8-10).  In like manner, He assures those in His Church that they also can deliver lost souls from imminent confinement behind the gates of Hades as they proclaim the great confession of Christ as redeeming Son of God to all who will heed the gospel.

Therefore, we can clearly see how the proper reading, studying and discernment of the Word of God can blow every heretical teachings (about Peter, the Church and purgatory) out of the water, as having no biblical basis.

OLAADEGBU:


And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. -- Matthew 16:18

Let us consider the above verse and see how it throws more light on the heretical teachings that has sent many people to an godless eternity.

Matthew 16:18
Peter. The Lord is here making a play on words; in the Greek, “Peter” is petros, meaning a small stone, whereas “rock” is petra, meaning a great rock mass, solid and immovable. Even if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, in which both meanings are expressed simply by Cephas, He was making a distinction between the two (perhaps by gestures) which Matthew picked up and (under divine inspiration) translated by the two different Greek words.

The massive rock foundation on which Christ would build His Church was Peter’s great confession of Jesus as the Creator and the Son of the living God. Peter (representing the twelve and, indeed, all who would make the same confession) would be living stones in the church built on the foundation of such confession (I Peter 2:5; Ephesians 2:19-22).

Matthew 16:18
my church. This is the first, and definitive, use of the word “church” (Greek ekklesia, or “out-called assembly”) in the New Testament. This church built by Christ clearly consists of all who acquiesce volitionally and spiritually in Peter’s great confession. This is neither an invisible church, for it is composed of real people, nor a universal church, relative to the world as a whole, but always only a “little flock” (Luke 12:32). The church can never assemble together as a whole until it gathers in heaven as “the general assembly and church of the firstborn” (Hebrews 12:23). It is represented, however, as a “local assembly” in each time and place where “two or three are gathered together in my name” (Matthew 18:20), for Christ Himself, by the Holy Spirit, is there “in the midst of them.” Normally such gatherings would be formally structured as local churches (of the 115 occurrences of ekklesia, at least 85 refer specifically to local churches), with members, officers and organized programs of winning, baptizing and teaching converts.

Matthew 16:18
gates of hell. “Hell” here is the Greek hades, not the ultimate lake of fire but the present pit in the heart of the earth where the souls of the lost, as well as a host of fallen angels, are confined awaiting judgment. When Christ spoke these words, the souls of believers were also there, but during His three days in the grave, Christ stormed the gates of Hades and set these redeemed captives free, taking them with Him to paradise (Ephesians 4:8-10). In like manner, He assures those in His Church that they also can deliver lost souls from imminent confinement behind the gates of Hades as they proclaim the great confession of Christ as redeeming Son of God to all who will heed the gospel.

Therefore, we can clearly see how the proper reading, studying and discernment of the Word of God can blow every heretical teachings (about Peter, the Church and purgatory) out of the water, as having no biblical basis.

Oladegbu please also explain these passages
lk22:31-32
I ve prayed for you simon that your faith will never fail and when you turn back to me go and streghten your brethren
Also in the Gospel of John 21: Jesus thrice told peter to FEED MY LAMBS
Please why did Jesus direct this instructions only to peter and not the entire twelve apostles.Also explain why all the writers of the Gospel when naming the twelve disciples always put peter's name first.
You ran away from the other thread when u cuold not provide answer to my questions
Isee you have a pathological hatred for the RCC unfortunately for you THE GATES OF HELL WILL NEVER PREVAIL AGAINST IT

Matthew 16:18
Peter. The Lord is here making a play on words; in the Greek, “Peter” is petros, meaning a small stone, whereas “rock” is petra, meaning a great rock mass, solid and immovable. Even if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, in which both meanings are expressed simply by Cephas, He was making a distinction between the two (perhaps by gestures) which Matthew picked up and (under divine inspiration) translated by the two different Greek words.

The massive rock foundation on which Christ would build His Church was Peter’s great confession of Jesus as the Creator and the Son of the living God. Peter (representing the twelve and, indeed, all who would make the same confession) would be living stones in the church built on the foundation of such confession (I Peter 2:5; Ephesians 2:19-22).

And yet Jesus did not call a revelation rock, he calls a person rock. What is the purpose of Jesus changing Peter's name? Just for the sake of it? You look to the meaning of the name to understand.

Also Jesus did not speak Greek, he spoke aramaic. In Aramaic, the only word for rock is Kephas, and we know that Kephas is Peter. So t actually read like this.

For thou are KEPHAS (Cephas) and upon this KEPHAS (Cephas), I would build my Church. And not just that but the whole discourse in that passage is dealing with Peter. What's the point of giving him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, if he wasn't to be a foundation in the Church. But it's not just only that, Paul even speaks about Peter as a foundation in the Church and as the leader of the apostles.

In using Petros the writer distinguishes that Peter is a male and not a female (Petros), Besides if the writer was trying to say that Peter was a little rock, he would have used Lithos meaning little pebble

Moreover we don't just have Matthew to look at we also have John, and this time I will be using the Protestant Bible.

The NIV says
John 1:42
42And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter[j]). Notice he is called Cephas and not Petros, Cephas in aramaic means Rock

The KJV says
42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. This however is an error in KJV as Cephas doesn't mean stone, but Rock in aramaic.

So it is clear that Petros wasn't spoken by Christ, infact it was Cephas/Kephas.

Do some more research sir and don't just take what you want to believe and believe it.

my church. This is the first, and definitive, use of the word “church” (Greek ekklesia, or “out-called assembly”) in the New Testament. This church built by Christ clearly consists of all who acquiesce volitionally and spiritually in Peter’s great confession. This is neither an invisible church, for it is composed of real people, nor a universal church, relative to the world as a whole, but always only a “little flock” (Luke 12:32). The church can never assemble together as a whole until it gathers in heaven as “the general assembly and church of the firstborn” (Hebrews 12:23). It is represented, however, as a “local assembly” in each time and place where “two or three are gathered together in my name” (Matthew 18:20), for Christ Himself, by the Holy Spirit, is there “in the midst of them.” Normally such gatherings would be formally structured as local churches (of the 115 occurrences of ekklesia, at least 85 refer specifically to local churches), with members, officers and organized programs of winning, baptizing and teaching converts

How in the world is Jesus' church not a universal church when he clearly says go and preach to ALL the nations. In order for that to be, then they would have to go global u know universal.
If that is the case, then none of the Protestant churches are in the Church or are members of the body of Christ, and that would include you Olaadegbu, so you are not a member of the body of christ. Actually it would be only one church in the whole world located in one place that is the body of christ. You will really have to explain this point even further. Putting things together just to sound intelligent doesn't mean it is intelligent. You make no sense here.

Matthew 16:18
gates of hell. “Hell” here is the Greek hades, not the ultimate lake of fire but the present pit in the heart of the earth where the souls of the lost, as well as a host of fallen angels, are confined awaiting judgment. When Christ spoke these words, the souls of believers were also there, but during His three days in the grave, Christ stormed the gates of Hades and set these redeemed captives free, taking them with Him to paradise (Ephesians 4:8-10). In like manner, He assures those in His Church that they also can deliver lost souls from imminent confinement behind the gates of Hades as they proclaim the great confession of Christ as redeeming Son of God to all who will heed the gospel.

HAHA OK YOU ARE REALLY DESPERATE HERE.

Um ok is His Church universal here? Or is he speaking only of a local church, because that would mean he isn't speaking to you, so you shouldn't follow that passage. If he means all local churches, that means his church is universal.
Also no way in the language used in this passage does it mean that in speaking of the gates of hell he is saying that we should proclaim the great confessin of Christ to others. In this passage The gates of Hell is against his church, so how does that translate into preaching. When did the gates of hell shall not prevail against it mean preach and get people out of the gates of hell. It really doesn't make any sense, so you'll have to make sense of it. Thanks.

~Lady~:



Pray for those who have left the Church, who bought into the lies of the devil who is the master twister of the scriptures, for clearly he tempted Our Lord with the scriptrues. Pray for our Protestant brothers and sisters, that they may come to know the fullness of the truth. Pray for those who do not know the Lord and do not want to know him. Pray for the Church that she will continue to stand firm.

Sancta, God bless you for this truth!!!

Please pray for me, I have final exams this week and it's the week of my graduation, so please pray for me, thank you.

Jesus loves you
Mary loves you
I love you

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.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, [b]unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[/b]This is a dogmatic statement of the church which can never be changed and remain till the end of time. 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.
E.g

1. That we and muslim worship the same God who will come to judge mankind on the last day. Muslims don’t believe in the Trinity and in Jesus Christ as being God. We know for sure that it is Christ who will come to judge mankind on the last day just as he told us in scriptures. So if the post Vatican II “popes” are saying this, then what God are they referring to.Even though we all know Christ is God, they never mention his name in their dealings with all these religions

Here is what the church teaches on Islam.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434:
“… there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”

The Catholic Church considers Islam an “abominable” and “diabolical” sect. [Note:
the Council of Basel is only considered ecumenical/approved in the first 25 sessions, as
The Catholic Encyclopedia points out in Vol. 4, “Councils,” pp. 425‐426.] An
“abomination” is something that is abhorrent in God’s sight; it’s something that He has
no esteem for and no respect for. Something “diabolical” is something of the Devil.
Islam rejects, among many other dogmas, the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity.
Its followers are outside the pale of salvation so long as they remain Muslims.

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312:
“It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens [i.e., the followers of Islam, also called Muslims] live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… There is a place, moreover, where once was buried a certain Saracen whom other Saracens venerate as a saint. This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all… They are to remove this offense together from their territories and take care that their subjects remove it, so that they may thereby attain the reward of eternal happiness. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”

On May 14, 1999, the late John Paul II bowed to and kiss the Koran and worshipped with them in Damascus on May 6, 2001. Benedict XVI, followed the example of John Paul II on Nov 30, 2006 in Turkey. He even went as far as removing his shoes and praying towards the east like them. This is total denier of the Christian faith.

St. Thomas Aquinas, summa theological, Pt. II, Q.12, A. 1, Obj. 2;”…. If anyone were to worship at the tomb of mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate”

2. They all respect, honor and heap praises on false religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism etc.

The church and sacred scriptures refers to all of them as being of the devil.
Pope Pius XI, Ad Salutem (#27), April 20, 1930: “…all the compulsion and folly, all the outrages and lust, introduced into man’s life by the demons through the worship of false gods.”

Psalms 95:5- “For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils…”

1 Cor. 10:20- “But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.”

You even desire and wish for the conversion of Protestants but the Vatican II religion sees all that as nonsense. That’s why you see their clergy extolling and praying with them. However, see what the church says about this:

Pope Leo XII, Ubi primum (#14), May 5, 1824: “it is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, to confer eternal rewards on their members…, By divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism….This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the [catholic] church”

The list is endless. They changed the traditional Latin mass to an invalid false mass. They altered the very words of consecration which has been declared necessary for it.
The form necessary to confect the Eucharist in the Roman Rite was declared by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “…the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul… uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."

In Pope St. Pius V’s Decree De Defectibus, we find the same words repeated:

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
"The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."

THE FORM OF CONSECRATION IN THE NEW MASS IS THIS

“For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and FOR ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.”

The words “for you and for many unto the remission of sins” have been changed to for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. This huge change invalidates all the new masses.

With this, we can clearly see that the host in the new mass is merely a piece of bread, not Our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

3. They also revised all the sacraments thus making some invalid. Even the sacrament of Holy Orders, for ordaining priest and bishops have been changed. Though the biggest problem with the new rite of ordination is not the form, but the surrounding ceremonies which have been removed

Here are some of the specific prayers and ceremonies which set forth the true nature of the priesthood in the Traditional Rite which have been specifically eliminated from the New Rite of Ordination of Paul VI. The following information is found in Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, pp. 79 and following.

In the Traditional Rite, the bishop addresses the ordinands and says:
► “For it is a priest’s duty to offer sacrifice, to bless, to lead, to preach and to baptize.”
This admonition has been abolished.

The Litany of the Saints then follows in the Traditional Rite. It has been cut short in the New Rite. The New Rite abolishes the following unecumenical assertion:
► “That Thou wouldst recall all who have wandered from the unity of the Church,
and lead all believers to the light of the Gospel.”

Later on in the Traditional Rite, after pronouncing the essential form, which has been changed in the New Rite (see above), the bishop says another prayer, which includes the following:
► “Theirs be the task to change with blessing undefiled, for the service of thy people,
bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Thy Son.”
This prayer has been abolished.

In the Traditional Rite, the bishop then intones the Veni Creator Spiritus. While anointing each priest he says:
► “Be pleased, Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing, and our
blessing. That whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate
may be consecrated and sanctified in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
This prayer has been abolished. And this prayer was so significant that it was even mentioned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei #43:
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “… they alone [priests] have been
marked with the indelible sign ‘conforming’ them to Christ the Priest, and that their
hands alone have been consecrated, ‘in order that whatever they bless may be blessed,
whatever they consecrate may become sacred and holy, in the name of Our Lord Jesus
Christ.’”
Notice that Pius XII, in speaking of how the priests have been marked in ordination, makes reference to this very important prayer which was specifically abolished by Paul VI’s new 1968 Rite.

Shortly after this prayer in the Traditional Rite, the bishop says to each ordinand:
► “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass, both for the
living and the dead, in the name of the Lord.”
This exceptionally important prayer has been abolished in the New Rite.

In the Traditional Rite, the new priests then concelebrate Mass with the bishop. At the end, each new priest kneels before the bishop who lays both hands upon the head of each and says:
► “Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and
whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”
This ceremony and prayer has been abolished.

In the Traditional Rite:
► “…the new priests then promise obedience to their bishop who ‘charges’ them to
bear in mind that offering Holy Mass is not free from risk and that they should learn
everything necessary from diligent priests before undertaking so fearful a responsibility.”

This admonition has been abolished.
Finally, before completing the Mass, the bishop imparts a blessing:
► “The blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, come down
upon you, and make you blessed in the priestly Order, enabling you to offer propitiatory sacrifices for the sins of the people to Almighty God.”
This blessing has been abolished.

Thus 99.9% of these men parading themselves as priest of the Catholic Church are not even validly ordained hence they are just lay men like you and me since they neither have the power to bless, say mass, consecrate the host and absolve men of their sins.It is only those of them ordained in the traditional rite with validly ordained bishops as in Europe and America that are priest. Though all of them hold on to one or more heresies.

Dear lady, I cannot exhaust all here that’s why I keep on pleading that people log onto the site I stated above( www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com) and I can send them any of the books, audios and videos of the monks which are all based on the teaching magisterium of the church and not just mere fabrication. The e-exchanges clearly shows questions and answers that they respond to when people ask them and I thank God that there are those who love the truth and are responding. Ibeg you in the name of God and for the love you have for the true catholic faith to do the same. Above all, pray earnestly to Our Lady to give you the grace to understand as i will be praying for you daily.
Please read also my reply to the question of chukwudi44 and see what the gates of hell means which people are not really aware of .

chukwudi44:

Oladegbu please also explain these passages
lk22:31-32
I ve prayed for you simon that your faith will never fail and when you turn back to me go and streghten your brethren
Also in the Gospel of John 21: Jesus thrice told peter to FEED MY LAMBS
Please why did Jesus direct this instructions only to peter and not the entire twelve apostles.Also explain why all the writers of the Gospel when naming the twelve disciples always put peter's name first.
You ran away from the other thread when u cuold not provide answer to my questions
Isee you have a pathological hatred for the RCC unfortunately for you THE GATES OF HELL WILL NEVER PREVAIL AGAINST IT

The gates of hell used by Christ does not just apply to all “churches” but only the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is. The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church. It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days. This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.

St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they
are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

Further, it should be noted that the Church has defined that heretics are the gates of Hell which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16!

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553:
“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said 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.)

Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell. Heretics are not members of the Church. That’s why a heretic could never be a pope. The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ. It’s not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics.

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, "

This is the true meaning of it. That’s why we keep on telling people that the post Vatican II “popes” are not popes at all because even dogmatically, the church has taught that once they embrace heresy, they automatically fall away from the church.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself
as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are
not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a
Catholic.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

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, "

St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he
would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

And to your first question, this is the explanation.

It is a fact of history, scripture and tradition that Our Lord Jesus Christ founded His universal Church (the Catholic Church) upon St. Peter.
Matthew 16:18-19-“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Our Lord made St. Peter the first pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave
him supreme authority in the universal Church of Christ.

John 21:15-17-“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

And with the supreme authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ conferred upon St. Peter
(and his successors, the popes) comes what is called Papal Infallibility. Papal Infallibility
is inseparable from Papal Supremacy – there was no point for Christ to make St. Peter
the head of His Church (as Christ clearly did) if St. Peter or his successors, the popes,
could err when exercising that supreme authority to teach on a point of Faith. The supreme authority must be unfailing on binding matters of Faith and morals or else it is
no true authority from Christ at all.

Papal Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err at all and it does not mean
that a pope cannot lose his soul and be damned in Hell for grave sin. It means that the
successors of St. Peter (the popes of the Catholic Church) cannot err when authoritatively teaching on a point of Faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successorsreferred to by Christ in Luke 22.

Luke 22:31-32- “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to
have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that
thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter (singular), that his faith fail not. Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors (the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra:
“SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS CHAIR…”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra:
“… the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not , ’”

And this truth has been held since the earliest times in the Catholic Church.

Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495:
“Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having
neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27).

The word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.” Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith. Though this truth was believed
since the beginning of the Church, it was specifically defined as a dogma at the First
Vatican Council in 1870.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”

But how does one know when a pope is exercising his unfailing Faith to infallibly
teach from the Chair of St. Peter? The answer is that we know from the language that
the pope uses or the manner in which the pope teaches. Vatican I defined two requirements which must be fulfilled: 1) when the pope is carrying out his duty as
pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority; 2)
when he explains a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.

A pope can fulfill both of these requirements in just one line, by anathematizing a false
opinion (such as many dogmatic councils) or by saying “By our apostolic authority we
declare…” or by saying “We believe, profess, and teach” or by using words of similar
importance and meaning, which indicate that the pope is teaching the whole Church on
Faith in a definitive and binding fashion.

So, when a pope teaches from the Chair of Peter in the manner stipulated above he cannot be wrong. If he could be wrong, then the Church of Christ could be officially led into error, and Christ’s promise to St. Peter and His Church would fail (which is impossible).

That which is taught from the Chair of Peter by the popes of the Catholic Church is the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself. To reject that which is taught by the popes from the Chair of Peter is simply to despise Jesus Christ Himself.

Luke 10:16- “He that heareth you, heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me…”
Matthew 18:17 ‐“And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896:
“… Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium… If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”

This is just the explanation of your question. The monks have written a book “The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church”. Any one interested can contact me and when I order them will send it free of charge. Very good for those who doubt the teachings and practices of the Catholic church as not having biblical basis.

If the life and example of Peter was anything to go by, then his denial of Jesus Christ at a time that he Peter was needed is proof that Peter could not have been that rock. The denial came after Peter made the confession that Jesus is the Son of the living God. It was the very same Peter that Jesus rebuked as Satan. No where in scripture does it say that Peter is the rock. That is a Catholic statement which has no authority over scripture.

Peter could not have been the rock and made such a blunder in short order. A rock suggest something that is firm and solid. A rock suggests something immovable. The fact that Christ said, "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" shows unequivocally, that what Peter confessed is the foundation on which Christ's church is built. It is Jesus Christ who is the chief corner stone according to Peter. It is not Peter who is the corner stone, but Jesus Christ.

Salvation cannot be built on men, for there is no other name that is given among men through whom we can be saved.

Listen to God's word as it speaks,

Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; whoever believes will not act hastily.

In ancient times the cornerstone was the stone at the corner of two walls that united them. It was the visible corner of the foundation of the building and the starting point of all future building above the foundation. It was the most costly stone because of its beauty and strength. It was also the largest, most solid and carefully constructed stone.

Here Peter quotes Isaiah 28:16 in 1 Peter 2:6 "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded."

Here again Peter calls Jesus the Rock of offense, 8 "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."

Under no circumstances has Peter even referred to himself as the rock, yet Catholics have taken upon themselves what the bible has not.

This warning that Peter gave to the Jewish leaders, and those who opposed Christ, as those who stumbled at the word, is what I give to all Catholics who are stumbling at the word.

Bobbyaf:

If the life and example of Peter was anything to go by, then his denial of Jesus Christ at a time that he Peter was needed is proof that Peter could not have been that rock. The denial came after Peter made the confession that Jesus is the Son of the living God. It was the very same Peter that Jesus rebuked as Satan. No where in scripture does it say that Peter is the rock. That is a Catholic statement which has no authority over scripture.

Peter could not have been the rock and made such a blunder in short order. A rock suggest something that is firm and solid. A rock suggests something immovable. The fact that Christ said, "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" shows unequivocally, that what Peter confessed is the foundation on which Christ's church is built. It is Jesus Christ who is the chief corner stone according to Peter. It is not Peter who is the corner stone, but Jesus Christ.

Salvation cannot be built on men, for there is no other name that is given among men through whom we can be saved.

Listen to God's word as it speaks,

Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; whoever believes will not act hastily.

In ancient times the cornerstone was the stone at the corner of two walls that united them. It was the visible corner of the foundation of the building and the starting point of all future building above the foundation. It was the most costly stone because of its beauty and strength. It was also the largest, most solid and carefully constructed stone.

Here Peter quotes Isaiah 28:16 in 1 Peter 2:6 "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded."

Here again Peter calls Jesus the Rock of offense, 8 "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."

Under no circumstances has Peter even referred to himself as the rock, yet Catholics have taken upon themselves what the bible has not.

This warning that Peter gave to the Jewish leaders, and those who opposed Christ, as those who stumbled at the word, is what I give to all Catholics who are stumbling at the word.

CULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY OUR LORD JESUS ASKED PETER IN JOHN 21" TO FEED MY LAMBS " AND "TEND MY SHEEP"
ALSO EXPLAIN WHY PETER WAS NAMED FIRST BY ALL THE GOSPEL WRITERS INCLUDING MATHEW AND JOHN.
WHY WAS HE THE CHIEF SPOKESMAN OF THE APOSTLES AT THE ELECTION OF MATHIAS,ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST ,AND JUDGE IN THE CASE OF ANANIAS AND SAPHIRA.

Hi chukwudi44,

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,

chukwudi44:

CULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY OUR LORD JESUS ASKED PETER IN JOHN 21" TO FEED MY LAMBS " AND "TEND MY SHEEP"

There are answers to that - yet, the commission to feed and tend believers with God's Word does not make Peter the foundation of the Church.

chukwudi44:

ALSO EXPLAIN WHY PETER WAS NAMED FIRST BY ALL THE GOSPEL WRITERS INCLUDING MATHEW AND JOHN.

True, Peter was first named in several instances; but that he was named first does not make him the foundation of the Church either.

chukwudi44:

WHY WAS HE THE CHIEF SPOKESMAN OF THE APOSTLES AT THE ELECTION OF MATHIAS,ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST ,AND JUDGE IN THE CASE OF ANANIAS AND SAPHIRA.

Again, being the chief spokesman does not make him the foundation; neither does his being 'judge' at anytime make him the foundation upon which the Church is being built.

None of the questions you offered in reply proves anything near the idea that Peter was at anytime the foundation upon which the Church is being built. Those questions do not suggest your idea at all. Perhaps you may want to point out HOW, WHERE and WHY those questions in your thinking may have made Peter the FOUNDATION upon which the Church is being built. Care to do that for us?

Regards.

Hallo sancta,

Your comment raises a most important question for us:

sancta:

The gates of hell used by Christ does not just apply to all “churches” but only the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

How is that so - from the verses being quoted for it?

@chukwudi44
you blindness and ignorance is inquantifiable

pilgrim.1:

Hi chukwudi44,

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,


There are answers to that - yet, the commission to feed and tend believers with God's Word does not make Peter the foundation of the Church.

True, Peter was first named in several instances; but that he was named first does not make him the foundation of the Church either.

Again, being the chief spokesman does not make him the foundation; neither does his being 'judge' at anytime make him the foundation upon which the Church is being built.

None of the questions you offered in reply proves anything near the idea that Peter was at anytime the foundation upon which the Church is being built. Those questions do not suggest your idea at all. Perhaps you may want to point out HOW, WHERE and WHY those questions in your thinking may have made Peter the FOUNDATION upon which the Church is being built. Care to do that for us?

Regards.

The primacy of st peter was never doubted by the early church .That was why the bishop of Rome is regarded as the first among the church since peter died as bishop of Rome.It might interest you to know that in AD96 pope clement 1 resolved a dispute in the corinthian church even whe Apostle John who was bishop of a nearby diocese of Ephesus was still alive.
The bishop of rome has always been regardedas being the leader of the christian church since the first century AD This view is clearly expressed by st Irenaeus in his work Against the heretics where he wrote

"The blessed Apostles(peter and paul) after having founded the church committed into linus the episcopate .Of this linus paul makes mention in his letter to timothy,to him succeeded anacletus and after him third place from the Apostles clement was alloted the bishopric"

Irenaeus is regarded as anunbroken chain in the line of the apostles because he grew up under polycarp of smyrna who was brougt up by John the Apostles.Obviously Irenaeus was not far from the true teachings of the apostles his writings alongside those of Tertullian,ignatius of Antioch point to the fact that the church has always been built around petr and the bishop of rome as the suuccessors of peter inherited this powers

You protestants Please if the RCC is not the church left behind by the apostles could anyone here please tell me what happened to the church left by the Aposstles ,how come a "delvish church" came and held sway for more than 1400 years before the protestant reformation.It is ridiculous to think that the church built by the apostles could just disapear while those od Adeboye,Oyedepo,benny hinn et.c flourishes.

Where was the so called true church when the RCC decided the books of the bi

Thank you, chukwudi44.

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:

chukwudi44:

The primacy of st peter was never doubted by the early church .That was why the bishop of Rome is regarded as the first among the church since peter died as bishop of Rome.It might interest you to know that in AD96 pope clement 1 resolved a dispute in the corinthian church even whe Apostle John who was bishop of a nearby diocese of Ephesus was still alive.

So, how does the above establsih Peter as the "foundation" upon which the Church is being built? In the first place, you made the point that it was "regarded", not that such is actually the case in the Bible. Second, just because Peter died as Bishop of Rome still does not mean that he was therefore the foundation of the Church. Dying as a 'bishop' whether in Jerusalem, Bethlehem or Rome does not make a man the Church's foundation - that is the point.

chukwudi44:

The bishop of rome has always been regardedas being the leader of the christian church since the first century AD

This conjecture is a mere assumption that cannot be defended Biblically by anyone who holds that assumption.

chukwudi44:

This view is clearly expressed by st Irenaeus in his work Against the heretics where he wrote

"The blessed Apostle[b]s[/b](peter and paul) after having founded the church committed into linus the episcopate .Of this linus paul makes mention in his letter to timothy,to him succeeded anacletus and after him third place from the Apostles clement was alloted the bishopric"

Something is deeply wrong here. You earlier stated that the 'bishop of Rome' is always "regarded" as the leader of the Church, not so? How is it that after the Apostles (Peter and Paul) founded the Church, they sought someone else (Linus) to be its episcopate/bishopric?

Besides, how does the above establish Peter as the foundation of the Church which both he and apostle Paul founded? Did 'St. Irenaeus' which you quoted say that Peter was the foundation of the Church?

Third, please note that even in Paul and Peter's day, there were several BISHOP[b]S[/b], 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.

When Paul was converted, he did not go to Rome to seek Peter; rather he went to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1); and it is in this chapter that Cephas was named second after James (see verse 9 - "when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars".

In all of this, neither Irenaeus nor anyone else asserted that Peter was the foundation of the Church.

chukwudi44:

Irenaeus is regarded as anunbroken chain in the line of the apostles because he grew up under polycarp of smyrna who was brougt up by John the Apostles.Obviously Irenaeus was not far from the true teachings of the apostles his writings alongside those of Tertullian,ignatius of Antioch point to the fact that the church has always been built around petr and the bishop of rome as the suuccessors of peter inherited this powers

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.

chukwudi44:

You protestants Please if the RCC is not the church left behind by the apostles could anyone here please tell me what happened to the church left by the Aposstles ,how come a "delvish church" came and held sway for more than 1400 years before the protestant reformation.It is ridiculous to think that the church built by the apostles could just disapear while those od Adeboye,Oyedepo,benny hinn et.c flourishes.

Where was the so called true church when the RCC decided the books of the bi

Hmm, this outburst is not establishing anything. There's only one point I'm requesting that you simply establish - the idea that Peter is the foundation upon which the Church is being built. Neither Adeboye, Oyedepo, nor Benny Hinn have proclaimed that they are the foundation of the Church - it is Roman Catholics that have been asserting Peter as the Church's foundation. That is the only thing you may help us settle here presently - do you care to do so for us?

Cheers.

@ pilgrim

I would post some quotations from the nearly church fathers to butress my point theat the church was built around peter

" I am kept in church by the succession of bishops bfrom st peter ,to whom the Lord committed the care cof his sheep ndown to the present Bishop"
-st Augstine of hippo(contra epist fundam,5)

st Jerome ,The first man who translated the bible wrote aletter to pope Damasus two years before the pope's death .In it Jerome writes
"I speak with the successor of the fisherman.Though I acknowlege none as first except christ .I am joined in communion with your holiness ,that is to say in communion with the chair of peterI know it was upon that rock that the church was built .Whovever eats the Lambs outside of this house is profane .Whovever is not in the ark of noah(when the floods come) will perish Ido not know Vitalis ,I reject meletius.I do not know Paulinus Whovever does not gather with you scatters."
st cyprian ,Bishop of carthage writes in AD250
"Founded on peter,who fixed his chair in Rome,which is the mother church and root of catholicity"

st irenaeus writing in AD 175 ihis work adversus haeruses (against te heretics)wrote
"We can count up those who were appointed bishops in churches by tte apostles and their successors down to us none of them has taught this doctrine.But as it will be tedious to enumerate the sucession of bishops in the differant churches,we refer you to the tradition of that GREATEST most ancient and universally known church founded at Rome by st Peter and st Paul and which has been preserved there through the succession of its bishops"

Irenaeus went on to name the lists of popes begining with Peter down to Eleutherius (AD174-189) who was pope when he wrote his work adversus haereses(Againt the Heretics)

Tertullian (AD 160-220 ) wrote in his work De praes,Haeres
"That doctrine is evidently true which was first delivered .On the contrary ,that is false which is of a later date.This maxim stands immovable against the attempts of all late heresis .Let such then produce the origin of their churches:let them show the succession of their bishops from the apostles or their disciples .If you live near italy you seee before your eyes the Roman church: Happy church to which the apostles left the inheriteance of their doctrines their blood.where Peter was crucified like his master were Paul was beheaded like the baptist.If this be so ,it is plain as we have said that heretics are not allowed to appeal to the scripture since they have no claim to it.
Hence it is proper bto address them as follows ,by what vright are you marcion felling my trees?by what authourity are you valentine turning the course of my streams.I have the title deeds deliverd me by the original owners .Iam the heir of the apostles ;while they disinherited you and cast you off as strangers and enemies."


Do you mind telling me why Jesus changed his name from simon to peter,like he changed Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Isreal.

Why was the statements "do you love me " ," feed my lambs" and "tend my sheeps applied to only Peter while other members of the twelve were present.
In John 21 Jesus handed over his church to the care of peter,whether you like it or not that remains the truth.
While do you think the RCC has survived all this years despite the various battles waged against it.
Lutheranism ,calvinism and others that started the reformation are fast disapearing.

@chukwudi44,

I appreciate your citations in order to persuade the idea that the earlier Church Fathers taught that Peter was the foundation upon which the Church is being built. There are a few basic problems with your citations, though:

(a) you just quoted lines without leaving us their direct sources; probably, those citations were recycled without carefully checking them out.

(b) the quotes clearly contradict themselves in their arguments;

(c) they do not draw their ideas from the very source they appealed to - the Scriptures;

(d) they still do not establish the basic query here, which is that Peter is the foundation upon which the Church is being built;

(e) sources attributed to the Church fathers about Peter being the foundation are simply untenable.

Now let's see them in simple outlines:

chukwudi44:

" I am kept in church by the succession of bishops bfrom st peter ,to whom the Lord committed the care cof his sheep ndown to the present Bishop"
-st Augstine of hippo(contra epist fundam,5)

This in itself standing alone does not establish anything about Peter being the foundation upon which the Church is being built. Let me help you: one would have looked for direct statements that were made stating exactly what we're asking - and indeed there are many of them. I am very well acquainted with such sources, including Origen, the Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Theophanes Kerameus, Callistus I (patriarch of Constantinople in the 14th century) and Augustine are said to have 'affirmed that it was Peter's faith that made it possible for him to become the rock on which the church was founded' (see, for example, The Bible in History by David William Kling, page 75). However, Callistus I and Theophanes Kerameus affirmed rather that 'the keys were given not to one single person but to the faithful'.

However, since the citation in your quote borders around Augustine of Hippo, just so I don't be tedious to you, I shall leave out those of later date and those who were merely propounding ideas to buttress their tradition. These names include Jerome, St Cyprian, St Irenaeus, Tertullian and others. Why? For the following reason:

(a) even Tertullian himself that you quoted clearly said "that is false which is of a later date". If what is of a later date was false to him, there's no reason to be confident in his own ideas, in as much as he was himself not an apostle and certainly was not in living contact with any of the apostles who would ever have told him that Peter was the foundation upon which the Church is being built;

(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.

For these two basic reasons, we find that the citations from those sources are themselves gravely flawed and self-contradictory. I shall show a few more in a moment; but presently, let's come back to Augustine of Hippo, which has been dubbed the theological 'doctor of the Church'.

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.
Put in that simplistic manner, it may all seem well. . . until you zero in on the prevailing background that led Augustine to make these notions. It is undeniable that he was making these statements more as a politician than as a theologian, because he had hoped to win back to Donatists to the Roman Papacy. The Donatists had rejected the unscriptural dogmas emanating from Rome, because the authorities there were making unfounded assertions which were found nowhere in Scripture! Some of these were identified earlier in my previous reply. Thus, it is understandable why Augustine was making such "visible and invisible" foundations for the Church and yet doing so more politically than theologically. A beautiful reference to check this out would be Mary T. Marks' "Augustine", pages 74-77.

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).

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

[list][li]'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'[/list]

[list][list]"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][/li][/list]

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?

When people quote several other 'Church fathers' , it's often my appeal to them to be very careful. So many of these quotes are recycled repeatedly until nobody is ever sure what the original quotes actually say. An example is your quote of Jerome's above, where he is reputed to have said:

[list][li]"I speak with the successor of the fisherman.Though I acknowlege none as first except christ .I am joined in communion with your holiness ,that is to say in communion with the chair of peter"[/li][/list]

compared with another source, the same Jerome along such lines says rather:

[list][li]"My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter."[/li][/list]

At surface value, it may not seem so much in difference; but if you care to compare notes:

* "I acknowlege none as first except christ"
* "I follow no leader save Christ", etc.

Following on, other 'fathers' merely repeat the same mantra vacantly without showing us where in Scripture we find Peter as the foundation of the Church. Infact, when you compare the sources, you begin to wonder at their contradictions. Let me refer to Irenaeus:

chukwudi44:

Irenaeus went on to name the lists of popes begining with Peter down to Eleutherius (AD174-189) who was pope when he wrote his work adversus haereses(Againt the Heretics)

But what did Irenaeus say in his oft-repeated quotes? Sample:

[list][li]"The blessed Apostles, then, founded and built up the church in Rome. They committed the office of bishop into the hands of Linus. Of this, Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus. After him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the office of bishop." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
source: Catholic News Agency[/li][/list]

What are we to infer from the above? We have three names of bishops:
* Linus
* Anacletus
* Clement
If Clement is said to be the third from the Apostles (as Irenaeus said), it simply means that Linus was the first, as appears in that list. Counting on from Linus is why sometimes some list have Pope Benedict XVI as the 264th Pope, and others list him as the 265th Pope. Yet, many Roman Catholics hardly notice this and just repeat the same song all along that Peter (not Linus) was the "first".

chukwudi44:

Do you mind telling me why Jesus changed his name from simon to peter,like he changed Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Isreal.

First, it was not in Matthew 16 that Simon was surnamed Peter: the naming from Simon to Peter occured much earlier (John 1:42 and Mark 3:16). The Lord Jesus named him 'Peter', not to "prove" that Peter was the foundation of the Church, but simply to show the sort of character and personality by which he would be known. It is remarkable that after the resurrection, Jesus did not call him 'Peter' or 'Cephas', but thrice he called him 'Simon' (see John 21:15, 16, 17).

The surnaming of Simon as 'Peter' is characteristic of Jesus' naming other disciples - to highlight their personalities, just as He did to James and John when he "surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder". It was these same fiesty brothers (typical of their 'thundering excitement') who wished to command fire from heaven upon the Samaritans for rejecting Christ - but the Lord cautioned them about the type of spirit they demonstrated (Luke 9:51-56). So, in surnaming Simon as 'Peter', it proves nothing about Peter being the foundation of the Church.

chukwudi44:

Why was the statements "do you love me " ," feed my lambs" and "tend my sheeps applied to only Peter while other members of the twelve were present.

Perhaps you need to remember that it was Peter who denied Jesus thrice at a critical moment after having boasted that he would follow the Lord even unto death. After the resurrection, you could imagine how the other disciples felt about Peter: sure, they all had desserted Jesus (Mark 14:50), but it was only Peter that categorically denied Him, even cursing and swearing in the process (Matt. 26:74). At that reunion, Jesus affirmed Peter by thrice asking if he loved the Lord. Following Peter's third response, rather than say that Peter was the foundation of the Church, the Lord Jesus instead warned Peter about the type of death by which he would glorify God (John 21:18-19).

chukwudi44:

In John 21 Jesus handed over his church to the care of peter,whether you like it or not that remains the truth.

Whether you like it or not, Jesus instead spoke to Peter about the type of death he would face in order to glorify God - that was simply the lesson for you in John 21.

chukwudi44:

While do you think the RCC has survived all this years despite the various battles waged against it.

The RCC is not a 'victim' - history is replete with factual and well attested documents to show the devastation and havoc it wrecked on non-Catholics.

chukwudi44:

Lutheranism ,calvinism and others that started the reformation are fast disapearing.

Okay, if that's what you believe. However, you seem to have no clue that it is rather the RCC that has been expressing deep concerns over her diminishing membership. I don't mean to trouble you, but if you care it may be helpful to calm down and not overreact against non-Catholics. You only need to check the performance record documented from various sources, example:

[list]In 1965 there were 58,000 priests in the U.S.;
in 2002 there were 45,000, of whom 16% come from other countries.

In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood;
in 2002 there were 450.

In 1965 there were 49,000 seminarians;
in 2002 there were 4,700.

In 1965 there were 180,000 sisters;
in 2002 there were 75,000, with an average age of 68.

In 1965 there were 1,556 Catholic high schools;
in 2002 there were 786.

In 1965 there were 10,503 Catholic grade schools;
in 2002 there were 6,623.

In 1958 weekly Mass attendance was 74%;
in 2000 it was 25%.

Source: BNet United Kingdom
COPYRIGHT 2005 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning[/list]

There shouldn't be ill-feelings about these discussions, the one thing being that you should try to establish a Biblical basis for the RCC idea that Peter was ever the foundation upon which the Church is being built. So far, only one thing stands - such an idea has not been established from the very same source that the RCC appeals to: the Bible.

Regards.

@pilgrim1, good evening ma. you must never leave book envirnment cos you are so fit for those glass wearing lecturer types. you know i mean no offence.

what is your background if i may ask?

Hi JJYOU,

Good evening sir. Lol, of course I know you meant no harm. As for my background, I'm into IT (not quite good at it, though. . . but I dey manage).

@ chukwudi44

CULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY OUR LORD JESUS ASKED PETER IN JOHN 21" TO FEED MY LAMBS " AND "TEND MY SHEEP"

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?

ALSO EXPLAIN WHY PETER WAS NAMED FIRST BY ALL THE GOSPEL WRITERS INCLUDING MATHEW AND JOHN.
WHY WAS HE THE CHIEF SPOKESMAN OF THE APOSTLES AT THE ELECTION OF MATHIAS, ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST ,AND JUDGE IN THE CASE OF ANANIAS AND SAPHIRA.

Because that is the typical Peter. He is always volunteering.

Why did God shut him up on the mount of transfiguration?

[/quote]

pilgrim.1:

When people quote several other 'Church fathers' , it's often my appeal to them to be very careful. So many of these quotes are recycled repeatedly until nobody is ever sure what the original quotes actually say. An example is your quote of Jerome's above, where he is reputed to have said:

[list][li]"I speak with the successor of the fisherman.Though I acknowlege none as first except christ .I am joined in communion with your holiness ,that is to say in communion with the chair of peter"[/li][/list]

compared with another source, the same Jerome along such lines says rather:

[list][li]"My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter."[/li][/list]

At surface value, it may not seem so much in difference; but if you care to compare notes:

* "I acknowlege none as first except christ"
* "I follow no leader save Christ", etc.

Following on, other 'fathers' merely repeat the same mantra vacantly without showing us where in Scripture we find Peter as the foundation of the Church. Infact, when you compare the sources, you begin to wonder at their contradictions. Let me refer to Irenaeus:

But what did Irenaeus say in his oft-repeated quotes? Sample:

[list][li]"The blessed Apostles, then, founded and built up the church in Rome. They committed the office of bishop into the hands of Linus. Of this, Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus. After him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the office of bishop." St. Irenaeus, "Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.
source: Catholic News Agency[/li][/list]

What are we to infer from the above? We have three names of bishops:
* Linus
* Anacletus
* Clement
If Clement is said to be the third from the Apostles (as Irenaeus said), it simply means that Linus was the first, as appears in that list. Counting on from Linus is why sometimes some list have Pope Benedict XVI as the 264th Pope, and others list him as the 265th Pope. Yet, many Roman Catholics hardly notice this and just repeat the same song all along that Peter (not Linus) was the "first".

First, it was not in Matthew 16 that Simon was surnamed Peter: the naming from Simon to Peter occured much earlier (John 1:42 and Mark 3:16). The Lord Jesus named him 'Peter', not to "prove" that Peter was the foundation of the Church, but simply to show the sort of character and personality by which he would be known. It is remarkable that after the resurrection, Jesus did not call him 'Peter' or 'Cephas', but thrice he called him 'Simon' (see John 21:15, 16, 17).

The surnaming of Simon as 'Peter' is characteristic of Jesus' naming other disciples - to highlight their personalities, just as He did to James and John when he "surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder". It was these same fiesty brothers (typical of their 'thundering excitement') who wished to command fire from heaven upon the Samaritans for rejecting Christ - but the Lord cautioned them about the type of spirit they demonstrated (Luke 9:51-56). So, in surnaming Simon as 'Peter', it proves nothing about Peter being the foundation of the Church.

Perhaps you need to remember that it was Peter who denied Jesus thrice at a critical moment after having boasted that he would follow the Lord even unto death. After the resurrection, you could imagine how the other disciples felt about Peter: sure, they all had desserted Jesus (Mark 14:50), but it was only Peter that categorically denied Him, even cursing and swearing in the process (Matt. 26:74). At that reunion, Jesus affirmed Peter by thrice asking if he loved the Lord. Following Peter's third response, rather than say that Peter was the foundation of the Church, the Lord Jesus instead warned Peter about the type of death by which he would glorify God (John 21:18-19).

Whether you like it or not, Jesus instead spoke to Peter about the type of death he would face in order to glorify God - that was simply the lesson for you in John 21.

The RCC is not a 'victim' - history is replete with factual and well attested documents to show the devastation and havoc it wrecked on non-Catholics.

Okay, if that's what you believe. However, you seem to have no clue that it is rather the RCC that has been expressing deep concerns over her diminishing membership. I don't mean to trouble you, but if you care it may be helpful to calm down and not overreact against non-Catholics. You only need to check the performance record documented from various sources, example:

[list]In 1965 there were 58,000 priests in the U.S.;
in 2002 there were 45,000, of whom 16% come from other countries.

In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood;
in 2002 there were 450.

In 1965 there were 49,000 seminarians;
in 2002 there were 4,700.

In 1965 there were 180,000 sisters;
in 2002 there were 75,000, with an average age of 68.

In 1965 there were 1,556 Catholic high schools;
in 2002 there were 786.

In 1965 there were 10,503 Catholic grade schools;
in 2002 there were 6,623.

In 1958 weekly Mass attendance was 74%;
in 2000 it was 25%.

Source: BNet United Kingdom
COPYRIGHT 2005 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning[/list]

There shouldn't be ill-feelings about these discussions, the one thing being that you should try to establish a Biblical basis for the RCC idea that Peter was ever the foundation upon which the Church is being built. So far, only one thing stands - such an idea has not been established from the very same source that the RCC appeals to: the Bible.

Regards.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=265611.msg3810530#msg3810530 date=1241230265]
Hi JJYOU,

Good evening sir. Lol, of course I know you meant no harm. As for my background, I'm into IT (not quite good at it, though. . . but I dey manage).

kindly lod on to the section of "refuting protestantism " or audio section of www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com and find all the answers to your objections on this issue.
also, know that as regards the figures which you quoted as the decl;ine in catholism, that which you called the catholic church is not it at all but the vatican II sect. The catholic church is still in existence but actually reduced to a remnant.Yes , we are actually small because catholicism is basically holding the faith whole and entire, outside of which one is not a catholic and not saved.
the monks have written a book "the bible proves the teachings of the catholic church". if you need it, you can contact me on my mail and i'll send them free to you.

chukwudi44:

The primacy of st peter was never doubted by the early church .That was why the bishop of Rome is regarded as the first among the church since peter died as bishop of Rome.It might interest you to know that in AD96 pope clement 1 resolved a dispute in the corinthian church even whe Apostle John who was bishop of a nearby diocese of Ephesus was still alive.
The bishop of rome has always been regardedas being the leader of the christian church since the first century AD This view is clearly expressed by st Irenaeus in his work Against the heretics where he wrote

"The blessed Apostles(peter and paul) after having founded the church committed into linus the episcopate .Of this linus paul makes mention in his letter to timothy,to him succeeded anacletus and after him third place from the Apostles clement was alloted the bishopric"

Irenaeus is regarded as anunbroken chain in the line of the apostles because he grew up under polycarp of smyrna who was brougt up by John the Apostles.Obviously Irenaeus was not far from the true teachings of the apostles his writings alongside those of Tertullian,ignatius of Antioch point to the fact that the church has always been built around petr and the bishop of rome as the suuccessors of peter inherited this powers

You protestants Please if the RCC is not the church left behind by the apostles could anyone here please tell me what happened to the church left by the Aposstles ,how come a "delvish church" came and held sway for more than 1400 years before the protestant reformation.It is ridiculous to think that the church built by the apostles could just disapear while those od Adeboye,Oyedepo,benny hinn et.c flourishes.

Where was the so called true church when the RCC decided the books of the bi

my dear Chukwudii44,
what you say is the truth. However, to be honest with you, it only takes the grace of God to convert a muslim or protestant to the true catholic faith because of their stubborn heartedness and strong hatred for the catholic church.
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 itsince you are still with the vatican II sect which is claimning to be the catholic church and misleading people. go through the site of the monks (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com) and should you have any question,you cam mail me or prefarably the monks. if you also need any of their materials, contact me and i'll send them free of charge.
this was the main reason behind my posting this topic so those going along with the new faith of the 2nd vatican council and thinking they are catholics would be aware of this.
above all, pray earnestly the rosary so our Lady can enlighten you on all these.l

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.

sancta:

kindly lod on to the section of "refuting protestantism " or audio section of www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com and find all the answers to your objections on this issue.

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?

sancta:

also, know that as regards the figures which you quoted as the decl;ine in catholism, that which you called the catholic church is not it at all but the vatican II sect. The catholic church is still in existence but actually reduced to a remnant.

Okay, point noted - the distinction between the Catholic Church and the Vatican II sect. However, I didn't offer those statistics to 'prove' that Catholicism or the Catholic Church no longer "exists", but to provide chukwudi44 something to consider about the "decline" in Catholicism. He had thought that 'Lutheran[b]ism[/b] ,calvin[b]ism[/b] and others that started the reformation are fast disapearing'; and the figures was to remind him that the "ism" is Catholicism was also something that is of deep concern to its authorities, in as much as "decline" and "reduction" are concerned and not "disappearance".

sancta:

Yes , we are actually small because catholicism is basically holding the faith whole and entire, outside of which one is not a catholic and not saved.

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.

sancta:

the monks have written a book "the bible proves the teachings of the catholic church". if you need it, you can contact me on my mail and i'll send them free to you.

I'd like to ask that you share such insight on the forum from the monks' book; and my first question to you is simple enough: if the Bible "proves" their teaching, where did God place the salvation of people in a system on condition that "one is not a catholic and not saved"? It would not help to reharsh their tradition, but showing where God says what you said would be more helpful.

sancta:

my dear Chukwudii44,
what you say is the truth. However, to be honest with you, it only takes the grace of God to convert a muslim or protestant to the true catholic faith because of their stubborn heartedness and strong hatred for the catholic church.
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. go through the site of the monks (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com) and should you have any question,you cam mail me or prefarably the monks. if you also need any of their materials, contact me and i'll send them free of charge.
this was the main reason behind my posting this topic so those going along with the new faith of the 2nd vatican council and thinking they are catholics would be aware of this.
above all, pray earnestly the rosary so our Lady can enlighten you on all these.l

Although the above was addressed to chukwudi44, I'd like to just comment briefly, if you permit me.

Dear chukwudi44,
just think carefully about where sancta has placed you in Catholic eschatology. According to him, you belong outside of the "catholicism" that "saves".

Another way of putting that is this: you're not even saved and are going about deceiving yourself and those you're arguing with. >sigh<

This is clear from the fact that sancta first 'praises' you for "telling the truth"; but for all that, he remarks that you're misleading people with all your 'catholic labours', . . "since you are still with the vatican II sect which is claimning to be the catholic church and misleading people".

I just wonder that after all is said and done in your defence of the Catholic Church, another Catholic doesn't think you're even saved. Think about it carefully - salvation is found in the Son of God, not in a branch of Vatican or Catholicism.

Blessings.

pilgrim.1:

Hi JJYOU,

Good evening sir. Lol, of course I know you meant no harm. As for my background, I'm into IT (not quite good at it, though. . . but I dey manage).

chei if you are not too far into IT just stop and go get proper training towards being a prof. u were born for academia not for IT work.

you know those kind that teach hebrew or reformations those kind of things with strong eye glasses.

my mrs always read your work and she agrees with me. i only go half way becos i dont know too much book. i like your thorough and balanced mind.

God bless you.

JJYOU:

chei if you are not too far into IT just stop and go get proper training towards being a prof. u were born for academia not for IT work.

you know those kind that teach hebrew or reformations those kind of things with strong eye glasses.

my mrs always read your work and she agrees with me. i only go half way becos i dont know too much book. i like your thorough and balanced mind.

God bless you.

Lol, God bless you plenty.

Chukwudi

It is true that the Catholic Church is the one true church of Jesus Christ and that outside this Church there is no one saved - that is No one can be saved outside the catholic Church. This is Infallible. A catholic cannot deny this doctrine, or else he is No longer a catholic even though he or she still claims to be. 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. Vatican two taught that Catholics and muslims woship the same God, that Non catholics could receive Holy communion. it also taught the heresy of religious Lliberty, and this denial of 'No salvation outside the true Church' etc. You can get the evidences from the web sit www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com. And the Catholic church infallibly teaches that a Heretic is no member of it. and the present mass in the parishes in a new mass of 1969(not the mass the Church has always celebrated) and is INVALID. The parishes and diocese around the world now agree and teach these heresies, that is why they are non-catholics like the protestant heretic who is trying to make you despair.
Pope Leo XIII, satis cognitum, June 29, 1896:
"No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or Call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and , if anyone holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic"

These Catholic Teachings are sealed with Papal Infallibity. A catholic must believe this. You make haste and leave the V2 and the new mass, its urgent.

pilgrim.1:

@chukwudi44,

I appreciate your citations in order to persuade the idea that the earlier Church Fathers taught that Peter was the foundation upon which the Church is being built. There are a few basic problems with your citations, though:

(a) you just quoted lines without leaving us their direct sources; probably, those citations were recycled without carefully checking them out.

(b) the quotes clearly contradict themselves in their arguments;

(c) they do not draw their ideas from the very source they appealed to - the Scriptures;

(d) they still do not establish the basic query here, which is that Peter is the foundation upon which the Church is being built;

(e) sources attributed to the Church fathers about Peter being the foundation are simply untenable.

Now let's see them in simple outlines:

This in itself standing alone does not establish anything about Peter being the foundation upon which the Church is being built. Let me help you: one would have looked for direct statements that were made stating exactly what we're asking - and indeed there are many of them. I am very well acquainted with such sources, including Origen, the Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Theophanes Kerameus, Callistus I (patriarch of Constantinople in the 14th century) and Augustine are said to have 'affirmed that it was Peter's faith that made it possible for him to become the rock on which the church was founded' (see, for example, The Bible in History by David William Kling, page 75). However, Callistus I and Theophanes Kerameus affirmed rather that 'the keys were given not to one single person but to the faithful'.

However, since the citation in your quote borders around Augustine of Hippo, just so I don't be tedious to you, I shall leave out those of later date and those who were merely propounding ideas to buttress their tradition. These names include Jerome, St Cyprian, St Irenaeus, Tertullian and others. Why? For the following reason:

(a) even Tertullian himself that you quoted clearly said "that is false which is of a later date". If what is of a later date was false to him, there's no reason to be confident in his own ideas, in as much as he was himself not an apostle and certainly was not in living contact with any of the apostles who would ever have told him that Peter was the foundation upon which the Church is being built;

(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.

For these two basic reasons, we find that the citations from those sources are themselves gravely flawed and self-contradictory. I shall show a few more in a moment; but presently, let's come back to Augustine of Hippo, which has been dubbed the theological 'doctor of the Church'.

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.
Put in that simplistic manner, it may all seem well. . . until you zero in on the prevailing background that led Augustine to make these notions. It is undeniable that he was making these statements more as a politician than as a theologian, because he had hoped to win back to Donatists to the Roman Papacy. The Donatists had rejected the unscriptural dogmas emanating from Rome, because the authorities there were making unfounded assertions which were found nowhere in Scripture! Some of these were identified earlier in my previous reply. Thus, it is understandable why Augustine was making such "visible and invisible" foundations for the Church and yet doing so more politically than theologically. A beautiful reference to check this out would be Mary T. Marks' "Augustine", pages 74-77.

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).

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

[list][li]'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'[/list]

[list][list]"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][/li][/list]

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?

That Jesus as GOD is the head of the church is incontestable,but as he was about ascending to heaven ,it was only pertinent that he appointed someone to takeover ffrom him here on earth.That responsibility fell upon Peter.

Contrary to your assertions the KEYS of heaven mentioned in mattew 16:19 applied only to Peter and his successors (Bishops of Rome),no other Apostle was given this right.

Your explainations on why his name was changed Fromm Simon to Peter is untenable.You want to tell me that the meaning of the name Peter (Rock) has nothing to do with he rock mentioned in Mattew 16?

I want to say here that catholic beleif that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built does not make him above Jesus,that was the point St Augustine was trying to say.

St Augustine whom you called a politician ,had the greatest impact on christian life since the death of the Apostles .
St Augustine presided over the synod of hippo and the local council of carthage which decided the Books of the Bible.
If you think he was not a man of God why don't reject the books he selected.

About you claims on the decline of Roman catholicism in the U.S.A. ,you seeem to narrow it down to schools,priests ,forgetting that the overall population of catholics in america has risen tremendously.

200 years ago roman catholics were less than 3% of the american population today there are over 25% of the population making them the largest religious sect in the country

The donatists you mentioned in your write up ,have they not gone into extinction? wher are they today ,If they were of God why didnt they survive?

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.

Pilgrim1,

Wether you like it or not we cannot ignore the writings of the early church fathers since they told us which books we should read ,the books you regard as scriptures today were not the only books used by the early christians .
We also had books like the shepherd of hermas,Gospel of Hebrew and so many many other works which were not canonised.
You keep on saying that they never quotesd scripture,the bible only existed after almost 400 years after Jesus ascended into Heaven.These books ,also with epistles of clement,ignatiusand polycarp were regarded with the same authourity with the pauline epistles before the synod of hippo met.
Some of the criteria used in canonising these books was the citations of quotation from clement,irenaeus,polycarp ,ignatius and the other fathers of the church.This St Augustine you so much disparaged was a man God ureally imbued with so much wisdom,his views are well respected by catholics and protestants alike.

About your obstinacy in denying the Primacy of StPeter,Even st paul acknowleged him alongside James and John as the pillars of the chuch in Galatians 2:9
If after all this biblical evidence and tetimonies from the early church fathers ,you are still not convinced ,Iwish you good luck

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:

That Jesus as GOD is the head of the church is incontestable,but as he was about ascending to heaven ,it was only pertinent that he appointed someone to takeover ffrom him here on earth.That responsibility fell upon Peter.

Contrary to your assertions the KEYS of heaven mentioned in mattew 16:19 applied only to Peter and his successors (Bishops of Rome),no other Apostle was given this right.

Your explainations on why his name was changed Fromm Simon to Peter is untenable.You want to tell me that the meaning of the name Peter (Rock) has nothing to do with he rock mentioned in Mattew 16?

I want to say here that catholic beleif that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built does not make him above Jesus,that was the point St Augustine was trying to say.

St Augustine whom you called a politician ,had the greatest impact on christian life since the death of the Apostles .
St Augustine presided over the synod of hippo and the local council of carthage which decided the Books of the Bible.
If you think he was not a man of God why don't reject the books he selected.

Your reply is appreciated, and here's what I'd like to bring to your attention again: where in all your latest argument have you established that Peter was the foundation upon which the Church is being built? You seem to be trying ever hard to survive this point by repeating the vacant traditions of Catholicism, not by showing anything to substantiate your persuasion.

chukwudi44:

About you claims on the decline of Roman catholicism in the U.S.A. ,you seeem to narrow it down to schools,priests ,forgetting that the overall population of catholics in america has risen tremendously.

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.

chukwudi44:

200 years ago roman catholics were less than 3% of the american population today there are over 25% of the population making them the largest religious sect in the country

Does that prove anything about Peter being the foundation of the Church?

chukwudi44:

The donatists you mentioned in your write up ,have they not gone into extinction? wher are they today ,If they were of God why didnt they survive?

For starters, I'm not a Donatist. Second, I made the point merely to show that Augustine was being more policital than theological when addressing the Donatists - and I offered a source for you to check it up for yourself: did you do so?

chukwudi44:

Wether you like it or not we cannot ignore the writings of the early church fathers since they told us which books we should read ,the books you regard as scriptures today were not the only books used by the early christians .
We also had books like the shepherd of hermas,Gospel of Hebrew and so many many other works which were not canonised.
You keep on saying that they never quotesd scripture,the bible only existed after almost 400 years after Jesus ascended into Heaven.These books ,also with epistles of clement,ignatiusand polycarp were regarded with the same authourity with the pauline epistles before the synod of hippo met.

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.

chukwudi44:

Some of the criteria used in canonising these books was the citations of quotation from clement,irenaeus,polycarp ,ignatius and the other fathers of the church.This St Augustine you so much disparaged was a man God ureally imbued with so much wisdom,his views are well respected by catholics and protestants alike.

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.

chukwudi44:

About your obstinacy in denying the Primacy of StPeter,Even st paul acknowleged him alongside James and John as the pillars of the chuch in Galatians 2:9

I saw Galatians 2:9 before my request that you show where Peter is ever called the foundation of the Church. Does that verse teach such a thing, or you don't understand what a 'pillar' is? A pillar is not to be confused for a foundation, I trust you know this. Besides, if you mistake 'pillar' for 'foundation', then you effectively saying that there are three foundations for your church, since three names (James, Cephas, and John) were mentioned in that verse as 'pillars'.

chukwudi44:

If after all this biblical evidence and tetimonies from the early church fathers ,you are still not convinced ,Iwish you good luck

You didn't give me the evidence for what you asserted, but I wish you grace in your understanding.

@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

pilgrim.1:

@chukwudi44,

Your reply is appreciated, and here's what I'd like to bring to your attention again: where in all your latest argument have you established that Peter was the foundation upon which the Church is being built? You seem to be trying ever hard to survive this point by repeating the vacant traditions of Catholicism, not by showing anything to substantiate your persuasion.

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.

Does that prove anything about Peter being the foundation of the Church?

For starters, I'm not a Donatist. Second, I made the point merely to show that Augustine was being more policital than theological when addressing the Donatists - and I offered a source for you to check it up for yourself: did you do so?

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.

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.

I saw Galatians 2:9 before my request that you show where Peter is ever called the foundation of the Church. Does that verse teach such a thing, or you don't understand what a 'pillar' is? A pillar is not to be confused for a foundation, I trust you know this. Besides, if you mistake 'pillar' for 'foundation', then you effectively saying that there are three foundations for your church, since three names (James, Cephas, and John) were mentioned in that verse as 'pillars'.

You didn't give me the evidence for what you asserted, but I wish you grace in your understanding.

I posted the rise in the roman catholic piopulation to refute your assertion on the decline of Roman catholicism in America and not to validate the divinity of the Papacy.

Contrary to your assertons, the fact remains that the letters of clement ,polycarp and Ignatius was regarded with the same authourity with the books in todays bible by the christians of the first four centuries.
About tertullians statement about later books,do you know that the epistle of clement was written before the gospel of John and the book of Revelation.

The books of hebrews ,revelation,jude james were heavily attacked as apocryphal works,the authorship of hebrew in particular was heavily disputed.
The book of revelation was said to be too frightening and was almost discarded,It took the wisdom of the catholic bishops at the synod of hippo to canonise these books.
You can verify that the Shepherd of hermas and the gospel of hebrews was very popular among the early christiansand even more popular than some books in today's bible.
The fact remains we don't have a grasp of everything that actually happens but testimonies from the early church point to the primacy of simon peter,if Idont beleive them i can as well discard the books they canonised.,because as much as 100 books were in circulation .

Dear chukwudi44,

Thank you for your concerns and good natured replies. Perhaps the only thing you may not realize is that your own answers are not working in your favour to establish the only thing I requested: from the same Bible that was canonized by Catholics, please show that Peter is ever referred to as the foundation upon which the Church is being built. That was all I requested; and although you have been unable to do so, it's interesting pointers you have returned.

chukwudi44:

I posted the rise in the roman catholic piopulation to refute your assertion on the decline of Roman catholicism in America and not to validate the divinity of the Papacy.

Okay, but the source has not been contested - and was cited in my reply to your own misgiving against Lutheranism and Calvinism. I then wonder how you seem to have deviated from validating the Papacy to an unrelated issue?

chukwudi44:

Contrary to your assertons, the fact remains that the letters of clement ,polycarp and Ignatius was regarded with the same authourity with the books in todays bible by the christians of the first four centuries.

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

chukwudi44:

About tertullians statement about later books,do you know that the epistle of clement was written before the gospel of John and the book of Revelation.

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?

chukwudi44:

The books of hebrews ,revelation,jude james were heavily attacked as apocryphal works,the authorship of hebrew in particular was heavily disputed.

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.

chukwudi44:

The book of revelation was said to be too frightening and was almost discarded,It took the wisdom of the catholic bishops at the synod of hippo to canonise these books.

And that was supposed to have answered the basic question thus far?

chukwudi44:

You can verify that the Shepherd of hermas and the gospel of hebrews was very popular among the early christiansand even more popular than some books in today's bible.

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.

chukwudi44:

The fact remains we don't have a grasp of everything that actually happens but testimonies from the early church point to the primacy of simon peter,if Idont beleive them i can as well discard the books they canonised.,because as much as 100 books were in circulation .

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.

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.