Roman Catholism
-
By saying that, it seems that you already making a judgement.Originally posted by jockster:Both Catholics and Protestants are guilty of malicious bigotry. Let us not judge, though it's tempting to do so. Let God be the judge.
As a Catholic I am taught that our Church represents the entire repository of the Truth. Our protestant bretheren also believe in the same Truth, but not to the full extent that we do. However, there can be only 1 Truth.
Take it easy; think of this as a friendly argument. Quarrel is when we start labelling each other as cults and branding each other's beliefs as heresies. If we stay clear of that, we should be alright.
As believers, we should have convictions yet at the same time, accept the possibility that our understanding of the truth is faulty. This way, we can learn from each other and gain a better understanding of the truth. -
I guess your right in saying that what i said was a judgement. It's undeniably human to judge. What need to strive for is to avoid judging others.Originally posted by nukewatch:By saying that, it seems that you already making a judgement.
Take it easy; think of this as a friendly argument. Quarrel is when we start labelling each other as cults and branding each other's beliefs as heresies. If we stay clear of that, we should be alright.
As believers, we should have convictions yet at the same time, accept the possibility that our understanding of the truth is faulty. This way, we can learn from each other and gain a better understanding of the truth.
To your second point, i really don't see this as a friendly argument. I think both sides have been guilty, but seem to get a sense that we Catholics have to justifying our existance a lot in this forum. If you've read the posts, we are calling each other heretics. Some would even say that Catholics aren't Christians, and that we don't worship the same God. I'm suggesting that we stop bickering, and try to learn from each other what is good. -
Yes, there are some unfriendly words and I can understand why you are sad. That is why I say think of it as a friendly argument, as oppose to a do-or-die session of justifying your existance. I am trying to cheer you up!Originally posted by jockster:To your second point, i really don't see this as a friendly argument. I think both sides have been guilty, but seem to get a sense that we Catholics have to justifying our existance a lot in this forum. If you've read the posts, we are calling each other heretics. Some would even say that Catholics aren't Christians, and that we don't worship the same God. I'm suggesting that we stop bickering, and try to learn from each other what is good.
Try not to treat the strong words as declarations of war, think of them as disagreements. Do not be affected by emotional words, respond with calm. Hope you find this discussion a useful exercise. -
Originally posted by sliew:
Hell shall not prevail over her as Christ have promised to Peter who was the rock ( His tomb is in the Vatican city)
As mentioned there are many sensational stories about Constantine etc...
Tha fact is we can only speculate things which happened 2000 years ago. Who knows who is right ?
Just like Constantine, Saint Peter also has a lot of 'sensational stories'. Like the legend of him crucified upside down. Even him being the first bishop of Rome. Quite impossible as anti-christian sentiments were too high then. Probably he was bishop in some humble abode, then when they built the Vatican later, they shifted his body there.
Oh yah, you haven't tell me how they know the person under Vatican City is Peter and not some imposter? -
One of the main contentions that Protestants have with the Catholic Church is the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 where Jesus says, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. Historical Protestantism has had a hard time accepting the Catholic view that Peter is the rock to which Jesus referred.Originally posted by nukewatch:I assume that this statement comes from an intepretation of Matt 16:18,
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
This intepretation runs contrary to 1 Cor. 3:11,
"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ"
Other verses, Acts 4:11, 1 Cor. 10:4 and Eph. 2:20, expicitly state that the"rock" is Jesus. The "rock" in Matt 16:18, can be and should be in my opinion, intepreted as Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ. Christianity (including Catholism) is not found upon Peter, but upon Christ, as the name suggests.
They have advanced two alternative interpretations: First, it has been said that Jesus is remarking about Peter's faith and/or confession, saying, in effect, that it is as solid as a rock.
Since the soteriology of the Protestant movement was based on sola fide (faith alone), it seems fitting that Protestants see in Peter the prototype of that solitary faith.
Second, it is said that Jesus Himself is the rock, not Peter. Since they claim that the metaphor "rock" in the Bible is invariably used in reference to God, Protestants cannot see how a mere man can be designated as something that is exclusive to divinity.
To support these views, the more scholarly Protestant may even point to the interpretation of some of the Fathers of the Church. For example, it is true that in the writings Augustine, at least two of the views of the rock can be found. Various other Church Fathers offer one or more of the three interpretations as well. So, we must be careful in accusing the Protestants of a novel interpretation of the rock that was not known until the 16th century.
Upon closer examination, however, we find that most of the Church Fathers agreed that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16:18. Even the few who failed to see Peter as the rock did not have any problem with Peter's primacy. Augustine, in whom we find at least two views, was unequivocal that the chair of Peter in Rome was the supreme authority for the Church. His famous statement, "Rome has spoken, the case is closed," has rung in the ears of Catholics for a millennium and a half. Further, one needs to understand the contexts in which Augustine was writing, as well as the theological license he gave himself to explain the deeper truths of the Faith. All in all, Augustine was a diehard supporter of the papacy.
Interesting developments in the exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19 have occurred in the Protestant world since the turn of this century. Many Protestant scholars have come to the conclusion that Peter is indeed the rock to which Jesus referred. Renowned Protestant theologians such as Oscar Cullman and Herman Ridderbos have written voluminous works exegeting Matthew 16:18 in fine detail, showing that classical Protestant exegesis is full of false assumptions and shortcomings. One of the more salient errors pointed out by these sources is the Protestant claim that the original Greek of Matthew 16:18 made a lexical distinction between Peter (Greek: petros) and rock (Greek: petra). Petros was understood to be a small stone or pebble, while petra was understood to be a huge, immovable rock, or rocky cliff. Conclusion: Peter could not be the rock to which Jesus referred, since it is obvious that a small stone is not a huge, immovable rock. In discovering more about Greek etymology, however, Protestant scholars learned that petros and Petra are actually interchangeable terms. Though desiring to complete the pun and convey assonance, the Gospel writer was simply limited by the fact that since Peter is a masculine name, it must be designated by a masculine Greek noun (i.e., petros), whereas petra is a feminine noun.
http://www.netacc.net/%7Emafg/peter01.htm -
How come SingaporeMacross' replies lately has been bordering on plagiarism?
One big chunk quoted without acknowledging the source. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
Peter never in Rome? Read this http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_74.htm
Hell shall not prevail over her as Christ have promised to Peter who was the rock ( His tomb is in the Vatican city)
Just like Constantine, Saint Peter also has a lot of 'sensational stories'. Like the legend of him crucified upside down. Even him being the first bishop of Rome. Quite impossible as anti-christian sentiments were too high then. Probably he was bishop in some humble abode, then when they built the Vatican later, they shifted his body there.
Oh yah, you haven't tell me how they know the person under Vatican City is Peter and not some imposter?[/b] -
Ah! Kena exposed liao....Originally posted by Icemoon:How come SingaporeMacross' replies lately has been bordering on plagiarism?
One big chunk quoted without acknowledging the source.
Ok some replies I copied from some sites...some I ask other people on another forum. Since you insist on me putting links, I'll do it. But I fear some of you may not take me seriously, since I quote mostly from Catholic sites. -
"When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband's brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her.Originally posted by Icemoon:I find the Jewish insistance on "producing offspring for the [eldest?] brother" a bit strange. Not sure it has incited how many younger brothers to murder their eldest brother just 'cos they want to sleep with their da4 sao3.
And does offspring mean male child or female child or can be either?
The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. (Deuteronomy 25:5-6)
Since they talk about the bloodline so much, offspring probably refers to a male child. -
Peter never in Rome?
I never said that. The article is interesting, but the conclusion was made in a hurry. There is no physical reference to Peter from the bible. Best is if they found the crucification marks (if the legend is true) and inscriptions linking this Peter to Jesus. Hey, since only Vatican people are involved, what if this is another RC conspiracy?
Ok some replies I copied from some sites...some I ask other people on another forum. Since you insist on me putting links, I'll do it. But I fear some of you may not take me seriously, since I quote mostly from Catholic sites.
Actually if you intend to put links, there is no need for you to quote it here. The really interested ones will click and read.
Best is write it in your own words. Maybe do a summary .. haha
Since they talk about the bloodline so much, offspring probably refers to a male child.
Hey, do they practise polygamy? If second brother is married, surely he must have the da sao as the second wife?
You should only screw someone if you love her. It is very sad if they screw for so practical a reason, what's more if you don't love her. -
The bible does not record everything. As we all know, the bible is a compilation of books. And all these books were selected and put together only three hundred years after the church was started.Originally posted by Icemoon:[b]Peter never in Rome?
I never said that. The article is interesting, but the conclusion was made in a hurry. There is no physical reference to Peter from the bible. Best is if they found the crucification marks (if the legend is true) and inscriptions linking this Peter to Jesus. Hey, since only Vatican people are involved, what if this is another RC conspiracy?
.
Why only the Catholics can be linked to Peter? Because the Roman Catholic Church was the original church. Even Archaelogists and Historians can trace the Roman Catholic church history to Peter's time. -
Actually the original church should be the Jerusalem Church headed by James.Originally posted by Honeybunz:Why only the Catholics can be linked to Peter? Because the Roman Catholic Church was the original church. Even Archaelogists and Historians can trace the Roman Catholic church history to Peter's time.
Even the church in Rome traced their roots to Paul and not Peter. When Paul wrote to the Romans, where was Peter?
Peter, so Jewish in thought in the beginning, cannot be the originator of the christian community in Rome. I think he go Rome his head kenna chopped off liao.
We still need Paul, who was the first and truly enlightened one, to rebuke Peter on his bad understanding of the "christian" faith. So much for the label chief apostle. -
You're playing into the hands of the revisionists and conspiracy authors.Originally posted by Honeybunz:The bible does not record everything. As we all know, the bible is a compilation of books. And all these books were selected and put together only three hundred years after the church was started.
The books were selected and compiled 300 years later, but they were already in circulation from the beginning, almost after they were purportedly written.