Catholics are the one true religion? (Was Re: Recycling subject lines saves trees)

[James Sissel]

Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:    On Wednesday 12 March 2008, James Sissel wrote:
> Luke -Jr wrote:
> Matt 16:18, Our Lord appoints St. Peter to be the first pope and promises
> that that Satan will never at any time prevail over the Church.
>
>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.
>
> Funny, I don't see the word Pope in there, nor Catholic.
>
>18 "Thou art Peter"... As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn 
>profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this 
>faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he 
>is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name 
>of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of 
>invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which 
>building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in 
>quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all 
>fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of 
>heaven. 
>
>18 "Upon this rock"... The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar 
>language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had 
>said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. 
>So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the 
>rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the 
>principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, 
>by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured 
>it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25. 

18 "The gates of hell"... That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan 
can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened 
to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened 
to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole 
strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over 
the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that 
neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any 
time prevail over the church of Christ. 

  Still don't see the word Pope or Catholic in there.  Or for that matter Religion.
    
> Mark 16:15, Christ gives the Church a mandate to teach the world, and makes
> mention of signs to identify His Church (for example, only
> Catholics can cast our demons)
>
> Really? Only Catholics can do that? Or maybe a better question should
> be "Can Catholics really do that?" What proof do you have that *anybody*
> can or can't do that? Or for that matter, what proof do you have demons
> even exist?

>There are many well documented and witnessed exorcisms, and in some cases 
  >of demonic possession the possessed person has demonstrated supernatural 
  >abilities.
>
>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm

   
  Documented by whom?  Oh I see, the criminal is writing the court transcripts so later he can claim he was framed.  And I still don't see any "proof" here that ONLY Catholics can thow out demons.  Oh, and what about the snake handling?  You know there is a religion that is NOT Catholic that handles snakes.  Hmmm, seems to me the "Carismatics" (spelling?) talk in tougues.  Never heard the Catholics do it and I have seen the Catholics make fun of the Carismatics.  Maybe we should have all these "true religion" Catholics drink poison to "prove" they are the one true Religion.  It's Biblical you know.
   
    
> >Acts 2, Christ sends the Holy Ghost to the apostles, making them the
> > Church's first Bishops.
>
> Bishops? I don't recall seeing that word.

>My description is of what occured, not the literal text.
>You can obviously look up the literal text yourself.
   
   
  I did.  Didn't see the word Bishop, Pope, Catholic anywhere in there.  Not even in their original or translated languages.

    
> >Acts 15:1, The first council (the Council of Jerusalem) addresses the
> > first heresy (Judaizers), and eventually St. Peter uses his papal
> > authority, accepted by all present, to give a final resolution.
>
> Papal authority? Where does it say that? Or where does it say he's
> actually got *any* "authority"?

>Right, so when St. Peter in the middle of a lot of disputing interrupts and 
>proclaims a decision, and nobody questions him... they all just got tired of 
>arguing, or what? Clearly, the only way the described event was even possible 
>was that all present recognized that St. Peter was not to be questioned upon 
>coming to a conclusion.

  Just because some people said, "Gee, since he walked with this Jesus person we will allow him some latitude", doesn't give him authority.  Nor does it make it PAPAL authority either.  Circular logic here again.  Who made Peter the Pope?
  
> None of the claims of papal primacy, infallibility, pre-eminence,
> jurisdiction, etc. have any reliable foundation in the New Testament. Nor
> were they assumed to be the right of the Roman bishop in the first
> centuries of the Church. They are later inventions.
>
> http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Scr/mt16.htm

"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns 
in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him 
through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression 
and in no small danger." Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st 
Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

  Well, I said you are full of it.  Does that make it right?  Once again you are using circular "proofs" to prove something.  You are saying just because a Pope said "they" are "the church" then it must be true.  And since the Pope, who is always right because he is in charge of "the church", says they are the one true church that Jesus setup that must obvously be true.  And since they are the one true church the Pope must alwasy be right.  And on, and on, and on.  And it still is all based somehow on this "New Testiment"?
    
> Besides, all of this is from the New Testiment. Ask the Jews what they
> think of the New Testiment. So unless you have actual proof from God
> himself all of this is man's faith in what he believes. 

Christ Himself provided this proof:
Matt 12:24-26 
   
  And there you go again.  Circular "proofs" are not proofs.  You rely on this "New Testiment" for all of your supposed "proofs".  What proof do you have this New Testiment is right or true?
    
> So what makes what you believe right and what I believe wrong? 

Nothing "makes" things right or wrong. They just *are* right or wrong.
Only the Catholic Church has supernatural proof of its legitimacy.

  But you still didn't answer my question.  I asked "So what makes what you believe right and what I believe wrong?" becuase this ALL still comes down to you believe one thing and I believe another.
   
  And you still haven't given one iota of this "proof" you keep spouting about.
  
>Since truth never changes, it follows that any religion which changes its 
>beliefs is inherently false. What other religion has held to the exact same 
>doctrine for nearly 2000 years?

  I guess all you Catholics better get back to eating that fish on Firday.  Oh, wait.  Back in the early Catholic church that wasn't a requirment.  So what is it?  Maybe you better also learn Latin too.  Bring back the Spanish Inquisition.  Oh, wait.  They didn't do that when they started, then they did, then they didn't.  Can they ever keep anything straight?
    
> And therefore, what gives anyone the right to force their beliefs on anyone?

God gives all rights, and He has not granted anyone else the right nor ability 
to force beliefs. Morality, however, is another issue, and it is the 
responsibility of our civil authorities to enforce it. And the Church has not 
only the right, but a mandate to teach all. After all, if you are not 
presented with the truth in the first place, how could you make a decision to 
accept or reject it?
  Excuse me on "Morality"? ... "it is the responsibility of our civil authorities to enforce it"?  Where in blazes do you get that piece of tripe?  You are now forcing others to believe what you believe, something you just said isn't right.  But wait, now you are saying not only is it right but it MUST be this way.  But you said that wasn't right, but it is, but it isn't, but it is.  Sounds like you can't keep your own "doctrine" the same in the same e-mail.  What about 2000 years?
   
   
  You just don't get it, do you?  In your own way you are as narrow minded as the Islamic crazies.  For all you know I might be Catholic too.  You are making a lot of claims but I don't see any real support for anything you are saying.  It's nothing but "beliefs" and circular logic you are trying to push off as "truth".  Sorry, just calling it "truth" doesn't make it true.
   
  And you certainly need to learn the difference between "church" and "religion".  You know, God gave you a brain for a reason.  Instead of having someone else dump crap into it you need to actually think for yourself.  I often say this to people who thing Micro$oft is perfect if you cannot discuss the strengths and weaknesses of more than one OS then you cannot make a good judgement.
   
  Nor am I saying you are wrong to be a Catholic.  I am saying you might be wrong to claim the Catholics as the "one true religion" and that you are not convincing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20080312/d3e9519c/attachment-0001.htm