Michael Hranek wrote:
For one He is in no way Allah, nor the infant of Prague, nor comediator with the Roman Catholic Mary and certainly not some lifeless piece of bread.
A false Jesus saves no one

John UK wrote:
#1 This article you directed me to, Bert, is most helpful in seeing things from your perspective, and will make it easier to put you back on track.

John UK wrote:
If I read it right, the article is claiming baptism as necessary to salvation (new birth) which puts the gift of salvation into mens' hands. So that if a man is never baptised, he cannot be saved, no matter how godly a life he leads.

Presbyterian wrote:
Both Martin Luther and the Protestant Church put their faith in Holy Scripture. God's Reformation in the 16th century helped us achieve that.

Presbyterian wrote:
Considering your 'faith' is in relics, icon's, dulia worship of dead people and other unBiblical practices; - I am more than happy that we prove that our faith is in the correct doctrine and reading of Scripture, ALONE.

John UK wrote:
... It corrected all the errors of the Presbyterian Confession like: infant baptism, church & state, weird covenantal beliefs, double (+ve +ve) predestination, Sandemanianism etc etc.

John UK wrote:
There is a problem with hearing the scripture read in a RCC, because if someone asks the priest (for example) what Jesus meant when he said "Ye must be born again" they would receive a dreadful interpretation of those words and be led away from the truth, being convinced (as a baptised Catholic) that they were born again at baptism.

John UK wrote:
However, the Word of God still has power, when attended by the Holy Ghost, to bring any sinner to new birth, without the involvement of any other person than the man reading it.

I’m afraid that your “1689 Baptist” comment is lost on me. I assume that you aren’t that old?!?

Every Mass has a reading from one of the Gospels. And, yes, the message that Jesus is our Savior is driven home with regularity. We pray the Apostle's Creed at every Mass as well. No Cathoilc will doubt Jesus' role as our Savior.

Michael,

Yes, the Inquisition itself was but not the torture and killing of those accused. That was done by the civil authorities.

Mike,

The Jews also deny that Jesus is the Son of God. Does that mean that you believe that Yahweh is also a false god?

Nathan,

First, the “Chair of St. Peter” is not a physical entity. It is referring to the authority granted to St. Peter by Jesus. The Pope can be sitting on a folding chair and it can be the Chair of Peter. Just like Air Force 1 does not exist unless the President of the US is on board.

I also question the veracity of that claim.

Protest,

I was simply trying to address the claim that the Catholic Church's position that salvation requires both faith and works is unBiblical. As you can see, it is very Biblical. I was not addressing the motivation for those works.

Michael,

I am not a historian but my understanding of the inquisition is that the Church had nothing to do with the torture of the people. That was strictly the responsibility of the civil authorities. Even in the case of the Spanish Inquisition - which was carried out by the King and Queen of Spain and not the Church - the Pope was very clear in his position: no one was to be permanently maimed or killed through the use of torture.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Bert
That would be so wonderful if it were only true.
John Paul II's dedication of his life to the Roman Catholic Mary is an example of how it is not true.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Mother Teresa's ....

Michael Hranek wrote:
The Inquistion and earlier persecutios of the Roman Catholic Church against ancient Baptist type believers who were slaughtered by the RCC is yet another example of how it is not true.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Bert
No! That would not be honest to say that. Catholics to be Catholic must have faith in not Christ alone but also the Mary of the Catholic Church, the Pope(s), pray the Rosary, use sacraments, have not just the Bible (God's Word) but CATHOLIC Tradition and let's not forget the Mass, dead saints and purgatory etc. etc.. And let's not forget worship the same god as a murderous thieving demon possessed pedophile CCC 841.

My point was that if Jesus meant people to take His comments about His Body and Blood to be taken symbolically, why would He allow so many of His followers to lose their salvation over a simple misunderstanding? I know that many will be called and few chosen but if you are correct, then these people simply misunderstood what Jesus was saying. You would think that Jesus would have taken the time to explain to them what He meant or at least to explain to the Apostles what He meant and have them explain to the others. Instead, He turned to the Apostles and asked them is they would like to leave as well.

Lurker,

You are combining two things and calling them one. The words you use are pretty much the exact same words I or any other Catholic would use to describe our ideal relationship with Jesus. The Eucharist is a separate issue. An extremely important issue, but it is, nonetheless, separate. You are entitled to your opinion but I simply cannot see how you can get anything out of these passages other than the fact that Jesus gave us His Body and Blood to eat (My Body is food indeed and my Blood is drink). That is what Jesus said.

John Yurich,

It is very commendable that you ask Jesus to cleanse you of any sins you may have committed during the day. If I may, I would like to share a prayer I came across written by a poor Clare nun:

Eternal Father, I offer Thee the Sacred Heart of Jesus, with all its Love, all its sufferings and all its merits.

First - To expiate all the sins I have committed this day and during all my life. Glory be to the Father and to the Son…!

Second - To purify the good I have done badly this day and during all my life. Glory be to the Father and to the Son…!

I remember a few years ago reading an article explaining the circumstances surrounding these passages. According to the article, there were 5000 to 6000 Christians in the world at the time Jesus made these comments. As a result of these statements between 2000 and 3000 ceased following Jesus. Now think about this, Wayne: Why would Jesus endure the loss of 50% of His congregation - and their salvation - over a simple misunderstanding? If you are correct, that’s all it would have been. Instead of correcting all these people, though, Jesus turned to His Apostles and said “Do you also want to leave?”. Why would He do that if He meant that the part about eating His Body and drinking His Blood was meant figuratively? Honestly, Wayne, that simply doesn’t make any sense.

The complete verse 51 says “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."” The bread that I will give is my flesh. Again, that sounds pretty straightforward to me. 1 Cor 11:27 “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” doesn’t sound very figurative to me either. Why would Paul say that if Jesus meant it figuratively?

My comment was not intended as a summation of your posts but a generalization of all of the posts on a particular passage – especially Matt 16:18. Everyone simply puts forth their own interpretation and that is the end of the discussion. So, instead of beating a dead horse, I figured it would be better to move on to other verses.

Peter and all of the Popes are not the head of Christ’s Body – Jesus is. The pope is the earthly leader of Christ’s Body. That is what I believe Jesus was saying in Matt 16:18.

Wayne,

Just telling someone that they are wrong is hardly progress.

Grasping at straws? Peter and Paul were members of the same Church. Of that there is no doubt (see Acts, etc). Beware that your hatred for the Catholic Church does not blind you to the Truth.

Wayne,

Yes, I have read Hebrews. The Sacrifice being offered is the Sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary. After God transforms the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus, that Body and Blood are offered up as the Sacrifice they were intended to be and directed to do by Jesus.

Michael,

Michael Hranek wrote:
DisplacedMaritimer
What an insult to Peter and Paul.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Or have you conviently forgotten Peter was married, didn't live in luxury in a Palace, didn't permit let alone have people bow down to him.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Paul was beaten how many times for preaching the gospel and wasn't a molester of altar boys.

Michael Hranek wrote:
IMHO Peter would have been scandalized if anyone had attempted to call him, "Holy Father" and won't have stood for it. And won't have called Allah more than the false god of a demon possessed pedophile.

I haven't abandoned Matt 16:18 as proof that Peter is the first Pope. I am just acknowledging the fact that we are making no progress on it at all. Therefore, I thought it would make sense to temproarily ignore Matt 16:18 and try to prove Peter's Papacy using different passages from Scripture.