In case anyone wasn't sure, the Pope isn't on Team Jesus
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (82)
sorted by:
“The Catholic Church is anti Christ?”
“Always has been”
Always had been? Do you realize Peter was the first leader of this church?
Nope, Peter was never part of any organization called the Roman Catholic Church.
Peter never claimed to be the infallible vicar of Christ.
Peter never taught transubstantiation.
Peter never taught that Mary was sinless or a perpetual virgin.
Peter never taught that you can buy forgiveness of sins (indulgences).
Peter never taught celibacy for priests.
Peter never taught that there even was a class of priests separate from the layman (see Hebrews for how all believers are priests, and that Christ is our high priests. You have no need for some earthly priests to intercede for you.)
Peter never taught that there was a purgatory, much less that you could pray someone out of it into heaven.
The Roman Catholic Church was founded in the 4th century, almost immediately began teaching these and other heresies, and retroactively claimed Peter was one of them to justify their error.
The RCC does not follow Christ or the Bible, but their own traditions, most of which directly contradicts Jesus and His Word.
Also it's interesting that Paul, in Romans chapter 16, as he is thanking about 28 saints of the Church in Rome NEVER mentions Peter. If Peter had been the "Pastor" of the Roman church one would think that Paul would have mentioned Peter - but he does not.
In addition, we see Peter preaching the 1st salvation on the day of Pentecost. The message was recorded in Acts 2:38 - "Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall received the gift of the Holy Spirit". Does the RCC church teach this today, as God's plan of salvation? NO! BTW I was a RC for the 1st 31 years of my life - I'm 71 now!
transubstantiation was certainly taught by the words of Christ. Of course there are a million ways to interpret the words of Christ.
In his letters, Ignatius refers to Peter and Paul as his spiritual fathers and expresses deep reverence and respect for them. He was mentored by them! Ignatius repeatedly spoke of transubstantiation. Again, maybe modern day scholars knew better than him and the early church. But could be the same with the Jehovahs Witnesses or Mormons, just modern people coming up with new ideas.
4th century is when the church canonized the 27 books of the New Testament. If the church had canonized the Cat in The Hat in the 4th, modern day scholars would not question its inclusion any more than the other 27 books the church decided to include.
Those books are considered holy scripture because Bishop Athanasius sent the Easter Letter" to some churches around 367 AD,l.
Also 4th century was when the concept of the trinity was formalized.
4th Century was when the church convened to refute the 325 AD, the Council of Nicaea met to address the Arian heresy. This belief rejected the divinity of Christ.
4th century, beliefs of Trinity, Divinity of Christ, Atonement, And Original Sin were formalized. Not sure which of these you disagree with. Overall, I'd say the 4th century was a positive time for the church.
If there truly were a million ways to correctly interpret the Scriptures, then they could be twisted to mean so many different things that they don't actually say anything useful at all, and there would have been no point in God inspiring them in the first place.
Christ did call the bread His body and the wine His blood in the Last Supper. However, since His physical body was in the room with the disciples, and there is not the slightest indication that the disciples literally ate Christ, then the simplest explanation is that Christ was speaking metaphorically, not literally. Given His disposition towards parables, Jesus was not above using metaphor.
Furthermore, both Paul and the author of Hebrews speak of Christ offering His body once for all. See Romans 6:10 and Hebrews 10:10. Yet the doctrine of transubstantiation has Christ's body being offered over and over again, a direct contradiction. In Paul's letters to the Corinthians, Paul instructs them regarding communion as a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice, not as sacrificing Christ again.
Ignatius, or any other historical figure, can have whatever opinion of scripture they want, and claim whatever apostolic lineage they want. That does not render them immune to error, and if their ideas are incongruent with scripture, then the former must be discarded.The same goes for newer groups like the Mormons or JW's.
Some of the administrative structure of the RCC dates back to 200 AD, but all of its distinctly heretical doctrines date from 400 AD or later. Indulgences, Purgatory, praying to saints, the adoption of pagan holidays, the insistence on Mary's perpetual virginity, etc.
Lastly, the doctrines of the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, and Atonement were not formalized in the 4th century; they plainly and clearly exist in scripture from the beginning. The irrational need for an external organization to confirm what the Bible says is the whole problem with the RCC in the first place, as they have abused their power to teach traditions of men instead of the Word of God.