Helen replied:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, you asked why I linked the Christmas Star article. It was to show you that the choice of Dec. 25 was probably not a date taken in an attempt to transform a pagan ritual, but rather it was originally a far more special date, and that the visit of the magoi might be the reason we use that date.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, I agree that it was not something that was done deliberately to off-set a pagan celebration but only that there are several theories that attempt to explain why it was so. I am sensitive to the charge that "Catholicism is pagan," with others using the 25 December coincidence as an example.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The second reason I linked it is because the author is my husband and I am very proud of him!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hah! An ulterior motive huh? Well, I don't blame you here!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But yes, I do think the Catholic church is 'encumbered with paganistic elements' to quote your choice of words. I just don't think the date of Dec. 25 for Christmas happens to be one of them, despite popular belief to the contrary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with your last sentence, of course…
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But here are some to think about:
1. At the Last Supper, Jesus broke the bread. The disciples ate pieces of broken bread, which was symbolizing the death of Jesus which would occur the next day. The Roman Catholic church, however, for centuries used perfectly round wafers. These were taken directly from sun god worship and represented the disc of the sun, having nothing to do with the broken bread of the Last Supper. This is thoroughly documented by J Gardner Wilkinson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh my goodness! Please don't get hooked on that nonsense, Helen! The Byzantine Rite, which is as "Catholic" as can be (being "in union with Rome") uses tiny pieces of bread in a pellet form. The Roman/Latin/Western Rite (The Roman Catholic Church), as well as some of the other Rites, uses the host in round wafer form because it is easier to pack in a ciborium, are less subject to fracturing off into fragments, and "round" is a common geometrical form, like the wheels on my car!
Also, I get the feeling you read this from a Jack Chick tract, as I recall reading something like that in one of them. I did say something about this in a response I did to a Jack Chick tract about a year ago! Here is a link to that tract:
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/w/p/wputnam3/Chick%20Tract.htm
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Lent: "* It was called Pasch, or the Passover, and though not of Apostolic institution, * was very early observed by many professing Christians, in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Christ. That festival agreed originally with the time of the Jewish Passover, when Christ was crucified, a period which, in the days of Tertullian, at the end of the second century, was believed to have been the 23rd of March. *
That festival was not idolatrous, and it was preceded by no Lent. "It ought to be known," said Cassianus, the monk of Marseilles, writing in the fifth century, and contrasting the primitive Church with the Church in his day, "that the observance of the forty days had no existence so long as the perfection of that primitive
Church remained inviolate." * Whence, then, came this observance? The forty days' abstinence of Lent was directly borrowed from the worshippers of the Babylonian goddess. Such a Lent of forty days, "in the spring of the year," is still observed by the Yezidis or Pagan Devil-worshippers of Koordistan, * who have
inherited it from their early masters, the Babylonians. Such a Lent of forty days was held in spring by the Pagan Mexicans, for thus we read in Humboldt, * where he gives account of Mexican observances: "Three days after the vernal equinox.... began a solemn fast of forty days in honour of the sun." Such a Lent of forty days was observed in Egypt, as may be seen on consulting Wilkinson's Egyptians. * This Egyptian Lent of forty days, we are informed by Landseer, in his Sabean Researches, was held expressly in commemoration of Adonis or Osiris, the great mediatorial god. *" (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/2bab015.htm)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, I don't think that any traditional observance by Catholics could escape any attempt by others who wanted to plant the charge of "paganism" on the Church. Who today sees any pagan origin on Lent in this day and age? It became traditional that 40 days of some sort of reflection, penance, "getting back to the basics" of the Faith, etc., and a good thing too, don't you think? It's sort of like a "40 day of revival" if you will, appropriate in preparation for the celebration of the glorious resurrection of Our Lord. In fact, we Catholics are now observing season of Advent, which is sort of a "mini-Lent" in preparation for the observance of the Birth of the Savior on the 25th! Does it have a "pagan past"? I have no idea, but it amazes me how others, seemingly with an attempt to discredit the Catholic Church, go to extremes to show "pagan origins" in this or that.
I have even heard the charge that St. Peter's Basilica in Rome located on the ancient Vatican Hill is built upon a site that was rampant with pagan atrocities and ceremonies! And my answer is: So what? Who remembers Vatican Hill for anything other then the place where Peter was buried, and over whose tomb that great church was built?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3 Mary as the wife of any 'part' of God. Read the following from the Orphic Hymns, and see if you can't see where the Roman Catholic Mary comes from:
royal Juno, of majestic mien,
Aerial formed, divine, Jove's blessed Queen,
Throned in the bosom of caerulean air,
The race of mortals is thy constant care… <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, Helen, but I see nothing of the kind here, not at all!
Where do you get this stuff anyway? It kinda reminds me of another story often told concerning the finding of baby bones under the dirt floors of ancient Catholic convents in England, or the finding of "secret passages" that connected convents with monasteries. The rash assumption made? That the dead babies were the aborted infants of nuns who have had affairs with priests! And that the "secret passages" were there so that their little trysts could be consummated! What is the truth? Well, not only were the skeletons of infants found in those ancient convent basements, but adults skeletons as well. And in addition, the same thing was found, I understand, under the dirt basement floors of ancient other governmental buildings as well. Why? Because during the great plagues, governmental office buildings and convents were conscripted for use as hospitals, and there were many patients who died on their pallets… and buried immediately under the very place they died! Oh, about those those "secret passageways" - it seems that during the great persecutions of the Catholic Faith in England, they were escape routes for the clergy to escape detection and imprisonment!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The list of pagan symbols and rites in the Roman Catholic church is enormous and extraordinarily well-documented for several hundred years by those who have studied the classical literature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And we burn incense, light candles, and use water for baptism, all traceable to pagan use as well! So what, Helen? What was once pagan is not blessed as an authentic Christian rite! And no where in Rome could St. Peter's basilica have been built that would not, in one way or another, infringe on some ancient pagan usage! The whole idea is bogus, non sequitur on anything other then to attempt to discredit the Catholic Church in any manner possible.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Regarding your conversion to Catholicism, you said you had a 'similar feeling' regarding what I described as being born again. But I was not talking about feelings, Bill. I was talking about the change in me as a person. My feelings can run the scale at any given time, but the absolute change God has made in my life since He gave me that new life have nothing to do with my feelings, but with changes taking place in the very core of my being. This is quite different from an emotional experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First, I think feelings are important, but they prove nothing, actually. They are important to me for my own benefit. But my conversion did make a marked change in my life, my relationship with God, and certainly my relationship with Jesus and His gospel. Now, I was not the "perfect Christian" by any means, and I still fall short of the glory of God in that respect, but it was indeed, a marked change in the course of my life. Has it made a deep change in my life? Looking back, I can see the progress, but the journey is not over by any means.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You asked if my 'new heart' can be soiled. I don't know. I really don't. I do know that I am completely covered by Christ and that, when He is finished maturing me, my heart will be pure then. But can further sin 'return us to a state even worse than before?" No, absolutely not. Jesus said He has not lost one, and I'm not scheduled to be the first! When I wander, He comes looking for me and hauls me back in. And sometimes there is discipline (Hebrews 12), but never am I not His. His Holy Spirit indwells me and as I grow in Him, God is fulfilling His purpose for me (Philippians 1:6.). God is utterly faithful, and I am utterly His.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, I will never criticize you for feeling that way, and all I can say is, praise God for it! We Catholics have no exclusive claim on what ever graces, God my shower upon you in your "road to Emmanus." But I know I can fail in my faith, and I am tempted always to do so. And always, I feel secure in the knowledge that my sins are forgiven ever time I leave the confessional. So are you a better Christian then I? I must assume so, for every Christian I meet, Catholic or Protestant, as to assume otherwise is to set me up for pride and a fall.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Getting back to the Rock - God very clearly said He is the ONLY one and knows of no other. God is the same eternally - past, present, and future. Therefore that will not change. The name given to Peter is the SAME NAME given to each of us, as Peter himself referred to us ALSO as 'living stones.' That 'also' is very important. Peter KNEW what Jesus meant. It is the Roman Catholic church that has twisted that into a form of paganism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So far as I can tell, Simon was the only one Jesus made a name change, and Rock was that name. I do not consider myself a rock at all but rather poor mush that must always be on guard to sin and the temptation to sin. God is THE ROCK, Christ is THE ROCK, and Peter is THE ROCK in perfect usage of metaphor for just about any worth superlative you wish to use for what the metaphor ROCK represents. Christ, THE ROCK, changed Simon's name to ROCK and declared He would build His church upon that ROCK. Which rock? Peter, of course, a ROCK, and the ROCK He will build His church upon. Those two words, within the same sentence, makes it plain which ROCK Christ is building His church upon. Christ is a ROCK, but is not the rock He is speaking of here. God is a ROCK, but again, not the same rock Jesus speaks of, all given in Matthew 16:18.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said "Matthew simply had to conform to those grammar rules and write 'You are Petros, and upon this petra will I build my church." There are NO Greek grammar rules concerning the use of these words in this way! If Matthew had meant that Jesus had said that Simon was the same rock upon which the church was to be built, then the same word would have been used. There is not a Greek grammar rule that has ever been in existence which would require otherwise. The two words were used by Matthew for the distinct reason of separating the name Christ gave to Simon and the rock upon which the church would be built. Simon Peter HIMSELF delineates upon the concept of us ALL being rocks in his first epistle. Nowhere in the Bible is Peter shown to have primary authority among the Apostles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, again, I am no Greek language scholar, let alone the proper grammatical rules, but as I understand it, it would be improper grammar to say "…you are Petros and upon this petros I will build my church." And neither could he have said, "…you are Petras and upon this petras (giving Peter a feminine name) I will build my church." All I can say is, get the book I recommended! It explains it better then I ever could, and besides, quoting too much of it violates copyright. (But I can quote some of it if you wish.) And by the way, Protestant scholars are quoted in the book that concedes the point of exactly who Christ was building His church upon - Peter and Peter only.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As far as the 'keys' goes, ONLY God has the power to open or shut heaven for people, as ONLY God is the judge. That is the context of the entire Bible! Given that primary doctrine, it is impossible that Simon Peter or any other human being was given God's authority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you going to deny that God can delegate power to others, Helen? What are the "keys of the kingdom" of not a metaphoric symbol of authority as shown in Isaiah 22:22? How is it that God also delegates authority in John 20:21-23 as well? If you say only God has this power, how is it that He delegates that power? Answer that question and you will be fine, Helen!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As far as the canonization of Scriptures is concerned - that was simply a validation of the Scriptures that had been in use from the beginning, over and against those spurious bits and pieces that kept cropping up. The Bible did not come from the Catholic church. It came from God through the chosen writers. It is HIS Word, and He has always been in charge of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On the contrary, there was concern and confusion of what constituted the canon of at least the New Testament (since the Septuagint documented already, the contents of the Old Testament, including the deuterocanonicals.) I don't what I said in my last reply to you, but I think I did mention the Didache, didn't I? Some local churches considered it divinely inspired scripture, Helen. Or how about the Gospel of Thomas? Some local churches it included as well, and on the other hand, some churches looked with great suspicion, the books of Revelation, Romans and, I think, Hebrews. So there was no consensus on the New Testament. So it was a lot more then simple validation, Helen, there was determination as to which writings are to be included and which one were not. This was done starting in about the 3rd century with the councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome and the process started that has determined the canon of scripture as we have it to this very day (at least the New Testament part.) The last action was the Council of Trent, where merely ratified the decrees of the earlier councils.
That concluded the confusion and any controversy concerning the canon…until Luther challenged it and decided to throw out the Septuagint (LXX) deuterocanonicals. And by the way, he also wanted to through out one or two of the present New Testament books as well but apparently, was persuaded not to do so.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The church is invisible, because it is spiritual. As Jesus told the woman at the well, the time will come and has come when true believers will worship in spirit and in truth. This was over and against her question about a physical place of worship. Paul said we are a body. And we are. I have traveled a reasonable amount in my life and no matter where I am, or what language the people speak, Christians know each other. Spirit recognizes Spirit and I can't put it any other way. It doesn't matter which Christian church they worship in - it matters that they are born again in Christ and know our Lord as their Head. We are each directly accountable to Him and obedient to Him. Among those who are born again there is the most remarkable sense of recognition. And I have no other way to explain it. We are an invisible church in that sense. It is the visible people who carry the Gospel to the world as Christ has directed us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, an "invisible" church cannot spread the gospel and "make disciples of all nations…" per Matthew 28:19. It must be visible, with leadership and an organization. No other church can come close to the successes of the Catholic Church's missionary efforts that spread from the New World to the Far East. That took a visible church, Helen.
But a visible can also be spiritual as well, don't you think, Helen? You speak that "Christians know each other." Boy, is that true, especially when you see the familiarity of the Mass in some foreign church, who have at least the same liturgy, even if it is spoken in the vernacular. And the rest of your statements is just as applicable to the Catholic Church family of Christians as you may claim for your community. So if you do not see me minimizing that in your community, please do not minimize it in mine.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is the contention of the Roman Catholic church that they are the visible church Christ created on this earth. If so, then Christ has failed miserably, for no other religious organization has, through history, been responsible for so much slaughter, immorality, and agony as that which has been done by the Roman Catholic church. From the rampant immorality of so many popes and bishops and other clergy through time to the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the slaughter of groups who did not agree with them, and cultures who did not agree with them - I cannot think of any one organization in the entire world's history which has been responsible for as much bloodshed, violence, and immorality as the Roman Catholic church. There is NO WAY that this is the church of the Jesus Christ of the Bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh balderdash nonsense, Helen! Get off of Jack Chick and search for the truth!
Certainly the Catholic Church has it's "skeletons in the closet" as any human organization has, but look at the claims, for example, of persons executed in the Inquisitions. The numbers are inflated into the millions! If fact, I saw one claim that if it were true, would decimate the population of all of Europe, and be far greater the even the worse of the great plagues that infested Europe.
How many truly immoral and wicked popes have we seen, Helen? I count about six. Now, subtract that number from all of the popes of history. Then please note the hundreds of good and holy men you find there. Now, I do not know what community of Christians you belong two but there is one community that comes to my mind that I could almost use up my fingers and counting the scoundrels they have produced. But instead of concentrating on them, I concentrate on all of the good pastors this community has had. I pray for the souls of those who have fallen by the wayside. And sure, we have then too, Helen, so please join me and pray for them as well. But speaking of Inquisitions, please don't look too closely as you might just find some embarrassing history, for which I will give you a hint:
Look into why the first English Bible of any importance was written by exiled Catholic priests in France, in the city of Douay and the city of Rheims. (The Douay-Rheims bible came out about two years before the 1611 Authorized Version, King James Bible.) Why did they have to do this in France anyway?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You wrote: Documentation please, Helen. Christ being the "chief cornerstone" is not the same "stone" as applied to Simon now renamed Peter (ROCK) in Matthew 16:18!
That is exactly my point, Bill. Peter was not what the church was built on. Christ was and is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(Sigh!) Helen, let me repeat this veeeeeeeery sloooooooooly for you so that you can understand as best I can make it.
When Jesus spoke the words kepha, ROCK, Petros (take your pick) who was He addressing? Why Simon, now instantly remaned Kepha, ROCK, petra (again, take your pick). Therefore, when Christ said "…upon this ROCK I will build my church, IT IS YOUR STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION THAT CHRIST IS SPEAKING OF ANOTHER CONTEXT, IN ANOTHER BOOK IN THE NT, WHEN HE IS REFERRED TO AS THE CORNERSTONE!!! What other "rock" is Jesus speaking of that just happens to be seen in that very same sentence? Carefully move your eyes onto the first occurrence of the word "ROCK" (Kepha, Petros, Peter, take your pick.) Take that sentence to any English teacher and have him or her explain what "rock" Jesus is talking about. There can only be one "rock" that it can be referenced to and that is the first occurrence in the sentence!
Now, Bill Putnam, take a break and fix yourself a cup of Navy coffee………
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You asked for documentation regarding the keys being a matter of opening heaven to people's understanding rather than a carte blanche to judge people worthy or unworthy of heaven. The documentation is the entire Bible. Only God can judge. And what you see Peter doing from the first is explaining about Jesus to people, and it is through Jesus and Jesus only that heaven can be gained. Peter indeed used his 'keys' to open heaven to people. But heaven is still a matter of Jesus and the individual, and Peter has no place as any kind of 'doorkeeper.' Christ said HE is the gate for the sheep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My only reply is Isaiah 22:22 which shows the best context of what the "key" metaphor is used for in Jewish history - authority. Yet you are going to say that the "entire bible" somehow explains it when I see absolutely nothing in scriptures that comes anywhere close to explaining what the "keys" are except for the Isaiah quote, and you said nothing about it from my last message (I think I spoke of it in my last message - getting old and forgetful…) Helen, do not be fearful of this word:
AUTHORITY!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said that Peter was the only one who had the fortitude to go to where the trial was being held. No, he wasn't. In John 18, John quotes exactly what he heard and tells what he saw. You have your choice of that or that he was making it up or taking it as hearsay!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, I really don't know if Peter went alone to where the trial was being held. All we have is Peter being mentioned as being there. And because John records the event does not prove that John was there to hear it! It could be just as well that John records the events as Peter tells him, in his own shame and confession to the others, what happened then.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You will read that, at the time of Jesus' arrest, "Then all the disciples deserted him and fled." (Matthew 26:56). ALL. Not 'except Peter.'
ALL<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
John as well? And you just got through telling me he wrote what he heard! I am sure Peter fled as well, but apparently came back, walking at least some distance away to see what was happening. He is the only one recorded doing that, and apparently alone at that.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then Matthew, at least, and John, as well as Peter, must have followed at a distance and then gone into the courtyard. We know Peter was there, but both John and Matthew give eyewitness accounts of what happened. And it was only Peter who denied Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Speculation, Helen. First, we know they all fled.
Then we see recorded by John (whether he was there or not) record the actions of Peter an no one else in the college of the apostles. (And somewhere, Judas hanged himself, of course.)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Were the others more cowardly than Peter? John was at the foot of the cross with Mary. That is cowardly? Peter was evidently back in the crowd with the others. But John was identifying himself with Jesus, and thus risking execution, too. Matthew talked to the soldiers and got their story. Was that cowardly? He could have been arrested for being a known follower and there he was, interviewing soldiers who were at the tomb!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good for John but was he the "blessed disciple" to whom Jesus said "Behold, your mother"? (John 19:27)
And Helen, I am quite sure that any danger of arrest was much abated when Christ died on the cross. Where were the rest of them? We are not sure, and the writings of the others does not necessarily pin-point where each individual apostle was. I can only presume that Peter was in solitude, weeping for the cowardly denial he had done.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Inasmuch as they were cowards, they were all cowards together. I don't see that Peter was particularly brave. Rash, yes. But don't confuse that with bravery. And that rashness was the reason Peter was constantly being rebuked by Jesus. Peter had a chronic case of 'foot in mouth' syndrome!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not deny that cowardly instincts took over all of them, but I find it strange to see Peter seemingly place himself in the greatest danger, not to mention his attempted defense of Jesus when He was taken into custody.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said: Peter's denial is profound, but his brothers sins are even worse!
And I would ask you "Who made you judge?" And upon what standard are you judging? That Jesus did not have to correct and rebuke the others as much as He did Peter? This made their sins greater? I have a very hard time with that!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gee whiz, Helen, I am not judging, just surmising what happened in scripture. Heavens to Betsy, you Protestants do this all the time! So does it surprise you so much when a Catholic indulges in it as well?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And, if Peter was to be the strong one, why was Mary not given into HIS care? Perhaps it was because Peter was too afraid to get near the cross???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here I go, surmising again! I suspect it is for two reasons:
1. The "beloved disciple" was the one Jesus loved the most, so it is natural for Him to place His mother into his care.
2. Jesus know that Peter had a far greater mission as the chief of His own apostles, knowing full well that his own life would be taken in martyrdom - in Rome - Upside down on the same type of cross, but since he is reportedly to have said, "I am not worthy to be put the death in the same manner as my Lord," and thus the Roman soldiers accommodated him; the cross was placed into the ground top side down, and Peter was thus nailed to it upside down.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said that Paul's confrontation of Peter showed Peter's primacy! That is an impossible leap, Bill. Are you telling me that if Peter were not a leader that Paul would not have confronted him publicly? And, as far as Paul referring to Peter as Cephas - that just shows that Matthew could have done the same except for the fact that Matthew had a strong point to make.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, suppose Paul was to confront any of the other apostles (not Peter) with the same admonishment? What purpose would it have served to be inscripturated? That Paul confronts Peter "to his face" has a far greater significance since Peter is Peter, the Rock, the "Chief of the Apostles!"
What news would it have made if a certain nun were to confront a bishop (or her superior) with the admonishment that there should be a female priesthood? Zilch, nothing, nada, but a did indeed, confront John Paul II with that exact admonishment! T'was splattered across the entire printed media world! St. Catherine of Sienna confronted the reigning pope of her time to have him return to Rome, from where he presently resided - Avignon, France.
But to get back to Paul, I am sure it took courage for him to admonish Peter, but he saw a weakness in Peter that needed to be corrected. Peter may be the first pope , but Peter is still a fallible man in ordinary things, and suddenly refusing to eat with the gentiles when it was now OK for Christians, in the company of Christian Jews, (as I understand the issue) was a weakness that Paul had to call his attention to. And because it was Peter, and not any of the others, it is recorded.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You mentioned the title of the pope as "vicar of Christ." 'Vicar' is the root of 'vicarious', meaning 'in place of.' That is pure blasphemy. It is the Holy Spirit who represents Christ on earth in the hearts of Christians. There is no human authority representing God. That, too, is directly from paganism - such as the 'god-kings' of Egypt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is it "blasphemy" when the "chief shepherd," that being Christ, entrusts another to "feed His sheep" per John 21:15-17? When Christ ascended to the Father in heaven, he left Peter in charge! He is the head of the inner core of the early church, the "first clergy" and hierarchy of the church that would continue Christ's mission. And it is as paganistic as I am Chinese! Peter is neither a god or a king and neither his successors.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And don't call me a liar about reading the book you recommend. Yes, you could lie to me about reading the Bible cover to cover. Would you? It appears as though, like every Catholic I have ever asked to read the Bible cover to cover, by itself, no commentaries and no apocrypha, you refuse. That is very strange to me as a Christian, for the Bible is the food for the spirit in a man. Reading bits and pieces as dictated by some authority or guide along with their 'explanation' is taking away from the impact of the purity of God's Word. Why are you afraid of that? Don't you think God had a purpose in having the Bible put together as He did?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where did I call you a liar, Helen? Gee, this message started off so nicely, and look at the tone of it here!
Did I get under your skin that bad, Helen? Let me tell you this: I have never read the bible from cover to cover, and I probably never will!
Did you get that loud and clear, Helen?
You see, I see little value is read the bible that way! What I do read is what is important (on a given issue at hand at the time) to read and understand. I tell you what, Helen; you read your bible your way and I will read mine my way, OK?
We can compare notes later…
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep
and watch over those
you have gathered.
Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,
your Son.
You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, you asked why I linked the Christmas Star article. It was to show you that the choice of Dec. 25 was probably not a date taken in an attempt to transform a pagan ritual, but rather it was originally a far more special date, and that the visit of the magoi might be the reason we use that date.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, I agree that it was not something that was done deliberately to off-set a pagan celebration but only that there are several theories that attempt to explain why it was so. I am sensitive to the charge that "Catholicism is pagan," with others using the 25 December coincidence as an example.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The second reason I linked it is because the author is my husband and I am very proud of him!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hah! An ulterior motive huh? Well, I don't blame you here!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But yes, I do think the Catholic church is 'encumbered with paganistic elements' to quote your choice of words. I just don't think the date of Dec. 25 for Christmas happens to be one of them, despite popular belief to the contrary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with your last sentence, of course…
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But here are some to think about:
1. At the Last Supper, Jesus broke the bread. The disciples ate pieces of broken bread, which was symbolizing the death of Jesus which would occur the next day. The Roman Catholic church, however, for centuries used perfectly round wafers. These were taken directly from sun god worship and represented the disc of the sun, having nothing to do with the broken bread of the Last Supper. This is thoroughly documented by J Gardner Wilkinson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh my goodness! Please don't get hooked on that nonsense, Helen! The Byzantine Rite, which is as "Catholic" as can be (being "in union with Rome") uses tiny pieces of bread in a pellet form. The Roman/Latin/Western Rite (The Roman Catholic Church), as well as some of the other Rites, uses the host in round wafer form because it is easier to pack in a ciborium, are less subject to fracturing off into fragments, and "round" is a common geometrical form, like the wheels on my car!
Also, I get the feeling you read this from a Jack Chick tract, as I recall reading something like that in one of them. I did say something about this in a response I did to a Jack Chick tract about a year ago! Here is a link to that tract:
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/w/p/wputnam3/Chick%20Tract.htm
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Lent: "* It was called Pasch, or the Passover, and though not of Apostolic institution, * was very early observed by many professing Christians, in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Christ. That festival agreed originally with the time of the Jewish Passover, when Christ was crucified, a period which, in the days of Tertullian, at the end of the second century, was believed to have been the 23rd of March. *
That festival was not idolatrous, and it was preceded by no Lent. "It ought to be known," said Cassianus, the monk of Marseilles, writing in the fifth century, and contrasting the primitive Church with the Church in his day, "that the observance of the forty days had no existence so long as the perfection of that primitive
Church remained inviolate." * Whence, then, came this observance? The forty days' abstinence of Lent was directly borrowed from the worshippers of the Babylonian goddess. Such a Lent of forty days, "in the spring of the year," is still observed by the Yezidis or Pagan Devil-worshippers of Koordistan, * who have
inherited it from their early masters, the Babylonians. Such a Lent of forty days was held in spring by the Pagan Mexicans, for thus we read in Humboldt, * where he gives account of Mexican observances: "Three days after the vernal equinox.... began a solemn fast of forty days in honour of the sun." Such a Lent of forty days was observed in Egypt, as may be seen on consulting Wilkinson's Egyptians. * This Egyptian Lent of forty days, we are informed by Landseer, in his Sabean Researches, was held expressly in commemoration of Adonis or Osiris, the great mediatorial god. *" (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/2bab015.htm)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, I don't think that any traditional observance by Catholics could escape any attempt by others who wanted to plant the charge of "paganism" on the Church. Who today sees any pagan origin on Lent in this day and age? It became traditional that 40 days of some sort of reflection, penance, "getting back to the basics" of the Faith, etc., and a good thing too, don't you think? It's sort of like a "40 day of revival" if you will, appropriate in preparation for the celebration of the glorious resurrection of Our Lord. In fact, we Catholics are now observing season of Advent, which is sort of a "mini-Lent" in preparation for the observance of the Birth of the Savior on the 25th! Does it have a "pagan past"? I have no idea, but it amazes me how others, seemingly with an attempt to discredit the Catholic Church, go to extremes to show "pagan origins" in this or that.
I have even heard the charge that St. Peter's Basilica in Rome located on the ancient Vatican Hill is built upon a site that was rampant with pagan atrocities and ceremonies! And my answer is: So what? Who remembers Vatican Hill for anything other then the place where Peter was buried, and over whose tomb that great church was built?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3 Mary as the wife of any 'part' of God. Read the following from the Orphic Hymns, and see if you can't see where the Roman Catholic Mary comes from:
royal Juno, of majestic mien,
Aerial formed, divine, Jove's blessed Queen,
Throned in the bosom of caerulean air,
The race of mortals is thy constant care… <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, Helen, but I see nothing of the kind here, not at all!
Where do you get this stuff anyway? It kinda reminds me of another story often told concerning the finding of baby bones under the dirt floors of ancient Catholic convents in England, or the finding of "secret passages" that connected convents with monasteries. The rash assumption made? That the dead babies were the aborted infants of nuns who have had affairs with priests! And that the "secret passages" were there so that their little trysts could be consummated! What is the truth? Well, not only were the skeletons of infants found in those ancient convent basements, but adults skeletons as well. And in addition, the same thing was found, I understand, under the dirt basement floors of ancient other governmental buildings as well. Why? Because during the great plagues, governmental office buildings and convents were conscripted for use as hospitals, and there were many patients who died on their pallets… and buried immediately under the very place they died! Oh, about those those "secret passageways" - it seems that during the great persecutions of the Catholic Faith in England, they were escape routes for the clergy to escape detection and imprisonment!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The list of pagan symbols and rites in the Roman Catholic church is enormous and extraordinarily well-documented for several hundred years by those who have studied the classical literature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And we burn incense, light candles, and use water for baptism, all traceable to pagan use as well! So what, Helen? What was once pagan is not blessed as an authentic Christian rite! And no where in Rome could St. Peter's basilica have been built that would not, in one way or another, infringe on some ancient pagan usage! The whole idea is bogus, non sequitur on anything other then to attempt to discredit the Catholic Church in any manner possible.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Regarding your conversion to Catholicism, you said you had a 'similar feeling' regarding what I described as being born again. But I was not talking about feelings, Bill. I was talking about the change in me as a person. My feelings can run the scale at any given time, but the absolute change God has made in my life since He gave me that new life have nothing to do with my feelings, but with changes taking place in the very core of my being. This is quite different from an emotional experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First, I think feelings are important, but they prove nothing, actually. They are important to me for my own benefit. But my conversion did make a marked change in my life, my relationship with God, and certainly my relationship with Jesus and His gospel. Now, I was not the "perfect Christian" by any means, and I still fall short of the glory of God in that respect, but it was indeed, a marked change in the course of my life. Has it made a deep change in my life? Looking back, I can see the progress, but the journey is not over by any means.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You asked if my 'new heart' can be soiled. I don't know. I really don't. I do know that I am completely covered by Christ and that, when He is finished maturing me, my heart will be pure then. But can further sin 'return us to a state even worse than before?" No, absolutely not. Jesus said He has not lost one, and I'm not scheduled to be the first! When I wander, He comes looking for me and hauls me back in. And sometimes there is discipline (Hebrews 12), but never am I not His. His Holy Spirit indwells me and as I grow in Him, God is fulfilling His purpose for me (Philippians 1:6.). God is utterly faithful, and I am utterly His.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, I will never criticize you for feeling that way, and all I can say is, praise God for it! We Catholics have no exclusive claim on what ever graces, God my shower upon you in your "road to Emmanus." But I know I can fail in my faith, and I am tempted always to do so. And always, I feel secure in the knowledge that my sins are forgiven ever time I leave the confessional. So are you a better Christian then I? I must assume so, for every Christian I meet, Catholic or Protestant, as to assume otherwise is to set me up for pride and a fall.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Getting back to the Rock - God very clearly said He is the ONLY one and knows of no other. God is the same eternally - past, present, and future. Therefore that will not change. The name given to Peter is the SAME NAME given to each of us, as Peter himself referred to us ALSO as 'living stones.' That 'also' is very important. Peter KNEW what Jesus meant. It is the Roman Catholic church that has twisted that into a form of paganism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So far as I can tell, Simon was the only one Jesus made a name change, and Rock was that name. I do not consider myself a rock at all but rather poor mush that must always be on guard to sin and the temptation to sin. God is THE ROCK, Christ is THE ROCK, and Peter is THE ROCK in perfect usage of metaphor for just about any worth superlative you wish to use for what the metaphor ROCK represents. Christ, THE ROCK, changed Simon's name to ROCK and declared He would build His church upon that ROCK. Which rock? Peter, of course, a ROCK, and the ROCK He will build His church upon. Those two words, within the same sentence, makes it plain which ROCK Christ is building His church upon. Christ is a ROCK, but is not the rock He is speaking of here. God is a ROCK, but again, not the same rock Jesus speaks of, all given in Matthew 16:18.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said "Matthew simply had to conform to those grammar rules and write 'You are Petros, and upon this petra will I build my church." There are NO Greek grammar rules concerning the use of these words in this way! If Matthew had meant that Jesus had said that Simon was the same rock upon which the church was to be built, then the same word would have been used. There is not a Greek grammar rule that has ever been in existence which would require otherwise. The two words were used by Matthew for the distinct reason of separating the name Christ gave to Simon and the rock upon which the church would be built. Simon Peter HIMSELF delineates upon the concept of us ALL being rocks in his first epistle. Nowhere in the Bible is Peter shown to have primary authority among the Apostles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, again, I am no Greek language scholar, let alone the proper grammatical rules, but as I understand it, it would be improper grammar to say "…you are Petros and upon this petros I will build my church." And neither could he have said, "…you are Petras and upon this petras (giving Peter a feminine name) I will build my church." All I can say is, get the book I recommended! It explains it better then I ever could, and besides, quoting too much of it violates copyright. (But I can quote some of it if you wish.) And by the way, Protestant scholars are quoted in the book that concedes the point of exactly who Christ was building His church upon - Peter and Peter only.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As far as the 'keys' goes, ONLY God has the power to open or shut heaven for people, as ONLY God is the judge. That is the context of the entire Bible! Given that primary doctrine, it is impossible that Simon Peter or any other human being was given God's authority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you going to deny that God can delegate power to others, Helen? What are the "keys of the kingdom" of not a metaphoric symbol of authority as shown in Isaiah 22:22? How is it that God also delegates authority in John 20:21-23 as well? If you say only God has this power, how is it that He delegates that power? Answer that question and you will be fine, Helen!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As far as the canonization of Scriptures is concerned - that was simply a validation of the Scriptures that had been in use from the beginning, over and against those spurious bits and pieces that kept cropping up. The Bible did not come from the Catholic church. It came from God through the chosen writers. It is HIS Word, and He has always been in charge of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On the contrary, there was concern and confusion of what constituted the canon of at least the New Testament (since the Septuagint documented already, the contents of the Old Testament, including the deuterocanonicals.) I don't what I said in my last reply to you, but I think I did mention the Didache, didn't I? Some local churches considered it divinely inspired scripture, Helen. Or how about the Gospel of Thomas? Some local churches it included as well, and on the other hand, some churches looked with great suspicion, the books of Revelation, Romans and, I think, Hebrews. So there was no consensus on the New Testament. So it was a lot more then simple validation, Helen, there was determination as to which writings are to be included and which one were not. This was done starting in about the 3rd century with the councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome and the process started that has determined the canon of scripture as we have it to this very day (at least the New Testament part.) The last action was the Council of Trent, where merely ratified the decrees of the earlier councils.
That concluded the confusion and any controversy concerning the canon…until Luther challenged it and decided to throw out the Septuagint (LXX) deuterocanonicals. And by the way, he also wanted to through out one or two of the present New Testament books as well but apparently, was persuaded not to do so.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The church is invisible, because it is spiritual. As Jesus told the woman at the well, the time will come and has come when true believers will worship in spirit and in truth. This was over and against her question about a physical place of worship. Paul said we are a body. And we are. I have traveled a reasonable amount in my life and no matter where I am, or what language the people speak, Christians know each other. Spirit recognizes Spirit and I can't put it any other way. It doesn't matter which Christian church they worship in - it matters that they are born again in Christ and know our Lord as their Head. We are each directly accountable to Him and obedient to Him. Among those who are born again there is the most remarkable sense of recognition. And I have no other way to explain it. We are an invisible church in that sense. It is the visible people who carry the Gospel to the world as Christ has directed us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, an "invisible" church cannot spread the gospel and "make disciples of all nations…" per Matthew 28:19. It must be visible, with leadership and an organization. No other church can come close to the successes of the Catholic Church's missionary efforts that spread from the New World to the Far East. That took a visible church, Helen.
But a visible can also be spiritual as well, don't you think, Helen? You speak that "Christians know each other." Boy, is that true, especially when you see the familiarity of the Mass in some foreign church, who have at least the same liturgy, even if it is spoken in the vernacular. And the rest of your statements is just as applicable to the Catholic Church family of Christians as you may claim for your community. So if you do not see me minimizing that in your community, please do not minimize it in mine.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is the contention of the Roman Catholic church that they are the visible church Christ created on this earth. If so, then Christ has failed miserably, for no other religious organization has, through history, been responsible for so much slaughter, immorality, and agony as that which has been done by the Roman Catholic church. From the rampant immorality of so many popes and bishops and other clergy through time to the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the slaughter of groups who did not agree with them, and cultures who did not agree with them - I cannot think of any one organization in the entire world's history which has been responsible for as much bloodshed, violence, and immorality as the Roman Catholic church. There is NO WAY that this is the church of the Jesus Christ of the Bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh balderdash nonsense, Helen! Get off of Jack Chick and search for the truth!
Certainly the Catholic Church has it's "skeletons in the closet" as any human organization has, but look at the claims, for example, of persons executed in the Inquisitions. The numbers are inflated into the millions! If fact, I saw one claim that if it were true, would decimate the population of all of Europe, and be far greater the even the worse of the great plagues that infested Europe.
How many truly immoral and wicked popes have we seen, Helen? I count about six. Now, subtract that number from all of the popes of history. Then please note the hundreds of good and holy men you find there. Now, I do not know what community of Christians you belong two but there is one community that comes to my mind that I could almost use up my fingers and counting the scoundrels they have produced. But instead of concentrating on them, I concentrate on all of the good pastors this community has had. I pray for the souls of those who have fallen by the wayside. And sure, we have then too, Helen, so please join me and pray for them as well. But speaking of Inquisitions, please don't look too closely as you might just find some embarrassing history, for which I will give you a hint:
Look into why the first English Bible of any importance was written by exiled Catholic priests in France, in the city of Douay and the city of Rheims. (The Douay-Rheims bible came out about two years before the 1611 Authorized Version, King James Bible.) Why did they have to do this in France anyway?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You wrote: Documentation please, Helen. Christ being the "chief cornerstone" is not the same "stone" as applied to Simon now renamed Peter (ROCK) in Matthew 16:18!
That is exactly my point, Bill. Peter was not what the church was built on. Christ was and is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(Sigh!) Helen, let me repeat this veeeeeeeery sloooooooooly for you so that you can understand as best I can make it.
When Jesus spoke the words kepha, ROCK, Petros (take your pick) who was He addressing? Why Simon, now instantly remaned Kepha, ROCK, petra (again, take your pick). Therefore, when Christ said "…upon this ROCK I will build my church, IT IS YOUR STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION THAT CHRIST IS SPEAKING OF ANOTHER CONTEXT, IN ANOTHER BOOK IN THE NT, WHEN HE IS REFERRED TO AS THE CORNERSTONE!!! What other "rock" is Jesus speaking of that just happens to be seen in that very same sentence? Carefully move your eyes onto the first occurrence of the word "ROCK" (Kepha, Petros, Peter, take your pick.) Take that sentence to any English teacher and have him or her explain what "rock" Jesus is talking about. There can only be one "rock" that it can be referenced to and that is the first occurrence in the sentence!
Now, Bill Putnam, take a break and fix yourself a cup of Navy coffee………
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You asked for documentation regarding the keys being a matter of opening heaven to people's understanding rather than a carte blanche to judge people worthy or unworthy of heaven. The documentation is the entire Bible. Only God can judge. And what you see Peter doing from the first is explaining about Jesus to people, and it is through Jesus and Jesus only that heaven can be gained. Peter indeed used his 'keys' to open heaven to people. But heaven is still a matter of Jesus and the individual, and Peter has no place as any kind of 'doorkeeper.' Christ said HE is the gate for the sheep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My only reply is Isaiah 22:22 which shows the best context of what the "key" metaphor is used for in Jewish history - authority. Yet you are going to say that the "entire bible" somehow explains it when I see absolutely nothing in scriptures that comes anywhere close to explaining what the "keys" are except for the Isaiah quote, and you said nothing about it from my last message (I think I spoke of it in my last message - getting old and forgetful…) Helen, do not be fearful of this word:
AUTHORITY!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said that Peter was the only one who had the fortitude to go to where the trial was being held. No, he wasn't. In John 18, John quotes exactly what he heard and tells what he saw. You have your choice of that or that he was making it up or taking it as hearsay!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, I really don't know if Peter went alone to where the trial was being held. All we have is Peter being mentioned as being there. And because John records the event does not prove that John was there to hear it! It could be just as well that John records the events as Peter tells him, in his own shame and confession to the others, what happened then.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You will read that, at the time of Jesus' arrest, "Then all the disciples deserted him and fled." (Matthew 26:56). ALL. Not 'except Peter.'
ALL<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
John as well? And you just got through telling me he wrote what he heard! I am sure Peter fled as well, but apparently came back, walking at least some distance away to see what was happening. He is the only one recorded doing that, and apparently alone at that.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then Matthew, at least, and John, as well as Peter, must have followed at a distance and then gone into the courtyard. We know Peter was there, but both John and Matthew give eyewitness accounts of what happened. And it was only Peter who denied Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Speculation, Helen. First, we know they all fled.
Then we see recorded by John (whether he was there or not) record the actions of Peter an no one else in the college of the apostles. (And somewhere, Judas hanged himself, of course.)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Were the others more cowardly than Peter? John was at the foot of the cross with Mary. That is cowardly? Peter was evidently back in the crowd with the others. But John was identifying himself with Jesus, and thus risking execution, too. Matthew talked to the soldiers and got their story. Was that cowardly? He could have been arrested for being a known follower and there he was, interviewing soldiers who were at the tomb!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good for John but was he the "blessed disciple" to whom Jesus said "Behold, your mother"? (John 19:27)
And Helen, I am quite sure that any danger of arrest was much abated when Christ died on the cross. Where were the rest of them? We are not sure, and the writings of the others does not necessarily pin-point where each individual apostle was. I can only presume that Peter was in solitude, weeping for the cowardly denial he had done.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Inasmuch as they were cowards, they were all cowards together. I don't see that Peter was particularly brave. Rash, yes. But don't confuse that with bravery. And that rashness was the reason Peter was constantly being rebuked by Jesus. Peter had a chronic case of 'foot in mouth' syndrome!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not deny that cowardly instincts took over all of them, but I find it strange to see Peter seemingly place himself in the greatest danger, not to mention his attempted defense of Jesus when He was taken into custody.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said: Peter's denial is profound, but his brothers sins are even worse!
And I would ask you "Who made you judge?" And upon what standard are you judging? That Jesus did not have to correct and rebuke the others as much as He did Peter? This made their sins greater? I have a very hard time with that!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gee whiz, Helen, I am not judging, just surmising what happened in scripture. Heavens to Betsy, you Protestants do this all the time! So does it surprise you so much when a Catholic indulges in it as well?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And, if Peter was to be the strong one, why was Mary not given into HIS care? Perhaps it was because Peter was too afraid to get near the cross???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here I go, surmising again! I suspect it is for two reasons:
1. The "beloved disciple" was the one Jesus loved the most, so it is natural for Him to place His mother into his care.
2. Jesus know that Peter had a far greater mission as the chief of His own apostles, knowing full well that his own life would be taken in martyrdom - in Rome - Upside down on the same type of cross, but since he is reportedly to have said, "I am not worthy to be put the death in the same manner as my Lord," and thus the Roman soldiers accommodated him; the cross was placed into the ground top side down, and Peter was thus nailed to it upside down.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said that Paul's confrontation of Peter showed Peter's primacy! That is an impossible leap, Bill. Are you telling me that if Peter were not a leader that Paul would not have confronted him publicly? And, as far as Paul referring to Peter as Cephas - that just shows that Matthew could have done the same except for the fact that Matthew had a strong point to make.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Helen, suppose Paul was to confront any of the other apostles (not Peter) with the same admonishment? What purpose would it have served to be inscripturated? That Paul confronts Peter "to his face" has a far greater significance since Peter is Peter, the Rock, the "Chief of the Apostles!"
What news would it have made if a certain nun were to confront a bishop (or her superior) with the admonishment that there should be a female priesthood? Zilch, nothing, nada, but a did indeed, confront John Paul II with that exact admonishment! T'was splattered across the entire printed media world! St. Catherine of Sienna confronted the reigning pope of her time to have him return to Rome, from where he presently resided - Avignon, France.
But to get back to Paul, I am sure it took courage for him to admonish Peter, but he saw a weakness in Peter that needed to be corrected. Peter may be the first pope , but Peter is still a fallible man in ordinary things, and suddenly refusing to eat with the gentiles when it was now OK for Christians, in the company of Christian Jews, (as I understand the issue) was a weakness that Paul had to call his attention to. And because it was Peter, and not any of the others, it is recorded.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You mentioned the title of the pope as "vicar of Christ." 'Vicar' is the root of 'vicarious', meaning 'in place of.' That is pure blasphemy. It is the Holy Spirit who represents Christ on earth in the hearts of Christians. There is no human authority representing God. That, too, is directly from paganism - such as the 'god-kings' of Egypt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is it "blasphemy" when the "chief shepherd," that being Christ, entrusts another to "feed His sheep" per John 21:15-17? When Christ ascended to the Father in heaven, he left Peter in charge! He is the head of the inner core of the early church, the "first clergy" and hierarchy of the church that would continue Christ's mission. And it is as paganistic as I am Chinese! Peter is neither a god or a king and neither his successors.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And don't call me a liar about reading the book you recommend. Yes, you could lie to me about reading the Bible cover to cover. Would you? It appears as though, like every Catholic I have ever asked to read the Bible cover to cover, by itself, no commentaries and no apocrypha, you refuse. That is very strange to me as a Christian, for the Bible is the food for the spirit in a man. Reading bits and pieces as dictated by some authority or guide along with their 'explanation' is taking away from the impact of the purity of God's Word. Why are you afraid of that? Don't you think God had a purpose in having the Bible put together as He did?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where did I call you a liar, Helen? Gee, this message started off so nicely, and look at the tone of it here!
Did I get under your skin that bad, Helen? Let me tell you this: I have never read the bible from cover to cover, and I probably never will!
Did you get that loud and clear, Helen?
You see, I see little value is read the bible that way! What I do read is what is important (on a given issue at hand at the time) to read and understand. I tell you what, Helen; you read your bible your way and I will read mine my way, OK?
We can compare notes later…
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep
and watch over those
you have gathered.
Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,
your Son.
You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.
. But I have been doing some reflecting on Matt 16:18. I have another alternative to interpretation to verse. What if Jesus was not refering to either himself or to Peter. What if he was really referring to Peter's confession that "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". Maybe he meant that the Church would be built on the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.