Pope Francis gives church hundreds of new saints...

[WestminsterMan]

Pure blasphemy! There is no substitute for Christ!

First of all, the phrase "Vicar of Christ" comes from the Latin "Vicarius Christi", which means that the Pope is the earthly representative of Christ. In other words, since Christ left the earth physically, the Pope is the head of His church here and shall be until Christ returns. So, your claim that the Pope is a "substitute" for Christ isn't even close to true. More correctly, the Pope is a "stand-in" for Christ - or "in persona Christi" (in the person of Christ) to be precise. There is no substitute for Christ and the Catholic Church doesn't teach that.

Christ left several "stand-ins" (apostles) when He went up to heaven giving them the power to do even greater things than He. However, there was one who had primacy over the rest and that person was Peter - the first head of the Church on earth. There is a direct line of succsession from Peter to Pope Frances today. It's easy to find this in the historical documents if one is even remotely curious.

Now, certainly you don't hold the idea of a stand-in as blasphemous do you? I mean since Christ set it up that way and all.

WM

 

[Melanie]

But for non-Catholics it does not mean anything at all.

However given the thread about Catholics growing in numbers in the South maybe we should take note of the fact that each time the Pope ties his shoes or does anything at all - it makes national news.

And I was reminded recently that the President of the United States (G. W. Bush) insisted on referring to the Pope as "THE Holy Father".

By every measure that is good marketing for anyone thinking about joining the Catholic Church.

in Christ,

Bob

as opposed to say actor so and so has got new tattoo or a particular actress was found drunk and disorderly.....:thumbs:

 

[Melanie]

The pope does not need to give anyone Saints. Christ gave the church Saints when he was resurrected. Saints being anyone who is a true believer in Christ according to scripture.

....but they do serve as good role models for us!!! :thumbs:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Careful There...

HERE, HERE!! Nailed it again, WestminsterMan! :thumbs:

The fact remains, the more I study the more I'm in agreement with Catholic faith.

Ya'll be careful there....don't break your arms patting yourselves on the back!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[BobRyan]

First of all, the phrase "Vicar of Christ" comes from the Latin "Vicarius Christi", which means that the Pope is the earthly representative of Christ. In other words, since Christ left the earth physically, the Pope is the head of His church here and shall be until Christ returns.

According to the NT Authors - who were living while Peter was alive and Christ was gone - who is stated to be the head of the church?

So, your claim that the Pope is a "substitute" for Christ isn't even close to true. More correctly, the Pope is a "stand-in" for Christ

Who doe Christ say was to come as His "stand in" on earth in John 14 and John 16? Peter?

Christ left several "stand-ins" (apostles) when He went up to heaven giving them the power to do even greater things than He. However, there was one who had primacy over the rest and that person was Peter - the first head of the Church on earth.

What text declares Peter to be the head of the church after the resurrection of Christ?

In Acts 15 Peter gives his opinion - but James renders his "decision". When that happens today in the Vatican - the one who merely gives opinion is not then followed by another who "renders the decision" if that person rendering it is not the Pope.

In 1Cor 3 Paul says "on THIS PETRA" all others build their teaching and doctrine - what "PETRA" is Paul speaking of in 1Cor 3 - after the resurrection of Christ? Peter?

There is a direct line of succsession from Peter to Pope Frances today. It's easy to find this in the historical documents if one is even remotely curious.

I am surprised that you would ask for that historic review.

As we both know there were in fact 3 Papal LINES all active at one time - until Emperor Sigismund defrocked or forced the resignation of them ALL - and set up his OWN College of Cardinals - starting a NEW Papal line from which all modern Popes descend.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Nothing....!

First of all, the phrase "Vicar of Christ" comes from the Latin "Vicarius Christi", which means that the Pope is the earthly representative of Christ. In other words, since Christ left the earth physically, the Pope is the head of His church here and shall be until Christ returns. So, your claim that the Pope is a "substitute" for Christ isn't even close to true. More correctly, the Pope is a "stand-in" for Christ - or "in persona Christi" (in the person of Christ) to be precise. There is no substitute for Christ and the Catholic Church doesn't teach that.

Christ left several "stand-ins" (apostles) when He went up to heaven giving them the power to do even greater things than He. However, there was one who had primacy over the rest and that person was Peter - the first head of the Church on earth. There is a direct line of succsession from Peter to Pope Frances today. It's easy to find this in the historical documents if one is even remotely curious.

Now, certainly you don't hold the idea of a stand-in as blasphemous do you? I mean since Christ set it up that way and all.

WM

NOTHING could be further from the truth as your last statement (and everything preceeding it!)The "pope" means absolutely NOTHING to real Bible-believing Christians. He is just another false head to a false church to those of us who truly believe and live by the Word of God and know Christ as the ONLY Saviour and the ONLY Mediator between God and man.

As to his "proclaiming" or "awarding" ANYBODY "sainthood"...he has no authority to do that that ONLY God can and does do to ALL who trust in the finished work of His precious Son,the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank God that He made me a Saint the moment I trusted Him. The immediate presense of His Holy Spirit sealed that for me. You can have and KEEP your "pope"....and all the other false church leaders beneath his ungodly rule as far as I'm concerned. I have the living Son of the Living God, His Word, and the promise of His coming to take me home. What more could anybody possibly need if they have that? Your false church and its false sacraments and "traditions" would not even qualify as a decent sloppy second to THAT. As far as I am concerned...the moderators of this Board have given those of you who are Catholic an incredible amount of "latitude" to spout your false and flawed doctrine in an almost unlimited fashion. I'll bet the Muslims wouldn't be so generous. I do hope though that somehow, someway, ya'll will find the error of your ways and come to the truth. For the record....I am baptist...but being baptist does not make anybody saved...anymore than being catholic could. The big difference is that you have a church hierarchy that is misleading you and obscuring the truth from you....I don't.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[webdog]

First of all, the phrase "Vicar of Christ" comes from the Latin "Vicarius Christi", which means that the Pope is the earthly representative of Christ. In other words, since Christ left the earth physically, the Pope is the head of His church here and shall be until Christ returns. So, your claim that the Pope is a "substitute" for Christ isn't even close to true. More correctly, the Pope is a "stand-in" for Christ - or "in persona Christi" (in the person of Christ) to be precise. There is no substitute for Christ and the Catholic Church doesn't teach that.

Christ left several "stand-ins" (apostles) when He went up to heaven giving them the power to do even greater things than He. However, there was one who had primacy over the rest and that person was Peter - the first head of the Church on earth. There is a direct line of succsession from Peter to Pope Frances today. It's easy to find this in the historical documents if one is even remotely curious.

Now, certainly you don't hold the idea of a stand-in as blasphemous do you? I mean since Christ set it up that way and all.

WM

You view it throughh rcc brainwashing. Vicar in fact means substitute, in place of. Having Christ shine through us is not replacing him, so yes, that title is blasphemous. Nobofy bows to me, kisses my finger, refers to me as holy father and doesnt ask me to bless idols.

 

[BobRyan]

Vicar -

• (in the Roman Catholic Church) A representative or deputy of a bishop.
• (in the Episcopal Church) A clergyman in charge of a chapel.

An Ambassador - is one how serves and represents - but does not take the place of - and thus does not have the authority of the one he represents.


In 2Cor 5 Paul says that Christians are all "ambassadors" of Christ.





The Greek equivalent of the Latin 'vicis' is 'eiko'. Hence, the Latin phrase 'vicarius Christi' might be literally translated into Greek as 'eikon Christou', or "icon of Christ." http://members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/o…


But Christ declared that instead of just sending out Christians as "Ambassadors" He was also going to send ANOTHER helper - another one - like Himself.

John 16

5 “But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’
6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.
7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
8 And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;
9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me;
11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.
12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

John 14
16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;

17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[WestminsterMan]

NOTHING could be further from the truth as your last statement (and everything preceeding it!)The "pope" means absolutely NOTHING to real Bible-believing Christians. He is just another false head to a false church to those of us who truly believe and live by the Word of God and know Christ as the ONLY Saviour and the ONLY Mediator between God and man.

As to his "proclaiming" or "awarding" ANYBODY "sainthood"...he has no authority to do that that ONLY God can and does do to ALL who trust in the finished work of His precious Son,the Lord Jesus Christ. snip...

Bro.Greg:saint:

Well Bro. here's a new flash for ya... I'm a bible-believing Christian (to use the cliche of the Protestant community) and I hold the Pope in very VERY high regards.



Oh and one more thing... so does most of the rest of Christendom. But, before you blast off with the standard here, I know this little bastion cares nothing about that so...

Lastly. Why is it that no one actually READS what others actually write around here?

Peace!

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

You view it throughh rcc brainwashing. Vicar in fact means substitute, in place of. Having Christ shine through us is not replacing him, so yes, that title is blasphemous. Nobofy bows to me, kisses my finger, refers to me as holy father and doesnt ask me to bless idols.

No, I just overcame Baptist brainwashing. Now - do you see how dumb that tactic is? I suppose that here in BB land, responding with emtpy rhetoric actually means something.

Sweet.

WM

 

[BobRyan]

No, I just overcame Baptist brainwashing. Now - do you see how dumb that tactic is? I suppose that here in BB land, responding with emtpy rhetoric actually means something.

Sweet.

WM

Possibly a new thread subject - but given the statistics that the Baptists are shrinking in America and that the Catholics are growing at a rate of 1.49% in the south - would you care to tell us what the key motivators were for you to change from Baptist to Catholic?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Of course it does. Only the most capricious mind would think it means anything other than Christian baptism.
DHK, do you really think every man, woman and child from the time of Christ up to the Reformation went to Hell? No one believed this nonsense until after the Reformation.

Baptism is not a requirement for salvation and never was. It was an error introduced into Christianity somewhere around the third century or even later.
What must I do to be saved, the jailer said:
The answer was clear.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
There is no baptism involved. Baptism was never a requirement of salvation. It always came after salvation, as a step of obedience in the Christian faith, not a requirement before salvation.

 

[webdog]

No, I just overcame Baptist brainwashing. Now - do you see how dumb that tactic is? I suppose that here in BB land, responding with emtpy rhetoric actually means something.

Sweet.

WM

Translation: I gave up biblical doctrine for heresy, fulfilling the prophecy of the great apostasy that occurs during the last days.

 

[Zenas]

Baptism is not a requirement for salvation and never was. It was an error introduced into Christianity somewhere around the third century or even later.
What must I do to be saved, the jailer said:
The answer was clear.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
There is no baptism involved. Baptism was never a requirement of salvation. It always came after salvation, as a step of obedience in the Christian faith, not a requirement before salvation.

But see what happened only two verses later:

And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

It was the very next thing. They didn't wait to see if the jailer's conversion was for real. They didn't wait until morning where the baptism could have been a public display. They baptized the jailer and his family (who may or may not have heard the gospel along with him). You have to read scripture with a view of what they actually did as well as what they said.

Baptismal regeneration was believed from the beginning--by Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc.--and it certainly is not an error.

 

[Zenas]

Translation: I gave up biblical doctrine for heresy, fulfilling the prophecy of the great apostasy that occurs during the last days.

No, he read scripture with an open mind under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. It's the likes of you, not the likes of him, who have apostatized. And I say this with complete charity. You don't realize how much you are overlooking in the Bible, not because you choose to ignore it but because you are conditioned to ignore it. There are passages and concepts that you never see, not because you skip over them but because you don't realize their significance.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Baptism is not a requirement for salvation and never was. It was an error introduced into Christianity somewhere around the third century or even later.
What must I do to be saved, the jailer said:
The answer was clear.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
There is no baptism involved. Baptism was never a requirement of salvation. It always came after salvation, as a step of obedience in the Christian faith, not a requirement before salvation.

Huh? 3rd Century? Funny, Justin Martyr says

They then are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. . . . The reason for this we have received from the Apostles.” - 100-165 AD 1 Apology

or how about Theophilus 169-182 AD

Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration, — as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God. (To Autolycus, Bk II)

Or Ireneaus

we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. (A.H., I.21)

All of whom were before the 3rd Century.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Possibly a new thread subject - but given the statistics that the Baptists are shrinking in America and that the Catholics are growing at a rate of 1.49% in the south - would you care to tell us what the key motivators were for you to change from Baptist to Catholic?

in Christ,

Bob

Sure. I just realized one day that the people in the Baptist churches that I've been associated with or a member of tend to take Brother/Pastor's ________ words as gospel without any validation from scripture. Sure, they would read the scripture during the sermon, but agree completely with the pastor's interpretation of it in a lemming like fashion. Yet, they would eagerly turn and accuse others of blasphemy, following a cult, being brain washed, etc. Hmmm... Does this sound familiar to those here?

Ultimately, the hypocrisy just got to me. Then the Holy Spirit started working on me and guiding me into studying the history of the Church. It's really the standard story... I was trying to find out how the early church worshiped and practiced, which led me straight into the arms of Catholicism. No one ever approached me or tried to convert me - the Holy Spirit did that. I went and talked to a priest about getting into RCIA, and the rest is history.

Well, that's it in a nut shell.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Translation: I gave up biblical doctrine for heresy, fulfilling the prophecy of the great apostasy that occurs during the last days.

Well... to quote a great man: "There you go again." Personally, your opinion of my beliefs means preeeeetty much... ummm... nothing.

Besides, just how do you know that YOU'RE not the one following an apostate doctrine and thus fall into the very category into which you so presumptuously place others? Let me answer for you – you DON’T and if you think you have God all nailed down then you are self-deluded in the most comical of fashions.

Look... Give it a rest! You are not God dude. The job is taken and you wouldn't be any good at it anyway.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Huh? 3rd Century? Funny, Justin Martyr says or how about Theophilus 169-182 AD Or Ireneaus All of whom were before the 3rd Century.

TS, those are all Catholic apostates who took Christianity off the rails until the Reformation when God got tired of sending everyone who ever lived from 33 AD to +- 1571 AD straight to HELL, and revealed to Martin Luther the REAL truth!

WM

 

[DHK]

But see what happened only two verses later: It was the very next thing. They didn't wait to see if the jailer's conversion was for real. They didn't wait until morning where the baptism could have been a public display. They baptized the jailer and his family (who may or may not have heard the gospel along with him). You have to read scripture with a view of what they actually did as well as what they said.

Baptismal regeneration was believed from the beginning--by Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc.--and it certainly is not an error.

There is not one indication of any person being baptized before they were saved or as a requirement of salvation; not one.
The jailer believed. Then they went to his house and he was baptized. His household first heard the gospel, were saved, and then were baptized.

The Ethiopian eunuch first believed, and then was baptized.

The 3,000 first believed and then were baptized.

Every example in the Bible: baptism is given after salvation--not before and not as a requirement. Baptismal regeneration is a heresy; a doctrine of demons.