Featured is the Catholic Church officially now Apostate?

Could you please provide your source?


Yeshua1, my understanding of this is that he said that everyone is redeemed, not that everyone receives salvation; these are two different things. The Church does teach that everyone is redeemed by Christ, but not that there is universal salvation. Christ redeemed us all, but we still have to choose salvation, through faith, otherwise we reject the salvation that is offered to us.

 

I could list a number of areas where I differ with the Catholic church

1. Prayers to the dead
2. Prayers for the dead
3. Images in church
4. The immaculate conception.
5. Confecting the "body and soul of Christ" in the eucharist
6. Priest "powers" to forgive sins and confect Christ.
7. Infallibility of the Pope (speaking ex cathedra) and ecumenical councils.
8. Extermination of heretics.
9. Purgatory
10. Infinite torment in hell
11. Claiming the right to "edit" the Ten Commandments
12. Claiming that the New Covenant is confined to the Catholic Mass
...

But name calling would solve nothing

 

Walter is correct: the Catholic Church has always taught that everyone is redeemed by the Blood of Christ (which is akin to saying that "Christ died for all", with which only a hardcore Calvinist would disagree); it has also always taught that there is a difference between redemption and salvation: all are redeemed, not all are saved. Where +++Francis seems to have additionally muddied the waters is impliedly referencing Karl Rahner's (another Jesuit!) 'anonymous Christian' concept.

 

Atonement and redemption are not the same thing. Redemption is salvation

 

Thank you, Matt. Redemption and salvation are two different things. I would ask board members to read this blog from an Orthodox priest. It explains that the pope isn't talking about universalism. I'm thinking that if an Orthodox priest is defending the Holy Father, the Pope must have said something really good. :laugh:

http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/20...by-doing-good/

 

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace - Ephesians 1:7

Its clear redemption and atonement are not the same thing if one is gained THROUGH the other.

 

That would be a misuse of the word Redemption and could very easily be understood to mean universalism in the context it was used.

 

The meaning of "redeemed" does not mean "you are going to heaven," it means, frankly, you are a part of the human race, which Jesus "redeemed" to the heart of God by the cross. It means salvation is possible, there is a way of salvation for you.

 

Link I posted didn't work, let's try it again!

http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/

 

When was the Catholic church ever legitimate? The question "is the Catholic church NOW apostate" is an oxymoron.

 

It was certainly legitimate when Jesus founded His Church on Peter. And before you start your Petros/Petra blather. The whole "Petros" thing, is that yes, it meant "small stone" when Homer used it centuries earlier, but languages develop, and "petros" didn't carry that meaning in Jesus' day. In fact, if one peruses the New Testament, when a "small stone" is being described, the term used is always "lithos" and never "petros", and the only time "Petros" is used, is as Peter's name. The obvious conclusion is that it was simply the masculinisation of the feminine word, "petra".
Interestingly, in French, the word for rock is "pierre", so that passage reads, "Tu es Pierre, et sur la pierre..." etc. I guess that's why the Reformation never really caught on in France...:laugh:

The Primacy of Peter
Isaiah 22:15-25 - Prophecy of the Catholic Papacy foretold in the Old Testament
Matthew 16:18 - Upon this rock (Peter) I will build my Church. And the gates of Hell can never overpower it
Luke 24:34 - Risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - Peter headed meeting which elected Matthias to replace Judas
Acts 2:14 - Peter lead Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - Peter received the first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - Peter inflicted the first punishment: Ananias and Saphira
Acts 8:21 - Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - Peter received a revelation to admit the Gentles into the church.
Acts 15 - Peter lead the first Catholic council in Jerusalem

Think about this:
Peter is mentioned 191 times in the New Testament. All the other apostles names combined are mentioned only 130 times. And the most commonly referenced apostle apart from Peter is John, whose name appears 48 times.

 

I do believe that the link I posted from the orthodox brothers blog gives good insight into the Holy Father's remarks. And, in my opinion, the Holy Father's remarks boil down to the following:

1. Everyone is created in God's image, and Christ died for everyone.
2. Everyone has a duty to do good.
3. Christians and non-Christians can collaborate in doing good, and find common ground there.

The pope did not say that everyone is saved, that everyone has appropriated Christ's redemption. I think his point is God's universal Fatherhood, and trying to find common ground with unbelievers (as a starting point, not an end).

 

That is not the definition given in Scripture. You have completely redefined the word.

 

This post is not factually correct. It was used far later than Homer to mean a "small stone." It is used in 2 Maccabees 2:16; and 4:41 to mean a little stone.

Second, we have no "Q" copy but only the Greek copies of Matthew. The Greek writer made ever possible effort to distinguish the feminine petra from petros. He used a third person pronoun to describe petra but a second person pronoun for Petros. Moreover, the contextual antecedent for this third person pronoun in Matthew 16:18 is "it" in verse 17 which has for its ancedant the confession in Matthew 16:17.

In addition. Peter discouraged all of his readers from drawing the Roman Catholic Conclusion about petra in Matthew 16:18. In the very same context he describes all members of the church as "stones" including Jesus "stone" but then calls Jesus the "petra" - 1 Pet. 2:4-8. He then denies he has any superior position above other elders - 1 Pet. 5:1-3.

Moreover, Matthew 16:18 is a building context.

1. There is a designated builder - "I will build"
2. There is a buiding project - "my church"
3. There is a foundation to build upon "upon this rock"

Peter is first addressed as Simon bar Jonah in verse 17 but it is in this building context he is addressed in the anarthous construct "petros" which in such a context demands characterization - he characterizes a building stone - the kind Jesus uses to build his churches out of - baptized believers - and this is precisely Peter's own analogous application in 1 Peter. 2:5. Where did Peter get the analogy in 1 Pet. 2:5?????? Of course you want to ignore that fact.

 

Thank you for presenting the facts. The Roman church is built on fables and superstition.

 

The "Holy Father". You mean God?

 

Their whole argument about Aramaic is just as erroneous. For example, we have no Aramaic copies to see exactly what Jesus said.

Every langauge has either nouns or adjectives to distinguish between large and small things. We have no record of this discussion in Aramaic. Jesus could have just as easily used adjectives for small versus large to distinguish between the Armaic Cephas and the foundation Cephas.

The Greek provided such distinctions.

 

In 1 Cor 10- long after Christ had spoken in Matt 16 - "That PETRA is Christ".

In 1Cor 3 - " No Other Petra - That PETRA is Christ".

In all of the NT there is no "That PETRA is Peter" - no not even once.

In Matt 7 it is the "PETRA" that is the bedrock upon which the saints are to build and Jesus said this is HIS Word - not the word of Peter.

In Matt 16 where Peter is called "petros" he is also called Satan.

Jesus said to Peter in Matt 16 "get thee behind me Satan" - I don't think I would be going to Matt 16 to make the case for Peter if I were Catholic.

In all of the texts you quote - nobody is asking Peter to render his decision on behalf of the entire church.

But in Acts 15 - (which I notice you did not mention) after Peter and others give their views - it is James that "renders the decision" for the Group saying in conclusion "it is my decision that we ...".

Now having said that - it would be a mistake to assume that Protestants do not think Peter was Christian or that he was not one of the 3 leading disciples--- perhaps one of the leading Apostles who knows?

What is strongly contested however is that the distinctive doctrines of the Catholic church were taught by - or even known by - any of the Apostles so it is not just an issue with Peter it is a claim that none of them taught or knew about Purgatory, or praying to the dead as a Christian practice, or indulgences or infant baptism --

More specifically the difference between the two groups is that the Protestant view says that the Bible is to test all doctrine and all tradition.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Very good and accurate!