English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-07-14 09:15:54 · 13 answers · asked by St. Toad 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

And, What sounds good for dinner?

2007-07-14 09:21:05 · update #1

13 answers

uh no obviously not bc there r a lot of other religions out there that ppl think are the only true faith and that just proves that they r all wrong!!!! if christans cant even agree on little things like that y shuld we assume theyre right about the big things???

2007-07-14 09:19:39 · answer #1 · answered by Smee 1 · 1 4

Since he opened his mouth on the Subject, it proves his Wrong. Here is why:

In addition to what God’s holy Word the Bible says on the matter there are other very good reasons why true Christians should not venerate or worship religious relics. The practice and custom did not originate with Christ or his apostles or with God’s chosen nation of Israel. It is clearly a pagan invention and hence of the Devil, pure and simple, and the Catholic Encyclopedia admits as much. It says that the veneration of relics is “a primitive instinct” and is associated with many other religious systems besides that of Catholicism. It goes on to tell how the ancient Greeks superstitiously worshiped the bones and ashes of their heroes, how the Persians “treated with the deepest veneration” the remains of Zoroaster, and how “relic-worship amongst the Buddhists of every sect is a fact beyond dispute”.
In addition Peter was not a Pope as the Church would like their followers to Believe.It is also of interest that Augustine (354-430 C.E.), usually referred to as “Saint Augustine,” at one time believed that Peter was the rock-mass but later changed his view.

2007-07-14 16:28:52 · answer #2 · answered by conundrum 7 · 1 1

Biblically, the Pope is wrong.
The doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries, even unto today. The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority. The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope.

However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The Apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the Apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the Apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the Book of Acts records the Apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.

Catholics point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the 12th apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “suceed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas), with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2).

In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The Roman Catholic Church claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise (2 Peter 2:1). Admittedly, the lack of “supreme authority” amongst non-Catholic churches results in many different interpretations. However, these differences in interpretation are not the result of Scripture being unclear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians carrying on the Catholic tradition of interpreting Scripture in accordance with their own traditions. If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth can be easily determined. Doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture.

Alignment with Scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy.

2007-07-14 16:21:34 · answer #3 · answered by Freedom 7 · 4 2

i dont believe catholicism is the only right faith but i think that statement is close to the truth - that there is a religion out there that is right and it alone is right. eph 4:5 = one faith.

2007-07-14 16:19:38 · answer #4 · answered by buddy 3 · 2 0

Here is the full text of the new document that states nothing new: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Most Christian denominations believe that each of them is the fullest version of the Church of Christ.

While the Catholic Church also believes that she is "the highest exemplar" of the mystery that is the Church of Christ, she does not claim that non-Catholic Churches are not truly Christian. The Catholic Church teaches:

Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.

Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.

All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him.

For more information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 819: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm#819

With love in Christ.

2007-07-14 19:30:21 · answer #5 · answered by imacatholic2 7 · 0 1

No. The Pope isn't in the Bible. Also, I disagree w/ the deadly sins. Freedom from sin means freedom from the act of sinning which means freedom from rules. If we aren't free from sin, what is unique about Christianity? If we aren't free from sin, we're just like any other religion. Christianity isn't meant to be a set of principles in a mathematic-like equation to determine if we are good. Christianity is meant to be a reveling presence.

2007-07-14 16:22:07 · answer #6 · answered by Charlie 3 · 3 1

No, the Pope is not right. The Church of Christ is comprised of all people who accept Christ as their savior. The Romans are deluded in thinking that their Bishop (one of many) can speak for God.

2007-07-14 16:18:49 · answer #7 · answered by nom de paix 4 · 4 2

It depends how you define "true." Do I believe that my Church is the first to be established by Christ's followers? Yes. Do I believe that my Church is the only way to reach God? No.

2007-07-14 16:19:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

As a Catholic, the Pope has my full support.

Cheers :-)

2007-07-14 16:39:05 · answer #9 · answered by chekeir 6 · 1 1

Man is fallible, and the Pope has proven it.

.

2007-07-14 16:21:03 · answer #10 · answered by Me 4 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers