5wide, I am with you. I disagree with the Pope's contention. I disagree with cch5432, and believe, as he says, that he is being both arrogant and confident in his beliefs. I also disagree with LBBC, nowhere does it say that immersion baptism, or even baptism period, is a prerequisite to salvation. Repentance and acceptance of Christ's free gift is all one needs, its that simple. Sometimes folks have difficulty with the simplicity of the gift.

 

Hearsay, I find that my thoughts are almost always directly in line with yours. :thumb: Like you, I don't agree with cch5432, or the pope. I find it quite irritating when Catholics or Protestants make the claim that they are the only group who has the means of salvation and that the other is on the path to hell...it's wrong. Plain and simple.

 

As for the baptism comments, I'll stay away from those in this thread. Besides, the first sentence of this post should shed a little light on my feelings there anyway.

Actually, you would find something very similar to a universal church (I'm not referring to Catholic here, folks, so don't get upset) in Revelations. It will be part of the New World Order set up by the Anti Christ.

 

I have no doubt that there is a "Universal" Church. It's made up of believers of all shapes, sizes, denominations, etc...from past, present and future...I don't believe it's just Roman Catholics, or Baptists, or Amish, or Methodists, or...and so forth and so on.

I'm sorry, but I find the Petrine Doctrine to be ridiculous. Yes, the Catholic Church was the first organized Christian body. But this silliness with Peter being the first Pope and finding individuals, especially martyrs, that the Church can name as subesquent Popes is insulting. I understand that Jesus said he would build His Church on Peter, yet Paul is probably more responsible for the spread of the Gospel in the Gentile world. Why Irenaeous felt he had to compile a list of apostolic succession, I'll never understand, especially since there was no hierarcy until the 3rd century and papal primacy wasn't even asserted until late in the 2nd century. Not until the middle of the 4th century did Damasus I refer to the Roman Church as the Apostolic See. It wasn't until the 5th century that the Bishop of Rome was proclaimed "Rector of the whole Church."

 

I always felt this way as well. It seems fairly obvious to me if you read into it much.

I'm sorry, but I find the Petrine Doctrine to be ridiculous. Yes, the Catholic Church was the first organized Christian body. But this silliness with Peter being the first Pope and finding individuals, especially martyrs, that the Church can name as subesquent Popes is insulting. I understand that Jesus said he would build His Church on Peter, yet Paul is probably more responsible for the spread of the Gospel in the Gentile world. Why Irenaeous felt he had to compile a list of apostolic succession, I'll never understand, especially since there was no hierarcy until the 3rd century and papal primacy wasn't even asserted until late in the 2nd century. Not until the middle of the 4th century did Damasus I refer to the Roman Church as the Apostolic See. It wasn't until the 5th century that the Bishop of Rome was proclaimed "Rector of the whole Church."

 

How does that refute my statement that the Catholic church is the oldest Christian denomination and traces back to Peter? The question wasn't apostolic succession, but was asking where in the Bible that the word Catholic was used.

 

As to being insulted by anything, I try really hard not to be insulted or offended by much of the misinformation I've had lobbed at my faith. I, for instance, am blowing off the "silliness" comment you made regarding the historical evolution of the Catholic Church and the traditions of my Faith.

 

I could, (but would NEVER), trivialize another's belief in their faith and tradition by being dismissive of their tradition and history. I've been very careful to only defend the Catholic church, and not attack or trivialize any another church. The only thing even close is that I pointed out that the Catholic Church was first, and that all other denominations followed. This was a fact, though, not an opinion. If we wanted to really split hairs, we could discuss Judeo-Christianism....

How does that refute my statement that the Catholic church is the oldest Christian denomination and traces back to Peter? The question wasn't apostolic succession, but was asking where in the Bible that the word Catholic was used.

 

As to being insulted by anything, I try really hard not to be insulted or offended by much of the misinformation I've had lobbed at my faith. I, for instance, am blowing off the "silliness" comment you made regarding the historical evolution of the Catholic Church and the traditions of my Faith.

 

I could, (but would NEVER), trivialize another's belief in their faith and tradition by being dismissive of their tradition and history. I've been very careful to only defend the Catholic church, and not attack or trivialize any another church. The only thing even close is that I pointed out that the Catholic Church was first, and that all other denominations followed. This was a fact, though, not an opinion. If we wanted to really split hairs, we could discuss Judeo-Christianism....

I did not deny that the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest denomination, only that it traces its live of popes back to Peter. What's the point? It comes off more like showing your (not your's personally Rmom) lineage than as having any meaningful purpose. I have the suspicion that it might have been necessary in order to assert papal primacy in the first place. And don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of having a Bishop of Rome. But the history of the Christian church is much more than a line of popes. I think that the average Catholic probably has a better feel for early Church history than most Protestants. But I think its an area that all Christians could be better schooled in.

 

As far as the silliness comment, I meant no offense to you or any other Catholic. But I can assure you that the Catholic Church, like every other denomination, has its share of silliness, misinterpreted doctrine and things its not or shouldn't be proud of. If you (speaking to all Christians) aren't willing to look critically at your denomination, then the likelihood of that denomination going astray increases dramatically.

 

I would likewise be critical of any other denomination we choose to discuss. Criticism should not be confused with derision or contempt.

I did not deny that the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest denomination, only that it traces its live of popes back to Peter. What's the point? It comes off more like showing your (not your's personally Rmom) lineage than as having any meaningful purpose. I have the suspicion that it might have been necessary in order to assert papal primacy in the first place. And don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of having a Bishop of Rome. But the history of the Christian church is much more than a line of popes. I think that the average Catholic probably has a better feel for early Church history than most Protestants. But I think its an area that all Christians could be better schooled in.

 

As far as the silliness comment, I meant no offense to you or any other Catholic. But I can assure you that the Catholic Church, like every other denomination, has its share of silliness, misinterpreted doctrine and things its not or shouldn't be proud of. If you (speaking to all Christians) aren't willing to look critically at your denomination, then the likelihood of that denomination going astray increases dramatically.

 

I would likewise be critical of any other denomination we choose to discuss. Criticism should not be confused with derision or contempt.

 

I agree...some examples I can think of are churches that won't allow any musical instruments in their church house...I know of churches that don't believe in jewelry to the point that it's members can't wear wedding bands...some are strict about women wearing head coverings...some won't let women even speak in the church house, then on the flipside some have women as pastors...some believe baptism is essential to salvation, some don't...some believe that the baptism must be a certain method (immersed into a living body of water, immersion in any form, sprinkling, pouring)...

 

...there are many others. But, this thread is mainly about Catholicism, as you said. Also, it's harder to pin down the Protestant churches because they don't have the structure and hierarchy like the RCC where you can state flat out what their doctrine is. For instance, I think the churches in Appalachia have more in common with each other sometimes whether they're Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostal, whatever...than they do with their affiliated denomination on a national level. I don't think I stated that clearly, but I hope you got my point.

I did not deny that the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest denomination, only that it traces its live of popes back to Peter. What's the point? It comes off more like showing your (not your's personally Rmom) lineage than as having any meaningful purpose. I have the suspicion that it might have been necessary in order to assert papal primacy in the first place. And don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of having a Bishop of Rome. But the history of the Christian church is much more than a line of popes. I think that the average Catholic probably has a better feel for early Church history than most Protestants. But I think its an area that all Christians could be better schooled in.

 

As far as the silliness comment, I meant no offense to you or any other Catholic. But I can assure you that the Catholic Church, like every other denomination, has its share of silliness, misinterpreted doctrine and things its not or shouldn't be proud of. If you (speaking to all Christians) aren't willing to look critically at your denomination, then the likelihood of that denomination going astray increases dramatically.

 

I would likewise be critical of any other denomination we choose to discuss. Criticism should not be confused with derision or contempt.

 

I'm perfectly open to the concept of criticism, both self and external. What I do object to is dismissiveness.

 

As to your "what's the point" question, the tracing back of lineage is important, just as understanding history is important. It's no less important than an individual's desire to trace their personal lineage back to George Washington, for instance. (I can't do that, but I know someone who can. )

 

Do you also think it's unimportant that Anglicans, Mormans, Baptists, or Lutherans can trace their religious lineage back to a certain time and person of origin in history? Doesn't that establish their "moment" of conception? Their "epiphany" if you will? It defines why and how they came to be. That's what the point of Apostolic succession and the Petrine Doctrine is. I believe that you may be correct that it was necessary in establishing Papal primacy, but that it equally served to establish the heritage of our Faith.

I agree...some examples I can think of are churches that won't allow any musical instruments in their church house...I know of churches that don't believe in jewelry to the point that it's members can't wear wedding bands...some are strict about women wearing head coverings...some won't let women even speak in the church house, then on the flipside some have women as pastors...some believe baptism is essential to salvation, some don't...some believe that the baptism must be a certain method (immersed into a living body of water, immersion in any form, sprinkling, pouring)...

 

...there are many others. But, this thread is mainly about Catholicism, as you said. Also, it's harder to pin down the Protestant churches because they don't have the structure and hierarchy like the RCC where you can state flat out what their doctrine is. For instance, I think the churches in Appalachia have more in common with each other sometimes whether they're Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostal, whatever...than they do with their affiliated denomination on a national level. I don't think I stated that clearly, but I hope you got my point.

 

That raises a question I keep forgetting to ask:

 

It seems to me from reading through this thread and the previous ones here on BGP, that a big objection to Catholicism is the ORGANIZATION, and the FORMAL DOCTRINE. Why is this?

 

If, as so many suggest, the Bible has all the answers and should be clear to all, why is there such a discrepancy among non-Catholic (avoiding the use of the word Protestant ) denominations in what they believe? Does that discrepancy in and of itself not indicate that there are interpretive differences among those denominations?

 

One of the things about Catholicism is that there is no room, nor margin, for misinterpretation. Any interpretation has been done for us by the Pope and the Holy See (divinely inspired, we believe), and we're given strict edict from that. It seems to me that it's a plus to have those of our faith with tools to assist in those times where ambiguity may sway one to sin.

 

One of the things about Catholicism is that there is no room, nor margin, for misinterpretation. Any interpretation has been done for us by the Pope and the Holy See (divinely inspired, we believe), and we're given strict edict from that.

 

You say misinterpretation, I say self-interpretation. May be the biggest difference of all.

You say misinterpretation, I say self-interpretation. May be the biggest difference of all.

 

Yet, isn't that the premise on which many Fundamentalists base their beliefs? That the Bible is clear, therefore no self-interpretation is needed?

Yet, isn't that the premise on which many Fundamentalists base their beliefs? That the Bible is clear, therefore no self-interpretation is needed?

 

Nope. My interpretation (there's that word again) is that the Bible is infallible. I don't recall anyone saying it was clear, although I suspect that when the final trumpet blows and our eyes are finally opened it will turn out to be a lot simpler than we made it out to be.

I'm perfectly open to the concept of criticism, both self and external. What I do object to is dismissiveness.

 

As to your "what's the point" question, the tracing back of lineage is important, just as understanding history is important. It's no less important than an individual's desire to trace their personal lineage back to George Washington, for instance. (I can't do that, but I know someone who can. )

 

Do you also think it's unimportant that Anglicans, Mormans, Baptists, or Lutherans can trace their religious lineage back to a certain time and person of origin in history? Doesn't that establish their "moment" of conception? Their "epiphany" if you will? It defines why and how they came to be. That's what the point of Apostolic succession and the Petrine Doctrine is. I believe that you may be correct that it was necessary in establishing Papal primacy, but that it equally served to establish the heritage of our Faith.

No, I think lineage is not only unimportant, but Pharisitical (I just made this word up.) That is, lineage denotes importance based on where you come from, not on who you are. My belief is that Jesus leveled the playing field for all who would believe in him, an idea the Pharisees hated because they depended on lineage.

 

Now, because I have misinterpreted terms you've previously used, let me say that while I think lineage is unimportant, I believe that people and events in your history are very important. Most Protestant faiths do a very poor job with anything before the creation of their denomination.

I'm thinking of starting a thread that wouldn't cause as much friction as this one. Here are my candidates:

 

"Why abortions are really cool"

"Women-Let em cook, but don't ask em to drive"

"10 uses for a dead baby seal"

"The 19th Amendment and why it's bad"

"How to build a mansion using only wood from the Rainforest"

"Countries we should nuke"

"Why lawyers are evil"

"The Trinity and St. X recipes for cheating"

"George W. Bush-best president in U.S. history"

I'm thinking of starting a thread that wouldn't cause as much friction as this one. Here are my candidates:

 

"Why abortions are really cool"

"Women-Let em cook, but don't ask em to drive"

"10 uses for a dead baby seal"

"The 19th Amendment and why it's bad"

"How to build a mansion using only wood from the Rainforest"

"Countries we should nuke"

"Why lawyers are evil"

"The Trinity and St. X recipes for cheating"

"George W. Bush-best president in U.S. history"

Friction is inherent in the Politics and Religion Forum.

That raises a question I keep forgetting to ask:

 

It seems to me from reading through this thread and the previous ones here on BGP, that a big objection to Catholicism is the ORGANIZATION, and the FORMAL DOCTRINE. Why is this?

 

If, as so many suggest, the Bible has all the answers and should be clear to all, why is there such a discrepancy among non-Catholic (avoiding the use of the word Protestant ) denominations in what they believe? Does that discrepancy in and of itself not indicate that there are interpretive differences among those denominations?

 

One of the things about Catholicism is that there is no room, nor margin, for misinterpretation. Any interpretation has been done for us by the Pope and the Holy See (divinely inspired, we believe), and we're given strict edict from that. It seems to me that it's a plus to have those of our faith with tools to assist in those times where ambiguity may sway one to sin.

 

I don't think it's so much the organization and formal doctrine as it is they 1) place their formal doctrine on the same level as the Bible, and 2) they don't leave any room for disagreement. If a lay person disagrees with something the church is doing, they've safeguarded against that by saying that he isn't capable of properly interpreting these things...that only their designated members (pope, bishops, priests, etc) are capable of doing so. Why should we accept the church's statement that those people are always right when interpreting scripture, when the church itself has changed and revised it's own teachings through the years?

 

You may see it as a plus that you can't disagree and you have to accept the church's teaching as correct. I don't. I don't think anyone or any church will ever get it exactly right. I think when we allow open discussion and questions and disagreements, it allows us to grow more in faith and understanding. That requires people who are willing to admit when they're wrong and who can discuss things in a constructive manner, and who will seek God's guidance during the process, and accept what he guides them to, whether they were right or wrong.

 

Unfortunately, since the church is made up of fallen humans, it's not perfect...Catholic or Protestant.