The question which poses the title of this post was posed back in August by a blog I have, alas, only recently become aware of Fully Christian: the random musings of a Catholic in the Ozarks. I have been to the Ozarks, which may have been what attracted me to the title, but it is the content of it which has made me stay. The author, Shane Schaetzel passed through a number of Protestant denominations (including, interestingly, Bosco’s favourite, Calvary Chapel) before coming to the Catholic Church via Anglicanism. It is interesting that he came in via the American Ordinariate of St Peter, which may well explain why I find his approach so familiar; there was no Ordinariate when I converted, but in many ways it is my spiritual home. In a blog post from last August, Shane argues the case for seeing the Second Vatican Council as helping save the Church. Before anyone here has apoplexy, I recommend they read the full piece, which is very thoughtful and well-documented.
The basic argument is one I have mounted here before, which is that there was a general modernist assault on Christianity across the western world which was well underway by the 1950s and which broke out into the open in the 1960s. What Shane does is to provide, via some interesting graphs, figures which show that only the Catholic Church and the Pentecostals did not begin to fall off the edge of a cliff. A phenomenon which hit all churches cannot be attributable to Vatican II. To those who might be tempted to argue that the Catholic Church could somehow have insulted itself from this phenomenon without harm, Shane provided an interesting riposte which is worth a long quotation:
Had Vatican II never happened at all, the implosion of Western Catholicism would have been worse not better. I say this because, prior to the Council, most Catholics generally ignored the Scriptures, and saw Catholicism as a list of rules and traditions, not a living and breathing Church organism. As we have seen in recent decades, Catholics with this mindset cannot withstand the onslaught of Modernism on one hand (which tells them that tradition is obsolete), and Protestant Fundamentalism on the other hand (which tells them that Catholicism contradicts Scripture). On a personal note; as a former Protestant fundamentalist, I can attest that these are the easiest Catholics to convert. They have no concept of what Scripture teaches. They simply follow the rules of the Church. Once you break through that edifice, and show them that what they’re doing ‘appears’ to contradict Scripture, the whole Catholic edifice comes crumbling down rather quickly
He goes on to argue that it was the Catholic modernists who did their best to prevent the proper implementation of Vatican II, and who pushed things that were not there at all, such as the vernacular Mass as replacing the Latin Mass. Interesting, he speculates that had there been no Vatican II, what we should have ended up with
would have been corrupted translations of the old Latin mass, instead of the new vernacular mass, a slower (more complete) infiltration of Modernist ideas into the Catholic Church, resulting in a much bigger and more damaging collapse that would have happened later, and the Church would have less tools at hand to deal with it
That, of course, cannot be tested as it is a counter-factual, but it is worth pondering.
Shane also makes the interesting point which has been made here before, namely that in Africa and Asia Vatican II has had no bad effects – indeed on both Continents, the period since has seen a huge rise in the numbers of Catholics:
They simply implement what the Council said, with no more and no less. They understand it in a pastoral way, not a doctrinal way, and that’s that. In other words, they’re implementing Vatican II correctly, within a hermeneutic of continuity. Where the letter of Vatican II seems to break with established doctrine, they just ignore Vatican II, or at least relegate it to a lesser place, because nothing in Vatican II was given a note of infallibility anyway. That’s what a hermeneutic of continuity is all about.
That, of course, throws the responsibility for what has gone wrong back onto us in the West. It is here that modernism first took root, it is here that it has flourished, and it is here that the Shepherds of the Church have failed to deal with it. We should perhaps stop blaming the Council and examine the failings of our leaders, and ourselves.
Do read the whole piece, and indeed others on what is a most interesting blog.
Dave Smith said:
I’m a bit confused, C. It seems to me that the average pew sitter knows less of the Bible now and almost nothing of the Catechism in today’s church. We have a few converts who have resurrected the apologetics of the past for those interested individuals who have a zealous faith but outside of that . . . even our parish priests are woefully ignorant about how to defend the faith from those who would attack it. But we do have far more people at a pancake breakfast now than we did and far less attendees than the past at a Benediction service.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
My memory of Catholics I knew when I was a child (and I grew up in a place where there were many) is that they had almost no knowledge of the Bible, and many did not even own one, and the Church did not encourage them to or to study it. If there are, and I am sure there are, those in that position today, they can’t say they are following the lead of the Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Then nothing has changed: I can count on 2 hands the number of people in my parish that actually know the Bible and the teachings of the Faith.
I blame it on the unholy trinity of sex, drugs and rock and roll: those three persons who latently hold the other two in their wombs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I am sure you are right, but that it would probably have been the same at any point in the last two thousand years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
It is true . . . though there is a stipulation. I think more Catholics in the past could meet their deaths with hope in the past than we today. Although, today most people think they are saved and before most of us were pleading with heaven for forgiveness at the hour of death.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
That route, thank God, is still open to all. We always were a prideful and headstrong bunch – Adam started it – but Jesus offers the solution for all who will receive him in their hearts, by prayer, with thanksgiving.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
I have probably 6 or 7 Bibles, does that bring the average up? lol I jest.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Only if you open them up from time to time Phillip. 🙂
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Oh, man…I have favorites… I would suppose it’s like having favorite children…oops.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I think it is hard to have practical knowledge if you have no Scripture, as you are open to every bit of sophistry the latest Anglican trend can throw at you.
Our problem is our hierarchy, and alas it isn’t going away.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Roots being torn up had far more to do with the growth of affluence and the bulldozing of slums than with Vatican 2. Don’t forget it was the parish priests who pushed the vernacular Mass agenda and the rest of it, not the Church Fathers.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed, and some of them never saw a pass they could price up to sell, alas!
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
In Hierarchy, do you mean to include the Curia that ‘assists’ the Pope?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
They are top of the list 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
It feels counter productive for “faith” to be influenced by a group who can at least in the whispers of the faithful dispose those whom they deem no longer worthy, aka Benedict XVI. Admittedly, a conspiracy, however, the notion that such whispers can be made causes worry enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Furthermore, I will fight for the vernacular mass. I would fully support a new liturgy combining the practices of the TLM in vernacular.
I will teach my children to value the vernacular, the history of Trent, and the political intrigue that desired its omission. My children’s children will be taught. I will influence my family and friends as much as I can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t know whether you are familiar with the Ordinariate Mass, but it is very fine, and were I in a position to do so, I would make it mandatory.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
…. so if that really is the case, then why on earth did you become a Catholic?
I think back to my own experience – what you say of the Catholic church was probably overwhelmingly true of the Church of Scotland. I attended Holyrood Abbey under the ministry of James Philip. I regarded him as an ‘experimental error’, someone who really shouldn’t have been in the C. of S., because he took the bible seriously. So even though I was attending this church diligently, I would never have dreamed of actually joining the C. of S.. It never once occurred to me to become a ‘presbyterian’ – so I wonder why, given what you saw, you decided to become a Catholic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Because I became convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus on the rock of Peter.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
…. and how did you become convinced of this when – going on what you wrote – you didn’t see much evidence of the fruit of the Spirit?
If it really was the Church founded by Jesus on the rock of Peter, then surely there should have been a greater interest in the Scripture.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Two parts to the answer. There was no more and no less fruit than in the Church I attended.
In answering the question, ‘by what authority do you say these things?’ it seemed to me many said ‘by the Spirit’, but they did not all agree, so someone was not telling the truth.
Examining where Scripture came from, and what the Church which discerned the true Apostolic deposit believed about itself and the location of authority, it cohered with what Jesus said to Peter, and the historical evidence pointed in an overwhelming way to the same place. For me, Newman was right, to be deep in history was to cease to be a Protestant.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Well, it doesn’t sound convincing. I believe you when you say that there was ‘no more and no less Fruit’ of the Spirit manifest in the church you were attending, but after that, we basically part company.
I’m not too bothered by disagreements, provided people are earnest about the Scripture and provided what I see looks like a genuine attempt at exegesis (and isn’t blatant eisigesis). So I’m not too bothered by answers that don’t agree – and hence the fact that they did not all agree wouldn’t have been so much of a problem for me.
What does bother me is basically what you alluded to; you go along to church and then discover that exposure to the Holy Scripture is reduced to a bare minimum, because people do not want to be challenged by the Word which first convicts them of their sins and shows them their need for repentance before it shows them that Christ is the answer.
You don’t get disagreements if people aren’t even thinking about the issues.
So, from what I have seen, I conclude that the denominations are in and of themselves, inherently evil, but nevertheless God has used them. Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, you name it, are all (taken as denominations) fundamentally duff and fundamentally opposed to the Word, since the overwhelming number of adherents do not want to be challenged by the Word.
Nevertheless, I have occasionally found a very good Baptist fellowship, or Presbyterian fellowship or fellowships from other denominations.
I therefore no longer look at the denominational label, I simply look at individual fellowships, without reference to what denomination they belong to. I am happy to share fellowship with them if they accept me on that basis. Of course, if they then turn around and tell me that I’m not permitted to share Communion (or Eucharist) unless I join their denomination, then I never darken their doors again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Jesus founded a Church, and any preaching has to be by authority which is not one’s own. Where is that authority to be found? Where is that Church? I take Jesus at his word, that even the gates of hell will not prevail. I see that gates of hell trying very hard to prevail against one Church, and I think the devil knows where his enemy lies.
At the Eucharist I know whom it is I receive, and that I have not had anywhere else.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Well, yes – I agree that any preaching has to be by authority which is not one’s own. I have heard such preaching – and I’ve heard it in churches that are not affiliated to the RCC.
Equally, take any denomination you like (including RCC) and we can point to an awful lot of duff preaching, content free at best, dangerous nonsense and blatant eisegesis at worst. In fact, Damian Thompson made a lucrative career blogging about dangerous rubbish within the RCC.
The conclusion here is therefore that there are congregations of the Church that Christ built, through Peter, which do not belong to the RCC. Equally, there are churches within the RCC which do not belong to the Church that Christ built.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Teaching also has to be by authority. The Nicene Creed is the best statement of what we believe as Christians. It may be a common inheritance, but it was the product of the Church which acknowledged St Peter’s successor. Who has the authority to say whether a development of teaching is valid? It seems to me that outside the authority of the Church which promulgated the Creed, no one.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
The Nicene creed was produced by the people who thought about it, guided by the Holy Spirit.
I believe that I belong to the Church ‘built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone’; i.e. the Church Jesus built on Peter – but I’m not a Catholic.
What you basically stated before – within the pre-Vatican II RCC it seemed to be the norm that people didn’t engage with Holy Scripture – would indicate that, by and large, they could no longer be bothered with the Nicene Creed, irrespective of the history of the RCC.
One other feature of Scripture, which happens time and time again – with family lineage – is that the Lord ignores natural succession and grafts in a person or people contrary to the natural succession – so if your benchmark is the Nicene Creed, you should then ask yourself if the RCC is still the Church founded on Peter, or whether the branches have been cut off and others grafted in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
That’s a perfectly reasonable answer Jock. Jesus said the Gates of hell would not prevail – and I see them try – and fail.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I agree with the general tenor of what you say, but it needs this qualification. Had V2 not happened, then there would still have been mass falling away from the church, renunciation of vocations and all the rest of the decline – unless you want to mount the unlikely argument that the Catholic Church could have been insulated from trends which hit ever other church in the Western world – which I wouldn’t.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t agree. We can’t live and don’t live in a ghetto. Churches which had no V2 suffered, and to think that somehow we would have escaped is fantasy. The damage could have been even greater. As the piece suggests, without a decent apologetics, Catholics proved very easy to convert, as the author himself knows, having done it when he was a Protestant. I daresay if you could have ensured that places like Liverpool’s Scotland Road remained poor and without much in the way of education for most of the Catholics who lived there, and ensure they stayed there, they might have remained in the church as they found it – but I doubt that could have been done, or that the people concerned would not have done what they did anyway, which was to move into better housing, get and education and end up as they did.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As we’re no worse, and actually rather better, than most other churches, I’m not sure that stands up. In so far as V2 has aided work in Africa and Asia, it has done much good. Our Church has made greater strides there than before, despite difficulties with Muslims. I recall when I was a young man being told that Christianity was being driven out of West and East Africa by Islam, and the figures back then suggested this would happen. Since the 1970s it hasn’t gone that way. I strongly suspect that Africa and Asia are what stands between us and where some of our bishops want to go.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Nor is it one for ignoring the influence of the HolY ghost on it either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed, but He writes straight with crooked material – which sums up some of the hierarchy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
“Had V2 not happened, then there would still have been mass falling away from the church.”
Exactly, Q uses the word “speculation.” However, it’s pure speculation that Vatican II and NO has caused the faithful to leave the Church, as the birth of the modernists world more or less was created during the same period. To blame the council is fallacious, it’s what is called a correlation fallacy. However, one who keeps to the church thoughts prior to Vatican II and followed the Index of prohibited books may not understand philosophical reasoning and arguments:
Take a look at some of these banned authors: http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/indexlibrorum.asp
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
That is a deeply scary list 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Deeply scary is a rather mild comment. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
It is the old English understatement meaning I really thing it quite frightening. So much easier than engaging in argument, which is one reason the Church was so weak when it actually had to argue rather than assert and get people locked up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
I figured that it was, and yes, much easier to simply suppress all viewpoints but one’s own, but as you say, when the argument breaks the surface, and it always does, one has little to argue one’s own viewpoint.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, this has been a real problem – and remains so, unfortunately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Indeed, and I see others joined that club.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Outstanding find!
Shane’s conclusion track almost perfectly with my experience in two Protestant denomination since the 1960s. In addition, it makes sense, as do some of the comments (at least, I haven’t read them all, yet.)
His description of many Catholics from the fifties (and early 60s) also tracks very well with what I remember of them, and I too, knew quite a few and still do.
Given that, while not conclusive, I find his conclusions quite compelling. The ‘golden age of the 1950s did NOT exist, not in the Catholic Church, and not in any other either, some survived, as catholicism has so far, many didn’t, at least not intact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, I was rather taken with his thesis, which does, seem to me, to provide a valuable corrective to the declinist narrative.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
I think it does. My early experience in the UCC, coming from a fairly conservative E&R congregation says that undiluted Modernism/post Modernism will destroy a church. It seems likely that V II held some of this in check, because the catholic church has held up better than either the UCC or my ELCA, which is far to close to the Episcopalian position for comfort, and yet here, as well, the congregations are not nearly as liberal as the synod, although I suppose some must be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Interesting, and suggestive that the basic thesis is right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
It’s anecdotal, and based on my experience, but yes, I find it quite persuasive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Bravo, my good friend. In part, I wish would have this information and speculation before I wrote my last piece; however, I am slowly writing another at the moment so perhaps I can include some of the information here.
Regardless, I want to make clear that I am not in opposition of traditionalists like Dave who want to worship in the Latin ways, I wish he could have better options to do so if he wished.
However, I think two things: #1 I’ve been studying the history of Trent and any who feel the council had somehow produced a Golden Age of the Catholic Church/Mass needs to fully vet the political intrigue of the period. #2 Studying the history has made me more inclined to defend the vernacular of the Novus Ordo understanding such measure like Pope Paul IV Index of prohibited books. It appears to me such opposition is the old tactic, keep the masses ignorant and they cannot be swayed. I reject this tactic of the counter-reformation. Therefore, having a proper vetting of the history it’s hard to idly watch Traditionalists attempt to use Vatican II as a punching bag, when their favorite council was less than ideal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I think that to be deep in history is not only to be Catholic, but is to reject the idea there was some Catholic golden age too 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Many of thoughts I’ve encountered are contrary to what actually happened. Therefore, it’s a love affair with the past, it’s no longer being a traditionalists, but being an antiquarian.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Very much so. There is a tendency to impose on the past what we wish it had said, not what it said and was.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: Did Vatican II save the Church? | Christe Eleison
Michigan Man said:
Sorry, but there’s no way this is correct. His Holiness Pope Benedict admitted that of the few Catholics that remain in the Church today, at least professing to being Catholic, we must realize that many/most? are not actually Catholic. His words… we must realize that the Church is much smaller than we think.
“saving” the Church by infusing modernism and by altering teaching and practice to society is not saving the Church at all.
Again, I’m sorry but this is very off-base, I think. Modernism – though perhaps the worst heresy – is not the first heresy the Church as faced. After all, all “new” ideas in the Church are just heresy’s from the past. The best thing the Church can do throughout time is to not change. In fact it cannot, but regardless.
Thanks for your thoughts; I just don’t think they are right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Fair enough. I don’t, though, think there is anything heretical about V2, and would be interested to know what you think is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michigan Man said:
I think you’re right that nothing is overtly heretical. I think the vast majority of Bishops probably genuinely thought it would be a fresh change. Remember the famous phrase “Open the windows and let the fresh air in on the Church”?
Unfortunately, I think the Bishops now are too reluctant to say, “We tried what we thought the people would find spiritually beneficial and it hasn’t worked. Let’s go back to what we know did work instead of trying even more radical stuff.”
I think the issue are the ‘time bombs’ as certain Cardinals and Archbishops/Bishops like Ottaviani and Lefebvre pointed out during the Council, which were certain ambiguous phrases left in the documents that have led to all this madness now. Phrases leading to justification of the priest facing the people instead of leading them in prayer, or phrases that were misconstrued to translate the entire Rite of Mass into English/vernacular. I think it’s hard to argue that these were original intentions of 90% of the Bishops when these documents were written.
I think it’s clear that VCII was a pastoral Council, meaning that no dogma or doctrine was defined, so in the course of history, it should be about one of the least memorable Councils that the Church has ever seen, and I think there’s probably good reason to hope that it is that way, too. Pope Benedict began the work of trying to clean up some of the mess from the Council — lifting the excommunications of the Society Bishops, formalizing what the Church has always known – that the TLM is a/the formal Rite of the Roman Church even now, restoring Ad Orientam worship and Communion on the tongue while kneeling, &c. I pray that Pope Francis might convert to these Traditional practices as well.
Like I said, I don’t think the vast majority of Bishops were trying to drastically change anything — in fact, off the top of my head, I think they did a study and found this. Unfortunately, there were several who had embraced modernism and that shaped many of the documents (e.g. Religious liberty/Nostra aetate, &c.) with these ‘time bomb’ phrases and has since changed what Catholics believe (!) the Church teaches … if that phrase makes any sense.
Again, thanks for your post, and for your comments. I’d love to continue this dialogue
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
A pleasure. Let me come back to this soon, as there is too much here for a short answer.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Calvary isn’t a denomination. Its just a legal name for a franchise of gatherings that hopefuly have some born agains in them. Most do but not all. The only thing one finds there is the Word being lifted up, not golden objects or costumes. Just the Word of god.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
A legal name is another way of describing a denomination, still, as he said, Jesus founded a Church against which even the gates of hell would not prevail. I believe what Jesus said and that the church he founded is still with us – how about you?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Im all ears. Tell me…..what is the name of the church Jesus founded. Thanks in advance. Oh and if you will, toss in some supported evidence.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
We’ve been here before. Which Church is led by the successor of St Peter? Only one.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Im not aware good brother Peter had a successor. We are all accountable to god by ourselves. If we are saved, we are not accountable. We cant pass on salvation. One is to ask Jesus for himself for salvation.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I am simply going with what Jesus said.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
And like I have said befor, Jesus said a lot of things. He did say that one doesn’t know where the saved come from or where they go. That rules out a visible organization with a flag and costumes.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t see why that follows, indeed, were that so, why would he have founded a church?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
I don’t believe, and neither does scripture support, the view that Jesus started a church at that time. There have always been HIS body of the saved.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Jesus said it, Scripture records it. You have to find ways if denying it because if you didn’t, you’d see the truth, and you pride refuses to allow it.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Correct me if im wrong. jesus said he will build it, not begin it. In OT times, He had those who believed in his coming. In NT time He had those who believed he has come.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Matthew 16:18
18 And I tell you, you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hadesshall not prevail against it.
Yes, he says he will build his church on Simon, whom he now names Rock. As he spoke Aramaic, he would have used the word kepha, which means rock.
I believe Scripture. Jesus did what he says here. You have to wriggle to deny this obvious fact. Stop ducking the truth, accept it.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Im the last one to deny Jesus built his church. Im a card carrying member.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
He says he builds it on Peter. Peter is not the foundation of you Church. I believe Jesus, you explain him away. You have to, because if you took him seriously you’d join his church.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Ive been accused of taking verses out of context, but not on these pages. In here, my personage is mainly attacked so as to dull my message. If one read M 18, one will see what the talk is about. It is about who Jesus is. He is the messiah. Who is the messiah? He is the Rock of ages. These days, a snipet is torn from the chapter and is used to demonstrate that Christ body is built on a man. The chapter is all about who Christ is, not about who good brother Peter is. Why isn’t Peter ever mentioned as the leader after that? This Rock the church is built on is the same Rock that followed the Israelites in the desert. Now, there are those who like to believe their church is built on a man. Its a free world. Have at it.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I still think you are wriggling. It is about what the consequences of that person recognising he is the Messiah will be. Jesus will be. Jesus tells us – he will build his church on that person. There is no getting away from that, which is why you have to avoid it.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Islam is the closest to being a religion that god might be behind. It has no pageantry. But what gives it away as being false is its murderous ways. We can exclude a number of religion as being false because of their murderous history.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I simply follow the words of Jesus.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
You might follow them…but does the org that you subscribe to teach its flock to disobey Jesus words?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No. What had you in mind?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
The age old tried and true, what your state run religion calls….the economy of images. That’s just one out of many. Allowing and encouraging souls to bowbefor them and even kiss them is another story
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I see you evade Jesus’ words. I believe them.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Matthew 16:18
18 And I tell you, you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hadesshall not prevail against it
Not once, im my short but evil life, have I ever seen a catholic use the whole chapter 16. Not once. Lets look at what was said befor vs 16, shall we?
When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church
Then Jesus goes on to say how Peter is going to be the Holy Father and wear a big robe…wait…that’s not what Jesus says…here is what Jesus goes on to say…..
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
No talk about how Peter is the Rock of salvation.
Idolatry is holding up a human for veneration and importance, among other things.
False religions don’t stand up to scrutiny. Why don’t the same people who hold up vs 18 also wave around this verse, which is in the self same chapter……….
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Well, according to Jesus, the head of your state run religion is Satan. Its obvious. All one has to do is open the newspapers.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
What do you think Jesus means about Peter and the Church?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Nothing. Christ is the head. Let say, for arguments sake, that Jesus made Peter head of the church. Where is Peter?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Do you see how your refusal to accept the text makes you ask poor questions? Jesus founds the Church on Peter, the Church will last even against the gates if hell, logic and common sense tell you what church history tells you, Peter will have successors. That is so obvious I can hardly believe you asked it.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Peter is dead and buried. I cant seem to find where he named a successor. I know you are going to use the fact that a new man was added for Judas. That was to make 12 again because they went out in 2s. As the others died, im not aware of any successors. They didn’t hold any offices. They were just men who were saved. What is there to pass on?I know where you are going with this. The state run religion has an unbroken line all the way to Peter. You should do a double check on the pedigree. If murder is a means of succession, well, then there is an unbroken line. Maybe being run out of town for inexcusable vileness and evil is a means of holy apostolic succession, well, then one has an unbroken line.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, I am using Jesus’ words and believing him. He says the church will be (future tense) founded on Peter. He does not say it will die when Peter dies, or that Peter will live forever. Therefore, if that Church is to continue, logic suggests Peter will have a successor, something history confirms. Quite easy if you just believe Jesus. Quite hard if your prejudice means you can’t do that.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
Acts cp 10
Peter wanderd around Judea. There is no mention of him heading some congregation. Plus, Peter forbid and worship or veneration to him. Sorry, I don’t find Peter as head of anything. But this is a small matter. But small matters can add up to big matters. But, as long as one is alive, that one can ask Jesus to reveal himself. No matter what ones beliefs are. He takes you as you are.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Again, you wriggle. Jesus said the church would be founded on Peter. Those who worked with Peter understood what that meant and appointed a successor. The Church has done so from the beginning and still does. You cannot face the truth here because you would have to abandon your prejudices; a shame.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
You forget or don’t believe I know Jesus. Jesus would have said something about Peter if the church was built on him. Jesus said on this rock he will build his church. Peter said Jesus was the Christ and that is the Rock the church is built on. Remember, follow the subject matter of cp 16. It was Jesus is Christ. Why would you think Christs church is built on a sinful man? That’s odd coming from someone who claims to know scripture. But, I firmly believe your church is built on a man. You get no argument from me there. (;-D
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The Bible is the only authorised revelation, and in it, Jesus says he will build his church on the rock of Peter. If the “Jesus’ you know does not confirm this, I would be worried about whom it was I was conversing with.
LikeLike