/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>602258

>I hear a lot of negativity about it

Do you live in a majority baptist area?

>>602258

Pax tecum.

Catholicism means the whole and universal faith. The word katholikos was used in the 1st century and was the first word used by christians to describe the Christian faith. The Catholic Church is the one Church founded by Christ on the rock that is the first Pope St Peter, who Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and promised that the gates of the underworld would never prevail against it, matthew 16 18.

Christ gave his apostles the power to bind and loose on earth as it is in heaven. A power which they passed onto their successors the bishops. The whole Church lies within the Eucharist which is the body of Christ that Jesus said we had to eat to have internal life, and the Eucharist is consecrated by bishops, thus the Church lies with the bishop as St Ignatius, disciple of st john the apostle said.

Whilst the gospels and epistles were being written and compiled, sacred tradition was the means of evangelising as St Paul instructed : "hold onto our traditions either written or by word of mouth". It was only in the mid 2nd century that bishops like St Iraeneus of Lyon first accepted a 4 gospel canon and then we see at the council of Carthage the new testament canonised into the bible.

There are three pillars of the Catholic faith: sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the mahisterium of the Church, all of which are infallible. The sacred tradition preserved the teachings of Christ and the events of the bible until they could be written down thus without sacred tradition you have no sacred scripture. But we do not know what is sacred tradition/scripture and what is just the writings and traditions of man without the magisterium. The magisterium is the Church guided by the holy spirit and using its apostolic infallible authority given by Christ to define what is the truth of the faith. All three pillars of the faith are necessary and without one they all crumble.

As for the history of the Church, the Church has constantly been fighting pagans, satanists, heretics, muslims, Jews who all hate it and seek to libel and destroy it. A lot of what you read about the church is hateful propaganda intended to deceive, a lot of it unfortunately done by protestants who should be brothers in the faith. Don't take on faith what others have wrote about the Church but instead read the original historical documents and research it yourself.

God bless.

I always hear that the the inquisition was the Roman Catholic Church persecuting everyone (including christians) for not following what they say.

They didn't allow anyone to have their version of the bible and limited the Bible to in Latin.

>>602271

now that's the only kind of pussy a man should want

>>602430

Not entirely true.

Translations were allowed if permission granted by the pope/curia.

But the catholic church did itself no favor with the way it handled Lollards and Hussites

>>602267

There's always the hotly contested topic of the Saints. They're usually said to be rebranded Roman pagan gods and such.

>>602430

>They didn't allow anyone to have their version of the bible and limited the Bible to in Latin.

the inquisition was founded when the cathars were a big deal. Cathars produced mistranslated bibles that supported their doctrines, much like the jehovah's witnesses do today.

would you ban the NWT if you could?

>>602497

>would you ban the NWT if you could?

that would be the fastest way to create more JW's

>>602499

i'd wager that has more to do with their slaughter than a ban on their literature.

can't say whether or not it was justified.

i am very ignorant on the topic of the cathars tbqhwy.

>>602273

They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

John 16:2 KJV

Catholic murder and think they are doing God's service.

>>602671

Catholics*

>>602671

>whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Isaiah 66:5 KJV, Titus 2:13.

>>602258

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com has great resources for you

False Religions

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/false_religions.htm

RCC

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/cult_exposed.htm

>>602502

I think most cathars were converted

>>602668

>Works gospel: The teaching that you must earn your own righteousness in addition to faith

Wrong. This is anathema. There is nothing you can earn in Catholicism. There is merit but merit is a gift and not something you earn. Works is also a gift from God and not something of yourself but a cooperation with the Holy Spirit.

>Nullifying Scripture: The teaching that oral wisdom not found in the word of God can be used to counteract it and make it of none effect

Wrong scripture is infallible. Sacred tradition never contradicts sacred scripture. If you think it does then you have misinterpreted either.

>Idolatry: Making idols and teaching people to worship them

Now this is just bait. If you worship (latria) anything but God then you are a pagan. And God is not a material object.

>Vain repetitions: Teaching people that much speaking will merit being heard

Wrong, they aren't vain because they work. See all the documented miracles. Also was Jesus vain for praying without ceasing too?

>>602810

>Jesus prays all night

>baptist: wow that's vain repetition

>Jesus commits His Mother to the Beloved Disciple

>baptist: wow, she's just a normal human. probably has like ten kids.

>Jesus says "this is my body, which I have given up for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

>baptist: but don't really do it, that's idolatry

>St. Paul gives some remonstrations towards people doing the eucharist in a state of mortal sin

>baptist: he meant something else lol xD

one that really rubs my almonds is the Virgin Mary not being a virgin, and having a couple of kids.

if this was true, then how did Jesus' blood brothers not get…any attention at all as the literal blood brothers of God?

>>602810

>>602819

>Jesus prays all night

>probably just 2,500 hail mary's

>>602810

>Also was Jesus vain for praying without ceasing too?

I really want you to point out the part of the Bible where Jesus sits and repeats himself 50 times. Cause I’m pretty sure that never happens

>>602821

>not 2,500 Our Father's

Do you deny that this is how He taught us to pray?

>>602822

I like to know when you just woke up one day and decide to make yourself an enemy of Christ's Church.

>>602825

Don’t worry, I’m not an enemy of Christ’s Church

>>602693

indeed they were because that's the point of inquisition

>>602825

Praying the Lord's Prayer once is equivalent, or better, than repeating it 2000 times in a sitting.

>pray continuously

This is why it's important to read your Bible, so you know how God communicates and can form decent replies.

>>602478

>>602840

what the fugg?

>>602680

Latin vicarius ‘substitute’.

Greek anti ‘against’.

Are you serious m8?

>>602821

>>602822

>>602834

41 And he was withdrawn away from them a stone's cast; and kneeling down, he prayed,

42 Saying: Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done.

He prayed for all night using but two sentences. But no vain repetition means ALL repetitions. Not to mention Psalms that have repetitions in them as well

>>602677

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Freemasonry/famous_baptists.htm

:thinking:

>>602810

>Works is also a gift from God and not something of yourself but a cooperation with the Holy Spirit.

Unless you adhere to free grace and OSAS, you necessarily have a works gospel. This is because, if it is in fact possible for a saved elect person to not do something, such as not cooperate, and for this cause lose the gift of God which has been received, therefore those works are required for salvation. I'm not interested in the word games that attempt to mask this conclusion because it's inescapable. But this conclusion is not what the word says. Now on the other hand, the above says nothing about people who haven't received grace. In their case, the opposite holds and no system of works will change their situation either. Only the grace of God is effectual, and it is completely so, being given to those who were and are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son. This is why lordship salvation, faith and works gospel and other such formulations are in fact works gospels because they do not deny the utter insufficiency of works to justify but rather persist to seek to include it (according to their particular sensibilities of course and no other). Romans 11:6.

>If you think it does then you have misinterpreted either.

The Holy Spirit witnesses the correct and intended meaning of Scripture (being the same author 2 Peter 1:20-21) to those that believe (see 1 Cor. 2:9-13; John 14:16-17,26; John 16:13), and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 establishes the sufficiency of scripture for the man of God. So properly it's not the believer himself who interprets but the Spirit of God in him. And in this the Spirit cannot fail, whereas man does stumble. So really only the believer can be supplied with the truth directly from God by receiving the word of God. 1 Thess. 2:13.

>If you worship (latria)

According to the Biblical definition of worship, it extends beyond your definition. This is why you even need to specify your own definition to attempt to defend this

>Wrong, they aren't vain because they work.

Thinking that you will be heard for your much speaking is vanity, Scripture attests.

>>602856

>He prayed for all night using but two sentences.

Prayer isn't equivalent to speaking aloud. Isaac in Genesis 24:45 described his prayer to the Lord as "speaking in mine heart." So it could be those were the only two times Jesus spoke that whole night. No repetition or multiplying words is implied here.

>Not to mention Psalms that have repetitions in them as well

<Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

He says when you pray, use not vain repetitions. He doesn't say never repeat yourself in any circumstance.

>>602900

>Unless you adhere to free grace and OSAS, you necessarily have a works gospel.

OSAS IS works gospel.

>This is because, if it is in fact possible for a saved elect person to not do something, such as not cooperate, and for this cause lose the gift of God which has been received, therefore those works are required for salvation.

First of all knowing who is elect is special gift from God. For in Epistle to Romans Paul talks about election yet only one person is called such, Rufus. For many are called and few are chosen.

Second of all election does not mean that elect always will be in state of grace. For Peter who was elected and was kept in hand of Lord denied him but repented.

Third of all, works are necessary for salvation, for we are saved by faith working through charity.

> I'm not interested in the word games that attempt to mask this conclusion because it's inescapable.

Or maybe you are deceived so much that satan won't let you see it while he is leading you straight to reprobation. But of course that could never happen to you, you are special.

>. But this conclusion is not what the word says. Now on the other hand, the above says nothing about people who haven't received grace. In their case, the opposite holds and no system of works will change their situation either. Only the grace of God is effectual, and it is completely so, being given to those who were and are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son.

That only apply to elect. Nowhere it says that grace cannot be given to not-elect. It can be given to all called, and many are called but few are choosen. It was given to Judas and he fall unto reprobation.

Noone know if he is elect unless God say it to him personally. That's why Peter calls us to make sure if we are elected, that's why Paul talks about working out salvation with fear and trembling.

>This is why lordship salvation, faith and works gospel and other such formulations are in fact works gospels because they do not deny the utter insufficiency of works to justify but rather persist to seek to include it (according to their particular sensibilities of course and no other). Romans 11:6.

And because Romans 11:6 OSAS is works gospel for it makes salvation into pelagian free choice of saving self.

>The Holy Spirit witnesses the correct and intended meaning of Scripture (being the same author 2 Peter 1:20-21) to those that believe (see 1 Cor. 2:9-13; John 14:16-17,26; John 16:13), and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 establishes the sufficiency of scripture for the man of God.

And because you clearly misinterpret Scripture you are neither man of God (who according to Paul in 1 Timothy is presbyter) nor believer.

>So properly it's not the believer himself who interprets but the Spirit of God in him. And in this the Spirit cannot fail, whereas man does stumble. So really only the believer can be supplied with the truth directly from God by receiving the word of God. 1 Thess. 2:13.

Again you show yourself to not be believed. For there is not receiving believing and not believing without hearing and no hearing without preachign and no one is preacher unless he is sent to be preacher. Romans 10.

>According to the Biblical definition of worship, it extends beyond your definition. This is why you even need to specify your own definition to attempt to defend this

According to Bible, you are wrong. Read usage of words http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7812.htm http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5647.htm

>Thinking that you will be heard for your much speaking is vanity, Scripture attests.

And you will be arrested for not honoring your mother (if you are even baptised Christian, than many of your following make me not so sure to believe)

>Prayer isn't equivalent to speaking aloud. Isaac in Genesis 24:45 described his prayer to the Lord as "speaking in mine heart." So it could be those were the only two times Jesus spoke that whole night. No repetition or multiplying words is implied here.

Vocal prayer is prayer made vocal (duh). But essentially it's of no difference. Christ prayed using this two sentences. Or maybe it's some kind of Baptist tradition that no one ever heard about?

>He says when you pray, use not vain repetitions. He doesn't say never repeat yourself in any circumstance.

Then what makes Rosary a vain repetition? Usage of it by catholics?

>>602911

I searched through all of "Anti" in New Testament. Not once it is translated as "substitute", be it on it's own or in other words.

Also checked Vulgate for usage of "Vicar". Only place that I found it was Levitcus. LXX translate it no usegin any words with "anti" in it.

One could translate "Antichrist" into "vicar of christ' have to be either totally idiotic, or dishonest only to make popes look bad.

>>602940

ah i misunderstood, it doesn't have to explicitly be translated to "substitute" in order for it's meaning to be substitute though.

you could substitute in "as a substitute for" into most of the orange and the verses will still make sense, because that's what it means in most of the contexts it's in.

>>602940

>lel it's you again, i'm so glad i don't have to respond to the other 9/10ths of this post

Because you know that you will lose, like always

>what did you use to search for it?

The same site you use. Biblehub. Show me if "anti" in gospels or other places in NT are translated into "Substitute". Maybe my eyes grew old, but I don't think so.

>>602945

Then show this meaning. For I searched and have not found.

>>602968

>you could substitute in "as a substitute for" into most of the orange and the verses will still make sense

Let's take Matthew for example and try this theory (I can go through all of them if you wish)

Matthew 2:22

>But when he learned that Archelaus was reigning in Judea as a substitute for his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee.

Probably best exemple, but weak. Archelaus was not substitute for Herod, he was succesor. In out case noone claims that Pope is succesor of Christ.

Matthew 5:38

>You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye as a substitute for eye and tooth as a substitute for tooth.’

Even weaker. Thing A cannot be substitute of thing A because it's alredy thing A. Substitute implies more or less significant difrence.

Matthew 17:27

>“But so that we may not offend them, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the first fish you catch. When you open its mouth, you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them as a substitute for you and Me."

There we see that it have no sense at all. Coin was not substitute for coin, it was what was due.

Matthew 20:28

>just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a as a substitute for for many.

Here it's better but not quite. For Christ is ransom that far extend value of "many" and do not have equal or lesser value like substitute would imply.

I could go through rest but do I really? Vicar and substitue are both Latin words. And both are used in Vulgate.Verse that use "Vicar" in Vulgate does not use "Anti" in LXX. As for "substitute" case is the same in all cases.

>>602968

>which is why every greek lexicon i know of ( thayer's, strong's, mounce's, liddell-scott-jones, abbott-smith, ) agrees with me that one of the definitions of ἀντί is substitute.

But not as the common usage. On contrary to translate anti as substitute you would have to find very obscure cases. And to translate it as vicar is just straight out malice.

>>603037

>>603040

>typing all this to say that i'm right that one of the definitions of ἀντί is substitute.

okay, cool.

it's been a pleasure as always, polish-breh

>>603043

But not Biblical one my sola scriptura friend. Pleasure like always.

>:thinking:

Thinking about how the southern baptists tend to be the tares among the Baptist wheat.

>>602968

I know of some institutions that will promise fish and give a serpent instead. And some stones (law) instead of bread (grace).

>>603103

If you would read what you quote you would see in what strict sense Church use it baka

>>603116

That doesn't look like a rcc congregation. You uploaded the wrong picture.

>>603116

>ATHEISTS AGREE WITH ME!! THIS PROVES I’M RIGHT

Eat a cinder block you fucking moron

>>603115

>tells me to read what I quoted because his Roman cognitive dissonance refuses to comprehend.

>>603132

Kek

>>603132

>Everyone who does not agree with me is Atheist

cute

>>603134

From your pic "The orginal notion is of representative"

>>603142

>Everyone who does not agree with me is Atheist

the guy you're quoting literally says "There is no god" in it.

>>603142

>please disregard "From the Latin, vicarius"

>>603149

>Saying that Protestant meeting houses are not fit to teach about God=saying there is no God

lol

>>603202

>Which says that "deputy" is correct translation that is aligned with '"original notion"' used in Church

>>603257

>says the original notion

>which notion is made clear through its meaning

>in place of Christ

>>603293

Are you have reading problems? It black on white: "Original notion is of representative'". To say that representative means anti is to say that Aaron was AntiMoses.

>>603498

That reads like a hypothetical quote, greentext if you will

>>603500

No it doesn’t. It’s not a greentext. It reads like an atheist on cuckchan /pol/ has some shit to say, and you agree with it because you both hate a random Christian Pastor.

>>603502

>No it doesn’t.

Reading comprehension must be alien to you

>It’s not a greentext.

It's essentially greentext even if it lacks the meme arrow of who are you quoting

>>603502

are you american by any chance?

>the only thing you can learn in an ugly building is there is no god, but there is probably a devil

Whether he's making a hypothetical quote or not, he failed to capitalize God, and sends a message totally alien to Scripture.

>>603300

Aaron wasn't called vicar nor was he ever called God on earth.

>vicar of

>in place of

>deputy

>proxy

>substitute

>etc.

It's all the same no matter how hard you try. Enjoy following your mere man "in place of Christ".

>>603502

He doesn't hate a random pastor, he hates Christ and his Gospel in saying Christ isn't enough.

>Hey God. Step back. I've got this. I can get into heaven. I'm going to pay with my filthy rags.

>>603498

Are you intentionally make idiot out of yourself? He says that:

THERE IS ONLY ONE THING YOU CAN LEARN UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS

If a christian make statement that in, for example, Harvard all that you will learn is that "there is no god" (which is true, modern universities are atheist indoctrination camps) does that make him an atheist? O course no you ding.

And considering that this thread was just butthurt american who claimed that beautiful church=worship of devil chance that he was just regular christian from Australia are high. Because not all chrstians are as much retarded as Calvin was.

>>603519

>Hey God. Step back. I've got this. I can get into heaven. I'm going to pay with my filthy rags.

Since when anyway but you have OSAS theology?

>>603518

>Aaron wasn't called vicar

True, but he was one. God wasn't called Trinity either.

>And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth…

Spokesman mean representative, a vicar.

>nor was he ever called God on earth.

Noone ever was exept for Christ and Moses:

>and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

>It's all the same no matter how hard you try. Enjoy following your mere man "in place of Christ".

How many times do I have to repeat what your friend quotes:

"Original notion is that of representative"

Also, if you accuse someone of being in place of Christ, focus on Paul, not Peter:

And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

Not that we care, both were Catholic priests.

>>603540

P.s. bold red font doesn't make you any less wrong

>>603622

>Not in place of God.

in place of

1.instead of.

>and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

Yeah, no.

>Trying this hard to defend Babylon.

<Trying this much to try to make Bride of Christ Whore of Babylon.

Shape of mitre we had already. Now for the star:

"It so happens that during the Middle Ages, the 'Star of David' was frequently found on churches (such as Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome) and even in mosques, but was absent in synagogues. It was also conspicuously absent as a symbol in Jewish books and on ritual objects."

>How come you don't do the will of God to simply believe and be saved (John 6:40)

Oh I do. For exmple I do not perverse Scripture. For look upon John 6:39-40

>39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

>40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

According to you, one doing the will of Father is not only who who sees and believes in Son but also one who make Christ not lose anyone and rise the Dead.

Meanwhile, in Matthew Gospel we see whaw we do to fallow will of Father in Matt 25 and pararel passages.

>>603511

>he said there is no god

>he meant the opposite of what he said

Why am I surprised every fucking you people pull this move? Why don’t I ever just fucking learn?

>>603639

>and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

Context shows that he's not replacing God, as vicar implies. Alternate translations say "as God" because "instead of" isn't even in the Hebrew.

>Trying this much to try to make Bride of Christ Whore of Babylon.

<Trying this much to try to make Whore of Babylon the bride of Christ (as follows)

>Star of David

But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.

Amos 5:26 KJV

But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.

Amos 5:26 KJV

Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon….. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

Acts 7:43‭, ‬57‭-‬58 KJV

Thanks for posting verses surrounding John 6:40 only to prove more beyond faith alone, but eternal security.

>I do not perverse Scripture

>Is a scripture perverting catholic.

>fallow

Kek

>>603643

>he said there is no god

Pray for the Spirit of knowledge to pay you a visit, bro

>>603639

>>603649

And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I WILL BE WITH THY MOUTH, and with his mouth, and WILL TEACH YOU what ye shall do.

Exodus 4:15 KJV

God is with Moses. No replacing God here.

>>603650

>there is no god

>he meant the opposite of what he said

>>603660

Taking quotes out of context just makes you look stupid

>>603661

Fine, I’ll post the whole quote with context. “There is no god, but there is probably a devil”

>HE MEANT DE OPP-O’SIT OF WUT HE SEDDD!!!!!!!!!

>>603643

>>603660

>>603678

He is actually right, by the way, you are misreading it.

The guy should have used a colon to indicate he was continuing his thought, but it makes sense read as it is.

>>603688

>you misunderstand, despite clearly saying one thing, he meant the opposite

>>603689

Man stop being obtuse. It's a single thought.

>There is only one thing you can learn under those conditions, THAT BEING, there is not god, but there is probably a devil.

Otherwise you have to supplement what that "one thing" is, because if it is two separate thoughts, neither of them have anything to do with one another.

>>603694

>”you will learn there is no god”

>he meant that God exists and we should worship him

>>603695

It's more like

>If you go to this basic, stripped-out office building "church" to see this ranting loon shout at you about fags and vitamin K, you will not come away from it with the belief that there is a God, in fact all you will probably learn about is evil.

>>603697

He doesn’t say “you’ll come away believing,” he says “you’ll learn.” “You’ll learn there is no god.” He said that because he’s an atheist who doesn’t believe in God

>>603699

>“You’ll learn there is no god.”

Correct, because Anderson does nothing but talk shit. What kind of Godly example are you supposed to learn from him? What on earth else can you learn from him?

Also whether that poster is an atheist or not is beside the point. I could say Catholic schools' catechism is so shit that kids come out without even a trace of belief in God or, as he says, they will not learn about God. Does that make me an atheist too?

>>603701

If you said “Catholic schools' catechism is so shit that kids come out without even a trace of belief in God” that wouldn’t indicate what you believe about God. If you said “the only thing you can learn in Catholic schools’ catechism is that there is no God” I would say you’re an atheist

>>603703

>If you said “the only thing you can learn in Catholic schools’ catechism is that there is no God” I would say you’re an atheist

That's true, if I didn't also qualify it with how bad I consider it to be, otherwise it would be an unnecessary criticism.

Just like that other guy qualified the his remarks of the "church" by staing how little of value you can learn in it.

>>603706

Qualifying why something is bad doesn’t change what you state the result is. If you said “Catholics school catechism is so bad, because it’s unfocused, dreary, and dull, that you will learn in it there is no God” You would STILL BE SAYING THERE IS NO GOD. This guy said outright that there is no God. He is an atheist.

>>603734

HAAAA gotem

>>603649

>Context shows that he's not replacing God, as vicar implies. Alternate translations say "as God" because "instead of" isn't even in the Hebrew.

Vicar implies not replacement but representation. When arish have vicar priest he does not replace his pastor. Vice and Vicar have same root and meaning, and yet noone is claiming that "Viceresident replaces President".Learn2Dictionary.

Also whatever happened with "perfect english translation" that Baptist calim KJV to be, good for you that ou see it's bullshit.

<Trying this much to try to make Whore of Babylon the bride of Christ (as follows)

>Trying this much to try to make Bride of Christ Whore of Babylon.

>Star of David

Which is not star of creation seen on mitre of pope. It looks similar, for devil is ape of God but not identical.t was used by Christians. It was used by Muslims. But it was not used by Jews till milenium ago.

>Thanks for posting verses surrounding John 6:40 only to prove more beyond faith alone, but eternal security.

It proves neither of those. For John shows us that there was some who were in Christ hand and yet fallen away:

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father.

While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.

Noone is able to snatch anyone from Christ hand. Christ certainly did not lost anyone on his own.Yet son of perdition was lost. Only two possibilities are this: He lost himself, making OSAS untrue. Or that God lost him, making God author of damnation makeing free wil, all choices, or laws (including divine one) null and void.

>Is a scripture perverting catholic.

>Says the Baptist, perversing Scripture

>>603652

I was talking about Aaron and Moses, not Moses and God ya ding.Learn how to read.

>>604040

>Vicar implies not replacement but representation

<Vicar - in place of, substitute, from Vicarius - taking place of another, from vicis'' a change, exchange, interchange; succession, alternation, substitution, - Etymonline

>I'm going to keep posting more of John 6:40 only to prove myself wrong further and shine more light on the biblical truth of OSAS.

>Ya ding.

>I can't make a point, so I'll resort to Ad Hominem attacks because I'm angry by calling people a ding.

I'd rather be a ding for God than a heretic for Satan .

>Which is not star of creation seen on mitre of pope

Shlomo stop trying hard to hide your nose. Star of David is not of David. It's the star of Saturn, Saturn which is littered through all of Catholic Dogma and art.

>>604293

Remphan is a pagan god (demon) associated with Saturn, like Cronus

>>604084

<Vicar - in place of, substitute, from Vicarius - taking place of another, from vicis'' a change, exchange, interchange; succession, alternation, substitution, - Etymonline

>Roman Catholic Church. an ecclesiastic representing the pope or a bishop.

>a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy:

Dictionary.Com

>1.2 (in the Roman Catholic Church) a representative or deputy of a bishop.

Oxford

>a member of the clergy who exercises a broad pastoral responsibility as the representative of a prelate

Merriam-Webster

Et cetera et cetera.

Or as can KJV use it: Spokesman.

>I'm going to keep posting more of John 6:40 only to prove myself wrong further and shine more light on the biblical truth of OSAS.

<I am gong to ignore everything that relates to John 6:40 to prove myself right and shine more light on satanic deception of OSAS

>I can't make a point, so I'll resort to Ad Hominem attacks because I'm angry by calling people a ding.

If your reading skill are on the level of ding, I will call you a ding. If you didn't make yourself a ding, no one would call you that, me included.

>I'd rather be a ding for God than a heretic for Satan .

You DO know that heresy is by definition is denial of dogma? To be heretic to Satan one would have denial what he (satan) stands for.

>>604087

I will make you a picture. See this? This is what normal people call "difference".

To repeat what I already said and you ignored like always

"It so happens that during the Middle Ages, the 'Star of David' was frequently found on churches (such as Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome) and even in mosques, but was absent in synagogues. It was also conspicuously absent as a symbol in Jewish books and on ritual objects."

>Star of David is not of David.

Like if I didn't know that. Buy name sticked. Like book of Enoch, or Life of Adam and Eve.

> It's the star of Saturn, Saturn which is littered through all of Catholic Dogma and art.

<All-present Saturn meme

<Meme that claims that Cross is saturnic as well

Dude, take medicine, you are lacking vitamin K

I generally like being a Catholic. Mass can be boring, but I prefer it to a Prot preaching twisted bible verses and telling me how to live my life. Also, confession is a literal meme and will not save you.

>>602668

like this for example. absolute german shill tears.

>>604347

>deputy

>substitute

< vicar of Christ

< In place of Christ

Only Christ is in the place of Christ

>I am gong to ignore everything that relates to John 6:40 to prove myself right and shine more light on satanic deception of OSAS

<Trying this hard to call the inspired word of God satanic.

>If your reading skill are on the level of ding, I will call you a ding. If you didn't make yourself a ding, no one would call you that, me included.

<I'm still angry, so I'm going to justify my ad hominem

>You DO know that heresy is by definition is denial of dogma? To be heretic to Satan one would have denial what he (satan) stands for.

Amen. Heresy is denial of God's Dogma. I'll be a ding for God by rejecting the earthly wisdom and man made dogma of the Roman Catholic "Church".

>Like if I didn't know that

Wow. You admitted your allegiance to Saturn.

>Cross is saturnic

In a way it is. Saturn is symbolized by a cube, which opened up is a cross. Jesus defeated the satanic system. The cross is the cube destroyed. The cross however predated that pagan system. Jesus is the aleph and tav, the sacrifice on the cross. Aleph and Tav in ancient Hebrew are symbolized by a ram and cross. The cross is all throughout the OT, and was stolen by Satan to mock him. God defeated Satan before Satan knew it.

>I'm going to call saturn a meme and then go on about the vitamin k meme.

Anderson may be a dick, but at least he has the true Gospel. (which most likely Satan is using his douchebaggery to turn away from the true free grace Gospel, justifying people freely by Christ's grace.)

>>602273

I hear about the inquisition killing a lot of pagan weirdoes BUT ALSO bible believing Christians.

I want to hear the side of the story for the Catholics.

>>605424

Sure. In a nut-shell: Most of the targets of the Inquisition were conversos, that is, crypto-Jews pretending to be Christians so they could continue in their illicit trades. Usually in the form of extreme usury and being debt-mongers.

The number of actual "bible-believing Christians" must be pretty low, because when you actually look over the historical record the Spanish Inquisition was particularly targeted towards rooting out Jewish Bankers using Christianity to debase the faithful.

Of course, you aren't really told this, because then you might agree with them.

>>605424

more things you aren't told: the Jews helped Luther and other early sects of Protestantism, because they were extremely friendly to the Jews.

Usury, masturbation, pornography, all these very palpable sins have been completely dropped by Protestants, and the Jews have made MAJOR strides in all areas to take up complete control.

WASPs completely dropped the ball.

>>602443

Murderers, liars, and Church-burners. Do you just see these names and think "gee, what complete innocents!". Hussites in particular were notorious for killing monks, priests, and raping nuns.

Read a history book.

>>602834

You have to actually define the argument here, did Jesus pray all night with only two sentences and then just meditated like a Buddhist all night, or did He actually pray with what He left us?

The Apostles asked Him to pray, and the Lord's prayer is what we received.

>>604421

>< vicar of Christ

>< In place of Christ

<and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

Instead: as an alternative or substitute.

Moses was substitute of God then? Or vicar that is, deputy? Was Moses antitheos? According to you, he was.

><Trying this hard to call the inspired word of God satanic.

<OSAS, doctrine that was never preached before circa XIX century is now word of God

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father.

While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them 'is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.

Noone is able to snatch anyone from Christ hand. Christ certainly did not lost anyone on his own.Yet son of perdition was lost. Only two possibilities are this: He lost himself, making OSAS untrue. Or that God lost him, making God author of damnation makeing free wil, all choices, or laws (including divine one) null and void.

<I'm still angry, so I'm going to justify my ad hominem

I am chill my dude. And your reading skills are still shit.

So is level of discussion since you focus on that and not core arguments.

>Amen. Heresy is denial of God's Dogma. I'll be a ding for God by rejecting the earthly wisdom and man made dogma of the Roman Catholic "Church".

And you said you are heretic to ''Satan's" dogma. And Roman and Holy Church have doctrines of God, preached by apostles.

>Wow. You admitted your allegiance to Saturn.

Where. I said that I know that Jews are LARPers who claim to have some connection to King David. Did I said that I am Jew?

>In a way it is.

And those who buy into "All evil is Saturn" claim that :those evil saturnic catholics" made it symbol of Christ. Get your memes straight. You wouldn't be first "christian" who calimed this here, even flag was the same.

>Anderson may be a dick, but at least he has the true Gospel. (which most likely Satan is using his douchebaggery to turn away from the true free grace Gospel, justifying people freely by Christ's grace.)

Anderson denies Chalcedonian definition. Do me a favor and call this true Gospel if you wish.

>>605681

Believe it or not, Summa have answer on that:

Objection 2. Further, the priesthood of the New Testament is more worthy than the priesthood of the Old. But the priests of the Old Testament had mitres, which are a sign of dignity. Therefore the priests of the New Testament should also have them.

Objection 6. Further, the golden plate on which was written the most admirable name of God, was the most admirable of the adornments of the Old Law. Therefore it should especially have been transferred to the New Law.

I answer that, The vestments of the ministers denote the qualifications required of them for handling Divine things. And since certain things are required of all, and some are required of the higher, that are not so exacted of the lower ministers, therefore certain vestments are common to all the ministers, while some pertain to the higher ministers only. Bishops have nine ornaments besides those which the priest has because there are nine things which they can, but priests cannot.

Reply to Objection 2. The mitre was not a sign of dignity, for it was a kind of hat, as Jerome says (Ep. ad Fabiol.). But the diadem which was a sign of dignity was given to the pontiffs alone, as the mitre is now. We may also say that the (…) "mitre" signify his knowledge of both Testaments, for which reason it has two crests.

Reply to Objection 6. Instead of that plate our pontiff wears the cross, as Innocent III says (De Myst. Miss. i), just as the breeches are replaced by the sandals, the linen garment by the alb, the belt by the girdle, the long or talaric garment by the tunic, the ephod by the amice, the "rational" by the pallium, the diadem by the mitre.

>>605671

Luke 6 tells us that Jesus prayed all night, and it never records a single word. If Jesus spoke nothing more than the sentences recorded in Matthew 26 and Luke 22, did He simply say nothing in Luke 6?

Every word of Jesus is absolutely precious but I don't believe we know every word Jesus ever spoke in His earthly life, or even His earthly ministry.

Even if Jesus never uttered a single word the night of Luke 6, it's absolutely dishonest to equate Christian meditations with Buddhist ones. Most likely Jesus prayed on both occasions as He prayed every other time, as an earnest supplicant, setting the example for us.

>The Apostles asked Him to pray

They asked Him to teach them to pray, and the Lord's prayer is what we received.

>>605746

>Yet son of perdition was lost

>Only two possibilities are this:

Third possibility: Judas was never saved.

John 6

>64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

>70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

>71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

>>605790

>Third possibility: Judas was never saved.

Then my dear friend you just stop equaling "That which my Father hath given me" and "being in hand of Christ" with salvation for Judas was both.

Also, let's go over this obvious lie that Judas was never saved.

We see in Matthew 14:33 "And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’"

Worship of Christ and acknowledging him as a Son of God means that Judas who was on in that boat had true faith.

We see in Matthew 19:28 "Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Judas was meant to sit upon throne of judgment. At this point he must have been true fallower of Christ.

In Mark 6:7-13; Matthew 10:1-4 we see all Twelve performing miracles. You cannot do it without true faith.

Also, passage you quoted speaks that Christ " knew from the beginning" who is going to betray him, not "who they were that believed not, and who should betray him from the beginning". Of course he know who they were going to be, he is God, he have omnisciency. But foreknowlage is not causation my friend. Case in point verse 71 which speaks about future betrayal. (See also Luke 6:16). We know when this betrayal took place, John 13.

And of course, once againJohn 17:12. Judas was LOST. You cannot lost something (i.e. eternal life) unless you had it.

>>605844

>Then my dear friend you just stop equaling "That which my Father hath given me" and "being in hand of Christ" with salvation for Judas was both.

<What is "context"?

The Father can give someone to Christ for salvation, and can give someone to Christ for discipleship. Judas was given to Christ, but not to be saved, so he is excluded when Christ says that all whom the Father gives to Him will be saved, because the context is explicitly salvific.

>Worship of Christ and acknowledging him as a Son of God means that Judas who was on in that boat had true faith

So everyone who enters a Christian church has true faith? It is impossible for someone to worship Christ and acknowledge Him as the Son of God to have false faith? This is absurd. By this standard, Arians have true faith, because they worship their made up Christ, and call him the son of God.

>Judas was meant to sit upon throne of judgment

I guess you believe Jesus was just lying? Or do you believe God was fallible? The twelve here referred to by Christ refers to the twelve as an indefinite corporation. At the finality, whoever is of the twelve, receives the promise. Because Judas forfeited his apostleship, this promise was never to him. But that's beside the point that you are here claiming a promise from God was false so as to encourage doubt in the promises of God, and so you are encouraging men to diminish in faith, which is sin.

>we see all Twelve performing miracles. You cannot do it without true faith

Men do not perform miracles, God does, and God's work is not dependent on men for its efficacy.

>Also, passage you quoted speaks that Christ " knew from the beginning" who is going to betray him, not "who they were that believed not, and who should betray him from the beginning"

http://biblehub.com/john/6-64.htm

Judas is explicitly reckoned among them who did not believe

>Of course he know who they were going to be, he is God, he have omnisciency. But foreknowlage is not causation my friend. Case in point verse 71 which speaks about future betrayal

Did you forget what you were talking about? The only way this is coherent is if you're claiming that because the betrayal was future, therefore the unbelief was to. This does not work. In the Greek, the word for believe is present tense, while the word for betray is future tense.

>And of course, once againJohn 17:12. Judas was LOST

Judas was lost from the Church, not the body of them which are saved. Judas was lost inasmuch as he apostatized, see 1 John 2:19

>>605867

>>605867

>The Father can give someone to Christ for salvation, and can give someone to Christ for discipleship. Judas was given to Christ, but not to be saved, so he is excluded when Christ says that all whom the Father gives to Him will be saved, because the context is explicitly salvific.

Context you say. Let's see context of John 17 then.

8 Because the words which thou gavest me, I have given to them; and they have received them, and have known in very deed that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine:

10 And all my things are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11 And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are.

12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.

13 And now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy filled in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world; as I also am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil.

16 They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth.

Context of John 17 is salvific. Very salvific. Or maybe faith does not equal justification and sanctification have nothing to do with salvation? They have to if OSAS is right and context of John 17 is not salvific.

>So everyone who enters a Christian church has true faith? It is impossible for someone to worship Christ and acknowledge Him as the Son of God to have false faith? This is absurd. By this standard, Arians have true faith, because they worship their made up Christ, and call him the son of God.

But their worship is not the same worship as the one of apostles. They false knowledge of Son of God is not the same as the one of apostles.

>I guess you believe Jesus was just lying? Or do you believe God was fallible? The twelve here referred to by Christ refers to the twelve as an indefinite corporation. At the finality, whoever is of the twelve, receives the promise. Because Judas forfeited his apostleship, this promise was never to him.

So if someone does not meet conditions of promise that means that this promise was never to him even when it was spoken to him explicitly? Guess that Israelites, to whom promises were made and never fulfiled because they sined, because they have not meet conditions of promise, were never promied anything then.

>. But that's beside the point that you are here claiming a promise from God was false so as to encourage doubt in the promises of God, and so you are encouraging men to diminish in faith, which is sin.

Or maybe, just maybe, I know what CONDITIONAL promise is. Like half of promises in Scripture. See Jonah.

>Men do not perform miracles, God does, and God's work is not dependent on men for its efficacy.

But men are instruments that God uses. And being instrument of miracle is dependednt upon faith for it is said:

"if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you." and "I say to you, if you shall have faith, and stagger not, not only this of the fig tree shall you do, but also if you shall say to this mountain, Take up and cast thyself into the sea, it shall be done.

" and "I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains"

>Judas is explicitly reckoned among them who did not believe

Judas is explicitly named as one who WILL betray him. Those who didn't believe are those who left him two verses after that.

>>605867

>>605893

>Did you forget what you were talking about? The only way this is coherent is if you're claiming that because the betrayal was future, therefore the unbelief was to. This does not work. In the Greek, the word for believe is present tense, while the word for betray is future tense.

VV. 64 and 71 speaks about ONE person who WILL betray him "tis", while v. 64 speak about multitude of disciples who left him in v. 66 "tines"

>Judas was lost from the Church, not the body of them which are saved. Judas was lost inasmuch as he apostatized

John 17 says otherwise. Not to mention letter to Galatians, adressed to Church in Galatia in which he speaks to ones who "fallen from grace" and grace is life eternal and those who failed race, alegory of salvation in his letters.

> see 1 John 2:19

They were not of us, of true and profitable members; though it can scarce be doubted but that some of them, at least for some time, truly believed: and by their going off, God was pleased to make it manifest that they were not of his faithful members. Such were Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Ebion, Nicolas of Antioch, &c. They were not solid, steadfast, genuine Christians, otherwise they would have remained in the Church. The true note or mark of heresy, is the going out of or leaving the Catholic Church. God permitteth some to go out, that the true and tried faithful may be known.

And about Judas it was written that he was one of twelve, friend of Lord even. But not since John 13 when he lost his salvation.

>>605893

>Context of John 17 is salvific.

The context of the passage is the Church. Both visible and invisible at once. That is to what "them" here refers. This is clear from verse 12, which is clearly a prayer for the whole Church down through time, not just the apostles. This is why Judas is described as the only apostate, because at this time, he was. Nobody else yet proclaimed the truth without believing it.

>Or maybe faith does not equal justification

I don't see anything about faith here, at least not a fiducious faith, which is all that is truly relevant to justification.

>sanctification

I don't see anything about sanctification here either, least not until the son of perdition is already excluded.

>But their worship is not the same worship as the one of apostles. They false knowledge of Son of God is not the same as the one of apostles.

Hang on anon, so what? What does that have to do with my point?

>So if someone does not meet conditions of promise that means that this promise was never to him even when it was spoken to him explicitly?

That begs a certain question. What is a condition? If by it you mean any prerequisite, of course. But I think rather you mean a certain action a person must perform. Promises require only the prerequisite of being given the promise, which hinges on God alone. When these promises include conditions (such promises are seldom in scripture), it depends on whether God is willing to grant what He commands.

>to whom promises were made and never fulfiled because they sined

Watch yourself, you now call God a liar.

>Or maybe, just maybe, I know what CONDITIONAL promise is.

The condition of salvation is perfect righteousness. There are two ways to attain perfect righteousness, through keeping the law, and through faith in Jesus Christ. The former is impossible for a mere man. You are advocating for those who have confided in Jesus to doubt that the promise is true. You want them to doubt God.

Who was that again, who first called on men to doubt God?

>But men are instruments that God uses.

They are incidental.

>Judas is explicitly named as one who WILL betray him. Those who didn't believe are those who left him two verses after that.

What it says is that Jesus knew who did not believe, and who would betray Him, which means that Judas is a component of the unbelieving group, because otherwise the reference to him is a strange invasion into this verse where it has no significance. In other words, unless it means that Judas was unbelieving, it is a waste of paper.

>>605894

>VV. 64 and 71 speaks about ONE person who WILL betray him "tis", while v. 64 speak about multitude of disciples who left him in v. 66 "tines"

I hope you don't hear me saying that all of them were to betray Christ. Just one of them was.

>John 17 says otherwise

Your opinion is noted.

>adressed to Church in Galatia in which he speaks to ones who "fallen from grace"

They did fall away from grace, they were connected to the realm of grace by their membership in the Church, and were separated from that by their apostasy.

>though it can scarce be doubted but that some of them, at least for some time, truly believed

This is to say, the apostle is wrong. Also, whose commentary are you quoting?

If you believe all of the Bible, then Catholicism might not be for you.

>hate the Catholic Church and reject it

>sola scriptura

>the very same scripture that the Church alone declared infallible in the first place

OK, so if the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ, why do you accept the Bible canon? It was literally delivered to you via the Church.

>>605787

You didn't really answer my question here, you just finger-wagged me.

>>606076

Scripture gives the church authority, not the other way around.

>>606076

Scripture is the word of God. Are you claiming God requires permission from your church to speak to us?

>>606109

>Scripture gives the church authority

I see you subscribe to the Andersonian heresy

>>605978

>The context of the passage is the Church. Both visible and invisible at once. That is to what "them" here refers. This is clear from verse 12, which is clearly a prayer for the whole Church down through time, not just the apostles. This is why Judas is described as the only apostate, because at this time, he was. Nobody else yet proclaimed the truth without believing it.

And he was part of "them" that believed in Christ, that "have known in very deed that I came out from thee", that "have believed that Father didst send Son" that "whom Father hast given Christ: because they are his" etc etc.

Sure you can still calim that Judas was never saved. But then have consitency (and intelectual honsety) and stop claiming that "being given by the Father to the Son" and "having true faith" equal to salvation let alone gurantee of it

>I don't see anything about faith here, at least not a fiducious faith, which is all that is truly relevant to justification.

8 Because the words which thou gavest me, I have given to them; and they have received them, and have known in very deed that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

All of twelve had the same faith.

>I don't see anything about sanctification here either, least not until the son of perdition is already excluded.

I admit, that was bait. I wanted you to see it. For behold not all that believe will be sanctified. So called "Golden chain" is true only to elect, not all true believers.

>Hang on anon, so what? What does that have to do with my point?

You said " It is impossible for someone to worship Christ and acknowledge Him as the Son of God to have false faith? This is absurd. By this standard, Arians have true faith, because they worship their made up Christ, and call him the son of God."

And I anserwed that it's not arguemnt. For Arius did not belived in the same person nor worshiped in the same way that apostels did. Judas did. If your arguemnt was true then there wouldhave to be not a slightest difrence between true worship and false worship, true faith and false faith, true Christ and false Christ which is evidently untrue.

>That begs a certain question. What is a condition?

Among other places, right in the verse: fallowing Christ. He even describe it in further detail in places like Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24 but the most important is this one Matthew 24:13 - no matter how well you lived, how great faith you had, if you falled and do not preserved till death you shall not be saved.

>If by it you mean any prerequisite, of course. But I think rather you mean a certain action a person must perform. Promises require only the prerequisite of being given the promise, which hinges on God alone. When these promises include conditions (such promises are seldom in scripture), it depends on whether God is willing to grant what He commands.

Oh but that is lie. God mades conditional promises all the time, salvific including ones in like in Isaiah 30:15. Nor is it true that conditional promises are dependednt only on God for he is not liar. Again, see Jonah.

>Watch yourself, you now call God a liar.

I am calling the Lord truthful. For he have said to Israelites that he will protect them and make them great and free nation as long as they keep his commandments. And they didn't so promises were complited partialy.

>>606136

>The condition of salvation is perfect righteousness.

Not according to Christ. According to Christ salvation is for those who believe in him, who were baptised, who preserved unto end, who repented, who kept his commandment, who done works of mercy, who cooperated with his grace etc etc.

>There are two ways to attain perfect righteousness, through keeping the law, and through faith in Jesus Christ.

Whole point of Romans and Galatians was to show that salvation was never even possible by the law, and it was always by faith. Working faith mind you, see Hebrews 11.

>The former is impossible for a mere man.

"And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame."

For with God all is possible.

>You are advocating for those who have confided in Jesus to doubt that the promise is true. You want them to doubt God. Who was that again, who first called on men to doubt God?

I want men to trust God. But not imaginary wish-machine that is bound by will of men that OSAS promises but True Living God of promise who said that narrow is the gate to heaven.

>They are incidental.

Not according to word of God which you ignored, like always.

>What it says is that Jesus knew who did not believe, and who would betray Him, which means that Judas is a component of the unbelieving group,

That's reading into the text. If John wanted to say that he would say something among lines "He know who did not belive AMONG which is he who will betray him". But he didn't, what he explained in vv. 66 and 71

>because otherwise the reference to him is a strange invasion into this verse where it has no significance. In other words, unless it means that Judas was unbelieving, it is a waste of paper.

So Matthew also wasted paper when he said the same thing in 10:4 or Mark in 3:19 or Luke in 6:16. What those verses have in common is that, like John 6:72 are the first mentioning of Judas in respective gospels.

Beside, John alone have litte concern about style and insertions like John 1:42

>I hope you don't hear me saying that all of them were to betray Christ. Just one of them was.

And I hope that you understand that "those" and "him" are separate groups.

>They did fall away from grace, they were connected to the realm of grace by their membership in the Church, and were separated from that by their apostasy.

And grace, by which we are saved Ephesians 2:8, is life everlasting Romans 6:23. Those who are saved have grace. But many do not preserve and even though run well, end up falling.

>This is to say, the apostle is wrong.

By no means. Simon Magus in Acts 8 proves that one can have true faith and fall from it, so is deacon Nicolas, who started sect spoken about in John's Revelation.

>Also, whose commentary are you quoting?

Haydock's. It's very good, you should read it. But I can use others like one of a Lapide:

Many explain these words, ‘they were not of us,’ as referring to the free knowledge and predestination of God. They were not thus predestinated and elected, because it was foreseen that they would fall, for everything future is foreseen by God. This does not refer to election to eternal blessedness. S. John did not wish to touch on this mystery, especially because so many who have fallen from the faith have in the end returned to it. And on the other hand there are many reprobates who are still in the Church who are not predestined to glory. But S. Augustine (de bono persever. cap. viii.) understands it of those who are predestined to glory, and of those who (it is foreseen) will perish. Now almost all heresiarchs (excepting only Berengarius), when they have once left the Church, never return to it again, and are consequently foreknown to be reprobates. But we must avoid the error of those who infer from this that the reprobation of God is the cause of their leaving the Church, and subsequent condemnation: a charge which the Semipelagians falsely urged against S. Augustine. He defends himself thus, “They went out voluntarily, they fell voluntarily, and because it was foreseen they would fall, they were not predestinated; but they would have been predestinated, if so be they were to return, and abide in holiness. And in this way predestination is to many a cause of their remaining stedfast, to none is it a cause of their falling.” (Art. xii. in art. sibi falso impositis).

>>606076

>finger-wagged me.

I'll break down my argument again.

>Jesus prays all night in Luke 6

>we don't know what was said

>I assume He said SOMETHING and wasn't silent all night

So I apply this logic to Jesus praying all night later, where you imply that Jesus repeated two sentences for hours and hours and I say that He prayed regularly and only those two sentences were recorded in Scripture.

>>606136

>And he was part of "them" that believed in Christ, that "have known in very deed that I came out from thee", that "have believed that Father didst send Son" that "whom Father hast given Christ: because they are his" etc etc.

>Sure you can still calim that Judas was never saved. But then have consitency (and intelectual honsety) and stop claiming that "being given by the Father to the Son" and "having true faith" equal to salvation let alone gurantee of it

You are very good at saying much without saying anything at all.

>All of twelve had the same faith.

Do you know what fiducia is? That is the faith that saves, and what Jesus says is not a description of it.

>For behold not all that believe will be sanctified

Yes they will, see 1 John 3:9-10

>So called "Golden chain" is true only to elect

Ignoring that this is a gross digression, I agree completely. However, Paul immediately then says "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things". So, if you agree that the golden chain is about the elect alone, do you not also agree that the atonement is for the elect alone?

>not all true believers

There is no difference. No one among the non-elect ever has been, or ever will be, a true believer. Let us walk through the golden chain

<For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son

There is no room for a distinction between these groups. Paul clearly says that those whom He foreknew are predestined to salvation. No exceptions.

<And those whom he predestined he also called

Again, no exceptions. All who are predestined will be called. I believe we have agreement in that.

<and those whom he called he also justified

I believe we are still in agreement. All who are called will be justified.

<and those whom he justified he also glorified.

This is where the rubber meets the road. We have seen the pattern of how the first equals the second. It is no different here. All who are justified will be glorified. There is no such thing as a person who is justified, but loses that justified state at some point, and then fails to be glorified because of that. The notion of a true Christian in hell is a fable.

>For Arius did not belived in the same person

Do you think that when the apostles said (emphasis here; said, not believed) "you are the Son of God", the had the same fullness of understanding of what that meant as Thomas Aquinas? Arius denied that Jesus is the Son of God because he denied what that really means. But when the apostles said this, they knew just 2 things, 1. Jesus claims to be the Son of God, and 2. He's telling the truth.

>nor worshiped in the same way that apostels did

It doesn't matter. His worship went to demons, but he directed it to Christ. It was false worship, but it was worship of Christ. The same goes for Judas. I don't believe anybody can truly worship God in spirit and truth without being born again anyways.

>Among other places, right in the verse: fallowing Christ

Clearly you did not understand me, most likely because of the fact you don't understand English articles. I was defining the word condition, not asking where the condition was in this promise.

>>606138

>Not according to Christ

Wrong, see Matthew 19:17-21

>Whole point of Romans and Galatians was to show that salvation was never even possible by the law, and it was always by faith

Precisely, thank you, that was my point. The way of law is impossible for man, so it must be by faith alone. But I think you caught yourself in a snare by expressing this truth. Paul's point is that the Old Testament saints weren't saved by the law either, it has always been the same way. How then, were they saved, when the sacraments of the new law did not exist?

>For with God all is possible

You have reversed yourself very quickly. You just told me it was impossible, now you say it is possible.

>I want men to trust God

Then you will immediately refrain from assuring men that the promise is false and that God had given false promises in the past.

>imaginary wish-machine that is bound by will of men

Blasphemy. Shameless blasphemy. You should be banned for this.

>Not according to word of God which you ignored, like always.

The bible never teaches that God infuses men with magical power. That superstition is more in line with paganism than Christianity.

>And grace, by which we are saved Ephesians 2:8, is life everlasting Romans 6:23

It does not follow that just because eternal life is of grace, that all grace is eternal life. It is grace that we are even allowed to breathe after all we've done.

>>606213

>You are very good at saying much without saying anything at all.

And you are master of not addressing arguments and saying null slogans.

>Do you know what fiducia is? That is the faith that saves, and what Jesus says is not a description of it.

Fiducia is legal term that comes from Roman law. It consists of transfer of one's property to trustee while making trustee completer master over it.

I heard about people that view salvation like this. We called them pelegians. Nonetheless, nowhere bible says that fiducia saves. Fide does. Fides quae per caritatem operatur to be precise.In fact, There is no fiducia without fide accoring to 1 Timothy 3:13 and Ephesians 3:12. And fide of Judas was one with that of apostles. Caritas however did not.

>Yes they will,

No they won't John 17

>see 1 John 3:9-10

Doth not commit sin. That is, as long as he keepeth in himself this seed of grace, and this divine generation, by which he is born of God. But then he may fall from this happy state by the abuse of his free-will, as appears from Romans xi. 20. 21. 22.; 1 Corinthians ix. 27. and x. 12.; Philippians ii. 12.; Apocalypse iii. 11.

He cannot sin, because he is born of God. The meaning of this can be no more, than that he cannot sin as long as the seed of grace remaineth in him, and as long as he is the adoptive son of God. But it is evident he may fall from this happy condition, and from the grace of God, otherwise St. John would not so often in this epistle have exhorted them not to sin.

>Ignoring that this is a gross digression, I agree completely. However, Paul immediately then says "What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things". So, if you agree that the golden chain is about the elect alone, do you not also agree that the atonement is for the elect alone?

No because I do not see it here, nor anywhere else. For he said not: "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all ALONE". And in other place Paul speaks: "we hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful." If he is savior of all men, he must atoned for all. But many reject his gift and choose to be set apart from God.

>>606244

>There is no difference. No one among the non-elect ever has been, or ever will be, a true believer. Let us walk through the golden chain

Judas was. Simon Magus was. Nicolas was. Etc etc.

>There is no room for a distinction between these groups. Paul clearly says that those whom He foreknew are predestined to salvation. No exceptions.

And? We are not talking about elect, we talk about Judas and others who had true faith and do not preserved or as Augustine said "because it was foreseen they would fall, they were not predestinated".

>Again, no exceptions. All who are predestined will be called. I believe we have agreement in that.

We have. But in next place you make grave error.

>I believe we are still in agreement. All who are called will be justified.

And here you fucked up. For you assumed that if someone is called that means that he was also predestined. But Paul speaks here only about predestined and not all called. Have you not heard Christ? "For many are called, but few are chosen." We are all called. Some of us even belived. But we have no idea who is elect. Paul didn't know if he was elected 1 Corinthians 4:4 This great apostle of the Gentiles, though conscious to himself of no breach of duty, still does not dare to call himself just. How different is the conduct of this apostle, from those wicked impostors, who teach, that a man is justified by believing himself so. If this privileged apostle was afraid to from any judgment of his own heart and thoughts, whether they were pure or not, but left the trial thereof to the day of judgment, the day of his death, how presumptuous are they, who dare to pronounce on their election and predestination! Out of all called in Rome, it was revealed to him about only one person election, Rufus. This fundamental error make rest of your argument null.

>Do you think that when the apostles said (emphasis here; said, not believed) "you are the Son of God", the had the same fullness of understanding of what that meant as Thomas Aquinas? Arius denied that Jesus is the Son of God because he denied what that really means. But when the apostles said this, they knew just 2 things, 1. Jesus claims to be the Son of God, and 2. He's telling the truth.

Understanding of details does not mean that they had no true faith. For if it was the case NO ONE who died before resurrection would be saved. And Christ himself said that they belived in him. All twelve of them. Plus they had to have faith to perform miracles and cast out demons.

>It doesn't matter. His worship went to demons, but he directed it to Christ. It was false worship, but it was worship of Christ. The same goes for Judas. I don't believe anybody can truly worship God in spirit and truth without being born again anyways.

It was the same worship. They all worshiped in the same way. I am not saying that God accepts all true worship. Psalm 50/51 says otherwise. But it's still worship TO HIM. And Judas was born again. John 3 says that he was baptised by Christ.

>>606245

>Clearly you did not understand me, most likely because of the fact you don't understand English articles. I was defining the word condition, not asking where the condition was in this promise.

Maybe. Mea culpa. But it does not change fact that there is condition that depends on one's cooperation within salvific process.

>Wrong, see Matthew 19:17-21

This works against you. For Christ says that keeping moral law is enough for life eternal. But young men did not kept the law, for law is summed in this "Love your God with all your might". And young man was attached not to to God but to wealth. Perfection is another matter. For one can enter afterlife perfect or be tried in fire like Gold. Those who die in grace are perfect or will be perfected.

>Precisely, thank you, that was my point. The way of law is impossible for man, so it must be by faith alone.

No. You don't understand. Way of the law is possible. God tells that many times in the books of Moses. But law is not salvific. Keeping the law never leaded to Heaven, it was always faith. But not faith alone. Faith of Rachab and Abraham, working faith.

>But I think you caught yourself in a snare by expressing this truth. Paul's point is that the Old Testament saints weren't saved by the law either, it has always been the same way. How then, were they saved, when the sacraments of the new law did not exist?

They were saved by grace. Like always. "God bounded grace to sacraments but he himself is not bound by them". Whoever claims otherwise is heretic.

>You have reversed yourself very quickly. You just told me it was impossible, now you say it is possible.

You said that keeping the law was impossible. I said that salvation be keeping the law alone is and always have been impossible. Former was possible for God does not demand what is not possible and Elizabeth and Zacharias prooved that it was possible to keep law.

>Then you will immediately refrain from assuring men that the promise is false and that God had given false promises in the past.

No. Let me say it again, slowly. God's promises were conditional. Conditions were not met. Promise was true, but never came to pass, because part that was meant to be done by men was not done.

To put it in perspective. I can promise you 100$ if you move a rock. I am 100% willing to give you that and I will if you do that. Rock is possible to be moved by you, especially when I am helping you. But halfway through you quit. So I don't give you 100$. I may given you 50$ or whatever, but not 100$. Was my promise false? Of course not.

>>606246

>Blasphemy. Shameless blasphemy. You should be banned for this.

Sorry but this is God of OSAS just like God of Islam is puppet with brain damage and God of Judaism is Tribal deity.

>The bible never teaches that God infuses men with magical power. That superstition is more in line with paganism than Christianity.

And you still ignore verses that I posted about how one HAVE to have faith to perform miracles. Selfrightousness blinded you or what?

>It does not follow that just because eternal life is of grace, that all grace is eternal life.

Eternal life is not OF grace. Eternal life IS grace.

>It is grace that we are even allowed to breathe after all we've done.

But Paul talks about salvific grace. Grace which IS Life eternal.

Also I believe that we reached limit of discussion. It is clear that this conversation do not moves an inch in any direction. This thread was made by OP who left and we practiclly hijacked it into party of two.

>>605663

I'd like to see some sources on this.

>>605667

And this too. Especially since Luther wrote "The Jews and Their Lies"

I'm curious about this.

>>606470

E. Michael Jones' The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.

The Luther-Jew anecdote is from somewhere else, but he deferred to the Jews' "canonical scripture" in order to cast out the apocrypha the Catholic Church defended.

After it turned out, no, they didn't want to become Lutherans, he sperged out and wrote his tract on the Jews.

>>606110

God used the Catholic Church to define what IS Scripture, how could you throw away the Catholic Church?

We call the Catholic Church the Bride of Christ for a reason.

>>606109

The Bride of Christ defined what is Scripture, this is why we regard it as the co-pillar with the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Apostolic Succession (yet, again guided by the Holy Spirit).

>>606501

>the Apostolic Succession (yet, again guided by the Holy Spirit).

Sorry, I mean the Tradition, which is more or less the same thing.

Magisterium - Tradition - Scripture

>>606501

Why do you believe God cannot speak to me until the pope grants Him permission to do so?

>>606635

How do you know that's God speaking to you?

>>606639

>Yea, hath God said?

>>606635

But He can, the pope isn't and can't keep Him from it. We (as in, the Catholic Church) don't believe that He can't.

>>606682

So why do I need your pope to hear Him?

>>606111

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Perhaps I should have said "Word of God"? It was the Word of God, first spoken and afterwards written, which brought the Church into being. To claim that the Church decides what is and is not authoritative is to misunderstand both chronology and where to the authority of the Church comes from; there was no Church before the Word. Just because they didn't have the Word in the form we do doesn't mean that the Word wasn't the basis of the Church.

>>606501

I cannot and do not deny the valuable work done collating the Canon of scripture done by holy men under the guidance of the Spirit; but do you not see that it is not those men, nor those men as a Church, who gave the Scripture authority? To quote:

>We need to remember that the books were canonical (by reason of their own intrinsic nature or in virtue of the authority of the writers) before they were collected into a Canon as we know it. The production of a list of 'official' writings does not make those writings any more 'official' than they were originally. Similarly it is necessary to keep distinctly in mind that whereas 'inspiration' relates to the divine control of the writers, the Canon relates to the number of such writers which were admitted to be 'inspired'. One writer has aptly remarked, ' The Bible is not an authorised collection of books, but a collection of authorised books.'

>>607534

Wordplay doesn't make you right, it just makes you sound like a politician

>>607558

Don't be uncharitable, anon, I'm not using wordplay to avoid your point. I'm trying to clarify what I meant so that you could understand me; otherwise we're just talking at cross-purposes!

>>607572

So you believe the bible is Jesus made paper

>>607534

So, how can we figure out what is inspired by the Holy Spirit WITHOUT the Holy Spirit?

This is the question you need to answer, they were other gospels and other "canon" that really were considered before the Catholic Church put it together by virtue of the Holy Spirit.

>>607101

We never say that the Pope is a required medium for God, however, we do say is a required Shephard for His flock, that being the Stone of Christ, upon which He built His Church.

Not to mention, defining (via the Holy Spirit) definite doctrine that all Catholics (and the rest of rebellious Christendom) WILL believe, as commanded by the Holy Spirit.

>>603116

FILMED IN FRONT OF A LIVE STUDIO AUDIENCE

Why are so many Catholic priests dying of AIDS? Bad tree, bad fruit?

>>607585

>Argumentum ad populum

NEVER use it against Catholics, you gonna loose.

>>607588

Majority of them aren't. And most of them are gays, and gays de iure cannot even enter seminaries.

>>607581

>So, how can we figure out what is inspired by the Holy Spirit WITHOUT the Holy Spirit?

Every Christian has the Holy Spirit. Problem solved

>they were other gospels and other "canon" that really were considered before the Catholic Church put it together by virtue of the Holy Spirit

I see you prefer anti-Christian atheist fiction to actual history. What's next, the Council of Nicaea made up the deity of Christ?

>>607584

>we do say is a required Shephard for His flock

I prefer the Good Shepherd.

>that being the Stone of Christ, upon which He built His Church.

The Rock was Christ.

>Not to mention, defining (via the Holy Spirit) definite doctrine that all Catholics (and the rest of rebellious Christendom) WILL believe, as commanded by the Holy Spirit.

Jude 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

>>606487

>Keys to Heaven are given to Pope

This is obviously wrong, you are claiming there were multiple Popes running around in the early church. Are you forgetting the OTHER Apostles were also given the keys, or?

>>607101

You don't, why do you think we believe you do?

>>607626

>You don't

Ok, good, so stop claiming Rome is responsible for the bible.

Just gonna plug this here

O sacerdos! Tu quis es?

Non es a te, quia de nihilo.

Non es ad te, quia es mediator ad Deum.

Non es tibi, quia soli Deo vivere debes.

Non es tui, quia es omnium servus.

Non es tu, quis alter Christus es.

Quid ergo es? Nihil et omnia,

O sacerdos!

O priest! Who art thou?

Thou art not from thyself, because thou art from nothing.

Thou art not to thine own self, because thou art a mediator to God.

Thou art not for thyself, because thou ought to live for God alone.

Thou art not of thyself, because thou are the servant of all.

Thou art not thyself, thou who art another Christ.

What therefore art thou? Nothing and everything,

O priest!

Note mediator, and of course, "another Christ". The former certainly rings a verse to mind.

>>607759

Deuteronomy 5:5 I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time, to shew you his words

Galatians 4:14 You despised not, nor rejected: but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

What about them?

>>607767

You should stop being facetious and recognize the context and intent of these verses. Roman Catholic doctrine, however, states that the priest (not the laity) is one of the few select who can administer the Mass, to rid one of mortal sin.

Therefore, the priest isn't a mediator in the sense of an apostle traveling the world to spread the Gospel or Moses delivering the word of God, but in the salvific sense, like in 1 Timothy 2:5 among others where we see Christ in His role as our propitiation for sins.

>>607776

>You should stop being facetious and recognize the context and intent of these verses

And so you should do when dealing with Catholic Doctrine. For verses that I provided are closer in line with meaning and intent of this little poem and Catholic ecclesiology as a whole.

>Roman Catholic doctrine, however, states that the priest (not the laity) is one of the few select who can administer the Mass, to rid one of mortal sin

Because Christ gave this power to apotsles and to whom they will give it, Core. Hierarchy is natural and divine.

>Therefore, the priest isn't a mediator in the sense of an apostle traveling the world to spread the Gospel or Moses delivering the word of God, but in the salvific sense

Priest role is threefold. To offer sacrifice, to be preach the word of God and to guard their flock. They are mediators in any of this sense.

And dafuq you mean by "Mass is slavic". You have to be saved to even partake in sacrifice of Mass already. Maybe you mean confession, but then use proper wording.

>Like in 1 Timothy 2:5 among others where we see Christ in His role as our propitiation for sins.

Properly speaking, the office of a mediator is to join together and unite those between whom he mediates: for extremes are united in the mean [medio]. Now to unite men to God perfectively belongs to Christ, through Whom men are reconciled to God, according to 2 Corinthians 5:19: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself." And, consequently, Christ alone is the perfect Mediator of God and men, inasmuch as, by His death, He reconciled the human race to God. Hence the Apostle, after saying, "Mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus," added: "Who gave Himself a redemption for all."

However, nothing hinders certain others from being called mediators, in some respect, between God and man, forasmuch as they cooperate in uniting men to God, dispositively or ministerially.

>>607633

It doesn't follow from that that you need the pope to know God's word. It means that God has instituted the papacy for the purpose of guarding the God's word and protecting His faith from errors that would appear throughout history.

>>607793

>It doesn't follow from that that you need the pope to know God's word

Then the canon of scripture is known with surety apart from the decrees of the church?

>It means that God has instituted the papacy for the purpose of guarding the God's word

What does this entail?

>protecting His faith from errors that would appear throughout history.

It seems the pope has utterly failed in this alleged task, seeing as he has instead guarded deadly errors and anathematized the very gospel of Jesus Christ.

>>607605

>Every Christian has the Holy Spirit. Problem solved

Every Christian having the Holy Spirit does not give anyone the power of personal interpretation. You read 2 Peter, right?

>I see you prefer anti-Christian atheist fiction to actual history. What's next, the Council of Nicaea made up the deity of Christ?

I see you prefer anti-Catholic made-up history from Pastor Jim. The Catholic Church defined the Bible you read now. Deal with it. Well, besides some OT books Luther removed.

>I prefer the Good Shepherd.

Then why do you deny the authority he placed in His apostles? Or His Church?

>The Rock was Christ

Christ is the brick, but the brick made Peter the Stone of His Church.

>ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

yes, apostolic succession. thank you, anything else?

if you deny apostolic succession, then why not deny any Gospel DELIVERED by a non-apostle? Luke, Mark, even throw out Paul with your funky logic.

>>607818

Wow, out of arguments already?

>>607605

>The Rock was Christ.

No one with basic reading comprehension would think Jesus talked about himself when he was talking to Peter. Changed Simons name to Peter, asked Peter to lead feed his flock, gave Peter the keys to heaven and on and on.

>>608781

<Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Peter did not receive his new name here, he received it when he met Christ in John 1:42, so what Jesus does is explains Peter's name. Christ first asks the apostles, and it says they answered. Then He asks them another thing, and it says Simon alone answered. The men then standing before Christ constituted the infant Church. Peter spoke for all of them. Peter, therefore, acts in this passage not as Peter, but as the Church. Peter as the Church provides the confession around which the Christian life revolves, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". Therefore, his name, Peter, means stone, which is the Church, and is built upon the foundation of the Rock, which is Christ. This is why Jesus refers to the Rock in third person rather than second. Since Peter is not himself in this passage, when Jesus promises him the keys, it is not actually to him, but to the Church, which is why when the promise is fulfilled and the keys are given, they are given to every apostle.

>>608809

Jesus rebukes the pharisees for using tradition to effectively delete portions of scripture. The scripture which contradicts their tradition cannot possibly mean what it clearly means, because then their tradition would be false. It's exactly what we have in Rome.

>>608884

>Peter did not receive his new name here, he received it when he met Christ in John 1:42,

Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

>The men then standing before Christ constituted the infant Church. Peter spoke for all of them. Peter, therefore, acts in this passage not as Peter, but as the Church.

And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona

> Therefore, his name, Peter, means stone, which is the Church, and is built upon the foundation of the Rock, which is Christ.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church

> Since Peter is not himself in this passage, when Jesus promises him the keys, it is not actually to him, but to the Church, which is why when the promise is fulfilled and the keys are given, they are given to every apostle.

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven

>It's exactly what we have in Rome.

And no proof was given for past 2000 years

Out of the whole world one man, Peter, is chosen to preside at the calling of all nations, and to be set over all the apostles and all the fathers of the Church. Though there are in God’s people many shepherds, Peter is thus appointed to rule in his own person those whom Christ also rules as the original ruler. Beloved, how great and wonderful is this sharing of his power that God in his goodness has given to this man. Whatever Christ has willed to be shared in common by Peter and the other leaders of the Church, it is only through Peter that he has given to others what he has not refused to bestow on them.

The Lord now asks the apostles as a whole what men think of him. As long as they are recounting the uncertainty born of human ignorance, their reply is always the same.

But when he presses the disciples to say what they think themselves, the first to confess his faith in the Lord is the one who is first in rank among the apostles.

Peter says: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus replies: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. You are blessed, he means, because my Father has taught you. You have not been deceived by earthly opinion, but have been enlightened by inspiration from heaven. It was not flesh and blood that pointed me out to you, but the one whose only-begotten Son I am.

He continues: And I say to you. In other words, as my Father has revealed to you my godhead, so I in my turn make known to you your pre-eminence. You are Peter: though I am the inviolable rock, the cornerstone that makes both one, the foundation apart from which no one can lay any other, yet you also are a rock, for you are given solidity by my strength, so that which is my very own because of my power is common between us through your participation.

And upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. On this strong foundation, he says, I will build an everlasting temple. The great height of my Church, which is to penetrate the heavens, shall rise on the firm foundation of this faith.

The gates of hell shall not silence this confession of faith; the chains of death shall not bind it. Its words are the words of life. As they lift up to heaven those who profess them, so they send down to hell those who contradict them.

Blessed Peter is therefore told: To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven. Whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.

The authority vested in this power passed also to the other apostles, and the institution established by this decree has been continued in all the leaders of the Church. But it is not without good reason that what is bestowed on all is entrusted to one. For Peter received it separately in trust because he is the prototype set before all the rulers of the Church.