Question for Freeper Catholics

1/27/04 | LS

[LS]

I recently watched "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc," starring Milla Jovovich. Not being a Catholic, I had some questions:

1) At the end, the notes said Joan was "canonized" 500 years later(approx. 1930s, I guess). Does canonization automatically mean one is "sainted?" Or are they different? If so, what is the difference?

2) What are the prerequisites to be either "canonized" or "sainted," if they are different?

3) Specifically to the movie---if anyone saw it---was the Dustin Hoffman character supposed to be Lucifer, the accuser?

4) I'm weak historically on this: was the film accurate about Joan often doing things on her own ("if you love me, fight for me") as opposed to leading the armies "in the name of God?" I suppose it depends on what you think of Joan, but among believers, is the consensus that she indeed received instructions from God, or that she was a fruitloop?

[OLD REGGIE]

ROFLMAO. This is a Bart Brewer screed. LOLOLOL. That's like posting a Jack Chick tract as a "proof text".

Well, no it isn't. It's even worse, it's from an athiest site. Almost the same as posting from Catholic Answers isn't it?

Reg ol' boy. Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus built his church. These are the very words of Jesus. When will you accept this divinely revealed truth?

Not at all. Those were not the words of Jesus.

I do agree with Augustine though.

Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’...’You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15 - 19).

In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.

"Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

Also with the Catholic Catechism:

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

[polemikos]

It's even worse

Well, if it's worse than a Jack Chick tract, why even post it?
Surely you have more integrity than that!

A personal query: I am left with the impression that you'd rather rely on any objection rather than accept the truth that Peter is the Rock. Why is that? If one claims to love the Truth, then shouldn't one follow the Truth regardless of where it leads?

Those were not the words of Jesus.

A little sacred Scripture refresher for you:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:19, KJV) (I do love the red-letter Bibles ;-)

Very (very, very) briefly,

1. In both Aramaic and 1st century Koine (NT) Greek, Jesus renames Simon to "large rock". On this point there is no longer any doubt.
2. A then-contemporary rabbinic expression equated "rock" with Abraham as the father of the Jewish nation. 'Lo, I have discovered a rock to found the world upon.' He called Abraham 'rock', as it is said (Is 51:1-2): 'Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.' Abraham, renamed by God from Abram to "father of nations", was the patriarchal head of God's chosen people. In like manner, God renamed Simon to Rock, the foundation of his new church "to all nations", the first patriarch of the new covenant. The Jewish listeners to Matthew's (Jewish) Gospel would immediately understand the import of these words.
3. The use of 'this' refers to the immediately preceding proper noun, Rock (Peter's name). Reference to any other noun or verb would require a 'that' at a minimum.
4. In Greek the word for "this" (touto) means "this very" or "this same". Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter was: "You (Simon, singular) are large rock and on this (same) large rock I will build my Church (singular)."
5. Peter is given the keys. In ancient Jewish culture, and the OT (e.g., Is 22:22), the keeper of the keys was the chief steward under the King. Jesus is appointing Peter to run things in his 'absence'. Jesus is King in heaven. Peter, as Steward, is to run His visible kingdom.
6. Time and time again the Early Church Fathers, those leading Christians closest to Jesus and the Apostles, clearly acknowledged Peter's primacy in writing.

If you'd like, I'd be happy to give you a longer exposition.

I do agree with Augustine though.

Unfortunately for you, Augustine says nothing that denies that Peter is the Rock. That some may consider Peter's confession as the basis for (or foreshadowing of) Jesus making Peter the Rock, does not deny that the Bible literally says Peter is the Rock. (Did you catch that? The literal interpretation of this passage is held by the Catholic Church.)

And if you are so willing to rely on one Church Father, how about the dozens of others that acknowledge Peter is the Rock? If you're in for a dime, you're in for a dollar. Otherwise your argument lacks logical consistency.

Remember, in this man Peter, the rock...

Not this old stuff again. Didn't you read my prior post to you on this? Simply repeating invalid arguments does not make them valid.

Also with the Catholic Catechism:

Not again. Read my response to this here and here. The same arguments I made above apply here. Selectively quoting a document out of context is a sign of deception. Why do you pursue such a course?

Simply put, there is a mountain of grammatical, scriptural, and historical evidence all pointing to the fact that Peter is the Rock. Denying that truth requires more than an appeal to another interpretation, no matter how weak. To hold a different interpretation requires better, not weaker, evidence. And no matter what weakness you imagine exists in the Catholic position, it is trivial as compared to the difficulties of all rival interpretations.

So again, Reg, ol' boy, you can't disprove the Petrine nature of the papacy using the CCC. And if you can't disprove it from sacred Scripture, then I must ask, when will you accept this divinely-revealed truth?

Pax Christi,

[Havoc]

The early church was the Catholic Church. Any church that can trace its roots to the apostles can do so only through the Catholic Church.

You can't. It's a cute claim; but, the dirty secret is that you can't and had to fabricate a good portion of the liber pontificalus to prop up that fraudulent claim. It doesn't matter to me either way. If you don't have the message of the Apostles to begin with, you can claim anything you want for appearances sake and it does you no good. A lie is a lie no matter how it's told.

Ignoring your non-sequitur, the Catholic Church determined the Bible. It was first canonized by the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. As Luther admitted:

Here we go with Luther again as though anything about Luther has anything whatsoever to do with me. I couldn't care less. He was no less a fraud than your clergy was. What do you want a cookie. Message, sir. Rome had no authority to tamper with the old covenant texts. Period. End of statement. They usurped authority that was not theirs. That doesn't establish authority.

Scuttles what? That Peter was in Rome? Of course he was in Rome. Jimminy Crickets. They found his bones there a few decades ago.

No, they found bones in a mass graveyard on which the Vatican was built and are CLAIMING that they are Peters. Let's not forget, this isn't the first time or place that the church has Claimed to have the Bones of Peter. Credibility counts. You have none.

You're getting close. For Scripture to be reliable, it has to be reliably determined.

Which can be done by Christians - Any christian with the Holy spirit can do this because we have the mind of Christ. Or don't your texts read the same as ours? Oh, I forgot, You don't teach individual responsibility, you supress it to keep people from finding out the clean truth and the dirty secrets.

So when Paul says the church is the "pillar and foundation of truth", you believe him, right?

He never said that. Ever. What he did say is that one should know how to behave themselves in the HOUSE of God, The Church of the Living god(modifying House), The pillar and foundation of truth. House = a building. so He either said that a Building we gather in is the pillar and foundation of truth, or that God is. I know you guys like to make things look a certain way to prop up your usurped authority; but, fraud is fraud. Wear it and save us the bother.

[Havoc]

Sorry, I've been through this with others. The handwringing doesn't null the point. Your clergy used fraudulent laws combined with their philosophies to take an antiscriptural stance and MURDER people for their beliefs. Not because the church was physically threatened. These weren't terrorists - that is the happy story you guys like to tell now. You can't sell those sorry lies to those of us that have done our homework. Sorry. It isn't flying.
If you want to make excuses, make them to God. He'll have less use for them than I do.

[Havoc]

Some more insults at other faiths???

No insult - merely an absurd example meant through it's absurdity to act as a splash of cold water. "He said he could tear down the temple and rebuild it in three days." You'll grasp at anything to find offense and reason to protest won't you. I'm used to it. I've been talking to your type for a long time. And I expect your moves - even anticipate them. Do you think yourself clever yet?

[Havoc]

So have others, but the point was the piece of propaganda raised by Courtney that Jesuits rippedKids fromwombs. That was propaganda and has no facts to back it up, just like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- THAT IS A LIE.

That is yet to be seen.. isn't it.

[Havoc]

I'm glad you can find humor in the acts of your clergy murdering people. It's so reassuring..

[Havoc]

Saying nothing Dave. I see how she speaks. She has a heart for truth and all you care to do is beat on her.
I'm sorry for you.

[Havoc]

Sigh, I guess I am still young enough to hope that we can all start working together. Unfortunately I am old enough to know that won't be perfect in this world.

I'm sorry; but, they preach a different Jesus, a different salvation, a different God. A different religion altogether. We can be humans together; but, I can't call that brotherhood. They are my neighbor and I love them as such. But till they get their doctrine straight...

[Havoc]

It is the truth. It's just that for every fact presented, you've got a Catholic to quote himself as though that is authoritative. Sorry. Have to do better than "thus sayeth us", Us, 1885. Then again; perhaps I should take that stance. Ya'll aren't Christians, me, 2004 me press. There authority. See how that works.

[Havoc]

One, that's a pretty concise form of lying. And two, I've read such tracts before. Unphased. Nice form; but, I could punch it so full of holes just in quick observations of fact that it isnt' even funny. You're use of the capitol c "Catholic" in the statement from pseudo Ignatius is the first thing that leaps out. It's a lie. It is small c catholic denoting use of an adjective. Big c as in a proper name didn't come around for a long time after. Sorry, that's just for starters. Most of what you said is shreddable.

[Havoc]

Peter isn't the rock. Christ was. And Christ built the church on our testimony of Him - not on Peter. It was and is about Christ. This is why Paul chided the people for saying I'm of so and so, was so and so crucified for your sins, Is Christ divided? Paul denounced it as the carnal ploddings of spiritual infants. And you raise this plodding as though it were holy and spiritually profound while missing the truth conveyed. Why, in a search by your clergy for power they taught you this junk. Where is the mind of Christ in you that you are so easily duped?

[Havoc]

Hi Reggie. Looks like you've been a little busy with the merchants of death. How's it going?

[polemikos]

The early church was the Catholic Church.
A lie is a lie no matter how it's told.

Do you have an argument to make here, or is calling me a liar it?

the Catholic Church determined the Bible. It was first canonized by the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.
Rome had no authority to tamper with the old covenant texts.

Peter as Rock, the foundation of the church, together with the other apostles and their successors, had the power to bind on earth and thereby in Heaven. Tamper? They church infallibly determined which books were inspired.

That Peter was in Rome? Of course he was in Rome.
Credibility counts. You have none.

Personal slurs? Does this pass for biblical argument in your neck of the woods?

For Scripture to be reliable, it has to be reliably determined.
Which can be done by Christians - Any christian with the Holy spirit can do this

Would you do me the favor of pointing out one Protestant Christian that has infallibly determined the meaning of Holy Scripture?

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't work (for about a dozen reasons). If it did, there wouldn't be thousands of Protestant denominations (all of which claim correct interpretation of sacred Scripture). It is a simple fact that on virtually every major aspect of the Christian faith, some controversy exists in Protestant circles. Of the resulting "X" Protestant theological systems, at least "X-1" are wrong. The only problem is, nobody knows which one might be right.

Basic theology is so much at issue that the SoF's for some of these denoms have devolved into "mere Christianity". In fact, their SoF's will often specifically require their members NOT to go into controversial areas of theology. Since controversy surrounds such "main things" as salvation, faith, worship, grace, sin, prayer, church, morality, etc., not much is left to be a "plain thing". You end up with not much more than "Jesus is our Lord and Savior" and "the Bible is our rule of faith". Interpretations conflict to the point of directly contradicting each other. Since the Holy Spirit doesn't lead to error, and since nobody can independently tell which Protestant is blessed with infallibility by the Holy Spirit, the process is fatally flawed.

Paul says the church is the "pillar and foundation of truth"
He either said that a Building we gather in is the pillar and foundation of truth, or that God is.

You have your syntax and metaphors mixed up a little there.

First, "church of the living God" modifies "house of God", not "God". Of the two nouns in question, only "house" is linguistically inanimate, while "God" is animate. Since the pronoun used is "which" instead of "who", the object must be inanimate, i.e. "house" or more fully "house of God". Paul is equating the two descriptions, or rather, expanding the full meaning of "house of God".

Second, the metaphors "Pillar" and "foundation" are building metaphors, obviously more appropriate for house or church. Linguistically, it is a stretch to apply this metaphor to God. And since there is no metaphorical payoff in the text, it doesn't make contextual sense either.

Probably more compelling is the fact that God isn't simply "the pillar and foundation of truth," rather He *is* truth. "The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth" (1 Jn. 5:6). And since "house of God" has been modified by "the church of the living God", the metaphor is explaining the reason for the modification.

Paul is telling Timothy: "Organize your bishopric as I have just described to you. Your church is no mere building or place of assembly, it is the house of God, the very pillar and foundation of truth."

The relevant notes in the Rheims New Testament of 1582 start out by saying:

"This place pincheth al Heretikes wonderfully, and so it ever did, and therefore they oppose themselves directly against the very letter and confessed sense of the same, that is, clearlie contrarie to the Apostle..."

a little medieval humor for you there ;-)

[polemikos]

Peter isn't the rock. Christ was.

But oddly, that's not what sacred Scripture says. The literal of Mt 16:18 is:
"And I say also to you (Simon, singular), That you are large rock, and upon this (same) large rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Odd. The Catholic Church takes this literally.

And Christ built the church on our testimony of Him - not on Peter.

Odd. I can't find that passage in my Bible. However, I do find that Jesus uses the word "church" only twice, and always in the singular. In Mt 16:18 to say that he will build his church (note that Jesus is describing a process) on Peter. And one last time in Mt 18:17

"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

Note also that for Jesus to be speaking the literal truth here, the church needs to be visible. Say, what was the visible church in the early years? That's right, the Catholic Church.

It was and is about Christ.

Hey, something we agree on!

This is why Paul chided the people for saying I'm of so and so

Sorry. No. You've completely missed the context of that passage.

Is Christ divided?

No, but Protestantism sure is. ;-)

Where is the mind of Christ in you that you are so easily duped?

Again with the personal slurs. Surely you have better talents and reason than that.

[Cronos]

which the Vatican was built and are CLAIMING that they are Peters.

The Vatican has always been overly cautious about claiming anything -- that's why there's a devil's advocate who tries to prove that a person should NOT be sainted. That's why the Catholic church did not claim the Shroud to be the actual shroud and they allowed it to be examined scientifically. The church, being catholic, universal, tries to convince even the doubting Thomases by letting them try to use scientific means to prove beliefs.

[Cronos]

Your clergy used fraudulent laws combined with their philosophies to take an antiscriptural stance and MURDER people for their beliefs.

Answer this: do you have proof about JEsuits ripping children from their mother's wombs?

[Cronos]

Your clergy used fraudulent laws combined with their philosophies to take an antiscriptural stance

That argument can be used by both sides -- the church was afraid that those preaching heresy were endangering not only their souls but also the souls of millions of others (which the leaders of heresies have done -- witness Islam)

[Cronos]

More proof of the danger to souls that heresies cause :
Danish Pastor Suspended After Denying God, Eternal Life, and Resurrection

[Cronos]

These weren't terrorists - that is the happy story you guys like to tell now

Oh, I would call the slaughter of Catholics by protestant Princes who decided that they could now put themselves as BOTH TEMPORAL and SPIRITUAL heads as no better than Osama. Henry the VIIIth saw this Golden opportunity to make himself King and Caliph, just like aMuslim Caliph. And so did the other Protestatn princes.