Replies

You wrote:

“They are totally consistent with what your church teaches, that being your priests are alleged to have some elevated status (power) in general, and are able to order Christ down from Heaven and render him on the altar. “the real presence” Specifically, they are not true, there are no other Christs.”

In other words, you have no proof at all that the anti-Catholic sites you relied on actually posted genuine quotes? Right.

Ceiling. Watch.

“If Peter was there, and was being hunted, a single mention of his name in a letter wouldn’t have given him away, when those who allegedly hunted him could have just found him with his church ?? I think it really means he wasn’t there !”

All history stands against you and so does scripture as I posted. And yes, one mention could give him away.

Ceiling. Watch.

“So by Paul not mentioning Peter at ALL, it really means Peter was there ????”

No. By Paul admitting that someone else already established the Church there and all early Christian writers agreeing it was Peter - and Peter himself saying he was in ‘Babylon’ which was a codeword for Rome - it means Peter was there.

Ceiling. Watch.

“A church already founded - no mention of Peter again.”

Except by Peter himself. You’re rather conveniently forgetting that. Imagine that.

“Not building on another man’s foundation simply meant he wanted to go where the Gospel had not been spread.”

He was going to go to Rome in any case. And all early Christians agree Peter was in Rome.

“If it doesn’t say who the man is, it doesn’t prove it’s Peter.”

And yet all early Christians agree Peter was in Rome. Really, only anti-Catholics insist he wasn’t. Even many Protestants agree he was in Rome!

Ceiling. Watch.

“You, by default have to believe it was Peter, otherwise the whole system falls.”

No. The HISTORY proves Peter was in Rome. And no system falls according to my beliefs. The Church remains regardless of my beliefs.

“Paul doesn’t mention anything about Peter or Rome in his letters to Timothy in instructing him with advice in church matters. If Peter was the first pope, you think that would warrant some mention by Paul to Timothy, don’t ya think ?”

Not in writing, no. I am not a Protestant sectarian. I do not believe in false 16th century doctrines like sola scriptura. Thus, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that St. Paul does not mention the first pope to Timothy. We know St. Paul stayed often for months and years in certain places. He could have just as easily - as he himself mentions - told Timothy or others about Peter in person by word of mouth.

“There was no “if you help with sound doctrine, see our brother Peter”. so, It’s another time Peter was not mentioned.”

He didn’t have to be mentioned in writing. No letter of St. Paul’s was ever written as a complete guide to the Christian faith.

Ceiling. Watch.

“But since Rome ISN’T mentioned, there is NO evidence that he was using the term Babylon to figuratively to refer to Rome.”

Actually, there’s plenty of evidence. 1) We have all early Christians agreeing that that’s what he was doing. 2) We have all early Christians agreeing Peter was in Rome. 3) We have plenty of Biblical scholarship - including that of Protestants - which shows it was the consistent understanding of early Christians.

Ceiling. Watch.

“My mistake, Jesus doesn’t become a piece of bread, the bread becomes Jesus. All this hocus pocus stuff can’t be done anyway.”

With the power of God it most certainly is possible and it does happen. And it is your mistake. Remember, you’re the only one to have made a mistake on doctrine here. I have made none about Protestants - ever. You attack Catholic doctrine, however, even though you can’t get it right. What does that tell us?

“There is still no way that any priest, can do the following !”

On his own no, but through the power of God given to him, yes he can. There’s no way Peter could have healed a man with his shadow, but he did.

“So you’re saying it’s not a real sacrifice ?”

It’s a re-presentation of a real sacrifice.

I wrote: “I clearly denied that anyone was trying to make Jesus into bread. Now, you’re trying to say two different things. 1) Your emphasizing the idea of Jesus coming down to the altar - as if I ever disputed God’s power to do such a thing or the priest’s power in that regard. 2) You’re also making the completely RIDICULOUS claim that this means Jesus was being sacrificed over and over again, which is not only impossible, but, naturally is not what we teach or believe.”

“I’m not making the Rev O’brien’s claims, HE IS - with the approval of your church.”

I never disputed what O’Brien said. What you did - and you’re still trying to do it - is conflated more than one issue or idea and attacked Catholic doctrine based on that conflation. You made the ridiculous mistake claiming Jesus becomes bread. You insisted - without any evidence at all - that Catholics believe Jesus is re-sacrificed again and again and you did that by COMPLETELY MISUSING O’Brien’s quote. No where - EVER - does O’Brien suggest Jesus is re-sacrificed again and again. Yet that’s what you claimed his words said. Also, it is clear enough from O’Brien’s own book, on page 306, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is the PERPETUATION of the singular sacrifice on Golgotha. You conveniently left that out too. Imagine that.

Ceiling. Watch.

“You say it’s Gods power by which he comes down from Heaven, your church says otherwise.”

No, the Church says EXACTLY what I have been saying. The priest has no authority or power except for that imparted to him by God through his ordination through Apostolic Succession which was created by God Himself. O’Brien - who you supposedly have read - discusses this in chapter 11. Strange how you didn’t mention that.

“You say Jesus is not being sacrificed over and over, well, the Rev O’Brien seems to think so.”

Nope. As I already shows in this post, he doesn’t. Again, look at pages 304 and 306. Are you sure you read this book there, buddy?

Even other anti-Catholics can get this right regarding O’Brien:

As noted elsewhere, according to Karl Keating in Catholicism and Fundamentalism,
“...The Church insists that the Mass is the continuation and re-presentation of the sacrifice
of Calvary.”7 Emphasizing it is not a recrucifixion of Christ where Christ suffers and dies
again, he cites John A. O’Brien who says, “The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the
sacrifice of the Cross in the sense that it offers anew to God the Victim of Calvary... and
applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the Cross to individual human souls.”8 http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/roman-catholicism/RC3W0103.pdf

So, they apparently didn’t even read O’Brien’s book, which you imply you read, but they know its import better than you do. Imagine that.

Ceiling. Watch.

“Really - “BOWS HIS HEAD IN HUMBLE OBEDIENCE TO THE PRIESTS COMMANDS””

Here is what the priest says:

Who in the same night that he was betrayed,
took bread and gave you thanks;
he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying,
Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you;
do this in remembrance of me.
In the same way, after supper
he took the cup and gave you thanks;
he gave it to them, saying,
Drink this, all of you;
this is my blood of the new covenant,
which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins,
Do this as often as you drink it,
in remembrance of me.

So, the priest is following JESUS’ commands.

“You’re really digging this ceiling watch thing ? Have at it !”

It’s better than making mistakes and railing against what you don’t know...or pretending to have read books you apparently didn’t.

Ceiling. Watch.