All Comments (110)

DAVID tells us: I do believe it is upon recieving the Spirit that we have been forgiven of our sins. This is why I disagree with infant baptism.

ANN O. replies: The RCC also believes that Baptism forgives sins. So how to account for infant Baptism? I am not troubled by the teaching that ORiginal Sin is an inclination towards sin that is built into human nature, and Baptism dis-inclines that (because it is grace). So to Baptize a child also dis-inclines the child from temptations to sin. In other words, it has an effect on his/her very soul. I find no problem with that. In other words, as I see it, Baptism does more than one thing.

But I disagree with the notion that once we make the decision to accept the Lord that that's that. In my experience it seems very, very clear that we can reverse our pledge all too easily. Many people on the list point to various people who were Baptized yet turned into monsters. That insight is, I think, theologically sound.

DAVID:

it doesn't take a specially trained scholar to understand what God wants. His word was meant for all intellectual beings.

ANN: I have to disagree again. (And don't worry about that. As I see it, it isn't impolite to disagree -- it is only impolite to call names!

Having the good intention to read the Bible and find the meaning God intended and then actually finding His meaning are not the same thing. Someone who is wicked can read the Bible and find the meaning, e.g., murder is wrong. Again, this is the difference between an intention and a complete actualization of that intention. When you started reading the Bible, surely just becaues you intended to find truth you didn't understand all parts correctly the first time you read the texts, did you? In other words, some of your initial readings, your initial interpretations were probably wrong.

So, here's the problem: how do you know that further study won't make you change your mind about some things again? The problem is not that *God's understanding of what He meant* can change. The problem is that *OUR understanding of what he meant" can change. Or do you find some explicit text in the Bible that says: sincere readers will never make mistaken interpretations of Scripture.

Yes, I do think that we seem to have the same beliefs about the historical Jesus -- that He was (amazingly!) God and that God is Love and will redeem us. By the way there is a wonderful sermon on the Christianity Today site by one of the editors. (CT is a highly respected evangelical journal, for those who don't know.) It's about the Virginia Tech murders and how God suffers with us, but will in the end redeem us, saints and sinners, and the whole world. It's at:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/june/14.55.html

No, I don't agree with everything at CT, but ISTM that Yancey has gotten at what all Christians in the classic sense agree on.

Ann O,

Thanks for the great response. I do hope to remain polite in this discussion, so if I happen to disagree on certain points I would hope that you take no offense to them.

First off, I have to disagree with a range of sins being greater than others. Your right when you say sin actually translates to "miss the mark". So whether you commit murder or say a bad word, you "miss the mark". I do believe the Bible teaches us that we all miss the mark (sin) and the only redemption for those sins are the acceptance of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Concerning baptism, I do agree that it is an important act of faith to make your faith publicly known. I do however disagree as baptism being a requirement for salvation. Once again, when you read about all the accounts of baptism in the NT (post resurrection) you will see that this act of faith is done AFTER being saved, not before. John the Baptist said he comes to baptize with water, but another One greater than him comes to baptize with the Spirit. I do believe it is upon recieving the Spirit that we have been forgiven of our sins. This is why I disagree with infant baptism. This is a "work" that is declared a saving grace by the RCC. This can be referred to Paul's anger at the Galatians for adding physical circumsicion as a way to recieve salvation. This is not what Christ intended for us. His work on the cross was more than sufficient for us as we are to come to Him with our hearts, not our works.

I have to give you a little info about myself. I found Christ through reading His Word alone. I was able to determine the meaning through a consistent study of scripture backing up scripture. I do not believe in contradictions in the Bible and have yet to find one. At first glance, some can appear that way, but with further studies it is quite simple to understand God's true meaning. In other words, it doesn't take a specially trained scholar to understand what God wants. His word was meant for all intellectual beings.

You say the RCC changes it's decisions on matters of doctrine and dogma every once in awhile. I read in the Bible that God is never changing. If RCC are what they claim to be "the only true church", then why are they contradictory to what God is? Also, is it true that the pope is considered "infallible"?

So, a major question I have as well is that does the RCC consider itself the "only true church"? If this is the case, then we have some Bible study to do. And one last one as well. I have heard that the RCC says it's members aren't allowed to read the Bible. I'm not sure if this is true or not, but the mother of a close friend of mine who is catholic told me her priest said she cannot read the Bible on her own or she might come up with a false translation. This was quite some time ago, so maybe the RCC has changed their view on this, however, I am curious if this was ever a point in their historical doctrines.

Thanks for your time and I appreciate this discussion. And no matter what doctrinal disputes come between us, I know that our faith lies in Jesus together and that's what's most important. And more importantly, I see us believing in the same Jesus as portrayed in the Bible, unlike Mormons or Jehovah W's. I think that is the most important aspect of our beliefs...to believe in the RIGHT Jesus.

God bless you

SPEED123:

The only reason I brought up Hitler's Catholicism is in response to your atheist bashing. You were the one who brought up Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

They may have been atheists, however, more so they were Communists. It wasn't that atheism created Communism, it's the other way around. So you need to blame the communist Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. for thei evil deeds, not the atheist Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

DAVID replies to Ann O.: I get a sense of doctrinal dispute between catholicism and Biblical Christianity. The claim that works is a requirement for salvation is anti-Biblical. The Bible clearly teaches otherwise.

Hi again, David,

I wouldn't say that Catholicism is not part of biblical Christianity. A great deal of the scholarly effort of the RCC has gone into trying to discover just what God means by those texts. But unlike fundamentalist Protestantism, the RCC (and many Jewish scholars and many other Protestant scholarss) do not think that God meant everything in the Holy Scripture to be interpreted literally.

I suppose the main reason they think so is because there are too many contradictions in the Bible. Furthermore, Jesus says some things that He plainly doesn't mean literally, e.g., "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out". The modern scholars, by studying other texts of the same historical period, have discovered that it was quite common for Jews to use language rhetorically even to the extent of gross over-statment. So that statement of Jesus Himself must be *interpreted* in the light of the other things He says. The problem is: just what does He mean in any given passage? Enter Biblical scholarship.

So, as to good works not being required for salvation, it's true there is at least one text in Scripture which seems to mean that we are saved by faith alone. However, you can find other texts which say that good works are necessary. For instance, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdome of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." Since it is the will of the Father that we do good works, it seems clear that if we don't do good works we cannot go to Heaven.

DAVID: I am curious. If I do not partake in these catholic sacraments, does the catholic church say that I will not recieve salvation? This is something that I have yet to find out.

ANN: The RC Church teaches that at least Baptism is required, but that since many people have not even heard of Jesus, it would be unjust of God to condemn people to Hell who could not know Him, for whatever reason. So the Church thinks that the desire to do what is the will of God or the Absolute or whatever you want to call Him, in effect baptizes the person. And this applies to other non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians as well -- if they follow their consciences, they will be saved.

This is called "baptism of desire". Yes, this is an inference from other things said in the Bible, e.g., that God is just. But the RC relies on inferences to try to discover God's meanings. The Second Vatican Council, held in the 1960's was very clear about this. But, if I'm not mistaken, the RCC earlier did teach that the unbaptized went to Hell.

As to when forgiveness of those who confess actually "takes", I don't really know. I suspect it happens as soon as God sees that the person is sincerely repentant. But only God knows who is sincere.

I think your questions are quite logical, and I'm happy to try to answer them. Just remember, I'm not a theologian, though I do know some of Aquinas' theology. Also remember that there is and has always been a lot of theological argument in the RCC. So you'll even find different popes saying different things if you wait long enough :-) If you'd like a generally accurate account of Catholicism, I'd recommend you take a look at Richard McBrien's "Catholicism". He's quite clear and contemporary

DAVID: What constitutes for a "less serious sin"? Jesus said that if we break the least of any commandment, we break them all and therefore are lawbreakers. Sin seperates us from God, no matter if it's murder, or just an impure thought.

ANN: The RCC teaches that there are different degrees of sinfulness. Both the Hebrew and the Greek word for "sin" had a core meaning of "missing the mark". But you can go more or less wide of the mark. The worst sins according to the Church, called "mortal sin", is a clear choice that turns us away from God completely. The lesser sins, called "venial sincs", do not turn us completely away. They range from, say, stealing a dime or making a nasty little remark to someone who doesn't deserve it on up to the hateful ones like murder and adultery.

Murder, being a mortal sin, would require more serious penance. But that is for the confessors to decide based on his knowledge of the murderer and how much the murderer has changes.

I should also add that though sins are *objective* ,e.g., murder actually ends an objective life, the subjective part of sin -- our internal, private choices -- can make them less evil. For instance, if a man is tempted to commit adultery by a gorgeous woman who has been chasing him for months and he falls, that isn't as bad -- perhaps -- as a man who makes a clear, very deliberate choice to be unfaithful to his wife. Or if someone goads another into doing something wrong, that also can lessen the culpability of the act.

If you'd like a more authoritative explanation of these things, you might like Richard McBrien's "Catholicism". He's very clear and knows the contemporary developments. And, yes, Catholic theology does develop, and even reverses itself sometimes. But it generally takes a good long while. Sigh.

Andrew Greeley, the popular columnist and writer of detective novels, also has a book on basic Catholic teachings out. I would imagine he explains better than I ever could.

Thanks for listening, David, and especially for responding so politely :-)

David, I think you're confusing the mechanics of how we practice our belief with what we believe. I'm sure you would agree that once you accept grace in your heart it makes you able to behave better. As a group we catholics like to codify things, so that we have motions to go through during periods of personal doubt. These motions help us to keep our heads above water, but they are aids to faith, not substitutes for it.
As for the Aves and Paters used as penance for children, it's probably a recognition that some sins are easier to correct than others. I joined the church as an adult, and I usually get a penance that is meant to address the bad habit behind the sin. I'm no murderer, but I've never been assigned to recite prayers as penance. Murderers in the middle ages used to have to do things like walk hundreds of miles on their knees. I'm sure the contemporary remedy, while less public, is more difficult than reciting a few prayers.
Finally, do you go to church? Does it make you feel closer to Christ when you go?

So, I get a sense of doctrinal dispute between catholicism and Biblical Christianity. The claim that works is a requirement for salvation is anti-Biblical. The Bible clearly teaches otherwise. I see the difference in how we portray salvation. I say I am ALREADY saved (because the early apostles said the same thing), catholics say that salvation is based upon a meritous accumulation of good works and church sacraments.

I am curious. If I do not partake in these catholic sacraments, does the catholic church say that I will not recieve salvation? This is something that I have yet to find out.

I also was curious about the hail marys and our Fathers? When you go to confession and the priest says to do a certain number of these, is it after this act that you recieve forgiveness? What if you didn't do them? Are you forgiven of these confessed sins if you skip the hail marys and our Fathers? And who decides this? I hope these are logical questions. I do not intend to be offensive at all, but have been curious about the catholic church's stand on how sins are forgiven. To my understanding Christ died so that we can be forgiven through grace which is by faith.

Also, Ann O. What constitutes for a "less serious sin"? Jesus said that if we break the least of any commandment, we break them all and therefore are lawbreakers. Sin seperates us from God, no matter if it's murder, or just an impure thought. So, do you have to do more hail marys and our Fathers if you commit murder? I hope these are legitamate questions. Thanks

God bless

Gaby,

"Hitler was a Catholic"

What of it? Other than an attempt to defame this religious group.

Just because he was baptized does not mean - and he was never - a practicing Catholic in the church.

This is a simple and ignorant antiCatholic device and it is similar to saying that:

"Trotsky was a mass murdering communist and a Jew....so I therefore conclude that the Jewish faith and leadership are evil."

ELOIST,

I beg to differ. Hitler was never excommunicated. Especially not for serving as best man at a Lutheran wedding.

Italian dictator Benito Mussolini asked the Pope to excommunicate Adolf Hitler shortly before he went to Rome to seal their alliance in 1938, according to a Vatican document.

Details of Mussolini's secret request were found in the Vatican's recently opened secret archive which forms the basis of a book by Italian historian Emma Fattorini on the last days of Pius XI's papacy.

Ms Fattorini, a university professor in Rome, suggests the demand reflected the Italian leader's anger over Hitler's annexation of Austria in March 1938.

Although she also says Mussolini's actions may have been an attempt to set up the Church, in that if it did not act, he could accuse it of failing to listen to his warnings.

"Despite the many stop and go situations, we are in fact in the middle of full Italian-German accord - and it is this that makes the request for an excommunication so sensational," Ms Fattorini reportedly said.

She said the document - found in the archive opened in February - showed Mussolini was playing a "double game".

Despite being baptised a Catholic by his mother, in his adult life Hitler was not a practicing Catholic.

It is thought however he would have been aware of the significance of an excommunication and would have avoided the ruling at all costs.

The account of the meeting in April 1938 was taken by Holy See representative Pietro Tacchi Venturi.

Mussolini had urged the Vatican to adopt harsher measures against Hitler, according to Mr Venturi's own account of their talks.

"The head of the government told P. Tacchi Venturi in a private meeting that with Hitler it would be advisable to be more energetic, without half measures; not now, not immediately, but waiting for the best time to adopt these more energetic measures, for example excommunication," the record says.

In March 1938, Hitler annexed Austria and became a threat to Italian security - especially in Italy's German-speaking northern region.

However, Mussolini went on to sign a military alliance with Germany in 1939 and joined the war a year later.

It is not clear if the Church ever seriously considered excommunicating Hitler.

The Vatican archives relating to pre-war Germany were opened in a bid to counter charges that the Vatican did not do enough to prevent the Holocaust.

To Gaby:

Hitler was excommunicated as a Catholic when he served as best man at a Lutheran wedding. No matter what lies he told in order to appear as a compassionate conservative, he was barred from receiving the sacraments.

Signing the concordat may have given him prestige, but it also allowed the church to operate more freely, which helped save some 80,000 Jews from the gas chambers. He also instructed the Nazi commander in Rome to plan for the assassination of Pius XII.

I think Ann O. has given the answers you need.
All I would add is that we do believe (as you seem to) that good works are primarily a reflection of the grace that is in our hearts. Catholics are aware that we sometimes have more control over our behavior than we do over our feelings; sometimes by concentrating on good deeds we are better able to bring our relationship with Christ to the forefront.
I don't know if that's doctrine, but it has been my experience.

DAVID tells us: Thanks for your responses. I guess that my assumption (or heresay) led me to believe that it was the priests who forgave sins in replacement of God. I can see now that the confessional booths are mearly a place for spiritual advisory. I do wonder though why it is recommended to do a certain number of "hail mary's" and the such. Is this a requirement for those confessed sins to be forgiven? If so, I would have to believe that the Bible would say different. I should point out that faith alone in Jesus is what brings forgiveness in sins and not works. Paul made this very clear in part because the Galatians were adding works to their preachings, such as physical circumcision as a means of salvation.

ANN O. replies: Yes, the priest advises us in Confession, but it is the action of Jesus that forgives us that is essential to it. But we must choose to admit our sins and accept His forgiveness, etc. But Catholics don't agree with the notion that it is only Jesus who acts in our being saved -- we must act too, we must choose to accept the graces He offers. And, yes, good works are indeed necessary. There is nothing automatic about salvation in Catholic theology, as there seems to be in Protestant theology.

Hail Marys (prayers) aren't the only sort of penances given out, though they, together with Our Fathers are usual for children and for less serious sins. "Penance" is just punishment. Punishment isn't very popular these days, but it has its uses, I think. And even if the penance seems trivial it has much symbolic effect. It forces us to look at ourselves and say, hey, I did wrong and I must improve.

Hi, David,

The break between the RCC and the Protestants was, of course, bitter at best, and churh histories afterwards, at least until rather recently, apparently not been very objective on either side. But much more history is being done now on the subject by calmer, more objective historians. If you want a respected historian of the Catholic Church, try the works of Christopher Dawson of Oxford University.

Yes, there was corruption and misjudgment at different times and places. But "the Church" is not simply the popes and bishops or the Vatican. The Church is all the Catholics, sinners and saints alike, and to accuse the whole Church of the sins of some, especially the sins of the powerful, is not really fair, is it?

My mother used to say that one reason she continued to be a Catholic was because, given the corruption in high places at different times, the Holy Spirit must be within it helping it to recover. I think she had a point. Jesus never promised us perfection in this life. He only offers us the grace to do good. Some accept it, some don't.

If you think that the Church did only harm, do read what Seamus Heaney, the Nobel prize-winning poet and translator, has to say about the great epic, Beowulf. He says that in that poem we can see that some of the fighters were just starting to see that conquest and glory and gold were not the best that life can offer -- these were men who had only recently been introduced to Christianity. Do read the poem. If you look at some of the cultures Europeans come from (Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, etc.) I think you'll see that Christianity was the greatest boon that ever hit the European continent.

Ann O.

Gaby,

Thanks for the LOOOOOOOOONG post. :) I knew about the Vatican's involvement with Hitler but didn't want to bring it up. Since you did, I should note that the Concordant signed in 1933 between the Vatican and Nazi Germany in a way gave Hitler his power.

Here's an exerpt from wikipedia:

Most historians consider the Reichskonkordat an important step toward the international acceptance of Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime.[4] Guenter Lewy, political scientist and author of The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, wrote:

"There is general agreement that the Concordat increased substantially the prestige of Hitler's regime around the world. As Cardinal Faulhaber put it in a sermon delivered in 1937: "At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

I do believe that the Roman Catholic Church used Christianity as a means of empowerment and money. I really don't know if that is still the case today. I'm still in the midst of studying catholic history and have yet to reach the current date and age of how the vatican is acting politically. Like I said before, my opinion is that their past is exactly that, past. I'm hoping what they do today can be righteous in God's eyes. I'm still unsure of that. For me, I would rather bring forth doctrinal arguments to establish if this church is Biblically correct. If I were catholic, I would find it important to know the history of this church to see if has shaped her into an organization of corruption (as history tells us) or an organization of repentenance and proper leadership. I think that is for the individual to find out for themselves. I do think however, that your post does add to the fact that stalin and mao can fit into the same category of the historical papalcy. I know that's hurtful to some, but please consider the evidence.

SPEED123:

Hitler was a Catholic. I normally hate long posts, but in view of your anti atheist posts I thought maybe you'd like to read a few quotes from Herr Hitler.

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work. [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland. [Message, signed Hitler, painted on walls of concentration camps; Life, August 21, 1939]

Woman's world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when she presses into the world of men. [Adolph Hitler, quoted in Lucy Komisar, The New Feminism]

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. [Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]

I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it. [Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed. [Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922, published in My New Order, quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46]

What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]

This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]

And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.174]

Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another... while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.309]

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so [Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 171]

I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 1]

I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 2]

...the unprecedented rise of the Christian Social Party... was to assume the deepest significance for me as a classical object of study. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

Political parties has nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes! [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

It [Christian Social Party] recognized the value of large-scale propaganda and was a virtuoso in influencing the psychological instincts of the broad masses of its adherents. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 3, about the leader of the Christian Social movement]

Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

I had so often sung 'Deutschland u:ber Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

I soon realized that the correct use of propaganda is a true art which has remained practically unknown to the bourgeois parties. Only the Christian- Social movement, especially in Lueger's time achieved a certain virtuosity on this instrument, to which it owed many of its success. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 6]

Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 7, reflecting on World War I]

The more abstractly correct and hence powerful this idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings... If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth... In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 8]

To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 8]

The fight against syphilis demands a fight against prostitution, against prejudices, old habits, against previous conceptions, general views among them not least the false prudery of certain circles. The first prerequisite for even the moral right to combat these things is the facilitation of earlier marriage for the coming generation. In late marriage alone lies the compulsion to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity, an institution which is damned ill-suited to a being who with his usual modesty likes to regard himself as the 'image' of God. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10, echoing the Cultural Warfare rhetoric of the Religious Right]

But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular-- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply go their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 10]

Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 11]

The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 11]

....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 11, precisely echoing Martin Luther's teachings]

Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

All in all, this whole period of winter 1919-20 was a single struggle to strengthen confidence in the victorious might of the young movement and raise it to that fanaticism of faith which can move mountains. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

Of course, even the general designation 'religious' includes various basic ideas or convictions, for example, the indestructibility of the soul, the eternity of its existence, the existence of a higher being, etc. But all these ideas, regardless of how convincing they may be for the individual, are submitted to the critical examination of this individual and hence to a fluctuating affirmation or negation until emotional divination or knowledge assumes the binding force of apodictic faith. This, above all, is the fighting factor which makes a breach and opens the way for the recognition of basic religious views. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created? [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

For the greatest revolutionary changes on this earth would not have been thinkable if their motive force, instead of fanatical, yes, hysterical passion, had been merely the bourgeois virtues of law and order. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture-race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 5]

For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 5]

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10]

In the ranks of the movement [National Socialist movement], the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions. The mighty common struggle which both carried on against the destroyer of Aryan humanity had, on the contrary, taught them mutually to respect and esteem one another. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10]

For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!' [Adolf Hitler's prayer, Mein Kampf, Vol. 2 Chapter 13]

The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life [Adolph Hitler, in a speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933]

I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker. [Adolf Hitler, Speech, 15 March 1936, Munich, Germany.]

Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the *poison of immorality* which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of *liberal excess* during the past ... (few) years. [The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]

Hello everyone,

Thanks for your responses. I guess that my assumption (or heresay) led me to believe that it was the priests who forgave sins in replacement of God. I can see now that the confessional booths are mearly a place for spiritual advisory. I do wonder though why it is recommended to do a certain number of "hail mary's" and the such. Is this a requirement for those confessed sins to be forgiven? If so, I would have to believe that the Bible would say different. I should point out that faith alone in Jesus is what brings forgiveness in sins and not works. Paul made this very clear in part because the Galatians were adding works to their preachings, such as physical circumcision as a means of salvation.

I did point out the historical atrocities commited by the catholic church, but I should clarify that these historical shortcomings in no way affect my decision to not become a member of this church. I know that that is the past and that the future could be more promising for the catholic church. I would rather leave out the historical aspects of the catholic church because I do believe that has nothing to do with doctrine. The crusades, inquisitions, and witch trials DID occur, but they are not occuring today and in my opinion should not be held against the catholic church as a consideration of a true Christian church.

I do however see a few docrinal errors that are inconsistent with scripture. I would hope that you can enlighten me on these if I have made any assumptions, otherwise I would like to enlighten you as well as to what the Bible says about these things.

First the question above about the "hail marys"? Is that needed for forgiveness of sins? And one more to keep it simple. The sacraments. Are these requirements for salvation as well? As you can tell, I firmly believe in salvation by grace alone. Eph 2:8-10. Tit:3:5. I see works as not of my own but of Christ's working through me. I do see salvation as a "free" gift from God obtained by faith alone. And I see myself as already saved as compared to a meritous accumulation of works that might find favor for me upon judgement day. I'm not sure if we agree upon these things or not, but as far as I know, from my studies of the catholic church, these things are not in agreement. I would appreciate if you all could help me verify these teachings, hopefully Biblically as well. Thanks a lot.

God bless you all

RELIGION* A FORCE FOR GOOD OR EVIL?: The “Inquisition” Argument

*In this case Catholicism

David,

Your argument is an old one, used by Protestants since the Reformation right up until about the middle of the 20th c.. American evangelicals such as Rev. Falwell preached such an interpretation of Church history, although to give Falwell his due he eschewed and disowned anti-Catholic bigotry from about 1970’s onward. The Rev. Dr Ian Paisley continued the dishonourable tradition—for a glimpse log into his website—although over the past five years or so he has also stopped spouting this prejudiced view by Protestant evangelical historian dating back to “Fox’s Book of Martrys” .

THE ARGUMENT: “Christians [or in your case Catholics] have done terrible things in the name of Christ. For example the crusades and the Inquisition killed thousands. In view of this history, it is unlikely that Christianity can be a force for good.”

It is not an invalid argument. The church is guided by the Holy Spirit, but it is composed of sinful individuals and is not impeccable. Sins by Christians, particularly when committed in the name of Christ, do reflect badly on the church and may discourage people from becoming Christians. Clearly it would be better is such sins were not committed.

However, the allegation of terrible atrocities is much too easily made. At the beginning of the twentieth century there were two major anti-Christian movements. One, Communism, was atheist and saw Christianity as part of a cultural structure that was designed to exploit the workers. The other, Nazism—the “pagan worship of the state” in Pius’s term—was less openly hostile but tried to subvert the church and make it support a program of state-worship of Germany, as personified by the Aryan race. *Far more people were killed by these two movements in thirty years (1918-1948) than were killed by Christians in the preceding two thousand.*

This does not excuse atrocities by Christians, but it puts them into some sort of perspective.
I know enough about the Inquisition, the outbreak of witch burning, as well as the Crusades to place them in their historical context. However, I believe this particular blog is drawing to a close, I won’t write them up just now and in any case am doubtful that adversarial debate elicits much insight.

Att: S P E E D 1, 2, 3, et al;

Please See, GENESIS: 1: 1,2,3. STOP! Not et Seq!

Warning, Speed Kills. So Stop Means Stop, O.K. Friend(s)? These are the Signs of the Times so to speaketh here & There like All!.

And the Lord Said, "LET ...... Light/PHOTONS" And Behold; Let these WordsBe the Rules of the Holy Cosmic Road in your Transfinity (reality) with IT be your guide & friend with peace foreever!

<?:+)/ Ya Ya Mons!

Oops -- CORRECTION: " the sacrament of Reconciliation) is based on the Biblical text "Whose sins you are forgiven, whose sins you are retained". "
That should have been "Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you have retained, they are retained".

SPEED 123 tells us:

OK, David...perhaps you are so critical because you are longing to return?

In any case, confession is not to the priest but to God...the priest just happens to be there.

That is not a great explaination - but I havent figured it all out either.

ANN O. throws in her 2 cents: The way I understand it a priest is a "vicar" of Jesus Christ. That is, when "applying" the Sacraments he simply acts in Jesus' place here in the material world. Something like the way a Lieutenant Colonel can act in some matters for the Colonel if the Colonel isn't around himself. The sacrament of Confession (or as it's calle these days, the sacrament of Reconciliation) is based on the Biblical text "Whose sins you are forgiven, whose sins you are retained".

It's not just enough to confess our sins, simply to say "I have done or not done X, Y, or Z". There must be repentance and a determination to act differntly in the future. Also, if we owe someone something because of a sin we must make restitution.

People sometimes get the impression that we Catholics think we can sin and just go confess it. Not so. We have to mean what we say, and God knows if we are lying even if the priest doesn't. In fact, lying in Confession is itself considered a very serious sin.

If there is no priest around we can still confess our sins to God, intend repentance and reparation if necessary, and we will be forgiven. But if the sin is a very serious one later we must go and confess it again.

When I was young we were taught a lot of stuff about some sins being worse than they actually are -- sexual sins, e.g., "impure thoughts". I think that's because American Catholicism has been culturally conditioned to be too stringent about such matters. The Irish clergy were very much influenced by a Bishop Janssen who was obssesive on the subject, as were some of the French clergy in my own area. Plus the Eastern American Catholics seem to have had that re-inforced culturally by the Puritanism there. Current theologians don't view these little sexual peccadillos so seriously these days.

Sometimes I think they've gone too far in the opposite direction. But I do think the current emphasis on respect for others in teaching about sexual behavior instead of emphasizing "don't, don't, don't" is much, much more theologically sound.

VIEJA tells us: The phrase "I ask Blessed Mary...all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God..." states the basic Catholic position. We don't pray to Mary and the saints but we do ask for their help when we pray, the same way you'd ask someone with a stronger hand to help you hammer in a nail.

ANN O. replies: In my neck of the woods we use the word "pray" for our talking to the saints. All we mean by that is that we talk to them mentally and sometimes we actually talk out loud to them in communal prayer. Often we ask them to pray to God for us. But we do not worship anyone but God. That would be idolatry.

This is all based on the Catholic belief that there is life after death and that the dead continue to love us and can be in touch with us spiritually. In theology this community of the living and the dead is called "the Communion of Saints". Not that everyone is a saint in the full sense of the word, but if someone is pointed toward God, so to speak, that is enough to qualify as a "saint" with a little s.

No, we don't usually expect to actually hear any answers, though some Catholics do claim to have such visions we are not required to believe that other peoples visions are actually messages from beyond.

Ah, sorry about the confussion on my part; I guess it was because of your use of G-d that I made that assumption.

As for the explaination, well said!

David
Here is the best way I can think of to explain some Catholic practices that seem non-biblical to other Christians:
We do believe in history and tradition as forces almost equal to what is in the book, and tradition provides us with visible signs and symbols we can use to act on what the book teaches us. The pope is to the Bible sort of what the Supreme Court is to the US Constitution. The priest who hears my confession is there to help me focus on what I've done wrong and to formulate an appropriate atonement -- to keep me honest, if you will.
We are a community in Christ, and we value continuity and consistency more than most other Christians seem to. We also rely upon other members of the community in prayer, in worship and in daily life.
The phrase "I ask Blessed Mary...all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God..." states the basic Catholic position. We don't pray to Mary and the saints but we do ask for their help when we pray, the same way you'd ask someone with a stronger hand to help you hammer in a nail.

Speed123
Please feel free to correct me or add anything if I'm just muddying the waters....BTW I am Catholic by baptism, faith and confirmation, but culturally from a strong Old Testament background.

PS - the wise Viejita del Oeste is Jewish, I believe :)

OK, David...perhaps you are so critical because you are longing to return?

In any case, confession is not to the priest but to God...the priest just happens to be there.

That is not a great explaination - but I havent figured it all out either.

Check out this site, I think you will have a field day on similar questions on the forum:

http://forums.catholic.com/

Peace.

Viejita del Oeste,

I truly am sorry if I come off as offensive. I do not intend to be that way. Regarding the historical aspect of the catholic church, that is true history, just as George Washington was our first president, so was the history of the catholic church. We cannot deny that. One thing I must say that does not seperate us is our faith in Jesus Christ. We both agree to the Triunity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as One God. Because of this shared belief, we are together in the body of Christ as members and I look forward to one day worshiping God in Heaven along side you. We do have a few seperate beliefs though and this is where I would hope to hear from a catholic perspective on what they truly believe. I have studied catholicism and found inconsitencies that contradict the Bible. 2 Tim 3:16 tells me that Scripture can be used for "correction". This is what I am doing and I would hope you could do the same for me. You say that I speak as if "I gotcha". I don't want to be right. I want the Bible to be right and for you and I to know what true Christianity is. This is why I look at some of the beliefs of the catholic church and question them (ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE). My intentions aren't for you to leave the catholic church and come join me. NO WAY! Please stay there and worship God as you see fit. But shouldn't you know what the Bible says instead of taking it by blind faith through a fallible man such as the pope? Shouldn't we pray to God only and confess our sins to Him ONLY? I really don't see how a sinner can forgive a sinner? Is it wrong for me to question these? I just hope you take no offense to them. So please forgive me if I seemed to come off as trying to be "right" in my own. That is truly not my intention. Hope you have a blessed day Viejita. Ojala que podemos crecer en Cristo ajuntos! I figured you spoke spanish. :)

God bless

David,

I am not interested in your wacky protestant evangelical re-interpretations of the Bible.

I am interested in hearing you retract this slander:

"All these were Christians that were seperate from the catholic church because they believed in Jesus for salvation, and not the pope for salvation."

I do not care if you believe in the authority of the Catholic Church and its origins with Christ; however, I do care when you lie and slander in the name of proving a FALSE point.

Retract the statement and we can continue otherwise best of luck in convincing others that the Catholic Church and pope are the anti-Christ.

MR. MARK tells us: I think your point proves my point to some extent. It is often only through scholarly hindsight that we learn the true origins of things, including modern philosophical movements. The fact that -as you point out - Grosseteste scholars "are now speaking of him as also the founder of the English scientific tradition," shows that even scholars may take a while to determine such root causes.

ANN O. replies: I agree entirely. And anyone who has been in academe can tell you that there is nothing, nothing, nothing so rigid as an academic wedded to his/her own pet views :-)

Speaking of the AoE, I was happy to see that Pope Benedict is finally putting the seal of approval on the scientific merits of the Enlightenment. The Vatican, of course, has had more than it own share of rigid thinkers.

DANIEL tells ANN O.:

In reply to Ann O:

I did not say a single word about Fundamentalists being filled with hate. That is, somehow, something you read into my comments. I said that Fundamentalists conform their minds to a rigid and unbending dogma. I do not necessarily dislike individual Fundamentalist people whom I know personally. I, however, do not regard their Fundamentalist relgious belief with any degree of seriousness, and as far as religious discussion goes, I try an "humor" them.

ANN O.: I apologize for misinterpreting you, Daniel. I suppose I was reading my own estimation of some fundamentalists of all sorts into what you said. Some do seem to hate anyone who does not believe what they do -- I'm thinking of the ones who appear on this list occasionally and tell everybody else (especially the atheists)that they're going to Hell. But, as you say, others don't take that attitude.

David, your misconceptions are familiar and are common in those who do not understand or recognize Catholic teachings. That group also includes many Catholics who excel in ritual and obedience but have little understanding of what we claim to do and believe.
Historically members of the hierarchy have failed to trust the discernment of lay people, which led in many cases to a shallow sort of faith education. I don't know if Speed has the patience to answer your questions -- although I bet he knows the answers.
I would take a stab at it myself if I thought you were really interested. Your tone comes across as more "gotcha" than inquiry.

Speed123,

I'm not anti-catholic, I'm anti false-teachings. Let's expand on this "peter is the rock" thing. I do believe you are referring to Matthew 16:18-19.

The question to ask here is who is this "rock"? Jesus or Peter? We need to back up scripture with scripture to find out who Jesus was really referring to.

Psalms, Kings, Isaiah, New Testament: They will proclaim over and over God as my Rock, my refuge, my salvation...
(Ps.18:2,31, 19:14, 27:5, 28:1, 31:2, 61:2, 62:2, 71:3, 73:26, 89:26, 2S.22:2,32,47, Is.31:16, Mt.7:24, 16:18, Lk.6:48, 1Cor.10:4, 1P.2:8).

Now let's look at Peter:

Matthew 16:23 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Peter denies Christ three times in Mark 14:69-72.

Paul rebukes Peter in Galatians 2:14-21 for adding the law along with faith as a means of salvation.

So, Peter sure was not OUR "rock".

Now another question to ask is if Peter was the "first pope" to the only true church, then what was Paul talking about here?

Ep 1:22-23

And God placed all thing under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Col 1:18

And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

You said Peter is the "cornerstone". Let's see what the Bible says.

1 Peter 2:4

As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—

vv 7-8

7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,[b]"[c] 8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."[

Peter himself actually proclaims Jesus to be the "rock" and the head of the church, not himself. If Jesus meant for Peter to be that rock, them wouldn't He say "You are Peter, and YOU are the rock"? Instead He said "on this rock". Looking at scripture, the "rock is obviously Jesus. Also, looking at scripture, the only true church is the body of Christ. Not an organization of men. And Christ Himself is the Head of that church, not some "vicar of Christ". Shouldn't catholics ask themselves these questions? Also, why does it say there is only ONE God in the Bible, but yet you pray to Mary? Isn't prayer a form of worship? And what does it mean to be excommunicated? Doesn't that mean that you can longer recieve salvation because you are no longer a part of this so-called "only true church"? I'm sorry if I offended you in any way Speed. It is my understanding that this is what the Bible teaches and the Biblical teachings conflict with what I understand to be Catholic teachings.

Nevertheless, history is history and what I spoke of were true historical accounts. It is hard to deny that no matter what one believes. Comparing the popes to stalin or mao is irrelevant. They all have their bad historical accounts and will face judgement. Who am I to say who is any worse? I am just a sinner as well as them! Let God be the Judge.

So, Speed, maybe you can give me an account of what catholics truly believe since you seem to think I really have no idea. I would like Biblical proof of your beliefs as well. I would love to speak to you about the Bible and I find a great joy in studying it. Maybe we can help each other out to increase in our knowledge of God. Once again, sorry for offense, but I'm not speaking any lies here, just historical truths.

God bless

Speed123:

I cant believe your on my team.

PS - you are obviously a anti Catholic bigot so I will end this conversation; however, if you would like to quote the Bible - Peter, the apostle and first head of the Roman Church was given the "keys of heaven" by Jesus, who told him that he would be the cornerstone of His church in this world.

Your claim that the Church claims to be the salvation - as opposed to Christ - is wrong and it is slander.

PS - you state:

"All these were Christians that were seperate from the catholic church because they believed in Jesus for salvation, and not the pope for salvation."

This is an untrue and bigoted statement - no part of the Church or any individual Catholic sees the pope as the means of salvation.

Your statement is slander and should be retracted.

But does it really matter who killed more people whether it be a thousand or a million, these leaders of their time killed an amazing amount of people all for the sake of their beliefs.

Yes, David, it really does matter as it show the restraint or respect for the individual human - or lack their of - for respective ideologies.

No doubt Catholic power/teachings have been used for horrible political purposes and crackdowns of nonbelievers.

However, this is nothing compared to the excesses of extreme humanism/atheism and it justification of the 100 million killed in the name of the advancement of reason and a "higher man/society."

Numbers tell important facts about each respective movement and what they were capable of.

Humanism/atheist, when turned wrong, have no check to stop the machine and its quest progress and, therefore can justify starving and killing MILLIONS in name of the "new man" and the perfect society.

Speed123,

No I'm not kidding. Maybe you should do some historical research on the Inquisition. Death toll ranges from 600,000 to 9 million over a 250 year span. Or how about the Crusades? Or maybe the Witch Trials? All of these under the authority of these popes. Yes the comminist regimes did some serious damage as well. But does it really matter who killed more people whether it be a thousand or a million, these leaders of their time killed an amazing amount of people all for the sake of their beliefs. So if you ask me, putting the historical accounts of the popes compared to stalin or mao, yes they are all guilty of murder.

You should do some research on the Mennonites and the Hussites. All these were Christians that were seperate from the catholic church because they believed in Jesus for salvation, and not the pope for salvation. These are the Christian martyrs that were killed by order of the pope because they refused to believe in the false doctrines of the catholic church but believed in the Bible as their sole authority. Also research Pope Leo X in 1521 whos decree "Honestis" that ordered all who did not take part in the Inquisition (killing of Christians) to be tortured. Not only did they kill Christians, but Jews, gypsies and other people from different walks of faith. Basically, if you opposed the catholic churchs' beliefs, you die, most of the time burned alive at the stake. Also, check out Revelation 17. Woman on the beast. Let's put it this way, any church that claims to be "Christian" would follow what the Bible says. Bible says Jesus is the only way to salvation. Catholic church says they are the way to salvation. Bible says God forgives sins. Catholic church says their priests can forgive sins. Bible says we gain salvation by faith alone, not works. Catholics say you EARN salvation by their "sacraments" (works) and still you probably end up in this myth called "purgatory". Bible says, the body of Christ is the only true church. Catholics, their church is the only true church. Now tell me, how are these Christians? It's easy to see how they formed their own beliefs historically and used their false doctrines to justify their killings. BUT, they are no better or no worse than stalin or mao. They all used human suffering as a means of empowerment and mind control. Sorry if this offends you, but you need to know the truth.

God bless