Catholic Problems

[shunyadragon]

Well, seeing as how I just recently debated an anti-Roman Jansenist heretic (Quite well, if I do say so myself :D), it put me in a debating mood, and there isn't a thread like this yet, I'll be the first to do something like this. To anyone either is not a Roman Catholic, or was one and left, I want to know: Why? Tell me any problems you have with the Church of Rome, and I'll answer them to the best of my abilities.

I was raised in the Roman Church and studied for a year for the Saint Franciscan order in 1965. I found many problems with the Roman Church, but primarily I did not consider it Universal as it claimed, nor did I consider Christianity, nor any of the many other churches universal as they claimed. It's history reflected more a fallible human history as the Roman Church, and not one Divinely guided to unify humanity as a universal church.

In 1966 I began to follow up on my interest in Buddhism inspired by Allan Watts' books, meditation and studies of Martial Arts. From 1962 to 1964 I worked with a Japanese couple on Zen gardens in the summer. In 1971 I became a Baha'i with strong Buddhist/Taoist leaning. I have continued to study Martial Arts, Theology and Philosophy since.

Many here will argue scripture, and history of Christianity as to which church, churches, or Christianity as a whole represents the universal message of salvation. I Consider the whole history of humanity, science, and what is the nature of being human spiritual and physical in understanding is what the nature universal. A significant part of the problem concerning what is the universal as far as the spiritual nature of the universal is that too many different religions, churches, and other diverse groups made universal claims concerning what they believed to be true, and from a less biased perspective there was no justification to picking one over the many other possible choices, particularly those with claims grounded in ancient paradigms.

[Darth Xena]

Irony. (to TT)

[TimelessTheist]

Irony. (to TT)

I said I was sorry.

[TimelessTheist]

I was raised in the Roman Church and studied for a year for the Saint Franciscan order in 1965. I found many problems with the Roman Church, but primarily I did not consider it Universal as it claimed. It's history reflected more a fallible human history as the Roman Church, and not one Divinely guided to unify humanity as a universal church.

In 1966 I began to follow up on my interest in Buddhism inspired by Allan Watts' books and studies of Martial Arts. From 1962 to 1964 I worked with a Japanese couple on Zen gardens in the summer. In 1971 I became a Baha'i with strong Buddhist/Taoist leaning. I have continued to study Martial Arts, Theology and Philosophy since.

If your studies were anything like your history of the Crusades, I think you may have found problems where there were none. Care to share some of these problems you found?

[Darth Xena]

I said I was sorry.

Okay. Thank you. Good night, rest well.

[Paprika]

In fact, the two words would've been the exact same word in Aramaic.

Right, so why aren't they the exact same word in Greek? That is, why not "on this petros"?

Again, I'm more than happy to thresh out this issue over the Greek, but I'm still waiting for the defense of the overall case.

[TimelessTheist]

Right, so why aren't they the exact same word in Greek? That is, why not "on this petros"?

Again, I'm more than happy to thresh out this issue over the Greek, but I'm still waiting for the defense of the overall case.

How about this?: "It doesn't matter." The only argument you could make against this is that Jesus was contrasting a large rock, with a small pebble, however, since both words can mean the same things, that argument completely vanishes. If you have another reason for making a big deal over this, I'd love to hear it.

but I'm still waiting for the defense of the overall case.

What, you mean how the Church is required for salvation? Oh, that's an easy one. Jesus said the only way to be saved is through him, and the Catholic Church is the Church that was started by Jesus, by the way of Peter's apostolic succession. Therefore, it logically follows that the one, true, Church that Jesus founded would be necessary for salvation.

[Paprika]

How about this?: "It doesn't matter." The only argument you could make against this is that Jesus was contrasting a large rock, with a small pebble, however, since both words can mean the same things, that argument completely vanishes. If you have another reason for making a big deal over this, I'd love to hear it.

Let me try to understand this: you're saying that petra and petros can mean the same things and are interchangeable. The thing is, of course, that Jesus uses two different words.

What, you mean how the Church is required for salvation? Oh, that's an easy one. Jesus said the only way to be saved is through him, and the Catholic Church is the Church that was started by Jesus, by the way of Peter's apostolic succession. Therefore, it logically follows that the one, true, Church that Jesus founded would be necessary for salvation.

It doesn't logically follow. Are we to be saved by the Church?

[TimelessTheist]

Let me try to understand this: you're saying that petra and petros can mean the same things and are interchangeable. The thing is, of course, that Jesus uses two different words.

I already gave you an explanation: Petra means "large rock" more often than "petros", however "petros" is the masculine form, and Peter is a man. Once again, if you can actually name a reason why this even matters in the first place, as in, if it was supposed to mean something, then what the heck is it supposed to mean?

It doesn't logically follow. Are we to be saved by the Church?

I don't see how it 'doesn't' logically follow. If Jesus is the head of the Church, and Jesus is necessary for salvation, then it logically follows that joining the Church is necessary for salvation.

[Paprika]

I already gave you an explanation: Petra means "large rock" more often than "petros", however "petros" is the masculine form, and Peter is a man. Once again, if you can actually name a reason why this even matters in the first place, as in, if it was supposed to mean something, then what the heck is it supposed to mean?

It matters because you identify Peter as the Rock upon which Jesus built his church.

I don't see how it 'doesn't' logically follow. If Jesus is the head of the Church, and Jesus is necessary for salvation, then it logically follows that joining the Church is necessary for salvation.

Again, it doesn't. We are saved by grace through faith, and not by or through the ekklesia.

[TimelessTheist]

It matters because you identify Peter as the Rock upon which Jesus built his church.

....and?

Again, it doesn't. We are saved by grace through faith, and not by or through the ekklesia.

The sacraments are the ordinary means through which Christ offers grace necessary for salvation. The sacraments can only be given by the Church.

[Paprika]

....and?

Which was why I brought up the matter of petra and petros

The sacraments are the ordinary means through which Christ offers grace necessary for salvation. The sacraments can only be given by the Church.

Right, and you should be able to anticipate my rejoinder: can you show this from Scripture?

[shunyadragon]

If your studies were anything like your history of the Crusades, I think you may have found problems where there were none. Care to share some of these problems you found?

Well the Crusades like other aspects of the history of the Roman Church like the inquisition represent a very human history and not one reflected in a Divinely guided church or religion that represents a universal spiritual guidance for humanity.

Many here will argue scripture, and history of Christianity as to which church, churches, or Christianity as a whole represents the universal message of salvation. I Consider the whole history of humanity, science, and what is the nature of being human spiritual and physical in understanding is what the nature universal is. A significant part of the problem concerning what is the universal as far as the spiritual nature of the universal is that too many different religions, churches, and other diverse groups made universal claims concerning what they believed to be true, and from a less biased perspective there was no justification to picking one over the many other possible choices, particularly those with claims grounded in ancient paradigms.

One result of my investigations is that the scriptures represent the time, culture and place in the world they were written. This in part is why I consider Christianity to reflect a very Euro-Roman Culture, and the Roman Church to be more specifically Roman in nature. This strong cultural orientation precludes any one religion or church justifying it represents the universal. I consider IF a Source some call god(s) exists, the scriptures and religious beliefs of the world represent 'the human view of the Divine,' and not specifically one Revelation from God that is the universal standard for humanity.

[RBerman]

Okay...seriously, I have to ask, what are you even arguing for? We've already established that both words can mean the exact same thing, so you can't make the argument that Jesus was contrasting the two, and, in fact, in the original Aramaic, they would have been the same word. I don't get it, what case are you trying to make here?

Why the inflammatory tone? It makes your valid points seem less persuasive than they ought. We are all friends here.

As to your question, I addressed it in a subsequent post which you may not have read at the time you made this post of yours. In brief:

1) Jesus may have been contrasting Peter as the little rock, and the substance of Peter's confession of faith as the big rock.

2) Even if πετρος and πετρα both refer to Cephas, the comment admits of many interpretations.

[TimelessTheist]

Which was why I brought up the matter of petra and petros

No, I mean, what's the reason? What do you think it's supposed to mean?

Right, and you should be able to anticipate my rejoinder: can you show this from Scripture?

Quite easily:

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:54)

He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mark 16:16)

Unless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Luke 13:3)