“Fish” Fridays

by Jimmy Akin

in Liturgical Year

A reader writes:

I got hit by the old line that eating fish was related to boosting the fishing industry.  The sad thing was the guy said he heard if from a seminarian.  I went to EWTN and looked at some posts but wasn’t real happy with what I saw there.

Do you have (at Catholic Answers) or on some simple but documented history of eating fish?

This is one of those things that is hard to verify because of how backwards the situation is. Every year people claim that eating fish on Fridays was introduced to help the Italian fishing industry, but nobody ever comes up with primary source documents to estabish this.

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the people making this claim. Unless they can produce an original source document saying this, it isn’t worth giving any credence to.

I say the burden of proof is on them because I don’t believe the claim (I think it’s a myth), and the burden of proof is always on the person you disagree with.

It seems to me that the following is far more likely to account for the situation:

  1. Church law is written in Latin.
  2. In Latin the thing we are forbidden to eat on (today certain) Fridays is carnis.
  3. In Latin, carnis means the flesh of warm-blooded, land-dwelling animals.
  4. Since people couldn’t eat carnis, they looked for things similar to carnis to eat on Fridays.
  5. Tofu burgers not having been introduced in the West, people started eating fish.
  6. The practice of eating fish became widespread.
  7. People who didn’t know Latin started looking for an explanation of why fish is eaten but not the flesh of land animals.
  8. The sinful streak in human nature made them want to attribute some kind of self-interested motive to the Church in allowing fish.
  9. Somebody noticed that forbidding meat on Fridays would have the effect of economically benefitting the fishing industry.
  10. Somebody attributed the allowance of fish to an attempt by the pope to economically benefit the finishing industry.
  11. The rumor spread far and wide because people still have a sinful streak whereby they want to attribute selfish motives to others and, in particular, to the pope.

If there were a requirement that people eat fish on Friday (there ain’t) then one would have a better case for the fishing-industry story, but in the absence of a requirement or any primary source document to the contrary, the above seems to me to be the more likely way to account for the matter.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 121 comments }

Derek February 10, 2005 at 10:48 am

I guess the Vatican could have helped out the Fishing industry even more if they MANDATED FISH instead of just saying “no” to meat. Oh and they could have really increased their profits by mandating fish more than ONE DAY A WEEK. I guess they didn’t want to be too obvious about it. Hey it’s never too late to start working on behalf of the Tofu industry.

Ruthann February 10, 2005 at 10:52 am

Wow, you are such a timely information provider! Just an hour ago a coworker asked me how come we’re allowed to eat fish on Fridays — she considers fish meat. And why Garden Burgers, since they resemble meat.
And here you are, providing exactly the information I required. Thanks, Answer Man!
Ruthann

Ed Peters February 10, 2005 at 11:10 am

12. Or maybe, the exception was made to help the Italian fishing industry, and it’s just the kind of thing nobody bothered to write down.
Personally, I wish all flesh products were prohibited. It’s no penance at all for me to dive in (no pun intended) shrimp, cod, lobster, trout, the works. This is penance? Bring it on!

Ed Peters February 10, 2005 at 11:16 am

Before somebody says it, yes, I know I could prohibit those things to myself. But I need the stick of a holy-goad behind me. Old Adam, and all that. I never want a hamburger like I do on a Friday in Lent.
Another thought on mundane motives for fish exceptions. Such oddities should not take one totally by surprise. If they do, heaven help you when you find out that a “fast” is a full meal plus two other smaller meals in a 24 hour period. Half the world would gladly live on that.

Jimmy Akin February 10, 2005 at 12:03 pm

You should try being
a) A *strict* Atkins dieter, who
b) Doesn’t cook, and
c) Doesn’t eat fish, and
d) Doesn’t hardly eat eggs.
Going meatless *is* a penance for me!

Scott February 10, 2005 at 12:18 pm

Jimmy,
You wrote:
“the burden of proof is always on the person you disagree with.”
Which struck me as being, well, simply wrong: if it were true, then in every disagreement (where both sides disagree with each other), both sides would have the burden of proof. So what did you mean?

Brian February 10, 2005 at 12:59 pm

If carnis is latin for land-dwelling animals, then what is the latin word for sea-dwelling animals?
Scott,
Actually, when two people disagree with each other you inevitably have one person that is asserting something (The sun is a flashlight ya oaf!) and the other is minding his own business. The Sun/Flashlight man would say to the other man, “Hey, dude! Don’t you know that the Sun is actually a flashlight?!” Then the other man says, “You’re a nut! Prove it!”
Thus, we get to the point where “the burden of proof is on the people making this claim.”
Or, if the other guy happens to be a The-Sun-Is-A-Great-Big-Ball-Of-Burning-Gasses type fella then he might assert. “Duh! The sun is a great big ball of burning gas you goof!” At which point the The-Sun-Is-A-Flashlight man would be justified in saying, “Prove it!”, and Mr. The-Sun-Is-A-Great-Big-Ball-Of-Burning-Gasses would have to prove it.
See what I mean?

Other Eric February 10, 2005 at 1:46 pm

Hi Ed Peters!
I think there’s a component to the “fish on Friday” rule that people continually miss. Fish used to be considered peasant’s food. Roasted meats were reserved for the wealthy (a peasant could not afford to butcher a milk-giving cow or an egg-producing chicken). I can point to records from Maine only about 100 years old that show the lumberjacks of the time were protesting over having been served lobster for the third time in a week. As with many things, perspective is important.

Scott February 10, 2005 at 2:11 pm

Brian,
“Or, if the other guy happens to be a The-Sun-Is-A-Great-Big-Ball-Of-Burning-Gasses type fella then he might assert. “Duh! The sun is a great big ball of burning gas you goof!” At which point the The-Sun-Is-A-Flashlight man would be justified in saying, “Prove it!”, and Mr. The-Sun-Is-A-Great-Big-Ball-Of-Burning-Gasses would have to prove it.
See what I mean?”
No, actually. You seem to be saying that the burden is placed on someone whenever a disagreeing party demands that they prove their claim (e.g., you said the the flashlight man would be justified in demanding proof of the ball-of-gas-sun guy).
If this were the case, every person who supposed murder acceptable would be “justified” in demanding proof of those of us who don’t.
I think you might be getting at a sensible definition, but you aren’t there yet (and I still don’t know what it is).

Ed Peters February 10, 2005 at 3:35 pm

Other Eric: Lumberjacks get lobster three times a week! Which way to the saw mill?

Dev Thakur February 10, 2005 at 7:36 pm

“I say the burden of proof is on them because I don’t believe the claim (I think it’s a myth), and the burden of proof is always on the person you disagree with.”
Jimmy, I think you might be being facetious here. But the real reason the burden of proof is on them, of course, is that they are making an accusation that the pope conspired with an industry and established binding laws of multitudes of Catholics in order to financially benefit that industry. The burden of proof is always on the people making an assertion of fact!
If someone accuses me of conspiring, the burden of proof better be on them! If not, I’ll have to materialize some sort of proof that I *didn’t conspire*! In most cases that wouldn’t even be possible.

Terry February 11, 2005 at 7:16 am

I actually remember being taught this in college. Now I really wish I had paid better attention. I have half a mind to E-mail my old professor to see if he’ll shed some light on it.
Put me in the category as someone who views eating fish/seafood as hardly being penance. Not trying to be that Pharisee in yesterday’s Gospel reading who calls attention to his fasting by a dishevelled appearence, but I’ve taken to making that delicious fish my only meal of the day on Fridays during Lent.
I also recently learned pretzels were “created” during Lent when eggs, meat, cheese, butter, and milk were not consumed during Lent.

Something seema a bit fishy to me March 5, 2005 at 10:56 am

If there is only one bible per say than why are there so many different ways of interpreting it? It seems that each Christian religion does things their own way. What ever happened to Advent, Penance, Lent, the actual Host and the Angels and Saints? By the way didn’t Jesus eat fish at the Last Supper? So would it not be fitting to do the same in rememberance of him during the time that he suffered and died for us? Although I really don’t think most of us consider eating fish to be a sacrfice, especially compaired to what some people go through or without, in life.
Tell me one more thing why is it that the Catholics were proven to be the least shocked and the most in touch with the reality of the Passion? And whom was it that made that movie that moved so much of the world? Could it have been (Catholic) Mel Gibson? Fish for thought or as they call it brain food.

JohnH March 11, 2005 at 9:34 am

“In Latin, carnis means the flesh of warm-blooded, land-dwelling animals.”
Does this mean that it’s okay to eat cold-blooded, land-dwelling animals?

Jimmy Akin March 11, 2005 at 11:37 am

That is the common opinion. Turtle, for example, would be permissible.
Or you would go to “Tijuana, eating barbequed iguana.”

Other Eric March 11, 2005 at 12:31 pm

Mmmm! Rattlesnake!

Jimmy Akin March 11, 2005 at 1:04 pm

Yeah, I’ve had that.

Julie Clark April 16, 2005 at 6:37 pm

So if the “eat fish to further the fish industry” was made up, then when did the practice come into play in the church, and whose decision was it? And if eggs, cheese, milk, butter and meat used to ALL be banned (thus the pretzel) when and why did that practice change to just meat.

pha November 9, 2005 at 8:02 pm

We’ve all heard it. When I heard it, the Protestant objector accused: “It’s because one of the popes’ families was in the fishing industry!”
I decided to turn it around. “Of course,” I laughed. “The family of St. Peter, the first pope, was in the fishing business!”

John Kasaian February 28, 2006 at 5:11 pm

Someone wrote a history of the codfish—I don’t remember the title or author, but one interesting point that was mentioned was that the catholic custom of eating fish on fridays made codfishing quite profitable for protestants in canada’s maritimes—not italian fishermen. Codfish of course could be preserved in salt and was affordable whereas fresh fish fluctuated in price and poor immigrants might not be able to afford the stuff. True? I don’t know but it sounds good. Did the canadian fishermen have thier hooks into the Pope on this one? Unlikely.

KaleJ March 1, 2006 at 8:29 am

I have heard similar to other eric. The point of abstenance and fasting is related to almsgiving. We are supposed to join our sufferings to and help the poor.
Since fish was the food of the poor, calling on the poor to give up their sustenance would have been punishing the poor further. We are not called to gorge ourselves at the all-you-can-eat seafood buffet during lent, but to decrease our desires of the flesh and in turn give alms to the poor.

Dano March 1, 2006 at 9:33 pm

Mark Kurlansky. The author of the book about cod is Mark Kurlansky. The title, by the way, is simply “Cod”. I can’t tell if “A biography of the fish that changed the world” is part of the title or not, but it’s on the cover and on the cover page inside. I’m looking at my copy of it right now. Apparently it won a “James Beard Award”, whatever that is.

Tony March 5, 2006 at 4:08 pm

So if Jesus had been born in the US would be be eating buffalo meat on Fridays? Wild turkey? Regardless of how the tradition started, it has nothing to do with religion or spirituality, merely the socio-economic status of a time and place long gone. I’ll end with this though: If one devotes their entire life to helping the poor and needy, but eats meet on Fridays during Lent, will they be denied entry to Heaven?

Anonymous March 5, 2006 at 4:29 pm

“If one devotes their entire life to helping the poor and needy, but eats meet on Fridays during Lent, will they be denied entry to Heaven?”
“If ONE devotes THEIR entire life” … “will THEY be denied” … is there a multiple-personality disorder here?
As for “eats MEET” … I don’t know what that is or how to do it.

Tim J. March 5, 2006 at 5:01 pm

Tony -
Your saying that self denial has nothing to do with sprituality?
“If one devotes their entire life to helping the poor and needy, but eats meet on Fridays during Lent, will they be denied entry to Heaven?”
If you are asking about Catholics, I’d be willing to try the following experiment:
I’ll take the population of Catholics who don’t eat meat on Fridays during lent, and you take the population of those who can’t be bothered. We’ll see which population actaually contains the greater number of people who devote themselves to helping the poor and needy.

Dr. Eric March 5, 2006 at 9:45 pm

It seems that the Apostolic Canons did forbid eating any animal with a backbone during fasting periods. Also dairy and eggs weren’t allowed either. Some days during Lent even oil and wine weren’t allowed as well!
See below:
Canon 50 of Laodicea commands that dry bread be eaten throughout Lent. Bishop Epiphanius says in Heretics 65 that during the fast of Lent dry bread and the practice of countinence are incumbent; Canon 69 of the Apostles recommends on Wednesday and Friday and in Lent the eating of bread once a day without olive oil and without drinking wine (see Interpretation of Canon 64 of the Apostles) in Pedalion. Theodore Balsamon, a 12th century commentator on the canons of the church, says, “even the eating of shell fish on Wednesday and Friday and during Lent is prohibited” The Constitutions of the Apostles (preceding the Apostolic Canons) reads, “It is obligatory to fast during Great Week and on Wednesday and Friday”.

Dr. Eric March 5, 2006 at 9:49 pm

As to when the Western Church changed the rules on the fasts I don’t know. I have heard that when the Jesuits met the Orthodox, the Orthodox were scandalized when the Jesuits ate fish on Fridays during Lent.
Eastern Catholics still follow this practice (as much as they can) to this day. All fasting rules have exceptions to them.

Sheri March 7, 2006 at 2:00 pm

In answere to Terry, “Didn’t Jesus eat fish at the last supper?” uh – that would be a “NO!”. The last supper was a celebration of Passover in which LAMB was eaten.

The Sheepcat April 7, 2006 at 7:37 pm

The Other Eric’s post (Feb 10, 2005) reminds me of a story from a friend who was visiting a Newfoundland fishing village many years ago. He was really looking forward to a dinner of fresh fish, only because he was such an honoured guest, the family served what for them was a very special treat: bologna sandwiches on white bread!

Hugo January 16, 2007 at 9:22 pm

The wednesday/friday fast in Lent during the patristic and medieval era was, to my knowledge, a “black fast” in which all fleshmeats, along with eggs and milk, were prohibited. That includes fish. I have heard, but have not seen a source to substantitate it, the claim that fish was permitted to soldiers during World War I, and that this permission was extended generally for some reason. Again, I have no source on the permission for fish, but I _can_ offer documentation (see the Catholic Encyclopedia) for the prohibition of fish prior to the modern era.

Hugo January 16, 2007 at 9:31 pm

I retract the statement concerning the prohibition of fish. I was under a grave misapprehension concerning the meaning of the word “flesh meat”. As Jimmy has pointed out, it does not include fish. Now I shall slink off into my room and hide.

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 6:09 am

er, Pete was never a POPE. Show Biblically that he was…
As for non Biblical Catholic
(Matthew 15:9, NIV. “They worship Me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”)
See:
1 Timothy 4
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.
and more:
16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 6:35 am

“Show Biblically that he was…”
Show us where it says in the Bible that we have to show you where it says in the Bible.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 6:37 am

Since you are quoting from 1 Timothy, try chapter 3, verse 15 on for size.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 6:52 am

But I am glad that you are reading the Bible, which is a Catholic book, written by Catholics, for Catholics, collected and produced under the authority of the Church.

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 7:17 am

Bible was not written by Catholics…first & mostly Jews, just to remind you & Mel Gibson….
PS EX-Catholic who woke up…

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 7:19 am

Your ignorance of history is incredible. Now, would you like to take a crack at my first post to you?

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 7:21 am

Not to mention, my second?

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 7:26 am

Catholics of old Testament -zero Let’s see was Moses,Cathloic , er no….Abraham…er no
Catholics of new Testament -zero Paul er no…..
Any – no
Jesus the King of the JEWS

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 7:28 am

…you never answered the Catholic going against holy Scripture of:
1 Timothy 4
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.
and more:
16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 7:28 am

I don’t blame you for avoiding taking up my first challenge to you.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 7:32 am

“you never answered the Catholic going against holy Scripture of:”
You want to try that again in plain English so I’ll know what you are talking about?

Mary Kay January 26, 2007 at 7:37 am

pha – LOL
Michael John, *sigh* Where in the Bible do you find that the Bible is the sole authority?

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 7:42 am

Well, it ( 1 Tim 3:15) certainly doesn’t apply to Catholic in fact read about wifes just before.
(also Since the Catholics hold true to 1 Timothy 4)
You’ve taken items of of contents….the passage apllies to the church as in the People/belivers in Christ alone….not a building.
1Tim
12(X)Deacons must be (husbands of only one wife, and (Z)good managers of their children and their own households.
13For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
14I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long;
15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the (AC)church of (AD)the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
Here is what Catholics have in their doctrine, EXPLAIN that
1 Timothy 4
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 7:51 am

1 Tim 3:15 states that the “pillar and foundation of the Truth” is “the Church”. Not the Bible, the Church.
Repeating the same quotes doesn’t explain what you are trying to get at. Try using you own words to tell us what you mean by these quotes.
Don’t bother attempting to answer my first challenge: you won’t find it in the Bible.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 7:52 am

So bishops, priests, and deacons MUST be married? What was the name of St. Paul’s wife again?

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 7:58 am

To use the whole word and not slight of hand.
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
NOTE you took just part, it clearly says, the church is the pillar and support of the truth,
The truth is the Word which is God and Chrsit the foundation which the church was built.
and the word became flesh…the Christ.
simple.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 8:07 am

We finally agree: The Church is the pillar and support of the truth.

Mary Kay January 26, 2007 at 8:20 am

Michael John, I’ll assume your conversation has been with Bill, but you still haven’t answered my question:
Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the sole authority?

Inocencio January 26, 2007 at 9:11 am

Michael John,
If I may offer a few Scriptual references for you to reconcile with your understanding.
Eph 3:8-10″To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.”
The Church even makes known the wisdom of God to the angels. What is the great Mystery?
Eph 5:31-32 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church
Where do we go to if our brother sins against us and he won’t hear us or two or three witnesses?
Matt. 18:17-18 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Since the Church is the Bride of Christ and was given by Christ the authority to bind and loose and was commanded to teach, you better be absolutely sure you know which Church is the one Christ founded upon the Rock(Kepha).
And please kindly answer the questions that have been asked of you by bill912 and Mary Kay.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau January 26, 2007 at 9:23 am

Michael John Priewe:
Tell me, have you even read about the Early Church?
If you had, then you would definitely see how ‘Catholic’ it was from the very beginning.
Also, how do you think we actually got the Bible??? Did it just fall out of the sky, complete with all the books in it??? It was the Catholic Church that had decided what books belonged in the bible!
FF Bruce during his lifetime is known as kind of the Dean of Evangelical Christians. He was very well respected as a Scholar and he has a book that I believe is called “The Canon of the New Testament” or it might be “The Canon of the Bible”.
Anyway, in that book FF Bruce goes through how the bible and, particularly, how the New Testament was put together and how it was Catholic Bishops who began to write letters back and forth and encourage the inclusion of certain books and the rejection of other books, culminating in a series of Catholic Councils right around the year 400 AD that put together the New Testament, the 27 books of the New Testament as we know it. That is a matter of historical fact.

Esau January 26, 2007 at 9:28 am

However, Michael John Priewe, since you cite:
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons
Then you must throw your bible into the fire since it was actually Catholics who decided what books belonged to it and, for all you know, since you insinuate that Catholics may be nothing more than deceitful spirits and their doctrines being that of demons, then why trust their judgment such as that regarding the Canon of the New Testament which even to this day, Protestants still have considered valid or else they would’ve thrown out the certain books that comprise it!?!?!?

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 10:36 am

Yes exactly the Church is the PILLAR and SUPPORT of the Truth. However the Church IS not the truth.
Ask yourself what is the truth?
Your fallacy in thinking (as you tried to misquote and take out of contexts) over & over .
What is the truth? Why it is Christ, NOT the church.
Examples are:
John 146Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
ALSO according to scripture the word is truth (again Christ manifested in the flesh) Note especailly verse 14
John 1 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[b]
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
So again not the Church is the truth,but Christ who is the word!
Again the word is:
Ephesians 6
Ephesians 6the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
And we all know the Christ is the truth and the Groom and the church (the people are the bride.

Mary Kay January 26, 2007 at 10:39 am

Michael John,
Show me where it says in the Bible that the Bible is the sole authority.

Esau January 26, 2007 at 10:46 am

Yes exactly the Church is the PILLAR and SUPPORT of the Truth. However the Church IS not the truth.
So, the bible did actually fall out of the sky, then, complete with all the books in it???

Inocencio January 26, 2007 at 10:48 am

Michael John,
Again, please kindly attempt to answer the questions that have been asked of you. I enjoy discussions about Sacred Scripture but it is rude to ignore questions when asked directly.
The Church has the God-given mission to authoritatively preach and teach the Truth, her BrideGroom. She is as you have acknowledged the pillar and bulwark (defense) of the Truth. If you do not listen to those Christ sent you do not hear Him and reject Him and the One who sent Him. Luke 10:16
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 10:49 am

Esau since you cite: (and I am an EX Catholic)
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.
My point exactly about the Catholic Church since they fall into the catogory of 1 Timothy 4
And you said
“Then you must throw your bible into the fire since it was actually Catholics who decided what books belonged to it and, for all you know, since you insinuate that Catholics may be nothing more than deceitful spirits and their doctrines being that of demons, then why trust their judgment such as that regarding the Canon of the New Testament which even to this day, Protestants still have considered valid or else they would’ve thrown out the certain books that comprise it!?!?!?”
Your fallacy in thinking is this:
Because the CHurch acknowlege the Truth in the Word they are above it.
When it was the truth long before the Catholic CHurch acknowledge it as truth. IN other words it was the truth long before whether or not the Catholic church said so.
Example is that just because Sir Newton acknowledge the law of gravity, did make it suddenly true or to suddenly start working. It was merely him discovering an already working law in the universe. (Which by the way is also a created physical truth & law of GOD)
AND because he “canonized” that fact does not permit him to overide that law or negate it with his own doctrine of law. (as the Catholic church so arrogantly does)AND if Newton had renigged on his statments it would not mean that law is suddenly obsoleted.
So the Church acknoeledge does not release it from being under it the truth or reponsible to it. AS you stated scripture “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.” and if they did fall away does mean the truth is voided suddenly.

Esau January 26, 2007 at 10:57 am

Michael John Priewe:
Since what I’ve written is long, I’ve sectioned my comments accordingly:
THE QUESTION RE: THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE
The Canon of Scripture (i.e, just what books actually belong in the Bible) can’t be found in the individuals books that comprise the bible. You can’t go to the individual books of the bible to determine just which books are authentically inspired and can be deemed as Scripture. Now, as I’ve stated in my previous post here (that is, my Jan 3, 2007 10:47:54 AM post where I submitted various significant points that you have yet to refute) there were so many other books in addition to those that actually became part of the bible that the Church had to decide which of these formed Scripture.
Now, if you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church, you shouldn’t trust the books that the Church considered as part of the New Testament, which Protestants to this day still put faith in.
That is, you might as well do like what the Jesus Seminar folks are doing and re-consider all the books that are currently in the bible, but also, in addition, take up and examine for validation those other books that the Catholic Church actually rejected time and again in of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD).
But, again, what is your criteria for determining if a book is part of Scripture? Is it because it’s written by an Apostle?
Many bible scholars would beg to differ.
Do you actually consider Hebrews as part of the Scripture? To this day, nobody actually knows who wrote it. Even Protestant bible scholars know that! Even my Protestant minister, who was the head of a big congregation throughout the United States, acknowledged that and many other Protestant seminary professors as well.
But, if you, yourself, actually do accept Hebrews as part of Scripture, then why???? What makes it so special??? What makes it authentic??? What makes you actually think it’s God-breathed??? For all you know, it could’ve been written by whatever other phoney in the past, even somebody who may have been a mental case!
Now, a lot of folks (including you it seems) underplay this fact — although Dr. Martinus Luther actually acknowledged the fact that “if it weren’t for the papists, we (Protestants) wouldn’t have the bible”!
Martin Luther is an ally on this question.
In his commentary on St. John, in Ch 16, he says this: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (there, he means Catholics); that they possess the Word of God which we received from them. Otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it”
DISAGREEMENTS OVER THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE IN THE EARLY CHURCH
There were huge disagreements in the Early Church between St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius — I’ve read, especially in ecclesiastical history, where many rejected Revelations, Jude, 2nd and 3rd John, Hebrews; said they were not inspired. Many in the early church actually accepted the Epistle of Clement as Scripture — it was read in Corinth for over a hundred years as Sacred Scripture after Clement died. There were disagreements as well over the Old Testament Canon. Whether books like Baruch was inspired and others. So there were disagreements.
The Church preceded Scripture and, in fact, it’s the Church that decided what books were to be included in the bible.
FF Bruce during his lifetime is known as kind of the Dean of Evangelical Christians. He was very well respected as a Scholar and he has a book that I believe is called “The Canon of the New Testament” or it might be “The Canon of the Bible”.
Anyway, in that book FF Bruce goes through how the bible and, particularly, how the New Testament was put together and how it was Catholic Bishops who began to write letters back and forth and encourage the inclusion of certain books and the rejection of other books, culminating in a series of Catholic Councils right around the year 400 AD that put together the New Testament, the 27 books of the New Testament as we know it. That is a matter of historical fact.
You cannot go to the individual books of the bible to determine just which books actually belong to the bible.
Again, I would be very interested in your criteria in determining just exactly what makes a book Scripture from one that actuall isn’t??? And if you really do not trust the Catholic Church, then why trust what they’ve said are the books that comprise the New Testament???
THE DOGMAS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
Virtually every dogma of the Christian Faith is not found explicitly in the bible, in Scripture. The word Trinity is not there. It was even a Catholic who coined the word, Theophilus of Antioch in 181 AD. Incarnation also is not explicitly found in Scripture. The point is, without the Catholic Church to expound on these thelogical aspects of the Christian Faith, you would have the chaos that’s clearly demonstrated in Protestantism when one goes by Sola Scriptura where you have people who, though they acknowledge the bible as their authority, do not acknowledge the divine nature of Jesus or even the Trinity.
Just who of these Protestant folks, from the hundreds of contradicting biblical interpretations, have the right interpretation and exactly the precise set of beliefs that go way back to the Early Christian Church, to the very time of the Apostles, all of which were originally transmitted orally?
I believe that’s exactly why God gave us the Church to begin with!
If you look at Scripture, there is a lively awareness of the Faith being passed down in a variety of means – sometimes in written form and sometimes not in written form. The original preaching of the Apostles was oral and Jesus’ teaching was oral (he didn’t write any books of Scripture) and so they lived in a largely oral culture back then and, as a result, there was a much heavier dependence on the spoken word and other elements of Tradition like liturgical action that were not written down.
That Tradition then – I should explain, ‘That which is handed on’ – and so if you have the body of Christian belief, it was something that was handed onto us from Jesus and the Apostles – part of it was handed on in written form but part of it went beyond writing, which is one of the reasons that there are some questions that Scripture doesn’t seem to answer clearly.
Like, for example, the question whether or not you should baptize babies or not; or whether you baptize by immersion or not.
We know people are supposed to be baptized but we don’t have the details of how it was supposed to work: whether you did it for babies as well, whether you could do it by pouring.
The reason for that is pretty clear: Scripture doesn’t answer those questions because it expects for you to be an Early Christian, reading about the Church but looking to the practice of the Church to answer those questions for you.
In fact, that’s why the Church is said in 1 Timothy 3:15 to be the Pillar and Ground of the Truth:
1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
AND
Paul actually says:
2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
Even 1 Cor 11 which uses the same Greek word “Paradosis”: “I commend you brothers for holding fast to the Traditions” as well as in 2 Thess 3:6 says the same thing.
So, were called to hold fast to Tradition and, as Catholics, we actually draw from the Old Testament.
THE “TRADITION” IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: THE ORAL TORAH & THE WRITTEN TORAH
The Jews had two fountains from which they received God’s Word.
According to RABBI HAYIM DONIN in the book “TO BE A JEW”, he says:
“We believe that God’s Will was also made manifest in the Oral Tradition, or Oral Torah, which also had its source in Sinai revealed to Moses and, then, orally taught by him to the religious heads of Israel, and the Written Torah itself alludes to such oral instructions.”
THE SAME IS SAID BY RABBI JACOB NEUSNER:
He points out that the Jewish Community from which Christianity sprang has always understood the Torah to be written (he calls that the Sefer Torah) and the Oral Torah (The Torah She-Bal Peh). Along with the written Torah, the Oral Torah which Moses received at Sinai, was transmitted to Joshua and to Joshua’s elders and to the prophets and to the prophets of the Men of the Great Assembly.”
Remember, Jesus acknowledged that Tradition. He made a distinction between the traditions of men in Matthew 15 that are bad from the AUTHORITATIVE Tradition that Jesus, himself, acknowledged such as the teaching of the Chair of Moses in Matthew 23.
Now, do you know why Jesus said those things to Peter in Matthew 16:18????
Mt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Of course, you, like others, would probably revert back to the ever magnificent and brilliant argument: “I believe the books of the bible are inspired, God-breathed, authentic, etc. because the Bible tells me so, and that’s the only authority I go by and that is all I know!”

Mary Kay January 26, 2007 at 10:59 am

Michael John, not only have you repeatedly not answered my question (Show me where in says in the Bible that the Bible is the sole authority), but you are ducking the entire question of authority.
Okay, so you have the opinion about the Catholic Church. But you don’t have the authority to say that it’s more than your opinion.

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 11:02 am

to answer your question Esau, of: ”
So, the bible did actually fall out of the sky, then, complete with all the books in it???”
Answer:
God is the author
As dicated to men (as earlier stated long before the Catholic church AND they were Jewish primarily -written in Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek)
2 Timothy 3
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Inocencio January 26, 2007 at 11:02 am

Michael John,
The Church has Christ’s authority because she is the Bride of Christ. What God has joined together let no man (you included) tear asunder. Christ and His Bride, the Church are inseperable. And if you do not hear the Church that Christ established and sent to preach and teach then…I know you know the rest.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 11:05 am

Here is the authority of JEsus Christ and his word (and changing it , overriding with doctrine that doesn’t go hand in hand)
Galatians 1
KJV1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Esau January 26, 2007 at 11:05 am

(and I am an EX Catholic)
Big deal — I was an Anti-Catholic.
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.
My point exactly about the Catholic Church since they fall into the catogory of 1 Timothy 4

Just what doctrines are those of the Catholic Church that you actually consider that of demons????

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 11:06 am

Ducking the question makes for an interesting contrast with today’s first reading: “God did not give us a spirit of cowardice…” 2 Tim 1:7.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 11:10 am

Michael John: After you answer my and Mary Kay’s questions (the ones you have repeatedly ignored), try these:
1) Whose authority do you accept for determining which books belong in the Bible, and why?
2) Whose authority do you accept for interpreting the Bible, and why?

Esau January 26, 2007 at 11:11 am

Michael John Priewe:
Oh, so, then, you do believe that the books of the Bible is the Word of God because it says so.
What exactly makes that so different than the number of books out there that claim to be the Word of God?
overriding with doctrine that doesn’t go hand in hand
Also, again, just what Catholic doctrines are these that you accuse of being from demons and the like?
Surely, since it was Catholics who came up with the foundation for Christianity’s fundamental doctrines, which are central themes to Christology, such as the Incarnation and the Trinity, these, too, must merely be doctrines from demons!

Mary Kay January 26, 2007 at 11:12 am

Michael, your Scripture quotations are nice, but don’t answer any of the questions asked of you.
So far, all you’ve said is your opinion that the Scripture, or a particular verse, doesn’t apply to the Catholic Church and your implication of “changing Scripture, overriding with doctrine” is not accurate.

Esau January 26, 2007 at 11:19 am

Again, Michael John Priewe, you didn’t answer any of my original questions.
One of them being how exactly do you know that each individual book that comprise the bible actually belong there and is the Word of God?
Further, if you don’t trust the Church, then just how can you consider their Canon of the New Testament correct?
What of such books like Revelations, Jude, 2nd and 3rd John, Hebrews?
What is YOUR criteria for considering a book of the Bible as actually being Scripture?

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 11:21 am

I note your cut and paste form other and the tangled web you make a of a simple gospel.
I did cut and paste too however it was the Word not some other doctrine.
Other doctrine and Church tradition is wonderful IF it matches scripture. (Example the traditon Coupled with the truth (word) does not forbid marriage
as the Catholic church does with any in service positons.
1 tim 1:4
PS for 2 Tim 1:7 nice misquote
note I do not duck any in fact I give evidence from scripture then I get no explaining your way out just more questions & question. Also I list my whole true name.

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 11:23 am

Your fallacy in thinking is this:
Because the CHurch acknowlege the Truth in the Word they are above it.
When it was the truth long before the Catholic CHurch acknowledge it as truth. IN other words it was the truth long before whether or not the Catholic church said so.
Example is that just because Sir Newton acknowledge the law of gravity, did make it suddenly true or to suddenly start working. It was merely him discovering an already working law in the universe. (Which by the way is also a created physical truth & law of GOD)
AND because he “canonized” that fact does not permit him to overide that law or negate it with his own doctrine of law. (as the Catholic church so arrogantly does)AND if Newton had renigged on his statments it would not mean that law is suddenly obsoleted.
So the Church acknoeledge does not release it from being under it the truth or reponsible to it. AS you stated scripture “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.” and if they did fall away does mean the truth is voided suddenly.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 11:24 am

“note I do not duck any…”
Okay. Since I somehow missed your answers, please tell us again:
1)Where does it say in the Bible that I have to show you where it says in the Bible?
2) Where it says in the Bible that the Bible is the sole authority?

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 11:29 am

Maybe it’s just me, but MJP’s 11:23 post seems to be unintelligible. SpellCheck might help.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 11:32 am

“PS for 2 Tim 1:7 nice misquote.” I quoted it verbatim.

Kris January 26, 2007 at 11:38 am

Michael John,
Sorry to chime in so late on such an invigorating discussion, but I just couldn’t help myself.
You say in regards to the authorship of the Bible:
“God is the author
As dicated to men (as earlier stated long before the Catholic church AND they were Jewish primarily -written in Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek)”
Well, the New Testament, which is what is being used and quoted in this debate, was most certainly not written by Jews. The writers were Christians–the fufillment of their former relgion, Judaism. These Christians lived together in various communities throughout the world and many received instruction throught the epistles of St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles who went about the world spreading the Good News. Disagreements in the early Church, regarding doctrine and practice (like circumcision of converts) were brought to Jersusalem to be discussed among the Apostles and St. Peter, who functions under the authority given to him by Christ to bind and loosen. This is the earliest Church and, although the term “Catholic” was not being used at the time, we have in the new testament the earliest activities of Christ’s Church–now known as the Roman Catholic Church. It is this Church, the true believers in Christ Jesus, whose leaders promulgated the Holy Bible.
Since you are a former Catholic, I imagine you are familier with all of this; however you seem to be arguing from the perspective that the Catholic Church was formed much later than the events recorded in Acts or Paul’s epistles. The authority of the Church has existed since the time of Christ and will remain untill His second comming.
I will pray that you “wake up” once again and return home to Rome.

Mary Kay January 26, 2007 at 11:40 am

Michael, it’s not more questions, but the same question: Show me in the Bible where it says that the Bible is the sole authority.
As for not explaining, it’s unclear what your question is. You simply present Scripture and say, “Okay, explain it.” However, I don’t know what aspect you want explained. First you sound as if saying the Church forbids marriage, then your 11:21 post says something about not forbidding marriage and service positions. Could you be a little more precise in your question?

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 11:55 am

I duly noted the coward here using my name over and over when posint to confuse all.
“The Church preceded Scripture and, in fact, it’s the Church that decided what books were to be included in the bible.”
this is two part.
First is er when you say Church you mean what?
because last I checked the OLD testament was written a wee bit before the Catholic Church. And all the events in NEw testament again before the Church.
Remember the whole word (Christ) existed long before any men. Remmeber the alpha & the omega?
second while the Church canonized does not place it above as with my example of SIR newton.
Once again your whole rambling contains misquote and proof texting.And hearsay.

Germoniet January 26, 2007 at 11:56 am

Check out MJP’s email address. ‘Nuff said, right? :-)

Esau January 26, 2007 at 12:00 pm

I note your cut and paste form other and the tangled web you make a of a simple gospel.
huh???
Again, answer my original questions.
As for now, it seems you’re unable to not only answer them but write in simple English!

David B. January 26, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Michael,
Before He ascended into Heaven, Jesus named Simon Peter the Rock “on which I shall build My Church”. The Apostles were bishops of the Church, with Peter as their head. THEY wrote the NT, so how can you say the Church existed only AFTER the NT was written?

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 12:05 pm

“posint”?
“First is er…”?

Esau January 26, 2007 at 12:07 pm

second while the Church canonized does not place it above
Again, and again, if that’s the case then why do you consider the Bible your sole authority?
For all you know, the books chosen by the Church as Scripture are as faulty and from demons as you have claimed the Church to be.
You underplay the fact that the Church had to exist in order to decide which books belonged in the Bible from those that did not.
Thus, the Church certainly preceded what we had come to know as Scripture (i.e., the Bible)!

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Posted by: Germoniet | Jan 26, 2007 11:56:43 AM
Again, answer my original questions.
As for now, it seems you’re unable to not only answer them but write in simple English!
Er what were your original questions???
if I got any simplier than 8th grade would that help…because I answer one and the answer is ignored and 20 more questions are thrown out…(a neat adversion to answered question for where there is no reply…
Simply this:
Can we agree from scripture that the truth is NOT the CHurch but Christ?

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Don’t hold you breath waiting for an answer, David B.; he has yet to answer the questions Mary Kay and I asked him.

Esau January 26, 2007 at 12:15 pm

By the way, my Esau | Jan 26, 2007 10:57:18 AM post above is a re-post since I have yet to have an opponent answer each of my questions here and refute the various points as I’ve laid them out.
So far, the only answer I seem to be getting is: “I believe the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible tells me so!”
This neglects the fact that it was due to the Authority of the Church, which Jesus established Himself, that this came to be so:
The paradigm of 1st Cen. Christianity was a Visible & Authoratative Church established by Jesus Christ, Commisioned with Divine Authority: To Preach, Teach & Gaurd the Truth. From Scripture, it is seen that all Christians were bound to adhere to this Visible & Authoratative Church with the consequences of condemnation for refusal to submit.
Thus, the Church is the “Pillar & Bulwark of Saving Truth” as proclaimed in 1 Tm 3:15.
In Matthew 18:16-17
Mt:18:16: But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
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.
This has parallels with the Old Israel living authority in Dt 17:6, 8-12 and, in fact, the same language in Mt 18:16-17 is used Dt 17:6, 8-12:
6 By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he die that is to be slain. Let no man be
put to death, when only one beareth witness against him.
7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to kill him, and afterwards the hands
of the rest of the people: that thou mayst take away the evil out of the midst of thee.
8 ¶ If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment
between blood and blood, cause and cause, leprosy and leprosy: and thou see that the
words of the judges within thy gates do vary: arise, and go up to the place, which the
Lord thy God shall choose.
9 And thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge, that shall be
at that time: and thou shalt ask of them, and they shall shew thee the truth of the
judgment.
10 And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, that preside in the place, which the Lord
shall choose, and what they shall teach thee,
11 According to his law; and thou shalt follow their sentence: neither shalt thou decline
to the right hand nor to the left hand.
12 But he that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest, who
ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall
die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel:
Notice the Parallel:
If there’s a dispute, you must take 2 or 3 witness with you; that on the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, every word may stand; and you must take it to that appointed priest or judge that God has appointed for that time and if the individuals refuse to hear and obey the judgment of the priest and judge, they are to be put to death.
Hence, the Church is the New Israel, and, accordingly, it becomes truly fitting that the New Testament fulfillment has a living authority here on earth for the people of God to guide the people of God, which is the Church, ‘the pillar and ground of the Truth’ (1 Tm 3:15) just as in the old testament “type”, there was a living authority to guide the Old Testament people of God.

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 12:25 pm

to Esau
Michael,
Before He ascended into Heaven, Jesus named Simon Peter the Rock “on which I shall build My Church”. The Apostles were bishops of the Church, with Peter as their head. THEY wrote the NT, so how can you say the Church existed only AFTER the NT was written?
Yes Christ would build HIS church. (his-ownership) THe truth to which the church (the people/any believers not a buidling) answers.
So the Church answer fully to Christ any thing other than the truth is a lie.
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
The Bible tells us what the gospel is in 1 Cor. 15:1-4,
Now I make known to you brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…”
Romans 10:9-10, “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”
simple eh?
Let’s look at the scripture you refer to:
“What is the rock in Matthew 16:18?”
Answer: The debate rages over whether “the rock” on which Christ will build His church is Peter, or Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16). In all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100% sure which view is correct. The grammatical construction allows for either view. It is our view Jesus was declaring that Peter would be the “rock” on which He would build His church. Jesus appears to be using a play on words. “You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.” Since Peter’s name means rock, and Jesus is going to build His church on a rock – it appears that Christ is linking the two together. God used Peter greatly in the foundation of the church. It was Peter who first proclaimed the Gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-47). Peter was also the first to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48). In a sense, Peter was the rock “foundation” of the church.
Many argue vehemently against the concept that Jesus was declaring Peter to be the rock. While some of these alternate interpretations are indeed plausible, they are motivated, at least in part, by a faulty assumption. The faulty assumption is that if Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18, this makes the Roman Catholic Church the one true church. Admittedly, the Roman Catholic Church uses this very argument. On the contrary, Peter being the rock in Matthew 16:18 is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter, or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).
A biblical pun of serious intent is found in Matthew 16.18:
“Thou art Peter [Greek Πετρος, Petros], and upon this rock [Greek πετρα, petra] I will build my church.”
(pun on the double meaning of petros/Petros: in the first part of the sentence the word appears to stand for a personal name, but in the second, petra (“rock”) makes the listener reevaluate the first petros as its second meaning, “stone”).

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 12:35 pm

The Greek word “petra” has a feminine ending. Therefore, it cannot be used for a man’s name. Hence the word “petros”, which has a masculine ending. In the original Aramaic(the language which our Lord and His apostles spoke), the word “kepha” appears in both places. (“You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build My Church”). When St. Matthew translated our Lord’s words into Greek, he translated the first “kepha” with a feminine ending for the ordinary word for “rock”, and with a masculine ending for a man’s name.
Now, are you *ever* going to get around to answering my and Mary Kay’s questions?

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 12:36 pm

what question? One at a time.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 12:42 pm

We are dealing with someone who is dishonest. I’m done.

Mary Kay January 26, 2007 at 12:46 pm

What question? What question indeed.
Michael, I have asked you 5 times in this thread, that’s five, count ‘em F-I-V-E times to show me where in the Bible it says that the Bible is the sole authority. That makes 6 times asking you.

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Mary Kay
here is your comments earlier bout “the Msytery:
Mary Kay | Jan 26, 2007 8:20:40 AM
If I may offer a few Scriptual references for you to reconcile with your understanding.
Eph 3:8-10″To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.”
The Church even makes known the wisdom of God to the angels. What is the great Mystery?
Eph 5:31-32 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church”
Well Mary Kay
to Understand and not take a blind stab in the dark at the msytery let’s examine the WHOLE chapter of: especiallly after verse 10
it clearly refers yes thru the church YET Christ alone by faith (mystery over)
ANd the glory in the church is how we glorify Christ thru living as an example to his word, the truth!
11according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.
Ephesians 3
1For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles—
2Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 6This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
7I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. 8Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence. 13I ask you, therefore, not to be discouraged because of my sufferings for you, which are your glory.
14For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15from whom his whole family[a] in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
20Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 21to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

Michael John Priewe January 26, 2007 at 12:57 pm

SUBJECT:UNLESS you think his death atonement not enough.
To Bill concerning-WHERE is Priest mentioned concernin this?
“Notice the Parallel:
If there’s a dispute, you must take 2 or 3 witness with you; that on the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, every word may stand; and you must take it to that appointed priest or judge that God has appointed for that time and if the individuals refuse to hear and obey the judgment of the priest and judge, they are to be put to death.”
Maybe here below in 1 Timothy 5:19 (No priest mentioned – because no priest needed any more becasue Chirst made th ultimate sacrifice. And thru it we all are made priests free to enter into the holy of holies.Phillips: “But you are God’s ‘chosen generation’, his ‘royal priesthood’, his ‘holy nation’, his ‘peculiar people’—all the old titles of God’s people now belong to you. …In the past you were not ‘a people’ at all: now you are the people of God.”
These words of 1 Peter 2:9,10 are quoted by Peter from Ex. 19:5,6; Deut. 7:6; Hosea 1:10 and 2:23, and were first applied to the nation of Israel, who were chosen at the time to be a special possession, a holy people, a kingdom of priests, etc. But, with the death of Jesus Christ and the establishment of the Christian congregation, these verses no longer applied to “fleshly Israel” but instead to “spiritual Israel,” which is also referred to as “the Israel of God,” made up of both Jews and gentiles, who made up the early Christian congregation.
UNLESS you think his death atonement not enough.
1 Timothy 5
1Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 2older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.
3Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. 4But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. 5The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. 6But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7Give the people these instructions, too, so that no one may be open to blame. 8If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
9No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,[a] 10and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.
11As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.
16If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.
17The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”[b] and “The worker deserves his wages.”[c] 19Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

Germoniet January 26, 2007 at 12:59 pm

“Er what were your original questions???”
I didn’t post that. Esau did.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Germoniet, your prior post is looking righter and righter.

Mary Kay January 26, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Michael, don’t play obtuse. Your post responds to one by Inocencio.
Guess you’ll do anything other than admit that you can’t answer THE question: Show me where it says in Scripture that the Bible is the sole authority.
btw, that makes 7 times asking you. Quite an appropriate number, don’t you think?

David B. January 26, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Someone needs to teach Micky how to discover the author of the combox post.

Esau January 26, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Michael John Priewe:
Can you kindly speak/write in comprehensible English???
Your babbling is killing me!
Among so many other outrageous antics on your part, you are attributing certain questions to the wrong people as well as misquoting what was actually asked/said.
As for my original questions, here’s a suggestion:
1. Go to my posts.
2. Wherever you see this “?”; that means it’s a question.
3. Also, you may want to take notice of statements where I post a challenge to you.
4. Refute these accordingly if you can.
By the way, if you truly want, we can certainly go to the Greek for Scripture passages if you are actually capable of this.

David B. January 26, 2007 at 1:14 pm

My question is this:
If we are all ‘priests,’ where does Micky come off knocking OUR interpretation of the Bible? Do we not have just as much a share in the priesthood as Micky?
Therefore, do we not have right to intrepret Sacred Scripture and conclude what we will?
According to YOUR interpretation, Micky, we, as ‘priests,’ don’t have to believe your interpretation. See ya.

bill912 January 26, 2007 at 1:18 pm

For those unfamiliar with the concept, Esau’s 1:13 PM and David B’s 1:14 PM posts are examples of L-O-G-I-C.

David B. January 26, 2007 at 3:13 pm

I, of course, don’t believe in the infallibility of one laymen’s interpretation of scripture. I am merely trying to illustrate how the circular reasoning of “Sola Scriptura”, as put forth by Protestants, rapidly deteriorates into moral anarchy, with every John Doe setting himself up as having the the final word on the interpretation of Scripture.

Orion July 21, 2007 at 3:58 pm

The Medieval church was rather like a major business and one that enjoyed a monopoly at that. In many ways it was the Standard Oil of the Medieval Period and had its hand in everything. The Church invested its monies in many industries, among these the fishing fleets. Requiring (“suggesting”) that parishioners eat fish on fridays ensured a steady demand for salted fish all over Europe and fit right in with their monopololistic practices. These are the same guys who sold (several forests worth of) slivers of the True Cross, barrels of the Blood of Jesus, various body parts of martyers, and papal indulgences.

BILL912 July 21, 2007 at 4:13 pm

I notice that Orion didn’t offer any evidence to back up his bilge.

Esau July 21, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Among all of Orion’s fascinatingly outrageous assertions, the one that struck me the most hilarious is that the Medieval Church sold “barrels of the Blood of Jesus”!
Yes, Orion, we descendants of the Medieval Church just LOVE Christ’s Blood “ON TAP”!
Deliras!
Bene vertat Deus!

Anonymous July 21, 2007 at 4:51 pm

According to today’s health experts–more fish especially salmon, cod etc–is very healthy
Omega 3
also fasting as proscribed by the Catholic Church is used in new age styled cleansing detoxifying

Old Fish Wife July 21, 2007 at 6:21 pm

I love these old fish wife tales.

Anonymous November 11, 2007 at 7:10 am

Example of Catholic cult teachings
1 Timothy 4
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

Anonymous November 11, 2007 at 7:18 am

Note the following deadly parallel:Cult like teaching of Mary in Catholic Church
Mary is given the place belonging to Christ
Roman Catholic Church
‘And is truly a mediatress of peace between sinners and God. Sinners receive pardon by … Mary alone.’ (pp 82,83). ‘Mary is our life … Mary in obtaining this grace for sinners by her intercession, thus restores them to life.’ (p.80) ‘He fails and is LOST who has not recourse to Mary.’ (p94).
The Word of God
For there is one God, and ONE Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus’ (1 Tim. 2:5) ‘Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.’ (John 14:6). ‘Christ … is our life.’ (Col. 3:4).
Mary is glorified more than Christ
Roman Catholic Church
‘The Holy Church commands a WORSHIP peculiar to Mary.’ (p. 130). ‘Many things … are asked from God, and are not granted; they are asked from MARY and are obtained,’ for ‘She … is even Queen of Hell, and Sovereign Mistress of the Devils.’ (pp. 127,141,143).
The Word of God
‘In the Name of Jesus Christ … For there is no other name under Heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.’ (Acts 3:6, 4:12). His Name is ‘above every name … not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.’ (Eph. 1:21).
Mary is the Gate to Heaven instead of Christ
Roman Catholic Church
‘Mary is called … the gate of heaven because no once can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through HER’ (p. 160)
‘The Way of Salvation is open to none otherwise than through MARY,’ and since ‘Our salvation is in the hands of Mary … He who is protected by Mary will be saved, he who is not will be lost’ (pp 169,170)
The Word of God
‘I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved,’ says Christ (John 10:1,7,9)
‘Jesus saith unto him, I am the way … no man cometh to the Father but by me’ (John 14:6) ‘Neither is there Salvation in any other’ (Acts 4:12).
Mary is given the power of Christ
Roman Catholic Church
‘All power is given to thee in Heaven and on earth,’ so that ‘at the command of MARY all obey – even God … and thus … God has placed the whole church … under the domination of Mary’ (pp 180,181).
Mary is ‘also the advocate of the whole human race … for she can do what she wills with God.’ (p193)
The Word of God
‘All power is given to me in Heaven and in earth,’ so that ‘in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow,’ ‘that in all things He may hold the primacy’ (Matt. 28:18; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:18)
‘But if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Just; and he is the propitiation for our sins’ (I John 2:1,2).
Mary is the peacemaker instead of Jesus Christ our Peace
Roman Catholic Church
‘Mary is the peacemaker between sinners and God’ (p., 197)
‘We often more quickly obtain what we ask by calling on the name of Mary than by invoking that of Jesus.’ ‘She … is our salvation, our life, our hope, our counsel, our refuge and our help’ (pp. 254, 257).
The Word of God
‘But now in Christ Jesus, you, who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace.’ (Eph. 2:13,14).
‘Hitherto you have not asked anything in my name. Ask, and you shall receive,’ for, ‘Whatsoever we shall ask according to His will, He heareth us.’ (John 16:23,24).
Mary is given the Glory that belongs to Christ alone
Roman Catholic Church
‘The whole Trinity, O Mary, gave thee a name … above every other name, that at Thy name, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.’ (p. 260)

bill912 November 11, 2007 at 7:37 am

Thank you for putting on display your ignorance of what the Catholic Church teaches. If you are going to criticize the Church, you should take the time to learn what the Church *actually* teaches, and why, instead of criticizing the straw-man church you have in your mind.

bill912 November 11, 2007 at 7:43 am

You cite “quotes” from “Roman Catholic Church”. By chance are you quoting from Lorraine Boetner’s piece of fiction titled “Roman Catholicism”?

Brian November 11, 2007 at 8:48 am

It all makes perfect sense to me now! Can’t you poor deluded Papists see the connection? Mary…fish. Mary has four letters, and so does fish. I’m sure 666 is involved there, somewhere. TEACH me oh, wise, yet cowardly one! No doubt you left your name blank so the Jesuit assassins can’t find you.

David B. November 11, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Brian,
LOL!

bill912 November 11, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Y’know, if the Catholic Church taught what this guy says it teaches, there wouldn’t be a single Catholic in the world.

Mary Kay November 11, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Bill, good catch. Nothing like citing page numbers and omitting the book title (/eyeroll).
Brian, thanks for the explanation, LOL.

David B. November 11, 2007 at 5:44 pm

This is a case for Indiana Jones! (hmm…I hope Dr. Jones is still able to walk without the aid of a cane. I hear Albino monks move like vampires.)

Eileen R November 11, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Heavens above, what dangers lurk in the comments of Jimmy’s old posts! Read it all, with tears rolling down my cheeks.

Esau November 11, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Anon,
Oh how brave you are, spouting your deception about Christ’s TRUE CHURCH!
Lucifer, indeed, must be very proud!
No wonder you so fear to reveal your true name!
For the demons are often too afraid to reveal who they are!
Tê pix âtra agitâbit apud carnificem tuôque capitî inlûcêbit.

Diego Jose February 20, 2009 at 7:53 pm

This encyclopedia entry has a mention about the ‘first catechism’
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Didache

ruminary February 21, 2009 at 2:46 pm

The RCC wishes it was the bulwark of truth. She fails the test of truth when eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin( see Catholic Encyclopedia 1917) and now it is no longer a mortal sin( talk to your priest). Yes, the blind guides( priests) lead the sheep into further levels of deception. Yes, the Muslim is correct when he states that Catholicism abrogates doctrine.

bill912 February 21, 2009 at 6:12 pm

ruminary: Please supply us with a translation.

Drno February 25, 2009 at 8:44 am

Four-legged animals, eh.
Guess we could have chickenburgers on Friday of Lent then.

TP February 26, 2009 at 1:56 pm

Greetings,
I think this myth was supported by a 1969 letter(I have heard of this letter, but never seen it) from some union of American Fishermen to Pope Paul VI when he was going to change the Friday abstinence rules. I heard that a group got together and wrote a letter of protests. Apparently it didn’t help.
peace

Jerry Bean February 27, 2009 at 6:14 pm

Hi. I converted to Catholicism over 20 years ago and I have never heard this: During Lent, Sundays are a “free” or Feast day, so if your choice was to give up something for Lent (e.g. wine/beer, it’s okay to partake on Sundays. Is that true?

Previous post:

Next post: