Mr. Bloom,
In response to question #1, (see previous)
I first say this; There is
no Biblical evidence that Peter was appointed as the
head of The Church. This is clear in how Peter viewed
himself, as a fellow Elder, he did not let any man bow
down to him and none of the other Apostles were aware
of his headship over them. Why is that? The Scriptures
are very clear about this. Paul viewed himself as an
equal to all the Apostles. Why? If Peter was the head
of the Church, Paul should have known this. Instead,
Rome makes it's claims even though the Scriptures are
silent about their claims and not only silent, but the
Scriptures point us in the opposite direction.
And what did all the Apostles have in common? They
were all men who had integrity. They were all sinners,
this we know, but they were men who represented Jesus
Christ as effective witnesses by how they lived their
lives. Why would God lower His standards to the
"Successors of Peter?" Why wouldn't the "Vicars" be
men of integrity? Why would many of them be the
exact opposite of what the Apostles were? The reason
is this; they weren't who they claimed to be and they
aren't who Rome claims they were. Just another ploy by
man to control other men.
Please explain at what your so amazed at regarding #2.
To just make a blanket statement is hollow. Then you
mention merit. Is the merit your speaking of free
will? Or does it go much further than that? Do the
merits of others help us get to heaven? Do the excess
merits of dead people help us get purified in
"Purgatory?" Is the righteousness of others, besides
Christ, needed?
Please don't try to cloud the issue about one choosing
to do good or evil. That Mr. Bloom, has nothing to do
with how one is saved. Or are you saying that a
person can be saved by being "good." If so, then how
good does one need to be? I think the Bible is very
clear on this as well. God's view of good is
perfection and no one except Jesus Christ has been
able to live a perfect life. Which is why we needed a
perfect Savior to begin with. In fact, the
Scriptures tell us that we can't even come to Christ
unless God enables us.
In response to your #3, please not "the missing word"
argument! Is there a training book of responses I
sould know about? The Bible clearly defines God as
triune. Jesus speaks to His Father and sends the Holy
Spirit. He wasn't talking to himself and he wasn't
sending himself to earth when he left and calling
himself another name. To try to compare the Trinity,
God, with the establishment of a religious human king,
that is no where to be found in the context of the
Scriptures, is nothing more than deception on your
part. How weak of an argument you make for your claims
of earthly kingships.
#4. Ever hear of penance? Are we to count our
sacrifices as merit for our salvation? Is not the
sacrifice of Jesus enough sir? Is there something
lacking in the propitiation Christ made in our place?
Is there something of our own in which we must add? Is
even our faith our own? Or is our faith also a gift
from God?
Please list the "ananthamas" your referring to
regarding Moses and show me where Moses claims to have
control over ones salvation.
Paul, Peter and the other deciples established
churches with Jesus Christ as their head. They never
exalted Peter or any one else as head of the churches
they planted.
Funny you should mention Ireanaeus. He sure made some
wild claims of bishops of Rome. Peter never appeared
on the original list but instead Clement was the first
bishop listed. Too bad there isn't a bishop in Rome
recorded in history before the middle of the second
century. That's a fact. And we're only talking about a
bishop in Rome, not the bishop "of" Rome, which would
rule over all the other churches. That wouldn't take
place for a few more hundred years.
And if you think I'm just making this up, visit the
Vatican and go to this list of Popes they have etched
in the walls where the history of the popes are
located. Your going to find a couple of hundred years
with no names. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself
why?
Remember this sir, I don't have to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that I'm right, you do. The catholic
church is the one which claims papal infallibility and
apostolic succession, not me. I claim Jesus Christ as
Lord and head of the church I attend, not man.
And don't give me that nonsense about being a simple
parish priest. You have more time than anyone you
preach tolearn what the Bible teaches. You will have
no excuse when you stand before God and give an
account for what you believe and what you've taught
others. You chose to serve God. Don't cop out and say
I'm only a simple priest. I'm just a layman saved by
God's grace and I spend as much time as I can studying
God's Word, not the teachings of men. I'm not saying
we can't learn from what others write about God's
Word, but we are to compare everything we read to the
Word of God. Stop making excuses and learn what God's
Word teaches and start preaching it, because the good
works Gospel you've been preaching is really no Gospel
at all.
Read Galatians
I purposely left out all Bible references. You know
which ones I've referred to above. Find them and read
them. And while you are at it please find the passage
where Christ tells us in His own words that "no" man
is to be called "Father" in a spiritual sense. It's
incredible that out of 1000's of names, Rome choose
"father" to describe its priests. Does that not make
you think?
Mr. Bloom, stick to Scripture. If you follow anything
else first compare it with Scripture. If it doesn't
add up you then have to ask yourself where it came
from and why. You'll be surprised and in some case
horrified at the answers. I once followed "man's"
teacings. Then one day I read the Bible. Well Mr.
Bloom, God wants you to know that the Bible won.
Peace in Christ "Only",
PP
PS..In response to your opinion of Richard Bennett, I
say that if you put 1/10th the time that he has in
both roman catholic doctrine and in Scripture your
answer would have been much different. Mr. Bloom,
don't sell yourself short. You cannot simply go
through life teaching others about God without first
learning all there is to know about Him yousrself.
It's not to be found in catholic doctrines and canon
laws sir, it's in His Holy Word. It's in His Bible.
**********
Dear Peter,
Thank you for taking time write such a lenghthy email. I will post it on my site - altho at the moment am not able to address all the important issues you raise. Hopefully, with time, we will be able to discuss them in an orderly and respectful manner. By studying and praying over them we could both learn something. What do you think?
Before diving in, could I make sure we have cleared up at least one misunderstanding. In question #1, I asked how you got the idea "Rome says there can be 'no' sinful popes." Was that just a mistatement or do you really believe that is Catholic teaching?
You connected that statement with papal infallibility and the anathemas of the Council of Trent. (Trent, I am sure you know, did not define the doctrine.) About anathemas (curses) you can find a list of twelve that Moses pronounced at Deut 27:14ff. - and others throughout the Pentateuch.
I am a simple priest, Peter. I have no learning or accomplishments to rely on - only the Divine Mercy.
Christ alone - in His fullness,
Fr. Bloom
P.S. Please see Call No Man "Father"? and give me your evaluation. If you have time, also Catholic Answer Tracts on Primacy of Peter and his Successors
From Scott: I even find a scarcity of evidence in his being a "Bible believing Christian."
Are Alberto Rivera & Richard Bennett Fake Priests?
Boston Globe's Misleading Article on Catholic Church
The Bogus Knights of Columbus Oath