We still honour our ancestors as they are our family members, as it is natural to do so. But there is a difference between the Taoist way which believes the spirit resides in the spirit tablet and the Christian way (in their images). Taoists offer food to their ancestors. Christians are forbidden to do so. Basically, when it comes to the departed, we pray for the repose of their souls. But when it comes to a person recognized by the Church as saint which means the Church recognizes their heroic virtues and is in Heaven, then we can confidently ask for their prayers and intercession. I've mentioned before that asking our departed family members to pray for us is not peculiar to Catholicism.

Just because there are apparent similarities doesn't mean it is the same.

Intention? Honour them. It is not a sin to honour God's friends.

You made it sound like, since pagans use incense, we can't use incense....lol.

13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?
14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
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.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Don't forget that this same Peter is the one who denied Christ thrice. So if God can choose such weak men to be His Apostle, what is so difficult for Him to preserve the Church He founded from the gates of Hell?

Just a wild guess, is it because Constantine made Christianity the official religion and Peter as the first POPE, thus, the increased of number of Christianity?  Being a "Christian" during the period could enjoy many benefits.

This is somewhat similar in M'sia where some become Muslim and, in turn Bumiputra, to get contracts and other perks.  Right, uncle yeeck? 

The first Christians understood that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church and exercised authority over it. They believed that a rejection of Peter’s authority was a rejection of Christ’s authority. As the Scriptures tell us, Peter and Peter alone received the keys of the kingdom with the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19).
Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Would some even know what is Tradition? Some are stuck with noses inside our Catholic book called the Bible, and taking it as their own.

Thank you for acknowledging Tradition. We know what is Tradition vs tradition. But to some of you, it is the same.

Thank you for acknowledging something which other Protestants might not agree with you.  Many Prots say that Christ is "the rock", not Peter. 

Let me ask you something. Christ have the authority to Peter and His apostles to govern, but what happens after their death, since you said the authority will not be passed on? Back to Christ?   Sound like the case of the disciple handing back something to the Master. LOL.

https://bible.org/question/what-did-jesus-m...church%E2%80%9D

What did Jesus mean when he said, “Upon this rock I will build my church”?

The name Peter (Gk., Petros) means “rock” or “rock-man.” In the next phrase Christ used petra (upon this rock), a feminine form for “rock,” not a name. Christ used a play on words. He does not say “upon you, Peter” or “upon your successors,” but “upon this rock”—upon this divine revelation and profession of faith in Christ.

The following comment on this verse from The Bible Knowledge Commentary sums up the issue:

    16:17-20. Peter’s words brought a word of commendation from the Lord. Peter was blessed because he had come to a correct conclusion about the person of Christ and because great blessing would be brought into his life. The Lord added, however, this was not a conclusion Peter had determined by his own or others’ ability. God, the Father in heaven, had revealed it to him. Peter was living up to his name (it means “rock”) for he was demonstrating himself to be a rock. When the Lord and Peter first met, Jesus had said Simon would be named Cephas (Aram. for “rock”) or Peter (Gr. for “rock”; John 1:41-42).

    But his declaration about Messiah’s person led to a declaration of Messiah’s program. Peter (Petros, masc.) was strong like a rock, but Jesus added that on this rock (petra, fem.) He would build His church. Because of this change in Greek words, many conservative scholars believe that Jesus is now building His church on Himself. Others hold that the church is built on Peter and the other apostles as the building’s foundation stones (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). Still other scholars say that the church is built on Peter’s testimony. It seems best to understand that Jesus was praising Peter for his accurate statement about Him, and was introducing His work of building the church on Himself (1 Cor. 3:11).

What about the Thief on the Cross?



First up, the passage in question:

One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:39-43)

But did the Thief really not have any good works? (Many thanks to the wonderful Monica for finding this quote!)

Look more closely at what the good thief did. First, he rebuked a sinner, someone who was railing against Jesus. Second, he accepted responsibility for his own sin. Third, in the midst of all these people in agony, he turns to Jesus and in front of all these accusers says “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom”. He confessed Jesus Christ as a king when everyone else abandoned him. This thief had both faith and good works, by which we are saved through grace.

– Scott Hahn, Seven Last Sayings of Jesus

Most Protestants wouldn’t consider these works really… they’re just faith being expressed, right? So are they works or not?

From a Catholic perspective, the answer is definitely yes. When Catholics speak of faith, they mean it in the specific sense of belief, “an act of the intellect, prompted by the will, by which we believe what has been revealed…” Anything we do, therefore, isn’t faith. It should be an expression of – and motivated by – faith but it isn’t faith itself. And clearly, the Thief does stuff: he acknowledges his sin, rebukes a sinner and proclaims Jesus as the Saviour of sinners.

Now in this case, the Catholic doesn’t have to prove from this text that these works contributed to the Thief’s salvation. The text itself is silent on how the Thief is saved; it only affirms that he is. But to use this text as an argument for faith alone (sola fide),  the Protestant needs to prove that there are no works evident whatsoever. Otherwise we’d just have another example of someone who had faith and did works and we’re no clearer about what did (or didn’t) save them.

So are they works? From a Protestant perspective, I think we can safely say… yes, probably. While confessing his sins is part of “having faith” for Protestants, rebuking sinners and proclaiming Christ (i.e. evangelising) aren’t. How can I say that? As a Protestant, I couldn’t imagine faith without repentance but could imagine someone with real faith who didn’t rebuke or evangelise others if only because they didn’t have an opportunity.

It could be argued that the Thief is only indirectly evangelising because really, he’s only addressing Jesus. I don’t entirely buy that but still, that leaves rebuking the sinner, which is definitely a work of love. (In fact, Catholics list it under their Seven Works of Spiritual Mercy.) So we have to admit that there is more than just faith going on here; there are works too.

And those works, however small, are enough to disqualify this text from being an argument against salvation by faith alone. It doesn’t necessarily mean that sola fide is false, only that it cannot be proven from this text.

Now, when I first heard this, I thought that was a bit rich. They didn’t really count as good works did they? I mean, they were so small! But it’s important to understand what Catholics do – and don’t – mean by good works. We don’t mean you have to do a certain number of good things to get into Heaven.

When I first started thinking about this, I thought Catholic works worked a little like proving your identity at the post office to get a passport. Sure, you had to have the application form – that was faith – but then you had to get so many points to prove who you were: 40 points for volunteering at homeless shelter, 20 points for praying the Rosary, 5 points for each evangelistic talk you had with a friend, and maybe a point for each minute you managed to hold your temper (two for each minute if it was with a sibling…), etc. Eventually you got enough points, your application was accepted and voila! A passport to Heaven.

Where exactly I got this outlandish idea, I have no idea. It certainly isn’t Catholic teaching.

No, Catholics understand good works the way Jesus understands them: it’s not about how much you do, how long you do it or how impressive it looks – it’s about what you do with what has been given to you.

For years, I thought the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Mt 20:1-6) was a perfect illustration of salvation by faith alone because all the workers received their day’s pay, regardless of how much they worked. But here’s the thing: they all worked. Invited by the master (grace), they accepted the invitation (faith) and they worked (works) and at the end of the day, were paid what was promised to them (salvation). But all worked.

Or take the Parable of the Talents (Mt 25:14-30). The master gives five talents to one, two talents to another and one talent to a third. The first two invested their talents and managed to double them. They put their gifts to work. But the third hid his in the ground; he didn’t work. When the Master returned, he treated the first two servants exactly the same – even though one had twice as many talents as the other! He said to them both,

Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master. (Mt 25:21, 23)

But the third servant, who did nothing with his talent, was cast “into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” (Mt 25:30) The important thing in this parable then is not the amount of good works – ten or five or two talents – it’s whether we obeyed.

What matters is whether our faith is joined with, expressed in and completed by works of love. A faith that isn’t put to work in obeying Christ and loving others is a monstrous and unnatural thing. Both Catholics and Protestants instinctively know this. That’s why the Bible is so clear and unequivocal about this:

“You see that faith was active along with [Abraham’s] works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.” (James 2:22-26)

(By the by, what does it say about a Christian doctrine that the only time it is mentioned in the Bible, it is explicitly condemned? At the very least it would be wise to change our terminology, wouldn’t it? Or I guess we could do what Luther did and just remove James, that “epsitle of straw” from the Bible…)

But the point is that it’s not about tallying up works and prayers and deeds, it’s about “the obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5, 16:26). We take Jesus at His word that “if you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love” (John 15:10), so “work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling” (Php 2:12) because He has “become the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him. ” (Heb 5:9)

The Good Thief had faith and immediately, he put his faith to work. In bravely rebuking a fellow sinner, humbly confessing his sins and publicly acknowledging Jesus as Lord, his faith – however new – was working – however little – in love and obedience.

That means the Good Thief cannot be a proof for sola fide; all he proves is the all-surpassing love and mercy of Our Crucified Saviour.

And I think that’s quite enough.

http://www.lauramcalister.com/2012/11/07/w...f-on-the-cross/

Let me ask you back, did Christ found a Church or many Churches?

LOL....first pope was Constantine? LOL...Roman Catholic Church is called Roman because its pre-eminent See is based in Rome. Before Constantine, the pagan Roman empire persecuted the Catholic Church. The Pope during Constantine was Sylvester.

The kingdom of God shall be taken from you means that it will no longer be applicable to the Jewish people only but now also to the Gentiles. Jesus is indeed the cornerstone, but Peter is the Rock upon which He built His Church. Again the question, why Simon was the only one whose name was changed by Jesus? What is the significance of name change in Scripture? It is certainly not meaningless. Who then is the "Rock", in (Mt 16:18). Peter or Jesus? Peter comes from the Aramaic, "Kephas", which means stone, rock. Christ also identifies himself as the rock. But, here is a very interesting detail that we will differentiate. When Jesus is referred in the Gospels as the "Rock", the Greek term, "Acroniagos", is used; which means "Cornerstone". Clearly, there is no doubt that Christ is the cornerstone. But, the bible text in (Mt.16:18) does not refer to that. Yes, it is true. Christ is the cornerstone of the spiritual temple. Peter is the visible rock of his Church, this is the difference. (1Pt. 2:4-8). If we accept the Protestants' idea that Jesus was referring to himself in building his Church, in himself; the result then is meaningless to have given Peter the name, Rock. The question is, why did he change his name? The context in the bible does not reveal Christ referring to himself but, to Peter. And also, in all the other passages in the bible where God changes the name; He does it with a purpose of new ministry in the life of the person. The same happens here with Peter. When the Lord says, "And upon this rock I will build my Church." It is gramatically clear that the rock is not Him, but, Peter.

"For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts. " said the prophet Malachi. Note the word sacrifice, not just any regular Sunday meeting or meal.

If I use that argument of yours, what is the authority of someone opening up a church somewhere? Miracles? Signs? Obviously not! Miracles and signs are primarily for unbelievers and to help the early Church. Now the Church is all over the world, although there are still miracles reported.

There is no such thing as total independence because all Christians worthy of the name should be in communion with one another if they are of the same one Faith, one Lord, one Baptism. Unfortunately, among the different sects, for sure there is no one faith among them, one Lord probably since all of them claim to be followers of Christ, albeit different intepretations of His teachings, and definitely not one baptism because the Baptists don't agree on other forms of baptism.

Yes, those are churches according to localities, but not the Church. How can different churches be in communion with one another if they have contradicting doctrines? Impossible to conclude all those conflicting churches to be part of the one Church of Christ.

Thank you for finally acknowledging that. That's what the Catholic Church has been teaching all the time.

As for purgatory for the thief, that is only your presumption. Have you not considered that he has paid his last farthing there and then beside the Cross of Our Saviour?