While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.
Ok so here we go.
I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.
Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.
Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.
So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
OK, you are on. I am looking for an answer, I won't argue with you.
I read a little bit of the latest thread on contraception but it quickly got argumentative. I take it that from the Catholic POV sex is only for purposes of procreation. Where does this leave sex with a post-menopausal woman? We have all read stories about 80 year old women being surprised by a pregnancy but that is a one in a million thing. In most cases old age sex is for fun not making babies so is it allowed?
: Snargles Fri Oct 14, 2011 - 20:54:32
OK, you are on. I am looking for an answer, I won't argue with you.
I read a little bit of the latest thread on contraception but it quickly got argumentative. I take it that from the Catholic POV sex is only for purposes of procreation. Where does this leave sex with a post-menopausal woman? We have all read stories about 80 year old women being surprised by a pregnancy but that is a one in a million thing. In most cases old age sex is for fun not making babies so is it allowed?
Hey Snargles,
Sorry it took me so long to respond. This computer on base only allows me on the site at certain times.
Thanks for your question. The primary issue with your question is that it is based on a faulty premise. The Magesterium of Catholic Church does not teach that sex is only for procreation and thus your question is rendered moot.
Sex is believed as the intimate kiss of true love between man and woman. A sacred act that God established for us as a means to give ourselves to our spouses completely. Sex for pleasure is nothing to be prohibited among two who are matrimonially united.
The issue we have is when people deviate from the design of true love's kiss. We take issue when people compromise the natural purpose of sex, i.e. premarital sex, homsexual sex, contraception and the especially abominal act of abortion.
In the following I have a quote that may explain this in a way I can not.
CCC 2352 ......."The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved." So as you see sex is totally taught and revered by the Church as the expreesion of true love for those who are married. Just as much as it is considered wrong to seperate the natural flow of procreation from sex it would be just as wrong to separate pleasure and teach that sex is only for procreation.
This does not mean that every time a married couple has sex they have to do so with the inetnt to get pregnant. They simply have to give themselves to one another totally.
Thank you. I have relied too much on non-Catholic's explanation of Catholic beliefs.
We can have civil discources even though we each think the other side has perverted the word of God.
: Snargles Sat Oct 15, 2011 - 11:33:44
Thank you. I have relied too much on non-Catholic's explanation of Catholic beliefs.
We can have civil discources even though we each think the other side has perverted the word of God.
I am glad I could help.
God Bless You.
Aww, what nostalgia! I enjoyed the Ask A Catholic threads way back when. ::nodding::
Hi there Snargles!
That's a great question, one way to understand the Catholic teaching is to understand that we believe the marital act must be "ordered towards" procreation. That doesn't mean procreation needs to happen every time, or that people need to be *trying* to procreate every time, or that people who can't procreate can't have relations. It just means that nothing artificial should be happening to frustrate the completion of the marital act, there should be no barriers between spouses, we should be giving all of ourselves to each other and holding nothing back purposely, including our fertility. Another way to say that is we believe relations should happen in such a way that if the spouses were fertile, procreation would be possible. That being said, God naturally built in more fertile and less fertile (and infertile) times, both monthly, and in the course of our lives over time. It's fine to work with what God gave us, but we don't believe it's ok to artificially thwart the blessing of fertility. Thus, when natural infertility such as menopause arises, it's still all a part of God's plans, and marital relations are still an important part of bonding between spouses. :-)
So, as LightHammer rightly explained, sex is not "just" for making babies to Catholics as many seem to incorrectly understand, a common phrase in the Catholic NFP world is that sex is for "Babies and Bonding." ;-)
So how is that teaching squared with the ancient church fathers who said that marital sex was so abhorant to God that the Holy Spirit had to leave the house until they were done?
Sorry but I do not have a reference right here at hand. I think it was Jerome who said that.
: DaveW Thu Oct 27, 2011 - 12:49:39
So how is that teaching squared with the ancient church fathers who said that marital sex was so abhorant to God that the Holy Spirit had to leave the house until they were done?
Sorry but I do not have a reference right here at hand. I think it was Jerome who said that.
Hi DaveW,
I don't have the original text at hand either, but I have looked it up before, and the phrase is taken out of context. It has never been Church teaching.
Even Church fathers were fallible. The Catholic Church has, since it was able, always defined doctrine using the writings Church fathers and Scripture, and has done so with all of the bishops present in union with the pope. So even Church fathers err, and some even went into apostasy, but we believe that the Church's teaching office does not err, because of promises from Jesus to guide His Church into all truth.
I can find the quote for you if you would like and do an analysis.
God Bless,
Andre
It appears that it was not an ancient Church father but rather a rather prominent Medieval theologian Peter Lombard. I am still looking for the quote, but this might be of interest, from the Catechism:
III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE
2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143
Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.144
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146
2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
143 FC 11.
144 Tob 8:4-9.
145 GS 49 § 2.
146 Pius XII, Discourse, October 29, 1951.
Yes I would like that.
I have read some awefully negative things about marriage from Jerome, Origen, Augustine, and others.
Things like:
"Marriage is sin"
"Marriage is prostitution"
"Marriage is fornication"
"The only reason God allows sex is to create more virgins for the Church."
And this one from St. Ambrose: "Marriage was a crime against God."
: DaveW Thu Oct 27, 2011 - 13:48:56
Yes I would like that.
I have read some awefully negative things about marriage from Jerome, Origen, Augustine, and others.
Things like:
"Marriage is sin"
"Marriage is prostitution"
"Marriage is fornication"
"The only reason God allows sex is to create more virgins for the Church."
And this one from St. Ambrose: "Marriage was a crime against God."
I am familiar with the works of St. Ambrose but I'm familiar with this quote.
Could you cite its source document?
Greetings , Little Brother .
I put the words of the quote "Marriage is a crime against God" on Google and came up with a website called "Early Church Against Marriage" . I clicked on to it and found a very , very long article . I didn't go to the trouble of reading it all , but it did contain the quotes mentioned on this thread . I found the article somewhat weird .
In it there is a Vatican coin of 1963 named FIDES . The article says of it , " Interestingly the goddess Juno made an appearance on a Vatican coin in 1963 (notice the torch) during the period of the alleged Freemason Roncalli's Pontificate , the curiously named John XXIII , architect of the disastrous Vatican II . "
Looking at the coin it is clear that the lady is a symbol of Faith , holding a cross in one hand and a chalice surmounted by a host in the other . The host has lines representing streams of light shining from it . It is no torch .
As for the alleged Freemason Roncalli , to me he is Good Pope John , Blessed John XXIII . And what is curious about the then Cardinal Roncalli choosing John as his papal name ?
As for the Second Vatican Council being "disastrous" , well we've all heard that before and we know from where.
Any non-RC such as DaveW reading this sort of stuff is not going to be left with a good image of the Catholic Church .
Bless you LH .
Some years ago I read thru a bunch of Early Church fathers material dealing with marriage and sex.
I was surprised at how negative much of it was from certain of the fathers (not all of them). I know enough of the current RCC to know it is nowhere near that bad now, but some of the points I disagree with I can see as coming from the writings I read.
IMO most old line protestant groups are not much better but for different reasons. Their reason is Victorianism.
Unfortunately I do not have that compilation any more and it would take a LOT of time I do not now have to restore it.
I have a question
when I type in Isis with baby Horus which is part of the
Egyptian trinity I also see that Mary with baby Jesus is the exact
same thing? It looks as if your church only changed the names
which can't be done, what it is it is.
Also I noticed that the popes mitre hat is something else
your church took from another religion and that is the priest
of atargatis, which btw is where the sci-fi show stargate Atlantis
took it's evil connected name from
atargatis was the fish religion because the fish survived the FLood
of noahs time and the devil wanted to make something of that fact.
I won't argue with you but I ask direct questions for which I seek not an answer
as to why but your answer as a catholic about something Im sure you
did not know.
Hey KNOWLEDGEBOMB,
Welcome to Grace Centered Forums. I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot of you around these parts.
when I type in Isis with baby Horus which is part of the
Egyptian trinity I also see that Mary with baby Jesus is the exact
same thing? It looks as if your church only changed the names
which can't be done, what it is it is.
I fail to see the question here? As you know there are thousands of different pieces of Mother Mary and baby Jesus. Many of them are autonomous from one another. They have several different artists who made them and artistic styles they were patterned after.
With this in mind it is impossible for me to isolate which particular piece you are attempting to connect to the Egyptian Isis and Horus.
Also I noticed that the popes mitre hat is something else
your church took from another religion and that is the priest
of atargatis, which btw is where the sci-fi show stargate Atlantis
took it's evil connected name from
atargatis was the fish religion because the fish survived the FLood
of noahs time and the devil wanted to make something of that fact.
Again I fail to see where you have asked a question. You seem to have studied paganism or at least the correlations between the symbolism of my Church and it. When I was 15, my mentor was an SDA. As such I was familiarized with paganism solely to further understand how the Catholic Church had taken in some of its tenets.
However that was quickly shown to be folly. Nearly every pagan religion has a flood story, so any expression the Catholic Church makes in regards to the flood story can be twisted as borrowed from some pagan tradition. Every pagan religion uses animals in its allegory in some form or another, so any use the Catholic Church makes for the fish symbol can be accused of as borrowed from paganism.
In regards to fish symbol I can show you how the Catholic Church used it in from the 1st century to the late 4th century but it won't do any good if you hold it as pagan.
I dug this up from an old thread. Victor08 posted it.
For your consideration.
http://www.eureka4you.com/fish/fishsymbol.htm
The History of the Christian Fish Symbol
The fish's first known use as a Christian religious symbol was sometime within the first three centuries AD. Christians began using the Greek word for "fish" as an anagram/acronym for "Jesus Christ God's Son, Savior." More about this later.
The fish outline is a logical symbol for the early Christian church to adopt. Not only was fish a common food of the day, it was also used by Jesus during His ministry.
A 'fishy' tale?
In the years following the ascension of the resurrected Jesus to heaven, the Christian church grew rapidly.
Christians soon found themselves to be the subjects of persecution by both the Romans and the Jews.
In many locales, it became dangerous to be known as a Christian.
Thus, when two strangers met and thought maybe they were fellow believers, one of them would draw, on the ground, the upper half of the fish symbol.
Recognizing the symbol, the stranger would add a second curved line and complete the drawing of a fish.
It is a very simple shape to draw - just two curved strokes. It could be drawn quickly, and erased just as quickly if there was no sign of recognition on the part of the stranger.
The 'Greek' connection, #1
We do not know whether the story above is true but we do know that the fish's first known use as a Christian religious symbol was sometime within the first three centuries AD. Possibly around the 16th century Christians began using the Greek word ichthys for "fish". Ichthys is the most commonly used word in the New Testament for fish.
Ichthys consists of five letters from the Greek alphabet: I-ch-th-y-s. When these five letters are used as initials for five words, we obtain this Christian Declaration: Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter. This is an acrostic for 'Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior.'
IXQUS ----- Ichthys ----- Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior
I Iota the first letter in the Greek word Iesous Jesus
X Chi the first letter in the Greek word Christos Christ
Q Theta the first letter in the Greek word Theos Of God
U Upsilon the first letter in the Greek word Yios (Huois) Son
S Sigma the first letter in the Greek word Soter Savior
Greek meaning Iesous Christos Theos Yios Soter
English transliteration ... Jesus Christ Of God Son Savior
Also I noticed that the popes mitre hat is something else
your church took from another religion and that is the priest
of atargatis, which btw is where the sci-fi show stargate Atlantis
took it's evil connected name from
LH - mind if I reply to this one (even tho I am not catholic?)
The mitre was taken from US and not the other way around. These are GOD's words:
Exodus 28:4 And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.
Exodus 28:37 And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be.
Exodus 28:39 And thou shalt embroider the coat of fine linen, and thou shalt make the mitre of fine linen, and thou shalt make the girdle of needlework.
Exodus 29:6 And thou shalt put the mitre upon his head, and put the holy crown upon the mitre.
Exodus 39:28 And a mitre of fine linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen,
Other 'religions' took the mitre from ancient Judaism - which God established.
atargatis was the fish religion because the fish survived the FLood
of noahs time and the devil wanted to make something of that fact.
Again I also have an answer:
Recently in the Golan area of Northern Israel/Syria (north of Gallilee) an ancient synagogue was unearthed (much to the chagrin of the Syrians) but when the excavation was complete they found this symbol which was first seen in Jerusalem in 1999 and now has surfaced again in another Messianic Synagogue dated similar to the Jerusalem find. (late first century to early 2nd century)
h**p://www.threemacs.org/themes/jewish/answers.htm
Thanks for your responses DaveW. I enjoyed reading the Jewish connections you made.
Do catholics pray the rosary everyday?
: Sinead Mon Nov 21, 2011 - 01:46:41
Do catholics pray the rosary everyday?
Some of us may. I personally do not. I pray the rosary a few times a week when I'm prepping for a deep study.
Do catholics believe that demons are scared of crucifixes or is that just in the movies?
: Sinead Mon Nov 21, 2011 - 02:27:12
Do catholics believe that demons are scared of crucifixes or is that just in the movies?
That's Hollywood entertainment stuff.
Its not that demons are afraid of crucifixes so much as it is the crucifix is blessed or made holy by God. Such then becomes a weapon when prompted before a manifestation of evil. An example of this would be when Jesus Christ healed the blind man. He used mud from the earth that He had blessed and the man could see. Demons are afraid of God's power which can be used against the in many ways. Take St. Paul's miracle causing handkerchief and throw it on a demon and see how quickly it is expelled.lol
: Sinead Mon Nov 21, 2011 - 01:46:41
Do catholics pray the rosary everyday?
I also don't pray the Rosary everyday. But I do pray the "Liturgy of the Hours" everyday. I always say the Morning and Evening prayers.
: christian1483 Thu Nov 24, 2011 - 17:11:44
I have a few questions if that is alright...
Why does the Roman Catholic Church say that a saint is a special person who has been dead for many years and has been voted to become a saint when the Bible states every Christian is a saint while they live?
Romans 1:7:To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:2:Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:
Hello Christian1483, a "Saint" is defined as a "holy person" who leads a life in union with God through the grace of Christ and receives the reward of eternal life. The Church is called the "communion of saints, of the holy ones." It is through this communion that we are also saints. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (1 Corinthians 1:2).
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 828: By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heoric virture and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.......
Why do Catholics have to call the priests ''father''?
Matthew 23:9:And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
This biblical verse is often taken out of context. In Matthew 23, it also says not to call anyone "teacher" because you only have one teacher (Christ), and not to call anyone "master" because you only have one master. When read in full context of scripture, Jesus is actually saying not to use those titles in pride as the Pharisees as done. In other words, it is okay to call a person on earth "father" and even "teacher" just as the Apostles did including Jesus Himself. See the following Scriptures:
1 John 2:13 I write to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, Because you have overcome the wicked one. I write to you, little children, Because you have known the Father.
1 John 2:14 I have written to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, Because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, And you have overcome the wicked one.
1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers,
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
I have absolute certainty that St. Paul was not violating the Lord's command but rather obeying it and that I can safely repeat after him when he calls Abraham "our father
: christian1483 Thu Nov 24, 2011 - 21:39:47
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 828: By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heoric virture and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.......
Where is it in the Bible that some ''Saints'' need to be singled/chosen as been ''special''?
Christians on earth are saints so how is it Biblical that some saints need to be chosen and canonized?
In the Bible, Jesus had many disciples. Out of the many disciples, only 12 were chosen. And we called those Apostles "saints" with the exception of Judas Iscariot. We are all called to be "holy saints".....to be like Christ. "Many are called, but few are chosen" (See Matthew 22:14). Although the Catholic Church recognized Judas Iscariot as an Apostle chosen by Christ, the Church do not refer to him as a"holy saint" because as you know, he committed sucide. Suicide is not considered holy nor a virtueous act.
the Catechism of the Catholic Church is NOT the Bible....
I never said that it was.
And about the rosary,is that even in the Bible?
Where does it state that people/Christians need to ''count'' their prayers?(Matthew 6:5-7)
The rosary is the entire story of Jesus and Mary, so yes, it is in the Bible, and it is also in our tradition. Also, we don't count our prayers. Praying the rosary is "fervent" prayer. Jesus also pray over and over the same words, but He prayed with fervent. We are to do the same...to be fervent in spirit in all things especially in prayer.
Matthew 26:44 And leaving them, he went again: and he prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word.
Does the Roman Catholic Church say Peter was the first pope?
The Roman Catholic Church says that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. The word "Pope" is a Latin word meaning "father." All the successors of the Apostle Peter are the Bishops of Rome and thus called "Pope" meaning "father."
The Roman Catholic Church says that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. The word "Pope" is a Latin word meaning "father." All the successors of the Apostle Peter are the Bishops of Rome and thus called "Pope" meaning "father
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and He is in heaven.
Matthew 23:9
: christian1483 Thu Nov 24, 2011 - 22:50:03
So,you only recognize the Apostles as selected saints above Christian saints who live on earth?
No, there are many saints. There is St. Francis of Assisi, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Damian, St. Agustine, St. Jerome, and many more. All the Christians who were martyred in the arenas of Rome are recognized as saints. The children who were murdered by King Herod are saints. Unborn babies who were aborted are also recognized as saints.
In regards to the rosary...
Matthew 6:5-7:5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
The rosary is not done in vain repetitions. It is done fervently in spirit just as Jesus did when He prayed over and over using the same words (See Matthew 26:44).
What do you mean ''The rosary is the entire story of Jesus and Mary''?
The rosary consist of four mysteries, which contain the life of Christ and Mary. For example, the Joyful mystery is prayed on Mondays and Saturdays and it includes the following:
1. The Annunciation of the Angel to Mary.
2. The Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth.
3. The Nativity of Jesus in Bethlehem.
4. The Presentation of Jesus to the temple.
5. The Finding of Jesus in the temple.
The sorrowful mysteries are prayed on Tuesdays and Fridays and they consist of:
1. The Agony of Jesus in the garden.
2. The Scourging of Jesus at the pillar.
3. The crowning with thorns.
4. The carrying of the cross.
5. The crucifixtion and death of Jesus.
I think you get the picture. Each mystery tells the story from the Bible. The rosary was given to St. Dominic and using these prayers he was able to NOT only convert the pagans into Christianity, but even teach the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to those pagans just by using the rosary.
So,Peter was the first leader of the Catholic Church?The first pope?
So,Peter was first in rank and authority above the other Apostles?
Jesus Christ is the Head of the Roman Catholic Church. He is our Head and leader. The Roman Catholic Church was founded and built by Christ
through the Apostle Peter. And it was Christ, (our Head) who made St. Peter the leader and prince of all the Apostles.
: Sinead Thu Nov 24, 2011 - 23:01:47
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and He is in heaven.
Matthew 23:9
I already explained this in my post #25, so I will repeat what I stated:
This biblical verse is often taken out of context. In Matthew 23, it also says not to call anyone "teacher" because you only have one teacher (Christ), and not to call anyone "master" because you only have one master. When read in full context of scripture, Jesus is actually saying not to use those titles in pride as the Pharisees as done. In other words, it is okay to call a person on earth "father" and even "teacher" just as the Apostles did including Jesus Himself. See the following Scriptures:
1 John 2:13 I write to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, Because you have overcome the wicked one. I write to you, little children, Because you have known the Father.
1 John 2:14 I have written to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, Because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, And you have overcome the wicked one.
1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers,
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
I have absolute certainty that St. Paul was not violating the Lord's command but rather obeying it and that I can safely repeat after him when he calls Abraham "our father
I was reading an article on the internet and I found this passage:
Notice that it also says here not to call anyone "teacher,
: Sinead Fri Nov 25, 2011 - 00:11:40
I was reading an article on the internet and I found this passage:
Notice that it also says here not to call anyone "teacher,
: christian1483 Fri Nov 25, 2011 - 15:31:26
So are you saying there are saints that are even more special than Christian saints while they live?
I think that every saint is special, but of course, there are some whom we consider heros because of their virtues and because they walk like Christ. In the same way, you also have some special heros you honor like Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves and Martin Luther King Jr. who fought against segregation. Such people are honored in your country as special heros. In fact, you even have Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Presidents Day to honor your Presidents in the U.S. It is the same with our saints. We also have a day set aside for them. For example, on November 17, we commemorate that day for St. Elizabeth of Hungary who devoted herself to caring for the poor, the sick, and the elderly.
Since when did Jesus Christ make Peter ''prince of the Apostles'' or leader?
It was when Christ gave him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (See Matthew 16:18-19). The keys symbolized "authority." It was ONLY to St. Peter whom Christ gave the keys to and it was ONLY St. Peter whom Christ told to take care of His entire flock (See John 21:15-17). So, as you can see from scripture, it was Christ who did this. And St. Peter was the least of all the Apostles, which is why Christ made him the leader.
what do you mean that Jesus is head of the Roman Catholic Church?
The Bible says that Christ is the Head of the Church. The Church is the assembly of Christians. The Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church whose existance goes back to the time of the Apostles. Remember, we have always said that the Catholic Church was built by Christ through the Apostle Peter; therefore, we are an Apostolic Church. We can trace our lineage through the Apostles, and our heritage and roots can be traced all the way back to Judaism. After all, Christianity came out of Judaism.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the Roman Catholics are also bonded with those who are called "Christians" despite that they are not Catholics. Together with the rest of our Christian brothers and sisters we are the Body of Christ, and Christ is our Head.
: christian1483 Fri Nov 25, 2011 - 20:47:11
Christianity did not come out of Judaism....
Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser wrote in "Judaism and the Christian Predicament" (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967) p. 59:
"This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible."
The London Jewish World of March 15, 1923 declared: "Fundamentally, Judaism is anti-Christian."
In fact,The Talmud was formed in Babylon,in Matthew 15,the Talmud is the ''Tradition of the elders''
Matthew 15:2:Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Read Matthew 15:1-9
Jesus was not a Jew,as you probably are trying to imply that he followed Judaism...i.e''Christianity came out of Judaism. ''
''King of the Jews'' ...''Jews'' in Strong's Greek is....
2453. Ioudaios ee-oo-dah'-yos from 2448 (in the sense of 2455 as a country); Judaean, i.e. belonging to Jehudah:--Jew(-ess), of Judaea.
It means a geographic address or Tribe,not race...
Why would Jesus follow something that was formed in Babylon?
I'm Just curious about this,I mean if you touch on some subjects people jump on you and point fingers or treat you like an outcast!(because the topic could be ''sensitive'')
Christ was a Jew. He was born in Bethlahem, and Bethlahem is located inside Judah.
Also, the Jewish Bible is the Torah. The Jewish Torah is found in the Christian Bible. The Talmud is NOT their Bible. The Talmund is an instruction book containing their laws and teachings. In the same way, the Catechism are the teachings of the Catholic Church. So, you see, we have something in common with Judaism. The Israelites, Hebrews, or Jews (whatever you want to call them) have their instruction book called the Talmud. In the same way, the Catholic Church have the Catechism, which consist of their instructions and teachings.
Jesus was a Jew, and He was brought up in the tradition of the Jews. He was circumcised according to Jewish law.
Luke 2:21-22 And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb. And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord:
Furthermore, the Magi who followed His star to Bethlahem came to see Him and they also called Him the "king of the Jews."
Matthew 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to adore him.
And when Jesus was asked if He was King of the Jews, He did not deny it (See Matthew 27:11).
Christianity came out of Judaism because Christ was a Jew, and the first people who followed Him were the Jewish-Christians. The Jewish Torah (which is their Bible) are the same Old Testament books found in a Christian Bible.
Hello and Happy Advent!
What do you think of the new English Mass? - Just wondering
: trifecta Wed Nov 30, 2011 - 11:18:06
Hello and Happy Advent!
What do you think of the new English Mass? - Just wondering
Hi trifecta,
They did a great job in the translation! I'm not going to be exaggerating when I say that I think it will make a big difference in the world. The language is beautiful in comparison to the old language that was used, and so far I would say that the prayers are more theologically correct.
I cried at mass on Sunday because the prayers around communion seemed so beautiful to me.
There are only a few words that I found clunky. But in comparison I would say that it is greatly improved!
God Bless,
Andre
In the original catholic encyclopedia (online) and many catholic churches I've saw the symbol lettering IHS as the letters for Jesus Christ
taken from OCE site::
IHS, a monogram of the name of Jesus Christ. From the third century the names of our Savior are sometimes shortened, particularly in Christian inscriptions (IH and XP, for Jesus and Christus). In the next century the "sigla" (chi-rho) occurs not only as an abbreviation but also as a Symbol.
YET from long before the 3rd century this stood and still stands for the egyptian trinity of ISIS HORUS and SETH..... (it's horus's eye in the capstone on our great seal of the united states on back of dollar bill)...... For one (AOL's blue icon etc)
So my question is.... Why has your church adopted this IHS?
Also we know from acts 7:43 that the star of David is only a rename of star of remphan and God condems it non the less....
According to eph 2:8
We are SAVED by GRACE through FAITH.
But your church teaches that this is not enough, in effect calling this verse a lie and God a liar.
Now unless I'm wrong your church teaches without the RCC you have no salvation.....
Could you clarify your churches stand and why it differs from the word?
: KNOWLEDGE BOMB Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 07:52:11
In the original catholic encyclopedia (online) and many catholic churches I've saw the symbol lettering IHS as the letters for Jesus Christ
taken from OCE site::
IHS, a monogram of the name of Jesus Christ. From the third century the names of our Savior are sometimes shortened, particularly in Christian inscriptions (IH and XP, for Jesus and Christus). In the next century the "sigla" (chi-rho) occurs not only as an abbreviation but also as a Symbol.
YET from long before the 3rd century this stood and still stands for the egyptian trinity of ISIS HORUS and SETH..... (it's horus's eye in the capstone on our great seal of the united states on back of dollar bill)...... For one (AOL's blue icon etc)
So my question is.... Why has your church adopted this IHS?
Also we know from acts 7:43 that the star of David is only a rename of star of remphan and God condems it non the less....
I would go with the Catholic Encyclopedia's description and not Jack Chick's.
BTW the eye on the capstone is a Masonic Symbol.
: KNOWLEDGE BOMB Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 08:12:24
According to eph 2:8
We are SAVED by GRACE through FAITH.
But your church teaches that this is not enough, in effect calling this verse a lie and God a liar.
Now unless I'm wrong your church teaches without the RCC you have no salvation.....
Could you clarify your churches stand and why it differs from the word?
Hey KB,
Actually know there is no such doctrine teaching that you need the RCC for salvation. It's kind of a silly sentiment. Could you maybe share with me where you got such an idea?
We agree that salvation comes by grace through faith. Nothing new about that one. The differences you will notice between Catholic doctrine and "some" Protestant theology is how we define the word faith. Catholic doctrine emphasizes the teachings of St. James in that faith is belief together with works or rather belief in action. Protestants normatively (speaking from my own studies and experiences) defines faith as exclusively equivalent to belief. This leads to a breakdown between the two schools of theological thought.
: KNOWLEDGE BOMB Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 08:12:24
According to eph 2:8
We are SAVED by GRACE through FAITH.
But your church teaches that this is not enough, in effect calling this verse a lie and God a liar.
Now unless I'm wrong your church teaches without the RCC you have no salvation.....
Could you clarify your churches stand and why it differs from the word?
The Catholic Church has never said that Grace is not enough. What the contention has been and will always be is against "Faith Alone" i.e. we are saved by faith alone.
The Church affirms this teaching that we are saved by grace through faith working in love. And there is much Biblical basis for this.
As Paul himself said: faith, hope and love remain, but the greatest is love.
Furthermore Christ Himself said that it is not those who call Him Lord, Lord who will be saved but those who do the will of His Father. He also said that it is those who practice acts of charitity (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc) who will enter His kingdom.
In 2008, the Vatican newspaper said young Harry "...proposes a wrong and malicious image of the hero, an unreligious one, which is even worst that an explicitly anti-religious proposition."
In its review of the latest film Half blood prince, L'Osservatore Romano — the Vatican's official newspaper — praised this latest cinematic adaptation of J.K. Rowling's work (written by Steve Kloves and directed by David Yates) as being the best one yet, highlighting its distinct moral compass:
"There is a clear line of demarcation between good and evil and [the film] makes clear that good is right. One understands as well that sometimes this requires hard work and sacrifice."
KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:
1. All magic comes from Satan
2. All magic is evil
3. Your church calls harrys magic good
The bible tells us "woe to those who call evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light!(Is 5:20)
The movies entice children into the devils world of WITCHCRAFT spells demons (the DEMENtors)ect.
I don't come to ask you questions, just want you to hear it! As a member of the RCC.
God says all witchcraft is evil - the church disagrees.
Why the change of heart over potter from 2008 till this movie with favorable rant.
The church saw it was more profitable to bring mr Potter on board!
Aye aye captian! A modern day fornication with withcraft!
: Teresa Thu Jan 12, 2012 - 06:21:54
: KNOWLEDGE BOMB Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 08:12:24
According to eph 2:8
We are SAVED by GRACE through FAITH.
But your church teaches that this is not enough, in effect calling this verse a lie and God a liar.
Now unless I'm wrong your church teaches without the RCC you have no salvation.....
Could you clarify your churches stand and why it differs from the word?
The Catholic Church has never said that Grace is not enough. What the contention has been and will always be is against "Faith Alone" i.e. we are saved by faith alone.
The Church affirms this teaching that we are saved by grace through faith working in love. And there is much Biblical basis for this.
As Paul himself said: faith, hope and love remain, but the greatest is love.
Furthermore Christ Himself said that it is not those who call Him Lord, Lord who will be saved but those who do the will of His Father. He also said that it is those who practice acts of charitity (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc) who will enter His kingdom.
2. Going back in time as early as the days of the Athanasian Creed, it was taught then that "Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity." (Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 39)
3. About 585 A.D., Pope Pelagius II infallibly stated, "If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized (means excommunicated) according to the opinion of the same Fathers... Consider (therefore) the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord. [Gal. 3:7]" (Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 246)
4. In 1208 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, "By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 423)
5. In 1215 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved..." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 430)
6. In 1302 A.D., Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, "With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sins..." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 468)
8. In 1302 A.D., by the power invested in him, Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, "...we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 469)
9. In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth. "It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 714)
10. The same truth regarding the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation was reaffirmed by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 A.D.; Pope Pius IX in 1854 A.D.; Pope Pius IX in 1863 A.D.; Pope John XXIII on June 29, 1961 A.D.; Pope John Paul I, on August 27, 1978; Pope John Paul II on October 21, 1981, etc...
OH did I have that WRONG?!?
Now unless this is incorrect:
61. While affirming that "Outside the Church there is no salvation," (C.C.C. # 846), the Catechism of the Catholic Church further states, "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
'Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.'" (C.C.C. # 847)
KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:
WOW....
There's no salvation outside the catholic church but that's only for other Christians.
No it seems that you can be of any religion (doesn't know the gospel) and have any god and as long as your sincere to do HIS will (whoever your god and his will be) he has salvation!!!!
Incredible!!!! Anyone has eternal life even without Christ!
No one can do Gods will without knowing Christ as savior!
This is a lie and the word does not teach that!
Catholica said:
BTW the eye on the capstone is a Masonic Symbol.
KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:
the capstone is egyptian and is the missing capstone for the pyramid of Giza.
The eye is also Egyptian and is the eye of horus. Who's the middle virgin child of the egyptian trinity.
They go by the initals IHS (Isis Horus Seth.)
I know the catholic church uses these same initals (ihs ihc)
and give it another meaning but I'll stick with the egyptian trinity for your IHS also... Oh I don't get my information from Jack chick either.... Isn't there an Egyptian obelisk in saint peters sq?
Why yes yes there is. My moneys on Egypt...
You know it's funny you would think the capstone and eye come from the masons... And the pyramid under said capstone and eye.... Would make you say Egypt wouldn't it?!?
See the reason your church let's the rest of the world off the hook and NOT the Christians is the devil knows it's only the christian that is both saved and has the truth!
This would make all those outside the catholic church who DIDNT know Christ Able to have salvation while Christians are damned.....
It's not good enough to believe on Christ, you must be catholic or Christ what?
A. Ignores you
B. Hands are tied by the RCC
See you come on here to defend a church that considers grace through faith we are saved NOT true... (making me a hell bound sinner.... Friends... Us?) its one thing to believe and another to teach that belief....)
Oh you say your church teaches it but you can't teach that AND say there's only salvation through you alone! 2+3 doesn't equal 4.
Truth be told, when Catholics (church) talk of one bread one body they certainly ARENT talking about anything other than their bread their body their way... After all how could you count other Christians as brothers in the body when they have no salvation?
What does light have to do with darkness?
: KNOWLEDGE BOMB Sat Mar 17, 2012 - 14:56:09
See the reason your church let's the rest of the world off the hook and NOT the Christians is the devil knows it's only the christian that is both saved and has the truth!
This would make all those outside the catholic church who DIDNT know Christ Able to have salvation while Christians are damned.....
It's not good enough to believe on Christ, you must be catholic or Christ what?
A. Ignores you
B. Hands are tied by the RCC
See you come on here to defend a church that considers grace through faith we are saved NOT true... (making me a hell bound sinner.... Friends... Us?) its one thing to believe and another to teach that belief....)
Oh you say your church teaches it but you can't teach that AND say there's only salvation through you alone! 2+3 doesn't equal 4.
Truth be told, when Catholics (church) talk of one bread one body they certainly ARENT talking about anything other than their bread their body their way... After all how could you count other Christians as brothers in the body when they have no salvation?
What does light have to do with darkness?
Hiya KB ... you must be reading a different thread than I am reading.
The RCC does not teach that you have to be Catholic to be saved.
I would suggest that you remember that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ - working out our salvation in fear and trembling.
Peace be with you,
Scott
Scott1 said:
Hiya KB ... you must be reading a different thread than I am reading.
The RCC does not teach that you have to be Catholic to be saved.
I would suggest that you remember that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ - working out our salvation in fear and trembling.
KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:
this came from Vatican.Va
under:
Lumen gentium
Chapter 2
on the people of god:
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation.
END END END
Taken from Vatican.va
under declartions
Nostradamus aerate
relations of the church to non Christians:
3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
END END END
KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:
well we see that the catholic church teaches that Moslems have salvation if their serve the demon god Allah! The catholic church teaches that all who don't know the gospel (all unsaved pagans) can be saved by simply doing their gods will!!!!!
How evil is it to let others believe they have salvation and never tell them that unless they have the blood of Christ they have no salvation.....
Can you answer to this?
3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God,
END END END
KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:
their God is Allah... This is not the God of the bible is any way shape or form!
Allah is from Satan and your popes talks that Moslems pray to the one god?
You mean Satan? Right. Cause that's who they pray too!
: KNOWLEDGE BOMB
this came from Vatican.Va
under:
Lumen gentium
Chapter 2
on the people of god:
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation.
END END END
Ya gotta read the document --- not just post quotes taken out of context.
LG 14
"Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."
... in other words, for those people who believe in the validity of the claims of the Catholic Church and
still refuse to enter or stay in they can not be saved --- their conscience condems them. It would be the same for someone who believes in the claims of the Protestant Church but still denies Jesus is Lord/says the salvation prayer (or whatever you folks believe is necessary for salvation). For a person to fight against what they know in their heart is the truth, they have no hope of salvation.
... but it is also important to learn that all Catholics are not ROMAN Catholics.
I am a Orthodox Catholic (Maronite) and the documents and pronouncements of Vatican II don't have much if any part of my faith. We are in communion with the Pope, but have our own leadership, liturgy, and spirituality.
In other words, poo poo the documents and statements of Vatican II all you'd like -- but you still have to deal with folks like me. ::smile::
Peace in Christ,
S
6. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.
END END END
KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:
so the catholic church teaches that you can have salvation without knowing Christ.
Rev 1:5 and washed us from our SINS in HIS own BLOOD
1peter 1:18-19 we are redeemed with the BLOOD of CHRIST
Hebrews 13:12 sanctify the people with HIS own BLOOD
eph 1:7 we have redemption through HIS BLOOD
romans 3:25 god sent to be a propitiation through faith in HIS BLOOD
acts 20:28 HE has purchased with HIS own BLOOD
So we see only christ's BLOOD can save! And Moslems as well as ALL other religions DO NOT HAVE CHRIST BLOOD! And have no salvation despite what the catholic church teaches!
Muslims deny Jesus is the Christ making them liars (1john2:22)
if they deny the SON (they do as Gods son) they have not the father (2:23)
so Muslims cannot have God since they do not have the son!!!!
1 John 4:15 no other pagan religions in the World confess that Jesus is the Son of God!
So God can't dwell in them!
So why does your church teach (per vatican.va) that all other religions can find salvation without Christ?
: KNOWLEDGE BOMB
So why does your church teach (per vatican.va) that all other religions can find salvation without Christ?
I am guessing you are either too busy with cut/paste or you really are not paying attention.
I am not a
ROMAN Catholic.... the only Vatican II document that has anything to do with me is ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM, and that is about administration, not theology.
My Church does not teach that all other religions can find salvation without Christ.
1. The church CLAIMS it is the only way to salvation.
A. And how would people get this idea
B. Why would the church allow them to believe THAT which is a lie?
C. To say that they lose their salvation if they leave the church, shows they had no salvation in the first place!
2. You cannot compare leaving the church with someone denying Jesus!(as your reformed comment)
A. So you compared leaving the church with denying Christ.
3. I can only go by concrete evidence and not by if catholic have many different beliefs contrary to the vaticans site.
Also I did NOT take it out of context.... If the church CLAIMS salvation is only through their church...
Doesn't matter if you believe it or not. The church claims is enough!
: Scott1 Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 01:07:00
: KNOWLEDGE BOMB
So why does your church teach (per vatican.va) that all other religions can find salvation without Christ?
I am guessing you are either too busy with cut/paste or you really are not paying attention.
I am not a ROMAN Catholic.... the only Vatican II document that has anything to do with me is ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM, and that is about administration, not theology.
My Church does not teach that all other religions can find salvation without Christ.
I can't delve into each Catholics belief..... Is not the pope the head APPOINTED by God? So when you ASK a catholic it ALL depends on what that person believes as to what answer you will get.
Almost like pick and choose.... So where would I find the correct teachings of the catholic church?
If the pope and church claim salvation through them alone (to those who believe) then since Salavtion (as you say) ISNT based on the church, how can you both be saved?
They believe they need the church and you don't - you both can't be right
My Church does not teach that all other religions can find salvation without Christ.
KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:
1. so then your church teaches salvation contray to the popes teaching?
2. And your church has let people know salvation is NOT dependent upon the pope or offical church teaching?
: KNOWLEDGE BOMB Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 09:56:54
My Church does not teach that all other religions can find salvation without Christ.
KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:
1. so then your church teaches salvation contray to the popes teaching?
2. And your church has let people know salvation is NOT dependent upon the pope or offical church teaching?
KB -- you said you can't "delve" into RC teaching -- and don't seem to know the basics about catholic theology -- someone I don't think you care too much about my faith or my salvation for that matter. Just a guess on my part...
The Maronite Catholic Church has a different Patriarch ( while in communion with Rome), different liturgy and spirituality ... Vatican II was not a Ecumenical Council (some Latins dispute this) but a council for them alone.
I would be happy to explain what we believe, but like I said you don't seem like the type who cares much.
Peace be with you,
Scott
: Scott1 Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 10:49:47
Vatican II was not a Ecumenical Council (some Latins dispute this) but a council for them alone.
NO ! NO! NO!
The Second Vatican Council was the 21st Ecumenical Council .
: Paulus
NO ! NO! NO!
The Second Vatican Council was the 21st Ecumenical Council .
To me, Ecumenical Councs are held with the entire Church... and without the Orthodox Patriarchs as part of the Council it seems to me it was a bit less than Ecumenical.
Just my opinion. :-)
** EDIT **
One more take:
"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest
level,
as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of 'superdogma,' which takes away the importance of all the rest" (Cardinal Ratzinger 1988 Address to Chilean New bishops)...(emphasis mine)
: Scott1 Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 10:49:47
: KNOWLEDGE BOMB Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 09:56:54
My Church does not teach that all other religions can find salvation without Christ.
KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:
1. so then your church teaches salvation contray to the popes teaching?
2. And your church has let people know salvation is NOT dependent upon the pope or offical church teaching?
KB -- you said you can't "delve" into RC teaching -- and don't seem to know the basics about catholic theology -- someone I don't think you care too much about my faith or my salvation for that matter. Just a guess on my part...
The Maronite Catholic Church has a different Patriarch ( while in communion with Rome), different liturgy and spirituality ... Vatican II was not a Ecumenical Council (some Latins dispute this) but a council for them alone.
I would be happy to explain what we believe, but like I said you don't seem like the type who cares much.
Peace be with you,
Scott
No go ahead and tell me, I have questions for you....Most times I like to go right to the site itself.
1. If you left the catholic church would you still have salvation?
2. Do you believe a priest can forgive sins?
3. Tradition and scripture equals? As per RCC
4. Christ dead on the cross crucifix?
5. The pope, infallible when it comes to word of god? (ex cathdra)
Scott.... So it is TRUE that the RCC teaches a lie about salvation?
The part were if people think they have to have the church and leave it they have no salvation?
Don't you think this is wrong to let people believe such things?
I noticed you didn't say anything other than your not RC..... And what about the vaticans teaching on all other faiths can have salvation but not the christian...
: KNOWLEDGE BOMB
1. If you left the catholic church would you still have salvation?
If I truly believed in my heart that it was necessary to leave I would certainly be conscience bound to do so---and would be just as saved then as now.
2. Do you believe a priest can forgive sins?
No
3. Tradition and scripture equals? As per RCC
Yes
4. Christ dead on the cross crucifix?
Not sure what you are asking... but yes, I believe:
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.5. The pope, infallible when it comes to word of god? (ex cathdra)
No
: KNOWLEDGE BOMB Wed Mar 28, 2012 - 00:27:37
Scott.... So it is TRUE that the RCC teaches a lie about salvation?
The part were if people think they have to have the church and leave it they have no salvation?
Not making much sense....
If you think you have to stay in the Church for salvation,
and leave anyway, wouldn't that person be implicitly rejecting both their conscience and Christ?
Hardly ideal situation for one to be in, eh?
I noticed you didn't say anything other than your not RC..... And what about the vaticans teaching on all other faiths can have salvation but not the christian...
**sigh**
One last time hopefully:
Wounds to unity
: Catechism of the Catholic Church817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
See there where my Latin friends even take some of the blame... (emphasis mine on all of these)
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
Can it get clearer?
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."
Hopefully that oughta do it for this topic.
: Scott1 Wed Mar 28, 2012 - 00:15:09
: Paulus
NO ! NO! NO!
The Second Vatican Council was the 21st Ecumenical Council .
To me, Ecumenical Councs are held with the entire Church... and without the Orthodox Patriarchs as part of the Council it seems to me it was a bit less than Ecumenical
I am unsure what you mean by "the Orthodox Patriarchs" . Are you referring to the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church or to the Patriarchs of Eastern Rite Catholics who are in communion with the Roman See , with the bishop of Rome ?
The Second Vatican Council , the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church , was the largest in number of Patriarchs and other bishops in attendance than any previous Ecumenical Council . It was also the most catholic ( with a small c ) in that the Council Fathers were from all four corners of the globe .
The Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite Catholics were present . They were most distinctive by their vestments which made many Catholics aware that there were other rites in the Church other than the Latin rite .
In the apostolic constitution "Humanae Salutis" of Dec 25th 1961 Blessed Pope John XXIII convoked the Second Vatican Council . He said : " Welcoming as from above the intimate voice of our spirit , we considered that the times were right to offer to the Catholic Church and to the world the gift of a new Ecumenical Council , as an addition to , and continuation of , the twenty great councils , which have been through the centuries a truly heavenly providence for the increase of grace and Christian progress.....It seems to us that the time has come to convoke the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council .....we convoke for the forthcoming year 1962 the Ecumenical and Universal Council .....We consequently wish and order that to this Ecumenical Council there should come all who have the right and duty to attend the Council . "
On Oct 11th 1962 Blessed Pope John XXIII opened the Council saying : " The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is being solemnly opened here besides St Peter's tomb ...." Ecumenical Council" , we uttered those words to the Sacred College of Cardinals in 1959 . It was completely unexpected , like a flash of heavenly light ....The Ecumenical Council commences .....The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this : that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously ....The Twenty-first Ecumenical Council wishes to transmit the doctrine , pure and integral ....The Catholic Church desires by this Ecumenical Council to show herself the loving mother of all . "
On Dec 8th 1965 Pope Paul VI declared the Council completed : " At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has been accomplished....Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor , Pope John XXIII ...."
Well that seems quite plain to me .
And no red herrings or blind alleys by using adjectives such as pastoral , dogmatic , spiritual , sacred , apostolic , or whatever other adjectives you may choose to use to try to make the 21st Ecumenical Council not be the Ecumenical Council only someone lacking the knowledge of clear , straightforward language could fail to see it was .
: Paulus
Seem to be missing my point...
I don't find the Councils after the Schism to be truly "Ecumenical" in any sense of the word.
Please feel free to disagree, just please try to do it without the rude ("someone lacking the knowledge of clear , straightforward language could fail to see it was") comments.
Peace be with you,
Scott
: Scott1 Wed Mar 28, 2012 - 12:32:23
: Paulus
Seem to be missing my point...
Which point am I missing ?
If you are in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome , why do you not accept the words of the Popes ?
Were the Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council deluded ?
You have not produced one quote to substantiate your strange interpretation of your theory .
For once do provide some official documentation in replying to my posts .
: Scott1 Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 10:49:47
: KNOWLEDGE BOMB Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 09:56:54
My Church does not teach that all other religions can find salvation without Christ.
KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:
1. so then your church teaches salvation contray to the popes teaching?
2. And your church has let people know salvation is NOT dependent upon the pope or offical church teaching?
KB -- you said you can't "delve" into RC teaching -- and don't seem to know the basics about catholic theology -- someone I don't think you care too much about my faith or my salvation for that matter. Just a guess on my part...
The Maronite Catholic Church has a different Patriarch ( while in communion with Rome), different liturgy and spirituality ... Vatican II was not a Ecumenical Council (some Latins dispute this) but a council for them alone.
I would be happy to explain what we believe, but like I said you don't seem like the type who cares much.
Peace be with you,
Scott
For our other Christian bretheren who come here to the Catholic section is seems it is all about questioning this or that or tearing down the faith and believers every chance they get. It's not a sincere effort to learn what we believe and accept our way and then leave it at that. It's funny, we (Catholics) by and large do not go to their sections and attempt to stir the pot. But anyway, since you are in communtion with Rome, like it or not you are lumped in with the Latin Rite.
: Paulus
Which point am I missing ?
The part where I state it is my opinion....
If you are in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome , why do you not accept the words of the Popes ?
While I don't offer these opinions in public and teach orthodoxy to my students, there are several issues that I am personally dealing with.
... and to be clear, I don't think the Church is in error --- I am trying to work out why I can't see the truth in their statements.
Were the Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council deluded ?
Don't understand the question...
You have not produced one quote to substantiate your strange interpretation of your theory .
For once do provide some official documentation in replying to my posts .
I would first like to point out that you seem awfully angry... and I pray you can discuss topics with your fellow Christians without undue stress.
Again... these are my OPINIONS.... hard to give you "official documentation" to MY OPINIONS... get it now?
... not to mention, any additional quotes would be from Orthodox sources and you wouldn't find them convincing. I hope you understand the difference between fact and opinion, as it will make further discussion much easier.
If you feel so strongly that I am in error, we could certainly start a thread or two about the issues I am struggling with the most (Papal Supremacy and Infallibility) provided you think you can help instead of getting upset.
Peace be with you,
Scott
: LadoniaFor our other Christian bretheren who come here to the Catholic section is seems it is all about questioning this or that or tearing down the faith and believers every chance they get. It's not a sincere effort to learn what we believe and accept our way and then leave it at that. It's funny, we (Catholics) by and large do not go to their sections and attempt to stir the pot. But anyway, since you are in communtion with Rome, like it or not you are lumped in with the Latin Rite.
I understand that... and I appreciate you pointing it out.
It is my sincere desire not to cause scandal or confusion offering my opinions on things that I personally struggle with... but I hope I continue to be welcome here --- or maybe I should move all my comments to a different part of the forum.
Interested in you opinion, my friend...
S
: Scott1 Wed Mar 28, 2012 - 13:59:35
: Paulus
Which point am I missing ?
The part where I state it is my opinion....
If you are in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome , why do you not accept the words of the Popes ?
While I don't offer these opinions in public and teach orthodoxy to my students, there are several issues that I am personally dealing with.
... and to be clear, I don't think the Church is in error --- I am trying to work out why I can't see the truth in their statements.
Were the Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council deluded ?
Don't understand the question...
You have not produced one quote to substantiate your strange interpretation of your theory .
For once do provide some official documentation in replying to my posts .
I would first like to point out that you seem awfully angry... and I pray you can discuss topics with your fellow Christians without undue stress.
Again... these are my OPINIONS.... hard to give you "official documentation" to MY OPINIONS... get it now?
... not to mention, any additional quotes would be from Orthodox sources and you wouldn't find them convincing. I hope you understand the difference between fact and opinion, as it will make further discussion much easier.
If you feel so strongly that I am in error, we could certainly start a thread or two about the issues I am struggling with the most (Papal Supremacy and Infallibility) provided you think you can help instead of getting upset.
Peace be with you,
Scott
: LadoniaFor our other Christian bretheren who come here to the Catholic section is seems it is all about questioning this or that or tearing down the faith and believers every chance they get. It's not a sincere effort to learn what we believe and accept our way and then leave it at that. It's funny, we (Catholics) by and large do not go to their sections and attempt to stir the pot. But anyway, since you are in communtion with Rome, like it or not you are lumped in with the Latin Rite.
I understand that... and I appreciate you pointing it out.
It is my sincere desire not to cause scandal or confusion offering my opinions on things that I personally struggle with... but I hope I continue to be welcome here --- or maybe I should move all my comments to a different part of the forum.
Interested in you opinion, my friend...
S
No , I am not angry .
I am confused by what you say .
On different threads I have posted quotes made by various Popes but you appear to ignore what they are saying .
None of my quotes have been taken out of context , and they are all in the public domain for anyone who wishes to seek verification .
This is a Catholic Forum , and no Catholic should be reluctant to state his/her opinions , but he/she must be prepared to have them challenged by other Catholics if they dispute them .
I am a Lancastrian from the north of England and we are noted for calling a spade a spade . We tend to be blunt , but do not take that personally.
I would love to hear of the areas where you are having difficulties . You may find that I share some of the same difficulties .
On many matters I am at variance with the Hierarchy , but as far as I am aware they are not matters that are part of the deposit of faith .
The Church is always in need of continual reform . ( Those are not my words , but the words of the Council Fathers at the Second Vatican Council ) . We should be adult enough in our faith to discuss issues where we differ , and not have the feeling that we are treading on eggshells all of the time .
We ought not to be afraid of voicing our concerns about Church affairs when we feel the need .
I must confess that on occasion I have drawn back from criticising a post just because the poster was a Catholic . Now that was wrong and probably hypocritical of me . Now I don't respond to posts made by non-RCs because I became weary of the tit-for-tat Catholic bashing followed by Protestant bashing and vice versa . However I do respond to posts made by Catholics where I believe there is need for clarification or correction , knowing hopefully that the Catholic posters will realise I am doing it out of concern that the truth be known and not for the sake of having a dig at the Catholic Church .
On different threads I have posted quotes made by various Popes but you appear to ignore what they are saying .
Again, I am not sure why this is confusing for you. I don't PERSONALLY find any of these (OR ANY) statements by a Pope to be anything other than their opinions -- certainly not an infallible one at that.
MY OPINION is that the Pope is the first among equals ... I listen to MY Patriarch and my Bishop. MY OPINION is that the Pope is not the Supreme Leader of the Universal Church, and pray for the day when this addition to the church is corrected. I pray for the church as it was for a thousand years before the Schism.
Now, I do believe in the Papacy -- or else I would become Orthodox -- just not in the present, non-historical state.
Hopefully that explains why I don't much care about the quotes you offered - I doubt you know the name of my Patriarch, let alone would feel bound to follow his instructions -- and I PERSONALLY feel the same way about the Patriarch of the Latin Rite.
I would love to hear of the areas where you are having difficulties . You may find that I share some of the same difficulties .
As you can see, my biggest objection is to the idea of Papal supremacy -- that is the root that leads to all other issues.
However I do respond to posts made by Catholics where I believe there is need for clarification or correction , knowing hopefully that the Catholic posters will realise I am doing it out of concern that the truth be known and not for the sake of having a dig at the Catholic Church .
Super ... that is why I am here. I just ask that you are prepared to hear my side of things and don't just simply fall back on modern Papal quotes that I don't find compelling in any way.
: Scott1 Wed Mar 28, 2012 - 17:46:18
I doubt you know the name of my Patriarch, I just ask that you are prepared to hear my side of things and don't just simply fall back on modern Papal quotes that I don't find compelling in any way.
Patriarch Bechara Boultros al-Rahi ?
I think we are going to have to agree to differ on the use of the terms "Roman Catholic Church" and "Ecumenical Council" .
I certainly try to hear your side of things , and will take into account your views of the Papacy .
Some of my thoughts , about which I would like to hear your response :-
" The body of the faithful as a whole , anointed as they are by the Holy One , cannot err in matters of belief . Thanks to a supernatural sense of the faith which characterises the People as a whole , it manifests this unerring quality when , from the bishops down to the last member of the laity , it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals . " ( from Lumen Gentium ) .
That for me is a good starting point . The idea that "the sense of the faithful" , imprinted on their hearts by the Holy Spirit , cannot err , was a favourite theme of my fellow countryman , the Blessed John Henry Newman .
" The bishops can proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly ....This authority is more clearly verified when , gathered together in an ecumenical council , they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church . Their definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith . " ( from Lumen Gentium ) .
The above quote I have used is not to go on about ecumenical councils , but to bring out the point of the infallibility of the College of Bishops ..
So far we can see infallibility within the People of God as a whole , and then within the College of Bishops .
Now we come to Papal infallibility . If I had been living at the time of Blessed John Henry Newman , I would have shared his view that the doctine of Papal infalliblity should not have been defined as a dogma .
Some hold the opinion that the charism of Papal infallibility has been used only twice , to proclaim the dogmas of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception . There was no great controversy at the time about these two doctrines , and I fail to see why they were declared dogma .
I believe that the definition of papal infallibility has been detrimental to the Church . It focuses attention on one man and takes our attention off the rest of the bishops .
It also leads to an unhealthy centralisation , and the Curia in Rome ends up as a bureaucracy interfering in every nook and cranny of the Church .
The Roman See obviously has its place within the Church , but its intervention should be left for matters of grave concern .
Just a few thoughts which I hope will enable you to see where I am coming from . There is much that I have omitted , but the above words are offered as just a taster .
: Paulus
Patriarch Bechara Boultros al-Rahi ?
::smile::
I believe that the definition of papal infallibility has been detrimental to the Church . It focuses attention on one man and takes our attention off the rest of the bishops .
It also leads to an unhealthy centralisation , and the Curia in Rome ends up as a bureaucracy interfering in every nook and cranny of the Church.
We are in total agreement.
The Roman See obviously has its place within the Church , but its intervention should be left for matters of grave concern .
Just a few thoughts which I hope will enable you to see where I am coming from . There is much that I have omitted , but the above words are offered as just a taster .
Again... we are in agreement... I just carry it one step further and am of the opinion that Vatican II is one of those times where Roman intervention was NOT NEEDED.
In my opinion, an Ecumenical Council -- in the true sense of the word -- can not be held without the East. But even if one does not agree with this, I am of the opinion that an Ecumenical Council is convened to DEFINE dogma.... otherwise it is simply a pastoral council that "tweeks" some things --- many of which were unique to the Latin Rite. And to me, that is what took place at Vatican II.
The Maronite Rite has been using the vernacular in the Divine Liturgy for hundreds of years.
We have married priests.
etc. etc.
When one looks at Vatican II from "our side", it is quite clear that it was simply a pastoral council of the Latin Rite.... so now I hope you understand why I don't find anything taken from Vatican II to be "binding" or "instructive" to me in any way.
This matter goes to the core of why I made the "switch" away from the Latin Rite -- the Western idea of defining EVERY aspect of the moral life is so contrary to the Eastern way of focusing on an individuals interior life of faith.
... and now that I find we think alike on the matter of the Curia and clericalism, I am really not sure why you were defending the dogmatic nature of Vatican II. ???
Looking forward to hearing more about your faith.
St. Maron pray for us,
Scott
: Scott1 Thu Mar 29, 2012 - 10:04:26
: Paulus
Patriarch Bechara Boultros al-Rahi ?
::smile::
I believe that the definition of papal infallibility has been detrimental to the Church . It focuses attention on one man and takes our attention off the rest of the bishops .
It also leads to an unhealthy centralisation , and the Curia in Rome ends up as a bureaucracy interfering in every nook and cranny of the Church.
We are in total agreement.
The Roman See obviously has its place within the Church , but its intervention should be left for matters of grave concern .
Just a few thoughts which I hope will enable you to see where I am coming from . There is much that I have omitted , but the above words are offered as just a taster .
Again... we are in agreement... I just carry it one step further and am of the opinion that Vatican II is one of those times where Roman intervention was NOT NEEDED.
In my opinion, an Ecumenical Council -- in the true sense of the word -- can not be held without the East. But even if one does not agree with this, I am of the opinion that an Ecumenical Council is convened to DEFINE dogma.... otherwise it is simply a pastoral council that "tweeks" some things --- many of which were unique to the Latin Rite. And to me, that is what took place at Vatican II.
The Maronite Rite has been using the vernacular in the Divine Liturgy for hundreds of years.
We have married priests.
etc. etc.
When one looks at Vatican II from "our side", it is quite clear that it was simply a pastoral council of the Latin Rite.... so now I hope you understand why I don't find anything taken from Vatican II to be "binding" or "instructive" to me in any way.
This matter goes to the core of why I made the "switch" away from the Latin Rite -- the Western idea of defining EVERY aspect of the moral life is so contrary to the Eastern way of focusing on an individuals interior life of faith.
... and now that I find we think alike on the matter of the Curia and clericalism, I am really not sure why you were defending the dogmatic nature of Vatican II. ???
Looking forward to hearing more about your faith.
St. Maron pray for us,
Scott
Thanks for interceding with St Maron , the 4th century Syriac monk , from which the name of your Church comes . ::smile::
What does your Patriarch teach about Ecumenical Councils and the Primacy of the Pope ? I understand your thinking about Ecumenical Councils . However I can't foresee full union between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches . My prayer is for it , but there are so many obstacles . I do not see the Orthodox accepting the Primacy of the Roman See over the universal Church and Papal infallibility .
Regarding the Second Vatican Council , I lived through it and cannot but thank God for the benefits the Church received through it . I don't recall my defending the dogmatic nature of the Council . It was from the start a much needed pastoral Council and the Council Fathers made it clear that they were not defining any new dogmas .
During the Council the Roman Curia was put in its place . The Roman Curia had prepared documents for the Council Fathers and it expected the Council simply to rubber-stamp them . In an intervention one bishop made it clear that it was for the Roman Curia to be submissive to the Council , not vice versa . Pope Paul VI sent him a note of support the following day . The prepared documents were returned , and the Council Fathers set up commissions to prepare new documents for debate .
There was much emphasis on the College of Bishops and their role in shepherding the Church . Unfortunately there has been some backpedalling in recent decades . The Roman Curia is back in full control . The bishops throughout the Church appear to me at least to be in the grip of the bureaucrats in Rome . I don't think that was what the Council Fathers had intended .
You and I may have our opinions , but I don't think anyone in authority is going to listen to them .
Ultramontanism rules . ::doh:: ::cryingtears:: ::doh::
I grew up Methodist. I became Catholic after I married one. I was never told that we couldn't have sex after we had our family. I would think that would be bad for a marriage and the church is all for strengthening marriage and the family unit. I only had 2 children. If we had stopped having sex after we had the number of children we wanted, we would not have had sex since 1978. I don't think there's very many Catholics who do that.
I thought this thread was "Ask a Catholic" not "attack a Catholic." Does this site not have moderators?
: forklift Sat Jun 23, 2012 - 01:58:32
I thought this thread was "Ask a Catholic" not "attack a Catholic." Does this site not have moderators?
I apologize that I have disappointed you as moderator. In time I am confident that you will see that among this particular community asking a Catholic is or ultimately leads to attacking us. If I were to remove all who insult and disrespect us there would literally be only one nonCatholic left to post in this subforum.
It's not too bad though. Most are simply ignorant of Catholic beliefs and happily so. So just treat them with child gloves.
: LightHammer Sat Jun 23, 2012 - 11:25:30
: forklift Sat Jun 23, 2012 - 01:58:32
I thought this thread was "Ask a Catholic" not "attack a Catholic." Does this site not have moderators?
I apologize that I have disappointed you as moderator. In time I am confident that you will see that among this particular community asking a Catholic is or ultimately leads to attacking us. If I were to remove all who insult and disrespect us there would literally be only one nonCatholic left to post in this subforum.
It's not too bad though. Most are simply ignorant of Catholic beliefs and happily so. So just treat them with child gloves.
I know there seems to be plenty of misinformation and downright closemindedness coming from many of the non Catholics on this site. However, there is oneparticular poster here that doesn't even want to debate. He wants to attack.
On a regular thread, he would be barely tolerable, on his one though, he's not asking a catholic, he's attacking and berating us with ignorance. I thought this thread was for those that wanted to ask serious questions to, ironically enough, broaden their knowledge.
Nevermind, and I apologize for sounding as if you were not doing your job. Sometimes those that don't do a job think we know things that we don't. I have read more posts from this particular person and it obvious that no one in their right mind would take them seriously. Carry on.
: Texas Lady Sun Jun 17, 2012 - 20:26:57
I grew up Methodist. I became Catholic after I married one. I was never told that we couldn't have sex after we had our family. I would think that would be bad for a marriage and the church is all for strengthening marriage and the family unit. I only had 2 children. If we had stopped having sex after we had the number of children we wanted, we would not have had sex since 1978. I don't think there's very many Catholics who do that.
TX Lady,
Thank you for sharing this. I'm not sure where you heard that married Catholics are supposed to stop having sex once they're finished having children, but I do know that this *was* an opinion of St. Augustine (354-430), and was echoed in the writings of many Catholic authors, even into the 20th Century.
I personally think this notion was based on the assumption that sexual relations were fundamentally selfish, and therefore did not contribute to the couple's growth in grace. In contrast to this, Pope John Paul II called it a "fundamentally self-giving" act.
: Scott1 Thu Mar 29, 2012 - 10:04:26
: Paulus
I believe that the definition of papal infallibility has been detrimental to the Church . It focuses attention on one man and takes our attention off the rest of the bishops .
It also leads to an unhealthy centralisation , and the Curia in Rome ends up as a bureaucracy interfering in every nook and cranny of the Church.
We are in total agreement.
The definition of papal infallibility was based on the premise that the Church is infallible, and that therefore the one man who speaks for the entire Church by virtue of his office must by that fact be able to speak infallibly.
This works according to the Western ecclesiological model, which starts from the Universal Church and sees the particular Churches more-or-less as mere subordinates, but fails in light of the Eastern ecclesiological model, which always starts from the particular Churches, and sees the universality of the Church expressed in each particular Church.
I also like your phrase "unhealthy centralization." It reminds me of the anecdote in which someone once asked Pope John XXIII how many people worked for him in the Vatican; his reply was, "about half of them." The fact is, there are problems inherent in bureaucracies, and this is one of the things that impede reunification.
: Scott1 Thu Mar 29, 2012 - 10:04:26
: Paulus
The Roman See obviously has its place within the Church , but its intervention should be left for matters of grave concern .
Again... we are in agreement... I just carry it one step further and am of the opinion that Vatican II is one of those times where Roman intervention was NOT NEEDED.
Scott, I'm not sure what you mean here that "Roman intervention was not needed." Orientalium Ecclesiarum was the first document ever to state: "it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire." This formally put an end to attempts to "latinize" the Eastern Catholic Churches. It was also the first document ever to state: "These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West ... are ... of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite, and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations."
Thus, the concessions that had been made earlier by Rome to various Latin bishops who had sought to restrict the Eastern Catholic Churches in their countries were now devoid of any claim to legitimacy, even if they were not formally revoked.
: Scott1 Thu Mar 29, 2012 - 10:04:26
In my opinion, an Ecumenical Council -- in the true sense of the word -- can not be held without the East. But even if one does not agree with this, I am of the opinion that an Ecumenical Council is convened to DEFINE dogma.... otherwise it is simply a pastoral council that "tweeks" some things --- many of which were unique to the Latin Rite. And to me, that is what took place at Vatican II.
When one looks at Vatican II from "our side", it is quite clear that it was simply a pastoral council of the Latin Rite.... so now I hope you understand why I don't find anything taken from Vatican II to be "binding" or "instructive" to me in any way.
Well, I see the purpose of councils being not so much to "define dogma," as to settle doctrinal disputes that are causing problems within the Church, and in this regard Vatican II was no exception. For example, prior to Vatican II there were many who considered ecumenism to be heretical, and insisted that all those outside the Catholic Church were condemned. A similar issue was religious freedom, as was the relationship between the office of the Pope and that of the bishops. Furthermore, Eastern Catholic bishops participated in these discussions and voted on the final wording of the documents, while Orthodox bishops (as well as Protestant theologians) provided input.
: Scott1 Thu Mar 29, 2012 - 10:04:26
This matter goes to the core of why I made the "switch" away from the Latin Rite -- the Western idea of defining EVERY aspect of the moral life is so contrary to the Eastern way of focusing on an individuals interior life of faith.
While I agree here in principle, I don't see where Vatican II defines every aspect of the moral life.
: Paulus Thu Mar 29, 2012 - 14:20:16
... I can't foresee full union between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches . My prayer is for it , but there are so many obstacles . I do not see the Orthodox accepting the Primacy of the Roman See over the universal Church and Papal infallibility .
Primacy is not such a big problem, so long as primacy is rightly understood as "having first place," rather than as being superior to all.
: Paulus Thu Mar 29, 2012 - 14:20:16
There was much emphasis on the College of Bishops and their role in shepherding the Church . Unfortunately there has been some backpedalling in recent decades . The Roman Curia is back in full control . The bishops throughout the Church appear to me at least to be in the grip of the bureaucrats in Rome . I don't think that was what the Council Fathers had intended .
Paulus, can you give an example of this?
: Paulus Thu Mar 29, 2012 - 14:20:16
You and I may have our opinions , but I don't think anyone in authority is going to listen to them .
Is there any authority greater than God? He is listening.
Is stigmata a Catholic belief? Where did it come from, who was the first to report it?
My husband keeps having a wound appear and disappear within 2 hours on the back of his leg. I'll post a picture as soon as he sends it to me from his phone. It happened for the 3rd time last night, the first time I told him he must have brushed up against something and is just now feeling it. Second time he told me, it happened a couple weeks later I sort of ignored it. Last night after seeing the exact same wound in the exact same place and then seeing it just disappear got us both really wondering about it. It has happened in the course of 2 months. It's a recent thing.
It's like a slash or whip welt on the back of leg starting from his ankle. He can feel the onset of it, it starts to burn then the wound appears. It burns and then goes away after a couple hours, I saw it disappear last night.
Please only people with knowledge about this respond. I'll ask him to video record the onset of it next time he feels it, I'm not sure if he feels it before it appears or if he feels it once it appears.
: Bitter Sweet Fri Jul 20, 2012 - 04:48:45
Is stigmata a Catholic belief? Where did it come from, who was the first to report it?
My husband keeps having a wound appear and disappear within 2 hours on the back of his leg. I'll post a picture as soon as he sends it to me from his phone. It happened for the 3rd time last night, the first time I told him he must have brushed up against something and is just now feeling it. Second time he told me, it happened a couple weeks later I sort of ignored it. Last night after seeing the exact same wound in the exact same place and then seeing it just disappear got us both really wondering about it. It has happened in the course of 2 months. It's a recent thing.
It's like a slash or whip welt on the back of leg starting from his ankle. He can feel the onset of it, it starts to burn then the wound appears. It burns and then goes away after a couple hours, I saw it disappear last night.
Please only people with knowledge about this respond. I'll ask him to video record the onset of it next time he feels it, I'm not sure if he feels it before it appears or if he feels it once it appears.
This is the wound, it's always the exact same spot, same everything. It's completely gone now and I could feel and indent when I touched it. He said as soon as he feels the burning he see's it so I don't think he can capture a recording of it happening because it's there already.
(http://i1141.photobucket.com/albums/n594/bittersweet39/IMG_20120719_223433.jpg)
It just happened again tonight and we took another picture but I am sending them to my friend, her brother is a doctor so he can take a look at them.
My husband would much rather have a medical explanation. But that didn't stop him from telling me all day to not ask him any questions, he's the chosenone. Then he was clipping his toenails in the toilet and I asked if I could grab the trash and he said no, I will get it when he's done so I just reached under his leg and he said, No, I'm the prophet, you can't make what I said wrong and he squeezed my arm with his leg. I waited, he was right I didn't get the trash till he was done. ::giggle::
Hi Bitter Sweet, sorry that no one responded to you.
A stigmata is not like a wound just anywhere on the body, but rather a set of wounds that are in the same locations where Christ's wounds were. If your husband had a stigmata, it would likely be in his hands, feet, and side, not the back of his leg.
Some people believe that St. Paul may have had the first stigmata. He wrote "I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." Galatians 6:17. Stigmatas have been rare through the centuries, but the following people were known to have them:
Angela of Foligno
Anna Maria Taïgi
Anna Rosa Gattorno
Camilla Battista Varani
Catherine Emmerich
Catherine del Ricci
Catherine of Genoa
Catherine of Racconigi (1486-1547), Dominican
Catherine of Siena
Charles of Sezze
Christina Ciccarelli
Clara Isabella Fornari
Clare of Montefalco
Colette
Elizabeth Achler
Faustina Kowalska
Flora of Beaulieu
Frances of Rome
Francis of Assisi
Gemma Galgani
Gertrude
Gertrude van Oosten
Helen of Hungary
John of God
Lydwina of Schiedam
Lucy of Narni
Lutgarde
Margaret Mary Alacoque
Margaret of Cortona
Margaret of the Blessed Sacrament
Maria Lopez of Jesus
Marie of the Incarnation
Mary Anne of Jesus (1557-1620), Franciscan tertiary
Mary Frances of the Five Wounds
Mary Magdalene de' Pazzi
Mary of Jesus Crucified
Matthew Carreri
Osanna of Mantua
Padre Pio
Rita of Cassia
Rita of Lima
Stephana de Quinzanis
Veronica Giuliani
I hope that helps.
Andre
: LightHammer Tue Oct 04, 2011 - 12:51:30So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
Hi LightHammer,
I would genuinely like to know if you agree, as a Catholic, with this explicit declaration of Pope Eugene IV? Why or why not?
Sincerely,
Jane
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441,
ex cathedra:
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
: Jane_doe Fri Oct 26, 2012 - 13:59:56
: LightHammer Tue Oct 04, 2011 - 12:51:30So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
Hi LightHammer,
I would genuinely like to know if you agree, as a Catholic, with this explicit declaration of Pope Eugene IV? Why or why not?
Sincerely,
Jane
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra:
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
I do and I would like to take a moment and qualify my belief if you do not mind. When you read my blunt "I do" I imagine you will find that a bit how do you say archaic. The issue here is that you have infact cited a papal bull addressing an archaic audience in an archaic point in time.
In the 15th century the Church in Europe had just crushed one of the most dangerous heresies (Catharism) it had experienced since Arianism. In this same century it was also dealing with the effects of East and West Schism. To paint a picture and thus keep the history lesson short you should envision the state of European spirituality as the white city of Minas Tirith being bombared by an army of orcs.
(http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs40/i/2009/050/3/e/Minas_Tirith_by_AbbeLiten.jpg)
I don't feel as though I need to explain why Jews who have not even accepted Jesus Christ have no guarantee of salvation. However for the other Christians listed (schisomatics and heretics) the bull makes an accurate delcaration. You see in this time period those who lived as heretics and schisomatics were apostates. They were raisied in the true faith and her fullness but abandoned it when their own reasoning (heretics) or social political advantage (Orthodox and schisomatics) warranted it. These are the ones who, in full clarity of truth, whom are condmened because they knew truth and chose something less than Him.
I imagine you think that this bull applies to modern day followings of the same. Jews for the most part yes. If you haven't accepted Christ then there's really nothing to talk about. However for heretics (that derrogatory term doesn't really apply to modern Protestants but the groups are synonymous) and schisomatics (all ancient churches that are not in communion with St. Peter's chair) the context of time has a different dispensation.
Unlike their ancestors who were the original detractors most Protestants and schismoatics are not conciously rejecting the fullness of the faith. In fact having grown up in their communities they love Jesus wholeheartedly, strive to worship Him fully, and believe that they are doing their best. They have no knowledge about the complex theological diffrences between them and the fullness of the faith. Those who do come to study differences between Catholics and themselves more than likely sincerely do not connect with them or do not feel that the issues are salvation related.
How do you begin to fathom that the delcaration of nearly a thousand years ago addressing often militant detractors from the true faith applies in the same way to innocent generations who have come to know Christ within the limits of the sects they were born into?
Love it lighthammer and the orcs ::noworries::
I was going to write a similar piece you said, yesterday but declined. So maybe I'll say and add
that those outside the church were those who rejected the teachings of Christ, so it was easier to simply say that those outside the church were not saved. Maybe they did not understand that there were people who loved christ outside the church.
Trouble is that its the orcs that enjoy using the sword
The Albigensian Crusade
[change]Methods
The Pope ordered a crusade against the Cathars in southern France. He said any crusader who answered the call would be given the same rewards as a crusader who went to the Holy Land. This was an absolution of all sin.
In the Launguedoc, on the 22nd of July 1209, a force of about 30,000 Crusaders arrived at the walls of Beziers bearing the cross pattee to mislead and create ease among the Cathars, thinking they were friend, not foe, and demanded that about 200 Cathars be surrendered. The people of the town who were mostly Catholic, said that rather than turn over their friends and family, "we would rather be flayed alive."
A mistake by the defenders of Beziers let thousands of attackers in. Arnauld Amaury made the famous quote "Kill them all, god knows his own" on being asked how to tell who were Cathars during the assault. Everyone in the town was killed, some while taking refuge in the church. It is guessed that 20,000 were killed, many of whom were Catholics and not Cathars at all. The crusade became known as the Albigensian crusade after the town of Albi. It was to wipe out the Cathars almost entirely over forty or so years. The Crusaders wanted to go home, but were ordered by the Pope to continue until the whole South of France was controlled and all Cathars were dead. In 1210, they attacked the fortress at Minerv and built "the first great bonfire of heretics" - beginning the practice of burning at the stake that would continue in the Inquisition of the Counter-Reformation. It is interesting to note that at the siege of Montsegur when the fires were lit the Cathars ran down the hill and threw themselves on, as their beliefs were very strong.
: FireSword Fri Oct 26, 2012 - 15:40:06
Trouble is that its the orcs that enjoy using the sword
The Albigensian Crusade
[change]Methods
The Pope ordered a crusade against the Cathars in southern France. He said any crusader who answered the call would be given the same rewards as a crusader who went to the Holy Land. This was an absolution of all sin.
In the Launguedoc, on the 22nd of July 1209, a force of about 30,000 Crusaders arrived at the walls of Beziers bearing the cross pattee to mislead and create ease among the Cathars, thinking they were friend, not foe, and demanded that about 200 Cathars be surrendered. The people of the town who were mostly Catholic, said that rather than turn over their friends and family, "we would rather be flayed alive."
A mistake by the defenders of Beziers let thousands of attackers in. Arnauld Amaury made the famous quote "Kill them all, god knows his own" on being asked how to tell who were Cathars during the assault. Everyone in the town was killed, some while taking refuge in the church. It is guessed that 20,000 were killed, many of whom were Catholics and not Cathars at all. The crusade became known as the Albigensian crusade after the town of Albi. It was to wipe out the Cathars almost entirely over forty or so years. The Crusaders wanted to go home, but were ordered by the Pope to continue until the whole South of France was controlled and all Cathars were dead. In 1210, they attacked the fortress at Minerv and built "the first great bonfire of heretics" - beginning the practice of burning at the stake that would continue in the Inquisition of the Counter-Reformation. It is interesting to note that at the siege of Montsegur when the fires were lit the Cathars ran down the hill and threw themselves on, as their beliefs were very strong.
I know this may be hard to digest as you have not done extensive study of the world as a whole during this Middle Ages but in all honesty a city or group of 20,000 is favourable to what the lords would have done if the Church did not act first.
If you simply take a few weeks or days to review the context of the time you will see why the Church decided to call a crusade on its on European lands rather than let the feudel authorities handle the growing threat the gnostic Cathars presented to their cultural stability.
NO I am not saying that the Cathar situation was handled correctly or even as well as it could have but I will say it could have been a lot worse.
: LightHammer Fri Oct 26, 2012 - 14:40:05The issue here is that you have infact cited a papal bull addressing an archaic audience in an archaic point in time.
Oh, there are numerous infallible papal statements I can site regarding the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. No, the
issue here is whether Catholics must believe a dogma as it was once declared. Does a dogma of the Church become obsolete? When does a Catholic dogma no longer become binding upon the faithful? These questions are absolutely relevant in understanding what a Catholic must accept or reject in order to remain inside the Church. How do you address these questions – can you provide a definite and Catholic answer?
There is only one way to believe dogma:
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: "
Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."
This definition of the First Vatican Council must be pointed out for sake of dogmatic clarity. Dogmas don't change; they don't progress or become obsolete.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
"
The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself."-
Condemned Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
"
The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy,
as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel."-
CondemnedBefore I get into the other things you mention such as the false idea of "invincible ignorance" or the error of referring to the word "heretic" as being derogatory word, I would prefer if you would first address these points made regarding dogma.
Thanks.
Jane
: Jane_doe Sat Oct 27, 2012 - 18:07:32
: LightHammer Fri Oct 26, 2012 - 14:40:05The issue here is that you have infact cited a papal bull addressing an archaic audience in an archaic point in time.
Oh, there are numerous infallible papal statements I can site regarding the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. No, the issue here is whether Catholics must believe a dogma as it was once declared. Does a dogma of the Church become obsolete? When does a Catholic dogma no longer become binding upon the faithful? These questions are absolutely relevant in understanding what a Catholic must accept or reject in order to remain inside the Church. How do you address these questions – can you provide a definite and Catholic answer?
There is only one way to believe dogma:
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: "Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."
This definition of the First Vatican Council must be pointed out for sake of dogmatic clarity. Dogmas don't change; they don't progress or become obsolete.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
"The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself."- Condemned
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
"The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel."- Condemned
Before I get into the other things you mention such as the false idea of "invincible ignorance" or the error of referring to the word "heretic" as being derogatory word, I would prefer if you would first address these points made regarding dogma.
Thanks.
Jane
Sorry about the late response. I am fairly busy this semester. I wonder if you're a Sedevacantist. Putting that aside, from your latest response it seems as though your question has taken a twist. Originally you asked if I believed in Cantatae Domino, which seemed to imply if I believed that only Catholics are saved. I affirmed my subscription to Cantatae Domino while rejecting any notion of claiming whether or not nonCatholics are saved or not.
As you seem to be passionate about this topic I am sure you are aware that Cantatae Domino was a statement issued
ferendae sententiae, that is to be directed at those who have actively apostacized. So while you may not wish to deal with the issue at hand the point of Invicably Ignorant does play an essential role in dealing with nonCatholics.
No salvation outside of the Church does not extend to those who are baptized properly but who are never fully initiated. It never has.
This belief has endured within the history of the Church with every major heresy that has ever come. I recommend strongly that you review the work of St. Jerome from the 4th century entitled The Dialogue Against the Luciferans. It goes straight to the heart of this issue.
: LightHammer Tue Oct 04, 2011 - 12:51:30
While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.
Ok so here we go.
I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.
Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.
Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.
So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:33:36
: LightHammer Tue Oct 04, 2011 - 12:51:30
While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.
Ok so here we go.
I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.
Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.
Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.
So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?
I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.
No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.
I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.
You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.
You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.
If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:55:36
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:33:36
: LightHammer Tue Oct 04, 2011 - 12:51:30
While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.
Ok so here we go.
I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.
Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.
Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.
So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?
I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.
No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.
I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.
You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.
You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.
If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.
Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION. My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers. I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls. I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:21:58
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:55:36
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:33:36
: LightHammer Tue Oct 04, 2011 - 12:51:30
While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.
Ok so here we go.
I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.
Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.
Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.
So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?
I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.
No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.
I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.
You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.
You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.
If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.
Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION. My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers. I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls. I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.
And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass. The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.
: Ladonia Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:37:03
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:21:58
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:55:36
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:33:36
: LightHammer Tue Oct 04, 2011 - 12:51:30
While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.
Ok so here we go.
I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.
Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.
Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.
So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?
I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.
No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.
I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.
You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.
You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.
If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.
Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION. My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers. I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls. I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.
And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass. The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.
No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended. That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches. I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care. I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:43:08
: Ladonia Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:37:03
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:21:58
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:55:36
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:33:36
: LightHammer Tue Oct 04, 2011 - 12:51:30
While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.
Ok so here we go.
I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.
Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.
Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.
So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?
I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.
No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.
I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.
You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.
You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.
If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.
Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION. My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers. I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls. I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.
And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass. The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.
No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended. That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches. I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care. I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.
I'm not going to accuse you of being a liar but I will say that I don't entirely believe you. Either way this thread is not meant for investigting your personal life.
What has been referenced in my posts are accounts derived exclusively from scripture. This may seem repetitive but thats kind of what happens when you have to continuously present a truth over 2000 years old. Christ only founded one community. That community was then and is now a body of believers. Notice what you unites them is what they believe. Your community and my community are not united by what we believe.
You will also notice in scripture that Christ established a leadership that was preserved after He ascended to Heaven. That one leadership governed His flock, instituted obligatory rules for living the Christian life and they alone were given the duty to rightly interpret the teachings of Christ.
Your community and my community are not united under a single leadership. If your community has a leadership I am positive that such leadership did not come into being until the later part of the middle ages in western Europe. Whereas mine goes back to Christ.
You can try to trivialize the meaning of "body of believers" into some liberal definition that seeks to include every single person that believes something as basic as Jesus Christ was a really existed (and exists). However what you have is no longer Christianity but a bunch of people who agree on a certain topic.
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 18:37:19
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:43:08
: Ladonia Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:37:03
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:21:58
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:55:36
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:33:36
: LightHammer Tue Oct 04, 2011 - 12:51:30
While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.
Ok so here we go.
I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.
Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.
Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.
So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?
I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.
No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.
I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.
You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.
You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.
If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.
Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION. My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers. I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls. I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.
And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass. The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.
No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended. That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches. I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care. I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.
I'm not going to accuse you of being a liar but I will say that I don't entirely believe you. Either way this thread is not meant for investigting your personal life.
What has been referenced in my posts are accounts derived exclusively from scripture. This may seem repetitive but thats kind of what happens when you have to continuously present a truth over 2000 years old. Christ only founded one community. That community was then and is now a body of believers. Notice what you unites them is what they believe. Your community and my community are not united by what we believe.
You will also notice in scripture that Christ established a leadership that was preserved after He ascended to Heaven. That one leadership governed His flock, instituted obligatory rules for living the Christian life and they alone were given the duty to rightly interpret the teachings of Christ.
Your community and my community are not united under a single leadership. If your community has a leadership I am positive that such leadership did not come into being until the later part of the middle ages in western Europe. Whereas mine goes back to Christ.
You can try to trivialize the meaning of "body of believers" into some liberal definition that seeks to include every single person that believes something as basic as Jesus Christ was a really existed (and exists). However what you have is no longer Christianity but a bunch of people who agree on a certain topic.
Dear lady, I couldnt care LESS if you believe me or not but you'd better not DARE to call me a liar. No, those are your OPINIONS of accounts derived exclusively from scripture. Jesus DID found a community of the body of believers and it is called the Church and not the Roman Catholic Church. The Church is united under the leadership of Jesus. No one is trivializing the Church unless it is you. Christianity IS a bunch of people agreeing that Jesus Christ is Lord. That does not, necessarily, include the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 20:24:59
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 18:37:19
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:43:08
: Ladonia Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:37:03
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:21:58
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:55:36
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:33:36
: LightHammer Tue Oct 04, 2011 - 12:51:30
While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.
Ok so here we go.
I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.
Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.
Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.
So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?
I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.
No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.
I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.
You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.
You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.
If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.
Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION. My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers. I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls. I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.
And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass. The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.
No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended. That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches. I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care. I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.
I'm not going to accuse you of being a liar but I will say that I don't entirely believe you. Either way this thread is not meant for investigting your personal life.
What has been referenced in my posts are accounts derived exclusively from scripture. This may seem repetitive but thats kind of what happens when you have to continuously present a truth over 2000 years old. Christ only founded one community. That community was then and is now a body of believers. Notice what you unites them is what they believe. Your community and my community are not united by what we believe.
You will also notice in scripture that Christ established a leadership that was preserved after He ascended to Heaven. That one leadership governed His flock, instituted obligatory rules for living the Christian life and they alone were given the duty to rightly interpret the teachings of Christ.
Your community and my community are not united under a single leadership. If your community has a leadership I am positive that such leadership did not come into being until the later part of the middle ages in western Europe. Whereas mine goes back to Christ.
You can try to trivialize the meaning of "body of believers" into some liberal definition that seeks to include every single person that believes something as basic as Jesus Christ was a really existed (and exists). However what you have is no longer Christianity but a bunch of people who agree on a certain topic.
Dear lady, I couldnt care LESS if you believe me or not but you'd better not DARE to call me a liar. No, those are your OPINIONS of accounts derived exclusively from scripture. Jesus DID found a community of the body of believers and it is called the Church and not the Roman Catholic Church. The Church is united under the leadership of Jesus. No one is trivializing the Church unless it is you. Christianity IS a bunch of people agreeing that Jesus Christ is Lord. That does not, necessarily, include the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Calm down you're on the Internet even if I did "DARE" to insult you there wouldn't be much you could do to give your threats teeth. Either way I didn't intend to insinuate that you were lying (which is why I London said that). I'm simply saying that your story sounds bogus. I don't believe that any Catholic clergy or layman said that Christ did not die for our sins on the cross. The story is just too unbelievable. Whether or not you're sincere is irrelevant. I simply don't believe your story.
Also Jesus never named His church Church so no that's not what it's called. That church named it self the Catholic Church first in Greece during the Great Persecution when Christians were being slaughtered.
Furthermore Christ said, antithetical to your claim, that not everyone who calls him Lord would be counted among the number of His saints. So no Christianity "IS" NOT a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord. For goodness sake, that flimsy definition would include Muslims who believe Jesus was the second greatest man to ever live. More noble than the Sultan, they revere him as a coming Lord who will lead the world into peace. Your definition makes them Christians too. There are Buddhists who also share this sentiment. Christians too huh? Hindus would bow to Christ as a manifestation of God. Christians too ey?
Your definition is shallow and therefore half of the world could assume the honor of being called Christian.
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 23:21:54
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 20:24:59
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 18:37:19
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:43:08
: Ladonia Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:37:03
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:21:58
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:55:36
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:33:36
: LightHammer Tue Oct 04, 2011 - 12:51:30
While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.
Ok so here we go.
I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.
Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.
Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.
So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?
I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.
No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.
I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.
You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.
You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.
If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.
Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION. My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers. I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls. I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.
And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass. The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.
No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended. That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches. I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care. I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.
I'm not going to accuse you of being a liar but I will say that I don't entirely believe you. Either way this thread is not meant for investigting your personal life.
What has been referenced in my posts are accounts derived exclusively from scripture. This may seem repetitive but thats kind of what happens when you have to continuously present a truth over 2000 years old. Christ only founded one community. That community was then and is now a body of believers. Notice what you unites them is what they believe. Your community and my community are not united by what we believe.
You will also notice in scripture that Christ established a leadership that was preserved after He ascended to Heaven. That one leadership governed His flock, instituted obligatory rules for living the Christian life and they alone were given the duty to rightly interpret the teachings of Christ.
Your community and my community are not united under a single leadership. If your community has a leadership I am positive that such leadership did not come into being until the later part of the middle ages in western Europe. Whereas mine goes back to Christ.
You can try to trivialize the meaning of "body of believers" into some liberal definition that seeks to include every single person that believes something as basic as Jesus Christ was a really existed (and exists). However what you have is no longer Christianity but a bunch of people who agree on a certain topic.
Dear lady, I couldnt care LESS if you believe me or not but you'd better not DARE to call me a liar. No, those are your OPINIONS of accounts derived exclusively from scripture. Jesus DID found a community of the body of believers and it is called the Church and not the Roman Catholic Church. The Church is united under the leadership of Jesus. No one is trivializing the Church unless it is you. Christianity IS a bunch of people agreeing that Jesus Christ is Lord. That does not, necessarily, include the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Calm down you're on the Internet even if I did "DARE" to insult you there wouldn't be much you could do to give your threats teeth. Either way I didn't intend to insinuate that you were lying (which is why I London said that). I'm simply saying that your story sounds bogus. I don't believe that any Catholic clergy or layman said that Christ did not die for our sins on the cross. The story is just too unbelievable. Whether or not you're sincere is irrelevant. I simply don't believe your story.
Also Jesus never named His church Church so no that's not what it's called. That church named it self the Catholic Church first in Greece during the Great Persecution when Christians were being slaughtered.
Furthermore Christ said, antithetical to your claim, that not everyone who calls him Lord would be counted among the number of His saints. So no Christianity "IS" NOT a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord. For goodness sake, that flimsy definition would include Muslims who believe Jesus was the second greatest man to ever live. More noble than the Sultan, they revere him as a coming Lord who will lead the world into peace. Your definition makes them Christians too. There are Buddhists who also share this sentiment. Christians too huh? Hindus would bow to Christ as a manifestation of God. Christians too ey?
Your definition is shallow and therefore half of the world could assume the honor of being called Christian.
So, who's excited? You just did it again tho, my story sounds bogus? Well, arent you the insulting little girl now. Where did you see a threat? I think you have a comprehension problem. As I said, I dont care whether or not you believe my story. Your opinion is irrelevant. I told the truth and your calling me a liar is a bunch of *rap. More of your failure to comprehend the written word. I never said Christianity is "a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord." Quit putting your lies in my mouth. I said that the Church is ALL true believers in Jesus Christ and His atoning blood. BTW, It's YOUR RCC that says Muslims can go to Heaven and that all paths lead to God.
Your words are hollow and definately said just to disparage anyone that isnt a Roman Catholic.
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:43:08
: Ladonia Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:37:03
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:21:58
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:55:36
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:33:36
: LightHammer Tue Oct 04, 2011 - 12:51:30
While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.
Ok so here we go.
I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.
Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.
Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.
So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?
I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.
No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.
I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.
You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.
You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.
If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.
Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION. My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers. I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls. I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.
And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass. The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.
No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended. That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches. I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care. I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.
Rome already knows what I told you, as it is them who has passed this teaching down to the faithful through the local parishes. I have been a Catholic all my life, gone to the parochial school system and I have friends who are members of religious orders and have never heard anyone in all that time claim what you are claiming. The Mass is the defacto acknowledement of salvation through Christ and the Cross and EVERY adherent of the Latin Rite of Christianity knows this.
Here is the teaching of the Catholic Church about Christ and salvation as written in the catechism :
430 Jesus means in Hebrew: "God saves." At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission.18 Since God alone can forgive sins, it is God who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, "will save his people from their sins."19 In Jesus, God recapitulates all of his history of salvation on behalf of men. (210, 402
And also this:
619 "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3).
620 Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).
621 Jesus freely offered himself for our salvation. Beforehand, during the Last Supper, he both symbolized this offering and made it really present: "This is my body which is given for you" (Lk 22:19).
622 The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers"(1 Pet 1:18).
Is that clear enough for you?
Similar words are used in the Mass. I don't have the new translation but these are from the one we used pre-2011:
"Father, calling to mind the death your son endured for our salvation...." (Eucharistic prayer III)
And one of the "aclamations" we make is:
"Lord, by your cross and resurrection you have set us free. You are the Saviour of the world"
And "By suffering on the cross he freed us from unending death, and by rising from the dead he gave us eternal life" (Preface of Sundays on Ordinary Time II)
I think part of the problem with these disputes over what some people said is that we don't actually know what was said, or what was said that they responded to - exactly. There is no verbatim record.
We only have interpretations filtered through someone's theological perspective.
To keep it simple:
If someone asked me did Jesus die on the cross for our salvation I would say yes.
If someone asked me did Jesus dies on the cross in punishment for my sins I would say no. But a Protestant might hear that as me denying that Jesus died for my sins.
We have different beliefs regarding how the atonement works. A statement might be correct under one theology but incorrect under another. The problem is then transferred to whose theology is correct.
Also the person asked a question might understand it differently from their theological perspective than the questioner meant from their theological perspective.
If we stuck to what the Catholic Church officially teaches we are on better grounds that what we think some Catholic said on some matter.
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 00:02:21
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 23:21:54
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 20:24:59
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 18:37:19
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:43:08
: Ladonia Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:37:03
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 14:21:58
: LightHammer Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:55:36
: Stucky Sat Feb 02, 2013 - 13:33:36
: LightHammer Tue Oct 04, 2011 - 12:51:30
While I was going through the older threads in the Catholic Forum, I found two threads entitled like this one. I really enjoyed the entire flow of the thread and thought maybe doing another one like it we could at ease the animus that's been going on.
Ok so here we go.
I'm LightHammer and one of my passions is for there to be better understanding between Christians in regards to our diverse beliefs. In the spirit of understanding I am opening this thread as a place where any and all Christians can ask questions about Catholicism.
Please note that this is not a debating thread and as such please refrain from trying to spark any. You have the entire Catholic Forum and the recently created Debate Forum to do that. Basically if you don't want to understand Catholicism don't get involved.
Also please note that I am a simple laymen in my parish. While I believe I am well versed in my faith I know that I don't have all the answers. So I really want the others to get involved.
So God bless you and feel free to ask whatever questions come to mind.
Respectully, where in the Bible does it say that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, TRUE church?
I think its right next to where it mentions the Trinity and a biblical canon.
No but in all honesty I don't think I can demonstrate this to you because you honestly don't want to see it and thats fine right now. You are simply at your own place with your faith. Its completely egotistic.
I'm sure you can read and you can see where Christ has one single flock led by one single group of leaders led by one man named Peter. I don't think you require me to spoon feed you age old arguments about ecclesiology or represent the same verses pertinent to the same.
You know Christ founded one community and one community only. You know that their unity was based on a common belief system, a common Christ-established leadership, shared communal gatherings and common religious devotions.
You are also compotent enough to know that because your community and my community do not share any of these things then both communities can not possibly both respresentative of the Church. One of us is truly the Church while one or both of us are not.
If you ask me where Rome gets her legitimacy as apart of the true Church I will tell you simply to check your version of the Bible that you claim to love so deeply. The Roman Church, tried and true, has an entire book of scripture which bears her name; written by the faithful Paul himself.
Okay, I appreciate you stating your OPINION. My opinion is that the Church is the body of true believers. I know many Catholics that actually deny that Jesus literally died on the cross for the salvation of our souls. I don't believe these Catholics are part of Jesus Church nor will they see Heaven but you are free to believe they will if you wish, no matter what Scripture says.
And who are these Catholics who deny this truth of Christ and the Cross of salvation? That is what is preached at every Mass. The next time you talk to any of them you can tell them that the Catholic Church does indeed belive that and they had better start paying attention.
No, my dear, I am 70 years old and both my wives were Catholics, my children are also Catholics, most of my friends have been Catholic and I have attended more Catholic masses in my life than the Lutheran of my youth or other churches I have attended. That is what I have been told by some priests, nuns and parishoners of various Catholic churches. I dont keep a record of all the people I have spoken with in my life and if you choose not to believe me I dont really care. I would advise YOU to go to Rome and speak with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and tell THEM that.
I'm not going to accuse you of being a liar but I will say that I don't entirely believe you. Either way this thread is not meant for investigting your personal life.
What has been referenced in my posts are accounts derived exclusively from scripture. This may seem repetitive but thats kind of what happens when you have to continuously present a truth over 2000 years old. Christ only founded one community. That community was then and is now a body of believers. Notice what you unites them is what they believe. Your community and my community are not united by what we believe.
You will also notice in scripture that Christ established a leadership that was preserved after He ascended to Heaven. That one leadership governed His flock, instituted obligatory rules for living the Christian life and they alone were given the duty to rightly interpret the teachings of Christ.
Your community and my community are not united under a single leadership. If your community has a leadership I am positive that such leadership did not come into being until the later part of the middle ages in western Europe. Whereas mine goes back to Christ.
You can try to trivialize the meaning of "body of believers" into some liberal definition that seeks to include every single person that believes something as basic as Jesus Christ was a really existed (and exists). However what you have is no longer Christianity but a bunch of people who agree on a certain topic.
Dear lady, I couldnt care LESS if you believe me or not but you'd better not DARE to call me a liar. No, those are your OPINIONS of accounts derived exclusively from scripture. Jesus DID found a community of the body of believers and it is called the Church and not the Roman Catholic Church. The Church is united under the leadership of Jesus. No one is trivializing the Church unless it is you. Christianity IS a bunch of people agreeing that Jesus Christ is Lord. That does not, necessarily, include the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Calm down you're on the Internet even if I did "DARE" to insult you there wouldn't be much you could do to give your threats teeth. Either way I didn't intend to insinuate that you were lying (which is why I London said that). I'm simply saying that your story sounds bogus. I don't believe that any Catholic clergy or layman said that Christ did not die for our sins on the cross. The story is just too unbelievable. Whether or not you're sincere is irrelevant. I simply don't believe your story.
Also Jesus never named His church Church so no that's not what it's called. That church named it self the Catholic Church first in Greece during the Great Persecution when Christians were being slaughtered.
Furthermore Christ said, antithetical to your claim, that not everyone who calls him Lord would be counted among the number of His saints. So no Christianity "IS" NOT a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord. For goodness sake, that flimsy definition would include Muslims who believe Jesus was the second greatest man to ever live. More noble than the Sultan, they revere him as a coming Lord who will lead the world into peace. Your definition makes them Christians too. There are Buddhists who also share this sentiment. Christians too huh? Hindus would bow to Christ as a manifestation of God. Christians too ey?
Your definition is shallow and therefore half of the world could assume the honor of being called Christian.
So, who's excited? You just did it again tho, my story sounds bogus? Well, arent you the insulting little girl now. Where did you see a threat? I think you have a comprehension problem. As I said, I dont care whether or not you believe my story. Your opinion is irrelevant. I told the truth and your calling me a liar is a bunch of *rap. More of your failure to comprehend the written word. I never said Christianity is "a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord." Quit putting your lies in my mouth. I said that the Church is ALL true believers in Jesus Christ and His atoning blood. BTW, It's YOUR RCC that says Muslims can go to Heaven and that all paths lead to God.
Your words are hollow and definately said just to disparage anyone that isnt a Roman Catholic.
1. I think you may be forgetting what you're posting. You did not say that "Christianity is ALL true believers in Jesus Christ and His atoning blood". What you said was and I quote " Christianity IS a bunch of people agreeing that Jesus Christ is Lord." unquote. The statements are obviously different.
2. Furthermore even your second statement which apparently is meant to be more concise is faulty. There are several people who call Christ Lord and believe He died for our sins but do not believe He was God or that He was simply a manifestation of God. Obviously people who disagree on a belief as basic as Jesus Christ's identity can not be one and the same Church (remember body of "believers") that He instituted.
3. If you're getting frustrated that's ok. If you think I'm being picky it's true. This is not a game my friend. Christianity is not some social club where people with a few things in common gather together for flimsy motivational speeches and singing. Christianity is a lifestyle. It is more solemn than national identity or blood ties in a family.
You can't just make up some half cocked definition that can include every random person who thinks Jesus Christ is cool or should be revered. That type of liberal spirituality is not what led the Church through multiple Great Persecutions, brought Europe out of the Dark Ages, cultivated men and women of honor and it most certainly is not reflective of the type of conviction that led Jesus Christ to walk tormented steps to die a cursed man's death on a tree.
So maybe you should reevaluate what Christianity, what a Christian is before you try to start arguments about what the Church is or is not.
Calm down you're on the Internet even if I did "DARE" to insult you there wouldn't be much you could do to give your threats teeth. Either way I didn't intend to insinuate that you were lying (which is why I London said that). I'm simply saying that your story sounds bogus. I don't believe that any Catholic clergy or layman said that Christ did not die for our sins on the cross. The story is just too unbelievable. Whether or not you're sincere is irrelevant. I simply don't believe your story.
Also Jesus never named His church Church so no that's not what it's called. That church named it self the Catholic Church first in Greece during the Great Persecution when Christians were being slaughtered.
Furthermore Christ said, antithetical to your claim, that not everyone who calls him Lord would be counted among the number of His saints. So no Christianity "IS" NOT a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord. For goodness sake, that flimsy definition would include Muslims who believe Jesus was the second greatest man to ever live. More noble than the Sultan, they revere him as a coming Lord who will lead the world into peace. Your definition makes them Christians too. There are Buddhists who also share this sentiment. Christians too huh? Hindus would bow to Christ as a manifestation of God. Christians too ey?
Your definition is shallow and therefore half of the world could assume the honor of being called Christian.
Lighthammer, the scripture says those who are baptized in christ are part of his body. Muslims do not baptize in the name of Jesus, Muslims do not believe that Father sent the Son to be the sacrifice of their sins. They do not believe he died on a cross. They preach another gospel, which Paul warned against. They deny Jesus as Gods Son.
A lot of people believe Jesus was a historical figure and the bible is a book of morals, that today is seen as outdated by many liberals, while others appreciate the values, but they do not have faith in God, or in Jesus, they do not trust him for eternal life, they live for today and believe life exists for average of 80 years.
: FireSword Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 18:13:03
Calm down you're on the Internet even if I did "DARE" to insult you there wouldn't be much you could do to give your threats teeth. Either way I didn't intend to insinuate that you were lying (which is why I London said that). I'm simply saying that your story sounds bogus. I don't believe that any Catholic clergy or layman said that Christ did not die for our sins on the cross. The story is just too unbelievable. Whether or not you're sincere is irrelevant. I simply don't believe your story.
Also Jesus never named His church Church so no that's not what it's called. That church named it self the Catholic Church first in Greece during the Great Persecution when Christians were being slaughtered.
Furthermore Christ said, antithetical to your claim, that not everyone who calls him Lord would be counted among the number of His saints. So no Christianity "IS" NOT a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord. For goodness sake, that flimsy definition would include Muslims who believe Jesus was the second greatest man to ever live. More noble than the Sultan, they revere him as a coming Lord who will lead the world into peace. Your definition makes them Christians too. There are Buddhists who also share this sentiment. Christians too huh? Hindus would bow to Christ as a manifestation of God. Christians too ey?
Your definition is shallow and therefore half of the world could assume the honor of being called Christian.
Lighthammer, the scripture says those who are baptized in christ are part of his body. Muslims do not baptize in the name of Jesus, Muslims do not believe that Father sent the Son to be the sacrifice of their sins. They do not believe he died on a cross. They preach another gospel, which Paul warned against. They deny Jesus as Gods Son.
A lot of people believe Jesus was a historical figure and the bible is a book of morals, that today is seen as outdated by many liberals, while others appreciate the values, but they do not have faith in God, or in Jesus, they do not trust him for eternal life, they live for today and believe life exists for average of 80 years.
::applause:: Excellent FireSword. ::preachit::
: FireSword Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 18:13:03
Calm down you're on the Internet even if I did "DARE" to insult you there wouldn't be much you could do to give your threats teeth. Either way I didn't intend to insinuate that you were lying (which is why I London said that). I'm simply saying that your story sounds bogus. I don't believe that any Catholic clergy or layman said that Christ did not die for our sins on the cross. The story is just too unbelievable. Whether or not you're sincere is irrelevant. I simply don't believe your story.
Also Jesus never named His church Church so no that's not what it's called. That church named it self the Catholic Church first in Greece during the Great Persecution when Christians were being slaughtered.
Furthermore Christ said, antithetical to your claim, that not everyone who calls him Lord would be counted among the number of His saints. So no Christianity "IS" NOT a bunch of people who simply recognize Jesus as Lord. For goodness sake, that flimsy definition would include Muslims who believe Jesus was the second greatest man to ever live. More noble than the Sultan, they revere him as a coming Lord who will lead the world into peace. Your definition makes them Christians too. There are Buddhists who also share this sentiment. Christians too huh? Hindus would bow to Christ as a manifestation of God. Christians too ey?
Your definition is shallow and therefore half of the world could assume the honor of being called Christian.
Lighthammer, the scripture says those who are baptized in christ are part of his body. Muslims do not baptize in the name of Jesus, Muslims do not believe that Father sent the Son to be the sacrifice of their sins. They do not believe he died on a cross. They preach another gospel, which Paul warned against. They deny Jesus as Gods Son.
A lot of people believe Jesus was a historical figure and the bible is a book of morals, that today is seen as outdated by many liberals, while others appreciate the values, but they do not have faith in God, or in Jesus, they do not trust him for eternal life, they live for today and believe life exists for average of 80 years.
How does that help this discussion?
I know what Islam lacks. My understanding of Islam is not what you quoted. What you quoted was how Stucky's shoot from the hip definition of Christianity includes those who are obstinately nonChristian and even antiChristian.
I was zealous for the truth, if I have given ammunition to your opponent I apologize. But he did seem to agree with my post, which might clarify his position.
: FireSword Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 18:56:12
I was zealous for the truth, if I have given ammunition to your opponent I apologize. But he did seem to agree with my post, which might clarify his position.
FireSword, MY definition of Christian is any person that believes that Jesus died for the payment of their sin debt. I believe it's the same definition of the Apostle Paul. ::smile::
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:05:57
: FireSword Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 18:56:12
I was zealous for the truth, if I have given ammunition to your opponent I apologize. But he did seem to agree with my post, which might clarify his position.
FireSword, MY definition of Christian is any person that believes that Jesus died for the payment of their sin debt. I believe it's the same definition of the Apostle Paul. ::smile::
Not exactly. There were plenty of men and women who St. Paul vehemently rejected as non Christians who believed that Jesus Christ died for us. There were those early Gnostics that believed Jesus Christ was a spiritual being who simply appeared to be a man. He rejected them outright in scripture from any commonality with the Church and they believed what you claim is all that is required to be a Christian.
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:25:04
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
So then, please do me the courtesy of going back one page to my post #99 where I have listed the actual teaching of the Catholic Church as written in the catechism as regards this matter.
You did not however mention the "works" idea before, but yes it is true that works are a part of salvation process as it is pointed out in the Scriptures many times over. It's not one nor the other, but both in my humble opinion.
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:50:33
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:25:04
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
So then, please do me the courtesy of going back one page to my post #99 where I have listed the actual teaching of the Catholic Church as written in the catechism as regards this matter.
You did not however mention the "works" idea before, but yes it is true that works are a part of salvation process as it is pointed out in the Scriptures many times over. It's not one nor the other, but both in my humble opinion.
::smile:: You're gonna love this Ladonia. Is this what you believe?
Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church is often confused with true biblical Christianity. Many distinct and serious differences exist between the two entities. What are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that distinguish it from biblical Christianity? Lengthy books have been written on this subject, but as an overview some of the differences in doctrine are outlined below with Scripture references to validate the biblical teaching. [1]
The differences are great and for the most part the Catholic Church would fall into the false religion category. This analysis is not intended to offend good Catholic people, but rather to point out how vastly different the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is from the gospel of Rome. It is up to each individual to study what they are being taught in light of the Bible, God's inerrant Word.
Roman Catholicism Teaches:
The Bishops, with the Pope as their head, rule the universal church.
God has entrusted revelation to the bishops.
The Pope is infallible in his teaching.
Scripture and tradition together are the Word of God.
Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption.
Mary is the co-mediator, to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions.
Initial justification is by means of baptism.
Adults must prepare for justification through faith and good works.
Grace is merited by: good works.
Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments.
No one can know if he will attain to eternal life.
The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
Christ's body and blood exist wholly and entirely in every fragment of consecrated bread and wine in every Roman Catholic Church around the world.
The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Each sacrifice of the Mass appeases God's wrath against sin.
The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the sacrifice of the Mass.
Biblical Teaching
Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church (Colossians 1:18).
God has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19; Acts 17:11).
Scripture alone is the Word of God (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 peter 1:20-21), Mark 7:1-13).
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:13-14; 1 Peter 5:7).
Justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28).
God justifies ungodly sinners who believe (Romans 4:5). Good works are the result of salvation, not the cause (Ephesians 2:8-10).
Grace is a free gift (Romans 11:6).
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:10).
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit who indwells believers (1 John 5:13; Romans 8:16).
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and He is bodily present in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Hebrews 10:12-13).
The sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18).
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 1:3).
No amount of self-punishment or efforts can atone our sins. Our sins have already been punished fully in the body of Jesus. Only His finished work satisfies God. One must let go of the false teaching that God needs our help to wash away your sins. Jesus alone is the propitiation for our sins.
In many instances the doctrines of the Catholic Church were slowly adopted over many years as various popes issued decrees. In most cases, the doctrines are not even based on Scripture, but on a document of the church. Most Roman Catholics consider themselves to be Christians and are unaware of the differences between their beliefs and the Bible. Tragically, the Roman Catholic Church has championed that ignorance by discouraging personal study of the Bible and making the people reliant on the priests for their understanding of the Bible, which is the direct opposite of what the Holy Bible teaches, not the altered Catholic "bible." God commands us to study his Word and correctly interpret it.
"These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
Notes
[1] http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html)
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:00:34
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:50:33
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:25:04
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
So then, please do me the courtesy of going back one page to my post #99 where I have listed the actual teaching of the Catholic Church as written in the catechism as regards this matter.
You did not however mention the "works" idea before, but yes it is true that works are a part of salvation process as it is pointed out in the Scriptures many times over. It's not one nor the other, but both in my humble opinion.
::smile:: You're gonna love this Ladonia. Is this what you believe?
Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church is often confused with true biblical Christianity. Many distinct and serious differences exist between the two entities. What are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that distinguish it from biblical Christianity? Lengthy books have been written on this subject, but as an overview some of the differences in doctrine are outlined below with Scripture references to validate the biblical teaching. [1]
The differences are great and for the most part the Catholic Church would fall into the false religion category. This analysis is not intended to offend good Catholic people, but rather to point out how vastly different the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is from the gospel of Rome. It is up to each individual to study what they are being taught in light of the Bible, God's inerrant Word.
Roman Catholicism Teaches:
The Bishops, with the Pope as their head, rule the universal church.
God has entrusted revelation to the bishops.
The Pope is infallible in his teaching.
Scripture and tradition together are the Word of God.
Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption.
Mary is the co-mediator, to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions.
Initial justification is by means of baptism.
Adults must prepare for justification through faith and good works.
Grace is merited by: good works.
Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments.
No one can know if he will attain to eternal life.
The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
Christ's body and blood exist wholly and entirely in every fragment of consecrated bread and wine in every Roman Catholic Church around the world.
The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Each sacrifice of the Mass appeases God's wrath against sin.
The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the sacrifice of the Mass.
Biblical Teaching
Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church (Colossians 1:18).
God has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19; Acts 17:11).
Scripture alone is the Word of God (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 peter 1:20-21), Mark 7:1-13).
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:13-14; 1 Peter 5:7).
Justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28).
God justifies ungodly sinners who believe (Romans 4:5). Good works are the result of salvation, not the cause (Ephesians 2:8-10).
Grace is a free gift (Romans 11:6).
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:10).
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit who indwells believers (1 John 5:13; Romans 8:16).
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and He is bodily present in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Hebrews 10:12-13).
The sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18).
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 1:3).
No amount of self-punishment or efforts can atone our sins. Our sins have already been punished fully in the body of Jesus. Only His finished work satisfies God. One must let go of the false teaching that God needs our help to wash away your sins. Jesus alone is the propitiation for our sins.
In many instances the doctrines of the Catholic Church were slowly adopted over many years as various popes issued decrees. In most cases, the doctrines are not even based on Scripture, but on a document of the church. Most Roman Catholics consider themselves to be Christians and are unaware of the differences between their beliefs and the Bible. Tragically, the Roman Catholic Church has championed that ignorance by discouraging personal study of the Bible and making the people reliant on the priests for their understanding of the Bible, which is the direct opposite of what the Holy Bible teaches, not the altered Catholic "bible." God commands us to study his Word and correctly interpret it.
"These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
Notes
[1] http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html)
Perfect! From a totally un-biased source I see. Now, if you could comment on my post #99 from the Holy Catholic Church on salvation. (Thanks in advance!)
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:50:33
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:25:04
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
So then, please do me the courtesy of going back one page to my post #99 where I have listed the actual teaching of the Catholic Church as written in the catechism as regards this matter.
You did not however mention the "works" idea before, but yes it is true that works are a part of salvation process as it is pointed out in the Scriptures many times over. It's not one nor the other, but both in my humble opinion.
::noworries:: You dont give up do you dear? I dont know what you want me to comment on? I read it, and?
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:50:33
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:25:04
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
So then, please do me the courtesy of going back one page to my post #99 where I have listed the actual teaching of the Catholic Church as written in the catechism as regards this matter.
You did not however mention the "works" idea before, but yes it is true that works are a part of salvation process as it is pointed out in the Scriptures many times over. It's not one nor the other, but both in my humble opinion.
::noworries:: You dont give up do you dear? I dont know what you want me to comment on? I read it, and?
And you either agree or disagree with those words as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches as regards salvation. (And please don't call me "dear", my wife is the jealous type. Brother or friend would do just fine) LOL
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:39:23
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:50:33
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:25:04
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
So then, please do me the courtesy of going back one page to my post #99 where I have listed the actual teaching of the Catholic Church as written in the catechism as regards this matter.
You did not however mention the "works" idea before, but yes it is true that works are a part of salvation process as it is pointed out in the Scriptures many times over. It's not one nor the other, but both in my humble opinion.
::noworries:: You dont give up do you dear? I dont know what you want me to comment on? I read it, and?
And you either agree or disagree with those words as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches as regards salvation. (And please don't call me "dear", my wife is the jealous type. Brother or friend would do just fine) LOL
::noworries:: Sorry dude, Ladonia is a girls name where I live. No, I disagree that faith must be accompanied by worls to save someone. My belief, based on my interpretation of Scripture, after prayerful study and the clarification of the Holy Spirit, is that salvation is based on faith alone, period, no more, no less.
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:44:49
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:39:23
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:50:33
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:25:04
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
So then, please do me the courtesy of going back one page to my post #99 where I have listed the actual teaching of the Catholic Church as written in the catechism as regards this matter.
You did not however mention the "works" idea before, but yes it is true that works are a part of salvation process as it is pointed out in the Scriptures many times over. It's not one nor the other, but both in my humble opinion.
::noworries:: You dont give up do you dear? I dont know what you want me to comment on? I read it, and?
And you either agree or disagree with those words as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches as regards salvation. (And please don't call me "dear", my wife is the jealous type. Brother or friend would do just fine) LOL
::noworries:: Sorry dude, Ladonia is a girls name where I live. No, I disagree that faith must be accompanied by worls to save someone. My belief, based on my interpretation of Scripture, after prayerful study and the clarification of the Holy Spirit, is that salvation is based on faith alone, period, no more, no less.
And that is a belief shared by many. However, the many biblical exhortations include both the works and faith idea. You can have all the faith you want that Jesus saved you, but if you live a life of debaucherry and no good Jesus will say to you on that fateful day and I paraphrase: "Away from me Satan, I do not know you" or "What you did not do to the least of them, you did not do to me". So faith AND works do go together, otherwise they would not have both been mentioned.
But I can respect your opinion, coming as you do from a different standpoint of the Christian experience. God bless.
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:15:27
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:44:49
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:39:23
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:50:33
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:25:04
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
So then, please do me the courtesy of going back one page to my post #99 where I have listed the actual teaching of the Catholic Church as written in the catechism as regards this matter.
You did not however mention the "works" idea before, but yes it is true that works are a part of salvation process as it is pointed out in the Scriptures many times over. It's not one nor the other, but both in my humble opinion.
::noworries:: You dont give up do you dear? I dont know what you want me to comment on? I read it, and?
And you either agree or disagree with those words as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches as regards salvation. (And please don't call me "dear", my wife is the jealous type. Brother or friend would do just fine) LOL
::noworries:: Sorry dude, Ladonia is a girls name where I live. No, I disagree that faith must be accompanied by worls to save someone. My belief, based on my interpretation of Scripture, after prayerful study and the clarification of the Holy Spirit, is that salvation is based on faith alone, period, no more, no less.
And that is a belief shared by many. However, the many biblical exhortations include both the works and faith idea. You can have all the faith you want that Jesus saved you, but if you live a life of debaucherry and no good Jesus will say to you on that fateful day and I paraphrase: "Away from me Satan, I do not know you" or "What you did not do to the least of them, you did not do to me". So faith AND works do go together, otherwise they would not have both been mentioned.
But I can respect your opinion, coming as you do from a different standpoint of the Christian experience. God bless.
We're not done Ladonia, unless you need to leave.
Exactly what sins did Jesus not forgive on the cross?
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:15:27
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:44:49
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:39:23
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:50:33
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:25:04
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
So then, please do me the courtesy of going back one page to my post #99 where I have listed the actual teaching of the Catholic Church as written in the catechism as regards this matter.
You did not however mention the "works" idea before, but yes it is true that works are a part of salvation process as it is pointed out in the Scriptures many times over. It's not one nor the other, but both in my humble opinion.
::noworries:: You dont give up do you dear? I dont know what you want me to comment on? I read it, and?
And you either agree or disagree with those words as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches as regards salvation. (And please don't call me "dear", my wife is the jealous type. Brother or friend would do just fine) LOL
::noworries:: Sorry dude, Ladonia is a girls name where I live. No, I disagree that faith must be accompanied by worls to save someone. My belief, based on my interpretation of Scripture, after prayerful study and the clarification of the Holy Spirit, is that salvation is based on faith alone, period, no more, no less.
And that is a belief shared by many. However, the many biblical exhortations include both the works and faith idea. You can have all the faith you want that Jesus saved you, but if you live a life of debaucherry and no good Jesus will say to you on that fateful day and I paraphrase: "Away from me Satan, I do not know you" or "What you did not do to the least of them, you did not do to me". So faith AND works do go together, otherwise they would not have both been mentioned.
But I can respect your opinion, coming as you do from a different standpoint of the Christian experience. God bless.
We're not done Ladonia, unless you need to leave.
Exactly what sins did Jesus not forgive on the cross?
There were none. Forgiveness of sins can always be found in the person of Christ. (Though I wouldn't want to blaspheme the Holy Spirit)
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:37:52
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:15:27
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:44:49
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:39:23
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:50:33
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:25:04
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
So then, please do me the courtesy of going back one page to my post #99 where I have listed the actual teaching of the Catholic Church as written in the catechism as regards this matter.
You did not however mention the "works" idea before, but yes it is true that works are a part of salvation process as it is pointed out in the Scriptures many times over. It's not one nor the other, but both in my humble opinion.
::noworries:: You dont give up do you dear? I dont know what you want me to comment on? I read it, and?
And you either agree or disagree with those words as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches as regards salvation. (And please don't call me "dear", my wife is the jealous type. Brother or friend would do just fine) LOL
::noworries:: Sorry dude, Ladonia is a girls name where I live. No, I disagree that faith must be accompanied by worls to save someone. My belief, based on my interpretation of Scripture, after prayerful study and the clarification of the Holy Spirit, is that salvation is based on faith alone, period, no more, no less.
And that is a belief shared by many. However, the many biblical exhortations include both the works and faith idea. You can have all the faith you want that Jesus saved you, but if you live a life of debaucherry and no good Jesus will say to you on that fateful day and I paraphrase: "Away from me Satan, I do not know you" or "What you did not do to the least of them, you did not do to me". So faith AND works do go together, otherwise they would not have both been mentioned.
But I can respect your opinion, coming as you do from a different standpoint of the Christian experience. God bless.
We're not done Ladonia, unless you need to leave.
Exactly what sins did Jesus not forgive on the cross?
There were none. Forgiveness of sins can always be found in the person of Christ. (Though I wouldn't want to blaspheme the Holy Spirit)
Then you are making my argument for me Ladonia. I am always going to sin, that is the way of humanity, but my acceptence of God's free gift of Grace, through my faith in the atoning blood of Jesus is all needs be done for my salvation.
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:46:00
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:37:52
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:15:27
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:44:49
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:39:23
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:50:33
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:25:04
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
So then, please do me the courtesy of going back one page to my post #99 where I have listed the actual teaching of the Catholic Church as written in the catechism as regards this matter.
You did not however mention the "works" idea before, but yes it is true that works are a part of salvation process as it is pointed out in the Scriptures many times over. It's not one nor the other, but both in my humble opinion.
::noworries:: You dont give up do you dear? I dont know what you want me to comment on? I read it, and?
And you either agree or disagree with those words as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches as regards salvation. (And please don't call me "dear", my wife is the jealous type. Brother or friend would do just fine) LOL
::noworries:: Sorry dude, Ladonia is a girls name where I live. No, I disagree that faith must be accompanied by worls to save someone. My belief, based on my interpretation of Scripture, after prayerful study and the clarification of the Holy Spirit, is that salvation is based on faith alone, period, no more, no less.
And that is a belief shared by many. However, the many biblical exhortations include both the works and faith idea. You can have all the faith you want that Jesus saved you, but if you live a life of debaucherry and no good Jesus will say to you on that fateful day and I paraphrase: "Away from me Satan, I do not know you" or "What you did not do to the least of them, you did not do to me". So faith AND works do go together, otherwise they would not have both been mentioned.
But I can respect your opinion, coming as you do from a different standpoint of the Christian experience. God bless.
We're not done Ladonia, unless you need to leave.
Exactly what sins did Jesus not forgive on the cross?
There were none. Forgiveness of sins can always be found in the person of Christ. (Though I wouldn't want to blaspheme the Holy Spirit)
Then you are making my argument for me Ladonia. I am always going to sin, that is the way of humanity, but my acceptence of God's free gift of Grace, through my faith in the atoning blood of Jesus is all needs be done for my salvation.
Well, of course, surely we have faith that that is true - if it is accepted by the individual. Salvation is given freely, it exists because of the sacrifice and anyone can avail themselves of it, but that does not negate that we as believers must have an active and positive role to play in actually achieving it. To those ends, that means obeying the Commandments as Jesus tells us to do and to us orthodox Christians, the acceptance of the sacraments as a way to live holy and pleasing lives to God.
But that then begs the question: Do you believe that you can lose your salvation?
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 23:25:58
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:46:00
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:37:52
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:15:27
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:44:49
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:39:23
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:50:33
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:25:04
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
So then, please do me the courtesy of going back one page to my post #99 where I have listed the actual teaching of the Catholic Church as written in the catechism as regards this matter.
You did not however mention the "works" idea before, but yes it is true that works are a part of salvation process as it is pointed out in the Scriptures many times over. It's not one nor the other, but both in my humble opinion.
::noworries:: You dont give up do you dear? I dont know what you want me to comment on? I read it, and?
And you either agree or disagree with those words as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches as regards salvation. (And please don't call me "dear", my wife is the jealous type. Brother or friend would do just fine) LOL
::noworries:: Sorry dude, Ladonia is a girls name where I live. No, I disagree that faith must be accompanied by worls to save someone. My belief, based on my interpretation of Scripture, after prayerful study and the clarification of the Holy Spirit, is that salvation is based on faith alone, period, no more, no less.
And that is a belief shared by many. However, the many biblical exhortations include both the works and faith idea. You can have all the faith you want that Jesus saved you, but if you live a life of debaucherry and no good Jesus will say to you on that fateful day and I paraphrase: "Away from me Satan, I do not know you" or "What you did not do to the least of them, you did not do to me". So faith AND works do go together, otherwise they would not have both been mentioned.
But I can respect your opinion, coming as you do from a different standpoint of the Christian experience. God bless.
We're not done Ladonia, unless you need to leave.
Exactly what sins did Jesus not forgive on the cross?
There were none. Forgiveness of sins can always be found in the person of Christ. (Though I wouldn't want to blaspheme the Holy Spirit)
Then you are making my argument for me Ladonia. I am always going to sin, that is the way of humanity, but my acceptence of God's free gift of Grace, through my faith in the atoning blood of Jesus is all needs be done for my salvation.
Well, of course, surely we have faith that that is true - if it is accepted by the individual. Salvation is given freely, it exists because of the sacrifice and anyone can avail themselves of it, but that does not negate that we as believers must have an active and positive role to play in actually achieving it. To those ends, that means obeying the Commandments as Jesus tells us to do and to us orthodox Christians, the acceptance of the sacraments as a way to live holy and pleasing lives to God.
But that then begs the question: Do you believe that you can lose your salvation?
Wait, back up a sec and then I'll answer your question. So, do you obey all the Ten Commandments without ever breaking one? Must you also partake of the sacraments to be forgiven? Are you therefore perfect as Jesus was? Why then did Jesus need to die in your place? No, once saved, always saved.
: Stucky Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 00:14:07
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 23:25:58
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:46:00
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:37:52
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 22:15:27
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:44:49
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:39:23
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:24:48
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:50:33
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:25:04
: Ladonia Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 20:19:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 19:48:16
Someone please explain to Lighthammer that if she/he is responding to me that I have him/her on ignore. He/she is wasting his/her time.
Hey Stucky, any comments on my post earlier clarifying what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation?
Ladonia, I'm not Catholic so I am not qualified to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation, however, as a non-Catholic, with many ties to the Catholic church, I can state that I have actually talked to priests, nuns and laymen that have said their church teaches that works must be made a part of salvation after faith. My opinion is that man is saved by faith alone.
So then, please do me the courtesy of going back one page to my post #99 where I have listed the actual teaching of the Catholic Church as written in the catechism as regards this matter.
You did not however mention the "works" idea before, but yes it is true that works are a part of salvation process as it is pointed out in the Scriptures many times over. It's not one nor the other, but both in my humble opinion.
::noworries:: You dont give up do you dear? I dont know what you want me to comment on? I read it, and?
And you either agree or disagree with those words as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches as regards salvation. (And please don't call me "dear", my wife is the jealous type. Brother or friend would do just fine) LOL
::noworries:: Sorry dude, Ladonia is a girls name where I live. No, I disagree that faith must be accompanied by worls to save someone. My belief, based on my interpretation of Scripture, after prayerful study and the clarification of the Holy Spirit, is that salvation is based on faith alone, period, no more, no less.
And that is a belief shared by many. However, the many biblical exhortations include both the works and faith idea. You can have all the faith you want that Jesus saved you, but if you live a life of debaucherry and no good Jesus will say to you on that fateful day and I paraphrase: "Away from me Satan, I do not know you" or "What you did not do to the least of them, you did not do to me". So faith AND works do go together, otherwise they would not have both been mentioned.
But I can respect your opinion, coming as you do from a different standpoint of the Christian experience. God bless.
We're not done Ladonia, unless you need to leave.
Exactly what sins did Jesus not forgive on the cross?
There were none. Forgiveness of sins can always be found in the person of Christ. (Though I wouldn't want to blaspheme the Holy Spirit)
Then you are making my argument for me Ladonia. I am always going to sin, that is the way of humanity, but my acceptence of God's free gift of Grace, through my faith in the atoning blood of Jesus is all needs be done for my salvation.
Well, of course, surely we have faith that that is true - if it is accepted by the individual. Salvation is given freely, it exists because of the sacrifice and anyone can avail themselves of it, but that does not negate that we as believers must have an active and positive role to play in actually achieving it. To those ends, that means obeying the Commandments as Jesus tells us to do and to us orthodox Christians, the acceptance of the sacraments as a way to live holy and pleasing lives to God.
But that then begs the question: Do you believe that you can lose your salvation?
Wait, back up a sec and then I'll answer your question. So, do you obey all the Ten Commandments without ever breaking one? Must you also partake of the sacraments to be forgiven? Are you therefore perfect as Jesus was? Why then did Jesus need to die in your place? No, once saved, always saved.
I agree with you you on the forgiveness of Christ, even if we break one of the Commandments. The sacraments themselves are not there to offer forgiveness, (except the sacrament of reconcilliation of course) but serve as guidelines, a means to help us live holy lives, a way for God's graces to be showered upon us. For me they are an integral part of my worship of God. And of course I am not perfect as Jesus was, I am but a lowly sinner trying to do my best and can receive from Him forgiveness upon repentance.
Why did Jesus need to die in my place? It was part of God's plan, the one sacrifice for all - and we are the beneficiaries.
But along the lines of what we were discussing before, what did Christ tell the rich man when he asked what he needed to do to attain eternal life? Christ told him as recorded in Matt 19 v 17:
"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments".
So Christ right there is telling us that we need to do some things to attain eternal life. Salvation is not a passive thing, each one of us has to be actively involved.
And as far as this OSAS business, I do not believe such a thing. Each one of us can throw it all away (salvation) and end up in the bosom of the evil one. We shall disagree on this one.
Okay Ladonia, you have your opinion and I have mine. I'm tired of beating this dead horse.
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:00:34
Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church is often confused with true biblical Christianity. Many distinct and serious differences exist between the two entities. What are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that distinguish it from biblical Christianity? Lengthy books have been written on this subject, but as an overview some of the differences in doctrine are outlined below with Scripture references to validate the biblical teaching. [1]
The differences are great and for the most part the Catholic Church would fall into the false religion category. This analysis is not intended to offend good Catholic people, but rather to point out how vastly different the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is from the gospel of Rome. It is up to each individual to study what they are being taught in light of the Bible, God's inerrant Word.
Roman Catholicism Teaches:
The Bishops, with the Pope as their head, rule the universal church.
God has entrusted revelation to the bishops.
The Pope is infallible in his teaching.
Scripture and tradition together are the Word of God.
Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption.
Mary is the co-mediator, to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions.
Initial justification is by means of baptism.
Adults must prepare for justification through faith and good works.
Grace is merited by: good works.
Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments.
No one can know if he will attain to eternal life.
The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
Christ's body and blood exist wholly and entirely in every fragment of consecrated bread and wine in every Roman Catholic Church around the world.
The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Each sacrifice of the Mass appeases God's wrath against sin.
The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the sacrifice of the Mass.
Biblical Teaching
Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church (Colossians 1:18).
God has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19; Acts 17:11).
Scripture alone is the Word of God (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 peter 1:20-21), Mark 7:1-13).
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:13-14; 1 Peter 5:7).
Justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28).
God justifies ungodly sinners who believe (Romans 4:5). Good works are the result of salvation, not the cause (Ephesians 2:8-10).
Grace is a free gift (Romans 11:6).
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:10).
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit who indwells believers (1 John 5:13; Romans 8:16).
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and He is bodily present in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Hebrews 10:12-13).
The sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18).
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 1:3).
No amount of self-punishment or efforts can atone our sins. Our sins have already been punished fully in the body of Jesus. Only His finished work satisfies God. One must let go of the false teaching that God needs our help to wash away your sins. Jesus alone is the propitiation for our sins.
In many instances the doctrines of the Catholic Church were slowly adopted over many years as various popes issued decrees. In most cases, the doctrines are not even based on Scripture, but on a document of the church. Most Roman Catholics consider themselves to be Christians and are unaware of the differences between their beliefs and the Bible. Tragically, the Roman Catholic Church has championed that ignorance by discouraging personal study of the Bible and making the people reliant on the priests for their understanding of the Bible, which is the direct opposite of what the Holy Bible teaches, not the altered Catholic "bible." God commands us to study his Word and correctly interpret it.
"These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
Notes
[1] http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html)
Wow!
A lot of misunderstandings of Catholic teaching there, and a lot of misinterpretation of what the Bible says too.
: winsome Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 04:16:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:00:34
Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church is often confused with true biblical Christianity. Many distinct and serious differences exist between the two entities. What are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that distinguish it from biblical Christianity? Lengthy books have been written on this subject, but as an overview some of the differences in doctrine are outlined below with Scripture references to validate the biblical teaching. [1]
The differences are great and for the most part the Catholic Church would fall into the false religion category. This analysis is not intended to offend good Catholic people, but rather to point out how vastly different the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is from the gospel of Rome. It is up to each individual to study what they are being taught in light of the Bible, God's inerrant Word.
Roman Catholicism Teaches:
The Bishops, with the Pope as their head, rule the universal church.
God has entrusted revelation to the bishops.
The Pope is infallible in his teaching.
Scripture and tradition together are the Word of God.
Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption.
Mary is the co-mediator, to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions.
Initial justification is by means of baptism.
Adults must prepare for justification through faith and good works.
Grace is merited by: good works.
Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments.
No one can know if he will attain to eternal life.
The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
Christ's body and blood exist wholly and entirely in every fragment of consecrated bread and wine in every Roman Catholic Church around the world.
The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Each sacrifice of the Mass appeases God's wrath against sin.
The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the sacrifice of the Mass.
Biblical Teaching
Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church (Colossians 1:18).
God has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19; Acts 17:11).
Scripture alone is the Word of God (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 peter 1:20-21), Mark 7:1-13).
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:13-14; 1 Peter 5:7).
Justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28).
God justifies ungodly sinners who believe (Romans 4:5). Good works are the result of salvation, not the cause (Ephesians 2:8-10).
Grace is a free gift (Romans 11:6).
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:10).
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit who indwells believers (1 John 5:13; Romans 8:16).
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and He is bodily present in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Hebrews 10:12-13).
The sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18).
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 1:3).
No amount of self-punishment or efforts can atone our sins. Our sins have already been punished fully in the body of Jesus. Only His finished work satisfies God. One must let go of the false teaching that God needs our help to wash away your sins. Jesus alone is the propitiation for our sins.
In many instances the doctrines of the Catholic Church were slowly adopted over many years as various popes issued decrees. In most cases, the doctrines are not even based on Scripture, but on a document of the church. Most Roman Catholics consider themselves to be Christians and are unaware of the differences between their beliefs and the Bible. Tragically, the Roman Catholic Church has championed that ignorance by discouraging personal study of the Bible and making the people reliant on the priests for their understanding of the Bible, which is the direct opposite of what the Holy Bible teaches, not the altered Catholic "bible." God commands us to study his Word and correctly interpret it.
"These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
Notes
[1] http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html)
Wow!
A lot of misunderstandings of Catholic teaching there, and a lot of misinterpretation of what the Bible says too.
Winsome, you seem to be very knowledgeable about the RCC and a very nice person, could you take that article and, piece by piece, refute whatever in it is wrong? Thanks.
: Stucky Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 04:53:09
: winsome Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 04:16:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:00:34
Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church is often confused with true biblical Christianity. Many distinct and serious differences exist between the two entities. What are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that distinguish it from biblical Christianity? Lengthy books have been written on this subject, but as an overview some of the differences in doctrine are outlined below with Scripture references to validate the biblical teaching. [1]
The differences are great and for the most part the Catholic Church would fall into the false religion category. This analysis is not intended to offend good Catholic people, but rather to point out how vastly different the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is from the gospel of Rome. It is up to each individual to study what they are being taught in light of the Bible, God's inerrant Word.
Roman Catholicism Teaches:
The Bishops, with the Pope as their head, rule the universal church.
God has entrusted revelation to the bishops.
The Pope is infallible in his teaching.
Scripture and tradition together are the Word of God.
Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption.
Mary is the co-mediator, to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions.
Initial justification is by means of baptism.
Adults must prepare for justification through faith and good works.
Grace is merited by: good works.
Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments.
No one can know if he will attain to eternal life.
The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
Christ's body and blood exist wholly and entirely in every fragment of consecrated bread and wine in every Roman Catholic Church around the world.
The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Each sacrifice of the Mass appeases God's wrath against sin.
The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the sacrifice of the Mass.
Biblical Teaching
Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church (Colossians 1:18).
God has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19; Acts 17:11).
Scripture alone is the Word of God (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 peter 1:20-21), Mark 7:1-13).
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:13-14; 1 Peter 5:7).
Justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28).
God justifies ungodly sinners who believe (Romans 4:5). Good works are the result of salvation, not the cause (Ephesians 2:8-10).
Grace is a free gift (Romans 11:6).
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:10).
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit who indwells believers (1 John 5:13; Romans 8:16).
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and He is bodily present in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Hebrews 10:12-13).
The sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18).
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 1:3).
No amount of self-punishment or efforts can atone our sins. Our sins have already been punished fully in the body of Jesus. Only His finished work satisfies God. One must let go of the false teaching that God needs our help to wash away your sins. Jesus alone is the propitiation for our sins.
In many instances the doctrines of the Catholic Church were slowly adopted over many years as various popes issued decrees. In most cases, the doctrines are not even based on Scripture, but on a document of the church. Most Roman Catholics consider themselves to be Christians and are unaware of the differences between their beliefs and the Bible. Tragically, the Roman Catholic Church has championed that ignorance by discouraging personal study of the Bible and making the people reliant on the priests for their understanding of the Bible, which is the direct opposite of what the Holy Bible teaches, not the altered Catholic "bible." God commands us to study his Word and correctly interpret it.
"These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
Notes
[1] http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html)
Wow!
A lot of misunderstandings of Catholic teaching there, and a lot of misinterpretation of what the Bible says too.
Winsome, you seem to be very knowledgeable about the RCC and a very nice person, could you take that article and, piece by piece, refute whatever in it is wrong? Thanks.
This shouldn't be too difficult. What this is a persoms opinion due to the their religious bias and total misinterpretation of the Scriptures. I shall start out with paragraph 1.
"The Roman Catholic Church is often confused with true biblical Christianity."
The RCC is nothing but "true biblical Christianity". Starting with Jesus Christ himself who appoints the Aoostle Peter (Matt 16v18) as the head administrator of his (Christ's) newly founded One Universal Christian Church. You may not accept this interpretation, but billions of Christians over the many centuries did and presently do.
The next paragraph talks about the RCC preaching a "false gospel". Preaching the death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ for our and the whole world's salvation is not a false a gospel.
So right off the bat we have two mistatement of facts and truth of the Catholic Church. When time permits I will respond to the others or some of my learned friends may do so as their time permits.
: Ladonia Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 09:19:35
: Stucky Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 04:53:09
: winsome Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 04:16:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:00:34
Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church is often confused with true biblical Christianity. Many distinct and serious differences exist between the two entities. What are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that distinguish it from biblical Christianity? Lengthy books have been written on this subject, but as an overview some of the differences in doctrine are outlined below with Scripture references to validate the biblical teaching. [1]
The differences are great and for the most part the Catholic Church would fall into the false religion category. This analysis is not intended to offend good Catholic people, but rather to point out how vastly different the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is from the gospel of Rome. It is up to each individual to study what they are being taught in light of the Bible, God's inerrant Word.
Roman Catholicism Teaches:
The Bishops, with the Pope as their head, rule the universal church.
God has entrusted revelation to the bishops.
The Pope is infallible in his teaching.
Scripture and tradition together are the Word of God.
Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption.
Mary is the co-mediator, to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions.
Initial justification is by means of baptism.
Adults must prepare for justification through faith and good works.
Grace is merited by: good works.
Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments.
No one can know if he will attain to eternal life.
The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
Christ's body and blood exist wholly and entirely in every fragment of consecrated bread and wine in every Roman Catholic Church around the world.
The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Each sacrifice of the Mass appeases God's wrath against sin.
The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the sacrifice of the Mass.
Biblical Teaching
Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church (Colossians 1:18).
God has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19; Acts 17:11).
Scripture alone is the Word of God (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 peter 1:20-21), Mark 7:1-13).
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:13-14; 1 Peter 5:7).
Justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28).
God justifies ungodly sinners who believe (Romans 4:5). Good works are the result of salvation, not the cause (Ephesians 2:8-10).
Grace is a free gift (Romans 11:6).
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:10).
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit who indwells believers (1 John 5:13; Romans 8:16).
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and He is bodily present in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Hebrews 10:12-13).
The sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18).
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 1:3).
No amount of self-punishment or efforts can atone our sins. Our sins have already been punished fully in the body of Jesus. Only His finished work satisfies God. One must let go of the false teaching that God needs our help to wash away your sins. Jesus alone is the propitiation for our sins.
In many instances the doctrines of the Catholic Church were slowly adopted over many years as various popes issued decrees. In most cases, the doctrines are not even based on Scripture, but on a document of the church. Most Roman Catholics consider themselves to be Christians and are unaware of the differences between their beliefs and the Bible. Tragically, the Roman Catholic Church has championed that ignorance by discouraging personal study of the Bible and making the people reliant on the priests for their understanding of the Bible, which is the direct opposite of what the Holy Bible teaches, not the altered Catholic "bible." God commands us to study his Word and correctly interpret it.
"These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
Notes
[1] http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html)
Wow!
A lot of misunderstandings of Catholic teaching there, and a lot of misinterpretation of what the Bible says too.
Winsome, you seem to be very knowledgeable about the RCC and a very nice person, could you take that article and, piece by piece, refute whatever in it is wrong? Thanks.
This shouldn't be too difficult. What this is a persoms opinion due to the their religious bias and total misinterpretation of the Scriptures. I shall start out with paragraph 1.
"The Roman Catholic Church is often confused with true biblical Christianity."
The RCC is nothing but "true biblical Christianity". Starting with Jesus Christ himself who appoints the Aoostle Peter (Matt 16v18) as the head administrator of his (Christ's) newly founded One Universal Christian Church. You may not accept this interpretation, but billions of Christians over the many centuries did and presently do.
The next paragraph talks about the RCC preaching a "false gospel". Preaching the death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ for our and the whole world's salvation is not a false a gospel.
So right off the bat we have two mistatement of facts and truth of the Catholic Church. When time permits I will respond to the others or some of my learned friends may do so as their time permits.
Thanks, but couldnt what YOU say be considered your opinion?
Stucky, no, it's due to you and your ilks misinterpretation of Holy Scripture. One God, One Church ,One Interpretation. The chaos and confusion started with the man-made Protestant Reformation with there confused spirit [ s ] leading man-made inventors of many conflicting churches, sects and cults. Either Jesus lied in Matt.16:15-19 to protect His One Universal [ Catholic ] Apostolic Church or your Protestantism is made up of many different spirits all with a different interpretation of the Holy Bible. So which is it ; Jesus either made a mistake or possibly lied or a confused Holy Spirit that introduced this mess of conflicting Protestant churches/cults, or did God get it right the first time along with His personal promise of always protecting His Church ,base/formed on His Apostles/successors?
: Stucky Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 10:00:57
: Ladonia Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 09:19:35
: Stucky Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 04:53:09
: winsome Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 04:16:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:00:34
Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church is often confused with true biblical Christianity. Many distinct and serious differences exist between the two entities. What are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that distinguish it from biblical Christianity? Lengthy books have been written on this subject, but as an overview some of the differences in doctrine are outlined below with Scripture references to validate the biblical teaching. [1]
The differences are great and for the most part the Catholic Church would fall into the false religion category. This analysis is not intended to offend good Catholic people, but rather to point out how vastly different the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is from the gospel of Rome. It is up to each individual to study what they are being taught in light of the Bible, God's inerrant Word.
Roman Catholicism Teaches:
The Bishops, with the Pope as their head, rule the universal church.
God has entrusted revelation to the bishops.
The Pope is infallible in his teaching.
Scripture and tradition together are the Word of God.
Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption.
Mary is the co-mediator, to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions.
Initial justification is by means of baptism.
Adults must prepare for justification through faith and good works.
Grace is merited by: good works.
Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments.
No one can know if he will attain to eternal life.
The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
Christ's body and blood exist wholly and entirely in every fragment of consecrated bread and wine in every Roman Catholic Church around the world.
The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Each sacrifice of the Mass appeases God's wrath against sin.
The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the sacrifice of the Mass.
Biblical Teaching
Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church (Colossians 1:18).
God has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19; Acts 17:11).
Scripture alone is the Word of God (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 peter 1:20-21), Mark 7:1-13).
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:13-14; 1 Peter 5:7).
Justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28).
God justifies ungodly sinners who believe (Romans 4:5). Good works are the result of salvation, not the cause (Ephesians 2:8-10).
Grace is a free gift (Romans 11:6).
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:10).
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit who indwells believers (1 John 5:13; Romans 8:16).
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and He is bodily present in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Hebrews 10:12-13).
The sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18).
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 1:3).
No amount of self-punishment or efforts can atone our sins. Our sins have already been punished fully in the body of Jesus. Only His finished work satisfies God. One must let go of the false teaching that God needs our help to wash away your sins. Jesus alone is the propitiation for our sins.
In many instances the doctrines of the Catholic Church were slowly adopted over many years as various popes issued decrees. In most cases, the doctrines are not even based on Scripture, but on a document of the church. Most Roman Catholics consider themselves to be Christians and are unaware of the differences between their beliefs and the Bible. Tragically, the Roman Catholic Church has championed that ignorance by discouraging personal study of the Bible and making the people reliant on the priests for their understanding of the Bible, which is the direct opposite of what the Holy Bible teaches, not the altered Catholic "bible." God commands us to study his Word and correctly interpret it.
"These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
Notes
[1] http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html)
Wow!
A lot of misunderstandings of Catholic teaching there, and a lot of misinterpretation of what the Bible says too.
Winsome, you seem to be very knowledgeable about the RCC and a very nice person, could you take that article and, piece by piece, refute whatever in it is wrong? Thanks.
This shouldn't be too difficult. What this is a persoms opinion due to the their religious bias and total misinterpretation of the Scriptures. I shall start out with paragraph 1.
"The Roman Catholic Church is often confused with true biblical Christianity."
The RCC is nothing but "true biblical Christianity". Starting with Jesus Christ himself who appoints the Aoostle Peter (Matt 16v18) as the head administrator of his (Christ's) newly founded One Universal Christian Church. You may not accept this interpretation, but billions of Christians over the many centuries did and presently do.
The next paragraph talks about the RCC preaching a "false gospel". Preaching the death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ for our and the whole world's salvation is not a false a gospel.
So right off the bat we have two mistatement of facts and truth of the Catholic Church. When time permits I will respond to the others or some of my learned friends may do so as their time permits.
Thanks, but couldnt what YOU say be considered your opinion?
Yes, it is my opinion that the Latin Church has indeed the correct interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
: Ladonia Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 10:38:33
: Stucky Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 10:00:57
: Ladonia Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 09:19:35
: Stucky Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 04:53:09
: winsome Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 04:16:04
: Stucky Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 21:00:34
Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church is often confused with true biblical Christianity. Many distinct and serious differences exist between the two entities. What are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that distinguish it from biblical Christianity? Lengthy books have been written on this subject, but as an overview some of the differences in doctrine are outlined below with Scripture references to validate the biblical teaching. [1]
The differences are great and for the most part the Catholic Church would fall into the false religion category. This analysis is not intended to offend good Catholic people, but rather to point out how vastly different the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is from the gospel of Rome. It is up to each individual to study what they are being taught in light of the Bible, God's inerrant Word.
Roman Catholicism Teaches:
The Bishops, with the Pope as their head, rule the universal church.
God has entrusted revelation to the bishops.
The Pope is infallible in his teaching.
Scripture and tradition together are the Word of God.
Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption.
Mary is the co-mediator, to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions.
Initial justification is by means of baptism.
Adults must prepare for justification through faith and good works.
Grace is merited by: good works.
Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments.
No one can know if he will attain to eternal life.
The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
Christ's body and blood exist wholly and entirely in every fragment of consecrated bread and wine in every Roman Catholic Church around the world.
The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Each sacrifice of the Mass appeases God's wrath against sin.
The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the sacrifice of the Mass.
Biblical Teaching
Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church (Colossians 1:18).
God has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19; Acts 17:11).
Scripture alone is the Word of God (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 peter 1:20-21), Mark 7:1-13).
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:13-14; 1 Peter 5:7).
Justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28).
God justifies ungodly sinners who believe (Romans 4:5). Good works are the result of salvation, not the cause (Ephesians 2:8-10).
Grace is a free gift (Romans 11:6).
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:10).
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit who indwells believers (1 John 5:13; Romans 8:16).
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and He is bodily present in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Hebrews 10:12-13).
The sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18).
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 1:3).
No amount of self-punishment or efforts can atone our sins. Our sins have already been punished fully in the body of Jesus. Only His finished work satisfies God. One must let go of the false teaching that God needs our help to wash away your sins. Jesus alone is the propitiation for our sins.
In many instances the doctrines of the Catholic Church were slowly adopted over many years as various popes issued decrees. In most cases, the doctrines are not even based on Scripture, but on a document of the church. Most Roman Catholics consider themselves to be Christians and are unaware of the differences between their beliefs and the Bible. Tragically, the Roman Catholic Church has championed that ignorance by discouraging personal study of the Bible and making the people reliant on the priests for their understanding of the Bible, which is the direct opposite of what the Holy Bible teaches, not the altered Catholic "bible." God commands us to study his Word and correctly interpret it.
"These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
Notes
[1] http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html)
Wow!
A lot of misunderstandings of Catholic teaching there, and a lot of misinterpretation of what the Bible says too.
Winsome, you seem to be very knowledgeable about the RCC and a very nice person, could you take that article and, piece by piece, refute whatever in it is wrong? Thanks.
This shouldn't be too difficult. What this is a persoms opinion due to the their religious bias and total misinterpretation of the Scriptures. I shall start out with paragraph 1.
"The Roman Catholic Church is often confused with true biblical Christianity."
The RCC is nothing but "true biblical Christianity". Starting with Jesus Christ himself who appoints the Aoostle Peter (Matt 16v18) as the head administrator of his (Christ's) newly founded One Universal Christian Church. You may not accept this interpretation, but billions of Christians over the many centuries did and presently do.
The next paragraph talks about the RCC preaching a "false gospel". Preaching the death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ for our and the whole world's salvation is not a false a gospel.
So right off the bat we have two mistatement of facts and truth of the Catholic Church. When time permits I will respond to the others or some of my learned friends may do so as their time permits.
Thanks, but couldnt what YOU say be considered your opinion?
Yes, it is my opinion that the Latin Church has indeed the correct interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
Thanks for being so reasonable, it's my opinion that it doesn't. We'll probably both be in Heaven though.
"The Bishops, with the Pope as their head, rule the universal church."
Yes, this is true and is sustained by the Scriptures and historical fact.
"God has entrusted revelation to the bishops".
Yes, and to his Holy Church at large. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it". and "He who hears you, hears me". Christ is talking about the one Universal (Catholic) Christian physical church he established on this earth for the continued salvation of souls.
"The Pope is infallible in his teaching".
Yes. In matters of faith and morals the Pope is infalible. Speaking with the help of the Holy Spirit and with Christ's mandate ("He who hears you, hears me"), this idea makes sense.
"Scripture and tradition together are the Word of God".
True again. The Scriptures as we know them didn't exist for some 300 years. The spreading of the word was done through preaching and the traditions that were establihed by the Apostles and those of the early church after them.
"Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption".
Yes, true again. Without the co-operation of the Blessed Mother there would have been no Savior and thus no redemption.. This is not meant to mean that she was the annoited one, or the sacrificial lamb, but she played an integral part in God's plan for mankind.
"Mary is the co-mediator, to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions".
We can ask her to pray for us, she who is in heaven has the ear of Jesus, her son. She is not dead, but as alive in Christ as we are. When you ask me to pray for you, I am acting as a mediator between you and Christ. I am actively participating in asking God to help you in Jesus' name. Again, she is not the Savior as the Latin Church proclaims that there is but one mediator between God and man - Jesus Christ.
: Ladonia Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 10:59:24
"The Bishops, with the Pope as their head, rule the universal church."
Yes, this is true and is sustained by the Scriptures and historical fact.
"God has entrusted revelation to the bishops".
Yes, and to his Holy Church at large. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it". and "He who hears you, hears me". Christ is talking about the one Universal (Catholic) Christian physical church he established on this earth for the continued salvation of souls.
"The Pope is infallible in his teaching".
Yes. In matters of faith and morals the Pope is infalible. Speaking with the help of the Holy Spirit and with Christ's mandate ("He who hears you, hears me"), this idea makes sense.
"Scripture and tradition together are the Word of God".
True again. The Scriptures as we know them didn't exist for some 300 years. The spreading of the word was done through preaching and the traditions that were establihed by the Apostles and those of the early church after them.
"Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption".
Yes, true again. Without the co-operation of the Blessed Mother there would have been Savior and thus no redemption.. This is not meant to mean that she was the annoited one, or the sacrificial lamb, but she played an integral part in God's plan for mankind.
"Mary is the co-mediator, to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions".
We can ask her to pray for us, she who is in heaven has the ear of Jesus, her son. She is not dead, but as alive in Christ as we are. When you ask me to pray for you, I am acting as a mediator between you and Christ. I am actively participating in asking God to help you in Jesus' name. Again, she is not the Savior as the Latin Church proclaims that there is but one mediator between God and man - Jesus Christ.
Thank you for sharing your opinions Ladonia.
: Stucky Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 11:04:00
: Ladonia Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 10:59:24
"The Bishops, with the Pope as their head, rule the universal church."
Yes, this is true and is sustained by the Scriptures and historical fact.
"God has entrusted revelation to the bishops".
Yes, and to his Holy Church at large. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it". and "He who hears you, hears me". Christ is talking about the one Universal (Catholic) Christian physical church he established on this earth for the continued salvation of souls.
"The Pope is infallible in his teaching".
Yes. In matters of faith and morals the Pope is infalible. Speaking with the help of the Holy Spirit and with Christ's mandate ("He who hears you, hears me"), this idea makes sense.
"Scripture and tradition together are the Word of God".
True again. The Scriptures as we know them didn't exist for some 300 years. The spreading of the word was done through preaching and the traditions that were establihed by the Apostles and those of the early church after them.
"Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption".
Yes, true again. Without the co-operation of the Blessed Mother there would have been Savior and thus no redemption.. This is not meant to mean that she was the annoited one, or the sacrificial lamb, but she played an integral part in God's plan for mankind.
"Mary is the co-mediator, to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions".
We can ask her to pray for us, she who is in heaven has the ear of Jesus, her son. She is not dead, but as alive in Christ as we are. When you ask me to pray for you, I am acting as a mediator between you and Christ. I am actively participating in asking God to help you in Jesus' name. Again, she is not the Savior as the Latin Church proclaims that there is but one mediator between God and man - Jesus Christ.
Thank you for sharing your opinions Ladonia.
You are very welcome. To be continued.....
A couple of comments on Ladonia's replies,
Mary as co-redeemer - as far as I know this is not an official doctrine or title for Mary, though some may use it.
Mary as co-mediator – the Church uses the term Mediatrix as in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. I think the feminine form is because co-mediator is more likely to be misunderstood.
She conceived, brought forth and nourished Christ. she presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Saviour in giving back supernatural life to souls.......... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix
It also adds, and this is important "This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator."
I think the main problem with the list is that it's sort of right, but only if understood in the correct way. The way it is presented is likey to be misunderstood - quite clever really.
For example it doesn't give any of the impoprtant caveats against "The Pope is infallible in his teaching".
It says "Scripture and tradition together are the Word of God". Note the "tradition" with a small "t" which denotes man made traditions, whereas Catholics use Tradition with a capital "T" to denote the teaching passed on by the apostles (often called Sacred Tradition)
BTW did you know that the "Rapture Ready" site where this list comes from is accused by some (at least the forum past) of being run by satanists to entrap Christians?
http://www.talkjesus.com/evidence-bible-prophecy/26544-beware-rapture-ready-forum.html (http://www.talkjesus.com/evidence-bible-prophecy/26544-beware-rapture-ready-forum.html)
Some more clever phrasing that subtly distorts the Catholic position
Roman Catholicism Teaches: The Bishops, with the Pope as their head, rule the universal church.
Biblical Teaching: Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church (Colossians 1:18)
Yes, but what Catholics understand in this context is that the Bishops with the Pope as their head rule the universal church on earth under Christ. And yes, we agree that "Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church" (Colossians 1:18)."
Roman Catholicism Teaches: The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Biblical Teaching: The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18).
Catholics believe Heb 10:12-18
The Catechism makes it very clear there is only one sacrifice see CCC1330, 1362,1364, 1366, 1407, 1544.
It's memory is perpetuated, but the statement implies the sacrifice is perpetuated.
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.
Don't we all perpetuate the memory of what Christ did for us?
These sort of lists are fundamentally dishonest.
: neophyte Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 10:32:38
Stucky, no, it's due to you and your ilks misinterpretation of Holy Scripture. One God, One Church ,One Interpretation. The chaos and confusion started with the man-made Protestant Reformation with there confused spirit [ s ] leading man-made inventors of many conflicting churches, sects and cults. Either Jesus lied in Matt.16:15-19 to protect His One Universal [ Catholic ] Apostolic Church or your Protestantism is made up of many different spirits all with a different interpretation of the Holy Bible. So which is it ; Jesus either made a mistake or possibly lied or a confused Holy Spirit that introduced this mess of conflicting Protestant churches/cults, or did God get it right the first time along with His personal promise of always protecting His Church ,base/formed on His Apostles/successors?
Catholics had access to the bible, Jews had access to the bible, doesn't mean they followed God. Some did and some didn't. a confused and conflicted church. At least with protestant churches most agree with each other and if one doesn't agree they can try to find another Church that preaches what they agree with.
: neophyte Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 10:32:38
Stucky, no, it's due to you and your ilks misinterpretation of Holy Scripture. One God, One Church ,One Interpretation. The chaos and confusion started with the man-made Protestant Reformation with there confused spirit [ s ] leading man-made inventors of many conflicting churches, sects and cults. Either Jesus lied in Matt.16:15-19 to protect His One Universal [ Catholic ] Apostolic Church or your Protestantism is made up of many different spirits all with a different interpretation of the Holy Bible. So which is it ; Jesus either made a mistake or possibly lied or a confused Holy Spirit that introduced this mess of conflicting Protestant churches/cults, or did God get it right the first time along with His personal promise of always protecting His Church ,base/formed on His Apostles/successors?
rofl "Ilks", Neophyte? Really? "Ilks"? How did you and your "ilks" interpret scripture to say Jesus allowed the selling of indulgences for cash to prepay the penalty of sinning? Was that a "Misinterpretation of Scripture by the "infallible" church? Where in Scripture did Jesus say the RCC should put to death Jews? What Scripture allows priests to molest little boys and the heirarchy of the church does nothing? Was Jesus "protecting the Catholic church and approving of all the terrible things it did throughout history? How about the popes committing fornication? Where is the Scripture that allows that?
How about all these? http://listverse.com/2011/06/08/top-10-shameful-moments-in-catholic-history/ (http://listverse.com/2011/06/08/top-10-shameful-moments-in-catholic-history/)
What Scripture does the RCC use to show that Jesus was fine with these?
: winsome Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 14:09:08
Some more clever phrasing that subtly distorts the Catholic position
Roman Catholicism Teaches: The Bishops, with the Pope as their head, rule the universal church.
Biblical Teaching: Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church (Colossians 1:18)
Yes, but what Catholics understand in this context is that the Bishops with the Pope as their head rule the universal church on earth under Christ. And yes, we agree that "Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church" (Colossians 1:18)."
Roman Catholicism Teaches: The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Biblical Teaching: The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18).
Catholics believe Heb 10:12-18
The Catechism makes it very clear there is only one sacrifice see CCC1330, 1362,1364, 1366, 1407, 1544.
It's memory is perpetuated, but the statement implies the sacrifice is perpetuated.
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.
Don't we all perpetuate the memory of what Christ did for us?
These sort of lists are fundamentally dishonest.
The source of these lists of Catholic teachings needs to be considered. You can be rest assured this wasn't put together by the folks at EWTN. We were however able to work with what was there and in the process clear up some things for our non-catholic friends. Thanks for taking up my slack!
: Stucky Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 14:58:42
: neophyte Mon Feb 04, 2013 - 10:32:38
Stucky, no, it's due to you and your ilks misinterpretation of Holy Scripture. One God, One Church ,One Interpretation. The chaos and confusion started with the man-made Protestant Reformation with there confused spirit [ s ] leading man-made inventors of many conflicting churches, sects and cults. Either Jesus lied in Matt.16:15-19 to protect His One Universal [ Catholic ] Apostolic Church or your Protestantism is made up of many different spirits all with a different interpretation of the Holy Bible. So which is it ; Jesus either made a mistake or possibly lied or a confused Holy Spirit that introduced this mess of conflicting Protestant churches/cults, or did God get it right the first time along with His personal promise of always protecting His Church ,base/formed on His Apostles/successors?
rofl "Ilks", Neophyte? Really? "Ilks"? How did you and your "ilks" interpret scripture to say Jesus allowed the selling of indulgences for cash to prepay the penalty of sinning? Was that a "Misinterpretation of Scripture by the "infallible" church? Where in Scripture did Jesus say the RCC should put to death Jews? What Scripture allows priests to molest little boys and the heirarchy of the church does nothing? Was Jesus "protecting the Catholic church and approving of all the terrible things it did throughout history? How about the popes committing fornication? Where is the Scripture that allows that?
How about all these? http://listverse.com/2011/06/08/top-10-shameful-moments-in-catholic-history/ (http://listverse.com/2011/06/08/top-10-shameful-moments-in-catholic-history/)
What Scripture does the RCC use to show that Jesus was fine with these?
Selling indulgences for money was something that really got the ire of Martin Luther, and it should have. It was, however, never an official position of the Church. It was something that wayward Bishops did. Blaming an entire organization for something done wrongly by some of the leaders would be like painting all of Protestantism with the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, Oral Roberts, type brush.
As for the list of things from that website that you linked; some was truly shameful, most, however, was misconstrued and laughable. Not to mention, once again, painting an entire organization with a very wide brush.
In 2000 years, the Catholic Church has done some pretty bad things, there is no doubt. All too often, non-Catholics are quick to point those out, sometimes gleefully. Yet, I don't ever hear a thanks for the Bible, or Champagne, or the big-bang theory, or the university system, or for being the largest charitable organization in the world. Nope, it's only pointing out the bad. However, in just a short 500 years, Protestantism has given us the Salem Witch Trials, the Ku Klux Klan, over 40,000 versions of what the Holy Spirit seems to think the Bible means, televangelists, the prosperity gospel, acceptance of artificial contraception, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and a host of others. However, that doesn't mean that all of those Churches are evil and up to no good. The same could be said of the Catholic Church. It's just easier to go after the Catholics because we have 2000 years of history to cover and a single organization to try and blame. Trying to lay blame at the feet of over 40,000 different Churches would require way too much research and quite frankly, people are just too lazy for that. So instead of focusing on what makes us different, let's look at what makes us the same. From there we can have a real dialogue backed up with understanding of each other and truly try to be each others brothers and sisters.
I agree heartily, instead of looking at the sins and errors of man which all Christendom seeks to heal, we should look at the teaching of the church, from the source, and as a Protestant I expected a clear answer with valid support. As each popular misconception was cleared up and clarified with such deep expansive theological support, I as many others could no longer deny the truth of the Church. But even if one. Doesn't see that truth, at least be genuine in your research, we owe it to God, each other and ourselves.