Christian Forums

Quote from: kensington on Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 03:39:40
I tried to find that.... Last Rites Tract....

Is this what you mean?

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160_37.asp

I think this guy makes some very good points on the topic. 

I am not surprised that you agree with many of the points in the tract.  Do you often pick the good points out of religious materials that you disagree with, as well as material you happen to agree with?  Then in an inconsistent manner, do you turn around and reject all the information from authors that attack your world view - even when they might be presenting a few facts?

For example, Joseph Smith provided some great points about religion during the 19th century - he even answered a burning question that seemed to be on everyone's mind at the time - where did the Native America's come from?  So, how do we as Christians handle Joseph Smith?  Do we view him as a creditable source and therefore accept the true that we can glean from his teachings? or do we consider Smith to be lacking character and credibility and therefore reject all of his ideas regardless of whether or not he happens to stumble on the truth from time to time?

It is my opinion that most people make the mistake of excusing the faults of the people that defend their ideals and world views - people operate this way both in religion and in politics.  However, if the same people run across a politician or religious leader that speaks out against their political or religious viewpoint; rather than giving the leader the benefit of the doubt the person will reject everything they have to say based on the issue of character. 

I believe that the only intellectually honest way to operate is to choose one path or the other - it is dishonest to reject a leader outright if we disagree with what he is saying based on character issues or our beliefs about his/her intentions, yet turn around and advocate for people who display character flaws, but happen to agree and support our world view.  Christians are often viewed as hypocritical because we promote a culture that values this method of operating in the world - the end justifying the means.

I choose to reject Jack Chick's material not because it is so offensive or because he dumbs down complicated issues in the most condescending, mocking tone possible - I reject him because he has proven himself to be reckless with scripture - he has no problem twisting it whenever it is necessary to support his cause.  I reject Joseph Smith's writings for the same reason.

blessings

Here is a post I wrote several years ago and decided to re-post after recently encountering a rather nasty Fundamentalist Christian.  Once again, here are my observations about the conversational style of people who are more interested in winning an argument, rather than learning.

After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement.  Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric.  Let's take a closer look, shall we?

1.  Make an outrageous claim. It doesn't matter if the Pope is or is not speaking infallibly, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the group you belong to is just as guilty as the group you are making accusations against, because the goal is not to be fair minded or even handed or even accurate; all you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from your opponent rather than a logical one.  Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is to simply supply enough emotional rope for your opponent to hang himself.

2.  Rely on Mocking or Sarcasm to ignite passion:  If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking, morally superior tone to deliver your message (James White, Ann Coulter, etc); if you happen to be liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent's attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Al Franken).  BTW, liberals get the most points when they present themselves so convincingly that even conservatives mistake them for a conservative! (Archie Bunker)

3.  Do not give an inch:  If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny or re-frame the conversation!  In all cases, never concede even a minor point to your opponent.

4.  Make your opponent work harder:  Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you.  Most importantly, make sure he spends most of his time researching the topic; you must put him in a place where he feels like he has to prove you wrong.  If he presents troubling information to you about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it.  The fact is you set the pace and the agenda of the debate; your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving, interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit.  Most importantly, he is challenging you intentionally; therefore it is the "Christian" thing to do to put him back in his place.

5.  Do not bother reading posts or listening to responses from your opponent:  After all, reading your opponent's posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, winning.  Instead of reading, skim your opponent's post for statements that can be molded to aid you in your ultimate goal.  The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponent's point - why re-post something meaningful or relevant?  Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat of either mocking / moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.

6.  Stay the Course!: Eventually your opponent with either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately.  Like any good staring contest or series of tic-tac-toe draws, it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing.

blessings

After seeing a few posts of our ex-member "Catholic Crusader", that list could have been written about him.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Apr 09, 2008 - 14:23:25
After seeing a few posts of our ex-member "Catholic Crusader", that list could have been written about him.

I've never claimed that Catholics are immune from engaging in this sort of behavior.  However, I am speaking from my experience.

blessings

Quote from: ravenlorre on Wed Apr 09, 2008 - 14:37:30

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Apr 09, 2008 - 14:23:25
After seeing a few posts of our ex-member "Catholic Crusader", that list could have been written about him.

I've never claimed that Catholics are immune from engaging in this sort of behavior.

blessings

I just wanted to point out this behavior can occur on both sides of any argument.

Its not limited to the "Fundamentalist Christian".

So I was in the Orthodox thread trying to learn what they believe about sacraments, which led to a comparison to the RCC.  Then, it occurred to me that a bunch of non-Catholics might not be the best source of knowledge about RCC doctrine.

So - is this a fair statement?

My understanding of the RCC's belief is that "grace" that comes from the sacraments works towards, or causes purification of the believer.  Further, that complete, perfect purification of believers is necessary for salvation.  And that mortal sin kills that inner grace, though venial sins do not.  Ipso facto, salvation is through the sacramental system.

How would you fix it?  And since you're at it, could you talk a little about exactly what that "grace" mentioned above is?

Thanks,

Jarrod

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Apr 11, 2008 - 13:18:23
So I was in the Orthodox thread trying to learn what they believe about sacraments, which led to a comparison to the RCC.  Then, it occurred to me that a bunch of non-Catholics might not be the best source of knowledge about RCC doctrine.

So - is this a fair statement?

My understanding of the RCC's belief is that "grace" that comes from the sacraments works towards, or causes purification of the believer.  Further, that complete, perfect purification of believers is necessary for salvation.  And that mortal sin kills that inner grace, though venial sins do not.  Ipso facto, salvation is through the sacramental system.

How would you fix it?  And since you're at it, could you talk a little about exactly what that "grace" mentioned above is?

Thanks,

Jarrod

I'll do my best.  Your understanding of the sacramental system in the RCC sounds a bit mechanical to me.  For one, God's grace is everywhere in the World, not just in the sacraments, although the sacraments do provide us with a unique opportunity to participate in His grace.  I tend to think of participation in the sacraments as part of my santification process - it is one of the methods God is using to perpare me for Heaven. 

Secondly, viewing the receiving of the Eucharist as a way of building up grace, and sins as killing that grace rings hollow to me.  God's grace is fluid, unaffected by any sin I can commit (except my refusal to accept it), and is not a commodity that I can save up in order to cancel out personal sins.  I think it is more in line with RCC teachings to say that sin damages a person's relationship with God, while obedience stregthens it.  Participating in the sacraments is to obey God.

I have been reading the Orthodox thread from time to time and I think they are sincere and fairminded about the differences in our teachings.  The only thing I would like to clarify is that I think we are closer in our beliefs regarding the Eucharist then the Orthodox thread seems to communicate.

blessings

Quote from: ravenlorre on Fri Apr 11, 2008 - 13:57:32
I'll do my best.  Your understanding of the sacramental system in the RCC sounds a bit mechanical to me.  For one, God's grace is everywhere in the World, not just in the sacraments, although the sacraments do provide us with a unique opportunity to participate in His grace.  I tend to think of participation in the sacraments as part of my santification process - it is one of the methods God is using to prepare me for Heaven. 

Secondly, viewing the receiving of the Eucharist as a way of building up grace, and sins as killing that grace rings hollow to me.  God's grace is fluid, unaffected by any sin I can commit (except my refusal to accept it), and is not a commodity that I can save up in order to cancel out personal sins.  I think it is more in line with RCC teachings to say that sin damages a person's relationship with God, while obedience stregthens it.  Participating in the sacraments is to obey God.

I have been reading the Orthodox thread from time to time and I think they are sincere and fairminded about the differences in our teachings.  The only thing I would like to clarify is that I think we are closer in our beliefs regarding the Eucharist then the Orthodox thread seems to communicate.

blessings

Thanks.   

Can I have a follow-up question? 

Could you explain mortal vs. venial sins?  I thought I had a handle on it, but your previous answer seems to indicate that I'm missing something.

Thanks,

Jarrod

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Apr 11, 2008 - 14:18:12

Quote from: ravenlorre on Fri Apr 11, 2008 - 13:57:32
I'll do my best.  Your understanding of the sacramental system in the RCC sounds a bit mechanical to me.  For one, God's grace is everywhere in the World, not just in the sacraments, although the sacraments do provide us with a unique opportunity to participate in His grace.  I tend to think of participation in the sacraments as part of my santification process - it is one of the methods God is using to prepare me for Heaven. 

Secondly, viewing the receiving of the Eucharist as a way of building up grace, and sins as killing that grace rings hollow to me.  God's grace is fluid, unaffected by any sin I can commit (except my refusal to accept it), and is not a commodity that I can save up in order to cancel out personal sins.  I think it is more in line with RCC teachings to say that sin damages a person's relationship with God, while obedience stregthens it.  Participating in the sacraments is to obey God.

I have been reading the Orthodox thread from time to time and I think they are sincere and fairminded about the differences in our teachings.  The only thing I would like to clarify is that I think we are closer in our beliefs regarding the Eucharist then the Orthodox thread seems to communicate.

blessings

Thanks.   

Can I have a follow-up question? 

Could you explain mortal vs. venial sins?  I thought I had a handle on it, but your previous answer seems to indicate that I'm missing something.

Thanks,

Jarrod

Sure. Think of mortal and venial sins in the context of a marriage relationship.  A relationship between a husband and wife can survive minor injuries like white lies, etc, because they do not impact how the couple view each other or themselves.  Affairs, abuse, and substance abuse however, affect how both people in the relationship view each other and themselves; all must be resolved if the relationship is going to continue as it once did.

Adam and Eve commited a mortal sin in the Garden - in their case, they could no longer remain in fellowship with God because their view of God and themselves became so damaged that it was beyond repair without God's intervention.  Since God gave us His Son, we are now able to go to Him and reconcille all of our mortal and venial sins through His sacrifice.

Venial sins must be resolved as well, but they do not change the way we view ourselves or how we view God.  In the RCC we are taught to go to God and ask for forgiveness from Him and then go to a priest for confession.  The reason we go to a priest is to hear the comformation of God's forgiveness, and to ask forgiveness from the members of the church body, represented by a priest.

All sin has temporal and etenal consequences.  Since mortal sin damages your view of yourself and your relationship with God so much that without reconcilliation, you will be eternally separated from Him - Hell.  In the case of venial sins  a person must ask for forgiveness while alive (personal prayer. confession, last rites), but will still have to face temporal punishment for those sins if the person was not held accountable for the sins while they were alive.  Purgatory is the place for people who are saved, but are still impure because of their venial sins that never received temporal correction.

So, mortal sin damages who a person is - the BTK killer for example, is so damaged by his crimes that he has lost the capacity to have a relationship with anyone, including God.  The only way he will get through his state of mortal sin is a direct intervention from God and a sincere confession.  Venial sins are not good, but they do not damage who we are or our ability to relate to others.

blessings

Quote from: ravenlorre on Fri Apr 11, 2008 - 14:52:30
Sure. Think of mortal and venial sins in the context of a marriage relationship.  A relationship between a husband and wife can survive minor injuries like white lies, etc, because they do not impact how the couple view each other or themselves.  Affairs, abuse, and substance abuse however, affect how both people in the relationship view each other and themselves; all must be resolved if the relationship is going to continue as it once did.

Adam and Eve commited a mortal sin in the Garden - in their case, they could no longer remain in fellowship with God because their view of God and themselves became so damaged that it was beyond repair without God's intervention.  Since God gave us His Son, we are now able to go to Him and reconcille all of our mortal and venial sins through His sacrifice.

Venial sins must be resolved as well, but they do not change the way we view ourselves or how we view God.  In the RCC we are taught to go to God and ask for forgiveness from Him and then go to a priest for confession.  The reason we go to a priest is to hear the comformation of God's forgiveness, and to ask forgiveness from the members of the church body, represented by a priest.

All sin has temporal and etenal consequences.  Since mortal sin damages your view of yourself and your relationship with God so much that without reconcilliation, you will be eternally separated from Him - Hell.  In the case of venial sins  a person must ask for forgiveness while alive (personal prayer. confession, last rites), but will still have to face temporal punishment for those sins if the person was not held accountable for the sins while they were alive.  Purgatory is the place for people who are saved, but are still impure because of their venial sins that never received temporal correction.

So, mortal sin damages who a person is - the BTK killer for example, is so damaged by his crimes that he has lost the capacity to have a relationship with anyone, including God.  The only way he will get through his state of mortal sin is a direct intervention from God and a sincere confession.  Venial sins are not good, but they do not damage who we are or our ability to relate to others.

blessings

Again, thank you.  That's a bunch to chew on.

Can I ask a related question?

It would seem to follow that RCC doctrine states that if a Christian dies with an unconfessed mortal sin, then he will go to hell. No chance of purgatory. Is that correct?

Quote from: mike on Sat Apr 12, 2008 - 06:54:25
Can I ask a related question?

It would seem to follow that RCC doctrine states that if a Christian dies with an unconfessed mortal sin, then he will go to hell. No chance of purgatory. Is that correct?

Yes.

I've only been here for a couple of days, and in that time period, I have spent most of time reading.  Kensington, have you noticed that a lot of people have had a problem with the way you deliver your message?  Is that ok with you?  You have been corrected many, many times regarding your ignorance associated with Catholicism, yet you persist in your lies and distortions regarding the RCC.  I am wondering why?   

Kensington is not the only person - just the person that reminds me of Ann Coulter the most.  It is sad to me that a board that claims to welcome all people who accept the Nicene Creed, yet allows members to attack people who are not in the Reformed tradition.

I think I have seen enough.  Thank you CD and the silent majority of decent Christians that have not chosen to attack.

Please cancel my membership.

Ravenlorre, here,

I am thankful for all of the dialog I have had the privilege of participate in on this thread.  I plan to no longer contribute to any of the threads on this board.

blessings

Quote from: ConsideringCatholicism on Tue Apr 15, 2008 - 20:13:35
I've only been here for a couple of days, and in that time period, I have spent most of time reading.  Kensington, have you noticed that a lot of people have had a problem with the way you deliver your message?  Is that ok with you?  You have been corrected many, many times regarding your ignorance associated with Catholicism, yet you persist in your lies and distortions regarding the RCC.  I am wondering why?   

Kensington is not the only person - just the person that reminds me of Ann Coulter the most.  It is sad to me that a board that claims to welcome all people who accept the Nicene Creed, yet allows members to attack people who are not in the Reformed tradition.

I think I have seen enough.  Thank you CD and the silent majority of decent Christians that have not chosen to attack.

Please cancel my membership.

I'm not sure why you thought you needed to pull me in here.... I've posted two different occasions in this topic since SEPTEMBER>... now that is a while.

If you mean in the Religious discussions, that is where our thoughts and opinions are supposed to go.  Ann Coulter aaaayy?  I don't think I'll ever have her kind of money though.  Dagnabbit! 

Quote from: ravenloreI on Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 01:46:07
Ravenlorre, here,

I am thankful for all of the dialog I have had the privilege of participate in on this thread.  I plan to no longer contribute to any of the threads on this board.

blessings

Ravenlorre has left the building?  Say it isn't so!!

i have read all the posts for this thread and i have found them interesting. like the person who started this thread I am also a Catholic. Those of you who have asked questions about the Catholic Church have very good questions.

Ravenlorre, or anyone,

I figured someone here could answer a question...

Could someone expound on the nine consecutive first Fridays that if you receive communion -"something" is "promised" by  ? The Virgin Mary?.

I even remember this from High School - I know practicing Catholics must know the history of this ---Thanks alot. I think I asked before but no one got back to me.

Thanks again, Elaine  :)

I'm no Catholic, but here's a Catholic reference...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11141b.htm

jmgIII,
Thank you, what a great resource for my questions!

And if anyone else is reading this and wants to comment on their personal experience doing 9 First Fridays pls - feel free.

For the record I'm not a practicing Catholic -but was raised one. :)

Peace Elaine

There is one thing I don't agree on about the Catholics and I have a question about it. Why do Catholic's pray to the Virgin Mary or to a dead Priest to look for inspiration? Jesus said "I am the truth the way and the life", Jesus Christ is the only way and we should pray in his name alone.

When Jesus was being crucified he said "Woman behold your son, son behold your mother" He said woman, he didn't say holy virgin mother or even mother. No doubt Mary was a virgin and did conceive the Lord, Jesus and was his mother, Jesus was the son of David son of Abraham, but I don't believe there is anything sacred about Mary, She was just blessed beyond all women and conceived Christ, but why do catholic's believe they should pray to Mary or even to a dead priest for inspiration? They can't answer your prayers only God can in the name of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, why do Catholics feel the urge to confess their sins to a priest, a mere man and not go directly to God?

If you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, then you don't believe in dead people.  All are alive to God, some living in this mortal life, some living in the post-mortal life, but none are dead.

As per the book of Revelation and Hebrews 12, we know that those in heaven are aware of what goes on here on earth and pray for those on earth.

Since we asking Christians living in this mortal life to pray for us, we also ask Christians living in the post-mortal life to pray for us.

We confess our sins because James 5 tells us to confess our sins to one another, and reconciliation after sinning is something handled by the leaders of the Church (as per Matthew 18).  In the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches the priest functions like the New Testament elder (in fact, the English word "priest" comes etymologically from the Greek word "presbyteros").

Quote from: Galjtx1986 on Sat Oct 18, 2008 - 09:58:44
There is one thing I don't agree on about the Catholics and I have a question about it. Why do Catholic's pray to the Virgin Mary or to a dead Priest to look for inspiration? Jesus said "I am the truth the way and the life", Jesus Christ is the only way and we should pray in his name alone.

When Jesus was being crucified he said "Woman behold your son, son behold your mother" He said woman, he didn't say holy virgin mother or even mother. No doubt Mary was a virgin and did conceive the Lord, Jesus and was his mother, Jesus was the son of David son of Abraham, but I don't believe there is anything sacred about Mary, She was just blessed beyond all women and conceived Christ, but why do catholic's believe they should pray to Mary or even to a dead priest for inspiration? They can't answer your prayers only God can in the name of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, why do Catholics feel the urge to confess their sins to a priest, a mere man and not go directly to God?

These are such great questions and have been asked by many. I'm not a presently practicing Catholic but played one in my youth. :)

Though the praying to saints and Mary is very sweet, I too, go directly to the Father in Jesus' Name . I praise and worship Jesus in prayer formally or with a wink and a smile all throughout the day.( Which dead priest are you referring to, btw?)

I read James 5 and the interpretation could be made in different ways, for sure.

Confession is usually held only on Sat afternoons here --which means technically I can't receive communion on Fridays when I'd like to at my neighborhood church if I can't make it the week before ---according to their rules.   My Aunt who married a divorced (Cath) man attended church everyday of her life, yet couldn't receive communion, according to their rules.  So many of these rules would  not be sanctioned  by Jesus, imho.
I think He would look upon them as He did the Pharisees' rules and rituals.
Don't you?

  I'm sorry but, the Catholic Church is a tough one for me - filled with rules and regulations and so many set up by a bunch of men in the 4th c.
controlling peasant masses --I don't know why people stay with it.

A direct, intimate, personal relationship with the Creator, Father, Sustainer, Lord Almighty, Ever-present, Omniscient, Eternal Being without the rules for me is the way of an advanced spirit. Again, imho.

( Oh boy, 'advanced spirit' sounds so egotistical - it's just that I don't think sheep are what we were meant to be - maybe it will bring up another topic for us to all discuss though)

To dive into and dissect every single, solitary word of Jesus' is the study of my life. I don't think He's 100% pleased with the Catholic Church as it is today and all of it's rules. Imho. For what it's worth ...

But, I respect my Catholic friends and see they have alot to offer to the table and have much wisdom in many ways and much devotion depending upon the person. I watch EWTN alot.  But end up turning to my Evangelical teachers  more often on the other Christian TV stations -sorry.

And why does Matthew, first thing, try to tell us of Joseph's lineage when he's not supposed to be Jesus' biological father.

There are many questions --I presently bought The Lost Scriptures. There are many hidden things kept from us by the Church.   I can't trust it 100%.

I'm surprised so many do. Trust Jesus. Always learn and study more and more - grow and blossom more and more in your understanding of deep truths. Is my philosophy.

God bless,
Elaine

Yea, who needs rules?  Should we consider throwing out the Ten Commandments as well?  Point made.

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 - 11:52:38
Yea, who needs rules?  Should we consider throwing out the Ten Commandments as well?

Not all of them, just the second one.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Wed Oct 22, 2008 - 11:59:35

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 - 11:52:38
Yea, who needs rules?  Should we consider throwing out the Ten Commandments as well?

Not all of them, just the second one.

I'm shocked, Charles, that you would advocate worshipping some other God!

Actually, I wasn't talking about me...

Oh, well you aren't talking about Catholics or Orthodox, so who *are* you talking about?

Quote from: broach972 on Wed Oct 22, 2008 - 11:52:38
Yea, who needs rules?  Should we consider throwing out the Ten Commandments as well?  Point made.

Dear Broach,

I have no intention of throwing them out - you can if you'd like.

We may have a case of apples and oranges. And, sorry, I'm not competitive, certainly about matters of the Lord - so you can have all the points you'd like. I'm not a debater, nor a defender of any faith. These are my perceptions or thoughts and you certainly don't have to go along with them. I don't want to make you mad or feel threatened and I will be more careful in the future.


Apples~~Commandments directly from God to Moses.(Man)
Oranges~~ rules laid out by man that can change dramatically if another     meeting is held.

John1:17

Mt 22:37-40   Are great reads, btw.

When one follows the greater commandment of Love the 10 Commandments come naturally.   Jesus trumps the Old Covenant Law in my book.

You probably like rules. You may need rules. There was a certain point I personally reached where for me it was obvious there was something much more important and much higher going on than following rules. Rules that are not in the Bible.   

Who came up with that someone can't partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus, because they haven't been able to make it to confession, anyway? - or because they had an apple 15 minutes before communion. Or that it is ok to accost me, truly accost me because I want to hold the Eucharist for a few more feet and hold it at my seat and pray before I eat it. (Jesus)

Rules, rules, rules -- some make as much sense to me as not saving your animal if it went astray on the sabbath as it did to Jesus or not healing someone because it was on the sabbath as it did Jesus or any number of rule breakers that Jesus committed  - why? to snap them out of their rules and wake them up to the new way of Love He was their to show them.

Legalism is not my thing.  Jesus came with grace. We are under grace. It's a New Covenant and I thank God.

If it's workin' for you - great. It was not the right fit for me. And I shouldn't be posting here.   My apologies.

God bless,
Elaine




   

Elaine,
By all means continue to post here.  My time is very limited these days (ah, the joys of a new school year and fatherhood).  I wish that I could go into greater depth on these matters, and I do miss debating these matters on a daily basis.

I would offer this suggestion though...instead of focusing on the "rules" themselves, perhaps focus on why these "rules" exist in the first place.  Instead of thinking in terms of "apples" and "oranges," think of a smoothie instead.

I am a convert to the Catholic faith and it is definitely working for me...I wish that I had done it much earlier in my life.

God bless.

Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen

I've got a question, when are you Catholics going to let those CofC'ers realize that their singing is a style invented by Catholics?

That's right, Gary.  We Orthodox were acapella long before the CoC was even a sparkle in the Campbell's eyes.

Uh oh... in that case, as you can see, Gary, maybe the Roman Catholic Church didn't invent a capella singing... if the Orthodox were doing it before that. 

I bet even the Copts of old had a capella.

A tradition that goes all the way back to the New Testament Church^TM.

All humor aside, DCR, a capella singing does go all the way back.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Oct 22, 2008 - 22:05:18
All humor aside, DCR, a capella singing does go all the way back.

Four part harmony, CofC style a capella goes all the way back?