(Why become a Roman catholic.)

[stevehut]

Did the first-century have icons and pray the Rosary?

Did the apostles teach these things?

[CDHealy]

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words.  I'm certain the Orthodox would even agree with that, given the emphasis on icons/pictures, even as used in worship.  What I found interesting, and perhaps even somewhat disturbing was... out of all the paintings inside this sanctuary, the largest was the painting of the Virgin Mary... front and center and largest of all the paintings... even dwarfing any icons of Jesus.  I'm not suggesting a deliberate worship of Mary.  But, there's something in my Protestant sensibilities that cringes at this. 

Some considerations:

1. Who is front and center in the icon in the picture?  Jesus.
2. The icon is what as known as the "Platytera" or "More Spacious than the Heavens."  Our hymnology says of Mary that the God who could not be contained by the heavens was contained (in his humanity) in her womb (and I take the chance here to once again point out that the things said of Mary have reference to Christ; there is no such thing as "Mariology," it is Christology).  In other words, as was just noted, this icon is about Christ, and what is said/depicted of Mary has full reference to Christ.
3. It is not the largest icon in the building.  If you remember, there is a dome in that structure, which stands about the nave (the place where the congregations stands in worship of God), and the icon painted in the dome, the largest icon of all in the building, is that of the Pantocrator, or of Jesus, the Almighty one.
4. Without Mary there is no Incarnation.  And without the Incarnation there is no salvation.  It's as simple as that.  That is why in the icon in your picture, Christ is depicted front and center (represented as a young child to emphasize the Incarnation).  It is a powerful depiction of the Gospel: that the God of heaven condescended to become man and be born of the Virgin.

[CDHealy]

Did the first-century have icons and pray the Rosary?

Did the apostles teach these things?

1. Icons? Yes.  Reference the catacombs.
2. Rosary? Yes.  Read Luke 1 again.  The prayers of the Rosary (the Lord's Prayer, the Hail Mary, the Glory to the Father) are nothing more than Scripture verses.

Yes, the Apostles taught these things.  Luke, author of the Gospel, was the first iconographer.

Has iconography developed, in technique and form, over the centuries?  Of course.  All art forms do.  But the principles by which the first icons were made (some of them in the Roman catacombs) are the same principles by which they are made today.

Did someone take the verses of Scripture and arrange them in the form that is now the Rosary?  Yes.  But the verses were there all along.  In principle, it's no different than the Protestant choruses (also largely Scripture verses) splashed up on large projector screens, which congregations repeat over and over.

[Circuitridingpreacher]

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words.  I'm certain the Orthodox would even agree with that, given the emphasis on icons/pictures, even as used in worship.  What I found interesting, and perhaps even somewhat disturbing was... out of all the paintings inside this sanctuary, the largest was the painting of the Virgin Mary... front and center and largest of all the paintings... even dwarfing any icons of Jesus.  I'm not suggesting a deliberate worship of Mary.  But, there's something in my Protestant sensibilities that cringes at this. 

Some considerations:

1. Who is front and center in the icon in the picture?  Jesus.
2. The icon is what as known as the "Platytera" or "More Spacious than the Heavens."  Our hymnology says of Mary that the God who could not be contained by the heavens was contained (in his humanity) in her womb (and I take the chance here to once again point out that the things said of Mary have reference to Christ; there is no such thing as "Mariology," it is Christology).  In other words, as was just noted, this icon is about Christ, and what is said/depicted of Mary has full reference to Christ.
3. It is not the largest icon in the building.  If you remember, there is a dome in that structure, which stands about the nave (the place where the congregations stands in worship of God), and the icon painted in the dome, the largest icon of all in the building, is that of the Pantocrator, or of Jesus, the Almighty one.
4. Without Mary there is no Incarnation.  And without the Incarnation there is no salvation.  It's as simple as that.  That is why in the icon in your picture, Christ is depicted front and center (represented as a young child to emphasize the Incarnation).  It is a powerful depiction of the Gospel: that the God of heaven condescended to become man and be born of the Virgin.

What a ruse...

If there was no Christ, there would be no Mary....

CRP

[Jimmy]

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words.  I'm certain the Orthodox would even agree with that, given the emphasis on icons/pictures, even as used in worship.  What I found interesting, and perhaps even somewhat disturbing was... out of all the paintings inside this sanctuary, the largest was the painting of the Virgin Mary... front and center and largest of all the paintings... even dwarfing any icons of Jesus.  I'm not suggesting a deliberate worship of Mary.  But, there's something in my Protestant sensibilities that cringes at this. 

Some considerations:

1. Who is front and center in the icon in the picture?  Jesus.
2. The icon is what as known as the "Platytera" or "More Spacious than the Heavens."  Our hymnology says of Mary that the God who could not be contained by the heavens was contained (in his humanity) in her womb (and I take the chance here to once again point out that the things said of Mary have reference to Christ; there is no such thing as "Mariology," it is Christology).  In other words, as was just noted, this icon is about Christ, and what is said/depicted of Mary has full reference to Christ.
3. It is not the largest icon in the building.  If you remember, there is a dome in that structure, which stands about the nave (the place where the congregations stands in worship of God), and the icon painted in the dome, the largest icon of all in the building, is that of the Pantocrator, or of Jesus, the Almighty one.
4. Without Mary there is no Incarnation.  And without the Incarnation there is no salvation.  It's as simple as that.  That is why in the icon in your picture, Christ is depicted front and center (represented as a young child to emphasize the Incarnation).  It is a powerful depiction of the Gospel: that the God of heaven condescended to become man and be born of the Virgin.

Without Mary, God would have simply chosen someone else.

[Elaine]

the church was never violent and murderous...

The church never taught anyone to kill.

rofl

Now, that's the funniest (and most untrue) thing I've heard all day.

I have to admit - I'm just learning about some history of the Catholic Church and the popes, the Knights Templar and all ---and it was just horrible - the massacres that happened to, say, the Cathers -women and children brutally killed bec they believed "differently"---whole villages in France wiped out.  So many politics and evil men involved.  Correct me if I'm wrong.
And above someone said for a "few years", I believe ----it was for over a century wasn't it, Steve?
I certainly feel differently about the church of my innocent youth.
But not about Jesus. :)
Thanks, Elaine

[Circuitridingpreacher]

The name Mary is a latter form of the name Miriam, which means "rebellion

[stevehut]

Healy, I don't understand.  Yes, I can see that some of the component parts of the Rosary are contained in Scripture.  But I don't see where anyone assembled them into a ritual and prayed the same prayer twice, much over and over as my family does with the Rosary. 

I just recently visited my old parish for the first time in over 30 years.  I saw about a dozen people waiting in line to bow down before the statue of Mary.  They broke out their Rosaries, closed their eyes, and prayed fervently.

This doesn't look like they were "just asking her to pray for them, just like any other request for intercessory prayer."  When I ask my friend to pray for me, we just have a normal conversation.

Looks like worship to me.

[Elaine]

But, Steve , remember that when the rosary is said we/they are supposed to have mental pictures of certain scenes of Jesus --- diff scenes on certain days of the week. The praying stills and focuses the mind and places the attention on Jesus with Mary as a beloved intercessor.   
I may be waking up to "fabrications" of the Cath Church and all - but, it's not all "bad".

So, I know, it seems as if people are worshipping Mary - or a statue even - but, hopefully not. It's an age old way of meditation/contemplation - stilling the mind - with a focus on Jesus. It really is a beautiful thing, imho. Whether the tradition can be found in the Bible or not. And as I recall -it's not mandatory.

Love and devotion directed to Our Lord - no matter what form - is a beautiful thing.   (except for killing as a form of love and devotion - I don't have all the answers)
Cheers, Elaine

[CDHealy]

What a ruse...

If there was no Christ, there would be no Mary....

If there were no Christ, none of us would be.  So what?

The fact remains, that Mary, and only Mary, gave Christ his humanity.  God didn't just wave his divine wand, create a baby out of nothing, and then shove it into Mary's womb.  Mary acquiesced to God's will, and God combined his divinity with her ovum.

Nobody else ever has or ever will do that.

Not you.  Not me.  Only Mary.

[CDHealy]

Without Mary, God would have simply chosen someone else.

Scripture, please.  Prove it.

But even stipulating your point.  It doesn't eliminate mine.  If God *had* chosen someone else, let's call her Novo-Eve, then *she* would have been the only one to have given God his humanity.

[CDHealy]

The name Mary is a latter form of the name Miriam, which means “rebellion”. It is a perfect name for the central idol of the papal/orthodox religion.

CRP

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

What a crock.  Not even Gesenius, who apparently first proposed it, stuck with it, abandoning it later as philogically impossible.

[CDHealy]

Healy, I don't understand.  Yes, I can see that some of the component parts of the Rosary are contained in Scripture.  But I don't see where anyone assembled them into a ritual and prayed the same prayer twice, much over and over as my family does with the Rosary.

Read Psalm 136 (135 in Septuagint) and get back to me on "repetitive" praying.

And in case that doesn't help, read Luke 18 on persistent praying.

I just recently visited my old parish for the first time in over 30 years.  I saw about a dozen people waiting in line to bow down before the statue of Mary.  They broke out their Rosaries, closed their eyes, and prayed fervently.

This doesn't look like they were "just asking her to pray for them, just like any other request for intercessory prayer."  When I ask my friend to pray for me, we just have a normal conversation.

Looks like worship to me.

Good thing we don't rely on you to judge what's going on in people's hearts.

If we stipulate that even one of those persons in line you observed were actually worshipping Mary, just like we are supposed to worship God, I can guarantee you that if it were brought to the attention of the priest, he'd give that individual an education on what true Catholic doctrine and worship is all about.

No, sorry, "Hut," but just because your ignorance and prejudice causes you to believe veneration of the saints is worship doesn't change the reality of the faith and practice of the Church.  In other words, it's not the Catholics who have the problem--since they don't worship Mary and the saints as you claim--it's *your* problem because of your unwillingness to believe the evidence instead of your own bias.

[Jimmy]

Without Mary, God would have simply chosen someone else.

Scripture, please.  Prove it.

But even stipulating your point.  It doesn't eliminate mine.  If God *had* chosen someone else, let's call her Novo-Eve, then *she* would have been the only one to have given God his humanity.

I believe that the Bible says that the Holy Spirit did that (Luke 1).

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Johnb, that "growth" in the RC church is illusory.  Over 80% of their "growth" is among baptisms of infants and little children, who have neither faith or belief nor repentance to have any idea of what they're doing.

Most First Communions are under the compulsion of parents, not the free choice of the kids.

And only a small percentage of all people on the rolls of RC churches, even show up for Mass in the course of an average month.  My whole family left an RC parish back in 1970.  I just inquired at the rectory recently, and we are still on the rolls as members in good standing.

I'm not impressed.

These stats are from 1997
# Baptist - 43 million.

# Lutheran - 66 million.

# Methodist - 11 million.

# Presbyterian - 75 million.

# Roman Catholic - More than a billion.

Presently there are an estimated 65 million Roman Catholics in the US alone, world wide 1.5 billion, Just in the US alone with 65 million is more than all the other well know denominations put together. 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

I agree with Steve, given the statistical number of Catholics worldwide the outcome might seem staggering but these polls rarely take into consideration if these people are really practicing or if they were simply christened by their parents as an infant.

True, but many Roman Catholic churches are full. the majority of people we come in contact with are Catholics, whether or not they attend regularly is another point, if things get rough, where do they go? To their mother church.

I think given the overall percentages for Christianity, I  tend to think the numbers would be dramatically lower if these polls were conducted counting those who practiced genuine Biblical Christianity

Yes I agree, this is the same for all branches of Christianity. Not only are their many Catholics who do not attend regularly but just as many protestants who also do not attend regularly.

[CDHealy]

I believe that the Bible says that the Holy Spirit did that (Luke 1).

There's nothing in Luke 1 that says that God would have chosen someone else if Mary hadn't accepted his will.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Mother Teresa happens on a lessor degree in many places in spite of IMO the RC leadership. 

This is perhaps a minor point in this discussion, but according to her own testimony, MT was not Catholic.  She was far too ecumenically-minded, and allowed for all religions to be a path to heaven.  When she established her convent in India back in the 1950's, it was not under the supervision of any church or bishop.

But, what were her religious practices? Or anyone else who claims they are not under the supervision of any said religious organization. For example, anyone can claim they are not Roman catholic, but, they do follow the practices like, the belief in Purgatory, praying to the saints, holy water, rosary beads, ect.....
Scripture says we will know them by their fruit.

[stevehut]

1- Good thing we don't rely on you to judge what's going on in people's hearts.

2- it's *your* problem because of your unwillingness to believe the evidence instead of your own bias.

1-   ?I made no attempt to gauge hearts or intentions.  Only appearances, which is important for any church that seeks to evangelize others.

2- Oh, there was evidence?     I must have missed it.  All I saw in your posts was unsupported assertions.

[stevehut]

Foghorn, I'm not sure just what to make of those stats.

Survey after survey has shown that the majority of Catholics don't attend Mass with any regularity.  I, for one, left my local parish in 1971.  But just recently, when I happened to be in the neighborhood, so I stopped in at the Rectory to see if I was still on the books as a member.  Sho 'nuff, the secretary showed me an entry that I was baptized in 1962.  And because I was baptized there, I will always be a part of the fold.  They don't know that my sister ceased to call herself a Christian (of any type) about 30 years ago.  And they don't know that our parents are dead.  They still count all four of us as members.

Yes, most churches have this problem to some extent, but the percentage of exaggeration among RC's seems to be much greater.

[stevehut]

1- Or anyone else who claims they are not under the supervision of any said religious organization.

2- For example, anyone can claim they are not Roman catholic,

3- Scripture says we will know them by their fruit.

1- We don't need to rely on her "claims."  Her convent was not organized under the authority of any church or bishop, period.

2- Again, I didn't say she "claimed" anything.  But just listen to her as she expounds her beliefs ("all religions lead to God) and it is clear that she wasn't Catholic.

3- And therefore...??  Even my athiest relatives have a conscience, and do good deeds.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Foghorn, I'm not sure just what to make of those stats.

Survey after survey has shown that the majority of Catholics don't attend Mass with any regularity.  I, for one, left my local parish in 1971.  But just recently, when I happened to be in the neighborhood, so I stopped in at the Rectory to see if I was still on the books as a member.  Sho 'nuff, the secretary showed me an entry that I was baptized in 1962.  And because I was baptized there, I will always be a part of the fold.  They don't know that my sister ceased to call herself a Christian (of any type) about 30 years ago.  And they don't know that our parents are dead.  They still count all four of us as members.

Yes, most churches have this problem to some extent, but the percentage of exaggeration among RC's seems to be much greater.

Wow, that's pretty interesting. I didn't know that, thanks for your reply, and nice to meet you.

[DCR]

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words.  I'm certain the Orthodox would even agree with that, given the emphasis on icons/pictures, even as used in worship.  What I found interesting, and perhaps even somewhat disturbing was... out of all the paintings inside this sanctuary, the largest was the painting of the Virgin Mary... front and center and largest of all the paintings... even dwarfing any icons of Jesus.  I'm not suggesting a deliberate worship of Mary.  But, there's something in my Protestant sensibilities that cringes at this. 

Some considerations:

1. Who is front and center in the icon in the picture?  Jesus.
2. The icon is what as known as the "Platytera" or "More Spacious than the Heavens."  Our hymnology says of Mary that the God who could not be contained by the heavens was contained (in his humanity) in her womb (and I take the chance here to once again point out that the things said of Mary have reference to Christ; there is no such thing as "Mariology," it is Christology).  In other words, as was just noted, this icon is about Christ, and what is said/depicted of Mary has full reference to Christ.

When I sat in there, the expansive depiction of Mary is what drew my attention, with her arms spanning the front of the sanctuary.  A young, smaller Jesus may have been in front of her.  But, without knowing all the taught symbolism of what the various icons mean (and, the person given the presentation did go over some of the meaning), it appears to the outsider to put Mary in some kind of central position as the great protector... a position that seemingly should be reserved for God/Christ.  She's central to everything that is going on in those icons up front... and, at least to me, she attracts the focus of attention.  But, perhaps that's more a criticism of the iconography itself, rather than the theology behind it... or perhaps my negative reaction to what the iconography seems to imply (again, only visually speaking... this is subjective) points to Mary being placed in a higher place than I'm really comfortable with.

3. It is not the largest icon in the building.  If you remember, there is a dome in that structure, which stands about the nave (the place where the congregations stands in worship of God), and the icon painted in the dome, the largest icon of all in the building, is that of the Pantocrator, or of Jesus, the Almighty one.

And, I honestly didn't notice that.  Perhaps, they pointed that out in session, and I don't remember it.  But, again, without making an effort to look upward to notice that, the large painting of Mary with her arms spanning the front of the sanctuary is what draws my attention.  The young caricature of Jesus almost appears subservient to His visually greater mother behind Him.

4. Without Mary there is no Incarnation.  And without the Incarnation there is no salvation.  It's as simple as that.  That is why in the icon in your picture, Christ is depicted front and center (represented as a young child to emphasize the Incarnation).  It is a powerful depiction of the Gospel: that the God of heaven condescended to become man and be born of the Virgin.

Understood.  I know you will say that such devotion/attention to Mary goes back in Church "Tradition" from the very beginning.  But, this central place for her in the faith... at least as the iconography implies and as is spelled out in Orthodox and Catholic theology... seems to be absent in the earliest church tradition and evangelism.  I simply don't see Mary being as extensively written about in the New Testament, compared to later Catholic/Orthodox thought about her.  Obviously, you can point us to Luke's attention to her in the early part of his gospel account.  But, there's honestly not much else about her beyond that.  At the very least, modern Catholic/Orthodox attention to Mary "seems" out of proportion to the attention given to her by the original Apostles and the original apostolic orthodox church as described in the New Testament.

[CDHealy]

1-   ?I made no attempt to gauge hearts or intentions.  Only appearances, which is important for any church that seeks to evangelize others.

Well, actually, since you assert, based on appearances, that they're worshipping creatures instead of the Creator, you *are* "guag[ing] hearts and intentions.  Attempting to wiggle out of it and saying, "Oh, it was only what it looks like," doesn't work.  When those incorrect perceptions based on those appearances have been addressed, then it's your responsibility to admit your perceptions are, in fact, wrong.

2- Oh, there was evidence?     I must have missed it.  All I saw in your posts was unsupported assertions.

Pot meet kettle.

[CDHealy]

Foghorn, I'm not sure just what to make of those stats.

Survey after survey has shown that the majority of Catholics don't attend Mass with any regularity.  I, for one, left my local parish in 1971.  But just recently, when I happened to be in the neighborhood, so I stopped in at the Rectory to see if I was still on the books as a member.  Sho 'nuff, the secretary showed me an entry that I was baptized in 1962.  And because I was baptized there, I will always be a part of the fold.  They don't know that my sister ceased to call herself a Christian (of any type) about 30 years ago.  And they don't know that our parents are dead.  They still count all four of us as members.

Yes, most churches have this problem to some extent, but the percentage of exaggeration among RC's seems to be much greater.

You apparently have a misunderstanding of the Sacramental theology of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as their adherence to the dominical prohibition against judging another's salvation.

[CDHealy]

1- We don't need to rely on her "claims."  Her convent was not organized under the authority of any church or bishop, period.

2- Again, I didn't say she "claimed" anything.  But just listen to her as she expounds her beliefs ("all religions lead to God) and it is clear that she wasn't Catholic.

3- And therefore...??  Even my atheist relatives have a conscience, and do good deeds.

Oh, good grief.  Talk about ripping quotes out of context, and a complete misunderstanding about how orders are founded (most have been founded "without permission")!

Believe me, if Christopher Hitchens couldn't convince the Roman Catholic Church that Mother Theresa wasn't a Catholic, no amount of internet skullduggery is going to change the fact: Mother Theresa died a Catholic in good standing with the Church, and has been beatified.

[CDHealy]

When I sat in there, the expansive depiction of Mary is what drew my attention, with her arms spanning the front of the sanctuary.  A young, smaller Jesus may have been in front of her.  But, without knowing all the taught symbolism of what the various icons mean (and, the person given the presentation did go over some of the meaning), it appears to the outsider to put Mary in some kind of central position as the great protector... a position that seemingly should be reserved for God/Christ.  She's central to everything that is going on in those icons up front... and, at least to me, she attracts the focus of attention.  But, perhaps that's more a criticism of the iconography itself, rather than the theology behind it... or perhaps my negative reaction to what the iconography seems to imply (again, only visually speaking... this is subjective) points to Mary being placed in a higher place than I'm really comfortable with.

Fair enough.  But one thing to understand: Orthodox do not evangelize in the same manner as do Protestants.  For Protestants, depending upon the denomination, you can leave one church one Sunday and become a member in good standing in another church the following Sunday.  And the Sunday after that choose yet another church.

But with Orthodox, especially if it is a matter of a Christian from another group seeking to enter the Orthodox Church, the norm is a much slower and more deliberate process.  In fact, in our archdiocese, the policy is that one has to attend Divine Liturgy and receive some form of catechesis by the priest for a year before one is received into the Church.  Sometimes this happens sooner, but usually not.  In fact, many times in our parish--almost entirely "converts" from other evangelical churches--this period (the catechumenate) is longer.

My point is: you're not going to get everything in one Greek festival visit.  And Orthodox are not above letting the teaching and worship of the Church offend you.  If you are a genuine seeker, you'll be back.  And back.  And back.  And we'll doing our best to explain it to you.

But for the Orthodox Church--as it has been for the Church for milennia--it is more about entering into the life and worship of the Church than it is about understanding everything and judging the Church by our own individual measurements before we join up.  Believe me, you can get as high a level of instruction on doctrine, liturgy and history as you can handle.  It's not about bypassing the mind.  But it is about engaging the heart--and for many non-charismatic/-Pentecostal Christians, *that* is an aspect of the soul that is way underdeveloped compared to the intellect.

And, I honestly didn't notice that.  Perhaps, they pointed that out in session, and I don't remember it.  But, again, without making an effort to look upward to notice that, the large painting of Mary with her arms spanning the front of the sanctuary is what draws my attention.  The young caricature of Jesus almost appears subservient to His visually greater mother behind Him.

There's no use arguing with impressions, other than to attempt to give the correct reality from which such impressions derive.  You are at least receptive to our explanation, if not convinced.

Understood.  I know you will say that such devotion/attention to Mary goes back in Church "Tradition" from the very beginning.  But, this central place for her in the faith... at least as the iconography implies and as is spelled out in Orthodox and Catholic theology... seems to be absent in the earliest church tradition and evangelism.  I simply don't see Mary being as extensively written about in the New Testament, compared to later Catholic/Orthodox thought about her.  Obviously, you can point us to Luke's attention to her in the early part of his gospel account.  But, there's honestly not much else about her beyond that.  At the very least, modern Catholic/Orthodox attention to Mary "seems" out of proportion to the attention given to her by the original Apostles and the original apostolic orthodox church as described in the New Testament.

Let me recommend to you the book (by a Roman Catholic patrologist), Mary and the Fathers of the Church, by Luigi Gambero.  Starting from the earliest Christian writings (within the first century and beyond), he shows how central Mary has been in the Gospel and teaching of the Church from the beginning.

But even if you look at the New Testament, Luke itself is sometimes considered later than Matthew and Mark.  If that supposition is true (I'm not asserting that it is), then we have a growing reference to Mary (from Mark to Matthew to Luke) in the Gospels themselves, as well as the Acts.

Furthermore, the silence of the Scriptures, in good ol' Campbellite teaching, is not dispositive.  The Bible is relatively "silent" on many essential matters: a formal teaching of the Trinity (though certainly the essence of Trinitarian teaching is there), the proper polity of the local Church, the frequency  of Communion, and so on.  Restorationists have built a whole practice about the frequency of the Lord's Supper on one vague verse in Acts 20--it happens to be correct, as history testifies, but that's the point.

But if you want the "silence is prohibitive" hermeneutic to guide you, go ahead.  It's done some real good so far.  (Tongue now removed from cheek.)

[kensington]

Fair enough.  But one thing to understand: Orthodox do not evangelize in the same manner as do Protestants.  For Protestants, depending upon the denomination, you can leave one church one Sunday and become a member in good standing in another church the following Sunday.  And the Sunday after that choose yet another church.

That is probably due to the FACT that Protestants understand the clear meaning of the "Body of Christ"  and that being member of it has nothing to do with which "Building" holds the paper with your name on it. 

BTW... If you move from one parish to another, you can change your membership that fast in the Catholic church...  infact, they tell you to.

[kensington]

the church was never violent and murderous.

There are members of the church who may have been, for a time, when anything else would have destroyed the early church. Even God was "violent and murderous" when the fledgling church was threatened by ananias and sapphira, and the apostles declared death for them and God killed them.

So we see, that there is a time and a place for force. This type of force is nothing like the brutality of the extremist islamics today, killing innocents for no reason other than they are not muslim.

The church never taught anyone to kill.

Yeah... and NONE of the Popes ever had affairs or illegitimate kids either... 

[kensington]

With the entire Catholic Catechism online,

You're kidding, right?

Most Catholics don't know or read their Catechism, even after studying it in school.  My Catholic friends think I'm crazy, when I tell them that the Immaculate Conception isn't about Jesus.

Hence, they're not equipped to witness to their Protestant friends and neighbors.

Unfortunately, I must agree with this statement.  As a recent convert to the Catholic faith, I have found that those that have converted have a better understanding and appreciation for the faith than do most "cradle" Catholics.  Many "cradle" Catholics who have left are starting to come back into the fold.

There is a new "evangelization" that is taking place within the Church.  You could say that a new "revival" is taking place, and I can only hope that it gains momentum as time goes on.

Well, I am glad and thankful my husband isn't.  He is leading "cradle Catholics" to the true word of God and out of the idolatry to VICTORY in Jesus!

I've thought about it for some time, and if my husband were to Go home to be with the LORD... Pass on...  and I saw ONE rosary, one prayer card, mass card, or novena card at his service, I'd have it removed...   Catholics are good about putting these things in with the person or whatever... I'm not having his family do that to him, not after all he has done to stand OUTSIDE of that idolatrous religion.

[CDHealy]

That is probably due to the FACT that Protestants understand the clear meaning of the "Body of Christ"  and that being member of it has nothing to do with which "Building" holds the paper with your name on it.

Protestant ecclesiology is not New Testament ecclesiology, precisely because it lacks the biblical essential quality of catholicity.  Protestant ecclesiology is inherently gnostic (non-incarnational and based almost entirely upon one's mental apprehensions) and schismatic.

BTW... If you move from one parish to another, you can change your membership that fast in the Catholic church...  infact, they tell you to.

Well, of course.  But the difference--and this is essential--Catholics may move from one parish to another, but they are not moving from one Church to another.  So you're comparing apples and oranges.

[broach972]

Well, I am glad and thankful my husband isn't.  He is leading "cradle Catholics" to the true word of God and out of the idolatry to VICTORY in Jesus!

I've thought about it for some time, and if my husband were to Go home to be with the LORD... Pass on...  and I saw ONE rosary, one prayer card, mass card, or novena card at his service, I'd have it removed...  Catholics are good about putting these things in with the person or whatever... I'm not having his family do that to him, not after all he has done to stand OUTSIDE of that idolatrous religion.

Kensington, I have pretty much decided to not to engage you on these matters.  Lord knows I don't have the time or temperament these days.  While Catholic members have become rare on this forum...I think that CD has done a fine job in attempting to explain the Catholic faith, and I am grateful for his input.  It is nice to see some of these boards become active again after the last major blow up.  The Catholic section of this forum reminds me of a battle field and some of those names listed in black have become martyrs I guess.

It is obvious that your animosity and hatred of the Catholic faith runs pretty deep.  Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if you wish to exist in a constant state of ignorance, then there isn't much I can do about that.  As far as your husband leading "cradle Catholics" astray...well, that is between him and God, and I am sure that he will have to answer for his actions someday.  I will leave it at that.

As always Kensington...it has been a pleasure.

[CDHealy]

Yeah... and NONE of the Popes ever had affairs or illegitimate kids either... 

No, the Church abolutely does not teach anyone to kill.  In fact, in the Orthodox Church (I do not know for sure about the Roman Catholic Church), if a priest is responsible for the death of anyone, even by accident (say unintentional car accident), he will be removed from the priesthood.

Of course, we Orthodox take a slightly different view of the office of the Pope than do Roman Catholics, but we readily admit that any member of the Church, pope or skullery maid, can commit sin.

[CDHealy]

. . . . that idolatrous religion.

You will answer to God for such blasphemy, calling demonic what  is the work of the Holy Spirit, as will we all for any careless word.

[broach972]

Well, of course.  But the difference--and this is essential--Catholics may move from one parish to another, but they are not moving from one Church to another.  So you're comparing apples and oranges.

This is one of the things that amazes me about the Catholic Church.  I am registered at one particular church but I can attend any Catholic Church I want.  It doesn't matter if I am in the U.S. or a different continent.