Topic awaiting preservation: catholics and other christians (Page 1 of 4)

i opened this thread for jade to respond to the questions posed for her - and to try to recover GN's thread for answers to his question

jade - these topics really deserve their own thread.. so here are the posts referred to. looking forward to your answers

WebShaman: I have a question, concerning the creation of Angels, and the war of the heavens (before the creation of Mankind). What exactly happened, and where is it explained? Do Angels have free will? And exactly what are Angels?

Bugimus: I would still love to participate in another thread making the case for Papal Authority but not if it's going to consist of arguments about how "you" Protestants mucked everything up with that schism thing. I don't consider myself a Protestant by the way so I didn't take that personally.

[edit- add link

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 03-11-2003).]

Thanks, velvetrose.

jade, if you're still with us, I would like to extend a welcome for you to make a case for Papal Authority. This is one of the primary reasons I am not a Roman Catholic but still consider myself a Christian.

I believe we should model our churches after the New Testament example of autonomous congregations led by a group of elders. Each church acting in concert with sister churches in the world as opposed to a central authority seated in Rome. I have arguments to back this up and am interested to hear your views.

Thanks for the open invitation.

quote:

---

I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power. It is religion, under whatever form and in whatever nation. It is the sacerdotal caste, the priesthood and the churches; it is in those illusions that man looks upon as sacred that he has to search out the source of that multitude of evils which is the great curse of humanity and that almost overwhelms mankind. - Koot Hoomi

---

I think if people could learn to put aside their differing opinions and guidelines for reaching salvation, we would all realize that we are already in heaven in a sense, and what is afterwards is only another version of the heaven we have here on earth. To bow down to rules created by either Protestans or Roman Catholics is all the same to me, it's just that the rules vary, and the harshness by which they are followed varies.

Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

Cool Let's do it.

[edit] GN, you posted while I did. That has already been tried in certain groups and it leads to just as much suffering and injustice as any other *human* endeavor. For every abuse of the Church over the years I have the last century to point out much worse offenses committed during non-religious attempts to create a better world. [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-11-2003).]

First of all the I will only give you knowledge of what I know to be cc teaching, not my own opinion. Since I have been a spoon fed catholic I might enlighten you on and maybe not on what the basis is for a lot of cc belief. Their is so much theology but i will try to be brief:

First of all the RC sees all other sects of christianity as separated brothers in sisters in that we believe in the same savior "Jesus". In the inital break with RC, Martin Luther and his spiritual descendents were in are in a state of protest to this day. The RC sees the relationship of the church to Christ as a holy marriage. The church being the bride and Jesus being the bridegroom & spouse (this is biblical info).
Now in RC teaching the church is mystical meaning that it is an institution, a physical building, a holy sacrament, a body of believers, evangelizer & messenger. I will refer to the church as a female in that she is the bride. Now we all know that the instituion of marriage is sacred and that it is a bond that should last forever. At least when you say "I do" you promise to love and obey till death do you part. And in the marriage state you become one. You give yourself to each other in the most personal way. In every way. This becomes the most intense love relationship. So like the church, the bride totally submits to Christ the bridegroom in the most personal way possible. The are one. In the event the bride (referring to people in a RC mystic way) wants to break with the spouse, she separates herself from the body even though she has already become one with it. Though she does not live with the spouse she is still married to him. Unless she no longer wants to be in body of Christ in that she can no longer believe in him(savior) so she wants a total break, like in marraige a divorce. You will notice if you are a bible christian references are made to compare the relationship of between jesus and man to a marriage if you want to research.

Now since the RC considers all other forms of christianity as separated within the body of christ, she considers them under its wing, under its protection and prays for them to become one again in all mystical ways. She does not accept divorce and does not believe in it. And of course even though they do not acknowlege her authority or want to have anything to do with her, she remains commited to them foever.

There is a *huge* difference between being sperated from the catholic church and being seperated from christ.

It is nothing but arrogance that allows catholics to hold the belief that because they have left the catholic church they have left their faith, or are in any way less suitabley 'attached' to jesus.

The catholic church has no grounds on which to think that to be a christian you *should* acknowledge the supposed "authority" of their heirarchal and self aggrandizing organization.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-11-2003).]

Pardon me. But I never said there was no salvation outside the Catholic church. The only way you cannot be saved is if you deny the Holy Spirit (Check your bible).

Ok so let's here the argument for Papal Authority now.

In RC teaching of the "Chair of Peter, Bishop of Rome" This is the highest seat in hierachical world of Christianity and also the world.
In Chuch history and you will not find this in your bible but you can trace every bishop of Rome till Peter. (Peter's bones are also buired directly under the main altar of Pope John Paul and they were not put there because the altar is directly on there. They were unearthed there in the 20th century.)

I don't want to quote scripture but if your a bible christian you will find Jesus himself refering to his Apostle, Peter as the Rock on which he will build his church. Even though Peter was not perfect and with human fault , Jesus sees strength in the faith that Peter has and the Rock is referencing rock solid faith. Jesus tells Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church and what ever he binds on earth willl be bound in heaven, etc. Now I know he did not pull the other apostles aside and tell them the same thing, only Peter, not the favorite evangilizing apostle for evagelicals, Paul. Jesus also says that he will give Peter the Keys to his Kingdom. ( Now in the old testment look up what the chief steward does and how when the king went to sleep he was incharge of all the doors to the kingdom abode. He had the keys to all the doors. This steward is referencing office of Peter, (sorry there is lots of typology to refer to on how NT fulfills the old, like adam-new adam,jesus/eve-new eve, mary, Exodus slaughered lamb/jesus, etc )

For the first 300 plus years of christianity there was no bible only tradition that tells us most of the early bishops of Rome (Popes) were maryted. The RC has recorded history of all this so does your neighborhood library. Later on when the church established councils, they always met to decree doctrine, always recgonizing the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth, the holy see, the chief steward, the servant of the people. They also decreed what books to put in the bible, determined they were inspired by god and officially closed the cannon of the bible, under the see of the existing pope. Now with the acception of the books taken out of the bible after the reformation the bible is a catholic book authored by cathoics, and its guardian.

In matters of church doctrine the pope is infallible. In matters of tradition with the times, can be changed. The pope is human. He is not perfect. Just like Peter. But in the office that he holds, he is a shephard guarding the flock till the Master arrives. His aim is to unite, not dominate Gods people.

We have to agree that the Pope is considered the world most famous person. He does not see noteriety. He is a peacemaker.

I will try to be brief:

In RC teaching of the "Chair of Peter, Bishop of Rome" This is the highest seat in hierachical world of Christianity and also the world.
In Chuch history and you will not find this in your bible but you can trace every bishop of Rome till Peter. (Peter's bones are also buired directly under the main altar of Pope John Paul in the Vatican and they were not put there because the altar is directly on there. They were unearthed there in the 20th century.)

I don't want to quote scripture but if your a bible christian you will find Jesus himself refering to his Apostle, Peter as the Rock on which he will build his church. Even though Peter was not perfect and with human fault , Jesus sees strength in the faith that Peter has and the Rock is referencing rock solid faith. Jesus tells Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church and what ever he binds on earth willl be bound in heaven, etc. Now I know he did not pull the other apostles aside and tell them the same thing, only Peter, not the favorite evangilizing apostle for evagelicals, Paul. Jesus also says that he will give Peter the Keys to his Kingdom. ( Now in the old testment look up what the chief steward does and how when the king went to sleep he was incharge of all the doors to the kingdom abode. He had the keys to all the doors. This steward is referencing office of Peter, (sorry there is lots of typology to refer to on how NT fulfills the old, like adam-new adam,jesus/eve-new eve, mary, Exodus slaughered lamb/jesus, etc )

For the first 300 plus years of christianity there was no bible only tradition that tells us most of the early bishops of Rome (Popes) were maryted. The RC has recorded history of all this so does your neighborhood library. Later on when the church established councils, they always met to decree doctrine, always recgonizing the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth, the holy see, the chief steward, the servant of the people. They also decreed what books to put in the bible, determined they were inspired by god and officially closed the cannon of the bible, under the see of the existing pope. Now with the acception of the books taken out of the bible after the reformation the bible is a catholic book authored by cathoics, and its guardian.

In matters of church doctrine the pope is infallible. In matters of tradition with the times, can be changed. The pope is human. He is not perfect. Just like Peter. But in the office that he holds, he is a shephard guarding the flock till the Master arrives. His aim is to unite, not dominate Gods people.

We have to agree that the Pope is considered the world most famous person. He does not see noteriety. He is a peacemaker.

before commenting on your above posts. i would like to hear your comments on the other question posted at the top.

WebShaman: I have a question, concerning the creation of Angels, and the war of the heavens (before the creation of Mankind). What exactly happened, and where is it explained? Do Angels have free will? And exactly what are Angels?

Is this true? That the early Catholic Church decided what the Bible, that we read today (I assume the new testament, BTW?) was to be composed of?

So what was left out? Quite frankly, I'd be very interested to know what was left out...and actually, I'm very interested in just how it was decided what stayed in, and what didn't.

I did not know this. In other words, there are 'holy writings' that didn't make it into the Bible? Which ones, and can one find printed copies?

Oh yeah...what about my questions?


WebShaman

Constantine, after making Christianity the "official" non-persecutable religion of Rome assembled a council that assembled the bible as we know it today around 320-something AD. there's actually quite a number of christian writings that aren't included in the bible, found a list of some of them here; ones that weren't included were primarily left out because of content contradictory to the highly regarded writings of Paul and other apostles.

the catholic bible contains 7 extra OT books that aren't in a standard bible as well as a few edits in the NT verses. its late but i'm guessing some online searching would give a bit more detail there. actually, its VERY late here. night

chris


KAIROSinteractive

and before i crash...

quote:

---

Jesus tells Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church and what ever he binds on earth willl be bound in heaven, etc. Now I know he did not pull the other apostles aside and tell them the same thing, only Peter, not the favorite evangilizing apostle for evagelicals, Paul.

---

um, actually that would be totally inaccurate. matthew 18 ("whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...") is christ talking to the twelve, not peter. it obviously wasn't said to paul as paul wasn't with christ during his time on earth

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Actually you guys have a lot of knowlege too and I wish I can elaborate on more, but it would be redundant. I just post what is RC doctrine. I don't want to argue.

VR.

I will post lots of infor on angels, and it will be a long post, but I am off to work. You guy have good day.

Thanks for the link, Fig.

Oh, Angels! Coolness...I can hardly wait...my questions are going to get answered...yippeee!

jade, you sound surprised that we have a lot of knowledge too. Thanks a lot

Didn't you say this in the other thread?

quote:

---

I am open or discussion. Be ready to go where you haven't before.

---

Are you or aren't you willing to discuss these things with us? Discussing does not mean that everyone automatically agrees with everything you say and I find it very disappointing that you are giving up at the slightest hint of someone possibly knowing a bit more than you.

If you're just going to post doctrine without explaining it and making a good case for why it should be believed then how is that different from me going and reading it in a Catholic reference? Anyway, I'm going to respond to your points here and I'm going to hope you are up to reading what I have to say and responding in kind, fair enough?

quote:

---

In Chuch history and you will not find this in your bible but you can trace every bishop of Rome till Peter.

---

This is of course a major impasse between our two views. Church history traces the Popes back to Peter and I simply disagree with that approach. I do not think the New Testament supports the primacy of Peter vis-à-vis becoming the first Pope. Whether he ended up in Rome or not doesn?t even solve this problem because being prominent in the Roman church does not negate my view of autonomous churches as set up by Paul?s missionary work. In fact, if there was an early center or headquarters for Christ?s church it would surely have to have been the Jerusalem church, pre 70AD of course

quote:

---

I don't want to quote scripture but if your a bible christian you will find Jesus himself refering to his Apostle, Peter as the Rock on which he will build his church.

---

I don?t hesitate to quote scripture and I would encourage you to do so when backing up your positions. We can pretty much say anything we want in this section of the Asylum, that?s really never been a big problem. Anyway, Jesus was saying that he would build His church upon the profound confession of faith that Peter had just uttered. He was *not* saying that Peter would become the first Pope and the church would be built on him. You even said this here:

quote:

---

?the Rock is referencing rock solid faith.

---

I think this is precisely what the church was to be built upon and indeed it is precisely what has sustained it throughout the centuries.

quote:

---

Later on when the church established councils, they always met to decree doctrine, always recgonizing the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth?

---

The first council is recorded in the New Testament and occurred in Jerusalem *before* there is any mention of ?Pope?. That was a later invention of the Romanized church. I do not dispute that by 300 AD things really begin to show the foundations of the modern Roman Catholic church but my main point of contention is the form of the church before 300 AD. The early church does not reflect the doctrines that were added after Constantine?s conversion.

quote:

---

?the bible is a catholic book authored by cathoics, and its guardian.

---

I don?t consider the writings of the Apostles which comprise most of the New Testament to be ?catholic? in origin. I do agree with you that the later councils certainly determined what became canon. I am actually perfectly ok with that. I consider the original church to be as close as we get to what Christ intended since it was overseen by His direct successors, the Apostles. But we see a constant mutation of this early church all the way to 300 AD even some of it being described in the New Testament itself. Early heresies are mentioned such the Gnostics.

I should also make it clear that I don't think the church fell into complete apostacy at 300AD. I still think the Holy Spirit did His level best to guide the faithful through the centuries of "catholicism" that were to follow.

If you have read any of the works of the Apostalic Fathers you will see further evidence of this digression. I Clement, for instance, indicates to me that you had a very prominent leader of the church in Rome speaking with another church as an ?equal? and not as a ?pope?. This supports my view that the autonomous sister church model was in play. But later writings, for instace, by Igantius begin to speak of regional Bishops. This indicates that sometime between the passing of the Apostles and Constantine?s conversion, we see the beginnings of some of the modern Catholic structure.

My point here is that the Church founded by Christ and the Apostles is not the same church we see emerging from the mass persecutions around 300 AD. That is why I focus on the New Testament and try very hard to bring us back to the spirit and intent of that model of Christ?s body.

quote:

---

In matters of church doctrine the pope is infallible.

---

I?ll be happy to tackle the infallibility topic later on. I think at the moment, Papal Authority is enough to deal with.

. . : slicePuzzle

B.

I am wondering where your base these views on. Are they totally yours. Are you following your own independ thinking like private revelation or someone elses. Are you being individually inspired to seek a truth. Is it your truth only in respect that your are in agreement with anoher sect, person or institution.

And I was also wondering if you believe in the instituion of the RC on what is inspired by God, (bible), why not anything else. Is the RC so corrupted to you, that you not agree on anything with her.

If you really want to get the closest to Christianity as possible in the earliest days of the church why do non catholics christians not preform the braking of the bread (communion) Thats what they met to do in the earliest days of the faith called Mass if your reading the early church fathers.

Pope(Papa) is a name the italians gave the Bishop of Rome. The actual name doesn't mean much. Its like one in the same just as catholic/christian is

Don't you ponder sometimes that maybe Jesus had to leave someone in charge to guard the faith. A visible head to keep the believers in check. If there was not ever an institution in charge would you have a christian faith today. I wonder. There is inspired writing in the earliest days of Christianity. I don't recall the bishop, he was I believe the 2nd or third one and on the way to his death as a maryter in rome he issued 7 letters and they were all about the bread being the actual body of christ (Oh, but that is another subject). His name escapes me. This writing is b-4 biblical reading was put together.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-12-2003).]

quote:

---

If you really want to get the closest to Christianity as possible in the earliest days of the church why do non catholics christians not preform the braking of the bread (communion)

---

tho it may not be a weekly thing, most non-catholic churches i know of (mine and others i've visited at least) DO practice communion in some form, not necessarily every week or with the same ritual as in the catholic church but it is done. another protestant stereotype?

quote:

---

Don't you ponder sometimes that maybe Jesus had to leave someone in charge to guard the faith.

---

ponder? no, can't say i do. i do recognize that the twelve were the leaders of the Way after christ's death, and tho peter may have had seniority of some type they and other early followers (stephen, etc.) certainly all did massive amounts of ministry and discipling. i wouldn't trust one person to be in charge of anything, because humans screw up, often actually (as peter so often showed us in the gospels). for that reason i have a really hard time placing one person with no accountability (i.e. infallible) in charge of anything.

not quite sure why you're questioning where bugs derives his views from, but i'd imagine they're similar to mine; they come from a combination of study and reading, listening to speakers and pastors, and prayer. i'm sure some agree with certain sub-sections of christianity and some may not. whatever the case in minor doctrinal differences bugs and i and other people i would consider "true" christians agree in grace by faith alone, other things can remain debatable and discussable and not have any huge bearing on the issue of eternal salvation.

any chance you're actually going to answer some of the questions you've been asked now? you mention all you can do is quote RC doctrine and i was really hoping for a lot more than that; believing in a certain church's teachings is one thing, but i'd hope you haven't lost the ability to reason and discuss for yourself while doing so. the moment we stop questioning and wondering is the moment we stop learning.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

In reference to knowledge. I was referring to your knowledgeable in regard to what you believe in. Not saying I know more than you.

What exactly am I suppose to answer to you Fig. If I seem like a deadhead in regard to my belief, I question, I ponder, but I don't go against what my faith teaches. I am submissive to the teaching of the Holy Catholic church.
I don't question its authority or its infabillilty in matters of doctrine.
If I know something to be true, why try to dig up reasons why its not true.
I know, I believe, I trust. To question isn't wrong, it only seeks answers. We are allowed doubts of faith. I think God has a hand in this to make us look for him more. I believe you are a christian and that you accept the lord as your complete savior. I think we are on different boats trying to cross a river and we will both eventually get to the other side of the river

quote:

---

why do non catholics christians not preform the braking of the bread (communion)

---

Somehow, I don't think the intent of meeting to break bread was to end up lining up to have a preist put a cracker on your tongue and take a sip of wine (or grape juice).

I'm pretty sure it was meant to be something more natural and meaningful than that.


And as Fig said, non-catholics do in fact practice communion.

.

How can you *know* anything to be true if you never question its origins or its accuracy?

I think if nothing else your vastly inaccurate comments in the other thread show that you have good reason to question the "facts" on which you seem to base everything.

But more importantly, how can it possibly be "faith" if it is dictated to you?

Faith is something within you, not something that has a formula and is dictated through a hierarchy...

quote:

---

I believe you are a christian and that you accept the lord as your complete savior. I think we are on different boats trying to cross a river and we will both eventually get to the other side of the river

---

it sounds like you are breaking with the catholic notion that *only* catholics will get to heaven??

btw, the communion and wine is taken from the jewish tradition of the blessing of the wine and bread on the sabbath (shabbat), then breaking and sharing the bread and drinking the wine with those present - the central ceremony on the sabbath.

DL

Well why do you take communion at your church? What does it mean you. Its seems your being dictated to partake of it. Do you question it? Where did you get that ritual from. Is it a mindless ritual. Isn't communion meaning comming together, like becomming one.

I get my revelation from the bread of life discourses in John Chaper 6. If you read it you will see, but it has a deep meaning if you read between the lines. But the references to Jesus being the bread of life are in more than one book in scripture. I know Jesus says you have no life in you unless you eat his body and drink his blood. Is this cannabilism, what is he meaning here.

I am not forced to be a believer. I thought we were suppose to respect peoples beliefs on this thread.

How do you know my comments are inaccurate? You are being condesending here.

1) I don't take communion. Yes, as far as what I have seen the church call comminion, it is a meaningless ritual. The real deal would and should be far less mechanical and far more conversational.

2) Nothing in my personal beliefs has been dictated to me. I don't base my views on life on a single book or on what a group of strangers tells me is 'the word of god'.

3) I pointed out your inaccuracies in the other thread, to which you gave no response. Condescending? No...I'm asking a legitimate question here. I have asked several that still remain unaswered.......


???

quote:

---

If I seem like a deadhead in regard to my belief, I question, I ponder, but I don't go against what my faith teaches. I am submissive to the teaching of the Holy Catholic church.
I don't question its authority or its infabillilty in matters of doctrine.
If I know something to be true, why try to dig up reasons why its not true.
I know, I believe, I trust. To question isn't wrong, it only seeks answers.

---

this, i think, is where we greatly differ. first off, i don't seek reasons thing would not be true if i already believe them. however, there are things i've read, heard pastors say, etc., that conflict with something inside me, either from a moral or ethical sense, or simply based on the knowledge i have on a subject. i could care less what the doctrine of a certain church might say is "correct", i want to know the answers for myself. my faith is a personal one, not one i want someone else to dictate for me. i do have friends that keep me accountable for my actions and vice versa, and we'll often get into long theological debates where none of us necesarily claim to have a right answer, because very simply we don't know the right answer on many doctrinal issues, there's evidence for both sides of many things. i absolutely do question the infallibility of the catholic church and its doctrine because i often see it driven by political and social agendas, an understandable but not an "excusable and still infallible" by-product of a group of its size. did the roman catholic church start out as the singular church that christ intended? possibly, but i don't think its ended up there. peter, like any other person and all the other popes, started off with his own personal biases and opinions that make him no more infallible than you or i. that's not something i can agree with as the basis for determining the only way that christianity must be.

i have a communion story to tell that i'll post later on in the thread, i think DL might find it interesting.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

jade, you asked me a few direct questions and I want to answer them.

quote:

---

I am wondering where your base these views on.

---

Fig really did put it quite well. He said, and I agree it's

quote:

---

a combination of study and reading, listening to speakers and pastors, and prayer

---

quote:

---

Is the RC so corrupted to you, that you not agree on anything with her.

---

I have far more in common theologically with the RC than I do with Islam or Hinduism. We agree on a great deal of things and for that, I am very happy. But I believe the RC has perverted many of the teachings of Christ and I don't think it should be immune from criticism or more importantly reform.

quote:

---

...why do non catholics christians not preform the braking of the bread (communion) Thats what they met to do in the earliest days of the faith called Mass if your reading the early church fathers.

---

You're absolutely correct. The New Testament tells us that they made it a habit to meet on the first day of the week for communion and to hear the teaching of the Apostles. This is precisely why you will find me and my family meeting with our church body on the first day of the week and partaking of communion and listening to teaching about God.

quote:

---

Don't you ponder sometimes that maybe Jesus had to leave someone in charge to guard the faith.

---

To be honest, I don't have to ponder that because Jesus specifically told us that He would send the Counselor to guide us in truth. (read John 16:5-16) The faith is guarded by those who are willing to listen to the teachings that have been laid down in the New Testament and are willing to submit themselves to its teachings and that of the Holy Spirit. The church of Christ is to be the institution and physical representation of God's will on this earth.

quote:

---

His name escapes me.

---

Polycarp?

Thanks for your reponses. I appreciate your views. Like I say we have more in common than not. The Jesus who saves.

and....still no actaul response to anything....

And you wonder how I get my views on catholicism Jade? You seem to be a shining example of what I see in catholicism.

Of course, that may come across as negative, but how else could I possibly think after you're repeated refusal to answer any of my questions or statements?

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-13-2003).]

jade, any chance of obliging DL with some honest discussion? He has some serious and interesting questions and challenges to what your saying and I would be interested in hearing how you view them. He is every bit a part of this exchange as anyone else here.

I've been following these three intertwining threads with silence, incredible interest, and a fair amount of enjoyment. Thanks to all.

I'm not sure my previous silence allows me to make a request, but I'm a little disappointed at not yet hearing the argument for the infallibility of the pope. I was raised protestant (presbyterian, no less), but my father's side of the family are all very religious Irish Catholics (and so I'm redundant). I've kept my distance from church for about 11 years.

Even so, I've not dismissed theological discussions as irrelevant. I'd really like to hear the explanation for the infallibility of the pope. The RC's in my family can not explain it to me. They simply have heard it is so, so it is so. A bad way to go about one's afterlife, if you ask me, but that's their problem. The point remains that I still don't understand the argument.

dl44 you come across as not liking me & I presume its because I am a catholic. Thats OK, I am use to the abuse.

Angels from what I have read from catholic reading:

The are rich in beauty and excellent in near divinity. They are made up of three hierarchies, and nine choirs. They were created for the glory of God and to assist in the glory, honor & reverence to the eternal word, whom they are subjects to.. They are commissioned to bear up their hands in all ways.(Ps 90,12) They resemble I would say armies and legions. They have rank with the highly commissioned being that those are nearer to the creator and the lower distant from him. Not all have seen the creator. Like Michael & Gabriel being in the highest stature. The have feelings. They cry in sorrow for us and hurt when we hurt.
(Satan was also in the higest stature too before his fall from grace). They have no gender and six wings, each set symbolic. They wear emblems designating their commission. Here on earth they can assume corporal form. In the beginning with the creation of the heavens, they were made on the same day and this is when the Apocalspe occured sort of like in an instant, in that where it happend there was no time. And this is the time they were given grace & free will.

Now to refer to the the great battle in the heavens refer to Gensis 1 & Revelations 12.
I will try to be brief:
The divines mind plan for creation and whatever followed, it was shown to the angles. Now the angels having free will also could fault and fall away from grace. Lucifier being one of the most highest beautiful angels became prideful and was enriched with power and glory and he was over legions of angels. He bacame envious of what god was and had and wanted to be like him and he invaded the minds of the other angels. When God told him of his plan in the comming of the enternal word and the being that would bring him to us. (Mary), he was filled with rage and jealousy. He would never bow down to the word or his mother so in incited all the other angels who lets say weak in grace to go against God. Michael knowing of this asked the creator if he could do battle and drive him out of the heavens. Michael & his legions conqured. And hell upon the earth was created where Michael cast them into.

"And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars":
The sun refers the true son of justice, the moon at her feet, for as the two planets, the sun & moon, divide day & nite. The moon being the symbol of darkness(without God), the sun being the symbol of light of his grace. The crown of 12 stars represent the her 12 virtues and referencing the 12 tribes of Israel.

" And being with child", (filled with the blessed trinity)shown as being the holy place of the Word in her womb.

"She cried traveiling in birth" Representing proclamaton loudly the news of the birth to all corners of existance.

" And was in pain to be delivered" Of the sorrow knowing of the slaugher of the lamb, her son who would suffer & die on the cross.

" And there was seen another sign in heaven & behold a great red dragon having 7 heads & 10 horns & on his head 7 diadems & his tail threw the 3rd part of the stars of the heaven and cast them down to earth & the dragon stood b-4 the woman who was ready to be delivered that when she delivered, he might devour her son"

At this instant Lucifer the most beautiful was transformed into an ugly dragon. So horrible. He was furious and reared fury with his 7 heads & lead 7 legions or squadrons. Lucifer commaned his followers to undertake sin on their own account and undertook the leadership in the seven mortal sins. (Commenly called capital) They are pride, averice,envy, anger, luxury, imtemperance and sloth. They are the 7 diadems of which Lucifer was crowned. The 10 horns being trimuphs & iniquity & malice & of the dragon in execuction of his wickedness. The 3rd of stars are referencing the angels he took with him to hell. He hated the Word & the Woman who was to bring him, so he sets out to destroy them along with his principalities of bad angels. Lucifer wants to devour him and destroy him, but the most high was with this woman that was to bring forth the god man. God tells Lucifer, that this is his son who will crush his head and be a powerful judge and will be taken up with him on his right side of this throne and will rule with an iron rod representing justice. And that the woman belongs to him, the creator and has chosen her for himself and she is exempted from the jurisdiction of her enemies (without sin) and will assign her a postion of grace that
in the would last 1026 days. ( Days in which the woman was to remain in an interior & extraordinary grace in the last years of her life)

"And there was a great battle in heaven and Michael fought the dragon.
(In that he resisted the evil power of the devil (You know like Lord of the Ring movies is how I can best describe it) It was truth against untruth. Michael & his angels in their victory swore alegiance to God and because of Michaels strength crowed him a prince and protector of the heavens and guardian of the gates of heaven. All this is a in a mystical spiritual sense if that makes any sense.

I could go on and on but I am off on vacation. I know you guys might not agree or believe in this. But it is only inspired writing that is part of the chruch but not necessary to believe in the sense of salvation.




[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-13-2003).]

a lot of my post in the other thread wandered into papal infallibility, i'll go ahead and repost it here as it seems to be more a topic in this thread.

peter may have been given some authority in that early church by christ, but repeated statements throughout scripture (many by jesus himself) reinforce that christ is the cornerstone of the church, its head, and the only foundation (1 Cor 3:11, Col 1:18, Matt 28:18). a statement i found in some reading on the subject was catholics using the term "One fold and one shepherd" in referring to the pope and the catholic church. jesus calls himself the shepherd and the one shepherd tending his father's flock in John 10. seems a bit contradictory to me.

one other fact i found that was interesting. peter never refers to himself as the pope, is referred to as the pope, or settles any matter by his position in the NT. he actually talks about how parts of paul's writings are hard to understand. i'd think that if peter were in charge of things he would've been doing a lot more writing and making decisions and have made his authority known, wouldn't you?

i'll leave it with this:

quote:

---

Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.' (Luke 22:24-26)

---

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Jade - I have explained my position several times, yet you continue to do 2 things

1) ignore my comments/questions

2) postulate ideas as to my opinion of you

I will not hide that I have a negative prejudice towards catholicism. It is not based on 'anti-catholic propaganda' it is based on continual real life experiences when dealing with catholocism.

Number one on the list of things that perturb me about it is the lack of ability to get answers to questions (numer 2 is the blind faith in the heirarchy of the church which deems problem number 1 not to be a problem...).

As you have demonstrated here to an extreme.



So, draw whatever conclusions you'd like...i've asked very fair questions, and offered very fair counters to your statements, yet all you can say back is "you don't like me" and talk about confrontation and abuse.

Abuse???

Asking you to explain your statements is abuse???



Well anyway, as I can see you are unable to answer/respond to what I have said and asked, I will leave it at that.

Good day.

I have so many responses to answer, I can't keep track, I promise when I return I will answer all your questions. I am so preoccupied with lots of other stuff. By then you might of forgotten me.


Forgive me.

I don't man to single you or anyone out.

Well good then. I am looking forward to seeing all of DL's questions answered. That should be quite remarkable

mobrul, I would love to get into the infallibility doctrine more too. Fig already gave some good info about it above. One thing I know will come up is what the infallibility covers. Jade has already pointed out that the Pope is not infallible in all things. The infallibility of the Pope is constrained to when he speaks ex cathedra (from the chair) on matters of faith and morals in accordance with all the bishops. In others words, there are plenty of "outs" built into this doctrine But that could just be a bit of bias on my part

You know you guys are really insterested in debating church infallibility because you want to find away to bring the doctrine
down. You already know what it means. There are thousands of sites on the web explaining this position. So you want me to reiterate why for a reason. Yeah Right??

I am really amazed on how much hatred is out there for the Holy Catholic Church. Just by reading post on the threads, every post I send is disected so to make it look I am not a knowledgable Catholic but in all the post in response to my post doesn't hold water. Its really silly what kind of questions I am suppose to respond to in regard to proving the Catholic church is indeed not the whore of babylon, or the antichrist. And I can only assume it is due to insecurity and uneducated guesses and most of all bigotry.

I wonder why other denominations don't have this much scrutiny and I would venture to say that its because they are not as powerful and authorative and mega-big. Over a billion strong & still growing. Thats right. This can be intimitating for some people that make a religion out of disproving her authority. And that the only reason they live, is to persecute, mock and disrespect her. They make it their life long ambition and mission. I would bet that after they are dead 200 years the church will still stand stronger than ever, so it really seems silly that they put so much energy in proving her infallible existence.

To me its like they are nomads roaming the desert for truth and they never find it because when they think they find a truth, they hit a sand dune, so the spin off in another direction only to hit a sand storm and lose truth, then spin off in another direction but they are dying of thirst for no water, so they become disoriented and lose truth again, etc..And they are in this perpetual state of disorientation their whole lives. And when its time to meet their maker, I am sure the first question they are going to ask god is if the Catholic church was indeed infallible, since they will carry this question into the afterlife since it premeated much of the core of their life long existance.

If you want to know what Catholicism is, learn it better from a non-catholic. Walk in his shoes because you will get all the uneducated bias knowledge you need.

Infalliblity of Jesus Christ who is the Holy Catholic Church:

In simple terms since you have read all the doctrine & dogma of Catholic teaching is that Jesus Christ the Savior of the whole human race is the church. She embodies his physical body in that the church is real flesh and real blood. We as Catholics cannot separate the church from the body because they are one. In this way since christ is truth, so is the church which is perfection in the mystical way of its embodiment. Why? Because christ was & is perfect. Being that the heirarchy is part of the church in its faith and morals, it cannot err. That would be mean Christ can err, since they are one in the same. Now of course we cannot see the visibe Christ, but in the
mystical sense he is present in the Holy Spirit. The third person of the trinity. And in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist he presents himself in the most mystical physical way so we can become one with him in thanksgiving and Jesus offers himself up our disgressions to the creator by us eating his body which is real flesh and eating his blood which is his real blood and those who do not believe in this ritual are non-followers. This is scriptual teaching from Jesus own lips(John 6:66) I am sure this is no coincidence to REV (666). All this has deep spiritual meaning. Without the bread consecrated which is called transubstanciation, we would have no Christ, that would mean no church, no authority, no infallibility. This teaching has been in church history since its inception at Pentecost. It has never changed
because Christ was always the church from day one.

Since the Body of Christ is the Real Presence in the Church it can bleed and still does, because it is constantly being crucified. Its like their are so many nails being hammered into it constantly because its being persecuted. Their are so many Sauls running around that it hurts the Son, Jesus who is body, blood, soul and divinity of the Church.

So if you base your own opinion on what the church should be then you have the mentallity of "I exist, therfore I am." I am God. I am infallible, since I have dictated for myself on how the faith should be run according to my own inspiration and revelation. I cannot be fallible since whoever whats his name in the days of Constantine dictated that the church was corrupt is who I believe in. So think about it. Your claiming infallibility too.


WB: In answer to your questions about the slaugher of your indian people, I think you should blame the old us goverment for most of the annilation of your people.

DL: If your referencing questions about the you being submissive to Rome in the holidays, I can't believe you still want an answer. Then if they are pagan to you, you have given in to paganism.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-19-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 03-19-2003).]

Well, it's rather sad actually jade.

You missed pretty much all of the points anyone made here. Yup, about all of em.
Or, more to the point, you disregarded them entirely in order to justify your belief rather than have to answer questions that you don't have valid answers to.

You speak of jesus being the church, yet catholocism doesn't work that way in practice.

Catholicism is like that a lot (as are a lot of other religions of course, but catholicism tends to take the cake in this area).

Say one thing, do another. Sin one day, confess the next.

Whatever. You jumped in with a lot of statements, and all we did was ask you to back them up. Which you have yet to do.

=)

I'm not sure to whom your little rampage was aimed, Jade, but let me make myself clear.
I do not ask you to talk through your beliefs because I want to tear them down. Point to one single thread around here, in my 3 years of posting here, where I have instigated a fight, and I'll go away and never bother you again.

I asked you to talk about your beliefs, and those of the church to which you belong, because I am genuinly interested. I wouldn't waste my time bothering you or anybody else just to 'bring down' your church or beliefs. I truly want to engage in conversation.

I can also say that I've had many conversations with Bugimus on many many topics (often ridiculously heated) and I can guarantee never once did he treat me with disrespect. Though I don't follow everything he writes, I feel safe in saying being disrespectful is just not part of his standard mode of operation.
While DL is often a bit more 'to the point' and a little less forgiving of stupidity, he also is not known for his disrespect.

I can tell you that this little piece of the web we've carved out here is tough. If you want a place where you can spit out some half-cocked theory and have everybody silently nodding their head in agreement, this is not the place to be. This applies to programming, graphics, animation and, yes, politics and religion. You will be challenged. If you're willing to write and think and answer questions and be reasonable, stick around. If you're looking for mental masturbation, stay in your room.

And just to prove I'm game, ask me anything you want about my own spiritual beliefs, here or by e-mail. I'll answer everyone of them.

Please don't plead ignorance. You insult my intelligence.

If you cannot read into what is being posted about the CC
I thought maybe you would not be bias. I thought i could read sincerity in your post. I was not sure. But I am sure they are glad you come to their defense. I was not referring to you if that means anything. I am sorry I offended you. If your were truly sincere in knowing, then forgive me. I don't disect responses because I respect their opinion. I really do.