Topic awaiting preservation: Pope Denounces 'Imbalance' of Wealth ... (Page 3 of 5)

The entire Bible predates the institution in question, does it not? I should think that would be a good place to start. There is also centuries of history for all of us to read and make judgements about. Does that answer the question, tntcheats?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Sangreal, "day one" refers to the birth of the church which occurred on the Day of Pentecost shortly after Christ's resurrection. That is the day the church of Christ was born.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Catholic churches all over the world celebrate the anniversary of the start of the church every year on the same day. We call it "Pentecost Sunday." The church is decorated in red and the priest wear red garments. The red symbolizes "when Christ breathed his Spirit" into the church when the apostles congregated with followers and the mother of christ were present. This is in scripture. We memorialize this and it sort of is a renewal of the spirit for us that we are not suppose to take for granted. This is what Cathoilics firmly believe, but everyone one is entitled to an opinion on when they think the actual Catholic Church started. I know most protestants believe Constantine started the Chruch, but it simply isn't true. He strongly helped it and protected it and stopped its persecusion. There is no historical evidence or basis for the belief that he indeed started the church. ITs true to say the Church has evolved from its beginning and it continues to evolve into what will become a perfect church because Christ said so in his teachings as he alone knows. And this refers to the physical and the human church, meaning the human person. We cannot separate them because they are one along with Christ per scripture.

Jade - the fact that it is "celebrated" means what exactly.....?

And you are once again missing the point entirely.

What existed in the beginning was not the "catholic" church. The 'church' began at that time.

The 'roman catholic' church did not exist. It can trace it's origins back to those times, yes......in such a manner that you could refer to it as a 'spin-off' even

I can trace my ancestry back hundreds of years. Does this mean that my family, as it exists today has been around for that length of time? Of course not.

tracing origins through a series of evolutions does not mean that the entity existed at first stage....

quote:

---

continues to evolve into what will become a perfect church

---

In that case, we don't need to worry about the end of the world any time soon.....that's going to be a *very* long road at this rate

(Edited by DL-44 on 10-17-2004 02:25)

Wow DL, you took the words right out of my mouth. Yes, the way I see it, The Church started at Pentecost and The Church, refered many times in the NT not as just a building or one faction of people but the entire amount of believers as a whole, was instituted at that moment. The specific denominations came later, but not much later because in many of Paul's letters he speaks about separations. So, there were separations in The Church even when he was still preaching. It is no wonder that there are so many factions now.

Jade- I am not a Catholic. You are. I love Jesus. You love Jesus. - I think that constitutes that we are of the same faith, just with different veiws of that faith. Don't you? All of these different veiws aren't going to easily change. And they shouldn't. I only disagree with some of the major ones that I think may be stumbling blocks to your faith, not to your traditions. Traditions are good, don't get me wrong; they help you remember where you came from. It is just that some of them might actually hinder more than they help. That is all that I am saying. I agree that I may have some traditions (or lack thereof) that are stumbling blocks, so I am trying to figure those out every chance I get. Many of your posts have made me look inside of myself and change something before I was able to move on. I thank you for that. But the point I am trying to make is that we are not really different. We are both a part of The Chuch of Jesus Christ. We love Him and each other, and that is why many of these people are giving you these ideas, not to hurt you, but to help you look inside yourself and ponder what your faith is really about.

And Sangreal, if I haven't said it before I will say it again:
I really like your 10-13 post.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon,

I can assure you I am never hurt or offended. Comments posted I do not take seriously. Please forgive me if I ever gave or give the wrong impression I am combatant in a negative way. I appreciate your post in regard to my feelings. Thanks.

True to say, I love my faith and all that it embodies with the deepest passion. I feel my God will never abandon me in my quest to know him, to love him and serve him in this world, so I will know how to do it in the next. I would say my whole life and family life revolves around faith and extends to friendships. I seem blind to most posters on this asylum, but I am ok with that. I believe all CHristans are at different levels of knowlege and faith and know God constantly feeds us to make us stronger and closer to the deepest love.

In my faith we go thru sacraments as sort of convenants. One is the sacrament of Confrimation I made when I was small. In this sacrament one receives seven gifts of the spirit, maybe not all at one time, but when God allows. With these gifts, the church christians us "soldiers of Christ" and we vow to confirm we will live according to Christ teachings. Sort of like the early crusaders of the early chruch is how I best describe it. But in the evolution of the church since its infancy we do it in a peaceful way compared to the early church methods. I know God is in all Churches, because where there two or more present in its name, God is there and everywhere. But I also beleive God left us a world wide church to guide us to know what we should or shouldn't follow.
How can an independent church guide itself and authorize itself? Are the each and individual thousands of churches out there doing the true will of God?

jade, the head of any church should be only one person and that is Jesus Christ Himself. His word can be found in the Bible. An "independent" church as you say has access to the Bible and therefore the ability to know God's will for His people. I believe the Holy Spirit guides our church just as the scriptures promise.

Now are all churches doing a good job? Of course not. Just look at the history of your church to see how bad things can get. It is every bit as bad in many other churches, going astray is not limited to the Roman Catholics and it is always a danger. That is why it is so critical that people study the scriptures, pray, and submit themselves to God's will constantly to guard against apostacy.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs. Although it is very clear in Scripture and early Church history that Christ left only one Church, today we have over 30,000 Christian denominatins. Does it matter which of these you join? It most certainly does. IF Christ founded only one church then all then all the other churches were founded by men. Although they believe much of what is true and have many members who are sincere Christians, we simply cannot choose any of them over the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Any objective history book will show that only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Christ. No Protestant demonination found today existed before I think the 1500s. The Bible and sacred tradition are very clear that Christ left a church that would be governed by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters and deacons with the successor of St Peter as a governing hierarchy that can trace its authority in an unbroken succession back to the Apoostolic authority established by Christ himself. The bible firmly validates this. The word "Catholic" first appears in a letter of St Ignatius of Antioch to distinguish Christ's church from heretical groups in the 100s I think. The word " Christian" also originated about that same time. So in this early period the church was already Catholic in name. Not when Constantine supposedly started it. But you are entitled to have your own opinion.

Would you agree that Christ intended us to follow the teachings of the early church and do you think it pleases Christ Jesus that his church is so splintered with different teachings of interpretations of his scriptures? Did Christ mean for this to happen? Since we are both Christians and we know by scripture that Christ is in control of the church by his Holy Spirit if we do firmly believe the words of scripture, how can the spirit be so divided. Isn't the spirit one with God. Per my bible and yours, isn't the church referred to as the bride of christ as in a holy union of the marriage of two people. Christ is always referred to as the spouse as in a strong head of a family in a marriage. The bible relates the relationship between the church and Christ as a spiritual union, a spiritual committed communion. Just like in a committed marriage when two persons totally give each other themselves, so does God want us to totally give him ourselves. When you want to separate from the body of Christ, he feels it, just like if your wife were to leave you for another man, you would feel it. And it would feel just heartbroken terrible. Wouldn't it? For us Catholics, that is why divorce is very serious. It would be like separating or divorcing our spouse Jesus if we left temporarily or permanetly the Church.
This teaching was taught in the early church way before Constantine came along by the early church fathers. This is still taught today by the Catholic churches understanding of scripture that is over 1600 years plus old. I know I don't have all the answers, but one thing I do know is that the church Christ intended to establish is more than just a building, a body of believers, and a way of teaching, its a great mystery too in its power in heaven and on earth.

(Edited by jade on 10-17-2004 17:58)

Jade - while I will certainly not challenge your knowledge of scripture, or of catholic beliefe, your knowldege of history I must.

You speak of "opinions" that we are free to ahve, but you ignore *fact*.

Jesus no more founded the roman catholic church than he did Rome itself.

That romans took that role they felt they deserved as romans in the case of christianity, just as they did with so many other things throughout history.

The dogma of the catholic church is purely a human construct. The heirarchy is purely a human construct. The constant flip-flopping on issues, the politicizing, the whole 'burning heretics at the stake' thing (yes I realize that *technically* that was done by the secular side of things...when the church would hand over the heretics to them....small point of semantics at best...), these are all very human and very obviously fallable.

How you can say with a straight face (I'm assuming here ) that Jesus founded the Catholic church, but all other churches are wrong ebcause they're founded by man is absolutely dumbfounding...



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-17-2004 17:56)

DL

Please give me some facts that state proof that Christ did not start the Roman Catholic church and that other demonimations did not take just about all of or most of its teachings from it?

Can we agree the Bible is a catholic book authored by the Roman Catholic church fathers and popes that protestants have made changes to but still use as a source for their beliefs & churches. They even renamed it a King James version. What does that mean to you? Where do other christian denomination churches base their religions on? Why didn't they start their own bible? Isn't it a Catholic book. Why is it that they agree with the truth in what the contents contain but dont believe in hierarchy who decided what it should contained as inspired.


I am not professing anything new. All catholics will say the Catholic church is the one true church Christ came to establish.
That doesn't mean I am saying Christ doesn't live in all churches or people. I don't believe he came to establish the Morman Church or David Koresh sect even though they profess Christianity.

quote:

---

Please give me some facts

---

There are many up above. I can't very well give a full blown history lesson though - visit your local library.

quote:

---

Can we agree the Bible is a catholic book authored by the Roman Catholic church fathers and popes

---

Nope.

The bible in its curretn form was put together by the church heirarchy....not written by them.

quote:

---

I am not professing anything new. All catholics will say the Catholic church is the one true church Christ came to establish.

---

Of course they will. Does that make it true? Of course not.

Christianity began around the time of christ. It branched out in many directions, and there were splits in thought right from start. The roman catholic church became pretty much the largest sect, and the most powerful. They certainly weren't the only ones...

You seem to equate non-catholic christianity with the protestent reformation.....when in fact non-catholic christianity existed all along. There are records throughout the history of catholicism of the 'heretical' sects spreding christianity to places before Rome could get there...

quote:

---

You seem to equate non-catholic christianity with the protestent reformation.....when in fact non-catholic christianity existed all along. There are records throughout the history of catholicism of the 'heretical' sects spreding christianity to places before Rome could get there...

---

DL

This is true. But none of these sects stood long enough to be remembered or make an impact and have continuity as the Roman church has till this present day. They fell. Protestant sects that are operating today in all probabilty will fall also. In throughout all the Roman Catholic history in schisms and wars against it or around it even in occupied Italy by the Nazis it survived. So I tend to believe Christ 's Holy Spirit is with it. On Simon Peter Christ promised to build his Church. Peter could not have been the head of conflicting churches. And after Christ ressurection Christ confirmed Peter"s authority over the Church in scripture saying to to him "Feed my lambs, feed my Sheep in the Gospel of John. (Forgot exactly what verse) And he asked him three times referring to the three times Peter denied Christ. In giving his apostles authority he summoned and gave them power to sanctify, cleanse unholy spirits, cure illnesss and gave them the power to forgive sins. And to go out an evangelize and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. We are not given the same power.

Per Christ own teaching:
Gospel of John 10:16 " There shall be one fold and one shepherd"
" If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand." Since Christ intended his church to be one, its members must be united in doctrine, worship and in government." This is in the physical and spiritual world. And in Luke 10:16 "He who hears you, hears me." In Eph: 2:20 St Paul himself refers to the Church as "built upon the foundations of the Apostles, not St Paul himself.
And in Matt 12:30 "He who is not with me is against me"

Getting back to the debate in the wealth of the pope, vatican, etc.; you know for all its art and being the most beautiful grandest church of treasures on earth its most important revered treasure is the remains of St. Peter, which is buried directly under Pope John's Paul's altar. The pope is the last monarch on earth who supremely rules his tiny state with full authority. I know Ive posted this before, but the Vatican is like a kingdom for us where the chosen sheperd is guiding the flock while the King is away. So the revernce and respect we pay to the holy city and the holy father is because the heavenly king will retun one day to take rule of his kingdom. So until the King returns, symbolically its like a view of a mansion in our heavenly kingom because there is no other place like it on earth. So for me the grandure and beauty in art and possessions is part of the Kingdom of God. We know by scripture, Christ refers to the term "a kingdom" to refer to his church implying organized authority. Can we agree the Pope is one of the most powerful men in the political world also? What other head of a religious sect has that much worldwide impactive power? I don't post the comment to boast, just to see the power of Christ in his protection of his church. Even in the corruption and persecution, in spite of the forces of evil, the church has continued to live and carry out its mission as its founder has promised. The indestructibility of the Church has been proved by history is alone enough to mark it as divine. Only God alone could have perserved it so long. It has seen the rise and fall of every government on earth for 2000 years and attacks against it, but it still stands and rises as the bride of christ and will continue to do so hundreds of years long after we are dead.

That's gotta be one hard wall...

quote:

---

Please give me some facts that state proof that Christ did not start the Roman Catholic church and that other demonimations did not take just about all of or most of its teachings from it?

---

I think the burden of proof is on you, jade. I've read the New Testament *and* I've read most of the writings of the Apostolic fathers. In both of those bodies of writings, one does not see anything resembling the Roman Catholic church. In the New Testament you will find autonomous churches planted in every city with none acting as supreme headquarters. Read it and see.

And what I find even more interesting is that when you begin to read the works of the early church fathers, you see that same setup described by Clement (I know your church claims him as a very early Pope). But when you read his writings, you see sister churches admonishing others to stay the course and no edicts as would be customary of a Pope today. When you get a bit further on in time, you do begin to see bishops such as Ignatius. But this only confirms in my mind the gradual evolution of the church structure from basic Christianity to what we find in the church once Constantine made it a state religion.

Christ built His church upon Peter's confession and not upon Peter himself. The reason the gates of hell will never prevail against the church is because it far more glorious and far more indestructible than anything made by human hands. I find your view that the physical grandure of the Roman church in part proves how Godly it is to be repulsive. Christ told the woman at the well that one day His followers would not need a building to worship in but would worship in spirit and in truth. *This* is the church Christ spoke of, the fact that you and I both live according to God's will by the power of the Holy Spirit indwelling each of our hearts. Now that's what I call bullet proof and that is what indicates divine action, not because Vatican City exists. I dare say that if the Vatican were, God forbid, destroyed tomorrow that you and all of Christ's church would march on.

quote:

---

Can we agree the Bible is a catholic book authored by the Roman Catholic church fathers and popes that protestants have made changes to but still use as a source for their beliefs & churches.

---

Absolutely not. As DL pointed out, the early church preserved these writings and correctly so. I have never said that everything done by God's people in the past is wrong, quite the contrary. And there haven't been any significant changes made to the texts anyway. The biggest difference between the Catholic bible and the Protestant one is the Apocrypha. But those are OT books and really don't represent significant theological differences between Catholics and Protestants.

You are fond of saying that the Reformers left the Church when in fact Luther sought to clean up its act. He did not want a Great Schism. He, just like I, can read the very same scriptures claimed to be divinely inspired by Christ and see the differences between what is found between those pages and what the Roman Catholic church had, and has, become.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

An important point in your last paragraph, Bugs - Martin Luther had absolutely no desire to leave the catholic church, or to fight against it.

He uphold his moral duty to stand up against the outrageous corruption of the papacy at the time. He strove to make the church live up to its duty. He failed against the vast and powerful political machine that was more interested in money to build a fancier building than it was in godly duties.

Luther's issue was very singular.

The catholic church has a very big history of expelling anyone who tries to point out errors.

WS - your certainly not the first to say that

quote:

---

In giving his apostles authority he summoned and gave them power to sanctify, cleanse unholy spirits, cure illnesss and gave them the power to forgive sins. And to go out an evangelize and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. We are not given the same power.

---

i'm running out for the evening and don't have time to post in depth at the moment, but i STRONGLY disagree with this statement and think its a huge misinterpretation of scripture. i imagine bugs would agree, feel free to respond or i will try to late this evening.

also, just fyi, all those "independent" churches are also often large organizations that do in fact have hierarchies guiding their decisions, curricula, etc. its not as if every church other than the catholic church is a building on a dusty road with no telephones

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 10-18-2004 02:19)

quote:

---

a building on a dusty road with no telephones

---

sounds like my kind of church


"We are not given the same power."

i respect that some might take this view,
but, that's just a stupid thing to say, for anyone who's read the bible
with any understanding. when you witness the power given by the Holy Spirit first-hand, make no mistake;
the only thing left to doubt is your own sanity!

Fig, I have no problem leaving that one to you. All I'll add is that I believe the HS and His handiwork are alive and well

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-18-2004 04:54)

[

quote:

---

quote]Christianity to what we find in the church once Constantine made it a state religion

---

This is simply not true. Where in the historical fact for this. This is very erroneous.

quote:

---

Christ built His church upon Peter's confession and not upon Peter himself

---

What was the confession Bugs? What do you think Christ special purpose was in changing Peters name which meant rock. Why? Why didn't he change the other apostles names too. DO you think Christ might of had a special reason for changing Simon's name to Peter. Christ told him : your are rock and on this rock I will build my church" And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. To me it was not actually on Peter he was building his church but on the faith Peter. In ancient times Keys were a symbol of authority. He who lawfully carries the key to a building has the right himself of entering and of admitting or excluding others.

Also what is your interpretation of Christ asking God to feed his lamb twice and sheep once? What is the symbolism here between lamb and sheep? In my readings I saw that the lambsthe weak and tender portion of the flock and the sheep are those that nourish the lambs referrring to the pastors, bishops and priest.

In Luke 22:31-32 Christ said to Simon, " I have prayed for thee that thy faith my not fail; and do thou when once thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren"
Isn't Christ here giving Peter leadership duties?

Did Peter exercise his primacy? Yes he did. And the other apostles recgonized his authority. Did anybody else claim to be the head or authority of Christ church at that time? No. Since no one person claimed to be the supreme authority over the whole church, either the bishop of Rome is the successor or St Peter has no successor and the promise of Christ has failed.

We know these fact about Peter per scipture:

St Matt calls Peter the first Apostle even though he wasn't chosen first. His brother Andrew was called first.
So he must of had authority and honor.
It was Peter that preached the frist sermon at Pentecost.

It was obedience to Peter that proposed the election of another to take Judas place.

It was Peter that admitted the first converts, did the first miracle and issued the first punishment.

Peter made the first visitations to the churhes and in the first council in Jerusalem Peter settled the first dispute

After Paul's conversion he presented himself to Peter.

Of the early churhes established by the apostles, the Church of Rome was the highest in rank. It was the see of Peter and all other churchs for a time recgonized

It was St Ignatius appointed by Saint Peter, who first used the Greek word " Katholicos, meaning universal when referring to the church founded by Christ to distinguish it from heretical churches that had arisen.

quote:

---

I dare say that if the Vatican were, God forbid, destroyed tomorrow that you and all of Christ's church would march on.

---

I am suprised at this coming from you Bugs. I don't think the family of the catholic church is full of shallow hypocrites who are greedy and dependent upon the puported riches of Rome. It goes beyond that. Yes. If the Vatican blew up tomorrow and the Pope died too, we would still have a church. Were not all the early popes murdered and the church still survived? Your prejudice is showing.

Where ever you go in the world, be it in Europe, America, Africa, Asis or Austraila, Mexico, Canada you will find established Catholic churches in every city that are taught the same doctrines as the USA. Everywhere it is ruled by the same head, Pope John Paul II. It ministers to all races and all peoples, all classes, rich, poor wise, ignorant, saint and sinner. Its a church for everyman.

Non-catholic denominations will always claim they didn't break away just reformed the old one, but on what authority?. Was it from Christ himself? But I ask, Did the True Church exist at a time for them before the founding of their new churches?

quote:

---

The biggest difference between the Catholic bible and the Protestant one is the Apocrypha. But those are OT books and really don't represent significant theological differences between Catholics and Protestants

---

This is simply not true. Martin Luther took out 7 books and rewrote, revise and added text to the bible. He added alone in we are saved by scripture alone. And this is historical fact from secular bible scholars. After his excommunication he had great hatred for the papacy. The OT is considered as reference to NT teachings. There is much beautiful theology untapped by Protestant scholars in its typology betweent the Old and New Testaments.

quote:

---

You are fond of saying that the Reformers left the Church when in fact Luther sought to clean up its act. He did not want a Great Schism. He, just like I, can read the very same scriptures claimed to be divinely inspired by Christ and see the differences between what is found between those pages and what the Roman Catholic church had, and has, become

---

.

Per Luther's biography he died regretting leaving the Catholic church which he truly loved. Again, he just hated the papacy. He was on a crusade against the papacy and lost.

quote:

---

He failed against the vast and powerful political machine that was more interested in money to build a fancier building than it was in godly duties

---

Well, I guess the Holy Spirit was not with him if he failed. Plus his reformers also disagreed with his visions for a church and splintered off again into the many thousands of sects we have today.

Did you know the great reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary and veneration to her. Also Luther himself did too and the real presence in the Eucharist he believed in. So, how come protestants changed their view in these beliefs over time?


You know I am not trying to change any persons beliefs, just to give you the right percepiton of what the RC is and teaches. There is so much false teaching on what the Catholic Church teaches coming from non-catholics or used to be catholics who never got it right that I try to give correct information on her. On the outside looking in seems like she is so powerful rich in authority and overwhelming but in her deep theology of treasures she is quite beauitful.

(Edited by jade on 10-18-2004 05:13)

i want to ask a question because i want to make sure i'm understanding what your comment was intended to mean jade.

quote:

---

In giving his apostles authority he summoned and gave them power to sanctify, cleanse unholy spirits, cure illnesss and gave them the power to forgive sins. And to go out an evangelize and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. We are not given the same power.

---

what exactly are you meaning in that we're not given the same power? same power to cleanse spirits, cure illness, forgive sins, or that we're not called to evangelize?

i also just found an interesting link as to when certain traditions and customs were introduced into the catholic church, i don't know much of its accuracy but found it interesting:
http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/timeline.php

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 10-18-2004 05:50)

Okay, jade. Everyone.

Catholic Encylopedia: "Catholicism"

Catholic Encylopedia: "Roman Catholicism"

Catholic Encylopedia: "Ultramontanism" (aka. The Pope Thing)

...and to top that off with the "Word of God"...

The Official Vatican Homepage

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

Fig

Your posting an anti-catholic propaganda used to misguide people. Did you know its created by protestants.

Metahuman

Excellent site, which I use quite often. You will understand Catholicism from a Catholic site. Thanks.

^ I guess THAT says everything.

no, i'm posting something i ran across that seemed interesting and asking about its accuracy, i'm very intrigued by several things in there but can't vouch for any of it. if its inaccurate then i'd be very interested to know why.

and does it being created by someone who's not catholic really matter? its either correct or not i would think.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

jade: Per Christ own teaching:
Gospel of John 10:16 " There shall be one fold and one shepherd"

---

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think I'm too far off base in thinking that the "shepherd" is Jesus, and the "fold" is his followers. It is my understanding that the "church" the New Testament refers to is the followers of Jesus- not an institution. Just my $0.02, but then, what do I know?

So Jade: the holy spirit was not with him, since he failed.

Was the holy spirit with the pope when he decided to start selling 'indulgences' to finance the new church he wanted? Was the holy spirit with the catholic church when they decided to have Joan of Arc burnt at the stake? Was it with them when they asked the secular leaders of Europe to attack the muslims and kill the jews?

If that's what having the 'holy spirit' with you means....then no thank you.

And once again, your twisted view of history is disconcerting.

Martin Luther was *not* on any sort of crusade against the papacy. He was standing up agaisnt the outright corruption of the church that he loved. He did not 'at the end of his life regret leaving the catholic chruch' - he had no desire to leave it in the first place. He was forced to by corrupt leadership.

It seems to me that the last thing Jesus would want is for someone to sit and watch immoral things happen in his church, and let them happen simply because the heirarchy says so. If I recall correctly, Jesus was very fond of breaking rules and throwing off the bonds of corrupt leadership


Also, for the record: I have never said anything in regard to what the catholic church claims to "teach", or what the official views of the catholic church are.

My commentary ha always been about the actions of the catholic church. The actions are far more important to me than the words...


Now, as to Fig's posted article - what specifically do you disagree with? I can't vouch for many of those things, but some of them are most certainly true.

Are you actually trying to say that everything the catholic church beleives today, has been doctrine right from the start?

Are you trying to say that the church has not borrowed many aspects of its observances from pagan origins?

Please clarify what specifically you have an issue with in regard to that list.





(Edited by DL-44 on 10-18-2004 18:25)

MD. Copied this is for u. No doubt there will be rebuttals. But check the New Advent site MH referenced also.

Am working on a difficult case today, so I will get back with a reply to Fig/DLs post as soon as I can.


"There Shall Be One Fold - One Shepherd"
THE MARK OF ONENESS
Unity is one of the marks or signs that Jesus Christ gave His Church so as to enable men at all times and places to be able to identify it.
By the oneness of the Church is meant that, by the will of Jesus Christ, all the members of His Church are united in one and the same belief; have the same Sacraments; the same Sacrifice; and are united under one and the same visible head - namely, the Pope. As St. Paul says, "For just as in one body we have many members, yet all the members have not the same function, so we the many, are one body in Christ, but severely members of one another" (Rom. 12:4-5). And again, "one body and one spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all." (Eph. 4:4-6).


CHRIST POINTS IT OUT
Jesus Christ always spoke of His Church as one: "And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (Jn 10, 16).
The Nicene Creed, composed at the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. (about 1200 years before the birth of protestantism) reads in part, "...we believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."
DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH
The mark or sign of unity is incorporated into the very definition of the Church founded by Jesus Christ: "The Church is the congregation of all baptized person, united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, and the bishops in communion with him."
THE DESIRE OF JESUS CHRIST
Jesus earnestly desired and prayed for unity in His Church. "I pray... that all may be one" (Jn 17:20-21).
Only the Catholic Church has this mark of unity. There are other Christian sects but which are separated from the unity of Christ by their rejection of the authority of the Pope which was bestowed by Christ on Peter and his lawful successors.
IT'S TIME TO COME BACK
Bishop Brent (protestant) saddened by the scandal of Church disunity so contrary to the mind, will, and prayer of Jesus Christ, stated quite firmly that the solution to the present Christian chaos was a "return to Rome" of all the separated Churches.

uh.....

and again - please relate the relevance on the issues at hand of any of these quotes?

quote:

---

jade said:

You will understand Catholicism from a Catholic site. Thanks.

---

To an extent I agree with this deduction. The same is true about atheism and science; unfortunately, often those directly involved in something require *objective* third-party opinions. If one restricts their empathy to those whom believe (or think) as they do, one becomes a bigot and their voice drowned out by the beating of drums. Learning from one source does not preclude learning from another.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

(Edited by metahuman on 10-18-2004 21:33)

jade - This is where things get frustrating for me... the quotes you provided are helpful - and when I get home and have some more time I will peruse the links that MH provided - but to me they serve to confuse the issue. I read the scripture provided and then I read the interpretation of that scripture and what I understand and their interpretation are two completely different things.

The "Mark of Oneness" I read as: The mark of unity is faith in Jesus as Savior. Not an earthy institution with all the related symbology.

"Christ points it out" I read as: He is the shepherd, the people of earth are his flock. Some have heard this message others have not. "Them also I must bring..." Jesus must bring - not the Pope or any other. As for the Nicene creed - honestly, what do they know? It was 300 years after the fact. The Supreme Court justices have a difficult enough time trying to interpret the US Constitution that was written a little over 200 years ago. Truly, how did they know theirs was the right path?

"Definition of Church; Desire of Christ": See Mark of Oneness ^^^

"It's time to come back" That is one man's opinion. Just as this is my own opinion. I think that the only solution to the "present Christian chaos" is to quit bickering about dogma and focus on the central theme of the Religion: believe in Jesus and be good to others, which I think many followers do quite well, despite the name of their denomination.

Of course this is all outside of the enlightened Christian view. I?m sure that you and others will find scripture to contradict my opinions, and that?s just fine. That?s what learning is all about?

Wikipedia: List of ecumenical councils

Wikipedia: The Nicene Creed

Apparently there's more to the story...

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

The roman catholics weren't the first christians, the bible wasn't written by catholics and the scripture can be debated.....bottom line is that none of this really matters. the only people keeping score of that junk is mortals. Does it really matter what sect of christianity you are as long as you live your life by the bible? In a scout troop whether or not you are a good scout doesn't depend on what patrol you are in it's whether or not you follow the code and law. In the Army, Navy, and Air Force what battalion you are in doesn't determine what rank you are or your proffeciency as a professional bullet catcher it only matters that you get the job done. Doesn't the bible also say that christians are god's army and we are his soldiers? Isn't that the point of the hymn called "Onward Christian Soldiers"?

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

quote:

---

Truly, how did they know theirs was the right path

---

Well, how do we know that Jesus was savior from documents written over 1700 years ago in the holy scriptures. Its requires faith. We take it on authority of the men who provided scripture that they gave truth or its all a big lie.

When you really think about it, why would there be no system of governing the flock? It is necessary as any institution requires to have rule to keep a system or entity in check. Its common sense to leave a governing magisterium. Consider how the US government & laws and the court system keep us from anarchy. Why would Christ not provide the same in his church to keep it united and strong against its dark enemies.

(Edited by jade on 10-18-2004 23:01)

So you beleive that the very spotty history of the catholic church, with its many political leaders, and its many mistakes (things like condemning some to death for heresy...only to saint them later....) deserve the same level of faith in their decisions as does Jesus himself?

Don't forget that Jesus was a political-religious leader too!

quote:

---

Sangreal said:

In a scout troop whether or not you are a good scout doesn't depend on what patrol you are in it's whether or not you follow the code and law.

---

That logic is flawed. Faith in religious ideas and faith in gods are not requirements for living ethically. Shouldn't you be more concerned with the definition of "good" and whether you're a good human rather than a good whatever you're called by the organization in which you enrolled?

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

Just a bit of an addendum -

I also find the Catholic Encyclopedia quite useful - in fact I visit often.

It is noteworthy that the definition of 'Catholic' found there is rather supportive of the view of the origins of the "Catholic" church that I have presented.

Why do you guys continue to reply to Jade? It just seems like a terrible waste of time.

I don't think it's a waste of time at all. I like jade very much and I am glad she's here. Call me an optimist, but I have this belief that dialogue on these kinds of topics can be very helpful to the participants as well as an untold number of lurkers.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

^^^I agree, Bugimus.

quote:

---

Why do you guys continue to reply to Jade? It just seems like a terrible waste of time

---

.


Why Jetsah? Do you want to give up on me?
Don't you want to save me from the dark evil empire too?

Believe it or not in matters of faith I may seem like a stubborn mule, but I am quite friendly and likeable, and pretty much open minded in many other issues. Its just that in matters of faith I have very strong convicitons which I cannot waiver on. Can you respect that?
I respect how everyone wants to worship and have a great respect for the human person no matter what kind of person they are because I know God lives in all humanity.

As you can see, DL needles me alot and is very anti-papacy, as many others are, but I still like him and everyone else that is negative towards Catholicism.

In my history of post regarding religious beliefs, I pretty much have stood alone. And it has not been about me vs anyone. Just me giving a true view of what my faith is as opposed to the misconception of what everyone thinks its teachings are. For me I am only following the truth of what I see just like every other non-catholic or non-christian sees his view.

Fig, I am speaking of the special powers he gave to the apostles which has been handed down thru history. I don't have the power to forgive sins in a confessional. I don't have power to give the last rites. I don't have power to perform the marriage rites of communion between to couples. I don't have power to change the bread to the body and blood of christ. I don't have the power of Exorcism.
I am talking of priestly duties that the priest obtains power from when the takes the sacrament of "Holy Orders" so that he may act in "Persona Christi"..(In the place of Christ). THis is historical and traditional teachings from the RC that we observe and believe in.
I can forgive someone who offends me to make them feel better and they may want to go to confession if they are bothered about what they did to me. I can pray and hope someone will get well. I can evangelize to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, but in a different role the priest performs certain rites that he alone can do. I myself can baptize in case of an emergency, since baptism is really a parental commitment to bring the child up in the body of christ family.
Here the child makes no proclamation of faith as a believer, just that he is promised to the chruch by his parents to bring him up Catholic. Later on when the child is a teen he makes his confirmation into the faith. I cannot give a teen a rite of confirmation. Only a priest can administer it in Persona Christi.

To get a better definition of "In Persona Christi" check the New Advent site if you want.

The list I will not respond too. There is much dogma and doctrine and some are traditions that can be changed. Specifiy which one you really want to understand.

You know DL, you really are repeating yourself over and over in your snipes at me. Can you think of something different to use against the RC instead of its riches?

For all the bad stuff said about the church by many of you, can't any of you ever find anything nice to say of it? It seems from this forum it shows more evil than good comes from it.

(Edited by jade on 10-19-2004 19:22)