A Faith question

[Peter_J]

Firstly I am perfectly well aware of how Saint’s should be read by the Catholic Church. But you see. This is where “yet another problem” comes in. So Catholics can quote all the quotes helping their case but when something strange come up it should just be ignored. So the “helping” parts are mined out to “prove” things through “oral Tradition”.

That’s kind of similar to a criticism we have about Protestants.

 

[Wannano]

SORRY Michael, I’m sure its just ME, but I’m not following you here. What do you mean by “something strange?”

I try * not to ignore any relative points.

I SUSPECT because truth is singular has a role in that.

Secondly, as you generously noted, I don’t get refuted too often, so the message I share seems to have staying power.

However for you MY FRIEND, if you’d care to share a specific issue or two, I’ll see what I can do about changing my “stock” replies

Michael I TRIED the above and just got the CAF home page. But no indication of the STRING you have in mind. Again, no doubt it’s me, but I struggle a bit with the computer, so a bit more guidance would be APPRECIATED.

If you can give me a bit [perhaps even a lot] more guidance; I will certainly try to do so.

God Bless you my friend!

Patrick*

Go to the thread titled Why if you do, don’t you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church?

Rinnie posted on 241 that we do not need the Bible and in 268 you agreed with her by stating she had such a great post!?

 

[MichaelP3]

In a way that’s true, because all true churches have “lineage” back to the Apostles and they were all in communion with the first pope, Simon Peter.

Btw, “church” and “rite” are not the same – I’m not saying you don’t already know that, maybe you do, I just want to say it for the record.

Yea I do understand that. But it would still leave the enormous elephant in the room, namely the Orthodox. (The Orientals are maybe a different story). It ls all well to keep on quoting Mat 16:18, but FACT is, the Orthodox who were a pretty large part of Christianity that time (If we have to look at numbers) did not see it that way. That is already 1000 years into this. Nonetheless finding a writing in consensus with the whole of Christianity of the time agreeing on this issue? So the question all keeps being stated, “Did Jesus lie or did hell prevail”. Well the Schism happened and that is a historical fact that nobody can deny. So it either looks like hell did prevail or that was never the meaning in the first place and we are all part of the catholic Church as was seemingly the consensus anyway in the first centuries.

Oh, and on the “rite” and “Church” thing, the person was kind of confused what I meant. Numerous times people were schooled not to call it the RCC. Although I’m pretty sure 99% knew there are many rites. I do know the difference.

That’s pretty impressive – well, I’m guessing you don’t mean you’ve read all his posts since the beginning, which would be 13,000+, but it’s still pretty impressive.

And if it wasn’t for reading “some” of your previous posts I would take that as sarcasm, but today you are my 2nd favourite Catholic poster and I think I get the joke. Obviously only since I started on CAF. So it would be a lot less and yes I could have missed a few.

That’s kind of similar to a criticism we have about Protestants.

Exactly what I thought. I wanted to add “like Catholics accuse Protestants of using the Bible”. Makes me think of an English saying “Practice what you preach”

 

[jmcrae]

Okay so do you say all of the Eastern “Churches” (if you wish) even the ones not “in communion with Rome today” but nevertheless can claim to have “been there from the start” have at some time professed “To be in Communion with Rome”?

Yes. See the homily from St. John Crysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, (about as Eastern as you can get; they still celebrate his Mass) in “The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers” as referenced above. Yes, they understood themselves to be in full communion with Rome, the “pre-eminent See” as the Patriarch of Antioch described it in 170 AD or so.

You see, I am perfectly well aware of the differences so I think you missed me somewhere there. What I was asking, would the 4 sees have proclaimed to especially be in communion with Rome and understood it the same way as you “think” and then so easily take part in the Schism? The question is still not answered. Was Rome considered the same from the beginning.

Yes it was, or else the Corinthians would not have asked the Bishop of Rome, St. Clement, to resolve a dispute of theirs in 90 AD, if he did not have the authority to overrule the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Side note: I see our responses are getting smaller and points are being left out.

1. I work for a living and don’t really have time to answer a 20 question quiz with properly annotated essay-form answers.
2. Let’s attack one question at a time and answer it thoroughly rather than get side-tracked with minor side issues.

 

[Peter_J]

Yea I do understand that. But it would still leave the enormous elephant in the room, namely the Orthodox. (The Orientals are maybe a different story). It ls all well to keep on quoting Mat 16:18, but FACT is, the Orthodox who were a pretty large part of Christianity that time (If we have to look at numbers) did not see it that way. That is already 1000 years into this. Nonetheless finding a writing in consensus with the whole of Christianity of the time agreeing on this issue? So the question all keeps being stated, “Did Jesus lie or did hell prevail”. Well the Schism happened and that is a historical fact that nobody can deny.

Well sure. The Orthodox are a fly in the ointment wrt to our attempts to prove we are the one true church, but we are likewise a fly in the ointment wrt to their attempts to prove they are the one true church.

Fortunately, it doesn’t stop us from continuing to make the claim.

 

[Peter_J]

And if it wasn’t for reading “some” of your previous posts I would take that as sarcasm, but today you are my 2nd favourite Catholic poster and I think I get the joke. Obviously only since I started on CAF. So it would be a lot less and yes I could have missed a few.

Actually, even though I didn’t have this in mind when I posted earlier, it’s a pretty good joke (not about you specifically, basically about every single one of us on here):

 

[MichaelP3]

Yes. See the homily from St. John Crysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, (about as Eastern as you can get; they still celebrate his Mass) in “The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers” as referenced above. Yes, they understood themselves to be in full communion with Rome, the “pre-eminent See” as the Patriarch of Antioch described it in 170 AD or so.

I thought I had the rest of the night of an decided to read your link and then, I tried your link and maybe I am missing something. You used a link that takes me to a site where I must buy a book for CDN$ 224.97 as your proof? Well in this case I guess you won. I cannot respond to that.

Yes it was, or else the Corinthians would not have asked the Bishop of Rome, St. Clement, to resolve a dispute of theirs in 90 AD, if he did not have the authority to overrule the Patriarch of Constantinople.

This is all good and well. But was that the entire consensus? I can refer you to a Council who meant something different (And you won’t need to buy anything). But I was told before “this was only a local council”

1. I work for a living and don’t really have time to answer a 20 question quiz with properly annotated essay-form answers.
2. Let’s attack one question at a time and answer it thoroughly rather than get side-tracked with minor side issues.

1. Me too (actually quite a lot of us around here)
2. I conceded the first point then for the above mentioned reasons.

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

Michael I TRIED the above and just got the CAF home page. But no indication of the STRING you have in mind. Again, no doubt it’s me, but I struggle a bit with the computer, so a bit more guidance would be APPRECIATED.

If you can give me a bit [perhaps even a lot] more guidance; I will certainly try to do so.

God Bless you my friend!

Patrick

Go to the thread titled Why if you do, don’t you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church?

Rinnie posted on 241 that we do not need the Bible and in 268 you agreed with her by stating she had such a great post!?

This!

I tried the link and it works on my side. Sorry if it doesn’t on yours.

 

[PJM]

Yea I do understand that. But it would still leave the enormous elephant in the room, namely the Orthodox. (The Orientals are maybe a different story). It ls all well to keep on quoting Mat 16:18, but FACT is, the Orthodox who were a pretty large part of Christianity that time (If we have to look at numbers) did not see it that way. That is already 1000 years into this. Nonetheless finding a writing in consensus with the whole of Christianity of the time agreeing on this issue? So the question all keeps being stated, “Did Jesus lie or did hell prevail”. Well the Schism happened and that is a historical fact that nobody can deny. So it either looks like hell did prevail or that was never the meaning in the first place and we are all part of the catholic Church as was seemingly the consensus anyway in the first centuries.

The Preeminence of Peter in the Bible:

Library : The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs | Catholic Culture

[1] 50 bible passages attest to Christ choosing Peter & the preeminence of Peter in the bible

[2] Of note is that there was NO debate or argument of Peters Role

[3] The Early “Fathers” were in agreement of Peters Role and the Primacy

**1. americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

1. catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-supremacy-in-the-bible-and-church-fathers.html
2. churchfathers.org/category/the-church-and-the-papacy/**

“DID HELL PREVAIL”/

NO my friend; that is a wrong understanding BECAUSE the RCC remained and STILL Remains, nearly a thousand years after the Great Eastern Schism of 1054 AD… So hell did NOT prevail:thumbsup:

Oh, and on the “rite” and “Church” thing, the person was kind of confused what I meant. Numerous times people were schooled not to call it the RCC. Although I’m pretty sure 99% knew there are many rites. I do know the difference.

And if it wasn’t for reading “some” of your previous posts I would take that as sarcasm, but today you are my 2nd favourite Catholic poster and I think I get the joke. Obviously only since I started on CAF. So it would be a lot less and yes I could have missed a few.

Exactly what I thought. I wanted to add “like Catholics accuse Protestants of using the Bible”. Makes me think of an English saying “Practice what you preach”

As a long time active member of CAF, I {me personally} can’t once recall seeing a Catholic “accuse” Protestants of “using the bible.”

NOT rightly understanding it, or using it VERY selectively YES, but never just quoting it.

God Bless you, & thanks
Patrick

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Well the Schism happened and that is a historical fact that nobody can deny. So it either looks like hell did prevail or that was never the meaning in the first place and we are all part of the catholic Church as was seemingly the consensus anyway in the first centuries.

Hi, Mike.

Schism isn’t apostasy though.

Doesn’t even fall into heresy(protestant) category.

Depends on your interpretation of that verse. My understanding has always been the Church wont fall off the rails, ever. But if I talk to many protestants, that’s what I am told, the Church gradually went full apostate and Luther and his crew came to the rescue.

Pax

 

[jmcrae]

I thought I had the rest of the night of an decided to read your link and then, I tried your link and maybe I am missing something. You used a link that takes me to a site where I must buy a book for CDN$ 224.97 as your proof? Well in this case I guess you won. I cannot respond to that.

It should be available at your library or local seminary. Not everything is on line.

 

[PJM]

SORRY Michael

MichaelP3
Re: HOW? And When, Where and WHY
POST #59 REPLY

**Quote:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread…035638&page=19

See post 268. You agreed with someone very clearly trying to attract a reaction in a very heated monologue. Afterwards you went on defending your wording and tried to make it sound softer. Honestly, after those posts I do read you responses differently end quote

Go to the thread titled Why if you do, don’t you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church?

]

Rinnie posted on 241 that we do not need the Bible and in 268 you agreed with her by stating she had such a great post!?

Quote: Re: WHY do you [if you do?] think the RCC is not the One true Church founded by Christ? POST #268

Originally Posted by rinnie

then why did God leave us the CC instead of the bible. How does the bible give you the bread and body of Christ? How does the bible give you forgiveness for your sins? How does the bible baptise you in the name of God. Etc. If we NEED the bible how did all those people in the OT survive.

While I agree the bible is the greatest book ever written, I disagree that we need it. What we need is the Church the living Church here on earth.
GREAT reply
**
GBY

Patrick end quote **

God willing this reply will clear up your concerns

1. I agreed with post #268 because “rinni” made [makes] a valid point; which is that it is the RCC and our 7 Sacraments that are the evidence and the fruit of Christ desire, and what Christ accomplished by establishing HIS One True Church: Mt 7: 13-25
2. My comment on the lack of “need” of the bible seems to have missed [no doubt my fault] my intended message.
3. I was merely pointing out that the RCC is a CHURCH of the Bible; BUT NOT in an essential sense, solely reliant on the bible, as She had existed for an extended period of time before the bible [a Catholic book] existed, and even grew without it. Which is NOT to say that the bible is not of VITAL importance, ONLY not of absolute essential prominence.
4. As for “rinni’s” final question of how the people in the OT “survived” ? They were different times and different circumstances, reliant on the LAW for direction; whereas now under GRACE [Rom 6: 14-15] we are given more, and MUCH more is expected of us because of prevalent-grace.

I do hope this clarifies your concerns? SORRY for the lack of clarity, and grateful for the opportunity to clarify it.

Lastly, I repeat my offer to you:

If you’d care to share a few examples of your interest; I’ll endeavor to provide YOU with “new” responses

God Bless you,
Patrick**

 

[MichaelP3]

It should be available at your library or local seminary. Not everything is on line.

Well you are clearly assuming too much. I doubt we would even have Harry Potter here. So can we move on… (Obviously if that is your last comment on the previous section)

 

[PJM]

SORRY Michael, I’m sure its just ME, but I’m not following you here. What do you mean by “something strange?”

MichaelP3
Re: HOW? And When, Where and WHY
POST #59 REPLY

Quote:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea...035638&page=19

See post 268. You agreed with someone very clearly trying to attract a reaction in a very heated monologue. Afterwards you went on defending your wording and tried to make it sound softer. Honestly, after those posts I do read you responses differently end quote

Go to the thread titled Why if you do, don’t you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church?

**Rinnie posted on 241 **that we do not need the Bible and in 268 you agreed with her by stating she had such a great post!?

Quote: Re: WHY do you [if you do?] think the RCC is not the One true Church founded by Christ? POST #268

**Originally Posted by rinnie POST #268 **
then why did God leave us the CC instead of the bible. How does the bible give you the bread and body of Christ? How does the bible give you forgiveness for your sins? How does the bible baptise you in the name of God. Etc. If we NEED the bible how did all those people in the OT survive.

While I agree the bible is the greatest book ever written, I disagree that we need it. What we need is the Church the living Church here on earth.
GREAT reply

**GBY

Patrick end quote **

God willing this reply will clear up your concerns

1. I agreed with post #268 because “rinni” made [makes] a valid point; which is that it is the RCC and our 7 Sacraments that are the evidence and the fruit of Christ desire,
   and what Christ accomplished by establishing HIS One True Church: Mt 7: 13-25
2. My comment on the lack of “need” of the bible seems to have missed [no doubt my fault] my intended message.
3. I was merely pointing out that the RCC is a CHURCH of the Bible; BUT NOT in an essential sense, solely reliant on the bible, as She had existed for an extended period of time before the bible [a Catholic book] existed, and even grew without it. Which is NOT to say that the bible is not of VITAL importance, ONLY not of absolute essential prominence.
4. As for “rinni’s” final question of how the people in the OT “survived” ? They were different times and different circumstances, reliant on the LAW for direction; whereas now under GRACE [Rom 6: 14-15] we are given more, and MUCH more is expected of us because of prevalent-grace.

I do hope this clarifies your concerns? SORRY for the lack of clarity, and grateful for the opportunity to clarify it.

Finaly, I again extend my offer to you; if you’d care to point out a few topics of interest, I will endeavor to supply DIFFERENT evidence of my [the RCC position]

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

Go to the thread titled Why if you do, don’t you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church?

Rinnie posted on 241 that we do not need the Bible and in 268 you agreed with her by stating she had such a great post!?

THANKS so very much

Here is my reply to it:

SORRY Michael, I’m sure its just ME, but I’m not following you here. What do you mean by “something strange?”

MichaelP3
Re: HOW? And When, Where and WHY
POST #59 REPLY

Quote:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea...035638&page=19

See post 268. You agreed with someone very clearly trying to attract a reaction in a very heated monologue. Afterwards you went on defending your wording and tried to make it sound softer. Honestly, after those posts I do read you responses differently end quote

Go to the thread titled Why if you do, don’t you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church?

**Rinnie posted on 241 **that we do not need the Bible and in 268 you agreed with her by stating she had such a great post!?

Quote: Re: WHY do you [if you do?] think the RCC is not the One true Church founded by Christ? POST #268

**Originally Posted by rinnie POST #268 **
then why did God leave us the CC instead of the bible. How does the bible give you the bread and body of Christ? How does the bible give you forgiveness for your sins? How does the bible baptise you in the name of God. Etc. If we NEED the bible how did all those people in the OT survive.

While I agree the bible is the greatest book ever written, I disagree that we need it. What we need is the Church the living Church here on earth.
GREAT reply

**GBY

Patrick end quote **

God willing this reply will clear up your concerns

1. I agreed with post #268 because “rinni” made [makes] a valid point; which is that it is the RCC and our 7 Sacraments that are the evidence and the fruit of Christ desire,
   and what Christ accomplished by establishing HIS One True Church: Mt 7: 13-25
2. My comment on the lack of “need” of the bible seems to have missed [no doubt my fault] my intended message.
3. I was merely pointing out that the RCC is a CHURCH of the Bible; BUT NOT in an essential sense, solely reliant on the bible, as She had existed for an extended period of time before the bible [a Catholic book] existed, and even grew without it. Which is NOT to say that the bible is not of VITAL importance, ONLY not of absolute essential prominence.
4. As for “rinni’s” final question of how the people in the OT “survived” ? They were different times and different circumstances, reliant on the LAW for direction; whereas now under GRACE [Rom 6: 14-15] we are given more, and MUCH more is expected of us because of prevalent-grace.

I do hope this clarifies your concerns? SORRY for the lack of clarity, and grateful for the opportunity to clarify it.

Finally, I again extend my offer to you; if you’d care to point out a few topics of interest, I will endeavor to supply DIFFERENT evidence of my [the RCC position]

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

Well sure. The Orthodox are a fly in the ointment wrt to our attempts to prove we are the one true church, but we are likewise a fly in the ointment wrt to their attempts to prove they are the one true church.

Fortunately, it doesn’t stop us from continuing to make the claim.

SORRY

But I do not agree

1054 AD the GREAT EASTERN SCHISM had them choosing to separate from the RCC, NOT the reverse.

The evidence of the Primacy of Peter is precisely clear that THEY accepted Rome and the Primacy for a prolonged period of time before the Schism

The Preeminence of Peter in the Bible:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=81
[1] 50 bible passages attest to Christ choosing Peter & the preeminence of Peter in the bible
[2] Of note is that there was NO debate or argument of Peters Role

[3] The Early “Fathers” were in agreement of Peters Role and the Primacy

**1. americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

1. catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-supremacy-in-the-bible-and-church-fathers.html
2. churchfathers.org/category/the-church-and-the-papac**y/

 

[TOmNossor]

Is it Catholics, Protestants, or both (or neither) that think death concurred Christ?
Obnoxiously Asking,
TOm

 

[jmcrae]

Is it Catholics, Protestants, or both (or neither) that think death concurred Christ?
Obnoxiously Asking,
TOm

Assuming you meant to write “conquered” none of us would be here, if it had.

Just curious; what makes you ask?

 

[TOmNossor]

Assuming you meant to write “conquered” none of us would be here, if it had.

Just curious; what makes you ask?

I did mean “conquered” argh!
I was being obnoxious. We all believe Christ died and none of us believe Christ was conquered.
It seems to me that Christ’s church could die and yet not be conquered.
Charity, TOm

 

[Wannano]

I did mean “conquered” argh!
I was being obnoxious. We all believe Christ died and none of us believe Christ was conquered.
It seems to me that Christ’s church could die and yet not be conquered.
Charity, TOm

If there is only one person left in the world who believes in Christ is the church still not alive?
Would Christ have sacrificed His life for my salvation even if I were the only human who had ever believed?