A few questions on certain concepts that I never got answered

[Murcury]

Welcome, I would like to start by saying that although you may not be going to Mass and are following the teaching of mohammad, if you were batized into the church you are still and always will be Catholic. Keep this in mind as it appears you are somewhat young and have already been a quite a journey in faith. You can come Home at any time the doors are always open.

Actually I am going to Mass and receiving Communion every weekend. In my household it’s either you practice Catholicism or you’re kicked out, no exception. In fact, I still altar serve and just hold my feelings to myself.

The morality of Christianity is in a way very stupid. There is an absurdity to loving everyone as God loves them not mention doing it for selfless reasons and out of love for God and not just submission.

The truth is Christianity spread out of non-violence. Islam did spread the war. Christianity conquered the Roman Empire.
Christians were martyred for a religion that was in a very real sense foolish.

It is also interesting to me that the Catholic Church never asked for legal status. They could have made a deal with the Empire and practiced their religion without persecution as did the Jews.

There’s not an absurdity to loving: fighting can lead to a total defeat. If you love and die as a martyr it doesn’t have to end with defeat. Although, you can’t say Christianity has always been non-violent. To be honest, to call Islam violently spread isn’t precisely true. The biggest Muslim country, Indonesia, was converted via the Muslim merchants. The Mongol invaders became Muslim eventually. Arabia was united because the Muslims had to secure themselves. When Islam sprung up in Mecca, they were persecuted and from Medina they spread outward to secure a steady home for Muslims. The Byzantines were oppressing the people in Egypt and the region so that’s why they spread outward that way. The very first Caliphate expanded only to bring freedom to the oppressed.

I’ll have to look into this further. BTW, the Gospel of Matthew was probably written in Aramaic or Hebrew and for a Jewish audience. You can tell because unlike the other Gospels it does very little explaining of Aramaic words. In other words, unlike the other Gospels, it does not have many phrases lke “they called him Rabbi, this means teacher.” It has a lot of Old testament references that would have only made sense to a Jew. There is also an early writing that makes reference to a Gospel of Matthew around 45 AD written in the language of the Jews.

My scripture book disagrees. I’m not sure about the exact date it was written or the original language but according to my scripture book it was written after the Destruction of the Temple (because it makes mention to that event).

This is not an unreasonable argument. If I were a Muslim I would make that argument too. However, the argument I gave is also reasonable and there were many Muslims annoyed because they had also memorized the Qu’ran and they were now accused of having an invalid Qu’ran.

When the Qur’an was originally compiled into a written form, several copies were sent out to the corners of the Caliphate so that if one copy was destroyed, the other authentic ones could survive.

I was away from the Catholic Church for many years myself. In fact, I was quite surprised I returned. It turns out Catholicism wasn’t not what I thought.

For me falling away turned out to be good. If I had never left I would have been I lousy Catholic.

My only advice is to keep an open mind and keep searching. Even now I play a game with myself where I try to convince myself Catholicism is wrong. I read everybody’s point of view. I even study Church history from a secular point of view. However, I cannot seem to get away.

Before I left I was a great Catholic. The last Lent I believed, a few years ago, I went to Mass everyday during Holy Week and I was into Catholicism. But hey, I try to stay open to all points of view. What would you say is the greatest sign of proof that the Church is special?

Also, I’m going to inject a small question here in general: In one of the Gospels, after Jesus’s death, there was a massive earthquake and apparently the dead rose out of their graves and the Prophets visited people. Why does no historian ever make mention of such an amazing event? I mean, earthquakes aren’t that big of a deal, but certainly the dead rising out of their graves is a big deal, right?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Salaam (Peace) to everyone here

Peace!

Anyway, I have questions on so many things but I’ll stick to only certain concepts for now that I’ll ask on.

The teaching has not changed, the understanding of it has.

 

[fbl9]

Actually I am going to Mass and receiving Communion every weekend. In my household it’s either you practice Catholicism or you’re kicked out, no exception. In fact, I still altar serve and just hold my feelings to myself.

Also, I’m going to inject a small question here in general: In one of the Gospels, after Jesus’s death, there was a massive earthquake and apparently the dead rose out of their graves and the Prophets visited people. Why does no historian ever make mention of such an amazing event? I mean, earthquakes aren’t that big of a deal, but certainly the dead rising out of their graves is a big deal, right?

Stop right there, go to mass yes, but please refrain from recieving the eucharist. For your own eternal sake.

I remember watching a “documentory” on the History channel about the tomb of Jesus.What was interesting was that they discovered tombs from that era that seemed to have been exploded from the inside out.

 

[fbl9]

Actually for example, in Islam, David never slept with Bathsheba. Prophets in Islam tend to be total examples. But yes, men make mistakes, so why trust a man with an entire Church?

snip…)

Psalm 37 (38) David pleads with God not to have wrath on him because of his sins. Isaiah 6:5 “i am a man of unclean lips…” how about the refusal of Johnah. the failure of Moses’s right hand man by letting the people worship a golden calf.Man is not perfect only God is.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Can’t help you guys with the dead rising from their graves thing. Remember, they did not have glorifyed bodies, so they were basically… zombies walking around in different states of decomposition, who knows how many days post mortem.

Someone else want to address that one?

 

[Murcury]

My thought would be the same regarding the prophet Muhhamed. How do you reconcile this?

What is something that Muhammad that was wrong or corrupted?

My thoughts exactly. Now, what makes the Koran miraculous in any way, or any more “valid” in any way?

If you study the Qur’an you’ll see that it has characteristics an orphan from Arabia couldn’t make. (for the record, the whole number 19 thing that some Muslims are spouting is a hoax and don’t expect that from me) For example, it gets Bible stories and events so close to the actual Bible story, despite Muhammad being illiterate and written Bibles being rare. Or, it contains philosophical concepts and is so deep it is almost like the greatest philosopher wrote it. Also, in one chapter, it says that this one enemy of Muhammad would never convert. This man could have converted and proved the Qur’an wrong, but he didn’t. Those are just a few things about it that shows why an illiterate orphan average Joe from Arabia (that is what Muhammad was before he began preaching) couldn’t have written it.

Because flogging stoning or burning them alive is simply not done anymore except in certain cultures today. As a human race we have grown up a little bit.

I’m just saying for the priests to get a fair trial and be imprisoned or what have you. Was that last part a call out to Sharia law? I at first though Sharia law was harsh, before I actually looked and asked around. That isn’t true though. It has been blown 500 times out of proportion and what most of the West knows about is only a caricature. Sadly, in a lot of places, Islam has been mixed with culture and so is a bad reflection even though you’re not witnessing true Islam.

 

[StrawberryJam]

What is something that Muhammad that was wrong or corrupted?

That is irrelevant to the point. Why would God give to one human individual so much power and control who is not even divine in any way? There is no reason to believe God would do such a thing.

If you study the Qur’an you’ll see that it has characteristics an orphan from Arabia couldn’t make.

This is in no way evidence that it is in any way more valid than any other holy book. Nor evidence of divine inspiration. Most people are invisioning a child when they see the word orphan. He was not a child when the book was written, nor can anyone say he had no exposure to other theists before it was written.

(for the record, the whole number 19 thing that some Muslims are spouting is a hoax and don’t expect that from me) For example, it gets Bible stories and events so close to the actual Bible story, despite Muhammad being illiterate and written Bibles being rare. Or, it contains philosophical concepts and is so deep it is almost like the greatest philosopher wrote it. Also, in one chapter, it says that this one enemy of Muhammad would never convert. This man could have converted and proved the Qur’an wrong, but he didn’t. Those are just a few things about it that shows why an illiterate orphan average Joe from Arabia (that is what Muhammad was before he began preaching) couldn’t have written it.

I don’t see the deep philosophical concepts in it, and I don’t see the philosophical concepts in it to be superior in any way to other holy books. For some reason you think I am impressed with the argument that Muhammad was illiterate, so it is therefore a miracle that any kind of book let alone a holy book was written by his hand and divinely inspired. I don’t care if he was educated, illiterate, high as a kite, loving, mean, or anything else. None of that information proves that the holy book Koran is a book inspired by God, or that it is the most valid or accurate book from God.

I’m just saying for the priests to get a fair trial and be imprisoned or what have you. Was that last part a call out to Sharia law? I at first though Sharia law was harsh, before I actually looked and asked around. That isn’t true though. It has been blown 500 times out of proportion and what most of the West knows about is only a caricature. Sadly, in a lot of places, Islam has been mixed with culture and so is a bad reflection even though you’re not witnessing true Islam.

Some of them have been put in prison. Some more will likely follow. Not all have, (many died of natural causes) not all will. Don’t theists have faith that their God will handle this in a way he sees fit if humans here fail to do what he wills? I can’t understand you theists. No trust in your respective Gods at all on that one.

 

[jakasaki]

Hi there SJ:

Can you please use a dark color when posting. Thanks much!

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hi there SJ:

Can you please use a dark color when posting. Thanks much!

I will! Sorry about that. I was inspired by the blue color Mary is usually depicted wearing. Did not realize it does not view well with that font, or at all in any font.

 

[Murcury]

That is irrelevant to the point. Why would God give to one human individual so much power and control who is not even divine in any way? There is no reason to believe God would do such a thing.

Muhammad is a great man who would submit entirely. But this is just one human, not a chain of humans. Chains tend to be corrupted while one man can be an example to the world.

This is in no way evidence that it is in any way more valid than any other holy book. Nor evidence of divine inspiration. Most people are invisioning a child when they see the word orphan. He was not a child when the book was written, nor can anyone say he had no exposure to other theists before it was written.

So, why didn’t Muhammad’s enemy, Abu Lahab just convert and disprove the Qur’an?

I don’t see the deep philosophical concepts in it, and I don’t see the philosophical concepts in it to be superior in any way to other holy books. For some reason you think I am impressed with the argument that Muhammad was illiterate, so it is therefore a miracle that any kind of book let alone a holy book was written by his hand and divinely inspired. I don’t care if he was educated, illiterate, high as a kite, loving, mean, or anything else. None of that information proves that the holy book Koran is a book inspired by God, or that it is the most valid or accurate book from God.

Have you read and reflected on the Qur’an? It’s a profound book, Muhammad must of had quite the talent as not only a philosopher but as a writer, a statesman, a speaker, and a general.

Some of them have been put in prison. Some more will likely follow. Not all have, (many died of natural causes) not all will. Don’t theists have faith that their God will handle this in a way he sees fit if humans here fail to do what he wills? I can’t understand you theists. No trust in your respective Gods at all on that one.

Well, I believe humans should try to be just and not toss up their hands and say, “We’ll let God take care of it.” God isn’t going to send a meteor through the roof of all these men to kill them or something. We are responsible for trying them and preventing them for harming more people.

 

[jakasaki]

Murcury:

Do you mind posting your age please…???

 

[SteveVH]

1. I disagree with the concept of the Pope. I am wondering, why would God give total power to one corruptible man? To give two of my favorite historical examples of what I mean: Pope Alexander VI (The Borgia Pope) was known for his underhanded tactics and allegedly raped his niece. The Pope during the sacking of Constantinople at first condemned the Venetian Crusaders but once he heard about all the treasure they acquired he welcomed them back.

The office of “Bishope of Rome” (the Pope) has nothing to do with the personal holiness of the office holder. Yes, we have had some very interesting Popes over the years, however the great majority have been very holy men. We have had some bad presidents of this country as well, but we do not then get rid of the office of president.
The Pope is a sign of unity, as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox in which each Church is seperate from the other and mostly based upon ethnic groups rather than a particular belief system. Christ desired unity in His Church which is why he gave a unique authority to Peter, our first Pope.

1. What great supporting evidence is there to show the Gospel accounts are valid?

What great supporting evidence is there to show that the Koran is valid?

We base our assurance on the promises of Christ who sent the Holy Spirit to His Church in order to guide it into all truth. This same Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, determined which, of all the writings surfacing around that time, were inspired by God and which were not.

1. Perhaps these things are just strictly to my local church and I just have a bad apple but, there are two things in the Church at the moment which look kind of weak to me. Firstly, girls come in dressed very sexually. If this was a beach church where it’s in a community that has few clothes to begin with then that’s fine, but this church is 45 minutes from the nearest beach. I won’t describe what they wear, but I assure you, it’s bad. I don’t think Sunday Suits are necessary, but, why such a lax code? I feel like I’m in a night club.

Does one pick a Church based upon the worst elements within it? The way individual Catholics may dress has nothing to do with the truth possessed by the Church. I agree with you that we shoud all dress modestly and respectfully, but I am not about to leave my Church because some don’t.

Second thing, once again, perhaps just with my local church, there seems to be no mention of Hell. If it isn’t political or some feel good message, then it’s just a short anecdote. I’m not a big fan of a “Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God” type approach, but it’s almost like the threat of Hell just magically disappeared. To give comparison, Islam emphasizes the mercy of God and effort is very important, but they do make sure to remind you that there is a Hell and it is a possibility if you don’t try.

Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you want to know what the Church teaches. I assure you that hell is more than just mentioned.
Again, the fact that a particular priest may not feel comfortable speaking about it does not mean that the Church does not teach it. We should, however, be focusing on heaven, rather than hell. It is better to serve God out of love for Him than out of our fear of hell.

1. The Saints make me feel a little bit uncomfortable. Okay, so these guys talk to God for you; I can sort of accept that. But when you start making them patrons of certain things, that disturbs me a bit. It makes me feel a bit too much like it’s a Pantheon and if I want more of x I just pray to a specific Saint.

They pray for us just like we pray for our friends here on earth. We make them patrons of local churches as a way to pay them respect, just like we named the Lincoln Memorial after a beloved president.

1. I’m sure this is asked a lot, so please don’t slap me around for asking, just link me if you don’t mind: Why is the Church protecting the molesting priests? People can sin, I can’t hold that against an organization, especially one as big as the Church. But, based off of the news, it seems almost like the Church is shielding the accused rather than letting them by tried and getting a just punishment. Why is that?

I didn’t know the Catholic Church was protecting molesters. Priests are removed at the slightest hint of anything wrong, many unjustly. There were certain priests and bishops who did protect some of these priests but it has never been Church policy to do so.

1. How can the Church change on key doctrines like Salvation so much? I can take out my mom’s Catholic Baltimore Catechism from the 60s and read off the doctrine regarding salvation. It states clearly that in order to go to Heaven, you MUST be in the Church, no exceptions. But, I’m not quoting a newer Catechism directly but rather going off what I’ve heard from clergy, it seems the rules are a bit more bended now. How do the rules of salvation change in a few decades? How can you go from the Church hating and claiming Protestants are going to Hell centuries ago but now they embrace them?

The Church has never changed any doctrines. The Church is the family of God and if one chooses to walk away from this family, God respects their decision based upon their free will. It is not the Church who has abandoned these folks, it is they who have walked away. As to who is included in this “family of God” is another question. I started a thread on this very topic. How far can one wander from the original Church and still be considered “Christian”? I think only God knows the answer.

 

[Hail_Linus]

There’s not an absurdity to loving: fighting can lead to a total defeat. If you love and die as a martyr it doesn’t have to end with defeat.

Pagans would have considered it absurd and would have given in to threats had they not believed in Jesus and that he was God.

Although, you can’t say Christianity has always been non-violent. To be honest, to call Islam violently spread isn’t precisely true. The biggest Muslim country, Indonesia, was converted via the Muslim merchants. The Mongol invaders became Muslim eventually. Arabia was united because the Muslims had to secure themselves. When Islam sprung up in Mecca, they were persecuted and from Medina they spread outward to secure a steady home for Muslims. The Byzantines were oppressing the people in Egypt and the region so that’s why they spread outward that way. The very first Caliphate expanded only to bring freedom to the oppressed.

There is nothing inherently wrong with violence itself. Violence has been used for good many times.

However, the distinction I was trying to make is Christianity initial spread was peaceful.

Islam acknowledges it began with the Qur’an and Muhammad. The Qur’an itself teaches how to conduct raids and divide the booty. (Qur’an 8: The Spoils; 59:6 The Mustering). Even the first biographies of Muhammad were titled kitah al-meghazi, the Book of Raids.

The New Testament teaches the exact opposite.

My scripture book disagrees. I’m not sure about the exact date it was written or the original language but according to my scripture book it was written after the Destruction of the Temple (because it makes mention to that event).

In the 19th century, Atheist scholars started trying to undermine Christianity so naturally they said it was written after the Temple destruction in order to harm its credibility. Church Tradition has it at around 45 A.D. A good example of this in “Church History” by Esebius of Caesarea in the 4th century.

When the Qur’an was originally compiled into a written form, several copies were sent out to the corners of the Caliphate so that if one copy was destroyed, the other authentic ones could survive.

The story I have read was that when it was discovered that different versions existed the clergy went into a panic since the Qur’an is considered uncreated. The knew they had to pick one and they chose one version which was claimed to be received from one of Muhammad’s wives.

Before I left I was a great Catholic. The last Lent I believed, a few years ago, I went to Mass everyday during Holy Week and I was into Catholicism. But hey, I try to stay open to all points of view. What would you say is the greatest sign of proof that the Church is special?

By the way I did consider Islam in my spiritual journey.

Anyway I suppose I can break it down to four things why the Church is special:

1. First, Christianity took the morality of the Jews (which was superior to any other) and kicked it up several notches and spread it through out the world.
2. Second, Catholicism is the only religion I know that teaches us to do good for selfless reasons. A true Catholic will only do good out of love for God and not obligation or expecting anything in return. Not for reasons of Karma. Even Zakāt or alms-giving (the practice of charitable giving) in Islam does not rise to the level of Christianity. First Zakat is more like a tax responsibility. Second, to the Catholic this is not Charity but merely Justice. Charity is kindness to those who are undeserving.
3. Third, the Catholic Church really did build Western Civilization. As I stated before, Catholicism invented hospitals, university, education for children, human rights, modern science. Yes, there have been many horrendous Catholics but then again they probably were not really Catholic.
4. The Catholic Church is the only religion that teaches all virtues must work together. All other religions seem to focus on only certain virtues. A good example of this can be seen in the political left and right in the U.S… The left focuses in collective salvation while the right focuses on individual salvation. Focusing on either of these beliefs as being the only truth leads to disaster. However, I am not saying to be a moderate either. I think Catholicism to accept the necessity of both of the truths to the extreme. In other words, the left’s pity has no truth and the right’s truth has no pity.

Also, I’m going to inject a small question here in general: In one of the Gospels, after Jesus’s death, there was a massive earthquake and apparently the dead rose out of their graves and the Prophets visited people. Why does no historian ever make mention of such an amazing event? I mean, earthquakes aren’t that big of a deal, but certainly the dead rising out of their graves is a big deal, right?

Historians barely mentioned Jesus. Anyway, there is no dogmatic teaching about this, maybe it was just symbolic, maybe it did happen. It would not affect me either way.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Murcury,

Your question regarding AbuLahab prophet Muhhamed’s uncle refusing to convert to Islam being mentioned in the Koran proves the Koran is true in what way?
Is this part of the deep philisophy you told me about? Or a logicall fallacy upon examination?

 

[gmcbroom]

Murcury,

 First I applaud the effort it took to come here to this forum.  The views you'll get here may help you either to come home to Catholism or leave for Islam.  One of the key arguments against The Church,  I always received when talking about catholism is the clergy and how some have been corrupt.  How can God allow this to happen?  Well, God rains on the guilty and the innocent.  Humans have free will and because of this they can and do make good and bad decisions.  

 The next argument Is that the scriptures are corrupted.  This has some serious connotations when you consider the Reformation churches stance called Sola Scriptura.  Afterall, if the scriptures can be shown to contain error then the Sola Scriptura argument of those churches, falls to pieces and chaos ensues.  However, if your Orthodox or Catholic then that doesn't completely destroy The Church, as were taught in Timothy to hold to the scriptures and traditions.  So there is clearly something more than just the Good Book.  The catholic church holds those traditions.  Now there has always been arguments in the Church on the canon by scholars yet the canon hasn't changed.  The views of the canon sure but not the canon itself.  So when I was told by a muslim that the bible was corrupted and that it wasn't the true word of God but of Paul. I accepted that was the muslim stance, though clearly not the Church stance.  So, imagine my surprise when a different muslim told me that Mohammed was mentioned in the Bible.  How can Islam claim the Gospel is corrupted one minute and the next say there is proof of Mohammed in the Gospel?  It made no sense to me.  Either, its corrupted or its not, you can't have it both ways.

Those were the two muslim arguments explained to me. When I would counter it they would either rephrase the question or be derogatory. Ultimately, I just boiled the argument down to this. The faith of Israel has been sacrificial since the beginning from the moment Abraham picked up his knife. So, when Jesus continued the sacrifice by giving us his living body and blood the for our salvation many jews became christian and just as many left. It is a hard faith to follow and some weren’t ready then as their not ready now. The question I would ask you is this. Does Islam continue that sacrifice? If you don’t know the answer ask a muslim scholar. If Islam doesn’t continue it then why not? Because the Thanksgiving sacrifice is the one sacrifice that God still wants us to do.

Peace be with you
Lastly, lets look

 

[adrift]

My scripture book disagrees. I’m not sure about the exact date it was written or the original language but according to my scripture book it was written after the Destruction of the Temple (because it makes mention to that event).

Yes it refers to the destruction of the temple before it happens . Jesus says that it will happen. These yahoos than deduce that it was written after because of course it can’t be that Jesus knew future events so the event must have happened when written about. Your scripture book should be thrown away. As I have already stated
I do not put much stock in the current “experts” I stick to the traditional dating. The so called experts have never given a substantial reason why they discount centruies of tradition. I suspect because then they wouldn’t have much to establish themselves as outstanding in their field. In order to do that, they have to come up with outlandish “new” theories. I believe in time they will be exposed for frauds.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Murcury,

I really hope you understand that I am open to anythng you want to tell me about your beliefs. I never knew about the uncle relationship until you mentioned it.
I am not like others here who have already decided what is true and what is not.

Just not seeing claims being made by Islam to be in any way credible. I am not sure why that is really.

Have any ideas?

 

[Linda_Marie]

Well, in the current day and age, there is no head authority. Scholars get together and discuss it and they share findings and there are different rulings. Sunni Islam is broken up into 4 Madhabs (basically schools of thought), all 4 are valid in Sunni Islam and are basically “different roads to the same destination”. It’s sort of like the Latin Churches and the Coptic (or any other adjective you want to throw in here) Churches both in Communion with the Pope. While the Latin and Coptic are different in their execution, the end result is the same. Scholars give their own interpretation and so you have different rulings for different things, though most issues have already been covered and so the Madhabs have their own position on them. Then you have scholars who say Madhabs are false and an invention, most of these guys are known as the Salafi (ultra-ultra-conservatives, Saudi Arabia is ruled by Salafi scholars). You can also not belong to any school of thought and just go to your local Imam for his own ruling on certain issues. Decisions as a whole religion are usually based off of ijma (scholarly consensus) but on some complex issues, there are different perspectives.

So to put it simple: there is no simple answer. Islam is very scholar based.

Our Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals are also scholars. These men are the Magisterium. It was not necessary to define a doctrine until a heresy came along that made the definition necessary. They would hold a council and discuss the matter. The Pope then promulgated the decision. This is how the Trinity was defined, for instance.

If I’m not mistaken, the New Testament was first compiled at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD right? That is over 300 years since Jesus’s Ministry. How do we know that oral teachings didn’t change? Which parts of the Bible must I believe and put my faith behind?

We trust that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Councils. We also have many other writings, those of the ECF, for instance. We can go back to those, whose dates are very close to the events, for the same teachings as what we teach now.

The reason the Church set the canon of Scripture was because these writings were being read at Mass as part of our Liturgy. At the time, not all churches had the same collection of writings. It was a concern that some of the documents being read at Mass were heretical and people were being led astray. The Church called the Council to determine what was Scripture, what was profitable to be read although not divinely inspired, and what was heretical. It wasn’t necessary to define the canon until the difficulty with the many writings arose.

You should trust and put your faith behind the Church, which is the Body of Christ. The Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible.

It was far before your time, namely 17th centuryish. But my question is if we are guided by the Spirit, how can we have such a horrible doctrine exist? It’s one thing to have a few mistakes in a doctrine, but the amount of animosity from the Catholics in the 17th century was very big and divisive and probably helped make the rift we’re trying to heal now.

A bit earlier than the 17th century:
‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus’

This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Any disciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the Kingdom of God (Matthew 18:17).

It is the truth. It is neither merciful nor charitable to keep quiet about this. We tell you this because we want you to come home. We want you to be saved. We are not rejecting you, you are rejecting us. We are not condemning you. We are telling you the Truth. This is the Way Jesus taught us. Please, come home.

Btw, reading this forum has preempted a question of mine. I was reading the “Eastern Orthodox” thread and thinking about the mentioned New Mass vs Old Mass and I have to say, I’m one of the people who like the New Mass (though I’ve never been to an Old Mass). I was in Church on Holy Thursday and they have a Mass filled with incense and “imperial” splendor and such. I felt like someone was about to be crowned Emperor. In my opinion, those things only take away from the Mass. The Mass is a celebration of Jesus’s sacrifice. The more upbeat music is better because it makes you focus less on the ceremony but instead on the meaning. I can never imagine Jesus ever being into the whole incense and ceremony.

The Mass is worship and incense and chanting assist in focussing on the worship, at least for some people. Some people find upbeat music distracting rather than an assistance. There will always be arguments about the music.

However, Jesus would have used incense and followed rituals according to the Law. Passover was a ritual, for instance. They are not ‘ceremonies’, but religious rituals.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

In regard to the Gates of Hell, it is an actual physical place. It was one of the sources of the Jordan River and is located in the current town of Banias, Israel. The name is an Arabization of the older Greek name Panias. In Roman times, this town was called Caesaria Phillipi. The cave where the spring emerged from the mountain was called the Gates of Hell. If you read the account in Matthew 16:13-18, you see that Jesus and the disciples were there. The cave and the stream had been known for a long time as a place of human sacrifice by Canaanites. Jesus’ answer therefore has both literal and allegorical meaning.

Keep reading, there’s even more good stuff to come!

Salaam.

 

[Murcury]

Apologies to all, my internet is out at my house and I was at my friend’s beach house for this weekend. I’m using someone else’s wi-fi now so I can do some work I have to do online.

Murcury:

Do you mind posting your age please…???

If it’s necessary, mind if I PM it? I don’t want my age to come into a theological discussion.

… Christ desired unity in His Church which is why he gave a unique authority to Peter, our first Pope.

I can’t disagree. If the apparitions of Mary are real then it only shows that the Church is a unified body that takes in and adapts to cultures rather than making a different subset for them.

What great supporting evidence is there to show that the Koran is valid?

I’ve mentioned it before in other posts I think. But is there a smoking gun? To be 100% honest, in my opinion and from what I’ve seen, no. You need to hold other beliefs and concepts before you can accept the Qur’an. Because, if there was a total smoking gun, then you would just have to throw the relevant Qur’an verse(s) at a person and they’d turn Muslim.

We base our assurance on the promises of Christ who sent the Holy Spirit to His Church in order to guide it into all truth. This same Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, determined which, of all the writings surfacing around that time, were inspired by God and which were not.

How do we know those assurances are real and not fictional? What is your smoking gun?

I didn’t know the Catholic Church was protecting molesters. Priests are removed at the slightest hint of anything wrong, many unjustly. There were certain priests and bishops who did protect some of these priests but it has never been Church policy to do so.

While it has never been an active position from the Pope, important clergy have simply reassigned priests. While these men aren’t the Pope, they can be one day, like Archbishop Ratzinger. spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,731683,00.html