a Question for our non-CATHOLIC BRETHREN

[bubbawanda]

Dear friend,

Is there one issue in particular that is holding you back from the Catholic Church?

God Bless you,
Patrick

Not being able to do RCIA when it is being held. Online maybe?

 

[bubbawanda]

Dear friend,

Is there one issue in particular that is holding you back from the Catholic Church?

God Bless you,
Patrick

Not being able to do RCIA when it is being held. Online maybe?

 

[Tzimisce]

Tzimisce;

First allow me to welcome you to the Forum. As a self -appointed “pagan” your quite informed.

An FYI: The term “Jehovah” is not a common Christian term. Yahweh in the OT and Jesus Christ in the NT are the norm.

Actually Jesus was not a Rabi. That is part is why His teaching were so powerful and meaningful. He was considered a “teacher” by many and a Prophet by a few. And Peter not Jesus replaced Judas. Acts 1: 15-26

Here you’re wrong. READ Mt . 10: 1-10, which supports this position; BUT then read Mt. 28:16-20 and see at the last moment Jesus changes the mandate from teaching only the “Jews”; to cf. The ENTIRE World.” Also Paul was chosen by Christ to preach top the gentiles. And 2 Cor.5:15 affirms that Christ came “for all.”

I’m not sure of your source here; but it too is incorrect. Jesus ascended BACK into heaven. [Jn. 20:17] The persecution was twofold: The Pharisees and Sadducees & the Roman Govt.

Not a huge point but the Mission from Christ Mt. 28:16-20 & Mk. 17: 14-15 is to the “entire WORLD” and takes place just prior to Christ Ascension into heaven.

Again this is at best incomplete. Jesus was an “Obedient” Jew; but not in His Ministry a “devout Jew.” He Obeyed His Own Commandments; but not the 603 additional man added rules.Mk. 2:27 & Jn. 9:14 verify this.

The OT had as its goal to lead to Christ [the Messiah] in the NT. The NT completed; improved and even perfected the OT. So Circumcision which was for the males only; and females were hrafted in through their fathers and husbands was perfected with Sacramental Baptism, and applied to all in the New Covenant. Jn. 3:5

Sunday has been selected by the Church who are empowered by God to make that call. Mt.16:18-19; Jn.17:18 & Jn.20:21 all prove this. More recently the Church Fathers have added Saturday evening Mass also. As for the Pork; READ Mt. 15: 11-18 & on the Covenant READ
Heb. 8:6-13

There is but One true God. Judith 5:9 & Mk. 12:29, Yahweh and Jesus are the SAME God. Mt. 3: 13-17; The “Angry God” is the “Fair and Just God”, angered by man’s sins.

OK, and that was then and this is now “My Church” Mt 16:18 [singular] too.

I don’t reject the God of the Jews. I don’t deny the God of the Jews. I’ve just never been included in his covenants, his history, his promises{/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

 

[Taurks]

THANK YOU For sharing that.

As a FYI; I THINK that is a matter of church practice not a dogmatic or Doctrine so it would have been changeable:thumbsup:

God Bless you Brother!

God bless you as well brother!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

1Tim215Mommy;11756632]The OP asked me, a non-Catholic, 1 issue holding me back from becoming Catholic and my answer was that the 1 issue holding back is History. Nothing I’ve posted has gone outside that scope.

Agreed, but the history you bring up entails a long list of failed interpretation of the whole history of the Church, when you are only pointing to a history that tried to change the church instead left a schism, not a change of the Rock.

To shorten your list of what is holding you back from becoming Catholic, begins with your view of these Post-Constantinople historical events which involved Secular powers trying to influence and infect the Church of Rome =Rock.

I encourage any one, Catholic or not, to read each of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I did. It opened my eyes as previously I’d held a skewed vision of history and what had been taught.

Try reading pre-Constantinople Church history and you will find the bishop’s of Rome, never the Patriarch’s of Constantinople and the Emperor’s induced councils, has the bishop’s Rome suffering persecution for the Catholic faith on the whole, who was pursued by both pagan Rome and the Jews.

Two of many examples:

1. I had been under the false impression that the Pope Rome was the one who called together the Bishops for the Ecumenical Councils - reading the Councils themselves, I learned each were actually called by an Emperor or Emperess.

Thank you, I rest my case to your own words. Post-Constantinople you forget both the Emperor’s and the Patriarch’s of Constantinople required and sought after the bishop’s of Rome approval for each council’s findings to become effective in the whole Church. You may have missed this part of your history?

1. I had been under the false impression that never in history had a Pope of Rome ever been condemned for heresy - trading the Councils themselves, I learned that Pope Honorius of Rome had indeed been condemned for a heresy concerning Christ Himself in an Ecumenical Council and fell under anathema.

Your remain still under the wrong impression of the Popes have never been condemned for heresy.

Number One. Pope Honorious was an Eastern Greek speaking Pope

Number two. This Pope never taught heresy officially or held to any heresy officially while he lived as pope.

Number three. Pope Honorious was condemned a heretic 40 years after layed dead in the earth. This pope was never condemend a heretic while he lived.

Number four. What condemned the 40 year old dead pope, were personal letters having sympathy and leanings of heresy in support of his Greek Eastern already living condemned heretics.

So for the record, as history records No apostolic successor of Peter has ever practiced or taught heresy as a living bishop of Rome officially. The 40 year old dead man honorious who served as a pope was condemned a heretic from personal letters. The office of Peter has never taught heresy or held heretical views and taught them to the Church.

I hope this TRUTH does not stop you from seeking the full TRUTH of Church history.

For the record, if you are Greek, the Latin Church does not want you to become Latin, she calls you to full communion. If your of the Latin Rite, the Greek Rite should respect your Rite and not be forcing you to enter the Greek Rite. In any case you are free to choose. But do not choose on a failed and prejudiced view of history.

Peace be with you

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

The 7 Ecumenical Councils, being Ecumenical and binding on the entire Church in all areas of the world, required the agreement of the entire Church including the laity, Bishops and Patriarchs. This included, but certainly was not limited to, Rome’s agreement - which had to be sought after the conclusion of each Council since, let’s be real, the Pope never bothered to show up.

The entire Church, including Rome, officially accepted the Ecumenical Council’s Anathema condemning Pope Honorius of Heresy.

These historical, verifiable facts, are found in the 7 Ecumenical Councils which were & are officially accepted by the Catholic Church. If you choose to not accept then, so be it, I do, the Orthodox Church does and so does the Catholic Church.

There is a big difference between reading Church Fathers and reading the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Reading Church Fathers writings is great, but the Church is not bound by them. Reading the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the reader gets the fully & authentically interpreted Christian doctrine, beliefs and practices to which the Church has bound herself.

Agreed, but the history you bring up entails a long list of failed interpretation of the whole history of the Church, when you are only pointing to a history that tried to change the church instead left a schism, not a change of the Rock.

To shorten your list of what is holding you back from becoming Catholic, begins with your view of these Post-Constantinople historical events which involved Secular powers trying to influence and infect the Church of Rome =Rock.

Try reading pre-Constantinople Church history and you will find the bishop’s of Rome, never the Patriarch’s of Constantinople and the Emperor’s induced councils, has the bishop’s Rome suffering persecution for the Catholic faith on the whole, who was pursued by both pagan Rome and the Jews.

Thank you, I rest my case to your own words. Post-Constantinople you forget both the Emperor’s and the Patriarch’s of Constantinople required and sought after the bishop’s of Rome approval for each council’s findings to become effective in the whole Church. You may have missed this part of your history?

Your remain still under the wrong impression of the Popes have never been condemned for heresy.

Number One. Pope Honorious was an Eastern Greek speaking Pope

Number two. This Pope never taught heresy officially or held to any heresy officially while he lived as pope.

Number three. Pope Honorious was condemned a heretic 40 years after layed dead in the earth. This pope was never condemend a heretic while he lived.

Number four. What condemned the 40 year old dead pope, were personal letters having sympathy and leanings of heresy in support of his Greek Eastern already living condemned heretics.

So for the record, as history records No apostolic successor of Peter has ever practiced or taught heresy as a living bishop of Rome officially. The 40 year old dead man honorious who served as a pope was condemned a heretic from personal letters. The office of Peter has never taught heresy or held heretical views and taught them to the Church.

I hope this TRUTH does not stop you from seeking the full TRUTH of Church history.

For the record, if you are Greek, the Latin Church does not want you to become Latin, she calls you to full communion. If your of the Latin Rite, the Greek Rite should respect your Rite and not be forcing you to enter the Greek Rite. In any case you are free to choose. But do not choose on a failed and prejudiced view of history.

Peace be with you

 

[prodromos]

Agreed, but the history you bring up entails a long list of failed interpretation of the whole history of the Church, when you are only pointing to a history that tried to change the church instead left a schism, not a change of the Rock.

I am only going to respond this once, then I’m afraid you will have to wait until Bright week for another response.
I personally find your interpretation of history to be so ridiculously biased that it has no value but to demonstrate the extremes some are willing to go to to defend their position. The councils which defended the faith handed down by the apostles were called by emperors because that was the means by which God brought them about. You don’t like God’s methods? That’s too bad for you.
Your claims of caesaropapism in the East are laughable because no attempt by emperors to effect change in the Church ever bore fruit. That includes the ill fated Council of Florence which the Emperor insisted on, not from desire for church unity, but for the hope of military support from the West. No doctrine or dogma of the Church, nor the administrative function of the Church was ever changed by an emperor.
May you have a blessed Lent in preparation for the joy of Christ’s resurrection.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

1Tim215Mommy;11758407]The 7 Ecumenical Councils, being Ecumenical and binding on the entire Church in all areas of the world, required the agreement of the entire Church including the laity, Bishops and Patriarchs. This included, but certainly was not limited to, Rome’s agreement - which had to be sought after the conclusion of each Council since, let’s be real, the Pope never bothered to show up.

The pope’s never attends a council. So much for your history knowledge. The only council a Pope attended was the first one in Jerusalem and that was Peter.

The entire Church, including Rome, officially accepted the Ecumenical Council’s Anathema condemning Pope Honorius of Heresy.

Judging a 40 year dead pope as a heretic, from personal letters is what the Ecumenical councils found. You neglect the purpose for the Church taking such action. The Eastern Greeks were trying to force the Church to accept their heretical teachings and views, who used personal letters written by Pope Honorious supporting their heretical views.

The Church responded by claiming both the Greek heretics and their personal letters of the Pope and the 40 year dead pope as heretical.

There is no official Church history recorded or evidence that this pope taught heresy or practiced heresy officially while he lived as Pope.

The living Pope Honorious championed against the Eastern heresies from infecting the Western Church, while he lived. But when it came to his already Greek Church heretics, the pope wroted personal letters to them sympathizing with their heretical views.

Your view of this pope does not carry with it Truth by decieves. Had this pope been living and proved to have been teaching heresy to the Church, I would be supporting your history. So please do not decieve yourself into believing that a 40 year dead pope taught and practiced heresy from the grave to the Church.

This is a perfect example of how the multiple different Orthodox Church’s distort the whole Truth of Church history one sided with prejudiced perspectives. You claim to the 7 Ecumenical Councils as we of the Latin Rite do also.

I only ask of you to be fair and honest when looking at this Church history before we got to any of these councils, what took part in the council and why, and the result of them. At the same time holding to the revelations of Jesus Christ during all of this history, and you will find Peter is always present in all of these defending the faith while he lives. Peter never dies.

**I accept the poor 40 year dead Greek Pope was condemned a heretic while in the grave.

What you appear, unable to accept is TRUTH, that this Pope while he lived never offiicially publicly taught this heresy or practiced publicly any heresy.**

These historical, verifiable facts, are found in the 7 Ecumenical Councils which were & are officially accepted by the Catholic Church. If you choose to not accept then, so be it, I do, the Orthodox Church does and so does the Catholic Church.

You not only have an incomplete view of Church history, now you wrongly accuse me of my view of history.

There is a big difference between reading Church Fathers and reading the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Reading Church Fathers writings is great, but the Church is not bound by them.

Thank you well said, and I agree with you here.

Reading the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the reader gets the **fully & authentically **interpreted Christian doctrine, beliefs and practices to which the Church has bound herself.

I totally disagree with you here. We have the full deposit of faith and it never from the 7 Ecumenical councils, you have been duped, if you believe such a lie.

These councils defended the apostolic teachings against the Eastern Patrirachial heretics of their time and age.

The church has moved on since the last Ecumenical council and continued to live in a different time and age of understanding. While the East (Orthodox) layed stagnant in the East suppressed by their “Emperor’s”. The Pope’s continued to fight the good fight to new worlds and new languages.

The Pope’s never stopped spreading the gospel of Jesus and defending the apostolic teachings against new ideologies and man made heretical views that attacked the Church’s teachings, because the Orthodox remained stagnant to the 7 Ecumenical councils. That do not reach into these new worlds of new and different intellectual heretical attacks, that these 7 ecumenical councils did not address yet.

No, sorry, the world and the Church (weeds and the wheat) have grown together from the infancy stage of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, to adolescence of a more disruptive and heretical age that requires more than the 7 Ecumenical councils could ever defend against.

The Rock does not disappear into oblivion, She remains visible in all ages to all peoples and nations, and She will remain on earth until our Savior returns for her. This is a promise not from the 7 Ecumenical councils, but from God himself amen.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

prodromos;11758413]I am only going to respond this once, then I’m afraid you will have to wait until Bright week for another response.
I personally find your interpretation of history to be so ridiculously biased that it has no value but to demonstrate the extremes some are willing to go to to defend their position

.

I respect you biase opinion and view of me I have not revealed to you my personal view of history here, so how can you draw such a conclusion of me is a miracle.

I have only introduced Church history in the light that Orthodox refuse to acknowledge, because it plainly refutes against your held reasons for keepping the schism alive today.

Truth hurts dunn it?

The councils which defended the faith handed down by the apostles were called by emperors because that was the means by which God brought them about.

Ok, Eusebius the theologian who thought this Emperor infection was the Utopia of the world. Hey, how’s that schism working out for you today? When you can no longer call any council without any head, due to the lack of Communion with the Chair of Peter.

I never question God’s motives and His will. But I dare not say, God made the secular Emperor’s rule over His Church, when Jesus is our King. The Utopia sentiment from the East became a disaster that resulted in the schism. But please note, the Pope’s are no longer under the Emperor’s or any secular powers. We live once again free but remain under persecution.

You don’t like God’s methods? That’s too bad for you.

Ok, you win, if you think I have such divine wisdom as to question God’s ways which are never our ways.

Your claims of caesaropapism in the East are laughable because no attempt by emperors to effect change in the Church ever bore fruit.

You error here of this history. First of all I do not claim any caesaropapism in the East. I introduce a side of history which the Popes and the Patriarch’s in full communion with the bishop’s of Rome fought to prevent such a “ceasaropapism” from ever occurring, which ultimately led to your sentiments of holding to a schism today. You think it is comical, because you refuse to view this side of history, because the bishop’s of Rome along with the Patriarchs’ in full communion with the Popes suffered exile and persecution while under the yoke of the Emperor’s.

When you do not see this, because the Patriarch’s of Constantinople were experiencing a Utopia of history co-mingled in wealth, Church building, and political powers, what a wonderful history with the Emperor’s and the Patriarch’s of the East. Grant it, it was not always this way. Only when apostolic see’s were being usurped by the Patriarch’s of Constantinople, who later counciled to officially claim “equality with the bishop of Rome” when he realized the Rock could not be moved by any secular powers.

That includes the ill fated Council of Florence which the Emperor insisted on, not from desire for church unity, but for the hope of military support from the West.

Thank God, the Pope’s are free from these political Emperor’s today. Your Emperor’s interference’s with the Church and the bishop’s of Rome only gives concrete support to what I have introduced here of this Truth of histoy.

I find it amazing when, this side of history is challenged by the Orthodox individuals, from your own words, reveals the Truth of what I have been trying to open your eyes to view this Church history without any prejudices.

No doctrine or dogma of the Church, nor the administrative function of the Church was ever changed by an emperor.

Ahh, for once you neglected to use the word “attempted”. I will take you note even further, No doctrine or dogma of the Church till this day has ever changed. Defined and clarified to the new world, and new languages and cultures of understandings, but the doctrines have never changed. Thanks be to God and His Vicar on earth and those in full communio with the bishop’s of Rome who continue to fight the good fight.

May you have a blessed Lent in preparation for the joy of Christ’s resurrection

.

Thank you and may God always bless you bring us into his light during the season of lent.

Peace be with you

 

[PJM]

=Tzimisce;11757643]

Tzimisce;

 

[Protector]

PRmerger;11756047] Okey dokey, then.

Still not sure why it would be tacked on to the end of Tomyris’ post,

Because Tomyris made the suggestion that Judas (Iscariot) may actually have thought that he was doing right at the time he betrayed Jesus,

Tomyris: ."… Judas… who possibly did not have full and complete information and… **may even have thought, initially, that what he was doing was right. **

and I ad-libbed:-

Protector: As did Saul of Tarsus, whilst consenting to the stoning of Stephen (c.AD 34), and subsequently rounding-up and persecuting Christians.

Christ Himself said to the disciples,

Quote:
“They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” John 16:2

PRmerger: but I will just let this drop.

In that case I hope that I have removed “confusion” from your schedule.

Protector.

 

[PRmerger]

In that case I hope that I have removed “confusion” from your schedule.

Protector.

:tiphat:

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Jesus was always chiding his disciples for not understanding his teachings.

I’m sure you could quote the Apostles and Saints and Theologians and Philosophers on all kinds of interpretations to Jesus’s words.

But some of these are taught by the Church to be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

But that isn’t necessarily what Jesus taught. If the men that knew and lived and laughed and hung out with him didn’t always get it, how can someone who lived after Jesus be sure?

Who’s understanding would be better?
BTW, St. Paul didn’t live after Jesus.
And, he certainly conformed his beliefs and teachings to that of the Apostles. His authority was confirmed by a myriad of miracles. He was an acknowledged bishop and leader in the Church.

Your credentials are?

That said: Jesus taught his followers to obey the law. When he said “law”, he meant the Old Testament. He was so committed to following the old law, that even when it told him to suffer and die a humiliating death he did it.

It wasn’t the Torah that told Him to suffer and die.

But then he wandered off into the desert and suddenly all the old rules went out the window? That’s strange.

Not sure what you’re trying to say here.

I think Jesus would have told anyone who wanted to follow him to become Jewish.

Funny, but that issue was brought up in the Church. Read Acts 15.