Bible ? for all Non-Catholic Christians: Why are you not Catholic today while at the same time you accept her Authority in that you use the 27 books o

[Kristopher]

I can’t understand these,“Why are you Protestant?”, questions, but it’s simple, because the Pope said so. It’s the same as asking: why is Ben Hus dead? Because papal authority arrogantly had him burned at the stake. Why did the Roman Rite slaughter those who followed Martin Luther, and Calvin, for over 100 yrs., because the Pope said so. The Roman Rite would say, it was an act of faith, but Lutherans know better: it was God’s grace.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I think I get it. Since you think that the Bible is product of tradition, and I said tradition isn’t completely worthless, then you assume I think some of the tradition is worthless, and hence some of the Bible is worthless. If that’s not true then you have some seriously wacked reading of what I said.

Yep that’s what you said and that’s what I understood you to say.

Ask yourself, are you really here to try and call your brothers/sisters to repentance and to return to God’s Word?

No. I started the post to try to understand what logic Non-Catholic Christians use to at the same time reject the Authority of Catholic Church, while accepting the 27 books of the New Testament as God-Inspired writings which were written, compiled, preserved and handed down through out the centuries under the Authority of that same Catholic Church.

I suspect you are frustrated, angry with the factions of the Church which should not be here.

You suspect wrong. I’m not frustrated, I’m curious.

I share your pain, but friend, of all your enemies you choose the Lutherans, the confessional ones?

Some Confessional Lutherans - a religion I’d never even heard of prior to a few of their members posting here - have posted some very strange things which seem to be trying to circle around the topic and have certainly failed answered the question posted directly, some how I’ve have chosen them as my enemies? Come on, that’s just silly.

Yet, though you may face it or not you are not the Catholic Church anymore. You are the Roman Catholic Church.

:banghead: cute little happy face symbol - perfect because I feel like a broken record having to repeat this some many times, although I will assume you didn’t read it before:

The Catholic Church is not made up of just 1 Catholic Rite. It is made up of many Catholic Rites. Roman Catholic is certainly the largest of the Catholic Rites, but it is not the only! This time, I will go into more detail in hopes that the false accusations that the Catholic Church is ONLY the Roman Catholic Church will cease.

The Catholic Church is made up of various Rites which are generally broke down into 2 groups: Western & Eastern Rites (this is not intended to be an all-inclusive list):

Western Catholic Rites:
Roman Catholics
Mozarabic Catholics
Ambrosian Catholics
Bragan Catholics
Carthusian Catholics
(Anglican Catholics - with the increase of ordained Anglican priests converting to the Catholic Church, beginning in the 1980s the Holy See has authorized use of the Anglican forms to be used for Sacramental Rites - this is not yet, to my knowledge an actual Catholic Rite just yet although there is a high likelihood that it will be soon if the volume of converts continue)

Eastern Catholic Rites:
Maronite Catholics - never in schism with the Bishop of Rome
Syriac Catholics - had been in schism with the Bishop of Rome, but was reunited in 1781
Malankarese Catholics - " " reunited in 1930
Chaldean Catholics - " " reunited in 1692
Syro-Malabarese Catholics - " " reunited in the 1500s
Armenian Catholics - " " reunited during the crusades
Albanian Catholics - " " reunited in 1628
Belarussian Catholics - " " reunited in the 1600s
Bulgarian Catholics - " " reunited in 1861
Czech Catholics - " " reunited in 1996
Krizevci Catholics - " " reunited in 1611
Greek Catholics - " " reunited in 1829
Hungarian Catholics - " " reunited in 1646
Italo-Albanian Catholics - never in schism with the Bishop of Rome
Melkite Greek Catholics - " " reunited after Council of Florence
Romanian Catholics - " " reunited in 1697
Russian Catholics - " " reunited in 1905
Ruthenian Catholics - " " reunited in 1596
Slovak Catholics - never in schism with the Bishop of Rome
Ukrainian Catholics - " " reunited in 1595
Coptic Catholics - " " reunited in 1741
Ethiopian Catholics - " " reunited in 1846

My claim was that the councils were right because we can cross-reference them with the Scriptures.

It is called “circular logic”. The Councils of the Church are correct because the Bible says so and the Bible is the inspired Word of God because the Councils of the Church said so. :ballspin: and around and around we go!

 

[SingleMomMonica]

The logic is simple: the Roman Rite excommunicated many and therefore, many exist as heretics, schismatics, both in the Catholic Church, and outside it. You think, that the history of the Bible is of the Roman Rite alone. A number of apostles formed their own churches, St. Andrew and others: they are regarded to be Coptic, or Orthodox, etc., the Roman Rite probably did not exist until Constantine, but other churches did exist. The Bible was written well over two hundred yrs. before the Roman Rite became recognizable, because it took this long before the persecution of the Roman Empire against “Christians” settled down long enough to be safe for Christians to come into power. Being Catholic has nothing at all to do with being of the Roman Rite. You sound ignorant and confused.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I can’t understand these,“Why are you Protestant?”, questions,

First that is not the question. The question is: Bible ? for all Non-Catholic Christians: Why are you not Catholic today while at the same time you accept her Authority in that you use the 27 books of the New Testament which were written, compiled, preserved and hand-down by the Catholic Church

To clarify, the question isn’t “why are you not Catholic” but rather “why do you, as a Non-Catholic, use a Catholic Church Document aka the New Testament if you are Not a Catholic?” The point of my question is to find out what logic they are using. - read some of the posted responses - one of the Non-Catholics responded that it’s something that many Non-Catholics have never thought through and another gave Circular Logic - we believe the Church Councils that complied the New Testament because the Bible supports the Church Councils.

 

[Harpazo]

The Catholic Church is not made up of just 1 Catholic Rite. It is made up of many Catholic Rites. Roman Catholic is certainly the largest of the Catholic Rites, but it is not the only! This time, I will go into more detail in hopes that the false accusations that the Catholic Church is ONLY the Roman Catholic Church will cease.

The Catholic Church is made up of various Rites which are generally broke down into 2 groups: Western & Eastern Rites (this is not intended to be an all-inclusive list):

Western Catholic Rites:
Roman Catholics
Mozarabic Catholics
Ambrosian Catholics
Bragan Catholics
Carthusian Catholics
(Anglican Catholics - with the increase of ordained Anglican priests converting to the Catholic Church, beginning in the 1980s the Holy See has authorized use of the Anglican forms to be used for Sacramental Rites - this is not yet, to my knowledge an actual Catholic Rite just yet although there is a high likelihood that it will be soon if the volume of converts continue)

Eastern Catholic Rites:
Maronite Catholics - never in schism with the Bishop of Rome
Syriac Catholics - had been in schism with the Bishop of Rome, but was reunited in 1781
Malankarese Catholics - " " reunited in 1930
Chaldean Catholics - " " reunited in 1692
Syro-Malabarese Catholics - " " reunited in the 1500s
Armenian Catholics - " " reunited during the crusades
Albanian Catholics - " " reunited in 1628
Belarussian Catholics - " " reunited in the 1600s
Bulgarian Catholics - " " reunited in 1861
Czech Catholics - " " reunited in 1996
Krizevci Catholics - " " reunited in 1611
Greek Catholics - " " reunited in 1829
Hungarian Catholics - " " reunited in 1646
Italo-Albanian Catholics - never in schism with the Bishop of Rome
Melkite Greek Catholics - " " reunited after Council of Florence
Romanian Catholics - " " reunited in 1697
Russian Catholics - " " reunited in 1905
Ruthenian Catholics - " " reunited in 1596
Slovak Catholics - never in schism with the Bishop of Rome
Ukrainian Catholics - " " reunited in 1595
Coptic Catholics - " " reunited in 1741
Ethiopian Catholics - " " reunited in 1846

This is EXTREMELY misleading. Please stop misleading people. To say ‘reunited’ assumes that that entire Church submitted to Rome. The only Church that came closest to happening with were the Melkites, but only half of the synod left. The other remains Orthodox to this day. You might be able to make the argument with the Copts, but even their Patriarch returned to the rest of the Synod in the mid 1700s.

I understand your zeal as a new Catholic, but that does not excuse you from spreading falsehood (intentional or not).

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[SingleMomMonica]

This is EXTREMELY misleading. Please stop misleading people. To say ‘reunited’ assumes that that entire Church submitted to Rome. The only Church that came closest to happening with were the Melkites, but only half of the synod left. The other remains Orthodox to this day. You might be able to make the argument with the Copts, but even their Patriarch returned to the rest of the Synod in the mid 1700s.

I understand your zeal as a new Catholic, but that does not excuse you from spreading falsehood (intentional or not).

In Christ,
Andrew

Hi Andrew,

If you believe this to be false, then please by all means investigate the Catholic Church for yourself - what you will find is that the Catholic Church is made up of many Catholic Rites & Churches & my list, I hope, included most of them.

I think the point you are wanting to get across is that some of those Catholic Rites & Churches which have reunited with the Bishop of Rome at various points of history had schismed from Rome with the Orthodox Churches. AND that when they reunited with the Bishop of Rome, parts of some of those Churches (& in the case of the Churches in Greece and with the Church in Albanian, it was the majority of the people) very soon after the reunion with Rome schismed again. If this was your point, it is true.

It is also true that *not every *Rite/Church within the Catholic Church, that is not Roman Catholic, schismed from Rome in the first place (for example the Mozarabic Catholics & the Ambrosian Catholics & the Italo-Albanian Catholics & the Maronite, etc.). AND some that did schism & reunite with the Bishop of Rome *were never “Orthodox” at any point *(2 examples are the Malankarese Catholics and the Syro-Malabarese Catholics who were originally Catholic, then they fell into the Nestorian heresy before being reunited with Rome in the 1920s for the Malankareses & in the 1500s for the Syro-Malabareses)

I have an off topic question for you, Andrew: The Ark of the Covenant of the Old Testament is kept and guarded by the Ethiopian Christians, but is it the Ethiopian Orthodox or the Ethiopian Catholics who have it?

Thanks

 

[Harpazo]

Hi Andrew,

If you believe this to be false, then please by all means investigate the Catholic Church for yourself - what you will find is that the Catholic Church is made up of many Catholic Rites & Churches & my list, I hope, included most of them.

I think the point you are wanting to get across is that some of those Catholic Rites & Churches which have reunited with the Bishop of Rome at various points of history had schismed from Rome with the Orthodox Churches. AND that when they reunited with the Bishop of Rome, parts of some of those Churches (& in the case of the Churches in Greece and with the Church in Albanian, it was the majority of the people) very soon after the reunion with Rome schismed again. If this was your point, it is true.

It is also true that *not every *Rite/Church within the Catholic Church, that is not Roman Catholic, schismed from Rome in the first place (for example the Mozarabic Catholics & the Ambrosian Catholics & the Italo-Albanian Catholics & the Maronite, etc.). AND some that did schism & reunite with the Bishop of Rome *were never “Orthodox” at any point *(2 examples are the Malankarese Catholics and the Syro-Malabarese Catholics who were originally Catholic, then they fell into the Nestorian heresy before being reunited with Rome in the 1920s for the Malankareses & in the 1500s for the Syro-Malabareses)

I have an off topic question for you, Andrew: The Ark of the Covenant of the Old Testament is kept and guarded by the Ethiopian Christians, but is it the Ethiopian Orthodox or the Ethiopian Catholics who have it?

Thanks

I have investigated the claims of the Catholic Church. I was a Latin Catholic for 3 years (converted from Protestantism) and worshiped with the Maronites for 18 months. By using the term “reunite” you are being misleading. It makes it sound as if that entire Church reunited, which did not happen. Never did an entire Church submit to Rome. Only parts left, mostly due to proselytizing from Catholic missionaries, notably the Jesuits.

I would also recommend not using the term “rite” in regards to Eastern Catholics. They will take extreme exception to that.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Kristopher]

It simply makes no sense to me that anyone would reject the Catholic Church while at the same time fully accept the Catholic Church’s Authority to not only write, but, … determine which of all the many early Catholic Christian writings would be considered a part of the Bible and which would not be.
…
I just want to understand the logic Non-Catholic Christians use.

You’ve made a false assumption: few if anyone outside the Roman Rite accept it as an authority to determine what is in/out of the Bible. Thomas Jefferson has done what the Roman Rite has done. Protestant Bibles are not deutorocanonical like the Roman Rite Bible. Your statement: " … the Catholic Church’s Authority to not only write, but … " is contrary to fact. Jews wrote both the Old and New Testament. So-called “Christians” were persecuted, heavily, nearly 200 yrs. after the New Testament, was written–by the Roman Empire, which converted by bloodshed, to Christianity with either Constantine, or Charlemagne, with whom the Roman Rite originated as a consequent of maintaining the extant structure of the Roman Empire, hence, the reason in part, the Vatican and its orders and societies function as democracies, based upon the Republics, which were governed by Roman emperors. The Roman Rite is just that a “rite” as opposed to the whole of the Catholic Church.

Implicit in your specific statements, is the general question: “Why are you a Protestant?”

The King James Version of the Bible, is widely regarded to be Protestant, because it was authorized by King James; nonetheless, it’s New Testament is based upon the Roman Rite’s Douay-Riems version of the New Testament. Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, for everyday Germans to read, without Papal Authority to do so. A similar thing was done with the commission of the old testament, to be written in Greek, as Hebrew was a dead language–the twelve tribes of Judea, necessarily translated the Torah into Greek. The New Testament existed in Latin, because it was the language of the people, at the time, throughout the Roman Empire and therefore, your assumption that it is the authority of the Roman Rite, which determines the shape of the Bible is again wrong–it is need of the people. The Deposit of Faith, as the Roman Rite is regarded to be, is such to the end, that it serves the need people have for salvation, and this is the law to which the Roman Rite must be subservient.

To clarify my point: why do Protestants exist; they exist as a matter of Papal Authority, by means of excommunication. Does Catholicism exist without Papal Authority, absolutely: Papal Authority exists only for the Roman Rite.

Scripture is a component not only of Christianity, but also of Judaism and additionally, of Islam. You must see clearly, that the Roman Rite is not recognized as an exclusive authority with respect to scripture, but it is included as an authority, because it is intrinsic to the history of Protestants, and Muslims, as is the history of Judaism, to the Roman Rite, and the whole of Catholicism.

I do not believe anyone outside the Roman Rite has accepted the Vatican as “The” authority with respect to scripture, but it would be illogical if they do simply on the basis, that archaeological digs, and accidental finds, as the Dead Sea Scrolls, appear to be more authoritative. Furthermore, the Roman Rite rejected writings, that were part both of the old/new testaments, authoritatively, and such authority is rejected if for no other reason, that a number of persons, would have enjoyed such writings being included both in the old/new testaments.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I have investigated the claims of the Catholic Church. I was a Latin Catholic for 3 years (converted from Protestantism) and worshiped with the Maronites for 18 months. By using the term “reunite” you are being misleading. It makes it sound as if that entire Church reunited, which did not happen. Never did an entire Church submit to Rome. Only parts left, mostly due to proselytizing from Catholic missionaries, notably the Jesuits.

I would also recommend not using the term “rite” in regards to Eastern Catholics. They will take extreme exception to that.

In Christ,
Andrew

I think you didn’t read the post you quoted for three reasons.

1. I listed Rites & Churches & Rites/Churches, not just Rites since some are Rites and some are Churches within the Catholic Church.
2. Also because I made even more clear than I had before that parts of some of those Churches and some times the majoirty of those Churches did rebelled against the reunification and schismed again with Rome.
3. You didn’t answer my question.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Jews wrote both the Old and New Testament. So-called “Christians” were persecuted, heavily, nearly 200 yrs. after the New Testament was written by the Roman Empire

Somehow you’ve come to believe that Jews wrote the New Testament and at the same time that the New Testament was written by the Roman Empire. It’s obvious there is some kind of serious disconnect there, so I won’t bother to respond.

Implicit in your specific statements, is the general question: “Why are you a Protestant?” I wrote the question - I know for a fact that my question is not “Why are you a Protestant?” and I went into detail to explain that to you earlier in a previous post. Somehow, you, a reader, of my question are “misinterpreting” my question and even after I’ve correctly interpreted it for you, you still are insistent on your own “misinterpretation”.

I actually find that quite humourous - reminds me of…well of Protestants since they read the Catholic Bible and then presume to “interpret it for themselves” even though the Catholic Church, the author has echoed through out history the correct interpretation.

Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, for everyday Germans to read, without Papal Authority to do so.
You fail to mention that there was already a German Translation of the Bible which the Catholic Church had provided and you also fail to mention that Martin Luther’s translation was faulty - he even inserted words into verses to try to make it look like the Bible supported his false doctrine of Faith “Alone”.

Why are you sooo hung up on the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church? You claim that you are Catholic, but I’m having a very difficult time believing that you even know what the Catholic Church is.

Furthermore, the Roman Rite rejected writings, that were part both of the old/new testaments, authoritatively, and such authority is rejected if for no other reason, that a number of persons, would have enjoyed such writings being included both in the old/new testaments.
Did you even read that you wrote here? Thanks for making me laugh today!

 

[Harpazo]

I think you didn’t read the post you quoted for three reasons.

1. I listed Rites & Churches & Rites/Churches, not just Rites since some are Rites and some are Churches within the Catholic Church.

I read the post. Don’t worry. According to Eastern Catholics, they belong to a church not a rite. Do you call a Byzantine Catholic a “Byzantine Riter” or a Maronite a “Maronite Riter?” A rite describes liturgics, prayers, etc, but not the structure of a church or even name of a church. But don’t take my word for it. Just ask Eastern Catholics for yourself and see what they say.

1. Also because I made even more clear than I had before that parts of some of those Churches and some times the majoirty of those Churches did rebelled against the reunification and schismed again with Rome.

I have found from my own experience that it’s better to just use clearer language so that there is no ambiguity.

That is still not true. Where are you getting this information? There was never an entire Orthodox that went into union with Rome and then schismed again. You cannot make the argument for the Syrian Catholics of India. They were originally a part of the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Church. The Portuguese came and found them and we know what happened from there.

1. You didn’t answer my question.

My apologies for not answering it. I can’t really tell you who is in possession of the Ark of the Covenant. I have never heard Ethiopian Catholics lay claim to having it.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Kristopher]

`SingleMomMonica,

You’ve turned me into a subject of ridicule, and you find it amusing: very pathetic of you.

No, of course the Roman Empire did not author the Bible, were you to read introductions to each of the books within the New American Bible, St. Joseph’s edition, you would learn, that the authors of each book, are often in question. If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which in structure imitates Martin Luther’s Small Catechism, then you will learn: the Bible is not to be interpreted in accord with the Roman Rite, but with the Holy Spirit; it is the Holy Spirit, whom inspired authors of scripture and therefore, it must be interpreted in accord with the Holy Spirit. Sola Scriptura is not a tenet of Martin Luther’s, yes, he did “add” the word “alone”; however it is common practice either with translations, or transliterations, to communicate antiquated words into more contemporary terms. Martin Luther wrote for Germans of his day. His basis for “Scripture Alone” is scripture alone–especially those verses, which state the following: scripture is sufficient for proof, correction, and teaching. Martin Luther stated: scripture, alone, is sufficient for proof, correction, and teaching. He did not say, it must be taken to the exclusion of all else, as this would contradict what he is widely known for having stated, that it is the Roman Rite, which collated manuscripts that are our New Testament. He said, without the Roman Rite, we would not have the Bible, but this of course is a partial truth, because Jews have had the Old Testament for a long time, and there is of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls. Furthermore, your point about my apparent failure to mention a German translation, extant, at the time Martin Luther wrote his translation, is irrelevant to your own point, that those outside the Roman Rite accept the Roman Rite as an authority for the dissemination of the Bible. Martin Luther’s translation, Thomas Jefferson’s own edition of the Bible, even the Dalai Lama’s version, and numerous others does in fact, refute the claim, that the Bible is exclusively authorized only by the Roman Rite. King James proved this long ago. That it should confound you, that many share the same history as the Roman Rite: Jews, Muslims, other Catholics, Protestants, and the like–is astounding.

I have repeated myself, because you have not acknowledged the facts. My conlclusion of a previous post, that a common person may easily reject the Roman Rite as an authority to exclusively determine, which books of the two canons, primary, and secondary, the Apocryphal, should/should not be rejected is plain: some/many people would like to have–it seems fair to assume–what the Roman Rite rejected, included as writings within the
Bible.

What is authoritative in determining, what is included/excluded in the Bible, is not the Roman Rite, but what “our” understanding of what is necessary to salvation, is concerned.

You really ought to refrain from embarrassing yourself through the ridicule of others, by consulting a dictionary, and a manual of style, for grammar and the meaning of words, before giving false accusations of misinterpretation, then following it with a misrepresentation of what I wrote, concerning the religion of authors of the Bible being Jewish and though, they were subjects of the Roman Empire, as evidenced by their submission to Roman law for the Crucifiction of Jesus, and The Presentation in The Temple, and adherence to the Roman Census, which brought Joseph and Mary to the birthplace of Jesus, as credible as an arguement as it is, that the Bible was written by the Roman Empire–it is untrue on the basis of anything, that I wrote, and really an absurd conclusion on your part.

To conclude, yes, I am a Catholic: I am a person, whom has; does, and will follow Jesus, no matter the time, location, or gravity of sin, bearing down on me as a person. It is my universal nature as a person, human, and grace of God, that allows me to be Catholic. In the end, the Church is Jesus. In the meantime, it is a body of sinners, whom we know follow Jesus with all shortcomings.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It simply makes no sense to me that anyone would reject the Catholic Church while at the same time fully accept the Catholic Church’s Authority to not only write, but, via Councils of the Catholic Church being in the late 300’s, determine which of all the many early Catholic Christian writings would be considered a part of the Bible and which would not be.

Have Non-Catholic Christians simply not thought this through?

Or are Non-Catholic Christians comfortable living with such contradictions?

Certainly Non-Catholic Christians apply logic to their beliefs, yet this is completely illogical.

I’d like to know the logic a Non-Catholic Christian is using so that he/she can reconcile in his/her own mind and heart the fact that they are currently worshipping outside of the Catholic Church while at the same time reading the 27 New Testament books of the Bible which was determined by the Authority of the Catholic Church.

Also, many Non-Catholic Christians also believe in the Trinity which also was determined by the Authority of the Catholic Church.

What rule to Non-Catholics Christians use to determine which pronouncements of the Catholic Church to accept and which ones they will not accept - like belief of the Trinity vs. the belief that Mary is the Mother of God, the believe in the validity of the New Testament vs. the belief of Purgatory, etc. Certainly, they do not use the Bible,
as the Bible confirms all Catholic beliefs those Non-Catholic Christians accept and those they reject. Plus, they couldn’t use the Bible to say why they accept the 27 books of the New Testament as the Bible wasn’t written originally with a table of contents.

I just want to understand the logic Non-Catholic Christians use.

This subject has been done to death. Why not look at the earlier threads dealing with it ?​

The Protestant acceptance of books used by Rome, does not imply acceptance of Rome’s ideas about its authority. Rome may if it wishes identify the ancient Church with itself - but to many others, it is simply the ancient Church, of which Rome was a part, but not the head.

“By Scripture alone” is a contrastive formula: it upholds the authority of Scripture, God speaking through it, as contrasted with that of Scripture and Tradition conjoined; which is to yoke together two unlike things: God’s Truth, and man’s lie. Tradition made Scripture into a nose of wax, to be tweaked every way it suited the Church to tweak it: which is no different from degrading God’s Holy Word to become nothing better than the words of wicked men. The Church was making God’s Word of no effect, by muzzling it with merely human traditions, just as the Phrisees had, 1500 years before. To which the Reformers objected very strongly - and thank God they did. God saved His Church through them; no thanks to Rome, which owes its survival to them. Had God not shown His love for His Church by raising up the Reformers, Rome might very well have continued to become more and more corrupt & rotten, until it was good only
for destruction. The Reformation helped to prevent that.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Any paradigm which rejects the Oriental Tradition and the Latin Tradition as heterodox is not “fulfilled and complete Catholicism.”

Blessings

STM the only thing Christians can agree on is that other Christians are not the real thing, whereas they are ​

Why not rename the religion Jerkianity ? It would be a very accurate description. From 2 Corinthians 5:

• **16 **So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
• **17 **Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
• **18 **All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
• **19 **that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
• 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.
• **21 **God made him who had no sin to be sina] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2) Corinthians+5&version=NIV

Christians can’t even lay off belittling one another’s identity as Christians: so HTF do they expect to be a force for reconciliation in as fractured a world as we live in today ? Most of the responsibility for causing the damage is Christian as it is. They don’t even “love one another”- so how in the name of all that’s holy can they expect people who are not Christians (not in their Churchified sense anyway ) to take them seriously, or as a force for good ?

A whore has more shame than these people

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You believe that the Holy Catholic Church, Reformed was founded before the Jewish Religion of the Old Testament was even started. This is one of the most bizzare things I’ve heard in my life.

The Church has existed since Adam & Eve. Abel was in it - or why is he mentioned in the First Eucharistic Prayer, & why is he in the Roman Martyrology, along with Adam & Eve, & Abraham ? The OP knows more about the RCC than some RCs do. His outlook is closer to that of the Fathers.​

But then I read your next paragraph which states that you believe that the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible documents - that’s something that would make anyone dizzy if they really thought about what that means…This has to be the most bizzare things I’ve ever read or heard - You believe that the Bible is made up of infallible documents yet those documents to be included or excluded is fallible. Look, either the Bible is completely infallible or it isn’t. You are trying to have it both ways which is contrary to any rational logic.

It’s entirely reasonable, and, makes very good sense. The Bible is full of faults of every kind - but how does that hinder God ? The Church would be no more useful than a turd, if God did not work through it; God Alone makes the Bible fruitful for our salvation. If the Bible must be perfect for God to work through it - where does that leave Churches or Christians ? This lust for perfection in creatures leads to despair, or to illusions that Christians are can be perfect on earth, and so, sinless. Are you perfect ? Congratulations. If not - does that mean you can’t be used by God ? If it doesn’t, why must the Bible be perfect to be used by God ?​

Your third paragraph is again full of contradiction to logic as you are saying that the Catholic Church is newer than the Catholic Church, Reformed. How can you Reform something that doesn’t exist? Please tell me, if the Catholic Church did not exist until centuries and centuries after your Catholic Church, Reformed which according to you began before the ancient Jewish religion was started specifically at the close of the Garden of Eden.

Your logic and historic knowledge is very confused.

The Truth of the Matter is that the Catholic Church existed since Pentecost.

The Truth of the Matter is that the Catholic Church, Reformed did not exist until the late 1900’s as even on one of the below websites, they acknowledge the Beatification of Pope John XXIII who was a faithful member of the Catholic Church and was elected Pope of Rome in 1958. He was Pope for nearly 5 years. This new church called the Catholic Church, Reformed did not come into existence until at least 1963 or later.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13091
reformedcatholicchurchinternational.org/
reformedcatholicchurch.org/icicc.htm

Again, we have yet another case showing that history must be re-written in order for there to be any logic in Non-Catholic Christians belief system.

All I can see is that yet another RC is totally incapable of understanding any religious idea that does not come from Rome. Sounds pretty cultish to me, and totally Fundamentalist :banghead:​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The very fact that you have a Bible is proof that it came from the Catholic Church.

Look in your Bible and see who did the Translations for the version of the Bible you are reading.
Contact the Translators and find out if they Translated from an existing Translation or from the original manuscripts.

If from another Translation, then go to them. If from original manuscripts, then find out where they obtained the original manuscripts - they got them from the Catholic Church!

If they claim they got them from any other Church, then inquire from that Church where they got the manuscripts - keep going back in History. All roads lead to Rome.

Just inquire. I dare you.

This is completely unrealistic - it’s Chick-style Church history The vast majority of NT MSS. in Greek come from nowhere near Rome - as even a dip into the study of the NT text would show; or even a look at the critical apparatus of a Greek NT.​

Unless by “Catholic Church” you mean “Churches in union with Rome” - but:

• many of the MSS. come from centres of Christianity that at the time this or that MS. was produced, were not in union w/ Rome;
• and, even when an MS came from a centre of Christianity while that centre was in union w/ Rome, that centre was also in union with other Churches than Rome: so they too might claim what you claim for Rome.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Jon, may want to get your facts straight.

SMM, please, use the formatting to quote OPs Otherwise, your whole post has to be quoted, and formatted by OPs :banghead: It’s very difficult to keep track of who says what if people don’t bother to quote properly.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Please stop saying that you are Orthodox and please stop attributing false writings to St. John. It diminishes your credibility greatly. By communing with Catholics, you are not Orthodox, de facto. I’m sorry if that sounds mean, but it is the truth. You cannot be both. If you keep trying, you’ll end up with spiritual schizophrenia.

In Christ,
Andrew

Some Uniates claim to be both They should stop “halting between God and Baal”, and be one or other. Such behaviour institutionalises insincerity & ambiguity.​

Aren’t you “communing with Papalists” though ?

 

[Harpazo]

Some Uniates claim to be both They should stop “halting between God and Baal”, and be one or other. Such behaviour institutionalises insincerity & ambiguity.​

Aren’t you “communing with Papalists” though ?

I liken it to spiritual schizophrenia. I tried being an Eastern Catholic but could not do the mental and spiritual acrobatics necessary. I still love my Eastern Catholic and Latin Catholic brethren, though.

I have not communed in a Catholic church for almost a year. God willing, I will be baptized into the Orthodox Church in a few months. Please pray for this sinner.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Because Jesus read and taught from all **46 **books of the Old Testament which were written, compiled, preseved and handed down by the Jews and Jesus, although born into the Jewish Faith, actually established the Catholic Church. I am a Christian, a follower of Christ Jesus, so naturally I’m a part of the Church He established, the Catholic Church.

Not including Esther or Ecclesiastes, but possibly including 1 Enoch.​

The Apostolic Church used several books not in any Canon, and did not quote some that are. The Copts, following St. Jude, have 1 Enoch in their Canon - several early Fathers use it. As also some used Jubilees. The sets of

• books canonical in various Churches
• books quoted in the NT
• the books outside the Jewish Canon
• books quoted by Jesus

are overlapping sets, but are none of them identical sets. Still less are all four identical sets.