Catholic history is disturbing

  • Thread starter Thread starter suupah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi benedictus2. Hmm … interesting. Is this how you always treat people who come to your defense?
“As far as I know” is a strange way to put it, but the opinion that benedictus2 expressed is actually quite common, even among conservative Catholics. (Don’t ask me why.)
Peter J, is that the best you can do? If you know this is OPINION, can you please supply the facts.

What’s with that? You have an opportunity to correct an error and you do don’t do that.

You say it is a quite common opinion so what is the true blue, real deal fact?
This may come as a shock, but I’m not your valet, private secretary, or whatever else you may think I am. But even if I was, your request doesn’t really make sense, but just shows a lack of understanding of what “opinion” means.
 
I don’t think you get my point. Boniface said you have to be a Catholic to go to heaven. John Paul II says you don’t. If both are infallible they should agree.
If you haven’t already, you need to read Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Ut Unum Sint. He proposes an interesting concept of what “church” is.
 
I don’t know exactly what you are trying to say but let me say this and relate it to church history in my life time to keep on the subject. I am very honest. If I were to change my profile it would say Catholic/Protestant because I believe in the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist. The Protestants don’t believe that so I’m not a real Protestant either. I’m very impressed with the faithful Catholics on this forum because they know what they believe and why they believe it. I can’t say that about myself because a lot of the stuff I learned was at a Catholic bible study given by a priest. My parish priest tells us to take the good that we can learn from the Protestants. Obviously what you guys have learned is very different from what I was taught. I don’t get on here to create conflict. I get on here to challenge people hoping they can meet the challenge and change my mind. Sorry if I offend anyone in the process. Sometimes things get rough when you talk about religion.
Why not try RCIA classes? I have been Catholic for centuries and I would still like to take part in one of these. In fact, I probably will this Spring, or when the next class is in session.
 
**
That is a very “Protestant” thing to say! 😃 **
It’s not really OK. We have some really very muddled thinkers in the Catholic faith these days. Some depend on their early catechism classes to support them, others pick and choose what they want to believe and swear to high heaven this is acceptable, others read, discuss and ask questions to try to deepen and understand their faith. I would like to see all Catholics search as hard as some Protestants do to try to substantiate their beliefs.
 
The church is human, not divine
The church is the body and bride of Christ, which He will take to Himself, she being without spot or blemish. It is very much BOTH divine AND human, as He Himself is - His body cannot be otherwise.
 
40.png
ron77nyc:
Symux really hit the nail on the head. Power hungry leaders in the past abused that power and stole it from the true believers.
I do not agree with that statement one bit and can refute it but i am so tired and it is very late so I will leave the answer for tomorrow.

That statement is actually a dangerous statement with no merit in it whatsoever. But I will explain tomorrow.
Why do I think this statement is wrong?

This is precisely the kind of statement that led to the dismembering of the Body of Christ. As long as we have the thinking that the leaders are in error and we are in the right, then we are in a dangerous territory which the devil can easily manipulate to suit its own ends.

We cannot say that the other Catholics are the true believers. True, there is a lot of fervour among simple folk during this time, and much holiness in other quarters. However, the leaders, scoundrels though they may have become, were still members of the Body of Christ and true believers as well. Greed and power just got to their heads

But the one thing we must remember is that the Church is Christ’s. She is Christ’s Bride and He knows how to deal with her.

I very much admire the response of the saints during this time of crisis. Whereas Luther, et al attacked the Church, the saints’ responded by concentrating on prayer and self-sacrifice. St Teresa of Avila along with St John of the Cross reformed the Carmelite order. What could a nun holed up in her cloister do to renew the Church? An unbeliever would say absolutely nothing. And yet her life and her order were very much instrumental in invigorating the Church.

St Ignatius started the Jesuits and they were at the forefront of the Catholic reformation. St Ignatius was a soldier who gave up that life to follow Christ.

A quick perusal of the life of St Francis (300 years before) shows him changing his life to truly follow Christ but he did not in oppose the Church. Yet he was considered the reformer of the Church in his time. Pope Innocent III had a dream that a man will build up the crumbling Church and the man in his dream turned out to be St Francis.

St Catherine of Sienna did the same during her time.

When we start thinking that we can and should change the Church this way and that, we fall into the trap of the evil one.

Scott Hahn in his book the Lamb’s Supper said that if you want to be an activist and change the world, first go to Mass. That is our most powerful weapon of change.

Another issue I have with the statement is that the leaders STOLE the power from the true believers. There was no power to be stolen from the people. The Church was never meant to be a democracy and was always hierarchical. Christ willed it so. The leaders however, were only caretakers. The power was always God’s.

A dictum that would have been very wise for Luther and the rest to follow during this time was: if you want to change the Church, change yourself first.

I can’t remember who said this but this is so true “What is wrong with the world is me.”
 
Hi Ron:wave:

That explains it. :doh2: I really seldom read Revelations. I don’t “like” that type of writing. John had been driven into exile on a small island off the West coast of Asia Minor called Patmose and because of persecution he resorted to Apocalyptic language. His intended readers were the believers in seven Asian churches located in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. I agree with most,that John’s purpose in writing the Book of Revelation was twofold. The first part, seven letters were the risen Christ evaluation of these churches. The remainder of the work is a truly apocalyptic work; What it describes actually depends on the interpretive approach adopted. The book of Revelation has always presented any interpreter with many challenges. Lifetimes have been spent attempting to correctly interpret it. I am actually surprised that you read this book at all. I personally avoid reading it because of the corrupt interpretations against our church that Protestants developed by twisting the meanings of the teachings. Maybe I don’t like it because I am not a virgin? Or perhaps because the JH love this book! :whacky: As I am sure you found Revelations is steeped in vivid imagery and symbolism, which people have always interpreted differently depending on their preconceptions of the book as a whole.

There are four main interpretive approaches which can be taken to the book of Revelation:


**1) Preterist (which sees all or most of the events in Revelation as having already occurred by the end of the 1st century); That is the one that I personally adopt and so I rarely read it. Because otherwise it hurts my head :hypno: **

2) Historicist (which sees Revelation as a survey of Church history from apostolic times to the present);

**3) Idealist (which sees Revelation as a depiction of the struggle between good and evil); Some of it I also interpret that way. **

**4) Futurist (which sees Revelation as prophetic of events to come). Protestants love to use Revelations this way because they can twist the meaning easier than in any of the other books.Many people think that the Book of Revelation is to be taken literally, and that it is written in chronological order. To that I say Yea, right!:rolleyes: **
If you read Scott Hahn’s book “The Lamb’s Supper”, you will appreciate Revelation. Revelation is about the Mass, which he calls Heaven on Earth. Do get it. I think it should be a must read for all Catholics.
 
Anyone Cathoolic, Protestant, Agnostic etc who is not disturbed by Catholic history has not heart nor soul. One could still be afaithfull Catholic and not agree with much of the history but to ignore and overllok to deny and justify is beyound the pale.
What say you then to the abominable past of the Protestant Church? Have you acknowledged that?
 
Benedictus is a woman. A woman who has class and manners. That’s a plus when you’re trying to make friends and influence people.
Why thank you for that very nice complement. I am sure a lot of people in this forum will disagree with you but it is very kind of you think so.

Thank you very much.

A lot of people think I am male because of the name (and probably because of my writing too 🙂 ). I picked it because it is one of my favourite prayers and one of the few in the Liturgy of the Hours the tune of which I remember.
 
Hi benedictus2. Hmm … interesting. Is this how you always treat people who come to your defense?
Hi benedictus2. Hmm … interesting. Is this how you always treat people who come to your defense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter J forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
“As far as I know” is a strange way to put it, but the opinion that benedictus2 expressed is actually quite common, even among conservative Catholics. (Don’t ask me why.)
benedictus2;4533032:
Peter J, is that the best you can do? If you know this is OPINION, can you please supply the facts.
What’s with that? You have an opportunity to correct an error and you do don’t do that.

*You say it is a quite common opinion so what is the true blue, real deal fact? *

This may come as a shock, but I’m not your valet, private secretary, or whatever else you may think I am. But even if I was, your request doesn’t really make sense, but just shows a lack of understanding of what “opinion” means.
Definitions from the elook online dictionary.

Opinion: 1) a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; 2) a belief or sentiment shared by most people;a message expressing a belief about something; 3) the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

I don’t know what other definitions you may have (perhaps there are which I don’t know about) but all the above equate to “not founded on fact.”

So as I said, if you call what I said ‘opinion’ and therefore not factual, it would have helped Ron who was asking for facts if you had shared what you know to be fact regarding the matter.

If you know that the two I mentioned are not infallible decrees or if there are more than these two then it would not have hurt to share your knowledge.

To my thinking, the only way you could have called my statements opinion is that you know for a fact there is no proof behind them.

It is not about you being mine or anyone’s valet, secretary, or whatever else I do not think you are.
 
Definitions from the elook online dictionary.

Opinion: 1) a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; 2) a belief or sentiment shared by most people;a message expressing a belief about something; 3) the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

I don’t know what other definitions you may have (perhaps there are which I don’t know about) but all the above equate to “not founded on fact.”

So as I said, if you call what I said ‘opinion’ and therefore not factual, it would have helped Ron who was asking for facts if you had shared what you know to be fact regarding the matter.
I did: I said that “There have been 2 ex cathedra statements” is a commonly held opinion.
If you know that the two I mentioned are not infallible decrees or if there are more than these two then it would not have hurt to share your knowledge.
I don’t know that. Your opinion is valid. Other peoples’ opinions are also valid.

What about you, do you know that Pope Boniface VIII didn’t make an ex cathedra statement when he said:

“We therefore solemnly declare, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary to salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff.”
  • Unam Sanctam (1302)
? Or do you allow that people can hold – as a valid opinion – that he did make an ex cathedra statement?
To my thinking, the only way you could have called my statements opinion is that you know for a fact there is no proof behind them.
Think what you will.
It is not about you being mine or anyone’s valet, secretary, or whatever else I do not think you are.
Excellent.
 
Why do I think this statement is wrong?

Another issue I have with the statement is that the leaders STOLE the power from the true believers. There was no power to be stolen from the people. The Church was never meant to be a democracy and was always hierarchical. Christ willed it so. The leaders however, were only caretakers. The power was always God’s.

A dictum that would have been very wise for Luther and the rest to follow during this time was: if you want to change the Church, change yourself first.

I can’t remember who said this but this is so true “What is wrong with the world is me.”
Here is what I mean by: “The leaders stole the power from the true believers.” Many of the popes, cardinals and bishops throughout history have not followed Christ’s example of being a humble servant detached from the allure of the world. Another excerpt from my book.:

“The year 1148 saw another major Church battle escalating as cardinals in Rome made another bid for power. Wasn’t the kings’ failure to wage their holy war proof that they need more power? For years Bernard and several popes had been standing against centralization of power in the hands of the Curia. In Bernard’s eyes, cardinals threw their weight around and dishonored Christ, the suffering servant of God and mankind. They disliked him, this meddling abbot who was too popular for his own good.”
 
I did: I said that “There have been 2 ex cathedra statements” is a commonly held opinion.

I don’t know that. Your opinion is valid. Other peoples’ opinions are also valid.

What about you, do you know that Pope Boniface VIII didn’t make an ex cathedra statement when he said:

“We therefore solemnly declare, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary to salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff.”
  • Unam Sanctam (1302)
? Or do you allow that people can hold – as a valid opinion – that he did make an ex cathedra statement?
If the purpose of an ex cathedra statement is to denounce heresies then why would there only be 2 in the entire couse of church history?
 
That is what the Roman Catholic Church claims, and again without any proof of the matter. They claim, so you believe.
God ratifies the choice of those who elect him. When Matthias was elected as an Apostle by the other Apostles he was elected by men, and not directly by God, but God ratified their choice and granted to him also Apostolic power. This also applies to our pope.
 
Anyone Cathoolic, Protestant, Agnostic etc who is not disturbed by Catholic history has not heart nor soul. One could still be afaithfull Catholic and not agree with much of the history but to ignore and overllok to deny and justify is beyound the pale.

**
Hi Hisalone,👋

Anyone not disturbed by Catholic history has no heart. Anyone not disturbed by American History has no heart. Anyone not disturbed by Protestant history has no heart. Anyone not disturbed by Human History has no heart. However they all have souls which might make they have to pay for not having a heart. I am a faithful Catholic I don’t agree with the any of the bad **that the Church did (Not: Much of the history!). It was wrong, but why would I sit in judgement? Its beyond my pay grade (loved Obama saying that!) ! God will handle the big things. Just get on with living your life and saving your soul. Repent your ways and come into the real church that Jesus established 2,000 years., ago for your salvation.👍
 
If you read Scott Hahn’s book “The Lamb’s Supper”, you will appreciate Revelation. Revelation is about the Mass, which he calls Heaven on Earth. Do get it. I think it should be a must read for all Catholics.
**
Hi Ben, 👋

Thanks the suggested reading. Myself, I rather just go to Mass and receive my Lord and Master. Revelations and the study of such things really doesn’t interest me in the least. Look how screwed up the minds of some people get when they study the bible rather than worship Jesus. But if you don’t have access to Jesus I guess you take what you can get. Poor Protestants! :bighanky: **
 
**
Hi Ben, 👋
Look how screwed up the minds of some people get when they study the bible rather than worship Jesus. But if you don’t have access to Jesus I guess you take what you can get. Poor Protestants! :bighanky: **
Look at how screwed up your mind is in this quote from post #878

Realcatholic: You are an example of a really strange, confused, perhaps even mentally disturbed person. And please believe me when I say that is said with love for you.
 
It’s not really OK. We have some really very muddled thinkers in the Catholic faith these days. Some depend on their early catechism classes to support them, others pick and choose what they want to believe and swear to high heaven this is acceptable, others read, discuss and ask questions to try to deepen and understand their faith. I would like to see all Catholics search as hard as some Protestants do to try to substantiate their beliefs.
**Hi elts,👋 **
**Yea, Learn about religion, that sure will save your soul! :rolleyes: Catholics don’t have toi search for the truth, we have it! 👍 **
I would like to see Catholics going to Mass more often, and praying the rosary to “deepen” their faith. They should use the sacraments and follow what the church teaches. That is all that any christian needs to be saved. Jesus will feed our souls. Protestants by being protestants are starving their souls because they can not nurish their soulds with the real body and blood of Christ. Catholics can but refyse to nurish their souls. Maybe they think they will gain too much grace?


"Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand." Saint Augustine

**“If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” Saint Augustine **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top