Catholic history is disturbing

  • Thread starter Thread starter suupah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh my-thats not even close to the infallible statements of the Church, Here a good summary of the basic ones:

I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, Our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.
I think the question was relating principally to “Papal” infallible promulgations excluding any promulgations of the Magisterium. This is when the Pope alone decreed something ex-cathedra.

On my quick google, those are the only two that I found.
 
I will praise the Church for all the good it has done - not only in my life but in the lives of millions. I will not ignore the evil it has done.
I think this is the crux of the problem. You do not understand the nature of the Church. The reason the Church cannot err is that the Church is not an “it” but a “she”. She is the holy bride of Christ, and has been made pure by Him. He is her Head, and her soul is the HS. It is the divine aspects of the Body of Christ that preserve her from error. Unless and until you can grasp that the church is more than the fallible men attached to her, you will continue to malign and criticize the pure bride of Christ. You do so at your own peril.
If that means I’m not a good Catholic then you can say I’m not a good Catholic.
I am glad to see we are in agreement on this point. 😉

Clearly, though it is a result of ignorance, as evidenced by your comment above referring to the Holy Bride of Christ as an “it”.
I didn’t purposely go out and choose this path. It chose me. I think the problem you and I have is that you are a lot younger than I. I will be 57 in a couple of days.
Oh, I agree! You are victim of the worst generation of catechesis in the history of the Church.
I still attend Mass occasionally and I have Catholic friends. Anyone 30 yrs or younger has a whole different experience with Catholicism.
I sure hope so. I despair at times that the younger generation does not seem to know their faith much better than you and I did.
My mother and the rest of my family are devout Catholics. I am the one who was excommunicated for speaking my mind. I am the black sheep but they always ask me to pray at family dinners because no one else wants to.
Your family probably does not appreciate your anti-Catholic views.
However, you excommunicate yourself when you reject the Apostolic teaching. It is possible you never knew it, or never understood it, in order to reject it, which means, you cannot be excommunicated. 😃
I was properly catechized but not by today’s standards. I never heard about a mediatrix, salvation by grace through faith and I was never taught to hate Protestants or Jews. Not hating those of a different faith is good as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t think hating others is part of a proper catechesis, do you? The standards of catechesis have not changed. Scripture was written by Catholics, for Catholics, so we find the testimony there that the Church believes we are saved by grace, through faith.
This is a personal attack which goes against the code of conduct but I’ll answer anyway. I was an excellent student and I have no disabilities at all.
I am sorry, I misunderstood you then. I thought when you said the trouble you had with Catholicism was your ability to understand it, you were referring to yourself. I also thought I made it clear that having a learning disability is not anything for which one needs to feel ashamed. Some of us were born with different equipment, is all.
I love studying the bible and I couldn’t find a Catholic bible study when I needed it so I learned from Protestants who also did a lot of good for me but also taught me some wrong ideas.
Yes. I had the same experience.
If I was not open to truth I would not be on here. You are one of the people on here that I respect. I apologize for the anger towards the Church but it was never directed at anyone personally.
I believe that you are here because you are open to truth. I think that is the case about most people here. I certainly have learned a great deal since I came here. Is your anger really toward the holy bride of Christ? You have given many examples of the fallen men attached to the Church that have done great harm through misdeeds. Do you think this stamps out the headship of Christ?
Let’s not deny the fact that Church leaders in Church history have put obstacles between God and His people.
I will not deny it. Neither will I confuse them with the Holy Bride of Christ. The Church is not defined by those who rebel against her.
Code:
Read Ezechiel 34. It's all about shepherds who trample the flock. Bishops and cardinals have done the very same thing. If they didn't we would have no Protestants.
Indeed. However, the wrongdoing of men does not equate to the wrongdoing of God. Saying that the Church is not the pure bride of Christ because men threw mud on her devalues the power of the cleansing blood of Christ.
The Church claims to have the monopoly on God, grace and the truth. That’s not true I think God controls all those things and gives it to whomever, whenever and wherever he chooses.
No, the Church does not claim these things. In fact, if you read the catechism, you will find the opposite. I think if you were to learn what the Church actually teaches, instead of the errors abounding, you would have lot less"issues’.
 
There have been numerous INFALLIBLE declarations that have become part of normal life that THE WORLD take for granted.

To name a few…(not in any order)
  1. Jesus Christ is The Son AND God!
  2. He Lives and Reigns with…
  3. There are THREE IN ONE in The Godhead. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and THE SAME.
  4. Christmas and Easter are Christian MUST Dos.
  5. Scriptures consists of 73 books
  6. Infallibility of the Pope
  7. Immaculate Conception
  8. Assumption
  9. 15days of history can be REMOVED from existence, and THE WORLD will follow a new calender. (Gregorian)
  10. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church
  11. Baptism in the Triune formula is a must to be Christian, although The Father reserves the right to do as He wills with those that aren’t.
  12. The Apostles creed is the Christian’s basics for faith.
  13. etc etc…
Others may come to mind…

:cool:
 
I think the question was relating principally to “Papal” infallible promulgations excluding any promulgations of the Magisterium. This is when the Pope alone decreed something ex-cathedra.

On my quick google, those are the only two that I found.
Setting aside that internet information is generally contemporary, remember that NO DOCTRINE become DOGMA without Papal Proclamation, meaning, what The Church HOLDS to have ALL been “Pope alone decreed…ex-cathedra.”

Blessings…

:cool:
 
Setting aside that internet information is generally contemporary, remember that NO DOCTRINE become DOGMA without Papal Proclamation, meaning, what The Church HOLDS to have ALL been “Pope alone decreed…ex-cathedra.”

Blessings…

:cool:
Simply not true. Which Pope decared the dogma of the Ressurection? The Ascension? Transubstantiation?
 
Setting aside that internet information is generally contemporary, remember that NO DOCTRINE become DOGMA without Papal Proclamation, meaning, what The Church HOLDS to have ALL been “Pope alone decreed…ex-cathedra.”

Blessings…

:cool:
???

So the Trinity or the ‘Mother of God’ weren’t infallible teaching from the moment the respective Councils declared those two teachings? And that if no future Pope had ratified them we wouldn’t have to believe them?

Rubbish. Councils are every bit as infallible as Popes when they pronounce on matters of faith and morals. Christ gave the power to bind and loose to ALL the Apostles and ALL their successor bishops and promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit - the charism of infallibility - to ALL, not just to Peter.

What councils teach definitively holds true, no matter whether Popes personally say anything about their pronouncements or not.
 
???

So the Trinity or the ‘Mother of God’ weren’t infallible teaching from the moment the respective Councils declared those two teachings? And that if no future Pope had ratified them we wouldn’t have to believe them?

Rubbish. Councils are every bit as infallible as Popes when they pronounce on matters of faith and morals. Christ gave the power to bind and loose to ALL the Apostles and ALL their successor bishops and promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit - the charism of infallibility - to ALL, not just to Peter.

What councils teach definitively holds true, no matter whether Popes personally say anything about their pronouncements or not.
I’d like to tag this on: St. Paul’s epistles were infallible too. They were not somehow invalidated by the fact that Paul wasn’t Pope. (Same for James, John, etc.)
 
I will praise the Church for all the good it has done - not only in my life but in the lives of millions. I will not ignore the evil it has done. If that means I’m not a good Catholic then you can say I’m not a good Catholic.
Please do not equate the Church with some of her members. The Church is much bigger than some of her corrupt members. The Church is the Body of Christ. She is His Bride and as such holy though her members sin.

I think this is something that most Catholics miss so her history gives them the cringe. When some of her members sin, we suffer with them. We cannot say oh such and such is evil and denounce them to others.

Where I came from we have a saying “the pain of the little finger is felt by the entire body”. We are all part of the communion of saints.

And you know what to put it all in perspective, as much as we share in the pain that her errant members bring the Catholic Church, so much more do we share in the glories of her saints. And there are so many of them in dazzling brilliance. Both in heaven and on earth.

The evils that some do, we feel it too and the only remedy is prayer. That is why Christ left us the sacraments.

Above all the Holy Sacrifice fo the Mass.

If only people realize the great wonders and the many graces we recieve from the Mass.

So when someone says oh the Catholic Church has done wrong, is evil, etc. that’s US TOO.
 
**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: **
Oh Realcatholic, It really is a wonderful book. Everyone I gave that to said they will never approach the sacrament in the same manner.

But then you obviously have an enormous appreciation of this sacrament so that would probably be superflous.

It is meant to make people appreciate the Mass more and your probably there already.🙂
 
I’d like to tag this on: St. Paul’s epistles were infallible too. They were not somehow invalidated by the fact that Paul wasn’t Pope. (Same for James, John, etc.)
All of Scripture is infallible. The problem is about some 500 years ago some very fallible men started interpretaing them incorrectly.
 
All of Scripture is infallible. The problem is about some 500 years ago some very fallible men started interpretaing them incorrectly.
I think this is a misuse of the term “infallible”. Fallibility (or lack therof) requires the ability to act - volition, discernment, choice. Scripture does not contain these qualities. This is why Jesus left people in charge of the Church. Scripture is inerrant, and inspired, but needs an infallible interpreter because it does not interpret itself.
 
???

So the Trinity or the ‘Mother of God’ weren’t infallible teaching from the moment the respective Councils declared those two teachings? And that if no future Pope had ratified them we wouldn’t have to believe them?

Rubbish. Councils are every bit as infallible as Popes when they pronounce on matters of faith and morals. Christ gave the power to bind and loose to ALL the Apostles and ALL their successor bishops and promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit - the charism of infallibility - to ALL, not just to Peter.

What councils teach definitively holds true, no matter whether Popes personally say anything about their pronouncements or not.
Look around Christianity. PLEASE! Without Papal decree, your evidence of dissention surrounds you! You do not have to accept them IF YOU DO NOT SUBMIT TO THE PONTIF!

Councils debate, argue, discuss, mull over, dissent, disagree, agree, debate, argue! 79 bishops this way and 5 bishops that way! etc etc etc…

YET, what we have as dogmatic from EVERY Council is because HE with the FINAL SAY, agrees, or changes it!

It is not difficult to figure.

:cool:
 
I’d like to tag this on: St. Paul’s epistles were infallible too. They were not somehow invalidated by the fact that Paul wasn’t Pope. (Same for James, John, etc.)
We now know Paul’s epistles to be infallible because they made the canon!

Before that, as INFALLIBLE as they obviously ARE, they were the ‘rantings’ of a man who lost his mind from killing to many Christians!

Uhm…Canon of Scriptures…hmmm…A Pope MUST have decided on the books to accept, and CLOSING the Canon!

There’s Popes everywhere!!

:cool:
 
Look around Christianity. PLEASE! Without Papal decree, your evidence of dissention surrounds you! You do not have to accept them IF YOU DO NOT SUBMIT TO THE PONTIF!

Councils debate, argue, discuss, mull over, dissent, disagree, agree, debate, argue! 79 bishops this way and 5 bishops that way! etc etc etc…

YET, what we have as dogmatic from EVERY Council is because HE with the FINAL SAY, agrees, or changes it!

It is not difficult to figure.

:cool:
 
Look around Christianity. PLEASE! Without Papal decree, your evidence of dissention surrounds you! You do not have to accept them IF YOU DO NOT SUBMIT TO THE PONTIF!

Councils debate, argue, discuss, mull over, dissent, disagree, agree, debate, argue! 79 bishops this way and 5 bishops that way! etc etc etc…

YET, what we have as dogmatic from EVERY Council is because HE with the FINAL SAY, agrees, or changes it!

It is not difficult to figure.

:cool:
Okay guys, time out.

The original questioin dealt with Papal Decrees ex-cathedra exclusive of Councils and the Magisterium.

Does that clarify the question?
 
Okay guys, time out.

The original questioin dealt with Papal Decrees ex-cathedra exclusive of Councils and the Magisterium.

Does that clarify the question?
Hmm…maybe I haven’t read the parts of the Magisterium that has dogmas WITHOUT Papal approval; that is, decree.!!

Show me ONE please and I’ll re-read the entire document again when I’ve finished Scriptures again!

:cool:
 
"Realcatholicgk:
**Hi elts, 👋

If Protestants had real faith in what Jesus commanded of them, rather than knowledge about him that they obtain from reading one of their 100 corrupted, twisted, distorted and altered vesions of the Bible, and just obeyed the teachings of his real church just as he commanded 1500 years before their cults and groups were even formed.
God Bless **
**That is an amazingly ill-informed statement! **Would you like the opportunity to quote from any of the popular non-catholic Bibles ****that are used by millions of active and joyful Chirstians outside the Roman church and give me one example of how the verse is twisted and distorted as you lay it next to the RCC version?
**
**
Hi Martin, 👋

You are an amazingly ill-informed individual. I wish you had promised to enter RCIA 😃 Hey, can we make that deal now? 🙂 The KJV was revised many times between the date of its first unauthorized publication in 1611 and the Revised Version, around 1881, to make “correct” 3,800 “errors”. :rolleyes: Many revisions have been published without even being labeled as "revisions. Bottom line: "The KJV bible is a corrupt, distorted ,twisted, demented version of God’s word. No more, no less. 👍

So let me start you with three verses, you do the rest, it will take years:

Click on:

1 John 5: 7-8 ****
1 John 5: 7-8 Details
Rev 22:19 Details
Act 9:5-6" Details

To learn about some of these errors, one source is: KJV and the Textus Receptus:

Now a little history lesson for you. Remember, I am not a bible scholar. And I am not as smart as many of you people here, therefore, I can only repeat what are historical facts.

In 787 AD The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out until 1442AD, in Florence. At the Council of Florence, the “entire” Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published in 382 AD, over a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This was 100 years before the so called “Reformation”. During his translation of the Bible from Greek into German in 1536 AD, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix because in his opinion they were less than canonical. He had no authority to do such so in 1546 AD, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books at the council of Trent. That council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and had been confirmed at the councils of 393, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good or so we thought

From 1604 to 1611, King James1 had 47 protestant scholars rewrite the bible to ensure it would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. This bible wasn’t never even authorized by the Protestant church after it was finished. The KJV actually was revised many times between the date of its first publication in 1611 and the publication of the Revised Version, which was published between 1881-1885. All these early KJV revisions were published without being labeled as “revised.” Though the NKJV provides a modern English rewording of the KJV wording, the NKJV still has all of the same errors that the KJV derived from Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, which is plagued with corrupt readings and also many more. Oh what a tangled web was weaved!

“The more nearly we can verify, understand, and obey Jesus’ actual words, actions, and life, the more we can cooperate with the demands (and opportunities) of his loving sacrifice, victory, and liberating salvation. These are demands that each one of us must ultimately face. With or without our cooperation, these demands and the genuine spirituality they require will increasingly compel us to “put off the old self with its habits and … put on the new self. This is the new being which God, its Creator, is constantly renewing in his own image, in order to bring you to a full knowledge of himself.” (Colossians 3:9,10 - TEV) Resistance to God’s demands - even ignorant resistance - is ultimately both futile and very uncomfortable; thus, it seems much more desirable and more efficient to participate willingly, humbly, lovingly, reverently, and understandingly. An accurate and understandable representation of especially Jesus’ and the apostles’ actual words and actions can be a big help!” - Robert Nguyen Cramer, BibleTexts.com (version 5.2.19.2)

You even have a Protestant that writes, what I would have written as a Catholi. However I would have said all versions of the KJV Bibles not just the NKJV.

CLICK ON: The NKJV Bible: Counterfeit"

Glad to be of help Martin, I hope it starts to clear your vision.

God Bless
 
**
**
Bottom line: "The KJV bible is a corrupt, distorted ,twisted, demented version of God’s word. No more, no less. 👍

So let me start you with three verses, you do the rest, it will take years:

1 John 5: 7-8 ****
1John 5: 7-8 Details
Rev 22:19
Act 9:5-6" Details

It is interesting that you cite these three verses. Let us compare these verse in the King James Version and the Douay-Rheims.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top