J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
the catholic church was formed in 400th century by none other than constantine
the scriptures let’s stick with new testament cause you know the old was written long ago in another millennium; 1st century.
- Status
the scriptures let’s stick with new testament cause you know the old was written long ago in another millennium; 1st century.
J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
for the sake of argument let us say that you (catholics) gave us the Bible why don’t you live by it?
there are so many doctrinal differences between the catechism and the Bible.
one example would be the stance in one of the sacraments:
marriage, the catholic church annuls the marriage when a couple divorces while God hates divorce.
there are so many doctrinal differences between the catechism and the Bible.
one example would be the stance in one of the sacraments:
marriage, the catholic church annuls the marriage when a couple divorces while God hates divorce.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Let’s see… the 400th century. Are you sure?
And did Constantine borrow the term Catholic from St. Ignatius?
N
Nino
Guest
IT was the Irish monks who perserved the bible as we know it today…writing in long hand,hours on end,thats why the silly myth with double meaning of the protestants…that the bible was chained so no one would read it…it was chained,in libraries or churchs ,if the local village had a luck to have one…because it was so valuable!!! Calligraphy was an art that monasteries taught for special reason…it preserved and yes brought ot life so many of the teachings.
J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
you forget that you are roman catholic
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
He is a Latin Rite Catholic Church. Not all Catholics are Roman. We got the Byzatine Catholic, and other 22 Eastern Catholic Churches.
The Catholic Church was first used in 110 AD by St. Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of St. John the Apostle). Here is a quote for your thought. It’s from The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans circa 110 AD.
St. Ignatius of Antioch:
The claim you made that the Catholic Church was founded in 400 is historically inaccurate. The Church had its foundations on Jesus Christ, who build his Church upon Peter the first Pope.
Consider these quotes from the Early Christians. Polycarp and Ignatius were both martyred for their faith. Polycarp was burn at the stake but the fire could not kill him so the guard stab him to death. Ignatius was eaten by the Lions.
“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).
“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).
“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).
”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).
“But for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance…these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.” Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).
Don’t make a false assumption that the Catholic Church was founded in 400 AD. Any historian will tell you that is not a true statement.
You already make yourself look like a fool here by thinking that the RRC was founded by Constantine. He didn’t. There was already a Church established and they had a Pope then. Guess who the Pope was in the 325 AD? Pope St. Sylvester I was the 33rd Pope, before him St. Miltiades, and there were Popes before him too dating back all the way to Peter. Source Pope Lists: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
shh! no name calling.
if one is not under the pope then one is not roman catholic and i believe that most here adhere to the pope therefore that would count them as roman catholic.
the greeks don’t fall under this forum that is why they are known as the greek orthodox church.
i forgive you and i love you
God bless.
if one is not under the pope then one is not roman catholic and i believe that most here adhere to the pope therefore that would count them as roman catholic.
the greeks don’t fall under this forum that is why they are known as the greek orthodox church.
i forgive you and i love you
God bless.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
They are Eastern Orthodox Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church. However, in the 1800s, there have been entire Eastern Orthodox Churches that reunited with the Pope. These are called uniate Churches or Oriental Churches.
Read up the Vatican Document Unitas Redintegratio in paragraphs 14-17. It is apparent you do not acknowledge that there are Eastern Catholics that is in full communion with Rome.
Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
Read it and believe it.
I also like to note that the Eastern Orthodox Church is not center in Greece. It is a community of Churches from Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, etc.
Eastern Catholic’s Liturgical Worship is the same Liturgy as the Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox have their own set of Code of Canon Law. The Code of Canon Law impose by the Vatican does not apply to them. I have done intensive research on Eastern Catholics and believe me, if you run into an Eastern Catholic, many of them do not pray the rosary. They do not call their Mass Mass, they call it Divine Liturgy.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
and Jerry,
We happen to have Eastern Catholic forum here. Some of them are Ex-Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Those Catholics who address themselves as Roman Catholics are from Latin Rite or Roman Rite. Eastern Catholics make up 2% of the Catholic Church. The other 98% are Latin Rite Catholics.
We happen to have Eastern Catholic forum here. Some of them are Ex-Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Those Catholics who address themselves as Roman Catholics are from Latin Rite or Roman Rite. Eastern Catholics make up 2% of the Catholic Church. The other 98% are Latin Rite Catholics.
po18guy
Well-known member
How about a marriage in which one or both did not enter into it willingly, or intending to keep their vows? Is it still valid then? Tell us from the bible…
J
JRKH
Guest
I’m still concerned Jerry that you have not really answered my Questions. Am I being that unclear in my Questions? If so I apologize and will try to clarify.
I asked:
1) How do you define Catholicism and when do you believe it was “Formed”?
You have told me that you believe that Constatine Formed the Catholic Church in the 400th century. Well since we are currently only in the 21st Century I will assume you meant the 4th Century - Or did you mean the 400’s AD?
However, you have not told me yet how you define Catholicism.
My Second Question was this:
2) What Church did those Bishops belong to who assembled the canon of the Bible?
You have not responded to this at all.
I know it can be difficult to keep things on track on these boards because we can’t really have a one-on-one but I would like to try and keep this as simple and straight forward between us as possible.
So - I would appreciate it if you would sit back, take a deep breath, and finish answering the questions that I asked. I’ll break them out a bit to make it clearer.
- How do you define Catholicism?
- When do you believe Catholicism was formed?
- What Church did the Bishops belong to who assembled the Canon of the Bible?
James
J
JRKH
Guest
I do not know what your particular Protestant denomination is, but in general I think we could say that you worship on Sunday - So why do you adhere to a doctrine that is different than the Bible which says Keep Holy the Sabbath?
I do not say this to pick a fight on this issue but only to illustrate that such differences exist in each and every Ecclesial community.
Actually I think that your question hits at the core of many issues between The Church and Protestants. Protestants see the Bible as the starting point but they see it seperated from the Tradition that produced it and the context within which it was produced.
In point of fact, the bible IS part of Church Tradition and was canonized to assure that the same books and teachings were used across the entire Church.
Jesus wrote no books himself. Instead he taught men, and established a Church and granted that Church the authority to bind and loose. That Church is the same Church which today is called Catholic and it is that Church which established the Bible.
As to you specific question about Anullments, that is a subject for another thread. I can tell you that the Church does not automatically annull a marriage simply because the couple is divorced. It is true tht the Church requires a civil divorce before it will cinsider an application for a decree of nullity but the process is completely different and annulments are not automatically granted. (I am familiar with the process because I have been through it.)
Peace
James
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Sadly, we’re assuming that our friend Jerry is interested in honest dialogue, yes, even honest debate and disagreement.
However, I honestly don’t believe that this is the case.
We keep seeing the same canards and red herrings typically used only by the most vehement of anti-Catholics who pretty much come to the table with the attitude of “My mind is made up; don’t confuse the issue with the actual facts of the matter”.
One of my particular areas of study is on the development of the New Testament Canon – and even a cursory study of the topic (and mine was not cursory!) shows very clearly that the Bible was the product of the Church, and not the other way around. The Holy Spirit inspired the Church Fathers of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries to discern and preserve the Deposit of Faith, and to reject what was not.
To suggest the Church is the product of the 4th century is not only historically inaccurate (read Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, easily available in inexpensive paperback English editions) but insulting and dismissive for those early martyrs who shed their blood so that the Scriptures could be handed down through generations of persecution.
However, I honestly don’t believe that this is the case.
We keep seeing the same canards and red herrings typically used only by the most vehement of anti-Catholics who pretty much come to the table with the attitude of “My mind is made up; don’t confuse the issue with the actual facts of the matter”.
One of my particular areas of study is on the development of the New Testament Canon – and even a cursory study of the topic (and mine was not cursory!) shows very clearly that the Bible was the product of the Church, and not the other way around. The Holy Spirit inspired the Church Fathers of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries to discern and preserve the Deposit of Faith, and to reject what was not.
To suggest the Church is the product of the 4th century is not only historically inaccurate (read Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, easily available in inexpensive paperback English editions) but insulting and dismissive for those early martyrs who shed their blood so that the Scriptures could be handed down through generations of persecution.
J
JRKH
Guest
You may be right, but I simply refuse to make such conclusions myself without a clear, and often long, discussion with an individual. If I do so, I risk dismissing a soul that might be brought home to the Church. If the person actually IS NOT interested in honest debate I may still, by my charitable action, plant seeds of truth that the Holy Spirit will use later.
I prefer the method of moving slowly and asking simple questions so as to avoid any misunderstandings on definitions and such.
In Mr. Marino’s case, I have not received an answer to either his definition of Catholicism or what Church the Bishops belonged to that assembled the canon.
I’m sure you can see then that a person needs to look carefully at the “history” they have been taugth to make sure that the dates and wording etc all match up.
If I am not mistaken, most Protestant Scholars recognize that the Bible came from the Church and not the other way around. Even Martin Luther acknowleged that if it weren’t for the Catholic Church we would not have a Bible.
Peace
James
D
David_Zampino
Guest
I don’t disagree with you at all!
Two reasonable and fair (and pertinent) questions. CS Lewis, in the “Preface” to Mere Christianity, discusses the importance of words and how they are used and defined. I’m also reminded of that wonderful quote from The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!”
One of the neat things about the computer age is that more and more people have access to more and more primary sources. Many, many of the writings of the Fathers can be found on-line in English
If our friend Jerry is truly interested in how the Church, and the Early Church Fathers used the Scriptures, I would recommend any of the volumes of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series, which actually involved participation from Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant church scholars. Then, he could see how deeply immersed, the Fathers were in the Scriptures.
Blessings,
J
JRKH
Guest
This is great. I like that movie also. As I read the quote I could here him saying it with that “Spanish” accent.
If a person can once get passed some of the “Rhetoric”, and “Sound bites” that seperate us there can be some wonderful discussion. That is why I try to get folks thinking a bit. It helps all of us.
I hope that Jerry and others will someday look at some of the books written by converts. Especially ones who converted from “Evangelicalist” type churches or those written by highly educated men such as Newman, and Chesterton and Lewis (though I don’t think Lewis ever converted did he?)
Peace
James
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Newman was certainly key for me on my own journey. I’m fervently praying for his beatification, which, now that the miracle has been accepted, should not be long in coming.This is great. I like that movie also. As I read the quote I could here him saying it with that “Spanish” accent.
If a person can once get passed some of the “Rhetoric”, and “Sound bites” that seperate us there can be some wonderful discussion. That is why I try to get folks thinking a bit. It helps all of us.
I hope that Jerry and others will someday look at some of the books written by converts. Especially ones who converted from “Evangelicalist” type churches or those written by highly educated men such as Newman, and Chesterton and Lewis (though I don’t think Lewis ever converted did he?)
Peace
James
Now, Lewis never converted, but attended a “High-Anglican” parish; believed in Purgatory, auricular confession, etc. His student (and later close friend and biographer) George Sayer did convert. If you’ve not read Sayer’s biography “Jack”, you should!
Blessings,
P
PJM
Guest
***Fact: Today’s Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Jesus Christ.
Fact: The NT was written by men chosen by God, and inspired by God that we would identify as early Catholics
Fact: The Catholic Church was the ONLY Bible Church for about 1.600 years
Fact: That friends makes the Bible a Catholic Book by God’s own design
Fact: Precisely because of these truths ONLY the Catholic Church can and may interpet Sacred Scripture correctly, in full accord with God’s Will. Mt. 16-19 and Mt. 18:18.
FACT: As evidence of this after 2,000 consecutive and unbroken years of continuing Service to God’s flock, there remains One Faith, One God [Triune in Nature] One Baptism, One set of beliefs, and One Bible.
Look at the proliferation of non Catholic Christian churches that number in the THOUSANDS in 1 / 5 the amount of time in existence precisely because everyone feels qualified to interpert as they see fit, God’s Holy Word. God say’s NOT!***
- Status