Constantine invented Catholicism

[BlackFriar]

Cf. #245…

 

[De_Maria]

Print it out, copy and paste or whatever you need to do. I don’t debate by message #

 

[rcwitness]

I believe Qui_est_ce misunderstood what a mikvey was. I think he was thinking it was the circumcision rite.

 

[setarcos]

Not all arrogance is good. The arrogance I speak of is not the arrogance of Christian certainty. It is the worldly arrogance of failing in Christian Charity. Jesus spoke truth not so as to insult but merely to claim reality as his. Only those ignorant of Christ would think his words to be insulting or arrogant. I was not calling the Catholic arrogant. I was calling the person arrogant because the response was meant as a belittling statement directed toward another (me). If you understood the mentality of Christian Charity you would understand the difference and not encourage your fellow Catholic in such behavior.

Hm? How to explain?

Apparently, you’ve never read the Scriptures. Or if you did, didn’t you notice that from the very beginning, there were some Christians who were teaching false doctrine and the Apostles were struggling to correct their errors?

I wouldn’t comment in these forums if I were ignorant of scripture and I do not claim those who I disagree with ignorant of scripture either. One wonders how many people have turned away from Catholicism simply because the Catholics they speak to have no idea how to treat the person with whom they are trying to prove a point. First respect the person, then attempt to educate in a charitable manner.

 

[setarcos]

Greetings brother.
I am sorry I have not been timely in my responses. I have been ill.
To answer your first question…how do I know this?

I can put everything Jesus requires of me in order to be saved on a single piece of paper.

How do you know this?
[/QUOTE]
I know this by reading scripture. If one takes all the pertinent parts in which Jesus describes what one must do to be saved it can all be fitted onto a standard letter sized piece of paper. The rest is detail in which the devil resides, waiting between the lines to confuse and lead astray.

The Catechism is more a document of confusion and opinion than a source of understanding. Layer upon layer of unnecessary verbiage.

Not really. It clarifies the development of our understanding.

Jesus sat on a hillside and taught the simple people gathered with readily understood aphorisms, metaphors, and similes. He quoted from scripture with understanding and imparted understanding. When people tried to outthink him or overthink what he said they tried to replace his light with their own this is when the trouble began. The Catholic Catechism being rife with theological verbiage belongs more in the category of theological speculation than as a testament to the saving grace imparted by God to man. It does little more than clarify the development of opinion than the understanding of truth…in my humble opinion. I would venture to guess 90% of Catholics don’t actually understand the full implications of what is being said in 90% of the catechism. Its one thing to quote the catechism, its quite another to understand fully what your quoting. I understand it is a primary source of the statement of your beliefs and as such I mean no disrespect. However I respectfully disagree with some of it but am open to being corrected.

 

[setarcos]

You are not making a distinction between the errors of people and the Teachings of the Church, or Doctrine.

I would only ask what you believe the “Church” consists of? Is it the body of people of which it is comprised? If so then how is it that the infallible can be reliably passed on by the fallible people? The holy spirit ensures this? And how do we know since the visible which is the fallible interpreters are the very ones that contend that what they are passing on is the infallible? If we are to recognize the infallible and are able to distinguish it from the fallible interpreters and in this way are sure we have infallible teaching even though it was transmitted to us by what is fallible then what need is there of distinguishing one class of fallible people from another except in necessary administrative duties? If the holy spirit infuses the body of Christ “his Church” how is it that some members of this body cannot recognize truth until it is transmitted to them by only a few fallible members of this body who claim the same source of inspiration? IF the clergy are supposed to be the visible representatives of Christ on earth then they have failed miserably in their behavior. So what do we do? Why of course we explain this by separating the fallible men from the infallible of which they are the transmitters. This smacks of circular logic to me.

Which doctrine of faith that I listed above is wrong? Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you believe Jesus is true God and true man? Do you believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit?

None of them have been definitively proven wrong that I am aware of and none of them are essential to understand in order to be saved.
I cannot believe in something I do not understand consequently I cannot say I believe in, as yet, the Trinitarian conception of God of which you speak. I believe what Jesus said in scripture. He is the son of the living God come to redeem mankind. In so much as the Holy Spirit reflects divine action within our reality I would say yes the Spirit is divine.

 

[setarcos]

Now this is interesting…what do you mean by selected and compiled? Do you mean to include in a complete canon with the new testament writings? Obviously the Old testament books, the Jewish Tanakh or Hebrew Bible predates Catholicism. These books were already universally understood to be authoritative so would naturally be included as a historical extension of Christian origins or am I mistaken?

 

[setarcos]

The Catholic Church:

Did not go apostate. In fact, the Catholic Church is the only Church which has remained orthodox throughout history.

This is a mute point since it is in contention without definitive proof. One might say some believe the Catholic Church didn’t so much as go apostate as begin to pervert or use Christ’s teaching for gain other than what he intended which caused many to fall away from her. If one can separate the infallible teaching of Christ from the fallible people which have failed in their adherence to the truth then simply continuing to call yourself something in hopes of associating oneself with this infallibility is a logical fallacy in declaring continuous uniform and unchanging promotion of that truth.

The Catholic Church has murdered no one. The only persons who have died in the Catholic Church are Ananias and his wife, and technically, the Holy Spirit took their life. (Acts 5)

? This is patently absurd and hypocrisy of the highest degree. While it may be claimed that no one in the clergy can claim to have bloodied their hands themselves, at least officially, its demonstrably factual that torture, war, “murder”, and myriads of other methods resulting in the demise of humans have been encouraged, negotiated, and even insisted upon from secular powers throughout history.

All the kingdoms that submitted to the Catholic Church, did so voluntarily because their kings were Catholic.

This depends on what you mean by submitted. Submission to the Catholic Church at times was highly political in motivation and more of a matter of strategic advantage than religious zealousness.

And, any person in the history of mankind who has committed any sin, has done it in spite of Catholic Teaching. Not because of it.

This again isn’t entirely true. See my above statement concerning murder. The Catholic Church at one point in her history for instance sanctioned the torture and murder of individuals (however few) with religious justification in order to weed out heresy and extract confession.

 

[De_Maria]

Now this is interesting…what do you mean by selected and compiled? Do you mean to include in a complete canon with the new testament writings? Obviously the Old testament books, the Jewish Tanakh or Hebrew Bible predates Catholicism. These books were already universally understood to be authoritative so would naturally be included as a historical extension of Christian origins or am I mistaken?

No, actually, they weren’t universally accepted. The Catholic Church was the first to authenticate them and bind them all together in one book.

 

[fredystairs]

Now this is interesting…what do you mean by selected and compiled? Do you mean to include in a complete canon with the new testament writings? Obviously the Old testament books, the Jewish Tanakh or Hebrew Bible predates Catholicism. These books were already universally understood to be authoritative so would naturally be included as a historical extension of Christian origins or am I mistaken?

In the 390s, when the Church councils defined which books were to be included in the scripture and which were not, they chose both the Old and New Testament books. As they did not include the Gospel of Thomas in the New Testament, they also did not include the Book of Enoch in the Old Testament.

There is an article on the canon of the Old Testament at the Catholic Answers website. The link is here: Old Testament Canon | Catholic Answers

A couple of excerpts:

Also included are the earliest official canon lists. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the canon lists cited here are given in full, they includeall the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

(Note: Some books of the Bible have gone under more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings–that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. This confusing nomenclature is explained more fully in Catholic Bible commentaries.)

_Council of Rome _
_ _
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

_Council of Hippo _
_ _
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

continued

 

[fredystairs]

Council of Carthage

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

Blessings

 

[De_Maria]

This is a mute point since it is in contention without definitive proof…

Actually, your contention has no proof, either. You just made a say so statement. All it deserves is a say so statement in response.

As for the rest of your statement, the Catholic Church is still here, Teaching the same thing authoritatively. That is all the proof necessary to show that you are wrong.

? This is patently absurd and hypocrisy of the highest degree. …

No, it’s not. Your statement is absurd. The Catholic Church has killed no one in all of history.

This depends on what you mean by submitted. Submission to the Catholic Church at times was highly political in motivation and more of a matter of strategic advantage than religious zealousness.

That is besides the point.

This again isn’t entirely true. …The Catholic Church at one point in her history for instance sanctioned the torture

To elicit repentance. The Catholic Church did not interfere with Catholic governments that used these tactics. It was a different time with different cultural ideas. Governments used to do it before the advent of Catholicism. Most, civilized powers, also do it today. The Catholic Church was the first to put limits on it.

and murder

Not true.

of individuals (however few) with religious justification in order to weed out heresy and extract confession.

If Catholics hadn’t done so, you would be praying to Allah on your mat, five times a day, today.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Now this is interesting…what do you mean by selected and compiled? Do you mean to include in a complete canon with the new testament writings? Obviously the Old testament books, the Jewish Tanakh or Hebrew Bible predates Catholicism. These books were already universally understood to be authoritative so would naturally be included as a historical extension of Christian origins or am I mistaken?

This is actually not true. The Pharisees and the Sadducees disagreed on which books of the OT divinely inspired. The Sadducees only accepted the first five books. They did not believe in the Resurrection.

Martin Luther rejected James, Revelation, Maccabees, and some other OT books simply because they didn’t fit his new theology of sola fides.

 

[qui_est_ce]

qui_est_ce:

You are not making a distinction between the errors of people and the Teachings of the Church, or Doctrine.

I would only ask what you believe the “Church” consists of? Is it the body of people of which it is comprised? If so then how is it that the infallible can be reliably passed on by the fallible people? The holy spirit ensures this? And how do we know since the visible which is the fallible interpreters are the very ones that contend that what they are passing on is the infallible? If we are to recognize the infallible and are able to distinguish it from the fallible interpreters and in this way are sure we have infallible teaching even though it was transmitted to us by what is fallible then what need is there of distinguishing one class of fallible people from another except in necessary administrative duties? If the holy spirit infuses the body of Christ “his Church” how is it that some members of this body cannot recognize truth until it is transmitted to them by only a few fallible members of this body who claim the same source of inspiration? IF the clergy are supposed to be the visible representatives of Christ on earth then they have failed miserably in their behavior. So what do we do? Why of course we explain this by separating the fallible men from the infallible of which they are the transmitters. This smacks of circular logic to me.

The Magesterium is infallible when it speaks from the Chair of Peter on matters of faith and morals. The men are fallible, the teachings from the Holy Spirit are not. Remember, Jesus gave the Apostles the keys, and built his church on Peter, the rock.

Which doctrine of faith that I listed above is wrong? Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you believe Jesus is true God and true man? Do you believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit?

None of them have been definitively proven wrong that I am aware of and none of them are essential to understand in order to be saved.
I cannot believe in something I do not understand consequently I cannot say I believe in, as yet, the Trinitarian conception of God of which you speak. I believe what Jesus said in scripture. He is the son of the living God come to redeem mankind. In so much as the Holy Spirit reflects divine action within our reality I would say yes the Spirit is divine.
[/QUOTE]
Were it not for the Catholic Church, you would have no scripture to read.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Greetings brother.
I am sorry I have not been timely in my responses. I have been ill.
To answer your first question…how do I know this?

I hope you are feeling well.

I can put everything Jesus requires of me in order to be saved on a single piece of paper.

qui:

How do you know this?

I know this by reading scripture. If one takes all the pertinent parts in which Jesus describes what one must do to be saved it can all be fitted onto a standard letter sized piece of paper. The rest is detail in which the devil resides, waiting between the lines to confuse and lead astray.

The Catechism is more a document of confusion and opinion than a source of understanding. Layer upon layer of unnecessary verbiage.

qui:

Not really. It clarifies the development of our understanding.

Jesus sat on a hillside and taught the simple people gathered with readily understood aphorisms, metaphors, and similes. He quoted from scripture with understanding and imparted understanding. When people tried to outthink him or overthink what he said they tried to replace his light with their own this is when the trouble began. The Catholic Catechism being rife with theological verbiage belongs more in the category of theological speculation than as a testament to the saving grace imparted by God to man. It does little more than clarify the development of opinion than the understanding of truth…in my humble opinion. I would venture to guess 90% of Catholics don’t actually understand the full implications of what is being said in 90% of the catechism. Its one thing to quote the catechism, its quite another to understand fully what your quoting. I understand it is a primary source of the statement of your beliefs and as such I mean no disrespect. However I respectfully disagree with some of it but am open to being corrected.

So you are saying that the following are matters of opinion, rather than fact:

• The Trinity
• The Eucharist
• The Bible

 

[Quaestor]

ALL converts to Judaism had to go through the Mikveh. I know of no disagreement regarding this. Nor am I aware that it is not a black and white issue. If you believe this to be the case go ahead and provide me the specific tractate concerning this from the rebbes. I use Labavitch (ultra orthodox - hassidim) sources because that is the form I know. The mikveh does not have passing similarity to baptism IT IS BAPTISM! Now let’s looks at the Didache which was written by Jewish Catholic for converts (our first Catholic Catechism and the first RCIA handbook) Look the exact requirements for the Mikveh in the Didache… Read it. IT IS THE EXACT SAME REQUIREMENTS for a Catholic Baptism. The only difference that I know of is that there is a provision for using sea water, which does not appear in the Didache. So it was a B&W issue.

 

[BlackFriar]

Maybe John should be called the Mikvahist instead then .

Seriously, you want a discussion with your response 8 days later?