B
BIC
Guest
Greeting
Is it the real presence or the resurrection?
BIC
LAUS DEO
- Status
Is it the real presence or the resurrection?
BIC
LAUS DEO
L
Lizzie1
Guest
It is true that Catholicism gave birth to most of the older denominations (the Reformation Movement). Lutheranism and Protestantism originally came into existence as a result of realizing they could not reform the Catholic Church). However, Roman Catholicism (as a full-grown entity) cannot be traced back to the time of Jesus and the apostles. Most reference works cite AD 606 as the date of origin of the Catholic Church. In fact, the scriptures appear to speak of the development of Catholicism, but in the atmosphere of apostasy and departure from the truth (2 Thes. 2: 1-12, I Tim. 4: 1-3). The impetus which resulted in the total corruption of power being given to “one man” started within the eldership, just as Paul prophesied it would (Acts 20: 27-31, 2 Thes. 2: 4). Various doctrines, which are associated with Catholicism, did not begin in the First Century (not part of the “doctrine of Christ”). The date of origin for the teaching of transubstantiation is AD 1215; celibacy, 800; purgatory, 593; and the legalization to generally practice sprinkling was 1311. Beloved, Catholicism, as such, is 600 years removed from Jesus and the apostles. Take care and and God bless everyone.
T
TobyLue
Guest
Born_Again
Proof that your church (whatever church you belong to) is the church that Jesus Founded. But, remember, in the early days of the Church there was no bible, as we have today. So, give us proof without using the bible that your church was around that time. You can’t even prove it using your KJV because the KJV was not around then.
And to BUCA110-
regarding infant baptism; who in the early Church had the KJV to go by? Did Irenaeus have a KJV and he misunderstoood it when it wrote *“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age. *(Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189])
Did Ambrose have a KJV and he could not read it like you do when he wrote *“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant. *(Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387]), the list goes on and on. But to me the clincher is this from St. Augustine. Did he have a KJV when he wrote,
“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400])
Noticed the letters in bold. Infant baptism was not instituted by men, but was handed down by apostolic authority and Jesus who is God taught the apostles. This bit about not baptizing infant is actually a man made doctrine, when people like Born_Again interpret bible on their own and the Bible itself states that the bible is not to be privately interpreted. Why? To avoid such chaos as created in Protestantism.
Proof that your church (whatever church you belong to) is the church that Jesus Founded. But, remember, in the early days of the Church there was no bible, as we have today. So, give us proof without using the bible that your church was around that time. You can’t even prove it using your KJV because the KJV was not around then.
And to BUCA110-
regarding infant baptism; who in the early Church had the KJV to go by? Did Irenaeus have a KJV and he misunderstoood it when it wrote *“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age. *(Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189])
Code:
Did Hypollitus have a KJV and he misinterpreted it when he wrote, “*Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.* (*The Apostolic Tradition* 21:16 [A.D. 215])“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400])
Noticed the letters in bold. Infant baptism was not instituted by men, but was handed down by apostolic authority and Jesus who is God taught the apostles. This bit about not baptizing infant is actually a man made doctrine, when people like Born_Again interpret bible on their own and the Bible itself states that the bible is not to be privately interpreted. Why? To avoid such chaos as created in Protestantism.
T
TobyLue
Guest
Lizzie1 Welcome to CA forums.
I must say that your post is most laughable. You quote
However, all of your charges have been refuted time and time again, Please do a search on this CA or even go to HOME and do a search and you will get answers from the experts. Go to the ECF section. Of course the Fathers Know Best
I hope you will learn alot as to the true Catholic Catholic teachings. Stick around and welcome again.
God Bless.
I must say that your post is most laughable. You quote
Please cite your references.
However, all of your charges have been refuted time and time again, Please do a search on this CA or even go to HOME and do a search and you will get answers from the experts. Go to the ECF section. Of course the Fathers Know Best
I hope you will learn alot as to the true Catholic Catholic teachings. Stick around and welcome again.
God Bless.
C
Contarini
Guest
Lizzie,
I don’t know of any reputable reference work that would list 606. When you think the “Roman Catholic Church” began is a subjective matter, because both Catholicism and Orthodoxy developed over time from the early Church. There is no date that one can assign, except the various dates when the Church split. So you could argue that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy date from 1054 or whatever other date you give for the East/West split. You could also claim that “Roman Catholicism” originated with the Council of Trent. But it’s all subjective, really. What can’t be disputed is that there is a continuous, organic link between modern Catholicism and Orthodoxy (including the “Oriental Orthodox” and the “Church of the East”) and the New Testament Church, and that no other church existing today can trace such a link except through Catholicism or Orthodoxy. All the claims of some kind of apostolic succession of dissenting Christians throughout the Middle Ages are bogus. I don’t know of any credible modern historian who believes those claims.
In Christ,
Edwin
C
Church_Militant
Guest
There is no difference…none. There are differences of “denominations” and they are the result of the schisms of schisms of schism that began in 1517.
Pax vobiscum,
C
Curious
Guest
You know…I’m honestly not trying to be all mean or anything, but this post just really hit home the point that there’s really nothing new under the sun is there? It’s the same old, tired old arguments again and again and again and again and again, with no willingness to concede ANY point made, no willingness to scratch’s one’s head, wonder, and open up to the possibility that there just might be something to the Catholic Church.
Nothing new. Nothing. The arguments that have been refuted time and time and time again are met by deaf ears, happily building up fat, juicy straw men and beating them all the hades.
:yawn:
I
Ignatius
Guest
When speaking to Simon bar Jonah, Jesus renamed him to Cephas in Aramaic meaning rock. This was later translated into Koinen Greek and some misunderstandings result fromt he gender specificity of modern Greek diminutive petros. Here are the petinent verses “Thou aret Peter (Rock) and upon this rock I will build My Church. . . . and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven.” The “Keys” represented full authority in ancient Israel, of course the “bind on earth” language clearly reinforces that full authority is being given. Also, in other verses, binding authority is given to the Apostles together in council.
But, I am sure that you are already aware of all of this; so, why are you asking?
I
Ignatius
Guest
Ignatius of Antioch, the first Christian to be fed to the lions in the Coliseum, said (I think around 100 A.D.) “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Do you have any idea when your faith was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:
If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded about 4,000 years ago.
If you are Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.
If you are Islamic, Mohammed started your religion in what is now Saudi Arabia around A.D. 600.
If you are Eastern Orthodox, your sect separated from Roman Catholicism around the year 1054.
If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.
If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.
If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are an Episcopalian, your religion came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.
If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.
If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.
If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.
I
Ignatius
Guest
St. Irenaeus compiled the first list of the Popes sometime in the second century A.D. Eusibius and others also made lists down through the ages. It is possible that someone in the 6th century made one, but this does not indicate that it is the earliest. Also, here is a list of the Popes from JP II back to peter.
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
I
Ignatius
Guest
Please site some of your first, second or third century Early Christian Writers to back up your claims. The ones I know of, Justin Martyr, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioc (he was the first martyr to be thrown to the lions in the coliseum and Catholic Bishop of Antioc) all contradict your statements.
God Bless and guide you on your search fo the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
M
mrS4ntA
Guest
Some argued that the “Rock” refers only to Peter’s confession of faith. Whilst it’s true that faith is one’s rock foundation, this passage reveals something more. Because if the argument was true, it would NOT make sense as to why Jesus would re-name Simon to Kephas/Peter/“Rock”
. ‘Thou art “Rock” and on this “Rock” I will build my church.’ Plain and simple!
G
Greek
Guest
Even the Orthodox Church celebrates the Pentecost. Before that. Chrisianity was more of a Jewish cult than its own religion.
G
Greek
Guest
The “bind on earth” line only meant that he had the authority to create and reinforce Christian beliefs and lay down the laws which was also given to the other apostles. Nowhere in the Bible does it EVER say Peter had FULL authority over the other apostles or the Church.The Catholic Church only “interpreted” it that way. ANYONE can interpret a line and call it official. In fact there were many arguements about the direction the Church should take among the apostles! If Peter had full authority over the Church then whatever he said would have been official. History tells us this was not the case. In fact, as I stated before, there were things that Peter said NOT to do that the Popes do now.
P.S. The ‘rock’ statement is not so plain and simple. The word rock, like many other bibilical terms can be metaphorical. As you may know, ROCK can mean one rock of many to build the foundation of the Church. The other rocks would have been the other apostles. In Greek, the word “you” can also mean the plural, which would mean ALL the apostles. Of course, sice the Catholic version is originally in Latin, it could have been a mistranslation OR a misinterpretation.
M
mercygate
Guest
You will encounter many on these forums who are Catholic today because they read the Bible, studied history independently of Scripture, and were convinced by the facts that historically and spiritually, the Catholic Church is the only Church [with its sister Churches of the East] that can truly trace its history and charism back to Christ himself.
M
mercygate
Guest
Won’t wash on *this *forum, Greek. Many of us actually DO read New Testament Greek and we know the difference between the second person singular and plural.
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
I met my first ‘christian’ in 1975, that is a non-denominational believer in Christ. Someone who is neither a Protestant nor a Catholic yet identifies themselves as ‘Christian’. The Church of Christ is one such group, and Gordon College in norther Massachusetts is a ‘Christian’ college.
Though these Christians claim to be non-denominational, it has been my experience that they argue against Catholicism along Protestant lines.
Though these Christians claim to be non-denominational, it has been my experience that they argue against Catholicism along Protestant lines.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Kevin Walker:
“Non-denominational” is just another denomination.
L
Lizzie1
Guest
Hello, I feel that there are a lot of angry Catholics on here! I wonder why? Seems odd since we are supposed to seek out all things put before us. As far as my earlier post, I must add to it by saying that Denominations are wrong and not Biblical. Peter was not the first Pope. Jesus is the head of the Church not the Pope (Eph. 1:22, 23). Jesus as the head possesses all the authority in both Heaven and Earth (Matt. 28:18). Has anyone on here read the Bible for themselves, or do you repeat what you are taught? Take care and thanks for all your posts, God bless.
M
mercygate
Guest
Are you under the impression that Catholics believe that Jesus is not the head of the Church?
. . . and has breathed the Holy Spirit into the Apostles to carry that authority to the ends of the earth.
Hm. I was just going to ask you the same question.
If we seem angry to you, perhaps it is because a lot of us are quite raw today, and are not so well in control of ourselves as usual, since we have recently lost the man who has been at the helm of the Church for the past 26 years. Through his writings, and via his travels, we have come to know him very well and to love him for his wisdom, integrity, dignity and compassion. Doubtless, there is nothing in your experience to which you might compare this love and loss.
Moreover, we are perhaps more than a little weary of the scurrilous, oft-repeated, ill-grounded, unhistorical allegations you have posted here – clearly without having done any creditable research yourself. No doubt you write in complete sincerity, and most assuredly with Christian charity overflowing from a generous heart, so we apologize for our testiness and hope that you will take this opportunity to explore honestly the claims of the Church. Many of us were at one time just as anti-Catholic and historically uninformed as you are now.
- Status