Does Catholic rudeness keep you away from the Church?

[wisdomseeker]

The Church was not ever called “Catholic” in the Bible. Augustine sounds like he was on cocaine when he wrote that.

was there cocaine at his time? humnnn … i dont know.

can you trust the Bible if St Augustine was on cocaine at that time?

**

St Augustine.

"none of them; none of them is truly Catholic and being Catholic is the chief family trait by which I’m identified. The “Church of the Christian religion is called Catholic, not only by her own members but even by our enemies; for when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, they willy-nilly call her nothing else but Catholic for they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard**.”

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

The Church was not ever called “Catholic” in the Bible. Augustine sounds like he was on cocaine when he wrote that.

That is a low blow my friend and how would you know what cocaine feels like?
Furthermore, Augustine was called by Christ. What a priviledge. If you can lead a life of holiness like Augustine, you’d be in a better place.
Everyone knows that Catholics were the first Christians, even some of my Protestant friends know this. Evidence and history confirms this…smarten up.

 

[Methodi]

Why not just come right out and say it? Just say what you’re really thinking…“Anyone who dies who is not a Catholic is going straight to Hell for no reason other than not being Catholic.”

Thats absurd!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Interesting comments. I would not accept a premise that we are to have blind faith, rely on science to discover God or know His nature, or that our belief comes from hope that there is a God.

Nor would I. Faith need not be blind, it can be reasoned. I know of now way to discover God by science, since science by its nature looks to experiments that can be replicated. The definition of faith is hope of things unseen.

I agree that I don’t know why I would argue against basic truth either. One option to consider would be that I did not. While we believe in things unseen, must they be completely unknown? God indeed revealed things about Himself to us. Because we can’t see with our eyes, does that equate to promoting blind faith in things we also don’t know anything about? Also, if God revealed it, why would we ignore that?

Of course they need not be completely unknown. The atom is unseen yet known quite well. What is God revealing himself to you and me is not obvious to others. If you could prove that, there would be no atheists. If one believes that God has revealed himself in Jesus, in nature, or in the symmetry of natural laws, then that may be all the proof any person needs. But for another, it is simply assuming that such could not occur naturally and they would not agree with you.

We certainly don’t substitute science for believing what God has told us. No one is asking anyone to substitute science for believing in God (I think you may have misunderstood what was meant). In science, we discover His creation, and anyone who sees the order and intricacy might start to realize that a wonderful creation demands that there be a Creator. We know that believing in Him means having faith in, being committed to, and obeying Him.

You would have to define “what God has told us.” Many believe that the bible is the actual word of God, transmitted to us through human writers, though that begs the question of why so important a task would be left to the unknowing. But assuming one does, then science has certainly proven beyond any rational doubt that the creation did not occur literally as stated in either account of Genesis. I agree that many do see God’s hand in creation, but of course there is no requirement that one do so either logically or factually.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You were already forgiven. I did use the phrase, decide on a whim. Later I clarified the context of that phrase for you to have the proper conversational understanding.

Would your set of assumptions mean that the small set of inspired writers who wrote the Scriptures present a danger to you? We would hope not, and I doubt that would be true or fair to say. I would argue that it would be better to receive instruction or the teaching from one or a small set of people who were inspired by God, or who have been protected by God to teach His word, than to rely on those who have not been inspired and/or who have not been protected by God from error in teaching. Wouldn’t you agree?

That said, I don’t think it’s a problem to read many sources. It’s been helpful to me to know more about where people are coming from, and I see the errors in those other belief systems. Being exposed to as much as I have, has been a great benefit to me, and makes me even more grateful to have what I do have in the faith.

I’m a bit puzzled here. There is nothing in scripture that is dangerous to me. What is dangerous is misunderstanding it. If you had proof that God “protected” the writers, I might agree, but of course you do not. The writers of the NT as of the OT were humans, who, in my opinion did the best to set down how they and their times viewed God and his action in their lives. Sometimes they were flat wrong, as they were about any number of historical facts. They viewed the world through the lens of their environment and experiences. They were bereft of many facts that we are aware of today. That changes the dynamic quite a bit. However, it never changes that I believe they did their best to speak truthfully and honestly. One only has to examine the issue of homosexuality to discover how badly informed people were of that time about the realities of this situation.

Again, I think it is wonderful to have read widely. Hopefully you read with an open mind, and not, as so many do, with an eye to refutation. Let me ask you this…did you find common truths in other faiths, or things at least that you thought worthwhile?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Would you agree that which ever Church that God built along with doctrine He taught, would not have an equal to other faith systems. I propose that heresy is a matter of adherence to doctrine that is taught by God. It’s not as simple as relativism of equal religions as a standard. It’s a matter of adherence to God’s teachings or not. People can call each other names if they want, but it obviously doesn’t change the reality of Christ’s Truth. The difference is in where these teachings are, and how Christ conveys them to us. Where they are taught, and how is the matter of great debate among us humans. Nevertheless, it is easy and clear for God. When we use our free will to seek Him without interference, uniting our will with His, we are free to see what He has given us. Otherwise, we tend to be slaves to something or someone who is not God, not truly free.

No I would not agree with that at all. I think God speaks to ALL his people in the circumstances they are. I cannot imagine a God who would select a specific group and grace only them, and then tell them it is their job to convince the rest (to which he didn’t think it worth his time) that they were right and the other people should abandon their faith traditions. That seems a plan unlikely to be successful. History might suggest that that would be correct.

I frankly don’t get bogged down in issue of what other people are believing incorrectly. You call it heresy, but of course, often what is declared heresy is the side that loses, often as the result of a war. Teachings of right and wrong, good works, and so on are fairly universal. You must know this from your examination of so many other faith traditions. I believe people naturally find one faith resonates best for them, speaks to them, and helps them understand goodness better than another.

I agree that God wishes us to be free to seek him and relate to him. I find unfortunately that far too many “churches” interfer mightily in that process, requiring a “dogma” that must be accepted. If one is free, the truth will out by honest and fair examiniation.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Christ established the Catholic Church.

You are not embracing God’s love and the teachings of Jesus. You are rejecting Christ and His teachings, and embracing an intrinsic evil and calling it a good.

That as I said is your opinion, and you may shout it to the roof tops and it remains your opinion. I have no quarrel with what you believe. It is fine. I don’t believe it, and I don’t appreciate you unchartible remarks that I am embracing evil because I don’t agree with you. Your remarks continue to be disgraceful.

 

[grampben]

And this thread like so many others has dwindled down to an anti-protestant pit of hate filled comments.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Bravely said. Of course, whether I choose Catholicism or Orthodoxy, the question of women priests won’t arise for me. But I think every Christian should undertake a careful study of the Gospel accounts and focus on the way in which Jesus interacted with women. It’s quite remarkable how absolutely counter–culture He was in this respect.

Factually,
Mick

Mick, the more I study Paul, the more I think in some ways he has been unfairly maligned by the progressive feminist side. Paul is remarkably clear about women once you figure out what is going on. Of course much of what is attributed to him is not him in the opinion of most scholars, and when you strip this away, he seems to go out of his way to remind everyone that in Christ, there is no male or female, etc. All are equal before God. This has been badly distorted by the writer of Timothy and others of course, but even as to the authentic letters translations often interfer.

For instance, the passage (I think in Corinthians) wherein Paul speak about head covering…The actual translation suggests he was referring to women putting up their hair in Church the same as they would when going anywhere else in public. There was some public confusion with women with loose hair prophesying in a manner than seemed wild and unseemly. The very fact that he refers to them prophesying suggests he thought nothing wrong with their active participation. The part in Corinthians where Paul admonishes women to remain silent, is curiously missing in some of the older transcripts. It is found in a margin in some, and then finally in the body itself. This suggests it was not Paul’s writing at all, but rather the addition of a scribe, familiar with Timothy’s letter which is nearly word for word. It is thought a scribe added it in the margin as a question–did this belong, and was added by a later scribe thinking it to have been left out unintentionally. He returned it, and thus we have Paul saying this horrid thing about women keeping quiet in church.

Such is the wonderful things we can learn as we study. At least they are wonderful to me, since I cannot believe in a God who would place women in some subservient position. And it certainly would not comport to the radical activiity of Jesus as regards women. The more I learn about Paul, the more I find that he was more in sync with Jesus that it would appear.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I ask one to consider whether this approach of determining one’s religion by picking from one faith here and choosing from another there is really following what the Holy Will of God established, or following what man’s intellect establishes? I propose that Christ established a Church. If Christ established a single Church, how could the method of creating a church by picking between some preexisting churches be the right thing to do in following what Christ has established?

I don’t accept your premise that Jesus was intent upon starting a church. I believe that all faiths in Christianity at least strive to encompass those practices and beliefs that they believe are closest to the original early churches as well as those practices that most rationally follow from the facts we do know. Thus we recognize that many traditions have parts of them that we think are correct. We have adopted those into our tradition.

Anglicans use reason as the third triad of the discerning faith–bible, tradition, and reason.

The RCC did no different in defining itself by observing and studying the practices of various local churches and determining what it thought was “orthodox.” The winner of course became orthodox and rest heretical, witness the early fights for centuries over doctrine. These were no small sects of “dissention” but represented large blocs of believers with different ideas. Of course one of those resulted in the break between RCC and Eastern Orthodox. In that case, the EO was large enough that it could not be supressed by the RCC. This was true from the inception. The Essenes and Gnostics were notable in their different take on things. The RCC has chosen to reject the gnostics gospels entirely.

 

[1holycatholic]

That as I said is your opinion, and you may shout it to the roof tops and it remains your opinion. I have no quarrel with what you believe. It is fine. I don’t believe it, and I don’t appreciate you unchartible remarks that I am embracing evil because I don’t agree with you. Your remarks continue to be disgraceful.

Artificial contraception is an intrinsic evil. That’s not uncharitable, it’s a fact.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

So let’s draw this out.

**Hi Hajnalc,

Gosh, I am sorry! You seem not to understand. Let me type answer slower for you. It was my fault, I assumed you were smarted that me. My bad! **

Catholic and Orthodox = only real Christians
** TRUE! **

** ergo **

** This"ergo" means that you ,Hajnalcllag, are making an assumption based on your ignorance of what was written. Go ahead, assume something that was not said, nor believed by anyone. Even people hearing voices try not to tell others what the voices say! **

**Protestants = following Satan;
** ** Like Catholics, many of them they may or may not be “following” Satan. However you can be assured that Protestant groups are founded on corrupted truths that do not follow the teachings of Christ. So they aren’t following Jesus! And that the 61,000 groups all continue to deny Christ’s church and its authority over Christians. Jesus personally gave it that authority!
I can only figure that it would be Satan that hates Jesus and his followers so much that he would establish counterfeit groups imitating the real church in many ways while denying the “exact” things that Jesus demanded be done to obtain eternal life! Of course I could be wrong maybe some of the smart people could answer that. Errr, please Hajnalcsillag, don’t attempt to answer that! **

** those who follow Satan and not Jesus are bound for hell,/**B] **TRUE! I have to agree with that statement as written! Don’t you also think so? Does your group teach a different belief from a “new” “improved” version of the bible?? (Now “That” is sarcasam, buddy!) **

**therefore Protestants = all going to Hell **

** Well lets all pray that isn’t true! That is a harsh and false thing to say! Besides you, who has said that? Who can judge?

Only God can judge and has the right to determine the fate of our souls. All I m allowed to do is witness! As our President said “that is above my paygrade!” ) I pray that your prediction is wrong!

Do you thing that people who are not members of your “belief system” will go to hell? (I don’t know what the heck your Group beliefs are, you haven’t said) My advise to you ~ If your leader, says that people not members of your group will all go to hell…Run away!

Catholics do not believe we can control that. God controls our church, we can’t control God. We believe and teach that everyone “can” go to Heaven, because of the payment for our sins by Jesus. We realize that everyone “will not” go to heaven. Jesus told us that, explaining why that wouldn’t happen/
If you continue to follow false teachers who are misinterpreting Jesus’ teachings and disobeying His commandments, out of ignorance of His truths, it may be possible that Satan may win.

Divorce, Abortion, None reception of the real Eucharist, Denying the teachings of the Catholic church are just a few of the ways that could lead to Hell for anyone, not just Protestants. **

**But you deny this when you responded to my post. **

**I am sorry I had to deny that because it isn’t what I said nor what I believe!
Perhaps it is what you would like to think that I believe. However, I am a Christian! I do not judge, I do not Lie, I do not bear false witness.
I struggle everyday to become worthy of the promises of Christ! I pray that the people following the false teachings of the counterfeit groups also try to obtain eternal life! It is an individual decision to follow Jesus or not! **

Which is it?

**YES - the RCC and Orthordox churches are the only Real Christians! If you are not following them, you just are not following Christ so you can’t call yourself christisns! Well you could, but that would just be another Lie. **
**
NO - I don’t think Protestants are all going to Hell~ God would not do that. But I may be wrong! Who know what His judgment will be for disobeying Him?

Now answer my two questions, Please! I have answered yours several times. I typed my reply real slow oplease read it the same if any big words confuse you plese leyt me know! I can help!

Question 1: Are people who follow Satan going to hell?

Question 2: Does your group believe that others who do not believe what your church teaches will go to hell?

Awaiting your answers! :coffeeread:

God Bless**

 

[michaelcollins]

And this thread like so many others has dwindled down to an anti-protestant pit of hate filled comments.

I dont understand the question? I dont like anybody.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

And this thread like so many others has dwindled down to an anti-protestant pit of hate filled comments.

**Hi gramps,

I hope you are wrong! I, myself, see a lot of love and concern. I haven’t seen any hate from either side. There is debate that is what it is all about isn’t it? Sometime we offend each other but that happens when the truth is told and rejected. (On both sides)

To try to correct someone’s false beliefs isn’t hate, it is real love!

God Bless**

 

[Feanor]

And this thread like so many others has dwindled down to an anti-protestant pit of hate filled comments.

Hey Hey!

Not from Me! I am Catholic and I really don’t get why some Catholics (and non-Catholics) get so fired up.

I do believe in Truth, on the other hand I believe that people will be led to the Church by witnessing the love of Catholics.

Truth does not have to mean being offensive.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

This thread is closed.

Thanks for your participation.

God bless

Rachel