S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
LOL. It seems you are unwilling to admit the obvious. It is your opinion that those who disagree with you are heretics. Is this your method of explaining the love of God to folks? How is it working for you?
- Status
G
Guyonthestreet
Guest
RealCatholickgk:
Is this no so?
I thought Orthodox churches had the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and I also thought they had direct descendency from the apostles.
Is this no so?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I disagree. That Peter was “assigned as head of the Church” is what you belief having been taught this by any number of sources: you personal interpretation of scripture, what the Church has informed you of through the Magisterium, or ECF or what you have learned through various theological statements. YOU have chosen to believe it. You may be right, but it is not the only interpretation or the only statement regarding this issue. There is truth, but neither of us will be sure what that is until we meet Peter. That is my only point. Neither position is subject to absolute proof, though both of us may be separately convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it has been proved to our satisfaction.
I have no clue what you think you know about me, to state that I don’t understand that perfection of understanding is the standard set by Christ. It seems amazingly arrogant to say that I don’t know this!
I agree, our journeys are continuous from birth to death. The wise person never stops inquiring and asking and studying and praying for God’s grace in understanding. I have come to change my mind on many things as I have progressed. Perhaps from my training in law, I have always abided by the legal concept of “listen, debate, and be not afraid to change your mind if you become convinced you are wrong. Yet never sacrifice what you completely believe simply for the sake of agreement with the majority.” I believe I have fairly lived by that and still do.
I’m not sure what you mean by “not there yet with Peter.” If that means, do I agree that Peter was commissioned to begin a church, then no, I don’t believe that Jesus meant that. I believe that the evangelist who wrote that did however. That is quite different. I would say that at one time I did, but deeper reading, studying and such have convinced me otherwise. This occurred long ago, when I was still an active RCC member. As I said, I learned this largely through the fine teaching of several Catholic theologians, but as well from a host of books written by Catholic and other Protestant experts. They may all be wrong in the end, but so far, I find their reasoning and explanation better than a literal reading of scripture.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I think you are exactly right in your analysis. A case in point is women priests. Premise one: Jesus started the Catholic Church. Premise two: Jesus made no statement allowing for the ordination of women and chose only male apostles according to the recorded scripture we have. Premise three: The Holy Spirit keeps the Church from error (at least in the long run…several popes were shall we say, not so good or imposters) Premise Four: The church therefore has the duty and power to interpret the Scripture. Premise Five: The church can find no basis in scripture for women’s ordination. Premise Six: The Church cannot ordain women, even it it wanted to because Christ has not given it permission to do so.What you’ve detailed above makes sense to me.
Perhaps the reason difficulties are encountered is because the apologists sometimes fall into the trap of supposing that they can “prove” the truth of that which they hold dear?
I don’t think such a thing is possible simply because people bring different presuppositions to the debate. If one presupposes that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth because it claims to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, then one is obviously going to process every single fact, challenge, suggestion, assertion, rumor and accusation through that filter. However, somebody who is not convinced by the truth claims of the Catholic Church is going to think along very different lines and therefore come to a very different conclusion.
A worthy example to consider might be the doctrine of papal infallibility promulgated in 1870 by Vatican I. The duty of all Catholics is to trust and obey the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. So once this doctrine was proclaimed by the Catholic Church the question was settled for every Catholic.
But for somebody who has a worldview that does not recognize the Catholic Church as having the authority that it claims for itself Catholic teaching is open to question. That’s the central point. So when the Catholic apologists argue the case for papal infallibility – especially the kind of apologist that thinks his or her task is to “prove” the case – we that are not Catholic simply don’t get it. The argument sounds like somebody who says, “I claim to be telling the truth therefore I must be telling the truth.”
That routine seems to carry forward into every area. So, if somebody who is not a Catholic raises an objection to a Catholic tenet the inevitable references to the Church Fathers soon come tumbling out (which “prove” the Catholic case), followed by accusations of heresy. But the case is only “proved” in the minds of Catholics. That’s because they start out holding the assumption that the case is already settled and any dissent must therefore be purposeful and stubborn refusal to accept what is true.
I haven’t had any Catholic call me a heretic yet but perhaps I’ve shown enough dissent on this occasion to warrant it?
Rebelliously,
Mick
The circularity of the argument is completely missed. Any and every premise in the above is based on belief, not proof. But they logically proceed if one assumes the truth of the first. And that is what happens eventually to every discussion here.
Worse yet, and this is truly unfortunate, time and time again, some of us have shown through the Catechism and Papal Commissions the error of some way of thinking. We have shown that ultra orthodox have interpreted incorrectly or at least it is open to question, and even then, our “proofs” from their own sources are ignored or twisted. It isn’t just that some believe every word of Catholic doctrine, it’s that some believe the most utterly conservative definition of it, even to the extent that the Pope disagrees with them. On the issue of the death penalty, you will get that JPII had no right to speak for the church, and these were his own opinions. It’s why I avoid a whole slue of issues, because they devolve to the same place time and time again.
P
PJM
Guest
My dear friend in Christ Jesus our Redeemer, and I’m guessing a follow Roman Catholic.Hi Non,
Well I see you are still using false logic. The same stuff you did on other threads. There is no proof that any Alostle or saint had bowel movements. Yet we are sure they did. I know of many saints praying to and for the dead, but not in scripture. It isn’t about them It is about Jesus and His real church and the need to obey His law. You silly goose!
God Bless.
1 Cor. Chapter 13…
"1* If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2* And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, **but have not love, I gain nothing. **
4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 5* it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7* Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; 10 but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. 13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love].
We represent the Catholic Faith and the only Church actually founded by Jesus Himself.
I beg you to change your tone and your threating signature, for the sake of Love. Are we not here to teach, share and convert???
Your points are well thought out and logical, but if presentd in the present manner, are not likely to bear much good fruit.
Mt. Chaoter 7: "13* "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits. 21"Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heave
If others use this as a guide to what the RCC believes and stands for:blush:
Dear friend, please prayerfully consider my request:thumbsup:
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Mary, I will endeavor to make some time and see if I can find a few quotes for you. Unfortunately i have in the past spend hours honestly researching and presenting information because I thought someone really was interested only to have everything I have done dismissed without any comment, or dismissed as from sources that arent’ worth listening to. It becomes very discouraging. You realize that there is no interest in serious discussion, only in being right. I’ll make sure to get back with you if I can find the textbooks! They are packed away in the back of my closet. I have so many books, space is always a problem.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I see what you mean, though I think I don’t really agree. In my faith tradition, we are happy to conclude that the Eucharist and the real presence of Christ are mystery. Mystery is not meant to be unraveled or explained. It is, it is believed, and that is the end of it. I don’t see Christ being concerned as to our defining the concept, only in believing. That is my personal belief.
To those who feel that the exegetical evidence is lacking in showing that it is a real presence, and believe it is more symbolic in nature, I ask you this. Have they lost any of the benefits (without going into the RCC assumption that all Eucharistic fellowship is worthless unless RCC in nature) to be received by it?
If they do the work of Christ to the best of their ability and understanding are they doing the work of Christ? Christ said feed, clothe, and house the poor, tend to the sick, visit the imprisioned. Treat all as you would want them to treat you. Turn the other cheek. I find these the most important aspects of Christ.
As to the natures of Christ. Again, why do you assume that someone decides on a whim? Can they not study and pray and read and listen extensively before coming to that conclusion? How does believing or not enhance one’s service along the lines stated above?
I fail to see how these issues are more important than our duty as Christians to take on the mind of Christ and to the best of our ability act as he would have us do.
T
theistgal
Guest
I’m not a Protestant. And you are a prime example of what my OP was referring to.**
Hi Theist,
You are a quitter Gal!
And I am not amused.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
From Realcatholicgk:
You understand absolutely nothing of what I said to say such aggregious and unkind, vile things. Shame on you.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Christians who reject the teaching of the Church are heretics.
I’m sorry to hear you have separated yourself from Christ by rejecting His teachings on contraception/abortion and the ordination of women. You have made a grave error, you should reconsider your actions.
M
maryj
Guest
I’ve got that problem too, except most of them are my husbands books and you know how men feel about getting rid of things. Please don’t spend precious time, if you think that you will be discouraged. I’m just one of those that likes to learn the “back story” even if I don’t agree. Seems as though this thread has gotten out of control, I am a factor in that also. Even when we don’t or can’t agree on things it’s always nice to know that people are so passionate about their love for Christ, and I truly believe it’s that love that makes “most” of us try to show others how we feel about things. Even when people accuse one another of things, idolotry, false theology,etc,etc, I really think it’s just that we are concerned about our brothers and sisters and want everyone to know Christ. I try very hard not to let this kinda thing insult me, quite the contrary, I find it refreshing that we as Christians care about one another so much that we’ll yell it out at the top of our lungs. My Dad was a yeller, I have six brothers that are yellers, I get over it. God Bless.
S
SSTeacher
Guest
Guyonthestreet,
Yes you’re absolutely right. I’m currently checking into Catholicism but I’m comparing it to Orthodoxy as I do so (I’m comparing only the beliefs of Churches not the level of courtesy of the individual members). As far as I can see, as an outsider, the claim of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just as valid as that of the Catholic Church. The existence of both Churches making the exact same claim rather weakens the claim itself, methinks. I’ve got as far as “they can’t both be right,” which isn’t exactly what you might call progress.
Musingly,
Mick
G
Guyonthestreet
Guest
However, that would put paid to the claim that only thee catholic church has the real presence and apostolic succession.Guyonthestreet,
Yes you’re absolutely right. I’m currently checking into Catholicism but I’m comparing it to Orthodoxy as I do so (I’m comparing only the beliefs of Churches not the level of courtesy of the individual members). As far as I can see, as an outsider, the claim of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just as valid as that of the Catholic Church. The existence of both Churches making the exact same claim rather weakens the claim itself, methinks. I’ve got as far as “they can’t both be right,” which isn’t exactly what you might call progress.
Musingly,
Mick
S
SSTeacher
Guest
Yes, once again you present a sensible and reasoned argument.
It’s perhaps worthwhile bringing to mind from the Gospel accounts how Jesus treated women. At the risk of censure from the Hebrew good old boys club Jesus talked to women, responded to their touch, healed them, received their emotional and financial support and used them as main characters in His stories. He even welcomed a woman’s anointing of His head as indicative of her understanding of His real mission. Moreover, Jesus spoke directly to the matter of treating a woman as a sex object. In the Sermon on the Mount, He redefined adultery to include a lustful look. So as Jesus made religion a matter of the heart instead of the law He elevated women from the level of sexual exploitation to the level of full personhood.
Conclusion: The Founder of Christianity wasn’t rude to women (I’m making a feeble attempt to stay on topic).
Biblically,
Mick
R
Ross09
Guest
so, are you saying the Catholic Church is rude by denying women the priesthood?Yes, once again you present a sensible and reasoned argument.
It’s perhaps worthwhile bringing to mind from the Gospel accounts how Jesus treated women. At the risk of censure from the Hebrew good old boys club Jesus talked to women, responded to their touch, healed them, received their emotional and financial support and used them as main characters in His stories. He even welcomed a woman’s anointing of His head as indicative of her understanding of His real mission. Moreover, Jesus spoke directly to the matter of treating a woman as a sex object. In the Sermon on the Mount, He redefined adultery to include a lustful look. So as Jesus made religion a matter of the heart instead of the law He elevated women from the level of sexual exploitation to the level of full personhood.
Conclusion: The Founder of Christianity wasn’t rude to women (I’m making a feeble attempt to stay on topic).
Biblically,
Mick
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
**
Hi Guy,
Yes that is true,
I would never say it wasn’t. However, there are also Protestant groups who call themselves Orthodox and even Catholic pretending to be real churches rather than Counterfeit groups.
We embrace all our real Orthodox brothers and sisters who’s churches have apostolic succession. One strange thing I learnt is although we freely allow them to take our Communion, they often deny our people from taking their’s. When I learnt why I actually agreeded with them!
There are currently 212 real sects that have the authority given by Christ to his Followers, The 61,000 protestant groups are all imitation and counterfeit following the devil away from Jesus and His real teachings.the have the auithority to convert to the true faith. Many good and holy people are deceived and endangering their souls. They need prayers!
God Bless**
G
Guyonthestreet
Guest
**
When I learnt why I actually agreeded with them!
Dude, c’mon - why???
R
Realcatholicgk
Guest
**Hi SS,Guyonthestreet,
Yes you’re absolutely right. I’m currently checking into Catholicism but I’m comparing it to Orthodoxy as I do so (I’m comparing only the beliefs of Churches not the level of courtesy of the individual members). As far as I can see, as an outsider, the claim of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is just as valid as that of the Catholic Church. The existence of both Churches making the exact same claim rather weakens the claim itself, methinks. I’ve got as far as “they can’t both be right,” which isn’t exactly what you might call progress.
Musingly,
Mick
Well you are wrong again. But that isn’t any big surprise to me after reading other things you posted. I can save you the trouble.
They are both part of the One Holy Catholic Church and Apostolic Church by having valid apostolic succession and the Orthordox church’s claim of being “part of that church” is just as valid as the Roman Catholic Church’ s same claim. We are two parts of the One Holy Catholic Church and Apostolic Church. But I thought everyone knew that? We have always had the same basic beliefs. We recognize each other as valid parts of the church founded by Jesus, 2,000 years ago…Now the 61,000 groups identified as Protestant are a different story. They have too many false and distorted beliefs. The one thing they all agree with is that the real Holy Catholc Church is wrong and their individual chuch claims to be the :“new”" improved" real church! It is almost funny!
They come around 1,500 years after Jesus himself warned of their false teachers, and churches and pretend that they are Christ’s church! The real chuirch is 2,000 years old and does not recognize their false claims of even being churches. I have to admit I enjoy the TV guys they make me laugh! They are so phony that even their combovers need “curing”.
Ponder this! Real Christians are the “Body of Christ” Jesus is our head. The church has remained virtually unchanged for 2,000 years. The counterfeit groups started 500 years ago. They quickly divided, multiplied and became 33,000 denominations with over 28,000 sub denominations, communities, groups, sects, cults, socials, fellowships, potlucks, Jazz fests, whatever you wish to call them. That makes 61,000 groups they took the basic teachings of the real church added subtracted, expanded and decreased them until they use 1,375 different sets of dogmas. doctrines, beliefs.
I must be honest andadmit that their Bible is much better than their groups : Click on: Why Protestant Bible Is MuchBbetter Than The Groups That Read It!
If the body of Christ was a human body what would it be called? I am not a doctor, I am not a smart as most of you people here. But I know what a cancer is when I hear of it! There are 21 new groups formed monthly! Some believe that Protestants will divide to over 100,000 by 2050. I think it will be much sooner! The Devil must keep the confusion or people may figure out they are following a false teachings and belief systems.
I pray for all the Protestants that they may obtain eternal life and follow the real teachings of Jesus. Especially the ones outlined in John 6.
Remember to pray for an end of Abortion! God needs to hear all our voices crying out in anger against this crime against God Himself.
God Bless **
- Status