P
- Status
W
Whatthefluff
Guest
If you hate good, and/or dislike and do not wish to find truth, then don’t become Catholic.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
P
prodromos
Guest
Aside from the fact that the Eastern Patriarchs did no such thing, is this really your best argument AGAINST becoming Catholic?
P
prodromos
Guest
No, because the reformed churches did not spring from the bosom of the Arian church nor do they have heretical views with regard to the Trinity. Your post is a gross charicature of what I posted, though Randy seemed to like it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are taking the analogy too far.
Your position is this: Christians disagreed about the papacy. It’s caused a lot of splintering. Therefore, the papacy is a bad thing to promote.
That would also apply to this: Christians disagreed about the Trinity. It’s caused a lot of splintering. Therefore, the Trinity is a bad thing to promote.
How do you refute the above?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I feel like another analogy is in order:
Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring.
What you are doing is saying, “The above is not correct because earlobes are fleshy cartilage and Christmas trees are piney and sticky. Nor are earlobes only for Christmas.”
Your rejection of the analogy demonstrates an inability to grasp analogies. Where they are alike (in this case, both analogs are hung and a decorate), we say
, where they are dissimilar (Christmas trees are not cartilaginous, earrings are for all seasons, ornaments are put away at the end of the season, earlobes are attached to a body, etc etc etc), we ignore.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jesus has divided people for centuries.
Wars have been fought between Christians and non-Christians.
Wars are bad.
Therefore, Jesus is bad.
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
prodromos
Guest
No, you have simply not understood my post as intended.
No that is not my position. My position is that in the hundreds of sects splintering out of Western christendom, each believer is his/her own pope.
No, they are not at all similar. Your caricature also fails because non trinitarians are a tiny minority compared to trinitarians.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah, well, then, you are very Catholic when you say this.
LOL!
That’s exactly like my previous example: You are saying my Christmas tree/ear lobe analogy fails because Christmas trees have little spiney things and earlobes don’t.
But any person with even a rudimentary grasp of analogies understands that the Christmas tree/ear lobe analogy is right on the money.
You can only say it’s a false analogy if you take some weird disparate detail and point it out. “It’s attached to a body and Christmas trees aren’t!” “It’s got sap running through it and earlobes don’t!” But it’s only a tiny minority compared to trinitarians!"
G
guanophore
Guest
What are you saying? Your Bible does not have the word kath holos in Acts 9:31?
Not to worry about your meagre collection. The Early Church Fathers can be accessed free online.
You are asserting that there was no hierarchical structure to the early church, but the writings of the disciples of the Apostles indicate otherwise. Are you saying that you cannot bear exposure to the facts of history?
If you can find this rule in the Bible, then I will follow it.
I am sorry ,Cube2, but the material you reference here are from private devotions. They are not contained in the Catechism, and the faithful are not required to embrace them.
If you wish to have a discussion or debate about Catholic teachings, please start with what the Church actually teaches, which is found in the Catechism.
If you are saying that your best reason for not becoming Catholic is because you don’t care for another person’s prayer devotions, I think that is absurd.
Well, none of those you have given have any validity, so perhaps you would like to try again? I recommend you start with something that is in the Catechism.
B
benhur
Guest
Yes truth separates. Jesus said it would. We are also told falseness does the same, the flip side . Back to square one. Sin is ugly . Sin divides. We don’t only abhor sin sin because it divides but because it is sin. If one disbelieves in the papacy, they eschew it because of it’s error as well as any negative consequences ( eg. division). Not sure it is being put forth by Podromos that because papacy divides it must be wrong, rather it is wrong by itself, and it divides
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, this is the Apostolic teaching. The effects of our sins, any “dead works” must be purified from us because nothing unclean can enter heaven.
Our belief in this place of purification and waiting of the just came from the Jews, who referred to it as the “bosom of Abraham”. It was the place of the righteous dead who were waiting for the gates of heaven to be opened.
With all due respect, you seem to have very little understanding about Catholic teaching. I am curious about how you came to determine what was “less emphasized”.
I probably would, because I know that Mary’s message to the disciples of Jesus is to “do whatever He tells you”, but since these are part of a private devotion, and not included in the Catechism, it is irrelevant. If you want to debate “Catholic Teaching”, then start with what the Church teaches!
Well, we read them differently.
Are you saying that your best reason for not becoming Catholic is because the words “Lamb’s book of Life” are not written in enough places?
I am not sure where you got this idea. Perhaps you could give a reference?
Have you ever read the book of Macabees? It was written a couple thousand years before the date you are giving.
The thief was experiencing a purging while on the cross. He admitted that he deserved his punishment because of his wrongdoing. He was suffering the consequences of his sins.
We don’t know if he still needed further purging in the place of the righteous dead, referred to here by Jesus as ‘paradise’. What we do know is that it was not heaven, because the gates of heaven were not opened until Jesus’ ascension, 40 days after his resurrection. We also know that Jesus did not go to heaven that day, but to the place of the dead (Hades) to preach the Gospel to the souls “in prison” there.
Jesus also taught that one would not be released from prison until they have paid “the last penny”.
G
guanophore
Guest
Glad to see you still in the discussion Cube2. Many fundamentalists who have been indoctrinated in anti-catholic fallacies flee when they come across committed Christians who know their scriptures.
Declarations of faith, such as the Theotokos and the contents of the Canon of Scripture do not imply that the Church did not believe these things prior to the declarations. The NT was solid and complete for hundreds of years before it was declared by the council.
This is a false line of reasoning, Cube2. There was never an attempt to make write a full compendium of the faith. The NT is a collection of letters and memoirs, not a manual for the faith. There are many aspects of the faith that are not included in the NT, including the word Trinity, which you will not find in your bible either.
And you will also note that there were 120 people in the Upper Room at Pentecost, referred to as “the brethren of the Lord”, so if your claim is true, Mary must have been popping out babies by the half dozen for years!
This is true about a great many dogmas, such as the declaration of the canon in 382. Jesus left an authorative Church, one which could make infallible declarations of the faith to combat heresies.
Declarations of faith, such as the Theotokos and the contents of the Canon of Scripture do not imply that the Church did not believe these things prior to the declarations. The NT was solid and complete for hundreds of years before it was declared by the council.
Code:
If the title Mother of God was in use by the Apostles, at least one of them would have mentioned it in the 27 books of the NT.This is true. Mary only ever had one child, and it was Jesus, the Son of God, making her the Mother of God.
This cannot really be asserted with any validity. We have more historical documentation on Paul’s preaching, but that does not invalidate the preaching done by the rest of the Apostles.
And you will also note that there were 120 people in the Upper Room at Pentecost, referred to as “the brethren of the Lord”, so if your claim is true, Mary must have been popping out babies by the half dozen for years!
G
guanophore
Guest
It seems that you are severely lacking in knowledge about the Palestinian context of these passages. First, there is no word in Aramaic for “cousin”, so that cousins and near kinsman are all referred to as “brothers”. Second, the Jews existed in a tribal structure, just as many Arab and indiginous people continue to do today. Anyone who is born within one’s clan is considered too close for marriage, and is considered a brother or sister (near blood relations).
You see it there because you have accepted the doctrine first, then read the scriptures according to your preconceived notions. But there are plenty of people who reject the Trinity, and when they read these verses, they understand them differently.
The point is that the word Trinity, just like the words “hypostatic union” and 'Theotokos" were adopted by the church hundreds of years after the NT was written.
No, Cube2. There was never any effort to include all aspects of the faith in writing. Jesus never commanded anyone to write what He taught them. He commanded them to make disciples, teaching all that He had commanded. The One Faith lives in the Church. The Church produced the Bible. When the books of the NT were written, it did not invalidate the Word of God that is alive and well in the Church.
You are mistaken, Cube2. The Church declared that Mary was taken into heaven by her Son. This teaching did not come from the Scripture, but from the faith of the Apostles. The faith of the Apostles is reflected in the book of Revelation (because the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics). There are other interpretations of the images in the Apocalypse.
The other views of the meaning of the woman in Revelation? No, there are many ways to understand these images. None of them need to deny that Mary was taken into heaven by her Son.
The Catholic Church is not “bible based”. Our faith comes from the Apostles, not extracting things out of scripture verses. We are not “people of the book” but part of a living entity that is the Bride of Christ.
The CC has only infallibly interpreted a small handful of verses.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is a righteous concern, but it is the result of the errant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, not an inherent problem with the office of the Patriarch. If there was a flaw in the nature of Patriarchy that caused this, we would see it in other areas as well, but we don’t. Denominalism is a peculiarity of Christians who attempted to replace the authority of their Bishops with the fallacy of Sola Scriptura. It does not mean there is something wrong with the Bishopric.
P
Peter_J
Guest
That’s quite a generalization you’ve got there.
(Of course, if any traditionalist Catholics are reading this, I might get blasted for being “Protestant friendly” or whatever.
)
C
Contarini
Guest
My difficulty isn’t really so much in accepting such things for myself (the most I would say about any Catholic teaching is that I’m not sure–there are no Catholic teachings, even the male-only priesthood which comes closest, which I’m sure are false) as in accepting that these teachings ought to divide me from my fellow Christians. In other words, that those who cannot accept these teachings are material heretics and rightly excluded from full communion with the Church. If all Protestants thought like me, the schism would end today.
And for what it’s worth, I’m still in RCIA.
Edwin
G
guanophore
Guest
Well then let us pray really hard for that!
- Status