I'm calling on everyone here in this forum EXCEPT Catholics !!!

[Cinette]

No one said they were. Also the Copts are back in communion with Rome.

Perhaps you might explain this to me.

I know an Egyptian who said that Copts were not in communion with Rome - at least not all Copts.

About a year ago a group of Copts came to sing for us during Mass - very beautiful - but they did not receive communion???!! So I assumed that they were of the non-communion variety.

Please explain.

 

[cascherman]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches are in Full Commumnion with the Vatican. Full communion. And have been for years.
There has been bo question of the valid apostolic succession of the Eastern Orthodox 22 Sects.
And the Orthodox Churches also have Recognized Apostolic succession. And they are pending Full Communion with the Vatican in a few years, as the Eastern Orthodox have.

All authentic Roman, Eastern and Orthodox Catholic Churches devolved from the Apostles. And we constitute over 70% of all Christiand, in numbers now.

Some technical differences caused the seperations, in overview.

You are confusing a couple titles.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches are NOT in communion with the Pope.

The Eastern Catholic Churches ARE in communion with the Pope.

Both have apostolic succession.

But, I definitely pray that the Eastern Orthodox Churches do come into communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[sambos671]

Perhaps you might explain this to me.

I know an Egyptian who said that Copts were not in communion with Rome - at least not all Copts.

About a year ago a group of Copts came to sing for us during Mass - very beautiful - but they did not receive communion???!! So I assumed that they were of the non-communion variety.

Please explain.

Well, The Alexandrian Copts and Some of the Ethiopian Copts are in communion. But this does not include all of them just as several prevously orthodox now eastern rite churches have not returned in communion with Rome. I would guess these copts not in communion want to hold on to their Monophysite views. The priorly Nestorian churches (assyrian) have returned as well.

 

[cascherman]

No one said they were. Also the Copts are back in communion with Rome.

The Coptic Catholic Church is in communion with the Pope

The Coptic Orthodox Church is not. So much so they have their own Pope, in the seat of St. Mark based in Alexandria.

You may have meant that, I am just clarifying.

I have noticed a trend in the Orthodox and Eastern Churches. At least some of the followers of the Eastern Orthodox Churches at some point saw the error of their ways and out sprouts a group under the same name that is separate from the original and also is in communion with the Pope. This creates a ‘duplicate’ that runs by a semi-same name. (i.e. the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Catholic Church)

This generally creates confusion.

 

[benedictus2]

389670:

benedictus2:

Why don’t you start citing denomination and scripture passages now?

*How about the Eastern Orthodox. I think they claim to have come directly from apostles. *

The Orthodox Church is NOT a protestant denomination. They truly have apostolic succession.

This link will give you an idea of the reason for the schism Timeline of the East-West Schism of the Catholic and Orthodox Church

 

[sambos671]

The Orthodox Church is NOT a protestant denomination. They truly have apostolic succession.

This link will give you an idea of the reason for the schism Timeline of the East-West Schism of the Catholic and Orthodox Church

Who’s claiming that the Orthodox don’t have apostolic succession?

 

[benedictus2]

Who’s claiming that the Orthodox don’t have apostolic succession?

Please go back to the posts and re-read.

I am acknowledging what 389670 said but what I am pointing out to him is that the Orthodox Church is NOT protestant and so cannot be used as a reply to my original request for someone to name protestant denominations who can trace their roots to 1st century Christians. Clear enough?

 

[sambos671]

Please go back to the posts and re-read.

I am acknowledging what 389670 said but what I am pointing out to him is that the Orthodox Church is NOT protestant and so cannot be used as a reply to my original request for someone to name protestant denominations who can trace their roots to 1st century Christians. Clear enough?

Yes. I think. I’m to lazy to go back and read. Protestants can only trace their beginings back to the Catholic church those some will try. They will refer to a pamphlet called trail of blood which has all sorts of fallacies. Some will even go as far to say that they were the right 1st century church but evidence was wiped out when Constantine corrupted the Roman Church. The fact there is no evidence of this does not hinder.

 

[robgrassley]

Your right. Maybe they should check youtube as well to get some really credible stuff. Are you kidding me? You really want someones salvation hanging on to a google search of African, Catholic witch craft.
I have have a better idea Ag_not. Study the history of the Bible. Find out where it comes from. Research what went into choosing the books that are in the Bible. Tell me by what authority did these people say these would be the books of the Bible. Did they belong to a church? What church was it? What church preserved and took care of it and copied it infallibly for 1200years util the second savior, Martin Luther came along and gave everyone the bible that we had already given everyone. Research the writtings by the Early Church Fathers. phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/40
Many of these men were taught by the Apostles and are even mentioned in the New Testament. These men ironically sound very Catholic. In fact some of there writting were written even before some of the New Testament.
I beg you not to hinge your salvation upon fast food media sites filled with garbage and predigested by venomus anticatholics.
I would stongly suggest you pick up a free cd called “The Conversion of Scott Hahn.” You can find it online. Its a cd by a gentlemen who is a Dr in biblical studies and was formerly a huge Anti-Catholic until he really learned how to read the scriptures in context and understood the true Jewishness of the Christian faith.
We can’t read the bible ourselves without a thourough understanding of Judaism, an understanding of the language of Aramaic and Greek. The Bible was not written in the context of living in a individualistic, autonomous, democracy. It was written in a place not much different then the place the Middle East is today. A Kingdom, with Kings and rulers, with tribes and small interdependent communities. Where you could be nailed to a tree for saying certian un-kosher things. Christianity is Not American. Could you imagine if the founding fathers of this country wrote the US Constitution and didn’t put in place a Supreme Court and just mailed everyone in the country a copy and said go ahead and interprate it for yourself for the rest of time. Jesus didn’t do that either. He gave us the Apostles to interpret His message and the Apostles appointed people to succeed them. And these people are called Bishops to this day. There has been an unbroken line of Bishops sinse the the day that Christ left this world. Please study Church history.

Thanks Richard - can you specify these rituals/occultism that is sanctioned by the church and the countries concerned so I can research them.

That’s take a few days or so. I’m working on a book project now, so between snacks, coffee, and breaks, I’ll try to hunt some down. Fo yourself, you might want to start taking a look at practices in South America and Africa. Maybe do a google search on those countries + Roman Catholic and words like witchcraft or occult. Also, I believe there was even some news articles back a while that talked about how a lot of Italian RC’s also believe in and practice certain facets of old folk magick/witchcraft.

peace,

RA

 

[benedictus2]

Your right. Maybe they should check youtube as well to get some really credible stuff. Are you kidding me? You really want someones salvation hanging on to a google search of African, Catholic witch craft.
I have have a better idea Ag_not. Study the history of the Bible. Find out where it comes from. Research what went into choosing the books that are in the Bible. Tell me by what authority did these people say these would be the books of the Bible. Did they belong to a church? What church was it? What church preserved and took care of it and copied it infallibly for 1200years util the second savior, Martin Luther came along and gave everyone the bible that we had already given everyone. Research the writtings by the Early Church Fathers. phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/40
Many of these men were taught by the Apostles and are even mentioned in the New Testament. These men ironically sound very Catholic. In fact some of there writting were written even before some of the New Testament.
I beg you not to hinge your salvation upon fast food media sites filled with garbage and predigested by venomus anticatholics.
I would stongly suggest you pick up a free cd called “The Conversion of Scott Hahn.” You can find it online. Its a cd by a gentlemen who is a Dr in biblical studies and was formerly a huge Anti-Catholic until he really learned how to read the scriptures in context and understood the true Jewishness of the Christian faith.
We can’t read the bible ourselves without a thourough understanding of Judaism, an understanding of the language of Aramaic and Greek. The Bible was not written in the context of living in a individualistic, autonomous, democracy. It was written in a place not much different then the place the Middle East is today. A Kingdom, with Kings and rulers, with tribes and small interdependent communities. Where you could be nailed to a tree for saying certian un-kosher things. Christianity is Not American. Could you imagine if the founding fathers of this country wrote the US Constitution and didn’t put in place a Supreme Court and just mailed everyone in the country a copy and said go ahead and interprate it for yourself for the rest of time. Jesus didn’t do that either. He gave us the Apostles to interpret His message and the Apostles appointed people to succeed them. And these people are called Bishops to this day. There has been an unbroken line of Bishops sinse the the day that Christ left this world. Please study Church history.

Great Stuff! I did post a few books and some websites that I think Ag_Not will find helpfull in sorting through the lies that would have been presented as truth by some protestants. Rome Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberley Hahn I think will be a great eye opener for any protestant who would bother to read.

 

[robgrassley]

Try aiming before you shoot. Your just shooting everywhere. Your not quoting anything in context, and your interpretations are horrible. If your bible says Roman 3:28 “your saved by faith alone”, you have a heretical Bible. Martin Luther inserted that the word ALONE to fit his new tradition of men. As I’m sure you know the Catholic Church is in the busines of burnig Bibles. Heretical Bibles. The only place in the bible where you find “faith alone” is in James 2:24 “See how a person is justified by works and not by FAITH ALONE.” Okay now do that little dance to make that verse not say what it so very clearly says. I get very confused when I get done hearing a Protestant sculpt that verse to fit his tradition.
May I suggest you quit sailing on the waters of scripture and get a scuba tank and really dive into the scriptures.

The basic doctrine of Salvation for starters.

RCC=Roman Catholic Church
CCC= Catechism of the Catholic Church with number reference

1. RCC: Justification is a transformation of the soul in which original sin is removed and sanctifying grace infused (CCC 1987-1995)
   BIBLE: Justification is an act of God in which He dclares a sinner to be righteous in His sight, having forgiven his sins and imputed to the sinner God’s own righteousness. (Romans 3:21-4:8)
2. RCC: Initial justification is by means of baptism (CCC 1262-1274)
   BIBLE: Justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28)
3. RCC: Adults must prepare for justification through faith and good works (CCC 1247-1249)
   BIBLE:God justifies ungodly sinners who believe (Romans 4:5). Good works are the *result * of salvation, not the means to or cause of it (Ephesians 2:8-10)
4. RCC: The justified are in themselves beautiful and holy in God’s sight (CCC 1992, 1999-2000, 2024)
   BIBLE: The justified are *in Christ *holy and blameless before God. (Ephesians 1:1-14)
5. RCC:Justification is furthered by sacraments and good works (CCC 1212, 1392, 2010)
   BIBLE: Justification is the imputation of the perfect righteouness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). In Christ the believer has been made complete (Colossians 2:10)
6. RCC: Justification is lost through mortal sin (CCC 1033, 1855, 1874)
   BIBLE: Justification cannot be lost. Those whom God justifies WILL be saved from the wrath of God. (Romans 5: 8,9)
7. RCC: Catholics guilty of mortal sin are justified again through the sacrament of penance (CCC 980, 1446)
   BIBLE: There is NO second justification. Those whom God justifies, He also glorifies (Romans 8:30)
8. RCC: Salvation from eternal consequences of sin is a lifelong process (CCC 161-162, 1254-1255)
   BIBLE: Salvation from the eternal consequences of sin is an instantaneous and secure act of God coinciding with justification (Romans 5:9)
9. RCC: Salvation is attained *by cooperating with *grace through faith, good works and participation in the sacraments (CCC 183, 1129, 1815, 2002)
   BIBLE: Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are the result, not the cause, of salvation (Ephesian 2:10)
10. RCC: Faith is belief in God and the firm acceptance of all that the Church proposes for belief (CCC 181-182, 1814)
    BIBLE: Saving faith is the entrusting of oneself to Christ as Lord and Savior (Romans 10:8-17)

That should be enough to keep you busy for awhile. Have fun!

 

[robgrassley]

As Steve Ray says “the Church Fathers are very subversive literarture for Protestants.” He read the Church Fathers right before becoming Catholic. As a matter of fact I have 10 or so conversion stories of different ‘Evangelical’(I don’t like saying that either) Pastors. The last thing they all read before becoming Catholic was the Church Fathers.
Also, in my opinion(take that with grain of salt), I believe it very difficult for non Catholics to understand Marian theology before understanding Petrine theology and Apostolic succession. Its hard for a non Catholic to understand that Marian theology is what it is because the Peter/Pope/Vicar said so.
Also much of Marian theology is in Rev 12.

Justification by faith alone is a problem. Not insurmountable however. Rom 5;9 is no longer a problem for me. I don’t read this as as being counter to the Roman Catholic position.

Marian doctrine as co-redeemer is a mystery to me. Again, though, not insurmountable. It seems quite mystical to me (but then again, I tend to the mystical).

I’d have to say that I am open to the RCC positions, now. I’ve read quite a bit lately (last five years). About the Reformation history, Luther’s history, the positons of ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together). Also bits of the Catechism, where I’ve tried to understand the RCC positions.

Also I’m looking at the early Church Fathers, a negleted fount of learning that the evangelicals seem to discount.

The more I listen to evangelicals the less I want to be a part of there movement. And on that point, Roman Catholics are just as evangelical as the Evangelicals. A silly name, I think–Evangelicals–since the word simply means someone who spreads the Gospel, including Catholics.

 

[benedictus2]

As Steve Ray says “the Church Fathers are very subversive literarture for Protestants.” He read the Church Fathers right before becoming Catholic. As a matter of fact I have 10 or so conversion stories of different ‘Evangelical’(I don’t like saying that either) Pastors. The last thing they all read before becoming Catholic was the Church Fathers.
Also, in my opinion(take that with grain of salt), I believe it very difficult for non Catholics to understand Marian theology before understanding Petrine theology and Apostolic succession. Its hard for a non Catholic to understand that Marian theology is what it is because the Peter/Pope/Vicar said so.
Also much of Marian theology is in Rev 12.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye! I myself have always maintained that the critical issue is Papal Infallibility. Not Marian Doctrines, Not the Eucharist, Sacraments nor Purgatory.

If it can be established that Papa Infallibility is True and correct, it therefore follows that everything else that the Church teaches is true and correct.

Without acknowledging Papal Infallibility, the infallibility of the Bible becomes questionable and so with the other doctrines such as The Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ’s humanity and divinity.

So really, Papal Infallibility is the doctrine upon which the Catholic faith stands or falls and yet some would say that they believe this doctrine or that and yet do not agree with Papal infallibility. Inconsistent IMO.

 

[robgrassley]

You can’t in a sole scriptura mind set. You have to be able to trust the athority of THE Church to lead in in faith and morals. Thats why Jesus appointed Peter, and the Apostles to begin HIS athoritative Church. So there would be no division or scism. As a matter of scripture, to not be in an Apostolic Church is unbilblical - Mt 16:18. Christ only established 1 Church, which can be traced back to the day of this passage. The apostles and there successor have the power to “bind and loose” and lead us in interpretations. They haven’t misinterpreted scripture in 2000 years. Thats a good track record.

Ok - now that is kinda my point.

How do you know that they are correct?

And again - once you receive an interpretation from these biblical experts - how do you know that you are understanding their interpretations correctly?

 

[robgrassley]

Don’t know if you seen these yet. But its a good starting place to bounce Mt 16:13-20 off of. If he meant what he said in Mt 16:18-19and then look at these writting about succession and a distinct authority given to the Bishop of Rome, you start swimming in shark infested Catholic waters.

Clement of Rome

“Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect.”
“You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy, in accord with the plea for peace and concord which we have made in this letter” (Epistle to the Corinthians, circa A.D. 80]).

Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The
Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Hear Ye, Hear Ye! I myself have always maintained that the critical issue is Papal Infallibility. Not Marian Doctrines, Not the Eucharist, Sacraments nor Purgatory.

If it can be established that Papa Infallibility is True and correct, it therefore follows that everything else that the Church teaches is true and correct.

Without acknowledging Papal Infallibility, the infallibility of the Bible becomes questionable and so with the other doctrines such as The Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ’s humanity and divinity.

So really, Papal Infallibility is the doctrine upon which the Catholic faith stands or falls and yet some would say that they believe this doctrine or that and yet do not agree with Papal infallibility. Inconsistent IMO.

 

[robgrassley]

Thank you for your civil tone. Things get a little warm in hear sometimes. I’d just like to say that if anything the Catholic Church teaching in anyway contradicts the Bible all of us on this site will leave the Catholic Church. I assure you not one doctrine of The Church counters scripture. But I will also say in addition to scripture we do teach other things not in scripture but things were taught orally to the early Church. Are you to say that one form of the Gospel is better than the other? As a matter of fact it would of been quite stupid of our Savior to spread this message by writting 1500 years before the printin press. He told them to go out and Preach, not write. The Bible is only a portion of the deposit of faith Christ gave us. And its only the Bible because our Tradition says so. We decided that these 27 books would be part of our faith by our tradition. Jesus didn’t tell us to. We made this decision over the course of 350 years The bible says all scripture is profitable for teaching but in no way says the bible is our only teacher (this by the way is refering to the Old Testament as the new one was not yet written). Quite to the contrary scripture speaks of oral teachings that weren’t written down - 2thes-2:15, 2tm-2:2, 1pt-1:25, 1cor-11:2, 1cor-15:11 mt-23:3, mk-16:15, lk-10:16, rom-10:17. I’ll stop there. I could keep going a long time. I would encourage you to study the first 300 years of Christianity, The Early Church Father, and see how they made out without the bible. They taught what was taught to them by the Apostles. We could have a Church without the Bible, but we could not a Bible with The Church. Don’t get me wrong, I view scripture as the infalible word of God. You should see how the Holy Scriptures, Sacra Pagina, are venerated at a Catholic Mass. Especially the Gospels. At my local Church, which was common for about 1500 years prior to the second vatican counsel, we surround them with insense and candles to magnify the glory of the good news they contain.
Pax

Hi Saika. First of all, I hope that I didn’t offend you with my previous response (ie. first part of it). It was meant for a smile. I actually got lost in the interpretaion of what exactly the underlying point was, that you were trying to make. I meant no offense to you.

God’s churches must be based on the original Word of God that was given unto us by the apostles. If you look closely at the multitudes of so-called Christian churches that we find in the world today, and compare their beliefs, doctrines, rules, regulations, etc., etc.,…, and compare these to the original Word of God (per the writings of the apostles & OT), deviations from the original teachings become evident. These deviations are caused by man’s own vanity. Some of these deviations are in fact in direct conflict with the Word of God.

I have done a lot of research on a great deal of ‘Christian’ faiths/religious beliefs, and have found not one ‘church’, in fact, following the original Word. This includes Protestant as well as RC/Orthodox faiths. If the Word of God IS GOD, and we deviate from His Word, then does it not stand to reason, that we worship a different God?

The Word of God was given unto us, as a STANDARD. Every person will be measured against this standard, on judgement day. It is also written, that the ministers of God’s Word, will be judged. They will be held accountable for any deviations to His Word, that they have preached unto His sheep. However, it is also the responsibility of every single ‘sheep’ to read and become familiar with His Word. Without doing so, they are unable to discern as to what is true or false in what they have just been taught. Ministers are human beings just like the sheep. They can make errors in regards to interpretation of difficult passages found in the scriptures. They are doing the best that they can, in most cases, having devoted their lives to this cause, but on occasion, they have left their wisdom to ‘vanity’, rather than properly seeking wisdom from God. At times, God will not respond right away. It may takes years before He does, but He will respond. This is part of learning ‘patience and obedience’, as Christ had to. It often becomes a test of the strength of our faith. We as human beings, in this day and age, want everything ‘right now’. This is sinful.

We should not, as Christians, correspond amongst ourselves with hatred in our hearts, but discuss differences of opinion in a peaceful manner. This glorifies God. This is what we are commanded to do.

 

[benedictus2]

Don’t know if you seen these yet. But its a good starting place to bounce Mt 16:13-20 off of. If he meant what he said in Mt 16:18-19and then look at these writting about succession and a distinct authority given to the Bishop of Rome, you start swimming in shark infested Catholic waters.

Clement of Rome

“Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect.”
“You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy, in accord with the plea for peace and concord which we have made in this letter” (Epistle to the Corinthians, circa A.D. 80]).

Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The
Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

I haven’t thanks very much. Do you know of any websites on these?

 

[Sailka]

Hear Ye, Hear Ye! I myself have always maintained that the critical issue is Papal Infallibility. Not Marian Doctrines, Not the Eucharist, Sacraments nor Purgatory.

If it can be established that Papa Infallibility is True and correct, it therefore follows that everything else that the Church teaches is true and correct.

Without acknowledging Papal Infallibility, the infallibility of the Bible becomes questionable and so with the other doctrines such as The Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ’s humanity and divinity.

So really, Papal Infallibility is the doctrine upon which the Catholic faith stands or falls and yet some would say that they believe this doctrine or that and yet do not agree with Papal infallibility. Inconsistent IMO.

Where in the Bible does it say it is infallible? Where did God say that?
Note God says in 1 Timothy 3:15 that Truth on Earth is in the Apostles (now known as their Directly descended Bishops) and His Church.

Where does God say he is giving us The Book to Save us?
And I suggest The Church stands, Grows on Our Lord’s Teachings and Sacraments, not Papal Infallibility. BTW, The Pope and the Church have Never changed a Basic Dogma, Teaching. Neither has the Pope. Does that not suggest Infallibility for The Pope and the Magestarium?

 

[Roamin_Xian]

OP- in no particular order, and difficulty limited to three, per your request

• Extra-biblical Marian doctrines (Immaculate conception, apparitions, perpetual virginity, Assumption).
• Papal infallibility (the fact it took until 1870 to make this “infallible” Church doctrine is condemning of the very notion)
• Contradictions of doctrine (especially salvation of non-Catholics, pre-and-post Vatican II)

 

[Ag_not]

• Contradictions of doctrine (especially salvation of non-Catholics, pre-and-post Vatican II)

Can you put up here the documents you’re referrring to. Thanks.