Is Jeffrey Dahmer in Heaven?

[Syele]

I really don’t get what you have against Rome anyhow.

Had I the power…

Obviously those in Power don’t have a problem with it. Why make up your own rules?

I would love to. It’s bad enough when protestants use the term, but when Catholics who ought to know better do…

IF their Church has it on the sign outside and those in power have no problem with the it why should they “know Better”?

Oh, I have. Again, ignorance is never a good thing.

Good, read up a bit on what sort of mess it causes to insist on being unspecific. catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0601fea4.asp

 

[Cathdefender]

The “Roman Church” isn’t a “branch” of the Church. It’s the whole entirety of what Christ founded upon the earth. He did not come back to earth in 1524 to found the “Lutheran branch” of the Catholic Church. Nor did He come back to the earth at any other time, to found any other “branch” of the Church. All of these “branches” are man-made. But even so, these cannot be considered “branches” of Christ’s Church, because they didn’t keep a connection with the Church at all.

If the other churches (Lutheran, Baptist, etc.) had kept a connection with the “Roman Church,” then these would be “branches” of the Roman Church. But they did not - they separated completely. So, they cannot be considered “part of” what Christ established upon the earth as being His Church.

:clapping:

 

[LutheranDK]

The “Roman Church” isn’t a “branch” of the Church. It’s the whole entirety of what Christ founded upon the earth. He did not come back to earth in 1524 to found the “Lutheran branch” of the Catholic Church. Nor did He come back to the earth at any other time, to found any other “branch” of the Church. All of these “branches” are man-made. But even so, these cannot be considered “branches” of Christ’s Church, because they didn’t keep a connection with the Church at all.

If the other churches (Lutheran, Baptist, etc.) had kept a connection with the “Roman Church,” then these would be “branches” of the Roman Church. But they did not - they separated completely. So, they cannot be considered “part of” what Christ established upon the earth as being His Church.

What happened in 1524?
1521 was Worms
1530 was Augsburg

Anyway, I believe I’ve already answered these objections so many times that I’m just not going to go through the whole thing again.
I will just say this: If I believed what you’re saying here, don’t you think I’d join the Roman-Catholic (this time it wasn’t me that used the term “Roman Church”) church?

 

[Pong]

I don’t have anything against Rome; I love it dearly.

Obviously those in Power don’t have a problem with it. Why make up your own rules?

Whom, in power? The term “Roman Catholic” cannot be found in any official Church document because it isn’t the proper name. Catholics in our rite are called Latin Rite Catholics, if and when the need arises to differentiate between the two rites. If no such need exists, the word Catholic is right and proper.

IF their Church has it on the sign outside and those in power have no problem with the it why should they “know Better”?

Because as I have said, the term “Roman Catholic” is not a proper way to refer to a Catholic Church. We are the Catholic Church and it’s time we start reclaiming that term from those who have no right to use it.

 

[Cathdefender]

If you show a Protestant an apple, he’ll say it’s a pear…

 

[Syele]

I don’t have anything against Rome; I love it dearly.

Whom, in power? The term “Roman Catholic” cannot be found in any official Church document because it isn’t the proper name. Catholics in our rite are called Latin Rite Catholics, if and when the need arises to differentiate between the two rites. If no such need exists, the word Catholic is right and proper.

The ones in charge of making the signs for a large number of your churches.

Because as I have said, the term “Roman Catholic” is not a proper way to refer to a Catholic Church. We are the Catholic Church and it’s time we start reclaiming that term from those who have no right to use it.

So the Orthodox and Eastern rites have no right to use the name Catholic?

 

[Pong]

If you show a Protestant an apple, he’ll say it’s a pear…

Heh. Especially if a Catholic says it’s an apple.

 

[jmcrae]

So the Orthodox and Eastern rites have no right to use the name Catholic?

What is the “Orthodox Rite”?

The Eastern Rite is certainly Catholic, and equally certainly, not Roman.

The only Orthodox I know of are in schism, and thus, not Catholic.

 

[LutheranDK]

“Yes. You believe that you are a “dunghill covered in snow,” and that spring never comes, in Heaven. That God will be somehow fooled into thinking that you are pure snow through and through.”

Please read my latest post on this again…

"Did you get the point that I was trying to make? (That it’s summer in Heaven, and dunghills don’t get covered in snow there. We have to be perfected by the time we get there.) "

And the point I was trying to make is that by faith we ARE perfect here and now.

“By “putting faith in” we mean joining the Church and partaking of the Sacraments, right?”

No, I don’t. I mean “believing in what Christ did on Calvary”.
And no - I’m not downplaying the importance of Christian fellowship, and the essential help that God gives us in Baptism and Holy Communion.
I’m just saying that your definition of “putting faith in Christ” is much, much too narrow.

“And that we are on the road to holiness - each day is better than the last, and each Confession has fewer sins, and less serious sins in it, than the last, right?”

No. Again - I’m NOT saying: “Don’t care about good deeds and growing in holiness!”. I’m saying:
Good works doesn’t save. Christians do good works not IN ORDER TO be saved, but BECAUSE we are saved.
Justification and growing in holiness are not the same proces from my view. Growing in holiness is what comes after Justification, and justification is a requisite for growing in holiness. Two distincts processes.

“Until finally, there is nothing left to confess.”

That day will never come for anyone that is not deluding themselves.

“When we participate in the Sacraments, the blood of Christ is applied to our souls, and our sins are washed off, yes. We also develop habits of holiness that will cause us to avoid sinning in the future.”

You’re missing my point here. I’m saying that atonement is not something that I have to achieve on a daily basis. I’m saying that atonement WAS achieved for me 2000 years ago.

"Where does Scripture teach “past, present, and future”? "

I can start answering this question (could go on and on, but it’s 3.35 AM here) by saying:
Past sins + present sins + future sins = all sins.

“Only if they are confessed and absolved. There is no such thing as “pre-forgiveness of sins.” Otherwise St. Paul would not have written 13 letters telling people to behave themselves, in case they lose the salvation that Christ so dearly bought for them.”

And lose that salvations how?
That’s right - by falling from the faith.

 

[Pong]

The ones in charge of making the signs for a large number of your churches.

That’s just it. They’re not really in power, they’re just making the signs. But they should at least make them so that they read properly.

So the Orthodox and Eastern rites have no right to use the name Catholic?

The Eastern Rite churches are already Catholic. They should also call themselves Catholic and may use Eastern Rite Catholic when necessary. The Orthodox, while maintaing apostolic succession, are not in communion with the Catholic Church and thus should not use the term. But funnily enough, they seem to know that.

EDIT- jmcrae- You beat me to it! :clapping:

 

[jmcrae]

"

And lose that salvations how?
That’s right - by falling from the faith.

By sinning. Yes.

 

[LutheranDK]

If you show a Protestant an apple, he’ll say it’s a pear…

If you show a Roman-Catholic a tree, he’ll say it’s a bush.

Now, could we stop mindlessly throwing mud and start acting like adults?

 

[LutheranDK]

By sinning. Yes.

No one sin can make you fall from the faith, no.

Yes, living in sin WILL cause you to fall from faith, but that’s another matter entirely.

Don’t make me go through Greek conjugations…not at this late hour

 

[Syele]

What is the “Orthodox Rite”?

The Eastern Rite is certainly Catholic, and equally certainly, not Roman.

The only Orthodox I know of are in schism, and thus, not Catholic.

Forgive my punctuation. I was under the impression that the Orthodox Church was Catholic. I wasn’t trying to say the “Orthodox Rite” never heard of such a thing.

And if I want to distinguish between the Roman rite and the Eastern rite I will still say “Roman Catholic” Cause you are one! Just the same as Id Rather be called “Christian” than protestant. Heck Id rather be called “Bible-Thumper” than Protestant, but I don’t throw a fit on these forums cause I AM a protestant. Just like you ARE a Roman Catholic.

And as for people making signs for your Church that have no power, you’d think if it was as big a deal as you make it people in power would do something about it!

 

[Pong]

Syele, you really don’t seem to get how our Church operates from day to day since you seem to think that there is some sort of major hierarchy for signs, so I’m not really sure why I should think you know what you’re talking about as far as our proper title goes. And why would you have a gripe about being called a protestant? Since you yourself admit that you are not part of the Catholic Church, it would appear that you are, indeed, protesting.

 

[jmcrae]

Forgive my punctuation. I was under the impression that the Orthodox Church was Catholic.

No, they are in schism.

And if I want to distinguish between the Roman rite and the Eastern rite I will still say “Roman Catholic” Cause you are one!

How does your use of the term “Roman Catholic” distinguish between the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite? Since you consider all of us to be Roman, because we are all in full communion with the Pope in Rome?

Those outside of communion with Rome are not Catholic at all, so although, from my point of view, there’s nothing really wrong with saying “Roman Catholic,” it still seems redundant.

 

[Syele]

Syele, you really don’t seem to get how our Church operates from day to day since you seem to think that there is some sort of major hierarchy for signs, so I’m not really sure why I should think you know what you’re talking about as far as our proper title goes. And why would you have a gripe about being called a protestant? Since you yourself admit that you are not part of the Catholic Church, it would appear that you are, indeed, protesting.

It simple logic here. You are attending a Church that calls itself an erroneous name and yet no one in charge has any problem with it? how about if a bank named themselves “Horse betting arena” or lets name the public pool “air conditioner sales”? And for goodness sake, no one can change it… thats not how the hierarchy for signs works! and if some outsiders says “Hey your sign is wrong!” you must all quickly try to discredit them and say they call apples pears… Of course you don’t see how silly you sound!

Where do I get the idea its ok to call you “Roman Catholic”? Look around friend. Look around.

Simply not being in the Catholic Church does not make one Protestant. “Protestant” implies many things. It implies the person broke off from the Catholic Church, it usually implies agreement with the reformation, it implies they are actually protesting something, It even implies Christianity (Which simply “not Catholic” does NOT imply).

I’m done discussing it on this thread as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic… Is Jeffrey Dahmer in Heaven? If you want to continue the discussion Id be happy to oblige in a new thread. Or better yet, do a search for one of the MANY threads that have been made here on the terms “Roman Catholic” and “Protestant”.

 

[Jimmy_B]

…Jimmy…Sorry to burst your bubble but ALL PEOPLE ARE BAD. None of us are good enough to merit Heaven. We all need the “get out of hell card” or we go to hell. period.

Hello Syele,

That’s ok… you are not bursting my bubble…

I appreciate what you are saying here because most people at some point sin and therefore are sinners but that does not mean that all people are bad.

For example, there is a clearly a difference between the child who is molested and the child molester; the woman who is raped and the rapist; the murder victim and the murderer and so on.

There does exist good guys and bad guys in this world and everything kind of person, in between. There are people on one end of the spectrum, like Jeffrey Dahmer, who is very bad and an innocent child on the other end…who is good.

I don’t think anyone would confuse Jeffrey Dahmer with the little old lady who goes to Mass every day.

Don’t you agree?

BTW, you seem like a good person…

Peace

 

[Hobble]

How is anyone supposed to know on here?
I’ll just say yes, since I’m most likely going to hell anyways, I’d prefer he’d be in heaven.

 

[vocatio]

Jimmy B though you are a “Roman Catholic” I am a Latin Catholic. What faith are you again?

Every time I see this thread rise to the top it just sends chills up my spine…it gives me the creeps.