J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Yep, I agree - *YIKES!! :doh2: *
- Status
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Because if you’re going to practice Catholic apologetics, you need to do it being consistent according to Catholic teachings, do you not?
Why would it be odd for a Protestant to expect a Catholic to be Catholic?
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
As I said, it was an attempt at levity. Obviously wasted.Individual interpretation is the problem
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Because many of your beliefs are contrary to Catholicism. Additionally, your previous comments to me here, where completely baseless…You “warned me” not to say anything which might be contrary to the (Catholic) Magisterium and you never said what it was that I said, which was suppose to be contrary. :doh2:
And because, nearly all of your comments are contrary to the Catholic Magisterium…because you are a Protestant! :whacky:
You’re funny…
S
SHEMP
Guest
I hope so!
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
So, to be clear: because I am Protestant, I have no reason to expect you to adhere to the beliefs of the Magisterium when we engage in apologetics? Am I hearing you correctly?
I think I am lost. This means you can be selectively Catholic when you want to be when we talk?
I don’t think you’re funny. I think you need help.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
This is not the type of comment that I would expect from a pious person (OSL)…So, to be clear: because I am Protestant, I have no reason to expect you to adhere to the beliefs of the Magisterium when we engage in apologetics? Am I hearing you correctly?
I think I am lost. This means you can be selectively Catholic when you want to be when we talk?
I don’t think you’re funny. I think you need help.
You think I need help? You have no idea who you are “talking” to.
When I said that you were funny, I did not mean it in a derogatory way but apparently you took it as such, so I apologize.
From time to time I use some levity here. I think, in the future I will avoid contact with you, as not to offend your sensitivities…
Please do not now, read more negativity into this comment.
Good evening Sir.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
All I was saying was what you were saying and arguing was extremely confusing. I wasn’t offended, just didn’t know what you were trying to say, and was hoping I or someone else could help you say what you meant.
Sorry.
I’m not Catholic, so I suspect I am the one ruining your party.
R
rick43235
Guest
The sign in front of the Chruch where I go to Mass every Sunday says:
“Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church.”
E
elvisman
Guest
That means that that particular parish is in full communion with Rome.
If it said something like “St John’s Catholic Church” a person driving by wouldn’t know right off the bat whether or not it belongs to one of the many schismatic sects, claiming to be “Catholic”.
Again - “Roman Catholic” is not an offensive term. It’s just not the official name of the church. Some anti-Catholics call it that to try to offend us by using “Roman Church” or “Romish System”.
Whenever I read or hear that sort of thing, I rejoice because they’re simply doing what Jesus said they would - hate us and persecute us for his sake . . .
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Hi Jimmy
“Why do you insist on referring to the Roman Catholic Church as a “branch on the tree”, when you know that the Roman Catholic Church, was/is the first and they gave us the Bible. I went over this in posts - #200 and #204.”
See - problem #1:
I don’t KNOW this. It is a claim that Roman-Catholics make. If I knew this, and believed it, then it would follow that I would join the RCC.
You’re claiming what you believe as though it was indisputable fact. Yes, you’re very much free to believe as you choose (especially on an RCC forum), but to put this as though it was indisputable fact and expect me to agree to it when I obviously don’t, just isn’t logical.
"The Roman Catholic Church; the only Christian Church, which has a Pope and accepts the Supremacy of that Pope – “IS THE TREE”! "
Nope - it is a branch.
"Please tell me your rational for repeating this comment (above), which is not historically correct
Do you believe that the Bible came to us from some other denomination and not from the Roman Catholic Church?"
The question is actually: Why do I claim that the Roman-Catholic church is not founded by Jesus himself - but came later?
1: Well, we can start with the fact that Rome did not have a monarchical episcopate until the middle of the 2nd century. It was actually the LAST of the congregations to introduce this.
2: Although the bishops of Rome claimed something that resembled papal authority at a very early stage (the dispute on when to celebrate Easter), this claim was not accepted anywhere until gradually after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and the lack of a central leader was obvious. And THEN, only in the West.
The Eastern churches never accepted the Roman bishop’s claim of authority over all the Church (using “church” in MY definition now) - except at the Council of Florence, where the Byzantine Emperor would have said anything to secure aid against the Turks…
3: The Marian dogmas, although also largely in common with the Eastern church, are a later occurence - that is: later than the first church. Curious, that the “cult” of Mary did not begin until the Pagans started swarming into the churches, when Christianity was legalized and favored. They needed a replacement for the many gods and goddesses of paganism, and found Mary and some of the dead (often martyrs).
All this leads me to conclude one thing:
The “church” that Jesus founded is no longer in existance, because all denominations have changed doctrine and practise - and paganism has severely influenced some of these, albeit unwillingly.
So the term “Catholic church” is not something that any one denomination can monopolize. The Catholic church is the universal (the actual meaning of the word “Catholic”), indivisible, invisible body of Christ of which ALL believers are part.
Now, on the tree that is the Catholic church, there are several branches. The largest one is the Roman-Catholic church, but that does not mean that this church is the tree itself. No branch, however large, can every be anything but a branch.
“Do you deny that Martin Luther broke from the Roman Catholic Church?”
He was indeed forced away from the Roman-Catholic church. So no - why should I?
“Are you familiar with the earlier Eastern Schisms, within Catholicism, where some broke from the Roman Catholic Church?”
Are you referring to Arianism, Nestorianism and Monophysitism?
Indeed I know of these - but to say that they broke from the Roman-Catholic church is an anachronism. They happened before the Roman-Catholic church can reasonably be said to be in existance.
A
Auriel
Guest
What a long thread! Too long to read all pages. My Non catholic response to the poll… for Jeffrey Dahmer I voted it’s possible. Only God knows. I do remember a bible story about a vile murdered by the name of Saul of Tarsus…who converted…
BTW, I saw an interesting Jail House interview with Dahmer. He spoke of how he had convinced himself that we are animals so to kill in that manner, did not matter, he had no conscience. His dad had introduced him to some religious books/works that had convinced him otherwise. To bad he had not introduced the literature BEFORE the carnage!
When taking one of my law classes I was shocked at some of the facts though that were not publicly well known. I was able to see photos too of other crime scenes that would make many sick.
Dahmer made a Satanic alter from the thigh bones of victims, kept some of the skulls and was heavily into Satanism. His place was littered with a ton of Satanic literature.Can God change even the most vile? Yes, but I would be surprised to see Dahmer there.
BTW, I saw an interesting Jail House interview with Dahmer. He spoke of how he had convinced himself that we are animals so to kill in that manner, did not matter, he had no conscience. His dad had introduced him to some religious books/works that had convinced him otherwise. To bad he had not introduced the literature BEFORE the carnage!
When taking one of my law classes I was shocked at some of the facts though that were not publicly well known. I was able to see photos too of other crime scenes that would make many sick.
Dahmer made a Satanic alter from the thigh bones of victims, kept some of the skulls and was heavily into Satanism. His place was littered with a ton of Satanic literature.Can God change even the most vile? Yes, but I would be surprised to see Dahmer there.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Ok, you are right…Jesus is the vine and the Catholic Church is the first branch and Protestants are branches, which occurred 1500 years after the fact, because of the flawed interpretation of a “Catholic Book” - the Bible.
Hello LutheranDK,
Your quotes are in blue.
I appreciate what you are saying here and all of the work put into your post but I disagree.
I am familiar with all that you have posted here and there are dates associated with all of these events, which all point to the Church in Roman (today’s Roman Catholic Church) as being the first Christian religion and not a denomination.
Additionally, if one were to examine the reasons for some of these early breaks, hindsight shows us that the Roman Catholic Church is on the right side of each and every one of these issues, either at the time, or as the result of work done during one of the different ecumenical councils.
Many of the heretical claims by the Catholic Church, made 1500 plus years ago, which caused some of these early breaks, would be considered heretical today, even by Protestant standards.
Some of the disagreements today are,
· This issue of “Protestant Justification”,
· The Immaculate Conception of Mary
· The Assumption of Mary.
· Papal Supremacy
· Papal Infallibility
All of which can be justified, if one were to examine Christian beliefs using Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Christian history and Church documents.
As for the early Church, there was also a change in the Creed, which created a “problem” for some. A change that Protestants today accept, this change being; “the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son”.
This is because we share a similar belief in the Trinity. We also share the belief, that Christ was fully human, while at the same time, fully divine. These are just two examples where people who broke from Catholicism (early Christianity) were wrong. .
“I don’t KNOW this. It is a claim that Roman-Catholics make. If I knew this, and believed it, then it would follow that I would join the RCC.”
Yet, you don’t hold your own Protestant denomination to this same standard…Why not?
“So the term “Catholic church” is not something that any one denomination can monopolize. The Catholic Church is the universal (the actual meaning of the word “Catholic”), indivisible, invisible body of Christ of which ALL believers are part.”
This is a misconception and it is one of the greatest flaws in Protestantism and a major obstacle for true Christian unity.
For any group to be “indivisible”, there must be one rule-set, one standard and one set of beliefs, not 40,000.
It is not possible for all Christian denominations, which all have different beliefs… to all be right.
You chose you own denomination, because you assume that what is taught there, is consistent with what Jesus preached and yet, I could present you with many so-called Christian beliefs from other Protestant denominations, which you would find contrary to you own beliefs…Right?
Thank you for you post…you will make a great Catholic!
God bless you.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Don’t dodge the question. Do you, or don’t you, know where we got the Bible from?
L
LutheranDK
Guest
If you had bothered to read the rest of my post, you would have seen the answer.
But once more:
Christendom did not get the Bible from the Roman-Catholic church, because the Roman-Catholic church did not exist when the Bible was put together.
The RCC evolved gradually after Constantine’s legalization and favorism of Christianity - and after the influx of pagans.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Hey again
“I appreciate what you are saying here and all of the work put into your post but I disagree.”
I thought you would
“Additionally, if one were to examine the reasons for some of these early breaks, hindsight shows us that the Roman Catholic Church is on the right side of each and every one of these issues, either at the time, or as the result of work done during one of the different ecumenical councils.”
Again: I do not concede that it was the Roman-Catholic church that dealt with the heresies of Arius, Nestor, and the Monophysite heresy.
“Many of the heretical claims by the Catholic Church, made 1500 plus years ago, which caused some of these early breaks, would be considered heretical today, even by Protestant standards.”
Erm…I’m sorry, I think you need to rephrase that - because I read this as if you said that the Catholic Church made heretical claims
Can I take it that you mean something like: “Many of the heretical claims opposed by the Catholic Church…”?
“All of which [the of disagreements] can be justified, if one were to examine Christian beliefs using Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Christian history and Church documents.”
See, I think this is where you and I talk past eachother. I do not recognize anything but Scripture as authoritative. That’s the meaning of Sola Scriptura
Not councils, not church documents, not the Church Fathers (many of whom disagree amongst themselves, and one of which was later deemed a heretic (Origines) ), etc.
Does this mean that I want to throw everything to the wind?
No!
I accept the findings of some of the councils.
And no - although it could seem that way, I did not just contradict myself, because the findings of those councils I accept are in accordance with…Scripture
Do you follow the point I’m trying to make?
As for the filioque-dispute:
This dispute was not actually theological. The Eastern Church, as far as I know, do not disagree fundamentally with the issue of the filioque - but they do not think ANYONE has the right to change the wording of the creed, and the “filioque” was an addition to the original wording.
If there are any Eastern-Orthodox inhere who can correct me on this - please do.
“Yet, you don’t hold your own Protestant denomination to this same standard…Why not?”
Hmmm…I’m not sure what you mean?
What standard am I not holding the Lutheran church to?
"This is a misconception and it is one of the greatest flaws in Protestantism and a major obstacle for true Christian unity.
For any group to be “indivisible”, there must be one rule-set, one standard and one set of beliefs, not 40,000."
If we’re talking about a “physical” church structure, then you are right of course. If, however, we’re talking about the fellowship of Christians (Christ-followers) from ALL denominations, then you’re not right.
“It is not possible for all Christian denominations, which all have different beliefs… to all be right.”
I did not say that! Please tell me where I said that all are right.
I feel totally misunderstood
“You chose you own denomination, because you assume that what is taught there, is consistent with what Jesus preached and yet, I could present you with many so-called Christian beliefs from other Protestant denominations, which you would find contrary to you own beliefs…Right?”
Right. What’s your point? I did not say that all are right.
I said that dispite our cross-denominational differences, WE ARE ONE IN CHRIST - and all true believers from all denominations are part of the Holy Catholic church, which is the indivisible fellowship of all believers. Not as a hierarchcal structure (but note that I do not object to hierarchy per se!).
"Thank you for you post…you will make a great Catholic!
"I AM a great Catholic (because I am a true believer → a member of the Holy Catholic Church) - just not Roman-Catholic
C
Cathdefender
Guest
Lutheran, what is it you still don’t get? Your pastor or whatever is feeding you wrong information about the Catholic church. Constantine was an Emporer who only approved and made it alright for the people to study their religion. He didn’t invent Catholicism. Don’t you get it? Historical evidence doesn’t lie. Face the fact if it weren’t for the Roman Pontiff who compiled the bible, you wouldn’t have one today. Now move on…
E
elvisman
Guest
Ummm . . . just where do you get your history from? Please don’t tell me, “The History Channel” but that’s what it sounds like.
Every respected Protestant theologian and apologist, including the likes of R.C. Sproul, Paul Meier and Norman Geisler, admits that the Catholic Church existed since the first century and concedes the fact that Protestantism came out of the Catholic Church. But - apparently, YOU have done more research, so PLEASE tell me where you got this information. The burden of proof is on YOU.
I eagerly await your response. This ought to be GOOD!!
J
jmcrae
Guest
Even if Constantine “invented” the Catholic Church in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea (which is ridiculous - his own mother, Helena, was Catholic even before he was born - and how do you explain all those Catholic Bishops at the Council
), the Bible was put together in 405 AD, which is well into “Catholic time,” even by your standards.Care to try again?
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello jmcrae,Even if Constantine “invented” the Catholic Church in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea (which is ridiculous - his own mother, Helena, was Catholic even before he was born - and how do you explain all those Catholic Bishops at the Council
Care to try again?
You beat me to it, this is a great point. If Constantine’s mother was Catholic than obviously, Catholicism occurred before Constantine “made it legal” - to practice Catholicism.
I really like this point. The one similar, that I use; is that Constantine put a stop to the official, persecution of the Christians, although, we know that Catholics are still being murdered (martyred) today.
We all remember what happened to Catholics (early Christians) in the Coliseum and elsewhere before Constantine.
LutherDK’s denies widely accepted, historic timelines.
Additionally, I think LutherDK might want to research the Formation of the Bible and the timelines associated with this process.
It was Roman Catholic Popes who authorized the Bible… period! Even secular, non-Catholic; historians agree with this historic fact…
Finally, LutherDK, I don’t know where you get your facts, maybe you could provide your source, because the Filioque was definitively “put-in” or “inserted” into the Creed by the Roman Catholic Church and yes, this was one of the factors, which caused the early Schism. If the Roman Catholic did not insert the Filioque, then how do explain it appearance in the Nicene Creed. Who do you think was responsible for the Nicene Creed?
The Filioque is recited, as part of the Creed, at every Roman Catholic Mass; ("…“the Holy which preceeds for the Father and the Son”)
Peace
- Status