G
Ginger2
Guest
Thank you Pax for that very kind reply. 
- Status
E
elvisman
Guest
**Todd - **
Re-read what I said - CLOSELY.
You have a habit of attributing different meanings into what I post.
**What I said is that Gos HAS and DOES lead many Protestants to the fullness of truth - the Catholic Church. Whether they choose to follow him to the Church is up to THEM. That is why I stressed that we must cooperate with God’s grace. **
He has brought MANY to the fullness of truth by way of the merky waters of Protestantism.
**God has used much worse situations than Protestantism to work his will - some even downright evil like Pharoah in the OT.
J
jmcrae
Guest
This is predicated on the assumption that God is going to “make” everyone go to Heaven. What if He’s just leaving it up to your own free choice?If the Holy Spirit wanted us to explore and then return home, 90% of us would have joined the one True Church by our age of retirement.
Clearly people move both ways across denomination boundaries, but I’m not aware of a statistically significant trend, especailly age related.
T
Todd520
Guest
I see receiving the Holy Spirit like finding a map and compass while you are out in the wilderness. Our desire to know Christ should lead us to the same destination, this does not conflict with ‘free choice’
J
jmcrae
Guest
If you know that Christ established a Church, but you opt not to join it, or you opt to leave it, surely you are dropping your “compass” (Holy Tradition) - and the fact that you have a map (Scripture) doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily find your way “home.”
P
PJM
Guest
P.S.
And when you attempt to do so, PLEASE do not include the Churches of the “***Great Schism” [Orthodox] *** who remain part of the CC.
P
PJM
Guest
**Not beig new to Catholism, I would challance th number of BOTH Catholic Churches, and Orthodox Churches given.
Catholics 242, Orthodox Over 700.
Would you be so up-front as to advide whre one can see a list reflecting these number by name?**
Catholics 242, Orthodox Over 700.
Would you be so up-front as to advide whre one can see a list reflecting these number by name?**
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Ric,
So, you have babies leaving the hospital without a name, but there is the understanding that they will be registered (named?) shortly? The idea of there potntially being a baby out there and nameless is a bit strange to my way of thinking., Really. I can’t imagine that happening too often. Can you?
God bless
So, you have babies leaving the hospital without a name, but there is the understanding that they will be registered (named?) shortly? The idea of there potntially being a baby out there and nameless is a bit strange to my way of thinking., Really. I can’t imagine that happening too often. Can you?
I think the Pope did a good thing by visiting the UK, opening the Catholic Church to CoE members who want to join and this special recognition for Blessed John Newman.Tom, thanks.
A baby here can leave the hospital, but has to be registered within so many days.
But those who are not churched, as such, who never have anything to do with God, (a tradition if you like) go to church and get them baptized.
While there are several problems with this - I think they have taken the first positive step to having their child become a Child of God. Not receiving an education or instruction in the Catholic Faith is a problem - and this lack of proper formation when the child is growing up (both formal education and the example set by practicing Catholic parents) will lead to difficulties in this child’s life.
My parents did that with me. They never attended church before or after.
In the CoE, and other (some) churches baptism is the same as the RCC,
…and by this you mean, there is the intention to Baptize, water is used and the Trinitarian formula is said (?)
at the age when wants to take that responsibility on themselves, they get confirmed,
…here in the US it is customary to demonstrate that one has a basic knowledge of the Catholic Faith prior to confirmation. Is this what you mean?
which I did, is see no difference with the RCC, what I don’t see is this in scripture.
The lack of a directed step-by-step approach to a Sacrament is not in Scripture. Christ stated that water is necessary (John 3:5) - BUT, DID NOT SAY HOW IT WAS TO BE USED. Christ gave the Trimitarian formula (Matt 28:19) - BUT DID NOT SAY DURING WHAT PART OF THE CEREMONY IT WAS TO BE SAID. There are really a lot of things that are NOT IN SCRIPTURE but, we are required to implement them (Baptism is necessary.) So, how is this done? Glad you asked…
This is where the Catholic Church differs from all of the Protestant denominations. It ALONE is Apostolic. Christ founded His Church on Peter (Matt 16) - and then - gave the first ‘signed blank check’ in history!! “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven - and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven” The Catholic Church has the authority from God to order and direct whatever they think is necessary so that all men can come to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and be saved. An example of this would be how the water for Baptism is used. There are basically three ways recognized by the Catholic Church - and the Catholic Church has used all three: immersion, infusion and sprinkling. Those who argue that ONLY immersion can be used or the Baptism is invalid are following a tradation of men and not of God. The mechanics of Peter trying to 3,000 people immersed in a body of water in Jerusalem (which is in a hilly desert) should raise a flag as to how did he do this? I do not know. But, there isn’t enough water there - and the Jordan River is a long way from Jerusalem.
So, we have churches teaching very much the same, but very eager to condemn each other.
Actually, no Protestant denomination teaches what the Catholic Church teaches: None were founded by Christ, none are apostolic, none can trace their origin to the 1st Century, none claim seven sacraments,etc. These differences stand out.
What I thought was good was that Pope did partake in worship with the CoE here.
So where does that leave the man/men who want to worship in the church of the Lord?
I think it leaves you with the challenge you have already accepted. Each of us is to have a heart open to God and to follow His Will in our lives. First of all we are to do good and avoid evil. Secondly, if you have doubts about the way you are following Christ and wish a more perfect union, then you have an obligation to truthfully search for Him. I submit that when you search the teachings of the Catholic Church you will find everything you are looking for… and part of that search should involved how you got the Scriptures you are holding in your hand. Just what did God do to get the Bible to men?
Oh, just fro me, if males were circumcised as so known by God, what happened to the females babies?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh…you got me on that!Someone else will have to answer this one.
I could not get to see him, the main events were tickets only.
God bless
Ric
God bless
N
Nicea325
Guest
Tell me something new, I have heard your anti-Catholic sentiments a billion times. I am very aware of the Orthodox churches and other ancient liturgical churches. Now name the others before the 16th century and do they exist today?Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian to name two.
In 451, at the Church Council in the city of Chalcedon the Catholic Church split. The Churches in Egypt, Syria, and Armenian broke off and today exist as the Oriental Orthodox Churches. They were part of the Catholic church.
And so it has been right thru the reformation. Luther was a Catholic.
…in fact…all heresy first sprang from the Catholic Church. Has the RC ever held a council to define a doctrine from a pagan society?
Ah no! Heresies spring from MEN who have a chip on their shoulders,try researching it a bit more.
Aahhhh…was the majority of society still pagan in 325 A.D.? 381?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Different rites in union with Rome adhere to various doctrines? Name them.
G
Ginger2
Guest
First, I am not making this claim. Look it up. It is you Catholics who keep using Barrett’s list. I’m sure it will be fairly easy to google. I simply copied and pasted and edited for space by cutting out the last portions of each.
Try copying a portion of my post and paste it in your search engine.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Well, Catholics have told me that the Orthodox are still in communion with the RC (but not full communionj) so they are still one Catholic Church, not two.
A difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics is recognition of the Pope. The RC recognizes the Pope as the infallible, having supreme authority over all churches. The Eastern Orthodox, do not recognize the pope to be infallible, nor do they grant him with supreme authority over all churches.
So, is it one Church as has been claimed, or two?
Ginger
R
Riccardo
Guest
Tom, i thank you once again for your replys. You seem to be the first one in a long time who have answered the hard questions for me.
But, like you have mentioned, you and me both dont know what became of female babies, that has to be vital if they are to be known by God, then and now, in light of what we are on about.
Ric
E
elvisman
Guest
Todd - I answered this in post #360.
R
Riccardo
Guest
Tom, to reply to these;
…and by this you mean, there is the intention to Baptize, water is used and the Trinitarian formula is said (?)
YES
at the age when wants to take that responsibility on themselves, they get confirmed,
…here in the US it is customary to demonstrate that one has a basic knowledge of the Catholic Faith prior to confirmation. Is this what you mean?
YES
Why dont we hear of confirmation in the NT?
This, again is for my understanding.
I was gald to see such unity with the Pope and the CoE. He never mentioned two becoming one though, not on his visit.
God bless you
Ric
1
1holycatholic
Guest
All roads lead to Rome.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Ginger2,Thank you Pax for that very kind reply.
Hello again. My actual screen name is “Portrait”, Pax, latin for peace, is how I now sign myself off, since it is so important that even in the lively interchange of argument there are no breeches of Christian charity.
May I just respond to your remarks regarding the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15: 1, 6-7, 12-15, 28)?, but I am sure that Tom will want to reply to you also.
Many Protestants make the assertion that since St. James commands the Council to listen to his words, there is a strong inference that he possessed the ultimate authority at the Council, in so far as he commands everyone present to listen to him. However, the Greek word translated “listen to me” (v. 13) is akouoo, which is used numerous times in the N.T. For example the word is used in the previous verse (v. 12) in the Greek indicative mood and translated as “and they listened (akouoo) to Barnabas and Paul”. It is a word that, in itself does not connote authority. Placing akouoo in the Greek imperative mood in Acts 15: 13 can thus simply be understood as a request for those gathered to give their undivided attention to what will be subsequently spoken. The use of the imperative mood can be made strong or week depending upon the context in which it is placed, but the use of the imperative does not necessarily denote any official authority of the one using the mood.
Many have tried to use this passage to invalidate St. Peter’s primacy by drawing attention to St. James as having the “final word”, but this interpretation is sadly misguided. True, St. James is the Bishop of the city, yet not only does St. Peter speak first - he actually settles the question; St. James endorses what he says, and simply provides a practical way of meeting the difficulty which has emerged. It is true to say that St. James went beyond St. Peter’s decision, but he was not decreeing or deciding as St. Peter had done. He states, to begin with, that it is his judgement. St. Peter did not speak for himself, rather he spoke for the entire Church. What St. James added had nothing to do with the doctrinal decision which had already been settled by St. Peter. St. Peter’s theological pronouncement was the watershead of the Council; St. Paul gave testimony; St. James concludes with pastoral and practical implementation. St. John Chrysostom writes, “See how Paul speaks after Peter, and no one restrains: James waits and starts not up, for he (Peter) it was to whom had been entrusted the government (primacy)” (Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33).
St. James, as the local Bishop of Jerusalem, would naturally have a prominent postition at this Council, since it took place in Jerusalem. However, there can be no doubt whatsoever respecting his deference to the ecumenical position of St. Peter as chief of the Apostles, for example, he commences by saying, “Symeon (Peter) has related…”.
That’s it for now, but I will, God willing, address your other points the other side of the weekend.
Goodbye for now.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear 1holycatholic,
Cordial greetings dear friend and a hearty Amen! to the above. Let our prayer intentions be that our separted brethren become enlightened as to this blessed truth.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
A
andrew60
Guest
Here in San Antonio all you have to do is walk down a couple of streets and see more than ten different non denominational churchs they are like bars. I can see the figure easily
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Ginger2,
Acts 15 is clear that Peter made the decision becuse God had revealed His Will to Peter in Acts 10. James spoke next and endorsed the concept - which was a major change in everhthing that had taken place since Abraham received circumcision as the sign of the covenant.
But, the key to the argument, Ginger2 lies not in a disputed reading by Protestants, but what took place after the Council of Jerusalem in 51AD. We find the Bishop of Rome lead the Church and the Early Church Fathers agreed with what was taking place.
This is the key to understanding what took place - just what did those closest to the situation understand, and then those in 200 and 300 and 400 and 500AD understand? The ECF understood that the Bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter - and Peter had primacy.
It is only when we are removed by 1,600 years do men like Luther reject the idea of Christ actually appointing a human and visible leader of His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) and try to establish a church according to their own image and then try to control the terrible chaos they have caused.
Further error and further splintering is the only logical outcome for everyone manipulating Scripture to suit their own ends. As Kipling may have said, “A trap made by knaves to trap fools.”
While the various Protestant denominations reject the Early Church Fathers - (but, somehow manage to agree with the determinations and proclamations of the Catholic Church (the Bible - even the abridged version you hold, the Apostles and Nicean Creeds, the defeat of various early heresies, etc.).
You simply can not have it both ways, Ginger2. If the Catholic Church is inspired and lead by the Holy Spirit as it follows Christ - then all Protestant denominations (whatever number that is!) are in error. If the Catholic Church is a fraud - then it can have no valid documents liked the Bible and creeds. And, since we have such universal chaos in all of these denominations, as evidenced by on-going splintering - even during the life time of Luther and Calvin!) then there is no True Church - and ultimately, Christ is not God … and what makes you think there is a God anyway if we don’t believe what He tells us?
God bless
Ginger2:
Acts 15 is clear that Peter made the decision becuse God had revealed His Will to Peter in Acts 10. James spoke next and endorsed the concept - which was a major change in everhthing that had taken place since Abraham received circumcision as the sign of the covenant.
But, the key to the argument, Ginger2 lies not in a disputed reading by Protestants, but what took place after the Council of Jerusalem in 51AD. We find the Bishop of Rome lead the Church and the Early Church Fathers agreed with what was taking place.
This is the key to understanding what took place - just what did those closest to the situation understand, and then those in 200 and 300 and 400 and 500AD understand? The ECF understood that the Bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter - and Peter had primacy.
It is only when we are removed by 1,600 years do men like Luther reject the idea of Christ actually appointing a human and visible leader of His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) and try to establish a church according to their own image and then try to control the terrible chaos they have caused.
Further error and further splintering is the only logical outcome for everyone manipulating Scripture to suit their own ends. As Kipling may have said, “A trap made by knaves to trap fools.”
While the various Protestant denominations reject the Early Church Fathers - (but, somehow manage to agree with the determinations and proclamations of the Catholic Church (the Bible - even the abridged version you hold, the Apostles and Nicean Creeds, the defeat of various early heresies, etc.).
You simply can not have it both ways, Ginger2. If the Catholic Church is inspired and lead by the Holy Spirit as it follows Christ - then all Protestant denominations (whatever number that is!) are in error. If the Catholic Church is a fraud - then it can have no valid documents liked the Bible and creeds. And, since we have such universal chaos in all of these denominations, as evidenced by on-going splintering - even during the life time of Luther and Calvin!) then there is no True Church - and ultimately, Christ is not God … and what makes you think there is a God anyway if we don’t believe what He tells us?
God bless
- Status