Name 3 reasons you are not Catholic (yet).

[Lively_Stone]

I think you are wrong about this. I don’t think a person can qualify to be a heretic unless one has already known/accepted the truth and then rejects it. Your phrasing “if the RC did indeed” demonstrates that you are ignorant, and therefore, cannot be a heretic!

Just imformation that may or may not be relevant to the debate.
1828 Noah Wester.

HER’ETIC, n.
1. A person under any religion, but particularly the christian, who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy. In strictness, among christians, a person who holds and avows religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice. 2. Any one who maintains erroneous opinions.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Mommyof02green;2223085:

The pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Even our Lutheran brother and sister know this. Our Lutheran brother and sister even know how many doctrines are a result of this.

Only a partial answer to numerous questions. Where is ex cathedra in the Bible and when did Jesus teach that. Anything that exalts itself above the teachings of Christ has become an idol or a god.

I didn’t have time to do whole answers. I do have a life and children etc (hence the screen name) Tonight happen to be my son first concert…. I was out the door. Plus I had already provided you with a link to an article regarding what is Papal Infallibility. So I didn’t feel like redo all that over again.

Also the topic is this thread is “3 reasons you are not catholic, yet”
Yes, it’s true that there are many sub-topics going on. Yes, it’s true that I have help to “create” these sub-topics. However, I do also try to follow the “rules”. Yes I fail but I do try.

There are several threads here on CAF (Catholic Answers Forum) that deal with the pope and the issue of infallibility. A search within CAF will bring up these threads up. I’m 60% sure that your questions have already been asked and answered by others here on CAF. If not then feel free to start a new thread regarding Papal infallibility.

Willing to start new threads is what helps all of us here, at CAF, to stay on topic. I’m sure that most everyone here would agree that staying on topic is what helps the threads stay coherent.

We all do try our best to follow the rules and stay on topic. Yes, it true that I fail at this from time to time (example the off topic tangents in this thread) but I do try.

Also I noted that others here in the thread already answered the questions. (See post 528) So I didn’t feel that I needed to do more.

Personally I’m happy that someone was able to answer the questions for you. God Bless

 

[Singinbeauty]

How about photographs and home videos?
What’s the purpose of these modern day images?

michel

What about them?

Do I pray to them? No
Do I expect them to hear anything I say? No

So what is your point in the question above?

 

[Mannyfit75]

What about them?

Do I pray to them? No
Do I expect them to hear anything I say? No

So what is your point in the question above?

What do photos convey to you?

It makes you want to recollect your husband, your wife, your children, mother, father and so forth.

Likewise, images of icon helps the faith to recall into the mind of the lives of the saint. The icon or statues are not worship for it is made of non-living material, and cannot speak to you back.

It is like when you pray at your Church, you raise you hands to the roof. Do I assumed you worship the roof because you raise your hand to the roof? No.

Icons and statues are use as instrument not tools for divine worship. We believe Saints are Alive in Jesus Christ, though their physical bodies are here, their spirits are with Jesus in heaven.

They can hear is for we are “surrounded by a could of heavenly witnesses.” In fact the Greek word for witness is martus which we get the word Martyr. We ask saints to pray for us just as I ask you to pray for me.

God is the God of the living not the dead. How do we know saints can hear us? Let me take Transfiguration of Jesus Christ. He prayed and then Moses and Elijah appeared. You see he prayed first after that they appeared. So yes they can hear us.

Second, before Peter told Tabitha who is dead to wake up. He prayed and only then, she rose from the dead.

 

[LilyM]

What about them?

Do I pray to them? No
Do I expect them to hear anything I say? No

So what is your point in the question above?

No, but if you talk to your mother, even on the telephone from half the world away, you expect her to hear - and most especially you expect her to hear if you ask her to pray for you!

So it is with Mary and the saints. Of course we don’t think pictures or statues can hear us, but we believe the saints they represent CAN hear us and pray for us if we ask them to. We sometimes (not always) pray in front of the image or statue because it reminds us of them, that’s all.

 

[Techno2000]

What about them?

Do I pray to them? No
Do I expect them to hear anything I say? No

So what is your point in the question above?

A Holy Image is just there to put you in the Mind of Holiness
Here is One of My Favorites :

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Heart2.jpg
Jesus Christ as the Sacred Heart

 

[GKC]

Just imformation that may or may not be relevant to the debate.
1828 Noah Wester.

HER’ETIC, n.
1. A person under any religion, but particularly the christian, who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy. In strictness, among christians, a person who holds and avows religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice. 2. Any one who maintains erroneous opinions.

LS,

You cite the 1828 Noah Webster’s dictionary as if it were definitive, in some sense, and to be preferred to a modern dictionary. It is possible that not everyone here understands why you would do that. Would you care to explain?

GKC

 

[Lively_Stone]

I didn’t have time to do whole answers. I do have a life and children etc (hence the screen name) Tonight happen to be my son first concert…. I was out the door. Plus I had already provided you with a link to an article regarding what is Papal Infallibility. So I didn’t feel like redo all that over again.

Also the topic is this thread is “3 reasons you are not catholic, yet”
Yes, it’s true that there are many sub-topics going on. Yes, it’s true that I have help to “create” these sub-topics. However, I do also try to follow the “rules”. Yes I fail but I do try.

There are several threads here on CAF (Catholic Answers Forum) that deal with the pope and the issue of infallibility. A search within CAF will bring up these threads up. I’m 60% sure that your questions have already been asked and answered by others here on CAF. If not then feel free to start a new thread regarding Papal infallibility.

Willing to start new threads is what helps all of us here, at CAF, to stay on topic. I’m sure that most everyone here would agree that staying on topic is what helps the threads stay coherent.

We all do try our best to follow the rules and stay on topic. Yes, it true that I fail at this from time to time (example the off topic tangents in this thread) but I do try.

Also I noted that others here in the thread already answered the questions. (See post 528) So I didn’t feel that I needed to do more.

Personally I’m happy that someone was able to answer the questions for you. God Bless

You are a nice person and a good mommy. Hope you enjoy the concert. I am a musician and have my own recording studio. Music is a universal language. Wish you Godspeed. Thanks for your Godly patient with me.

Danny

 

[Mommyof02green]

You are a nice person and a good mommy. Hope you enjoy the concert. I am a musician and have my own recording studio. Music is a universal language. Wish you Godspeed. Thanks for your Godly patient with me.

Danny

Thanks! It was fun… Kindergarten is a fun age!
You’re welcome God Bless.

 

[Lively_Stone]

LS,

You cite the 1828 Noah Webster’s dictionary as if it were definitive, in some sense, and to be preferred to a modern dictionary. It is possible that not everyone here understands why you would do that. Would you care to explain?

GKC

That is a ligitimate question and I would be happy to share my point of view.

The English language has been evolving like all languages do, unless it becomes extinct. Until the 1700’s there were no common spellings of english words. They were basically sounded out by sylables. Sometimes a writer might spell a word several different ways.

English up to and including today is evolving and continually having new words added which is quite normal in the evolution of language… The secular progressives in our society are redifining words to suit the modern SP agenda. Many words found in the modern dictionary may have been taken out because of their religious connotation and being seen as not politically correct. I believe there are actual spiritual forces behind this.

I prefer the Noah Webster Dictionary for certain topical discussions because the words of that period were inclined to have Biblical connotation where applicable.

While it may not be as you say definitive, I believe it is a more appropriate definition in some cases. If I am doing research on the etymology of a word I seek other sources such as the Oxford Dictionary. I have a very nice set of the New Century Dictionary that I treasure.

I believe that Noah Webster did a good job. I am not a Greek, Latin, Hebrew scholar and so natually I look up my words in English dictionaries since that is my language.

Danny

 

[lak611]

That is a ligitimate question and I would be happy to share my point of view.

The English language has been evolving like all languages do, unless it becomes extinct. Until the 1700’s there were no common spellings of english words. They were basically sounded out by sylables. Sometimes a writer might spell a word several different ways.

English up to and including today is evolving and continually having new words added which is quite normal in the evolution of language… The secular progressives in our society are redifining words to suit the modern SP agenda. Many words found in the modern dictionary may have been taken out because of their religious connotation and being seen as not politically correct. I believe there are actual spiritual forces behind this.

I prefer the Noah Webster Dictionary for certain topical discussions because the words of that period were inclined to have Biblical connotation where applicable.

While it may not be as you say definitive, I believe it is a more appropriate definition in some cases. If I am doing research on the etymology of a word I seek other sources such as the Oxford Dictionary. I have a very nice set of the New Century Dictionary that I treasure.

I believe that Noah Webster did a good job. I am not a Greek, Latin, Hebrew scholar and so natually I look up my words in English dictionaries since that is my language.

Danny

Do you have a link for the Noah Webster dictionary?

 

[Lively_Stone]

You really got your history all wrong.

First of all the bishops served only an tribunals and held trials of the accused. If they were found guilty they were handed over to the local government.

Murder and torture is never justified and Protestants at the time were guilty. Remember the Salem Witch Trials? Was that Protestant?

Yes but they are Protestant Christians regardless.
The Church gains its property through donations from recent converts to the faith. Many of them were granted big real state especially after Emperor Constantine ended Christianity Persecution when he issued His eddict of Milan.

I don’t see how that is possible with all the assets of the church. Being in debt is a paperwork thing and has no basis in what the church owns and has hidden in the Vatican. With the number of Catholics in the world all they have to do is pay their tithe to the church for one week and they will be out of debt.

The Catholic Church loan of its vehicles from the Italian government. They loan Air Force jet for the Papal travels. You seem to look at one narrow view and overlooked at the charitable works of Mother Theresa, and other devote Catholics committed in helping the poor in the third world. The Church is not wealthy as you claim it to be.

No it wasn’t.

Guy Fawkes (13 April 1570 – 31 January 1606), also known as Guido Fawkes, was a member of a group of English Roman Catholics who attempted to carry out the Gunpowder Plot on 5 November 1605.

Guy Fawkes did and he was no Jesuits. He was Catholic but not a Jesuit “The Gunpowder Plot” was a plan to assassinate the Protestant King James I (James VI of Scotland) and the members of both houses of the Parliament of England, by exploding Westminster Palace during the formal opening session of the 1605 Parliament, in which the King addressed a joint assembly of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Fawkes was in large part responsible for the later stages of the plan’s execution. His activities were detected before the plan’s completion, and following a severe interrogation involving the use of torture and a trial in Westminster Hall before Judge John Popham, he and his co-conspirators were executed for treason. Fawkes’s failure (or the attempt) is remembered by Guy Fawkes Night (also known as Bonfire Night or Fireworks Night) on 5 November.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes

I am not lying here. You have been deceived by an Anti-Catholic website called JesusisLord.com who made the false accusations you made against the Church.

Next time you make false accusation of the Catholic Church you better have more reliable resources. Not of your claims is proven to be true. They are more distorted Truths.

I thought I explained myself pretty well. I suggest that you read Foxes book of martyrs and see the truth of the first 10 persecutions of the Christians by Rome and then the horrible persecution of the Catholic Church to anyone that stood in their way of consolidating their Popery in the know world. Just don’t feel like nit picking over everything. Your Church did it and to deny it is simply rediculous. Read the book.

 

[Lively_Stone]

That is a ligitimate question and I would be happy to share my point of view.

The English language has been evolving like all languages do, unless it becomes extinct. Until the 1700’s there were no common spellings of english words. They were basically sounded out by sylables. Sometimes a writer might spell a word several different ways.

English up to and including today is evolving and continually having new words added which is quite normal in the evolution of language… The secular progressives in our society are redifining words to suit the modern SP agenda. Many words found in the modern dictionary may have been taken out because of their religious connotation and being seen as not politically correct. I believe there are actual spiritual forces behind this.

I prefer the Noah Webster Dictionary for certain topical discussions because the words of that period were inclined to have Biblical connotation where applicable. Without modern cultural corruption.

While it may not be as you say definitive, I believe it is a more appropriate definition in some cases. If I am doing research on the etymology of a word I seek other sources such as the Oxford Dictionary. I have a very nice set of the New Century Dictionary that I treasure.

I believe that Noah Webster did a good job. I am not a Greek, Latin, Hebrew scholar and so natually I look up my words in English dictionaries since that is my language.

Danny

Excuse my ignorance of some of the logistics of getting messages to the appropriate sources. I have trouble figuring out how attachments to someones message is navigated. A member asked for a site for the 1828 Websters dictionary. I do not know of one. I had to purchase my copy. AV publications has them. Availible in book or CD Rom. I have the CD Rom which I find very convenient. However the book is more extensive and expensive. www.avpublications.com

 

[Lively_Stone]

Thanks! It was fun… Kindergarten is a fun age!
You’re welcome God Bless.

Yes next year when I am 6 I hope to graduate to the 1st grade. Ha Ha:extrahappy:

 

[Lively_Stone]

The Catholic Church loan of its vehicles from the Italian government. They loan Air Force jet for the Papal travels. You seem to look at one narrow view and overlooked at the charitable works of Mother Theresa, and other devote Catholics committed in helping the poor in the third world. The Church is not wealthy as you claim it to be.

No it wasn’t.

Guy Fawkes (13 April 1570 – 31 January 1606), also known as Guido Fawkes, was a member of a group of English Roman Catholics who attempted to carry out the Gunpowder Plot on 5 November 1605.

Guy Fawkes did and he was no Jesuits. He was Catholic but not a Jesuit “The Gunpowder Plot” was a plan to assassinate the Protestant King James I (James VI of Scotland) and the members of both houses of the Parliament of England, by exploding Westminster Palace during the formal opening session of the 1605 Parliament, in which the King addressed a joint assembly of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Fawkes was in large part responsible for the later stages of the plan’s execution. His activities were detected before the plan’s completion, and following a severe interrogation involving the use of torture and a trial in Westminster Hall before Judge John Popham, he and his co-conspirators were executed for treason. Fawkes’s failure (or the attempt) is remembered by Guy Fawkes Night (also known as Bonfire Night or Fireworks Night) on 5 November.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes

I am not lying here. You have been deceived by an Anti-Catholic website called JesusisLord.com who made the false accusations you made against the Church.

Next time you make false accusation of the Catholic Church you better have more reliable resources. Not of your claims is proven to be true. They are more distorted Truths.

I thought I explained myself pretty well. I suggest that you read Foxes book of martyrs and see the truth of the first 10 persecutions of the Christians by Rome and then the horrible persecution of the Catholic Church to anyone that stood in their way of consolidating their Popery in the know world. Just don’t feel like nit picking over everything. Your Church did it and to deny it is simply rediculous. Read the book.

I refer you to Foxes Book of Martyrs. You have to read it in small doses because it is so personal and savage.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Excuse my ignorance of some of the logistics of getting messages to the appropriate sources. I have trouble figuring out how attachments to someones message is navigated. A member asked for a site for the 1828 Websters dictionary. I do not know of one. I had to purchase my copy. AV publications has them. Availible in book or CD Rom. I have the CD Rom which I find very convenient. However the book is more extensive and expensive. www.avpublications.com

I use the “quote” button in the post to “quote” which I can see you know how to do because you have done it.

If I break up a person’s quote to insert my own words I make sure that I use the code at the end of where I want to end their statement.

If I’m including more of their statement then I type in the code

in the beginning and the code I showed you above at the end. (if I did it here it would just make a quote box)

Then of course before submiting a reply I look at it in the preview.
This is so I can be sure the post is going to look the way I want it to look.

There’s whole forum just for “testing” these funtions out.
Here is a link to said forum: forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=93

 

[Mannyfit75]

I thought I explained myself pretty well. I suggest that you read Foxes book of martyrs and see the truth of the first 10 persecutions of the Christians by Rome and then the horrible persecution of the Catholic Church to anyone that stood in their way of consolidating their Popery in the know world. Just don’t feel like nit picking over everything. Your Church did it and to deny it is simply rediculous. Read the book.

I refer you to Foxes Book of Martyrs. You have to read it in small doses because it is so personal and savage.

Not really. I’m not nit picking I’m only stating the facts, which you apparently distorted.

I probably do not consider those books reliable either must if they are written by “Anti-Catholic” authors which apparently seem to point it.

I would also becare **not to use **the term “Popery” since that language is against the Forum Rules of Conduct in respecting the faith of the Catholics in the forum. It only shows that your Anti-Catholic bias is very by your own writings.

Your explanation in post 533 was not very clear it was rather distort facts compared to the Wikipedia which I cited.

For one you claim he was a Jesuit. He is not. He is a Catholic. His bio doesn’t state was a Jesuits… so your argument falls apart.

The worst thing lies I think is one try to distort history which have done by claiming the Pope was involve in assassination King James I, which is untrue.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Yes next year when I am 6 I hope to graduate to the 1st grade. Ha Ha:extrahappy:

 

[lak611]

Excuse my ignorance of some of the logistics of getting messages to the appropriate sources. I have trouble figuring out how attachments to someones message is navigated. A member asked for a site for the 1828 Websters dictionary. I do not know of one. I had to purchase my copy. AV publications has them. Availible in book or CD Rom. I have the CD Rom which I find very convenient. However the book is more extensive and expensive. www.avpublications.com

Ok, thanks. I thought maybe it was available online since it would be old enough that there would not be copyright protection any more.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Ok, thanks. I thought maybe it was available online since it would be old enough that there would not be copyright protection any more.

lak, when you asked your question I did a google search.

I did find this web page: 65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for

However I waited for Lively Stone to post, because I thought he would have one.

Lively Stone can let us know if what the web-page would work.
That is he can compare it to his disk.

Edit: re-did link because the first time it was bad.