po18guy
Well-known member
They claim to be big “lovers of scripture”, but the Orthodox have 77 books in their bible, four more than the Catholic. But, do they ever call the Orthodox Church names? Noooooo!!!
Just those wascally Cathowics.
- Status
Just those wascally Cathowics.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Well guess what? I am that old too and I do not remember any “excommunication ceremony” involving Jackie Kennedy or anyone else for that matter. The only excommunications I recall were Father Feeney and Bishop Lefrebre. Neither of them had any ceremony. What’s more I tried to google Jackie Kennedy and excommunication ceremony and came up with nada, zilch, zero, NOTHING!!!
Now, I will readily admit that my googling talents are amateurish at best and maybe yours might be better than mine so if you would please inform all of us as to where you found this information then we all could share in your knowledge. And you say you actually saw this ceremony on television? Tell me, did Walter Cronkite narrate? You know, like he did all the NASA space launches. This is no joke. I am very serious about this. We all know of the media’s fascination of the Kennedy’s and after Jack’s death that fascination fell on Jackie, especially with her marriage to the Greek shipping tycoon, Aristole Onasis. So if Jackie Kennedy was excommunicated, ceremony or no ceremony, then the world of Google would have hundreds, if not thousands of hits, but I can find none. So 'fess up, exactly what ceremony did you see, if indeed, you saw one?
C
CWBetts
Guest
news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19681023&id=bNsLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SVcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6609,5296591
Evidence that Jackie Kennedy was indeed NOT excommunicated.
Evidence that Jackie Kennedy was indeed NOT excommunicated.
po18guy
Well-known member
Dude, you appear to be more concerned with being non-Catholic than you are with being Christian. FYI: The official name of the Church you fear is “The Church of Christ”.
What can we do to draw you back to the topic of this thread?
R
RedBert
Guest
You keep bring up the disagreement among Protestant
There is a big elephant in the room that you are not discussing.
what about he disagreements among Catholics?
Eighty-five percent (85%) of Catholics believe Jesus rose from the dead along with 86% of Protestants and 97% of Evangelical Christians.
Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Catholics also think Jesus was the son of God. That view is shared by 90% of Protestants and 97% of Evangelical Christians.
Finally, 87% of Catholics, 95% of Protestants and all Evangelical Christians surveyed believe that Jesus Christ walked the earth.
rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/april_2009/79_believe_jesus_christ_rose_from_the_dead
The pollsters reported that:
"Despite the Roman Catholic Church’s historical emphasis on the theological importance of Mary, Catholics in the poll were somewhat less likely than Protestants to believe in the virgin birth. Theologians attributed this to the doctrine in many Protestant churches that the Bible must be accepted as literal truth."
read it again it case you missed it.
religioustolerance.org/virgin_b7.htm
from a conservative Catholic April 2009
" Church-going Catholics are far more likely that Church-going non-Catholics (almost all Protestant) to accept immoral behavior.
I do not find this surprising. Other polls I have seen over the years reveal similar patterns.
Why?
The failure of catechesis over the past two generations is one of the principal reasons. Making felt banners does not help produce a reverence for God and the moral law. Catechesis may have improved in the schools, but fewer Catholic children are going to Catholics schools or to religious education classes. Instead they are picking up their attitudes from their poorly-catechized parents, among whom are prominent politicians.
But this still does not fully explain the difference. Why are Church-going Protestants better able to resist accepting prevalent secular attitudes to morality? Catholics once submitted to the teaching authority of the Church; many Catholics, even those who regularly attend church, have clearly rejected that, and have nothing to replace it except the standards of American society. Perhaps Protestantism, built upon a veneration of the Bible, has been better able to resist the moral acids of secularism. Catholics claim that the living authority of the magisterium is better able to meet moral challenges, but this does not in fact seem to be the case. Roma locuta est, but very few Catholics are listening. When the Bible speaks, (and it does speak clearly on many issues) many Protestants listen.-lee podles
podles.org/dialogue/183-183.htm
In EVERY survey or poll a protestant is more like to belive in a Biblical truth than a Catholic
look at table 2 hear at
harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982
R
RedBert
Guest
we disagree on the context: is father ,mother and cousins/ assoicates or father mother and brothers and sisters?
We disagree. we won’t resolve it.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Nothing you provided does anything to refute the fact that the fullness of truth is to be found alone in the Catholic Church. All the polls do is confirm what faithful Catholics already know: Catechesis has been very poor for the last 40 years. Unlike Evangelicals, the Catholic Church is not primarily made up of those of us on earth. We are in training camp. The Church is primarily made up of the Saints, who, sadly, could not be reached for the purposes of polling.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The term quickly changed from being a mere adjective to a noun by the end of the first century, Redbert. That’s within the lifetime of the Apostle John. More on this below.
Earliest Use of the Name “Catholic Church”
The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as the Way (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those who followed Christ began to be called Christians beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26).
As early as 107 A.D., that same group was referred to as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])
Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. That means that the Christian assembly was probably calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century.
The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day.
As a side note, it is interesting that the believers in Antioch coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church”.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
What of them? Individual Catholics may disagree about a particular point of doctrine or discipline, but there is a single position taught by the Church on most any given issue.
So, while some Catholics may disagree with the Church, there is no doubt about what the correct position is.
Conversely, Protestants, who all claim to be go by the Bible Alone and to be led by the Holy Spirit into all truth, cannot agree on basic doctrinal issues such as baptismal regeneration and infant baptism to name only two points of contention.
“You Are Also!”
Adapted from “Disunity on the Essentials” by Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312bt.asp
Because of the divisions with Protestantism, its advocates typically do not attempt to defend the indefensible. Instead, they commonly resort to a form of tu quoque (Latin, “You are also!”) argument in which they attempt to tar Catholics with similar disunity.
For example, they might say, “Look at the Dominicans and the Jesuits. They typically hold different views of predestination. This shows that Catholics as well as Protestants disagree on essentials, and thus are no more credible than Protestants.”
In response, a number of points may be made: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics). Third, the differences between Catholic schools of thought have nowhere near the magnitude of the difference among Protestant schools. Compared to the differences among Protestant groups, differences among orthodox Catholic groups are trivial. Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Protestant circles that can speak for Protestantism.
Other times, advocates of Protestantism will attempt to construct a parallel argument against Catholics by pointing to the existence of ostensible Catholics who refuse to acknowledge the magisterium’s teachings.
In response, it should be pointed out that the difference among Catholic dissidents is frequently far less than among individuals in the sweep of Protestant belief. Furthermore, individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium any more than the refusal to accept some of Paul’s teachings undermines Paul’s authority as an apostle. Moreover, Protestant churches also have individuals who refuse to honor the teachings of their denominations. The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Not if you aren’t willing to examine the matter, we won’t.
I have already provided scriptural evidence that James, Joses and Jude were not uterine brothers of Jesus.
Since this proves beyond question that the NT applies the word “brother” to individuals who have been demonstrated to be the sons of people other than Mary, doesn’t it seem reasonable to reexamine your presuppositions concerning the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?
I
inkaneer
Guest
What disagreement? There is only one Catholic voice not the thousands in protestantism. Now there may be individuals who may claim to be Catholic but if they deny Catholic doctrine how can they be Catholic? They can not. They are nothing more than protestants claiming to be Catholics, wolves in sheep clothing as the scriptures put it.
Your statistics are meaningless. Catholicism is not a cafeteria christianity like that of protestant denominations. In protestantism one can shop for the brand of christianity that “fits” them. If you don’t like baptism is a sacrament that is necessary for salvation and is given to infants you can find any number of Baptist or Pentecostal/ Fundamentalist/ Evangelical denominations that will cater to your beliefs. In Catholicism that is not possible. In the old testament was it possible for the Jews to practice their own brand of worship? NO. So what makes you think that you can do it in the Net Testament? Jesus said he would establish a church and that church was founded on the Apostles. To these men Jesus said,
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” [Lu 10:16]
This promise was made to the Apostles and through Apostolic Succession [see Acts chapter 1] is passed in an unbroken line down thru the centuries to the present day Catholic Church. Protestants do not have this line of authority going back to Jesus Himself. All protestants have as authority is a Catholic liturgical book which they have perverted from its liturgical use to some sort of Rosetta stone for alleged immortality.
Again. I could care less what pseudo Catholics believe. The question is what does the Church teach. As you own quote says, “Despite the Roman Catholic Church’s historical emphasis on the theological importance of Mary…” That is what the Catjholic Church teaches and if you are Catholic that is what you believe.
That’s because protestants only have a perverted bible for authority. You got a one legged stool which is probably why some protestant denominations think abortion and contraception are not sins. Did you know that it was reported in a protestant magazine for ministers that a survey of Baptist ministers showed that 14% of Baptist ministers admitted to engaging in sexual perversion and 70% knew Baptist ministers who engaged in sexual perversion? NACBA stands for The National Association of Church Business Administration. Don’t believe me then Go here:
nacba.net/Article/Baptist_Sex.htm
Now compare that to the less than 1% of Catholic priests that all you prots jump up and down about.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Indeed the term Catholic Church came directly from the scriptures. If you look at Acts 9:31 wherein it says,
“So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.” [Acts 9:31]
The words “…church throughout…” in the Greek is “ecclesia kata holis” or Catholic Church. That is where the term originated. Ignatius got the credit for using it but it was Luke who first penned the term in Acts.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Well said. :dancing:
I
inkaneer
Guest
The issue is not that we agree but who is correct. The protestant argument on the brothers of Jesus rests solely on a strict interpretation of the Greek word ‘adelphos’. We Catholics have shown that there are at least two places in the scripture that that strict interpretation results in error. Even by protestant standards error is not permitted in the scriptures. So whose error is it the scriptures or the protestants? Let’s face it the real reason you don’t want to accept the perpetual virginity of Mary is because it is TOO CATHOLIC so you accept error over truth because the TRUTH is Catholic and we wouldn’t want that now, would we?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Lot, the “Brother” of Abram
The following verses prove conclusively that the Bible uses the generic term “brother” to refer to more distant kinsmen:
Genesis 12:5
He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there.
Genesis 13:8
So Abram said to Lot, "Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brother****s.
Genesis 14:12
They also carried off Abram’s nephew Lot and his possessions, since he was living in Sodom.
In light of this evidence, RedBert, do you think it would be prudent to reconsider the idea that Mary had other children?
G
guanophore
Guest
No, but it does help to have a footnote explaining that Matt. was originally written in Aramaic, and there was no word for "cousin’ or “stepbrother”. All near kin were referred to as immediate family members.
I a curious by what authority you have determined this to be true.
G
guanophore
Guest
I am quite shocked to read this from someone claiming to be “Orthodox”.
The Church is not a “corporation”, but the Holy Bride of Christ. He shoulders are His shoulders, unless you have decapitated Him to redefine Church, as many of our Evangelical brethren have done.
Yes, some issues do fall under the category of mysteries.
The perpetual virginity is an historical fact, though, and is not included in those. Her perpetual virginity has been revealed to us.
Denial of this is to deny the One Deposit of Faith that was given once for all to the Church. This is absolutly not an “orthodox” response.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
In the US, the approved text is the New American Bible, I believe.
Since both of these translations are Protestant, they are not approved. “Brother” (Aramaic - adelphos) does not mean “uterine brother” as you seem to think.
Since “your week-to-week, sitting in the pew, Catholic” understands that Mary was ever-virgin, I don’t think they hold the position that you claim they hold.
Yes, that is why we have scholars. Consequently, we do not have the misunderstandings that you seem to believe we have.
We read scripture under the guidance of the Church.
Why? We have Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.
Don’t you?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m betting that Crow used the word “corporate” in its “collective” sense.
G
guanophore
Guest
Did you wish to celebrate your refusal to listen to those whom Christ sent?
It is more likely that you have separated yourself over a moral issue.
There was no need. Joseph accepted the betrothal knowing that she had made a vow of celibacy and service to God. He did this in accordance with the Mosaic Law.
your anti-catholic sarcasm is leaking.
This is a false statement.
Actually, this is also a false statement. Two of them. the Church condemns no one. The Church recognizes that some stand condemned by their refusal of the Truth. The condemnation, however, does not come from the Church. It is the default position for all those who refuse Christ. As He said “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, he who does not believe is condemned already”. All those who are outside of Him are condemned already, even before the Church was born.
The church has never condemned anyone to hell. The Church recognizes that Jesus only has One Body, and that no one is saved outside of it. You are making references to statements of the Magesterium that are directed to Catholics, to warn them against embracing heresies. These do not apply to modern day “Protesatants”.
This is a more accurate way to express it.
One must wonder, why are you here at CAF?
- Status