On this rock I build My Church

[theCardinalbird]

The church was united before but God now accepts all churches hoping for complete unity in the future.

Please point to the Biblical quote that states that God doesn’t mind us having different Churches

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

The bible says reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition so I will not continue to argue

 

[theCardinalbird]

But God accepts you fanatical people if you have relation with Christ. You should wish Protestants to be saved and not be smug against them

We wish all to be saved, please stop assuming that we hate Protestants. We are also not fanatics, we simply understand that scripture only points to a One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

I believe every believer is Peter if he has relation with God he knows all things necessary for his salvation and to keep the commandments of God.

And what has God said about schism?

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

God needs people in every church but don’t reject people born in other faiths who are convinced Gods spirit is in them

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

Respect my decision not to argue with me you want to force your beliefs on me and have the last word. This is what I mean of not having relation with God. You are not really interested in my conversion

 

[theCardinalbird]

God needs people in every church but don’t reject people born in other faiths

God needs people to be in one Church with one mind. Also what do you mean by reject people born of other faiths? Are you saying we have to accept their doctrines? Or are you saying that we shouldn’t condemn them to hell (which we don’t)?

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

I may argue with you another day but I fear you just want to tear others faith and not genuinely want people to be Catholic. Only those people have no relation with Christ. I will only argue if I later seriously consider being Catholic

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

No you don’t have to accept their doctrines you have to be sensitive to their wishes such as me not wanting to be cause of stumbling block
Even if you are right you can only do so when I am ready

 

[theCardinalbird]

Respect my decision not to argue with me you want to force your beliefs on me and have the last word. This is what I mean of not having relation with God. You are not really interested in my conversion

I do respect your decision, but I have this feeling that you are not understanding the Church’s teachings on certain matters. Also I am interested in your conversion, and I am merely asking you questions

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

See post above

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

Maybe the churches teachings are good but it looks bad now so I don’t want to associate with it now

 

[theCardinalbird]

No you don’t have to accept their doctrines you have to be sensitive to their wishes such as me not wanting to be cause of stumbling block
Even if you are right you can only do so when I am ready

I don’t know what you mean by the stumbling block part, but the rest makes sense

 

[theCardinalbird]

Maybe the churches teachings are good but it looks bad now so I don’t want to associate with it now

Why does it look bad? I’m I intrigued

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

Because I have not really thought what the church believes. I assume things

 

[theCardinalbird]

Because I have not really thought what the church believes. I assume things

Ok. I will just say this though, assumptions are not a good thing, you should (at one point) look at what the Church actually teaches, that will clear a whole lot of things up

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

Thank you I hope I am led to do this in the future if God wills it

 

[jcrichton]

Respect my decision not to argue with me you want to force your beliefs on me and have the last word. This is what I mean of not having relation with God. You are not really interested in my conversion

That’s an argument that you should observe about your own pronouncements; you claim a whole mess of things for God and the Church; you make deliberate pronouncements against the Church and individual Catholics and you attribute these pronouncements to God; yet, when someone counters your “speechmaking” you claim assault, vilification or hurt… measure your words and I’m sure you’ll find less conflict in these exchanges.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[setarcos]

These teachings were made as Doctrinal Teachings? (Please demonstrate with the example.)

Ah yes…the slippery slope of misunderstanding the difference between Jesus’s revelatory truth and the Christian doctrine based upon it.
One example would be the condemnation of heresy and the list of punishments set forth in Lucius III papal bull “Ad Abolendam”, canon 3 of the Fourth Lateran Council. Though the punishments stopped short of death this bull would be the beginnings of later bulls institutionalizing the punishment of heresy including torture as a proper means of eliciting confession and expiation - up to death. These institutions going under the label (inquisitions). The same can be said of the various crusades both of which the Church has apologized for. Clear examples of straying far from the beliefs of the early church fathers, the apostles, and Christ himself.

You’ve just made the argument!

You’ve missed the point of my argument by using it solely to legitimize your own. Let me back up somewhat. Why do you think an early pope while gathering up these sacred documents into a canon couldn’t have fabricated some scripture and inserted them into the canon as sacred. Can you point to any primary Christian denomination which has a leader that has done so?

The Pope, as the head of the Church, must abide by the Church’s History when making any conclusive statements–and specially when making pronouncements of Faith. The Pope cannot be “guided” by the Holy Spirit to branch out from the Church!

Yet the early Church was against forced conversion, torture, killing thy enemy, amassing vast quantities of wealth and all of these things have been endorsed by papal bull at one time or other. I would say if it can be shown that Popes have done these things then perhaps many of the Popes weren’t being led by the holy spirit in the first place.

 

[setarcos]

How sad that you are still caught up in Church bashing. Have you compared what took place in the world at the time of the “inquisition/s?”

How sad that you still refer to that old redirection tactic by wining about Church bashing. I am not bashing the Church. I am bashing those who would use the church as a pretext for promoting their own twisted agendas. Why would you compare the world to the church as if what’s ok for the one is ok for the other in by comparison?

It was not a “Church” thing. It was a global thing. The Church was the only source of balance in a time where your neighbor, wanting your spouse, kids, house, land, animals, only had to accuse you of treason against the state or heresy–soon you and the local officials would be in business–something that still worked well against the Catholic Church in the “new world.”

The inquisition was most assuredly a Roman Church thing. It was institutionalized and an example of a loss of faith in God while putting faith in worldly tactics to ensure ones continued existence. Balance? Do you not realize you’ve described exactly what the Church instituted against many people? The Roman Church instituted a process whereby it was possible to lose everything simply by being accused of heresy. In many lands the final judge was the Roman clergy and far from being impartial they were the ultimate segregationists, bigots, and repressors. Far from meting out justice they more often allowed for the promotion of unjust actions. If anything the church was no more balancing than a modern day dictator declaring that if you do what I say you will be allowed to live.

 

[setarcos]

So you believe that Arianism was defeated not because the Truth that God has Revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but because they were voted out or exterminated?

Arianism was never defeated. Its still around, its ideas still crop up even in discussion amongst the clergy. Read the records of the council in which Arian attempted to defend his assertions. There was no debate. Many of the bishops stopped up there ears. They refused to debate the matter. Yet early church records record Arian ideas cropping up among the bishops after the council supposedly settled the matter. Speaking of which…do you know what Arians ideas about God were? It sounds as if you have a much simplified conception of the argument.

you suggest that God has not been able to manage anything in the world past Jesus’ Missionary Ministry since man, when taking the reigns of the Church, have have clashes from the day of Pentecost till today

Quite the contrary, I suggest that God is managing all things according to his will despite the mismanagement of his truths by some

Really, the Church’s magisterium teaches that one can believe in the Incarnation of the Word or not and that the Holy Trinity is just one way of accepting God’s Revelation about Himself but that everyone is free to not believe in the Holy Trinity, while claiming to be a Cristian?

Yes really, I challenged you to show me how CLEAR and SOLID the magisteriums teachings are on the conception of the trinity or the incarnation of the word. To allow you to believe in those teachings or not is a separate issue. Never the less you should understand what your being asked to believe in should you not? What is it you think you know about the incarnation of the word or the trinity as it reflects Gods being as taught by the magisterium as holy truth? It is also my understanding that in order to be a Roman Catholic you must believe her creed and that includes belief in the Trinitarian conception of God as defined by the magisterium.