Poll: U.S. Catholics want a younger, more liberal pope

[GaryTaylor]

I have a book here that I am currently reading. The Oxford dictionary of Popes. It mixes the Anti-popes in there as well. It doesn’t give a clear picture.

What does this have to do with the conversation?

"Upon this rock I will build my Church.

And He gave St Peter the Key of the Kingdom and the power to bind and lose , Pope Francis resides in that Chair, Amen.

Only one house.

Pope Francis in that Chair, in control Tuesday. Is there another one?

You mentioned the sacraments…

All of them in relation to reconciliation thus Communion with St Peter’s Chair.

Baptism is one of them…

Its possible that one alone may save your soul. You think its a good plan?

A house that is divided will fall down. The Roman Catholic Church has been with us for 2000 years. It is the Bride of Christ…

Eh…Gates of hell shall not prevail, Amen, Yes… The Roman Catholic Church has been with us for 2000 years. It is the Bride of Christ. And the See of St Peters Chair where Pope Francis serves his flock, and completely on Tuesday.

Amen.

Each person is a part of the Bride of Christ…

Are they? And are they all in Communion with Rome, or are they in a Apostolic Church or the Universal Church? Are you sure they are in the Church at all?

St. Peter saw it important that Judas was replaced…

Apostolic Succession confirmed.

So it would be far more important for St.Peter to be replaced…

That’s why we have Pope Francis, Amen.

If we look at the sacraments that the church teaches and practices, then it really can’t be wrong…

St Peters Chair, the Teaching Authority of the Church, where St Francis resides, agreed. Definitely not wrong, glad were in agreement what a Blessing.

while it has love and respect for Christ then it can’t go astray…

Eh…Your words alone, I go with… “the Gates of hell shall not prevail”. That would be St Peters Chair.

It’s those who leave that go astray.

I don’t know where those who leave go. My concern is why they leave? Probably same reason as always obedience.

 

[JamesCaruso]

If you are baptized Methodist…but raised Catholic…in what way? If what you mean is that you go to Mass every Sunday but have no formal training…then no you are not Catholic and are not to be admitted to the sacraments.

If you are baptized Methodist and go through RCIA and then receive confirmation and then Holy Communion then yes you are Catholic.

Correct about baptism…you belong to Christ…but being baptized Methodist does not make you Catholic.

I meant. if you were baptized Methodist and then raised Catholic, say for example if you were adopted by Catholic parents, and you received Holy Communion, were confirmed, etc., then you are Catholic. Baptism makes a person part of the Body of Christ, not Catholic. Baptism plus their profession of the Catholic Faith makes them a Catholic. I understand that parents stand in for their child when they are baptized, but the child must ratify their decision to be Catholic when they are at an age at which they can understand. I think we agree. But if not, have at me.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Partial birth is done on VERY late stage pregnancies. If a woman is raped, chances are she doesn’t wait until week 22 in her pregnancy to seek an abortion. Ditto with incest which frankly is such a tiny tiny fraction of abortions it’s hardly worth mentioning.

You do make a point that all late term abortions, regardless of reason should be banned. I think 99.9% of America would agree with this. It is barbaric…

Lisa

It is barbaric in boldface and quotation marks because everyone but the hardest of hearts can readily see that it is cold-blooded murder of the most innocent and helpless of our human family. It is the nearest thing to murdering Jesus I can imagine. But killing of human life a moment after conception is equally barbaric from the viewpoint of the innocent victim, only more easily forgivable. I’m speaking in human terms. God can forgive even those in political office who support late term abortion, but if they know what they are doing, it would be fitting that they spend the remainder of their lives on their knees in prayer and contrition. Not to sound holier than thou, that might be a good idea for all of us. I’m thinking how the saints were horrified at even the most venial faults of their own.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Another fan of Fr. Wade Menezes, I see. Fine priest. Excellent communicator, and really knows his theology in a way that makes it accessible to the laity.

(I know that’s not your point. Hey, I am as discouraged & mortified as you are.)

I think Vatican II may have cast a wider net to draw in the largest number of those who were waning in their faith. But the time may be coming, or has already arrived, when Our Lord will begin to purify His Church and throw out those who refuse to take His commandments to heart. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. Rev 3:16

 

[JamesCaruso]

Thanks for doing the leg work for me Annabelle. This is from the Code of Canon Law, remember code #1, it only pertains to the Latin Rite Church. Therefore this canon is only talking to and about the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. Latin Rite.

By baptism a person is incorporated into to Catholic Church, Catholic baptism that is. In that baptism certain rights and privileges that come with this. To be outside of communion does in no way break that incorporation, however it may impede the rights and privileges that baptism confers.

Simply put, a fallen away Catholic who claims to be and is truly committed to another denomination, whether that be Baptist, Methodist, atheist, Muslim, etc., is part of that denomination. However, by nature of their Catholic baptism they are very much still incorporated in the one Church, Catholic.

In other words, when they decide to come home they will no need to be baptized, as they were never “un-Catholic-ed”. They would go through a process, RCIA or through the sacrament of Reconciliation. Either way when a person returns to full communion then they are said to be just that, a Catholic in full communion, or a practicing faithful Catholic.

Anyone who is excommunicated either by their own action or a canonical action by the Church, they are still incorporated in the one true Church, the Latin rite Church. The difference is they are now excommunicated and under sanction until they repent and make amends and re-unite fully to Her.

There are absolutely no documents which tell us how to “un-baptize” a person, its not something that exists.

Well, I do admire your zeal on this point, and I do believe you speak only in Christian charity, but I must be missing something. The Canon does not specify “Catholic.” You are, in my mind, jumping to conclusions, when you argue that that is what they meant it to mean. It went on to refer to Christians, not Catholics.

But you made a point saying that the Canon pertains to the Roman Rite only. The way I see that is that Catholic babies are made members of the Roman Catholic Church based on their parents standing in for them and resting on their intention to raise them in the Roman Catholic Faith, not on the fact of baptism. The act of baptism itself does not make them a Catholic except in the broadest sense of the word, a sense that the Church itself does not use to refer to members of other Christian faiths.

Baptism as the Catechism correctly states, makes a person a part of the Body of Christ. It is in this context that I believe the Canon refers to the Church of Christ, but which you believe means only the Catholic Church. It may also be referring to the parents’ standing in for them.

I believe that while baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the baptized person, marking them as belonging to Christ, it does not mark them indelibly as Catholics. The infant baptized by a priest must ratify that decision of his parents as to Church membership when he comes of age. He must profess his Catholic Faith. If he does not, as you said, the canon only applies to the Latin Rite, and if he is not a member of the Latin Rite, he is not Catholic either. His parents can no longer be said to speak for him when he is able to speak for himself. Otherwise, membership in the Church is not voluntary, and I see no precedent for that.

He cannot renounce his baptism so easily. I suppose that if you tied a person to a chair and proceeded to baptize them, it would leave the same indelible mark, a lot of good that would do! I may even be wrong on that score-- any theologians know the answer to forced baptism?

Your argument, if I understand it, is that all Christians are baptized into the Catholic Church. At some level I agree with that, but in the general understanding of what we mean by Catholic, I must disagree. Baptism makes one a part of the Body of Christ, and in that sense a member of the Church of Christ. But to be Catholic, in the ordinary sense of the word, means to profess what the Catholic Church teaches. It is both a baptism and a profession of faith.

I would refrain from calling Methodists “non-practicing Catholics”. The Church does not. The Church does refer to “our separated brethren.” It never refers to them, correct me if I’m wrong, as fallen away Catholics, at least, not anymore. They profess a different faith, but not different enough to make them non-Christians.

Here is the teaching from the Catechism regarding Christians other than Catholics:

1. Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

If they are not children of the Catholic Church, I submit, they are not Catholics in the way the Church describes Catholics. But I am willing to accept your notion of Catholicism as being all the baptized in a very narrow sense not generally used by the Church. I think it’s more of an academic notion but I like the idea. Christ’s Body is not divided, nor is His Church, although it is badly hurting. In that sense, all the baptized and all the baptized by desire are members of the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ.

 

[Mark121359]

Another fan of Fr. Wade Menezes, I see. Fine priest. Excellent communicator, and really knows his theology in a way that makes it accessible to the laity.

(I know that’s not your point. Hey, I am as discouraged & mortified as you are.)

He’s really special! EWTN Radio in my area airs The Fathers of Mercy everyday at 2pm. Fr. Wade Menezes and Fr. Ben Cameron are the two that air the most and I enjoy both of them!

Peace, Mark

 

[Steve_Jay]

What does this have to do with the conversation?
And He gave St Peter the Key of the Kingdom and the power to bind and lose , Pope Francis resides in that Chair, Amen.
Pope Francis in that Chair, in control Tuesday. Is there another one?
All of them in relation to reconciliation thus Communion with St Peter’s Chair.
Its possible that one alone may save your soul. You think its a good plan?
Eh…Gates of hell shall not prevail, Amen, Yes… The Roman Catholic Church has been with us for 2000 years. It is the Bride of Christ. And the See of St Peters Chair where Pope Francis serves his flock, and completely on Tuesday.
Amen.

Are they? And are they all in Communion with Rome, or are they in a Apostolic Church or the Universal Church? Are you sure they are in the Church at all?
Apostolic Succession confirmed.
That’s why we have Pope Francis, Amen.
St Peters Chair, the Teaching Authority of the Church, where St Francis resides, agreed. Definitely not wrong, glad were in agreement what a Blessing.

Eh…Your words alone, I go with… “the Gates of hell shall not prevail”. That would be St Peters Chair.
I don’t know where those who leave go. My concern is why they leave? Probably same reason as always obedience.

Hello Gary.
you ask what has the Oxford Dictionary of popes got to do with the conversation. It isn’t a Roman Catholic publication but it manages to prove that through the linage of popes it goes all the way back to St. Peter. Readers can become confused about what the church has authorised by looking at the antipopes. Antipopes who tried to usurp the throne of the pope. That brings to my mind the devil trying to usurp the throne of God.

You close b y saying: “I don’t know where those who leave go. My concern is why they leave? Probably same reason as always obedience”
Is that a typo at the end? Obedience?

Islam is growing where I live. There is a move to get the teaching of Christ out of schools and to have Islam taught as part of “understanding other faiths.” So the denominations that are away from the Roman Catholic Church are weaker for being so.

That will never happen in a Roman Catholic School. The Church is a great treasure that has been given to us by God. Jesus told St. Peter to feed his sheep. That is the job of the pope. Those who attack the pope also attack the food supply therefore the whole church suffers.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hello Gary.
you ask what has the Oxford Dictionary of popes got to do with the conversation. It isn’t a Roman Catholic publication but it manages to prove that through the linage of popes it goes all the way back to St. Peter. Readers can become confused about what the church has authorised by looking at the antipopes. Antipopes who tried to usurp the throne of the pope. That brings to my mind the devil trying to usurp the throne of God…

The Gates of hell shall not prevail. Otherwise proof relating to today and the OP or its speculation.

You close b y saying: “I don’t know where those who leave go. My concern is why they leave? Probably same reason as always obedience”

What typo yours above??

Is it why you left? Still no response to what Rite of the Church your in? In fact I see you don’t respond to anything but with speculation?

Islam is growing where I live.

Proof or its speculation.

There is a move to get the teaching of Christ out of schools and to have Islam taught as part of “understanding other faiths.”.

Proof or its speculation

So the denominations that are away from the Roman Catholic Church are weaker for being so…

And your point is, to further speculate?

That will never happen in a Roman Catholic School…

More speculation.

The Church is a great treasure that has been given to us by God…

And the Keys given to St Peter along with the power to forgive your sin. What a Blessing.

Jesus told St. Peter to feed his sheep. That is the job of the pope…

And that is what he is doing, and fantastic at that. How about your opinion here as you provided on everything else? Or no response again?

Those who attack the pope also attack the food supply therefore the whole church suffers.

Public Revelation remains the same.

The Church has been in “historically” reduced to a handful of Bishops, nothing unprecedented, still here and with 1.2 billion members. Foolish to take your eyes of your salvation in speculation imho.

The fact is Rome is where it was established, it has withstood every evil and temporal social-political power for 2000 years. Its “de-facto” historically and in reality…still here, the Church Jesus Christ Divinely established through St Peter. And the gates of hell have never prevailed.

Any more speculation?

 

[Spudbynight]

In current day terminology, post reformation, the Latin Rite Catholic Church has been and still is referred to as the Roman Catholic Church. If you see me write Catholic, big C, then yes I am referring as the entire Catholic Church; all Rites included. On the other hand if you see me refer to the Roman Catholic Church I am in fact referring to the Church that is Latin Rite.

I do at times refer to the “One, Holy catholic and Apostolic Church” as you do here because it is proper. There are many Rites in communion with Rome, and you are 100% correct to say that all are not RC, but the Church of Rome where the bishop sits in the Chair of St. Peter is in fact the Holy Roman Church.

The term RCC came after the reformation actually as a derogatory term aimed at the Catholic Church as a whole by protestants. But as usual, it has become part of the life of this Church, the Latin, RC, Church. Jesus always used bad to do good.

If I said anything contrary to this I do sincerely apologize. I made a lot of posts in a hurry to many posts; it is possible I mixed up the terms. Thanks!

Lapey - you have misunderstood my point I think.

I didn’t say they were not all Roman Catholic - I actually said the complete opposite. The term Roman Catholic refers correctly to all in communion with Rome. The word Roman in that context doesn’t refer to the liturgical rite used.

Eastern Rite Catholics are just as much “Roman Catholics” as Latin Rite Catholics.

I wouldn’t nit pick so much but your posts give the impression that we are separate from our brothers not in the Latin Rite.

 

[october_baby]

But can we mention the poor catechesis? The rarity of homilies that speak to these issues? I’m a convert and got only a smattering of the views on life, marriage, proper understanding of sexuality in RCIA although I sat in “class” for two hours every week from September through May. I am a good student, I absorb lessons well. Honestly this was virtually never dealt with other than an overview…we are a pro life church blah blah blah.

Most of what I’ve learned below the surface teaching at Mass and RCIA was in my own reading and research, listening to Catholic radio, watching EWTN and quite honestly from CAF! Looking at the average Cradle Catholic who to my experience knows LESS than I do, it is no wonder so many have such mistaken views regarding the Church’s teaching.

Lisa

Amen to that! That’s been my experience as well.

 

[Steve_Jay]

The Gates of hell shall not prevail. Otherwise proof relating to today and the OP or its speculation.
What typo yours above??
Is it why you left? Still no response to what Rite of the Church your in? In fact I see you don’t respond to anything but with speculation?
Proof or its speculation.
Proof or its speculation
And your point is, to further speculate?
More speculation.
And the Keys given to St Peter along with the power to forgive your sin. What a Blessing.
And that is what he is doing, and fantastic at that. How about your opinion here as you provided on everything else? Or no response again?
Public Revelation remains the same.
The Church has been in “historically” reduced to a handful of Bishops, nothing unprecedented, still here and with 1.2 billion members. Foolish to take your eyes of your salvation in speculation imho.
The fact is Rome is where it was established, it has withstood every evil and temporal social-political power for 2000 years. Its “de-facto” historically and in reality…still here, the Church Jesus Christ Divinely established through St Peter. And the gates of hell have never prevailed.
Any more speculation?

Hello Gary,
you appear to have a problem understanding what I’ve been saying.
Why do you think some people leave the church through obedience? The church is God’s will. So how can a person leave through obedience?
You say what I offer is speculation.
Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. He did not say his church would not suffer. If it didn’t then there would no martyrs that have. The church suffers because the devil hates Christ’s Bride and tries to destroy it. He tries. One way is by attacking the pope.
What Rite do I follow you ask. That’s an odd question to me. Jesus said those who are not with him are against him. Is the Roman Catholic Church for or against Christ? It’s obviously with him. The Church is his Bride.
How would you define sin? I would define it as not loving each other as we should. God has said that unless we love each other then we can’t love him. if we love him then we’ll do as he says.
Imagine if getting to heaven were a race. Jesus has already won the race. The best we can do is come second. If we all hold hands then we all come second. We help each other to come second. So who is holding the hand of the pope?

 

[Lapey]

Well, I do admire your zeal on this point, and I do believe you speak only in Christian charity, but I must be missing something. The Canon does not specify “Catholic.” You are, in my mind, jumping to conclusions, when you argue that that is what they meant it to mean. It went on to refer to Christians, not Catholics.

Thanks for noticing the zeal for the faith that God has given me and not just blow it off as me being a “blow hard.” This is what I do; I am involved in apologetics almost daily and do workshops on these subjects. I’ve had two semesters of canon law and have a good enough working knowledge of the code to see my way through what I may need for making a point. No, I am not and never will be a “canonist”! The canon does not have to say “Catholic”, as I have pointed out this is the only “section” of Christianity, if you will that the law pertains to. It is not written for any other Christian ecclesial community. It most definitely refers to Catholic Latin Rite, no stretch this is what the code is talking about.

But you made a point saying that the Canon pertains to the Roman Rite only. The way I see that is that Catholic babies are made members of the Roman Catholic Church based on their parents standing in for them and resting on their intention to raise them in the Roman Catholic Faith, not on the fact of baptism. The act of baptism itself does not make them a Catholic except in the broadest sense of the word, a sense that the Church itself does not use to refer to members of other Christian faiths.

The act of baptism makes them children of God in this Catholic Church, they are Catholic by their baptism, and this is exactly what the canon and CCC 1272 state. Remember, both of these documents are directed at the Latin Rite Church. Many of us see things as we would like them to be but in reality they are not; this is one case.

Baptism as the Catechism correctly states, makes a person a part of the Body of Christ. It is in this context that I believe the Canon refers to the Church of Christ, but which you believe means only the Catholic Church. It may also be referring to the parents’ standing in for them.

The Body of Christ is catholic. The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. This is what the CCL is directly referring to, and that is all it is referring to. We spent an entire three hour class on this fist CCL,
Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church. (Actual quote of the CCL #1)
This is not my belief; it is in fact the law of the Church, the Catholic Church.

 

[Lapey]

I believe that while baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the baptized person, marking them as belonging to Christ, it does not mark them indelibly as Catholics. The infant baptized by a priest must ratify that decision of his parents as to Church membership when he comes of age. He must profess his Catholic Faith. If he does not, as you said, the canon only applies to the Latin Rite, and if he is not a member of the Latin Rite, he is not Catholic either. His parents can no longer be said to speak for him when he is able to speak for himself. Otherwise, membership in the Church is not voluntary, and I see no precedent for that.

What about the places in the Latin Rite Church that still to this day confirm children under the age of reason? The eastern Rite Churches confirm as infants. They receive all three sacraments at the same time, infancy. This is an example of being very poorly catechized. Please look into this more; this is not at all accurate. A person who is baptized by a Catholic priest or deacon, or bishop, is fully Catholic. They are held to the CCL as any other Latin Rite catholic by nature of their baptism they are members of this family. It is not at all accurate to say that a child must “ratify” anything. Their parents spoke for them, they are Catholic. Now they can choose to leave the Church and live as a fallen away catholic, but still a Catholic. Sorry, it does not wash off. There is much precedent for this, look in Acts. When a head of a household was “brought” to the faith and baptized, their entire “clan” was as well. As they came to the faith and were baptized, then the bishops were called and confirmation was administered to all, babies and slaves included; neither of which could speak for themselves. Remember, this Church was the only one in existence until 1517 and She still regards Herself as the one true Church encompassing all.

He cannot renounce his baptism so easily. I suppose that if you tied a person to a chair and proceeded to baptize them, it would leave the same indelible mark, a lot of good that would do! I may even be wrong on that score-- any theologians know the answer to forced baptism?

Your argument, if I understand it, is that all Christians are baptized into the Catholic Church. At some level I agree with that, but in the general understanding of what we mean by Catholic, I must disagree. Baptism makes one a part of the Body of Christ, and in that sense a member of the Church of Christ. But to be Catholic, in the ordinary sense of the word, means to profess what the Catholic Church teaches. It is both a baptism and a profession of faith.

All are baptized into the catholic church, small “c”. Universal means all. But a person is not a member of the Latin Rite catholic Church until they are received in after requesting admittance. After that they are Catholic, big “C”.

I would refrain from calling Methodists “non-practicing Catholics”. The Church does not. The Church does refer to “our separated brethren.” It never refers to them, correct me if I’m wrong, as fallen away Catholics, at least, not anymore. They profess a different faith, but not different enough to make them non-Christians.

I don’t think I called any denomination as anything. If a person belongs to another denomination then that’s what they are. However, a person who was baptized Catholic and now claims to belong in another community they are in fact “fallen away Catholics”, am I right? They may be very faithful whatevers, but fallen away Catholics or separated brethren as you say.

Here is the teaching from the Catechism regarding Christians other than Catholics:

1. Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

If they are not children of the Catholic Church, I submit, they are not Catholics in the way the Church describes Catholics. But I am willing to accept your notion of Catholicism as being all the baptized in a very narrow sense not generally used by the Church. I think it’s more of an academic notion but I like the idea. Christ’s Body is not divided, nor is His Church, although it is badly hurting. In that sense, all the baptized and all the baptized by desire are members of the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ.

They are all members of the catholic church yes, but as the CCC you site reads, not members of the Catholic Church. If we truly believe this Church, Catholic, is the one true Church built upon the Rock, Peter, then we can see what these canons and CCC’s mean. All are baptized into Christ’s Body, hopefully all will be in His Church one day, the Catholic Church. But until then they are separated brethren as are the Catholics who have left the Church.

You are realy making me work, thanks for the conversation. I truly enjoy this type of discussions especially with people who don’t get upset when we have disagreement. Thanks for your posts!:thumbsup:

 

[Steve_Jay]

Any more speculation?

Hello again Gary,
I must confess that some of your comments to things I’ve stated have got under my skin a bit.
You very obviously don’t live where I live.
Not far from here there is a Roman Catholic church that is always locked. The Roman Catholic school I went to doesn’t exist any more. It is now a housing estate. Roman Catholic children are having travel further to be able to go to Catholic schools. Attendances at mass on Sunday are down considerably.
As more and more muslims have been coming here, there has been an increasing number of mosques.
You know I left the church at one time. I had been on the Charismatic Renewal leadership team within my own parish. I left the church due to the paedophile scandal that hit the national news headlines. The parish priest of one of my sisters. I did not feel I could trust priests any more.
At around the same time as that, I began questioning why Jesus died for me. I began to find the idea intolerable. It isn’t what I would have chosen. I became angry and bitter towards God because Jesus suffered and died on the cross for me. I told God I wanted nothing more to do with him!
Slowly but surely I went on a slippery slope until one day I looked at what I was becoming. I thought about Jesus and realised he is very important to me. So I told God that war between him and me is over. I meant it. Speculation?
The next thing I knew God began showing me his enemies. I began defending the truth on an internet forum that Jesus suffered, died and rose again.
On one occasion, I called on God and the angels to witness what I had been posting. I was very aware that I was posting for God so what I said had to be truthful. A little later I came back in to the room after going to the bathroom. A white figure disappeared from the seat at my computer. My immediate reaction was fear but then something inwardly said it had been there to affirm me.
There was a Christian forum that was being used to try and prove that the Holy spirit does not exist. Christians slandering each other full of all kinds of accusations. I knew not to get involved. I knew that if I did it would be big trouble for me. I received an invite to join it. So I did. I did it with the intention of putting together a Christian forum.
At this time I still hadn’t returned to the Roman Catholic Church. Any church would do for me as long as it wasn’t Catholic. I still didn’t feel I could trust priests!
I joined a Christian forum, and offered to build it’s templates. Within no time I was a member of it’s Admin. They didn’t know me at all. I could have sabotaged that forum and it struck me that its Admin team were half asleep. Some of the things going down on the forum were totally heretical. We shouldn’t be teaching the ten commandments any more being one of them. Among the things being said on that forum was that the Roman Catholic Church is the antichrist of the book of Revelation and that the pope is the false prophet. I knew that could not be true because I already knew what that is. I had begun to defend the Roman Catholic Church. They were also letting it pass that praying in tongues is of the devil. I told the admin they were sleeping and became banned.
I found myself being increasingly steered back to the church. I was in the City one day and saw a Catholic Church. I thought why not make it now. It struck later that it is named after my patron Saint. The saint whose name I took when I was confirmed.

I am seeing a priest on Tuesday to discuss with him the situation of the Roman Catholic Church here. This forum Catholic Answers is a great forum. The intention is for a forum for Catholics who live here. It is not in competition with this one.
Gary, I said that when the pope is attacked the entire Church suffers. That is not speculation. It is the truth. A person need not be a Catholic to be a Christian. How does it appear to those outside who see Christians arguing about this doctrine, that doctrine and the other doctrine? How does it appear to outsiders when Christians use the Bible to try and make it look as though the pope is the false prophet? Catholic church, pentecostal, Jehovah’s witnesses, it’s all the same to outsiders. Who should they believe? It is true to say that a person might not believe through our own fault.

John 17:21
21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

The pope is Christ’s spokesman on earth. We can only be one if we stand with the pope and give him our support.

What a ramble this post has been. Thanks for reading it.

Goodnight.

God bless you.

 

[JamesCaruso]

…

We both read the same things and draw different meanings and conclusions.

I can only reconcile your arguments by supposing that the Church, when it uses the term “member”, does not mean it in the ordinary sense of the word, that is, of a person who voluntarily joins an organization. If the Church counts you as a member simply by virtue of the fact that a priest baptized you, then it is not of your doing and so there should be no feeling of betrayal by anyone who renounces such a membership.

It’s like if I tell you that because you have replied to my post, you are now a member of the Sherlock Society of Posters, a Sherlockian. You didn’t join; I made you a member. If you decide to walk away from the Society, I might then call you a fallen away Sherlockian. There is no negative connotation to that, as there should be no negative connotation to a fallen away Catholic who never once believed in the tenets of the Catholic Faith. It’s too bad that people (not you) shame a person who conscientiously, although mistakenly, renounces his Catholic faith. It’s only shameful if the person believes in the faith, but to protect his sin, he renounces it, like Henry VIII.

A quick question. If a Catholic priest comes upon an accident and baptizes the Jewish man lying unconscious in the street, does the Jew become a Catholic?

My model for this discussion we are in is the first Christians. They heard, they believed, they asked to be baptized, and they were baptized. That is where I got the fundamental idea that Church membership is meant to be a voluntary thing, requiring both a profession of faith and a baptism, not necessarily in that order. I hope the meaning of the word “member” is the way out of this discussion.

 

[JamesCaruso]

If we truly believe this Church, Catholic, is the one true Church built upon the Rock, Peter, then we can see what these canons and CCC’s mean.

I do truly believe this Church, Catholic, is the one true Church built upon the Rock, Peter, but I do not interpret the CCC and Canon as you do.

The language we are talking about in the CCC and Canon is ambiguous. It’s true we enter the Church by baptism, but that does not mean that baptism makes one a Catholic. Baptism is baptism, no matter who performs it.

In my readings I have heard the Church referred to as the Body of Christ, yet in the CCC it clearly refers to the larger Christian community as the Body of Christ. I have heard the term Church, or Church of Christ, to mean all believers, not just Catholics, and in other contexts, I’ve heard it mean just the Catholic Church.

Get a room full of Canon lawyers, and maybe we could make some progress. But I think that might open a whole other can of worms with arguments you and I never dreamed of.

 

[october_baby]

I do truly believe this Church, Catholic, is the one true Church built upon the Rock, Peter, but I do not interpret the CCC and Canon as you do.

The language we are talking about in the CCC and Canon is ambiguous. It’s true we enter the Church by baptism, but that does not mean that baptism makes one a Catholic. Baptism is baptism, no matter who performs it.

In my readings I have heard the Church referred to as the Body of Christ, yet in the CCC it clearly refers to the larger Christian community as the Body of Christ. I have heard the term Church, or Church of Christ, to mean all believers, not just Catholics, and in other contexts, I’ve heard it mean just the Catholic Church.

Get a room full of Canon lawyers, and maybe we could make some progress. But I think that might open a whole other can of worms with arguments you and I never dreamed of.

Mr. Caruso, you could take a page out of Steve Jay’s handbook!

 

[october_baby]

Hello again Gary,
I must confess that some of your comments to things I’ve stated have got under my skin a bit.
You very obviously don’t live where I live.
Not far from here there is a Roman Catholic church that is always locked. The Roman Catholic school I went to doesn’t exist any more. It is now a housing estate. Roman Catholic children are having travel further to be able to go to Catholic schools. Attendances at mass on Sunday are down considerably.
As more and more muslims have been coming here, there has been an increasing number of mosques.
You know I left the church at one time. I had been on the Charismatic Renewal leadership team within my own parish. I left the church due to the paedophile scandal that hit the national news headlines. The parish priest of one of my sisters. I did not feel I could trust priests any more.
At around the same time as that, I began questioning why Jesus died for me. I began to find the idea intolerable. It isn’t what I would have chosen. I became angry and bitter towards God because Jesus suffered and died on the cross for me. I told God I wanted nothing more to do with him!
Slowly but surely I went on a slippery slope until one day I looked at what I was becoming. I thought about Jesus and realised he is very important to me. So I told God that war between him and me is over. I meant it. Speculation?
The next thing I knew God began showing me his enemies. I began defending the truth on an internet forum that Jesus suffered, died and rose again.
On one occasion, I called on God and the angels to witness what I had been posting. I was very aware that I was posting for God so what I said had to be truthful. A little later I came back in to the room after going to the bathroom. A white figure disappeared from the seat at my computer. My immediate reaction was fear but then something inwardly said it had been there to affirm me.
There was a Christian forum that was being used to try and prove that the Holy spirit does not exist. Christians slandering each other full of all kinds of accusations. I knew not to get involved. I knew that if I did it would be big trouble for me. I received an invite to join it. So I did. I did it with the intention of putting together a Christian forum.
At this time I still hadn’t returned to the Roman Catholic Church. Any church would do for me as long as it wasn’t Catholic. I still didn’t feel I could trust priests!
I joined a Christian forum, and offered to build it’s templates. Within no time I was a member of it’s Admin. They didn’t know me at all. I could have sabotaged that forum and it struck me that its Admin team were half asleep. Some of the things going down on the forum were totally heretical. We shouldn’t be teaching the ten commandments any more being one of them. Among the things being said on that forum was that the Roman Catholic Church is the antichrist of the book of Revelation and that the pope is the false prophet. I knew that could not be true because I already knew what that is. I had begun to defend the Roman Catholic Church. They were also letting it pass that praying in tongues is of the devil. I told the admin they were sleeping and became banned.
I found myself being increasingly steered back to the church. I was in the City one day and saw a Catholic Church. I thought why not make it now. It struck later that it is named after my patron Saint. The saint whose name I took when I was confirmed.

I am seeing a priest on Tuesday to discuss with him the situation of the Roman Catholic Church here. This forum Catholic Answers is a great forum. The intention is for a forum for Catholics who live here. It is not in competition with this one.
Gary, I said that when the pope is attacked the entire Church suffers. That is not speculation. It is the truth. A person need not be a Catholic to be a Christian. How does it appear to those outside who see Christians arguing about this doctrine, that doctrine and the other doctrine? How does it appear to outsiders when Christians use the Bible to try and make it look as though the pope is the false prophet? Catholic church, pentecostal, Jehovah’s witnesses, it’s all the same to outsiders. Who should they believe? It is true to say that a person might not believe through our own fault.

John 17:21
21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

The pope is Christ’s spokesman on earth. We can only be one if we stand with the pope and give him our support.

What a ramble this post has been. Thanks for reading it.

Goodnight.

God bless you.

Beautiful post sir! You did a man’s work! God bless you!

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

We both read the same things and draw different meanings and conclusions.

I can only reconcile your arguments by supposing that the Church, when it uses the term “member”, does not mean it in the ordinary sense of the word, that is, of a person who voluntarily joins an organization. If the Church counts you as a member simply by virtue of the fact that a priest baptized you, then it is not of your doing and so there should be no feeling of betrayal by anyone who renounces such a membership.

It’s like if I tell you that because you have replied to my post, you are now a member of the Sherlock Society of Posters, a Sherlockian. You didn’t join; I made you a member. If you decide to walk away from the Society, I might then call you a fallen away Sherlockian. There is no negative connotation to that, as there should be no negative connotation to a fallen away Catholic who never once believed in the tenets of the Catholic Faith. It’s too bad that people (not you) shame a person who conscientiously, although mistakenly, renounces his Catholic faith. It’s only shameful if the person believes in the faith, but to protect his sin, he renounces it, like Henry VIII.

A quick question. If a Catholic priest comes upon an accident and baptizes the Jewish man lying unconscious in the street, does the Jew become a Catholic?

My model for this discussion we are in is the first Christians. They heard, they believed, they asked to be baptized, and they were baptized. That is where I got the fundamental idea that Church membership is meant to be a voluntary thing, requiring both a profession of faith and a baptism, not necessarily in that order. I hope the meaning of the word “member” is the way out of this discussion.

You are wrong in this…I know from experience. I was baptized at 7 days old. This made me Catholic and as such I was bound to be married in the Church (a fact I did not know at the time) - it did not take a pronouncement of faith to do so…It was the baptism that did it. So…when I came back I was fully Catholic and as such had to deal with the marriage issue…easy enough with a convalidation as neither of us were previously married. The Catholic Church says that a Catholic baptism makes you Catholic…period. Where is CMatt 25 when you need him? I bet he has the quote for this. Did you even look at the link to EWTN and Jimmy Aiken that I posted???

 

[GaryTaylor]

you appear to have a problem

I have a problem or you do? Imho it is you. You have an inability to directly answer a question. You have answered None. You just move on when your obviously wrong and move to your next rant.

Obedience has always been the issue following Christ, how are you doing with it?

How about you answer all those question you asked above, your good at asking, lets turn this around now. Your turn,

Which rite to you follow in the Catholic Church. Remember YOU bought up the meaning of Catholic that’s how we arrived at that question.

Why aren’t you in the Latin Rite Church?

Sacrament of reconciliation in the Latin Rite, what’s your thinking?

Is the Roman Catholic Church for or against Christ?

The Latin Rite Church is His Bride?

Who is holding the Popes hand?

You thoughts on the Sacrament of Reconciliation and how it applies to you? Remember that conversation?

What hours should the Church open its doors?

Is the leader of your congregation a heretic? How do you know?

How does a Pope become an Anti- Pope?

Are you suggesting there is an Anti-Pope is Rome? How about your proof instead of speculation and mild insinuation through fleeting suggestion. I find it uncharitable and lacking. Why are you here?

Do you believe you can save your soul in the Latin Rite Catholic Church?

If the Latin Rite will save your soul in the name of Christ it must be a great thing, no?