G
- Status
:bigyikes:
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Because the textual evidence of the Greek NT favours the conclusion that those words (which are absent from the Latin Vulgate but present in the Greek of the time after the Vulgate) are an addition to the Lord’s Prayer, as a result of use of that prayer in the Church’s corporate worship. The use of the text in worship has influenced how it reads in other places too - such as in 1 John 5.7 & Acts 8.37.
Which is why those words are in the Authorised Version of Matthew 6.13, but not in translations made from the Vulgate translation of the passage - in this case, at least, the Vulgate of Matthew as translated by St.Jerome in the late 4th century is closer to the Greek of Matthew than is the “Byzantine” type of Greek text which underlies the Authorised Version. ##
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Wormwood said:I can see I have irritated some people, and I’m sorry. I just have a very direct and blunt style of debate that comes off a little cynical.
[snip]
Not biased, just skeptical. I see it spelled out that the jews are chosen. I do not see it spelled out that Jesus wanted to splinter from Judaism and start a church in Rome. From the texts there is nothing more than a reformation of judaism, with a more loving God. Just because my opinion differs from yours does not mean I am “Hopelessly biased”.
On the face of it, that would make perfectly good sense of such a passage as Matthew 16:13-19 or so. And as a matter of history, the Church did begin as a sect within Judaism. It would also be perfectly consistent with the Jewish setting of Jesus to see Him, not as God Incarnate but as a purely created figure who becomes Messiah-designate at his baptism, and Messiah only at the Transfiguration. This would help to explain the puzzling words in Matthew 24.34-36 - which do look very like an unfulfilled prophecy.
This view does not fit the Church’s initial experience of Jesus as the first disciples experienced Him. The Church is universal because Jesus is universal. ##God comes to men in all kinds of ways. But the only public, visible, social way Christ ordained - that is, the only “ordinary” way - is the Church, His Body.
There is only one Church, because there is One Father, One Christ, One Spirit, one Life in Christ, one faith, one hope of salvation. The unity and uniqueness of the Church are modelled upon the Unity & Uniqueness of God the Trinity. There is salvation only within this one, holy, catholic (= universal), & apostolic Church, not because the Church has God on a leash, or has caged Him away out of the reach of everyone else - such ideas are absurd, & worse - but because the Church is a particular body, and because God is particular. To explain:People sometimes ask, “Why Jesus ? What is so important about him ? Why not Buddha, or Moses, or Guru Nanak ? Why must we follow Jesus in particular ? Why does it matter ?”
Because it is in this particular man (Jesus of Nazareth) in a *particular *part of the world & at a particular time (the Roman province of Judaea, in the first century AD) that “the Word was made flesh” and God became a man like us in every respect except sin. This man, in this village, in this place, at this time, is God. He is the only god of whom this can be said: the others live and die in the remote past, or in a purely divine world without human beings, or have no date at all. But this god “died under Pontius Pilate” - a member of the Roman governing class is remembered by millions of Christians because it was during his tenure of office, and by his authority, that God was crucified. This god is historical, local, and has a date: very specific.
As is the way God acts. Love that is generalised, unfocussed, for all in general & nobody in particular is pretty useless. To be real, it has to be specific: a specific person must love another specific person - that way, love can be repaid by love. That is what God does. Because God’s Love for us is intimately personal and particular, there is a Church, with a mission to share what she has herself received. The particularity of the Church comes from the particularity of Christ, which is a result of the particularity of God’s Love. For it is in Christ that His Father is revealed: His uniqueness is what makes His Church unique. Because God is the God of all nations, His Love in Christ is meant for all: what began at Nazareth is for all mankind; so therefore is the Church - this unique Church is sent to all mankind. ##
[snip]
Haha I’m back!! No refuting comments? I hope this was just a warm up shosh
W
Wormwood
Guest
Well the protestant split was by Luther and was indeed over corruption. Why he chose to alter doctrines, I am in no position to say.
All you’ve done is say that I present poor arguments, then agreed with them. In the words of a wise philosopher “who’s the bigger fool, the fool, or the fool that follows him?”
Wow geer first let me say that your responses border on ridiculous. The bible has less words than your posts…my eyes hurt now…Secondly this argument falls apart right about here…This is like me saying that there is only one Bill Gates because there is only one pepsi machine outside my building…both my be true independant of each other, but not in a causal sense.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Well the protestant split was by Luther and was indeed over corruption. Why he chose to alter doctrines, I am in no position to say.
All you’ve done is say that I present poor arguments, then agreed with them. In the words of a wise philosopher “who’s the bigger fool, the fool, or the fool that follows him?”
Wow geer first let me say that your responses border on ridiculous. The bible has less words than your posts…my eyes hurt now…Secondly this argument falls apart right about here…This is like me saying that there is only one Bill Gates because there is only one pepsi machine outside my building…both my be true independant of each other, but not in a causal sense.
I don’t quite follow your objection. The Trinity is the “exemplary cause” of how the Church lives: the two have the very same Divine Life, for Christ mediates the Life of the Trinity to us, and we possess it as a society by being the Church. The Life of the Trinity is the Christian’s, & the Church’s. The Unity of God, is experienced by the Church as her unity too. This is a fact - not metaphor or exaggeration. Does that help at all ?
BTW, it would be easier to follow you if you could post in a way which doesn’t look as if you’re replying to one person’s post when you mean to reply to someone else; for only this last paragraph of yours was in response to me. That way, it’s easier to follow why you think a particular poster’s post is “ridiculous” TYI’m sorry my posts were so long. The trouble with anything theological is, that it can’t be properly dealt with in a sentence or two. The alternative would be to give answers which left so much unanswered that it might seem (quite inaccurately) that no answer was given because none was possible. Christian theology can’t be conducted in sound-bites, I’m afraid. There are reasons even for the craziest-seeming doctrines - they are not a heap of unconnected ideas, like tacks in a box: they are organic, inter-related, growing things, which influence one another in all sorts of ways. Any one of them, involves a lot of others: grace, the Trinity, Christ, the Church, and the nature of love are all related. The Bible relates them - and the Bible is God’s Word to us. ##
A
Axion
Guest
Catholicism gets more brickbats than any other faith because:
- It is the original Church, founded on Peter, which Christ said would face hatred, lies and accusations from all quarters. It faces the greatest attacks from Satan, who hates the original Church more than any other. He constantly raises up heretical sects and other enemies to attack it.
- As the largest church it has the longest history to be attacked. Some people spend lifetimes digging through thousand-year-old documents to find something to attack the church with.
- Break-away groups like the many brands of Protestants have defined themselves by points where they disagree with Catholicism. Thus they are always trying to prove their “protest position” is right, to justify their own existence. Proving the “evil” of the Catholic Church thus becomes part of the basic pattern of such break-away churches, the states that helped form them, and the histories they produce.
- As an organisation with rules and strict teachings, the Church angers many people who don’t like those rules or teachings. People who want to live as they please, but not have their lifestyles or acts disapproved of (particularly if such people are powerful), quickly develop a virulent hatred of the church. They try to find ways to portray the church as hypocritical, and use every means they have to destroy the church’s authority. Freethinkers, atheists, secularists, communists, fall into this category.
S
Sherlock
Guest
“Well the protestant split was by Luther and was indeed over corruption. Why he chose to alter doctrines, I am in no position to say.”
Are you saying that only Lutherans are considered Protestants? That will surprise a lot of Episcopalians…Yes, Luther reacted, correctly, to local corruption. Most of his 95 theses are in complete accordance with Catholic teaching—he was pointing out how some of the local clergy were corrupting Church teaching. However, many saints before and after Luther did the same, reforming the Church (which will always need reforming because of the humans within her) with their criticisms of lax or corrupt clergy, etc. But they didn’t split from the Church. Luther wasn’t merely trying to “reform” the Church: he had his own theology, and those who didn’t agree with it were going to hell (he was just as dogmatic in his heresy as the Church in her orthodoxy). And what does messing around with the canon and with doctrine have to do with getting the local church to shape up and fly right? I think you need to do a lot more reading about Luther and his companions before you make the simplistic assertion that the Protestant rebellion was solely a reaction to local corruption.
"All you’ve done is say that I present poor arguments, then agreed with them. In the words of a wise philosopher “who’s the bigger fool, the fool, or the fool that follows him?”
No, that is not the extent of my posts. I had suggested earlier that
one reason for the more extensive list of Church abuses (real and imagined) is the simple fact that the Church has been around much, much longer. That you later state this as a possible reason is fine, but unfortunately it’s the only one of your suggestions that bears any close examination, and the rest of your arguments are not supportable. Trust me, I am not following you.
Are you saying that only Lutherans are considered Protestants? That will surprise a lot of Episcopalians…Yes, Luther reacted, correctly, to local corruption. Most of his 95 theses are in complete accordance with Catholic teaching—he was pointing out how some of the local clergy were corrupting Church teaching. However, many saints before and after Luther did the same, reforming the Church (which will always need reforming because of the humans within her) with their criticisms of lax or corrupt clergy, etc. But they didn’t split from the Church. Luther wasn’t merely trying to “reform” the Church: he had his own theology, and those who didn’t agree with it were going to hell (he was just as dogmatic in his heresy as the Church in her orthodoxy). And what does messing around with the canon and with doctrine have to do with getting the local church to shape up and fly right? I think you need to do a lot more reading about Luther and his companions before you make the simplistic assertion that the Protestant rebellion was solely a reaction to local corruption.
"All you’ve done is say that I present poor arguments, then agreed with them. In the words of a wise philosopher “who’s the bigger fool, the fool, or the fool that follows him?”
No, that is not the extent of my posts. I had suggested earlier that
one reason for the more extensive list of Church abuses (real and imagined) is the simple fact that the Church has been around much, much longer. That you later state this as a possible reason is fine, but unfortunately it’s the only one of your suggestions that bears any close examination, and the rest of your arguments are not supportable. Trust me, I am not following you.
C
ConvertFromSBC
Guest
I really wanted to reply to you because I also came in from the Southern Baptist Church and I had all the same questions. Although I am not able to sit down and address each question you have I want to tell you that there IS an answer to each and every one of them. You are sooooo completely on the right track. I would literally write these questions down on paper and start going over them one by one with a little research. I think, to be honest, that you are closer than I was b/c when I started looking into the Catholic Church it was because I was trying to convert THEM!!! You are right. There is a lot of anti Catholicism in the world and a lot of it comes from the Baptist. The reason is total lack of understanding. Unfortunately a lot of Baptist sincerely believe they know and understand the Catholic faith but they don’t. If they truly understood it they would not reject it. To understand it you must research it with time and prayer. I want to encourage you to do that and even when you get frustrated just keep plugging away.
You should go to www.catholic.com and start listening to Catholic Answers radio shows. EWTN also has a show called Journey Home. I would do that as time allows. I would then make a point to read every single book written by Scott Hahn and listen to as many of his talks as possible. There are other great converts out there who have written books but his address very specific issues. Go on Amazon and look up Scott Hahn and it will lead you to other books by people such as Dave Currie, Mark Shea and others. You will be amazed once you start reading these books. Good luck and as scary as it seems you are really doing the right thing!
You should go to www.catholic.com and start listening to Catholic Answers radio shows. EWTN also has a show called Journey Home. I would do that as time allows. I would then make a point to read every single book written by Scott Hahn and listen to as many of his talks as possible. There are other great converts out there who have written books but his address very specific issues. Go on Amazon and look up Scott Hahn and it will lead you to other books by people such as Dave Currie, Mark Shea and others. You will be amazed once you start reading these books. Good luck and as scary as it seems you are really doing the right thing!
R
Randb
Guest
There have been a lot of very good answers here on this board & alot of information!
I would like to add something------ About Mary
Why wouldn’t she be ‘honored’ since she carried & bore the
‘Son of God’! She would have had to be special for God to have chosen Her!!
I would like to add something------ About Mary
Why wouldn’t she be ‘honored’ since she carried & bore the
‘Son of God’! She would have had to be special for God to have chosen Her!!
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
But if she was chosen because she was special - why was she special ?
If it was “being special” that caused her to be to chosen to bring the Son of God into the world - what caused that “specialness” to begin with ?Surely, nothing but God’s free choice of her.
And that is why Catholic arguments that she is special are so often unconvincing - if she owes her specialness to the free choice of God (which she does), one possible line of reasoning is this:
As she owes her specialness (and her very being, indeed) to God’s goodness, there is no reason to praise her, at all: for what is there to praise in receiving good from God ? Only the goodness of God. So, we should praise only God, for “choosing” to come into the world in the first place.
For our reasoning to be convincing, we must go back further than Mary’s “specialness”: back from her, to God.
If Mary had had no faith or love, but had supplied bodily material for the Child in her womb - would she be worthy of honour ? I think not. By itself, “the flesh profits nothing” - merely supplying the tangible element in our Lord’s Divine-human make-up, is of no importance. (I think that’s why so many Christians often treat her as no more than a source for His Flesh & Blood - and on their presuppositions, that is all she is.)
And that may be why St.Augustine says somewhere that being the Lord’s mother would have been of no avail to her, had she not had faith. Her faith, is what makes her more than a mere source of flesh for God’s Son. To quote Hebrews 11: “Without faith, it is impossible to please God.” Without faith, Mary would not be a Christian at all, not been pleasing to God.
Protestants who know their Bible will also know what is said in Luke 17.10. If Catholics don’t know the Bible, thoroughly, they will often be at a serious disadvantage: because the Bible is the chief source, for some people the only source, of objections to Catholicism. If we don’t know what’s in it, we won’t be able to see how its contents can be put together to “disprove” this or that Catholic idea or doctrine. For us to boast that the CC is “the only Biblical Church around” (or some such phrase) won’t convince those who notice that we don’t know much about the Bible - so we need to know it, in detail. And unsound Biblical interpretations will be dealt with only by there being sounder ones.
W
Wormwood
Guest
Sorry I just reply to them in the order recieved, but true i should distinuish one person’s point from another. My problem with your argument was that you base your logic on a starting assumption(1+1+1=4), and yes there was the length especially the one replying to the person before me. You had to attach a fileBTW, it would be easier to follow you if you could post in a way which doesn’t look as if you’re replying to one person’s post when you mean to reply to someone else; for only this last paragraph of yours was in response to me. That way, it’s easier to follow why you think a particular poster’s post is “ridiculous”
That is what was ridiculous. This is the A.D.D. generation, you need bullet points or cliff notes or something. Just a thought.Sherlock"Well the protestant split was by Luther and was indeed over corruption. Why he chose to alter doctrines, I am in no position to say."
Are you saying that only Lutherans are considered Protestants? That will surprise a lot of Episcopalians…Yes, Luther reacted, correctly, to local corruption. Most of his 95 theses are in complete accordance with Catholic teaching—he was pointing out how some of the local clergy were corrupting Church teaching. However, many saints before and after Luther did the same, reforming the Church (which will always need reforming because of the humans within her) with their criticisms of lax or corrupt clergy, etc. But they didn’t split from the Church. Luther wasn’t merely trying to “reform” the Church: he had his own theology, and those who didn’t agree with it were going to hell (he was just as dogmatic in his heresy as the Church in her orthodoxy). And what does messing around with the canon and with doctrine have to do with getting the local church to shape up and fly right? I think you need to do a lot more reading about Luther and his companions before you make the simplistic assertion that the Protestant rebellion was solely a reaction to local corruption
I like how you can make it seem like I said something stupid (which I didn’t) then be sarcastic about your own stupid statement. I never said the only protestants were lutherans…ever. I did say that Luther was the first protestant group and his reasoning was corruption. If you have a problem with those facts, blame my shoddy catholic high school education.
Oh not the extent eh? I said Luther split because of corruption, you say yes but… I said a majority of historical abuse would be catholic you said “in english speaking countries”… You are just agreeing with me in a disagreeable manner.
S
Sherlock
Guest
Wormwood: “I like how you can make it seem like I said something stupid (which I didn’t) then be sarcastic about your own stupid statement. I never said the only protestants were lutherans…ever. I did say that Luther was the first protestant group and his reasoning was corruption. If you have a problem with those facts, blame my shoddy catholic high school education.”
Wormwood: “Oh not the extent eh? I said Luther split because of corruption, you say yes but… I said a majority of historical abuse would be catholic you said “in english speaking countries”… You are just agreeing with me in a disagreeable manner.”
I’m not sure exactly what your objection is. Perhaps you could be more specific? You didn’t say, in your earlier post, that “Luther was the first Protestant group”, you said “Well the protestant split was by Luther and was indeed over corruption”. That is a very different statement and is erroneous on both counts: Henry VIII also split with the Church, and that had to do with his desire to be divorced and to have control over the Church. Secondly, although it is true that Luther reacted to the local corruption in his area, the reason for the split was not, ultimately, because of corruption but because of Luther’s own personal theology. It is his theology that required him to take out the seven books (Henry VIII did not) and to split with the Church. I think that if you were to study this matter further, you would see how overly simplistic and untenable your idea is that "“Well the protestant split was by Luther and was indeed over corruption”.
As for " I said a majority of historical abuse would be catholic you said “in english speaking countries”…" I don’t think you understand the point I’m making. America is culturally derived, at least intitially, from English Protestants. The history that we grow up accepting includes many myths that are the results of England’s Protestant perspective. For example, the Spanish Inquisition was blown out of all proportion because of England’s war with Catholic Spain, yet very few people know many facts about it, and fewer still know that the Witch Hunts (which killed far more people) occurred to a great extent in Protestant countries as they had no Inquisitional courts.
As for “blame my shoddy catholic high school education”. Sorry, but that doesn’t fly, unless you are still in high school. Maybe you are still in high school, but you can certainly read books and educate yourself. I received an utterly lousy Catholic education, which is probably why I left the Church and became first an atheist and then a Protestant. However, it is up to the individual to quit blaming one’s ignorance on past misdeeds by others and to educate oneself. Take responsibility.
This is getting off topic, and you are becoming increasingly defensive. If you wish to continue this conversation, why don’t you use the PM function.
Wormwood: “Oh not the extent eh? I said Luther split because of corruption, you say yes but… I said a majority of historical abuse would be catholic you said “in english speaking countries”… You are just agreeing with me in a disagreeable manner.”
I’m not sure exactly what your objection is. Perhaps you could be more specific? You didn’t say, in your earlier post, that “Luther was the first Protestant group”, you said “Well the protestant split was by Luther and was indeed over corruption”. That is a very different statement and is erroneous on both counts: Henry VIII also split with the Church, and that had to do with his desire to be divorced and to have control over the Church. Secondly, although it is true that Luther reacted to the local corruption in his area, the reason for the split was not, ultimately, because of corruption but because of Luther’s own personal theology. It is his theology that required him to take out the seven books (Henry VIII did not) and to split with the Church. I think that if you were to study this matter further, you would see how overly simplistic and untenable your idea is that "“Well the protestant split was by Luther and was indeed over corruption”.
As for " I said a majority of historical abuse would be catholic you said “in english speaking countries”…" I don’t think you understand the point I’m making. America is culturally derived, at least intitially, from English Protestants. The history that we grow up accepting includes many myths that are the results of England’s Protestant perspective. For example, the Spanish Inquisition was blown out of all proportion because of England’s war with Catholic Spain, yet very few people know many facts about it, and fewer still know that the Witch Hunts (which killed far more people) occurred to a great extent in Protestant countries as they had no Inquisitional courts.
As for “blame my shoddy catholic high school education”. Sorry, but that doesn’t fly, unless you are still in high school. Maybe you are still in high school, but you can certainly read books and educate yourself. I received an utterly lousy Catholic education, which is probably why I left the Church and became first an atheist and then a Protestant. However, it is up to the individual to quit blaming one’s ignorance on past misdeeds by others and to educate oneself. Take responsibility.
This is getting off topic, and you are becoming increasingly defensive. If you wish to continue this conversation, why don’t you use the PM function.
S
Shoshana
Guest
Code:
W
Wormwood
Guest
What are you arguing exactly? Henry split yes, but didn’t change anything fundamental in the church except it’s head. Luther had doctrinal differences and splintered from the church, then other groups splinter afterwards. What about this are you disputing?
Hey I am all for removing religion from schools. Plus
you can’t blame “the system” for your church getting a bad reputation. There is no way to blow the church killing people “all out of proportion”. Doing a bad job as spiritual leaders is one thing, but murder… And catholics killed witches too.
It was a joke…I was saying that I learned that little tid bit from catholics. Maybe you should read some books on how to lighten up
Nah, this is just my naturally unpleasant demeanor.
W
Wormwood
Guest
ShoshanaQuote:
Originally Posted by Pax
*Wormwood,
You are, oddly, endearing in your own perverse way. .*
If you don’t start contradicting me soon, I’ll know this isn’t the real Shosh
Originally Posted by Pax
*Wormwood,
You are, oddly, endearing in your own perverse way. .*
If you don’t start contradicting me soon, I’ll know this isn’t the real Shosh
B
blackstone
Guest
Before you convert to Catholicism please read the book “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History” by Willian Webster.
G
Glenn_Lego
Guest
Dear Matt I’d like to recommend a book to you that really helped me in my journey to the Catholic Church, and may help answer some of your questions It’s called Catholicism for Dummies written by a priest named John Trigilio. It is written in a very clear understandable form and I believe it will be very informative to you or anyone who has questions about Catholics and what they believe. Peace Glenn LegoHello,
I’m sure many of you nearly dented your mouse left-clicking on this topic. Hurring in to defend your faith against any number of mindless, shallow accusations by an uninformed Baptist. I’m sorry to dissappoint you.
Over the past month or so I have felt a certain “calling” ,if you will, to become Catholic. I have long admired people such as Saint Francis, G.K. Chesterton, and Rich Mullins, who as I understand it, was converting to Catholicism before his life was prematurely ended in an auto accident. I have purchased at least 10 books on Catholicism this past month, attended Mass, and numerous other endeavors to find out what’s going on here. If I may, I’d like to ask a few questions that as of yet I haven’t got answered.
I’m sure many of these questions are elementary, but please understand where I’m coming from. I am a life long resident of the Bible Belt (Georgia) and I don’t even personally know anyone who is Catholic. Please help me with these issues and be patient with my lack of knowledge. Thanks, in advance.
- ( A question about Mary) ((I’m sure you guys are absolutely sick of these )) Why so much stock put into the Blessed Virgin’s life after conceiving Christ? What makes the Church so certain of things such as her Assumption, Perpetual Virginity, Sinlessness, the Immaculant Conception (having to do with her being free from original sin), and her Queenship in Heaven?
- Do Catholics have bible studies, give testimonies, or “Sunday School” classes or anything of that nature officially connected with Church, like on Sunday’s or Wednesday’s at Protestant Churches?
- Where can I find out information on the History of the Church, it’s origins, where certain practices came from, etc.
- Why is there so many anti-Catholics? What makes some people so angry and uncomfortable with Catholicism? In other words… What’s the big deal?
- My goal, in life and in death, is to be nearer to my Lord Jesus, to know him better, love him more. Do Catholics believe in Christ as “personal” (for lack of a better term) Lord and Savior?
- Why purgatory? Where did this belief originate?
- Is it wrong to be attracted to Catholicism because of it’s beauty, i.e. churches, services, vestments, art, etc. ?
- I was married in a Baptist Church, will my marriage be valid?
- Why refer to certain beliefs as mysteries? (such as the mysteries of light, etc.)
In Christ,
Matt
R
RC_Traditional
Guest
I pray you find yourself through the maze of Catholicism, Matt especially since the Church is going through a major crisis with a mass apostacy of members. So I hope this website will help you understand the Faith and your conversion:
traditionalcatholic.net/ RC
traditionalcatholic.net/
RC
K
kim_wilson
Guest
Dear Matt,
There is one Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church, and it is the Church that Jesus Christ Himself established. It is the one thing in life of which I am absolutely sure.
However, along your journey, you will meet “Catholics” who are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-pre-marital sex, pro-euthanasia, pro- everything the Church stands against, and, unfortunately, you may encounter a priest or a nun with similar sentiments. Just remember, they do not speak for the Church, and have, in fact, already excommunicated themselves. We call them ‘CINO’s’—Catholic in name only, and though I do try to pray for them a part of me wishes that they would just get the literal hell out of the Church.
Annoying as they are, we need not fear these people because we have been assured by Christ that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.”
Kim Wilson
a former S. Baptist
There is one Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church, and it is the Church that Jesus Christ Himself established. It is the one thing in life of which I am absolutely sure.
However, along your journey, you will meet “Catholics” who are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-pre-marital sex, pro-euthanasia, pro- everything the Church stands against, and, unfortunately, you may encounter a priest or a nun with similar sentiments. Just remember, they do not speak for the Church, and have, in fact, already excommunicated themselves. We call them ‘CINO’s’—Catholic in name only, and though I do try to pray for them a part of me wishes that they would just get the literal hell out of the Church.
Annoying as they are, we need not fear these people because we have been assured by Christ that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.”
Kim Wilson
a former S. Baptist
- Status