P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
The Jews at that time were not on the right path; Jesus told them that they were adulterous Jews. Jesus was to reform them.
I love Jesus and Mary; they are very respectfully mentioned in Quran.
Thanks
- Status
The Jews at that time were not on the right path; Jesus told them that they were adulterous Jews. Jesus was to reform them.
I love Jesus and Mary; they are very respectfully mentioned in Quran.
Thanks
P
PraiseGodxJMJ
Guest
Dear all,
A.D. 30 – Jesus of Nazareth, founder of Christianity, is alive using the word “Catholic” as early at 46AD to describe the Church which Jesus founded.
Catholic is a Greek word meaning Universal! The sad thing is that when you see these non Catholic sects they bark at us and telling us we are false. While they are the ones rejecting Christ!
With the rise of Protestantism and the consequent disruption of the Christian religion into numerous denominations, the use of the word sect has become frequent among Christians.
It usually implies at present disapproval in the mind of the speaker or writer. Such, however, is not necessarily the case as is evidenced by the widely used expression “sectarian” (for denominational) institutions and by the statement of the well-known authority H. W. Lyon that he uses the word “in no invidious sense” (“A Study of the Sects”, Boston, 1891, p. 4). This extension of the term to all Christian denominations results no doubt, from the tendency of the modern non-Catholic world to consider all the various forms of Christianity as the embodiment of revealed truths and as equally entitled to recognition.
Some churches, however, still take exception to the application of the term to themselves because of its implication, in their eyes, of inferiority or depreciation.
The Protestant denominations which assume such an attitude are at a loss to determine the essential elements of a sect. In countries like England and Germany, where State Churches exist, it is usual to apply the name “sect” to all dissenters. Obedience to the civil authority in religious matters thus becomes the necessary prerequisite for a fair religious name. In lands where no particular religion is officially recognized the distinction between Church and sect is considered impossible by some Protestants (Loofs, “Symbolik”, Leipzig, 1902, 74). Others claim that the preaching of the pure and unalloyed Word of Go, the legitimate administration of the sacraments and the historical identification with the national life of a people entitle a denomination to be designated as a Church; in the absence of these qualifications it is merely a sect (Kalb, 592-94). This, however, does not solve the question; for what authority among Protestants will ultimately and to their general satisfaction judge of the character of the preaching or the manner in which the sacraments are administered?
Furthermore, an historical religion may contain many elements of falsehood. Roman paganism was more closely identified with the life of the nation than any Christian religion ever was, and still it was an utterly defective religious system. It was a non-Christian system, but the example nevertheless illustrates the point at issue; for a religion true or false will remain so independently of subsequent historical association or national service.
To the Catholic the distinction of Church and sect presents no difficulty. For him, any Christian denomination which has set itself up independently of his own Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching any Christians who, banded together refuse to accept the entire doctrine or to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership. The Catholic Church alone is that universal society instituted by Jesus Christ which has a rightful claim to the allegiance of all men, although in fact, this allegiance is withheld by many because of ignorance and the abuse of free-will.
She is the sole custodian of the complete teaching of Jesus Christ which must be accepted in its entirety by all mankind. Her members do not constitute a sect nor will they consent to be known as such, because they do not belong to a party called into existence by a human leader, or to a school of thought sworn to the dictates of a mortal master. They form part of a Church which embraces all space and in a certain sense both time and eternity, since it is militant, suffering, and triumphant. This claim that the Catholic religion is the only genuine form of Christianity may startle some by its exclusiveness.
But the truth is necessarily exclusive; it must exclude error just as necessarily as light is incompatible with darkness. As all non-Catholic denominations reject some truth or truths taught by Christ, or repudiate the authority instituted by him in his Church, they have in some essential point sacrificed his doctrine to human learning or his authority to self-constituted leadership. That the Church should refuse to acknowledge such religious societies as organizations, like herself, of Divine origin and authority is the only logical course open to her.
No fair-minded person will be offended at this if it be remembered that faithfulness to its Divine mission enforces this uncompromising attitude on the ecclesiastical authority. It is but a practical assertion of the principle that Divinely revealed truth cannot and must not be sacrificed to human objection and speculation. But while the Church condemns the errors of non-Catholics, she teaches the practice of justice and charity towards their persons, repudiates the use of violence and compulsion to effect their conversion and is ever ready to welcome back into the fold persons who have strayed from the path of truth.
Code:
I was born and raised Catholic. I did some research on Catholicism and I know for a faq that Catholicism is the only real church divinely founded under God.Catholic is a Greek word meaning Universal! The sad thing is that when you see these non Catholic sects they bark at us and telling us we are false. While they are the ones rejecting Christ!
With the rise of Protestantism and the consequent disruption of the Christian religion into numerous denominations, the use of the word sect has become frequent among Christians.
It usually implies at present disapproval in the mind of the speaker or writer. Such, however, is not necessarily the case as is evidenced by the widely used expression “sectarian” (for denominational) institutions and by the statement of the well-known authority H. W. Lyon that he uses the word “in no invidious sense” (“A Study of the Sects”, Boston, 1891, p. 4). This extension of the term to all Christian denominations results no doubt, from the tendency of the modern non-Catholic world to consider all the various forms of Christianity as the embodiment of revealed truths and as equally entitled to recognition.
Some churches, however, still take exception to the application of the term to themselves because of its implication, in their eyes, of inferiority or depreciation.
The Protestant denominations which assume such an attitude are at a loss to determine the essential elements of a sect. In countries like England and Germany, where State Churches exist, it is usual to apply the name “sect” to all dissenters. Obedience to the civil authority in religious matters thus becomes the necessary prerequisite for a fair religious name. In lands where no particular religion is officially recognized the distinction between Church and sect is considered impossible by some Protestants (Loofs, “Symbolik”, Leipzig, 1902, 74). Others claim that the preaching of the pure and unalloyed Word of Go, the legitimate administration of the sacraments and the historical identification with the national life of a people entitle a denomination to be designated as a Church; in the absence of these qualifications it is merely a sect (Kalb, 592-94). This, however, does not solve the question; for what authority among Protestants will ultimately and to their general satisfaction judge of the character of the preaching or the manner in which the sacraments are administered?
Furthermore, an historical religion may contain many elements of falsehood. Roman paganism was more closely identified with the life of the nation than any Christian religion ever was, and still it was an utterly defective religious system. It was a non-Christian system, but the example nevertheless illustrates the point at issue; for a religion true or false will remain so independently of subsequent historical association or national service.
To the Catholic the distinction of Church and sect presents no difficulty. For him, any Christian denomination which has set itself up independently of his own Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching any Christians who, banded together refuse to accept the entire doctrine or to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership. The Catholic Church alone is that universal society instituted by Jesus Christ which has a rightful claim to the allegiance of all men, although in fact, this allegiance is withheld by many because of ignorance and the abuse of free-will.
She is the sole custodian of the complete teaching of Jesus Christ which must be accepted in its entirety by all mankind. Her members do not constitute a sect nor will they consent to be known as such, because they do not belong to a party called into existence by a human leader, or to a school of thought sworn to the dictates of a mortal master. They form part of a Church which embraces all space and in a certain sense both time and eternity, since it is militant, suffering, and triumphant. This claim that the Catholic religion is the only genuine form of Christianity may startle some by its exclusiveness.
But the truth is necessarily exclusive; it must exclude error just as necessarily as light is incompatible with darkness. As all non-Catholic denominations reject some truth or truths taught by Christ, or repudiate the authority instituted by him in his Church, they have in some essential point sacrificed his doctrine to human learning or his authority to self-constituted leadership. That the Church should refuse to acknowledge such religious societies as organizations, like herself, of Divine origin and authority is the only logical course open to her.
No fair-minded person will be offended at this if it be remembered that faithfulness to its Divine mission enforces this uncompromising attitude on the ecclesiastical authority. It is but a practical assertion of the principle that Divinely revealed truth cannot and must not be sacrificed to human objection and speculation. But while the Church condemns the errors of non-Catholics, she teaches the practice of justice and charity towards their persons, repudiates the use of violence and compulsion to effect their conversion and is ever ready to welcome back into the fold persons who have strayed from the path of truth.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Thanks and regardsHi paarsurrey, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to religion. You seem to have a great deal of respect for the Blessed Mary so I thought I would attach a link called the miracles of Damascus. I have spent weeks perusing this site and was blown away by it. Maybe your views of the C.C. the bible, and their connection with Jesus will change. I respect all religions, Islamic, Buddha etc etc. Let me know what you think. BTW I am a pretty big boxing fan and I admire Muhammad Ali’s passion for his Islamic faith and consider him the greatest athlete bar none.
Here’s the link to the miracles of Damascus.
google.com/search?q=miracles+of+damascus&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US
Here is a link to one of the greats boxers of all time; pretty cool tribute…
youtube.com/watch?v=f7KBPRPZifM&feature=related
God bless
po18guy
Well-known member
God knows where. We don’t have to possess them to prove the point that He offered perfect interpretation, as He intended His church to emulate. When each believer reads for himself, and interprets for himself, unity is lost and we become like the Christian Rebels (protestants) and the Sunni and Shi’ia.
The peace of Christ the Prophet be with you.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
simply go to the Catholic Encyclopedia here:
newadvent.org/cathen/index.html
enter ‘gospel’, hit search and see what it says below
“It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves”.
newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm
Thanks and regards
P
PraiseGodxJMJ
Guest
Hey all,
From the time when Jewish and pagan elements threatened the purity of her doctrine to the days of modernistic errors, her history would have been but one long accommodation to new and sometimes contradictory opinions.
False churches that are not by God are:
Gnosticism, Manichæism, Arianism in the earlier days and Albigensianism, Hussitism, and Protestantism of later date, to mention only a few heresies, would have called for equal recognition.
:nope: :nope: :nope: I will not LEAVE MY TRUE FAITH… CATHOLICISM IS THE SPIRITUAL ISRAEL!
I WILL ONLY STAY IN THE ONE TRUE CHURCH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
DO NOT FALL FOR FALSE DENOMINATIONS LIKE LUTHERANS, PURITANS, QUAKERS, MORMONISM, BAPTISTS, SOUTHER BAPTISTS, ANABAPTISTS, SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST, ANGELICIANISM, EPISCOPALISM, METHODIST, BUDDHIST. DO NOT FALL FOR THESE FALSE RELIGIONS THEY SAY THEY ARE CHRISTIAN BUT THEY ARE WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING…:juggle:
THESE FAITHS ARE A
The different parties into which the sects usually split soon after their separation from the Mother Church would have been entitled in their turn to similar consideration. Not only Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Zwinglianism, but all the countless sects springing from them would have had to be looked upon as equally capable of leading men to Christ and salvation. The present existence of 168 Christian denominations in the United States alone sufficiently illustrates this contention. A Church adopting such a policy of universal approval is not liberal but indifferent; it does not lead but follows and cannot be said to have a teaching mission among men. Numerous general causes may be assigned for the disruption of Christianity. Among the principal ones were doctrinal controversies, disobedience to disciplinary prescriptions, and dissatisfaction with real or fancied ecclesiastical abuses. Political issues and national sentiment also had a share in complicating the religious difficulty. Moreover reasons of a personal nature and human passions not infrequently hindered that calm exercise of judgment so necessary in religious matters. These general causes resulted in the rejection of the vivifying principle of supernatural authority which is the foundation of all unity.
It is this principle of a living authority divinely commissioned to preserve and authoritatively interpret Divine Revelation which is the bond of union among the different members of the Catholic Church. To its repudiation is not only due the initial separation of non-Catholics, but also their subsequent failure in preserving union among themselves. Protestantism in particular, by its proclamation of the right of private interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures swept away with one stroke all living authority and constituted the individual supreme judge in doctrinal matters. Its divisions are therefore but natural, and its heresy trials in disagreement with one of its fundamental principles.
The disastrous results of the many divisions among Christians are keenly felt today and the longing for union is manifest. The manner, however, in which the desired result may be attained is not clear to non-Catholics.
Many see the solution in undogmatic Christianity or undenominationalism. The points of disagreement, they believe, ought to be overlooked and a common basis for union thus obtained. Hence they advocate the relegation of doctrinal differences to the background and attempt to rear a united Christianity chiefly on a moral basis.
This plan, however, rests on a false assumption; for its minimizes, in an unwarranted degree, the importance of the right teaching and sound belief and thus tends to transform Christianity into a mere ethical code. From the inferior position assigned to doctrinal principles there is but one step to their partial or complete rejection, and undenominationalism, instead of being a return to the unity desired by Christ, cannot but result in the destruction of Christianity. It is not in the further rejection of truth that the divisions of Christianity can be healed, but in the sincere acceptance of what has been discarded; the remedy lies in the return of all dissenters to the Catholic Church!
:hug3:
[SIGN]RETURN TO THE TRUE FAITH CATHOLICISM![/SIGN]
Code:
I am finishing my Post on a new page lol. It is a long one. The recognition by the Church of the sects which sprang up in the course of her history would necessarily have been fatal to herself and to any consistent religious organization.False churches that are not by God are:
Gnosticism, Manichæism, Arianism in the earlier days and Albigensianism, Hussitism, and Protestantism of later date, to mention only a few heresies, would have called for equal recognition.
:nope: :nope: :nope: I will not LEAVE MY TRUE FAITH… CATHOLICISM IS THE SPIRITUAL ISRAEL!
I WILL ONLY STAY IN THE ONE TRUE CHURCH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
DO NOT FALL FOR FALSE DENOMINATIONS LIKE LUTHERANS, PURITANS, QUAKERS, MORMONISM, BAPTISTS, SOUTHER BAPTISTS, ANABAPTISTS, SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST, ANGELICIANISM, EPISCOPALISM, METHODIST, BUDDHIST. DO NOT FALL FOR THESE FALSE RELIGIONS THEY SAY THEY ARE CHRISTIAN BUT THEY ARE WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING…:juggle:
THESE FAITHS ARE A
The different parties into which the sects usually split soon after their separation from the Mother Church would have been entitled in their turn to similar consideration. Not only Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Zwinglianism, but all the countless sects springing from them would have had to be looked upon as equally capable of leading men to Christ and salvation. The present existence of 168 Christian denominations in the United States alone sufficiently illustrates this contention. A Church adopting such a policy of universal approval is not liberal but indifferent; it does not lead but follows and cannot be said to have a teaching mission among men. Numerous general causes may be assigned for the disruption of Christianity. Among the principal ones were doctrinal controversies, disobedience to disciplinary prescriptions, and dissatisfaction with real or fancied ecclesiastical abuses. Political issues and national sentiment also had a share in complicating the religious difficulty. Moreover reasons of a personal nature and human passions not infrequently hindered that calm exercise of judgment so necessary in religious matters. These general causes resulted in the rejection of the vivifying principle of supernatural authority which is the foundation of all unity.
It is this principle of a living authority divinely commissioned to preserve and authoritatively interpret Divine Revelation which is the bond of union among the different members of the Catholic Church. To its repudiation is not only due the initial separation of non-Catholics, but also their subsequent failure in preserving union among themselves. Protestantism in particular, by its proclamation of the right of private interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures swept away with one stroke all living authority and constituted the individual supreme judge in doctrinal matters. Its divisions are therefore but natural, and its heresy trials in disagreement with one of its fundamental principles.
The disastrous results of the many divisions among Christians are keenly felt today and the longing for union is manifest. The manner, however, in which the desired result may be attained is not clear to non-Catholics.
Many see the solution in undogmatic Christianity or undenominationalism. The points of disagreement, they believe, ought to be overlooked and a common basis for union thus obtained. Hence they advocate the relegation of doctrinal differences to the background and attempt to rear a united Christianity chiefly on a moral basis.
This plan, however, rests on a false assumption; for its minimizes, in an unwarranted degree, the importance of the right teaching and sound belief and thus tends to transform Christianity into a mere ethical code. From the inferior position assigned to doctrinal principles there is but one step to their partial or complete rejection, and undenominationalism, instead of being a return to the unity desired by Christ, cannot but result in the destruction of Christianity. It is not in the further rejection of truth that the divisions of Christianity can be healed, but in the sincere acceptance of what has been discarded; the remedy lies in the return of all dissenters to the Catholic Church!
:hug3:
[SIGN]RETURN TO THE TRUE FAITH CATHOLICISM![/SIGN]
R
Ronald_E
Guest
Your disposition seems to be hostile and is thus from the flesh and not the spirit.
I you are in the spirit you would be kind and desire to be open to exploring the reasons for Catholic belief. Attacks are from the flesh because the Catholic faith is experienced by those outside the faith in the flesh and is opposed to the beliefs that non-catholics have as the source of their relationship with Christ. Catholicism can only be understood in the spirit.
S
someotherguy
Guest
No, I haven’t said anything hostile to you. If you believe I have, then please feel free to report me.
M
mercygate
Guest
We know this. It does not in any way undermine the reliability of the Gospels.
R
Ronald_E
Guest
Man, I wrote that quick while I was trying to do something else and it doesn’t make sense to me. Sorry.
Catholicism can only be understood in the spirit. Outside Catholicism it seems to be understood in the flesh and therefore cannot be understood if there is any hardening of heart when looking into Catholic teaching.
So, when sarcasm is used as above, it is a sign of being under the disposition of a hardened heart, which is a defensive and attacking disposition and thus outside the spirit.
Catholicism can only be understood in the spirit. Outside Catholicism it seems to be understood in the flesh and therefore cannot be understood if there is any hardening of heart when looking into Catholic teaching.
So, when sarcasm is used as above, it is a sign of being under the disposition of a hardened heart, which is a defensive and attacking disposition and thus outside the spirit.
S
someotherguy
Guest
I see. So then, the Bible is wrong when it tells us to judge Roman Catholicism in light of scripture?
Well, at least you’re not judgemental and condemning about it.
R
Ronald_E
Guest
I am not talking about me. I am talking about your disposition of heart in your message. Nothing you said or can say harms me. I am pointing this out for your investigation into your heart.
S
someotherguy
Guest
Of course you’re not. It’s always easier to point fingers at others than to examine your own heart.
My conscience and my heart are fine before the Lord.
On the other hand, I’d encourage you to read what the Bible says about people who accuse, judge, and condemn others and what it says about their hearts.
R
Ronald_E
Guest
Scripture says nothing of judging Roman Catholicism.
I was for 40 years until 3 years ago.Well, at least you’re not judgemental and condemning about it.
R
Ronald_E
Guest
Please look at this and tell me what you believe about your disposition of heart.
M
mercygate
Guest
S
someotherguy
Guest
I believe that the disposition of my heart is just fine, thank you. LIke I said, both my conscience and my heart are clean before the Lord.
S
someotherguy
Guest
I see. So Roman Catholicism is excluded from “all things”? What in the Bible tells us that Roman Catholicism is exempt from Biblical scrutiny?
You are today.
R
Ronald_E
Guest
I am going to work now. I will return in about 12 hours God willing.
S
someotherguy
Guest
OK. I hope you’ll take at least some of that time to repent of your attitude.
- Status