The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[jmcrae]

Great! You went on the internet and got some good facts. Congrats.

Actually, I’m a teacher. I teach this stuff.

 

[jmcrae]

That is your opinion. It is not the opinion of others. Please remember that.

No, it’s not an opinion. He was stating a historical fact, which he most likely found in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (who died in 110 AD).

That some people doubt the evidence of history (and thus, have opinions about it) doesn’t suddenly cause the facts themselves to become opinions.

PS: This being a Catholic Board, he is also allowed to express the opinions of the Catholic Church anyway, since the purpose of this Board is to promulgate the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[nerfherder]

Actually, I’m quite certain that both the Muslims and the Jews would agree that the New Testament came from the Catholic Church (RC).

Thank you. On what grounds? I shall ask the parents of my godchildren, Muslims. Ghaleeb prayed for my health at the Kaaba on his last hajj.

The majority of Jews and Muslims are not even aware of the many Protestant groups: it would not occur to them to think that “Christianity” is anything other than the RC Church, with the Pope as its leader and spokesman, as Successor to the Apostle Peter.

On what grounds do you make this statement? I grew up in a Jewish community in Toronto.

Even if it were true, it is based on the ignorance of Muslims who may or may not be conversant with the arcane ins and outs of Christianity, any more than we understand the current factional fighting between Suffis and Sunis is Iraq. It does not speak in any way to the idea that ‘Muslims and Jews would certainly agree the Bible came from RCC’. Where has your logic gone?

In fact, they view Christianity in much the same way that I happen to view Buddhism.

How do you know this? Is it what you assume? Your assumptions *may *be terminally flawed.

They acknowledge that Christ founded the Church, just as I acknowledge that Buddha founded Buddhism (hence the name)

Where do Muslims acknowledge that Christ founded the Church? Perhaps in the Q’uran?

We are not actually sure that a historical personage called Buddha existed. Many people think he did, others believe he did not (Armstrong, Buddha).

They acknowledge as historical fact that Peter became the leader of His Church after He ascended into Heaven.

How do you know this? Is it what you assume? Your assumptions *may *be terminally flawed. Or, you may have facts which you haven’t revealed, and which might be persuasive.

I acknowledge as historical fact that the Dalai Lama is Buddha’s lawful successor.

To believe this you must believe in the supernatural: that a baby or child is able to communicate with his previous incarnation in order to select objects from a range presented to him, that were particularly associated with his previous incarnation as Dalai Lama. I think this is supernatural, and as much as I admire the Dalai Lama, I am not sure I have confidence in the way he is selected. But I’m glad you do.

[The Dalai Lama’s] pedigree is available for all to review - just as is the Pope’s.

Yes, fine point. But the real point is that not everyone must believe the same about the implications of having that pedigree. The historicity of the papacy is not in much doubt, but that does not mean that he is primate of the universal Christian church.

 

[nerfherder]

Yeah, maddening isn’t it? Such arrogance! I once thought so, too. But the Church is the Bride of Christ, and Christ has only one Bride. You think He has a harem?

This is cute, but hardly useful.

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you. On what grounds? I shall ask the parents of my godchildren, Muslims. Ghaleeb prayed for my health at the Kaaba on his last hajj.

I was not aware that Muslims had the tradition of taking god parents. What promises did you make on their behalf (and how do you hope to keep these promises, if you succeed in becoming Catholic)?

Where do Muslims acknowledge that Christ founded the Church? Perhaps in the Q’uran?

In their history books.

To believe this you must believe in the supernatural: that a baby or child is able to communicate with his previous incarnation in order to select objects from a range presented to him, that were particularly associated with his previous incarnation as Dalai Lama. I think this is supernatural, and as much as I admire the Dalai Lama, I am not sure I have confidence in the way he is selected. But I’m glad you do.

What I have confidence in is that the method of selection is authoritative in the view of its interpretive community. What I, personally, think of the idea of reincarnation has no bearing on the matter.

The historicity of the papacy is not in much doubt, but that does not mean that he is primate of the universal Christian church.

If the historicity of the Papacy is true, then so are its claims, since its claims are based on its historicity.

 

[nerfherder]

A “hypocrite” is someone who speaks to appease and please others, rather than to convey the truth.

I don’t see where Mike said anything that he does not actually believe.

That is because you have not seen postings on other threads, that’s all.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Quote:

Confusion is rife. You have said the Bible is a book which belongs to the Church of Rome. I disagreed with you. You said that Christ founded one Church, the Church of Rome. I disagreed with you.

You are perhaps implying that we ‘other’ Christians should be grateful to RCC for supplying both Bible and Church doctrine for the rest of us, for inviting us to join RCC. Many of us have a different perspective, and I know that you could appreciate that if you tried.

It must be emphasised particularly that the Bible is the scripture of all Christians, and parts of it the scripture of **Jews **and Muslims. No Muslim or Jew would ever agree that the Bible belongs solely to RCC, that it was initiated by RCC, or that it is given by RCC to the rest of the world. And I agree with Muslims and Jews on this point.

Where have I misread you?

I simply cannot lock in on what your beliefs are. Scripturally the evidence that Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church is overwhelming and there is no doubt that Protestantism came along some 1500 years later with the heresy of Luther. When Luther left the Catholic Church he took the bible with him or at least most of it. In his heresy he tried to tailor it to his views by declaring 7 books that didn’t support his teachings as ‘not inspired’. Through the doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’, Luther could interprete scripture in whatever way best supported his teachings, much in the same as I believe you do. Doctrinal unity is what clearly sets the Catholic Church apart from Protestant denominations. Sola Scriptura is the reason there is no unity within Protestantism and has resulted in thousands of Protestant denominations. But, even within a single denomination e.g. the Baptists, beliefs vary widely because each Baptist church interprets scripture differently; they simply all cannot be correct.

Catholics believe that the Church is led by the Holy Spirit through the infallability of the Pope in matters of faith and morals; the result - The One True Church.

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Thank you. On what grounds? I shall ask the parents of my godchildren, Muslims. Ghaleeb prayed for my health at the Kaaba on his last hajj.

On what grounds do you make this statement? I grew up in a Jewish community in Toronto.

Even if it were true, it is based on the ignorance of Muslims who may or may not be conversant with the arcane ins and outs of Christianity, any more than we understand the current factional fighting between Suffis and Sunis is Iraq. It does not speak in any way to the idea that ‘Muslims and Jews would certainly agree the Bible came from RCC’. Where has your logic gone?

How do you know this? Is it what you assume? Your assumptions *may *be terminally flawed.

Where do Muslims acknowledge that Christ founded the Church? Perhaps in the Q’uran?

We are not actually sure that a historical personage called Buddha existed. Many people think he did, others believe he did not (Armstrong, Buddha).

How do you know this? Is it what you assume? Your assumptions *may *be terminally flawed. Or, you may have facts which you haven’t revealed, and which might be persuasive.

To believe this you must believe in the supernatural: that a baby or child is able to communicate with his previous incarnation in order to select objects from a range presented to him, that were particularly associated with his previous incarnation as Dalai Lama. I think this is supernatural, and as much as I admire the Dalai Lama, I am not sure I have confidence in the way he is selected. But I’m glad you do.

Yes, fine point. But the real point is that not everyone must believe the same about the implications of having that pedigree. The historicity of the papacy is not in much doubt, but that does not mean that he is primate of the universal Christian church.

The Dalai Lama? Ghaleeb? Buddha? Ghandi? To what point is this debate lead?

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Three comments:

I offered you the hand of peace, and you bit it, hard.

As I said to you previously, Christ held hypocrites in contempt.

I hold beliefs which are consistent with mainline Christianity, and I refuse to be brainwashed by any particular denomination. If I can get my feeble mind around the doctrine, dogma, creeds and practices of RCC, I wish to join the Church, and would be delighted if this were possible.

What hand of peace? All I’ve seen from you is a constant denouncement of the RCC and it’s teachings which seems mostly based upon your own personal interpretation of scripture and other beliefs.

As for calling me a hypocrite, that is not very Christian of you. Shall I just add that to the list of names you’ve called me in other posts on other threads?

As for your consistant beliefs, many are not in communion with the Catholic Church you want to join. Do you not see that as a problem?

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

Actually, you need to prove that you can use something other than the Word of God. I don’t need to prove that the Bible alone is the authority.

Anyway, here again are the verses

Hbr 4:12
For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

2Ti 3:16
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Pro 15:32
He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof shall die.

Believe the Bible or die. Can your church say that?

Our Church did say that, and did write and preserve the verses you are using with which to pound us over the head. Nowhere in that book does it say which books should belong to it (determined by the Catholic Church) and nowhere does it say that it can be interpreted properly without the guidance of that Church. In fact, it says the opposite.

 

[guanophore]

Is your bible copyrighted?

Yes! Several times:

In A.D. 367, in the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius

382 at the Council of Rome

ratified at the council of Hippo in 393, and the Third Council of Carthage in 397

 

[believers]

Our Church did say that, and did write and preserve the verses you are using with which to pound us over the head. Nowhere in that book does it say which books should belong to it (determined by the Catholic Church) and nowhere does it say that it can be interpreted properly without the guidance of that Church. In fact, it says the opposite.

You’re mistaken if you think the books were not named. In fact they were named by Jesus and Paul.

Rom 3:1-2
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The Jews have the Oracles of God which are the same as the protestant version of the Old Testament.

Luk 24:44
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the** law of Mose**s, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

Luk 11:51
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah,” which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers.

 

[jmcrae]

You’re mistaken if you think the books were not named. In fact they were named by Jesus and Paul.

Rom 3:1-2
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The Jews have the Oracles of God which are the same as the protestant version of the Old Testament.

Where does it say that in the Bible?

Luk 24:44
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the** law of Mose**s, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

All this tells us is that the Jews divided the writings into three different sections. You are merely assuming that the books within these three sections correspond to your KJV Old Testament.

Luk 11:51
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Again, this doesn’t name any books at all.

The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon.

They weren’t in any “order” at all. They were 46 separate scrolls in a box called a “Scriptorium.” They didn’t get compiled into one book until St. Jerome made his translation of them into Latin, in the early 400s AD.

In any case, Chronicles is a History book (Prophets); not a Wisdom book (Writings).

 

[guanophore]

You’re mistaken if you think the books were not named. In fact they were named by Jesus and Paul.

I did not say that the books had no names. I said that there names are nowhere listed within the text of the bible you are reading. That list was composed by the Catholic Church. Furthermore, they were not books as we know of them today, but a set of scrolls, without numbers.

Rom 3:1-2
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The Jews have the Oracles of God which are the same as the protestant version of the Old Testament.

You will have to give some sources to support this assertion. where do you think your version came from?

The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah,” which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers.

It is great that you are starting to study the history of the scriptures. If you continue, you will find that the bible you have before you came from the Catholic Church.

 

[nerfherder]

Actually, I’m a teacher. I teach this stuff.

I hope you teach the catechism. Teaching your personal views in public or private Catholic schools would not result in informed consciences among Canada’s children.

 

[nerfherder]

What hand of peace? All I’ve seen from you is a constant denouncement of the RCC and it’s teachings which seems mostly based upon your own personal interpretation of scripture and other beliefs.

As for calling me a hypocrite, that is not very Christian of you. Shall I just add that to the list of names you’ve called me in other posts on other threads?

As for your consistant beliefs, many are not in communion with the Catholic Church you want to join. Do you not see that as a problem?

Iowa Mike

I wished you a great big happy Easter and you replied. Then you replied again - with an attack. Which is which? Does it matter any more?

Who is lacking in charity here? Remember about the log in your eye?

Of course I know that my beliefs are not in communion with the Catholic Church. But what do you expect from a neophyte, a beginner, a quester, which is what I have called myself from the very start. I told everybody who wished to see, several times, that I am a learner.

However, what is bothering you perhaps, is that I am not a learner Christian, not a tabula rasa - a blank slate on which you can write whatever you like. I have been raised according to conservative but mainstream Christian values, to which I ascribe wholeheartedly. My grandmother was saintly. I try to follow her example, though often do it badly.

I am trying to learn your ways. I am asking questions. I am challenging your beliefs. I am an academic, and that is the way I learn - by challenging possible fallacies that I either identify, or which bother me, or about which I need to learn more in order to change them, in my mind, into truth. Is that not the way you learn? Or do you only perceive yourself as teacher, holder of all truth and not in need of any further creative questing?

You have given me little space for questing - you have locked onto me as target, victim, laughingstock. This is not great for someone who is genuinely curious. And as guanophore pointed out in another thread, it is often very difficult for those who have been schooled in other denominations to make the transition to RCC, on account of the great differences in them wrt rites, focus, beliefs, and freedom to engage with Christ in an intimate, and very personal way.

I have spent much time on this Forum dealing with the rites of the Church, the doctrines. I have spent very little time - perhaps none -on learning about the nature, mission and acts of Christ (except the establishment of the church, ad nauseam). The latter is more important to me than the former - although I know that there is much authority and much submission to be recognised if I convert.

Please, please, understand that I am a beginner, and cut me some slack. Remember that because I am a beginner at the understandings of the RCC does not mean that I am a beginner in Christianity.

Caritas is the core of our belief, all of us.

 

[nerfherder]

I replied as I did for a whole host of reasons. As a Catholic I am called to the truth of Christ’s Church as defined by its doctrines, teachings and traditions. In Carol’s threads and posts she as expressed disbelief in many of the core beliefs of the Church and she has done so with passion. To name a few…

She does not believe in transubstantiation
She does not believe in the ‘oral tradition’
She does not believe in the ‘inerrancy of the bible’.
She does not believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Universal Catholic and Apostolic Church

Eiiissshhh! as we say in Pretoria. Both of us have a long way to go.

I explained earlier that although I have been deeply churched in a mainline Christian denomination, I am not a Catholic. I wish to convert. I am a quester a learner. Cut me some slack.

Of course I do not believe in all these concepts - and I would like you to bring me a Catholic, aside from the Pope, who does.

Re proselytizing: many posters are not discussing their core beliefs, but responding - one hopes, as Defenders of the Faith - to the opinions, observations, experience, and (yes) attacks of those who belong to other denominations. If we could read what you believe as Christians, that would help. But that is not how this Forum happens.

Re answering questions: I answer all the questions that I think have merit. I cannot answer all questions, and some do not deserve answering as they are merely rhetorical. I think I remember that you suggested, or was it jmcrae, that all my questions are rhetorical. I have not noticed you answering any of my questions, but simply attack, attack, attack, and that, as guanophore has pointed out, got one thread shut down.

Do you realy think that anyone would try to reshape the RCC is any way? Not an individual at least. I went back to the Keating letter on ‘projects’ and the liberal wing of the Church in the US. I noted he wrote about several propositions made by 5,000 Catholic religious and lay people, including the following:

Article 1 All Catholics have the right to follow their informed consciences in all matters.
Article 2: “Officers of the Church have the right to teach on matters both of private and public morality only after wide consultation with the faithful prior to the formulation of the teaching.”
Article 5: “All Catholics have the right to a voice in all decisions that affect them, including the choosing of their leaders.”
Article 16: “All Catholics, regardless of canonical status (lay or clerical), sex or sexual orientation, have the right to exercise all ministries in the Church for which they are adequately prepared, according to the needs and with the approval of the community.”
Article 26: “All Catholic women have an equal right with men to the resources and the exercise of all the powers of the Church.”
Article 28: “All married Catholics have the right to determine in conscience the size of their families and the appropriate methods of family planning.”
Articles 30 and 31: “All married Catholics have the right to withdraw from a marriage which has irretrievably broken down. All such Catholics retain the radical right to remarry. All Catholics who are divorced and remarried and who are in conscience reconciled to the Church have the right to the same ministries, including all sacraments, as do other Catholics.”
Article 32: “All Catholics have the right to expect that Church documents and materials will avoid sexist language, and that symbols and imagery of God will not be exclusively masculine.”

Note that I do not intend to start a bicker between fundamentalists and liberals within RCC on this thread, but simply indicate that there are those within RCC itself who are, in all conscience, challenging the Church’s stance after 2000 years of great mission. All great religions grow or die. All great denominations grow or die. Challenges are not bad, they are good - and this is a theme that runs through Catholic writing.

Learners are also allowed to challenge, and it is the responsibility of those who believe themselves to be faithful adherents of the Church of Rome to assist them, rather than to deny them.

 

[nerfherder]

Yeah, maddening isn’t it? Such arrogance! I once thought so, too. But the Church is the Bride of Christ, and Christ has only one Bride. You think He has a harem?

I have decided that this is not only cute but unhelpful, but that it is also an insult to Our Lord. Shameful.

 

[nerfherder]

A “hypocrite” is someone who speaks to appease and please others, rather than to convey the truth.

I don’t see where Mike said anything that he does not actually believe.

Why would you wish to be a member of a Church that you suspect of wanting to “brainwash” you?

Go look up Iowa Mike’s other postings: it is not only to this one that I refer. Caritas is lacking. Why would one - at his kind invitation - remain on a Forum with him? Surely this is hypocritical in itself?

I did not say that I would not join a Church which would brainwash me. I implied that I would join if and when my feeble brain allowed me in all honesty and integrity, as a Christian, to accept the teachings of the Church. I must admit that I suspect that some cradle Catholics - and others - may be brainwashed into false beliefs. I take for example your earlier comments about Baptists, when I asked you to look again at facts, and offered you some.

By the way, you have not answered the questions I posed after your outburst on that occasion.

 

[nerfherder]

Maybe in Africa this is so. Not here.

You know nothing about Africa. We use the same Bibles as you do.

Anyway, it is merely a statement of fact that those who do not hear Jesus go to Hell. I was not speaking of any particular individual. (What we cannot judge is who hears Jesus, or whether they will hear Jesus, before they die. But we aren’t called to play the idiot, or to lack discernment.)

It is not a statement of fact that those who do not hear Jesus go to hell. I have already quoted the Dogmatic Constitution, chapter 16 of Vatican II. Go Google it yourself, and see what it says about God’s plan of salvation, and those who are not within the embrace of the RCC.

It would help me if you would paint a picture of ‘hell’. How do you define ‘hell’ as an adherent of Catholicism?