S
SPH1
Guest
Are you an admin here?
- Status
M
MaggieOH
Guest
No, but I am trying to stop the hijack of the thread by people who have their own agendas. It is very difficult keeping a thread on track when people are responding to stuff that is off topic.
Message 1 sets out what Michael is wanting to achieve. I am trying to keep it that way and stop all the hijackings.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_2_111v.gif
MaggieOH
C
Church_Militant
Guest
This whole 7 booklet is great and should probably be in every Catholic home if they have ever had to answer some of the weird stuff that people allege against the church. # 2 deals with this topic here and the things that you mentioned.
You can order them here at CA or from the site above.
Have at it!
Pax vobiscum,
P.S. I’m in the “Bible Belt” too
M
maxjohnson
Guest
As a former Mormon I agree 100% that the Mormons are dead wrong about the “Great Apostasy.” When I was a Mormon missionary I banked on people believing the Apostasy opened the door for a “Restoration.”
Thankfully, my reversion occured when I realized that the Mormons were wrong on this theory and pretty much most, if not all, of the doctrines on why Mormonism is a legitimate for of Christianity. This is why I struggle today to refer to them as my “brothers and sisters.”
**
BibleReader:
Thankfully, my reversion occured when I realized that the Mormons were wrong on this theory and pretty much most, if not all, of the doctrines on why Mormonism is a legitimate for of Christianity. This is why I struggle today to refer to them as my “brothers and sisters.”
**
**<snipped>****
M
MaggieOH
Guest
As a former Mormon I agree 100% that the Mormons are dead wrong about the “Great Apostasy.” When I was a Mormon missionary I banked on people believing the Apostasy opened the door for a “Restoration.”
Thankfully, my reversion occured when I realized that the Mormons were wrong on this theory and pretty much most, if not all, of the doctrines on why Mormonism is a legitimate for of Christianity. This is why I struggle today to refer to them as my “brothers and sisters.”
**
BibleReader:
**
Welcome Max,
can you give us some perspective on the claims made by Joseph Smith that the Church went into Apostasy. What are his proofs?
Maggie
B
Benadam
Guest
A friend put this together . He calls this "Apostolic succession Vs Apostasy
**Was there a complete Apostasy in the first century of the Christian era?
a. + 1Tim 4:1 some **depart from faith (but not all).
**Did Christ lie or simply error in His promises concerning the infallible nature of His Church He planned to “build” as record Holy Bible?
b. +Matt 16:18 **gates of hell shall not prevail
c. + I Timothy 3:15 the Church is the pillar and ground of truth
When did they prevail and how?
d. + Matt 18:20 where 2-3 are, there I am.
e. + Matt 28:20 I am with you always.
f. + John 14:18, 23 I will come to you; we will come unto him and abide
Has He been with us or not?
**Did the Holy Ghost (Spirit) simply fail come to the Church yet?
**g. +John 14:26; 16:13 Holy Ghost shall teach you (the Apostles-the first minister of the Word and Sacraments); and be comforter; Spirit of truth
h. + Acts 1:8 receive power from Holy Ghost (Spirit)
i. **+ **John 17:20I pray not for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me thru their word.
Were the above promises fulfilled before or ignored up until 1830’s
Both Mormons and Catholics claim the successors of Simon Peter and the remaining Apostles, is there any scripture warrant for their claims?
j. Matt 10:2,Mark 3:14, Lk 6:13— The calling of the 12
k. Acts 1:26— The election of Matthias
The Mormons make clear distinctions the offices of The First Presidency (3 men) and the Apostles (12 men) 15 office holders total) The Catholic makes a distinction between Peter and remaining Apostles, yet all are Apostles (12 office holders) Which can be more clearly seen to be warranted based on Acts 2:26
**Why isn’t St. John the Apostle the Current President of the Mormon Church?
l. – D&C 7:1-8 **Apostle John didn’t die
**Why didn’t he appoint the 3 Nephrites to the Quorum of the 12 Apostles?
**m. - 3 Nephi 28: chapter heading and verses 1-8, 38-40,
n. – Mormon 1: chapter heading and in verses 1:13
o. - Mormon 8:10-11 no man know if they are on the earth
**Was there a complete Apostasy in the first century of the Christian era?
a. + 1Tim 4:1 some **depart from faith (but not all).
**Did Christ lie or simply error in His promises concerning the infallible nature of His Church He planned to “build” as record Holy Bible?
b. +Matt 16:18 **gates of hell shall not prevail
c. + I Timothy 3:15 the Church is the pillar and ground of truth
When did they prevail and how?
d. + Matt 18:20 where 2-3 are, there I am.
e. + Matt 28:20 I am with you always.
f. + John 14:18, 23 I will come to you; we will come unto him and abide
Has He been with us or not?
**Did the Holy Ghost (Spirit) simply fail come to the Church yet?
**g. +John 14:26; 16:13 Holy Ghost shall teach you (the Apostles-the first minister of the Word and Sacraments); and be comforter; Spirit of truth
h. + Acts 1:8 receive power from Holy Ghost (Spirit)
i. **+ **John 17:20I pray not for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me thru their word.
Were the above promises fulfilled before or ignored up until 1830’s
Both Mormons and Catholics claim the successors of Simon Peter and the remaining Apostles, is there any scripture warrant for their claims?
j. Matt 10:2,Mark 3:14, Lk 6:13— The calling of the 12
k. Acts 1:26— The election of Matthias
The Mormons make clear distinctions the offices of The First Presidency (3 men) and the Apostles (12 men) 15 office holders total) The Catholic makes a distinction between Peter and remaining Apostles, yet all are Apostles (12 office holders) Which can be more clearly seen to be warranted based on Acts 2:26
**Why isn’t St. John the Apostle the Current President of the Mormon Church?
l. – D&C 7:1-8 **Apostle John didn’t die
**Why didn’t he appoint the 3 Nephrites to the Quorum of the 12 Apostles?
**m. - 3 Nephi 28: chapter heading and verses 1-8, 38-40,
n. – Mormon 1: chapter heading and in verses 1:13
o. - Mormon 8:10-11 no man know if they are on the earth
B
Benadam
Guest
The following was written by someone on another catholic debate forum. It is an excellent dissection of this very subject.
Catholics need to realize that professional anti-Catholics have
dozens of charges like these up their sleeves, and they produce them
whenever they think they can make an impression on people who know
less than they. Bizarre allegations sow confusion in Catholic minds.
After all, most Catholics are not conversant with the finer points of
Church history and practice and are ripe targets for evangelistic
Fundamentalists.
Item: “Making the sign of the cross . . . [A.D.] 300.” That’s it.
That’s the whole charge: that the sign of the cross was
not “invented” until well into the Christian era. In reality, we can
show that Christians were making the sign of the cross at a much
earlier date. The theologian Tertullian, writing in A.D. 211, said
that “In all our travels and movements in all our coming in and going
out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting
our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment
occupieth us, we [Christians] mark our foreheads with the sign [of
the cross]” (The Chaplet [Crown] 3). Making the sign of the cross was
already an old custom when he wrote. It may well have been common
even while the apostles were alive.
But the mistake Boettner makes concerning the antiquity of the
practice is not the important thing. The real question is: Why does
he single out this practice at all? The answer: Because the sign of
the cross is not mentioned in the New Testament. The reader is
supposed to conclude that it must be contrary to Christian teaching.
But that makes little sense and, in fact, this line of reasoning
undermines Boettner’s own Fundamentalism.
The Pot Calling the Kettle Black
If Catholicism has changed matters of practice or customs over the
centuries, Fundamentalism has done the same. Indeed, there were no
altar calls and church steeples in the first century.
But the proper question is not whether Christ’s Church today
looks exactly as it did then—if that’s the criterion for discerning
the true Church from false ones, his Church cannot be found anywhere.
Rather, what matters is whether his Church has kept the same beliefs
as the early Church (which Catholicism has, unlike Boettner and all
Fundamentalists—not to mention Evangelicals).
Item: “Priests began to dress differently from laymen . . . [A.D.]
500.” So what? This charge can be brought against Fundamentalist
preachers who conduct services while dressed in choir robes.
Furthermore, Boettner’s statement is only a half-truth. The main
vestment worn by priests during Mass is the chasuble, which is really
nothing more than a stylized Roman overcoat. In the sixth century,
while fashions changed around them, priests kept the same clothing
they had used for liturgical purposes for some time. They did not
adopt special dress for Mass; they just kept to the old styles, while
everyday fashions changed, and over time their dress began to stand
out.
continued…
B
Benadam
Guest
But It’s in the Bible!
Item: “Extreme Unction . . . [A.D.] 526.” This single line is no
doubt intended to make the reader believe the Catholic Church
invented this sacrament (also known as the anointing of the sick)
five centuries after Christ. But Boettner makes no effort to give the
Church’s explanation of its origin. Why? Because the origin is
found in the New Testament itself: “Is any among you sick? Let him
call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of
faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if
he has committed sins, he will be forgiven” (Jas. 5:14–15). This
scriptural practice dates from the very beginnings of the Church. If
Boettner wants to say this sacrament was invented, he should have
said it was invented while the apostles were still alive—but that
would give the sacrament legitimacy.
Item: “Worship of the cross, images, and relics authorized in . . .
[A.D.] 786.” What’s this? Do Catholics give slivers of wood,
carvings of marble, and pieces of bone the kind of adoration they
give God?
That is the implication. What if a Catholic were to say to
Boettner, “I saw you kneeling with your Bible in your hands the other
day. Why do you worship a book?” He would rightly answer that he does
not worship a book. Rather, he uses the Bible as an aid to prayer.
Likewise, Catholics do not worship the cross, images, or relics. They
use these physical objects to help them focus their minds and hearts
upon Christ and his friends, the saints in heaven.
The man who keeps a picture of his family in his wallet does not
worship his wife and children; rather, he honors them. The woman who
keeps her parents’ picture on the mantle does not subscribe to
ancestor worship; the picture just reminds her of them so that she
may more readily honor them. (Remember Exodus 20:12: “Honor your
father and your mother.”) No one thinks these pictures are objects of
worship.
The origin of Boettner’s allegation is that in the Byzantine
Empire there developed what was known as the Iconoclastic heresy,
which held that all images (statues, paintings, mosaics) of saints
and of Jesus must be destroyed because they would be worshipped. In
787, at the Second Council of Nicaea, this heresy was defeated, and
the old custom (dating to the first century) of permitting artistic
representations was again allowed. Boettner had this date almost
right; he simply did not understand either the history or the
doctrine.
Following Paul’s Advice
Item: “Celibacy of the priesthood, decreed by pope Gregory VII
(Hildebrand) . . . [A.D.] 1079.” Anti-Catholics take considerable
delight in noting that some of the apostles, including Peter, were
married and that for centuries Catholic priests were allowed to
marry.
Catholics do not deny that some of the early popes were married or
that celibacy, for priests in the Western (Latin) Rite, did not
become mandatory until the early Middle Ages. Anti-Catholic writers
generally fail to note that even today many Catholic priests in the
Eastern Rites are married, and that it has always been that way.
Celibacy in the Latin Rite is purely a matter of discipline. It came
to be thought that priests could better fulfill their duties if they
remained unmarried.
Nor is this an unbiblical notion; it is Paul’s advice. After
saying he wished those to whom he was writing were, like he,
unmarried (1 Cor. 7:7–9), Paul said he thought celibacy was the more
perfect state (1 Cor 7:28b), noting that “[t]he unmarried man is
anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but
the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his
wife” (1 Cor. 7:32–33).
This applies specifically to ministers of the gospel. When Paul
counseled Timothy about how to fulfill his ministry, he cautioned
him: “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No
soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim
is to satisfy the one who enlisted him” (2 Tim. 2:3–4). And Paul
refers applaudingly to an order of Christian celibate widows (first-
century nuns), saying: “But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when
they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they
incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge” (1 Tim.
5:11–12).
continued…
Item: “Extreme Unction . . . [A.D.] 526.” This single line is no
doubt intended to make the reader believe the Catholic Church
invented this sacrament (also known as the anointing of the sick)
five centuries after Christ. But Boettner makes no effort to give the
Church’s explanation of its origin. Why? Because the origin is
found in the New Testament itself: “Is any among you sick? Let him
call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of
faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if
he has committed sins, he will be forgiven” (Jas. 5:14–15). This
scriptural practice dates from the very beginnings of the Church. If
Boettner wants to say this sacrament was invented, he should have
said it was invented while the apostles were still alive—but that
would give the sacrament legitimacy.
Item: “Worship of the cross, images, and relics authorized in . . .
[A.D.] 786.” What’s this? Do Catholics give slivers of wood,
carvings of marble, and pieces of bone the kind of adoration they
give God?
That is the implication. What if a Catholic were to say to
Boettner, “I saw you kneeling with your Bible in your hands the other
day. Why do you worship a book?” He would rightly answer that he does
not worship a book. Rather, he uses the Bible as an aid to prayer.
Likewise, Catholics do not worship the cross, images, or relics. They
use these physical objects to help them focus their minds and hearts
upon Christ and his friends, the saints in heaven.
The man who keeps a picture of his family in his wallet does not
worship his wife and children; rather, he honors them. The woman who
keeps her parents’ picture on the mantle does not subscribe to
ancestor worship; the picture just reminds her of them so that she
may more readily honor them. (Remember Exodus 20:12: “Honor your
father and your mother.”) No one thinks these pictures are objects of
worship.
The origin of Boettner’s allegation is that in the Byzantine
Empire there developed what was known as the Iconoclastic heresy,
which held that all images (statues, paintings, mosaics) of saints
and of Jesus must be destroyed because they would be worshipped. In
787, at the Second Council of Nicaea, this heresy was defeated, and
the old custom (dating to the first century) of permitting artistic
representations was again allowed. Boettner had this date almost
right; he simply did not understand either the history or the
doctrine.
Following Paul’s Advice
Item: “Celibacy of the priesthood, decreed by pope Gregory VII
(Hildebrand) . . . [A.D.] 1079.” Anti-Catholics take considerable
delight in noting that some of the apostles, including Peter, were
married and that for centuries Catholic priests were allowed to
marry.
Catholics do not deny that some of the early popes were married or
that celibacy, for priests in the Western (Latin) Rite, did not
become mandatory until the early Middle Ages. Anti-Catholic writers
generally fail to note that even today many Catholic priests in the
Eastern Rites are married, and that it has always been that way.
Celibacy in the Latin Rite is purely a matter of discipline. It came
to be thought that priests could better fulfill their duties if they
remained unmarried.
Nor is this an unbiblical notion; it is Paul’s advice. After
saying he wished those to whom he was writing were, like he,
unmarried (1 Cor. 7:7–9), Paul said he thought celibacy was the more
perfect state (1 Cor 7:28b), noting that “[t]he unmarried man is
anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but
the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his
wife” (1 Cor. 7:32–33).
This applies specifically to ministers of the gospel. When Paul
counseled Timothy about how to fulfill his ministry, he cautioned
him: “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No
soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim
is to satisfy the one who enlisted him” (2 Tim. 2:3–4). And Paul
refers applaudingly to an order of Christian celibate widows (first-
century nuns), saying: “But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when
they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they
incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge” (1 Tim.
5:11–12).
continued…
B
Benadam
Guest
So, the practice of clerical celibacy, even taking vows of celibacy,
is thoroughly biblical. When a man becomes a priest in the Latin Rite
he knows that he will not be able to marry. Marriage is a good thing
(in fact, Catholics acknowledge that Christ elevated it to a
sacrament), but it is something that priests are willing to forgo for
the sake of being better priests.
No one is forced to be a priest (or a nun for that matter), so no
Catholic is forced to be celibate. Those who want to take the vows of
the religious life should not object to following the rules. That
does not mean that the rules, as found at any one time, are ideal or
cannot be modified—after all, they are not doctrines, but matters
of discipline. However, it does mean that it is unfair to imply, as
Boettner does, that the Catholic faith scorns marriage.
Christ’s Own Instruction
Item: “Auricular confession of sins to a priest instead of to God,
instituted by Pope Innocent III, in [the] Lateran Council . . .
[A.D.] 1215.”
Charges like this might make one doubt the good faith of professional
anti-Catholics. It would have taken little effort to discover the
antiquity of auricular confession—and even less to learn that
Catholics do not tell their sins to a priest “instead” of to God, but
to God through a priest.
Origen, writing his Homilies on Leviticus, around 244, refers to the
repentant sinner as one who “does not shrink from declaring his sin
to a priest of the Lord.” Cyprian of Carthage, writing seven years
later in The Lapsed, says,“Finally, of how much greater faith and
more salutary fear are they who . . . confess to the priests of God
in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration
of conscience.” In the 300s, Aphraates offers this advice to
priests: “If anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the
remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his
weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And
when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public” (Treatises
7:4; see the Catholic Answers tract Confession for additional
quotations from the early Church Fathers).
These men, writing almost a thousand years before the Lateran Council
of 1215, refer to a practice that was already well-established. In
fact, it dates back to the time of Jesus, for Christ commissioned the
apostles this way: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are
forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John
20:23). The Lateran Council did not “invent” the practice; it merely
reaffirmed it.
Who Added What?
Item: “Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of
Trent . . . [A.D.] 1546.” This reminds one of a famous comment made
by a writer who joked, in discussing the English Reformation,
that “the pope and his minions then seceded from the Church of
England.” It was not the Council of Trent that “added” what
Protestants call the apocryphal books to the Bible. Instead, the
Protestant Reformers excised out of the Bible these books that had
been in common use for centuries.
The Council of Trent, convened to reaffirm Catholic doctrines and to
revitalize the Church, proclaimed that these books had always
belonged to the Bible and had to remain in it. After all, it was the
Catholic Church, in the fourth century, at the councils of Rome,
Hippo, and Carthage (A.D. 382, 393, 397, respectively), that
officially decided which books belonged to the Bible and which did
not. This had been reaffirmed by many popes and councils later,
including the ecumenical Council of Florence. When the Council of
Trent was convened, it merely formally restated the constant teaching
of the Church.
A Final Word
Bishop Fulton Sheen once said that few people in America hate the
Catholic religion, but there are many who hate what they mistakenly
believe is the Catholic religion—and that if what they hate
really were the Catholic religion, Catholics would hate it too.
Highly inaccurate and inflammatory lists, like the one published in
Boettner’s Roman Catholicism, have done much to foster this kind
of hatred. Even worse, they have discouraged Fundamentalists from
finding out what the Catholic religion really is, and that is a
disservice both to Protestants and to Catholics.
continued…
is thoroughly biblical. When a man becomes a priest in the Latin Rite
he knows that he will not be able to marry. Marriage is a good thing
(in fact, Catholics acknowledge that Christ elevated it to a
sacrament), but it is something that priests are willing to forgo for
the sake of being better priests.
No one is forced to be a priest (or a nun for that matter), so no
Catholic is forced to be celibate. Those who want to take the vows of
the religious life should not object to following the rules. That
does not mean that the rules, as found at any one time, are ideal or
cannot be modified—after all, they are not doctrines, but matters
of discipline. However, it does mean that it is unfair to imply, as
Boettner does, that the Catholic faith scorns marriage.
Christ’s Own Instruction
Item: “Auricular confession of sins to a priest instead of to God,
instituted by Pope Innocent III, in [the] Lateran Council . . .
[A.D.] 1215.”
Charges like this might make one doubt the good faith of professional
anti-Catholics. It would have taken little effort to discover the
antiquity of auricular confession—and even less to learn that
Catholics do not tell their sins to a priest “instead” of to God, but
to God through a priest.
Origen, writing his Homilies on Leviticus, around 244, refers to the
repentant sinner as one who “does not shrink from declaring his sin
to a priest of the Lord.” Cyprian of Carthage, writing seven years
later in The Lapsed, says,“Finally, of how much greater faith and
more salutary fear are they who . . . confess to the priests of God
in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration
of conscience.” In the 300s, Aphraates offers this advice to
priests: “If anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the
remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his
weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And
when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public” (Treatises
7:4; see the Catholic Answers tract Confession for additional
quotations from the early Church Fathers).
These men, writing almost a thousand years before the Lateran Council
of 1215, refer to a practice that was already well-established. In
fact, it dates back to the time of Jesus, for Christ commissioned the
apostles this way: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are
forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John
20:23). The Lateran Council did not “invent” the practice; it merely
reaffirmed it.
Who Added What?
Item: “Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of
Trent . . . [A.D.] 1546.” This reminds one of a famous comment made
by a writer who joked, in discussing the English Reformation,
that “the pope and his minions then seceded from the Church of
England.” It was not the Council of Trent that “added” what
Protestants call the apocryphal books to the Bible. Instead, the
Protestant Reformers excised out of the Bible these books that had
been in common use for centuries.
The Council of Trent, convened to reaffirm Catholic doctrines and to
revitalize the Church, proclaimed that these books had always
belonged to the Bible and had to remain in it. After all, it was the
Catholic Church, in the fourth century, at the councils of Rome,
Hippo, and Carthage (A.D. 382, 393, 397, respectively), that
officially decided which books belonged to the Bible and which did
not. This had been reaffirmed by many popes and councils later,
including the ecumenical Council of Florence. When the Council of
Trent was convened, it merely formally restated the constant teaching
of the Church.
A Final Word
Bishop Fulton Sheen once said that few people in America hate the
Catholic religion, but there are many who hate what they mistakenly
believe is the Catholic religion—and that if what they hate
really were the Catholic religion, Catholics would hate it too.
Highly inaccurate and inflammatory lists, like the one published in
Boettner’s Roman Catholicism, have done much to foster this kind
of hatred. Even worse, they have discouraged Fundamentalists from
finding out what the Catholic religion really is, and that is a
disservice both to Protestants and to Catholics.
continued…
B
Benadam
Guest
Like others before him, Loraine Boettner found an enemy of his own
fashioning. He castigated it, misrepresented it, and ridiculed it;
but it was not the Catholic religion as it truly is, and
the “history” he presented is not the history of the Catholic Church.
Fundamentalists who are curious about the Catholic religion do
themselves no favor by allowing themselves to be hoodwinked by such
lists of “inventions.” If they want to know what really happened, how
Catholic beliefs and practices really arose, they will have to turn
to more careful and better-informed writers.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Sources:
catholic.com/library/More_Catholic_Inventions.asp
==================================================================
IF YOUR DENOMINATION IS OF GOD OR FROM GOD
PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR “GOD’s” BLESSINGS LIKE THESE
The Fruits of The True Church
Miracles and Apparitions of Jesus and Mother Mary to his Catholic
children and Brief life stories of Saints and Beati bodies that never
decayed…WITH ACTUAL PHOTOS
geocities.com/junmeskie/Apparitions.html
SHOW ME YOUR MOTHER THERESA
SHOW ME YOUR SAINT PADRE PIO
Yep we also have Judas but we have more blessed (holy) people just
read any books of “The Lives of Saints” they are all Catholics.
Forgive me for boasting but I’m proud about them.
Jhun
fashioning. He castigated it, misrepresented it, and ridiculed it;
but it was not the Catholic religion as it truly is, and
the “history” he presented is not the history of the Catholic Church.
Fundamentalists who are curious about the Catholic religion do
themselves no favor by allowing themselves to be hoodwinked by such
lists of “inventions.” If they want to know what really happened, how
Catholic beliefs and practices really arose, they will have to turn
to more careful and better-informed writers.
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Sources:
catholic.com/library/More_Catholic_Inventions.asp
==================================================================
IF YOUR DENOMINATION IS OF GOD OR FROM GOD
PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR “GOD’s” BLESSINGS LIKE THESE
The Fruits of The True Church
Miracles and Apparitions of Jesus and Mother Mary to his Catholic
children and Brief life stories of Saints and Beati bodies that never
decayed…WITH ACTUAL PHOTOS
geocities.com/junmeskie/Apparitions.html
SHOW ME YOUR MOTHER THERESA
SHOW ME YOUR SAINT PADRE PIO
Yep we also have Judas but we have more blessed (holy) people just
read any books of “The Lives of Saints” they are all Catholics.
Forgive me for boasting but I’m proud about them.
Jhun
G
gusano
Guest
But MaggieOH,
Don’t you think it is invain to answer every false accusation against the Church ?
Just like it is useless to answer every dog that barks.
Just like Jesus remained silent when asked (demanded ) that he answer and defend himself against all the false and contradicting testimony presented against him .( Mt.26:59-63)
not only that, but who from any of those religions mentioned would have the courage to post their accusations
in a Catholic thread.
would you have the courage to march into a SDA service and tell them where you think they are in apostasy ?
Just wondering…
gusano
G
gusano
Guest
How would I refute each of the above accusations ?…
I would say (if I thought it was worth saying…) …
"Your teachers went around collecting flyers …that were stapled onto telephone poles, and taped onto condemned vacant store windows…
and now you run around playing “teacher” …proposing them as fact."
M
maxjohnson
Guest
The main “proof” is that Joseph Smith claimed an Apostasy occurred because he was told this by God and Jesus (they don’t believe in the Trinity). Supposedly, God and Jesus told him that no church was correct. It was up to him to restore God’s church. When I was a Missionary I would use the following Scriptures: Amos 8:11-12; Is. 60:2; Acts 20:29-30; Gal. 1:6-9; II Thes. 2:3; I Tim. 4:1- 3; II Tim. 1:15, 3:1-5, 4:2-4; II Peter 2:1-3; Rev. 3:14-17 and 13:6-7. The error is that the Mormon church takes scriptures that refer to an apostasy define this as an Universal Apostasy. However, their is not anywhere in the Bible that states there will be an Universal Apostasy. Therefore, much weight is put on Smith’s “vision” to substantiate the Mormon claims.
MaggieOH:
C
cornerstone
Guest
Monumental church dedicated to controversial saint Padre Pio
The Guardian, July 2, 2004
John Hooper in Rome
www.guardian.co.uk
Since his canonisation in 2002, he has been St Pius. But for his devotees - it is estimated there are 15 million worldwide - he will always be Padre Pio, an ill-educated Capuchin monk with supernatural powers who bore the marks of Christ’s crucifixion.
Yesterday, his global cult acquired a shrine of appropriate size and splendour, when a huge basilica designed by the Genoese architect Renzo Piano was consecrated on the mountainous promontory where Padre Pio lived his simple, though intensely controversial, life.
The new church of San Giovanni Rotondo can hold a congregation of 7,000, with space for more than 30,000 outside.
The €35m (£23m) cost of the building, which took 10 years to design and build, has been met entirely by contributions from the faithful.
Mr Piano said he had tried to arrange the vast spaces and surfaces in such a way that the gaze of visitors “can be lost between the sky, the sea and the earth”.
That theme was echoed by Pope John Paul in a message read to the congregation yesterday.
He said: “The limits of the cult to this humble son of St Francis have become the ends of the earth.”
San Giovanni Rotondo in Puglia has become the world’s second-most visited place of pilgrimage after Guadalupe in Mexico.
Maccabees:
The cult of Padre Pio has generated a £35m tourist business in a once-poor area. It has also given rise to an ugly sprawl of cheap hotels and trinket shops that Mr Piano’s elegant, low-lying dome will do much to dignify.
Celebrated for his designs for the Pompidou Centre in Paris and Osaka airport, Mr Piano initially turned down entreaties from the Capuchin monks. Yesterday, he admitted to continued mixed feelings. “It’s a mixed-up world that surrounds Padre Pio,” he said.
“There is confusion between the sacred - himself and his miracles - and all the commercialisation that surrounds him.”
Many liberal Catholics, including the late Pope John XXIII, were sceptical of Padre Pio, and hostile to the traditional faith he represented. He was twice investigated by the Vatican in the 1930s and at one stage was banned from saying mass.
He was said to have received the stigmata - the five wounds of the crucifixion - in 1918, by which time he was in his early thirties. His followers claimed he had about him the “odour of sanctity”, a fragrance like roses.
Padre Pio has rarely been out of the news since his death in 1968. Last month, he was claimed to have interceded in the release of three Italians held hostage in Iraq. One of the men was at yesterday’s ceremony.
The Guardian, July 2, 2004
John Hooper in Rome
www.guardian.co.uk
His bearded face can be seen everywhere in Italy - tucked into the frames of mirrors behind bars; taped on to taxi drivers’ dashboards; in beggars’ bowls.Since his canonisation in 2002, he has been St Pius. But for his devotees - it is estimated there are 15 million worldwide - he will always be Padre Pio, an ill-educated Capuchin monk with supernatural powers who bore the marks of Christ’s crucifixion.
Yesterday, his global cult acquired a shrine of appropriate size and splendour, when a huge basilica designed by the Genoese architect Renzo Piano was consecrated on the mountainous promontory where Padre Pio lived his simple, though intensely controversial, life.
The new church of San Giovanni Rotondo can hold a congregation of 7,000, with space for more than 30,000 outside.
The €35m (£23m) cost of the building, which took 10 years to design and build, has been met entirely by contributions from the faithful.
Mr Piano said he had tried to arrange the vast spaces and surfaces in such a way that the gaze of visitors “can be lost between the sky, the sea and the earth”.
That theme was echoed by Pope John Paul in a message read to the congregation yesterday.
He said: “The limits of the cult to this humble son of St Francis have become the ends of the earth.”
San Giovanni Rotondo in Puglia has become the world’s second-most visited place of pilgrimage after Guadalupe in Mexico.
Last year, the number of visitors soared by more than a third after the Pope announced that pilgrims qualified for a total remission of their sins.
The cult of Padre Pio has generated a £35m tourist business in a once-poor area. It has also given rise to an ugly sprawl of cheap hotels and trinket shops that Mr Piano’s elegant, low-lying dome will do much to dignify.
Celebrated for his designs for the Pompidou Centre in Paris and Osaka airport, Mr Piano initially turned down entreaties from the Capuchin monks. Yesterday, he admitted to continued mixed feelings. “It’s a mixed-up world that surrounds Padre Pio,” he said.
“There is confusion between the sacred - himself and his miracles - and all the commercialisation that surrounds him.”
Many liberal Catholics, including the late Pope John XXIII, were sceptical of Padre Pio, and hostile to the traditional faith he represented. He was twice investigated by the Vatican in the 1930s and at one stage was banned from saying mass.
He was said to have received the stigmata - the five wounds of the crucifixion - in 1918, by which time he was in his early thirties. His followers claimed he had about him the “odour of sanctity”, a fragrance like roses.
Padre Pio has rarely been out of the news since his death in 1968. Last month, he was claimed to have interceded in the release of three Italians held hostage in Iraq. One of the men was at yesterday’s ceremony.
M
Mickey
Guest
**Warning to Catholics on this forum. Websites linked from cornerstone’s post are brutal anti-Catholic propaganda. **
C
Church_Militant
Guest
cornerstone,
You have obviously never read anything on the life of St. Padre Pio and if you insist on posting Anti-Catholic sites and propaganda, I suggest that you review the rules that you agreed to when you joined this forum and abide by them or cease posting here.
CONDUCT RULES
4. Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
5. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
Pax vobiscum,
You have obviously never read anything on the life of St. Padre Pio and if you insist on posting Anti-Catholic sites and propaganda, I suggest that you review the rules that you agreed to when you joined this forum and abide by them or cease posting here.
CONDUCT RULES
4. Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
5. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
Pax vobiscum,
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Hold up here. BibleReader, you have listed yourself in your profile as ‘Catholic.’ Now you use the term ‘your’ Pope, not ‘our’ Pope. Then you close with ‘our’ Pope. Which is it? Come out. If you are presenting yourself as Catholic, but are not Catholic, that is really a serious breach of courtesy and of relationship.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
This is yet another attempt to hijack this thread. If you want to discuss this “article” then start your own thread and address the issues involved there.
Maggie
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Okay…One last try, now that we all seem to have let the smoke clear and can perhaps get back on topic and carry on from there:
Can ANY of you non-Catholics present ANY valid unbiased historical evidence that sometime between 100 and 400 AD the Catholic Church went totally pagan apostate and has remained so to this day?
I submit that no one on this thread has offered ANY such evidence because these events DID NOT occur, hence, said allegation is patently and completely untrue.
Alert the media!
Pax vobiscum,
Can ANY of you non-Catholics present ANY valid unbiased historical evidence that sometime between 100 and 400 AD the Catholic Church went totally pagan apostate and has remained so to this day?
I submit that no one on this thread has offered ANY such evidence because these events DID NOT occur, hence, said allegation is patently and completely untrue.
Alert the media!
Pax vobiscum,
C
Church_Militant
Guest
It appears that no one has a valid answer!
Catholics rejoice!
http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage14/10.gif
Catholics rejoice!
http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage14/10.gif
- Status