G
guanophore
Guest
Spiritual cataracts! I think you have just diagnosed justasking4’s condition!
- Status
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Well hold on to your hat, there was Gnosticism, Arianism, Monatanism, Marcionism, Novatianism, Modalism, Nestorianism Monophysitism, Donatism, Pelagianism. These were declared heresies by the Catholic Church, by the Pope in Council with the Bishops. Yes, there was Popes then too. A short list of Early Church Popes:
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) – also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) – also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83) (commission St Jerome to translate the Bible in Latin, the common language)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36)
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Read your history, it will knock your socks off. The liturgy of the mass by the 2nd century had basically the same framework as the mass today, Introductory Rite, Offertory, Eucharistic Prayer, Communion. Pope St. Gregory gave us the Gregorian calendar, Gregorian chant.
I do not read “quotes” I read books. So do the great Theologians. They study them in the original language. You cannot deny that our Catholic Popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are men of great intellect and holiness. Do you think they are duped?
G
guanophore
Guest
This is a misrepresentation of Catholicism, ja4. I do not think it is wise for you to do this kind of thing here. The purpose of the fora is not for you to made baseless accusations against Catholicsm, and to malign the faith. The Catholic Teaching is whole, and integrated. The New Testament is representative of that Teaching, though not entirely inclusive. Catholics do not “rely on private interpreters” as you claim, and this would be an example of bearing false witness. You know well, as you have admitted in other threads, that we rely on the Magesterium, and that scripture is interpreted within the light of the Apostolic teachings.
We know that is what it means because we accept the Apostolic Teaching on that point.
I think you know this well, and that you are only here to stir the pot, and try to pull Catholics away from their faith. However, for the sake of the lurkers, I will respond to this. The promise was not given to any one individual. Peter, just as all Catholics, are capable of being mistaken an making errors. The promise is made to the Church, which is the Body of Christ. He is the Head, and since it is His body, it is pure. The Church does not err when teaching on matters of faith and morals.
Furthermore, your statement is misleading, if not downright deceptive. The scriptures clearly indicate that Peter was not under the influence of the Holy Spirit when he spoke against the crucifixion.
J
justasking4
Guest
Isn’t true that there are a number of different lists of popes?
What church history books have you read that you would recommend?
It looks like you are well versed in church history.
Let me answer your last question in this way. Even intelligent men can be decieved. For example your popes who supported the inqusititions were decieved about it as they were with Galilieo and various others.
Do you think the pope who supported Tetzel who sold indulgences to build a church was duping catholics at the time?
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Cite your source.
You could start with New Advent.org. It is a Catholic site, but you will find it factually accurate.
Be a little more specific? Which inquisition did the Pope support? Are you saying the Pope was deceived by Galileo or that the Pope was wrong in condeming Galileo?
The Church has never allowed the sale of indulgences or relics. If the Pope knew of it, he should have stopped it. My understanding is there were a lot of abuses by the clergy and the laity at that time. The Black Death had decimated the population of Europe, and many became priests without proper formation. These abuses were dealt with at the Council of Trent. But that is beside the point. The Church still has the Deposit of faith. In spite of Roman and Barabarian persecutions, the sins of her members, she miraculously has survived and is very much alive. Without her preserving the Word, copying it, we would not have Scripture nor correct knowledge of Jesus today.
J
justasking4
Guest
How could a thousand different interpretations be in line with the teachings of your church? There can only be one correct interpretation.
Secondly, since your church has interpreted so few verses you really have no confidence in which interpretation is the correct one. If you don’t have the correct interpretation, you will have the wrong belief and practice.
Thirdly, this means you have worse chaos than protestant churches since there are more catholics than protestants.
J
justasking4
Guest
part 1
In the numbering of the successors of St. Peter, certain differences appear in various lists. The two forms Anacletus and Cletus, as we hare seen, very early occasioned the third pope to be reckoned twice. There are some few cases, also, in which it is still doubted whether particular individuals should be accounted genuine popes or intruders, and, according to the view taken by the compiler of the list, they will be included or excluded. In the accompanying list the Stephen immediately following Zacharias (752) is not numbered, since, though duly elected, he died before his consecration.
In the numbering of the successors of St. Peter, certain differences appear in various lists. The two forms Anacletus and Cletus, as we hare seen, very early occasioned the third pope to be reckoned twice. There are some few cases, also, in which it is still doubted whether particular individuals should be accounted genuine popes or intruders, and, according to the view taken by the compiler of the list, they will be included or excluded. In the accompanying list the Stephen immediately following Zacharias (752) is not numbered, since, though duly elected, he died before his consecration.
Got this from Wikisource which is online. The following is a couple of sentences from a larger article.
In the numbering of the successors of St. Peter, certain differences appear in various lists. The two forms Anacletus and Cletus, as we hare seen, very early occasioned the third pope to be reckoned twice. There are some few cases, also, in which it is still doubted whether particular individuals should be accounted genuine popes or intruders, and, according to the view taken by the compiler of the list, they will be included or excluded. In the accompanying list the Stephen immediately following Zacharias (752) is not numbered, since, though duly elected, he died before his consecration.
The inquisitions went on for a number of years under a number of popes. I read somewhere that there were 75 popes.
I don’t think the pope was decieved by Galileo but that he got the wrong counsel about him. He supported the house arrest of him since he was threathened with excommunication. We know today that Galilieo was right and the pope was wrong. The pope should never have threathened him with excommunication or arrested him. There is no basis in the teachings of Christ that would ever justify such a thing.
If not mistaken the pope needed money to build a church in Rome and he authoritized the sale of indulgences to help pay for it.
Got this from Wikisource which is online. The following is a couple of sentences from a larger article.
In the numbering of the successors of St. Peter, certain differences appear in various lists. The two forms Anacletus and Cletus, as we hare seen, very early occasioned the third pope to be reckoned twice. There are some few cases, also, in which it is still doubted whether particular individuals should be accounted genuine popes or intruders, and, according to the view taken by the compiler of the list, they will be included or excluded. In the accompanying list the Stephen immediately following Zacharias (752) is not numbered, since, though duly elected, he died before his consecration.
J
justasking4
Guest
part 2
The inquisitions went on for a number of years under a number of popes. I read somewhere that there were 75 popes.
I don’t think the pope was decieved by Galileo but that he got the wrong counsel about him. He supported the house arrest of him since he was threathened with excommunication. We know today that Galilieo was right and the pope was wrong. The pope should never have threathened him with excommunication or arrested him. There is no basis in the teachings of Christ that would ever justify such a thing.
I think that indeed the pope did authorize the sale of indulgences to help pay for a church building.
This is not beside the point but a major issue that needs to be dealt with. If your church claims to be led by the Holy Spirit how was this possible.
I would agree with some of this.
J
justasking4
Guest
If you already know then there is no need to explain it to you.
Not so. If you look many of the scriptures that catholics use to support their doctrines they certainly are out of contexts in many cases. The marian doctrines and indulgences are a case in point.
A
alanjeddy
Guest
John 6 is explicit there is no other way to interpret it but in a literal sense.
J
justasking4
Guest
What do you mean by “literal” sense? If we take this passage in a literal sense then it would be canabalism.
A
alanjeddy
Guest
It is called spiritual food for the soul. Viatocom. Jesus said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you. Greek= Torgo is the verb used to eat and do you know what it means? TO EAT OR GNAW ON FLESH. Why do you think Jesus’
audience was scandalised and left him? You do know that He also asked His own apostles, “Are you going to leave me too?”
Jesus never once called them back to say that He was talking metaphorically or symbolically do you know why? Do you have any clue?
BECAUSE HE MEANT WHAT HE SAID.
J
justasking4
Guest
If its spiritual food for the soul then its not literal.
There could be a number of reasons. He is challenging a lot of their strong held beliefs that were not in harmony with what Jesus was teaching here.
alanjeddy
I wish it was as easy as you make it sound. There is a lot going on in this passage that needs to be understood before we can claim to know what He meant.
A
alanjeddy
Guest
J
justasking4
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
This is an example of that wooden thinking. This is not the case, ja4. There can be many interpretations, all at the same time. When the sign was given that a virgin would conceive, and bear a son, it happened way back when. The prophesy was fulfilled. But, we see that the same prophesy was applied to Christ a long time later.
Well, you must speak for yourself, ja4. You have no confidence in teh Catholic Church, but Catholics do. You are right, though, if you have the wrong interpretation, you will have the wrong belief and practice. This is what we witness in the fracturing of the denominations. There is a poster here who believes that baptism has nothing to do with water! He certainly does not believe water baptism has any value .
No, ja4. Catholics, by defintion, accept the Teaching of the Church. This teaching gives us clarity when we read the scripture. Since we know that the church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, we do not interpret scripture in any way contrary to the Church teachings.
I think you have some study to do on this matter. In any case, it is not appropriate to study and judge history with our present day experience. We have no idea waht it is like to live in a society where church and state are not separated.
If Galileo had minded the business of science, I think he would never have come to the attention of the religious authorities. It was his insistence that the Bible be revised to reflect the “facts” that caused problems. The Pope was not at liberty to change the wording of the Bible.
I think this is debatable, but it seems off topic in this thread.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I believe in the marian doctrines in light of the practices of the Early Church. It is true that some of them were not made doctrine until 19th Century (Immaculate Conception at Lourdes), but this is because our understanding of history has grown over the centuries. Indulgences, yes, are based on Maccabees which most protestants don’t accept as inspired.
It means to understand the message. The God of the OT is the same God as the NT. The OT can only be understood in light of the NT. Today’s first reading was Isaiah 7:10-14:
*
7:13-14
Then he said: Listen, O house of David! Is it not enough for you to weary men, must you also weary my God?
14
7 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. *
How many times have I heard these verses and just took for granted that, “Of course, Isaiah was a prophet.” I never marveled at the beauty, the cohesiveness.
And Psalm 22:2 *My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?[6 Then I will proclaim your name to the assembly; in the community I will praise you:
24
"You who fear the LORD, give praise! All descendants of Jacob, give honor; show reverence, all descendants of Israel!
25
For God has not spurned or disdained the misery of this poor wretch, Did not turn away from me, but heard me when I cried out.
26
I will offer praise in the great assembly; my vows I will fulfill before those who fear him.
27
[/COLOR]I sang this psalm hundreds of times on Good Friday, never realzing that Jesus was quoting this Psalm, a Psalm of Hope.
The Catholic Church believes this literally. It is a tenet of the Catholic faith, the Real Presence.The Catholic Church approach to the Bible is Literal vs. Literalist.
I gather you accept that early church history bears out that the church at the time is the Catholic Church, but that somehow the CC erred and needed reformation. Hence, ML, Calvin, Zwingli. Problem is they have very different views on Salvation. Which one is correct? Perhaps CC need reformation, but she has never erred in faith and morals. (although the morals of various clergy are questionable)!
I am not well versed in Reformation outside of the CC POV. I have read various accounts regarding Tetzel’s character. It’s an interesting study. This is an area I need to explore in detail. My understanding is there were abuses by the clergy, and misunderstandings about “payment for salvation.” But the CC NEVER put a price on Salvation, these were incorrect interpretations. Nonetheless, I applaud ML for attmpting to clear up the issue. As a Catholic, I often “pay” for a mass. Really, I am asking for a prayer for a loved one, and give a monetary offering to offset the cost, but I am not required to do this.
Well, it’s late, I hope you read this JA4.
Tomorrow is Christmas Eve, and I have a big night, as I am in choir. We have been working hard in choir to rehearse songs of praise. I will be singing “midnight” mass at 10:30 PM 12/24, my BD (hence my name), and the Christmas day.
Therefore, I won’t have much time to read and respond. I am happy to be in correspondence with you on these matters.
I wish you a blessed Christmas and the peace of the promise of Christ in this most holy season
__________________*
G
guanophore
Guest
Not really. Since the NT was composed by the Catholic Church, and reflects her beliefs, then the context of the verses is Catholicism. That is why there are no Catholic doctrines that conflict in any way with scripture.
This is a very good question.
What we have, ja4, that preserves us from speculation is the infallible Apostolic Teaching. We know we understand this passage correctly because we are interpreting it in the light of what Jesus taught His Apostles.
I believe that you cannot see our position.
No, that would be “literalist”. Literal means how the writer meant it. Literalist is just the words, without consideration of what the writer was trying to convey.
Here is a good article that explains, and will also address your erroneous assertion that there is only “one” way to interpret scripture:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405bt.asp
po18guy
Well-known member
It is both. Since the practice was established by Christ, it was observed as a Sacred Tradition regularly long before John compiled his Gospel. Several decades, probably. So, the Tradition precedes the Scripture.
Christ’s peace.
po18guy
Well-known member
There are two terms that apply: Literal and Literalist. Example: “It’s raining cats and dogs outside”
- Literalist: Animals are falling from the sky.
- Literal: It is raining heavily.
Christ’s peace.
- Status