What Authority

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twopekinguys said:
Whoa!!!
  1. The College of Cardinals who selected the Pope have no authority? Everyone member of the Catholic priesthood can trace their priestly lineage back to Peter, who was ultimately selected by Jesus himself. You can go back to JS, who had 7 versions of his “first vision”. Real reliable stuff there.
Click to expand...
Somehow I think that Father Earl Lucian Pulvermacher would not agree with that statement.

For those who are uninformed Fr. Pulvemacher became Pope Pius XIII of the " true Catholic Church" in 1998 after becoming disillusioned with the existing Roman Catholic Church. In particular was his disagreement over Vatican II. further, he became convinced that Pope John XXIII had been a freemason, and as such, his election as pope in 1958 had been invalid and thus all succeeding Popes elections were invalid as well…

Depending oh how you interpet his rationale, the current College of Cardinals are not valid and have no authority…
 
thecourt said:
So explain, when we all recognize that she was the mother of Jesus Christ, have all this, in my view, unnecessary focus on her, including whatever days you have in your calendar?

Again for me this is why I left Catholicism seeking the truth — Catholicism has too many obvious issues, doctrinally, that resulting in me leaving.
Click to expand...
It appears the reason you left the Catholic church was due to lack of knowledge, and failure to understand your faith.

How is focusing attention on the Mother of God unneccessary? Do you remember your mother on her birthday? Do you remember or celebrate your own birthday? After all she was there with you wasn’t she? Do you honor the sacrifices that your mother made for you? Mary sure made some sacrifices didn’t she?

Some things you have to realize.
  1. Catholics do not worship Mary
  2. The Roman Catholic Church tells us not to worship Mary.
  3. We honor and respect Mary as the mother of our Lord.
  4. Catholics are not required to believe anything other than Mary was the mother of Jesus, she is and was sinless, and was assumed body and soul into heaven.
 
gamewell45 said:
Somehow I think that Father Earl Lucian Pulvermacher would not agree with that statement.

For those who are uninformed Fr. Pulvemacher became Pope Pius XIII of the " true Catholic Church" in 1998 after becoming disillusioned with the existing Roman Catholic Church. In particular was his disagreement over Vatican II. further, he became convinced that Pope John XXIII had been a freemason, and as such, his election as pope in 1958 had been invalid and thus all succeeding Popes elections were invalid as well…

Depending oh how you interpet his rationale, the current College of Cardinals are not valid and have no authority…
Click to expand...
I believe his issue is addressed quite well with this link.

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040406.asp

I would like to add that the link in the middle of the page doesn’t work, and it should be

truecatholic.us/
 
thecourt said:
So explain, when we all recognize that she was the mother of Jesus Christ, have all this, in my view, unnecessary focus on her, including whatever days you have in your calendar?

Again for me this is why I left Catholicism seeking the truth — Catholicism has too many obvious issues, doctrinally, that resulting in me leaving.
Click to expand...
You left Catholism because you never toke the time to leard what catholism teach,you, never leard about the Church father…Cathloics never teach any thing that goes against the bible,The Church was start By Our Lord Jesus Christ and all early christians followed apostolic tradittion,and please remember not all is in the Bible Jn 21:25
 
Parascheva1014 said:
How incredibly ironic that a Catholic is claiming you can’t just start your own Church. You all started this with your innovative claim to papal authority which resulted ultimately in the Great Schism. Your great many theological innovations then lead to the reformation. Now that people are starting their own churches you want to cry foul when you laid the ground work for this. It is your own doctrine of once a priest always a priest that even allows some of those groups to claim a rediculas notion of apostolic succession. Once you left the Orthodox Church you no longer had apostolic succession yourselves.

The pot and the Kettle. What a western mess.
Click to expand...
What an eastern mess. Look at your own eastern history. Allowing birth control, allowing divorce innovations innovations. The pot and the Kettle.
 
twopekinguys said:
LOL, you obviously didn’t check out the site. It is a pro mormon site. He is mormon and he posted the information on there. He’s on your side. It appears he understands your church history better than you do. Which is unfortunate.

Regarding infant baptism, Catholics don’t believe that infants must know the difference between right and wrong. Infant baptism removes the stain of original sin. lds and several protestant religions are the ones that believe a person must understand the difference between right and wrong. That is why you wait for the “age of reason” right? Then why baptize an infant by proxy? They haven’t reached the age of reason. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.

I’m not trying to confuse you with anything about the first vision. Tell me which version of the first vision you believe. Since they are all different in some way. Or do you believe in all of the different versions?

Your last statement speaks volumes. Many lds, when confronted with something they, or their church cannot explain, simply bear your testimony.

I am glad you are lds. I am glad you want to stay lds. I hope you find everything you want being lds, etc.

With that being said, I will ask you this. You have said that nothing will change you from being lds. You have complained about the misinformation about the lds church, but yet you have spread misinformation about the Catholic church, and yourself.

Why are you here?
Click to expand...
First with infant baptism. So you believe that a baby, born today for example, must be held accountable for Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden, when that baby was not there to commit the sin? Regarding age of reason, as you call it, I am speaking accountability – how can a baby born today be accountable for Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden when that baby was not present in the garden?

The First Vision was confirmed to me by the Holy Ghost regardless of how many “versions” you folks claim about Joseph Smith.

I recognize the forums exist to “set the record the straight about Mormonism”. It does not mean that what is said here, believed by those here is accurate. Personally no one knows me so attacking my integrity is not needed. I do not know any of you personally and am not going to start attacking you personally.

I am LDS because doctrinally me and Catholicism went our own ways. I will continue to defend my church regardless of what is said here. If you have a problem with that, it is not my problem.
 
thecourt said:
First with infant baptism. So you believe that a baby, born today for example, must be held accountable for Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden, when that baby was not there to commit the sin? Regarding age of reason, as you call it, I am speaking accountability – how can a baby born today be accountable for Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden when that baby was not present in the garden?

The First Vision was confirmed to me by the Holy Ghost regardless of how many “versions” you folks claim about Joseph Smith.

I recognize the forums exist to “set the record the straight about Mormonism”. It does not mean that what is said here, believed by those here is accurate. Personally no one knows me so attacking my integrity is not needed. I do not know any of you personally and am not going to start attacking you personally.

I am LDS because doctrinally me and Catholicism went our own ways. I will continue to defend my church regardless of what is said here. If you have a problem with that, it is not my problem.
Click to expand...
Yes, we are all born with original sin. It is the price mankind pays for Adam and Eve’s choice to disobey God.

From the CCC:
406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

If man is born sinless, then he wouldn’t sin, but yet we have sin in the world. If man were born without original sin, he would be sinless, never sin, and there wouldn’t have been a need for Jesus to come into the world now would there?

Again, we are back to you bearing your testimony because you have no legitimate response to the issue being addressed. All you know is the first vision (whichever version you choose to believe) is right. If that works for you, go with it, but don’t expect people who think for themselves, research for themselves, and find truth on their own throw everything out of the window because you have a testimony.

Pointing out the truth is not an attack. The persecution card is played way too often on here by lds, and it grows old quickly. People have merely pointed out your lack of credibility based on your previous posts, such as your claim to be a practicing Catholic, and your unsubstantiated thread about Vatican II that got closed because you wouldn’t provide any sources to back up your false and outrageous claims.

Unfortunately, your credibilty is extremely lacking based on your history. This is not an attack, it is merely fact.
 
twopekinguys said:
Yes, we are all born with original sin. It is the price mankind pays for Adam and Eve’s choice to disobey God.

From the CCC:
406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

If man is born sinless, then he wouldn’t sin, but yet we have sin in the world. If man were born without original sin, he would be sinless, never sin, and there wouldn’t have been a need for Jesus to come into the world now would there?

Again, we are back to you bearing your testimony because you have no legitimate response to the issue being addressed. All you know is the first vision (whichever version you choose to believe) is right. If that works for you, go with it, but don’t expect people who think for themselves, research for themselves, and find truth on their own throw everything out of the window because you have a testimony.

Pointing out the truth is not an attack. The persecution card is played way too often on here by lds, and it grows old quickly. People have merely pointed out your lack of credibility based on your previous posts, such as your claim to be a practicing Catholic, and your unsubstantiated thread about Vatican II that got closed because you wouldn’t provide any sources to back up your false and outrageous claims.

Unfortunately, your credibilty is extremely lacking based on your history. This is not an attack, it is merely fact.
Click to expand...
In light of your view of original sin, consider this — because Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, we as their descendants inherit a fallen condition. Catholics and my church recognizes that, where we differ is how through the Atonement, Christ redeems us from our sins (that we commit – original sin or what we call the Fall differs only in that we profess one must be taught the distinction and baptized in his true church-- and our existence here in mortality, I will call a probationary state, when we are properly baptized by one holding the authority, if when we sin we have opportunity to repent and endure to the end.

So it, as you have questioned, is false how is profession doctrinally? I have not interest in a tradition created by man that said I must be accountable for Adam and Eve’s direct sin — there is the distinction for me when you speak of original sin and what I call the Fall.
 
40.png
Justy90:
The Holy Catholic Church is “exclusively IT” because it is the church that Jesus Christ founded.
 
40.png
Justy90:
The Holy Catholic Church is “exclusively IT” because she is the church that Jesus Christ founded.
 
First of all, thecourt - it’s ok to say you don’t know, and have further research to do.

But it is really easy to see when the facts are speaking and when pride and contention is speaking.

It is quite alright that LDS and Catholics don’t agree on doctrines, if they didn’t they wouldn’t be different churches. I think it is important to understand that an undeniable fact that we all have in common is that we are children of our Divine Creator. That makes us all brothers and sisters, all searching for a way back to be with our Father again.

Secondly, do we not all have a common enemy - satan? And I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Catholics are likely to agree with LDS that contention is of the devil as you find in The Book of Mormon - 3 Nephi 11:29

So no one is the victim here if no one is under attack. (And whoever said LDS people play the victim card too often - i think that is often true)

But on a LDS perspective, simply explaining the REASON behind the belief that man does not carry punishment for Adam’s transgression.
  1. Because it was taught by a latter-day prophet. (LDS Articles of Faith #2)
  2. The Book of Mormon - 2 Nephi 2:25-26
  3. 1 Corinthians 15:22 (I understand this could be interpreted differently and to each their own)
    These are the basic reasons why, in that Adam fell and so all mankind is in a fallen state, but the Atonement covered that so that all are free agents to be accountable to the law given and how the chose to obey/disobey that law.
NOTE: this is not an argument or disputation of any kind, this is informative, which is how i think all gospel discussions should be involving people of different beliefs.

As to who was mentioning the 7 versions of the first vision, could you point me to some sources? I would like to look further into that, as I have not before. But I will give you my best guess at it, If i were to compare it to when I go to programming class, and my teacher explains something new and exciting and complicated to us (i know that seems paradoxical to many that programming could be exciting haha) I know that i will relay that story very differently to my wife ( who hates geek-talk ) than i will to a friend of mine who shares an understanding of it. But that is just my unresearched assumption as to why there might be different versions…

in all humility, i appreciate informative discussions and not tearing down debates, if we call ourselves Christians, let’s discuss religion in the spirit of Christ
 
Sword_Brethren said:
The Holy Catholic Church is “exclusively IT” because she is the church that Jesus Christ founded.
Click to expand...
You state that so arrogantly that anyone who questions that should not dare do that.

The authority is one of a number of issues that resulted me leaving Catholicism.

People attack my church yet I do not know if have considered that the Protestant reformers had issues with Catholicism doctrinally and Joseph Smith, when he in went into the grove of trees to pray, asking which church that existed at the time he should join, and the Catholic church was one of them, it was never his intent to be told to join none them because they professed to be his churches yet he was told they were far from God, teaching for doctrine, commandments of men, which is important. If the Catholic church was the true church of Jesus Christ, he would have been told such as the answer and the eventual restoration of the true church of Jesus Christ would not have been necessary.
 
thecourt said:
You state that so arrogantly that anyone who questions that should not dare do that.

The authority is one of a number of issues that resulted me leaving Catholicism.

People attack my church yet I do not know if have considered that the Protestant reformers had issues with Catholicism doctrinally and Joseph Smith, when he in went into the grove of trees to pray, asking which church that existed at the time he should join, and the Catholic church was one of them, it was never his intent to be told to join none them because they professed to be his churches yet he was told they were far from God, teaching for doctrine, commandments of men, which is important. If the Catholic church was the true church of Jesus Christ, he would have been told such as the answer and the eventual restoration of the true church of Jesus Christ would not have been necessary.
Click to expand...
not arrogantly. That is what the Catholic Church teaches.
 
Sorry to intrude in on the cult thing that I have seen here and found the bickeriing to be childish to say the least. So I took the liberty to look up the word “cult” in 2 different dictonary’s and this is what I found.
CULT-1. Formal religious veneration :worship
2. a system of religious beliefs and ritual or those who practice it.
3a. enthudiastic and usually temporary devotion to a person, idea, or thing.
3b. a group of persons showing such devotion
{Latin cultus “care, adoration,” from colere " to cultivate, worship"} cultist n
CULT- A group or system of religious worship. cultic adj. cultist n.

Seems to me that every religion fits in this catigory by defination. So to call one a cult and not the other just don’t add up by defination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top