K
kalt
Guest
I’m thinking that you’re doubting the facts.
I believe the sources of the ancient uses are included in the quote.
- Status
I believe the sources of the ancient uses are included in the quote.
K
kalt
Guest
Nothing you mention is proof against the validity of the CC.
Your dislike of the CC is not proof that the Church is wrong.
Your constant posts against the CC make it sound as if you have a personal ax to grind.
If that’s the case, you need to confront that situation head-on in the proper setting.
Bashing the CC and Catholics on a pulbic forum doesn’t seem to be helping you.
"Scriptures say that Peter was a poor fisherman who wasn’t even right about what he said much of the time! Not much correlation there between Peter of the Bible and the popes of the Roman Catholic church is there? "
Popes are wrong now and again, just like the rest of us, and you in your recent post. If you actually knew anything about the CC and its teaching on infallibility, you would never have posted such drivel.
I don’t know what your “personal ax” is about, but if you’re not going to take care of that apporpriately, at least do some research before posting attacks.
People who constantly say that the popes’ imprefection is proof that Papal infallibility is wrong, only prove that they (the people)are wrong to start with and are so bullheaded that they refuse to even look at what the teaching on infallibility actually is.
Could someone look more stupid. Sheesh.
Your dislike of the CC is not proof that the Church is wrong.
Your constant posts against the CC make it sound as if you have a personal ax to grind.
If that’s the case, you need to confront that situation head-on in the proper setting.
Bashing the CC and Catholics on a pulbic forum doesn’t seem to be helping you.
"Scriptures say that Peter was a poor fisherman who wasn’t even right about what he said much of the time! Not much correlation there between Peter of the Bible and the popes of the Roman Catholic church is there? "
Popes are wrong now and again, just like the rest of us, and you in your recent post. If you actually knew anything about the CC and its teaching on infallibility, you would never have posted such drivel.
I don’t know what your “personal ax” is about, but if you’re not going to take care of that apporpriately, at least do some research before posting attacks.
People who constantly say that the popes’ imprefection is proof that Papal infallibility is wrong, only prove that they (the people)are wrong to start with and are so bullheaded that they refuse to even look at what the teaching on infallibility actually is.
Could someone look more stupid. Sheesh.
L
LilyM
Guest
To be totally sporting, she’s right, you didn’t give a source for that big quote of yours, no fair man.I’m thinking that you’re doubting the facts.
K
kalt
Guest
Well, she tobviously thinks I made it up or thinks it’s from a wacko source. Or is that the same thing?
I get a kick out of people who see something they don’t like and rush to prove it wrong by attacking the messenger (the experts who did the scholarship spoken of in the article).
I understand wanting to know the source, because it does count. But when these same people post “facts” w/ absolutely no proof of validity, I have to laugh when they want to attack the experts’ ability to intepret data.
The quote comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
If someone wants to attack the validity of the facts included in the quotation, I expect real scholarship. This means actually reading the sources quoted in the article. It means doing some real work on ancient languages. And it means doing some work on the early Church.
I’d like to see a counter argument by other experts. The counter argument, of course, should include references to the same sources and should prove why the interpretation given is wrong.
I’m thinking the original work will stand unchallenged, except by “I heard that Catholic means universal, so there.”
Tired of reading posts against the CC that are based on nothing but ignorance and prejudice.
Let’s have an intelligent debate for once!!
The pope isn’t perfect, therefore Papal Infallibility is wrong. is not an intelligent argument, btw.
U
ufamtobie
Guest
SIA,
For your info. There has been scandal in the One True Church from the begining. It started with Judas (the betrayer).
Jesus said of Judas, it would of been better for him not to have ever been born.
(Luke 17: 1) He said to his disciples: "Scandals WILL
INEVITABALY ARISE, but woe to him through whom they COME
Sia, it says: “Woe to HIM,” Not woe to the whole entire Church, this is soemthing you should take to heart.
Sia, (Luke 17: 1) Jesus knew that Scandals would arise in his One True Church which as you Know is the Catholic Church and It is Jesus Christ who would take care of His Church throughout the Centuries
Wether it be sexual abuse, or betrayal of Judas, etc… Jesus Christ would never deny his Catholic Church HE did not deny it for Judas, nor will HE deny it for a small hand full of priest gone astray, ETC ETC…
Sia, Be truthful with yourself, why are you truly here at this Catholic site? I assure you, you will not weaken nor shake a True Catholic’s Faith not at all, however for me you make me more Stronger in my Catholic Faith, the reason why I feel this way is that Our Lord did say "if they persecute me they will persecute you.’’ For centuries people were/are persecuting the Catholic Church and you Sia, are one of many, our Lords prophesy keeps coming True. To me and all Catholics love to see Our Lords Prophesy come to past present, and future.
Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Bless you on your Journey home, now that is why you are truely here at this Catholic Site.
Ufamtobie
S
SIA
Guest
Here we go again! Can you please show me in the Scriptures where the Church founded by Christ is the RCC. If it said that the RCC was the Church Christ founded; the one true Church then every Christian worldwide would be Catholic and this is certainly not the case.
U
ufamtobie
Guest
Is the Word “Trinity” found in the Bible? However I believe in the Trinity which means Father, Son, Holy Spirit, 3 in One.
You can’t find the word Catholic in the Bible but that too does not mean that it will not exist later to call the name of Jesus Christ’s True Church.
You and I nor perhaps our names are not found in the Bible, but you and I exist.
And if that is your argument it is pre- school argument for those who drink milk, and not solid food.
Then why is not the whole world Protestant if protestantism is the true faith, I too can stoop to your level in drinking milk, just to prove for a moment, How childish your argument is. But I eat solid food, the True Bread that COMES down from HEAVEN every day at Mass.
Sia you still have not answered me …WHY ARE YOU TRUELY HERE?
God bless you on you Journey home.
Ufamtobie
S
SIA
Guest
You truly never grow tired of beating around the bush do you? The Trinity can be proven by many many verses in Scripture. Catholicism cannot. Big difference. Can you show me where the popes are in Scripture? Can you show me where they are carried into the Vatican masses on a chariot and surrounded by unspeakable wealth? Can you show me in Scripture where Peter was infallible? Show me also where Mary was assumed into Heaven body and soul. Truth is, you can’t show me. This is where the Catholic church now must elevate tradition and the magisterium to the same level of authority to justify their beliefs in these unbiblical things. I always love it when a Catholic cannot prove all these ridiculous claims about Mary using the Bible so then they resort to making the Bible even look inferior to other authorities in their church so that they can justify them. Just admit it, you can’t prove a number of Catholic beliefs from Scripture because they are not in there! More even, some of them are contradicted by Scripture! Go figure…
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
In the Bible we see the beginning of the Church. after that i belive you need to follow writings of the early christians, the history and so forth. if you are interested in finding the Truth.
now you need to know which Church is that. you know there was a Church then, which developed overtime. the One who put the Bible together, you know, follow history. if you are not afraid.
we know for sure that Jesus found One Church and not many. this we know because all the Apostles had no authority to teaching anything different from each other.
we know the CC was the only True Christian Church to evangelize, although others claimed to be christians which history shows that they tought heresies.
so, it is up to you.
*A doubter challenged St. Anthony that his mule would not respond to the “True Presence”.
St. Anthony took the challenge. The man did not feed his mule for several days and St. Anthony brought out the Holy Eucharist and the man brought out food for the animal. The mule ignored the food and knelt down on its front legs to the “True Presence” of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
**Where the True Presence of the Holy Eucharist is, there is Jesus Christ.
Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. **
M
marietta
Guest
kalt:
“If someone wants to attack the validity of the facts included in the quotation,” you charge, “I expect real scholarship. **This **means actually reading the sources quoted in the article. It means doing some real work on ancient languages. And it means doing some work on the early Church.” How are we to *follow your *orders to pursue “real scholarship” when you will not offer your source?
Why are you so bent out of shape that someone has asked you to document your source? It’s poor form to just throw out a quotation without attributing it to someone or something.
“But when these same people post ‘facts’ w/ absolutely no proof of validity, I have to laugh when they want to attack the experts’ ability to intepret data.” Show me where I have attacked your “experts”; in fact, how could anyone question your “experts” when you refused to disclose them? Understand that anyone can find an expert to support any position, even a position opposed to that which you have addressed here.
SIA has brought up a question which is cousin to my interest in where one might find a specific reference to Purgatory in the Bible. There are discriptions of hellish payment for our sins, but no “Purgatory” per se. This has fascinated me for decades, because as a child and as an adolescent I was beat up with the threat of Purgatory when, really, wasn’t it a creation of Gregory the Great? This shell game, played with children and their impressionable minds, eventually alienated me from the Church. Yes, yes, it was a 1960s approach to keeping children in the fold, but I detest deceit - when a nun tells a nine-year-old that something is “in the Bible” but never shows the child *where it *appears in the Bible, the child might begin to wonder whether the whole deal is a sham.
“If someone wants to attack the validity of the facts included in the quotation,” you charge, “I expect real scholarship. **This **means actually reading the sources quoted in the article. It means doing some real work on ancient languages. And it means doing some work on the early Church.” How are we to *follow your *orders to pursue “real scholarship” when you will not offer your source?
Why are you so bent out of shape that someone has asked you to document your source? It’s poor form to just throw out a quotation without attributing it to someone or something.
“But when these same people post ‘facts’ w/ absolutely no proof of validity, I have to laugh when they want to attack the experts’ ability to intepret data.” Show me where I have attacked your “experts”; in fact, how could anyone question your “experts” when you refused to disclose them? Understand that anyone can find an expert to support any position, even a position opposed to that which you have addressed here.
SIA has brought up a question which is cousin to my interest in where one might find a specific reference to Purgatory in the Bible. There are discriptions of hellish payment for our sins, but no “Purgatory” per se. This has fascinated me for decades, because as a child and as an adolescent I was beat up with the threat of Purgatory when, really, wasn’t it a creation of Gregory the Great? This shell game, played with children and their impressionable minds, eventually alienated me from the Church. Yes, yes, it was a 1960s approach to keeping children in the fold, but I detest deceit - when a nun tells a nine-year-old that something is “in the Bible” but never shows the child *where it *appears in the Bible, the child might begin to wonder whether the whole deal is a sham.
M
marietta
Guest
kalt:
“If someone wants to attack the validity of the facts included in the quotation,” you charge, “I expect real scholarship. **This **means actually reading the sources quoted in the article. It means doing some real work on ancient languages. And it means doing some work on the early Church.” How are we to *follow your *orders to pursue “real scholarship” when you will not offer your source?
Why are you so bent out of shape that someone has asked you to document your source? It’s poor form to just throw out a quotation without attributing it to someone or something.
“But when these same people post ‘facts’ w/ absolutely no proof of validity, I have to laugh when they want to attack the experts’ ability to intepret data,” you say. Show me where I have attacked your “experts”; in fact, how could anyone question your “experts” when you refused to disclose them? Understand that anyone can find an expert to support any position, even a position opposed to that which you have addressed here.
SIA has brought up a question which is cousin to my interest in where one might find a specific reference to Purgatory in the Bible. There are descriptions of hellish payment for our sins, but no “Purgatory” per se. This has fascinated me for decades, because as a child and as an adolescent I was beat up with the threat of Purgatory when, really, wasn’t it a creation of Gregory the Great? This shell game, played with children and their impressionable minds, eventually alienated me from the Church and still angers me today. Yes, yes, it was a 1960s approach to keeping children in the fold, but I detest deceit - when a nun tells a nine-year-old that something is “in the Bible” but never shows the child *where it *appears in the Bible, the child might begin to wonder whether the whole deal is a sham. Kids are intuitive. Maybe today they are taught in a different manner, but there’s a whole boatload of us out here who were “evangelized” without honesty or kindness. I hope instructive methods have changed since then.
So, yes, it’s important to credit your source. Without whining.
marietta
“If someone wants to attack the validity of the facts included in the quotation,” you charge, “I expect real scholarship. **This **means actually reading the sources quoted in the article. It means doing some real work on ancient languages. And it means doing some work on the early Church.” How are we to *follow your *orders to pursue “real scholarship” when you will not offer your source?
Why are you so bent out of shape that someone has asked you to document your source? It’s poor form to just throw out a quotation without attributing it to someone or something.
“But when these same people post ‘facts’ w/ absolutely no proof of validity, I have to laugh when they want to attack the experts’ ability to intepret data,” you say. Show me where I have attacked your “experts”; in fact, how could anyone question your “experts” when you refused to disclose them? Understand that anyone can find an expert to support any position, even a position opposed to that which you have addressed here.
SIA has brought up a question which is cousin to my interest in where one might find a specific reference to Purgatory in the Bible. There are descriptions of hellish payment for our sins, but no “Purgatory” per se. This has fascinated me for decades, because as a child and as an adolescent I was beat up with the threat of Purgatory when, really, wasn’t it a creation of Gregory the Great? This shell game, played with children and their impressionable minds, eventually alienated me from the Church and still angers me today. Yes, yes, it was a 1960s approach to keeping children in the fold, but I detest deceit - when a nun tells a nine-year-old that something is “in the Bible” but never shows the child *where it *appears in the Bible, the child might begin to wonder whether the whole deal is a sham. Kids are intuitive. Maybe today they are taught in a different manner, but there’s a whole boatload of us out here who were “evangelized” without honesty or kindness. I hope instructive methods have changed since then.
So, yes, it’s important to credit your source. Without whining.
marietta
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
As a matter of fact, the only Christian faith that ever was for the first 1500 years since the resurrection of Jesus Christ was and is the Roman Catholic church. This was world wide in the known world. And continues to this day. Remember all other Christian faiths denominated from the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, to which the Rock of Peter present day Pope Benedict XVI, still lives with unbroken succession since this scripture was stated by Jesus himself’;
Mathew 16:16
11 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
**And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **
If you believe the word of God never ends, what makes you think the church Jesus built upon Peter “the Rock” has ended? This Peter still lives, with the keys of the kingdom of God on earth in the One Holy Catholic apostolic church.
Peace be with you
O
onetimeposter
Guest
I always though the world believed that we were bullies! 
K
kalt
Guest
I’m not bent our of shape about it. I think it’s funny. As if the person here asking for the source is a better scholar or even knew, before he/she read the quote, that those documents evern existed.
M
marietta
Guest
kalt:
“As if the person here asking for the source is a better scholar or even knew, before he/she read the quote, that those documents evern existed.” - kalt
This makes no sense.
The way I decipher your statement, you are attempting to slam me for 1) presuming to be a superior scholar or 2) coyly pretending to have recognized your non-referenced documents and yet trying to compel you to reveal them. If I am way off-base with my interpretation of your statement, I invite you to share an explanation.
What is it with you? Do you think a smiley face emoticon will soften or excuse your acrimony?
marietta
“As if the person here asking for the source is a better scholar or even knew, before he/she read the quote, that those documents evern existed.” - kalt
This makes no sense.
The way I decipher your statement, you are attempting to slam me for 1) presuming to be a superior scholar or 2) coyly pretending to have recognized your non-referenced documents and yet trying to compel you to reveal them. If I am way off-base with my interpretation of your statement, I invite you to share an explanation.
What is it with you? Do you think a smiley face emoticon will soften or excuse your acrimony?
marietta
S
SIA
Guest
flawed? Are you ascerting that not all Christians long to be close to Christ? You are the one here that is seriously flawed. That thinking is seriously warped.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
This IS flawed.
Let’s examine it logically. You are attempting a syllogism.
A: IF the RCC is the Church Christ founded then:
B: Then Every Christian worldwide would be catholic.
You then claim that since B is not the case, then A must not be true.
BUT: Your second premise is faulty.
Let’s try this:
A. IF the Episcopal Church is the Church Christ founded then:
B. Every Christian worldwide would be Episcopal.
Ooops. B is not the case. So A must not be true.
Plug in EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN denomination or ‘Church’ there is.
Not once–not ONCE–will ‘every Christian worldwide’ be a member of that denomination.
Therefore: Your argument is hopelessly flawed.
Since not every Christian worldwide is: Catholic, Protestant, ‘non-denom’ etc. . . .
Then NONE of the Churches were founded by Christ-- by your ‘premise’.
So you’re saying Christ never founded a Church–is that it?
But Scripture itself contradicts you on that as St. Paul tells us we must go to the Church which is the pillar and foundation of all understanding. And Jesus assures us that He will 'build His Church and the gates of hell shall not stand against it."
I think you’ll have to try again, and try to make your premises correct the next time.
S
SIA
Guest
It would be flawed if I stated that one of these churches was the One Church that Christ founded, but I never said that. If Scripture said that the RCC is the one true Church founded by Christ, every Christian would be RC. No way to get around that one!
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You’ve set up a strawman.
The second premise DOES NOT FOLLOW from the first.
You are claiming "If Scripture said the Catholic Church is the one true Church, every Christian would be Catholic’ and then claiming because every Christian is NOT Catholic, then somehow Scripture didn’t say it.
Ex hoc, ergo propter hoc. Another fallacy. You are claiming that "Because this happens (not all Christians are Catholic) it means THIS HAPPENED (Then Scripture did not say the Catholic Church is the One True Church).
That is a fallacy. You’re arguing backward to attempt to prove a point. Doesn’t work that way.
And for your information, every Christian IS Catholic anyway. . .in that any Christian is a member of the Catholic Church simply by being Christian. Not all of them recognize it. Some ‘separate’ themselves from her and reject some or most of the teachings. . . but that is why you are ‘separated’ Christians. You cannot be ‘separated’ from something and be autonomous. You WERE ‘part’ of the Catholic Church to begin with. . .that doesn’t change.
That being said, just because you argue that "I don’t care, because there are all kinds of denominations NOW, since 500 years ago, that means you guys were never the REAL CHURCH THEN’. . .doesn’t make you correct.
- Status