Why does one hate the Catholic Church?

[elvisman]

No Elvis not any clearer because I understood you the last time. I fail to see why you continue arguing with me about this though. We agree John could not have told Ignatius he was wrong in yr 110 if John died in 100. And we agree the universal (catholic) church had already been established and people probably knew what the word “catholic” meant. Peace to you Elvis and have a most wonderful day. Hope you’re having a blessed Lenten season.

Ummm . . . never mind.
Hopefully the other readers understand . . .

 

[guanophore]

With all due respect for Fr Corapi, should he ask the hierarchy to change the catechism then?

I am sure if this was necessary, he would have brought it up when he was proofreading the drafts.

.

An indelible spiritual mark . . .

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ.** No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated**.

1273 Incorporated into the Church by Baptism, the faithful have received the sacramental character that consecrates them for Christian religious worship. The baptismal seal enables and commits Christians to serve God by a vital participation in the holy liturgy of the Church and to exercise their baptismal priesthood by the witness of holy lives and practical charity

Matt, Fr. Corapi is right, a baptized person who rejects the teachings of the Church has already separated themselves from Christ to some degree. One cannot be Catholic and be pro-abortion.

There are plenty of Christians bearing the indelible seal of baptism who are passing through the gates of hell because they have separated themselves from the pure Apostolic Teaching He has preserved in the Church on this as well as other matters,

The seal of baptism does not prevent people from falling into sin. That is why some folks in the early days used to delay baptism until they were on their death bed.

 

[CMatt25]

I am sure if this was necessary, he would have brought it up when he was proofreading the drafts.

.

Matt, Fr. Corapi is right, a baptized person who rejects the teachings of the Church has already separated themselves from Christ to some degree. One cannot be Catholic and be pro-abortion.

There are plenty of Christians bearing the indelible seal of baptism who are passing through the gates of hell because they have separated themselves from the pure Apostolic Teaching He has preserved in the Church on this as well as other matters,

The seal of baptism does not prevent people from falling into sin. That is why some folks in the early days used to delay baptism until they were on their death bed.

However if Baptism incorporates one into the Church and no sin can erase this as the catechism teaches… a person may be considered any variety of Catholic with an adjective preceding, but nevertheless still Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

Elvis, why then does the front of my Certificate of Baptism with my Confirmation and First Communion notations on the back of it say on the front, “According to the Rite of the Roman Catholic Church”? I wasn’t around in Henry’s time. And I had one but this copy is rather recent. I actually just recently requested it incase you needed it.

The person who is creating the certs does not know any better. Many Latin Rite Catholics don’t even know there are 22 other Catholic Rites also in communion with Rome.

It should say “according to the Latin Rite” of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church did with this slur (“Romanist”) the same thing she did with all other slurs and accusations, which was to baptize it, and incorporate it. One must keep in mind that the slur was largely political, and that those who leveled it did not know that the Church was not “Roman” either. There were very few Europeans around the time of the Reformation that had any idea about the Eastern Catholic Rites. War and politics had separated the Eastern Empire from the West for so many centuries they all became myopic.

 

[guanophore]

Hmmm . . . this coming from a person whose religious system is based in nothing more than moral relativism . . .

Don’t you find it curious that he knows enough about where to find the moral compass for mankind that he can be scandalized if it looks off?

 

[CMatt25]

The person who is creating the certs does not know any better. Many Latin Rite Catholics don’t even know there are 22 other Catholic Rites also in communion with Rome.

It should say “according to the Latin Rite” of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church did with this slur (“Romanist”) the same thing she did with all other slurs and accusations, which was to baptize it, and incorporate it. One must keep in mind that the slur was largely political, and that those who leveled it did not know that the Church was not “Roman” either. There were very few Europeans around the time of the Reformation that had any idea about the Eastern Catholic Rites. War and politics had separated the Eastern Empire from the West for so many centuries they all became myopic.

My diocese must be wrong then too. Its mission statement begins with “The Mission of the Roman Catholic Church…” I would have thought the bishop would have known there was no such thing.

 

[guanophore]

I say, GOD’s Word is completely sufficient!

This is true, of course, and has been the unbroken teaching of the Catholic Church. God’s Word is Jesus, and in Him is found the fullness of all things.

God’s word is not confined to the Holy Scriptures, though, and He has preserved His Holy and sufficient Word both in the Chuch, and in the Scriptures. They are two equal and complimentary forms of divine revelation.

 There were cults popping up from shortly after Jesus died and rose.  There more the likely will be more.  Actually there was a Jewish Gnoticism!

Yes, and some have reared their ugly heads in modern times, under different names. This is why Jesus appointed a Teaching Authority over His Church. All these heretical sects also use scripture to support their views. He gave the Church the authority to arbitrate, so that these matters could be settled definitively.

 The problem is people thinking there is more then one interpretation to GOD's Word.

In addition to there being almost as many interpretations as there are belly buttons, there are also many layers of meaning in the same passage. I am sure this is one reason that the ignorant and unstable are prone to misunderstand it.

**Where Trinitarian Christians see unity in the one faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and diversity in celebrating that faith, Catholics simply see division and confusion.**

I think there is unity amongst our separated brethren. This does not take away from the division and confusion that exist. In all cases, it is caused by a rejection of the authority appointed by Christ.

Luther had to revolt-look at the horrific things the Catholic Church was teaching.

No, schaick, it is not necessary to revolt. And even if one chooses to do so, that does not give one the authority to redesign the Apostolic faith to one’s own nogrosities.

The Catholic Church never did teach those horrible things. To say so is the same as ascribing the betrayal of Judas to Christ. Jesus must have taught wrong, since one of the 12 did not follow His Teachings?

 

[guanophore]

LOL!  You have fixated on my use of the word **all **when I simply meant the **all** to be inclusive of believers and presbyters.

Who else is present, if the presbyters and believers are not everyone?

 It was not only presbyters/bishops choosing leaders but laity, believers were involved in the choosing.

But you did raise an interesting question were women and children allowed to help choose?

When laity used to help choose in the Catholic Church were women and children allowed?

Women have always been the primary source of ordained clergy. Most priests come from families with 4-6 children. This is why modern birth control methods have lowered the number of priests. Mothers who encourage their sons to consider the religious life are the starting point.

In a healthy parish, the laity will recognize a call upon one of the members of the congregation and encouage them to discern religious life. I think you have it backwards, though. The ordained life is not “chosen” by laity, presbyters, or postulants. It is an issue of whether God has chosen the individual. Discernment is the process by which such a call is explored and determined. Everyone helps in this process, but only an ordained person who is providing spiritual direction can assist the postulant to move forward with the official steps.

We see this in the book of Acts, where “they put forward two” from the congregation of disciples, then the lots where cast by the Apostolic Authority, and those who had been ordained “enrolled” Matthias into their number. These steps cannot be accomplished by the laity.

My Church selects Pastors in a similar way. We put out a call. The different Pastors come and speak, we discuss the canidates pray. Anyone can get up and speak-pointing out that we might need one of the Pastors over another because of a special need of our church. Then all those that are confirmed members vote. I remember on one ocassion many years back when we had to re-vote a few times- too close to call.

There is no precedent for this method in scripture, except maybe Korah and his followers.

 

[guanophore]

Exactly Not. “the pillar and foundation of Truth” is not designated to one denomination; of which there are many Catholic denominations too.

You are right P101. The pillar and foundation of the Truth is only the One True Church established by Christ. This description applies to NO denominations, because all of them represent departures from that one Church. To denominate means to dilineate and take ones name away from something. Therefore, all “denominations” are offshoots and separations, who therefore have lost the promise.

There are no “Catholic denominations”. All the Rites of the Chuch embrace the same doctrine. This is what distinguishes a rite from a denomination.

Rather; “Church” is used in a more collective sense to mean that our respective folds each have a share in this great ‘commodity’ called “truth” which binds us together.

This is a modern evangelical innovation that is foreign to the Apostolic mind. For th eApostles, there was only One Body, One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord who is Head. One church. Those who have chosen to separate themselves from that body can no longer meet the criteria to be a “church”. This is why they are called “ecclesial communities”.

The “unity” of believers will NEVER be seen by everyone joining the same denomination; only in God’s written word, and what God says, not some Church.

I am sure it seems this way to you, P101, but unity already exists.in the Church founded by Christ. I do agree, though, denominations (separations from the Truth) are not helpful in establishing or maintaining unity.

PS I almost forgot. I know you will sound the war cry re my comment about Catholic Denominations; and that you will call them "Rites" and other related excuses, but it still means the same thing as "DENOMINATION." I have personally experienced this exact definition thereof here in Canada.

No, it does not. If they do not have unity of doctrine, then they are not Catholic. What differentiates a denomination from a rite is unity of doctrine. All denominations have variations of doctrines. Rites do not.

 

[guanophore]

382 to be exact? You do realize this was approx 350 yrs after Christ?

Indeed. this is why we are always emphasizing that the Church came first, from Christ, and out of the Church came scripture. Jesus did not build His church upon writings, however holy. He built it upon people.

 

[adrift]

teaches that reviling people with false accusations is a sin. .

False accusations like

In the current practice of the RC Church, every effort is made to keep these offenses hidden and the pervert protected from justice. Law enforcement is not cooperated with. The resources of the RC Church will normally be used to keep abuse from being found out.

I consider this misleading which is another form of a lie

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on
a) how proactive the denomination is, in general, on dealing with this problem in accordance with civil law, and
b) whether or not I actually hate the Catholic Church.
It is apparent that you will think whatever you want about the situation – and about me for not agreeing with you.
.

You never answered the reply

In threads you can become lost as to who said what and why. Perhaps that is your problem.

a. I never mentitoned how proactive the Church (again I tell you I am not a denomination, By continuing using this word your are using a technique refered to as agressive/nonagressive manner.) Proacive wasn’t mentioned until now, by you.
b. I have never said you hate the Catholic Church. I answered a statement that was not true. You have attempted to make it that I don’t agree with you so I think that you hate the Catholic Church. That is truly a twisting of what was said. Your statement was on the CURRENT way the Church handles things. You stated it as a fact not an opinion. Opinions can be disagreed with. A fact is either true or false. You stated a falsehood. I said (opinion) that you wanted to hold on to the past. Considering your follow up statements, that seems to be a substantiated opinion.

Unless you consider this passive agressive post a reply

For anyone interested: before you take this individual’s characterization of me at face value, please read the entirety of my posts on this thread.

Thank you.

Yes you probably should quit and avoid any further misrepresentations and accusations.

 

[elvisman]

Don’t you find it curious that he knows enough about where to find the moral compass for mankind that he can be scandalized if it looks off?

Yes, interesting . . .**

 

[guanophore]

Guan, 101 wrote: “There is no reference to a specific denomination; rather, all Churches, in the same collective sense, are His Church. If more people would accept this Biblical idea, there would be a lot less fighting over turf and authority.”

I tipped my hat to his last sentence. There would be less fighting. I don’t see any denomination mentioned. So no I am not ignorant. I understand the CC interprets the Church as the CC and others interpret the Church as the universal body of believers. Rather than lacking, I have knowledge of both.

The CC does not “interpret” what Church is, but receives the Apostolic Teaching on the matter. The Apostles taught that the Church is One, and that those who are not in unity with the bishop are not to be considered “valid”.

The Apostles taught that the Church is infallible, because of her divine elements. Recognition of these divine elements, and the incarnational nature of the Church was lost during the reformation. there is a commone heretical understanding of the Church nowadays as “the body of believers on earth”. While this is certainly one important aspect of Church, it is only a partial understanding. The Church built by Christ is not “denominated”. This is something that humans have done, and it has divided and fractured His body. To pretend that these divisions are ok, or are not causing problems, does not serve the purpose of ecumenism.

The Apostles understood the Church as Catholic, that is why Luke uses this adjective in his writing to describe the Church. When you read the early fathers, it is clear that there was only ONE CHURCH.

 

[guanophore]

Not just Luther's time:

John Wycliffe’s

John Hus’- burned alive for desiring permission be given to allow people to read the Bible in their own language.

Learn something new everyday- I did not realize this:
John Hus’ dying words, “In 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed. Luther came around 100 years later.

You are suffering from a warped perception of history. I think if you look into these cases, you will find that what you have been told is not entirely true.

Calls for reform should never be suppressed. Men are always in need of reform. the sacred scripture, and the sacred doctrine from the Apostles, however, are not in need of reform.

Luther was excomunicated. He asked to be proven wrong by Scripture and no one could.

Actually, Luther excommunicated himself when he departed from the Apostolic faith. The Church found it necessary to make an official statement of that fact because of the widespread impact of his apostasy.

No one can be “proven wrong with scripture” if they wish to interpret it according to their own ideas and ignore the faith we have from the Apostles that produced the scripture. Have you ever tried to “prove wrong with scripture” a Mormon? Luther wanted to understand the scripture his way, so that is what he did. His method has been promulgated, encouraging the birth of new denominations almost daily.

Jesus explained everything to his Apostles, and they to their successors. Luther decided to get out of the apostolic succession, and founded a church upon himself.

 

[CMatt25]

The CC does not “interpret” what Church is, but receives the Apostolic Teaching on the matter. The Apostles taught that the Church is One, and that those who are not in unity with the bishop are not to be considered “valid”.

The Apostles taught that the Church is infallible, because of her divine elements. Recognition of these divine elements, and the incarnational nature of the Church was lost during the reformation. there is a commone heretical understanding of the Church nowadays as “the body of believers on earth”. While this is certainly one important aspect of Church, it is only a partial understanding. The Church built by Christ is not “denominated”. This is something that humans have done, and it has divided and fractured His body. To pretend that these divisions are ok, or are not causing problems, does not serve the purpose of ecumenism.

The Apostles understood the Church as Catholic, that is why Luke uses this adjective in his writing to describe the Church. When you read the early fathers, it is clear that there was only ONE CHURCH.

Perhaps I should have rephrased it to say the CC itself interprets itself only as having the power to interpret and thus teaches that itself only receives teaching. But of course Christ founded one universal (catholic) church. That makes it all the more strange some in the CC try to limit Christ’s Church to itself only and not the greater universal sense.

 

[fbl9]

Perhaps I should have rephrased it to say the CC itself interprets itself only as having the power to interpret and thus teaches that itself only receives teaching. But of course Christ founded one universal (catholic) church. That makes it all the more strange some in the CC try to limit Christ’s Church to itself only and not the greater universal sense.

Are you thus implying that no one has any authority to set what one believes? That the teachings of all churches are equal and equally true?

 

[CMatt25]

Are you thus implying that no one has any authority to set what one believes? That the teachings of all churches are equal and equally true?

Not exactly implying that. Some would even say the Holy Spirit is the authority setting what they believe.

And Jesus tells us He is the truth. Jn 14:6, “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” So if a church professes Jesus Lord and Savior, He is the truth all are united in. I know many want/need every “i” dotted and “t” crossed. But if I am implying anything it would only be it’s all a matter of faith and the One Whom unites us is far greater than any differences. We are united in the One most important Truth, Christ our Lord and Savior. The Truth is not hard to find. Believe in Him. And religion is not fighting. Religion is not hate. Love our neighbors. Peace.

 

[angelinebrown]

Yeah I would be wary of any church that even so mentioned another churches doctrine whether Catholic or Protestant.

You know, someone should start a comical thread on the stuff some preach. I heard one pastor preach that men with beards are in trouble with salvation.

How does one get asked to leave the Catholic Church? Does the priest look for him during the mass and then say “hey you’re not supposed to be here!” in front of the whole congregation, lol. If that was my situation I would just go somewhere else.

Product Liability

 

[CMatt25]

Yeah I would be wary of any church that even so mentioned another churches doctrine whether Catholic or Protestant.

You know, someone should start a comical thread on the stuff some preach. I heard one pastor preach that men with beards are in trouble with salvation.

How does one get asked to leave the Catholic Church? Does the priest look for him during the mass and then say “hey you’re not supposed to be here!” in front of the whole congregation, lol. If that was my situation I would just go somewhere else.

Product Liability

Welcome Angeline. But was that full beards? Because if partial facial hair then I am doomed.

 

[tomylee1]

i cannot understand.