L
- Status
7
77Nick777
Guest
Dear Tristan
People may sometimes be afraid to admit things that may be truth. You mention fear, anxiety…And, I understand! Please, do not get me wrong. I understand what your talking about. The Catholic Church is different than other churches…
There is The Eucharist.
…There are Mortal sins, Venial sins, and origional sins…
There is confession…and rules to follow.
*But, if you’d like a better understanding of the Catholic Church, please let me tell you these things:
It’s believed that Jesus gave authority to His disciples, and to generations after them…This is how the Catholic Church has the laws & rules…From Jesus giving authority!
“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” …Now, what does this mean? Well, Jesus said this, and with Jesus saying this, you’d think of what Church believes in the ‘Bread of Life" - Well! The Catholic Church does! And, it’s the only Church that receives the Bread of Life (Jesus’ Flesh)…So, I think that right there, is evidence.
Hope this helps you. May God bless!
~Nick
People may sometimes be afraid to admit things that may be truth. You mention fear, anxiety…And, I understand! Please, do not get me wrong. I understand what your talking about. The Catholic Church is different than other churches…
There is The Eucharist.
…There are Mortal sins, Venial sins, and origional sins…
There is confession…and rules to follow.
*But, if you’d like a better understanding of the Catholic Church, please let me tell you these things:
It’s believed that Jesus gave authority to His disciples, and to generations after them…This is how the Catholic Church has the laws & rules…From Jesus giving authority!
“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” …Now, what does this mean? Well, Jesus said this, and with Jesus saying this, you’d think of what Church believes in the ‘Bread of Life" - Well! The Catholic Church does! And, it’s the only Church that receives the Bread of Life (Jesus’ Flesh)…So, I think that right there, is evidence.
Hope this helps you. May God bless!
~Nick
C
Charlotte408
Guest
Well I’m no cradle catholic…just a recent convert…but…the obvious comes to mind…
ignorance is bliss
you could either A. Be a non catholic christian…pick and choose what you want to believe from the bible, convince yourself that some parts are wrong, and continue to live your life the way you choose because it makes you happy…or…B. Be a catholic, know what the bible, what Christ teaches IS the way it is, and live your life according to God to make HIM happy…theres free will, choice is yours…
But your measly life of 100 years of your personal satisfaction will not serve you well in the eternity of the afterlife.
A
agent_grey
Guest
this is rediculous. You can’t be both Catholic and not Catholic at the same time. You are either Catholic or you are not.
R
rinnie
Guest
[SIGN][/SIGN]
That there should have showed you the Man was not in his right state of mind. Where did Jesus ever tell us to beat the **** out of ourself when we sin. Jesus said to confess, repent and sin no more.
T
theistgal
Guest
Well, some would say you can’t be “Orthodox” and “Catholic” at the same time either, yet you don’t seem to have a problem with claiming to be “Orthodox Catholic”.
B
bluelake
Guest
Nick,
The Cup? why does the Catholic Church omit the cup at Holy Communion?
See 1Cor.11;25, Jn.6;53-54 " I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you." Jesus said to them, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.”
How do you understand these passages?
God bless,
bluelake
F
Filioque
Guest
True enough. If however one gets the idea that Dr. Luther was the norm, then one is getting the history of the time from a source like the Monty Python skits, the History Channel, or from an Anti-Catholic source.
The fact is that Catholics (and some Protestants) have found that the mortification of the flesh is quite beneficial. St. Paul admonishes us to bring our body into subjection. What many are ininformed of is that there are standards and limits to Mortification of the Flesh that Dr. Luther and others either ignored, or in their obsessive disorder do not apply to themselves.
While we could not find out anything that Dr. Luther discussed with his confessor unless he himself wrote about it, due to the seal, we do know that no Catholic Monk, or layman can practice any form of severe mortification that would cause premanent damage his body or soul. Such mortifications which could include a scourging of oneself, in Imitation of the suffering of Jesus, or the wearing of a hair shirt, severe fasts etc, must be discussed with and have the permission of one’s confessor. In Sacramental Theology a priest who has faculties to hear confessions learns how to determine the appropriatness of any mortifications. They should admonish the person that it could be sinful to engage in such mortifications without supervision of their confessor. Most of all such permission is not to be given lightly by the confessor, to someone who they have not been in spiritual care of for long enough to determine what would be spiritually beneficial to them.
In the case of Dr. Luther, from the evidence that exists, he imposed these excessive penances and mortifications on himself. Based on paintings and drawings from the time, he did not mortify himself when it came to fasting. He also in contemporary writing, both his own and those of other Protestants of the time never was very temporate with Food or Alcohol. So we are lead to believe that he both rejected the instructions of his superiors regarding mortification of the flesh, and went far beyond the Churches teachings regarding the subject.
It would also be important to point out that aside from the groups mentioned in a previous post which were not approved, even condemned by the Church. There have been Religious communities that have been disbanded or supressed for excessive mortification, when they did not bring themselves into compliance with the rules of Mortification.
There is also the concept in the Church that things that are harmful exempt one from various fasts, or mortifications, ie. age, illness (acute or Chronic), Laws of fast and abstinance were relaxed or completely suspended during the time of the Black Plauge as an example. So too when a physician requires the ingestion of a meal on a day of fasting. While we have an obligation to assist at Mass on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation, we are under no obligation to assist at Mass, but only to keep the day holy if distance, illness, or grave danger prevents us from observance of the law.
F
Filioque
Guest
Now many Protestants complain that Catholics take the idea of the Body and Blood of Christ being Literal as excessive. But just for now, regardless of your personal belief, assume that the host and wine after consecration is the Literal Body and Blood of Jesus. Now answer for me this.
After the rising from the dead of the glorified body of Jesus, is it possible to separate Him?
Can Jesus, now glorified be in more than one place at the same time?
If He can be in more than one place at one time, is He less than 100% there?
If He is physically present somewere, is He ever anything but the whole and entire Jesus, Body and Blood, Humanity and Divinity?
Do the limitations that we have which would make it impossible for us to be more than one place at once, entire and whole apply to Jesus?
J
joe370
Guest
Tristan, the question I had to ask Myself was: how many churches did Jesus build, when he said, I will build MY church, and what is the name of His church? I am a former Lutheran who started having just the opposite problems you seem to be having. I can give you the name of every man that built each and every non-Catholic church, but when I ask a non-Catholic to give me the name of the church built by Jesus, no takers. That is because the answer is: JESUS CHRIST, and Jesus said that the holy spirit would be with His church until the end of time, and that the gates of hell would never defeat the church to which He is the head and savior, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat.
What I learned was: the seven Sacraments, as opposed to 2 Sacraments are very scriptural and were believed by every one from the 1st century to the 16th century reformation. Furthermore, the bible is not our final authority, as per the bible and no one believed this man-made doctrine either, until the reformation, and all it did was fracture Jesus body, the church. Thousands of non-Catholic churches all claiming to possess truth via their unique interpretations of their bibles, given to them by the CC.
The Bible wasn’t even put under one cover until 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. It took a monk several months to hand copy the Bible. Prior to the Bible being put under one cover, who was the authority figure for the early church? Remember, the Bible did not exist as we know it today, and the printing press wasn’t around until the 15th century. If you were a Christian for the first 1500 years of Christianity, you would have obeyed your catholic church leaders and defered to them just as your bible commands:
*“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
*
Why didn’t Paul tell them to submit to the word of God, which didn’t even exist as we know it today. Jesus passed on His authority to just one church, on Pentecost, and it wasn’t one of the myriad non-Catholic churches we see today in the world. They were all built on the foundation of the protestant reformation. The CC was the only church built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.
For me the key was the Eucharist, which is the Greek word for thanksgiving, which is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians (the last Supper) - . The Lutheran church ministers always told me that that word Eucharist wasn’t even in the bible, and that Jesus was speaking in metaphor. He was wrong! Heck, Martin Luther believed as does the CC, regarding the true presence. The early church (from pentecost to the 4th century) - all believed as well!!! I can’t believe that the holy spirit would immediately guide Jesus’ one church into Eucharistic idolatry! That’s insane! The beauty of the CC and the EOC is the fact that Jesus is the focal point, as it should be; in my former church, the pastor’s sermon was the focal point, which is the case in all non-Catholic churches, since they don’t believe, rightfully so, that Jesus is truly present.
Once I realized that Jesus was/is truly present in the Mass, nothing else mattered to me. I have discovered that Christianity can only be defended, without the necessary red herrings, from a Catholic perspective. It’s impossible to answer certain questions from a non-Catholic perspective. For example:
Typically, when most people ask if one believes the Bible, that person means do you believe the Bible as I interpret it, or, as my church interprets it? What gives them the right to do this while rebuking the Catholic church built by God, for doing the same thing? The question, once I answered honestly, was the question that brought me to the CC:
Who has the God given authority to teach…to do as Jesus did, when he said: as the father sent me so I send you, and I will be with you forever?
God bless friend…
T
theistgal
Guest
Hi bluelake -
My apologies for butting in - I know this wasn’t addressed to me.
However, just FYI, the Roman Catholic Church has reinstated the practice of offering the Cup to everyone at Communion. I believe in the past it was withheld from the laity but was still consecrated and consumed by the priest, so technically speaking it wasn’t omitted (though I would agree with you that everyone at Mass should have the option of receiving it). But according to Catholic theology, no matter how much or how little of the consecrated species you receive, you are receiving the fullness of the Body and Blood of Christ.
Also, just FYI, Catholics of the Eastern Rites have always received the Eucharist under both species - the wine (Blood) and bread (Body) are co-mingled and offered to the recipients together - this is also the case in the Eastern Orthodox churches, which trace their history back to the same period as the Roman Catholics.
Hope that helps you understand the practice a little better!
R
russell007
Guest
agent Grey
Could it be an exercise of ego?
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes.
Father I thank you for hiding these things from the wise and learned and revealing them to the simple.
B
bluelake
Guest
Tristan,
God isn’t the author of fear. he loves you. whatever your afraid of isn’t from the Church or the Lord.
May I recommend a very informative book, ‘Roman Catholics and Evangelicals’
Written by Norman Geisler and Ralph Mackenzie.
You will learn much about what your seeking. How often do you read the Bible? See Jn. 3:16
God bless you,
bluelake
Y
yankee_drifter
Guest
joe370,
Could you please provide proof that the New Testament writers were roman catholic thereby giving us the Scriptures?
100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
This was long before the council of Carthage. The councils of Carthage and Hippo were regional synods. They were not universal or ecumenical councils. About 50 bishops from the provinces of Africa attended each. These councils did not have authority to speak for the whole 4th century church.
Could you please provide proof that the New Testament writers were roman catholic thereby giving us the Scriptures?
How does it make any difference if the Bible wasn’t put under one cover when many years before this council convened, the books of the New Testament were already considered inspired?
100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
This was long before the council of Carthage. The councils of Carthage and Hippo were regional synods. They were not universal or ecumenical councils. About 50 bishops from the provinces of Africa attended each. These councils did not have authority to speak for the whole 4th century church.
F
Filioque
Guest
I knw you addressed this to Joe, and have a habit of not replying to or disregarding questions you don’t want to answer, but what proof do you have that there existed any other authentically Christian Church than the Catholic Church, now the silly supposition that it did not bare the title, “Roman Catholic” a term of diresion that was invented by Anglicans who wished to call themselves members of the Catholic Church but not Roman.
The reality is that there is no historical link to any of the Modern day Protestant Churches with the heretical sects that broke off from or were excluded from the fold of the Early Church. The only Churches that could even qualify with any historical link to the Early Church are the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, although even here we have the arguemnt on each side as to who maintained the proper interpretation of the role of Peter.
These Catholic (although Tertullian later became an apostate) authors, and Fathers, as well as others including Origen did include different canons, among them the Shephard of Hermas, and the Didiche. While there were general consensuses among some groups, it was only under the direction of the Holy Spirit, in Catholic Councils tht the final formulation of the Canon took place. Unless you have previously undiscovered information that these Councils were really headed by Calvin, Luther, or possibly a time travelling Joseph Smith?
J
joe370
Guest
**Yankee you said: Could you please provide proof that the New Testament writers were roman catholic thereby giving us the Scriptures?
This is a historical fact according to all historians and protestant/catholic scholars. Do a little digging and you will see for yourself. Or, maybe you can prove me wrong. If you can I will leave the CC!
**
**Yankee, I already addressed the question: How does it make any difference if the Bible wasn’t put under one cover when many years before this council convened, the books of the New Testament were already considered inspired. Below is my response again:
**
**Christians belonging to Jesus’ early Church relied on oral tradition, the accounts of eyewitnesses, as well as scattered pre-gospel documents (such as those quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Timothy 2:11-13) and written tradition. Most catholic churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament. The bible alone as the only authority would have been not only impossible but the downfall of Christianity, due to all of the apocryphal/gnostic writings floating around, or at least the fragmentation and total loss of continuity with Jesus’ one apostolic and universal church, almost immediately, During the first four centuries there were substantial disagreements over which books should be included in the canon of scripture. The first person on record attempting to establish a New Testament canon was, ironically, the second-century heretic, Marcion. He wanted Jesus’ Church to reject its Jewish heritage by dispensing with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion’s canon included only one gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul’s epistles. Sad but true, the first attempted New Testament was heretical. Many scholars believe that it was partly in reaction to this distorted canon of Marcion that the early Church decided to create a clearly defined canon of its own, that would stand the test of time. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the breakup of the Jewish-Christian community there, and the threatened loss of continuity in the apostolic writings vs the pseudo/heretical writings no doubt contributed to the sense of the urgent need for Jesus’ Church to standardize the list of books Christians could rely on. During this period of the canon’s evolution, most apostolic churches had only a few, if any, of the apostolic writings available to them, which is a stark contrast to today. It is very important for Christians today to view things as the early Christians would have! The books of the holy Bible had to be painstakingly copied by hand, at great expense of time and effort, and because there was no printing press very few people had access to these scattered pre-gospel documents/epistles, and no one had a bound bible as we have today. That is the very reason why sola scriptura could not have been the authority for the early church Christians. Also, because most people were illiterate, they could only be read by a select few, and the norm was for the church presbyters and bishops to do the reading, as per sacred scripture. The exposure of most Christians to the scriptures were confined to what they heard in Jesus’ church - the Law and Prophets, the Psalms, and some of the Apostles’ memoirs. The persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire and the existence of many documents of non-apostolic work further complicated the matter. The idea that every home and parish had a complete Old and New Testament from the very inception of the Church is a protestant/evangelical misunderstanding! Like you said: Christians were not walking around with a bound bible in their hands for the first 400 years or even the first 1500 years of Christianity. It is difficult, if not impossible for a non-Catholic to imagine Jesus’ church surviving and prospering without a complete New Testament. Yet, unquestionably, Jesus’ built church did - thanks to the guidance and protection of the holy spirit.
**
This is a historical fact according to all historians and protestant/catholic scholars. Do a little digging and you will see for yourself. Or, maybe you can prove me wrong. If you can I will leave the CC!
**
**Yankee, I already addressed the question: How does it make any difference if the Bible wasn’t put under one cover when many years before this council convened, the books of the New Testament were already considered inspired. Below is my response again:
**
**Christians belonging to Jesus’ early Church relied on oral tradition, the accounts of eyewitnesses, as well as scattered pre-gospel documents (such as those quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Timothy 2:11-13) and written tradition. Most catholic churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament. The bible alone as the only authority would have been not only impossible but the downfall of Christianity, due to all of the apocryphal/gnostic writings floating around, or at least the fragmentation and total loss of continuity with Jesus’ one apostolic and universal church, almost immediately, During the first four centuries there were substantial disagreements over which books should be included in the canon of scripture. The first person on record attempting to establish a New Testament canon was, ironically, the second-century heretic, Marcion. He wanted Jesus’ Church to reject its Jewish heritage by dispensing with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion’s canon included only one gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul’s epistles. Sad but true, the first attempted New Testament was heretical. Many scholars believe that it was partly in reaction to this distorted canon of Marcion that the early Church decided to create a clearly defined canon of its own, that would stand the test of time. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the breakup of the Jewish-Christian community there, and the threatened loss of continuity in the apostolic writings vs the pseudo/heretical writings no doubt contributed to the sense of the urgent need for Jesus’ Church to standardize the list of books Christians could rely on. During this period of the canon’s evolution, most apostolic churches had only a few, if any, of the apostolic writings available to them, which is a stark contrast to today. It is very important for Christians today to view things as the early Christians would have! The books of the holy Bible had to be painstakingly copied by hand, at great expense of time and effort, and because there was no printing press very few people had access to these scattered pre-gospel documents/epistles, and no one had a bound bible as we have today. That is the very reason why sola scriptura could not have been the authority for the early church Christians. Also, because most people were illiterate, they could only be read by a select few, and the norm was for the church presbyters and bishops to do the reading, as per sacred scripture. The exposure of most Christians to the scriptures were confined to what they heard in Jesus’ church - the Law and Prophets, the Psalms, and some of the Apostles’ memoirs. The persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire and the existence of many documents of non-apostolic work further complicated the matter. The idea that every home and parish had a complete Old and New Testament from the very inception of the Church is a protestant/evangelical misunderstanding! Like you said: Christians were not walking around with a bound bible in their hands for the first 400 years or even the first 1500 years of Christianity. It is difficult, if not impossible for a non-Catholic to imagine Jesus’ church surviving and prospering without a complete New Testament. Yet, unquestionably, Jesus’ built church did - thanks to the guidance and protection of the holy spirit.
**
J
joe370
Guest
**Yankee, you said: How does it make any difference if the Bible wasn’t put under one cover when many years before this council convened, the books of the New Testament were already considered inspired.
**
**The short answer: Even if the 27 books of the New Testament were the only books considered inspired for the first 400 years of Christianity, sola scriptura as the final authority for each and every Christian would have been absolutely and unequivocally IMPOSSIBLE! Not one person owned a bible, and only the CC possessed the bible, and only in the form of individual works of the Apostles - period, as per all scholars. After the bible was finally codified, it took hundreds of years before it could be printed as one complete bound volume, totally shattering the notion that sola scriptura was the preferred method of edification!!! In the days prior to the printing press, producing and binding the bible, of that length, would have been enormously expensive, perhaps prohibitively so. Scholarly people, inside the CC, encountered the four Gospels bound together and the rest as separate books. Protestant/evangelical, King-James-Only Christians who claim the Bible was always just ONE book, authored by God, need a serious wake up call. The bible was codified/canonized by scholarly Catholics who knew the sacred scriptures, (thanks to apostolic tradition and the guidance of the holy spirit) - as a corpus of separate works. **
**
**The short answer: Even if the 27 books of the New Testament were the only books considered inspired for the first 400 years of Christianity, sola scriptura as the final authority for each and every Christian would have been absolutely and unequivocally IMPOSSIBLE! Not one person owned a bible, and only the CC possessed the bible, and only in the form of individual works of the Apostles - period, as per all scholars. After the bible was finally codified, it took hundreds of years before it could be printed as one complete bound volume, totally shattering the notion that sola scriptura was the preferred method of edification!!! In the days prior to the printing press, producing and binding the bible, of that length, would have been enormously expensive, perhaps prohibitively so. Scholarly people, inside the CC, encountered the four Gospels bound together and the rest as separate books. Protestant/evangelical, King-James-Only Christians who claim the Bible was always just ONE book, authored by God, need a serious wake up call. The bible was codified/canonized by scholarly Catholics who knew the sacred scriptures, (thanks to apostolic tradition and the guidance of the holy spirit) - as a corpus of separate works. **
Y
yankee_drifter
Guest
If everyone would keep their posts with questions brief, I would be able to answer all questions. But many people have gotten on here with long posts directed to me, that it gets overwhelming.
Those posts that are insulting in nature I will disregard though. I’m not on here all day, nor am I here to play games. Salvation is to important too take lightly.If you really want a serious dialogue and answers to your many questions, then feel free to send me an instant message.
Y
yankee_drifter
Guest
Historical fact according to ALL historians? Yet you haven’t given a single reference. The NT writers were Jews. Believers in Jesus Christ were first called “Christians.” The church was in Jerusalem, not Rome. James was its leader, not Peter. This is all in the Scriptures, therefore not disputable. The first council in Jerusalem (Acts) involved the whole church, not just leaders. No cardinals were present. It was not held in Rome. It was a local church council. No pope presided, and no appeal was made to infallibility. Appeal was made to Scripture alone. James, not Peter, gave judgment. The final decision was made by all the apostles, elders and the whole church. A joint letter was issued giving the result of the council, but it was not a papal encyclical.
No church gave us the NT, the apostles did, and they began the church that Jesus founded. The Bible can exist where there is no church building or assembly but the church cannot exist where there is no Bible.
The NT books were read and distributed as Scripture for over 300 years by individual Christians and church’s long before church councils claimed to give us the Bible. Athanasius, who fought to preserve the Trinity in the council of Nicea in 325 Ad. when the Church was being challenged had all 27 books of the New Testament. When Athanasius argued in his debate against Arius he used much of the NT and quoted from nearly every book. He said they were the springs of salvation; do not add nor take away.
Almost 40 years later the council of Laodicea in 363 A.D. decreed that only canonized books of the old and new Testament were to be read in the Churches. None of the councils made any list of what is in or out, the reason being that the majority of the church had accepted and used these books for many years before them.
Joe, are we to accept the premise that 300 years passed with confusion and we waited for the RCC to decide in 397 A.D. what was to be our Scripture? Generations would have come and gone not having the Bible. The truth is that we can produce almost the entire Bible we have today from the early church writings in the mid 100’s to 200’s.
In 397 Ad. the council of Carthage put their approval on the canon that was already read by and throughout the church. It then became a fixed canon for the western church as it was for the eastern.
It was the people in the church, not a council who determined whether it was authoritative- did it come as thus saith the Lord? Did they recognize God’s voice in it? Did it have the life transforming power of God when it was applied?
M
Markway
Guest
I disagree. Mary IS a barrier to God. When Christians direct their thoughts and prayers to her rather than to God this actually breaks a rather important commandment “You shall have no other God than me!” Buddy, if you’re praying to her I don’t know what else to call it. I suppose that I could pray to say, Ba’al to intercede on my behalf, or Odin. Would that be okay?
The bible is very clear that all believers are saints, yet the RCC does not refer to the average member as “Saint”. At the very least these individuals are distractions. We need to keep our eyes on Christ, our minds on Christ and trust Him with our hearts. It’s as if you all see Heaven as some big Corporation where you file a petition with a clerk, and then see if you can get the ear of a vice president to talk for you to the CEO. Christ is very clear in that nothing on Heaven or earth can seperate Him from us. I know that you all don’t rely totally on the bible, but have you taken to contradicting it?
- Status