Why Us

  • Thread starter Thread starter d40gmar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi,

If Satan can make my behavior look bad and it causes one person to turn away from God because of it then Satan has won(For Now).IMHO
Actually, it works both ways…

Satan also can make one’s bad behavior look good and thus attract people away from Christ. He does this through both “Christian” groups, and “non-Christian” groups.

Look at the effects of Islam.

Look at the effects of the Reformation.

But Satan, like other posters have said, is most concerned about the Eucharist… and only the Catholic Church has it.

Thus if he can destroy priests, he would win. No priests, no Eucharist. No Eucharist, no Church.

If the Catholic Church were to be totally eliminated all would be lost. And Jesus would have lied. Your version of our Bible would be of no use to you. If all the Bibles in the world were to disappear (not likely) you would have nothing but your personal traditions.

Thank God that God is God.

Thank God that there is a Catholic Church with the promises nade to it, and about it by the Lord Himself.

One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. We can choose to fight that for now… but for eternity there will only be One.
 
Not at all – I think the same thing myself. I’m a former Protestant, and one of the things I noticed about the Catholic Church is how much it’s attacked by everyone. And I noticed that anti-Catholics spend little or no time attacking the Eastern Orthodox churches, even though they believe almost all the same things Catholics do that the anti-Catholics rail against.
Ironically, I was having an online discussion with some Muslims a few weeks ago about how the Catholic Church is inconsistent with its own previous teachings, much less with Scripture. One Muslim proceeded to give examples of how the Orthodox Church *in Egypt * (which I highly suspect to be more Coptic than Eastern Orthodox) had settled a series of disputes and how they would continue relying on previous rulings instead of making “alterations.” His point was to show how the Eastern Orthodox Church is more orthodox than anything the Catholic Church might ever claim to be. It’s obvious he wasn’t quite clear on the connections between the Eastern and Latin Rites.

I personally think that a lot of people regard the Church as an outdated monolith, like a Goliath with calcium deposits in all his joints, and so they take turns slinging stones. However, this is a false analogy because it suggests that eventually all the potshots will crumble the Church, which is far from true. And it’s this very fact, the fact that the Church has existed for 2000 years and actually has a history that people wish to antagonize the inevitable.
 
Actually, it works both ways…

Satan also can make one’s bad behavior look good and thus attract people away from Christ. He does this through both “Christian” groups, and “non-Christian” groups.
I totally agreed.
 
Actually, it works both ways…

Satan also can make one’s bad behavior look good and thus attract people away from Christ. He does this through both “Christian” groups, and “non-Christian” groups.

Look at the effects of Islam.

Look at the effects of the Reformation.Yes I agree:thumbsup:
👍
 
Hi,
This is how I understand it. I am a believer–The minute I became a believer I was sealed with the Holy Spirit till the day of redemption–Because I am a believer Satan attacks me daily in every aspect of my life:mad: He does not attack non-believers–well–because He already has them in his back pocket:(

Satan hates me because He cant get me or have me anymore because I belong to God now.😃 Therefore, the only thing Satan can do to me is cause me to stumble and look like a hyocrite to the rest of the world–so they can say HA she is not a christian look what she did–a christian wouldnt do that:eek: If Satan can make my behavior look bad and it causes one person to turn away from God because of it then Satan has won(For Now).IMHO
This is true for EVERYONE, no matter what their denomination, as long as they accept the Trinity. 😃
 
Your idea is not silly. Satan is that wicked - his purpose is to divide us, to take our focus from what we want to do.

A priest says on the radio - go to the group that has more attacks; that is the right group for you to join. 🙂
Then one would go with the group persicuted most in terms of visibility, strength, and duration. And this group would seem to be the Orthodox.
 
I am coming back to the church after many years. In my studies though I have found there are many groups out there who do not like us.
I know what you mean. (LINK)
There are theories out there that the Pope is the antichrist and the like. I was wondering why?
Yeah, the’re all over the place.

I am probably going to draw some heat for this but I’m going to put my thinking out here and let whatever happens happen.
One never hears this kind of stuff from say the Lutherans.
Not completely true. I’ve seen some stuff from some Lutherans that was pretty scathing.
So why are we the Target. I hope someone can help.
There are several reasons that I have seen.
  1. N-C preachers who cannot preach the Gospel without embellishing it with a compare and contrast versus someone. (Usually us Catholics, and controvesy sells…)
  2. Poor catechesis (or poor attention on our own part to catechesis) among Catholics, so that we cannot properly explain and defend our most holy faith.
  3. An n-C tradition of animosity towards the Catholic Church, and the willingness of those in their modern congregations to accept as fact whatever comes from their pulpits without any effort to seek historical sources or even an explanation from an authentic authoritative Catholic source.
  4. A perception by n-Cs/a-Cs that Catholics do not know the Bible and/or that our beliefs are not Biblically supported.
  5. In some cases, a just plain carnal egotism that mixes with their so-called “witnessing” and makes them belittle or scattergun style attack Catholic beliefs. (This approach is often seen here on threads at CAF.)
All that said tho, I just figure that it comes with the turf.

Since you’re on your way home, let me take this opportunity to share with you some links to sources that were a huge help to me.

The Catholic Answers Online Library

The Catholic Home Study Service

The Bible Christian Society

The Mary Foundation

The Militia Immaculata

The (Searchable) Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Compendium Catechism of the Catholic Church

San Juan Catholic Seminars

Scripture Catholic

Welcome home my brother!
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
AllforHim>>The minute I became a believer I was sealed with the Holy Spirit till the day of redemption–Because I am a believer Satan attacks me daily in every aspect of my life…

In the manner of another brother on here, to save space I will only include the part I wish to comment on. Although I agreed with your entire post, I really wanted to agree with you on this part that you said. You are so right.👍
Hi,
😃 👍
 
I know what you mean. (LINK)Yeah, the’re all over the place.

I am probably going to draw some heat for this but I’m going to put my thinking out here and let whatever happens happen.Not completely true. I’ve seen some stuff from some Lutherans that was pretty scathing.There are several reasons that I have seen.
  1. N-C preachers who cannot preach the Gospel without embellishing it with a compare and contrast versus someone. (Usually us Catholics, and controvesy sells…)
  2. Poor catechesis (or poor attention on our own part to catechesis) among Catholics, so that we cannot properly explain and defend our most holy faith.
  3. An n-C tradition of animosity towards the Catholic Church, and the willingness of those in their modern congregations to accept as fact whatever comes from their pulpits without any effort to seek historical sources or even an explanation from an authentic authoritative Catholic source.
  4. A perception by n-Cs/a-Cs that Catholics do not know the Bible and/or that our beliefs are not Biblically supported.
  5. In some cases, a just plain carnal egotism that mixes with their so-called “witnessing” and makes them belittle or scattergun style attack Catholic beliefs. (This approach is often seen here on threads at CAF.)
All that said tho, I just figure that it comes with the turf.

Since you’re on your way home, let me take this opportunity to share with you some links to sources that were a huge help to me.

The Catholic Answers Online Library

The Catholic Home Study Service

The Bible Christian Society

The Mary Foundation

The Militia Immaculata

The (Searchable) Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Compendium Catechism of the Catholic Church

San Juan Catholic Seminars

Scripture Catholic

Welcome home my brother!
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
Thanks for the links!
 
Before their schism from the Catholic Church, there was no group that believed what they believe (i.e. no universal jursidiction, with no way to call or ratify ecumenical councils, etc.):

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/easternorthodoxy.html
I think that underestimates the power of Jesus Christ. Merely because certain people cannot think of a way these things cannot happen does not mean that they are impossible.

Just because people say: “But I do not see how this is possible without a single supreme human leader always at the head of the Church on Earth” does not mean that this is truly impossible.

I think that all that is important has been said by previous councils. And if something else is important, Orthodoxy will call a new Ecumenical council. God will see to that.
 
…
I think that all that is important has been said by previous councils. And if something else is important, Orthodoxy will call a new Ecumenical council. God will see to that.
Don’t you think it’s a little odd that only after the schism did the power to call and ratify ecumenical councils disappear for the Eastern Orthodox, as Eastern Orthodox authors admit? It’s not the historical reality of church function. It betrays their sudden shift from authority:

From Council Minus Papacy Equals Chaos

From the time they severed communion with Rome, the Eastern Orthodox churches have exalted conciliarism—the authority of councils—as their alternative to the papacy. In a previous article (June 1997) I detailed the Eastern claims for councils in connection with the first ecumenical council, that of Nicaea in 325.

In dialogue with members of the Orthodox churches, Catholics must address the Eastern claims for conciliarism on two levels, theoretical and historical. The utter impracticability of conciliarism, even on the theoretical level, is illustrated by the assertion of an Eastern conciliarist that ecumenical councils have “the supreme authority in the Orthodox Church.” And which councils are truly ecumenical and therefore authoritative? His answer: The decisive criterion of the ecumenicity of a council is whether it receives “the recognition of its decrees by the whole Church, which is therefore in fact the sole authority in Orthodoxy.” How is it possible to vest “supreme” authority in one agency (a council) and “sole” authority in another (the whole Church)?

Now for the historical level. No council ever decreed that its decisions were to be binding only after all the churches had received them. Nor is there any way in the conciliar scheme by which to determine whether or when all churches have accepted a conciliar ruling. Has any major conciliar decision ever fulfilled this requirement?

Of course, it is difficult to explain why the Eastern Orthodox, contrary toward their attitude toward the Papacy, have retained one form of universal jurisdiction: Declarations of excommunication, especially of other Eastern Orthodox communities! Seems pretty universal to me. Suddenly, they all act like the Successor of Peter.

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [plural], that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you [singular] that your faith may not fail; and when you have returned again, strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).

It might seem odd that Jesus would pray only for Peter when it was all the apostles that Satan desired to sift like wheat. But the following words explain the apparent incongruity: “When you [singular] have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” In other words, once the supreme leader is strong, he will in turn confirm his fellow leaders of the Church. The strength needed will come from the Father in answer to Jesus’ prayer through Peter to the other apostles. +
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307sbs.asp

The buck stops somewhere in every organization.
 
So you maintain that Protestants are never attacked by the devil? You then affirm that it was God’s will that the Catholics killed Protestants many times in the history of the Church? I’ve been attacked by satan and so has every other Protestant. You don’t know what I’ve been through, you don’t know what they’ve been through, and frankly, you just don’t know much of anything when it comes to this issue.
You affirm that it was Gods will that Protestants kill Catholics many times over in the history of protestantism?

You just don’t know much about what the church teaches about non catholic christians. But it’s a fairly good bet you aren’t called the whore of babylon, the anti christ, you’re not christian, Mary is a Jezebel, you worship baal, you’re going to hell and on and on and on.

Till you’ve been there I guess…

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
You affirm that it was Gods will that Protestants kill Catholics many times over in the history of protestantism?

You just don’t know much about what the church teaches about non catholic christians. But it’s a fairly good bet you aren’t called the whore of babylon, the anti christ, you’re not christian, Mary is a Jezebel, you worship baal, you’re going to hell and on and on and on.

Till you’ve been there I guess…

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
No, I don’t affirm that. Any Protestant who ever killed a Catholic was wrong.

I know all I need to know about what your Church teaches about non-Catholics. It used to call me anathema. It found a friendly word now, that being “separated brethren”. And though the majority of you don’t believe that we are not Christians, some Catholics do believe this.

As for the things said about you guys, that is not very nice. However, you all have said some pretty nasty things about us as well. And since the Protestants were the Reformers, it follows that the Catholic Church said some pretty nasty things about them first right? anyways, it doesn’t matter. Both sides are wrong for the things they’ve done and said about the other.

God bless you too.
 
Don’t you think it’s a little odd that only after the schism did the power to call and ratify ecumenical councils disappear for the Eastern Orthodox, as Eastern Orthodox authors admit? It’s not the historical reality of church function. It betrays their sudden shift from authority:
The reason that there have been no Ecumenical Councils since the seventh is because there need be no such councils. As I would naturally assert that all the Roman Councils are a fiction, akin to many of the excommunications from many patriarchs, and as such is just a man “playing authority”.
Now for the historical level. No council ever decreed that its decisions were to be binding only after all the churches had received them. Nor is there any way in the conciliar scheme by which to determine whether or when all churches have accepted a conciliar ruling. Has any major conciliar decision ever fulfilled this requirement?

The Orthodox would assert that no council can declare its Ecumenical nature infallibly until that council has been accepted by the Church. See below.
It might seem odd that Jesus would pray only for Peter when it was all the apostles that Satan desired to sift like wheat. But the following words explain the apparent incongruity: “When you [singular] have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” In other words, once the supreme leader is strong, he will in turn confirm his fellow leaders of the Church.
One possible interpretation. Another would be that Peter was exceptionally weak at the time. But even given your direction of interpretation, the Scripture only establishes the importance of Peter’s authority as leader, first among equals. It definitely would not suggest that his successors can stand alone, apart from the other patriarchs, as they have been. I see no reason to interpret any passage to suggest that Peter has such authority.
The buck stops somewhere in every organization.
In the Church, the buck stops with Christ, in revelation through the Holy Spirit, to the college of Bishops in congruence with the whole Catholic Church. Not just the Roman part.

And how are we to know whether a council is ecumenical?

“This is a more difficult question to answer than might at first appear, and though it has been much discussed by Orthodox during the past hundred years, it cannot be said that the solutions suggested are entirely satisfactory. All Orthodox know which are the seven councils that their Church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear… The bishops, so Khomiakov argued, because they are the teachers of the faith, define and proclaim the truth in council; but these definitions must then be acclaimed by the whole people of God, including the laity, because it is the whole people of God that constitutes the guardian of Tradition.” - Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church

“It does not mean that the decisions of the councils should be confirmed by a general plebiscite and that without such a plebiscite they have no force. There is no such plebiscite. But from historical experience it clearly appears that the voice of a given council has truly been the voice of the Church or that it has not: that is all” - S. Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church

“Claiming as it does to be the one true Church, the Orthodox Church also believes that, if it so desired, it could by itself convene and hold another Ecumenical Council, equal in authority to the first seven.” - Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church.
 
No, I don’t affirm that. Any Protestant who ever killed a Catholic was wrong.
Well, I wouldn’t go that far 🙂 Surely some Protestants have killed Catholics in justifiable defense of themselves or their families. Likewise Catholics. But yes, killing between Protestants and Catholics over religious matters is wrong wherever it takes place.
I know all I need to know about what your Church teaches about non-Catholics.
You don’t, as is clearly indicated by the rest of your post.
It used to call me anathema.
No, it didn’t. An anathema (as declared by the Council of Trent) is a particular ecclesiastical penalty which can only be levied against Catholics. The Council of Trent anathemized Catholics who taught Protestant beliefs. You are not Catholic, and thus anathemas would never be pronounced on you. You’re not under the Church’s jurisdiction, so to speak.
It found a friendly word now, that being “separated brethren”. And though the majority of you don’t believe that we are not Christians, some Catholics do believe this.
Though the majority of you don’t believe that we are not Christians, some Protestants do believe this.

See? It’s not really a point to be made, is it?
Both sides are wrong for the things they’ve done and said about the other.
We can agree on that, and hopefully continue in our discussions of truth. That’s the real problem – not reliving the misdeeds of our religious ancestors.

Jeremy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosierdaddy
No, I don’t affirm that. Any Protestant who ever killed a Catholic was wrong.
I don’t affirm it either though. I believe I brought that question up because someone implied that the Catholic Church cannot make mistakes, therefore it follows that they were doing God’s will.

Quote:
I know all I need to know about what your Church teaches about non-Catholics.
You don’t, as is clearly indicated by the rest of your post.
**But I do. 😃 **

Quote:
It used to call me anathema.
No, it didn’t. An anathema (as declared by the Council of Trent) is a particular ecclesiastical penalty which can only be levied against Catholics. The Council of Trent anathemized Catholics who taught Protestant beliefs. You are not Catholic, and thus anathemas would never be pronounced on you. You’re not under the Church’s jurisdiction, so to speak.
Yes it did. This is semantics. If a Catholic (who believes as a Protestant) is called anathema it logically follows that Protestants are anathema as well. We are under the Church’s jurisdiction…just not the Roman Catholic Church or the Pope. We are under Christ. According to Catholics I am Catholic. I was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant; therefore I am anathema. Doesn’t exactly encourage me to “return home” so to speak, ya know what I mean?

Quote:
It found a friendly word now, that being “separated brethren”. And though the majority of you don’t believe that we are not Christians, some Catholics do believe this.
Though the majority of you don’t believe that we are not Christians, some Protestants do believe this.
See? It’s not really a point to be made, is it?
**Of course it was a point. Whether you could say the same thing is irrelevant. I believe our separation (as far as maintaining doctrinal purity) is good. The only thing left to decide is which side is right. **

Quote:
Both sides are wrong for the things they’ve done and said about the other.

We can agree on that, and hopefully continue in our discussions of truth. That’s the real problem – not reliving the misdeeds of our religious ancestors.
**I agree with you there. 👍 **
 
Satan cannot attack Christ, so he choses to attack that which leads to Christ.

Lesser organisations are important but of lesser important. If you are going to declare war on another King, you try to take out His strongest forces first. They are the ones from whom he has the most to fear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top