Pope Benedict XVI has strongly criticized atheism and blamed it for bringing about the ”greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” ever known in history.
In the second encyclical of his papacy, the head of the world’s one billion Catholics also criticized modern-day Christianity, saying its focus on individual salvation had ignored Jesus' message that true Christian hope involves salvation for all.
In the 76-page document titled ”Spe Salvi,“ or “Saved by Hope,” Benedict said that many people rejected religious faith because they no longer found the prospect of an eternal after-life attractive.
Instead, they had put their faith in human reason and freedom in the hope that the "kingdom of man" would emerge.
In his scholarly analysis, the 81-year-old pontiff said that these ideas had originated during two periods of political upheaval – the French and Communist revolutions.
While Benedict came down heavily on Karl Marx and the 19th and 20th century atheism spawned by his revolution, the pope acknowledged that both were responding to the deep injustices of the time.
Marxism, Benedict wrote, had left behind "a trail of appalling destruction" because it failed to realize that man could not be "merely the product of economic conditions." For man to be redeemed, he also needs God's unconditional love.
"It is no accident that this idea (Marxism/Atheism) has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice, rather, it is grounded in the intrinsic falsity of the claim", he wrote. "A world which has to create its own justice is a world without hope."
Benedict also cited Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, and the "intermediate phase" of dictatorship that Marx saw as necessary in the revolution.
"This 'intermediate phase' we know all too well, and we also know how it then developed, not ushering in a perfect world, but leaving behind a trail of appalling destruction," the pope wrote.
Commenting on the pope’s latest encyclical, Monsignor Robert Wister, professor of church history at Seton Hall University in the United States, explained that the pope's concern “is that you have secularizing forces that are trying to eliminate religion from public and private life."
"In most countries, political Marxism is dead [but] philosophical Marxism is very much alive and it fuels the secularizing philosophy often seen in Europe and North America," Wister said, according to the Associated Press.
At the same time, Benedict also looked critically at the way modern Christianity had responded to the times, saying such a "self-critique" was also necessary.
"We must acknowledge that modern Christianity, faced with the successes of science in progressively structuring the world, has to a large extent restricted its attention to the individual and his salvation," the pope wrote. "In doing so, it has limited the horizon of its hope and has failed to recognize sufficiently the greatness of its task."
The Christian concept of hope and salvation, the pontiff stated, was not always so individual-centric.
Quoting scripture and theologians, Benedict said salvation had in the earlier church been considered "communal" — illustrating his point by using the case of monks in the Middle Ages who cloistered themselves in prayer not just for their own salvation but for that of others.
"How could the idea have developed that Jesus' message is narrowly individualistic and aimed only at each person singly? How did we arrive at this interpretation of the 'salvation of the soul' as a flight from responsibility for the whole, and how did we come to conceive the Christian project as a selfish search for salvation which rejects the idea of serving others?" he asked.
While seeking to provide answers, the pope said there are ways for the faithful to learn and practice true Christian hope – in prayer, in suffering, in taking action and in looking at the Last Judgment as a symbol of hope.
"Only God can create justice. And faith gives us the certainty that He does so. The image of the Last Judgment is not primarily an image of terror, but an image of hope; for us it may even be the decisive image of hope. Is it not also a frightening image? I would say: it is an image that evokes responsibility, an image, therefore, of that fear of which Saint Hilary spoke when he said that all our fear has its place in love. God is justice and creates justice."
The first encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI was "God is Love," released last year. The third one is expected to be on ”Faith,” as it will complete the three Christian theological virtues – faith, hope and love.
RSS
“Oh Mother of my God and my Lady Mary, as a poor wounded and loathsome wretch presents himself to a great queen, I present my self to thee, who art the queen of heaven and earth.” (a portion of prayer in The Glories of Mary - Translated From the Italian of St. Alphonsus Liguori - New Revised Edition - 1888)
The Holy Spirit would not lead the wounded and the wretched to present themselves to Mary, but to Jesus, the one who suffered and died for all mankind.
“I said, Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee” (Ps 41:4).
Jesus said, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Mt 11:28-30).
Wilderness-
Were you not intimately united with your mother? Maybe it is different for Protestants, but I know that Catholics honor thy mother and father as it says in the ten commandments. Since it is a commandment and Mary was Jesus' mother, and Jesus referred to all as his brothers and sisters, Mary is our mother and we honor her as a mother. I think I have said this before... but you keep incessantly posting from sites and do not even adress it. Huh.
“The perfect example of this type of spiritual and apostolic life is the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Apostles, who while leading the life common to all here on earth, one filled with family concerns and labors, was always intimately united with her Son and in an entirely unique way cooperated in the work of the Savior.” (Pope Paul VI - Decree on the Apostolate of Laity - 1965)
Paul VI says that Mary “was always intimately united with her son…” According to the Word of God, that would not be correct:
Luke 2:42-50
Matthew 12:47-50
John 2:1-4
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
How did Luke 1:28 get to…
Holy Mary, Holy Mother of God, Holy Virgin of Virgins, Mother of Christ, Mother of divine grace, Mother most pure, Mother most chaste, Mother inviolate, Mother undefiled, Mother most amiable, Mother most admirable, Mother of good Counsel, Mother of our Creator, Mother of our Savior, Virgin most prudent, Virgin most venerable, Virgin most renowned, Virgin most powerful, Virgin most merciful, Virgin most faithful, Mirror of justice, Seat of wisdom, Cause of our joy, Spiritual vessel, Vessel of honor, Singular vessel of devotion, Mystical rose, Tower of David, Tower of ivory, House of gold, Ark of the covenant, Gate of heaven, Morning star, Health of the sick, Refuge of sinners, Comforter of the afflicted, Help of Christians, Queen of Angels, Queen of Patriarchs, Queen of Prophets, Queen of Apostles, Queen of Martyrs, Queen of Confessors, Queen of Virgins, Queen of all Saints, Queen conceived without original sin, Queen assumed into heaven, Queen of the most holy Rosary, Queen of peace. (Litany of Loreto)
Mother of love and indulgence, Mother of the golden light, Honor of the sky, Harbinger of peace, Gate of heaven, Golden casket, Couch of love and mercy, Temple of the Divinity, Beauty of virgins, Mistress of the tribes, Fountain of the gardens, Cleansing of sins, Washing of souls, Mother of orphans, Breast of the infants, Refuge of the wretched, Star of the sea, Handmaid of God, Mother of Christ, Abode of the Godhead, Graceful as the dove, Serene like the moon, Resplendent like the sun, Destruction of Eve s disgrace, Regeneration of life, Perfection of women, Chief of the virgins, Garden enclosed, Fountain sealed, Mother of God, Perpetual Virgin, Holy Virgin, Prudent Virgin, Serene Virgin, Chaste Virgin, Temple of the Living God, Throne of the Eternal King, Sanctuary of the Holy Spirit, Virgin of the root of Jesse, Cedar of Mount Lebanon, Cypress of Mount Sion, Crimson rose in the land of Jacob, Fruitful like the olive, Blooming like the palm, Glorious son-bearer, Light of Nazareth, Glory of Jerusalem, Beauty of the world, Noblest born of the Christian people, Queen of life, Ladder of Heaven. (Ancient Irish Litany)
I believe God gave Jesus, not Mary, a name above every name. “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:9-11).
Truthandjustice1,
That proves nothing; what are you trying to accomplish by reveling in recent political events?
Yes, but I'm sure the two Catholics who signed the constitution would be very happy that the Church now has official ties with the US...thank you Ronald Reagan. I don't see the two as in conflict with each other. As for the Peter - Pope debate - I could give you verses (like I did last time) and around and around we go.
Truthandjustice1,
I disagree. The Presidential candidate should be elected for his willingness to support the constitution of the U.S. – period. Since you brought up Peter again; I would say –
The scriptures say the exact opposite; If Peter was supreme, the disciples would not have been debating among themselves as to who was considered the greatest - Luke 22:24-30.
Paul says that he was not inferior to any other apostle in 2Corinthians 12:11 and Paul is the prominent figure in Acts 13-28.
The papacy is not mentioned in the church structure recorded in 1Corinthians 12:28 - which includes apostles, prophets, and teachers.
If Peter was supreme, he would have been the one sending others instead of being sent by others to Samaria - Acts 8:14.
James is the dominant person at the Jerusalem council - Acts 15:13-35 and Paul rebuked Peter to his face because he was in error - Galatians 2:11-14. The fact that there is no mention of Peter visiting Paul in prison at Rome says he was not there and Paul who wrote Romans while in Rome never greets Peter in his letter.
Finally, the scriptures teach that Jesus is the Rock on which he would be his church –
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed –Romans 9:23.
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ – 1Corinthians 10:4.
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed – 1Peter 2:8
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; - Ephesians 2:20.
Archdiocese of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, on World Youth Day: "The Prime Minister has been a very strong supporter of World Youth Day 2008, and we remain grateful for his personal commitment to the event and for the support of the government at all levels."
Online4Him,
I think the bible is pretty clear about our duties to spread the Good News of our Lord and Savior. Since I feel that the Church was the Church that was mentioned in the bible and the keys to it were given to Peter then I should help in the spread and strengthening of the Church.
For example,
The Australian government is kicking in about 100million to make this a reality: http://www.wyd2008.org/
That is why it's important to get involved in government. Give to Cesar what is Cesar's but give to God what is God's.
truthandjustice1,
. . . . . . . . the person chosen needs to pro-Catholic. Why would he NEED to be pro Catholic?
Well we will agree to disagree, but right now I have to get involved in the political direction of this country because the person chosen needs to pro-Catholic.
wilderness,
Thumbs up!
Pope Pius IX said…
“Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears…” (The Immaculate Conception - 1854)
The Word of God says…
“For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken.” (Pr 3:26)
“According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.” (Ephesians 3:11, 12)
Pius IX exhorts one to have confidence in Mary, but the Word of God exhorts one to have confidence in the Lord. Shall we believe God or man?
Truthandjustice1,
Actually, I did read the article that you recommended. The author of the article asked:
What is the point in quoting these words?
Does it really matter how long ago the pope said what he said? No, he still said it. I don't agree with his interpretation of James chapter 2. We have talked about this on another occaision; James was talking about someone who "said" or claimed he had faith. He actually did not.
Pope Pius IX said…
“Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary…” (The Immaculate Conception - 1854)
Jesus said…
“But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” (Matthew 6:6)
Somebody is lying. Who is it? Would it be better to obey God or man?
Online4Him,
Did you read that short article about Ankerberg?
Truthandjustice1,
My point is that he hosted a program where the "issues" of the ECT document were discussed by his guests.
In Acts 1, the disciples were commanded to wait for the gift of the Holy Ghost in Jerusalem. While in Jerusalem “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren” (Act 1:14). Notice how the Holy Spirit wisely identified Mary as part of the assembly. Much is gained from her identification among the disciples.
Firstly, we are shown that they were praying with each other and not to each other. Secondly, we are shown that Mary needed to be obedient (tarry in Jerusalem), that she needed to receive the promise and the power to be a personal witness, and that she too needed to offer prayers and supplications unto God.
While in Jerusalem, they was all filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:4). A crowd assembled and Peter stood up with the eleven and began speaking. He referred to the Prophet Joel, “And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy” (Acts 2:18). He also said, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).
How did the crowd respond? “…When they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:37, 38).
There were two conditions to meet for receiving the gift of the Spirit. “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” That means that all the disciples, the women, Mary, and Jesus’ brethren had already met those requirements.
God promised to pour his Spirit out on his handmaidens. Mary called herself a handmaiden of God. “For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden…” (Luke 1:48). She no doubt received the Spirit that day as a handmaiden participant in the prophecy of Joel, but only because she had repented, being baptized for the remission of her sins at an earlier time.
She was blessed, but she had no immaculate conception. She needed a saviour and she just happened to know one, and that my friend is a beautiful story to be told.
Ankerberg. There's a good review here:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9607fea2.asp
Truthandjustice1,
There is an excellant DVD on the ECT document called :Do Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants Now Agree? You can check it out at - www.ankerburg.com.
You can even watch a portion of it on the same web site.
Truthandjustice1,
I have a nice library of both Protestant and Catholic material from which to read from. There are author’s who do support dialogue or unity with the RCC as you mentioned but that does not mean that I necessarily agree with everything they say. Both Catholics and Protestants are utilizing their resources and time to fight many social ills; however, I don’t believe they need to unite in order to do so. I will say this; ALL Christians WILL unite in the near future, maybe sooner than later but I do not believe this will be a good thing nor will it be of God.
Online4Him,
I can't completely figure you out because 1 moment your referring to anti-Catholic sites the next you are referring to protestants like Norman Geisler. If you read his book about evangelicals and Catholics then you can clearly see that he believes that evangelicals and Catholics should join forces. Then you get into his book about St. Thomas Aquinas, he can't rave enough about what of the greatest saints the Catholic Church has ever had in its midst. Geisler is definitely supportive of the dialogue between Catholics and evangelicals, but I'm still not sure if you are.
nope I don't have that book.
R.C Sproul ....check this out:
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/justification/sproul-just.htm
Do you have the book: Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical - From Debate to Dialogue on the Issues That Seperate Us - by Fr. John R. Waiss and James G. McCarthy?
I have that book as well; it is a well balanced approach to the issues that we have been discussing and a great study.
What do you think of his book: Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences?
Truthandjustice1,
What limitations are you referring to? I think we have exhausted our discussion on our views of what God meant when he spoke to Peter. As I mentioned earlier; first, this passage does not support the origin of the papacy. Second, many of the church fathers did not agree that this verse establishes Peter as the head of the church; next, the entire New Testament does not support the RC claim and finally, there is no historical evidence (documents) that support Peter as being the first pope.
I thought South Bend was a nice quiet community except for all of the college students going wild in the evenings . . . . . lol. This is the normative atmosphere for all universities; no point intended. I enjoyed the conversations with my family member’s peers and the actual campus was nice. I stopped in their bookstore and purchased the book, “Christian Apologetics” – by Norman Geisler.
Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Where in scripture does the “Spirit of his Son” direct us to cry, “Mother Mary?” If such scriptural direction cannot be found, then what spirit would direct one to cry, “Mother Mary?”
That's my point it isn't whether they agree or not, it is the teaching of the church - period. They probably didn't all agree about the grades they received either, but rules are rules. You are right about some protestant churches being good about keeping family values. The problem is that these protestant churches are usually independently run, so their limited to their own congregations. I do believe that God was referring to the universal church when he gave Peter the keys.
As for your family member graduating from Notre Dame - congrats it's a great school. I was really surprised to discover that the % of people in South Bend living below the poverty level is nearly 17%. What's your take on South Bend?
Truthandjustice1,
I think it is presumptuous to say that a "Protestant Church" would have done such and such; there are many sound conservative Protestant Churches that do not allow themselves to be swayed by the culture. There are some family members of mine who are "Catholic" but hardly agree with one another on many of the current social issues.
For example, I attended a family member's graduation at Norte Dame not too long ago and had an opportunity to meet many of his peers. They did not all agree with the RCC teachings and were divided on many issues. I say this to point out that there are many within both communions who do not support or believe everything that has or is being taught.
Their a special interest group within the Catholic Church:
the International Movement We Are Church asks Pope Benedict XVI for a personal meeting to launch an open, broad, constructive, and mutual dialogue on the current questions and problems in the Church. There was no reply to the first letter.
The reply to the second letter, on instruction from the Vatican's Secretary of State, recommended dialogue with local bishops and priests.
Please refer to my former statement by Pope John Paul II: You can't take a vote on morality. The Church isn't going to change its position because groups want to change. There are numerous so called Catholic groups. There is another one called catholics for choice,.... its a church of over 1 billion followers - it's hardly surprising. I'm not talking about groups wanting special meetings with the Pope to change church policy, I'm talking about church policy right now!! I think these groups also highlight the difference between how the Catholic and protestant churches handle such groups. A protestant church would have a meeting and try to find common ground, whereas the Pope says no! The word of God as evidenced in the scripture we read from in Church doesn't change, so why should the Church? The biggest complaint you will encounter about the Catholic Church is that it doesn't move with the times...God bless the Catholic Church for not moving with the times.
Tuthandjustice1,
I agree with everything you just said. The way one can tell the difference is humbly seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit as they study the Word of God. The Word is not that difficult to understand when one studies it in its context
I have to step out but will reply to any comments this afternoon. . . . . . Have a good one.
We have been discussing theology in the context of the Church and you can't divide the two. If you are attending a Church that tells you that you are right in your interpretation of the scripture and then another member comes up and says that Ellen White (reference to your last church) stated that it actually means something completely different and the church agrees then which is right?
Yes, but if you read the article I posted for Jester you will know that the Southern Baptist Church didn't prosecute their ministers involved in abuse because their churches are independently run. I'm not in any way, as Jester would have one believe, trying to dodge the Catholic priests abuse that took place - those priests and the Bishops who moved them to other churches will have to answer to God one day and I definitely would not want to be in their shoes on that day. I'll take a look at the site you listed. I hope it is better than the last site that informed me that the gospel was 6,000 years old.
Truthandjustice1,
Yes, there are many SOCIAL issues where many disagree with one another; however, we have been discussion Theology not social logy.
Truthandjustice1,
The Bible also makes reference to the prerequisite for unity; that is “TRUTH” as stated so clearly by Jesus Christ himself – “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy WORD is truth – John 17:17.
This is also from the same article you posted:
Southern Baptist Convention president Frank Page said he would not take part in a "smokescreen leftwing liberal agenda" and others have alleged there are political overtones, considering the line-up of speakers and the timing of the event - which takes place during the U.S. presidential election year.
The RCC is not as unified as you think it is; take a look at this site - www.we-are-church.org/.
You see it with the people who were on one of the comment boards we were on. They didn't say they converted because of the role of Mary or the saints in the Catholic Church. They stated they converted because of the reverence we have the Lord our God in the Eucharist and that they are tired of the divisions within their previous protestant churches. Increasingly protestant churches aren't even united on aspects as fundamental as the family (abortion, gay marriage). They hear the gospel spoken in our church and know that everyday that the gospel is read in a Catholic Church it is the same verses around the world - we have unity. Our stances about the family is the same around the entire world. For example, the Church's view on contraception is the same in Africa as it is the US. However, some will say that the Church should change their perspective in Africa because of AIDS and people in the US say the Church should change their opinion in the US because the idea seems outdated. Pope John Paul II stated you can't take a vote on morality. That's why I love Ron Paul's statement about John Paul II: "He was a man of God, not a man of the state. He was not a policy maker, but rather a steward of long-established Catholic doctrine. His mission was to save souls, not serve the political agendas of any nation, party, or politician".
Online4Him,
Unity within the Church is extremely important. The bible makes reference to a home divided can't stand. Look at the article just posted on Christian Post about the Baptists:
"For the first time in more than 160 years, Baptists in North America will have a major convocation next month and differences of race, politics, or legalistic interpretations of the Scriptures will not threaten their unity, said former president Jimmy Carter"
Basically they shouldn't discuss their interpretations of scripture which are different. That is my whole point, you can have members of the same church having 2 completely different opinions about scripture, but neither is wrong. That is how the homosexual movement, abortion movement, agnostics/atheist movements,....are dividing these churches because they enter and nobody wants to point out that they are wrong. As a result what do they do? They have people like Hillary Clinton etc come and speak at the churches as being authoritative in a religious setting which they are not. You look at the Catholic Church, not only are people like John Kerry and Giuliani not allowed to address a Catholic audience in a Catholic Church, but a lot of Catholic Churches will not even give them the Eucharist ...why?? because the scripture is clear and our churches aren't divided.
Truthandjustice1,
Do you really think that posting continual references about church growth really proves anything? This is the funniest notion of all. What do you think about the role of the Holy Spirit?
I still think this one was is funnier:
"When a protestant leader is caught in the same situation, he either resigns or is removed completely from leadership".
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=838
"The head of the world's one billion Catholics" :)
The bottom line is that as the protestants continue to divide and the pentecostals continue to rise their will be no unity amongst them. I really like the latest story here on Christian Post about the largest student group at the University of Wisconsin being evangelical - evangelical Catholic that is :). The Catholic Church continues to meet with groups and as they divide some will return to the Catholic Church, this is happening in both the protestant movement at the moment (most notably with the Anglicans and Lutherans) and with the Eastern Orthodox churches. The most promising as the University of Wisconsin article pointed out is the next generation. Today towns are being built tomorrow there will be cities ...they can have their separate mega-churches we are thinking on a larger Catholic scale.
http://www.winknews.com/news/local/12212951.html
http://vatican.usembassy.gov/embassy/
"As a global entity, the Holy See is influential on many issues and has far-reaching influence in even the most remote corners of the world". Now which Church is truly bringing the gospel to the whole world?
jester_in_the_Kings_court,
LOL. . . . . that is too funny!
Online4him,
I think you misquoted that last scripture. I'm pretty sure it says:
"For where two or three are gathered together in the Pope's name, there am I in the midst of them –Second Book of Opinions, Chapter 8, verse 6
To say, “you follow a church that has no authority” is absurd and unbiblical; did not Jesus say – “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them –Matthew 18:20.
You still fail to realize the role that the HOLY SPIRIT has in the lives of believers; this is evident because you continually insist that Christians need a magisterial council to understand scripture. Christians clearly understood and proclaimed the gospel long before the RCC came upon the world’s scene. There is only ONE authority in the church; that would be JESUS CHRIST who then told us that he would send the Comforter in his place – 1Corinthians 11:3 –
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ”.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body – Ephesians 5:23.
Jesus says in John 16:7-15 that the Holy Spirit would be sent to us as our GUIDE and that HE would guide us into all TRUTH; not the magisterial council.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his –Romans 8:9.
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God –Romans 8:14.
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 1Corinthians 3:16.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him -1John 2:27.
Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22, says, -
“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the SPIRIT saith unto the churches.”
Truthandjustice1,
The Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches have drafted a 46-page document as a first step towards a reunified church, The Times reports.
The ‘Ravenna Document’ proposes a united church with the Pope as the universal Primate, as he was before 1054, when the Eastern and Western Churches divided. However, the draft implies that he would be asked to RELINQUISH the doctrine of Papal infallibility. The proposals would also strengthen the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople considered first among equals among Orthodox leaders.
However, divisions within the Orthodox Church – especially between Constantinople and Moscow – mean that the document is unlikely to win the approval of the ENTIRE Orthodox community. The Russian Orthodox is the largest of the Orthodox Churches and is at loggerheads both with the Patriarch of Constantinople and with Rome. The Russian delegation WALKED OUT of the talks and was not present to agree the final text. (The Times and Bible Society Newswatch)
First, this document is not universal as you suppose which is evident from the above news report. This is no different from the ECT document; all of Protestantism does not accept this document as universal.
“OUR CATHOLIC LITURGY is a grand and harmonious manifestation of man’s homage to God. Its words and ceremonies and devotions are the growth of centuries. The essentials of our Church s worship have been embellished with a wealth of ritual observance, of which each detail is symbolic of the purpose for which that worship is offered. The explanation of these manifold practices is the object of this work.” [Preface from the Externals of the Catholic Church]
In our worship of God, we must remember, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).
From the ECC preface, notice the words: grand, manifestation of man’s homage, words, ceremonies, devotions, embellished, ritual observance, the growth of centuries. How many popes have there been, and how many laws, rituals, and observances have they erroneously passed down?
Our relationship with God is not to be a continual enlargement of one ritual after another. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:8, 9). “But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments” (Matthew 23:5). Has Catholicism enlarged the borders of their garments?
Inwardly, our enlargement should be Christ. Outwardly, our enlargement should be the image of Christ. In John 4:24 Jesus says, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” And in John 17:17 “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
Online4Him,
"Rome did not give us the canon as many catholic claim. It was the Eastern Orthodox Church that came up with the list of twenty-seven books first. The consensus by the Eastern Church was decided in 367, and the twenty-seven books were included in Athanasius' Easter letter from Alexandria. This decision was made twenty six years BEFORE Hippo..."
The Eastern Orthodox church now recognizes the Pope as the head of the unified Church. Trust me I have a deep respect for those in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church has been attempting from the beginning to re-establish the Church as a whole and now that it is coming the authority based on the canon is now clearly in the unified Catholic Church with the Pope as the head. It doesn't matter because now even with the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church together, as it was in the beginning, you still will follow a church that has no real authority to discern the canon. I'll stay with the Church that had the authority from the beginning. The Catholic Church + Eastern Orthodox Church with the Pope as the apostolic representative until God returns. Just like it was in the beginning will be how it will be in the end.
Truthandjustice1,
I will read your responding comments later this afternoon. . . . . . have a good one.
taj...
you said "Truth is he [Jesus] gave them no written document. He taught orally and the disciples handed on his teaching by the spoken word." Because He is the Word? And he did quoted (what we now call) old testament scriptures all the time. And even read from the holy scriptures in the temple. So there was written scriptures at that time. And, now through God's provision, we have the new covenant scriptures to live by as well.
Truthandjustice1,
Where did Jesus quote tradition?
Truthandjustice1,
The scriptural passages that you gave me simply fail to support the "present" doctrines of your church. The scriputres sufficiently give us enough knowledge to know what salvation consist of; so, a person can read the entire New Testament and come away with an understanding of the gospel (good news). Remember what Jesus says in John 16:13 -
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he seak: and he will shew you things to come.
Rome did not give us the canon as many catholic claim. It was the Eastern Orthodox Church that came up with the list of twenty-seven books first. The consensus by the Eastern Church was decided in 367, and the twenty-seven books were included in Athanasius’ Easter letter from Alexandria. This decision was made twenty six years BEFORE Hippo.
Eph 5:21-24 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
A wife is to submit to her husband just as the church is to submit to Christ. Does a wife submit to her husband or does she submit to one man over all husbands? Obviously, she submits to her own husband. That means as individuals in Christ, we have no preeminent head between Christ and us.
As individuals, we submit to Christ alone, just as a wife submits to her husband alone. In addition, as we submit to Christ, He will lead us in our submission to one another, helping one another with our individual gifts to accomplish His will. Though there are various ministries within the church, there is no one ministry over the entire church.
If you are truly sincere with this question then you need to get this book:
By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition (Paperback)
by Mark P. Shea
http://www.amazon.com/What-Authority-Evangelical-Discovers-Tradition/dp/0879738510/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197550314&sr=1-1
Sola Scriptura appeals to the modern mind because we are accustomed to the printing press. We can easily have the morning newspaper delivered to our doorsteps. Many folks vaguely imagine that Jesus entrusted the Bible whole to the apostles before he ascended into heaven. Truth is he gave them no written document. He taught orally and the disciples handed on his teaching by the spoken word. It took several decades for the 27 books of the New Testament to be written - and much longer for them to be officially recognized as inspired. But who had the authority to "canonize" them? There was intense controversy over which books belonged, e.g. some considered the Letter to the Hebrews doubtful, while others wanted to include the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles.
"By What Authority?" If the Bible does not guarantee itself, who can guarantee it? To answer that we can learn from Joseph and Mary. They found Jesus teaching in the Temple - an image of the visible Church. (cf. Lk 2: 46f.) To those still at the doors, the invitation is clear, "The Spirit and the Bride say, 'Come.'" (Rev 22: 17)
Truthandjustice1,
I will read your comments tomorrow. . . . . good night.
Truthandjustice1,
I know that as a Catholic you do not believe that the Scriptures are sufficiently able to teach salvation to the common man but Jesus did not think so. He always made statements like: How readest thou?, It is written, did ye never read in the scriptures?, and because ye know not the scriptures. Where does Jesus authoritatively quote tradition as his source of truth?
If you did a word search for “scriptures”, you would see that Jesus always quoted scriptures and never tradition. If it was Jesus’ common practice to quote and teach the scriptures; how much more should we be doing the same?
2Pe 3:16 -
also in all his epistles — Rom_2:4 is very similar to 2Pe_3:15, beginning. The Pauline Epistles were by this time become the common property of all the churches. The “all” seems to imply they were now completed. The subject of the Lord’s coming is handled in 1Th_4:13; 1Th_5:11; compare 2Pe_3:10 with 1Th_5:2. Still Peter distinguishes Paul’s Epistle, or Epistles, “TO YOU,” from “all his (other) Epistles,” showing that certain definite churches, or particular classes of believers, are meant by “you.”
in which — Epistles. The oldest manuscripts read the feminine relative (hais); not as Received Text (hois), “in which things.”
some things hard to be understood — namely, in reference to Christ’s coming, for example, the statements as to the man of sin and the apostasy, before Christ’s coming. “Paul seemed thereby to delay Christ’s coming to a longer period than the other apostles, whence some doubted altogether His coming” [Bengel]. Though there be some things hard to be understood, there are enough besides, plain, easy, and sufficient for perfecting the man of God. “There is scarce anything drawn from the obscure places, but the same in other places may be found most plain” [Augustine]. It is our own prejudice, foolish expectations, and carnal fancies, that make Scripture difficult [Jeremy Taylor].
unlearned — Not those wanting human learning are meant, but those lacking the learning imparted by the Spirit. The humanly learned have been often most deficient in spiritual learning, and have originated many heresies. Compare 2Ti_2:23, a different Greek word, “unlearned,” literally, “untutored.” When religion is studied as a science, nothing is more abstruse; when studied in order to know our duty and practice it, nothing is easier.
unstable — not yet established in what they have learned; shaken by every seeming difficulty; who, in perplexing texts, instead of waiting until God by His Spirit makes them plain in comparing them with other Scriptures, hastily adopt distorted views.
wrest — strain and twist (properly with a hand screw) what is straight in itself (for example, 2Ti_2:18).
other scriptures — Paul’s Epistles were, therefore, by this time, recognized in the Church, as “Scripture”: a term never applied in any of the fifty places where it occurs, save to the Old and New Testament sacred writings. Men in each Church having miraculous discernment of spirits would have prevented any uninspired writing from being put on a par with the Old Testament word of God; the apostles’ lives also were providentially prolonged, Paul’s and Peter’s at least to thirty-four years after Christ’s resurrection, John’s to thirty years later, so that fraud in the canon is out of question. The three first Gospels and Acts are included in “the other Scriptures,” and perhaps all the New Testament books, save John and Revelation, written later.
unto their own destruction — not through Paul’s fault (2Pe_2:1).
Truthandjustice1,
I have read the passages that you recommended to read; they are vague at best if you are using these texts to support current Catholic dogma. I have already commented on 2Thessalonians 2:15 and 2Peter 1:20, 3:15, 16 basically supports the fact that the Holy Spirit authored the word of God. If the Holy Spirit is truly dwelling in an individual then, “he will guide you into all truth” – John 16:13 and 1John 2:27 states, “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
1Co 11:2 -
Here the chapter ought to begin.
ye remember me in all things — in your general practice, though in the particular instances which follow ye fail.
ordinances — Greek, “traditions,” that is, apostolic directions given by word of mouth or in writing (1Co_11:23; 1Co_15:3; 2Th_2:15). The reference here is mainly to ceremonies: for in 1Co_11:23, as to the LORD’S SUPPER, which is not a mere ceremony, he says, not merely, “I delivered unto you,” but also, “I received of the Lord”; here he says only, “I delivered to you.” Romanists argue hence for oral traditions. But the difficulty is to know what is a genuine apostolic tradition intended for all ages. Any that can be proved to be such ought to be observed; any that cannot, ought to be rejected (Rev_22:18). Those preserved in the written word alone can be proved to be such.
2Ti 2:2 -
among — Greek, “through,” that is, with the attestation (literally, “intervention”) of many witnesses, namely, the presbyters and others present at his ordination or consecration (1Ti_4:14; 1Ti_6:12).
commit — in trust, as a deposit (2Ti_1:14).
faithful — the quality most needed by those having a trust committed to them.
who — Greek, “(persons) such as shall be competent to teach (them to) others also.” Thus the way is prepared for inculcating the duty of faithful endurance (2Ti_2:3-13). Thou shouldest consider as a motive to endurance, that thou hast not only to keep the deposit for thyself, but to transmit it unimpaired to others, who in their turn shall fulfil the same office. This is so far from supporting oral tradition now that it rather teaches how precarious a mode of preserving revealed truth it was, depending, as it did, on the trustworthiness of each individual in the chain of succession; and how thankful we ought to be that God Himself has given the written Word, which is exempt from such risk.
Irenaeus
"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).
...
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
Yes, it comes through apostolic tradition:
Papias
"Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition" (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
Please think about these verses tonight: 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Pet. 1:20, 3:15-16
Truthandjustice1,
You stated: Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle – 2Thessalonians 2:15.
Take a closer look at this verse and notice a small but very crucial word here: “HAVE”. This indicates that the oral traditions that were given by Paul were in the “past tense”; nothing here remotely suggests these traditions are the same traditions that Rome teaches today.
If you take a look at Luke 1:1-4; he is writing to Theophilus concerning “ALL THINGS” that had been delivered to “US”. So, again there is no mention of the “oral traditions” in his gospel which the RCC teaches today.
Truthandjustice1,
There is no paranoia here my friend; I was just trying to figure out which direction you were going. The last to postings were merely cut and paste from my discussions with Hesadanza (a Mormon). It was a matter of nipping that potential argument in the bud. No, I do not believe that the gospels are 6,000 yrs old; sorry to burst you anticipation. That site is not mine to regulate; so, you can’t believe everything you read.
Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
As for the gospels, we Catholics have no problem with them unlike the mormons. We don't need to add or subtract anything, we just as you know, also believe in the tradition handed down in the Church. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
hahahaa..your getting really paranoid. Sorry to disappoint you, but I was just wondering because that gospel site you listed before states that the gospels are 6000 years old, which is impossible and I wanted to know if you thought that as well. I mean there are a lot of mistakes on that gospel site you listed but the 6000 year old gospels is just so pathetically sad that I wanted to know what you thought. If you can't even get that right then you have big issues in my book.
It can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.
326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
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.
160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
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.
Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.
Truthandjustice1,
Feel free to do so my friend; however, it will probably continue to prove otherwise. To answer your question: How old are the gospels? I don't really know what direction you are going, but I am guessing that you are probably trying to state that the RCC gave us the cannon. Right?
If so; I disagree.
Gospel of Mark: +70 AD (conservative dating may be as early as 50)
Gospel of Matthew: +80-90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s although as early as the 40s)
Gospel of Luke: +80–90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s)
Gospel of John: +95–110 AD (conservative dating in the late 80s to early 90s)
Acts: +80–90 AD (conservative dating in 60s)
James: ca.70–200 AD (conservative dating ca.45–62 AD)
Colossians: +60 AD+
Corinthians: +57 AD
Ephesians: +65 AD
Hebrews: +60–90 AD
Epistles of John: +95-110 AD
Jude: +70–100 AD (conservative dating in the 60s or earlier)
First Peter: ca. 90–96 AD (conservative dating ca.64 AD)
Second Peter: 100–140 AD (conservative dating ca.64 AD)
Philemon: +56 AD
Philippians: +57–62 AD
Romans: +57–58 AD
Galatians: +54–55 AD (conservative dating in the late 40s)
Thessalonians: +50 AD
Timothy: +70–100 AD (conservative dating ca.60)
Titus: +70–100 AD (conservative dating ca.60)
Revelation: +81–96 AD (dating in the 60s as a minority view among conservatives)
No, I mean how old are the gospels, when were they written - 1,000 years - 10,000 years? A very straight forward historical question. The comment you took was out of context and all of Pope Gregory's writings clearly show that it was taken out of context. I'm not surprised since passages are taken out of context in the bible all the time. Unfortunately for you and others there are other writings from Pope Gregory compounded with the decisions he made that have stood the test of time that clearly point to the opposite. I'll place all his writings/actions against your paragraph that was taken out of context because if you read the link then you know what he was referring to.
Truthandjustice1,
Thank you for answering one of my initial questions. In reading the article that you recommended and I am not surprised at ITS conclusion. I don't agree with it; I believe that his statement is self evident and really does not need another clarification from the magisterium to come to a logical conclusion.
My other question was referring to the passages in the book of Revelation; what do they mean? But, since you have answered the first question, we can wait on further discussions regarding these texts.
To answer your question: How old is the gospel?
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, - 1Peter 1:20.
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel - Genesis 3:15.
The Gospel (Good News) was given from the very beginning.
“IT is interesting to note how often our Church has availed herself of practices which were in common use among pagans, and which owed their origin to their appropriateness for expressing something spiritual by material means. The Church and her clergy are " all things to all men, that they may gain all for Christ," and she has often found that it was well to take what was praiseworthy in other forms of worship and adapt it to her own purposes, for the sanctification of her children. Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those of pagan creeds; but they are the taking of what was best from paganism, the keeping of symbolical practices which express the religious instinct that is common to all races and times.” [Externals of the Catholic Church - Holy Water Chapter XXVII]
Catholic doctrine has misinterpreted 1 Co 9:19-22. Forgetting that Paul also stated that he was never without law to God and that he was always under the law to Christ! “Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen…” (Jeremiah 10:2). “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).
“Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you” (Acts 17:22, 23). Paul beheld their devotions, but he did not embrace them. He also taught them that God dwells not in temples made with hands, and neither is He worshipped with men’s hands (Acts 17:24, 25).
He continued to instruct them “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us…and…we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:27-30).
In light of God’s word, we see that God cannot truly be worshipped with our hands or represented by “gold, silver, stone, graven by art and man’s device.” That would include beads, silver, stone, medallions, statues, scapulars, incense, candles, etc. A little Leaven Leaveneth the whole lump.
That's an easy one, here is your answer:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm
Ok, now back to my question - how many thousand of years old is the gospel?
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF POPE GREGORY’S (590-604) LETTER TO JOHN, THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTATINOPLE?
“Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as God above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests”.
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XII, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Epistles of St Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle 33) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956, p. 226.
You can answer with a - "I need to research that or I don't want to talk about it or I have no answer". This is also not a trick question but a fact.
ok, what's the question again....I'm sure yours will be based on some scripture that we interpret differently and mine is a really easy question based on fact: how many thousand of years old is scripture (the bible)?
Truthandjustice1,
I find it ironic that you want me to answer your question when you have refused to respond to mine! You told me that you would answer my question at a later date. Well, I am still waiting.
Online4Him,
You and I will differ over scripture, but just let me ask you a factual question: how old is scripture? now I'm not trying to trick you as for the exact date. How many thousands of years old is scripture? Perhaps we could agree on that. Just one other note, I'm not asking this question to point out that the papacy was in place before the modern bible was put together. I just want to see if we can at least agree with how many 1000 of years scripture has been around.
Jester,
"When a protestant leader is caught in the same situation, he either resigns or is removed completely from leadership".
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=838
He is another good site: http://www.pro-gospel.org/
TAJ..
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/27/griffin.priestabuse/index.html
This post is in reference to my previous post concerning the Catholic Encyclopedia and what it said concerning the immaculate conception of Mary and her being “full of grace.”
By the Catholic Encyclopedia’s own admission, Immaculate Conception cannot be proven from scripture, “No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”
By the Catholic Encyclopedia‘s own instruction, Mary “Full of grace” is only an illustration. An illustration of what? An illustration of a doctrine that cannot be proven in scripture. Because of scriptural error, a belief system of goddess adoration has been created. Goddess? Yes and the Catholic Encyclopedia would seem to agree: “…full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul…”
That which Catholicism ardently defends (immaculate conception) is built upon sand. For “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).
A Catholic bible interprets Luke 1:28 as such: “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”
Here is a portion of what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about “full of grace” and the “immaculate conception of Mary.” The full page can be accessed at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm.
Immaculate Conception
The doctrine
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
Proof from Scripture
Genesis 3:15
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
Luke 1:28
The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.
Jester,
Are you serious or just reading and not understanding again?
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=838
taj..
Anytime there's an article on a fallen protestant leader, its the unbelievers that attack the faith...not christians. The same goes for when a Catholic leader falls, the unbelievers attack. But as I said before, when a Catholic priest is caughtin pedophilia, fornication, etc, etc, the Church covers it up, send the priest to another parish, and pretend that nothing happens. When a protestant leader is caught in the same situation, he either resigns or is removed completely from leadership.
And where in the Bible does it say that Mary was full of grace? Jesus was fully man and fully God. He was fully man because he was tempted with the same things we are (but he did not succumb). He was fully God so that His sacrifice could cover the sins of the world.
maranatha7593,
Good question, no I don't really mind what protestants have been saying because it's the same arguments without any real substance. If you think Jesus was put in a dirty glass (ie. somebody who wasn't 100% pure then that is your opinion). If you think the bible is wrong and that she wasn't full of grace then that is your opinion. 1 thing you have to keep in mind is that the people who are finding fault probably belong to different protestant faiths - in other words they wouldn't even agree amongst themselves. It is evident any time there is an article about a fallen protestant leader or a change in protestant doctrine, the same people attack the protestant faith. You make it sound like the protestants are a united Christian group - nothing could be farther from the truth.
taj1: Are you really just glad that lots of people have posted here, but you don't care that they are also exposing the false doctrine of Roman Catholicism?
"Immaculate, Mother of God, or Queen of Heaven" are all very offensive to me:
"Immaculate", because Mary was NOT without sin. She was a human being just like the rest of us, who allowed the Lord to use her to bring the Messiah into the world.
"Mother of God", because God has NO "mother". He is ETERNAL; He had no beginning and will have no end. To put Him under Mary in this way denies His eternal glory.
"Queen of Heaven", because there is NO "queen" in Heaven; there are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, angels, and believers. period.
Supremi Apostolatus Officio
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII - On Devotion to the Rosary - 1 September 1883
2. It has always been the habit of Catholics in danger and in troublous times to fly for refuge to Mary, and to seek for peace in her maternal goodness; showing that the Catholic Church has always, and with justice, put all her hope and trust in the Mother of God. And truly the Immaculate Virgin, chosen to be the Mother of God and thereby associated with Him in the work of man's salvation, has a favor and power with her Son greater than any human or angelic creature has ever obtained, or ever can gain. And, as it is her greatest pleasure to grant her help and comfort to those who seek her, it cannot be doubted that she would deign, and even be anxious, to receive the aspirations of the universal Church.
In light of scriptural truth, Pope Leo’s words are contrary to sound doctrine. According to scripture:
Mary is a false refuge: Ps 94:22 But the Lord is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.
Mary is a false peace: Phil 4:6-7 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
Mary is a false hope: Ro 15:13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.
Mary is a false trust: 1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Here is an article that some might find interesting http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/215441. It is about an exhibit that will supposedly have bones from the wise men that visited Jesus, fabric from Mary's veil, and a bone fragment from Elizabeth, etc. Because of the exhibit, one man said that it will be the closest that he will get to God in his physical lifetime.
To Online4Him: Thank you for your kindness. To God be the glory and the praise.
wilderness,
You definetly have a sound understanding of scripture my friend. Continue to show thyself approved! Also, Mary herself says in Luke 1:47 – “And my spirit hat rejoiced in God my SAVIOUR”. Mary needed a savior just like the rest of mankind.
The Catholic doctrine describes Mary in various ways: Immaculate, Mother of God, or Queen of Heaven.
This is contrary to what Jesus himself said in Luke 20:34-36, “And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”
Since Mary was given in marriage, that would make her a child of this world. Thus, as a child of this world, she had to submit to the judgment process of being accounted worthy to obtain heaven and the resurrection from the dead. To be accounted worthy, there must first be a reconciling from sin unto God through Christ and His blood alone.
According to Jesus, Mary would be a child of God and a child of the resurrection, not the mother of God or the Queen of heaven. She would not be immaculate, but in need of redemption as all the children of this world need. Any belief that keeps one from the cross is an enemy of the cross.
Truthandjustice1,
Wow; I am surprised that you have decided to address me again. I thought you had written me off; does this mean that you will finally answer my questions as you said you would?
TAJ...
Sorry, i tried watching the video and became sick. I'll have to try later. Especially, when he started talking about talking with Mary....
But what confuses me is that I have a relationship with God (without the Rosary, praying to saints, or mary, or confessing to a priest and being absolved, and doing penance, or ANYTHING doing with the RCC) that matches and even exceeds that of most Catholics. So, I'm trying to figure out what good the RCC is.
What do i care what Tolkein wrote or meant? I didn't read it as a philisophical book (which apparently you did). I read it as a great adventure. I suppose you use it as an addendum to the Bible...right along with the apocrypha. Is that a Pope approved book? Nice try in changing the subject though...
But I get my view of God from His Word. And from my prayer time. Not from someones fantasy/adventure novel. If I did that, I would be praying to Gandalf...not Jesus.
And Elvis? O my God...um....the king is dead...i hope you know.
But my King isn't. Once again, why would I care what a former drug using Rock and Roll star had to say about God or Catholic. Actually, maybe someone like that is a perfect spokesman for RCC. A dead, fat, druggie.
This Elvis song goes well with this article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xi3i5r9yhE&mode=related&search=
This is a great article and am grateful for all those who are posting. I'm glad that this article has remained popular since Tuesday and many people have had the opportunity to read it.
The following is from the Externals of the Catholic Church (1917):
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is a divinely instituted society, of which all the members profess the doctrine of Christ and are united under the teaching and rule of the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops subject to him, that thereby they may cultivate holiness and obtain salvation. [The Government of the Church - Chapter 1 The Pope]
My Comment: The word of God instructs us to prove all things and that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). In light of that, does scripture teach us that we are to subject ourselves to the pope that we may “cultivate holiness and obtain salvation?”
Discuss with scriptural references?
Jester,
Just because you read something from cover to cover doesn't mean that you understand it, as you clearly pointed out previously.
Jester,
I'll make it easier for you: what was Tolkien's purpose for writing the Lord of the Rings???
Jester,
You stated that you read the Lord of the Rings trilogy from cover to cover, can you please explain it to me? You seem to be a very well read person.
that's the difference between Catholic and Protestant. If a baptist pastor is caught in an affair, or pedophile, or homosexuality, there's an uproar. The pastor usually resigns or is taken out. In Catholic, they just move the priest to another parish and pretend it didn't happen.
When Protestant wants to incur changes in their belief it causes a split because there are many who go to those churches who actually study the Bible and know the truth. So they decide to remove themselves from erroneous teachings and false prophets.
The Catholic church just says "yeah, ok..whatever..see you at mass." Little robots blindly following a fallible man....right to the judgement of God.
actually this one is better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xi3i5r9yhE&mode=related&search=
It's time I listen to some Elvis gospel music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l75GprnQuOE
Online4Him,
Now that you have left the SDAs this might be a good site for you:
http://www.sda2rc.com/
These comment boards only prove one thing that regardless of whatever faith is mentioned the first reaction of many protestants is to protest - ie attack. As I mentioned before I don't need to talk about converts to Catholicism, growth, unity,....all I have to do is point to well known present day protestant leaders and many of them even though they aren't Catholic will defend the Catholic Church more than Catholics themselves. God Bless them!
Online4Him,
didn't you start off a Catholic then went to the Seventh Day Adventist and now you have left them? where are you now? where there any other churches in between?
RBB,
"As usual it's refreshing to see my brothers and sisters in Christ ready and willing to condemn before there is any proof. Not one willing to say anything nice, even of those that turned in all their information to this witch hunt on time?
I have to wonder...when standing in the presence of our Lord at the Judgment Seat, are you going to want this kind of judgment for yourselves?"
I know it's always interesting to watch them attack each other, if only they were unified. The same people who are attacking Catholicism here will turn around and attack their own churches...what was I saying again about being divided?? I'm surprised after all these years that you are still frustrated by it, hasn't history proven anything? As for HyperionOverseer's comment about Guy Fawks, isn't the last PM of England now converting to Catholicism. There have been statements that he wanted to convert when he was PM but the RCC said to wait. Oh wait I guess that is too recent, what were you saying about Guy Fawks again?
Hey Truthprevails,
I hope I didn't mislead you into thinking that I was agreeing with Catechism. I got the impression that you might have thought that. Anyway, I should have made myself more clear. I quoted Romans 10:17 after the Catechism as a rebuttal to it.
To Wilderness you wrote:
1192 Sacred images in our churches and homes are intended to awaken and nourish our faith in the mystery of Christ. Through the icon of Christ and his works of salvation, it is he whom we adore. Through sacred images of the holy Mother of God, of the angels and of the saints, we venerate the persons represented. [Catechism of the Catholic Church]
My response: Firstly, God doesn't have a mother. And Catholic Church catechism cannot overrule what the Scripture about worshiping idols & images. Only Catholics find it more imp. to abide by the so called Catechism than the Scriptures. It doesn't have a stand in the word of God. No wonder Catholic Church takes tradition and the word as two important pillars of their faith.
1192 Sacred images in our churches and homes are intended to awaken and nourish our faith in the mystery of Christ. Through the icon of Christ and his works of salvation, it is he whom we adore. Through sacred images of the holy Mother of God, of the angels and of the saints, we venerate the persons represented. [Catechism of the Catholic Church]
The Word of God: Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
rubinlueski -
<< How was the creator created? >>
Your question is a category mistake – much like asking Where is the bachelor’s wife? or What does the color blue taste like? You don’t make the unmade; God is an uncaused being, not a self-caused or caused being. He created space and time and exists outside of it, but certainly can enter into it if He so desires. Is He in the universe? Certainly – He is omnipresent - much like a thought is in a sentence.
If ‘something’ exists, then something must have always existed because something doesn’t come from nothing. You either have an impersonal or personal eternality, and since the universe (the impersonal eternality choice) had a beginning, it isn’t eternal. Any talk of mulit-verses or collapsing universes has about a teardrop full of real evidence, so it’s hard to believe in those explanations. The best logical conclusion is God.
Your appeal to particle physics and other like disciplines may yield some explanations – true; however it is nothing but an appeal-to-future informal logical fallacy at this point. Early macroevolutionists said similar things (the future will provide answers), but instead what happened was the death of beliefs like gradualism and the acceptance of punctuated equilibria and other similar ‘abrupt’ theories of origins.
But in all seriousness, I’d love to see your thoughts on the biggest question of all time: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?
maranatha7593, wow, thanks for clearing that up for me. I guess now the cosmologists and particle physicists trying to figure all this out can now sit back andd take int easy.
How do know all of this stuff? How was the creator created? How does the creator exist outside time and space. Does that mean the creator is not in the universe? Then where? How, I dont get it. Why do created beings need a place to live?
Truthandjustice
the reason for diplomacy with the Catholic Church was because of its FEARSOME power
I wouldnt be surprised if the Pope had a few nukes at his disposal!
HE EVEN TRIED TO DESTROY PARLIAMENT and displace Protestantism
LOOK UP GUY FAWKS, or V For Vendetta for details on the Pope's murderous scheme.
maranatha7593,
Well said!!!
taj1 (and any other Roman Catholics): I saw in the newspaper today that it was on this day in history in 1854 that Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which holds that MARY was "free of original sin from the moment of HER own conception". WOW
Why do you suppose he felt free to contradict and add to the Holy Bible when he proclaimed that??? I am shocked and amazed that Catholics living back then accepted his pronouncement as "gospel truth". But then, isn't papal "infallibility" another of RC's teachings?
RBB,
You will soon come to realize that taj1 will continue to rant on about church growth, political figures, protestant churches which really have nothing to do with biblical truth. He continues to only discuss issues that he thinks grant his church some pre-eminence but again this proves nothing. Do not ask him to respond to biblical passages, quotes from certain Catholic figures who totally disagree with his churches’ current dogmas, and above all, stay away from the book which Jesus personally pronounced "a blessing to all who read it" and was given to his servants, "to shew. . . .things which must shortly come to pass". I am referring to the book of Revelation; God forbid we should study this book. Maybe by doing so we might gain some insight to what is really going on. Perhaps this is the reason that the RCC did everything in her power to keep the Word of God from being translated to other languages during the dark ages. Thank God they did not secede.
Mary was just a woman. If she hadn't accepted the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and confessed that he is Lord, she is in hell now.
The Pope is just another man. A CEO of a major corporation. And for him to allow people to put him on a pedestal is unChristian. Even Paul, one of th greatest of apostles, refused to be called anything but a servant. The Pope is the envelopment of pride and worldly power.
The "saints" are dead and can't hear your prayers. Only God (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) hear and answer prayers.
Priests aren't the ones who can forgive sins. Only God can. To teach otherwise humanizes God and makes him one of us. We can forgive sins that are commited against us, but that's it.
The practice of Rosary is anti-Biblical.
The practice of penance is anti-Bible, anti-grace, and anti-forgiveness.
Basically, the Catholic church is a big conglomerate with a bunch of practices to put God's children under a yoke of bondage.
Yes, this cult will continue to grow, eventually heading into the "One World Religion" which will herald the Anti-Christ's arrival. And I would not be at all suprised if it were a Pope.
The Creator came first. He had no beginning, will have no end (the definition of eternal), exists outside of time and space, and did/does not require a "place to live in". We created beings do require a place to live in.
What came first a creator OR universe?
If a creator, how did it exist without a place to exist in?
If the Universe, how was it created without a creator?.
How was the creator created, by another creator?
If by another creator, how was that creator created?
Is there a creator(s)?
Eventually cosmology and particle physics will answer those questions, stay tuned friends.
If even a sinner wears this badge through life, not presumptuously relying on it as a miraculous charm, but trusting in the power and goodness of Mary, he may hope that through her intercession he will obtain the graces necessary for true conversion and for perseverance. [The Externals of the Catholic Church - Scapulars I Chapter XXXIII]
How could anyone give such false hope to a sinner?
Let's look at the current leading Republican group of candidates, what do they all have in common? I don't care if it is Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney,... their campaign managers are Catholic. What was one of the first things Ronald Reagan did after all the evangelicals got behind him and helped him win the presidency? establish official diplomatic relations with the Catholic Church? why? because the Catholics who supported him were a united group and spreading the Church and teaching of Christ's word was their true goal. Did the evangelicals complain? sure you can find on the internet how they went to Washington DC. What happened? they were all divided and couldn't get anything done about it. The message is clear - the protestants are divided group and irregardless of their numbers their threat to the growth of the unity of the Catholic Church is minimal. What the Christian Post has regularly been publishing is articles about how one wing of a certain protestant church in a certain country has gone against the teachings of their international church and its forcing their international church to change policy and people are leaving - that's the reality.
Your comments are about the priest shortage and I agree with them, but why is this important?? because the Church's growth is growing faster than the amount of priests. The harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few. As you read from an early posting on Christian Post, it's the Southern Baptist president who is lamenting the numbers decreasing in his denomination (the largest protestant denomination in the US). The growth of the pentecostal/ evangelical/non denominational movement is really not a concern because these are divided groups and even to a large extent Baptists because their churches are individually run. You can see it during elections or when the Pope has meetings about unity, you get a chance to see how fractured these groups are. You can search well known protestant names like Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, Jack Van Impe,... and Catholicism and you discover a lot of protestants complaining about their Rome ward turn. The reality of the situation is that the protestant movement has always been very divided and they turn on each other and divide further - has history proven nothing? Do you think that was God had in mind when he gave the keys of the Church to Peter? The Catholic Church has stood the test of time and like it or not the good and faithful servant will be the largest Christian church in the world when God returns. Actually as a united Church it continues to grow while previous united protestant churches continue to divide. That's the reality and everybody knows it!
I clearly showed that from the articles you posted the Church was increasing. NONE of them showed that the members of the Church was declining.
https://americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2236
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=23906
http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=10812
RBB,
Your hilarious you make it sound like the Catholic Church isn't the largest Christian denomination in the world which they always have been for 2,000 years and it has been a growth that now easily exceeds 1 billion people!!!
FullGospel - Speaking for myself, all we're doing is having a spirited debate on some of the different points of Christian denominations. It doesn't mean I don't love brothers and sister when I disagree with them. This is a discussion area and we're discussing :)
"http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/30/1938162.htm
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6881
In Australia Catholicism is still the #1 religion statistically speaking, wow wasn't Australia originally a British colony and protestant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia#Religions_and_beliefs'
Your first link is about building a Catholic school. No increase in Catholics there, simply kids going to school. I don't know about where you live but where I am plenty of kids go to Catholic schools who aren't Catholic, to get away from the drugs, gangs, and other horrors of public school.
Your second has a story about the 129 seminarians studying for the priesthood in Australia. I don't think it's going to make much of a difference in the priest shortage, and I don't see how it proves that Catholicism is growing like you claim.
Australia was originally a prison colony. I don't believe it had a religion.
Your link to Wikipedia (a site known for it's wrong information by the way) claims that Catholics are the largest percentage in term of religion. How does that prove a growing church?
truthandjustice1 -You said "In the US, those dioceses known for close adherence to Catholic moral teaching and loyalty to the Pope are also producing the greatest number of priests and women religious". What about Biblical teaching (God's actual word) and loyalty to God. This statement of yours really says it all.
As to these things producing the greatest numbers of priests and women religious, if you are still producing a minimal number, not enough to keep parishes open, or where churches have to double up, and there is a drastic priest shortage, then the "greatest number" doesn't mean much does it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2003-11-10-priest_x.htm
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/05/02/priests/
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020111_A_Manufactured_Priest_Shortage.html
http://www.snapnetwork.org/priest_stories/shortage_how_bad.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/06/18/catholic.priest/index.html
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=5136
These are links to articles about the priest shortage. Don't worry none of them are Protestant. None of them feel that the priest shortage is being caused by the increasing numbers of Catholics. Some are a little dated, but since the situation has remained the same, or gotten even worse, I didn't feel that was a problem.
truthandjustice1 - I didn't expect you to agree with anything said in the articles so I wasn't disappointed. You say that the articles are from Protestant sites. One of the articles was from a secular site, one a pro-life site, one a secular newspaper, and two from Catholic sites. None of these were Protestant sites. I'm very disappointed that again you seem to be trying to mislead.
You say that you have links showing your claim that the Catholic church is growing. Please give them. Oh and since I'm evidently not supposed to give Protestant sites, please make sure they're not Catholic sites.
We all know that there are some Anglicans drifting over to the Catholic church due to their turning from scripture, no need to include articles about that. ( It just occurred to me....don't you find it interesting that people are leaving a church because they feel the denomination is no longer upholding scripture, but some are going to a denomination that doesn't believe in scripture, just in a different way. ) The only real way a Church grows is from bringing new Christians to Christ, that would be the kind of increase numbers worth actually talking about.
The Scapular of Mount Carmel:
The Scapular Privileges. The above promise is what is known as the " first privilege " of the Carmelite order, and it amounts to this: That all who out of true love and veneration for the Blessed Virgin constantly wear the scapular in a spirit of faith after they have been properly invested in it, shall enjoy the protection of the Mother of God, especially as regards their eternal welfare. [The Externals of the Catholic Church - Scapulars I Chapter XXXIII]
The word of God speaks otherwise:
Ps 62:7 In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God.
2Th 3:3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.
Brothers and sisters in Christ, could we get back to loving one another as Jesus loved us?
I read this article from Benedict 16th that emphasizes the Christian community, and here we are in this thread, trying to tear each other apart. All the misunderstandings are there, all the usual suspects on both sides.
For me, I believe Jesus. He said He'd found a Church that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against (Mt. 16:18). Ever. St. Paul said there was one faith, one set of beliefs given to us by Jesus (Eph. 4:5). And St. Paul said that the foundation of truth for Christians was the Church that Jesus founded (1 Tim. 3:15).
Historically, you can read the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, who learned Christianity from John. In 110 A.D. he gave the set of beliefs that were handed down by the Apostles and Jesus a name. And Jesus prayed that we be one, perfectly one (Jn. 17:21, 23). So, let us work for that.
My denomination needs all other denominations, and visa versa. We're one body and the eye can't say to the hand "I don't need you." A house divided against itself cannot stand, so let's use the full armor of God to fight the good fight against those who seek to remove all semblance of God and Jesus from society, OK? We're all on the same side, in the same family, following the same Savior with the same Father.
If we are the body, let's start acting like a body. Please.
truthandjustice,
more priests? MORE YOU SAY?
Do you even listen to yourself?*chuckles*
So far i have heard NOTHING but molestations from priests, in fact one former catholic teacher is pregnant with her student's child.
this is truly commonplace knowledge, it makes me even sadder that these people swear loyalty to the POPE and call him the head of the church
which is one of the biggest signs of the end times, as the Pope is an Anti-Christ, and the Council of Trent proves it over and over and over again!
WHAT THIS WORLD NEEDS ARE PASTORS, because bible says that a church is made of a pastor and his deacons.
Priests? false prophets without any shred of doubt, that system died when Jesus did, and remained dead after He came back from the dead. I do hope you didnt mean any of that you said because.
If youre not swearing your loyalty to God with Jesus as your savior, then what do you have? I'll tell you only because i used to swear my loyalty to the Pope,
you'll have NOTHING, but sorrow, the same as i used to.
Do i need to explain to you also about Guy Fawkes?
5th article - most convincing, although it wouldn't dare get into worldwide numbers of Catholics because the number has risen. However, I agree with the article about the one huge problem the church is facing - we need more priests! the numbers are increasing but there isn't enough priests. The priest shortage wouldn't be a problem if the numbers weren't increasing but they are. Marriages, baptisms, ...decreasing because there are fewer priests. However, God will protect his church and as the article you so kindly posted noted the more conservative branches of the Catholic Church are increasing. Isn't it ironic that at a time that the future leaders of the Catholic Church are increasingly becoming more conservative that many protestant religions are becoming more liberal with their views and their leadership.
4th article, from 1994, about a reduction in numbers in a town in 1994 in Australia!!!
Here's some 2006, 2007 growth for Australia, notice the date:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/30/1938162.htm
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6881
In Australia Catholicism is still the #1 religion statistically speaking, wow wasn't Australia originally a British colony and protestant? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia#Religions_and_beliefs
3rd article: nearly 80 per cent of Spaniards say that they belong to the Church. The birth rate is dropping in Spain because they are not following the teachings of the Church, but is that the Church's fault? still the article states that 80% of the population still identify themselves as Catholic. Ok, onto article #4. I hope one of these articles strengthens your point because they haven't so far, unless we are not reading the same ones.
Interesting both articles state that the Catholic population as a whole increased, and noted that the more faithful areas to the teaching of the Church and the Pope had the greatest increase. RBB, these first two articles only point out what I've said from the outset: the shortage of priests has resulted in less marriages being performed etc. but the numbers are clearly up according to the protestant websites you gave. Now let me read the other links. Oh and one more note, the sites you gave are dated now, it doesn't include the influx of Anglicans that has been occurring. One should also have to factor that now the Orthodox church recognizes the Pope as the head of the United Church. Thus, the second article is becoming more accurate everyday - the Church is becoming more conservative and numbers continue to increase. Ok, now I'll read the other ones.
RBB,
I could produce other links, but let's just use your links at the moment and see what they state. Let's start with the first two:
The report says that the Catholic population has increased 6 per cent in the UK. The U.S. Catholic population rose by more than a million last year. The 1983 directory, which listed 18,839 parishes, reported a Catholic population of almost 52.1 million, or one parish per 2,765 Catholics. The figures in the 2006 directory indicate the ratio has now grown to one parish per 3,640 Catholics. The Catholic population rose about 1.3 million last year, to 69,135,254, the directory said.
The British statistics, however, only confirm what is happening in every country that has embraced post-Christian secularist values and the so-called “sexual revolution.”
Declining Catholic numbers can be correlated closely to decline in orthodox practice and preaching. The grim national statistics are often reversed in those areas and communities where traditional moral teaching, styles of worship and adherence to otherworldly values are prominent.
A case in point is the order of sisters founded by Mother Theresa, the Missionaries of Charity, who have grown rapidly especially in countries suffering severe material poverty. Traditional communities of priests such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter are also refuting the trend with their biggest problem being finding funding to build larger seminaries to accommodate the number of applicants.
In the US, those dioceses known for close adherence to Catholic moral teaching and loyalty to the Pope are also producing the greatest number of priests and women religious.
yeah Prophet, the web site, so what. why was it that bush who was an advocate of the Vietnam War, and cheney who too was for the Vietnam War, had the chance to serve they both found ways to get out. Presumebly, two others had to go in their place and might have been killed. bush through family connections was able to secure a position in the Texas Air National Guard which was a ticket out of the war. These two chickenhawks that claim religion, are in fact war mongers and too concerned about their own hides to actually serve when they had the chance. Read the history of the Middle East and you will learn how the West in general and the US in particular have made the ME into the mess it is today. bush and cheney have made it worse. Yeah, good Christians, I hope bush isn't your best exaample. Makes one wonder about the judgement of evangelicals that still largely support these two fools.
Rubinlueski, (and everyone else)
check out www.isaiahscry.blogspot.com for some eye-opening info on President Bush
The Scapular of Mount Carmel. Do we Catholics believe that this vision was vouchsafed to the holy Carmelite? We may but we are not obliged to do so. There is little or no historical evidence that the small scapular was known so far back as the thirteenth century; in its present form, at least, it is probably of much later origin. Nevertheless, the account of St. Simon’s vision remains a pious and praiseworthy tradition; that is, it is quite credible that the Saint was super-naturally assured of the protection of the Blessed Virgin for all who should wear this badge. This vision has been accepted as genuine by several Pontiffs, and has been cited by them as a reason for the granting of indulgences to those who wear the scapular. [The Externals of the Catholic Church - Scapulars I Chapter XXXIII]
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
The Scapular of Mount Carmel. In describing the various kinds of scapulars we shall first consider that which is best known the " brown scapular " of our Lady of Mount Carmel. A beautiful story is told of its origin. In the thirteenth century there lived at Cambridge, in England, a holy man named Simon Stock, the Superior-General of the Carmelite order. He was a man of such sanctity, wisdom and prudence that he was afterwards canonized by the Church. He is said to have declared that on the sixteenth of July, 1251, the Blessed Virgin appeared to him and presented him with a scapular, telling him that it was a special sign of her favor; that he who dies clothed with it shall be preserved from eternal punishment; that it is a badge of salvation, a shield against danger and a pledge of her protection. [The Externals of the Catholic Church - Scapulars I Chapter XXXIII]
Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
1 Peter 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
2 Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light
President bush is supposedly a christian, yet has brough untold misery and cruelty to the people of Iraq. He has destroyed their country and is responsible for the death and injury of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. But let me guess, he is a believer so he is going to the promise dland....LOL....
truthandjustice1 - Actually I've read a number of Scott Hahn's books, the "Surprised by Truth" Books, "Rome Sweet Rome" ( I put it separately since Kimberly Hahn co-wrote it), "Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic" and others...........you get the picture.
I'd be interested in what kind of actual research you've done to make sure what you are believing is the truth. Of course the only book that really matters when one is talking about the truth of God is the Bible, so my number one question would be...have you read the Bible (and I mean the whole Bible, not just chosen passages here and there)
truthandjustice1 -
You wanted articles, here are just a few:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/catholicchurchinbritainbeingkept.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06070503.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article684245.ece
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1994/mar1994p3_819.html
http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Decline.html
I haven't had the chance to read all of these just skim them, but you get the picture. This took about 5 minutes, imagine what's out there. One of these talks also about the priest shortage, but that would be another search.
By the way, I have been under the impression that you don't really read what other people write, you just plow ahead only seeing what you want to see........if you had read my posts you would know that I'm a little old grandmother, not "he".
I'm sure you will come up with another excuse why this doesn't prove what you don't want to see, or will try to twist what I've written, but if you have to resort to that kind of falsehood to prove what you believe, can it really be the truth?
Truthandjustice1,
You forgot to read the - "Catholic Concerns" article which is right here on the Christian Post. This article talks about the struggles of your church in the US. Why is it that you like to post your comments and questions but refuse to answer questions that are directed to you? You did mention that you felt that some of your answers were "insufficient”; if so why continue to post anything? You are starting to take things to personal which you shouldn’t. I personally apologized to you earlier if I have offended you; but no reply. You have even stopped addressing me when postings your indirect comments; not cool. If you cannot or will not answer some questions, just say so. It would have been nice to hear a - “I don’t know, I have to research that, or I have no answer.” Hopefully, you will not write everyone off that you disagree with.
RBB, if I was to supply links to protestant ministers etc who converted to Catholicism and their reasons you'd be reading for months/years. Actually as a Catholic I don't even need to point to convert links I could find many with Billy Graham, and a lot of other well known protestant leaders right now, and then you factor in all the protestant leaders who want unity with the Catholic Church...how much time do you have? well I guess I'll jut wait until you come up with your stats to show the decline in membership of the Catholic Church first.
Is everybody ready for the excuse that what he meant by declining was in a few countries here and there, but he wasn't talking about the US or worldwide as a whole. He'll probably come up with some countries where the Catholic Church already had a huge % of Catholics and now they have dropped but still make up more than 50% of the population. I'm looking forward to his response.
The Pope’s Infallibility. That the successor of St. Peter may preserve the faith of Jesus Christ free from any taint of error, that the shepherd may guide the flock aright, he has been endowed with a wonderful power and privilege. He is infallible in matters of faith and morals. That is, when by virtue of his Apostolic office he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he speaks without error or danger of error, being preserved from it by the Spirit of God, Which " teaches all truth " and abides with the Church forever.
Non-Catholics often ask: "Does this mean that the Pope cannot make a mistake ? " Others go further, and inquire : " Do you Catholics believe that the Pope cannot sin?" The answer to both questions is, No. The Pope is subject to error, like other men. He can sin, even as we, for he is human.
He is infallible only when he is speaking as the supreme teacher and head of the Church, and only when he is defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals and imposing it upon the whole Church to be accepted and held by all the Church’s members. He has no immunity from error in other things. He may advocate historical or scientific views that are absolutely false. He may write books which may be full of inaccuracies and misstatements.
God protects him from error only when he is exercising his office of sovereign teacher and lawgiver regarding matters which are the doctrine of the Church, whether these be of faith or morals. Such doctrines thus proposed are the teaching of the Church of Christ as soon as the Pope defines them; and any one who refuses to accept them thereby ceases to be a member of the Church. [Externals of the Catholic Church - The Government Of The Church: Chapter 1 The Pope]
This teaching is extremely false and dangerous. Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 1 Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
Finally a direct challenge based on facts to see who is telling the truth...you have the whole internet RBB...good luck.
1) show me links that the Catholic Church worldwide or US membership is declining ...let's see who is being honest.
After reading truthandjustice1's post about the Catholic church's "growth" I decided to do some Googling and see what I could see. Apart from finding a lot of articles about the decline in membership of the Catholic church, I found a letter written by a man who was leaving the Catholic church. Not only is the letter very interesting to read since he is obviously very knowledgeable and articulate, but the reason he came to know that the Catholic church was teaching falsehood was also very interesting. He was the Director of RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults - basically the classes you go through to become a Catholic when you're an adult) and so was in a position where he had to look at scripture and church doctrine in depth. What he found was that the church was not teaching the truth of Christianity either according to the Bible or the early church fathers. This is the link to the letter:
http://www.sxws.com/charis/witness2.htm
Truthandjustice1,
Please, enlighten us with your take on these passages from Revelation, if you will.
The Catholics are doing a better job of spreading the good news than we are, the Catholics are continuing to grow,....I guess it's time we better start looking for a reason in revelations. I guess we shouldn't look to the obvious - many protestant churches are now completely loosing their way as many of the articles on Christian Post have pointed out and people are returning to the Church that has been here for 2,000 years. Nah, that couldn't be it let's keep looking at revelations because looking at the direction of our own churches and the splintering that is occurring in them couldn't be the problem.
Perhaps it is a little premature to start discussing Eschatology (last day events) but the book of Revelation speaks of a time of DECEPTION that will proceed before Jesus returns –Revelation 12:9, 13:14, 18:23, 19:20, 20:3, 20:8, 20:10.
Could it be that we are beginning to see the early stages of Modern Babylon (all religions pushing for unity)? Hmmmmmmmmmmm, I think so.
"As RBB points out the the sin of Protestants is to reduce the status of the church in favour of the individual."
I don't think I'd put it that way but if the idea you're trying to get across is that the individual's relationship with God is more important than the "church's" then you are right. Christ died so that we could have that relationship with God, so that we wouldn't have to go through the priests (as Catholics do), constant sacrifices (as Catholics do), and depending on our own goodness and works instead of the Lord's sacrifice (as Catholics do). This is all clearly spelled out in the Bible.
"believers may choose which suits them best"
Again sadly misreperesenting what I said. If you're unable to understand what I'm saying please let me know so I can explain it in easier terms. Believers may choose which church teaches God's word and which teaches the made-up traditions of men.
I would hope that "photche" and "muggleborn" who are both, I believe, converts to Catholicism would take note of the apparent need of "truthandjustice1" to twist what I say. Is this really the kind of thing that you think that a Christian should be doing? Or that would be necessary if there was any real point to make.
"I hope that one day the Pope allows for married priests..."
God forbid you should change what the Catholic traditions dictate! After all, it is the verbal traditions past down from generation to generation. Or are those traditions really as set in stone as you claim they are?
Duke Divinity School for the first time in their history will now teach Catholicism, they justified the move by emphasizing that the southern US is becoming increasingly Catholic. The south, which used to be predominantly anti-Catholic, is now becoming more Catholic. The problem, as in a lot of other areas, is the shortage of priests. I hope that one day the Pope allows for married priests because the growth of Catholicism is growing quickly everyday. I hope when the Pope comes in April and gives a talk in the stadium in Washington DC and Yankee Stadium in NY that he addresses the huge growth of Catholicism in the US.
As RBB points out the the sin of Protestants is to reduce the status of the church in favour of the individual. The fragmentation of Protestant denominations has produced a spiritual marketplace in which churches compete for believers and in which believers may choose which suits them best. The balance has thus swung from God addressing us to ourselves choosing which denomination best satisfies our needs. Because self assertion is the essence of Enlightenment thinking we experience no anomaly in this. Isn't that the reason you left the protestant church?
The Rosary
The Mysteries. The Incarnation of our Blessed Lord is the central point in the world’s history. The Son of God became man that He might redeem us; and the meditations connected with the Rosary are made on the principal events in that work of redemption, in order that honor may be paid to Him as our Saviour, and to His Blessed Mother as the most important auxiliary in affecting our salvation. [Chapter XXXII The Externals of the Catholic Church]
According to the Catholic teaching, Mary is the most important auxiliary (agent, helper) in affecting (touching, stirring, moving to emotions) our salvation. This is a false doctrine replacing the blessed work of the Holy Spirit.
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
John 7:38, 39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Hurray, Communism is Crack, and only the lost become addicted to government.
I am a Christian but I am not sure if the Pope can say that. Think of the Protestant Reformation, the Cruades and what Adolph Hitler was doing to the Jewish people, he tried to use the banner of Christianity. That examples of religion are however done by radicals who skew Christianity negatively.
truthandjustice1 - I'm really not sure why you would say that I "discovered there are more articles that deal with Catholicism then deal with any other denomination", when I made it plain to you that I found quite the opposite.
I'm very disappointed that you would misrepresent me that way.
photche - I respect your opinion as well :) As I see it the best way to chose a church that's closest to the real Christian church is to read the scripture, which is the description of that church. The Bible is the only way to tell what is real and what isn't. It's the only concrete truth that we have. When you have the Word of God saying one thing and a church doing something that is totally different from that word, that is how to know that church isn't right. That is why it's so important to follow the Bible as the sole authority. If a church or denomination goes against the word of God, then you know it's false. The problem with the idea of going back to the Catholic church as being original is that as you yourself have said... it wasn't the original, it was what evolved from it.
What do you make of the lack of any kind of correlation between the Bible and the idea of Peter's being the head of the church, the bishop of Rome, the belief that Mary was considered the "mother of God", held an exalted position in the church, that we should pray to her as a co-mediator, or that she was bodily taken into heaven. Don't you think that if any of this had happened it would have been recorded in scripture?
May I ask, have you read the Bible? I ask because of two wonderful ladies that I know. Both have come from the Catholic church to Biblical Christianity in the last couple of years. In both cases they started reading the Bible, saw what a difference there was between the two and ended up leaving the Church. (Just so you don't think that in order to be wonderful you have to have converted.....we also have a wonderful Catholic lady who belongs to our knitting for charity group)
One last thing... as far as denominations go. For many of us we consider ourselves just Biblical Christians. Denominational names don't really mean much any more. At the moment I'm attending both a Baptist church and a non-denominational church (yes both, don't ask :)...actually the pastors are friends....but I digress. The denomination of a church doesn't matter. What matters is what is being preached, what is being done, and how close it is to scripture, that is the only yardstick.
photche,
Congratulations on your conversion to Catholicism, you join a growing number who are returning to the Catholic Church. I think your reasons are very good ones, don't get too frustrated debating on this site - remember it isn't a Catholic site, but it is a very good site with interesting articles. As RBB discovered there are more articles that deal with Catholicism then deal with any other denomination - a simple search of the archives will show that is evident. A lot of people on here might come across as anti-Catholic but some have a false view of Catholicism. Jester read the Tolkien trilogy from cover to cover and didn't see that Tolkien was basing it on his Catholic faith, prophet loved the Passion of the Christ and didn't realize that the movie was based on Catholic doctrine. I think a lot of people who are anti-Catholic have a false view. Fulton Sheen said it best when he wrote: Protestants hate what they think is Catholicism.
“Therefore, when the Rosary was invented, it was composed of the Our Father and the first part of the Hail Mary only, repeated probably much as we use them at the present day.” [Chapter XXXII The Externals of the Catholic Church]
In various papal briefs it has been described as " the salvation of Christians," " the dispeller of heresies," " the scourge of Satan " and " the promoter of God s glory." [Chapter XXXII The Externals of the Catholic Church]
According to the Externals of the Catholic Church, the Rosary (the scourge of Satan, the Book of Life, the promoter of God’s glory, the salvation of Christians) was an invention.
Ps 5:2, 3 Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray. My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O Lord; in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up.
Ps 55:16, 17 As for me, I will call upon God; and the Lord shall save me. Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
2 Co 13:7 Now I pray to God…
John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
To Potche:
Beloved, I have no disrespect for Mary, none whatsoever. Please don't think that. However, she was no less or no more human than you or I. Period. To pray to her, is to place a human before God, violating the 1st commandment. We were never told to pray to anybody but the Father, in Jesus' name. No where in the God's word does it tell us to pray to a servant.
In that same post that you reference, I also asked you a question.
If you died, would it be appropriate to pray to you? Of course not. So why should we pray to another servant who has been "taken to be with God"? (Better than "deceased servant")
If the Catholic church teaches that it should pray to Mary, which it does, then by all logic it teaches that we should pray to all the dead who have entered into Heaven. This is in fact incorrect, as this was not how were told how to pray.
If you won't take my word for it, how about Jesus Himself? If you claim to be a follower of the Son of God, then you must know how he taught us to pray. The disciples asked Jesus about this once, do you remember His response?
This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. (Matthew 6, 9-13)
Dear one, this is from Jesus' mouth. There is no greater authority. Jesus gave us this illustration as a guideline on how to pray. It wasn't to be said literally, it was a guideline. Now, if you will dear one, please take the time to point out to me in this guideline where it tells us to pray to anybody other than The Father? I would certainly like to know.
Photche,
Greetings –
It is interesting to me that someone who was raised in a Protestant church would convert to Catholicism. How much of the Bible did your former church teach? The reason that I ask is because there is a vast difference from what the Bible teaches and what Rome teaches. For example, the Word says, “There is no condemnation to them which to them which are in Christ Jesus – Romans 8:1. Yet the Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who trusts Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins by faith – Session XIV, Canon 12.
The Word says, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; - 1Timothy 2:5, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me – John 14:6, but Rome teaches that Mary is co-mediator and she “brings about the birth of believers in the church, . . . . . (Catechism of the Catholic Church page 251).
The Word says, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:- 1Peter 3:18, - “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: - Hebrews 10:10; however, Rome says that the mass is a daily sacrifice
I could go on and use many other comparisons but will not. How do you reconcile these contradictions; when the bible says one thing and Rome says something else?
CHAPTER XXXII
The Rosary: From the Externals of the Catholic Church
“In various papal briefs it has been described as " the salvation of Christians," " the dispeller of heresies," " the scourge of Satan " and " the promoter of God s glory." [End]
Very interesting in light of…
“Who Gave Us the Rosary ? The devotion takes its name from the Latin "rosarium," a garden of roses, or a wreath of the same beautiful and symbolic flowers; or, according to some, more directly from the title " Mystical Rose," given to Mary in her Litany. It was established by St. Dominic, the famous founder of the Order of Preachers; and he testifies in his writings that he acted under the direction of the Blessed Mother of God.
However, there are traces of somewhat similar methods of praying before his time, although they did not include any part of the Hail Mary, at least until about the twelfth century, when the first part of that beautiful prayer came into use.
It seems strange to us Catholics who recite it so frequently, to learn that for more than eleven centuries our forefathers in the faith knew nothing of the Hail Mary, and that the latter part of that prayer was not added unal some centuries later. Therefore, when the Rosary was invented, it was composed of the Our Father and the first part of the Hail Mary only, repeated probably much as we use them at the present day.” [The Externals of the Catholic Church]
CHAPTER XXXII
The Rosary: From the Externals of the Catholic Church
Many of the saints have had a wonderful love for this beautiful prayer. St. Alphonsus Liguori was most devoted to it. St. Francis de Sales recited it for an hour each day. All the spiritual writers have sounded its praises, and many indulgences have been granted to it by successive Pontiffs. St. Dominic called it " the rampart of the Church of God," " the Book of Life." In various papal briefs it has been described as " the salvation of Christians," " the dispeller of heresies," " the scourge of Satan " and " the promoter of God s glory." [End]
A love for the prayer? Rampart of the Church of God? Book of Life? The dispeller of heresies? The scourge of Satan? The promoter of God’s glory? The salvation of Christians?
RBB (cont) - Anyway, I understand that for several hundred years after Jesus' ascension there was an early Christian Church that wasn't necessarily the "Catholic Church" as it is today. It was clearly evolving.. but you said yourself that eventually this turned into the Catholic Church. And then from the Catholic Church came Martin Luther's breakaway. I just don't know how someone would choose a Protestant denomination and decide it is the Truth. How does one decide that their specific denomination is the closest to the early Christian Church that existed, esp when there are so many different denominations? So maybe the Catholic Church was the first to evolve from the early Christian Church, but it still came first - before the many denominations that exist today - so I still believe it makes sense to go back to the "original." Just my opinion; I definitely respect yours.
RBB - I appreciate your historic rundown.. very interesting and informative. I would never claim to be an expert and you clearly know a lot about the topic. Please note that I don't think that everyone who criticizes the Catholic Church is ignorant.. but many misunderstand (and consequently hate) why Catholics do things, what their beliefs truly are. I just think people should have pretty good understanding before they vehemently oppose something and spread hatred about it.
JC - Several posts back you referred to Mary as merely a "deceased servant." I read your post the day you wrote it, but was so busy at work I didn't have time to respond, and I have to say that it continues to reverberate in my mind. I just don't understand how it is possible to denigrate Mary's value and role to such a callous description: just a "deceased servant." Wow. Despite the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism, would you really say that Jesus' face? That your opinion of His mother is that she is solely a deceased servant? I just find it very hard to believe that Jesus didn't think more highly of his mother, and that he wouldn't want us to think more of highly of her too.
Muggleborn - I was brought up Presbyterian and the only time I remember Mary ever being mentioned in church was during the nativity scene at Christmas time. She just didn't have a very prominent role in the Presbyterian church. Maybe my "I love Jesus, so of course I love His mother" explanation is simplistic - but it makes sense to me, and one of the reasons I was drawn to Catholicism is because of the love and respect it has for Mary. But, still having a Protestant streak in me, I don't pray to Mary all the time or focus on her incessantly. If you're having doubts about Catholicism, I would focus more on your belief about the Eucharist first and foremost - as that's the belief that truly, in my opinion, separates Catholicism from Protestant churches - figure out how you feel about THAT and then get back to Mary later on. I personally think the Eucharist is the heart and soul of it all. I wish you all the best.
Sorry, a little sleepy this morning.
Change "The best way to deal with an enemy is to conquer and divide"
To "The best way to deal with an enemy is to divide and conquer"
To truthandjustice1:
Beloved, you claim the Protestants area a divided group, and you are correct. The best way to deal with an enemy is to conquer and divide. Satan has divided, but conquer he will never do.
Dear one, as I have said before, some people worship this way, and others that way. It's not necessarily how they worship that God is looking at, but more why. Are they worshipping Him to fulfill a weekly duty, or are they truly wanting to get as close to Him as they possibly can. He's looking at our hearts.
However, with that being said, there is one requirement that must be met. For to not meet this requirement would mean that you are not worshipping Him, but rather a fabrication of how you want Him to be.
This one requirement is very simple: Stay true to His Word.
For if one worships God, based on information that is truly not written or how others tell you, then one does not worship God. For He and His word are one in the same. To not follow one, is to not follow the other. "He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God." (Rev. 19:13).
To add or change the Word, as Catholicism has done, is to change God to something else that He is not, thereby violating the 1st commandment. To ignore the Word, as Catholicism is doing, is to ignore God. God and His word are truly one in the same. That's why it is called The Living Word.
Wake me when you have a song from the Carpenters about the eucharist.
Elvis Presley? You serious? um...he's a saint now, isnt he?
I know many Protestant brothers can agree with me when I say that the Evangelicals, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, and all other protestant churches do disagree on secondary issues but all agree on the essentials of salvation. We all agree that we are saved by God's grace alone, through faith alone, through Christ alone, and the truth of God's Word alone.
Truthandjustice1,
Hey my friend, how are you doing this evening? Forgive me if I have offended you in any way. The reason that I have been pressing you for a reply to my questions is not to be annoying or rude. I have been trying to demonstrate the unnecessary and burdensome experience that comes when one tends to rely upon and defend extra biblical traditions (Catholic & Protestant). Believe me, I know; I do not accept the additional traditions that my own church is teaching. I wish we could all become zealous for God’s Word which never contradicts itself. Church traditions have not only contradicted themselves throughout history but have also contradicted the Word of God. This has been my point and reason for pressing you with my questions. It is my sincere prayer that we stake not our salvation upon what men have said but upon the sure Word of God!!!!!!!!!!!
Elvis Presley sang the best song about the rosary - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xi3i5r9yhE&feature=related
discuss
RBB
What he's trying to get at, is that Catholic Church is the way to salvation. Anyone outside of the "Church" is unsaved and without hope, and is not in the truth. Same ol song and dance from a large corporation.
truthandjustice...
"might makes right"....right?
and the greatest cruelty from the athiest is yet to come....
RBB,
You've gone from by far the most are (to) as I said that the number didn't seem disproportionate. Why can't you just be honest that the most articles for this protestant site for individual denominations is Catholicism. What does that tell you? You are wrong that the mainline protestant denominations are referred to more than Catholicism. What I'm getting at is that you are only able to unite by highlighting your differences with the Catholic Church. You are a very divided group and let it be a website, political candidate, protestant religious leader, ...that eventually your divisions only highlight the strength of the Catholic Church.
Let me give you an example, Notre Dame football team. A lot of people hate ND, but they watch the TV hoping they will lose or post negative stuff on a website, etc. but at the end of the day all you are doing is increasing TV ratings and raising interest. Similarly we as a united church community will always be loved/hated, but that isn't a bad thing because the Church will remain extremely relevant until Jesus returns just as it has for 2,000 years.
truthandjustice1 - No, it's your center of attention, and since you're Catholic that's as it should be. To the rest of us it's just a church that professes to be Christian but doesn't teach what's in God's Word, just like the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.
I'm not really sure what you're going for here, but to tell the truth I've already spent a chunk of my time today looking up the articles, and found as I said that the number didn't seem disproportionate. So why don't you just tell me what you're trying to get at.
THE EXTERNALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER XXVII
HOLY WATER
IT is interesting to note how often our Church has availed herself of practices which were in common use among pagans, and which owed their origin to their appropriateness for expressing something spiritual by material means. The Church and her clergy are " all things to all men, that they may gain all for Christ," and she has often found that it was well to take what was praiseworthy in other forms of worship and adapt it to her own purposes, for the sanctification of her children. Thus it is true, in a certain sense, that some Catholic rites and ceremonies are a reproduction of those of pagan creeds; but they are the taking of what was best from paganism, the keeping of symbolical practices which express the religious instinct that is common to all races and times. [End]
Jeremiah 10:2 Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
THE EXTERNALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PART I
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH
CHAPTER I THE POPE
The Pope’s Power. The sovereignty of the Pope over the Church differs from that of the rulers of other societies. He has direct authority over all Catholics, from the most exalted prelate to the humblest layman ; and he is obliged to render an account of his administration to no human being.
None of his power is derived from or delegated by any one else. According to the Vatican Council, he has " the whole fulness of supreme power, ordinary and immediate, over all and each of the pastors and the faithful. *
He is the supreme judge in matters of faith. To him belongs the right to regulate all the Church’s discipline. He may enact laws for the whole Church and for any part of it, and dispense from them. He can inflict censures, such as excommunication. He can reserve to himself the power of absolving from certain sins. He and he alone can form, suppress and divide dioceses and approve new religious orders. He can dispense from any vow, no matter how solemn or sacred.
RBB,
Let me know what you discover, I can't wait to hear the latest reason as to why once again the Catholic faith is at the center of attention.
RBB,
By far the most are about Evangelicals, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists....anything but Catholics. Evangelicals, yes probably because there are many protestant denominations that have evangelical aspects, but when you get into specific denominations like the Episcopalians, Southern Baptists (largest US protestant denomination), Baptist, Presbyterian,...then no the Catholics outnumber them in articles where they are mentioned. Go to the search engine and enter the denomination and search all CP. You might be surprised.
strannick,
Don't worry many protestants have been distorting Catholic teachings since the protestant reformation, but don't be overly concerned about them - they are a very divided group. Just remember the candidate that was promoted by evangelical leaders across the board - Ronald Reagan turned out to be the greatest president for Catholicism. You could come up with a long list of evangelical leaders who have supported Catholicism and they'll come up with an excuse, but it is always interesting that their big name leaders all can't wait to speak positively of the Pope and Catholicism. One of the aspects that really upsets them is that the Catholic Church continues to grow while their own denominations continue to splinter. United we will stand, divided they will fall. They were divided at the time of the protestant reformation and they remain divided to this day - what does that tell you? Wait they'll make some comment about being united by Christ, as if Catholics are not. Thank goodness the bible fell out of the sky for them during the protestant reformation. It's rather sad for the early Christians because they didn't have the bible like the protestants...poor people they didn't even know they weren't really Christian because they were following the teachings of the Church.
THE EXTERNALS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PART I
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH
CHAPTER I THE POPE
The Pope. Every nation has its ruler, be he emperor or king or president. Every society has its legislative head, its centre of authority, its lawmaker and lawgiver. And, as the Church is a society of men, although instituted by God, His wisdom has ordained that at the head of His earthly kingdom there shall be one man, a monarch, endowed with supreme power.
This man is the Pope, the successor of St. Peter in the bishopric of Rome. " Upon this Rock I will build My Church." " I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven." Our Lord Jesus Christ, wishing His Church to be one, instituted the Primacy of Peter to rule it and to cement it into unity.
JC;
are you serious to claim that a Catholic thinks the Pope is the head of the Church? Do you think either this pope, or the previous pope, would claim that they led the church and not Jesus? Have you read anything by either of these people? Do you read or announce anything that popes or Catholics claim, and not try to distort it to make it look unbiblical and foolish? Because if you do, that isnt an honest way to discuss matters.
Do you know what Billy Graham said about John Paul II?
Do you know what Chuck Colson says about Catholics?
The trinity isnt in the bible either. Do you believe in that?
truthandjustice1 - I just took the time to go through the articles on this site and I have to ask.....why would you think there are a disproportionate amount of them about Catholicism. By far the most are about Evangelicals, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists....anything but Catholics. It would seem that the only time there's an article is when, like in this case, the Catholic church itself comes out with a press release. If they didn't cover those I'm sure there would be someone on here complaining that the Catholic church was being ignored.
As for the pope, there are more articles about Rick Warren and other Protestant church leaders then about him, and again it seems to be when he puts out a press release. Would you prefer that they didn't report a story when the Catholic church seems to want them to?
JC,
Well said!!!!!!!
To truthandjustice1:
You said: The Pope in his role as head of the Church...
Dear one, the Pope is not the head of the church, he's the head of Catholicism. Jesus is the head of the church. To suggest anything else is contrary to what is written.
You said: If people are welcoming Christ into their lives, receiving the sacraments then God will have mercy on them.
The term sacrament, comes from "make sacred". Therefore, if Catholicism teaches that you must do these things, then it teaches that the blood of Jesus was not enough, and that one must do these things, in addition, to truly be saved.
This is completely at odds with what scripture says:
Ephesians 2, 8: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast.
Beloved, the Catholic religion is just that, a religion. Jesus spoke of religion quite a bit in the Bible. Almost everytime He said something about the Pharisees, he was speaking of religion. We are not called to be religious, we are called to follow Jesus. This is what he said to each apostle upon encountering them, and to each Chrisitian that has heard His voice.
Truthandjustice1,
I will check in later this afternoon; this should give you enough time to come up with an answer.
Truthandjustice1,
I will answer your question when you have answered mine.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF POPE GREGORY’S (590-604) LETTER TO JOHN, THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTATINOPLE (specifically the second paragraph)?
“Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as God above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests”.
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XII, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Epistles of St Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle 33) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956, p. 226.
The Government of the Church: Chapter 1 The Pope
From the Externals of the Catholic Church. Her Government, Ceremonies BX Festivals JJ 51 Sacramentals, and Devotions 1917
The Pope s Titles. The " Pope " gets that name from the Latin " Papa," a childish word for " Father." By virtue of his office he is also the " Patriarch of the West," the " Primate of Italy," and the " Metropolitan of the Province of Rome," as well as the Bishop of Rome. He is often spoken of as the " Sovereign Pontiff." The word Pontiff comes from the priesthood of pagan Rome, and signifies literally " bridge-builder," because the high- priests of Rome, among other civic duties, had charge of the bridges over the Tiber. The Pope is usually mentioned as " Our Holy Father," and is addressed as " Your Holiness," or, in Latin, " Beatissime Pater " " Most Blessed Father." He speaks of himself in official docu mentsas " Servus Servorum Dei " " Servant of the Servants of God."
Well I guess we shouldn't discuss the prosperity gospel, God speaking to certain evangelicals that they need money to build a university,...
The Pope in his role as head of the Church must encourage people to get the sacraments and that is what Lourdes is all about. If people are welcoming Christ into their lives, receiving the sacraments then God will have mercy on them. What an original idea to get people to allow God into their lives.
Pope Benedict XVI is offering relief from purgatory to Roman Catholics who travel to Lourdes over the next year, the Vatican said yesterday. ??????????????????????????
Are you kidding me? Purgatory is another invention to keep simple minded people in fear and in bondage. If the Pope had the authority relieve people from the pains of Purgatory; why not relieve them completely out of pure christian charity? It is unbelievable that people are still hypnotized by these sophistries.
You see RBB,
I learn interesting facts from protestants that I didn't know about because of these articles. Thanks JC, I'll take a look and read more about it. and the word continues to spread :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0nSjxDKJEo
From the Telegraph.co.uk website:
Trips to Lourdes to cut time spent in purgatory
Last Updated: 3:16am GMT 06/12/2007
Pope Benedict XVI is offering relief from purgatory to Roman Catholics who travel to Lourdes over the next year, the Vatican said yesterday.
Pilgrims to the shrine in south-west France will receive "plenary indulgences" from the Pontiff, which the Church says reduce the time spent being "washed" of sin after death. The indulgences will be available from this weekend until Dec 8, 2008.
The Church teaches that people who do not go directly to heaven must spend time in purgatory, where they can be purified of residual sin.
It is the latest initiative to get more pilgrims to the shrine, famous for the reported healing properties of its water. In August the Vatican opened an airline service offering pilgrims direct flights from Rome to Lourdes.
---------------------
Interestingly, it has a picture of the Pope with facing a statue of Madonna, with his hands folded in prayer. The caption reads: Pope Benedict XVI prays to a statue of Madonna of Lourdes in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican
---------------------
Beloved, there is no such thing as purgatory. It is not supported in any of the 66 books of the Word of God. This is a fabrication of religion. We are washed of our sin by His blood only, not by water. And this is also done before death, after death it is too late. This is what Jesus was talking about in the story of the rich man in Luke 16:19.
Second, for those who say that Catholics don't pray to anybody but Jesus, look again.
Here's the website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/06/wpope106.xml
RBB,
I know this is a protestant Christian site, and your statement that "Catholicism is a denomination within the Christian world, so it's normal that at times they would have articles about it" is exactly my point. At times would be the key words. Do a simple search of the Catholic faith compared to any other denomination on this site with regards to articles, it's not even close the Catholic faith hugely outnumbers any denomination. Don't get me wrong I'm a Roman Catholic and the exposure is always a good thing because it gets people discussing what they like/dislike about the Catholic faith. I guess it just shows the truly international aspect of the Catholic Church.
truthandjustice1 - You weren't under the impression that this was a Catholic site were you? I can't see how you could have been. This is a Protestant Christian site for sure, but they often talk about other religions in relation to Christianity. Catholicism is a denomination within the Christian world, so it's normal that at times they would have articles about it, just as right how there's an article about Romney's Mormon faith. This isn't a Mormon site but there's an article.
I hate to tell you but most Protestants couldn't care less what the Pope says, they are just living their lives and dealing with their own church. The exception would be those that read sites like this, to find out what's happening in the wider religious would. It's not that they need to know what he says, it's that they are interested in what's happening in general.
My question to you would be... if you don't think Protestants should be commenting on Catholic matters, why do you think it's ok to question Protestant ones?
I think the pope has made a good point here, one that the average person probably hasn't considered. At the same time, I know there are many aspects and teachings of RC's which are not Biblical. To answer your question, I would never have known about this, had it only been posted at a RC site. But it was posted here at Christian Post, so I saw it and commented on it.
Obviously this is not a Catholic site, but what gets me is that protestants always want to write articles/ post comments about statements made by the Pope. For many protestants they are more aware of the statements made by the Pope then by their own church leaders about the direction of their own churches. Now the predominantly negative comments about the Pope is not surprising due to the fact that this isn't a Catholic site, but what is interesting is the need to know about the Pope's statements. Why is that?
strannick - What I'm saying is that the Catholic Church's beliefs and practices are quite different from the original Christianity preached by Christ and practiced by the early Christians. As to whether they are Christians, that would be a judgment that's God's not mine.
ifeelfine72 - Sorry, but the fact is that the Christian church was first, the details about it are plainly laid out in the Bible.. What is now known as the Catholic church grew out of it.
MuggleBorn,
From childhood to my mid twenties I was Catholic until a friend challenged me to compare my churches’ beliefs with the Word of God. After a year of personal research; it soon became evident that many of the Church’s doctrine could not be found in or supported by the Word of God.
I definitely know what you are experiencing right now; but stay encouraged and continue your research. Remember that your salvation rests in Christ alone and you need not feel any obligation to the traditions of men.
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new – 2Corinthians 5:17.
ifeelfine72,
I really can't believe that you would compare the civil rights ere to over one thousand years in which Europe was ruled by papal oppression. If the Reformation had not taken place Europe would still be in the dark ages.
And the fact is, the Catholic church was the first, sorry you don't like it, but that is a fact. ??????????
This has nothing to do with personal preferences or biases; your claim is simply wrong. Where is your evidence?
What does Peter (petrus) say about the rock?
1Pe 2:8 "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."
I don't think God's word could be any clearer than that. Jesus is the "Rock of Ages" in whom the church was built on, not Peter.
Psa 61:2 "From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I."
Psa 62:2 "He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved."
Psa 62:7 "God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God."
Psa 71:3 "for thou art my rock and my fortress."
Psa 89:26 "He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation."
Psa 92:15 "To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him."
Psa 94:22 "But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge." Psa 95:1 "O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation."
Isa 2:10 "Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty."
Isa 8:14 "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."
Isa 51:1 "Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged."
1Cr 10:4 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."
Psa 78:35 "And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer."
Psa 18:2 "The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower."
Rom 9:33 "As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."
Deu 32:4 "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."
Deu 32:15 "then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation."
1Sa 2:2 "There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God."
2Sa 22:2 "And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer"
2Sa 22:3 "The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence."
2Sa 22:32 "For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?"
2Sa 22:47 "The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation."
2Sa 23:3 "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God."
Psa 18:46 "The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted."
Psa 28:1 Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit."
Psa 31:2 "Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me."
Psa 31:3 "For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me."
Psa 28:1 "Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit."
Psa 31:2 "Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me."
Psa 40:2 "He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings."
Psa 42:9 "I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?"
God's word is the final authority, as Jesus gave us an example when tempted in the wilderness by Satan, Jesus said, "IT IS WRITTEN". Our answer should always go back to God's word rather than man. Isa 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.". Furthermore God's word says, Psa 146:3 "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. So simply put...trust God's word, not in humans. Now let's consider the claims made by the Roman Catholic church that Peter was the first pope and that Jesus appointed him to lead the church. That's just false doctrine...don't trust me...look at what God's word says.
Jesus said to Peter which incidentally means rock, Mat 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (rock), and upon this rock (Jesus) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Jesus is not referring to Peter as the rock, that title only belongs to one, to say otherwise is complete blasphemy. See what the following 32 verses from God's words say about the "rock" of ages.
i guess this forum is just going to ignore the topic of this discussion and get on with the 'whose a better Christian' arguments.
RBB are you saying that Catholics arent real Christians now? and that its only in the other denominations after the Reformation that have the spirit of the early Christians?
photche - (cont.)
In Acts, and the rest of the New Testament, what you see is that Christianity was "governed" for lack of a better word by the Jerusalem council. A council that included Peter, other of the Apostles, and James the Lord's brother. They were at times at odds with Paul, and others, and made decisions on matters of faith such as who could be called a Christian and how that was to be accomplished for example. How could this possibly fit with the Catholic belief that Peter was the first pope, the first bishop of Rome, and founded (ostensibly) the church. It simply doesn't. The problem that I faced, and that any who really look at scripture face, is that Catholic teaching and the Bible don't agree. You end up having to chose which you are going to believe. I finally had to choose the Bible. The reason being that Biblical Christianity can survive not having the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church can't survive without the Bible. If all you have is tradition it's like a body without a spine. There is not central core.
photche - First I'd like to say that I do know about the Catholic church. I studied Catholic theology for over a year and then spent 5 months in RCIA. Just because someone doesn't agree with the church doesn't necessarily mean they don't understand it, it might just be they've decided that it's incorrect.
I know that it's a popular view that all Christian churches broke off somehow from the Catholic church, and after a fashion that was true. But in the beginning of Christianity, (as someone pointed out) during say the first hundred years, there was simply being Christian. There was no central leader - as in, Peter didn't go to Rome and set up the Catholic church, and then everyone treated him as if he was "the Pope" and edicts came down from him to the people. By the end of Acts we hear little about Peter. His going to Rome at all is simply tradition as far as I know. For the next few hundred years "the church" developed, still not the "Catholic Church" as we know it, simply the Christian church, with writings here and there, to look at from different sources, and of course the scriptures which had all been written. I won't go into detail here, as it's not needed, but you get the picture, eventually you had what could be seen as the Catholic church. A church that differed a great deal from what Christianity had looked like in that first century, and from what Christ had actually lived and taught. Eventually came the time when Christians came to a point of understanding that the original Christian church was not to be found in the Roman church, both through the work of people like Martin Luther and finally being able to read the scriptures in their own language, people started to brake away from that church, often at risk of their lives. It doesn't however mean that somehow we all "came from the Catholic church", rather it means that finally Christians came back to an understanding of what Christianity really looked like, and followed it.
To Potche:
Dear one, the facilitator is Jesus. He is the one who paid the price for us to be with God eternally. The very act of facilitation by man was done away with when the veil was ripped apart. That was it's entire meaning. To go back to this practice is to attempt to undo that very event. When God ripped it, it was deliberate.
While your information about Mary is informative, it is still not a good practice. Mary was nothing more than a servant. If you died, would it then be right to pray to you? Of course not. But this is exactly what is happening when you pray to Mary. You are praying to a deceased servant.
You can learn about those who surrounded Jesus in the Bible, but we are not to pray to them. Jesus is the central theme to the Bible, not His servents.
Jesus taught us to pray in this fashion "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name....". You know the rest. At what point did you hear anybody addressed other than The Father? You didn't, so why would you go against what Jesus said, if you claim to be a follower of Jesus?
Jesus said, "ask in My name". Notice, He did not say "ask Mary to ask Me"? That's because He didn't. Why should you?
photche,
Your explanation of Mary's parenthood is reasonable. I've heard this before. But what confuses me lately is why we refer to her as the Mother of God, or even the Queen of Heaven in some prayers (ones I'm less familiar with). If Jesus is God, and God is the beginning (and end) of all things, and Jesus was begotten by God and God alone, before even Adam and Eve were created, then wouldn't Mary only be Mother of Jesus the man? In this capacity, she would only be a wonderful and willing servant who facilitated the birth of Jesus, here on Earth ... after that, there is nothing in scripture to suggest that she was to be elevated to anything more.
I respect her as a great saint, but I'm having some real problems lately with the Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy.
Another problem I've been having is that other Catholic defenders want to refer back to the Catacism as an authority, which I just can't do. BTW, my appreciation to my Catholic peers here who haven't done that.
I'm still investigating explanations on both sides of what occurred in Fatima, Mediugorie, etc... while of course trying to eliminate the put-downs coming from obvious conspiracy theorists.
The list goes on...
Jesus Christ holds the office of high priest and that priesthood is to be after the order of Melchisedec. It was said of Melchisedec that he was “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of god; abideth a priest continually.” (Hebrews 7:3).
Jesus could not die on the cross until He could meet every condition of the Melchisedec order. If not, He could not ascend and claim the office of high priest. While on the cross, was Jesus meeting every condition of the Melchisedec order? No. He still had a mother.
That is why “When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.” (John 19:26, 27). The relationship of mother and son was divinely put asunder that moment.
Hi JC - Thanks for your response. I agree with you that only God can forgive sin. I definitely believe that I can privately pray to God right now and ask for forgiveness for my sins (assuming I'm sincere). When a Catholic goes to confession, the priest is simply acting as a facilitator - he doesn't forgive the sins, God does. The priest acts "in persona christi," or in the person of Christ. Part of the justification for this process can be found in Matthew 16: 19.
I personally think confession is a really good thing to do. It reminds me of how I have sinned (ie keeps me humble) and when I go before a priest and state what I've done wrong, it makes me feel very sincere in trying to improve myself so it won't happen again. Plus, many times the priest will also provide guidance and words of advice on how to overcome the sin.
Regarding Mary.. my friend, who was recently ordained a Catholic priest, explained the Church's reverence of her to me this way. He said to me.. If someone was getting to know me, wouldn't they inquire about my parents and siblings? Of course they would, because I'm who I am, in a large part, due to my parents.. and naturally I love my parents so if someone loves me, chances are that they will respect and/or love my parents too, right? .. So if I'm coming to know Jesus, wouldn't I want to learn about his mother, about his family? If I LOVE Jesus, then isn't it natural that I will also come to love his mother? It's obvious from the Bible that He respected and loved His mother.
And if Mary loved Jesus, I would think that she would love us too (since Jesus loves us). Therefore, why is it such a stretch to think that she might intercede on our behalf to her Son?
I personally pray to God every morning.. and sometimes I'll say a Hail Mary too. Why not? I love Mary, because I love Jesus.
So that's what I think. :)
Why is it that an article by the Pope, astute and relevant, on atheism and relativism, is seen as an occasion to bring up the Cannon of Anti-catholicism?
Yes, there were Crusades, and yes its true there was an inquistion. Dont forget the pedophile priest scandal while your at it.
Should i now go on to list the things that other Christian denominations do and have done, so we can really attack the unity of Christs church? Because there are lots of them.
So, instead of the Pope wise and Christian words occasioning a forum on how to address relativism in the modern world, its an occasion to attack the Catholic Christian faith. Use some of that pent up anger and indignation against the sin in the world, instead of Catholics, the vast vast vast vast vast number of whom i know, are good Christians
Online4Him - And lets not even talk about what the southern baptists did during the civil rights ere, and other denominations did during slave times.
And the fact is, the Catholic church was the first, sorry you don't like it, but that is a fact.
To Potche:
Beloved, let me ask you this? What happens in a catholic confessional?
Typically, we hear "Bless me Father for I have sinned", and then the priest will go give you some sort of penent and tell you that you are forgiven.
First of all, no man may forgive sin. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Why do you think the Pharisees set out to stone Him at times?
When Jesus died on the cross, the veil, or curtain, was ripped from the top to the bottom. This was a very thick curtain and was impossible to tear by human hands. This veil was torn by God, to show that we could go straight to Him, and not have to go through a high priest anymore. Yet, what is the catholic confessional? Nothing more than the sewing and rehanging of that very curtain.
The Bible says that you shall call no man on earth your father, except your Father in Heaven.
When a Catholic says "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned" to another man, this goes against what is written. And, even farther, they call the Pope "Holy Father", which is in every sense of the word blasphemous.
----------------------
Then there is Mary. Mary was nothing more than a willing servent. She was neither holy or devine, and we are not her children. We are called Children of God, not Children of Mary. When the Bible speaks of God, it mentions nothing of Mary. Yet, she is raised to this status by the Catholic church.
"Hail Mary, Mother of God, pray for us",
Beloved, where in the the Word of God does it tell us to pray to Mary as our intercessor? It doesn't, it tells us to pray in Jesus' name, as Jesus is our intercessor. No where in the Word of God does it tell us to address Mary in anyway other than a sister. No where.
Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
…But Mary was not merely passive at the foot of the Cross; "she cooperated through charity", as St. Augustine says, "in the work of our redemption".
The Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07168a.htm.
Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Mt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Jesus bore the work of our redemption alone.
I grew up Presbyterian and became Catholic while in college. It's surprises me to see what hatred many Protestants have towards Catholicism. Defensive, anyone? The beauty of the Catholic Church, in my opinion, is its longevity (Jesus founded it 2,000 years ago), and the fact that it's the original Christian Church: "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church." Jesus named Peter the first Pope. The way I look at it, if I'm going to choose to be a part of some Christian denomination, how would I choose the correct one? Basically they all just differ according to how they interpret the Bible. Since Catholicism was the first and Jesus founded it as His Church, it makes sense to me that it's the right one. (Don't forget that all of the Christian denominations broke off from the Catholic Church.)
Additionally, I like that the Catholic Church reveres tradition and doesn't solely count on the Bible for everything. When there's a question about the interpretation of something in the Bible, chances are you can look back at what the Church has taught throughout history to find your answer.
I can't defend the Catholic Church in regards to the Inquisition and I can't say that every Pope has been a great leader. I also wouldn't say that Martin Luther didn't do a good thing by pointing out corruption in the church. Things happen for a reason. But I believe that the Inquisition and bad Popes and bad priests are just the result of sin - men's sin. These things don't change the doctrine of the Church; the things I believe.
There is definitely a lot of ignorance about Catholicism. I've noticed that most of the Catholic-bashers are usually pretty ignorant about what Catholics really believe. Trust me, it's worth it to take the time to learn.
The following information is contained in what is called the Catholic Encyclopedia. Link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07168a.htm.
Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
Just as devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is only a form of devotion to the adorable Person of Jesus, so also is devotion to the Holy Heart of Mary but a special form of devotion to Mary.
In order that, properly speaking, there may be devotion to the Heart of Mary, the attention and the homage of the faithful must be directed to the physical heart itself. However, this in itself is not sufficient; the faithful must read therein all that the human heart of Mary suggests, all of which it is the expressive symbol and the living reminder: Mary's interior life, her joys and sorrows, her virtues and hidden perfections, and, above all, her virginal love for her God, her maternal love for her Divine Son, and her motherly and compassionate love for her sinful and miserable children here below.
The consideration of Mary's interior life and the beauties of her soul, without any thought of her physical heart, does not constitute our devotion; still less does it consist in the consideration of the Heart of Mary merely as a part of her virginal body. The two elements are essential to the devotion, just as soul and body are necessary to the constitution of man.
My comment: The apostle Paul (as inspired by the Holy Spirit) directed his entire devotion to someone else:
“Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead” (Phil 3:8-11).
How many Christians and innocent martyrs were killed in the inquisitions…How many wars fought in the name of the cross? Roman Catholicism is no innocent religion and the cruelty they once practiced is not far away from resurfacing…history will repeat since Rome’s doctrines never change (the popes claimed infallibility even durring all that bloodshed)…she only morphs as a chameleon to deceive the world. By emphasizing commonalities ecumenism will take root as the worlds religion’s seeks for its top religious leader to usher in their false hopes of world peace.
Way back in 1884 prophetic statements were made regarding the Pope and its growing empire of billions.
A day of great intellectual darkness has been shown to be favorable to the success of popery. It will yet be demonstrated that a day of great intellectual light is equally favorable for its success.--4SP 390 (1884). The world is filled with storm and war and variance. Yet under one head--the papal power--the people will unite to oppose God in the person of His witnesses. This union is cemented by the great apostate.--7T 182 (1902). When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.--GC 445, 448, 449 (1911).
I think I heard Dr. D. James Kennedy describe it best ... Catholicism believes Salvation = Grace + works.
I am currently Catholic (and was even recently confirmed in the past 4 years), but the more I study the arguments, the more I want to jump ship.
I've tried SO HARD to see some of the unique claims of the Catholic Church from a perspective that doesn't conflict with scripture, but arguments just get weaker or more nebulous (which is worse because that almost always means the truth is being intentionally obscured).
I still attend church service because of the common tenents of our beliefs, via the Apostles Creed, but I cringe now and shut my mouth on the Catholic version when we reach the part, "I believe in one holy CATHOLIC and apostolic church").
I've been struggling with this for at least 2 years now...
If Catholicism doesn't worship Mary, then why do we things like this all the time:
1. "HAIL, HOLY QUEEN, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!"
2. "Therefore it becomes ever more useful, because what Mary asks She always receives, Jesus can never say no to whatever His Mother asks for."
3. "With your prayer made together with Your heavenly Mother, you can obtain the great gift of bringing about a change of hearts and conversion."
--------------------
#1. Holy Queen? If Jesus is the King, and we know he is, then to say that Mary is a Queen is to equate them both. By definition, this is a cult. It has added an element that is truly not there.
There was nothing special about Mary other than being a willing servant. She was neither holy nor a queen. A princess, yes. A queen, no.
#2. She asked to go with Him when He was hanging on the cross. He told her No. He told her to stay with her other sons, and for her sons to stay with her.
#3. Here is one thing that will always separate Christians from Catholics. Christians do not have a heavenly mother, only a Heavenly Father. And, we pray to Jesus for changes in hearts and conversion, not to Mary.
--------------------
Summary: To find out if something is real, compare it to the Word of God. When we compare Catholicism to the Bible, we see some very stark differences, especially in diety. Catholics pray to dead disciples (saints) of Christ, Christians pray directly to the source. We don't have anybody else interecede for use except the great intercessor Himself, Jesus Christ. This is what He said He was going to do for us, and He is now doing just that. Not Mary.
Actually, if anything, we are Christians in spite of Rome's best efforts for the truth of scripture to never get out.
I googled the koran incident. I didn't find anything on Benedict yet, but this is a link to a picture of John Paul II kissing a koran....I must say I'm very disappointed. http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html (I didn't read the site, so if there's anything funky on there...please don't give me grief over it)
ifeelfine72,
Most of these folks forget that they most likely wouldn't be Christian at all if not for the Catholic faith.??????????????
This statement is simply not true my friend; there were definitely christians long before Rome came along. All one has to do is read the book of Acts.
How can the pope speak of the crueltys of atheism when the RCC instituted and operated the inquisition?
Command: to have or exercise direct authority, to give orders.
Dictate: to issue as an order, to require or determine necessarily
How is there a difference in these two words? And if the stroy is fabricated and i went along with it i apologize. As for saying sticking to the literal parts of the scripture and using the OT. the catholic church does that itself.
ifeelfine72 BTW: Most of these folks forget that they most likely wouldn't be Christian at all if not for the Catholic faith.
How is it a faith or is it a denomination? As far as it playing a part of many not being a christian i guess its true to those that are catholic but to others ; are you serious?
BTW: Most of these folks forget that they most likely wouldn't be Christian at all if not for the Catholic faith.
agbawebaim - Amen to that!
I doubt most of these folks are handling snakes and drinking poison like it says to do in Mark if you believe. I'll get the shot glasses and Pine-Sol; you can come over to my house. Someone bring the snakes! Yee haww! . . . Anybody? . . . Oh, nevermind.
It is a shame that people decide to frabricate stories simply because they do not agree with someone. As Christians, we shoulc all have the passion for the truth, even if that truth challenges our own prejudices or ideologies. Pope Benedixt XVI has never "kissed a Koran", and even if he did, we will likewise have condemned Paul for entering the Areopagus at Athens! And the Catholic Church does not "worship" Mary as said above. Christianity did not begin today. To resort to such fundamentalistic way of interpreting Scripture such as "call no one father" discredits the very Word of Scripture. What will you make of Paul referrring to himself as "father to the Corinthians and to Timothy? Why do we not take literally other parts of scripture, such as "a woman must cover her hair always while in Church" or according to Levitcal tradition, "go out of the camp when in her menstral period"? The Bible is the Word of God, the Catholic Church has always taught that, not a "dictation from God." A mature christian faith lies in understanding this difference. God bless you. We are brothers and sisters in Christ, and should stop insulting one another. He or she who is not against me is for me, Our Lord said.
thats why it should be God alone in whom we trust. not man made traditions
It's hard to imagine that this man is leading a large group of Christians. They really need to stop listening to him and start reading the Bible.......God's word, not man's...no matter if it's monks or saints or whatever. It also wouldn't hurt him to actually be educated on what Biblical Christians actually do, preach, and believe, since he is obviously confused about it.
As to kissing the koran, he really did that?!!........how isn't that offensive to God? If a person does that, how is it different to the Hebrews of the Old Testament kissing idols?
i agree. What was the purpose of kissing the Quran. As a christian how can you consider that holy. very sad and he's considered a leader?
How ironic, this coming from the one who denied Christ again by caving into Islam and kissing the Quran.
He said: "How could the idea have developed that Jesus' message is narrowly individualistic and aimed only at each person singly?"
Oh, that's easy. We just started following Jesus again, instead of some dude in a tall hat that likes us to call him "Holy Father" and tells us who and how to worship (i.e. Mary).
Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Is there any wonder as to why this particular organization is crumbling?
well well well