Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

Love the Blessed Mother of Christ as you love your own Mother.
All you have to do is respect and listen to Roman Catholic tradition.
We recognize "The Social Joys of Heaven." Mary is the Queen of Heaven.
This is the Communion of Saints. No matter what the modern man says,
The Church, canonizes Saints every year. Stating, if anyone is in Heaven,
this Soul is. Why does the new man cast aside 2000 years of Catholic
practice? Like saying I'm right, and a billion olden day people are wrong.
Go to a Catholic book store and start reading about how Saints lived
and died in grace. Start watching EWTN.com Order books also.
You, for the record, don't try to change history. Embrace it!
The Saints are in Heaven and they do hear our prayers. It's a mystery.
Read a "Catholic Bible." Lets have faith in Church teachings and Sunday Mass.
Mary never died. She was taken Body and Soul into Heaven. A mystery.
God's mercy endures forever. There is no sin "you" make that God will not forgive.
I bet you don't even know what a deadly "mortal sin" is. Good man that you are!
You love Jesus. Now love His Catholic Church and it's true traditions.
Talk to an old wise Priest, a living Saint. Go to confession soon.
God Bless. And if you are a die hard Protestant, get right with God.
Vigilance Saints Arise

I'm pretty sure the Inquisitions were Spirit led. Surely Christ let, and even commanded His church to burn, torture, and murder those who disagreed with it.

How do you expect me to embrace a system who:

1. Has killed people for translating the Bible into the vernacular.
2. Teaches things aberrant to the core of the Gospel, even contradicting it in numerous places.
3. Anathematized the very heart of Christ's Gospel.
4. Doesn't know what to do with pedophiles and perverts in their own priesthood.
5. Excommunicates and/or threatens to excommunicate people who own or read a Bible (this was, in fact, done in my area)
6. By it's own admission, has failed to instruct and teach it's members, rendering them ignorant of what it even teaches.
7. Has historically, according to scholars, forged historical documents in it's own favor to make itself look legit.
8. Claims a direct papal succession to Peter, even when the Scriptures themselves dictate that Peter was not called to pastor a Gentile congregation, but his primary ministry was to the Jews, that he was married, and from numerous other evidences, never founded the church at Rome (Paul did).
9. Proclaims apostolic succession yet at the same time anathematizes what they clearly taught, ultimately anathematizing the apostles themselves, and also the early church fathers such as Clement.
10. Uses their power for socio-political reasons instead of proclaiming the Gospel.
11. Has recognized blatantly unregenerate, unrepentant heathens as "vicars of Christ", such as Alexander VI, who ordered assassinations on people he didn't like, had tons of illegitimate children, had sex orgies in the Vatican, and in the end, died from syphillis.
12. Claims that the pope is God's representative on earth, yet at several points in time in history, there were anywhere between 2 and 4 people claiming the papal throne at the same time, even to the point of ordering each other's assassinations, in order to obtain political and religious power because Rome was important in the religious/political arena.

I'm sorry, but Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. But from the evidence shown here, the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome. Therefore, Rome is not Christ's church, and the pope is not His spokesman.

You would be blind and foolish to take one look at the history, the corruption, and the overall putridity of the Roman church system, and not see serious, inevitable problems. I'm sorry, but I cannot embrace this, and am unable to join hands with it. Knowing what I know about the history and current state of Rome, and knowing what I know about what the Scripture clearly teaches, I cannot submit to Rome, because I am unable to. I'm not unwilling, I am unable.

And "talk to a wise priest"? I talked to the one here in my town. He didn't even know the content of the Bible. But he could quote church fathers really well. Still took him a good few minutes to find the book of 1 Corinthians, and he eventually just looked in the table of contents to find it.


And by the way, to the Catholics here. I actually attended a Mass with a Catholic family I'm friends with a few Sundays ago. *shock*

I went to St. Patrick's Cathedral in New Orleans with them, which is the oldest RCC church in New Orleans, built in about 1834. This was one of the few RCC churches that still practices the Old Tridentine (old Latin) Mass. Let me share my experience.

99% of everything done was in Latin. I understood absolutely nothing, and of course, I learned absolutely nothing. No teaching went on whatsoever.

The only things that were said in English was a 5 minute speech on humility which told me absolutely nothing, and is something that every true christian would already know, and Scripture "reading". I put "reading" in quotes because they didn't really read it. They chanted it. And they didn't even announce what section of Scripture it was. It was out of 1 Corinthians 12, and the reason I knew was because I recognized it right off the bat. Then they did a few more things in Latin, and everyone went up to receive the Eucharist, and then we were dismissed.

I didn't learn a thing while I was in there. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. The place honestly felt more like a Buddhist temple than a church indwelt with the Spirit.

I also noticed that afterwards, even when we went to the back for refreshments, no one really fellowshiped with each other. It was like they came in to do their duty, eat the wafer, and then depart.


If I go to a church, I want to learn something. The RCC has, for centuries, failed to do this, and now they are paying for it. People in the hierarchy are today, lamenting over the fact that most of the membership of Rome is ignorant of what it teaches, and they should be.

Sorry, but I had to say this. My apologies, but it needed to be brought up.

Quote :

I'm pretty sure the Inquisitions were Spirit led. Surely Christ let, and even commanded His church to burn, torture, and murder those who disagreed with it.

The Inquisition was the church being run by the state, and killed less than 2000 people.

Quote :

How do you expect me to embrace a system who:

1. Has killed people for translating the Bible into the vernacular.

No. The Albigensians taught a false gospel, and translated the Bible to reflect that, much like the JW's do today. They were killed because the had land and the French wanted it.

Quote :

2. Teaches things aberrant to the core of the Gospel, even contradicting it in numerous places.

Funny, you would think the people who spread the Gospel for 1500 years would know what it means. I'd like citations.

Quote :

3. Anathematized the very heart of Christ's Gospel.

Christ spoke all the time about doing good works. We are judged by our works. The greatest of the virtues is love, not faith. Loving God and your neighbor are the greatest commandments.

Quote :

4. Doesn't know what to do with pedophiles and perverts in their own priesthood.

There are pedophiles everywhere, among Protestants and secularists as well.

Quote :

5. Excommunicates and/or threatens to excommunicate people who own or read a Bible (this was, in fact, done in my area)

That is an outright LIE. You get a special indulgence for reading scripture!

Quote :

6. By it's own admission, has failed to instruct and teach it's members, rendering them ignorant of what it even teaches.

I guess I can sympathize here. We need better education.

Quote :

7. Has historically, according to scholars, forged historical documents in it's own favor to make itself look legit.

Prove it. A "scholar" can say anything they want.

Quote :

8. Claims a direct papal succession to Peter, even when the Scriptures themselves dictate that Peter was not called to pastor a Gentile congregation, but his primary ministry was to the Jews, that he was married, and from numerous other evidences, never founded the church at Rome (Paul did).

Paul did not found a Church at Rome, there were Christians in Rome already and Paul went there.

Quote :

9. Proclaims apostolic succession yet at the same time anathematizes what they clearly taught, ultimately anathematizing the apostles themselves, and also the early church fathers such as Clement.

Here's what Clement said:

Quote :

“Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all
those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all
abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after
change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. 'For
God,' saith [the Scripture], 'resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the
humble.' Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let
us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control,
standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our
works, and not our words." Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 30
(A.D. 98).

Quote :

"For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought
righteousness and truth through faith?" Clement of Rome, Epistle to the
Corinthians, 31 (A.D. 98).

Quote :

"All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own
sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but
through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in
Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or
understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of
heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has
justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Clement of Rome,
Epistle to the Corinthians, 32 (A.D. 98).

All I see here is Clement saying Faith is necessary, only a heretic denies that and they too were anathamatized at Trent.

Quote :

10. Uses their power for socio-political reasons instead of proclaiming the Gospel.

...And?

Quote :

11. Has recognized blatantly unregenerate, unrepentant heathens as "vicars of Christ", such as Alexander VI, who ordered assassinations on people he didn't like, had tons of illegitimate children, had sex orgies in the Vatican, and in the end, died from syphillis.

And the Church survived these Popes. The bad Popes are not an argument against the Church but rather an argument for the Church because the Church could survive through them. The gates of Hell did not prevail against the Church.

Quote :

12. Claims that the pope is God's representative on earth, yet at several points in time in history, there were anywhere between 2 and 4 people claiming the papal throne at the same time, even to the point of ordering each other's assassinations, in order to obtain political and religious power because Rome was important in the religious/political arena.

Your point?

Quote :

I'm sorry, but Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. But from the evidence shown here, the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome. Therefore, Rome is not Christ's church, and the pope is not His spokesman.
You would be blind and foolish to take one look at the history, the corruption, and the overall putridity of the Roman church system, and not see serious, inevitable problems. I'm sorry, but I cannot embrace this, and am unable to join hands with it. Knowing what I know about the history and current state of Rome, and knowing what I know about what the Scripture clearly teaches, I cannot submit to Rome, because I am unable to. I'm not unwilling, I am unable.

The fact the Church survived all this crap is an argument for it. Get this through your head. The Bible teaches Catholic doctrine, but you obviously don't want to accept that, and are going to grasp any straw you can to argue against it.

Quote :

And "talk to a wise priest"? I talked to the one here in my town. He didn't even know the content of the Bible. But he could quote church fathers really well. Still took him a good few minutes to find the book of 1 Corinthians, and he eventually just looked in the table of contents to find it.

That's ONE Priest.

Quote :

And by the way, to the Catholics here. I actually attended a Mass with a Catholic family I'm friends with a few Sundays ago. *shock*

I went to St. Patrick's Cathedral in New Orleans with them, which is the oldest RCC church in New Orleans, built in about 1834. This was one of the few RCC churches that still practices the Old Tridentine (old Latin) Mass. Let me share my experience.

99% of everything done was in Latin. I understood absolutely nothing, and of course, I learned absolutely nothing. No teaching went on whatsoever.

The only things that were said in English was a 5 minute speech on humility which told me absolutely nothing, and is something that every true christian would already know, and Scripture "reading". I put "reading" in quotes because they didn't really read it. They chanted it. And they didn't even announce what section of Scripture it was. It was out of 1 Corinthians 12, and the reason I knew was because I recognized it right off the bat. Then they did a few more things in Latin, and everyone went up to receive the Eucharist, and then we were dismissed.

I didn't learn a thing while I was in there. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. The place honestly felt more like a Buddhist temple than a church indwelt with the Spirit.

I also noticed that afterwards, even when we went to the back for refreshments, no one really fellowshiped with each other. It was like they came in to do their duty, eat the wafer, and then depart.


If I go to a church, I want to learn something. The RCC has, for centuries, failed to do this, and now they are paying for it. People in the hierarchy are today, lamenting over the fact that most of the membership of Rome is ignorant of what it teaches, and they should be.

Sorry, but I had to say this. My apologies, but it needed to be brought up.

The Church is not a schoolhouse, but all the homilies I've heard were vrey educational. The Tridentine Rite is NOT the main liturgy, and if you want to understand what is going on, go to a vernacular mass. I'll grant that education is in a pitiful state, but that has to be fixed.

Quote :

The place honestly felt more like a Buddhist temple than a church indwelt with the Spirit

What's wrong with Buddhists? What you "feel" means nothing. You can't feel, taste, touch, or hear God's grace. It's intangible.

Quote :

Sorry, but I had to say this. My apologies, but it needed to be brought up.

Here's something I would like to bring up: You are so ignorant of Catholicism, church history, church teaching, and history in general it AMAZES me.

Mark, when you said that point 5 that I made was an "outright lie", I was in fact not lying. I don't know how they operate where you are at, but there are several former Catholics that attend my church that have told me that this did happen, and people here in my area that are still in the Catholic church have refused to take Bibles from me because of fear of excommunication. This did and still does happen in my area, where Catholicism is hugely influential, because the area I live in was once part of France, and before that, Spain. From what I've noticed, Catholic churches in different areas operate in different ways. The ones here have done this to people, and this is part of the culture here. A guy I was talking to the other night who left the RCC said that his priest told him not to read the Bible because it would "confuse" him. This does happen in my area.

The Bible might teach SOME RCC doctrine. But go read Romans 4 and 5 and Galatians 3 and try to fit that into the works salvation gospel of the Catholic church. It's impossible.

And sure, there have been perverts within our ranks, but they actually get dealt with, as in excommunicated, defrocked, and put in jail and on the sex offender list. They don't get lawsuits filed in their favor as the Vatican has done. The Boston archdiocese has spent hundreds of millions trying to defend the perverts in their priesthood. It even got put on Court TV one time (I think it's truTV now), and several lawyers who have had to try and protect the victims have said that they have been exhausted trying to just get them to defrock the priests and have them arrested for child sexual abuse. There is a huge significant difference here, and it seems like Rome is more worried about public scandal and covering their own mistakes and doing damage control than they are worried about the welfare and safety of children. This is sickening beyond belief, and I am unable to respect any system, secular or religious, that would allow this to happen to small innocent children.

Some of the posts are getting a little toey, what I find most offensive and very very not ok is calling people Heretic, stop saying it please. The power of written or spoken words are powerful, be very careful what you say and I cut off anything that is unholy in the name of Jesus Christ.

therockismighty wrote:

Some of the posts are getting a little toey, what I find most offensive and very very not ok is calling people Heretic, stop saying it please. The power of written or spoken words are powerful, be very careful what you say and I cut off anything that is unholy in the name of Jesus Christ.

There is a fine line between calling someone a heretic to insult or use it expose heretical beliefs. If someone holds to a heretical doctrine they may rightly be named a heretic. However, the posters in this thread need to avoid using it as an insult. Perhaps it would be better to say "that is a heretical belief", etc. than saying "you're a heretic" because some people may take it as an insult.

I agree that some heads are butting in this thread, so please keep it calm people and be polite while still arguing your points.

But who decides what is heretical? It is a relative term. For example, some would hold that that anything opposed to Roman Catholic dogma is heretical, while others consider anything unbiblical, extra-biblical or anti-biblical to be heresy.

bee_rad wrote:

But who decides what is heretical? It is a relative term. For example, some would hold that that anything opposed to Roman Catholic dogma is heretical, while others consider anything unbiblical, extra-biblical or anti-biblical to be heresy.

If you say something is heretical make sure you back it up with why it is and then this won't be a problem. We can always all agree to disagree on what makes something heretical even after it has been backed up. Again, make sure you do not use it as an insult.

So many points have been thrown around at this point that it is hard to know how to respond to many of them, at least in a single post. We have sort of shifted from talking about Mary to discussing the Catholic church in particular, but so be it, I guess.

Let me begin with a few comments about "heresy."

Someone raised the question as to how do we decide who is a heretic, etc. Someone else said it is all relative. If the latter is true, then by definition, there is no such thing as "orthodox belief." If one can define orthodox belief (small "o"), then one allows for the notion of "heretic"--namely, whatever deviates from orthodox belief. So then the question becomes, how is orthodoxy defined?

Those who have read posts from me in the past know how I go about answering this. However, I'll repeat a different aspect of this here. In Catholic theology, one must distinguish between "material heresy" and "formal heresy." Material heresy means that one holds to a belief that is heretical (deviates from defined orthodoxy), but culpability is mitigated for a vareity of reasons. The person may be unaware of the orthodox view, therefore not understanding their view to be a deviation, etc. Formal heresy goes further--it means the person has had ample opportunity to understand the orthodox position, and still holds out for the heretical position. Technically, it MAY even be that to be a formal heretic, one has to have had a hearing by the authorities of the churhc, where it is clear that full opportunity to be presented with orthodox arguments has been given, etc. so that it is clear that the person knows what they are doing. In this case, it is not clear that a person born outside Catholicism could be a formal heretic; perhaps so, if they were in a position to fully understand the teaching, etc., but technically, such a person is not guilty of "cutting something" out from proper belief, as they never adhered to that in the first place. A better term may be "schismatic," but even this is tricky, since the person him/herself often did not enter into "schism." For this reason, the RC now prefers the term, for Protestants, "separated brethren."

The definition of orthodoxy outside of apostolic communities, especially those in union with the bishop of Rome, is by necessity a looser definition. Most can agree on general requirements (dual nature of Christ, etc.) but even this is somewhat arbitrary; after all, many who called themselves Christians prior to say, Nicea, would not accept this.


I have much more to say, but I'm leaving for the week-end--I'll try to get back in the next couple of days.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

Love the Blessed Mother of Christ as you love your own Mother.
All you have to do is respect and listen to Roman Catholic tradition.
We recognize "The Social Joys of Heaven." Mary is the Queen of Heaven.
This is the Communion of Saints. No matter what the modern man says,
The Church, canonizes Saints every year. Stating, if anyone is in Heaven,
this Soul is. Why does the new man cast aside 2000 years of Catholic
practice? Like saying I'm right, and a billion olden day people are wrong.
Go to a Catholic book store and start reading about how Saints lived
and died in grace. Start watching EWTN.com Order books also.
You, for the record, don't try to change history. Embrace it!
The Saints are in Heaven and they do hear our prayers. It's a mystery.
Read a "Catholic Bible." Lets have faith in Church teachings and Sunday Mass.
Mary never died. She was taken Body and Soul into Heaven. A mystery.
God's mercy endures forever. There is no sin "you" make that God will not forgive.
I bet you don't even know what a deadly "mortal sin" is. Good man that you are!
You love Jesus. Now love His Catholic Church and it's true traditions.
Talk to an old wise Priest, a living Saint. Go to confession soon.
God Bless. And if you are a die hard Protestant, get right with God.
Vigilance Saints Arise

what is the point, dude? You are not being coherent. What is the point you are trying to make?

FuneralOath wrote:

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

Love the Blessed Mother of Christ as you love your own Mother.
All you have to do is respect and listen to Roman Catholic tradition.
We recognize "The Social Joys of Heaven." Mary is the Queen of Heaven.
This is the Communion of Saints. No matter what the modern man says,
The Church, canonizes Saints every year. Stating, if anyone is in Heaven,
this Soul is. Why does the new man cast aside 2000 years of Catholic
practice? Like saying I'm right, and a billion olden day people are wrong.
Go to a Catholic book store and start reading about how Saints lived
and died in grace. Start watching EWTN.com Order books also.
You, for the record, don't try to change history. Embrace it!
The Saints are in Heaven and they do hear our prayers. It's a mystery.
Read a "Catholic Bible." Lets have faith in Church teachings and Sunday Mass.
Mary never died. She was taken Body and Soul into Heaven. A mystery.
God's mercy endures forever. There is no sin "you" make that God will not forgive.
I bet you don't even know what a deadly "mortal sin" is. Good man that you are!
You love Jesus. Now love His Catholic Church and it's true traditions.
Talk to an old wise Priest, a living Saint. Go to confession soon.
God Bless. And if you are a die hard Protestant, get right with God.
Vigilance Saints Arise

what is the point, dude? You are not being coherent. What is the point you are trying to make?

Catholic or Protestant, you should pray and write an essay for us all to read.

Kan-o-sushi wrote:

If someone holds to a heretical doctrine they may rightly be named a heretic. However, the posters in this thread need to avoid using it as an insult. Perhaps it would be better to say "that is a heretical belief", etc. than saying "you're a heretic" because some people may take it as an insult.

I'm using heretic to expose heretical beliefs, not as an insult, that would be ridiculous.

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

FuneralOath wrote:

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

Love the Blessed Mother of Christ as you love your own Mother.
All you have to do is respect and listen to Roman Catholic tradition.
We recognize "The Social Joys of Heaven." Mary is the Queen of Heaven.
This is the Communion of Saints. No matter what the modern man says,
The Church, canonizes Saints every year. Stating, if anyone is in Heaven,
this Soul is. Why does the new man cast aside 2000 years of Catholic
practice? Like saying I'm right, and a billion olden day people are wrong.
Go to a Catholic book store and start reading about how Saints lived
and died in grace. Start watching EWTN.com Order books also.
You, for the record, don't try to change history. Embrace it!
The Saints are in Heaven and they do hear our prayers. It's a mystery.
Read a "Catholic Bible." Lets have faith in Church teachings and Sunday Mass.
Mary never died. She was taken Body and Soul into Heaven. A mystery.
God's mercy endures forever. There is no sin "you" make that God will not forgive.
I bet you don't even know what a deadly "mortal sin" is. Good man that you are!
You love Jesus. Now love His Catholic Church and it's true traditions.
Talk to an old wise Priest, a living Saint. Go to confession soon.
God Bless. And if you are a die hard Protestant, get right with God.
Vigilance Saints Arise

what is the point, dude? You are not being coherent. What is the point you are trying to make?

Catholic or Protestant, you should pray and write an essay for us all to read.

What shall the essay be about?

felipe is here to drop knowledge bout tha theology and christ to show you!!

i love how anybody that copy/pastes a greek word from wikipedia is suddenly an educated biblical scholar.

plus, most catholics that i have ever known have never even read past the cover of their bible.


roflmao @ this thread

I did NOT take that from Wikipedia.

cool

Man,
Does Jesus Love His Mother!
You would want the best for your Mother.
God created the Mother of Christ, perfect.
EWTN.com
Souls fall in love and Marry. Only God can give you
a Wife, in time or in Eternity. Revelation ch. 12
The Woman is Mother Mary!
Those who pray in union with the Saints become Saints.
Like Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Mary and Joseph,
Grandma and Grandpa. Love songs are Heavenly. Even
Heavy Metal Love Songs. Rock N' Roll never dies!
We love Our Lady.
A Lady we all know, who shines white light and wants
to show, how everything still turns to gold...
Led Zeppelin Stairway to Heaven. Give me Heaven or nothing.

vandor wrote:

i love how anybody that copy/pastes a greek word from wikipedia is suddenly an educated biblical scholar.

plus, most catholics that i have ever known have never even read past the cover of their bible.


roflmao @ this thread

Please, if it wasn't for Catholic Monks in scholastic perfection,
there would be no Bible. I hope the blesst. EWTN.com

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

vandor wrote:

i love how anybody that copy/pastes a greek word from wikipedia is suddenly an educated biblical scholar.

plus, most catholics that i have ever known have never even read past the cover of their bible.


roflmao @ this thread

Please, if it wasn't for Catholic Monks in scholastic perfection,
there would be no Bible. I hope the blesst. EWTN.com

should I write the essay on the monks? Were the monks of considerable physical strength?

FuneralOath wrote:

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

vandor wrote:

i love how anybody that copy/pastes a greek word from wikipedia is suddenly an educated biblical scholar.

plus, most catholics that i have ever known have never even read past the cover of their bible.


roflmao @ this thread

Please, if it wasn't for Catholic Monks in scholastic perfection,
there would be no Bible. I hope the blesst. EWTN.com

should I write the essay on the monks? Were the monks of considerable physical strength?

the monks are good essay topic

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Someone raised the question as to how do we decide who is a heretic, etc. Someone else said it is all relative. If the latter is true, then by definition, there is no such thing as "orthodox belief." If one can define orthodox belief (small "o"), then one allows for the notion of "heretic"--namely, whatever deviates from orthodox belief. So then the question becomes, how is orthodoxy defined?

I said the word, "heretical" is relative simply due to the fact that there is disagreement about what it means. I personally believe there is such thing as orthodox belief (orthodox as in "right thinking"). I believe any system of Christian beliefs that have no real basis in God's Word can be considered heretical. The person could just be misinformed or they could knowingly hold those beliefs.

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

Please, if it wasn't for Catholic Monks in scholastic perfection,
there would be no Bible. I hope the blesst. EWTN.com

I am sure our God is powerful enough that he could accomplish his tasks without Catholic monks. Sure they were practically the only ones literate enough to write manuscripts at the time, but if they failed to obey God, He would find someone else to do the job. He could make it happen.

Personally, I don't believe the Roman Catholic Church is God's holy church. The true church is spiritual, not physical. The Bride of Christ is the collection of all true believers in His name.

Peter was not the "first pope," and there is no Biblical or historical evidence that the apostle was ever in Rome. There is no biblical reason to believe the keys of the Kingdom given to him by Christ were meant to last beyond the time he was alive. The papacy has little if any connection to the apostolic church. The only reason Catholicism is here today is because the Emperor Constantine thought of a clevar way to unite the east and west empire under one common religion. Constantine was not even a Christian himself, and there is no evidence he ever accepted Christ into his life. The sign he supposedly saw in the sky, "In My name, conquer" is not historically accepted by anyone, really. If we look throughout history, there have been some very religious and God fearing popes, but some were quite questionable. Some of them probably had pure motives, but most were just about power and control.

vandor wrote:

FuneralOath wrote:

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

vandor wrote:

i love how anybody that copy/pastes a greek word from wikipedia is suddenly an educated biblical scholar.

plus, most catholics that i have ever known have never even read past the cover of their bible.


roflmao @ this thread

Please, if it wasn't for Catholic Monks in scholastic perfection,
there would be no Bible. I hope the blesst. EWTN.com

should I write the essay on the monks? Were the monks of considerable physical strength?

the monks are good essay topic

Ok!

Essay:

The monk took the papyrus and began to write many things that he believed in the Bible. The monk eats plants and fruits. The monk has been educated at a university in the monastery. The monk lived and died in peace. The other monks mourned the monk.

End.

Felipe Diez III masters degree

FuneralOath wrote:

vandor wrote:

FuneralOath wrote:

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

vandor wrote:

i love how anybody that copy/pastes a greek word from wikipedia is suddenly an educated biblical scholar.

plus, most catholics that i have ever known have never even read past the cover of their bible.


roflmao @ this thread

Please, if it wasn't for Catholic Monks in scholastic perfection,
there would be no Bible. I hope the blesst. EWTN.com

should I write the essay on the monks? Were the monks of considerable physical strength?

the monks are good essay topic

Ok!

Essay:

The monk took the papyrus and began to write many things that he believed in the Bible. The monk eats plants and fruits. The monk has been educated at a university in the monastery. The monk lived and died in peace. The other monks mourned the monk.

End.

Felipe Diez III masters degree

the monks wrote the bible

vandor wrote:

FuneralOath wrote:

vandor wrote:

FuneralOath wrote:

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

vandor wrote:

i love how anybody that copy/pastes a greek word from wikipedia is suddenly an educated biblical scholar.

plus, most catholics that i have ever known have never even read past the cover of their bible.


roflmao @ this thread

Please, if it wasn't for Catholic Monks in scholastic perfection,
there would be no Bible. I hope the blesst. EWTN.com

should I write the essay on the monks? Were the monks of considerable physical strength?

the monks are good essay topic

Ok!

Essay:

The monk took the papyrus and began to write many things that he believed in the Bible. The monk eats plants and fruits. The monk has been educated at a university in the monastery. The monk lived and died in peace. The other monks mourned the monk.

End.

Felipe Diez III masters degree

the monks wrote the bible

we are very thankful for the services of the monks

bee_rad wrote:

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Someone raised the question as to how do we decide who is a heretic, etc. Someone else said it is all relative. If the latter is true, then by definition, there is no such thing as "orthodox belief." If one can define orthodox belief (small "o"), then one allows for the notion of "heretic"--namely, whatever deviates from orthodox belief. So then the question becomes, how is orthodoxy defined?

I said the word, "heretical" is relative simply due to the fact that there is disagreement about what it means. I personally believe there is such thing as orthodox belief (orthodox as in "right thinking"). I believe any system of Christian beliefs that have no real basis in God's Word can be considered heretical. The person could just be misinformed or they could knowingly hold those beliefs.

But who decides what teachings are in Scripture? For example, some would say that Scripture clearly teaches that the bread and wine of communion are Christ's actual body and blood, others would disagree. There are many other such things one can name. Also, as hard as it is for us to grasp today, there may have been a time when the majority of those who identified as Christian did not understand Christ to be divine in the same way God the Father is divine. We say today that this is "obviously" Scriptural largely because we have been taught this through a majority of self-called Christian traditions who accept the teachings from the Council of Nicea--but prior to Nicea, there were many familiar with the Scripture for whom this was not clear at all. This refers, of coruse to the Arian heresy.

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

Please, if it wasn't for Catholic Monks in scholastic perfection,
there would be no Bible. I hope the blesst. EWTN.com

Quote :

I am sure our God is powerful enough that he could accomplish his tasks without Catholic monks. Sure they were practically the only ones literate enough to write manuscripts at the time, but if they failed to obey God, He would find someone else to do the job. He could make it happen.

Personally, I don't believe the Roman Catholic Church is God's holy church. The true church is spiritual, not physical. The Bride of Christ is the collection of all true believers in His name.

It could be both. Certainly, if Christians are the body of Christ by virtue of uniting with His body and blood in communion (though certainly in conjunction with repentance and belief), then there is a sense in which this uniuon is both bodily and spiritual. I ask you to consider the significance of the incarnation. Christ has a body, even now. If we are to unite to Him, and we have bodies, it seems that our bodies and spirits must be bound to Him, both bodily and spiritually. This is why the sacraments are all physical. The idea that they are only symbolic could belie a tacit form of gnosticism (not to say that those who hold to such views are overtly gnostic in their Christology, etc.--my point simply is that these ideas creep in easily enough, in ways that can distract us from traditional Christian understandings).

Quote :

Peter was not the "first pope," and there is no Biblical or historical evidence that the apostle was ever in Rome.

Well, one can dispute what "Pope" conveys, but there is little serious argument about wehther Peter was in Rome (though the amount of time is disputed). His tomb is there, and as far as I know, this is not seriously questioned by modern schoalrs. There are early Church historians who
report that he was there. So certainly there is husotrical evidence. Biblical is a bit trickier, but a case can be made from that as well. In 1 Peter 5, Peter writres that this letter is sent from the chosen one in "Babylon." Babylon was sometimes used to refer to Rome (the literal Babylon, associated with modern day Iraq, would not be a possibility for a variety of reasons). In addition, though he does not name Peter by name, Paul alludes in Romans to the fact that he has not written them sooner because he wanted to write first to those who were in need of guidance, and he did not want to intrude upon another man's foundation. The Apostles are at times referred to in terms of "foundations" (see for example Rev., whjere it speaks of the foundaiton stones of the Church bearing the name of the Apostles), suggesting perhaps that another Apostle was there. This does not mean, of course, that this was necessarily the case, not that it was peter, but it raises questions.

Quote :

There is no biblical reason to believe the keys of the Kingdom given to him by Christ were meant to last beyond the time he was alive. The papacy has little if any connection to the apostolic church.

Hmm...if one follows the imagery in Isaiah, the notion of keys can reasonably be taken to convey something to be passed on to future generations. Alos, for those who groups who see Scripture as lending support to the notion of Apostolic succession (the Orthodox, Copts, etc.), some have pointed out that if AS generally passes on from Apostles to successors, a case can be made that primacy would as well (if Peter had primacy, etc.) I do not take the somewhat simplistic (IMO) apolgetic view that Petrine primacy, and the relevant passes in Matthew, are "obvious" Biblical defenses of the papacy, but a reasonable case can be made. There is actually much written on this--see for example (though it's very hard to get ahold of) the late Fr. Stanley Jaki's work on the concept of keys (note: Jaki was primary known for a being a world class philosopher of science),
various things by Scott Hahn (though he does write at a more simpl;ified, but still thoughtful, "popular" level, etc.)

Quote :

The only reason Catholicism is here today is because the Emperor Constantine thought of a clevar way to unite the east and west empire under one common religion. Constantine was not even a Christian himself, and there is no evidence he ever accepted Christ into his life.

Once again, more complex than you let on. Constantine was baptized near the end of his life, and he is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox church. Your reading is a fairly common take, along the lines of skeptical historical studies (which frequently try to interpret most or all historical developments according to political or economic motives--which certainly exist but can become reductionistic, and IMO often reflect the remnant of neo-Marxist ideology present in much contemporary academia). Constantine likely had a complex of motives, some sincere, some
opportunistic, etc. One should not rule out that God can work within such either--Christians were subject to persecution up to this time, and this helped to alleviate that, so there is some evidence right there that providence may have been involved.

Quote :

The sign he supposedly saw in the sky, "In My name, conquer" is not historically accepted by anyone, really. If we look throughout history, there have been some very religious and God fearing popes, but some were quite questionable. Some of them probably had pure motives, but most were just about power and control.

Why do you say "most?' I would suggest that the breadth of hisotru suggests the opposite--that most have been about trying to protect othodoxy and the unity of the church. Moreover, even some of those allegedly out for power are more complex figures than may first meet the eye. I would say that a fair and balanced study of history would indicate that remarkaly few of the hundreds of men who have served in the capsacity could be deeme dot have been "primarily" about power and control. This too is hard to judge--a desire to "control" could be, in some cases, a desire to protect the Church from disintegarting influences, etc. For example, when Pope Stephen insisted that traintiarian baptisms performed by schismatics be recognized, or that those who repented after renouncing the faith during persecution be allowed to remain in the church, some saw this as a "powerplay,' dictating what bishops in other diocese had to do. Others would say it was done out of a need to proterct unfiorm practice and teaching through the world.



My suspicion is that you have a handful of facts and are drawing far too general of an inference, both about particular individuals and about the papacy in general.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger