"I will build my church"

First, let me say that I was going to let Jude come in and respond, but I can't help myself!

How does God "remove them," qb?

Are you going to put the Catholic Church in the same category with the "Johny-come latlies" Mormons? Their founder can be traced to the State of Illinois, not to the holy land and Jesus Christ! As for organizational structure, it helps to keep together an organization, just like the Nazi party had. But it, in and of itself, is not a sign of the "true church" of Christ. In any, case, I doubt if any non-Catholic community has the organization that the Catholic Church has, to her advantage.

And it would sure be nice for you to document that claim!

Be my guest!

Since my Bible, at least in the New Testament is identical to your bible other then the interpretation, please demonstrate where the Catholic Church has "alatered" the bible.

Pope Alexander VI had illigitimate children! If/when he died without repentance of his sins, he would reap his just reward, period. As since he was a pope, I am sure that if he was guilty at his death, he has sounded the very last place in hell!

But this does not negate the Church, anymore then the grevious sin of Judas, who betrayed Our Lord! But to carry your logic to it's conclusion, one must them conclude that Christ's gospel is a fraud, because the men who preached it were sinners!

Name them, please, and demonstrate where they were to so nefarious benefit to them or to the Church. And be advised I will be one of the first to call wrong, wrong, and right, right!

Demonstrate where the authority of the Catholic Church has directed someone to do wrong. I want actual facts with references, not some quote from Jack Chick or similar garbage.

And I will stand shoulder to shoulder in agreement with you here!

I could not agree more! And we have had our share of good pastors, qb! But to hear you talk, the bad ones negate the mission of the Catholic Church!

I recall the downfall of two televangelists who were members of a very active Fundamentalist community which I will not name, and the last thing I will do is go to a member of that congregation and "rub his nose in it" so to speak! Instead, I will express sorrow and pray with the individual to not loose faith!

That is fine, however it goes, qb, but please explain to way we see a constant irosion of the cohesiveness in Protestantism/Fundamentalism/Evangelism?

All I have to do is point to a city block or two in my town where we have four separate and distinct churches, all preaching a different gospel. But in my town, we have about 10 Catholic Churches, all under one bishop, who preach the same gospel message.

It's called unity, cohesion and constantcy in a union that has survived for the last 2,000 years.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Glory to God on high,
and on earth peace
to men of good will.
We praise you.
We bless you,
We adore you,
We glorify you,
We give you thanks
for your great glory;
Oh Lord God, Heavenly King,
God the Father Almighty!
Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten
Son;
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of
The Father;
Who takes away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us:
Who takes away the sins of the world.
receive our prayer;
Who sits at the right hand of the
Father, have mercy on us
For you alone are holy,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone, O Jesus Christ,
are most high,
Together with the Holy Spirit, in the
glory of God the Father.
Amen.

 

You have it backwards.

The answer is: "It never happened." The only kind of church is a local independent church. You'll be far pressed to find anything else in Scripture, or in the understanding of the early believers. This is relatively new concept, this universal invisible church, except when some refer to the Catholic Church as a denomination.

Take an objective look at the Bible and what do you find? The only thing that is found in Scripture is churches, not church. You never find the concept of a universal church in the Bible unless it is gathered together in Heaven. A church is an assembly. An assembly cannot be gathered together world wide.

If you want a word for all believers united together, we are the family of God, or the Bride of Christ, but not a universal church. There is no such animal in Scripture. It defies the very meaning of the word "ekklesia" from which the word church comes from.

Paul went on three missionary journeys, established over 100 churches, all independent of each other. Never did these churches unite together to become a denomination, or a so-called universal church. This is unproveable and imaginary in the minds of those that claim so. It cannot be demonstrated through Scripture. Ekkesia means "assembly," or "congregation."
DHK

 

Amen, DHK! The question is more accurately, how did some get to the universal invisible church position from the local church that Christ clearly established and was referring to?

 

Let's see now. Christ said, "...You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
(Matthew 16:18)

I do not see a concept of "churches" here by A CHURCH.

Therefore, while there is also mentioned in scripture the various "churches," such as the one in Corinth, Thessaloniki, and other places, collectively, they must be ONE CHURCH.

And by the way, it was not "invisible" either, either collectively as THE CHURCH or as a local/regional community of Christians! Else how could the Roman soldiers round them up for their martyrdom in the Roman circus?

Also, the evidence of history immediately after the close of the apostolic era finds a plethora of early church fathers who would affirm the authority of this church, including embarassingly identical doctrines we find preached in the Catholic Chrurch today!

http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp


God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

T2U replied to DKS with:

Gosh, T2U, that is as succinct a reply as I have seen in a great while! You have nailed it throughly the differences in our concept of what THE CHURCH is, compared to the plethora of "lttle local churches" all preaching a different gospel!

I wish I had said what you said! That was a marvelous reply!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Forgive us Lord,
when in longing to defend what is right,
when in trying to support the truth
we do what is hurtful and mean,
forgetting to take out
whatever logs are in our own eyes
to take the speck out of the eye of our fellows,
forgetting to work all things in love.

Lord, forgive us
when hurt by our fellow man,
we complain, and strike back.

Heal us Lord,
and give us strength to offer you
our hurts and sadnesses,
to offer you the pain of being corrected,
rather rightly or not.

If it is our job to correct,
help us learn to do it in ways that heal,
not hurt,

And whatever we do in your name,
may we always do it for your glory,
without hate, anger,
or the taint of self-righteousness.

May we learn to be quiet
in our longing and respect for you,
rather than speak words
that would drive any away from you,
or harm those who love you.

And when we speak,
may it always be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

 

As said above, what is His method? Of course, you may have a point...read the story of Arius.

There is no-doubt that some of the Popes, that some Bishops in Church history were corrupt. Many of the Kings of Israel/Judah were corrupt as well, yet the system of Kingship was approved by God. Nixon and Clinton were corrupt Presidents, for example, but I don't see many calling for the end of the Presidency.

But still, the problem here is 2-fold. First, what does the Pastor, who rightly believes in the full inspiration of Holy Scripture, do to interpret the Scripture to his congregation? What does he do with the more serious and difficult issues that have, divided the church? And that is the second problem, the problem particular to Protestantism, where "every man (does)what is right in his own eyes"? You mention 'authority'. Christ instituted his Church, and directed that their be Apostles/Bishops, to be THE authority in His church. THEY, and they alone, would interpret and defend the faith. Others, presbyter/elders, deacons, and laity would follow their prescriptions and teachings. You would have 'every individual' become a Pope! From this, only anarchy would follow. And it has.

 

Let's see now. Christ said, "...You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
(Matthew 16:18)

I do not see a concept of "churches" here by A CHURCH. </font>[/QUOTE]If I tell you the truth will you beieve me?
But, what "truth"?
Man has sinned. But, what "man"?
The "church" has one foundation. But what "church"?

There are some examples of generic nouns. "Man" has sinned. Which man is referred to? All men of course. And yet a singular noun, "man" is used in a collective sense to refer to all men, meaning that all men have sinned. When Jesus said "I will build my "assembly," (literally) He was using the word generically. It is a singular word used in a collective sense to refer to all assemblies. Christ is the head of every church. Every church belongs to Christ (that is still based on the Bible). A church is an assembly. We must always keep that in mind. It can never be universal; it can never be invisible--either one. BTW, both terms go hand in hand. If it is universal, then it is invisible. The RCC has about one billion members, but not one person can ever visibly see that one billion collectively gathered together in one place. It never becomes an assembly. If it never becomes an assembly, a congregation, it obviously isn't a Scriptural church.
Christ said "I will build my church." And He did, each and every one of them. He is the head. Christ said that He would indwell the believer. And he does, each and every one of them.

This is your conclusion, not based in fact.

The RCC remains invisible to most people. The persecution by Rome was upon believers from different places, not just one church. It was on the family of God as a whole. It was upon all believers, not just one church, as the church in Jerusalem.

Oh, I know that. One of your church fathers is the father of Arianism (Origen). Another of your church fathers believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80. Heresy started very early after the death of the Apostles. That is why we trust the Word of God, and not the church fathers.
DHK

 

Contrary, I have a great grasp of the supernatural by my study of the Word of God. If anyone is bound up in the material world it is the Catholic Church, one of the richest institutions in the world. What you call "Christ's Church," has nothing to do with the RCC. You don't have to take my word, look in some old time Protestant commentaries. Almost all of them identify the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon, some the Antichrist, some the false prophet. I suppose none of them had a great grasp of the supernatural either??

[QUOTETo you the church is your little local church.[/QUOTE]
That is right. And the sooner you learn what the definition of ekklesia is the better off you will be. I recommend to you that you invest in a Greek lexicon. Thayer's is best. In case you do not understand yet ekklesia, translated "church" in our Bible, simply means "assembly" or "congregation." It has nothing to do with a universal church or denomination. The sooner you learn that the better off you will be.

Your opinion is duly noted and recorded on this board. It is not what the Bible teaches, but thanks for your opinion anyway.

Quite literally you are close: a type of unleavened bread (crackers as long as they are unleavened) and grape juice. The represent the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ which we are to remember until he comes. Now this is what the Bible teaches. We are neither cannibalistic nor superstitious in our beliefs about the Lord's Table, unlike one religion I know.

The "eucharist" is no where taught in the Bible. Your statement is pure fiction and superstition.

What did Christ give:

Gal.5:22-25
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Christ gave us the Word of God, not a superstitious religion introduced at the time of Constantine along with various sorts of religious icons, superstitions, idolatries, and pagan practices. Christianity was paganized, became the state religion, and known as the Catholic Church.

I would rather have my Bible, thank you very much.
DHK

 

First, let me say that I was going to let Jude come in and respond, but I can't help myself!

How does God "remove them," qb?

Anyway He wants. He often uses people to accomplish His task. They may actually die. Their may be reprisal on the part of the people who come against him. I think we saw one way with Swaggert and Baker and another with the pedophile priests. I have seen churches disband because the people stopped coming. Nobody is exempt from God should he decide to go his own way.

Are you going to put the Catholic Church in the same category with the "Johny-come latlies" Mormons? Their founder can be traced to the State of Illinois, not to the holy land and Jesus Christ! As for organizational structure, it helps to keep together an organization, just like the Nazi party had. But it, in and of itself, is not a sign of the "true church" of Christ. In any, case, I doubt if any non-Catholic community has the organization that the Catholic Church has, to her advantage.</font>[/QUOTE]I would not even consider putting the RCC in the same category. What I am pointing out is that so many Mormons absolutely trust their prophet just the same way you trust the pope and his decrees. That is dangerous territory to be walking in. It seems that so much I what I have read seem to rise or fall on papal authority. To assume that there are not people who are not pastors that can know the scriptures well is false. There are many who have studied well and are not pastors but are scholars. I am not sure but I don’t think W.F. Albright was ever a pastor. But he certainly was the most brilliant man in the world when it came to linguistics and translation.

And it would sure be nice for you to document that claim!

The papal decrees. Mariology –the worshipiof Mary and asking the dead to pray for you.

Be my guest!

Since my Bible, at least in the New Testament is identical to your bible other then the interpretation, please demonstrate where the Catholic Church has "alatered" the bible. [/quote]

It has added to the Bible by Papal decrees that are not just suggestions but rather enforced as though they are from God that are not in accord with scripture. I gave the example of celibacy earlier..It has added to the Bible by auricular confession to a priest. I see no where in scripture where it suggests that a possible pedophile priest can forgive sin. Only God can forgive sin.

The men who preached the gospel sinned but they did not live a life of practicing sin. They repented and confessed their sin.

Name them, please, and demonstrate where they were to so nefarious benefit to them or to the Church. And be advised I will be one of the first to call wrong, wrong, and right, right!

Demonstrate where the authority of the Catholic Church has directed someone to do wrong. I want actual facts with references, not some quote from Jack Chick or similar garbage. [/quote]

I don't even think much of Jack Chick either. So we agree on that. Martin Luther gave 95. Just look at Dr. Eck and Tetzel. Look at the initial reason for indulgences and what was done with the money. Does gold spring a sinner from purgatory? If that is so, then the rich man can get more out of purgatory. You even stated that not many could read during that time. Just think of the manipulation of people. by the leaders of the RCC, It happens roday among quacks. I know you have seen it. Everyone has. Isn’t Benny from your area?

And I will stand shoulder to shoulder in agreement with you here!

I could not agree more! And we have had our share of good pastors, qb! But to hear you talk, the bad ones negate the mission of the Catholic Church!

You see the wrong as clearly as anybody else did. Don't ever think I would approve of their nonsense. I would try to keep from getting sucked in to their lifestyle and teaching. There are many false teachers in this world that appear as good teachers. But when their teaching is compared to the Bible their false teaching shows.

That is fine, however it goes, qb, but please explain to way we see a constant irosion of the cohesiveness in Protestantism/Fundamentalism/Evangelism? [/quote]

I see this as self and not God centered. Many churches are started because someone can’t get along with someone else and so they start a new church. I believe this is wrong. The scripture clearly tells s what to do when we have offended someone of they have offended us. I am convinced that there are more people wanting to follow the ways of their selfish desires rather than God’s will. Personally it is not a good witness and it sends the wrong message to the non-Christian.

Any church that is ruled from the top down and has such control may not have some of the same problems that others do. You only have to read Rev. 2 and 3 to know what you said is not always the case though. Every church is very different because the people are different. I lived in a town where the RCC pastor was a godly man. In his sermons he gave an invitation inviting people to come forward to talk about receiving Christ. Others I have been in have been nothing more than watery milk. That is true among all churches and denominations around the world.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Glory to God on high,
and on earth peace
to men of good will.
We praise you.
We bless you,
We adore you,
We glorify you,
We give you thanks
for your great glory;
Oh Lord God, Heavenly King,
God the Father Almighty!
Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten
Son;
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of
The Father;
Who takes away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us:
Who takes away the sins of the world.
receive our prayer;
Who sits at the right hand of the
Father, have mercy on us
For you alone are holy,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone, O Jesus Christ,
are most high,
Together with the Holy Spirit, in the
glory of God the Father.
Amen. [/QUOTE]

 

W Putnam “So, I don't know why you say what you say here, other then to demonstrate some sort of fear, a misapprehension, a preconceived notion of haughtiness, pride and unjustifiable imperialism you paint of the papacy in your mind, something I think is a product of your Protestant upbringing and exposure. I know, as I came from a point in my life where I saw this always. As a Protestant, the pope was "anathema" almost, in the mind of a former pastor of mine. As a Catholic I see both popes who were indeed as you suspect, but they are few in number, swamped by the seemingly hundreds of them who have "St." before their names”

gb Maybe you didn’t know but the RCC was my upbringing. I was a good catechism student and memorized all the stuff each week. Never once was i told that John 3:16 and John 1:12 applied to me. I asked a lot of questions about the homilies I heard. I began to see for myself that the RCC would make decisions on a whim. The big one came when the ladies were told that they didn’t need to wear hats. They no longer needed a head covering. Well if a head covering was needed and then all of a sudden not needed how does that line up with a consistent belief that God does not change?

As I recall the pope declared a lot of anathemas in the past. Did he not?

 

The Temple(s) with their Priesthood, established by God still existed with all of associated belief system.

I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is a belief system, just as the temple and priesthood is a belief system.

The Temple and Priesthood, was the church established under the OLD covenent, while the church of Jesus Christ is church of the NEW covenant.

The OLD had one frame of reference, while the NEW has a different frame of reference.

 

Qb replied, where he last said:

And I replied (in italics):

How does God "remove them," qb?

What do you think of the church the two individuals you mention belonged to? Shall they disband too? Or is this simply a case of "rotten eggs in the basket"? Can we just remove them, and the rest are fine, edible, not throwing them all out? Or do you take exception with the Catholic Church, just shut it down because of a bad pope or two, that Church is bad to the core?

You previously said:

The Mormons are organized and have a tremendous organizational structure. They expect you to submit to their authority. But their authority is not from heaven but rather from hell.

And I replied:

Are you going to put the Catholic Church in the same category with the "Johny-come lately" Mormons? Their founder can be traced to the State of Illinois, not to the holy land and Jesus Christ! As for organizational structure, it helps to keep together an organization, just like the Nazi party had. But it, in and of itself, is not a sign of the "true church" of Christ. In any, case, I doubt if any non-Catholic community has the organization that the Catholic Church has, to her advantage.

Who do you trust, QB? Oh, I know you may very well say, "I only trust myself in my reading and interpretation of the Bible" or similar words, them you would be setting yourself up as your own pope, chief bottle washer and a church of one! Rather isolated, don't you think?

You have to trust someone, so how about your pastor? How about your board of elders? If you loose trust in them, what do you do, go off seeking another church body? I have read messages in this forum and other forums how one person went "church shopping," looking for the one they liked, only to leave again because they "lost trust" in what the preacher was preaching there, or some other reason, but they could not trust any church they attended. To say, "all my trust is in God" is fine in and of itself, but then you become a "church of one" again.

Christ established a church with awesome authority and responsibility, and even though you will find a "bad egg" out of a thousand, why abandon that Church when from the very git go, even in Jesus' own group of apostles, one betrayed Him. His whole Church, divinely inspired and protected as it was, still had it's "bad eggs."

Our free will of choice applies to all, including the clergy of the church, who must still decide between good and evil, and I thank God they are few and far between, even in the present scandal in my Church.

You previously said:

My contention is that the RCC is not in line with scripture.

And it would sure be nice for you to document that claim!

Show me one decree that has Catholics "worshipping" Mary. I venerate Mary like I venerate my own deceased mother. That does not make either one a goddess!

I also hold the other saints that have gone before us in high regard because of the examples they demonstrate for all of us. I do not worship them because they are creatures of God like you and I. Therefore, they are not gods either!

If I were to ask you to pray for me, you would have no problem with that at all, but suppose a deceased person is with God in heaven. Do they cease to hear our prayers in that state? If so, why? Can they not be the perfect conduit of our prayers to God, that I may ask "St. Joseph, chaste spouse of Mary, pray for me (to God)"?

We are not asking them to converse with us, but to simply pray for us! Christ was the great intercessor in our salvation, but in prayer, we are all "intercessors" in that we can pray for one another. Why must this intercessory prayer stop at death? If one is in heaven, why can their grand station in heaven be that "ear to God" that our prayers come to Him?

The early church believed in the intercessory of the saints in prayer, qb, especially the Blessed Virgin Mary. And here is a good sample of what the early church fathers wrote about Mary:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/mary_dev.htm

You previously said:

It is adding to scripture. I believe that if you go back and study the history of the RCC you will see popes who have had illegitimate children. You will see evil deeds.

Since my Bible, at least in the New Testament is identical to your bible other then the interpretation, please demonstrate where the Catholic Church has "altered" the bible.

Show me a papal decree in the bible, please.

Look, I don't think you meant it quite that way, that the Church would actually go back and "edit the bible" to reflect the current doctrinal stance of the Church. But that is the way you sound.

I suspect what you really mean is, that the Church deviates from the bible with her decrees, right? Of course, I would disagree with you, and I want you to get specific. But then, you may have given me an example in the celibacy issue, so let's look at it closely:

Must the bible show a prohibition of marriage for the clergy within her pages, or can I indicate to you the bible can make such authoritative rules to that effect? Jesus said, "whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," per Matthew 16:19. Are you following me so far?

Now, the Church "binds" her new-to-be ordained to enter the priesthood unmarried, or to be celibate. Is that scriptural or not, considering the authority of "binding and loosing" I have just given? Suppose now that a previous canon, one that has all Catholics abstain from meat on Friday, a discipline imposed for hundreds of years is suddenly relaxed, it that now a good case of "loosing" that is not also "loosed" in heaven?

Scripture certainly recommends celibacy for those who can abide by it in their ministry; the Church makes it a requirement, per the authority scripture speaks of, in the Latin/Roman/Western Rite of the Church; the Eastern Church, in her various Rites, has a married priesthood as I have already spoken of here in this forum.

So, how is this not in keeping with scripture, qb?

Oh, and I almost forgot. Do you think a pedifile priest cannot be forgiven of his sins, qb? Or are you going to tell me that it is an "unforgivable sin"? Also, have you carefully read John 20:22-23 and understand what it is saying here?

I tell you what, you give my your interpretation of that piece of scripture and we can go from there…

I last said:

Pope Alexander VI had illigitimate children! If/when he died without repentance of his sins, he would reap his just reward, period. As since he was a pope, I am sure that if he was guilty at his death, he has sounded the very last place in hell!

But this does not negate the Church, anymore then the grevious sin of Judas, who betrayed Our Lord! But to carry your logic to it's conclusion, one must them conclude that Christ's gospel is a fraud, because the men who preached it were sinners!

You have no idea if those who preached the gospel sinned only once and never sinned again, any more then a pedafile priest who committed the sin only once, went to confession for it, and continued on in his priestly career never more committing that sin, yet is deposed from the exercise of his priesthood by the testimony of a single victim!

To what degree do you expect the clergy of any Christian community to remain pure, sinless and the perfect preacher, perhaps in your very own church, before you will throw him out on his ear? In contemplating this question, I suggest you look back upon your one conduct and see how you yourself measure up qb.

Name them, please, and demonstrate where they were to so nefarious benefit to them or to the Church. And be advised I will be one of the first to call wrong, wrong, and right, right!

Yes, like a civil authrity, like Nazi Germany, who ordered some to commit crimes against humanity. But I am still looking for example of this happening by a ruling coming from the Catholic Church to her faithful.

(continued in next message)

 

(Continued from previous message)

Demonstrate where the authority of the Catholic Church has directed someone to do wrong. I want actual facts with references, not some quote from Jack Chick or similar garbage.

First of all, I am glad you don't cater to Jack Chick!

Secondly, show me a Catholic Church decree or papal bull that states it is quite OK to commit the sin of Simonry (after Simon, the magician who tried to "buy" the charismatic powers from Peter) in the selling (by the clergy) or the purchase (by the faithful) of indulgences, qb.

That fact that some priests may have committed this sin does not make it an approved action by the Church! In fact, as I recall, such priests were severely disciplined for doing so, from the protests by Luther! And in fact, had Luther remained within the framework of the Church, he could have become a great reformer for the Catholic Church, just like St. Catherine of Sienna was! It is unfortunate that Luther went too far and bolted from the Church, noting that some fault did indeed, lie with the bull-headiness of some Catholic prelates that may have pushed him over the traces on this issue. They are at fault as well.

But the selling of indulgences was an "approved" doctrine or canon of the Church? Prove it sir!

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/myths.htm

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/indulgen.htm

http://www.catholicsites.com/beggarking/answer/indulgences.html

You previously last said:

Nobody can know my heart like God. That is the reason why I must understand who God is. For me to understand that God can humble me or lift me up depending on my attitude toward Him gets my serious attention.

And I will stand shoulder to shoulder in agreement with you here!

Again, you previously said:

No pastor can control the heart and mind of each person. A godly pastor will direct them in accordance with what scripture teaches. After all it is God's word. But it is up to the individual to know God and do what is right in the sight of God. God always wants us to do what is right. It is not dependent on any authority other than God himself.

I could not agree more! And we have had our share of good pastors, qb! But to hear you talk, the bad ones negate the mission of the Catholic Church!

And you reply now:

Whew! I'm glad you cleared that up!

Your statement is good a good one, to separate the "tendency" of many non-Catholics to equate the sins they see in the Catholic Church with the perceived error of doctrine within her. I am glad you cleared that up, but I will now be looking for a consistency from you in that vane.

Gee, you see some "fundamentalism" in me?

What "things" do you see other Catholics "worshipping," qb? Who else but God does the pope "worship"?

How many times have you had it explained to you that to honor Mary is not to worship her, but to simply acknowledge the wonderful place in God's divine plan that an ordinary human would achieve such a stature? That is not making her a God (or a "Goddess") anymore then when I honor my own Mother who I think is now in heaven with God! I still have a well-worn bible she used to read daily, the binder nearly broken completely and the finish worn to the fare cardboard make up of it's cover as a wonderful "relic" of my mother, but none of this makes her a God (or "Goddess") anymore then the veneration we give to the Blessed Mother, the very Theotokos, or "Godbearer" that we esteem her above all men.

Jesus is God, whem we worship as God; Mary is his esteemed mother!

I previously said:

I recall the downfall of two televangelists who were members of a very active Fundamentalist community which I will not name, and the last thing I will do is go to a member of that congregation and "rub his nose in it" so to speak! Instead, I will express sorrow and pray with the individual to not loose faith!

Thank you for that answer! And I am sure that most non-Catholic Christians feel the same way, as well as all of the Catholics I know who practice their faith.

The problem is, I see the sins of the Catholic clergy, wherever they occur, held against the Catholic Church as an example of the evil of that Church that invalidates the mission of that Church, even declaring it in apostasy! No, you have not gone that far, thank goodness, but I have seen it and I am glad you do not believe that.

You previously remarked:

The issue of authority is seldom an issue when the leaders and congregation do what is right in the sight of God. But it is with those who want power and control. Remember the illustration of the ant in Proverbs? They just get the job done.

And I previously replied:

That is fine, however it goes, qb, but please explain to why we see a constant erosion of the cohesiveness in Protestantism/Fundamentalism/Evangelism?

Your answer is quite revealing, qb, as it shows exactly why discipline, as practiced in the Catholic Church, has worked so well in keeping Catholicism together without such fragmentation. There have been heresies and breakaways, sure, such as the Orthodox schism in the 10th century, but never the fragmentation in Protestantism.

We have another thread in this forum concerning this fragmentation, the figure of 30,000 denominations hotly debated (In think - I am in so many different forums!)

Do you see such a fragmentation, even of a more reasonable 10.000 figure in the Catholic Church? Nope, not at all! Dissent in the Catholic Church is an ant hill compared to the Mount Everest of Protestant dissent!

I previously said:

All I have to do is point to a city block or two in my town where we have four separate and distinct churches, all preaching a different gospel. But in my town, we have about 10 Catholic Churches, all under one bishop, who preach the same gospel message.

NO reply here…………….?

I then continued:

It's called unity, cohesion and constancy in a union that has survived for the last 2,000 years.

Well, I have never heard of a Catholic priest speaking that way, other then to invite any who may have been attending Mass to look into an RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation, Adult) program that has outsiders be instructed in the Catholic faith without an obligation to follow throw and become a Catholic. The program lasts about 3 months!

As for preaching techniques, sure, but not to the point of preaching a different doctrine that falls outside of the bounds of Church teachings. And if this is so, the priest is in serious trouble if his bishop finds out and is removed from his parish.

Now, there is authority and discipline for you!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48)

 

gb Maybe you didn’t know but the RCC was my upbringing. I was a good catechism student and memorized all the stuff each week. Never once was i told that John 3:16 and John 1:12 applied to me. I asked a lot of questions about the homilies I heard. I began to see for myself that the RCC would make decisions on a whim. The big one came when the ladies were told that they didn’t need to wear hats. They no longer needed a head covering. Well if a head covering was needed and then all of a sudden not needed how does that line up with a consistent belief that God does not change?[/qb][/quote]

I have had this told to me often, and I find it incredible that you did not know that John 3:16 and John 1:12 not specific to Catholics as well, so perhaps you need to explain how it was explained to you that it shows a method of salvation different from the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Well, not exactly, as most of them were done by Church councils, with papal approval, of course.

Perhaps you misunderstand what an anathma is...

Do you think it is a condemnation to hell? If so, be advised that the Catholic Church has not the power nor the charisma to do such a thing, something reserved to God Himself as only He knows the hearts of men!

And anathma is like an excommunication, and you see a scriptural example of this in Matthew 18:16-18 with the sinning brother who refuses to repent...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Receive the holy Spirit, Whose sins you shall forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained,
John 20:23

 

I know you hate it, but I gottta say it.

More accurately, you would rather have your personal interpretation of the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]2Tim.2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

(John 5:39 KJV) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Never, in all the Bible, are we to follow another person's or organization's interpretation, such as the RCC. No man has all the deposit of truth. Every man personally will stand before God and give account of himself. He will give account of himself on how well he has obeyed God's Word in as much as he has understood it for himself, not in as much someone else has understood it for him. "Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God."
DHK

 

In my tenure as a pastor I have met some great men who studied hard and others who just gave sermons. There is a point where you do have to trust people. I have been fortunate in that I studied at the seminary that has the largest theological library in the US. Many times I would hear things and it would make me wonder so I would ask for the sources and go read them. Many times I saw a few Catholics studying there. The seminary had loads of Catholic books dating way back as well as current ones.

If we see Paul in action and Jesus in action we see them mentoring their disciples. Most every person today has access to historical information. But it does need to be compared with other historical information. Not every historian is equal.

I agree with you in some ways. “Looking for a perfect church? If you find one don’t join it because you will ruin it.” I can certainly trust God in the midst of some characters who are not so good. God always blesses the church that seeks to do His will. .I am more interested in knowing what scripture teaches than what a denomination teaches. A man once asked me, “How do you tell a crooked stick? You lay a straight one next to it.” The straight one of Christianity is the Bible. I do not try and change the Bible to what I want it to say or tell the people. But I must change to conform to what it teaches.

There are no perfect churches. But there is no doubt that some are better than others. I want to be in one that comes closest to living and teaching according to scripture. You mentioned about church hoppers. They are a tremendous blessing to the church they just left.

I believe you hit the nail on the head exactly when you said, “Christ established a church with awesome authority and responsibility.” With authority comes a responsibility to use it wisely. I do believe in many ways the RCC is undergoing change for the better. From what I have read, Pope John XXIII tried to right the wrongs but some clergy were upset in the process. I think the changes he tried it make were very good.

I would be interested in your proof why you believe that it is necessary to have more than just the Bible for faith and practice.

When you ask someone to pray for you, you definitely are conversing with them. I don’t know how else you could communicate other than by your will. Prayers are entreaties. When we pray we are entreating whoever we pray to.

Talking with the dead is an occult practice today.

In the Old Testament communicating with the dead is forbidden by God:

Deut 18:9-12, "When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. "For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord; and because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you.

What does it say about calling up the dead?

Isaiah 8:19,20, “When they say to you, "Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter," should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”

The punishment for contacting the dead is very severe, if they do not repent.

It says in 2 Corinthians 11:14 that Satan disguises himself as "an angel of light,". He’s not going tell us its demonic or we would know for sure and run.

In any vison or prophecy does come true we are still instructed to exaamjune the source. If it glorifies anything or any other person other than God it not from God.

Romans 8:26,27, “26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

According to these verses it is the Holy Spirit who intercedes for us.no where in the Bible do I see spirits of the dead interceding for us as being from God. If it is not from God then you kniow where it is from.

I would think that you would want to take a look at one of the early church fathers, Tertullian, on baptism..

Then what did Rome do with the money from indulgences? And what is the purpose of indulgences? Show me where indulgences was practiced in the Christian church before the time of Luther.


“HOW TO GAIN AN INDULGENCE from http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/indulgen.htm

To gain any indulgence you must be a Catholic in a state of grace. You must be a Catholic in order to be under the Church's jurisdiction, and you must be in a state of grace because apart from God's grace none of your actions are fundamentally pleasing to God (meritorious). You also must have at least the habitual intention of gaining an indulgence by the act performed.

To gain a partial indulgence, you must perform with a contrite heart the act to which the indulgence is attached.

To gain a plenary indulgence you must perform the act with a contrite heart plus you must go to confession (one confession may suffice for several plenary indulgences), receive Holy Communion, and pray for the pope's intentions. (An Our Father and a Hail Mary said for the pope's intentions are sufficient, although you are free to substitute other prayers of your own choosing.) The final condition is that you must be free from all attachment to sin, including venial sin.

Because of the extreme difficulty in meeting the final condition, plenary indulgences are rarely obtained. If you attempt to receive a plenary indulgence, but are unable to meet the last condition, a partial indulgence is received instead.

Below are indulgences listed in the Handbook of Indulgences (New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1991). Note that there is an indulgence for Bible reading. So, rather than discouraging Bible reading, the Catholic Church promotes it by giving indulgences for it! (This was the case long before Vatican II.)

An act of spiritual communion, expressed in any devout formula whatsoever, is endowed with a partial indulgence

A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who devoutly spend time in mental prayer.

A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who read sacred Scripture with the veneration due God's word and as a form of spiritual reading. The indulgence will be a plenary one when such reading is done for at least one-half hour [provided the other conditions are met].

A partial indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who devoutly sign themselves with the cross while saying the customary formula: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

Priests who administer the sacraments to the Christian faithful who are in a life-and- death situation should not neglect to impart to them the apostolic blessing, with its attached indulgence. But if a priest cannot be present, Holy Mother Church lovingly grants such persons who are rightly disposed a plenary indulgence to be obtained in articulo mortis, at the approach of death, provided they regularly prayed in some way during their lifetime. The use of a crucifix or a cross is recommended in obtaining this plenary indulgence. In such a situation the three usual conditions required in order to gain a plenary indulgence are substituted for by the condition "provided they regularly prayed in some way." The Christian faithful can obtain the plenary indulgence mentioned here as death approaches (in articulo mortis) even if they had already obtained another plenary indulgence that same day.”

So I would assume you would support a works based grace if you believe what was stated previously.

Can someone get an indulgence without giving money? If so can you give me a refernce?

Doesn’t the issue of indulgences just smack of Benny Hinn manipulation?

Then why do so many Catholics have statues of Mary at their homes and in their cars? Why do I see and hear Catholics praying to Mary? Whomever you pray to, isn’t that the same as worshiping that person or deity? In secular letters during Paul’s day there were prayers to deities. But Paul’s prayers in his letters were to God never anyone of anything else.

 

Qb replied, where I last said:

Who do you trust, QB? Oh, I know you may very well say, "I only trust myself in my reading and interpretation of the Bible" or similar words, them you would be setting yourself up as your own pope, chief bottle washer and a church of one! Rather isolated, don't you think

You have to trust someone, so how about your pastor? How about your board of elders?

The point I (think) I was trying to make is, somehow, somewhere, you must be able to discern the ultimate truth of Christ, what His gospel was, and how do we discern that gospel message today. How do we do that?

Without getting into the mechanics of my conclusion that Christianity is the true religion of God here on earth, the only real way for me is to look at all of the factions of Christianity to find the truth, determined by:

1. It's age. That, In and of itself, does not make it the truth, but rather the fact that if it is the very original manifestation of Christianity in the beginning, and if Christianity is truth, then precedence becomes an important fact for determining that faction that was the original truth of Christianity. What was that "faction" of Christianity between Pentecost and the present day, noting that it was the only "faction" up and until the Orthodox schism circa AD 1,000.

2. Consistency in doctrine. That in the time of it's existence, there has not been a change in doctrine or faith. That does not mean that a doctrine is not refined, such as the definition as a dogma, the doctrine of the Trinity, it always being there in infant form until it was challenged, but that in the development of doctrine and dogma, there has not been an abandonment of a previous dogma or doctrine, the origination of a novel doctrine or dogma but only it's subsequent development. The Trinity is an outstanding example because we both believe in the Trinity, presumably without a biased shading or you or my part. In the infant church, the word "Trinity" would not have produced a nodding response, but the concept of God being manifested in three persons does. We see the Father stating He will send His divine Son; the Son speaking of the will of the Father, yet "before Abraham came to be, I AM" declares Him as God; and finally, the Son sends the holy Spirit, who comes down at Pentecost and other times, the third manifestation of God in a person, yet there is only one God. (Others can say this better then I can!)

If I had to find the one thing that convinced me of the ultimate truth of Catholicism in consistency of doctrine, it was the events in 1930. There was not one Christian faction that allowed for the use of artificial birth control; it was considered a serious sin. The dam broke when at the Lambeth conference by the Church of England (Anglican) that allowed for it, the rest followed along except for the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is consistent in condemning the practice before, and it continues to condemn it now. And I know of no other Church who is consistent in the doctrine of the nondissolvability of marriage where a valid marriage exists other then death of one spouse. Again, most Christian factions were lock step in agreement with the Catholic Church in early times. Today, it is permitted, but again, not the Catholic Church.

That ultimately means that I trust in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church! And if you then boil that down as my obedience to the pope, then so be it! It is the pope in conjunction with the teaching authority, the Magisterium of the Church, that I sincerely believe that the ultimate truth of Christianity lies.

I do not insist that this is an easy thing for a non-Catholic to believe overnight, lock stock and barrel. It took me many years to come to that conclusion in my heart and mind. And I surely do not think I am glib of tongue enough to convince you one way or the other in our few exchanges as well.

I last said:

If you loose trust in them, what do you do, go off seeking another church body? I have read messages in this forum and other forums how one person went "church shopping," looking for the one they liked, only to leave again because they "lost trust" in what the preacher was preaching there, or some other reason, but they could not trust any church they attended. To say, "all my trust is in God" is fine in and of itself, but then you become a "church of one" again.

Christ established a church with awesome authority and responsibility, and even though you will find a "bad egg" out of a thousand, why abandon that Church when from the very git go, even in Jesus' own group of apostles, one betrayed Him. His whole Church, divinely inspired and protected as it was, still had it's "bad eggs."

Our free will of choice applies to all, including the clergy of the church, who must still decide between good and evil, and I thank God they are few and far between, even in the present scandal in my Church.

Agreed, but the sheer volume of what is available that supports the truth of the Catholic Church, in my humble opinion, overshadows all! I know this is hard for the non-Catholic to comprehend, he/she being conditioned to go only by what their interpretation of scripture says, but look at the stark limitation and danger that poses. Reads your bible in a prayerful attitude, always asking God to help you understand what it says to you is terribly subjective and can be very misleading to an individual. And it was obvious to me, in my early investigative years that this led to chaos. Luther claimed (it is said) that a "milk maid could read and understand scripture." (paraphrased from memory) He later lamented, I understand, the explosion of diverse interpretations that led to a splintering of Protestant Christian thought and diverse doctrines we see to this day! One denomination believes and teaches the salvific power of baptism, others simply believe it is an optional outward display of your Christian committment to others witnessing. As I may have said before, the baptismal tank in my previous church affiliation stood dry as a bone for about two years, nary a baptism took place at all! I could mention holy communion again, and you know what I am going to say about that. One Church believes in the true presence of God in the Eucharist, whereas another simply sees it as a symbol of Christ, not His body and blood at all. One of those churches has to be in error! That is the stark reality!

You continued:

I like that saying!

But then we will run immediately into a disagreement as to the "standard" that is the bible. How do we measure that "standard" when that standard can be interpreted in so many ways? And as I am prone to do, where was that "standard" from the time of Pentecost to the time the New Testament was finally compiled, canonized and generally made available to all who could refer to that "standard"?

I have yet to see an adequate answer from any of my non-Catholic Christian friends…

I would insist that there is at least one!

But then I would have to immediately point to the imperfection of it's members, including the clergy, let along individuals who make-up the faithful in my church! I don't like some of the music we have, my being more "traditional" in my desires, and my pastor is not the best sermon giver in the world, but I think the world of this man! He has his faults and failures just like I have mine. And in some ways, I am a failure big time! But my parish church is a local church within the regional church that is the diocese of Pensecola-Tallahassee, that, with my bishop, is under the protection of THE CHURCH in consistency, discipline and doctrine. There is no other Christian community that comes close to this cohesion, in my humble opinion.

Is there strife and disunity? Yes, there is some, but it is an "ant hill" compared to the "Mount Everest" of disunity I see in the rest of Christianity. That was a big reason for my attraction to Catholicism in the first place back in 1953.

I bet I'm older then you!

I am glad you said that, qb, noting that there were indeed, some popes who did not do so wisely by their own conduct and example. I shudder to think what punishment awaited them in their judgment, noting also that I cannot judge, only God knew their hearts. But a failure in their responsibility must bring a much greater consequence then one who has little responsibility save for his conduct before Almighty God.

But to continue in your vane, I think John Paul II continue that "reform" today, bless his heart, I think God will call him home very soon now. (I have the feeling he may not last out this year…)

qb, I am not sure I can prove it to you, but I will give it a try:

As you already seen me say, there was a time when there was only the church; there was no New Testament. In other words, Christ established a church, not a bible! On the other hand, Christ certainly quoted from scripture (The Old Testament) which indicates a tacit approval of the use of scripture. But what we do not have is Christ instructing his apostles to write a bible in order to "etch in concrete" so to speak, the gospel message He gave them orally, while He was in the flesh with His apostles here on earth. (We both know that Jesus, from heaven, spoke to John in his writing about the "seven churches" in the Book of Revelation.) Therefore, all authority for "faith and practice" was resident in the Church and the Church only in the new covenant of Christ and His gospel message.

However, the New Testament was written. And there is no doubt that the gospels were written in order to achieve that "etched in concrete" gospel message in written form and I think you would agree with me that it was the providence of God that they do so. Remember that Christ spoke of the authority and the power to "bind and loose," first given to Peter in Matthew 16:18 and later to the rest of the apostles in Matthew 18:18 that indicates that decisions concerning faith and morals would be reflected in heaven as either "bound" as if God "bound" it, and "loosed" as if God "loosed" it. And mind you, this was spoken orally to Peter and the apostles before this was recorded in the very scriptures we believe was from the providence of God.

But who decided that scripture was an authority to begin with? Well, the precedent of the Old Testament was there, it now being a closed covenant. It was an authority the preceded the church, even while it's old covenant is not closed, replaced by the new covenant and the gospel of Christ. I submit that it was the authority of the Church that first collated, canonized and declared as divinely inspired "God breathed" scripture, even while places in the New Testament say this about itself, it does not define the boundaries of "itself;" the Church does!

I could almost argue the case that the Church is the only authority, but I don't do so because it was the Church was the authority that recognized the authority of the New Testament, whose contents it bounded and defined - The New Testament cannot do that by itself - what was once the only authority (the Church, between Pentecost and the completion of the inscripturation of the New Testament) now defines scripture as a parallel authority alongside itself, not in opposition or competition, but in a symbiotic relationship with the authority of the Church in the first place. And oh, I find that easy to do, once the Church defined the authorship of the New Testament, from the pens of the apostles who received authority in the first place, thus their writings were authority! Therefore, I would not make the case that the Church is the only authority other then to define the range of authority that includes the New Testament (and the Old Testament, by the way, as they continued it in the Bible from the Septuagint Greek version the early Christians favored.)

Now, if that is not a good case for the combined case of authority in existence in both the Church and in holy Scripture, then I don't know how else to define it. The Church husbanded the scriptures, yet the scriptures heralds the establishment of the Church. It is almost like the song, "Love and Marriage, they go together like horse and carriage."

When the protests began against the Church, one of the first things that had to go was the authority of the Church. What else could they turn to for authority but for scriptures that the Church herself husbanded?

It is like a protesting group of citizens, going to a desert island somewhere with a copy of the Constitution of the United States, denying the authority of the United States that authority only exists in the Constitution!

Sorry, it is a poor analogy, but it serves to point to the absurdity, in my humble opinion, of the idea and doctrines of Sola Scriptura.

I last said:

If I were to ask you to pray for me, you would have no problem with that at all, but suppose a deceased person is with God in heaven. Do they cease to hear our prayers in that state? If so, why? Can they not be the perfect conduit of our prayers to God, that I may ask "St. Joseph, chaste spouse of Mary, pray for me (to God)"?

We are not asking them to converse with us, but to simply pray for us! Christ was the great intercessor in our salvation, but in prayer, we are all "intercessors" in that we can pray for one another. Why must this intercessory prayer stop at death? If one is in heaven, why can their grand station in heaven be that "ear to God" that our prayers come to Him?

OK, I agree here…

(Continued in next message)