The Roots of Catholicism

Bob's begging the question, and who is surprised?

The Catholic Church admits that "the errors of Catholicism..."

Frankly, Bob, I can't stop beating my wife if I never started.

 

No, the point is, because I am alive, when he said I had no life, this means that he was talking spiritualy. Since I was only spiritualy dead this means I must take of his spiritual body and blood. It is figuratively speaking.

But we can see that you choose not to look at what the scriptures say. You are not allowed to. Your choose to believe what your church says these verses mean regardless of the blatant misrepresentation of the clear texts of the passage. That is your right. It really doesn't do much good to repeat the same points over and over again.

~Lorelei

 

The NT Church was formed on the day of Pentecost, but Pentecostalism and the belief that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was received with the evidence of speaking in tongues was not believed until around 1901. The organizations that teach this admit this fact because historically they know they can't prove their belief was taught before that time.

Until then, no one believed the speaking in tongues was the evidence for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Plain and Simple as admitted here by an organization who, if they could, would surely prove otherwise. After all, to do so would support their claims! But they can't prove otherwise because the pentecostal beliefs started at this time.

We have discussed the scriptures enough for you to know that Acts 2 is nothing like what you teach today. When you all speak in tongues, everyone does not understand you in your own language. We could go on and on.

This is off topic though, so we can start another thread if you would like to discuss this further.

So not only did the orginization start at this time, the beliefs that they held were new as well. They admit this here in this statement.


~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]Do you mind telling where you got this information?

MEE

 

(Scratching my head why you bring this up...)

He didn't? Well shucks, that means that the Church, not quite established yet until the resurrection, ascension and Pentecost, was in complete error even before it got started!

But for your information, even before the Church could so rule on such things, the thief on the cross was "baptized."

While not with water, later, in history martyrs in Rome, before they could be baptized, died bacause they would not renounce Christ, and thus were given a "baptism of blood." If a non-martyred death were to occur before baptism with water was given, then the individual receives a "baptism of desire."

Answer given above. But to repeat it, if they are Christians by desire and in the acceptance of Jesus christ as their Lord and Savior, they die "baptized" by their desire.

Nope, as I would hopefully join them in the Beatific Vision of God in heaven when I die!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not
thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn
away his wrath from him.
Proverbs 24:17-18


Putnam said, '"…Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all,
were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you
now…"

1 Peter 3:20-21

Berrian is saying, 'There you go again with your allegory/illustration, in this case it is the 'water' which reminds you of administered water baptism. The illustration is unwarrented, at least in Genesis, because Moses was merely trying to portray the fact that Noah's family was saved from a watery grave, when they entered the Ark and were secured in it. But, I must say that Pope Peter ties the two together but emphasizes the greater truths that Jesus has gone to Heaven, that everything is under His control, that the resurrection of Christ was and is true and that a clear conscience before the Lord is what really counts with Him. [I Peter 3:20-22]

{Signed} The Right, Reverend, Holy Father, the Elect one and first Pope,

The Apostle "Petros"

Be reminded that in II Peter 1:14 Petros was on his deathbed and still did not hold the above titles. Maybe Peter said, 'Brethren, how about we get a little tradition going here.' WPutnam, is this how the Petrine doctrine of Pope came into human reality? I do not think this is the way it happened.

If water was the introductory ministration to the sinner then why don't Catholics and other Christians baptize all adults first {securing their salvation} and then tell their clientele to obediently follow Jesus Christ through the life of the church? {after the fact}

By the way you are one of the very few Catholics who always attempt to answer our questions. I am impressed with your honesty in the area of human communication.

"Ray" [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

No, the point is, because I am alive, when he said I had no life, this means that he was talking spiritualy. Since I was only spiritualy dead this means I must take of his spiritual body and blood. It is figuratively speaking.</font>[/QUOTE]OK, I can accept that. We are alive in the body, but our spiritual life is either dead or in serious sin.

I am not allowed to do what? Read the bible, or to discern what the bible teaches without a reference to the only authority outside of the bible who can interpret it?

Let's see, we were talking about the "bread of life" discourse in John, Chapter 6, and I posted those literal sayings of Christ that affirms that we are to eat His body and drink His blood.

I also point out that if this was only an alligorical/figurative sense that we are to "consume" Christ, then why did the Jews claim "This is a hard saying"? Why did some of His own disciples leave him, Lorelei?

And by the way, when I first realized what this part of scripture was talking about I was still a Protestant! I was about 18 or 19 years old when I first realized this, and it was why I came to a Navy Catholic Chaplain for instructions and entry into the Catholic Church!

Today, I accept the teachings of the very Church who husbanded the very scriptures you hold in your hands, Lorelei! And that very same Church was that "authority" (given to her by Christ per Matthew 16:18-19) that could declare what she had colated and canonized as divinely inspired "God breathed" scriptures!

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 -

 

Ray, you are so silly.

By the time that those men penned the books of the NT, they were Christians and members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!

 

What makes you think I am Jewish?

I am not. I do understand that most, if not all of the first Christians were Jews.

You then quote me:

Today, I accept the teachings of the very Church who husbanded the very
scriptures you hold in your hands, Lorelei!

Husband: A married man, also "To manage prudently."

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

- St. Therese of Avila -

 

Ray
"Do you agree that some things in Catholicism are built on allegorization and human speculation coming out of the chambers of the Magisterium? "
Sure.

 

Bob's begging the question, and who is surprised?

The Catholic Church admits that "the errors of Catholicism..."

Frankly, Bob, I can't stop beating my wife if I never started. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh let me guess! That is your way of asking the more focused, more objective question "So Bob WHAT Catholic sources DO tell of that EVOLUTION?? I thought that all Catholic Doctrines hatched into existence in the first century with no real change since then!".

Surely that is what you "meant" to ask - right?

You know, "details", "Focus", "compelling thought", key counterpoint and all? Or did you really just mean to drop the ball?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Did you have a lot of fun with that post, Bob? Because it looks like you were really entertaining yourself.

 

"All of the writers of the Bible were Jewish except Luke who wrote the Book of Acts and the Book of St. Luke. He was obviously a Gentile penman."
Even this isn't completely certain. It has been suggested that Luke was a Hellenized Jew and that Mark is the most likely former Pagan of the lot. And let's not get into the some of the Letters were ghostwritten much later theories.

 

No, they were not "Roman Catholics" in the strictest sense, because Christianity had not yet penetrated Rome. They were THE CHURCH that was to have regional churches spread throughout the known world, to the East called the Eastern Church (now mostly Orthodox today) and the West, including churches in North Africa, Italy and Western Europe.

About AD 100, the term "Catholic" was applied to it's title since by then, Christianity had become "universal" in the known civilized world. The Church in the East was part of the Catholic Church and so was the Church in the West.

Why the enphasis on Rome? Because Peter went there, died there and was the first Bishop of Rome. And if Peter was indeed the chief of the apostles, then Rome became the center of authority of the Church! Had Peter gone to Constantnople instead, then Constantnnople would be the center of authority of the Catholic Church today! Had he stayed at Antioch, then Antioch would be the center of Church authority today!

And by the way, the term "Roman Catholic" is a term coined by the Anglicans in England to distinguish it from itself, calling herself the "Anglican Church." Today, the "Roman Catholic Church" is in reality the Church of the West, and does not include the Eastern Church, and that is why the full title of the Church is:

THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH

Please note the absense of the term "Roman" in the title.

Rome enjoys the privilage of having the Seat of Authority of the Church - The Holy See. This does not give any greater privilage to the Church of the West over the other branches of the Church, such as the Church of the East, not to mention the various other Rites that are as "Catholic" as Catholic can be.

Now, to get back to your first assertion, that "Church" that the early Jewish/apostles belonged to was that "acorn" of a Church that was to become the "mighty Oak" of a Church with the full title I gave above.

And that "mighty Oak" of a Church is the only Church who can trace her history back to the "acorn" in which those early writers belonged to.

Finally, and to make my point ad nausium - The "Roman Catholic Church" is a subset of the whole Church whose title I have given above. It is a part of the whole Church, which includes the Church in the East and other Rites that call themselves "Catholic, and who recognize the central authority in that small enclave within the the city of Rome called Vatican City.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

And here "I thought" the split between the Orthodox Catholic church and the Roman Catholic church happened long "before" the Anglicans came along.

And I also thought that the creation of the "Holy Roman Empire" was something done by the RCC long before the Anglicans came alone.

And I am surprised to learn that Roman Catholics today are simply going by name handed to them by the Anglicans.

But your learn something every day.

In Christ,

Bob

 

How do you know of the "little to do" of Peter in Rome? Strangely, under the main altar of St. Peters, waqy down, below even the first St. Peter's Church, they found the tomb of Peter! How do they know? Because there are several tombs surrounding it that have epataphs saying someting about wanting to be buried "near Peter."

Therefore, I think he had "some" influence on the Christians there, don't you think?

I need not place any more "feathers" then what the early church fathers have already placed, Ray!

Galatia was not THE "center of the universe" so to speak, in the known world, she being the capitol of the Roman empire and the obvious "plumb to pick" in Christian evangelization, for which much blood was spilled, and which makes it the obvious place for both Peter and Paul to travel to.

John was the "beloved disciple" of Jesus, yet it was Peter, the only apostle Christ scolded so often, that he made chief of the apostles! Being the "beloved disciple" does not an obvious leader make, something that Peter demonstrated by his brashness, getting his nose in trouble all the time, and his always speaking up for the apostles.

I think Jesus knew what He was doing...

Oh, give me a break! Even I get up and admire Rev. Billy Graham!

I do not worship John Paul II as a god, but I do show him the greatest of respect. I am glad you at least show him respect as well, so good for you, Ray!

Me too, Ray!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

And here "I thought" the split between the Orthodox Catholic church and the Roman Catholic church happened long "before" the Anglicans came along.</font>[/QUOTE]Anglicans didn't just "come along," as they were once Catholics! Before them, the Church was simply called "The Catholic Church." The Orthodox schism occurred circa AD 1000, onto which they coined the term "Orthodox" since they claimed to carry on the true faith, whereas the "Church at Rome" did not. Yet they hold, for all intents and purposes, the same beliefs and dogmas, even while they call them different names, and are the only non-Catholic church to have "Valid Orders." (Their succession by "laying of of hands" is still valid even while they are in schism) and thus their priests and bishops are validly ordained.

It would take little for the Orthodox Church to return and to be once again "in union with Rome" and when that occurs, the angels singing in heaven, I do believe, would be heard here on earth!

It became that by decree, I presume, by the first Roman emperor to become a Christian as there certainly was nothing "holy" about Rome in her former pagan days.

So what?

That is how I understand the term was coined. And it was Anglicans who told me that, but if I err here, somebody please correct me...

Interestingly, even Catholics use the term, which I consider to be an onymoron. I do not like the term myself, prefering to be call simply a "Catholic" and not a "Roman Catholic."

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.