Cross: Crossing The River Of Spiritual Separation

February 7, 2004

aye aye aye i hope that wasn't who i suspect it was.... :ph34r:

anyway,

1) true. that's what the word means. but let's not focus on "catholic" how about "ONE..CHURCH" "APOSTOLIC" there must be a line of Apostolic succession for a Church to be Apostolic (so it must be tracable to the Apostles, only the Catholic Church is) "ONE... CHURCH" there can only be one Church, anything that disagrees with all of the ONE CHURCH is not part of the ONE CHURCH.

2) One can say that Christianity worships a PERSONAL GOD who has made Himself known to us in a way that we can ALL see. this is through His Church. He has made it the only way to salvation, and thus all other ppl hoping to attain salvation must be saved by the truths of the Church, Muslims are not saved because they believe there is only one God Allah with Muhammed as His messenger, they are saved for belief in One God, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, the Creator of the world plus their attempt to do His will according to the dictates of their own God-given conscience. Jewish People are saved in the same way. But in both of those, they are still saved by the merits of the Church who is the Bride of Christ, the One Holy Apostolic Church. Any Catholic who is saved is saved by Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church, any protestant who is saved is saved by Jesus Christ through the Catholic CHurch, and Muslim or Jew who is saved is saved by Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church. the argument that Jesus was a Jew means nothing. JESUS was God, Jesus was Christ, and we are Christian, He was Hebrew Catholic, the very first type of Catholic.

3)no one denied we can speak with God. what we DO know, however, is that due to our fallen nature it is very easy for us as mere men to pollute God's message for us through our own desires. God came up with a solution so that He could teach us without imposing upon the free-will He desires that we have, He has a Church who we can look to to make sure our interpretations are correct, because we could very easily pollute our interpretations with what we want stuff to mean. Christ promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles throughout the Ages and THe Holy Spirit would prevent the Apostles in union with the successor to Peter from teaching error to the Church. that way, we are assured that the Church's teachings are not currupted by fallible man like any of our interpretations could easily be.

4) The Church is a totally different entity from the United States, because the Catholic Church claims to be founded by Jesus Christ Himself, and That She is protected from error in teachings of faith/morals. in this way, she has set up her doctrines as dominos, you don't believe one all the sudden you don't believe she's infallible, so why do you believe any?

... the protestant deception that has creeped into my Catholic Church disturbs me....

February 7, 2004

One more thing just came to mind:

If God didn't want us to have our own opinions, why did he give us free will?

so we could choose to love/worship/adore/FOLLOW Him into all truth... and He didn't leave that truth something to be grasped at by our intellect alone in the world, but by our intellect and spirit and prayer guided by a Church who gives us the Word of God through the Scriptures and through her teaching

He gives us free will because He loves us. He shows us what is true because He loves us. :teach: Because we love Him we use our Free Will to choose what He has shown us to be true.

February 7, 2004

1.) One cannot use the argument that in the Nicene Creed, the statement is made "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church" and that means Catholocism is the one and only way to true salvation. In this context, catholic is spelled with a lower case c. When it is spelled in this fashion, it means "universal" and is not referring to the religion as a whole. On the argument that universal means "all encompassing", that is only one definition. It also means "embracing a major part or the greatest portion", " comprehensively broad and versatile", and "adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements", and " present or occurring everywhere: existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions"...or at least these definitions are good enough for merriam webster. This context of the word catholic is referring to the christian faith as a whole, not Catholocism specifically. These definitions of universal don't quite fit your beliefs of complete and total acceptance.

2.)One can never say that Catholocism is the one true way to salvation. God would not send his son to earth and put him through terrible suffering just to say "All of you are forgiven....except for you, you, you, and you guys over there too." If one says that Catholocism is the only way to true salvation, then Jesus himself didn't make it perfectly because he was Jewish.

3.) One can not say that you cannot speak to God and must rely soley on the interpretations of others. If you cannot speak to god and he cannot act through you, what is prayer?

4.) One can not say that because someone does not accept one piece of the church, they are not Catholic. This is like saying that if you disagree with the president, you are not an American, or if you disagree with your teacher you are not a student.

These were all answers I received from a highly respected religious figure from my Catholic church. I suppose you are now going to tell me that they are not Catholic either.

You forget that until the schism between the East and West, the holy catholic Church was the Catholic Church. The Church isn't invisible; it's visible, and it subsists solely in the Catholic Church. Always has, always will. However, sincere non-Catholic Christians are also considered part of the Catholic Church in a way, albeit imperfectly so.

2.)One can never say that Catholocism is the one true way to salvation. God would not send his son to earth and put him through terrible suffering just to say "All of you are forgiven....except for you, you, you, and you guys over there too." If one says that Catholocism is the only way to true salvation, then Jesus himself didn't make it perfectly because he was Jewish.

Oh yes one can! The Catholic Church is the Church Jesus Christ founded. That does NOT, however, mean that non-Catholics can't be saved. If they're invincibly ignorant as to the truth of the Catholic faith, then they can still be saved too. But if they know the Church is true and yet still refuse to embrace it, then they can't be saved.

3.) One can not say that you cannot speak to God and must rely soley on the interpretations of others. If you cannot speak to god and he cannot act through you, what is prayer?

If you mean that we can't rely solely on the teachings of the Church, then your understanding of Church teaching is seriously flawed. Church teachings aren't opinions that the hierarchy forces down our throats. Rather, they're the teachings of Jesus Christ passed down for 2000 years.

4.) One can not say that because someone does not accept one piece of the church, they are not Catholic. This is like saying that if you disagree with the president, you are not an American, or if you disagree with your teacher you are not a student.

Bull! Did Jesus intend for His Church to be like a cafeteria where you pick and choose what you want and ignore the rest? I don't think so! Jesus said to His apostles (and also their successors, the hierarchy of the Church), "Whoever listens to you, listens to me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me." Your comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. Presidents and teachers rule on their own authority. Not the Church hierarchy. They rule on Jesus' authority. They don't make up their own rules; they just uphold HIS rules.

These were all answers I received from a highly respected religious figure from my Catholic church. I suppose you are now going to tell me that they are not Catholic either.

If they're telling you these things that go against Church teaching, they shouldn't call themselves Catholic.

February 7, 2004

so we could choose to love/worship/adore/FOLLOW Him into all truth... and He didn't leave that truth something to be grasped at by our intellect alone in the world, but by our intellect and spirit and prayer guided by a Church who gives us the Word of God through the Scriptures and through her teaching

He gives us free will because He loves us. He shows us what is true because He loves us. :teach: Because we love Him we use our Free Will to choose what He has shown us to be true.

I'd like to add that to willfully disagree with Church teaching is to put one's opinions above God, and that's using our free will for bad, not good.

February 7, 2004

Ok....I thought of a couple other little things to throw in after consulting with a religious figure tonight who shall remain nameless, mainly because he/she is known among many of the people here and I don't want to cause any conflict. After asking many questions, his/her response to many of these things made a lot of sense to me. The ones I can remember off the top of my head are as follows....I'm sure I'll remember more later as it is almost midnight and my mind is fried.

1.) One cannot use the argument that in the Nicene Creed, the statement is made "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church" and that means Catholocism is the one and only way to true salvation. In this context, catholic is spelled with a lower case c. When it is spelled in this fashion, it means "universal" and is not referring to the religion as a whole. On the argument that universal means "all encompassing", that is only one definition. It also means "embracing a major part or the greatest portion", " comprehensively broad and versatile", and "adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements", and " present or occurring everywhere: existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions"...or at least these definitions are good enough for merriam webster. This context of the word catholic is referring to the christian faith as a whole, not Catholocism specifically. These definitions of universal don't quite fit your beliefs of complete and total acceptance.

2.)One can never say that Catholocism is the one true way to salvation. God would not send his son to earth and put him through terrible suffering just to say "All of you are forgiven....except for you, you, you, and you guys over there too." If one says that Catholocism is the only way to true salvation, then Jesus himself didn't make it perfectly because he was Jewish.

3.) One can not say that you cannot speak to God and must rely soley on the interpretations of others. If you cannot speak to god and he cannot act through you, what is prayer?

4.) One can not say that because someone does not accept one piece of the church, they are not Catholic. This is like saying that if you disagree with the president, you are not an American, or if you disagree with your teacher you are not a student.

These were all answers I received from a highly respected religious figure from my Catholic church. I suppose you are now going to tell me that they are not Catholic either.

Nobody here has made the claims of feeneyism.

February 7, 2004

My question is for the "he/she" aspect of the argument. I'm a "she" and I don't accept as an authority any female "pastor". That's like men demanding to be able to bear children. It's impossible and contrary to nature.

Other than that, what all of the issues related to Catholicism come down to is the matter of AUTHORITY. One either accepts it or not.

Please see; Jn 15:15, 20:21; Lk 22:29-30; Mt 16:18; Jn 10:16; Lk 22:32; Eph 4:11; I Tim 3:1, 8, 5:17, Tit1:5.

As for me, I prefer to follow what Jesus and His disciples say rather than what man says today. - Muschi

February 7, 2004

My question is for the "he/she" aspect of the argument.

there was a he/she aspect of the argument? i missed it

February 7, 2004

hey, any Mediators of Meh out there? edit my post please, i don't wanna make such a presumtion and if my presumtion is true i don't want to publicize it. thanx in advance

February 7, 2004

JC if you are speaking of a priest he should be defrocked. If the posts of certain parties own this thread are representative of the Church mentioned on the first post in this thread then I'm writing the Arch/Bishop of Pittsburgh. If he takes no action I'm writing the CDF (formerly known as the Roman Inquisition).

Edited 'cause I got my dioceses wrong.

Edited February 7, 2004 by hyperdulia again

February 7, 2004

Pittsburgh

February 7, 2004

:ph34r: <it's Pittsburgh, not Philadelphia>

also... i'm not so much thinkin that's a good idea, maybe i'm too close to it, or maybe you're too far away. in any case, he's a good man and i shall continue to talk with him, he's good at helpin ppl with moral issues even if he might be a bit shakey on Orthodoxy. aye aye aye, we're talkin about a priest here, he brings Christ physically into the world for me... i'm not ready to seek his defrockment :ph34r: :ph34r: in fact i'd be opposed

if this was him tellin that to JC, i'll pray for him, maybe talk to him a bit <talkin to him didn't get anywhere last time i had a theological dispute with him over mortal sin, but still...> but pls don't do something against him, i'm sure there'z some sort of misunderstanding, it's just an over-emphasis of Vatican II's teaching on salvation of people who aren't Catholic in this life.

and this is why i wanted my comments deleted, because i'm not even sure if it's a priest we're talkin about in the first place! argh, and even if it is, now we're talkin about him behind his back! argh...

February 7, 2004

If a priest is presenting something other than the Catholic faith to young people, not yet formed in their faith, there is a problem--the is teaching heresy and appendinng the name Catholic to it, it is an abuse of the trust people put in their priests. If a man taught this kind of trash to my children...nm...

I'm writing a letter. He is using a building belonging to the Catholic Church to teach something other than the Catholic Faith. This is more important than his help with those struggling morally...our morals don't scare Satan...OUR FAITH IN CHRIST as revealed to HIS CHURCH does.

February 7, 2004

hold on there!!!... we're not even sure it's a priest yet

.......<me and my stupid presumptions> :ph34r:

it very well could be a youth minister or somethin...

February 7, 2004

either way I've seen three teenagers from the same parish start spouting the same nonsense. the bishop needs to check out the catechisis program.

February 7, 2004

those views do not represent all the youth of St. Ferdinands Parish, though i fear it is widespread :ph34r: St. Michael Pray for us.

Edited February 7, 2004 by Aloysius

February 7, 2004

why did you edit? i think your original post made a very short and sweet point.

Edited February 7, 2004 by hyperdulia again

February 7, 2004

i donno... lol i'm just crazy one end tryin to be charitable and the other tryin to be nice... i should just be charitable but for some reason i'm tryin to be too nice. ummmm.... i donno :ph34r:

and actually, on second thought, that was a comment for your sake. it will do no good for anyone else, and i'm editing it out... again. lol :ph34r:

Edited February 7, 2004 by Aloysius

February 7, 2004

There are other churches in this world that have more of an impact on people than the Catholic Church.

I disagree completely. For starters none of the protestant Church's have been around nearly as long as the Catholic Church (2,000 years) and their numbers over the history of Christianity are a drop in the bucket compared to Catholicism. Second, even today there are vastly more Catholics in the world than all protestant denominations combined. Third there is no organization in the entire world that does more charitable and humanitarian deeds. Look at the numbers for Catholic hospitals around the world alone. It's staggering. If you broaden your scope to look at the history of western civilization it's even more staggering. Anyway, I think this is a bunk claim. There are other angles one could look at as well, the fact that the Pope has been seen and heard by far more people than anyone else in the world. World Youth Day in Rome was the biggest gathering of people in the history of Europe. World Youth Day in the Phillipines was the largest gathering of people in the history of the world. I'd say the Pope alone has had an unparalleled impact on peoples lives, not to mention Mother Teresa of Calcutta. These are two or the 1 billion Catholics in the world and I think by themselves they claim the prize for the Catholic Church.

February 7, 2004

The Word of God, in fact, is blasphemed in the Roman Catholic Church. Some examples include your adoration of the Pope as a "Holy Father" and the ever-so-famous title he gets to proclaim "Your Holiness." This is blasphemy in the Highest. I believe in the faith of the Catholic Church, however I do not believe in the corruption that man has taken into the Church. They have defiled the Roman Catholic Church, and in turn, they have defiled God.

This is quite a vile claim which I'd say is not grounded in reality.

The Bible calls people holy all the time, and father. St. Paul often refers to normal Christians as "saints" which means holy ones. Paul also calls people father. It seems silly to say that calling the Pope the holy father is against the Bible. Also what you need to realize is that the title is based on the dignity of the office, not the holiness of the individual. The Papacy is holy because it is Christ's. Think of all the titles people use and have used for persons in particular offices. Calling a king "my lord", or even calling plain nobility "my lord" or "your lordship". I'm talking about good old protestants too. We call people "your honor", "your excellency" etc. There was a time when it was common to call a man of a particular office "your worship". Certainly calling a kind "your majesty" is based on his office as king, he might be a complete jerk and a looser, but you must respect the office. This is true with the Papacy too. You blaspheme the things of God by saying the Pope should not be called Holy Father.

February 7, 2004

I also think that that's blasphemed in the Word of God as well. Doesn't it say that you should not be of the world? You would be of the world wouldn't you by following Sacred Tradition?

Do not be so hasty with the 'b' word. The Church's Sacred Tradition is not of this world anymore than the Scriptures are of this world. They are inseperable. Before the Canon was established there was only Sacred Tradition. And not everything is written in the Bible (Jn 21:25; Acts 20:35). There is a distinction between Sacred Tradition and tradition. One is from God and is part of the deposit of Faith entrusted by Christ to His Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit. The other is normal traditions, customs, and disciplines which can change. Do not confuse these two. Paul said to hold fast to the traditions which he handed on (1 Cor 11:2). He says to hold fast to these traditions whether oral or written (2 Thess 2:15). These Traditions were entrusted to the Church which was established by Christ and to which Orthodox Christians belong not through accepting the Bible and making private interpretations, but by association with the Apostles through the hierarchy of the Church, namely the successors of the Apostles and those given authority through the Holy Apostles and their successors (Bishops, Priests/Presbyters, Deacons) through the laying on of hands. This Church of the Apostles exists today in unbroken succession in the Catholic Church. The protestant groups are traditions of men that broke away from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is not an opinion but is historical fact. Every protestant tradition can be traced back ultimately to some man who broke away from the Church.

Sign In

Cross: Crossing The River Of Spiritual Separation

Recommended Posts

Aloysius

Aloysius

Dave

Dave

cmotherofpirl

Muschi

Aloysius

Aloysius

hyperdulia again

hyperdulia again

Aloysius

hyperdulia again

Aloysius

hyperdulia again

Aloysius

hyperdulia again

Aloysius

Laudate_Dominum

Laudate_Dominum

Laudate_Dominum