I don’t have a problem with atheists — each to his own comfort level — nonetheless, it is ridiculous for one of that inclination to get rattled to the extent that others of belief are denied their comfort. Atheism by definition is free from religion. Theists are free to believe as they see fit; atheists should look upon these " misguided" as pathetic but have the right to the "wrong" path. If, however, atheist take on the passion of "religion" in their belief that there is no God, they in reality are in the business of propagating their non-faith as feverishly as the old Marxist line. In this respect they are as trapped in "belief" as the rest of us pathetic old fools. They should therefore lobby for a limited currency series that states "In "God we do not trust," or a postage stamp that shows a black hole with the inscription "Godless."
Sinperium,
Re: your posts # 80 and 84 ....
Most of your assertions about the Catholic Church and Catholicism are either partially or totally incorrect.
For example,
RE: the highlighted. No, it's not the Catholic CHURCH that became the Christian religion, but rather the Catholic FAITH, Catholicism, that is Christ's Christian religion. On the first Pentecost Day in 33AD. Christ sent the Church to finish His Mission of teaching and preaching in His name His Christian religion, that would later be known as Catholicism. Sacred Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture confirm this.
The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. That is the members are bound together and to Christ, their Eternal Head into a spiritual though real organic body by the supernatural life of grace received at Baptism.
The Catholic Church is the visible organic society of the validly baptized faithful, united together in one organic body,by the profession of the same Christian faith, by the participation of the same Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, and the same 7 Sacraments, under the authority of Christ's appointed earthly head of His Church and the bishops in union with him.
Here's how we know and understand that.
There is a theological unity in Christ's Church and Christ's religion.
St. Paul describes that unity in Ephesians 4:4-6 ... there is but "one body", "one Spirit", "one hope", "one Lord", "one faith", "one baptism", "one God and Father of us all who is above all, through all and in us all." .
Now when you say that the Catholic Church claims special status, that's true. The Church claims that she was Divinely established and that she and only she truly fits exactly the theological unity described by St.Paul in Eph. 4:4-6. No other church or religion can make this claim and have it be true.
The Catholic Church is the Mystical "one Body" of Christ. The "one Holy Spirit" maintains the unity of the "one body". The Apostles taught both in Tradition and in Scripture that Christ constantly calls and gathers together the people of His New Covenant, which is the Catholic Church into a unity of faith, hope and charity. "One Lord" is the Eternal Head of the "one body". They profess "one Faith", the Christian religion, that Christ taught and which the Apostles and the Catholic Church have expressed in clear statements of doctrine and dogma.
During the very time the Catholic Church's bishops were committing to paper the writing which we call the New Testament, the Church was a functioning organism. Historical documents and the Church Fathers testify to the one Church with one set of unchanging doctrines, identical to those which have continued up to our time in the CC and on Christ's promise will continue until the end of time despite the fact that the truth is constantly under attack.
What does this mean?
Sad but true.
Steven - Sorry I missed your return! I hope you are still around to titillate our intellect!
No way, BT. This is just one more of your empty blasts against the CC.
You are just repeating something without checking into it. It also tells us you don't know much about the Protestant religious systems if you think Protestantism, with its thousands of different sects with different doctrines, is a return to the "one faith", "one body" as per the Holy Bible, and specifically Eph. 4:4-6.
There is no such thing as the Protestant faith, let alone "one Protestant faith". Since 1517 there have been thousands of varieties of Protestantism each variety containing some true things (they brought from CC teachings) mixed up with its own particular errors.
How can the various Protestant sects religious systems be a return to Christianity as per the Bible when they disobey Christ?
---by claiming the Protestant doctrine, Sola Scriptura, that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith and guide to salvation, when Scripture itself says that it is not?
---by denying the authority of the Church established by Christ?
---by throwing out the 7 Sacraments instituted by Christ?
I could go on and on and on...
Christ proclaimed His Church would not fail. The Protestant forefathers said that it did fail. Instead of protesting merely against the bad lives of her members including some of popes and bishops, they went TOO FAR and protested against the Church's Christ given doctrines as such. Protest as much as you like against individual abuses in the Catholic Church, but no one has the right to set up his own church or religion.
Here's the bottom line BT which you should keep in mind before you go on repeating the nonsense. Protestantism was not a true reformation of the Church. It wasn't a reformation at all. The identity of the Catholic Church is indissolubly linked with a continuous identity of doctrine, worship and discipline.
Protestantism involves the abolition of essential Christological doctrines, worship, and discipline substituting completely different and humanly invented alternatives.
Protestant doctrines of the Bible as the sole rule of faith and guide to salvation, justification and salvation by faith alone, once saved, always saved, etc. aren't found anywhere in the Bible.
To sustain the construction that the Protestant separation from the CC was a return to Christianity as per the Bible, the testimony of the Bible itself, and that of all history, must be ignored and denied.
Meaning it succeeded in doing the very thing Paul rebuked Peter and the other disciples for--returning to a the same sort of religious structure the Jewish religious leaders had instituted in the place of obeying God.
And the concept, if we were all Catholic--even if we are wrong, we still will be right--is ridiculous. Hundreds of sects with varying errors or one large all-controlling sect imposing the same error on all and forbidding anyone from dissenting or addressing them. Might as well call the Vatican the Sanhedrin...there's no difference. Of course if we wicked lay people had never been allowed to read scripture or hear it interpreted, we could have avoided all these issues eh?
Oh look, more internet arguments to nowhere.
We have roads to nowhere...we have posts to nowhere.
It might be a problem if this were true, but it isn't.
We know from St. John's conclusion of his Gospel that there are so many things Christ taught that all of the books in the world couldn't contain them! So from this, it stands to reason that the Bible is not the only source of faith and guide toward salvation. There's something else which is equal. Did you get that --- equal, not better as in "trumps"!
The whole of Christ's teachings as given to His Apostles are preserved in both Sacred Tradition (oral teachings) and Scripture (written teachings) which Catholics call the Deposit of Faith.
Tradition means the teachings and teaching authority of Jesus and derivatively, the Apostles. These have been handed down and entrusted to the Church (which means to its official teachers, the Popes and bishops). It's necessary that Christians believe in and follow Tradition as well as the Bible. St.Luke 10:16. The CC has been guided by the Holy Spirit who protects this teaching from corruption. St.John 14:16.
The early Christians had no New testament. They learned the Christian Faith from oral instruction that was passed down generation to generation by the Church.
Actually Scripture affirms Sacred Tradition.
Here's the proof.
St.Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition that is handed down by word of mouth. 2Tim.2:2.
He instructs us to stand fast and hold on to tradition which we have learned whether by word or by epistle. 2Thess. 2:15. THis passage is significant becasue it shows the existence of living traditions within the Apostolic teaching and it tells us unequivocally that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these Traditions.
So here we see the Bible itself states that Traditions are to be held as a valid component of the Deposit of Faith.
The Church does not constantly reinterpret her teachings and doctrines. These are from Christ to His Apostles to their unbroken line of successors and they are constant and unchangeable that will last until the end of the world.
But don't confuse Sacred Tradition (with a captial "T") that is part of Divine Revelation with Church traditions which are transitory practices and customs that can be changed.
A couple examples that would be part of Sacred Tradition would be infant Baptism, and changing Sunday rather than Saturday as the Lord's Day. Also, the New Testament canon was determined by Tradition. An example of Church tradition that can be changed are the styles of priestly garb, particular forms of devotion to the Saints and their calendar feast days, and even liturgical rubrics.
That is correct. They only change them when there seems to be a threat to the institutions economic growth
Religion as a term comes from the Latin word "religare" which means to bind; meaning the natural and supernatural relation that binds man to Almighty God.
Religion is the motive power which prompts man to be good and to do goodfor the honor of the Supreme Good---God.
The practice of the Christian religion as taught by Christ is the expression of the virtue which causes man to honor, love and obey his Benefactor God.
Around the world there is true religion, false religion and irreligion.
Objectively, religion consists in doctrines and precepts by which man seeks to bring about this bond or union with God. St.Thomas says that religion is the virtue which prompts man to render to God the worship and reverence that is His by right. Religion is therefore the voluntary acknowledgment of man's dependence on God through acts of homage.
Religion is true when it's doctrines and precepts are dictated by right reason or revealed by God. If it's the former it's called natural religion; if it's the latter, (such as ancient Hebraic Judaism was and since Christ, Catholicism) is, then supernatural religion.
Religion implies faith or belief. Correct views concerning the existence of God, Divine Providence and retribution, the immortality of the soul, free will and moral responsibility are of vital importance to true religion.
Catholics believe that the moral obligation of man to his fellow man; to his family; to the state, and to society centers on true religion. That these moral obligations center upon knowing, loving and serving God.
Religion is the basis of individual and social morality therefore. domestic unhappiness, economic injustice, dishonesty, crime, theft, murder, etc. increases to the degree that man departs from its precepts.
Since there is but one God who revealed and established His one true religion there can be but one religion of His making. our job is to seek until we find that one holy religion.
Religion is false, such as Islam is, when claiming to be revealed it is unable to show a Divine guarantee, or when it's dogmas or practices sin against right reason and conscience.
Subjectively, religion is the attitude of the man who rules his thoughts, words and actions, according to right reason and God's Revelation.
This is pure malarkey.
In the order of God's revealed Church and holy religion, the Jewish Church and ancient Hebraic Judaism came before Christ's Catholic Church and Catholic Faith. The Catholic religion is the perfect development of the ancient Jewish religion, just as the perfect tree is the perfect development of the seed from which it grew.
The Old Mosaic Covenant made way for the New Covenant in the Blood of Jesus Christ.
The priesthood of the Old Covenant was a type of the priesthood of the New Testament.
The Old Covenant was sealed with the blood of animal sacrifices in the Temple; the New of the Blood of the God made Man.
The Old Covenant was made with only one nation, the New Covenant with all mankind.
It's pretty simple Lula. Saying, "The church is in service to God" get used carte blanche to excuse any action of the church. The church, "can do no wrong" therefore no one has a right to question or challenge it's practices.
The one authority raised above all is Christ--tacking his name over every action of a human institution and calling it "God" doesn't make it so.
Simply look at history--of your church.
Yes, the new blood serves as the new covenant--which you can only get it through the Catholic church. The "perfect development" will come with Christ at his return--not in Catholicism.
None...far as I'm concerned, the Bible is a historical document made by man, so I can agree or disagree with whatever parts I wish since I'm not trying to "follow the Bible" or a specific religion...
The real question to ask is this...
Excellent catch...
Yes it does...but what's the real difference between choosing the bible (which specifically was made to include/omit certain elements) and choosing certain gospels? I mean, whether I personally do the cherry picking or defer to someone else's cherry picking, cherries were still picked...
Me saying "well, I just want to follow only the teachings of Jesus as described in the Gospels" doesn't seem any worse than accepting the whole package which introduces a bunch of things that Jesus had no part of....
http://www.notquitewrong.com/rosscottinc/2011/08/03/so-youre-mad-about-something-on-the-internet/
I believe Islam makes a similar claim...except that Islam is more egalitarian and has no need for the organized hierarchical structure that the RCC is...
Tell me Lula, what is your argument against Islam?
And yet you admit that the cherry picking indeed does exist in your next paragraph:
Seleuceia,
Welcome to the discussion.
It seems Mohammed was influenced from the stories and oral traditions of Talmudic Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Arabian paganism, and Manichaeism, a heresy that rocked the early Christian Church.
I'd say Mohammed's Islam is a blend of these elements.
Catholics claim ancient Hebraic Judaism was the only revealed religion of God before Christ and the Catholic religion is the only revealed religion of God after Christ. In short, Hebraic Judaism contained, potentially, Christianity, the religion that displaced it. In Hebraic Judaism, there was the Promise, Christ, and the family of David from which Christ was to come, and did come, Hebraic Judaism contained a priesthood of Aaron and Mosaic sacrifices, in pre-Christian times, that the Old Testament said would be displaced, as it has been, by a priesthood without genealogy, and a "clean oblation" in place of the bloody oblations of Old.
Therefore, Catholics hold their religion, the only one with its Christ-instituted priesthood and sacrifice, to be Judaism full-blossomed.
Similarly, Islam claims to be Almighty God's Divinely revealed religion. So that's where I register my first argument against Islam.
There is but one true Holy God, so there cannot be more than one religion of GOd's making. Almighty God does not contradict Himself as do the varying religions all claiming to be of God.
Islam is a man-made religion. In his book, "The Great Heresies", Hilaire Belloc calls Islam, " the great and enduring heresy of Mohammed".
Islam does not acknowledge Jesus as God. They do revere Him as a prophet, but not as great as Mohammed.As a result, Islam does not believe in His saving death on the Cross or in His Resurrection.
You cannot have Jesus without God and the only acceptable Christian God would have to be the God of the OT. Yahweh ((YHWH) modernly translated Jehovah) which is the covenant name of God and occurs 6,823 times in the OT. How can anyone who believes in the “Son of God” not believe in his ‘Dad’? Are the OT tales good and bad, somehow now not true or relevant anymore because the RCC closed that chapter in our history for us? Isn’t that the same as saying the original God is irrelevant? What does that say about the new one? Did God retire or just delegate His authority to the RCC? Inquiring minds want to know!!!
Most inquiring minds already know.
BT,
Yahoo! We agree. (Big smile on my face!).
There is but one true Holy God. The God of the OT is the same God of the NT. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is worshipped by Jews and Christians.
The Old Testament is true today. It is Almighty God, not the CC who closed that chapter as you put it!
Upon reading the OT, we see God established a very specific religion called Hebraic Judaism.God's chruch was and always will be an organic, priestly, sacrificail spiritual society based upon Divine principles, practices and promises. that describes Hebraic Judaism then and Catholicism present. Such was the Jewish Church then when it had a priesthood, the high priest being supreme in authority as is the Catholic Church present as is Pope Benedict XVI, the 265th successor of St.Peter whom Christ Himself appointed as first head of His Church.
The function of Hebraic Judaism priesthood was to offer Mosaic commanded sacrifices for the glory of God and the spiritual well being of the children of Israel. It did its job and completed its mission. The ending of Old Testament Hebraic Judaism was providential. It had indeed fulfilled its glorious mission. That mission ended with the coming of the predicted Messias. It was God Himself, in the Person of Jesus, the Christ, who in fulfillment of His messianic mission instituted a more perfect organic,authoritative, priestly, sacrificial universal Church, the CC.
God told us that Hebraic Judaism had fulfilled its mission when at the moment of Christ's death, the Temple veil was rent in two from top to bottom. By 70AD, the Temple was completely destroyed. No more OT sacrifices, Altar,
As I have said now the OT Hebraic Judaic faith no longer exists, or rather it has blossomed forth into "the new covenant made with the house of Judah" as predicted by Jeremias 31:31.
So while the books of the OT remain the Word of God, inspired by God, as are the books in the NT, Hebraic Judaism as set forth there is non-existent. It has been non-existent ever since the Jews have been without priests, altar, sacrifices, ephod or terephim.
Long answer but you asked so I told ya. It was God not the CC that closed that chapter.
Hope my response aboove helped answer this.
God never retires. He's His Majesty, Our Lord God afterall. Jesus Christ is our King ruling in Heaven over His kingdom here below.
Scripture and Tradition teach that before Christ ascended into Heaven He gave the Apostles His authority to preach and teach to all nations until the end of the world as well as the authority to forgive sins and to bind and loose.
Lula, how does God teach you or anyone else anything … I wish He would just stop by and say hi? God came first in your scheme of things and seemingly was known to many before the Bible was a concept … how did your God communicate with those illiterates without the benefit of your compilation of wisdom? Who is next in the line of succession below God the lord, Jesus the king and then who … how does this Godly knowledge filter down to the peons? A few lines should suffice Lula…
Ah, once again, using the Inquisition to try to slam the CC and Catholicism. The over 450 year old historic Inquisition is a favorite stick with which anti-Catholics engage in Catholic bashing. The Inquisition complex is a mental obstacle second only to even an appreciation that A) Jesus Christ is the predicted Messias and of the fact that He and His Catholic Church are the fullfillment of all that is great and glorious in Old Testament principles and predictions.
It would be well for you to realize the historic fact well known to students of religious history, that inquisitions, though not so specifically designated, were common in Jewry during the pre-Christian centuries, when the Jewish ecclesiastics and priest were the authoritative teachers, protectors, definers, and judges of God proclaimed principles and practices as are Catholic ecclesiasticals and priests today.
The most famous inquisition in history, is the one that was conducted by the Sanhedrin under the headship of the high priest Caiphas before which Jesus was tried, convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messias, and turned over to Pilate the civil authority, who ordered the Romans soldiers to crucify Him. IF Jesus had been a Messianic pretender, As He was charged with being, the action of the Inquisition would have been justifiable. This is said becasue Jesus, being a Jew, was subject to the Mosaic Law, which declared, "He that blasemeth the name of the LOrd, dying let him die: ...." Lev. 24:16.
Furthermore, Jesus condoned the death penalty handed down by Pilate.
All of the files and archives of the Medieval Inquisition have been opened. BBC produced a documentary called, The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition, and for those who really want to know discover that the notion that the Inquisition as some blood thirsty, all encompassing horrible monster could not be further from the truth.
The short answer is Christ never condemned the Inquistion which btw, is the forerunner of our modern day court and penal system.
Christopher Hitchens - The Catholic Church.
This statement can't even be replied to. Once again I am astounded.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
