Reply With Quote
Glad you like it.
No royalties.
I'll address the rest later, but man I got to admit... that's a good quote... seriously.
Of course it would be reserved for a much more heated discussion....
Glad you like it.
No royalties.
On the other hand, I missed completely the meaning of the above-mentioned phrase
My saying (as far as I know it's original with me) is just another way of putting the speck/beam verse...On the other hand, I missed completely the meaning of the above-mentioned phrase
This is from a Catholic website....
In the last number of years [before his death], Pope John Paul II addressed the wrong actions of the Catholic Church throughout history, including the tortures and deaths related to the medieval Inquisitions. The following is a letter he wrote recounting his sorrow:
The ins ution of the Inquisition has been abolished...the children of the Church cannot but return with a spirit of repentance to "the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of the truth" (4)
This spirit of repentance, it is clear, entails a firm determination to seek in the future ways to bear witness to the truth that are in keeping with the Gospel."
The prayer I addressed to God on that occasion contains the reasons for a request for forgiveness that can also be applied to the tragedies associated with the Inquisition, as well as to the injuries to memory that result from it.
"Lord, God of all men and women, in certain periods of history. Christians have at times given in to [forms of] intolerance and have not been faithful to the great commandment of love, sullying in this way the face of the Church, your Spouse. Have mercy on your sinful children and accept our resolve to seek and promote truth in the gentleness of charity, in the firm knowledge that truth can prevail only in virtue of truth itself. We ask this through Christ Our Lord"
(Prayer for Forgiveness, Day of Pardon, 12 March, II; ORE, 22 March 2000, p.). JOHN PAUL II, From the Vatican, 15 June 2004
The Inquisition tortures and deaths were wrong, dead wrong!
.................
What is ironic about this beautiful repentance prayer (and I mean that) is that he never once points the finger to the church leaders.... The Catholic Church even while trying to attain forgiveness from GOD has never admitted to condoning attrocious acts against GOD's precepts. The Roman Catholic Church has had a do ented history of wrong doings; it is much easier, however, for them to have scape goats and call them 'bad tares' or 'black sheep' and thus avoid criticism. But if the wrongdoings stem from sanctioned acts coming directly from leaders who are recieving direct spiritual direction from GOD. It is only common sense for someone then to question the validity of that exclusivity.
All people are infallible... and all are in need of Christ's redemption. GOD reveals his Truth to all without predilection... "Doctrinal Truths" are thus given to those who seek GOD and study His Scripture. Why?? because no man is greater than his brother.
It doesn't seem to matter does it... if we find instances where the Catholic Ins ution has misinterpreted a historical do ent or ignored others alltogether... The answer is still the same. "YOU ARE WRONG, WE ARE ALWAYS RIGHT." Did you read the excerpt by Tim Dunkin. If anything poses a threat to Catholic ideologies it will always be branded as fraudulent even if that were not the case. I can not win here no matter if I became an archeologist and found the original Gospel of John... or the Letter to the Romans.... any opposition will be crushed.
No... the HOLY SPIRIT gives out only one TRUTH, that we are all sinners in need of a redeemer. The rest is in the Bible, and ironically it is our corrupt nature which gets in the way of fully understanding everything written in GOD's Scripture.
I know if and when I don't admit to my own wrongdoings my parents, or others around me, will call me out on arrogance. Church leaders are not excempt from commiting this sin. Any ins utionalized doctrine will never be free from open scrutiny. I'm not calling you arrogant... though sarcasm may sometimes allude to its presence... The Roman Catholic Church's stance is arrogant. And nothing you can say will make me believe otherwise.
Last edited by hegamboa; 01-27-2006 at 05:30 PM.
Glad you like it.
No royalties.
Yeah... the visual image was classic.... Tom & Jerry.
Guru's avatar came to mind.
So you believe you are better off interpreting the Bible yourself because you feel you are a better interpreter of the Holy Spirit than an ins utions that has been around for 2000 years and has been established by Christ (sorry to continue beating this dead horse buy you have not refuted my arguments of how Mt 16:18 should be interpreted).
And again: because of people who think they can understand what the Holy Spirit is saying there are 20,000 Protestant denominations (another point you have not addressed).
Sure, 20,000 groups of people have seeked and they have understood different things.
No, says history. The Canon of the Bible that was put together in the late IV Century had the Apocrypha. You posted that the Catholic Church inserted it in 1546. I proved you wrong. You never acknowledged your mistake.
Furthermore, do you deny that Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28?
If the Church is wrong, I will be the first to admit it. The Inquisition had many wrong aspects. All the other historical data you bring to the table has been refuted.
If it were simple, there would not be 20,000 interpretations of it.
As far as ins utionalized religion goes... Read Mark 7. Conveniently you will fail to see or rather not want to see that the Roman Catholic Church has followed the path of the phrarisees...
I already posted my reference for how Mt 16:18 is interpreted in evangelical circles... again though, you assume that showing me the Catholic interpretation is going to overide what I've studied for years on that verse.... not to mention you write it down with a sense that it can not be rebuked.
As for the '20,000' interpretations.... well, considering the fact that billions of people have come & gone, or exist in the world today... I would say that the above value cons utes a relatively small percentage of 'statistical' deviation on varied interpretation.
BTW different denominational names don't always cons ute totally different doctrines.... some people just choose to congregate with people who 'worship' in similar fashions as they do without feeling uncomfortable around each other. For example, the church I attend loves singing to the beat of latin rythms (go figure)... you wouldn't expect our 'American' brothers and sisters to adopt a style of music not suited to their tastes...
And true... I will concede that the Catholic Catechism has indeed standardized worldwide Catholic beliefs but consider this: Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are pretty consistent in their respective doctrines (top down from their leaders to the laity)... notice however, that this geneity doesn't make those two sects any more correct than say... Islam. Why?? because they have chosen to reject JESUS's divinity and offer of Salvation... Ironically, they too believe that 'works' will merit their salvation... And although many of their members are 'moral' and 'good' by secular standards... without JESUS they will not attain Salvation.
Which brings me to a point I have stated throughout this discussion. There is nothing... nothing... that you or I can do out of our own accord that would be worthy enough of inheriting GOD's kingdom. Any sin in our lives will keep us from reaching GOD. The Bible is clear on that in Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23. Only JESUS can get us to GOD. We can't add to a gift that was labeled as 'finished' by the Lord himself.... AND again, that is not to imply that Salvation in Christ gives us a 'credit card' of GRACE to sin freely at our every whim.... NO!!! Hebrews 10:26-39 gives a very clear and stern admonition against sining deliberately.
The question then beckons??? Have they understood different things or do they focus on some things more than others... different priorities...there is a difference. Remember the HOLY SPIRIT's Truth is simple, "we are all sinners in need of a redemeer. Christ has provided the payment for our sins. We need to repent and acknowledge Christ's divinity and gift of Salvation".. All other differences can be attributed to the immensely complicated nature of human idiosyncrasies.
The Catholic's version of history will always be explained through a set of very distinct glasses considering that many of the do ents that the RCC has used to support its own history were never intended to be 'objective historical accounts' ... the Catholic perspective, first and foremost has always dictated what could or could not be 'published'. It would be naive to ignore this fact. And although I know this is my opinion, it is one shared by many who have tried to reconcile secular and ecclesiastical do ents for historical and contextual accuracy.
As for the RC Church's claim of Luther's supposed alteration of Romans 3:28... it is again highly convenient for the RCC to maintain this as truth... YOU nor anyone else in our generation can say with 100% accuracy that is not the case... at least 3 Bibles pre-dating Luther by over 800 years have the word included... Of course the RCC will claim that someone doctored them up... it's not a 'issue' we can win when the RCC dictates the rules by which the 'judgement calls' are made. And....one of those Bibles was written in Greek as opposed to Latin.
Oh BTW two of those Bibles did not have the apocryphal books included... interesting... It just comes to show that some Bibles had it and others didn't... and that to me says that the Apocrypha was by no means official... otherwise all of them would have it. Again, as stated by Dunkin's article, neither the Council of Rome in 1382 or the Councils of Carthage etc... had e enical authority to speak for the 'whole' church... as such, those councils only exercised local authority. Supposedly, many other bibles illustrating this phenomena were burned by Nazi Germany.
Already explained above.
And as for your 'refuted' comment.... you have simply given the Catholic Church's stand on the issues... You believe them to be true. I don't. You have rebuttaled the arguments... there is a difference.... but without evidence neither you or I are privy to (as in original do ents) no one here can really or truly 'refute' the other.
Last edited by hegamboa; 01-30-2006 at 02:24 PM.
There is no way Smeagol is going to convinvce anyone hear that the early church of Pentecost, which was mainly jewish, had anything remotely close to a roman catholic ritual rites. THere was no sprinkling in the head for baptism, baptism in that day was understood as the way John the Baptist, whose ties to a radical sect of Judaism , practice deep immersion.
The Roman Catholic way of Baptism is not biblical through proper exegisis. There was no veneration of saints since the Jewish Christian worship was closely tied to the conservative Judaic culture in which Yahweh reigned supreme as the arbiter and sole governor. Mary was not a figure of high stature to be considered queen of heaven like the Catholics believed. THat would have been blasphemous.
Threads like these never fail to reinforce my belief that Protestantism is merely an exercise in one-upmanship. Catholicism has issues too, but I lack the time and interest to delve into them now.
The Protestant message is highly interesting - Jesus >>> God ... ? or is it? Perhaps it is, Jesus represents God's way of saying "talk to the hand?"
One thing I do like about Christianity (especially the Protestants) is hitting the grocery stores around noon on a Sunday. Hot MILFs wearing copious amounts of make-up and sporting panty hose. ... maybe I sould just go to church and overload the senses.
Yeah Baby!
Don't shoot the messenger.
Last edited by Guru of Nothing; 01-29-2006 at 08:58 PM.
Somebody drive a stake in this freakin' thread already...
Read my lips. The Catholic Church does not "sprinkle". Now, you can continue to close your eyes to my posts and stick your fingers in your ears and throw up your own strawmen for you to knock down...but it doesn't change the facts.
Further, your view on the communion of saints is not biblical through proper exegesis.
And oh by the way...just because you say something is true doesn't make it so...
Smeagol...
This thread has turned into a crying shame. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and believes the Bible is the divine word of God should work together to do God's work. The bickering is disheartening and I would suggest that all the Christians and Catholics in here read Romans Chapter 14.
And to Guru from Romans 3:10- "No one is good-not even one". One day you will have to give a personal account to God. Judge yourself by the 10 commandments and I'm sure you'll discover you are guilty in the eyes of God. Pay particular attention to the 2nd commandment about Idol Worship. Idol Worship includes creating a God to suit your own life. You're guilty of transgressing the law of the God of the Bible and there's only one way to receive forgiveness and mercy. The consequence of not accepting forgiveness is where the bible says all murderers, rapist, liars, thieves, and transgressors of God's Law will end up.
*psssst*...hey 2cents...Catholics are Christians...
At the start of the discussion Smeagol and myself agreed to keep it at that... and even suggested that perhaps it would be better to do this through PMs... Others have made this a bickering affair. If you want the thread to end fine by me.... as I have respected everyone's en lement to their own opinions.
hegamboa...you're not talking to me, are you?
I think the discussion is fine...but we may also get getting to the point of diminishing returns.
Not really. It has beren educating to me.
I know.
The thread has turned into more than about you.
What do you mean by “the early Church of Pentecost?”. Is it the Church of the first Century? Does it go all the way to the second Century?
If you understanding of the early Church of Pentecost is the Church that developed in the first 70 years after Christ’s death and Resurrection, then the two do ents available to analyze early Christian behavior at that time in history are (i) the Bible, and (ii) other Christian writings which scholars agree were written in the late first Century, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas and the 1 Clement (of Rome).
There is a third source, which is the writings from the second Century Christians. Fortunately, there are many second Century writings that have survived, some of which are very detailed. These writings talk about Christian doctrine in a way that shows that these “ritual and rites” had been practiced for several years.
The bottom line is Catholic doctrine is Biblical, but most importantly, in the writings I have mentioned above, early Christians describe what their interpretation of the Bible is, which coincides 100% with what Catholicism teaches. All these writings contain passages with descriptions of what early Christians understood when they talked about the Trinity, apostolic succession, the Papacy, the Real Presence, Marian beliefs, the Communion of the Saints (praying for the dead), infant baptism, the sacrifice of the Mass, auricular confession, Faith and Works, etc and all without fail, coincide with what Catholics teach today.
Already addressed by travis
Honoring the saints has occurred since the beginning of Christianity. It’s in the Bible that you should honor certain people who have led holy lives.
False. Mary has been considered the mother of God (or God-bearer) since the mid to late second Century (Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, mentions this). This tradition probably goes back to the early part of that Century.
In any case, putting Mary in a place of high honor is nor blasphemous. Stop trying to imply Catholics worship Mary (and therefore don’t worship God).
gtown let it go. Catholics accept the Grace of Jesus and are forgiven of whatever short comings you think they have.
I think the discussion has been very productive and although it gets a little rough at times, I enjoy exchanging points of view with fellow brothers in Christ, even though I may not agree with them on everything.
I not only learn about Protestantism but also learn about my own religion.
Sorry. When I see someone (not just you, but in general) separate "Catholics" and "Christians", to me that is a statement that Catholics aren't. Makes me grind me teeth.
However, you have already explained that that's not what you meant, so cool...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
