[quote]McG78 wrote:
I’m sorry to tell you that your parents and your friend may think they know what Catholicism is about and what it teaches, but as many Catholics today, they are totally misinformed about thier faith.[/quote]
What does that say about Catholicism if the (and I’m inserting this word based on how I read your post)majority of Catholics are misinformed about their faith?
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]McG78 wrote:
Just to chime in on the you-have-to-be-Catholic-to-go-Heaven nonsense.
[/quote]
The correct dogma is titled Suprema Haec Sacra which states, “extra ecclesiam, nulla salus” which translates into outside the Church, no salvation.
You’re not entirely correct. The Church never says anyone is going to Hell (that gets people excommunicated). However, when the Church teaches infallibly extra ecclesiam, nulla salus it does not teach that non-Catholics cannot be saved. But, it affirms the opposite. The purpose is to teach us HOW Jesus Christ makes salvation possible for all human beings. Easiest way being in the Catholic Church.
However let’s look at what the Vatican II phrases it:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciences�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16).
Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery (Gaudium et Spes 22).
And, let’s look at the CCC and how the say it:
Every man who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ and of his Church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (CCC 1260).
“Implicit desire and longing” exists in the souls of those who seek God, but are ignorant of the means to receive his grace. People all over the world long for salvation but don’t know the Church. If a man has a desire or longing, he has implicit desire for membership in the Church. Protestants know Christ, but some do not know His Church. Their implicit desire to serve him, the desire to be members of His Church. John Paul II said that folks of another fold can be saved as well. If they seek God with a “sincere heart.” In that seeking they are “related” to Christ and to his body the Church.
I don’t know shit, not even close to being enlightened. Hell, every time I open one of these threads my palms get sweaty just thinking about the possibility of saying the wrong thing.
If people are exposed, and by that you mean at one time accept the faith as truth, then later do not accept it as truth. They are pretty much screwed. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, they have denied the divine. However, as I quoted above, there are a lot of people that see the external of the Church, but do not know the internal as they miss the fruit of Her blessed hands.
Oh and about the Holier-than-thou comment, that is ridiculous. Anyone here will tell you, especially Tirib, that I am the least of all of the low. I would never imagine myself holier than anyone. Because honestly, who gives a shit when you’re still so far away from being as Holy as Jesus. It’s like two Jewish slaves pretending one is freer than the other before Moses came along, when in fact the Pharaoh has them both beat by a mile.
About Gen 13:15, I think you be taken that too far matey! Abram’s seed is the faithful to God. Compared to the seed of Lot, the ones that were “sinners before the face of the Lord.” This includes the Jews, but does not mean all Jews. Even so, early Catholics were Jews. Jews crucified Jesus, do you really suppose that those that crucified Jesus are going to be saved? As well Jesus and the Catholic Church fulfill part of the Jewish prophecy.[/quote]
While you could (and many Christians do) make the argument that Jews who don’t follow Christ and are not entitled to the Kingdom of Heaven because they are no longer faithful, John Paul II’s reconciliation with the Jewish faith was about realizing we are part of the same holy family. John Paul II’s monumental comment calling the Jewish religion our “elder brother” signified that Christians and Jews are part of the same family not separate religions.
As for your “do you really suppose that those that crucified Jesus are going to be saved” comment, my answer is yes. In fact, I believe that Judas holds a special place in Christianity. I believe Judas was the only disciple that Jesus called “friend.” Additionally, Jesus had to die for the sins of the world. Jesus also had to be betrayed. If everyone has free will, how did God insure that one of the twelve would betray Jesus? Judas was necessary for the story. Maybe a wrong place, wrong time kind of thing.
[/quote]
I believe in the Apocrypha it is said Jesus asked Judas to betray him. He knew he had to be betrayed and asked Judas to be the one to do it.
I don’t believe in the apocrypha (but being Catholic, I accept the deuterocanonical, which includes some books of the apocrypha). I think the aprocrypha while not divinely inspired and containing some unTruths does reflect a different understanding of the time. For instance, the “Truth” in the gospel version of the Judas story is that man fails without Jesus and denying Jesus as Lord is an “unforgivable” sin (i.e., Judas tried to return the money). This does not mean what Judas “did” was not “forgiven.” (sorry for all the quotes) The apocrypha may describe the situation in more factual accuracy but it does not convey the underlying Truth about God. Thus, the early Church rightfully excluded it because the Bible is not a history book; it is a Book that reveals the truth about God.
As a tangent, that is why the Catholic Church was an early adopter of evolution (contrary to what you hear in Christian circles today). The Church believes that the story of creation doesn’t have to be believed literally to convey the truth that God created everything. In the Church’s teaching evolution occurred under God’s direction, but this didn’t take a literal seven days and the earth is older than 5,000 years. If someone would have included a description of huge lizards in a religious story during the time the Bible was written, he/she would have been dismissed as crazy, and thus, losing any hope of sharing the message of God. God inspired the writers of the Bible to write the truth based on the facts as the writer knew them.
Another example of the Bible not being an accurate history book, invovles the lineage of Jesus to David. A couple generations are skipped to make Jesus the “proper” number of generations from David.
[quote]kellerdp wrote:
[quote]McG78 wrote:
I’m sorry to tell you that your parents and your friend may think they know what Catholicism is about and what it teaches, but as many Catholics today, they are totally misinformed about their faith.[/quote]
What does that say about Catholicism if the (and I’m inserting this word based on how I read your post)majority of Catholics are misinformed about their faith?
[/quote]
I think you are right. A majority of Catholics are confused on many issues of the Church’s teaching (e.g., evolution, respecting life, transubstantiation, etc.). But a large majority know and practice the underlying, foundational truthes of Catholicism. While people may have a hard time reconciling their daily practices with Catholicism and thus they are misinformed, it does not mean Catholicism is wrong. People are confused and ignorant of the U.S. legal system, but that does not mean that the U.S. legal system is wrong. It means that the people are uninformed.
Society has pushed back against religion over the last 50+ years. During that time, people have stopped learning as much about their faith as they should. This is applicable to all faiths. Society would be better off if people were more religious, regardless of the religion.
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]McG78 wrote:
Just to chime in on the you-have-to-be-Catholic-to-go-Heaven nonsense.
[/quote]
The correct dogma is titled Suprema Haec Sacra which states, “extra ecclesiam, nulla salus” which translates into outside the Church, no salvation.
You’re not entirely correct. The Church never says anyone is going to Hell (that gets people excommunicated). However, when the Church teaches infallibly extra ecclesiam, nulla salus it does not teach that non-Catholics cannot be saved. But, it affirms the opposite. The purpose is to teach us HOW Jesus Christ makes salvation possible for all human beings. Easiest way being in the Catholic Church.
However let’s look at what the Vatican II phrases it:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciences�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16).
Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery (Gaudium et Spes 22).
And, let’s look at the CCC and how the say it:
Every man who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ and of his Church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (CCC 1260).
“Implicit desire and longing” exists in the souls of those who seek God, but are ignorant of the means to receive his grace. People all over the world long for salvation but don’t know the Church. If a man has a desire or longing, he has implicit desire for membership in the Church. Protestants know Christ, but some do not know His Church. Their implicit desire to serve him, the desire to be members of His Church. John Paul II said that folks of another fold can be saved as well. If they seek God with a “sincere heart.” In that seeking they are “related” to Christ and to his body the Church.
I don’t know shit, not even close to being enlightened. Hell, every time I open one of these threads my palms get sweaty just thinking about the possibility of saying the wrong thing.
If people are exposed, and by that you mean at one time accept the faith as truth, then later do not accept it as truth. They are pretty much screwed. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, they have denied the divine. However, as I quoted above, there are a lot of people that see the external of the Church, but do not know the internal as they miss the fruit of Her blessed hands.
Oh and about the Holier-than-thou comment, that is ridiculous. Anyone here will tell you, especially Tirib, that I am the least of all of the low. I would never imagine myself holier than anyone. Because honestly, who gives a shit when you’re still so far away from being as Holy as Jesus. It’s like two Jewish slaves pretending one is freer than the other before Moses came along, when in fact the Pharaoh has them both beat by a mile.
About Gen 13:15, I think you be taken that too far matey! Abram’s seed is the faithful to God. Compared to the seed of Lot, the ones that were “sinners before the face of the Lord.” This includes the Jews, but does not mean all Jews. Even so, early Catholics were Jews. Jews crucified Jesus, do you really suppose that those that crucified Jesus are going to be saved? As well Jesus and the Catholic Church fulfill part of the Jewish prophecy.[/quote]
While you could (and many Christians do) make the argument that Jews who don’t follow Christ and are not entitled to the Kingdom of Heaven because they are no longer faithful, John Paul II’s reconciliation with the Jewish faith was about realizing we are part of the same holy family. John Paul II’s monumental comment calling the Jewish religion our “elder brother” signified that Christians and Jews are part of the same family not separate religions.
[/quote]
What the fuck are you talking about? Where did JPII say we are the same religion?
Wow, you should really do some more studying then on what the Catholic Church teaches. Jewish prophecy for 500 points, Psalm 41:9. Jesus also calls anyone that does as he commands his friend. Yes, Judas does hold a special place in Christendom, so does Pontius Pilate. Both could be in Heaven. However, how many of those that knew the truth but turned away from Jesus. No, not the wrong place, wrong time. He was filled with an evil spirit. However, can’t say if he’s in Heaven or Hell.
[quote]kellerdp wrote:
[quote]McG78 wrote:
I’m sorry to tell you that your parents and your friend may think they know what Catholicism is about and what it teaches, but as many Catholics today, they are totally misinformed about thier faith.[/quote]
What does that say about Catholicism if the (and I’m inserting this word based on how I read your post)majority of Catholics are misinformed about their faith?
[/quote]
It says that our teaching methods no longer work properly. We should go back to teaching out of the Catechism instead of these RCIA classes that we have now.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I believe in the Apocrypha it is said Jesus asked Judas to betray him. He knew he had to be betrayed and asked Judas to be the one to do it.
[/quote]
Quick comment, I know you are protestant so you may have learned a little differently. But, Catholics (at least I do) find it a little offensive to call the seven books the “Apocrypha” it is an erroneous name. The correct name is the Deutero-Canonical books.
[quote]McG78 wrote:
I don’t believe in the apocrypha (but being Catholic, I accept the deuterocanonical, which includes some books of the apocrypha).[/quote]
Um, dude the apocrypha (erroneous name, as it is) is the the seven Deutero-Canonical books.
Are you really saying that part of the Catholic Bible? Show me evidence that the early Church excluded the the seven Deutero-Canonical books. Dead Sea scrolls.
More to it than just this.
[quote]
Another example of the Bible not being an accurate history book, invovles the lineage of Jesus to David. A couple generations are skipped to make Jesus the “proper” number of generations from David.[/quote]
There is a purpose/reason for omitting the generations.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Um, dude the apocrypha (erroneous name, as it is) is the the seven Deutero-Canonical books.
Are you really saying that part of the Catholic Bible? Show me evidence that the early Church excluded the the seven Deutero-Canonical books. Dead Sea scrolls.
[/quote]
While the deuterocanonical is made up of the following:
1 and 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Judith
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
some additions to Daniel and Esther
The full apocrypha includes books such as 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Gospel According to Thomas, and the Prayer of Manasseh. There are many more.
So my statement was correct; there are apocrypha books that are not part of the deuterocanonical.
Google “John Paul II” “Jewish” “elder brother” There is a lot about those comments, and their significance.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Wow, you should really do some more studying then on what the Catholic Church teaches. Jewish prophecy for 500 points, Psalm 41:9. Jesus also calls anyone that does as he commands his friend. Yes, Judas does hold a special place in Christendom, so does Pontius Pilate. Both could be in Heaven. However, how many of those that knew the truth but turned away from Jesus. No, not the wrong place, wrong time. He was filled with an evil spirit. However, can’t say if he’s in Heaven or Hell.[/quote]
The meaning of the term friend has been lost in translation just as the term brother. In Hebrew, there are many words for “levels” of friends just as their are many words for brother. People are referred to in the gospels as the brother of Jesus. But this use of brother, was more in line with individuals from the same town/region. The term used to describe Judas signifies a very close friend. Jesus repeatedly kisses Judas on the cheeks during the betrayal.
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Um, dude the apocrypha (erroneous name, as it is) is the the seven Deutero-Canonical books.
Are you really saying that part of the Catholic Bible? Show me evidence that the early Church excluded the the seven Deutero-Canonical books. Dead Sea scrolls.
[/quote]
While the deuterocanonical is made up of the following:
1 and 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Judith
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
some additions to Daniel and Esther
The full apocrypha includes books such as 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Gospel According to Thomas, and the Prayer of Manasseh. There are many more.
So my statement was correct; there are apocrypha books that are not part of the deuterocanonical.
Google “John Paul II” “Jewish” “elder brother” There is a lot about those comments, and their significance. [/quote]
Of course, I was talking about Apocrypha as the Protestants call it, which is the seven Deutero-Canonical books. The correct Apocrypha (read: Catholic) is somewhere around 50 or so.
Yes, I have read what John Paul said about the faith of Abraham. We are graphed onto the same tree which is Judaism. I still have never read where he said that we had the same religion. I looked, but not did not see. So if you could provide a link.
Let me clarify something so you understand. One, some describe me as coming from a Hebrew Catholic angle. Two, not all Jewish people are religious and there is no one “absolute” religion in Judaism. So, saying we have the same religion (we have the same faith, the Faith of Abraham) is like saying that a baptist and a Catholic and a Methodist, and a High church Anglican all have the same religion. We may have the faith of Abraham, but not the same religion. As well, you could say Catholicism is a form of Judaism. JPII MGPHSTR
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Wow, you should really do some more studying then on what the Catholic Church teaches. Jewish prophecy for 500 points, Psalm 41:9. Jesus also calls anyone that does as he commands his friend. Yes, Judas does hold a special place in Christendom, so does Pontius Pilate. Both could be in Heaven. However, how many of those that knew the truth but turned away from Jesus. No, not the wrong place, wrong time. He was filled with an evil spirit. However, can’t say if he’s in Heaven or Hell.[/quote]
The meaning of the term friend has been lost in translation just as the term brother. In Hebrew, there are many words for “levels” of friends just as their are many words for brother. People are referred to in the gospels as the brother of Jesus. But this use of brother, was more in line with individuals from the same town/region. The term used to describe Judas signifies a very close friend. Jesus repeatedly kisses Judas on the cheeks during the betrayal. [/quote]
Okay, but because Judas was his close friend and the people that crucified him were Jewish doesn’t mean they are going to Heaven. I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion. I have never heard anyone say that because someone is Jewish they go to Heaven.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Um, dude the apocrypha (erroneous name, as it is) is the the seven Deutero-Canonical books.
Are you really saying that part of the Catholic Bible? Show me evidence that the early Church excluded the the seven Deutero-Canonical books. Dead Sea scrolls.
[/quote]
While the deuterocanonical is made up of the following:
1 and 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Judith
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
some additions to Daniel and Esther
The full apocrypha includes books such as 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Gospel According to Thomas, and the Prayer of Manasseh. There are many more.
So my statement was correct; there are apocrypha books that are not part of the deuterocanonical.
Google “John Paul II” “Jewish” “elder brother” There is a lot about those comments, and their significance. [/quote]
Of course, I was talking about Apocrypha as the Protestants call it, which is the seven Deutero-Canonical books. The correct Apocrypha (read: Catholic) is somewhere around 50 or so.
Yes, I have read what John Paul said about the faith of Abraham. We are graphed onto the same tree which is Judaism. I still have never read where he said that we had the same religion. I looked, but not did not see. So if you could provide a link.
Let me clarify something so you understand. One, some describe me as coming from a Hebrew Catholic angle. Two, not all Jewish people are religious and there is no one “absolute” religion in Judaism. So, saying we have the same religion (we have the same faith, the Faith of Abraham) is like saying that a baptist and a Catholic and a Methodist, and a High church Anglican all have the same religion. We may have the faith of Abraham, but not the same religion. As well, you could say Catholicism is a form of Judaism. JPII MGPHSTR[/quote]
First, I would like to say that I have enjoyed this. I hope others have as well.
Second, maybe it is over simplistic, and not wanting to speak for JPII, but I think his point was this: the Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion. Thus, instead of being separate religions, the Catholic Church is the natural, spiritual conclusion of the Jewish Religion. Hence, he referred to the Jewish faith as the “elder brother,” part of the same family, of Catholicism. When you juxtapose these comments with JPII’s comments regardng what we can learn from some Eastern religions, you see that the choice of “elder brother” was particular and conveyed a definite purpose. I truly do not have time to search for the most comphrensive link right now. If I have some time in the next week or so, I will do it.
Catholic Christianity is not the same religion as Protestant Christianity in that Protestant Christianity is not the fulfillment or completion of Catholicism. Rather, it is the abandonment of many truths found in Catholicism.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Wow, you should really do some more studying then on what the Catholic Church teaches. Jewish prophecy for 500 points, Psalm 41:9. Jesus also calls anyone that does as he commands his friend. Yes, Judas does hold a special place in Christendom, so does Pontius Pilate. Both could be in Heaven. However, how many of those that knew the truth but turned away from Jesus. No, not the wrong place, wrong time. He was filled with an evil spirit. However, can’t say if he’s in Heaven or Hell.[/quote]
The meaning of the term friend has been lost in translation just as the term brother. In Hebrew, there are many words for “levels” of friends just as their are many words for brother. People are referred to in the gospels as the brother of Jesus. But this use of brother, was more in line with individuals from the same town/region. The term used to describe Judas signifies a very close friend. Jesus repeatedly kisses Judas on the cheeks during the betrayal. [/quote]
Okay, but because Judas was his close friend and the people that crucified him were Jewish doesn’t mean they are going to Heaven. I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion. I have never heard anyone say that because someone is Jewish they go to Heaven.[/quote]
I never came to that conclusion. My conclusion was that even Judas, who is viewed by many as the ultimate sinner, may very well have served a greater purpose in Christ’s journey and thus, be in Heaven. I didn’t mean to imply that all “Jews” go to Heaven. Similarly, all “Catholics” don’t go to Heaven either. As Jesus said, many will call his name and claimed they knew him, but he will cast them aside declaring he does not know them. Obviously, there is more to going to Heaven then speaking some words. It involves a true conversion/acceptance.
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Um, dude the apocrypha (erroneous name, as it is) is the the seven Deutero-Canonical books.
Are you really saying that part of the Catholic Bible? Show me evidence that the early Church excluded the the seven Deutero-Canonical books. Dead Sea scrolls.
[/quote]
While the deuterocanonical is made up of the following:
1 and 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Judith
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
some additions to Daniel and Esther
The full apocrypha includes books such as 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Gospel According to Thomas, and the Prayer of Manasseh. There are many more.
So my statement was correct; there are apocrypha books that are not part of the deuterocanonical.
Google “John Paul II” “Jewish” “elder brother” There is a lot about those comments, and their significance. [/quote]
Of course, I was talking about Apocrypha as the Protestants call it, which is the seven Deutero-Canonical books. The correct Apocrypha (read: Catholic) is somewhere around 50 or so.
Yes, I have read what John Paul said about the faith of Abraham. We are graphed onto the same tree which is Judaism. I still have never read where he said that we had the same religion. I looked, but not did not see. So if you could provide a link.
Let me clarify something so you understand. One, some describe me as coming from a Hebrew Catholic angle. Two, not all Jewish people are religious and there is no one “absolute” religion in Judaism. So, saying we have the same religion (we have the same faith, the Faith of Abraham) is like saying that a baptist and a Catholic and a Methodist, and a High church Anglican all have the same religion. We may have the faith of Abraham, but not the same religion. As well, you could say Catholicism is a form of Judaism. JPII MGPHSTR[/quote]
First, I would like to say that I have enjoyed this. I hope others have as well.
Second, maybe it is over simplistic, and not wanting to speak for JPII, but I think his point was this: the Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion. Thus, instead of being separate religions, the Catholic Church is the natural, spiritual conclusion of the Jewish Religion. Hence, he referred to the Jewish faith as the “elder brother,” part of the same family, of Catholicism. When you juxtapose these comments with JPII’s comments regardng what we can learn from some Eastern religions, you see that the choice of “elder brother” was particular and conveyed a definite purpose. I truly do not have time to search for the most comphrensive link right now. If I have some time in the next week or so, I will do it.
Catholic Christianity is not the same religion as Protestant Christianity in that Protestant Christianity is not the fulfillment or completion of Catholicism. Rather, it is the abandonment of many truths found in Catholicism.[/quote]
Correct, my point was that we weren’t the same religion because we fulfilled their religion, we’re an extension. I lacked words to explain it.
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Wow, you should really do some more studying then on what the Catholic Church teaches. Jewish prophecy for 500 points, Psalm 41:9. Jesus also calls anyone that does as he commands his friend. Yes, Judas does hold a special place in Christendom, so does Pontius Pilate. Both could be in Heaven. However, how many of those that knew the truth but turned away from Jesus. No, not the wrong place, wrong time. He was filled with an evil spirit. However, can’t say if he’s in Heaven or Hell.[/quote]
The meaning of the term friend has been lost in translation just as the term brother. In Hebrew, there are many words for “levels” of friends just as their are many words for brother. People are referred to in the gospels as the brother of Jesus. But this use of brother, was more in line with individuals from the same town/region. The term used to describe Judas signifies a very close friend. Jesus repeatedly kisses Judas on the cheeks during the betrayal. [/quote]
Okay, but because Judas was his close friend and the people that crucified him were Jewish doesn’t mean they are going to Heaven. I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion. I have never heard anyone say that because someone is Jewish they go to Heaven.[/quote]
I never came to that conclusion. My conclusion was that even Judas, who is viewed by many as the ultimate sinner, may very well have served a greater purpose in Christ’s journey and thus, be in Heaven. I didn’t mean to imply that all “Jews” go to Heaven. Similarly, all “Catholics” don’t go to Heaven either. As Jesus said, many will call his name and claimed they knew him, but he will cast them aside declaring he does not know them. Obviously, there is more to going to Heaven then speaking some words. It involves a true conversion/acceptance.[/quote]
I must have misread you then, because I was thinking you were saying Jewish people went to Heaven because they were Jewish.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]McG78 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Um, dude the apocrypha (erroneous name, as it is) is the the seven Deutero-Canonical books.
Are you really saying that part of the Catholic Bible? Show me evidence that the early Church excluded the the seven Deutero-Canonical books. Dead Sea scrolls.
[/quote]
While the deuterocanonical is made up of the following:
1 and 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Judith
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
some additions to Daniel and Esther
The full apocrypha includes books such as 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Gospel According to Thomas, and the Prayer of Manasseh. There are many more.
So my statement was correct; there are apocrypha books that are not part of the deuterocanonical.
Google “John Paul II” “Jewish” “elder brother” There is a lot about those comments, and their significance. [/quote]
Of course, I was talking about Apocrypha as the Protestants call it, which is the seven Deutero-Canonical books. The correct Apocrypha (read: Catholic) is somewhere around 50 or so.
Yes, I have read what John Paul said about the faith of Abraham. We are graphed onto the same tree which is Judaism. I still have never read where he said that we had the same religion. I looked, but not did not see. So if you could provide a link.
Let me clarify something so you understand. One, some describe me as coming from a Hebrew Catholic angle. Two, not all Jewish people are religious and there is no one “absolute” religion in Judaism. So, saying we have the same religion (we have the same faith, the Faith of Abraham) is like saying that a baptist and a Catholic and a Methodist, and a High church Anglican all have the same religion. We may have the faith of Abraham, but not the same religion. As well, you could say Catholicism is a form of Judaism. JPII MGPHSTR[/quote]
I was actually talking about all of the books NOT in the Biblical canon, which people do lump under the name Apocrypha, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Nag Hammadi Texts, whatever they are called, they were excluded from the Bible, that is what I was referring to.
Chris, I’m not Protestant, I’m not anything. I’m actually pretty close to rejecting “traditional” religion. I was raised by Protestants but never attended church, never been baptized. I was raised anti-Catholic, as you already know. Anything I know about religion I’ve researched myself. I like learning, and the Bible and religion interest me so I’ve read about it, researched it, I just can’t bring myself to believe in it.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]kellerdp wrote:
[quote]McG78 wrote:
I’m sorry to tell you that your parents and your friend may think they know what Catholicism is about and what it teaches, but as many Catholics today, they are totally misinformed about thier faith.[/quote]
What does that say about Catholicism if the (and I’m inserting this word based on how I read your post)majority of Catholics are misinformed about their faith?
[/quote]
It says that our teaching methods no longer work properly. We should go back to teaching out of the Catechism instead of these RCIA classes that we have now.[/quote]
You can’t believe teaching methods are the reason for the current state of the Catholic church? The chruch has been in full blown crisis since the 2nd vatican council.
[quote]JamFly wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]kellerdp wrote:
[quote]McG78 wrote:
I’m sorry to tell you that your parents and your friend may think they know what Catholicism is about and what it teaches, but as many Catholics today, they are totally misinformed about thier faith.[/quote]
What does that say about Catholicism if the (and I’m inserting this word based on how I read your post)majority of Catholics are misinformed about their faith?
[/quote]
It says that our teaching methods no longer work properly. We should go back to teaching out of the Catechism instead of these RCIA classes that we have now.[/quote]
You can’t believe teaching methods are the reason for the current state of the Catholic church? The chruch has been in full blown crisis since the 2nd vatican council.[/quote]
You want to venture a guess when RCIA classes changed their format away from using the Catechism?
Side Note: Vatican II did not change the Catholic Church. It like all councils produced infallible dogmas. However, liberalism moved into the Church and people left and right were doing things in the “spirit” of Vatican II. Which as you see today has misaligned out members with the truth.