Catholic Q & A

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
381

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:<<< Sola Scriptura was, in my opinion a reaction against Papal infallability and superiority to the Ecumenical councils. >>>[/quote]Sola Scriptura to me is a reaction to the serpent just as he deceived Eve leading the church astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. The saving seed of the gospel of God can be (and is all throughout scripture) efficaciously expressed in a few sentences. Rome has transformed that into a satanically inspired labyrinth of repulsive religious ritual.
[/quote]

The Jews had ritual. Did God give them that ritual to prepare them?

What is “ritual”. If you kill an animal for food you do it with reverence in the right way. Ritual is not a magic formula, it is defined as “the proper and fitting way” of doing anything.

Maybe you mean you don’t like communion? We’ll see what archaeology reveals in the next few decades, but traditionally we believe that the Christians would have had a communion service according to Christ’s command within a short time after Pentechost. The liturgy of Saint James, who was killed by the Jews in 62 AD is believed to have been written in essence by him though it would have developed over time, but here is an excerpt particularly attributed to him:

Master and Lord, who visit us in mercy and compassion and have granted us, humble sinners and your unworthy servants the grace to stand at your holy Altar and to offer to you this dread sacrifice without shedding of blood for our own sins and those committed in ignorance by the people, look on me, your unprofitable servant and wipe away my transgressions through your compassion and purify my lips and my heart from every defilement of flesh and spirit, and banish from me every base and unseemly thought, and enable me for this ministry by the power of your all-holy Spirit, and accept me through your goodness as I approach your holy altar, and be well pleased, Lord, for these gifts to be acceptable that are offered through our hands, being gracious to my weaknesses, and do not cast me away from your presence. Do not despise my unworthiness, but have mercy on me, O God, in accordance with your great mercy and according to the abundance of your compassion disregard my offences, so that, coming into the presence of your glory with condemnation, I may be found worthy of the protection of your only-begotten Son and the illumination of your all-holy Spirit, but as your servant may I find grace, mercy and forgiveness of sins both in this present age and in the age to come. Yes, Master almighty and all-powerful, listen to my supplication and grant me reprieve from my evil deeds, for it is you who work all in all, and in all things we seek from you your help and assistance and that of your only-begotten Son and your good, life-giving and consubstantial Spirit, now and for ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

http://www.anastasis.org.uk/lit-james.htm

We have huge churches in India attributed to Apostle Thomas. We have the tradition of Evangelist John on Patmos, and the line of his successors: Ignatious wrote that he was ordained by John. Polycarp that he was ordained by Ignatious, on and on.

382

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:<<< Sola Scriptura was, in my opinion a reaction against Papal infallability and superiority to the Ecumenical councils. >>>[/quote]Sola Scriptura to me is a reaction to the serpent just as he deceived Eve leading the church astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. The saving seed of the gospel of God can be (and is all throughout scripture) efficaciously expressed in a few sentences. Rome has transformed that into a satanically inspired labyrinth of repulsive religious ritual.

To be clear since you haven’t been in these discussions that long, I view the “church” in Rome, the vatican, the papacy, the “holy see”, the magesterium and anything else ecclesiastically and theologically associated therewith to be the most successful campaign of darkness and damnation this world has, or ever will see. Nothing you can possibly say will change my mind. My posting history abundantly elucidates my reason for embracing this once very common view.

I will say again however that I do believe there will be individual Catholics of all ages in heaven. Fully in spite of and most assuredly not because of their communion with Rome. Yes, in the protestant reformation God burst the heavy garments of dead religion that had long hidden His face from the world and began His work of once again moving His kingdom forward.
[/quote]

You are sadly mired in the darkness and opaqueness of blind hatred of something you know nothing about or people you know nothing about. Like any other hatred it is based on fear and ignorance. It is very sad for you, but it is self inflicted. If you live with hate, it will consume you, that’s not a catholic thing, it’s just a fact.

383

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:<<< Sola Scriptura is the very definition of idolatry. >>>[/quote]I’ll let you define this a bit further before commenting [quote]mertdawg wrote:<<< And I’ve always found it odd that those who rely on scripture don’t recognize the Catholic Episcopate that selected which books would go into it. >>>[/quote]Not when it produces monstrous error like papal infallibility among a nearly endless morass of other anti biblical belief. God does have a most gloriously perfect sense of humor and irony. Protestants do recognize authoritative tradition whether they wanna call it that or not. Some of the most rabid defenders of sola scriptura have some of the most elaborate systems overlaid upon the bible. (read dispensationalists) I doubt if I’m up to another round through this maze.
[/quote]

Oh goody Papal infallibly…Ok sir, let us test your knowledge, what is papal inviability, what does it mean?

384

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Sola Scriptura is the very definition of idolatry.

And I’ve always found it odd that those who rely on scripture don’t recognize the Catholic Episcopate that selected which books would go into it.

Then again I view Papal infallability as being idolatry as well. Popes themselves through the first 1000 years flatly/specifically rejected Papal infallability, and flatly rejected that the Pope was superior to Ecumenical councils. Popes CALLED many of the ecumenical councils because they KNEW that their word alone was not superior.

Popes forbade that the COUNCILS ever be violated by one who would add to the Creed “and the Son” and posted the Creed without it on the Vatican where it is to this day, and then a Pope excommunicated the Eastern church on account that they followed the edict of the Pope to obey the councils.

Vicarius Christi actually translates into Greek as Anti Christ, or in place of Christ. Christ IS the head of the Church and no one is needed to be in his place. [/quote]

“Vicarius Christi” translates in to greek? That’s latin, not greek. And a vicar is a representative, not meant in place of…
The biggest problem I find is that most people really don’t know anything about Catholicism.
The eastern church broke off for political reasons.

385

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Sola Scriptura is the very definition of idolatry.

And I’ve always found it odd that those who rely on scripture don’t recognize the Catholic Episcopate that selected which books would go into it.

Then again I view Papal infallability as being idolatry as well. Popes themselves through the first 1000 years flatly/specifically rejected Papal infallability, and flatly rejected that the Pope was superior to Ecumenical councils. Popes CALLED many of the ecumenical councils because they KNEW that their word alone was not superior.

Popes forbade that the COUNCILS ever be violated by one who would add to the Creed “and the Son” and posted the Creed without it on the Vatican where it is to this day, and then a Pope excommunicated the Eastern church on account that they followed the edict of the Pope to obey the councils.

Vicarius Christi actually translates into Greek as Anti Christ, or in place of Christ. Christ IS the head of the Church and no one is needed to be in his place. [/quote]

“Vicarius Christi” translates in to greek? That’s latin, not greek. And a vicar is a representative, not meant in place of…
The biggest problem I find is that most people really don’t know anything about Catholicism.
The eastern church broke off for political reasons.[/quote]

Yes that’s why I translated it from Latin into Greek. The Greek equivalent is anti Christos.

WHAT? Charlemenge, who pushed for several heresys as well including iconoclasm and the triglot heresy took over the west and had to eliminate the Eastern Patriarch so he could be emperor. Pope Leo I and III both stated that the ECUMENICAL creed should not ever have “and the Son” added-if for no other reason than because it was misinterpreted, and the creed on the vatican building does NOT HAVE “and the SON”. The east was excommunicated for following the decree of the Popes past that the ecumenical creed should not be altared EXCEPT for by an ECUMENICAL council, not merely decree of the Pope.

386

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Here’s an idea I had regarding some of the salvific terminology; help me out, or present what you think should be corrections:

  1. I think we all agree that one who can repent all their sins can receive salvation.
  2. Complete Repentence requires faith

Faith leads to salvation because it enables true repentance, but repentence is an action or set of actions that continues thoughout our lives [/quote]I do not believe anybody can genuinely repent of any sin until already subdued by the saving grace of the risen Christ who is Himself the author and finisher of our faith.
[/quote]

Backwards, you receive grace through repentance.

387

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Here’s an idea I had regarding some of the salvific terminology; help me out, or present what you think should be corrections:

  1. I think we all agree that one who can repent all their sins can receive salvation.
  2. Complete Repentence requires faith

Faith leads to salvation because it enables true repentance, but repentence is an action or set of actions that continues thoughout our lives [/quote]I do not believe anybody can genuinely repent of any sin until already subdued by the saving grace of the risen Christ who is Himself the author and finisher of our faith.
[/quote]

Backwards, you receive grace through repentance.
[/quote]

4th grade Roman Catholic religion class: Preveniant grace? Look it up.

In Roman Catholic theology The issue of prevenient grace was discussed in the fifth chapter of the sixth session of the Council of Trent :

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace.

Summary, its maybe both things happening at the same time-its a process.

388

[quote]mertdawg wrote:<<< The Jews had ritual. Did God give them that ritual to prepare them? >>>[/quote]He sure did. To prepare us by contrast for the freedom from it that Christ bought in his blood. The book of Hebrews especially, is one long testament to exactly that. Yes, there can a be fine line between order which Paul commands and self serving ritual which the pharisees had perfected and Rome after them took to a whole new towering level of disgusting achievement. If she ever was a Christian church she has looooong since had her lampstand removed by an offended holy God who tired of having His name reproached and dishonored by her incessant parade of corruption, abuse, formality and spiritual impotence. Should be no mystery. Same thing happened to the Jews. All by His providence and decree.

I don’t know where you’re getting the notion that most Jews converted to their messiah in the first century which He most assuredly was and is. All I see is constant battles with them all throughout the New Testament. Like ALL throughout.

You assessment of Judaism is however correct. I am no expert, but from my studies modern Judaism bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to the religion of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses and David.

I wish I had more time, but I don’t at the moment.

389

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:<<< The Jews had ritual. Did God give them that ritual to prepare them? >>>[/quote]He sure did. To prepare us by contrast for the freedom from it that Christ bought in his blood. The book of Hebrews especially, is one long testament to exactly that. Yes, there can a be fine line between order which Paul commands and self serving ritual which the pharisees had perfected and Rome after them took to a whole new towering level of disgusting achievement. If she ever was a Christian church she has looooong since had her lampstand removed by an offended holy God who tired of having His name reproached and dishonored by her incessant parade of corruption, abuse, formality and spiritual impotence. Should be no mystery. Same thing happened to the Jews. All by His providence and decree.

I don’t know where you’re getting the notion that most Jews converted to their messiah in the first century which He most assuredly was and is. All I see is constant battles with them all throughout the New Testament. Like ALL throughout.

You assessment of Judaism is however correct. I am no expert, but from my studies modern Judaism bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to the religion of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses and David.

I wish I had more time, but I don’t at the moment.[/quote]

I think that what I read was that within 1 generation half of Jerusalem was Christian

390

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Here’s an idea I had regarding some of the salvific terminology; help me out, or present what you think should be corrections:

  1. I think we all agree that one who can repent all their sins can receive salvation.
  2. Complete Repentence requires faith

Faith leads to salvation because it enables true repentance, but repentence is an action or set of actions that continues thoughout our lives [/quote]I do not believe anybody can genuinely repent of any sin until already subdued by the saving grace of the risen Christ who is Himself the author and finisher of our faith.
[/quote]

Backwards, you receive grace through repentance.
[/quote]

4th grade Roman Catholic religion class: Preveniant grace? Look it up.

In Roman Catholic theology The issue of prevenient grace was discussed in the fifth chapter of the sixth session of the Council of Trent :

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace.

Summary, its maybe both things happening at the same time-its a process.[/quote]

We’re kind of saying the same thing, Grace can be refused. The acceptance of grace is already penitent. Remission and reconciliation through grace then follow. It’s splitting hairs really. But you seem to have a good historical grasp…

391

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:<<< The Jews had ritual. Did God give them that ritual to prepare them? >>>[/quote]He sure did. To prepare us by contrast for the freedom from it that Christ bought in his blood. The book of Hebrews especially, is one long testament to exactly that. Yes, there can a be fine line between order which Paul commands and self serving ritual which the pharisees had perfected and Rome after them took to a whole new towering level of disgusting achievement. If she ever was a Christian church she has looooong since had her lampstand removed by an offended holy God who tired of having His name reproached and dishonored by her incessant parade of corruption, abuse, formality and spiritual impotence. Should be no mystery. Same thing happened to the Jews. All by His providence and decree.

I don’t know where you’re getting the notion that most Jews converted to their messiah in the first century which He most assuredly was and is. All I see is constant battles with them all throughout the New Testament. Like ALL throughout.

You assessment of Judaism is however correct. I am no expert, but from my studies modern Judaism bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to the religion of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses and David.

I wish I had more time, but I don’t at the moment.[/quote]

Isn’t ‘Accepting Christ as your Lord and Saviour’ a ritual? Yes, it is…

Rituals exist because of uniformity, not because the ritual itself is important, but what they draw to or from. Formalization is just a way to keep things in sync. You can go anywhere in the world where there is a Catholic Church, and the Mass and sacraments are exactly the same, be it in buttfuck africa or Rome itself.

392

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:<<< The Jews had ritual. Did God give them that ritual to prepare them? >>>[/quote]He sure did. To prepare us by contrast for the freedom from it that Christ bought in his blood. The book of Hebrews especially, is one long testament to exactly that. Yes, there can a be fine line between order which Paul commands and self serving ritual which the pharisees had perfected and Rome after them took to a whole new towering level of disgusting achievement. If she ever was a Christian church she has looooong since had her lampstand removed by an offended holy God who tired of having His name reproached and dishonored by her incessant parade of corruption, abuse, formality and spiritual impotence. Should be no mystery. Same thing happened to the Jews. All by His providence and decree.

I don’t know where you’re getting the notion that most Jews converted to their messiah in the first century which He most assuredly was and is. All I see is constant battles with them all throughout the New Testament. Like ALL throughout.

You assessment of Judaism is however correct. I am no expert, but from my studies modern Judaism bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to the religion of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses and David.

I wish I had more time, but I don’t at the moment.[/quote]

Further, the Pharisees were not practicing ‘self serving’ rituals, they we practicing the Law as prescribed from Exodus to Deuteronomy, word for word. The problem was they used to law to serve themselves, followed the letter and not the heart of the law, and held used the law to justify themselves rather than God. The rituals were prescribed by God and misused by the pharisees.
Jesus said not one letter of the law will pass.
Paul stated those who know the law are bound by it.

393

Oh yeah Pat. I know what ex cathedra is and that it hasn’t been used since the 1950’s. I am not one of these propagandized parrots who thinks if the pontiff farts it’s thus saith the Lord. We’ve been through that too, but you would have had to’ve been paying attention when I speak to know that.

394

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Jesus said not one letter of the law will pass. >>>[/quote]You’d have to be a Catholic to think He was talking about the ceremonial law.

395

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Endless repetitive prayers are ritual. [/quote]

Psalm 136
1 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good.
His love endures forever.
2 Give thanks to the God of gods.
His love endures forever.
3 Give thanks to the Lord of lords:
His love endures forever.
4 to him who alone does great wonders,
His love endures forever.
5 who by his understanding made the heavens,
His love endures forever.
6 who spread out the earth upon the waters,
His love endures forever.
7 who made the great lightsâ??
His love endures forever.
8 the sun to govern the day,
His love endures forever.
9 the moon and stars to govern the night;
His love endures forever.

10 to him who struck down the firstborn of Egypt
His love endures forever.
11 and brought Israel out from among them
His love endures forever.
12 with a mighty hand and outstretched arm;
His love endures forever.

13 to him who divided the Red Sea[a] asunder
His love endures forever.
14 and brought Israel through the midst of it,
His love endures forever.
15 but swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea;
His love endures forever.

16 to him who led his people through the wilderness;
His love endures forever.

17 to him who struck down great kings,
His love endures forever.
18 and killed mighty kingsâ??
His love endures forever.
19 Sihon king of the Amorites
His love endures forever.
20 and Og king of Bashanâ??
His love endures forever.
21 and gave their land as an inheritance,
His love endures forever.
22 an inheritance to his servant Israel.
His love endures forever.

23 He remembered us in our low estate
His love endures forever.
24 and freed us from our enemies.
His love endures forever.
25 He gives food to every creature.
His love endures forever.

26 Give thanks to the God of heaven.
His love endures forever.

396

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Jesus said not one letter of the law will pass. >>>[/quote]You’d have to be a Catholic to think He was talking about the ceremonial law.
[/quote]

For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one pronunciation mark shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I think an issue for me is the characterization of ceremony as something “special”. It is the good and fitting way of doing all things, from eating breakfast to taking a bath to singing in Church. If God wants us to be perfect, there is a good and fitting way to do everything.

If you’re “not” being ceremonial you are ceremonially avoiding looking like you are not being ceremonial.

397

That is neither a prayer nor is it repetitious. This http://www.theholyrosary.org/ is possibly the most pathetic piece of death ever offered to a living God.

398

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That is neither a prayer nor is it repetitious. This http://www.theholyrosary.org/ is possibly the most pathetic piece of death ever offered to a living God.[/quote]

What makes something a prayer then?

Orthodox Christians never understood the rosary, I have to admit, but we do meditate on the phrase:

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God;
have mercy on me a sinner.

We strive to say it with every breath.

399

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That is neither a prayer nor is it repetitious. This http://www.theholyrosary.org/ is possibly the most pathetic piece of death ever offered to a living God.[/quote]
Ah Tirib, you’re so amicable… While I personally don’t like saying/praying the rosary per se. I do meditate on the mysteries which one is supposed to be meditating on while reciting the prayers (the prayers are almost like a timer as far as I’m concerned). That, I imagine is something you’d have no problem with, as it is in essence meditating on the life of Christ.

400

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Sola Scriptura is the very definition of idolatry.

And I’ve always found it odd that those who rely on scripture don’t recognize the Catholic Episcopate that selected which books would go into it.

Then again I view Papal infallability as being idolatry as well. Popes themselves through the first 1000 years flatly/specifically rejected Papal infallability, and flatly rejected that the Pope was superior to Ecumenical councils. Popes CALLED many of the ecumenical councils because they KNEW that their word alone was not superior.

Popes forbade that the COUNCILS ever be violated by one who would add to the Creed “and the Son” and posted the Creed without it on the Vatican where it is to this day, and then a Pope excommunicated the Eastern church on account that they followed the edict of the Pope to obey the councils.

Vicarius Christi actually translates into Greek as Anti Christ, or in place of Christ. Christ IS the head of the Church and no one is needed to be in his place. [/quote]

“Vicarius Christi” translates in to greek? That’s latin, not greek. And a vicar is a representative, not meant in place of…
The biggest problem I find is that most people really don’t know anything about Catholicism.
The eastern church broke off for political reasons.[/quote]

Yes that’s why I translated it from Latin into Greek. The Greek equivalent is anti Christos.

WHAT? Charlemenge, who pushed for several heresys as well including iconoclasm and the triglot heresy took over the west and had to eliminate the Eastern Patriarch so he could be emperor. Pope Leo I and III both stated that the ECUMENICAL creed should not ever have “and the Son” added-if for no other reason than because it was misinterpreted, and the creed on the vatican building does NOT HAVE “and the SON”. The east was excommunicated for following the decree of the Popes past that the ecumenical creed should not be altared EXCEPT for by an ECUMENICAL council, not merely decree of the Pope.

[/quote]

LOL! I know where got that crap from, it’s inaccurate. The correct translation would be ‘eikon Christou’

DO you have a reference because the Eastern orthodoxies began in the 400s and Charlemagne lived in the 700’s…
There have been many heresies in the history especially in the very early days…Drove Paul nuts. See the Corinthians…They were some party animals.