Catholic Q & A

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
401

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

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.
[/quote]

Yes but you continue to be wrong, you to practice rituals, you pray every day I suppose, go to church every sunday and perhaps even Wednesdays. These are rituals to…Even secular society practices rituals, ever been to court?
Everything in the church is derived from scripture. Including mass and reconciliation. Both St, Paul and St. James attest to that.
I own no weapons and there are far better places to eat than my name sake.
Grace is derived from God alone, there is no thinking otherwise.
Formalities simply unify the church, that’s why there is one RCC and 36,000 Protestant churches. Sadly, many of them think that they are the only ones that are right.

Would you like me to go over the very unbiblical TULIP? Again, Christ himself started the church…Man started protestantism. Those are plain facts and they are not disputable.

402

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Orthodoxy and Roman Catholocism were the same thing until 1054. The Pope of Rome was one of the 5 Patriarchs of the Church, the others being Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

403

[quote]pat wrote:

[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’

[/quote]

eikon means visual representation.

besides, a representative stands in your place to represent you. represent=to stand in place of.

404

[quote]byukid wrote:
That providing the background, Bro. Chris, can you give me a succinct summary of transubstantiation and what it means to you?[/quote]

Transubstantiation is that by, which, the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. Or, by the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

And, you?

405

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
and others.[/quote]

This is too far. Just Jesus.

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that he’ll give you whatever you ask.[/quote]

‘And others’ is too far? You mean except for the Catholics.

[/quote]

Except the Church speaks ‘in persona Christi’ and is in fact the body of Christ.

406

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

So Jesus was lying that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church?

407

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Penance is an abominable Christ affronting blood denying ritual.[/quote]

You mean confession?

Is repetitive prayers wrong?

Then what is going on in John 6?

[quote]I know what ex cathedra is and that it hasn’t been used since the 1950’s.
[/quote]

408

[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]

Can you explain how Psalm 136 is not a prayer? I thought Psalms were prayers? I thought we were supposed to pray the word of G-d? And you don’t think “His love endures forever” is repetitive in that prayer?

And, if you do not have a problem with someone praying Psalm 136, then how come you have a problem with the Rosary, which also comes from the Bible? Do you have a problem with praying the word of G-d, specifically Jesus’ life?

409

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[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.[/quote]

The Orthodox Priest gave me a 500 bead prayer rope, I much enjoy it. The Rosary is just something that the Virgin Mary gave to St. Dominic to convert souls back when he was alive. She has also told countless others to pray the Rosary for conversion of souls.

410

[quote]pat wrote:
See the Corinthians…They were some party animals.[/quote]

Which brings up the point about veils on women folk. I brought the subject the other day, it was as I set fire to a wheat field in was so intense.

411

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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’

[/quote]

eikon means visual representation.

besides, a representative stands in your place to represent you. represent=to stand in place of.[/quote]

Look at David’s Kingdom, Solomon has what we would call a vicar that basically took care of the king’s business, as he would report to the kingdom what Solomon had commanded, &c. Like an under boss I suppose. Now, does it mean that this vicar of Solomon is the king? No, he was the visual representative of Solomon. The only King was Solomon, just as the only King of the Church is Jesus. Says so in our own documents.

412

Fellow Catholics:

I wanted your opinion on a e-book I have been reading just today. It was free to download from the site, so I am not infringing on any copy right laws.

413

Oops, guess I did it wrong:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/wtbsatcc.pdf

414

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Orthodoxy and Roman Catholocism were the same thing until 1054. The Pope of Rome was one of the 5 Patriarchs of the Church, the others being Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.[/quote]

We’re still virtually the same and quite frankly have an excellent relationship with our eastern brethren. We can attend their masses and they can attend ours as equally valid. They have the apostolic tradition and succession. The do not recognize Papal authority as final, but our relationships are solid. They are just as Catholic as we are…

415

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[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.[/quote]

The Orthodox Priest gave me a 500 bead prayer rope, I much enjoy it. The Rosary is just something that the Virgin Mary gave to St. Dominic to convert souls back when he was alive. She has also told countless others to pray the Rosary for conversion of souls.[/quote]

Then they should do it.

416

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]byukid wrote:
That providing the background, Bro. Chris, can you give me a succinct summary of transubstantiation and what it means to you?[/quote]

Transubstantiation is that by, which, the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. Or, by the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

And, you?

[/quote]

Well I don’t strictly believe in transubstantiation, but I certainly believe the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is more than just a symbolic ritual. I think aside from the metaphysical aspect, our understanding of its role in salvation and receiving grace are fairly parallel.

417

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Orthodoxy and Roman Catholocism were the same thing until 1054. The Pope of Rome was one of the 5 Patriarchs of the Church, the others being Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.[/quote]

We’re still virtually the same and quite frankly have an excellent relationship with our eastern brethren. We can attend their masses and they can attend ours as equally valid. They have the apostolic tradition and succession. The do not recognize Papal authority as final, but our relationships are solid. They are just as Catholic as we are… [/quote]

I know. My Dad was an Anglican Priest who converted to Orthodoxy, but he wrote the religious education program for the Roman Catholic parish for the school that he taught 7th grade at for 10 years. He MIGHT have become Roman Catholic at that time had Vatican II not seemed to have promoted liberal changes that scared him, but he and my family ended up where we should have been.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_benedict_recommits_church_to_working_towards_reunification_with_orthodox/

I hope for the best. We would surely welcome the Pope as the prime Patriarch but would expect him to preside over an Ecumenical council on any theology that would have been part of the historical canons and basically wouldn’t let him out of the room until we had reached consensus (which is always possible with the Holy Spirit).

and my Parish in Denver was started when Roman Catholic and Orthodox immigrants pooled their funds upon arrival so that they could have a place for prayer until the Roman Catholic contingent raised funds to bring over a Polish priest.

418

[quote]forbes wrote:
Oops, guess I did it wrong:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/wtbsatcc.pdf[/quote]

Well naturally I was suspicious about the book, and though not terribly long I ain’t gonna read the whole thing so I skipped to the conclusion, where I got as far as this:
“Placing tradition on an equal level with Scripture or making it superior to Scripture inevitably undermines of the Bibleâ??s authority and inspiration” ← This is patently unadulteratedly false and a malicious lie.
The church does not put tradition over scripture. The church goes out of it’s way to make sure of it. Further, it is correct to say we are not a biblical centered faith, we are Eucharistic, and therefore Christ centered faith.

Over history you see the various synods and counsels and their vary reason for existence was to correct course, to be more scriptural. God put the church in the hands of men, so men are going to screw up. But over all by the good will of men and the grace of God it still is over all a force of good in the world.
I think the main reason people hate it is because of it’s sheer size and power. I guess if I were on the outside looking in, and I didn’t like it, I would see it as a Goliath to be slayed, but we our selves as David.
It really kinda sucks that so many Protestants still see us as enemies. We do not see them the same way. We admire their knowledge of the bible and their faith. They inspire me to be better and to know the bible better. I certainly am not worse off.

419

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< So Jesus was lying that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church?[/quote]Not possible and the fact that the gates of hell long ago prevailed against Rome is proof that it isn’t. Wadda ya want me to say Chris. I do not buy ANY of the claims of the Catholic church

420

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[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.[/quote]How ya been Jake. I was thinking about you this morning