Catholic Q & A

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
481

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
I am Catholic in the sense that yes, I believe I am part of the “universal” Church. But no, I am not “catholic catholic”, as in Roman Catholicism (I know you guys don’t like that term, and I do apologize, its just to differentiate).[/quote]

Actually it is not. Catholicism is universal. We are the only Church that extends the entire world and all of time. No other Church does that and is one and apostolic.

More tomorrow. But Peter is not the first pope. The rock being referred to was his confession of Jesus being the Son of God, not on Peter.

Peter also rebuked a man from bowing down to him, yet many people today bow down to the pope and kiss him. Honor is one thing. But that simply goes beyond honor.

Also:

Peter never mentioned successors.

Peter never had a palace, fancy attire, or a centralized location.

Peter was never regarded as “holy father”

Peter was rebuked by Paul (ya, anyone that tries to rebuke the pope today the way Paul did really wouldn’t make it too far).

1 Corinthians
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Matthew
21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

[/quote]

does this put you with the agnostics?
[/quote]

Nope. Im Christian. But I believe what the first Christians believed, which was Scripture, and not man made tradition.[/quote]

Maybe you should pick up the Fathers Know Best.

First piece of Scripture wasn’t written until 10-15 years after Jesus died. Tell me how there were any Christians if they didn’t have the NT?

482

Ya walked right into that one little brother =]

483

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< after Jesus died. >>>[/quote]Was that an Aristotelean slip? I hope you mean ascended.

484

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< after Jesus died. >>>[/quote]Was that an Aristotelean slip? I hope you mean ascended.
[/quote]

No, it is not an Aristotelean slip. G-d died on Good Friday and that is when the Church poured forth from his wound in his side. As well, for our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

485

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
You seem to have a lot of questions with unsought answers for someone who claims the Catholic Church failed him. How did it fail you exactly? Is it because it contained people and they screw up and sometimes act in sinister ways? [/quote]

If you have no questions then please give me the answers.[/quote]
Everyone has questions… The ones you stated above just seemed too simple to be what really drove you away. Actions in war and self defense (what one decides to do with one’s own life) are purely up to the individual. If you want to lay down your life you can if you want to protect it you can (the same goes for protecting others). Certainly this does not give one in war the green light to kill with abandon though.

What are your deep questions?

486

I will address some things later tonight, but I wanted to ask you Chris:

Say I were an unbeliever, no “bias” as to which is the right religion. How would you go about offering the undeniable evidence that Catholicism was the one and only Church established by Christ, and therefore its very doctrines such as purgatory, rosary, veneration, papacy etc.??? What resources would you point me to?

487

[quote]forbes wrote:
I will address some things later tonight, but I wanted to ask you Chris:

Say I were an unbeliever, no “bias” as to which is the right religion. How would you go about offering the undeniable evidence that Catholicism was the one and only Church established by Christ, and therefore its very doctrines such as purgatory, rosary, veneration, papacy etc.??? What resources would you point me to? [/quote]Lemme give it a shot. VERY short version. The key is where the authority to declare doctrine at all comes from. Jesus told the apostle Peter that that he would build His church upon Peter, the first pope, thus depositing His authority and the gospel itself into what would become the “magesterium”. That is, the body of ordained men operating under the authority and unction of God Himself that are to be alone looked to for final arbitration on what is and what is not accepted dogma. There was no bible until 300 ad and actually the final canon wasn’t authorized until around 500 so any appeal to the bible is automatically an appeal to the church who was entrusted by Christ to canonize it, in other words, the Catholic church.

Christ left us a church and a gospel out of which came the sacred scriptures and not the other way around. Either the Catholic church is the bride and original apostolic church of Christ or there isn’t one and Christianity is a lie. What the Church fathers who lived RIGHT after Jesus and the apostles believed is either exactly what the Catholic church believes or laid the groundwork directly for it so yes, once gain the Catholic faith IS the original apostolic faith held by those directly in contact with the first century church.

Sacred scripture (the bible) is only authoritatively interpreted by this church, commissioned by Christ Himself so any dispute about scripture is moot because there is no such thing as a private interpretation, meaning any interpretation not authorized by Christ through His true apostolic church. Since the church holds this God ordained authority it also alone has authority to more fully reveal the divine mind through sacred tradition which is THE only way the gospel was propagated before the aforementioned canonization of sacred scripture. Hence the church, far from adding to scripture per se, simply stewards the whole of divine revelation including scripture and tradition which together represent the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Once all this is established, the discussion of any particular doctrine is meaningless because the debate is already over. If it isn’t established then where was the church for 1500 years? SO, Mary, purgatory, papacy, eucharist, mass, relics, icons, _____________________, whatever, are accepted or rejected as whole along with THE CHURCH, but rejecting THE CHURCH is rejecting that there is any church… or gospel at all because the only way protestants or any non Catholic can be saved is by the grace in the earth through THE CHURCH so once again. Either Catholicism is true or Christianity is false, because it IS the ancient faith and any objective study of the early church will bear this out.

Close enough.

488

I would add that the Apostles missionized much of the known world and established the regional churches. Andrew for example went as far west as Scottland and East to Romania which was the edge of the Roman empire, building churches that all had the very physical structure needed to perform the Eucharistic service as it was developed by James of Jerusalem. Thomas went ot India and built several churches there before he was martyred, and they too maitained the same three part structure from the Jewish temple.

The apostles each appointed successors by laying on of hands, and EACH of those regional churches founded by the Apostles maintained a line of succession from the Apostles through one primary successor at a time, the Patriarch of each regional church. Each of these regional churches sent their Bisops to the Ecumenical councils during the Emperial age of Christianity.

Among other traditions, Luke, the composer of well, his Gospel and the Acts also painted images of Mary. That has been the tradition of the church anyway, and guess what, a protestant archeological group after finded what they identified as the home of Luke was a little surprised to find paints and brushes amidst the find.

If there was a church that would last for all time, then that church would certainly be the one that can trace its regional Patriarchs back step by step to laying on of hands by the Apostles.

But its not just the Apostolic succession, but also the consistency between the regional churches that was found when they came together during the time of the councils, AND that archeology has tended to also find things to be consistent with what was taught in those traditions.

At the first Ecumenical council, the representatives gathered, and each took turns describing the faith as it had been passed to them by one of the Apostles. There was a huge degree of consistency. Everyone from India to Scottland had Bishops, Priests, Deacons, the same style of temple, the same pattern of daily services, the same structure of the Eucharistic service, the same rules (wine mixed with water, wheat bread) though there were a few disagreements such as whether the bread was levened or not. In some cases, the differences were found to be acceptable, and in others, uniformity was determined to be of prime importance, such as the date of Easter/Pasqua/Pascha.

489

The Orthodox and Roman Catholics have had some disagreements, because the Roman Catholics have tended to describe many things, such as original sin, using Artistotelian models, while the Orthodox tend to describe things more Platonistically

490

Are you willing to concede that I possess an adequate conception of what I’m rejecting? Or at the very least, better than you thought?

491

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:<<< If the church had done their job better I would still be Catholic today. >>>[/quote] That was a great post and captured the practical aspect of what I’ve been saying first hand. So I’ll ask too. What is it you DO believe anymore if anything?

492

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Are you willing to concede that I possess an adequate conception of what I’m rejecting? Or at the very least, better than you thought?[/quote]

Well, I think you are familiar, but you do tend to give EXTRA emphasis to Papal supremecy rather than the concept that all of the regional apostolic churches found their traditions, as taught them by the apostles, to be consistent with one another.

You have to believe that what the Apostles taught to each region that they missionized, they either taught wrong, BUT CONSISTENTLY WRONG, or that what they taught became distorted, BUT CONSISTENTLY DISTORTED to create the same net effect even in regions that were virtually cut off for several generations. Furthermore, you have to believe that Christianity was spread throughout the world, as was commanded by Jesus and grew at a tremendous rate through the presentation of an heretical and perverted interpretation of the Gospel.

493

This will never be settled in an internet forum. Hyoooj topics abound, but with that said you can’t possibly know how badly I wish I could believe like you guys. I know these 4 things with unshakable certainty. There has never been an extended time in history when Rome was not immersed in some kind of loud public Christ dishonoring corruption. 2. The gospel, Jesus and epistemology I find unmistakably staring me in the face in the scriptures answers sweetly to the Spirit of the most high God who never fails to meet me in prayer. He’s there first. Not to mention His faithful walk with me through my days (and nights too). That gospel, Jesus and epistemology by their very nature utterly preclude the slightest possibility of Catholicism having anything whatever to do with them, except as a hostile adversary. (I don’t mean individual people). They cannot both be true

  1. There is no possible way, just NO WAY, the God I know could ever sanction anything like the romish bureaucracy and most especially that abhorrent and abominable vatican city. 4. What this BlakeAJackson guy is saying. Catholicism displays absolutely no transforming power of the living God in the lives of it’s people whatsoever. They are with few exceptions just as dead as the world and for good reason. The church has taken the very Greek pagans that Paul denounced as the basis for their belief system. I have seen that blindingly displayed before my very eyes times too numerous to count right here in these forums. To say nothing of the rest of my life.

I don’t have all the answers at the moment, but I will go my earthly grave believing what I just said. You’re a decent man and a sharp guy and very well educated, but do not fool yourself into believing you have that magic info I’ve never heard that will change my mind

494

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This will never be settled in an internet forum. Hyoooj topics abound, but with that said you can’t possibly know badly I wish I could believe like you guys. I know these 4 things. There has never been an extended time in history when Rome was not immersed in some kind of loud public Christ dishonoring corruption. 2. The gospel, Jesus and epistemology I find unmistakably staring me in the face in the scriptures answers sweetly to the Spirit of the most high God who never fails to meet me in prayer. He’s there first. Not to mention His faithful walk with me through my days (and nights too). That gospel, Jesus and epistemology by their very nature utterly preclude the slightest possibility of Catholicism having anything whatever to do with them, except as a hostile adversary. (I don’t mean individual people). They cannot both be true

  1. There is no possible way, just NO WAY, the God I know could ever sanction anything like the romish bureaucracy and most especially that abhorrent and abominable vatican city. 4. What this BlakeAJackson guy is saying. Catholicism displays absolutely no transforming power of the living God in the lives of it’s people whatsoever. They are with few exceptions just as dead as the world and for good reason. The church has taken the very Greek pagans that Paul denounced as the basis for their belief system. I have seen that blindingly displayed before my very eyes times too numerous to count right here in these forums. To say nothing of the rest of my life.

I don’t have all the answers at the moment, but I will go my earthly grave believing what I just said. You’re a decent man and a sharp guy and very educated, but do not fool yourself into believing you have that magic info I’ve never heard that will change my mind [/quote]

You make some good points. You’ve probably elaborated on this before, but if you don’t mind…What is it about the Vatican City that is so offensive to you? Is it the opulence? God’s natural world is filled with opulence so I personally don’t have a problem with it. The bureaucracy doesn’t bother me either – it’s on par with any large government or corporate organization or bee hive for that matter. Or is it that the wealth is reputedly ill-gotten? I confess I don’t know enough history (it was my least favorite subject in school).

495

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
You’ve probably elaborated on this before, but if you don’t mind…What is it about the Vatican City that is so offensive to you?[/quote]

He read a Dan Brown novel.

496

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:You’ve probably elaborated on this before, but if you don’t mind…What is it about the Vatican City that is so offensive to you?[/quote]He read a Dan Brown novel.[/quote]I’m hoping this was a sort of tongue in cheek snarky joke. If not then I’m genuinely hurt. I’ve come to expect better from you.

497

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:You’ve probably elaborated on this before, but if you don’t mind…What is it about the Vatican City that is so offensive to you?[/quote]He read a Dan Brown novel.[/quote]I’m hoping this was a sort of tongue in cheek snarky joke. If not then I’m genuinely hurt. I’ve come to expect better from you.
[/quote]

Just a friendly jab. Come on, you know I think better of you than that.

498

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:You’ve probably elaborated on this before, but if you don’t mind…What is it about the Vatican City that is so offensive to you?[/quote]He read a Dan Brown novel.[/quote]I’m hoping this was a sort of tongue in cheek snarky joke. If not then I’m genuinely hurt. I’ve come to expect better from you.
[/quote]

Just a friendly jab. Come on, you know I think better of you than that.[/quote]OK =] I thought it was outta character if not.

499

[quote]forbes wrote:
I will address some things later tonight, but I wanted to ask you Chris:

Say I were an unbeliever, no “bias” as to which is the right religion. How would you go about offering the undeniable evidence that Catholicism was the one and only Church established by Christ, and therefore its very doctrines such as purgatory, rosary, veneration, papacy etc.??? What resources would you point me to? [/quote]

Oh, lordy. That is a long long list. And, there is always bias. But, no worry!

This isn’t an exhaustive list by any means.

If you’re an unbeliever I recommend: “Why Be Catholic?” - Tim Staples

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Be-Catholic-Tim-Staples/dp/1933919299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303112586&sr=8-1

If you’re a Christian I recommend:

Bible Christian Society: Apologetics - Free Audio Downloads | Bible Christian Society
Scott Hahn’s tapes: http://www.scotthahn.com/

Of course, if you’re Catholic…or a Christian and your heart is not converted, I’ll usually give you a copy of the Life of Jesus (I recommend Fulton J. Sheen, but B16 – his birthday was this Saturday by the way – is really growing on me with his Jesus of Nazareth I & II) and the Lives of the Saints.

P.S. I’m reading Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection since it is Holy Week with today being Palm Sunday! So, excited for Easter.

500

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
I will address some things later tonight, but I wanted to ask you Chris:

Say I were an unbeliever, no “bias” as to which is the right religion. How would you go about offering the undeniable evidence that Catholicism was the one and only Church established by Christ, and therefore its very doctrines such as purgatory, rosary, veneration, papacy etc.??? What resources would you point me to? [/quote]Lemme give it a shot. VERY short version. The key is where the authority to declare doctrine at all comes from. Jesus told the apostle Peter that that he would build His church upon Peter, the first pope, thus depositing His authority and the gospel itself into what would become the “magesterium”. That is, the body of ordained men operating under the authority and unction of God Himself that are to be alone looked to for final arbitration on what is and what is not accepted dogma. There was no bible until 300 ad and actually the final canon wasn’t authorized until around 500 so any appeal to the bible is automatically an appeal to the church who was entrusted by Christ to canonize it, in other words, the Catholic church.
[/quote]

Actually all the pieces of the Bible were written about 70 years after Jesus Death (the reason I say death is because Catholics hold that the Church came from Jesus’ side as Eve came from Adam’s rib). And, the Bible wasn’t canonized until 400 A.D.

[quote]
Christ left us a church and a gospel out of which came the sacred scriptures and not the other way around. Either the Catholic church is the bride and original apostolic church of Christ or there isn’t one and Christianity is a lie. What the Church fathers who lived RIGHT after Jesus and the apostles believed is either exactly what the Catholic church believes or laid the groundwork directly for it so yes, once gain the Catholic faith IS the original apostolic faith held by those directly in contact with the first century church.

Sacred scripture (the bible) is only authoritatively interpreted by this church, commissioned by Christ Himself so any dispute about scripture is moot because there is no such thing as a private interpretation, meaning any interpretation not authorized by Christ through His true apostolic church. Since the church holds this God ordained authority it also alone has authority to more fully reveal the divine mind through sacred tradition which is THE only way the gospel was propagated before the aforementioned canonization of sacred scripture. Hence the church, far from adding to scripture per se, simply stewards the whole of divine revelation including scripture and tradition which together represent the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Once all this is established, the discussion of any particular doctrine is meaningless because the debate is already over. If it isn’t established then where was the church for 1500 years? SO, Mary, purgatory, papacy, eucharist, mass, relics, icons, _____________________, whatever, are accepted or rejected as whole along with THE CHURCH, but rejecting THE CHURCH is rejecting that there is any church… or gospel at all because the only way protestants or any non Catholic can be saved is by the grace in the earth through THE CHURCH so once again. Either Catholicism is true or Christianity is false, because it IS the ancient faith and any objective study of the early church will bear this out.

Close enough.[/quote]

Question, what do you mean by grace in the earth?