Misconceptions of Christianity 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
941

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
@ D and Joab:

I don’t know catholicism like the catholics here do and I accordingly don’t wanna sound like a know it all, but you are not grasping what they mean by “ministerial priesthood” and succession backward into the NT era. I will throw out, as I did to you D that this concept, while wrong, is not instantly dismissible as idiotic.[/quote]

If I am wrong please correct me, but I was under the impression that Apostolic Succession only applies to the Pope. I understand the idea of apostolic succession, but do not understand how it is put into practice. Each Pope is not discipled by the previous Pope as Peter was discipled by Jesus.

I forgot to add, that the ministerial priesthood also has a succession?[/quote]

Yes, and that is why the Catholic Church recognizes the Sacrements and the Apostlic succession in some Eastern Orthodox Church and other Orthodox Churches that exist today, because they kept the Apostlic succession in proper form.

The Apostolic succession is like this, you have to be ordained. Bishops ordain deacons and priests, to become a bishop you have to be ordained as bishop by another bishop. The Pope is basically head bishop. AS does not mean the Pope. This is a neat little thing that you can think about.

It is kind of like 6 degrees of seperation, but even cooler! It involves Jesus. Go shake a priests hand, touch his shoulder, whatever. Now! think about the fact that you just shook the had of a man that shook hands or was touched by other men that were touched by other men that eventually leads to men that were touched by Jesus personally! Gets me everytime.[/quote]

But the Pope does not pick the successor Pope. The Cardinals do. And in the Middle Ages some Popes were picked by the Holy Roman Emperor, and not the church.

942

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Rah-Knee wrote:
People still believe this shit… amazing.[/quote]

May God have mercy on your soul. Amen.[/quote]

Repent the Kingdom of God is at Hand. Repent and be forgiven.

943

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Oh, and Tirib, I’m sorry but your preachers teaching of Assumption of Salvation is wrong. It is not Biblical.[/quote]Did you actually get through the whole thing? I’ll give ya sincere credit for that. He would say “assurance” as would I, having been blessed with it even when I didn’t wanna be and tried very very hard not to be. My sin was nailed to the cross of Christ once for all and the life that I now live I live by faith in the risen Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. You do what you want. I’ll keep my assurance.

Lemme throw out here too that I have never nor would I say that the RCC disregards the bible. What I and it are saying is that in the RCC the light of the holy scriptures dies a death of a thousand “traditional” additions, qualifications and manipulations.

One more thing. You really don’t understand us at all. Our lady of loretto RCC is where I vote and it’s about 500 yards from my house. I sometimes go there to be by myself and pray. It’s always open and I’ll always be the only one there. I have no fear of being in a catholic building LOL! It’s all God’s my friend. He knows my heart. He has no regard for bricks and wood. http://www.ourladyoflorettoparish.org/
[/quote]

So, what you are saying is if you go kill someone tomorrow and rape and pillage small tropical villeages for the rest of your days, never speak or think of God, and if you do you struggle to not for the rest of your life, you are going to Heaven?[/quote]You didn’t listen =[
[/quote]

That’s because it doesn’t make sense that you can do anything humanly possible (have faith or do works) to have salvation. Are you saying once saved alawys saved, because that makes more sense than saying if you have faith you’ll be saved. I’m sure there are a lot of demons that have faith in Jesus dying for their sins, know his name, &c. I don’t really think the Angel of Light’s fallen angels will be going to Heaven.

944

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You guys whom have PM’d me please feel free to reveal exactly how many anti catholic websites I have linked you to if you wish. (especially you D, how many hater sites have been in the links I sent you?)[/quote]

I will 100% substantiate this. I asked Tiribulus and Sloth for links to the Baltimore Catechism, and anyother sites that would be good for me to read while on my vacation. Tirib is the only one that replied, and he only sent me sites that were not Catholic Haters. They were infact Catholic websites. He has posted all the ones he has given me in this thread.[/quote]

I sent you a link to the 1885 Baltimore Catholic Bible, do you have me on ignore?

945

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That goes for the rest of you guys too, even you Pat, who thinks I just wanna be right which is just SO wrong.[/quote]

See, still trying to be right and prove everyone else wrong… ;)[/quote]

He is trying to show you by using the words of Popes past that what he is saying is truth.

Another questions does the current CCC Catechism over rule all previous Catechisms?[/quote]

No, it does not. If something is called Perfect in all respects, and is actually infact perfect in all respects then it is considered truth. You can have a million CCC’s said various ways and as long as they are perfect in all respects they are considered truth. The thing with the CCC is that it gets a little wordy in a theological manner and can be taken certain directions that it shouldn’t, which I have seen by Catholics and non-catholics alike.

946

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I hope you do, because that isn’t correct. God didn’t go over the Pope, Paul was a great friend of Peter of course after he stopped that killing of Christians non-sense. Paul even wrote to the Romans, the Pope had to make the decision of Paul be a bishop. You couldn’t just come along one day and be like, “Hey, I’m a bishop!” No, you had to be taught, you had to be given authority.

Protestants talk about reformation, but really they didn’t really reform anything, what did they reform? It’s kind of weird to reform something and then still protest it. They plainly revolted, they have changed how they believe, but no reformation was done on their part. Reformation has to reform an already formed thing. The Council of Trent and still today the Catholic Church is reforming. Protestants continue to have schism in the Church (some of them horribly so) where you can walk in and be sure of hearing something negative about the Catholic Church.[/quote]

Jesus changed the heart of Paul, not Peter, and yes God/Jesus did go over Peter’s decision to make Mattthias an apostle. The authority given to Paul was not from Peter, but from Jesus Christ himself. Jesus called Paul to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. Paul did submit and present himself to Peter so that his conversion would be solidified. Paul was the one who set up the Church in Rome, and not Peter. Paul even confronted Peter in public when he was wrong. Peter was smart enough, and his heart soft enough to see the error in his ways. Pride is a very hard sin to overcome. [/quote]

I never said the Pope changed Paul’s heart, the Bishops including Peter had to ordain him a Bishop though. All authority comes from God, however physically speaking in the physical world the Bishops had to give authority to Paul in order for him to be a Bishop. No one ever did, very few people that start outside the Church convert inside the Church. Your premises are flawed in the sense that you forget that the Church teaches and believes that its authority comes from God, not by any character of man. Because really when was it ever considered for child like humility to be considered authoritative? Never, and that is what the Church is supposed to have, pointed out in my long winded post about Peter and the Twelve.

Yes, people in the Catholic Church are prideful, but there is not Pride in the Catholic Church herself. The Pope and Heirarchy were doing many things wrong. Yes, the Pope did make mistakes like many Catholics have… Actually Peter did, that doesn’t mean that everyone else went around as timid. Just like if the Pope went up to you and told you to bark like a dog…you would stare at him for saying nonsense. And I am sure if you were an expert at MMA and the Pope wanted to get fit and decided MMA was the way to be, and he asked you, that he would be humble in your teaching. Just like Peter was to Paul. The Popes are subject to the Councils, the Pope doesn’t hold this position where he can turn off the Catholic Church, change dogma, &c. He is like the King Steward for Solomon, he ruled Solomon’s kingdom for Him, but he still had to go by Solomon’s word.

947

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
All those in the church are one body in Christ so there will be some elders, deacons and preachers etc…

…so why should there be hierarchy among the people themselves except for having God as their master…[/quote]

“Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders (presbyteroi) of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”
James 5:14-15

It is apparent that there were different stations (as you’ve named) with different duties (as we in the above verse.[/quote]

Sloth, I agree with you on this, but it does not only happen in the RCC. Every denomination of Christianity has some sort of Hierarchy. We have preachers, teachers, deacons, elders, laity, evangelists, administrators, and many others. We do not have Cardinals though or the Pope, so by not having these 2 positions does not make us the church?[/quote]

Well I can say that your congregation really doesn’t pass the whole catholic name. Catholic universal, all time and place. If you are under the Baptist heirarchy in America going over to Europe those baptists will be controlled by a seperate baptist heirarchy. [/quote]

You do know that Southern Baptists are the second largest denomination in the World only behind Catholics, and there is only one hierarchy? Southern Baptists are sending Missionaries all over the world going to parts of the world where Catholics have not even touched. In third world countries Southern Baptists are starting to overtake Catholicism. You may want to tone down your Baptist Retoric. Baptists are torn down just as much as Catholics. And Baptists trace their roots to John the Baptist. We do not trace our roots to the Reformation. We honestly do not even consider ourselves Protestants. We beleive in baptism and that is where we get out name. The Anabaptists are not the same as the Southern Baptists. Please feel free to put up some Southern Baptist Hater Websites though. Those are always funny. I am not going to take this attack personal. Have a good night, and see you all in a week.

Again God Bless, and may the Peace of our Living Lord be with you.[/quote]

I don’t know anything about Southern Baptists heirarchy, I was commenting on Baptist Churches. And it still does not pass the catholic mark, Southern Baptists weren’t walking around in Rome in 70 AD. I am not saying anything bad about the Southern Baptists or Baptists, just commenting. And according to the readings I have found Catholicism is actually increasing in third world countries as the recession in America and Europe has hit the third world even harder. I’m not having a pissing contest, but there are very few places (I’d go so far as to say, none) that Catholics have not gone. If there is they’ll be on their way. The thing is, Catholics are the best missionaries, yes we have slowed down in recent years (since the 40’s maybe) but we’ve been going into hostile areas since we began. And people are called to discern (which is interesting because this year is the Year of Priests) to go into priesthood and serve those that are in need. And when I say missionaries, I am not talking about the one’s that go knocking on people’s doors, we do that too, but the missionaries in the sense where we set up hospices in Leperacy zones in Hawaii and do mass for those that the general population will not go around. Stuff like that, where people will go live the rest of their lives as missionaries in that area.

948

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
@ D and Joab:

I don’t know catholicism like the catholics here do and I accordingly don’t wanna sound like a know it all, but you are not grasping what they mean by “ministerial priesthood” and succession backward into the NT era. I will throw out, as I did to you D that this concept, while wrong, is not instantly dismissible as idiotic.[/quote]

If I am wrong please correct me, but I was under the impression that Apostolic Succession only applies to the Pope. I understand the idea of apostolic succession, but do not understand how it is put into practice. Each Pope is not discipled by the previous Pope as Peter was discipled by Jesus.

I forgot to add, that the ministerial priesthood also has a succession?[/quote]

Yes, and that is why the Catholic Church recognizes the Sacrements and the Apostlic succession in some Eastern Orthodox Church and other Orthodox Churches that exist today, because they kept the Apostlic succession in proper form.

The Apostolic succession is like this, you have to be ordained. Bishops ordain deacons and priests, to become a bishop you have to be ordained as bishop by another bishop. The Pope is basically head bishop. AS does not mean the Pope. This is a neat little thing that you can think about.

It is kind of like 6 degrees of seperation, but even cooler! It involves Jesus. Go shake a priests hand, touch his shoulder, whatever. Now! think about the fact that you just shook the had of a man that shook hands or was touched by other men that were touched by other men that eventually leads to men that were touched by Jesus personally! Gets me everytime.[/quote]

But the Pope does not pick the successor Pope. The Cardinals do. And in the Middle Ages some Popes were picked by the Holy Roman Emperor, and not the church.[/quote]

Yes, but they all had to be ordained as a Bishop first. That is the key.

949

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Pat may not have answered this, but I did. I may not have directly answered it but I did address it to either you or blacksheep. There is a difference between formal heresy and material heresy. I can’t really say which one you would fall in but likely material heresy since you were never in the Church and believed in her being the true church. Calvin on the other hand did know that she was the true church, and he would be in the area of formal heresy and of course schism which is probably an automatic sin, now whether it is mortal or venial or not, no one can say although I am sure someone could figure out through his writings before and after leaving the Church.
[/quote]I was baptized, took first communion, went to CCD and was confirmed in St. Robert Bellermine parish. strobertbellarmine.com I said I was raised catholic in the other misconceptions thread. I thought you knew that. Now you’re really worried huh?[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< It is kind of like 6 degrees of separation, but even cooler! It involves Jesus. Go shake a priests hand, touch his shoulder, whatever. Now! think about the fact that you just shook the had of a man that shook hands or was touched by other men that were touched by other men that eventually leads to men that were touched by Jesus personally! Gets me everytime.[/quote]Or I can just touch Him myself like I do all the time.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In short (very short)
Matthew 18:20

[quote]“For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”[/quote] [/quote]OY!!! You have torn down the Catholic Church with only one stroke of your sword! Thank you for setting me free, and to all those who have used this verse in history against the Catholic Church. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]Come on man. You know that I knew better than this. I had like 1 minute at that time to respond. I understand church discipline too. I also understand that Jesus was addressing believers generally through the apostles. You will never buy that so there’s no point in getting into it.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That goes for the rest of you guys too, even you Pat, who thinks I just wanna be right which is just SO wrong.[/quote]See, still trying to be right and prove everyone else wrong… ;)[/quote]OK lol! Touche. It does very much bother me that Pat thinks I hate him. I don’t think I actually hate anybody. There are people I hold in low regard or have contempt for, but I don’t think there’s anybody I would leave to die if I could save them. Not even Leo X.

950

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Pat may not have answered this, but I did. I may not have directly answered it but I did address it to either you or blacksheep. There is a difference between formal heresy and material heresy. I can’t really say which one you would fall in but likely material heresy since you were never in the Church and believed in her being the true church. Calvin on the other hand did know that she was the true church, and he would be in the area of formal heresy and of course schism which is probably an automatic sin, now whether it is mortal or venial or not, no one can say although I am sure someone could figure out through his writings before and after leaving the Church.
[/quote]I was baptized, took first communion, went to CCD and was confirmed in St. Robert Bellermine parish. strobertbellarmine.com I said I was raised catholic in the other misconceptions thread. I thought you knew that. Now you’re really worried huh?
[/quote]

No, because if you knew exactly what it meant then you wouldn’t have said those things, as I am sure your yearning for Jesus would prevent you.

Let’s not be dumb Tirib, Jesus as human form is not sitting in your living room right now, there is a difference when I say touched as in the AS and touched as in by the hand of God.

[quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In short (very short)
Matthew 18:20

[quote]“For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”[/quote] [/quote]OY!!! You have torn down the Catholic Church with only one stroke of your sword! Thank you for setting me free, and to all those who have used this verse in history against the Catholic Church. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]Come on man. You know that I knew better than this. I had like 1 minute at that time to respond. I understand church discipline too. I also understand that Jesus was addressing believers generally through the apostles. You will never buy that so there’s no point in getting into it.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That goes for the rest of you guys too, even you Pat, who thinks I just wanna be right which is just SO wrong.[/quote]See, still trying to be right and prove everyone else wrong… ;)[/quote]OK lol! Touche. It does very much bother me that Pat thinks I hate him. I don’t think I actually hate anybody. There are people I hold in low regard or have contempt for, but I don’t think there’s anybody I would leave to die if I could save them. Not even Leo X.[/quote]

951

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You didn’t listen =[
[/quote]That’s because it doesn’t make sense that you can do anything humanly possible (have faith or do works) to have salvation. Are you saying once saved alawys saved, because that makes more sense than saying if you have faith you’ll be saved. I’m sure there are a lot of demons that have faith in Jesus dying for their sins, know his name, &c. I don’t really think the Angel of Light’s fallen angels will be going to Heaven.[/quote]How do you know it doesn’t make sense if you didn’t listen? Trust me when I tell you that neither he nor I nor any other true Calvinist believes that a person not ultimately bearing the testimony of a transformed life belongs to Christ. Maybe I’m not clearly understanding your difficulty so far.

952

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Reformation has to reform an already formed thing. The Council of Trent and still today the Catholic Church is reforming. Protestants continue to have schism in the Church (some of them horribly so) where you can walk in and be sure of hearing something negative about the Catholic Church.[/quote]Ok, poor choice of words. Let’s go with “reclamation”.
I really believe some of the most valuable lessons from scripture about scripture and a host of related issues are taught in the history between the death of the Apostle John and Wittenberg in 1517. (Sigh) another gigantic topic nearly impossible efficiently address in an internet forum.

953

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Pat may not have answered this, but I did. I may not have directly answered it but I did address it to either you or blacksheep. There is a difference between formal heresy and material heresy. I can’t really say which one you would fall in but likely material heresy since you were never in the Church and believed in her being the true church. Calvin on the other hand did know that she was the true church, and he would be in the area of formal heresy and of course schism which is probably an automatic sin, now whether it is mortal or venial or not, no one can say although I am sure someone could figure out through his writings before and after leaving the Church.
[/quote]I was baptized, took first communion, went to CCD and was confirmed in St. Robert Bellermine parish. strobertbellarmine.com I said I was raised catholic in the other misconceptions thread. I thought you knew that. Now you’re really worried huh?
[/quote]No, because if you knew exactly what it meant then you wouldn’t have said those things, as I am sure your yearning for Jesus would prevent you.[quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< It is kind of like 6 degrees of separation, but even cooler! It involves Jesus. Go shake a priests hand, touch his shoulder, whatever. Now! think about the fact that you just shook the had of a man that shook hands or was touched by other men that were touched by other men that eventually leads to men that were touched by Jesus personally! Gets me everytime.[/quote]Or I can just touch Him myself like I do all the time.
[/quote]Let’s not be dumb Tirib, Jesus as human form is not sitting in your living room right now, there is a difference when I say touched as in the AS and touched as in by the hand of God. >>>[/quote]Here’s where I’ll be accused of being hateful for being honest because you see, I do know exactly what it means and I’m sure it is precisely my yearning for Jesus that has motivated my saying them. I can go to the decrees of Trent and instantly find a dozen “anathemas” sitting squarely on my head.
You know what that means. Pat, despite posting a wall from the CCC that doesn’t address it, knows what that means(or maybe he doesn’t?) and I have to think Sloth knows what that means, but I can’t get anybody to own it and everybody on both sides knows why.

Of course I knew what you meant =] Jesus did after all say that it was better for Him to go away that the Paraclete may come and teach us all things (John 16)(yes, I know you think this is through apostolic succession). He’s here and through Him “20-I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” (Galatians 2:20)

How am I supposed to be impressed with ANY man when He “2-whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3-And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” lives IN ME. I don’t get it? Even if the dubious at very best unbroken succession were true. I am married to the glorified exalted bridegroom, we have intimate relations (Ephesians 5) (I know, you think that means "THEE only true apostolic earthly church emanating from the holy see in Rome without which such divine intimacy is not possible). I know better.

You see the church as a sort of singularly authorized giant transit bus with Jesus as the driver. In order to really know Jesus one must get on that bus. However, if one strives correctly and with enough sincerity so that Jesus can still see you in the rear view mirror he’ll put you in the cargo compartment so at least you get to come along. (roughly)

I see Jesus as the bus, the Spirit as the engine and the Father as the driver. The church is all the passengers, everybody either knows they’ve gotten on that bus or not and nobody who isn’t gets home. I believe ANY person who surrenders their autonomous mind, will AND emotions to God and goes to the bible will reach that conclusion

954

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:
<<< You are not calling the Church a tool of satan with heavy heart, you are doing it for effect and I gather to get me and others riled up. If we are tool of satan, you lot are his footstool. >>>[/quote]
Funny how you think you know my heart now when a minute ago nobody could do that. You are dead wrong Pat. Go ahead and call me liar, I have not done that to you. I have said nothing here for the purpose of getting anybody riled up. NOTHING. I have repeatedly stated that I like all you guys and I meant it and still do. The last quote was from Pius XI January 6, 1928 taken from his encyclical on religious unity wherein the pontiff blasts those claiming true knowledge of God as coming from different religions and saying of such as would proclaim such things they are “altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” Here AGAIN is the link to where I got it at dailyCATHOLIC,org www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002Jan/mortali1.htm
[/quote]
Fine you are a liar. You cannot possibly level the iinsults that you leveled and mean it in the “best possible way”. Bullshit.

As I have repeatedly stated and back up, this is not the stance of the Church, but you won’t listen. The Catechism is the official stance of the church. It can’t be more clear than that. But you ignore in order to jab. So I cannot help you.

Your insults make it personal. You apparently will not allow facts or truth get in the way of a well established bias. I have answered your questions, you have ignored those answers. There is no point in continuing with you unless you can behave as though your questions were answered.

You call Catholicism a tool of satan with out just cause. Jesus established the church by his authority and said that “…the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. So to call the Church a tool of satan, is to call Jesus a liar. Before there was one Christian Church, which today is known as Roman Catholic. All other branches of Christianity, especially evangelical practices were established by Martin Luther, a man. If your claims that the gates of hell has prevailed against the church then Jesus lied to us and we are wasting our time. To that historically things were otherwise, is to rewrite history and rewritten history is a lie.

Now, since you will not accept answers, truthful and backed up, I see no point in continuing the conversation. If you want to damn all others that do not believe or practice your flavor of Christianity, then so be it, no one can be saved. If you want me to abandon my faith, forget it. Atheists on the this web site have made more compelling arguments then you have.

It seems you spend a lot of time reading and yet not understanding the scriptures based on the things you say.

955

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Protestants continue to have schism in the Church (some of them horribly so) where you can walk in and be sure of hearing something negative about the Catholic Church.[/quote]

Isn’t that how a Christian should behave? :slight_smile:

956

I checked and rechecked the quotes I do not know why they are not working :frowning:

957

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That goes for the rest of you guys too, even you Pat, who thinks I just wanna be right which is just SO wrong.[/quote]

See, still trying to be right and prove everyone else wrong… ;)[/quote]

He is trying to show you by using the words of Popes past that what he is saying is truth.

Another questions does the current CCC Catechism over rule all previous Catechisms?[/quote]

Yes, the current one is the official stance, as we are in a perpetual reforming process and trying to get better.

958

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
All those in the church are one body in Christ so there will be some elders, deacons and preachers etc…

…so why should there be hierarchy among the people themselves except for having God as their master…[/quote]

“Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders (presbyteroi) of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”
James 5:14-15

It is apparent that there were different stations (as you’ve named) with different duties (as we in the above verse.[/quote]

Sloth, I agree with you on this, but it does not only happen in the RCC. Every denomination of Christianity has some sort of Hierarchy. We have preachers, teachers, deacons, elders, laity, evangelists, administrators, and many others. We do not have Cardinals though or the Pope, so by not having these 2 positions does not make us the church?[/quote]

Well I can say that your congregation really doesn’t pass the whole catholic name. Catholic universal, all time and place. If you are under the Baptist heirarchy in America going over to Europe those baptists will be controlled by a seperate baptist heirarchy. [/quote]

You do know that Southern Baptists are the second largest denomination in the World only behind Catholics, and there is only one hierarchy? Southern Baptists are sending Missionaries all over the world going to parts of the world where Catholics have not even touched. In third world countries Southern Baptists are starting to overtake Catholicism. You may want to tone down your Baptist Retoric. Baptists are torn down just as much as Catholics. And Baptists trace their roots to John the Baptist. We do not trace our roots to the Reformation. We honestly do not even consider ourselves Protestants. We beleive in baptism and that is where we get out name. The Anabaptists are not the same as the Southern Baptists. Please feel free to put up some Southern Baptist Hater Websites though. Those are always funny. I am not going to take this attack personal. Have a good night, and see you all in a week.

Again God Bless, and may the Peace of our Living Lord be with you.[/quote]

Orthodox Catholic is the second largest and it’s a distant second…If we’re looking at raw numbers.

959

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Pat may not have answered this, but I did. I may not have directly answered it but I did address it to either you or blacksheep. There is a difference between formal heresy and material heresy. I can’t really say which one you would fall in but likely material heresy since you were never in the Church and believed in her being the true church. Calvin on the other hand did know that she was the true church, and he would be in the area of formal heresy and of course schism which is probably an automatic sin, now whether it is mortal or venial or not, no one can say although I am sure someone could figure out through his writings before and after leaving the Church.
[/quote]I was baptized, took first communion, went to CCD and was confirmed in St. Robert Bellermine parish. strobertbellarmine.com I said I was raised catholic in the other misconceptions thread. I thought you knew that. Now you’re really worried huh?
[/quote]No, because if you knew exactly what it meant then you wouldn’t have said those things, as I am sure your yearning for Jesus would prevent you.[quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< It is kind of like 6 degrees of separation, but even cooler! It involves Jesus. Go shake a priests hand, touch his shoulder, whatever. Now! think about the fact that you just shook the had of a man that shook hands or was touched by other men that were touched by other men that eventually leads to men that were touched by Jesus personally! Gets me everytime.[/quote]Or I can just touch Him myself like I do all the time.
[/quote]Let’s not be dumb Tirib, Jesus as human form is not sitting in your living room right now, there is a difference when I say touched as in the AS and touched as in by the hand of God. >>>[/quote]Here’s where I’ll be accused of being hateful for being honest because you see, I do know exactly what it means and I’m sure it is precisely my yearning for Jesus that has motivated my saying them. I can go to the decrees of Trent and instantly find a dozen “anathemas” sitting squarely on my head.
You know what that means. Pat, despite posting a wall from the CCC that doesn’t address it, knows what that means(or maybe he doesn’t?) and I have to think Sloth knows what that means, but I can’t get anybody to own it and everybody on both sides knows why.

Of course I knew what you meant =] Jesus did after all say that it was better for Him to go away that the Paraclete may come and teach us all things (John 16)(yes, I know you think this is through apostolic succession). He’s here and through Him “20-I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” (Galatians 2:20)

How am I supposed to be impressed with ANY man when He “2-whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3-And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” lives IN ME. I don’t get it? Even if the dubious at very best unbroken succession were true. I am married to the glorified exalted bridegroom, we have intimate relations (Ephesians 5) (I know, you think that means "THEE only true apostolic earthly church emanating from the holy see in Rome without which such divine intimacy is not possible). I know better.

You see the church as a sort of singularly authorized giant transit bus with Jesus as the driver. In order to really know Jesus one must get on that bus. However, if one strives correctly and with enough sincerity so that Jesus can still see you in the rear view mirror he’ll put you in the cargo compartment so at least you get to come along. (roughly)

I see Jesus as the bus, the Spirit as the engine and the Father as the driver. The church is all the passengers, everybody either knows they’ve gotten on that bus or not and nobody who isn’t gets home. I believe ANY person who surrenders their autonomous mind, will AND emotions to God and goes to the bible will reach that conclusion[/quote]

I have address the anathemas twice, with backup, yet again you refuse to listen, or read. You simply want to hold to your biases. The Catechism is what is going on now…Apparently you did not read the wall, because it addresses your questions.

960

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< I have address the anathemas twice, with backup, yet again you refuse to listen, or read. You simply want to hold to your biases. The Catechism is what is going on now…Apparently you did not read the wall, because it addresses your questions.[/quote]I promise you I read every word. It does not address what I am talking about. Also, it clearly matters IF “anathema” meant something different before Vatican II. Were those so anathematized in times past condemned to the hell of Satan while God has since decided that it now should mean simply outside the church? What of those previously anathematized? Do they get to go to heaven now? What of their time already spent in hell? Purgatory? Perhaps the old way stands and it’s eternal damnation for having been born too early in history? Or, God forbid maybe the mother church was very mistaken about the precious souls over which she alone has been given charge? IF IF
I used to own a hyoooj white Douay-Rheims bible and in the back was a very extensive authorized encyclopedia that I spent untold hours reading. I think the one you keep linking to may be the same one.
In any case, from your catholic encyclopedia.

[quote]Anathema
<<< Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. >>><<< by the Pope. >>><<< assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. >>><<< He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: “Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.”[/quote]I am very familiar with the passage from 1 Corinthians 5 where this comes from. I have cited it here myself. I’ve been hanging on to this quote from your own encyclopedia for days after you linked to it before, but apparently you stopped reading before this part. Pat, I have really prayed to be given a right spirit if I am to continue in these conversations and clear indication if I should bow out. You have called me a liar. I am sorry you feel that way. I must take assurance in the fact that there is a God who knows my heart and that I have been wrongly accused of lying and hatred.

[quote]Trent 13 Canon 1:
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.[/quote]I denieth
I could literally post 30 or 40 more.
I know you can’t formally do it, only the church can, but one more time. According to these principles should I or should I not be"condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as I will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church;"?
I read that whole entry on that page 3 times. I will humbly submit that while certainly an imperfect fallen man I have been blessed with an extraordinary command of the English language and I am fully capable of grasping your encyclopedia. Nonetheless I could, in my nefariousness, have still misapprehended what I have here reported. If so I will recant.