Roman Catholic?

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Everybody seems to call everybody else herectics. Makes me think I am back in medieval times. As I said I don't presume to know God's plan. In any case, I hear you loud and clear you dislike the Roman Catholic Church and don't think much of it and so have come to expect your contrary comments to anything I may say about the Church.

It's the RCC... You ARE in medieval times.

It's not dislike. It's the simple truth.

I notice you sidestep the modern issue of rampant pederasty, just like the Vatican.

 

[Rosewater]

Actually if you go to the Vatican website, they have posted for all to see their response to the issue of pederasty in the Church. The thinking of throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a knee jerk reaction and not a sound argument. Out of curiosity, what is your faith or church? I haven't been here long and I am trying to understand what churches people belong to here, though as said that is not so much important to me as the message of the salvation through Christ.

 

[dscherck]

It's the RCC... You ARE in medieval times.

It's not dislike. It's the simple truth.

I notice you sidestep the modern issue of rampant pederasty, just like the Vatican.

As Rosewater pointed out, the Vatican does not sidestep the issue of child abuse. It's clear documentation regarding these horrifiying abuses are available on the official Vatican website for all to see. And the Catholic Church now works diligently to ensure the safety of all her members, especially the children.

I was there in DC when Pope Benedict spoke quite clearly during his homily about this very same issue. To claim that the Catholic Church is condoning or ignoring these cases is to merely show one's own ignorance of the matter.

 

[AnandaHya]

sigh, have you forgotten the letters of Paul already???

You know Satan is like a lion roaming the earth to see whom he might devour, All I see is blood in the water and tenderized meat.

JESUS- He is the Bond and all I care to SEE...so take me by the hand, we're walking the same road. We build dividing walls between our brothers and ourselves. I don't care what label you chose to wear, IF you believe in Jesus you belong with me.... because we can change this world forever, If you will join with me, join with me and sing: YOUR MY BROTHER YOUR MY SISTER, TAKE ME BY THE HAND.... THERE is no foe that can defeat us if we are walking side by side.



YouTube - "We Will Stand" By Russ Taff
Will you stand with me?

1 John 4:19-21 (New King James Version)

19 We love Him[a] because He first loved us.
Obedience by Faith
20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? 21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

I have friends from all denomination and currently attending a methodist church

 

[kankunkid]

i live in mexico a largely catholic country though i lived in the usa most of my life and i am christian, i read a few things written and about saints and what not, who is a mere human to judge and give sainthood to a mere man, isnt god the only judge who knows the hearts of men, isnt he the scrutinizer of the hearts and the one who says who is worthy, do not be foole if someone says that someone is a saint, jesus never calle dhis deciples saints, jesus never said; pray to "saints" so that they can pray to me for you, no he said their is only one way to god and that is through me!! Not mother this and saint this or virgin that, that is pure blasphemy to call someone worthy of saint hood, as if we knew thier iner thoughts and heart, only god know this that is why i despise catholocism, its a farse, a true popularity contest. praying to saints given sainthood by men, this subject upsets me

 

[AnandaHya]

Galatians 5:19-23 (New King James Version)

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[a] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

just wanted to insert some of God's word in here....

Who am I? just a quickly fading flower.

YouTube - Who Am I - Casting Crowns

I urge you, first of all, to pray for all people. Ask God to help them; intercede on their behalf, and give thanks for them.

~ 1 Timothy 2:1, NLT

 

[SantoSubito]

ARe you getting your HISTORY LESSONS from the RCC?? Might want to consider that they would be BIASED~!

Why not study the History of Christianity? ...rather than the RCC....which is to say the ROMAN CATHOLIC church, not the Christian body/church.

Big difference. DO THE RESEARCH.

I may be late here but I'll throw my thoughts in anyway. Studying the history of the RCC is in essence studying the history of Christianity. Since for the first 1000 years there was only one Christian Church, and for 500 years after that there were only the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Would you let you son or grandson be an altarboy?

I'll answer this as well. Yes I would, the pedophilia rate among Catholic priests is actually lower than among Protestant pastors. So would you let your son/grandson talk to your pastor alone?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I'll answer this as well. Yes I would, the pedophilia rate among Catholic priests is actually lower than among Protestant pastors. So would you let your son/grandson talk to your pastor alone?

No. It's inappropriate, generally. The direct spiritual authority for a child is a parent. I never counsel anyone alone, of any age or gender. I don't allow my children to spend time alone with any adult.

And how would one actually document such a thing? Most incidents are unreported, among many other difficulties.

I'm neither naive nor ignorant in this area, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[wakeup]

I am just wondering how many here are actually Roman Catholics. I am new here and I get the impression that most are from other denominations. So, who is Roman Catholic here and what do you all think of the recent appearances of the Holy Mother in our century.

Overview of Medjugorje

FATIMA NETWORK: Our Lady of Fatima Online

the ROMAN church is still in bondage and will always be.the romans has a strong hold on them,only Jesus can set them free. but they love it that way, untill they see the son of man coming in clouds,then they will mourn as if mourning for a first born son.
and they will cast dust on their heads,and weep. and Jesus will say to them.
''why are you naked? i can see your nakedness. go away for i dont know you.

''wakeup''.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I may be late here but I'll throw my thoughts in anyway. Studying the history of the RCC is in essence studying the history of Christianity. Since for the first 1000 years there was only one Christian Church, and for 500 years after that there were only the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Yet according to the catholic churches own documents. Around 300 Ad any heretical writings or documents (Ie Baptismal regeneration, eucharist, Mary) which went against their belief was destroyed. Also from this time on, all people considered heretics basically had their life destroyed. So we will never know if any church before the iron fist of Rome forced everyone to believe their way believed any different than roman doctrines.

 

[SantoSubito]

No. It's inappropriate, generally. The direct spiritual authority for a child is a parent. I never counsel anyone alone, of any age or gender. I don't allow my children to spend time alone with any adult.

And how would one actually document such a thing? Most incidents are unreported, among many other difficulties.

I'm neither naive nor ignorant in this area, and I'll leave it at that.

Regardless, I would say that for every one unreported case of child abuse by a Catholic priest there are two false claims that have arose since the victims started suing for cash. Child abuse that happened a long time ago is notoriously hard to prove, and more often than not the jury's sympathy lies with the person accusing the priest rather than with the priest.

In my opinion we have pretty well moved past the actual abuse cases here in the US, and are now sorting through false claims by people looking to make a quick buck.

 

[SantoSubito]

Yet according to the catholic churches own documents. Around 300 Ad any heretical writings or documents (Ie Baptismal regeneration, eucharist, Mary) which went against their belief was destroyed. Also from this time on, all people considered heretics basically had their life destroyed. So we will never know if any church before the iron fist of Rome forced everyone to believe their way believed any different than roman doctrines.

Not true, plenty of Gnostic writings have been found. Writings from the Manicheaens, and other heretical groups survive to this day. Writings which were rejected for the NT canon because of them teaching error survive, as do writings from the Arians. The only reason I can think of for making your claim is that evidence you think should be there isn't, and you need it to have been there, so you invent a reason for why it isn't there now, but it was in times past.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Not true, plenty of Gnostic writings have been found. Writings from the Manicheaens, and other heretical groups survive to this day. Writings which were rejected for the NT canon because of them teaching error survive, as do writings from the Arians. The only reason I can think of for making your claim is that evidence you think should be there isn't, and you need it to have been there, so you invent a reason for why it isn't there now, but it was in times past.

I don't need history to prove The gospel I have placed my faith in is true and from God. That's your excuse.

Again. According to your own church, "All documents of heretics are to be destroyed'

I have posted it in one of the threads here. About the severe punishment, (even up to death) which the church and state of Rome imposed on all heretics.

for 1000 years. the church of Rome did what people are screaming at extreme Islamist are doing today. But if you wish to place your faith in them. Feel free. .

 

[SantoSubito]

I don't need history to prove The gospel I have placed my faith in is true and from God. That's your excuse.

Again. According to your own church, "All documents of heretics are to be destroyed'

I have posted it in one of the threads here. About the severe punishment, (even up to death) which the church and state of Rome imposed on all heretics.

for 1000 years. the church of Rome did what people are screaming at extreme Islamist are doing today. But if you wish to place your faith in them. Feel free. .

If by "doing what Islamist extremist are doing" you mean Rome imposed relgious law on people then I agree, and I would like to add that for the time such religious law was common place everywhere. Imposing religious law is not in and of itself objectionable, especially during a period where Europe was practically 100% Christian, and western Europe was practically 100% Catholic

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If by "doing what Islamist extremist are doing" you mean Rome imposed relgious law on people then I agree, and I would like to add that for the time such religious law was common place everywhere. Imposing religious law is not in and of itself objectionable, especially during a period where Europe was practically 100% Christian, and western Europe was practically 100% Catholic

The problem with this is that if this is true. then one can not use history to prove their church was the only church. because anyone who opposed it would have been shot down. So how can one say my church has been the only church since the beginning? You can't.

Which is why Scripture should be the only guide as to what the truth is. For it is the only thing we know comes from God and is untainted by men.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Zoroastrianism substantially pre-dated the early church. Perhaps we should go with that based on "theological tenure".

 

[dscherck]

The problem with this is that if this is true. then one can not use history to prove their church was the only church. because anyone who opposed it would have been shot down. So how can one say my church has been the only church since the beginning? You can't.

Which is why Scripture should be the only guide as to what the truth is. For it is the only thing we know comes from God and is untainted by men.

And how well has that been working out for you then? I think it's absolutely wonderful how united in beliefs all the adherents of Sola Scriptura are. After all, the debate over infant baptism was solved using Scripture alone right? As was the debate over re-baptism, speaking in tongues, the Trinity, whether the Communion meal is symbolic or literal, whether women can preach, the divinity of Jesus, whether Jesus was God in man or God and man, whether to baptize in Jesus' name or the Trinity, etc... Those are all resolved, right?

The point being, everyone seems to interpret the Scriptures differently. And each of them claims to be lead by the Holy Spirit. But obviously that cannot be true because God is not the author of confusion. So, how then can you claim that the Scripture should be the ONLY guide in the Christian faith when the evidence shows that simply doesn't work? Why should I trust your interpretation over the interpretation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Episcopalians, or the First United Pentacostal Apostle's church down the road from me? If the Scripture was truly meant to be the only guide, and if we are ALL individually guided by the Holy Spirit, why then are we not all united in beliefs?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

And how well has that been working out for you then? I think it's absolutely wonderful how united in beliefs all the adherents of Sola Scriptura are. After all, the debate over infant baptism was solved using Scripture alone right? As was the debate over re-baptism,
speaking in tongues, the Trinity, whether the Communion meal is symbolic or literal, whether women can preach, the divinity of Jesus, whether Jesus was God in man or God and man, whether to baptize in Jesus' name or the Trinity, etc... Those are all resolved, right?

Well actually all of those things are proved or not proved by scripture. If people wish to twist scripture and form a false doctrine, Like they have since Moses, that is on them. So just because someone might interpret wrong take away the usefulness of Gods word? Thats funny. God never forced scripture on anyone in the OT. He did not force the jews to believe him. He did not use any army to force feed his truth at any time in biblical history. Yet the roman church felt they had the right to do this? If God did not feel the need at any time in the OT. or in the time of Christ. or even NT apostles did not feel the need. I think we should take their example.

The point being, everyone seems to interpret the Scriptures differently. And each of them claims to be lead by the Holy Spirit. But obviously that cannot be true because God is not the author of confusion. So, how then can you claim that the Scripture should be the ONLY guide in the Christian faith when the evidence shows that simply doesn't work?

Thats funny. It worked for OT saints. It worked for Christ as he only used scripture to prove he was who he said he was. it worked for paul, as he reasoned with scripture to prove his gospel was from God.

God never promised everyone would interpret right. And he will not force his belief on anyone. so why should we or anyone else think there would never be different interpretations? There has been since the beginning of time. Why would anyone think it would ever stop? It will happen until the e3nd of time. No one is gonna stop it. But everyone will be held accountable as to how they interpret the word. Not how someone interprets it for them. God never intended us to be puppets with no mind of our own.

Why should I trust your interpretation over the interpretation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Episcopalians, or the First United Pentacostal Apostle's church down the road from me? If the Scripture was truly meant to be the only guide, and if we are ALL individually guided by the Holy Spirit, why then are we not all united in beliefs?

For the same reason men have never been united. People will believe what they want to believe. and no one is going to stop them. You will be held accountable to how YOU interpret the word. Not for how a church who calls itself the church of God interprets it. No matter if it is catholic, orthodox or protestant. God will hold YOU accountable.

 

[dscherck]

Well actually all of those things are proved or not proved by scripture. If people wish to twist scripture and form a false doctrine, Like they have since Moses, that is on them. So just because someone might interpret wrong take away the usefulness of Gods word? Thats funny. God never forced scripture on anyone in the OT. He did not force the jews to believe him. He did not use any army to force feed his truth at any time in biblical history. Yet the roman church felt they had the right to do this? If God did not feel the need at any time in the OT. or in the time of Christ. or even NT apostles did not feel the need. I think we should take their example.

You're right in that no one should be forced to believe. That just leads to problems. And it's a grave sin and a great injustice that it ever happened. But do remember that it wasn't just the Catholics who did such things. There are numerous Catholic martyrs who were killed simply because they refused to believe as some of the early Protestants said they should.

Thats funny. It worked for OT saints. It worked for Christ as he only used scripture to prove he was who he said he was. it worked for paul, as he reasoned with scripture to prove his gospel was from God.

Actually, Our Lord didn't use only Scripture. We have instances recorded in the Gospels where He drew upon Jewish oral tradition. And Paul himself also drew several times on Jewish oral tradition.

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.
Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.
1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.
1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.
Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."
Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

God never promised everyone would interpret right. And he will not force his belief on anyone. so why should we or anyone else think there would never be different interpretations? There has been since the beginning of time. Why would anyone think it would ever stop? It will happen until the end of time. No one is gonna stop it. But everyone will be held accountable as to how they interpret the word. Not how someone interprets it for them. God never intended us to be puppets with no mind of our own.

God did however promise that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth. That promise was made to the Church, not to the individual. The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth as attested to in the Scriptures. Naturally if the Church is entrusted by Our Lord to become the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, we can rest assured that He will enable it to determine the true interpretation of Scriptures. Believing in the teachings of the Church doesn't make me a puppet, if anything it helps me grow in my faith. I don't have to worry about things such as "is God a Trinity? Or are the Oneness guys correct?" Those things have already been decided by the Church, which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Now i can focus on things like, "How can I best offer my current sufferings to Christ?" Or "Grace and the human cooperation with grace"

For the same reason men have never been united. People will believe what they want to believe. and no one is going to stop them. You will be held accountable to how YOU interpret the word. Not for how a church who calls itself the church of God interprets it. No matter if it is catholic, orthodox or protestant. God will hold YOU accountable.

Amen to that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to determine which Church is the most accurate in presenting the teachings of the Apostles (and of course vis a vis, Our Lord). I know that my interpretation can be faulty, but I also know that the Church's interpretation can be relied upon to be correct because of the promises of Christ. So, thanks to the power of reason, I figure that if I want to be assured my interpretation of the Scriptures aligns with the Truth, I should figure out which of they myriad churches out there is THE Church. I'm quite comfortable with my choice.

 

[preschoolteacher24]

am a roman catholic

christ/roman catholic.. half people in my home are catholic half christian but if you know catholic still christian..