I get annoyed anytime someone uses the terms Catholics and Christians as if they were different. What you mean are Protestant or Catholic, which along with the Orthodox sects are all Christian.

BTW, I'm a student at a Jesuit school, but I'm an atheist

Edit: Speeling mistake in title.

The only reason I refer to catholics separately is that the majority of the ones I know go out of the way to emphasize the fact that they are catholic when referred to as christian.  Some of them get rather pissed off if they're referred to as "christian" and not "catholic"

So, if THEY want to be singled out and labeled, I'll oblige them just to avoid the argument.

I can't answer the question for anyone but myself...

Why do I make a point to distinguish myself as a Catholic instead of just "Christian"? "Christian" carries with it a sort of non-denominational connotation. It carries with it a kind of Bible-thumping tone with which this Catholic doesn't want to be associated.

Besides, the way in which Catholics practice the Christian faith is rather unique (and this is including Episcopalian, or Catholic lite as I like to call it and Lutheranism which I like to call Episcopalian lite).

Quoted: The only reason I refer to catholics separately is that the majority of the ones I know go out of the way to emphasize the fact that they are catholic when referred to as christian.  Some of them get rather pissed off if they're referred to as "christian" and not "catholic" So, if THEY want to be singled out and labeled, I'll oblige them just to avoid the argument.

_____________________________________________________

Though I was raised Catholic and graduated from a Catholic university, by education and experience I would lean towards the view that most Catholics do indeed find themselves within the realm and comfortably so, within the "umbrella" of Christianity.

I've found, unfortunately so, that other Christians tend to view Catholics as a separate category of Christianity.

I don't know how many of your friends feel they must "... go out of the way to emphasize the fact that they are catholic when referred to as christian...".  It is probably nothing more sinister than their expression of Christianity; just as other Christian sects may distinguish themselves from Baptist or Lutheran

I would be hesitant to read anything more diabolical into it than that.

Quoted: Quoted: The only reason I refer to catholics separately is that the majority of the ones I know go out of the way to emphasize the fact that they are catholic when referred to as christian.  Some of them get rather pissed off if they're referred to as "christian" and not "catholic" So, if THEY want to be singled out and labeled, I'll oblige them just to avoid the argument. _____________________________________________________ Though I was raised Catholic and graduated from a Catholic university, by education and experience I would lean towards the view that most Catholics do indeed find themselves within the realm and comfortably so, within the "umbrella" of Christianity. I've found, unfortunately so, that other Christians tend to view Catholics as a separate category of Christianity. I don't know how many of your friends feel they must "... go out of the way to emphasize the fact that they are catholic when referred to as christian...".  It is probably nothing more sinister than their expression of Christianity; just as other Christian sects may distinguish themselves from Baptist or Lutheran I would be hesitant to read anything more diabolical into it than that.

Oh, I don't think its sinister, but the friends I'm referring to get really pissed off if you call them christian rather than catholic.  I don't really see the reason for it, but like I said, I'm just trying to avoid arguments with them.

And for what its worth, there are quite a few christians who do not recognize catholicism as a form of christianity, since the catholic church has a lot of practices that are unique to catholicism, as well as a church heirarchy that a lot of other denominations do not think is good, etc.

It IS rather sad that they can't get along, and thats being said as someone who belongs to neither group.

I've always used the terms either Protestant or Catholic.

I went to Catholic school from K thru college, but I was raised Pentecostal. I just called myself Protestant, and referred to my close friends as Catholics.

Same thing in a Christian group I was a part of during college, which was non-denominational. We still used these terms when explaining how we feel from the point of view of our faith.

But, yes, we are all Christians under the same banner of Christ. We just do things a little differently. I still attend mass with friends every once in a while, I've been in Catholic weddings--I just can't celebrate the sacraments.

Let's see... there are some 2 billion Christians, of whom 1 billion are Catholic. In the West, Christianity was coterminous with Catholicism until the breaks and divisions because Jesus didn't found a religion where every man chooses what to believe or interpret as he sees fit; he founded a Church. He didn't publish a book, he gathered disciples and gave them teaching authority. They taught about "the Word" and called themselves followers of "the Way" (implicitly stating that there was only ONE "word" and "way", not "every man for himself".

Naturally if he had founded a religion and printed a self-help book, then you would expect there to be as many different Gospels and churches as there are people to read and interpret it. It wouldn't make sense to speak of "Catholic or Universal" Christian doctrine or morals because eventually there would be no binding doctrine uniting all people and demanding all people to conform themselves to to obey.

Jesus is the same God who gave the Law to Moses. And there he didn't just give the "people" a book of do's and don'ts and then inspire each one accordingly. No, he appointed and selected and constantly sent them Judges and prophets and teachers who could interpret the Law. Real, living people to teach and inspire other people.

His coming in the flesh and gathering a people unto himself via apostles was organic growth not radical change to this. After all, God does not change his nature or how he deals with humanity. Justice becomes Mercy but they are not opposites.

Given the nature of what kind of community Jesus founded, there were limits imposed by human beings own nature: to be one in mind and heart in the truth revealed about God and man required institutionalization. Not just setting it down in print but establishing guardians of this deposit, this treasure who would hand it down and guard it.

True, theologians had to distinguish between what was specifically "Catholic" as opposed to local customs and doctrines, especially when dealing with local sects and heresies. St Irenaeus of Lyons, (disciple of St. Polycarp, who was disciple of St.John the Apostle), wrote around 150AD that one way "Christians" could be sure what scriptural interpretation or doctrine was correct and what wasn't was to look to what was accepted universally by all Christians (i.e. what was "Catholic" as opposed to tribal, national, local, etc. Soon it became clear that some "sees", or major centers of the Church were more dependable in keeping fast the Gospel than others.

In the ebb and flow of time and cultural changes people had to look to some places and institutions for help in their questions and challenges with respect to what the Gospel is and means. It became apparent that if everyone held to what Peter's successor taught, they'd find unity - something Our Lord prayed his disciples have before he left us.

To be "catholic" was to hold to what "everyone" believed as heresies seemed to be exclusive, myopic, personal re- or new interpretations... "new gospels" which St Paul warned us of as opposed to the original Gospel that was spread to the corners of the empire by the first apostles.

Now as to what we call ourselves... sometimes we call ourselves what the culture has coined rather than what's technically true. Anglicans took to calling us "Roman Catholic" when technically we're "Catholics (of the Latin rite)", since the Anglican Church printed the King James Bible, it's natural that all English speaking Protestants would follow suit.

Secondly, most Catholics in the US under the age of 45 haven't received the standard catechism and instruction that our parents or grandparents received, so are easily confused or outright ignorant of the bible, doctrines, and dogma to say nothing of all the cultural and ethnic rituals or rites or beliefs... easy pickings for many evangelicals who understandably conclude that these people are good examples of Catholicism when they're not in fact.  

But a change is coming... thanks to JP2 and now B16, a whole generation of young Catholics are rising who know their faith, have proper catechesis, know the bible and can defend and explain the faith without having to fall back on "well that's what Rome says". They can explain WHY.

They can point to doctrine and praxis - faith and morals and show that Christianity is the result of the Church, not something separate from her. Without the Church there would be no sense to the idea of a religion of Jesus because as he himself told us "where two or three of you gather in my name, there am I in your midst." Whether they know it or not, "Christians" are members of Christ so participants of his Church.

Amen, brother!

loonybin (generation JP2 & B16)

My peeve is that the RC church doesn't consider me, a Protestant Christian, to be a true Christian.

About 6 years ago I had my first experience inside a Catholic church, attending a friend's wedding.  When time came for communion (which is a special event for me) I was excluded.  The priest said that, "Communion is for Catholics only."

Also, despite the public statements about ecumenism and tolerance in Christian fellowship, I am targeted by the anathemas of the Council of Trent, which have been endorsed by every pope for the past 450 years.  (Look it up).

This is a lop-sided issue.

On one hand, you have Catholics saying, "Hey!  We're Christians too!", while on the other hand the doctrines of the RCC condemn non-Catholics.

Can it be both ways?

I realize that there are individual Catholics who have genuine Christian fellowship with Protestants.  I get along with many individual Catholics just fine.  However, until the anathemas of Trent directed at Protestants are retracted I have little good will toward the RCC itself.

Am I intolerant?  You tell me.


Anathema:

1. A formal ecclesiastical ban, curse, or excommunication.
2. A vehement denunciation; a curse: “the sound of a witch's anathemas in some unknown tongue” (Nathaniel Hawthorne).
3. One that is cursed or damned.
4. One that is greatly reviled, loathed, or shunned.

That is the official RCC position on me.

Gee, I was really hoping that someone could resolve this for me.

Quoted: My peeve is that the RC church doesn't consider me, a Protestant Christian, to be a true Christian. About 6 years ago I had my first experience inside a Catholic church, attending a friend's wedding.  When time came for communion (which is a special event for me) I was excluded.  The priest said that, "Communion is for Catholics only." Also, despite the public statements about ecumenism and tolerance in Christian fellowship, I am targeted by the anathemas of the Council of Trent, which have been endorsed by every pope for the past 450 years.  (Look it up). This is a lop-sided issue. On one hand, you have Catholics saying, "Hey!  We're Christians too!", while on the other hand the doctrines of the RCC condemn non-Catholics. Can it be both ways? I realize that there are individual Catholics who have genuine Christian fellowship with Protestants.  I get along with many individual Catholics just fine.  However, until the anathemas of Trent directed at Protestants are retracted I have little good will toward the RCC itself. Am I intolerant?  You tell me. Anathema: 1. A formal ecclesiastical ban, curse, or excommunication. 2. A vehement denunciation; a curse: “the sound of a witch's anathemas in some unknown tongue” (Nathaniel Hawthorne). 3. One that is cursed or damned. 4. One that is greatly reviled, loathed, or shunned. That is the official RCC position on me.

Quoted: Gee, I was really hoping that someone could resolve this for me.

Well, give more than three hours between posts and maybe someone will.

Quoted: My peeve is that the RC church doesn't consider me, a Protestant Christian, to be a true Christian.

Were you baptized using water and the Trinitarian formula (I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)?  If not, you're not a Christian, if yes, then you are a Christian.

About 6 years ago I had my first experience inside a Catholic church, attending a friend's wedding.  When time came for communion (which is a special event for me) I was excluded.  The priest said that, "Communion is for Catholics only."

Correct.  Communion may be "a special event" for you, but for Catholics, communion is more than that.  It is receiving the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, truly present in the Eucharist.  By going forward to receive the Eucharist, you are making a public statement that you believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist and that you believe and accept all that the Catholic Church holds to be divinely revealed by God.  When presented with the Eucharist, the person distributing Holy Communion says "The Body of Christ."  We say "Amen," giving our assent and agreement to that.  If that doesn't apply to you, then you would be making a liar out of yourself by receiving communion.  

Here's a passage from Catholic Answers that gives a bit more explanation:

Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not. Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor. 11:29–30).

Anathema: 1. A formal ecclesiastical ban, curse, or excommunication. 2. A vehement denunciation; a curse: “the sound of a witch's anathemas in some unknown tongue” (Nathaniel Hawthorne). 3. One that is cursed or damned. 4. One that is greatly reviled, loathed, or shunned. That is the official RCC position on me.

I have a feeling you don't really understand what anathema means and how the Church applies it.  It would be far easier (and much more cogent) to let you read this to explain.

In a nutshell:  the entire point of anathemas are to put a person outside full fellowship due to a person rejecting certain doctrines (which I'm pretty sure you do).  The purpose of this is to bring a person to repentance.

When used in the Council of Trent, it had two purposes:  juridical penalty, and as a way of definitively defining Catholic doctrine.

As a juridical penalty, anathemas are no longer in effect (it would take a long explanation of Canon Law to explain it), but their meaning of infallibly defining Catholic doctrine are still in effect.  Even then, the juridical penalty was for those who were Catholic and obstinately denied some doctrine.  Anathemas did not apply to a person who has never been Catholic.

Quoted: Quoted: Gee, I was really hoping that someone could resolve this for me. Well, give more than three hours between posts and maybe someone will.

Sorry 'bout that.  Response time here can vary from seconds to days.

Quoted: My peeve is that the RC church doesn't consider me, a Protestant Christian, to be a true Christian.

Were you baptized using water and the Trinitarian formula (I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)?  If not, you're not a Christian, if yes, then you are a Christian.

Oh, I KNOW who and what I am.  I also know Whose I am.  I'm a blood bought, born again, washed in the blood Believer in Yeshua of Nazareth.  I have indeed been baptized.

About 6 years ago I had my first experience inside a Catholic church, attending a friend's wedding.  When time came for communion (which is a special event for me) I was excluded.  The priest said that, "Communion is for Catholics only."

Correct.  Communion may be "a special event" for you, but for Catholics, communion is more than that.  It is receiving the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, truly present in the Eucharist.  By going forward to receive the Eucharist, you are making a public statement that you believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist and that you believe and accept all that the Catholic Church holds to be divinely revealed by God.  When presented with the Eucharist, the person distributing Holy Communion says "The Body of Christ."  We say "Amen," giving our assent and agreement to that.  If that doesn't apply to you, then you would be making a liar out of yourself by receiving communion.  

In the churches that I've attended over the years, communion is open to all believers.

If taking it would have acknowledged the doctrine of transubstantiation, then I am no longer offended, because I reject that concept.


Anathema:

1. A formal ecclesiastical ban, curse, or excommunication.
2. A vehement denunciation; a curse: “the sound of a witch's anathemas in some unknown tongue” (Nathaniel Hawthorne).
3. One that is cursed or damned.
4. One that is greatly reviled, loathed, or shunned.

That is the official RCC position on me.



I have a feeling you don't really understand what anathema means and how the Church applies it.  It would be far easier (and much more cogent) to let you read this to explain.

In a nutshell:  the entire point of anathemas are to put a person outside full fellowship due to a person rejecting certain doctrines (which I'm pretty sure you do).  The purpose of this is to bring a person to repentance.

When used in the Council of Trent, it had two purposes:  juridical penalty, and as a way of definitively defining Catholic doctrine.

As a juridical penalty, anathemas are no longer in effect (it would take a long explanation of Canon Law to explain it), but their meaning of infallibly defining Catholic doctrine are still in effect.  Even then, the juridical penalty was for those who were Catholic and obstinately denied some doctrine.  Anathemas did not apply to a person who has never been Catholic.




Each anathema is prefaced with the words, "If anyone saith..."  (emphasis added).  

The bottom line is that despite this attempt at reconciling these issues, the position of the Roman church is that since I am not a member of the RCC, submitted to their doctrines, I am lost.

My Jesus says differently.

Brohawk,

I'm actually surprised that you would have so little respect that you would even try to take Communion. You're not Catholic and that's okie dokie with me and probably every other Catholic you'll ever encounter (save for the rare evangelical type), but to try and take part in our most sacred rite without first preparing yourself by being baptized and confessed (requirements which have been in place for two thousand years, they're not new) first is just plain disrespectful. And then you have the nerve to blame us for it?

I'm disappointed in you, Brohawk. You may not like the Catholic Church, but the least you could do is show a tiny bit of respect for our traditions.

Quoted: Brohawk, I'm actually surprised that you would have so little respect that you would even try to take Communion. You're not Catholic and that's okie dokie with me and probably every other Catholic you'll ever encounter (save for the rare evangelical type), but to try and take part in our most sacred rite without first preparing yourself by being baptized and confessed (requirements which have been in place for two thousand years, they're not new) first is just plain disrespectful. And then you have the nerve to blame us for it? I'm disappointed in you, Brohawk. You may not like the Catholic Church, but the least you could do is show a tiny bit of respect for our traditions.

Let me clarify here so we are communicating.  You assume much.

I became a Christian, accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior in 1986.

Following this, I was baptized IAW His directive.

In the following years the churches I attended observed communion regularly.  This, like the feasts and observances in the OT, served as a reminder of the sacrifice of our Lord and the forgiveness of sins & healing of our bodies made available by Him.

As I said, in the churches I attended, communion was open to all believers.

Thus, I was surprised that I was excluded from communion within the Catholic church in which I attended the friend's wedding.  I was disrespected.  The message was one of exclusion, rather than ecumenical inclusion.  The message communicated to me was that I, a believer in Jesus Christ, a born again follower of Yeshua of Nazareth, is considered to be an unwashed, unclean apostate by the RCC.  

Since then I've learned a bit more about what communion is within the RCC, and now I am not so offended at being excluded because I will not participate in [deleted for CoC considerations].

So, I have been baptized.  I have confessed Jesus as my Lord and Savior.  I have repented of my old lifestyle.  I regularly confess my sins to Him and receive His forgiveness.  Thus, I am qualified to receive communion and do so every time it is offered in my church.

Quoted: Each anathema is prefaced with the words, "If anyone saith..."  (emphasis added).

That's because back then if you were baptized, you were either Catholic or Orthodox.  If you were in Western Europe, you were Catholic.  Thus the anathemas were directed toward those who were Catholic but rejecting those doctrines.  After a few generations of people never being Catholic to start with, the juridical penalty didn't apply to them since anathemas are penalties for Catholics.  The newest Code of Canon Law doesn't even mention anathemas, so they are no longer in existence as a penalty.  They still carry their weight as infallible statements, but the penalty of being separated from fellowship is gone.  Now it is the separation of beliefs in essential doctrines that sadly separate us.

The bottom line is that despite this attempt at reconciling these issues, the position of the Roman church is that since I am not a member of the RCC, submitted to their doctrines, I am lost.

You know more about the Catholic Faith than I do, huh?  And just how much have you studied the Catholic Faith from orthodox Catholic sources?  And I'm not talking about reading a book from a Protestant that quotes a Catholic source out of context.  When have you sat down with the Catechsim of the Catholic Church, the Bible, and Papal writings to figure out just what we believe?  

You say we consider you lost, but "lost" meaning what?  Condemned to the eternal fires of Hell?  No one but God can know that, and the Catholic Church sure doesn't say that.  Here's what the Catholic Church actually says about those who are baptized, but not Catholic (i.e. you):

"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."  ~Catechism of the Catholic Church, #818)

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."  With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (#838)

If you want to know what we actually believe, look here:  Catechism of the Catholic Church

Quoted: If taking it would have acknowledged the doctrine of transubstantiation, then I am no longer offended, because I reject that concept.

That's exactly what it means.

Quoted: The message communicated to me was that I, a believer in Jesus Christ, a born again follower of Yeshua of Nazareth, is considered to be... unwashed, unclean...

and wholly unprepared to receive Communion in a Roman Catholic Church. (Yes, I edited the original quote to make that make sense)

It would seem that in all of your "research" you still seem to have absolutely no idea what it is supposed mean to a Catholic to take Communion. In some cases, years of preparation are required before one can partake of that ritual. In all cases, more than a bit of study is required. It is certainly a process and not a whim which one can wake up one morning and decide, unlike being "born again." Being Catholic involves a hell of a lot more than a change of mind, or even a change of heart. Those are only places to start the process. They are not the end of it.

Quoted: It would seem that in all of your "research" you still seem to have absolutely no idea what it is supposed mean to a Catholic...

Maybe I'm not so familiar with the ritual and ceremonies of the RCC, but I do know what it means to be a Christian.  I know what it takes to be washed of my sins and to walk in the grace that makes me acceptable to my Heavenly Father.  It's grace, not indoctrination and loyalty to an earthly institution.

It is certainly a process and not a whim which one can wake up one morning and decide, unlike being "born again."

It sounds like you likewise don't understand the concept of being born again, placing it in quotes and calling it a whim.  Why do you trivialize what the Lord said is required in John 3:3?

[/shaking dust off my feet]

Quoted: I get annoyed anytime someone uses the terms Catholics and Christians as if they were different. What you mean are Protestant or Catholic, which along with the Orthodox sects are all Christian. BTW, I'm a student at a Jesuit school, but I'm an atheist Edit: Speeling mistake in title.

You are the Bible's definition of a FOOL.

The cath church might accept people who are baptized as Christians, but I assure you fine folk that the Word is utterly at conflict with the cath definition of "baptized".

ESPECIALLY as it refers to the sprinkling of babies who have NO WILL in the matter.

Catholics are catholic and believe in catholocism and its myriad rules laws and mysticism.

Christians believe in NOTHING promulgated by man OR the bishops of Rome or their myriad scholars or other erstwhile minions. The Living Word of the Scriptures is supreme and stands alone, even as it is Christ Himself.

Joh:1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Those who would alter or pervert the Word do so at their uttermost spiritual peril.

Christians are not catholic nor vice versa. One is utterly at variance with the other. This very country was founded to escape the tyranny of the cath church and its crushing grip.

No, they are not Christians, though they may worship Christ ... it is in this way:

1Tm:4:1: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Tm:4:2: Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Tm:4:3: Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Tm:4:4: For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Tm:4:5: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.


There can be no question whom the spirit was warning of, now can there???

Not here, not by me.

Dram out

You say mysticism like it's a bad thing. I actually ran across something while reading tonight which is highly relevant to that, but I'm going to just start a new thread instead of hijacking this one with it.


And you don't find it at all curious that, in your view, the Bible derives it's supreme legitimacy from itself?

Hydgirl,

Of course I say mysticism is a bad thing, woman!

That which inhabits the cath church has its roots in pagan mythologies and fables.

THERE IS NO CONCORD BETWEEN JESUS AND THE devil.

NOT NOW NOT EVER.

Pagan rites no matter how adulterated or changed have their beginning with the prince of lies and are utterly corrupt.

Christ says HE IS THE WORD. And catholics dont believe in the Word alone!!!

OF COURSE THE NEW TESTAMENT DERIVES ITS LEGITAMACY FROM ITSELF, IT IS CHRIST!!!!

holy mackerel

Dram

Quoted: Hydgirl, Of course I say mysticism is a bad thing, woman! That which inhabits the cath church has its roots in pagan mythologies and fables. THERE IS NO CONCORD BETWEEN JESUS AND THE devil. NOT NOW NOT EVER. Pagan rites no matter how adulterated or changed have their beginning with the prince of lies and are utterly corrupt. Christ says HE IS THE WORD. And catholics dont believe in the Word alone!!! OF COURSE THE NEW TESTAMENT DERIVES ITS LEGITAMACY FROM ITSELF, IT IS CHRIST!!!! holy mackerel Dram

I'm going to act on the assumption that you're serious not on any medication.

The Christ is indeed the Word. The Bible is a bunch of words written down by men. Keep them as holy and as sacred as you like, but don't delude yourself into thinking anything else. Perhaps they are divinely inspired, but no matter how you slice it, they are still passed through the minds and hands of men (and women). Even as you sit and read your Bible, the words, the stories are passed through the filter of your own experience. Those words, those stories were also filtered through the experiences of those that wrote them down. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it also means that it is most certainly not "CHRIST!!!!" as you so put it.

If Christ lied, and he was not the son of God, then you would be correct.

I am a Christian and believe just what the Bible is, that which has been written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is in FACT Christ Jesus.

You, by your writing DO NOT have faith that is holy or inspired, nor that it is of any more authority than a gum wrapper.

It either is what it says it is and my faith is justified, or it is a colossal waste of time and energy and a reed in the wind like you is correct.

I am banking that you are utterly and hopelessly wrong and the Book is Right.

Either way I cannot lose.

Whereas YOU WILL.

Not that I wish you to, mind you... but it is bottom line TRUTH.

The Book is either right or wrong. There is no middle ground.

Dram out

That which inhabits the cath church has its roots in pagan mythologies and fables. <snipped the shouting> Pagan rites no matter how adulterated or changed have their beginning with the prince of lies and are utterly corrupt.

Someone's been reading too many Jack Chick pamphlets, James White, and Dave Hunt books, and not actually studying the history of Christianity and the writings of the early Christians.

Are you married?  If you are, I certainly hope you don't wear a wedding ring (that is a pagan rite, after all -- started with the Egyptians.)

You don't put up a Christmas tree, I hope.  That's a pagan rite -- started by the Germanic pagan barbarian tribes.

You don't celebrate Christmas on Dec.25th, I hope.  That started out as a pagan celebration until it was Christianized.

Christ says HE IS THE WORD. And catholics dont believe in the Word alone!!!

The Word alone meaning the Bible alone?  The Bible doesn't even say that it's the only source of authority.  It says it's useful, inspired, effective, etc.,  but it does not claim to be the only source of authority.

OF COURSE THE NEW TESTAMENT DERIVES ITS LEGITAMACY FROM ITSELF, IT IS CHRIST!!!!

Where does the New Testament say that it derives its legitimacy from itself?  Chapter and verse, please; and no personal interpretation of your own, otherwise you're just making yourself a pope with the authority to interpret the Bible, which you condemn the Catholic Church for.

And answer me this:
Why isn't the apocalypse of Peter or the Gospel of Thomas in the Bible?  For that matter, where is a divinely inspired list of what writings belong in the Bible?  Heck, I'll make it easy on you:  where's a divinely inspired list of what writings belong in the New Testament?

Also, if the New Testament is Christ Himself, I certainly expect you to fall on your knees in adoration when you see a Bible.  After all, it's Christ, and you would fall on your knees to adore Christ if he appeared before you wouldn't you?  

I wonder how many of the early fathers (say the first 300 years -- before Constantine) held to your interpretations of Sacred Scripture.  Find their writings and get back to me on that, please.

Well, I find the worshipping of Mary to be somewhat ominous....

But they are Christian, at least they say so, and near as I cna tell from studying they are......


Though call them Christian and they ALWAYS correct you with Catholic.....

Quoted: Well, I find the worshipping of Mary to be somewhat ominous....

Well, I would too... if we actually did.  

In spite of the popular misconception on the topic, we Catholics do not worship Mary as being equal to Jesus because, well... she just isn't.

Quoted: Quoted: Well, I find the worshipping of Mary to be somewhat ominous.... Well, I would too... if we actually did.   In spite of the popular misconception on the topic, we Catholics do not worship Mary as being equal to Jesus because, well... she just isn't.

Not meaning to cause trouble, just every time I went to Catholic mass they actually prayed to her (Hail mary full of grace etc.)....  Just hit me as wrong which is why I never chose catholocism when I was searching for meaning....



Not that it matters, we are all Christian, which is a good sight better than the alternative...

Someone's been reading too many Jack Chick pamphlets, James White, and Dave Hunt books, and not actually studying the history of Christianity and the writings of the early Christians.

Are you married? If you are, I certainly hope you don't wear a wedding ring (that is a pagan rite, after all -- started with the Egyptians.)

You don't put up a Christmas tree, I hope. That's a pagan rite -- started by the Germanic pagan barbarian tribes.


_______________________________________________________________________________

Lets see now, how to answer the Loony

I dont read tracts Loony. I read the bible. I have no use for mans writings on the subject of salvation.

At all.

So if you are offended by a reasoned response derived from scripture, why then there is NO help for YOU.

Holidays? Or as you would prefer... Holy days? I have no use for them. They are represented only as santa claus (not saint nick) and the easter bunny (not for christs death), having no more significance than any other of the conjured holy observances of the cath church.

Sorry, no need for lunacy here, we are full up with Christ so no room mmmkay.

Its hilarious how you flat out state that the cath church created its holy days by corrupting pagan rituals with pseudo christian symbology. You have some tires on you man... amazing

And for you folks to read, here Paul illustrates my point on observances as he speaks to the Jews, and tells them how Christ nailed ordinances and observances that were under the Mosaic Law to the Cross, let us all read along:

Col:2:14: Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col:2:15: And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Col:2:16: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col:2:17: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Col:2:18: Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Col:2:19: And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
Col:2:20: Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col:2:21: (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col:2:22: Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Just like the cath faith would bind all kinds of laws and observances on man in respect to holy days and eating laws... etc etc.

______________________________________________________________________________

The Bible doesn't even say that it's the only source of authority. It says it's useful, inspired, effective, etc., but it does not claim to be the only source of authority.
ou don't celebrate Christmas on Dec.25th, I hope. That started out as a pagan celebration until it was Christianized.
______________________________________________________________________________

According to Loony, the Apostle Paul is LYING in the following Scripture:

2Tm:3:14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Tm:3:15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Tm:3:17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Scripture is WHAT O' LOONY ONE? Im sorry Paul, you are just so vague as to what scripture provides us with. Argue with the Apostle Paul Loony, he wrote that through the Holy Spirit, I am a plumber.

Oh, and I can read. Forgot that.

And not to be tiresome folks, but I will post AGAIN for those whose hearts are hardened what is declared about the WORD:

Joh:1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Lets see now, Christ is the word.

Christ=Word

Joh:14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Christ = the truth

And to do some simple logic

Christ = The Word = The Truth

So by extension of simple logic, even a hard head like Loony can follow this trail.

No likey? Argue with Christ. Remember, me plumber not Apostle.

Christ is the AUTHORITY and the Word IS CHRIST which makes the Bible THE AUTHORITY.

Simple truth for simple folks, but too easy for the vanity of man that the catholic hierarchy wishes to placate.

No popery here Loony, I would need a neat hat, robe, and crozier

Just simple scripture meant for simple folk to understand and come to Jesus with.

M't:28:18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Yep, Jesus be the H N C... Head Nazarene in Charge folks. But that confuses some.
______________________________________________________________________________

continued below

Quoted: I dont read tracts Loony. I read the bible. I have no use for mans writings on the subject of salvation. At all.

Yeah, right.  You picked up a Bible, read it and suddenly know that your interpretation is the right one?  Then why is your interpretation different from other Christians who claim the same authority to interpret the Bible?  Is the Holy Spirit misguiding them?  Prove it.

So if you are offended by a reasoned response derived from scripture, why then there is NO help for YOU.

I'm not offended by a reasoned response derived from Scripture, but that's not what you're giving.

According to Loony, the Apostle Paul is LYING in the following Scripture: 2Tm:3:14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 2Tm:3:15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Tm:3:17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

No, Dram, Paul is not lying.  You are misinterpreting.  I highlighted the functional word there.  Notice it does not say sufficient.  Profitable does not mean the same thing as sufficient, at least in all the dictionaries I've checked.  If your dictionary says otherwise, I'd be tempted to think the author's name is "Dramborleg."

Oh, and I can read. Forgot that.

And millions of believers in ages past couldn't, so how were they to know what the Bible means, since they couldn't read it and you weren't there to prooftext for them?

And not to be tiresome folks

But you will be anyway...

So by extension of simple logic, even a hard head like Loony can follow this trail.

Only using your logic...  Too bad the Christians for the first 1900+ years didn't know about such an important doctrine that you have invented.

Why isn't the apocalypse of Peter or the Gospel of Thomas in the Bible? For that matter, where is a divinely inspired list of what writings belong in the Bible? Heck, I'll make it easy on you: where's a divinely inspired list of what writings belong in the New Testament?

Also, if the New Testament is Christ Himself, I certainly expect you to fall on your knees in adoration when you see a Bible. After all, it's Christ, and you would fall on your knees to adore Christ if he appeared before you wouldn't you?

I wonder how many of the early fathers (say the first 300 years -- before Constantine) held to your interpretations of Sacred Scripture. Find their writings and get back to me on that, please.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Loony ol' boy, I hope you got a knife and fork handy feller', how do you want your crow served... medium or rare?

"There was far more extensive and continuous use of Scriptures in the public service of the early Church than there is among us" (Catholic Dictionary, p 509)

"Our present convenient compendiums-The Missal, Breviary, and so on- were formed only at the end of a long evolution. In the first period (lasting perhaps till about the fourth century) there were no books except the Bible, from which lessons were read and Psalms were sung. Nothing was written, because nothing was fixed" ( Catholic Encyclopedia, IX, p 296)

Tastes like chicken I would assume.

As far as falling on my knees in front of the Bible????, that is a catholic thing to bob and kneel and genuflect. There is NO scripture to dictate that sort of behavior being required of a Christian. Remember, ALL good and worthy things are HOLY, as they ALL belong to Christ or have their beginning IN Him.

Jas:1:17: Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

As far as the Apocrypha are concerned, it has been determined that those are books that were NOT written during the time of Christ OR shortly after His death.


So, there are your answers Loonybin,

Happy?

Dram

Loony,

I answered you honestly, and I am mocked by you.

GEE, BIG SURPRISE.

I said I could read... apparently you need to go visit the Captain Obvious School of Plain English, as you are picking on ONE WORD out of Pauls writing. How bout  THE OTHERS???

What, dont like Truth??

2Tm:3:15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Nope Loony, scriptures CANNOT tell me about salvation or how to get it, even though Paul says above, that they DO.

Gotta go find me a PRIEST, cuz werds r skerry and Ah caint reed nun to gud. He can easily whip out a separate book that his dead buddies wrote that tells me everything I need to know. Hence this fine catholic tidbit:

"The Bible was not intended to be a textbook on the Christian Religion." (Catholic Facts, p. 50)

Hm... lets listen to some more of Paul:

2Tm:3:17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So, Scripture, Paul, helps to perfect a man in ALL good things and ways? Why, my good friend Loony says it is not necessary for me. His buddies have books they wrote that they call "the unwritten Laws", and they are ALL that is necessary for me, the Bible is too confusing and unclear. God thru Christ dont write real clear, that durn pesky Holy Spirit!

Hmm... I smell something wrong here, Loony my man... Paul spoke to Christ Himself... this is uncontested Truth by all and sundry. Yet your fellas DIDNT. Well, dont that beat all!

As a fine judge of character, I would say YOU and your buddies are playing fast and loose with the Truth, and want to lead me astray from Christ who IS THE TRUTH.


Nothing like the fable by Hans Christian Anderson about the Kings New Clothes, eh Loony?

____________________________________________________________________________

Only using your logic... Too bad the Christians for the first 1900+ years didn't know about such an important doctrine that you have invented.


Yeah, your buddies admit that they used the Bible for the first 400 years before they got turned aside from the path of righteousness and became reprobates.

1Tm:4:1: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Tm:4:2: Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Tm:4:3: Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Tm:4:4: For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Tm:4:5: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
1Tm:4:6: If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
1Tm:4:7: But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.


Friend Loony,

The scripture above refers SPECIFICALLY to the actions of the catholic church, down to the PARTICULARS.

They ONLY RECENTLY rescinded the mortal sin portion of no meat on Fridays.

Priests are forbidden to marry.

Catholocism is RIFE with PROFANE OLD WIVES TALES, ie pagan mythology.

But, for you, it is okey dokey.

I sorely wish this were not so, Loony.

You just read your "approved" catholic books now that show you how to get to heaven.

Me, I will stick to the pure and unadulterated Bible.

And no, no tracts will be found here my man. Just the Good Book.

Dram out

Oh yeah,

And if I am tiresome Loony, remember... I AM A PLUMBER.

I am pasting here the Bible.

You might well find me tiresome, but it is crystalline that you find The Truth tiresome also.

Dram

Alot that passes as theology among non-Catholic Christians is arm-chair theology based on some hefty cultural presuppositions and blindspots if not outright "traditions of men" not deduced from scripture but built up tangentally to it - all while claiming "bible only" as their birth right.

This is important to keep in mind when in our Catholic theology we recognize other Christians as such, thanks to the sacrament of baptism they share with us while they either a) don't think baptism is a sacrament or b) think only their ritual or rubric is valid and licit thus making us, the mother Church some sect (turning history, scripture and logic on its head).

We're the older brother in a sense dealing with a younger brother with a serious chip and inferiority complex on his shoulder. Try telling someone they're missing out on the fullness of gifts Christ gave us by pointing that he gave us 7 sacraments whereas they only accept 1 or 2 of them (baptism and marriage) normally results in insults and name-calling rather than calm discussions based on scripture and tradition to come to a conclusive point. Along the way we wade into one-way arguments "ad hominem" such as "what about all those bad Popes" while not realizing that two could play that game if the game proved anything by pointing to brothers who sin.

But in John 3 Jesus specifically mentions that Baptism is a re-birth of water and the spirit. It's not just an empty ritual, as Acts makes quite plain in the commentary about Apollo only knowing of John's baptism (which WAS immersion). NO WHERE in the New Testament does it SPECIFY that Jesus' Baptism, MUST BE immersion. Go ahead and check it out. Nor is there any specific mention about an age requirement (and curiously in the Old Testament a baby could become a Jew at circumcision at day 8, not year 8.) Furthermore Jesus commanded that we let the little children come to him....and what could be a more fitting "coming to him" if not Baptism?

Ah, logic. It's tough some times isn't it?

So if the actual ritual isn't spelled out, who has the final say in determining what is and is not valid and licit Baptism? The Church does. That's who.

And even while they admit that their leaders have authority, most Protestants bristle at the idea that Jesus could possibly have meant it when he gave some men authority to teach and preach and enforce doctrine. That it wasn't "every man for himself" but that this "Royal priesthood and kingdom" has a hierarchy - that not all are apostles or teachers or healers, but that like a body each have their place. On one level we are all the same (need for holiness) but on another level we are different (gifts, talents, callings).

It's almost as if Protestants read the New Testament with pre-determined theological blinkers as to what each chapter means, rather than read it with open minds. This would be called "following traditions of men" in any other situation. So John 6 must mean "metaphor". Paul's talk of one body but many parts must have NOTHING AT ALL to do with a differentation of duties and callings in the Church and again NOTHING at all to do with the "little detail" that he believed and taught that there was only ONE Church as opposed to thousands.

Catholic read the Pauline letters and it just seems obvious what he's talking about, but then again we've had 2000 years to chew on it and see where it all fits together as opposed to hop, skipping and jumping from this proof text to that one.

While Catholics read the Old and New Testaments as a whole, and so "get it" and make these distinctions (we've been forced to by many heresies, beginning with the Gnostics which WE defeated, thank you very much...and then the Arians, again, you're welcome) , many non-Catholics lose the forest for the trees while seizing on some single phrase of St Paul as if it's contradicting what St Peter says. And because they have no one to bring this personal interpretation to for clearance, they multiply true heresies all while claiming we're the heretics.

I think the word is "Chutzpah"

With Baptism many non-Catholics will shoot from the hip that because the word "sacrament" isn't a word found in the New Testament, the CONCEPT isn't there.... then happily conceed that the concept and belief of "trinity" IS Christian and defend it, without seeing the glaring contradition in their exegesis: just because a term isn't used doesn't mean the belief isn't there. What's good for the goose is good for the gander folks.

It's not like Catholics haven't been reading and commenting on the Bible for 20 years or so, our saints and theologians have gone line by line for 1000 more years than your preachers and bible-men have. Not only do we out number you, we also have written more and studied more and pondered more, over centuries where as Protestants tend to re-invent the theological wheel every 30 years.

This brings us to the other glaring misunderstanding non-Catholics make: they think the Bible is a catechism, all-in-one encyclopaedia answer to everything without need for a teaching authority to interpret it (again in direct contradiction to the Gospel and Acts where Jesus sets about setting up a living, teaching body of MEN, not publishing a self-interpreting book).

Nowhere does the Bible say "this is all that's needed for a believer". St John actually says the OPPOSITE when he tells us that Jesus did and said many more things and that what has been written was written "so that you may believe" but not "this is ALL THAT YOU BELIEVE".

Not in the Old, and not in the New IS "SOLA SCRITURA" taught. Yes, scripture is important, useful, good. But not "the only" source and certainly not self-explaining as we get from Acts again with the Ethiopian. He knew Isaiah...but didn't understand him. He needed help. In Acts we read about Paul and Barnabbas having problems in Antioch... it wasn't enough to invoke scripture, they needed to get the final say of the Apostles in Jerusalem, the Council of Jerusalem. Sola scritura was definately NOT what the first generation of Christians believed in - because that's not what Jesus Christ taught us.

Now we have protestant groups founded 100 years ago, today teaching things in direct oppposition to what their grandparents believed (for example, on contraception, abortion, sodomy, etc) while claiming their sect is the only true remnant of "real Christianity". Hmmmmmmm OK. Both the non-Catholic Christians of 1905 and those of today believed they BELIEVED the Bible was their only guide... but both are mistaken: they base ALOT of their THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS on CULTURAL FACTORS, not strict, word for word translations or exegesis.

Because society believed abortion and contraception was wrong, so did all Protestant groups. But once they became main-streamed, VIOLA! MOST protestants suddenly jettisoned those doctrinal moral teachings too. They didn't always interpret Matthew's phrase "fornication is a different matter" to refer to a spouse cheating making the other spouse's divorce and remarriage sudddenly OK.

And basically, the New Testament doesn't sustain that novel interpretation either. But it's a cultural fact that most marriages break up and lots get re-married so most Protestants conclude that the most tenuous interpretation possible is THE correct one (which just so coincidentally is the EASIEST for them to swallow, morally). Catholics hold the line...and somehow this makes US heretics???

Others utterly fail to make distinctions between bad traditions "of men" and good or neutral customs, and again between traditional interpretations of scripture handed down father to son since 1527 and the actual deposit of faith given to us from the Apostles circa 33AD.

John 6 is a good example of the gymnastics people go through to spin "eat my flesh and drink my blood...real food, real drink...words are spirit and life..." as though He wasn't being literal.

So Martin Luther believed and taught in co-substantiation.... and somehow he's right, except that most current Protestants don't believe that either....but Catholics are wrong, wrong, wrong to take Jesus' words literally? Um OK.

No real exegetical slam dunk aha! proof is given, it's just a priori supposed that if the Catholics say "literal" then it MUST be metaphorical. "My words are spirit and truth" is taken as methaphorical....except when Jesus tells us that God is Spirit, and suddenly he's talking ontologically again!

For once I'd love to see the Protestants prove, via actual scripture quotes, (not para-phases) what they believe to be true: You think baptism is not a sacrament? PROVE IT FROM SCRIPTURE.

You think that it must be by immersion and there's an age limit? PROVE IT.

You think Jesus didn't leave us with a single body, a single doctrine and a single teaching authority? Show me where the New Testament - not just what is said but what is described, maps out a proto-Protestant world view. It's just not there.

We have Apostles going around founding local communities, appointing people to lead them (ahem, Titus, Timothy, etc.) granting THEM authority as opposed to the people electing their own leaders.

We had people baptising and a clear distinction between that and the "laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit" (cf.Acts). We have Jesus direct words (St John) telling the Apostles that THEY had the power to forgive sins in his name. To bind and losen.

In short, a very Catholic ecclesiology and sacramental way of life.

In short, you all do alot of "theology" while denigrating Catholics for their theology. You all follow traditions of men (called schools of theological interpretation) while dumping on Catholics for their doctrines and dogmas based on theology.

What you believe and why you believe it is most of the time presupposed to be "scriptural" when lots of times, it's not.

And virtually all the time, the smug supposition is of moral and theological superiority because up to now you and your pastors seldom bumped into informed and educated Catholics who knew their faith and can explain it.

well, here's one. Prepare to be boarded.

Bellum,

I give you the gold medal for theological gymnastics, you have earned for that last post.

Wow, where to start with you and your papist dogma?

Once again the vast majority of what you wrote is wrong wrong WRONG

Quoted: Alot that passes as theology among non-Catholic Christians is arm-chair theology based on some hefty cultural presuppositions and blindspots if not outright "traditions of men" not deduced from scripture but built up tangentally to it - all while claiming "bible only" as their birth right. This is important to keep in mind when in our Catholic theology we recognize other Christians as such, thanks to the sacrament of baptism they share with us while they either a) don't think baptism is a sacrament or b) think only their ritual or rubric is valid and licit thus making us, the mother Church some sect (turning history, scripture and logic on its head). We're the older brother in a sense dealing with a younger brother with a serious chip and inferiority complex on his shoulder. Try telling someone they're missing out on the fullness of gifts Christ gave us by pointing that he gave us 7 sacraments whereas they only accept 1 or 2 of them (baptism and marriage) normally results in insults and name-calling rather than calm discussions based on scripture and tradition to come to a conclusive point. Along the way we wade into one-way arguments "ad hominem" such as "what about all those bad Popes" while not realizing that two could play that game if the game proved anything by pointing to brothers who sin. But in John 3 Jesus specifically mentions that Baptism is a re-birth of water and the spirit. It's not just an empty ritual, as Acts makes quite plain in the commentary about Apollo only knowing of John's baptism (which WAS immersion). NO WHERE in the New Testament does it SPECIFY that Jesus' Baptism, MUST BE immersion. Go ahead and check it out. Nor is there any specific mention about an age requirement (and curiously in the Old Testament a baby could become a Jew at circumcision at day 8, not year 8.) Furthermore Jesus commanded that we let the little children come to him....and what could be a more fitting "coming to him" if not Baptism? Ah, logic. It's tough some times isn't it? So if the actual ritual isn't spelled out, who has the final say in determining what is and is not valid and licit Baptism? The Church does. That's who. And even while they admit that their leaders have authority, most Protestants bristle at the idea that Jesus could possibly have meant it when he gave some men authority to teach and preach and enforce doctrine. That it wasn't "every man for himself" but that this "Royal priesthood and kingdom" has a hierarchy - that not all are apostles or teachers or healers, but that like a body each have their place. On one level we are all the same (need for holiness) but on another level we are different (gifts, talents, callings). It's almost as if Protestants read the New Testament with pre-determined theological blinkers as to what each chapter means, rather than read it with open minds. This would be called "following traditions of men" in any other situation. So John 6 must mean "metaphor". Paul's talk of one body but many parts must have NOTHING AT ALL to do with a differentation of duties and callings in the Church and again NOTHING at all to do with the "little detail" that he believed and taught that there was only ONE Church as opposed to thousands. Catholic read the Pauline letters and it just seems obvious what he's talking about, but then again we've had 2000 years to chew on it and see where it all fits together as opposed to hop, skipping and jumping from this proof text to that one. While Catholics read the Old and New Testaments as a whole, and so "get it" and make these distinctions (we've been forced to by many heresies, beginning with the Gnostics which WE defeated, thank you very much...and then the Arians, again, you're welcome) , many non-Catholics lose the forest for the trees while seizing on some single phrase of St Paul as if it's contradicting what St Peter says. And because they have no one to bring this personal interpretation to for clearance, they multiply true heresies all while claiming we're the heretics. I think the word is "Chutzpah" With Baptism many non-Catholics will shoot from the hip that because the word "sacrament" isn't a word found in the New Testament, the CONCEPT isn't there.... then happily conceed that the concept and belief of "trinity" IS Christian and defend it, without seeing the glaring contradition in their exegesis: just because a term isn't used doesn't mean the belief isn't there. What's good for the goose is good for the gander folks. ... well, here's one. Prepare to be boarded.

JusAdBellum,

That's a pretty insightful description, regarding saving ordinances.

Bellum,

I give you the gold medal for theological gymnastics, you have earned for that last post.

Wow, where to start with you and your papist dogma?

Once again the vast majority of what you wrote is wrong wrong WRONG

Dont like reading the previous posts to see where you have been PROVED wrong by catholic documents, do you?

Oh and if you THINK that the cath church has been around 2000 years, I have a bridge just waiting for you... too funny... oh and the orthodox fellas were here before you guys started your roman game.

Fact, not your "fantasy".

I need to make dinner first, then I will decide which part of your bunk to begin debunking first... via the use of scripture. You know, the stuff in the Bible that does not change, unlike your dogma which over time HAS changed with the whims of roman bishops and the fashions of the times.

It is why catholics are NOT CHRISTIANS. They do not accept the Word, they seek the wisdom of man and his writings and musings and ponderings instead of Christ Jesus's.

Catholics are their own cult with their own rules regulations heirarchy and belief system.

And as far as catholics NEVER believing solely in the Bible?

"There was far more extensive and continuous use of Scriptures in the public service of the early Church than there is among us" (Catholic Dictionary, p 509)

"Our present convenient compendiums-The Missal, Breviary, and so on- were formed only at the end of a long evolution. In the first period (lasting perhaps till about the fourth century) there were no books except the Bible, from which lessons were read and Psalms were sung. Nothing was written, because nothing was fixed" ( Catholic Encyclopedia, IX, p 296)

Yeah, ol' buddy ol' pal... if you read the second one, you will find the cath faith admitting they were not done playing create a creed till sometime around 400 years or more after Christ died. And even then they have never stopped "customizing" their beliefs.

Dram

Quoted: (we've been forced to by many heresies, beginning with the Gnostics which WE defeated, thank you very much...

Wow. I was cheering you on... up until you said that.

As long as there is life, there will be gnosis, meaning experential knowledge, and those who seek it. Nothing was defeated, so to speak. Besides, there are so many different schools of thought considered gnostic, not all of them Christian, that even the mother Church couldn't have gotten them all. As I recall, there is still a sect of Gnostics (Manicheans, I think) in Iraq. I hate to burst your bubble, but we're still around.


<--- Resident Heretic

Gnosticism to which I refer is not the word in general as if abstract, but the historical teaching as found in St Irenaeus' Contra Heresies, circa 150 AD in which we read that some early sects re-interpreted the Gospel of John in neo-Platonic ways, adding demi-urgs and demi-gods and via numerology multiplying divinities rather than holding to monotheism.

They ACCEPTED the Gospel as authoritative (ahem, you prots) but RE-INTERPRETTED IT in ways that suited their cultural/philosophical matrix rather than accepting the teaching Church's official interpetation.

As for us Catholics inventing our own religion... hahahahahahah. There was a bishop in Rome before the city of Constantinople existed my friend. St. Irenaeus was Greek, living in Lyon, Gaul (now France) but he accepted the authority of the See of Rome. "Catholicos", Greek for Universal, was seen as a "well duh" statement that there was only one Church, albeit scattered throughout the empire. Some major cities and population centers had local Patriarchs with local jurisdiction but they all shared the faith in common and helped each other, as was seen during the Arian and later semi-Arian heresies in which the Imperial court forced most bishops to either flee, go underground or convert.

The great BISHOP Athansius of Alexandria, helped keep the faith alive (and he was CATHOLIC).

You can't read the early Church fathers and not see the obvious Catholic beliefs and doctrine and ecclesial set up. There were no Protestants anywhere; no sola scritura, no sola fidea, no "bible as interpretted by the individual believer who paradoxicalled thinks his opinion is Jesus' clear teaching when in fact it's his own opinion".

But I digress... if you think the Bible teaches that faith alone saves you, fine. Let's see the slam dunk, clear, unequivocal quote from the Bible that proves it.

If you think the Bible teaches that each believer is left to his own lights as far as scriptural interpretation and that there is no living teaching authority to guide the Christian, again, let's see the clear, unequivocal Biblical quote backing up that teaching.

If you think Baptism is not a sacrament and doesn't confer grace from God essential to the soul's living relationship with God, then let's see the clear quote proving this.

If you think Baptism must be only for adults and only by immersion and no other rubric is valid or licit, then let's see the clear, unequivocal Biblical quote, in context. I don't want to read about Jesus coming up out of the water because that was JOHN's baptism. I want to read the Gospel or Acts or Epistle that spells out exactly what we must do and say and what age limit is put to us in the Bible to perform Baptism. If you can't find it buster, then guess what? Looks like someone is going to have to make the call for us, with authority. That someone is either in the individual (in which case why get mad when we differ?) or it's a living body of men given authority to bind and losen by Jesus (as spelled out in the Gospel and in tradition).

If you think you must "declare the Lord Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior" to be saved...then show us where in the scripture that particular phrase "Personal Lord and Savior" is used. If it's NOT used, then why do you "Bible-only" Christians use it?

I'm not denying that he is Lord and Savior. Just asking where that phrase comes from (cause it's not specifically used anywhere in the New Testament since the word "personal" isn't there).

As I said, I'm well equipted and loaded for bear. You will be boarded and "all your ship are belong to us"

Now then, have a nice day.

JusAdBellum,

Sorry, I have to wait to reply to you till I check with site staff as to whether catholics are off limits for Christians to debate.

Every single time I reply to you Va-gunut gets his panties in a bunch over me offering any sort of reply so hang tight for a bit til' I see whether catholocism is the official religion of this site or not. I dont wish to offend the Avila's in any way, and I have to find this out.

So, hopefully I will be able to get back to our discussion soon, just depends if site staff is interested in this or not. We will see in a bit.

Dram

Quoted: "There was far more extensive and continuous use of Scriptures in the public service of the early Church than there is among us" (Catholic Dictionary, p 509) "Our present convenient compendiums-The Missal, Breviary, and so on- were formed only at the end of a long evolution. In the first period (lasting perhaps till about the fourth century) there were no books except the Bible, from which lessons were read and Psalms were sung. Nothing was written, because nothing was fixed" ( Catholic Encyclopedia, IX, p 296) Yeah, ol' buddy ol' pal... if you read the second one, you will find the cath faith admitting they were not done playing create a creed till sometime around 400 years or more after Christ died. And even then they have never stopped "customizing" their beliefs. Dram

You act as if you're an expert on Catholicism, as well.  That would be funny, if it weren't so apparent that actually seem to believe it.  The Catholic faith hasn't admitted to anything you think it has.  It's simply stating that the Bible was used "from which lessons were read and Psalms were sung," and that there weren't other catechisms used to explain what the Faith is (for example, what Luther wrote to explain what he believed).  The reason "nothing was written, because nothing was fixed" during the first four centuries, is because the canon of Scripture hadn't been fully decided yet.  Some thought the epistle of Barnabus was Scripture, others thought Revelations and Hebrews wasn't.  Some preferred the gospel of Thomas, and others refused to accept it.  

As far as the Apocrypha are concerned, it has been determined that those are books that were NOT written during the time of Christ OR shortly after His death.

You need to go back and learn some more.  What is commonly called the Apocrypha (what we call the Deuterocanonicals) are all Old Testament books, so of course they weren't written during the time of Christ or shortly after His death!  They were written before His Incarnation.  They are in the Greek Septuagint, and they are what Jesus read when He read the Scriptures.
Thus, you still haven't answered the questions I posed to you:    why aren't the epistle of Barnabus and the gospel of Thomas and the apocalypse of Peter in the Bible?  You say "it has been determined," but you still don't answer the question:  who decided what books were to be considered the inspired Word of God, and how?  Where is your divinely inspired list of what belongs in the Bible?  Chapter and verse, please, and the table of contents doesn't count.

The only way we can know what books belong in the Bible is because the Catholic Church, under guidance from the Holy Spirit, determined what books were inspired by God and which ones were not, and that took about 4 centuries (394AD and 397AD at the Council of Hippo and the Council of Carthage).  Before that, some places were using the non-canonical writings such as the gospel of Thomas as scripture.

I answered you honestly, and I am mocked by you.

I do not mock you at all.  You are the one who says that the Bible = God,  and Paul speaks of everyone bending their knee before God (Romans 14:11).  Revelations shows people not only bending their knees, but falling down before Christ in adoration (Rev. 1:17; 4:10;5:1;19:10 to name a few).  If we are supposed to fall down before Christ and adore Him, and Christ = the Bible (as you claim), then you are supposed to fall down in adoration before the Bible.  At the least, you should bend the knee.  That's the logical conclusion of your own idea, not mine.

So, Scripture, Paul, helps to perfect a man in ALL good things and ways?

I think I've figured out where some of your misunderstanding is.  What does Paul mean when he says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"?  He isn't speaking of the Bible as we have it now.  He's speaking of the Old Testament.  He can't mean all of the New Testament, as all of it hadn't been written yet.  He didn't know that his letters would be compiled and included in what would be called the New Testament, and if you claim that he did know, you must come up with chapter and verse to prove it, as you refuse to accept anything other than scripture.  Your conclusion that the Bible is all we need doesn't hold up, as the passage means that "All scripture[meaning the OT] is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction..." and while it is certainly profitable, it is not sufficient.  We need the NT also, but nowhere is a list of what books are in the NT included in the Bible.  Paul himself says that we are to hold on to the traditions which they were taught, either orally or in writing.  What did he hand on orally?  Do you know, since he didn't include all oral traditions in writing?  The whole idea of following the Sacred Tradition from whence Sacred Scripture came actually has scriptural basis.

His buddies have books they wrote that they call "the unwritten Laws", and they are ALL that is necessary for me, the Bible is too confusing and unclear. God thru Christ dont write real clear, that durn pesky Holy Spirit!

And you have the gall to say that I mock you???  How arrogant of you!

Yeah, your buddies admit that they used the Bible for the first 400 years before they got turned aside from the path of righteousness and became reprobates.

Your gaps in logic are astounding.  You take a couple sentences from an encyclopedia (you have yet to quote anything authoritative from the Catholic Church, or even from the early Fathers), and think that proves your conclusion?  There weren't catechisms and breviaries and prayer books and the like for the first few centuries because the canon of Sacred Scripture wasn't completely settled.  Besides, the vast majority of the world couldn't read, so what good would it do to hand them a Bible, and say "all you have to do is read it, and it will all be clear to you, and you can get to Heaven."
illiterate person:  "but I can't read."
You:  "It's all there in the Bible, it's clear and obvious what Christ is saying.  This Bible is all you need, because Christ is the Bible.  You don't need anyone telling you what it means because it explains itself."
illiterate person:  "but I can't read!"

1Tm:4:1: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1Tm:4:2: Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 1Tm:4:3: Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1Tm:4:4: For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 1Tm:4:5: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 1Tm:4:6: If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 1Tm:4:7: But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. Friend Loony, The scripture above refers SPECIFICALLY to the actions of the catholic church, down to the PARTICULARS.

No, it doesn't, no matter how much you want it to.  You are demonstrating your complete lack of understanding when it comes to the Catholic Church, history, the situations that Paul writes about, and even the early Christian beliefs.

They ONLY RECENTLY rescinded the mortal sin portion of no meat on Fridays.

The sin wasn't in eating meat on Friday, the sin was one of disobedience to the authority of the Church.  Besides, Paul is talking about those who still believed that eating certain meats was against God's law and that the meat itelf was unclean.  The Church doesn't teach that.

Priests are forbidden to marry.

So?  Jesus was not married.  Paul wished that others would be like him, refraining from marriage, but said that if it was too tempting to go ahead and marry.

Besides, Paul is referring to the Gnostics of the day who saw the material world as evil and the spiritual world as good.  They denied that the Son of God actually became man and only appeared as a man.  They also claimed that marriage was evil since it united the flesh of two people (fornication to procreate was permitted as a necessary evil since it was only temporary).  This is who Paul was speaking against.  The Church has never said that marriage is evil, and no one is forced to be a priest.  Priests freely choose to forgo marriage for the sake of the Kingdom, as Sacred Scripture says.

Catholocism is RIFE with PROFANE OLD WIVES TALES, ie pagan mythology.

Where is that in the Bible???  The word Catholicism doesn't even appear in the Bible.  You say you read only the Good Book, but that means that you've come up with this misinformation all on your own, without reading anything about what pagan myths you are referring to.  I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.  No, really,  what books/authors/people are you refrencing to make such a claim?  Lorraine Boettner?  Dave Hunt?  James White?  Your pastor?  Other fundamentalists?

Catholicism is is the completion of Judaism, but if you read the entire Bible in context instead of picking and choosing what verses to read and quote,  then you would already know that.  

I sorely wish this were not so, Loony.

Hey, if what you claim were true, I would wish the same thing.  But it isn't true, so you can stop wishing.

You just read your "approved" catholic books now that show you how to get to heaven.

Well, the first "approved" Catholic book is the Bible (that the Catholic Church compiled, thankyouverymuch), so I shall do just that.  While I'm doing that, I'll read the early Fathers (St. Clement of Rome~60-70AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch~110AD, St. Cyprian~140AD, St. Irenaeus~180AD, etc.), to make sure that my interpretation of Scripture is the same as what the early Christians believed (that's why I came back to the Catholic Church), and I'll follow the Church that Christ Himself founded.

Me, I will stick to the pure and unadulterated Bible.

You mean the abridged version.  You're missing a few books.

And no, no tracts will be found here my man. Just the Good Book.

Yeah, right.  And you come up with the same tired attacks on the Catholic Church as so many other Fundamentalists all on your own?  Haven't read any ideas on the internet, haven't read one single evangelism tract or pamphlet, haven't read a single book,  haven't listened to any preachers, haven't talked with friends who first evangelized you?  Highly unlikely.

I am pasting here the Bible. You might well find me tiresome, but it is crystalline that you find The Truth tiresome also.

So just do some cut&paste of some prooftexts out of context and you're suddenly an expert on what it means?  Not even close.  I don't find the Truth tiresome at all.  I find your misinterpretations, your baseless attacks on Christ's Church, and your distortion of God's Word to be tiresome.

Dont like reading the previous posts to see where you have been PROVED wrong by catholic documents, do you?

As I stated, you have yet to quote any authoritative documents from the Church, even out of context.  Thus you haven't proven either one of us wrong.  All you've proven is your lack of knowledge and understanding about the Catholic Church.

That reminds me of a quote by Bishop Fulton Sheen (of the 20th century):  "There are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly believe the Catholic Church to be."   That definitely applies to you.

Oh and if you THINK that the cath church has been around 2000 years, I have a bridge just waiting for you... too funny... oh and the orthodox fellas were here before you guys started your roman game

Once again... study history!  JusAdBellum's post would be a good start.

I'll ask the question again:  who decided, and how, what books were to be included in the Bible?

Loony,

You continue to insist on the scripture plus approach, whereas I and those like myself insist on scripture alone.

Only, and I repeat, ONLY catholics will agree to this theological basis.

Nobody but you guys.

Oh wait, the mormons do also sorry, there doesnt that make you feel better that you and the mormons agree that scripture alone is not enough. I wonder whether the book by the angel moroni and the HUGE number of books by the cath church have as their source the same author. I have a sneaking suspicion that they do.

And that is where this whole thread and the other ones come right back to: my original assertion.

Catholics are catholic.

Christians are Christian.

One is God plus man= catholic
One is God only= Christian

And your post tearing apart my post is so tiresome and ill researched that it makes me get typers cramp just looking at it, it would take me ages to answer all the fallacies and untruths you insist on. You reject the Bible, and the scripture it aims at your faith, no matter how much you think it refers to gnostics... it is talking about rome.

Which is fine for you, please enjoy yourself.

You enjoy your icons and holy days and beads and bow to the clergy when they show up, whereas I will : Just say no, and read/believe what Jesus and the Apostles preached and be content therein.

Have the best day ever

Dram out

Quoted: You continue to insist on the scripture plus approach, whereas I and those like myself insist on scripture alone.

And we get backto the question:  where does the bible say that it is the only source of authority?  You have yet to show where it says that, yet I have shown where Paul says that we are to hold fast to the traditions that he handed on, orally or in writing.  You have yet to address that.  You've shown where it says the Old Testament is profitable, and useful, but NOT where the Bible says that the Bible is sufficient.

Only, and I repeat, ONLY catholics will agree to this theological basis. Nobody but you guys.

You seem to forget the Orthodox Churches also reject your idea of sola scriptura.  Funny how the two oldest Christian Faiths in existence agree on this, while your sola scriptura idea is only a few hundred years old.

And that is where this whole thread and the other ones come right back to: my original assertion. Catholics are catholic. Christians are Christian. One is God plus man= catholic One is God only= Christian

But your assertion is wrong, and you have yet to prove your assertion.
Catholic = Christ and the Church that He founded, with Peter and his successors as the visible head on earth (Christ being the Head of the Body of Christ)
Christian (of the non-Catholic variety) = Christ and me, to heck with thee.  I'm my own pope.

And your post tearing apart my post is so tiresome and ill researched that it makes me get typers cramp just looking at it, it would take me ages to answer all the fallacies and untruths you insist on.

Now you sound like James White.  Get backed into a corner, so you just brush off the arguments as beneath you.  How sad.  What in the world would make you think that you have an infallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture while rejecting what Christians a mere two or three generations away from Christ's ascension taught and believed, well over 1,000 years before the Protestant revolt even came up with the idea of sola scriptura.

You reject the Bible, and the scripture it aims at your faith, no matter how much you think it refers to gnostics... it is talking about rome.

Well, the early Christians didn't see it your way.  I guess those Christians who sat at the feet of the apostles and a mere two generations removed from them must have gotten it all wrong until the great Dramborleg came along with his own private revelation to set the world straight about what the Bible really means.  I think you need to get your own miter and crosier.  You're sure acting like a few of the medieval popes you condemn, with your haughtiness and arrogance.

I don't reject the Bible at all.  After all, it is my Church that compiled it.  However, I reject YOUR interpretation of the Bible since it has no basis in history, Scripture, logic, or reason,and since you are the one who clings to the idea of personal interpretation, you have no authority or source to tell me that I am wrong, as it would be your interpretation against mine.  I, on the other hand, have the Apostles, their successors, the saints, and 2,000 years of unchanging doctrine to look at to determine what the Truth is.  I don't decide what I believe and then try to find Bible verses to prove me right.  I look at what has been taught since the time of Christ and hold fast to that.  You have... you, and your own interpretation, with ideas that were invented about 500 years ago.

You enjoy your icons and holy days and beads and bow to the clergy when they show up, whereas I will : Just say no, and read/believe what Jesus and the Apostles preached and be content therein.

And how do you know everything the Apostles taught?  Scripture even states that they didnt' write down all that they taught.  How in the world can you possibly claim to believe everything they preached when you reject one of the sources of what they handed on?  Oh, that's right.  Your interpretation says that they wrote down everything as a textbook of what to believe.  To heck with reality and what they actually said.


I'll ask the question again:  where does the bible say that it is the only source of authority?

Loony,

I am not joking here, just looking at your post makes me depressed, and my hands want to cramp up.

I am not in any type of corner, no matter your assertion.

I am trying mightily to stop the discussion here as it is irritating staff when I debate you.

They just dont like it, period.

You and I will HAVE TO agree that our positions are utterly irreconcileable to eachother.

I think your position is from Mars and you think I am out somewhere in Left Field.

Which is fine.

But we will never agree.

Never.

No cop out, I am tired of talking to the guys that run this website. I have been here for a long time and have no urge to NOT be here. And until this stupid Religion forum was instituted, I had a perfect record of Christian debate on an even keel. Until I got into it with Tx-Sig, and then the attitude never went away. That torques me.

Oh well, if you would like to debate by email, I suppose we could trade addresses and go off board with it... but it does not look like either of us will change any time soon.

Let me know.

Dram

Dram,
 the problem is the facts bear his position out.   It seems as if the concept of the Catholic Church being evil/degraded is a part of your theology.  You go so far as to say scripture is definitely talking about the Roman church.  

Thats a very limited view and one only agreed to by anti-Catholic extremists.

The historical view is that the prophecies were concerning Imperial Rome and have been fulfilled.  

There is nothing to indicate any of those prophecies concern the Roman church.   That was certainly not the belief in the first few centuries of Christianity.

Rome became the center of mass for the Christian movement after Jerusalem fell for one simple reason.   It had the best claim to legitimacy due to St. Peter and he was not one of the Christians who disagreed with the theology of Paul.   Many did and it was why the first thousand years of Christianity were so bloody.  

You claim to want to get back to a first century Christianity, but that is a myth.  There was no homogeneous form of Christianity UNTIL the Roman Church started setting down doctrine.   You had your pick of hundreds of variations of Christianity, and I'm willing to bet none of them would agree with your theology.

Its similar to the claim of Wiccans who say they worship the old religion.  In fact, their religion is a modern rebuilding from what little we know of the religion of our pre-Christian ancestors.   Much as the modern American evengelical movement is simply a modern reconstruction of what we know of _some_ aspects of early Christianity.   We simply don't know enough about early Christianity to reconstruct anything that can be viewed as authentic.  

I come from that background (Church of Christ) and while its as good a religious view as any other. to pretend its any more valid than any other modern reconstruction is foolish.

Dino,

You have your view of "facts", which are not borne out by any history I know of. None, save those perpetrated by catholics. Sorry, that wont wash with me.

The cath church being evil or degraded any more than any other religious philosophy at odds with the Bible is ridiculous. You are either with God or you are not, in my eyes and those who profess faith like I do this is a black/white thing. You need and understanding of the nature of sin to begin to discuss this with me, more to the point an understanding of the nature of salvation. What it is and what it is NOT.

Scripture is CLEAR and to the point. It is written plainly, save to those who wish to complicate it by imposing their modified creeds and ethos upon it. If you do not wish to believe what it says, and insist it speaks about something else... then have at it Dino. I read and comprehend just as well as the next man, or if I am to believe what I am told then my understanding is supposed to be greater than the avg. man in the street by several orders of magnitude. But, whatever about that. Paul is preaching about that which is to come and it fits the catholic definition to such a great degree it is pathetic. I have no greater axe to grind against catholics than I do against mormons or those of the faithist dogma. All contain error, I quote scripture to back it up ad nauseum, and none here can defend against it. None.

And you are utterly without historical backing to think that the cath church was and is anything other than a political organization that WAS bent on excersing its power over the Western world. But now, God be praised, it is a largely neutered force politically/militarily and none need fear its reach any longer. It is IMPOSSIBLE not to pick up a text and not see the trail of blood that the cath church tracked all over Europe, IMPOSSIBLE. Except maybe to you of course.

Portugal

France

Spain

Ask the Portugese and the Spanish by whose hand they were delivered the deed to the New World. Who was it Dino? Care to tell me who?

I cannot debate with you, your knowledge base is sparse to be polite.

As far as first century faith, to even mention the cath church is so far fetched that I cannot even wrap around your statement. And you better believe the cath church started setting down doctrine, you bet pal. Lots of it, and they created and wrote it for themselves. NOTHING to do with Christ. They wrote it and they believe it. Which is fine. For them.

So to wrap this up, you have your beliefs which are widely at variance with mine. Your grasp of history is tenuous at best as you have no APPARENT knowledge of history that you have displayed. And in the end, what is there for me to discuss with you? Nothing.

There are many Christians on this board that agree with me, and I have had IMs from them now, and in the past supporting my positions. You, on the other hand, have declared yourself to "not have a dog in this fight", so why do you think you have anything to say to me if you can shed no CREDIBLE light on this subject? Baseless and bootless sums up your position, frankly.

Dram out

My wife corrects me when I call her a christian all the time "Im a catholic!" she says, then I tell her its the same thing over and over but she doesnt believe me, dumb broad.

I really really prefer to be considered seperate from my fellow Christians. Most of the are very very very freakish folk, their ceremonies, beliefs, never mind their weird rules about female "priests" and married "priests" and all that weird shit.

I feel that the title Christian has regretably become tainted by all these weird sects and cults like the Unitarians and Baptists and all that weird rubbish.

I am a Catholic, and admittedly a Christian, just don't call me that because it is offensive. I am not a weirdo.