The Catholic Church

stray bullet · Jun 30, 2015

CCHIPSS said:
My focus right now is believers. Non-believers is a different topic for another thread.

???

The Apostles write those guidelines out of love, to guide all believers to a better life. They never wrote it with the intention to condemn and punish followers.

So they had rules and guidelines out of line.
I think some of their writings are pretty condemning.

In fact Paul said so many times that no followers should be burdened by God's laws again. The law is no longer the point, but love.

Which is in reference to Mosaic law.

So no there is no more laws, no more rules and no more traditions that can be used as basis to punish anyone. All of those laws has been nailed to the cross. So in a way yes followers can do whatever they want. But no they shouldn't sin!

Why not?

Because sins breaks God's heart, harms ourselves and harms other people. All sin hurts something. That's why our Father in heaven who loves us begs us not to sin.

Having a commonly shared faith isn't about "punishing" anyone.

My Daddy in Heaven will never punish me for my sins

Click to expand...

. I know because he said he forgave me. I know because he said he loves me. If I suffer for my sins in this life time, I bought it upon myself. That wasn't God punishing me. But sins always have consequences. God doesn't even need to punish me. The church doesn't need to punish me. Sinners will always be naturally punished in their life time. That's why my loving father told me not to sin and I try to avoid sin.

You seem to have a disturbing obsession with punishment.

I mean come on. Isn't it obvious that after you slept with 20 different women, you can't even tell your future wife the truth. If she ask you, you either have to lie or just scream at her "None of your business! You don't have the right to judge me!" And nope your wife probably won't be the prettiest of the 20 women you slept with. And that's assuming no babies and no STD from those 20 women. Neither God or the church need to do anything. The problematic relationship between you and your wife is your natural punishment.

WHAT???

Hawthorne · Jun 30, 2015

CCHIPSS said:
Love is a much higher morality than your laws, rules and traditions.

The Apostles taught all followers to love one another above all else. The Catholic church value law, rules and traditions over love. So until the Catholic church start focusing on love instead of law, it does not operate, teach and believe what has always been taught by the Apostles.

I think I've made two posts addressing your allegation that the Catholic Church contains no love, and I'm thinking you never read either one of them.

CCHIPSS said:
My Daddy in Heaven will never punish me for my sins. I know because he said he forgave me. I know because he said he loves me. If I suffer for my sins in this life time, I bought it upon myself. That wasn't God punishing me. But sins always have consequences. God doesn't even need to punish me.

Actually, the Bible (specifically Jesus) says if you don't forgive others who have wronged you, God will deliver you over to the torturers.

CCHIPSS said:
Totally forgiven people will totally forgive others.

Scripture says otherwise.

For your edification, Matthew 18:23-35--

"Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents; and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat he said, 'Pay what you owe.' So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. Then his lord summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

Now, I'm not making any concrete statements here, but it certainly seems like you've got some unresolved ill-will against Catholicism.

CCHIPSS · Jun 30, 2015

stray bullet said:
Having a commonly shared faith isn't about "punishing" anyone.

Why wasn't William Tyndale forgiven for printing the bible? Was did the Catholics killed him for printing the bible? Catholics said he printed unauthorized versions of the bible. I say the Catholics made things up by reading into things that wasn't in the bible (Praying to Mary and she will pray to God for you, for example.)

Were these differences really worth murdering a brother over?

William Tyndale was a believer in Jesus. That alone makes him a brother in Christ. And the Catholics murdered a brother.

Now of course Protestants also murdered Catholics. So nope I am well aware that the Protestants aren't perfect. But hey how does sin justify sin?

You say sharing a common faith doesn't punish anyone. Actually it does. Your faith is different from everyone else's. You faith is different from Rhamiel's. Your faith is different from Hawthorne's. I say this because none of you read the whole bible exactly the same.

The only reason why all 3 of you are in the Catholic church is because the differences among you aren't serious enough to break apart. However what if one day it does grow serious enough? Without love for your brothers, what can hold you 3 together?

How would you feel if you were excommunicate from the church you love, simply because you believe in something differently?

In history the church ended up splitting and different churches murdered each other.

I say it again (you seems to have a hard time understanding this concept). A church build around laws will split itself apart and murder each other. Only a church build around love can stand united.

We cannot keep justifying the huge mistakes and sins they did in the past. And if we refuse to admit to their mistakes, these mistakes are doomed to repeat themselves.

So for our future let's build a better church for the next generation of believers. Let's build a church out of love. Let's build a church where even non-believers feels loved and welcomed.

CCHIPSS · Jun 30, 2015

Hawthorne said:
I think I've made two posts addressing your allegation that the Catholic Church contains no love, and I'm thinking you never read either one of them.

I am not saying the Catholic church has no love at all. I am saying love is not their main driving force. Their main driving force is laws, rules and traditions.

Of course the laws won't be a problem, until it becomes a problem for you. In some cases you have to kick a brother out. Sometimes you have to kick even your own son out. Then in other cases the Catholic church kicks you out.

And that's a church that doesn't have love as its main driving force.

Hawthorne said:
Actually, the Bible (specifically Jesus) says if you don't forgive others who have wronged you, God will deliver you over to the torturers.

Please remember this the next time the Catholic church excommunicate a person. =)

If we punished someone for being homosexual, Jesus will punish us for looking at women lustfully.

fromtheAsh · Jun 30, 2015

CCHIPSS said:
Why wasn't William Tyndale forgiven for printing the bible? Was did the Catholics killed him for printing the bible? Catholics said he printed unauthorized versions of the bible. I say the Catholics made things up by reading into things that wasn't in the bible (Praying to Mary and she will pray to God for you, for example.)

Were these differences really worth murdering a brother over?

You have to understand the Catholic church was radically different back in those times. Claiming the Catholics' past decisions have any reflections on what they believe today is like saying Americans support slavery because it was once was a thriving industry here.

fromtheAsh · Jun 30, 2015

CCHIPSS said:
Please remember this the next time the Catholic church excommunicate a person.

Excommunication is extremely rare, used as a last resort, and not a final act, they can repent and be reconciled back from their excommunication.

Hawthorne · Jun 30, 2015

CCHIPSS said:
I am not saying the Catholic church has no love at all. I am saying love is not their main driving force. Their main driving force is laws, rules and traditions.

Of course the laws won't be a problem, until it becomes a problem for you. In some cases you have to kick a brother out. Sometimes you have to kick even your own son out. Then in other cases the Catholic church kicks you out.

And that's a church that doesn't have love as its main driving force.

Based on the Catholic speakers I've listened to, the primary message is love. Read St. Thérèse of Lisieux's autobiography, The Story of a Soul, and the overwhelming impression you'll get is love, love, love. When, as a young girl, she prayed for a murderer's salvation, and right before he was hanged, he turned to Christ. Love, both God's love for us, and our love for God... that was The Little Flower's song.

CCHIPSS said:
Please remember this the next time the Catholic church excommunicate a person. =)

I'm unaware of a government system today in which dissenting religious opinion is treason. Perhaps in some Islamic nations, but if so, not everywhere.

SnowyMacie · Jun 30, 2015

Hawthorne said:
There is no government system today in which dissenting religious opinion is treason. Perhaps Islam, but I don't think so.

Exactly, the separation of church and state happened.

JuiceBoxxed · Jun 30, 2015

fromtheAsh said:
You have to understand the Catholic church was radically different back in those times. Claiming the Catholics' past decisions have any reflections on what they believe today is like saying Americans support slavery because it was once was a thriving industry here.

It also needs to be understood that America is a nation, not a religion, founded on the ideas of persons of different religious leanings and who's peoples and political leaders have not always adhered to them either by nescience, ignorance or other reasons. America nor it's founders nor it's founding documents claim to hold any but a few universal truths, and nothing at all to do with origins or salvation of individuals, or the hereafter.

The Catholic church is not a valid comparison on many levels, but in terms of morality it can and should be judged by questioning the assumed authority of it's leadership, or leadership structure, in any time, because it does make such claims.

fromtheAsh · Jun 30, 2015

JuiceBoxxed said:
It also needs to be understood that America is a nation, not a religion, founded on the ideas of persons of different religious leanings and who's peoples and political leaders have not always adhered to them either by nescience, ignorance or other reasons. America nor it's founders nor it's founding documents claim to hold any but a few universal truths, and nothing at all to do with origins or salvation of individuals, or the hereafter.

The Catholic church is not a valid comparison on many levels, but in terms of morality it can and should be judged by questioning the assumed authority of it's leadership, or leadership structure, in any time, because it does make such claims.

Did you read the post I quoted? The analogy was falsely judging the present based on the actions of the past. Whether or not The United States is a religion is completely irrelevant.

JuiceBoxxed · Jun 30, 2015

fromtheAsh said:
Did you read the post I quoted? The analogy was falsely judging the present based on the actions of the past. Whether or not The United States is a religion is completely irrelevant.

No, the analogy is relevant because of claims of moral authority that originate from source. In the case of the USA/slavery - it could be reasonably argued that source documents that say such things as "all men are created equal"..."all endowed with equal rights" had been IGNORED with respect to slavery of blacks, even those founders who had slaves but that ultimately the source document won the argument (in moral terms) for civil society for all, including black slaves.

Unlike source documents such as the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, The Catholic church's vested authority are in the proclamations of it's Popes, Bishops, etc. If these are Authorities and are to be believed as such, then the actions of such authorities have to be given weight in that judgement, and past actions DO matter. Ie: the statement that "all men are created equal and all are endowed with equal rights" never made a black man a slave, only freed him from it. In terms of moral authority that the Catholic church claims in it's line of Bishop's, Cardinals, and Popes to make moral proclamations, the same cannot be said.

fromtheAsh · Jun 30, 2015

JuiceBoxxed said:
No, the analogy is relevant because of claims of moral authority that originate from source. In the case of the USA/slavery - it could be reasonably argued that source documents that say such things as "all men are created equal"..."all endowed with equal rights" had been IGNORED with respect to slavery of blacks, even those founders who had slaves but that ultimately the source document won the argument (in moral terms) for civil society for all, including black slaves.

Unlike source documents such as the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, The Catholic church's vested authority are in the proclamations of it's Popes, Bishops, etc. If these are Authorities and are to be believed as such, then the actions of such authorities have to be given weight in that judgement, and past actions DO matter. Ie: the statement that "all men are created equal and all are endowed with equal rights" never made a black man a slave, only freed him from it. In terms of moral authority that the Catholic church claims in it's line of Bishop's, Cardinals, and Popes to make moral proclamations, the same cannot be said.

You are thinking way too much into it.

stray bullet · Jun 30, 2015

CCHIPSS said:
Why wasn't William Tyndale forgiven for printing the bible? Was did the Catholics killed him for printing the bible? Catholics said he printed unauthorized versions of the bible. I say the Catholics made things up by reading into things that wasn't in the bible (Praying to Mary and she will pray to God for you, for example.)

Why do protestants make stuff up and repeat it without investigating it first?
Tyndale wasn't executed for printing the bible. He wasn't executed by the Church. He was executed for condemning the divorce of Henry VIII.

Were these differences really worth murdering a brother over?

William Tyndale was a believer in Jesus. That alone makes him a brother in Christ. And the Catholics murdered a brother.

What is also bad is saying something that is not true because you didn't bother to research it.

Now of course Protestants also murdered Catholics. So nope I am well aware that the Protestants aren't perfect. But hey how does sin justify sin?

Where did I say anything about something justifying sin?

You say sharing a common faith doesn't punish anyone. Actually it does. Your faith is different from everyone else's. You faith is different from Rhamiel's. Your faith is different from Hawthorne's. I say this because none of you read the whole bible exactly the same.

Our faith does not come from the bible. The bible comes from our faith.

The only reason why all 3 of you are in the Catholic church is because the differences among you aren't serious enough to break apart. However what if one day it does grow serious enough? Without love for your brothers, what can hold you 3 together?

You clearly do not understand Catholicism.
What we believe has always been believed. We can choose to join in with those that have believed in the past and those that share those beliefs today, or we can leave. If I choose to leave the faith, then I am outside the Church.

CCHIPSS · Jul 1, 2015

stray bullet said:
Why do protestants make stuff up and repeat it without investigating it first?
Tyndale wasn't executed for printing the bible. He wasn't executed by the Church. He was executed for condemning the divorce of Henry VIII.

Nope. Germany never shipped Tyndale back to England to be tried by Henry VIII. Perhaps Henry VIII did want Tyndale dead, but his death had nothing to do with that.

Instead Tyndale was tried as a heretic against the Catholic church by a commission of Catholic sympathizers. That includes:

Ruard Tapper, dean of St Peter's Church in Louvain. Chancellor of the University of Louvain

Jan Doye, canon of St Peter's.

Jacobus Latomus, also canon of St Peter's. He had for nearly twenty years been a leading controversialist against Erasmus, and a chief opponent of Luther and other European reformers. He was a most experienced inquisitor."

fat wee robin · Jul 1, 2015

djkms said:
Curious about your signature as well.
St. Raphael, Pray for us
O angel of God, my holy guardian, given to me from heaven, enlighten me this day, and save me from all evil. Instruct me in doing good deeds, and set me on the path of salvation. Amen.

Lets assume this is a prayer you have or do....
It seems like to me, with what is said - you ask an angel to pray for us. Then it appears you go into prayer towards the angel directly. Who is the holy guardian - I assume the angel himself? Why are you praying to an angel and not God? Can an angel "save you from all evil"? Are you asking for instruction from an angel? Are you asking an angel to set you on a path of salvation? I am curious why you would ask this of an angel and not to God directly - especially because he alone can grant what you ask in this prayer. I find it rather curious and unbiblical praying to angels. Do you not consider prayer a form of worship and isn't worshiping something other than God a form of idolatry?

would like to ask this too ,and the previous question .

CCHIPSS · Jul 1, 2015

stray bullet said:
You clearly do not understand Catholicism.
What we believe has always been believed. We can choose to join in with those that have believed in the past and those that share those beliefs today, or we can leave. If I choose to leave the faith, then I am outside the Church.

My brother, that is where we have the biggest different point of view.

If anyone only believes in the death and resurrection of Jesus and call Jesus his personal saviour, yet do not believe all of the rest of the bible, or he misinterpret all the rest of the bible, he is still my brother in Christ.

If that believer doesn't love me back, instead hates and despises me, and means me harm in every way, he is still my brother in Christ.

And if anyone is my brother in Christ, I am commended by Jesus to love him no matter what.

In fact even if someone is not my brother in Christ, I am commended by Jesus to love him no matter what. When he sins it breaks my heart, because I love him. I do not condemn and judge him.

My brothers in Christ will never be outside the church. Because the church is not a building or an organization, but a people. We are the church. We are the arms and feet of Christ. We are the temples of God. The Holy Spirit of God is inside each of us brothers and sisters in Christ. As a whole we represents the love and grace of God. Wherever we go, even the edge of our Solar System, there is the church.

fromtheAsh · Jul 1, 2015

CCHIPSS said:
My brother, that is where we have the biggest different point of view.

If anyone only believes in the death and resurrection of Jesus and call Jesus his personal saviour, yet do not believe all of the rest of the bible, or he misinterpret all the rest of the bible, he is still my brother in Christ.

If that believer doesn't love me back, instead hates and despises me, and means me harm in every way, he is still my brother in Christ.

And if anyone is my brother in Christ, I am commended by Jesus to love him no matter what.

In fact even if someone is not my brother in Christ, I am commended by Jesus to love him no matter what. When he sins it breaks my heart, because I love him. I do not condemn and judge him.

My brothers in Christ will never be outside the church. Because the church is not a building or an organization, but a people. We are the church. We are the arms and feet of Christ. We are the temples of God. The Holy Spirit of God is inside each of us brothers and sisters in Christ. As a whole we represents the love and grace of God. Wherever we go, even the edge of our Solar System, there is the church.

This is a gross misunderstanding of excommunication. They do not lose their status as members of the Catholic church, they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from actively participating in the liturgy. They are not banned from Mass or told to cease all relationships with the church. In many ways, they become like the Catechumens who have yet to be baptized.

SnowyMacie · Jul 1, 2015

CCHIPSS said:
My brother, that is where we have the biggest different point of view.

If anyone only believes in the death and resurrection of Jesus and call Jesus his personal saviour, yet do not believe all of the rest of the bible, or he misinterpret all the rest of the bible, he is still my brother in Christ.

If that believer doesn't love me back, instead hates and despises me, and means me harm in every way, he is still my brother in Christ.

And if anyone is my brother in Christ, I am commended by Jesus to love him no matter what.

In fact even if someone is not my brother in Christ, I am commended by Jesus to love him no matter what. When he sins it breaks my heart, because I love him. I do not condemn and judge him.

My brothers in Christ will never be outside the church. Because the church is not a building or an organization, but a people. We are the church. We are the arms and feet of Christ. We are the temples of God. The Holy Spirit of God is inside each of us brothers and sisters in Christ. As a whole we represents the love and grace of God. Wherever we go, even the edge of our Solar System, there is the church.

There's the The Church, that is the entirety of body of Christ and represents all Christians on Earth, which is what you are talking about. However, The Church, the organizations of each individual church: the Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox churches, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptist churches, etc. Within each of these churches, there is a line, either formal or informal that says "you can go this far" before you are no longer in communion with us, even my church, which has no formal hierarchy has this. That doesn't say we longer see them as brothers and sisters in Christ, but no longer members of our church. This has been going on since the beginning, with the Nicene Creed and even before with the Apostle's Creed. CF says "Nicene Creed = Christian", there are scholars that suggest Phil 2:5-11 may be a very early creed.

You do the exact the same thing when you say "If anyone only believes in the death and resurrection of Jesus and call Jesus his personal saviour, yet do not believe all of the rest of the bible, or he misinterpret all the rest of the bible, he is still my brother in Christ." You are drawing a line and making a statement that says "we are still in communion up to this point." The only difference between You and Rhamiel, Hawthorne, Ash, and I is that we belong to a denominations that see nothing wrong with making statements like that. I don't remember if you've mentioned your background or not, but I can understand if you've spent your entire Christian walk in nondenominational Christianity that you could have a difficult time understanding how people can draw lines of separation and still believe in church unity.

Rhamiel · Jul 1, 2015

outsidethecamp said:
Why did the Catholic church wait until 1950 to proclaim that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was assumed body and soul into heaven?

There was no tradition of this from the 32 Church doctors (30 men and 2 women) for this "tradition". There is no support for this tradition from any of the minor doctors, either.

So, it wasn't part of any unanimous teaching from the doctors, and mentioned only by 2 of the 88 church "fathers".

Why then in 1950 was this proclaimed and where is the "tradition" handed down by the Church about this since the 1st century?

It also begs the question, if this tradition existed since the 1st century, why was it only proclaimed officially in 1950?

Inquiring minds want to know.

well you said it was only "proclaimed" in 1950
that is not exactly true, in 1950 it was raised to a "dogma" meaning that it had a very specific definition

to look at what the Church proclaims, it is helpful to look at Councils and Encyclicals
but it is also helpful to just look at the normal teachings of the Church

"The Solemnity of the Assumption on August 15 was celebrated in the eastern Church from the 6th Century"

so we see formal recognition of this doctrine around the 500's
and teachings on it going back at least until the 300's

part of the reason it was not made a Dogma until the 1950's has to do with issues within the Church

see, it was a teaching of the Church for atleast 1400 years, why elevate it to Dogma?
well starting in the late 1880's within the Catholic Church there was a growing movement called "higher criticism" or "historical criticism" it was a method of Biblical interpretation that started within mainline Protestant denominations in the early 1800's
this method called into question a lot of the teachings of the Church

we also had some problems between Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics
there have always been Eastern Churches in communion with the Catholic Church, but starting in the 1700's the Catholic Church has entered communion with a lot more Eastern Churches (it is still a very small minority within the Catholic Church, but still, it is bigger then it was at the time of Trent)
the Eastern belief is normally called the Dormition of Mary, the belief that she died and then was taken into Heaven
the Latin Church had it as tradition that she was taken into Heaven while still alive
though in the East and West, the term "deep sleep" is sometimes used, and that could be coma or deep sickness or just a euphemism for dead

so we had Latin Catholics saying that Eastern Catholics were not real Catholics for having different beliefs about the Assumption of Mary
we had Eastern Catholics trying to use this difference to show that Latin theology is flawed
and we had Catholics using Higher Criticism method to say the whole thing was a myth and Catholics were not obligated to believe it

so when it was elevated to Dogma, it was meant to silence the debate about the validity of this teaching
and it also said that both the Eastern and Western views were acceptable, that we only know that it was at the "end of her life" that she was taken up body and soul into Heaven

fat wee robin said:
would like to ask this too ,and the previous question .

ok about my sig, that is a prayer taken from an Eastern Orthodox prayer book that I felt very moved by
as to the theology behind it
I believe that we have guardian angels sent by God to look after us (quotes from KJV Bible)
Psalms 91:11 - For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
Hebrews 1:14 - Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Psalms 34:7 - The angel of the LORD encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.

like if you get shot, and a doctor saves your life, it would not be weird to say "oh thank you doctor for saving my life!"
that would not be rejecting God, it would not be saying that God is not needed because you have a doctor
in fact, if one is a mature Christian, you would understand that all of the skills and powers and wisdom that a doctor has is in fact a gift from God
but it is not unseemly to show gratitude to the doctor, in fact I would say that as Christians, who understand that grace is a free gift, who understand the wickedness of our own sins and failings, that we should be MORE grateful to others who show kindness or help us

well I have an angel who "keeps me in all my ways" (psalm 91) and is ministering (Hebrews 1) and will deliver me from my enemies (psalm 34)
should I not show gratitude to the angel?
now I know that God created the angel, and that God sent the angel to look after me
so my gratitude is to God for sending His angels to look after me, just as in the doctor analogy my gratitude is to God for allowing the doctor to save me
but it is also good to thank the one who God worked through

Rhamiel · Jul 1, 2015

the idea behind excommunication is to show someone they are in serious error, and to discourage others from following this person
it is a call to repentance
if you are excommunicated, you can have that excommunication lifted by the Bishop who sentenced you
or you could probably go to the Pope who has universal jurisdiction
like in theory that would work, do not know if that has ever been done

The Catholic Church

God Made Me A Skeptic

CF Singles High Council

Love will overcome evil (Romans 12:9-21)

Love will overcome evil (Romans 12:9-21)

That one girl from that one website.

That one girl from that one website.

CF Singles High Council

Well-Known Member

Active Member

That one girl from that one website.

Active Member

That one girl from that one website.

God Made Me A Skeptic

Love will overcome evil (Romans 12:9-21)

Newbie

Love will overcome evil (Romans 12:9-21)

That one girl from that one website.

Well-Known Member

Member of the Round Table

Member of the Round Table

Similar threads