Why do Roman Catholics...

[Secundulus]

You don't think the Church was One at some point in the past? Maybe this will help your recollection, and I'll even leave out the beginning of the visible split at Presbyter Polycarp who followed apostolic teaching and Presbyter Anicetus who followed Presybter Sixtus' custom:

Church.

c455 OO and Other

c1054 OO, EO, RC and Other

c1500s OO, RC, EO, P and Other

It's very simple, though, just go backwards to Church.

So, because throughout history some men have followed themselves rather than Christ's desire that we be one you think we should continue to follow their dysfunctional error?

I don't think so. Anyway, most of those who went their own way have been under constant domination of pagan Islam or have divided into mutually exclusive bodies since their fateful decisions.

Coincidence, or not?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Werent alot of them withdrawling in Peter, though untied together with him in it in acts?

Thank God for Paul too huh?

 

[Standing Up]

Strange, you show the Church vanishing in the 5th century.

No, the divisions were the point. But hey, I'm all for the Church as those who sport different icons.

 

[Secundulus]

Werent alot of them withdrawling in Peter, though untied together with him in it in acts?

Thank God for Paul too huh?

And they decided the outcome by the Apostles meeting together and rendering a decision.

Every individual Christian did not decide on their own and go off to found their own Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[christianmomof3]

CMOM just called the Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith, nonsense.

My bad.
I don't see partaking of the Lord's Table - the bread and wine as nonsense although I do have some problems with the whole eucharist interpretation of it.
What I meant was nonsense was that discussing Mary, the RCC, "Saints" and the eucharist or arguing about it as is often seen here - is nonsense. Discussing those things won't save anyone. Only Christ Himself saves us.

 

[Standing Up]

So, because throughout history some men have followed themselves rather than Christ's desire that we be one you think we should continue to follow their dysfunctional error?

I don't think so. Anyway, most of those who went their own way have been under constant domination of pagan Islam or have divided into mutually exclusive bodies since their fateful decisions.

Coincidence, or not?

Well, two things. One we Christians are all in this together. Again, Mary and the saints are not too keen on your attitude, excommunicating us. Two the man who first followed something apart from scripture that we know of is Sixtus. Now who followed in his footsteps?

 

[laconicstudent]

No, the divisions were the point. But hey, I'm all for the Church as those who sport different icons.

Oh, I see then

 

[Fireinfolding]

And they decided the outcome by the Apostles meeting together and rendering a decision.

You mean when Paul withstood Peter to the face before them all or when those which come from Judaea disputed with him and wanted him to go to settle it with the other apostles given Paul was not known by face of the churches of Judaea?

Every individual Christian did not decide on their own and go off to found their own Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

I dont consider it someone elses church except in their own mind if that is ever the case, would you consider Diotrephes an example of something like that?

 

[Standing Up]

Oh, I see then

I was actually trying to avoid people thinking they were the Church and the other group (OO, EO, RC, P, Other) weren't. Or you split and I didn't or vice-versa.

 

[Secundulus]

Well, two things. One we Christians are all in this together. Again, Mary and the saints are not too keen on your attitude, excommunicating us. Two the man who first followed something apart from scripture that we know of is Sixtus. Now who followed in his footsteps?

I don't have the authority to excommunicate anyone other than myself.

However, nothing I have posted here is contrary to the current Catholic statements of belief in the Catechism.

It says that Protestants are separated brethren due to no fault of their own. These are brothers in Christ even if not in communion with the Church.

It also says that those who reject the Church knowingly separate themselves from Christ.

The question is whether those here that spend their time developing arguments to reject the Church are separated brethren suffering from invincible ignorance or whether, with information and knowledge, they have made a conscious decision to reject the Church.

Who falls into the first category and who into the second?

Not my place to judge so I do not judge. Contrast this with the OP who has prejudged me to be lost. Not only the OP but everyone else here who has nothing better to do than tell me I am a pagan.

 

[tadoflamb]

so the Blessed Sacrament and the Church, we walked by were the same thing... she made the sign of the cross as we were walking by the Church building....

Catholics consider their churches as consecrated ground. Once we cross the threshold, we enter into sacred time and space. The Blessed Sacrament (Jesus Christ, truly present in the Holy Eucharist) is kept in reserve in our tabernacles. That's why we cross ourselves when we pass a Catholic church. As Catholics, our personal relationship with Christ goes a little further than ourselves. That's why we don't cross ourselves when we pass each other.

 

[tadoflamb]

All without discussing the RCC or "Saints" or Mary or eucharist or any of that nonsense.

My bad.
I don't see partaking of the Lord's Table - the bread and wine as nonsense although I do have some problems with the whole eucharist interpretation of it.
What I meant was nonsense was that discussing Mary, the RCC, "Saints" and the eucharist or arguing about it as is often seen here - is nonsense. Discussing those things won't save anyone. Only Christ Himself saves us.

I'm having a hard time reading that into your original post.

 

[DD2008]

I've no clue as to what DD2008 is talking about.
No sweat though.

A lot of divorces use that terminology if I am not mistaken

No...I honestly don't know what he's talking about.
I know what divorces use terminologically speaking...I've been thru one.

Kidding..... For crying out loud. This thread has gone so far off topic, I'm just playing along with the drama.

I am a bit disappointed though. NRB was the one who started the Presbyterian forum here on CF. Now he's gone way off out into left field. He's a member of some fringe group no one has ever heard of.

Anyway NRB, I'll keep praying for you. Hope things are well down there in Alabama, you're actually not on my ignore list. I hope you get your problems straightened out.

 

[DD2008]

I don't have the authority to excommunicate anyone other than myself.

However, nothing I have posted here is contrary to the current Catholic statements of belief in the Catechism.

It says that Protestants are separated brethren due to no fault of their own. These are brothers in Christ even if not in communion with the Church.

It also says that those who reject the Church knowingly separate themselves from Christ.

The question is whether those here that spend their time developing arguments to reject the Church are separated brethren suffering from invincible ignorance or whether, with information and knowledge, they have made a conscious decision to reject the Church.

Who falls into the first category and who into the second?

Not my place to judge so I do not judge. Contrast this with the OP who has prejudged me to be lost. Not only the OP but everyone else here who has nothing better to do than tell me I am a pagan.

1. I don't think that the Roman Catholic Church is "the" church. I think it is a confused errant denomination that barely resembles a christian church anymore.

2. I didn't judge you, however it is my opinion that one who is a Chrsitian and knows Christ wouldn't be able in good conscience to support the Roman Catholic Church with all of it's errors and oppositions to biblical Christianity. That just means, if ou are a Roman Catholic you are on my prayer list and I hope you find Christ of you haven't and if you have I hope you have either the courage to leave the RCC or work within it to reform it to a biblical model.

That's all.

 

[sunlover1]

A living body is a unitary whole where all parts work in concert for a common purpose.

Amen.

A dead body is one whose parts have been severed and no longer have any relationship to each other.

His body is following the Head (Jesus Christ) and is very much alive and well.
The gates of Hell shall never prevail !

Shine on Jesus people!
Light up this darkness.

8 for http://www.christianforums.com/"#ref=Ephyou were formerly http://www.christianforums.com/"#ref=Acdarkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as http://www.christianforums.com/"#ref=Jnchildren of Light ​

9 (for http://www.christianforums.com/"#ref=Gathe fruit of the Light consists in all http://www.christianforums.com/"#ref=Rogoodness and righteousness and truth), ​

10 http://www.christianforums.com/"#ref=Rotrying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. ​

11 Do not participate in the unfruitful http://www.christianforums.com/"#ref=Rodeeds of http://www.christianforums.com/"#ref=Acdarkness, but instead even http://www.christianforums.com/"#ref=1expose them; ​

12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. ​

13 But all things become visible http://www.christianforums.com/"#ref=Jnwhen they are 1exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light. ​

I was referring to the 'nonsense' of the Eucharist.

I read her original post and I believe she misspoke.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't have the authority to excommunicate anyone other than myself.

However, nothing I have posted here is contrary to the current Catholic statements of belief in the Catechism.

It says that Protestants are separated brethren due to no fault of their own. These are brothers in Christ even if not in communion with the Church.

It also says that those who reject the Church knowingly separate themselves from Christ.

The question is whether those here that spend their time developing arguments to reject the Church are separated brethren suffering from invincible ignorance or whether, with information and knowledge, they have made a conscious decision to reject the Church.

Who falls into the first category and who into the second?

Not my place to judge so I do not judge. Contrast this with the OP who has prejudged me to be lost. Not only the OP but everyone else here who has nothing better to do than tell me I am a pagan.

c175, guess who he's talking about?

Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, and Apologist.

There are, then, some who through ignorance raise disputes about these things (though their conduct is pardonable: for ignorance is no subject for blame—it rather needs further instruction), and say that on the fourteenth day the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples, and that on the great day of the feast of unleavened bread He Himself suffered; and they quote Matthew as speaking in accordance with their view. Wherefore their opinion is contrary to the law, and the Gospels seem to be at variance with them.
ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

As we wander on, please keep in mind the definition of the Church; it is the Church, the Body of Christ. Nowhere is it said in scripture or the very early church that it is those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't have the authority to excommunicate anyone other than myself.

However, nothing I have posted here is contrary to the current Catholic statements of belief in the Catechism.

It says that Protestants are separated brethren due to no fault of their own. These are brothers in Christ even if not in communion with the Church.

It also says that those who reject the Church knowingly separate themselves from Christ.

The question is whether those here that spend their time developing arguments to reject the Church are separated brethren suffering from invincible ignorance or whether, with information and knowledge, they have made a conscious decision to reject the Church.

Who falls into the first category and who into the second?

Not my place to judge so I do not judge. Contrast this with the OP who has prejudged me to be lost. Not only the OP but everyone else here who has nothing better to do than tell me I am a pagan.

Just a quick question for you, if you will kindly answer it for me. Of those Protestants in the first category, will they be spending more time, less time, or roughly equal time in Purgatory as the average Catholic?

Thanks.

 

[christianmomof3]

I'm having a hard time reading that into your original post.

well, here is the post of mine that you quoted the last line from:
Last week, I met a very dear sister in Christ who is from another country. In her country, the natives are very poor and live in very poor conditions. Most of them are Catholic. They drop out of school at young ages and the girls begin having babies at age 15 or so and by the time they are 26 they may have 6 young children living in poverty with them.
She and some other sisters have begun caring for these young mothers.
At first they just brought food.
Other people did that too.
Then they realized these women are also spiritually hungry.
They do not talk to them about being Catholic or the Catholic church at all. They never talk about that at all when they visit them.
They just bring food and bring their Bible and read through the book of Romans with them a little bit each visit.
Many of the natives are illiterate.
By the time they finish reading through the book of Romans with them, they have seen that they are sinners who need God and they confess their sins to God and pray to Him and are born again believers.
All without discussing the RCC or "Saints" or Mary or eucharist or any of that nonsense.

The op of this whole thread asked why RCC people talk about their church so much.

My last line referred to talking about the RCC church or talking about "Saints" or talking about Mary or the eucharist. Talking about those things to illiterate people who do not know the Lord is just nonsense. It will not bring them to know the Lord.

So, my responses were in view of talking about the church.

In real life, most Christians except for perhaps some evangelicals do tend to talk about their church or their pastor or the activities at their church rather than about Christ Himself.

Even on this forum, most of the posts are about things other than Christ Himself. They are about Catholics or any of the other Christian groups or denominations or baptism or eucharist or "Saints" or homosexuality or speaking in tongues or hell or biblical diet or the law etc...

The central thought of God is that we, as living vessels to contain God, should receive God in Christ as our life and life supply; be transformed into His image; and be built up together as a living Body to express Him - not for a bunch of people who call themselves Christians to argue about all of those other things.

How much do you talk about Christ to other people? How much do you post about Christ as compared to posting about the RCC or doctrines or hell or something?

 

[lionroar0]

Oxymoron=biblical Christianity.

2. I didn't judge you, however it is my opinion that one who is a Chrsitian and knows Christ wouldn't be able in good conscience to support the Roman Catholic Church with all of it's errors and oppositions to biblical Christianity. That just means, if ou are a Roman Catholic you are on my prayer list and I hope you find Christ of you haven't and if you have I hope you have either the courage to leave the RCC or work within it to reform it to a biblical model.

The Bible is a product of Christianity. Not Christianity a product of the bible.

And God is the creator of both.

I'm CC Because I found Christ and the CC talks about Christ every day in the Mass.
I also have the courage to stand up for the lies that others say about the Church.

 

[christianmomof3]

Oxymoron=biblical Christianity.

The Bible is a product of Christianity. Not Christianity a product of the bible.

And God is the creator of both.

Actually, an oxymoron is two contradictory terms together -

A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

I suppose someone on this board might be nasty and say that biblical Catholicism might be an oxymoron, but really, that is not correct.Most of the Christian religions - including Catholicism, are probably about 90% based on the Bible. There is only about 10% other stuff added in probably. It is how much emphasis that is placed on the 90% that agrees with the Bible and how much is placed on the 10% that is not that makes the difference. All Christian religions have much more in common than we do differences. We should focus on Christ and ignore the rest and we would be just fine and dandy.