What do you want from your church?

Actually, Bill, I was disenchanted by all cults at an early age; derived from being
raised in one. What stands out to testify of the grace of God is the fact that there
are spirit filled people in any denomination (and in some cults). Their common denominator is the fact that they "have the Son". That gift of the "Son" is offered to
whoever receives Christ. Much ado is made over how to "receive Christ" and thus we have volumes written by deepthinking religionists who should resign their attempts in favor of the simplicity of this scripture:

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice,
and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him,
and he with me.

Reasonable pursuit of this attempt to let Christ deal with us would rescind the frivolous
yammerings about priest's sex lives. (And I was not referring to the recent scandals which is alarmingly overdue in the investigation by numerous decades,
but rather the celibacy issue. If someone hadn't put priests and popes on a pedestal, they would be free to choose their lifestyle without it being delegated to them by a higher authority in the first place.

If they are displaying the Kingdom of God, the Body of Christ and the "Church" on earth, they have either been ill equipped to do so, are willfully misrepresenting , may have missed their calling or are wrong about what the Kingdom of God is in the first place.

 

the traditions and thoughts of men are on a higher plane and authority than the Word of God

Of course not. You're assuming that the Word of God gives clergy the Scriptural right to exercise their marital rights, and I'm trying to break through that assumption with evidential fact.

We know from the Scriptures that the ordination of married men was a normal event; St. Paul, in writing to his disciples Titus and Timothy, prescribed that such candidates could be married only once. We know that St. Peter was certainly married, since Peter said to his Master: "What about us? We left all we had to follow you." To this, Christ responded (Saint Luke): "I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life" (Lk 18:28-30). Here we clearly already have the first obligation of clerical celibacy, namely, the commitment to continence in the use of marriage after ordination.

The real meaning of celibacy, which today is in general almost totally forgotten but which in the first millennium and beyond was well known, consists in this: complete abstinence with respect to the procreation of children even within the context of marriage. In fact all the first laws written on celibacy speak of this prohibition, that is, of the further procreation of children, a point which is convincingly documented in the latter book I provided above. The indicates that, despite the fact that many clerics were already married before their ordination, they were nevertheless held to this particular obligation before they could be ordained. In the beginning, the actual prohibition to marry remained somewhat in the background. It emerged only later when the Church imposed the prohibition against marriage on those celibates from whom virtually all the candidates for sacred orders were exclusively recruited.

We must also note that married candidates could approach sacred orders and renounce the use of marriage only with the consent of their wife. The reason for this lies in the fact that, on the basis of the sacrament that had already been received, the wife had an inalienable right to the use of the valid (and consummated) marriage, which in itself was indissoluble.

Also consider what Cardinal Stickler writes in The Case for Clerical Celibacy, p. 31-32: "[At the Roman Synod of 386], eighty bishops rejected for the first time something which is also heard today: the objection that argues for the continued use of marriage based on the words of St. Paul according to which a candidate for ordination must be married only once. According to the bishops, this did not mean that he could continue to live with the desire to beget children: rather the injunction of St. Paul in fact refers to future continence. Officially for the first time we hear something that will constantly be reiterated: namely, that after the ordination of someone previously married, there is no guarantee that the abstinence required will be praticed if the person actually remarries."

the councils you refer to are local councils and not binding upon the eccumenical economia of the whole Church.

I agree with you, and I am not trying to show that they are ecumenical councils. What I am demonstrating is that universal clerical continence was practiced in both the West as well as the East from the beginning of the written record on this issue, and that the myth you propagated on p. 2 of this thread is just that, a myth: "You know good and darn well that the reason for the elimination of married priests has to do with the corruptions of the Medieval Church".

Are we Easterners less than Catholic

Of course not.

Those councils you quote were filled with men who somehow felt that sexual union with one's wife ... was somehow dirty and demeaning to a man, making him less holy.

Have you researched the councils and history of the issue yourself? Or are you making an assumption on whim?

 

So, how does all this play into the fact that Peter was married?

And, if

does the Apostolic Tradition start after Peter (seeing as how he was married with children)?

In Christ,
jason

 

Jason, if you would read my post above, you would have your answer.

 

Which harks back to another question I asked of you (I think it was you) - Would you consider Jesus and his little band of followers as a "cult" that you would reject as well? The Jews and the Romans sure did consider then with derision!

Of course, the "cult" of Jesus Christ has a few "credentials" all other cults seems to lack...

Agreed! But are they all equal in the eyes of God even while they all preach a "different gospel" of diverse doctrines and interpretations, or is God the God of confusion?

Wonderful!

I just hope you don't deny this of me, a Catholic, who became one out of conviction and much prayer in adulthood!

Why does it personally bother you? Shall I quote those scripture passages whereby a celibate life is encouraged? Read what St. Paul, a celibate himself, says about the subject...

And upon editing, I thought I would toss-in the following quotes:

Recommended by Christ Himself

Matthew 19:12 "For there are eunuchs, who were born so from
their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by
men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for
the kingdom of heaven. He that can take it, let him take it."

Recommended by St. Paul

1 Corinthians 7:32-33 "He that is without a wife, is solicitous
for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God.
But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the
world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided."

How does one honor and respect the clergy of the Church interfere with their "choice of lifestyle" if it becomes "their choice" to becomes priests in the first place?

If they do not want to remain celibate, they can choose to marry. That, by canon law, prevents them from becoming priests.

But again, it is choices they have under the discipline imposed by the Church that has stood the test of time for centuries, else why else would the evangelization of the whole world proceed at such a rapid pace had it not been for a unmarried army of priests, unconcerned with the cares of wife and family and without the baggage of a family, be able to persue their mission even to martyrdom in the extreme?

In all charity, I think most of our non-Catholic Christian friends are doing God's will insofar as they understand it. And further, they are a part of Christ's Church..........even while we may say so in an incomplete way, we do understand that God loves them just as much as He may love all of mankind.

As for "missing a calling," I cannot judge, but I do look out over my city and note the plethoria of competing Christian communities, four on a given city block, each preaching a different doctrine. There is basic agreement with the statement, "Jesus is Lord" but it rapidly deteriorates from them on...some insisting on total immersion for baptism, some even rejecting the idea that baptism actually saves, whereas other insist it is only an "outward sign" that others may know your commitment.........and on and on and on.

In my youth, I looked for the only Church who can trace her origins back to the times of Christ Himself. And there is only one Church that can do that which exists today with that history and that original glory, authority and authenticity -

THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

But then, that is in my opinion.........

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

"…Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now…"

1 Peter 3:20-21

[ April 27, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), - 1 Timothy 3:2-5 NASB

We could also debate whether "the husband of one wife" means "at most 1" or "1 not more nor less" but it is not the main point here. The main point that we're pointing out is in verses 4 and 5 and it is the overseer must be one who manages his own family well because if he can't manage his own little family, how can he manage the family of the church of God? As far as the overseer is concerned a family is a benefit, not a hindrance to his ministry.

Also, Paul's statement implies that Peter was reunited with his wife who he had left to follow Jesus, once the church was established.

5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? - 1 Corinthians 9:5 NASB

 

Sure, I suppose, but note the rapidity of the great and rapid spreading the gospel, facilitated by an unencumbered army of missionary priests, whose only concern was their own life which they were willing to sacrifice in holy martyrdom.

May I point out that the only Rite of the Catholic Church who was so enabled to do so was the only one to imposed a discipline of strict celibacy on it's priesthood?

The Roman/Latin/Western Rite. (Not to minimize the efforts of my Eastern brothers who evangelized the East, including Russia.)

Today, we have married missionaries - lay missionaries, and so yes, they can proceed in missionary work as a married couple. And guess what? They are Catholics!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

(Bill)
Would you consider Jesus and his little band of followers as a
"cult" that you would reject as well? The Jews and the Romans
sure did consider then with derision!

(Singer)

Of course not Bill, he was the savior and it was a matter of either
accepting Him and believing that He was who He said He was or
rejecting Him. It is the same today. He asks not much more than that.
It is our obligation to make that choice and the rest is up to Him.
(The infilling of the spirit, the changed lives, the desire to promote His kingdom
on earth) ....and I'm not referring to the Catholic Church either.

(Singer - Previous quote)
..stands out to testify of the grace of God is the fact that there are spirit
filled people in any denomination (and in some cults). Their common
denominator is the fact that they "have the Son".

(Bill)
Agreed! But are they all equal in the eyes of God even while they
all preach a "different gospel" of diverse doctrines and interpretations,
or is God the God of confusion?

(Singer)
Thanks for agreeing that there are spirit filled people in non-Catholic
denominations. Equal you ask?......Surely you don't mean some would
gain in their reward due to their preaching a more "papally correct doctrine"
(I made up that word ) As for confusion, I see it right here on this
thread between two Catholics. Your concern that protestant denominations
are preaching diverse doctrines are met head on by protestants that
see Catholic doctrine as diverse in itself. It's like asking upon meeting
a person for the first time "Am I the stranger, or are You"...?

(Singer -Previous Quote)

That gift of the "Son" is offered to whoever receives Christ. Much ado is made
over how to "receive Christ" and thus we have volumes written by deepthinking
religionists who should resign their attempts in favor of the simplicity of this
scripture:

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice,
and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him,
and he with me.

(Bill)
Wonderful!

I just hope you don't deny this of me, a Catholic, who became one out of conviction
and much prayer in adulthood!

(Singer)
Oh wow...if we could just stop with that thought and unity.
Of course I don't deny it of you. We are brothers in Christ only
because we both have the Son. Your affiliation
with Catholicism and my own unchurched condition do
not play a part in our salvation. Neither for the gift of salvation
or the rewards. We should always go back to stand
on the claim that we "have the Son". That feature does not
have a denomination...(nor does it include Catholicism in case you
don't see Catholicism as a denomination, which many Catholics don't).
I also arrived in my situation with much prayer, bible reading and
conviction. *And may have started before you were born

As for the Catholic Clergy's sexual issue...I'm not qualified to respond
or even interested in it actually.

(Bill)

In my youth, I looked for the only Church who can trace her origins
back to the times of Christ Himself. And there is only one Church
that can do that which exists today with that history and that
original glory, authority and authenticity -

THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

(Singer)

If you go back even further Bill, you'll find that salvation was only offered to
Jews in the beginning. Only by the grace of God were us Gentiles offered
it, and that salvation was offered to Gentiles before there was a Catholic
church. And, the requirements were only to "Confess with thy mouth
the Lord Jesus and Believe in thy heart that God raised Him from the
dead and thou shalt be saved."
Romans 10:9

I try to imagine what I could add to that and it sure seems futile to
think that joining a certain church would be of any benefit. Catholics
are not alone in their claims of being the "One True Church"....They're
a dime a dozen....I could send you a list. They all make claims
of being "First" in something or other. They make claims of glory, authority
and authenticity as you mention. They make claims of having the franchise
on God. They make claims of controlling who's to be saved and who is not.
They make me SICK actually. I was born and raised in one of those.
No Thanks.

(Bill)
But then, that is in my opinion.........

(Singer)
And this is mine

 

Posted by Catholic Convert:

Let's understand something. The Catholic FAITH is the Faith which Christ
God gave to the apostles to give to the whole earth, NOT the heresies
of Protestantism and its multitudinous varients. Your disenchantment
with the Catholic Faith is your own personal argument with Christ
Himself Who established the Faith and to Whom you shall answer one day for
opposing it.

No, I guess I'll never understand that. If being 'called' by God is being
called into the Catholic Church, then I guess I'm going to hell for not believing
what you believe.

I always have to wonder of those who "church-hop" in hopes of pleasing
God more......."Wasn't the blood of Jesus in your previous church good
enough for you" ?

Wasn't it good enough to be the propitiation for your sins. ?
What cubit can you add to your spiritual wellbeing by the efforts you make ?
Can you add to your redemption by taking thougth for yourself ?
"What If" someone influences you on to yet another church ?
Is salvation available to pagans, heathens and the unknowing, but not
to Protestants ?

For a Catholic Pope to call Muslims his brothers in the faith and to deny
the blood of Jesus to a heretical Protestant......well........ (delete)


Let's Understand Something ?????

Singer

 

How do you know Jesus was the savior? (I'm acting as a "devil's advocate" here....)

And in the broader sense, what makes Christianity stand out as the correct one from that of Judiasm, Islam and the many other non-Christian main line religions?

Finally, what "church" was Christ refering to in Matthew 16:18-19? Jesus says some rather interesting things here, don't you think?

 

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Bill:

How do you know Jesus was the savior? (I'm acting as a "devil's advocate" here....)

Oh, I'm sorry...I was referring to the same Jesus you mentioned as the
one who might be a cult.
In that sense, you may be serving a wrong Jesus.....right ?

And in the broader sense, what makes Christianity stand out
as the correct one from that of Judiasm, Islam and the many
other non-Christian main line religions?

Quite simple...one has a risen savior and the rest don't.

Finally, what "church" was Christ refering to in Matthew 16:18-19?
Jesus says some rather interesting things here, don't you think?

The same ''church'' he will come to redeem someday. Agree ? Now
you tell ME who will be redeemed.

Jesus certainly loves all of us, even while some of you are not,
strictly speaking, members of the very church He founded.

Would this be the church that he will reedeem?

On the other hand, the good Methodest, Baptist, you name it denominational
person, having a good heart, will go to heaven.

That's right....so what's the big Push about the Catholic Church.?
Heaven is heaven.

Note, however, that they all go to the same Mass!

And they all go to the same heaven as Methodists too....(you said).
Some just don't have to suffer Mass first.

At least they will all agree that "Jesus is Lord" but it is
obvious to all who observe them that there is great doctrinal
disunity and confusion.

That's why I don't have a church, Bill.

Christ established one Church, not a multitude of them. He supposed
that they would be in "One flock, ruled by one shepherd" here on earth.

The church that will be redeemed from the earth...right?... The one with
the Methodists who will be in heaven with the Catholics ??

And again, I could not agree more! Christ's arms open wide to those
who come to him and accept him, be they Baptist, Presbyterian or whatever!

A good Catholics doesn't give any credit to "accepting Jesus".......
And they're all going to heaven. End of Story.

That does not mean that He would not want them to be under
the very church He Himself established!

How could He have established a yet unredeemed church?

Christ loves you guys just as much as He loves all of us! We would,
of course, desire that you all would "complete the journey" and come
back to Holy Mother church!

No thanks, I'll just go to heaven as a Protestant sympathizer; then I don't have to
clean your church or sit through all those boring Masses......or contend with
the pride of thinking I'm in some special organization.

Does not Christ want you to be a complete and practicing member of that
church?

Not a chance.

Merely "joining the Catholic Church" is not going to get it, Singer, not one whit! But
joining her in the last act in fulfillment of "believing in Jesus Christ

Good, I'll stay on the outside. The thief on the cross "believed" too...that's my kind
of believing. The woman at the well believed. The woman who touched his
garment believed and she received His power. There's nothing to join.

I think I give away my age there, but I was born in
1929! As of the 18th of this month, I turned 74 years young!

Whoops...you're old enough to be my dad and I'm a grandpa myself.

God Bless you too,
Singer

 

Stinger, your replies took me back a bit, so let's see how this goes….

On Edit: Color rendering does not seem to work. I had intended to have your replies in the color red to make it easier to read.....Oh well......

I said: (given in bold from here on out) How do you know Jesus was the savior? (I'm acting as a "devil's advocate" here....)


[font color=red]Oh, I'm sorry...I was referring to the same Jesus you mentioned as the one who might be a cult.
In that sense, you may be serving a wrong Jesus.....right ?[/font]

I'm sorry, Singer, but you seem to go completely into a defensive, almost hostile mode that disappoints me. And I think you know full well which "Jesus" I am serving…..


And in the broader sense, what makes Christianity stand out
as the correct one from that of Judiasm, Islam and the many
other non-Christian main line religions?

[font color=red]Quite simple...one has a risen savior and the rest don't.[/font]


Well, that is certainly correct, but I was hoping to get a more definitive answer.


Finally, what "church" was Christ refering to in Matthew 16:18-19?
Jesus says some rather interesting things here, don't you think?


[font color=red]The same ''church'' he will come to redeem someday. Agree ? Now
you tell ME who will be redeemed.[/font]

You almost completely deflected my question with an inadequate answer.

Certainly, Christ will come for His Church when He returns. Now, all you need to do is tell me which church. As a hint, refer back to the "church" He created back in Matthew 16:18-19 and then look forward to see which one fits that description from history. Find the one church that can trace her origins back to those times of Christ and you will have it!

Now, don't come to the immediate conclusion that I am referring to Catholics only here, who are faithful to Christ in the Catholic Church. The breadth of His Church includes those who are in good faith, even while they may only be members of that church I allude to in an incomplete way. It is quite possible that you are included in that number, Singer…

Jesus certainly loves all of us, even while some of you are not,
strictly speaking, members of the very church He founded.

[font color=red]Would this be the church that he will reedeem?[/font]

My answer above should answer your question.


On the other hand, the good Methodist, Baptist, you name it denominational person, having a good heart, will go to heaven.


[font color=red]That's right....so what's the big Push about the Catholic Church.?
Heaven is heaven.[/font]

Simply put, the sacramental advantages of what the Catholic Church offers. Why not come completely into the very church Christ founded? Does the Methodist or the Baptist churches and others trace their origins back to the church of Matthew 16:18-19? Only through the Catholic Church can they do that. No other church can trace her history back to the original Christ founded church like the Catholic Church.

Therefore, why avoid her when she is the original church founded by Christ?


Note, however, that they all go to the same Mass!

[font color=red]And they all go to the same heaven as Methodists too....(you said).
Some just don't have to suffer Mass first.[/font]


Just for the fun of it, I am going to paste-in, my complete statement here:


Now, I think you attempt to skate the issue when I speak of "confusion." Certainly, there are Catholics that may be a bit confused in the teachings of the Church. I, myself, may be in error on some issues. I am not perfect is this, as most Catholics are not. Note, however, that they all go to the same Mass!

To compare the "confusion" among Catholics is like comparing the ant hill with Mt. Everest. Catholicism is not split into competing denominations as is Protestantism. and by my saying that, do not confuse this with the various "Rites" of Catholicism. These Rites, "in union with Rome," believe in exactly the same doctrines, even while they may have different traditions. We have about 10 Catholic churches here in Pensacola, FL. They are unified under the same bishop who has sovereign authority over these churches. And if there is any "confusion" on the part of any Catholic, there is a place where it can be addressed - The chancery office of the bishop.


Now, will you insist that your reply above adequately answers my statement here?


At least they will all agree that "Jesus is Lord" but it is
obvious to all who observe them that there is great doctrinal
disunity and confusion.

[font color=red]That's why I don't have a church, Bill.[/font]


Again, I paste-in my complete statement here:


So, when I speak of "confusion," I speak of the great scandal of Christianity - Church against church, denomination against denomination. And yes, I will acknowledge that there is much unity among them. At least they will all agree that "Jesus is Lord" but it is obvious to all who observe them that there is great doctrinal disunity and confusion.

Christ established one Church, not a multitude of them. He supposed that they would be in "One flock, ruled by one shepherd" here on earth.

There is only one Church that has such unity. The ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH which has within her collective self, Rites of the East and of which the "Roman Catholic Church" is but a sub-set.

And the answer you give is the only one you can generate?

Why do you avoid a "community of believers" (which is church, by the way) when it is obvious that Christ established one, one with great authority and mission? Are you that "lonely one" that goes off, bible in hand, and become your own "church" with a membership of one? Are you going to tell me that you follow Jesus in obedience when you avoid His church?

Christ established one Church, not a multitude of them. He supposed
that they would be in "One flock, ruled by one shepherd" here on earth.

[font color=red]The church that will be redeemed from the earth...right?... The one with the Methodists who will be in heaven with the Catholics ??[/b]

In all Christian charity, I certainly hope I will see my Methodist brethren in heaven, as also you and the many other friends I have in this forum.

But the diasporia of Christianity into a multitude of sects and denominations does not seem to bother you, Singer, and I wonder why. One insists that a person must be totally immersed to be baptized and at the same time, insists that the ceremony in and of itself does not save, whereas the Catholics and some others insist that the water may be poured over the individual in the ceremony and that it does indeed, save. The bread and wine of communion is only symbolic in most Christian communities, whereas in at least three communities I know of, it is truly the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ - no longer bread and wine but only the "accidents" of bread and wine.

So in those two examples, which is it, Singer? Not all of them can be true and thus there is error in the teachings of one opposing community. Do you subscribe and accept error as a part of Christian life and doctrine, Singer?

Error, in fact, opposes truth, and God and His Divine Son Jesus is ALL truth, and therefore, error stands in opposition to God and all truth. Nevertheless, those who are sublimely ignorant of the truth may be saved.

But that being so does not give a blanket approval to all sects and denominations of Christianity! God in His infinite mercy and justice saves as he sees fit from what He sees in the heart, not what church he/she belongs to. On the other hand, being in the "right church" just might have an advantage that one is fully aware of salvation and the "tools" that will bring it - The Sacraments - that are denied to others in other denominations.

Coming into Christ's Church must have an advantage over being a member of a church that is dissident/outside of very fold Christ intended. I would hope that you could eventually see those advantages and come into her!

And again, I could not agree more! Christ's arms open wide to those
who come to him and accept him, be they Baptist, Presbyterian or whatever!

[font color=red]A good Catholics doesn't give any credit to "accepting Jesus".......
And they're all going to heaven. End of Story.[/font]

Name the Catholic in this forum who has made such an assertion, Singer. Name just one!

Now, much of the discussion may speak upon what it takes to "accept Jesus" that one is truly saved. Please don't jump to any conclusions when I ask: Does not "accepting Jesus" include the intent and the promise to follow Him, and to obey all that He commands you? I don't mean part of what He commands you to do, but ALL of what He commands you.

I will add nothing more here, letting you ponder what it is to completely do what all Christ commands you to do…………………..

That does not mean that He would not want them to be under
the very church He Himself established!

[font color=red]How could He have established a yet unredeemed church?[/font]

Are you claiming that the Catholic Church is "unredeemed"? Ponder her history and note the continuity of her history back to the very early times of the primitive church. Note, for example, the frescoes on the walls of the ancient Christian catacombs, a testimony of a devotion to the Mother of God and the prayers on tombs that ask for an immediate entry into heaven of the individual - that the individual will not languish too long in the purgative state - that they may be made white as snow and enter heaven. Note further their belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, even in the ruins of ancient Egyptian temples, evidence of Egyptian Christians who believed in the Eucharist as Christ told then in the "Bread of Life" discourse of John, Chapter 6.

That Church was promised redemption, Singer…

loves you guys just as much as He loves all of us! We would,
of course, desire that you all would "complete the journey" and come
back to Holy Mother church!

[font color=red]No thanks, I'll just go to heaven as a Protestant sympathizer; then I don't have to clean your church or sit through all those boring Masses......or contend with the pride of thinking I'm in some special organization.[/font]

I can sit bored to tears at a rap concert!

It is what I put into the Mass that makes the difference. My pastor does not have to have the "golden throat of Bishop Sheen" for me to derive what is important at Mass! And if I take the similar pride as seen in the Pharisees, then I am in deep trouble! But I enter church in humility, knowing how far I fail in approaching even the tiniest bit of the glory of God. If I take pride at all, it is in Christ my Savior!

Does not Christ want you to be a complete and practicing member of that
church?

[font color=red]Not a chance.[/font]

By your answer, are you agreeing that the Catholic Church is indeed, the Church that Christ founded? She is the only church that can make that assertion, all others being "John come latelies" that have sprung out of her in error.

Oops, sorry, I jump to the conclusion that churches with diverse and opposing doctrines display the existence of error!

Merely "joining the Catholic Church" is not going to get it, Singer, not one whit! But joining her in the last act in fulfillment of "believing in Jesus Christ

[font color=red]Good, I'll stay on the outside. The thief on the cross "believed" too...that's my kind of believing. The woman at the well believed. The woman who touched his garment believed and she received His power. There's nothing to join.[/font]

Had the thief lived beyond the cross, continuing in his belief in Christ, would he not also seek out the very "community" Christ established? And likewise for the woman who "received his power" from an artifact not do likewise? Also, do you see any reason that the cloak of Christ would have any power at all? I kiss the corpus of the crucifix on the wall in my house. Could that possibly have any effect on me for doing that? (Just curious, it being a side-question.)

I think I give away my age there, but I was born in
1929! As of the 18th of this month, I turned 74 years young!

[font color=red]Whoops...you're old enough to be my dad and I'm a grandpa myself.[/font]

Young whipper-snapper! Just as I thought!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christ has no body now but yours;

No hands, no feet on earth but yours,

Yours are the eyes with which he looks

Compassion on this world.

Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.

Yours are the hands with which

he blesses all the world.

Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

- St. Therese of Avila -

 

Wow....long post, Bill.
You must be retired....I'm not...gotta go chase some cows.
And I haven't even answered the Catholic Convert even.
Oh well.....you gather up some more proof to support your views
and I'll go chase the $$ and then I'll get back to ya.

You're really serious about this Catholic stuff aren't ya...?

Later,
Friend,
Singer

 

You betcha I am serious!

Check out my web site:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/p/wputnam3/index.htm

And look around, especially my Catholic apologetics section.

Have fun reading!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

Check out my web site:

Good grief, I haven't even read your entire last post YET !!
Did hear a good sermon by A spirit filled radio pastor, Adrian Rodgers
this morning though.....You ever hear that guy ?

Check out HIS web site....

Later,
Singer

 

Bill,

That's cute that you call me "S T I N G E R".
And yes, we're getting too many "I said" "You said" quotes in here.
I'll try to address one topic at a time. Actually I think we're nit-
picking for the sake of arguement.

(Bill)
Stinger, your replies took me back a bit, so let's see how this goes….

On Edit: Color rendering does not seem to work. I had intended to
have your replies in the color red to make it easier to read.....Oh well......

I said: (given in bold from here on out) How do you know Jesus was the
savior? (I'm acting as a "devil's advocate" here....)

(Singer- Previous)
[font color=red]Oh, I'm sorry...I was referring to the same Jesus you
mentioned as the one who might be a cult.
In that sense, you may be serving a wrong Jesus.....right ?[/font]

I'm sorry, Singer, but you seem to go completely into a defensive, almost
hostile mode that disappoints me. And I think you know full well which
"Jesus" I am serving…..

Singer - Today

1. You asked how I knew Jesus was the savior when you asked if I thought Jesus'
little band of followers might be a cult and I said "No, he was the savior".

2. Then you asked how I would know if Jesus is the savior.

3. I responded that I refer to the save Jesus as the Jesus you questioned as maybe
being a cult leader.(Implying that if the potential cult leader is not the savior, then
you might be serving a wrong Jesus).

4. Now you say I was defensive/hostile and disappointed you.

5. Also, I consider you as serving the same Jesus as I do....so we're back to square one.

So now tell me how YOU know that the Jesus with His band of followers was the savior ?

* As for me, I accept it by faith which was the requirement in Matt 16:13 when Jesus asked
the question that Peter answered......."Whom do men say that I the Son of man am" ?

*And it is still that requirement today....Faith
The man burning in Hell wanted Lazarus to go tell his brothers and he
was told that the Prophets had already told them about Jesus. He would
not give them this sign....faith only.

If you think there is the possibility that the bible is promoting the wrong Jesus / a cult leader,
then we're all in a HEAP of trouble, Brother.

Singer (Stinger)

 

(Singer)

A good Catholics doesn't give any credit to "accepting Jesus".......
And they're all going to heaven. End of Story.

(Bill)
Name the Catholic in this forum who has made such an assertion, Singer. Name just one!

(Brother Ed)
Now you can argue with God until you are blue in the face, and when you see
Jesus, which ALL MEN WHO EVER LIVED SHALL DO, you can try to convince Him
that because you "asssepted Jaaaaaaayzuz", all your sins are "under the
Blood" and you cannot be judged, and Singer, my friend, He will pull out a
great big ole King James, turn right to the above verses, and after letting you
read them about a hundred times so it sinks in, will say to you "Now, let's look
over your life to see which way you are going."

(Singer)
The name is Brother Ed (Catholic Convert)
What is the term "assepted Jaaaaaaayzuz"...if it isn't mockery?
I'd say that's "not giving any credit to "accepting Jesus".
Brother Ed is using mockery to promote Catholicism.

A good Catholic does not credit a mere acceptance of Jesus Christ in faith.
They always add a "saving baptism" and a "perseverance of good works"
and a need to fulfill requirements of mass and eucharist and being joined to
the Mother church etc.

Yes, it happened in this forum.

Singer

 

No, I was refering the the Jews and the Romans, who considered that little band who followed the man Jesus as a cult. I was trying to get to a deeper issue, what makes a "cult" true in every sense of the word? You certainly agree that Jesus and His Word is the True Word of God, right? But I am sure you would reject the likes of David Korish or Jim Jones (of poison grape juice fame) right?

Your partial answer, that Jesus rose from the dead, is a very good one indeed, but I wanted to go further. See "My Story" in the Catholic Apologetics section of my web site to get a little more depth in why Jesus is the true Messiah, and while other religions fail.

You are hung-up on the word "cult." Actually, the word is not perverse or a bad one, but rather you are harking to the way it is perceived today - a false religion that forms around a single charismatic leader. But note that the early followers of Christ formed around a single charismatic leader! Whether it was a false religion was to be determined later, and as ratified by the death on the cross and His resurrection later. There is more to this as you will see in my web site...

Good! Now that we have that out of our systems, we can proceed, right?

To make my answer short, see "My Story" in my web site.

As well recorded in Matthew, part of the very New Testament that as declared as inspired of God per the very church Jesus established with great and awesome authority in 16:18-19!

Why then do you eschew the very Church Christ established in your determination to be a "loner" in your Christian quest?

Define "faith only." Does that mean that you simply believe in Jesus Christ, or does that also include the necessity of following His commandments? That includes being subject to His Church, don't you think?

Never fear!

If the bible was promoting the "wrong Jesus," then the very Church which declared it divinely inspired of God is doubly wrong, and indeed, "...the gates of hell prevailed against it (church)." (Taken from verse 18)

Slip of the keyboard. I think you are just a big ole' pussy cat! Heehee!!

Me too! (Note my holding a newborn grandson at my web site!)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
[Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate]

 

Singer --

Yup. It was a mockery alright. Because "accepting Jesus" is NOT part of the Gospel.

The Gospel is repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins, not "accept Jesus". That was the Gospel for 1800+ years until the heretic C.H. Finney came along with his "new evangelistic techniques."

"Accepting Jesus" does not avail a person one thing. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. (Am I coming through loud and clear yet?)

One must make a covenant with God through Christ, and mere mental assent to a set of facts does not do that. It is the commitment to do what God has commanded us to do -- i.e., "cut covenant" with Him through baptism and enter in to the New Covenant in Christ's Blood.

I also have a rather large distaste for those who deceived me all those years into thinking that the things I was doing were actually the same things that the Early Church did. I find their distortions of the Faith to be eggregiously dishonest, considering that the so called "pastors" and "evangelists" I listened to were supposedly educated at either a seminary or a Bible college. Those that had any education at all. I have heard some real ignoramouses on the radio (especially driving through West Virginia on a Sunday afternoon) who actually bragged that they didn't have any education, they just "knew Jesus"

Well la de dah. Ain't that special!!!

WHO, may I ask, gave THEM the right to change the Gospel message to suit their tastes? Who gave them the right to deceive me?

Of course, part of it is my own fault for not doing my own homework, and also for entirely trusting them too much, but the majority of the fault is on those who KNOW )or at least SHOULD KNOW, since they are going to seminary) that the practices of the Early Church are distinctly Catholic and not Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Congregationalist, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, I have a bone to grind.

Last week I heard a rather well known radio preacher actually CHANGE the Word of God to suit his denominational flavor!!!

The Bible says:

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Yet this man UNASHAMEDLY, in the fine tradtion of another scoundrel by the name of Luther, read it THIS WAY"

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this represents my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

You tell me how I am supposed to respect such a person when he tampers with the Word of God. And this is not a matter of interpretation. It is taking what is right there in the good old Protestant KJV 1611 and changing a word!!

He'll answer for that some day.

And I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, believe me!! He may yet get into Heaven,(that's entirely up to the Lord, not me) but his fanny is gonna be red from the spankin' he gits for tampering with God's Word in such a brazen way.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed