What do you want from your church?

deleted

[ May 02, 2003, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Singer ]

 

Singer replied, where I last said:


What, to convert you to Catholicism or to seek the truth?

And the seeking of truth is not involved?


I last said:


I gain reward in heaven in loving the Lord with my whole heart, mind and strength and to comply with His commandments. The "Vatican coffers" is the furthest thing from my mind.

Good! Then let's discuss the commandments.


Within each are other issues, with we can get deep into when we discuss what it was Jesus taught the apostles, orally without not one whit of a command to write a thing down (while he walked in the flesh among them) and see what it was the early church, (having no New Testament in hand, having this oral teaching, which we call The Sacred Tradition) taught and codified into a doctrine that, if Jesus was true to His word and indeed, "…the gates of hell was not to prevail against it," (From Matthew 16:18) teaching and doctrine that is without error, for which I presume you reject out of hand.


(I practice making long, long run-on sentences!!!!!)


Oh, and by the way, doing those wonderful (gasp!) "works" of mercy is indeed, a very good thing!


As for "blood and meat," you still don't get it, do you? Oh well, all I can do is speak in terms the best I can to show what I believe to be Christ's teachings and ask the Holy Spirit to take over and do the rest.

Neither you or I can really claim what the Holy Scriptures is doing in influence that we choose what we do and believe, so I am not sure how the Holy Spirit may be influencing you. I only pray the Holy Spirit lead you to the ultimate truth.


What is the gospel? It is the Good News of and about Jesus Christ!


For about the first 30 to 50 years after Pentecost, the "Good News" was oral only, not one whit of it was ever written down, until later, when Matthew, Mark Luke and John committed it to papyrus.

I may simply participate in it as appropriate and as I am provoked to make a response.


Singer, the Eucharist is only a small part of the whole gospel message!

Then you never really read and understood the Gospel according to John, especially John, Chapter 6! (Just kidding!)


Also, note the teachings concernint the Eucharist in the following links:


http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm


AND


http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm


.....and also the great commission given in -Holy Orders.

It's simple really. It's the term for the sacrament of ordination to the priesthood or as a bishop.


And I could go on and on and on.......

Ask LisaMC how long winded I can be!


One time, several months ago, my replies to her had to be broken down into four parts that so that it would not exceed the limits of the length of a post in this forum!


Your "agenda" has no bearing on mine, which is mainly defending the Catholic faith fromb the untruths said about it.

Has it ever occurred to you why it is that the Catholic Church is so reviled by others? In line with that, have you also considered why the United States of America, the greatest country in the world, is so reviled by others in the world? Perhaps a bit of the same reasons, Singer?


Is it also possible that since Christ's True Church is so reviled that it is Satan and his minions that influence others to so rail against their most serious enemy here on earth, Holy Church, that this is so?


To have to defend the Church does not indicate that there is error in the Church.


And finally, do I not speak of Christ, His church, and His sacraments? When I speak of the Eucharist that He instituted, am I not "telling people about Jesus"?


As for "tongues," I cannot know of the authenticity of your experience,


other then to say that this phenomenon occurs within some occult religions - Voodoo, for example.

Please name the churches that perpetuate such a monstrosity, which is far and away quite different then the phenomenon of "tongues."


On the whole, I am very skeptical of "tongues," just as I am skeptical of the Blessed Virgin Mary apparing on glass windows and tortillas.

I am a skeptic that can be convinced, like Holy Mother Church is a skeptic, going down "kicking and screaming" as the evidence becomes apparant over time. Fatima, Lourdes and Guadalupe are examples of overwhelming evidence that such apparitions have and do occur. I say more on this in my web site, "My Story."


Then why does Christ refer to "eating his body and drinking His blood"?


Is it not obvous to you that the Jews were disgusted with this statement, taking Him at His literal word, as did some of His own disciples?

Jesus deliberately deceived the Jews?


Would Jesus give the false impression that He allows to go uncorrected, including the departure of some of His own disciples?


And if they took Him wrong, why does He not correct them with, "Oh no, I meant it figuratively when I said 'eat my body and drink my blood.'

In other words, Christ used a "parable" that perpetuates an error! Incredible!


Singer, which is easier to believe:


That Christ spoke of his body and blood figuratively, in that if you simply believe in me, in that sense, you are "eating my flesh and drinking my blood"......


OR


He meant it literally, that we are to indeed, physically, "eat His body and drink His blood"?


Christ does not explain exactly in what form His body and blood would take, but regardless of what form, later to be defined at the Last Supper, He most assuredly makes the assertion that we are to physically partake of His body and blood! We, "in the flesh" cannot conceive of How He is to do this (nor do we see that we do indeed, receive Him spiritually and we consume Him physically) and only the "spirit" (which the Jews and some of His disciples did not have) can perceive it. This harks to verse 63 (from memory) in John 6.


But the Eucharist is God, if indeed, it becomes Christ's body and blood, soul and divinity, wouldent it?

I have news for you, Singer. Holy Church, established by Christ, from all antiquity, has preached and taught the awesome delight of exactly what the Holy Eucharist is!


Go back and read the links I provided above....


(Continued in next post)

 

(Contoinued from previous post)


If you believe in Christ, including the profound intention of obeying all


that He commands you, then you suddenly die, you certainly will not be penalized for not having the opportunity to do some of this "obeying,"


right? God judges the heart, like Christ judged the heart of the good thief on the cross.

There is nothing wrong in what you say here, Singer, but how does this apply to what I said above?


But if you "believe in Jesus" but then consciously withhold what becomes obvious to you is a commandment of Christ, such as to subject

yourself to His church and the authority He infused it with, that that is a whole nother matter.

You did not answer my question, Singer.


If Christ established a church with awesome authority, why do you avoid her?


There was a time, I did none of those things, and by my own free will of choice, I not only embrace what you list above, I do so with gusto!

You will get used to me in time!


By the way, in #5, please discuss with me, John 20:22-23

I will wait for your lead, but I suggest you give your analysis of John 20:22-23 in another new thread and we can go at it hammer and tong!


In 1930, all non-Catholic Christians stood with the Catholic Church is considering artificial birth control a grevious sin.

But why did the other churches initially embraced that teaching, to abandon it once again? Are you not seeing the tendency to go even further in other prohibitions that are considered sins?


It is a difficult thing to put complete trust in God in that the children that result in a marriage should take precidence to the indulgences that may be practiced if not for that large family. I have seven adult children, Stinger, and I feel continually blessed by their coming into my life. Did I wonder about the additional burden they brought to me and my wife? Of course I did, but I also put trust in the Lord that He would provide for my need in the raising up this family.


I now have 15 grandchildren, and the blessing keep flowing..........................


First of all, document for me please, where the Catholic Church abridges the completeness of the work on the cross.

Do what you have to do, Singer, but it would be nice for you to back-up what you are saying here.


And what is your interpretation of "It is finished"? Mine is, he finished the work of redemption as the Father sent Him to do.

Singer, it is you that is doing the adding to those simple words from the cross. Christ's earlhly mission is finished........you and others extend it to mean something that is totally out of whack, into the grave error of "Once Saved, Always Saved."

It is Latin for "PEACE."


For example: "Pax vobiscum" means "Peace be with you."


PEACE,


Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

Singer, I said no such thing!

In fact, somewhere in all of the writing I did on John 6, I believe I mentioned that the phrase "I am the bread of life" is most likely a figurative statement. But when I said this, I proposed that Jesus starts out from the figurative and slowly and convincingly, goes to the literal.

Actually, the phrase can be taken either way without context, else we see the development of the discourse going from the figurative to the literal. By starting out in the figurative sense, it is easier to ease into the literal, even while the Jews reject it out of the best efforts of Jesus.

Now, why don't you leap ahead in Chapter six and consider these sentences in verses 53 thru 56:

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Now, give it your best effort, Singer, and make that statement into something figurative.

Give it your best shot...............

And oh, how much more impressive that becomes when it becomes evident that "Christ's body" in those im membership with Him and His Church, also participate in His actual body and blood!

Now, take a good close read of Carson's reply.

He nails it completely!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

[ May 02, 2003, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

You still kickin, W.P. . . ?

 

Yep, wondering if you are going to respond to my last message (in two parts.)

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 -

 

Yes I am.
Patience is a Virtue

 

For my reference, WP, first tell me why Paul was speaking to a non-Catholic
church in this verse. Was this in reference to the Protestants in that church
who were causing divisions which is still going on today ?

You and CC seem convinced that there is but one Church
i.e. Catholic. But yet we know Catholicism did not exist until 110 AD.

There is also no reference to Catholicism in the OT and the word
"church" does not even appear in the OT.

1 Cor 11:18
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be
divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

 

Singer --

Look, man, the word "katholicos" is an adjective, not a noun. It describes the state of the Church which our Lord founded, which is that the doctrines and teachings were universal and one.

So just because the word "katholicos" was not used until the second century does not mean that there was suddenly a different entity that the Church which our Lord founded upon St. Peter.

Cordially in Christ and the Blessed Virgin,


Brother Ed

 

Er, ah, Singer, what was the church at Pentecost? What was the church at the time, Paul wrote 1 Cor 11:38?

What was the church one year later; two years later; three years later; 10 years later; 20 years later, taking this in small incremental steps to, say, AD 800, and show me why that "church" Paul speaks of is not the same Church we now call "Catholic" which simply means "universal," a term attached to the title of Christ's Church later on when indeed, the church became "universal" in the then known civilized world.

The title "Catholic" does not mean that that this church is not Christ's original church!

And this is no reference to the term "Trinity, "Rapture," or Wednesday night prayer meeting, etc. either!

But even then, there was but one church, Singer. He is speaking of divisions among the people not the church here.

Notice that he is speaking of some abuses that have come to light in the church at Corinth, and that their meetings are "doing more harm then good" per verse 17 of that chapter.

And if you read further, notice that he is speaking of (gasp!) abuses concerning "The Lord's Supper." Notice that he distinguishes a getting together to partake of the Lord's Supper, against ordinary eating where we do so in our own individual houses, per verses 21 and 22.

Why all the fuss over bread and wine if it is only symbolic of Christ's body and blood? And if this is so, how in the whole wide world can a person "answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (verse 27, Catholic NAB) if all it is only ordinary bread and wine?

And why should one "examine himself" before partaking, if again, it is only a symbolic thing being partaken of? Or does it suddenly loom large in importance if indeed, it is no longer ordinary bread and wine but indeed, Christ's body and blood?

Oh, and by the way, I have all the patience in the world! Take your time in answering my last post, knowing full well that I may expand to a much larger reply!

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

Er, ah, Singer, what was the church at Pentecost? What was the church at the time, Paul
wrote 1 Cor 11:38?

Don't start stuttering on me, Paxman. And besides there isn't a 1 Cor 11:38 in my bible.

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

That has no meaning to me....same as if Mohammad had said:
Moroni has spoken...case is closed.

Don't expect a ''larger reply'' as the requirements on my valuable time in dealing with the ''larger requirement'' of my employment is creating a ''larger demand'' on my time of which
by my choice that I might restrict myself of such could create a burden of '' larger extent''
directed at me from my ''larger influence'' also known as my ''better half''

Dig ?

However, thus said; I may be interested in more of this futile rapping anyhow....it kinda
gets in your blood doesn't it ?

(Not to the Glory of God of Course )

 

Innger replied, where I last said:

Er, ah, Singer, what was the church at Pentecost? What was the church at the time, Paul
wrote 1 Cor 11:38?

Slip of the finger on the keyboard, Singer, and yes, it is indeed verse 18.

Am I getting under your skin, Singer? If so, perhaps it is time to take a rest for a while before you get all that carried away.

Yes, I dig...

You should read the writings of St. Augustine, among one of the greatest of the early church fathers, who, upon their readings, you may find exactly what the true church of Christ wrote, taught and promulgated in her glorious history.

"Futile rapping" on whose part, Singer? If you mean me, I have been doing this for about 20 years now, Holy Spirit be my guide!

As for it "not" being for the glory of God, are you a judge in this matter?

And no, I do indeed fall short, far short, of the glory of God, and therefore I ask of you: Please pray for me, a sinner.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

(Singer)
For my reference, WP, first tell me why Paul was speaking to a non-Catholic
church in this verse. * 1 Cor 11:18

(WP)
(Er, ah, Singer, what was the church at Pentecost? What was the church at the time, Paul
wrote 1 Cor 11:38? *(Corrected to verse 18)

(Singer)
There were at least five known churches with possibly more on the outside of that
which were among those that Jesus said "if they be not against us they are for us".
Wouldn't that mean that their practices were accepted by Jesus . . ?
(Meaning that they were Christian churches that were also preaching the gospel)
The church in verse 18 was not Catholic because Catholicism was not formed
or even named at that time. To say it was the forerunner of the RCC is as
imaginary as saying that the first stone wheels on the axle of the caveman's buggy
was a Ford !! Much progression and change evolved amongst all of the accepted
churches that formed in those days and it was over 75 years later when any church
was referred to as "Catholic"....with Ignatius taking that old word "katholicos"; known
to us as catholic; applying a capital C and making claims that there was something
denomonational about it. (Story of Ignatius was given me by a Catholic). Jesus
didn't come to earth to form a church.....he came to save that which was lost.....
otherwise to form believers. (Make believers out of non believers).
To get them to believe what ?.........."That Jesus rose from the dead".
That's the problem yet today.....A friend dying of cancer told me recently that
"There is no God". This man doesn't need to believe that the Catholic Church
is the sole provider of religious wisdom , he doesn't need to believe that Mary
was a perpetual virgin or that a priest has the power to forgive sins.......he needs
to believe that there is a God, that Jesus died for our sins and that he can
repent of his unbelief and receive salvation.

So the church at Pentecost and at the writing of verse 18 was definitely not Catholic.
(Except under the caveman rule)

(WP)
What was the church one year later; two years later; three years later; 10 years later; 20
years later, taking this in small incremental steps to, say, AD 800, and show me why that
"church" Paul speaks of is not the same Church we now call "Catholic" which simply means
"universal," a term attached to the title of Christ's Church later on when indeed, the
church became "universal" in the then known civilized world.

(Singer)
There was no church with the name of Catholic one year, two years, three years later.
It only came about in 110 AD. If you can convince me that the caveman's buggy was
a Ford, I might then believe that the early churches of the NT were Catholic. Your church
history cannot produce the proper name of Catholic until that time. That's because there
were none. The churches that operated in the gospels that Paul visited were NOT Catholic
Churches. Faith is not confined to Catholicism. There were men of faith who were saved
by faith all throughout the times prior to 110 AD who never knew what Catholicism was.

Claiming superiority by taking an adjective as CC said; then without authority add a
capital C, make it a noun and call your church by that name is more like mutiny, trickery and
thievery than it is holiness.

(Singer)
There is also no reference to Catholicism in the OT and the word
"church" does not even appear in the OT.

(WP)
And this is no reference to the term "Trinity, "Rapture," or Wednesday night prayer
meeting, etc. either!

(Singer)
True, so I'll accept that they are all a product of our imagination then and we can
discount all of the above. (Trinity, Rapture, Wednesday night prayer meeting and Catholicism)

You game for that...?

 

Singer replied, considering previous conversation:

(Singer)
For my reference, WP, first tell me why Paul was speaking to a non-Catholic
church in this verse. * 1 Cor 11:18

(WP)
(Er, ah, Singer, what was the church at Pentecost? What was the church at the time, Paul
wrote 1 Cor 11:38? *(Corrected to verse 18)

Singer, the Church at Corinth, for example, (and even the churches mentioned in Revelation) are not individual denominational churches per being separated from THE CHURCH as established by Christ. All of them were "in union" with THE CHURCH as a whole.

They are also called "local churches," just like the church here in the United States is a local church in that same sense. They all share the same doctrines and faith, and, if you believe in Matthew 16:18-9, come under the jurisdiction of the one "chief apostle," Peter and his successors.

In the strictest sense, you are so right....at the very earliest of times, the church in her infancy was not "universal." But when that same church began to spread throughout the known civilized world, the term "universal" was applied to her as a title. By this action does not a separate church make, Singer! The word "catholic" is derived from the Greek word for "universal."

From our previous conversation..............

(WP)
What was the church one year later; two years later; three years later; 10 years later; 20
years later, taking this in small incremental steps to, say, AD 800, and show me why that
"church" Paul speaks of is not the same Church we now call "Catholic" which simply means
"universal," a term attached to the title of Christ's Church later on when indeed, the
church became "universal" in the then known civilized world.

You still don't get it, do you?

The name "catholic" has absolutely nothing at all to do with which church was which. I forget exactly where/when the word was attached to her name, but the Church was always one church from all of those steps I gave in time (which includes collectively, all of those local churches I spoke of) up to about the 9th or 10th century, with the break away of the Orthodox Church. All of that time before then, there was only one Church.

The Church at Corinth was a local church and a part of THE CHURCH. The Church at Ephesus was a local church and a part of THE CHURCH. The church at Jerusalem was a local church and a part of THE CHURCH. The church at Rome was a local church and a part of THE CHURCH. The church in England (before King Henry VIIIth) was a local church and a part of THE CHURCH.

Are you getting my drift yet?

And guess what,Singer? The eventual title of CATHOLIC defines the very same church back to Christ Himself, even while the term "catholic" was not applied in the earliest of times.

Singer, your prejudice comes to the fore! Do you actually think that the leadership of the church awoke one day and suddenly decided to name the church "Catholic"? But even if they did, do you actually think, for example, that Bill Gates was exercising some kind of "mutiny, trickery and thievery" when he named his company Microsoft?

Previous conversation continues.............

(Singer)
There is also no reference to Catholicism in the OT and the word
"church" does not even appear in the OT.

(WP)
And this is no reference to the term "Trinity, "Rapture," or Wednesday night prayer
meeting, etc. either!

You might also have to throw out the English language, as it was a "figment of our imagination" as well as it not exist in biblical times, it being written in Aramaic (scholars are now beginning to think) and Greek.

Throw your bible away, as it is corrupted! English being used! Not in the original manuscripts!

I have no game, Singer, but I do think we are spinning our wheels getting nowhere.

Have a nice day in the Lord,

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Singer, the Church at Corinth, for example, (and even the churches
mentioned in Revelation) are not individual denominational churches per being
separated from THE CHURCH as established by Christ. All of them were
"in union" with THE CHURCH as a whole.

WP, how can you say something is not separated from THE CHURCH when
there was no THE CHURCH to be separated from..?
The Catholic Church didn't exist at that time....how could something
be separated from something that didn't exist ?


They are also called "local churches," just like the church here in the
United States is a local church in that same sense. They all share
the same doctrines and faith, and, if you believe in Matthew 16:18-9,
come under the jurisdiction of the one "chief apostle," Peter and his successors.

Yes, local churches that didn't have a name. They were merely followers
of Christ and they didn't look to Peter as their father....quite likely most
of them never even heard of Peter. Don't you suppose they could have
faith in Jesus without looking to Peter for leadership? If you want to
wrongfully assume that Peter is the father of all church leadership,
you've gotten yourself terribly mixed up.

I quoted:

So the church at Pentecost and at the writing of verse 18 was definitely
not Catholic. (Except under the caveman rule)

You answered:
In the strictest sense, you are so right....at the very earliest
of times, the church in her infancy was not "universal." But when
that same church began to spread throughout the known civilized world,
the term "universal" was applied to her as a title. By this action
does not a separate church make, Singer! The word "catholic" is derived
from the Greek word for "universal."

I didn't say "was not universal"....I said "was definitely not Catholic".
You misquoted me. Amen to universal and catholic (both adjectives)
being the same word. But....the word Catholic (capital C) is a concoction
of Catholicism alone. It is a noun and has no relation to the word catholic.
I'm catholic in the sense of being like one of the original uiversal
believers, but I'm sure not Catholic. Just because I put a sign on my
back that says "HUMAN" doesn't mean that I'm the only original
and FIRST human in the world and everyone else is a fake.!!!

You still don't get it, do you?

The name "catholic" has absolutely nothing at all to do with which church
was which. I forget exactly where/when the word was attached to her
name, but the Church was always one church from all of those steps I
gave in time (which includes collectively, all of those local churches I
spoke of) up to about the 9th or 10th century, with the break away
of the Orthodox Church. All of that time before then, there was
only one Church.

I don't ''get it'' because you are not making sense at all.
Let's suppose the Florida State Football team was organized in l925.
There were football players prior to that time and they were scattered
across the United States. Wouldn't it be ridiculous for Florida State
to claim exclusivity to the game of football and lay claim to the right
to form the rules and give justification to others in their right to exist..?
Would all football teams now have to bow to the authority of the present
Florida State Football coach (pope) for leadership? Would every other
football team in the US have to look upon the first coach (Peter) of the
Florida State University team as their founding father?

Wake up WP. (As I'm from Nebraska, I thought you'd enjoy that)

The Church at Corinth was a local church and a part of THE CHURCH.
The Church at Ephesus was a local church and a part of THE CHURCH.
The church at Jerusalem was a local church and a part of THE CHURCH.
The church at Rome was a local church and a part of THE CHURCH. The
church in England (before King Henry VIIIth) was a local church and a
part of THE CHURCH.

What church, WP. And don't say the Catholic Church (noun) because
it didn't exist yet. Those churches you named are a part of the body
of Christ and has nothing to do with Catholicism.

And guess what,Singer? The eventual title of CATHOLIC defines
the very same church back to Christ Himself, even while the term "catholic"
was not applied in the earliest of times.

If you can believe that, then you must believe the caveman theory of the Ford !!

Singer, your prejudice comes to the fore! Do you actually think that
the leadership of the church awoke one day and suddenly decided to
name the church "Catholic"? But even if they did, do you actually think,
for example, that Bill Gates was exercising some kind of "mutiny, trickery
and thievery" when he named his company Microsoft?

Prejudice or Awareness of Facts ?
Good comparision with Microsoft and Bill Gates. He is the author of
Microsoft just as Jesus Christ is the author of Christianity. Joe Blow has
no right to come along and take the word "computer",
put a capital 'C' on it and lay claim to having the only and the first
Computer in the world like the Catholic Church has done with the word
''catholic''. There are other brandnames of computers just
as there are diverse brand names of churches.....Catholic only being
one of the competition.

Throw your bible away, as it is corrupted! English being used! Not in the original
manuscripts!

Ok, throw away the bible and there goes the English word "Catholic" and
we're back to the word ''katholicos". It is an adjective that is describing
WP and Singer as believers in Jesus Christ. Now how are you going to
justify starting a Catholic Church ?

I have no game, Singer, but I do think we are spinning our wheels
getting nowhere.

You do have a game, WP and it's to promote Catholicism. Why don't you
join me and promote Christianity and Jesus Christ and leave the lesser
Peter and the Pope out of it...?

Good day.

 

Keep subtracting........................

Take away the Trinity, Rapture, Wednesday Night Bible study, the English language,
the 20,000 Protestant Churches, the Catholic Church, the Pope, Peter, Mary, Abraham,
Issac, Augustine, Ignatius, the Vatican and the Rosary.

When there is nothing left but God, that is when you find out that............
God is all you need.

 

Singer replied, where I lasst said:

Singer, the Church at Corinth, for example, (and even the churches
mentioned in Revelation) are not individual denominational churches per being
separated from THE CHURCH as established by Christ. All of them were
"in union" with THE CHURCH as a whole.

I have a simple question: What was the "church" as established by Christ Himself in Matthew 16:18-19?

Singer, are you telling me that this church did "not exist" even as Christ established it?

I last said:

They are also called "local churches," just like the church here in the
United States is a local church in that same sense. They all share
the same doctrines and faith, and, if you believe in Matthew 16:18-9,
come under the jurisdiction of the one "chief apostle," Peter and his successors.

They didn't have a name as the immagrated to America?

I seem to recall the Purtitans, and many of the many Protestant denominations who were coming across to America, even while the Catholic minority was "creeping" in into what is not the State of Maryland.

How dast they do such a thing!

Singer then speaks of the following exchange:

I quoted:

So the church at Pentecost and at the writing of verse 18 was definitely
not Catholic. (Except under the caveman rule)

You answered:
In the strictest sense, you are so right....at the very earliest
of times, the church in her infancy was not "universal." But when
that same church began to spread throughout the known civilized world,
the term "universal" was applied to her as a title. By this action
does not a separate church make, Singer! The word "catholic" is derived
from the Greek word for "universal."

Singer, all I anm trying to do is getting a straight answer out of you, and I see I am failing miserably!

What in the whole wide word does the capiolization of the word "catholic" to Catholic have to do with the price of tea in China, when that is exactly what grammar does when you incorporate a discriptive word into a title of the orginization it applies to?

The "Elks Club" is capitolized, did you notice that? What makes that orginization a "differant organization" by simply capatolizaion of the words in it's title?

I last said:

You still don't get it, do you?

The name "catholic" has absolutely nothing at all to do with which church
was which. I forget exactly where/when the word was attached to her
name, but the Church was always one church from all of those steps I
gave in time (which includes collectively, all of those local churches I
spoke of) up to about the 9th or 10th century, with the break away
of the Orthodox Church. All of that time before then, there was
only one Church.

Sorry, Singer, but your analogy makes no sense, as football existed long before Florida State even existed! (I think!)

There is a very stong Catholic identy in that State! Watch out, my friend!

I last said:

The Church at Corinth was a local church and a part of THE CHURCH.
The Church at Ephesus was a local church and a part of THE CHURCH.
The church at Jerusalem was a local church and a part of THE CHURCH.
The church at Rome was a local church and a part of THE CHURCH. The
church in England (before King Henry VIIIth) was a local church and a
part of THE CHURCH.

I am a failure!

I cannot make my point at all!

Come, Holy Spirit, and help me explain to Singer that there was only ONE CHURCH that existed at the time of the infancy of Henry VIIIth! (Not counting for the moment, the unfortunate schism of the East of the Orthodox Church.)

If you insist on eschewing the term "Catholic" (Or "Catholic," if you are so afraid of the capitolization) then pray tell what church existed when Henry VIIIth was a baby?

Do you have a smigen of an idea, Singer?

I last said:

And guess what,Singer? The eventual title of CATHOLIC defines
the very same church back to Christ Himself, even while the term "catholic"
was not applied in the earliest of times.

OK, don't refute it, as I know you can't, resorting to claims that you cannot back up or defend!

John Henry Neumann once said: "To study church history is to cease to be Protestant."

I dare you to study church history with an open mind, Singer. I mean good church history, not the likes of Jack Chick, or much of the anti-Cathaolic nonsense that has been perpeturated over the many years of American history.

I last said:

Singer, your prejudice comes to the fore! Do you actually think that
the leadership of the church awoke one day and suddenly decided to
name the church "Catholic"? But even if they did, do you actually think,
for example, that Bill Gates was exercising some kind of "mutiny, trickery
and thievery" when he named his company Microsoft?

Sorry I brought it up, Singer, as the word "computer" came to the fore before Bill Gates was even born!

I last said:

Throw your bible away, as it is corrupted! English being used! Not in the original
manuscripts!

The word "katholicos" is not even in the bible either, Singer!

In your total confusion noted here, I am going to take a different tact and ask you: Why rely on the bible at all, Singer? Who told you it was the inspired Word of God? How do you know that?

What makes you think that the Holy Bible is the Inspired Word of God, when a devout Moslem thinks the very same thing about the Koran?

Do you have the slightest idea?

I last said:

I have no game, Singer, but I do think we are spinning our wheels
getting nowhere.

A false dichotomy , singer, as you know very well that I promote Christianity and Jesus Christ. And in that "promotion," I insist upon searching out the True Church He established, and to follow it in submission and honor.

That is called submmitting to the dictates and commandments of Christ, Singer.........

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


1. Humbly let us voice our homage
For so great a sacrament;
Let all former rites surrender
To the Lord's New Testament;
What the senses fail to fathom,
Let us grasp through faith's consent!

2. Glory, honor, adoration
Let us sing with one accord!
Praised be God, almighty Father;
Praised be Christ, his Son, our Lord;
Praised be God the Holy Spirit;
Triune Godhead, be adored!

Amen.

Melvin L. Farrell, 1930-1986


1. Tantum ergo sacramentum
Veneremur cernui:
Et antiquum doctumentum
Novo cedat ritui;
Praestet fides supplementum
Sensuum defectui.

2. Genitori, Genitoque
Laus et jubilatio:
Salus, honor, virtus quoque
Sit et benedictio:
Procedenti ab utroque
Compar sit laudatio.

Amen.

St. Thomas Aquinas, c. 1227-1274

 

Singer replied with this ditty:

And I wonder what "god" you will end up with, Singer? Do you find him in the privacy of your bedroom, and really, I hope you do find him!

How about a mud idol of some god you don't undertstand? It doesn't take much to construct one, you know...........

well,.............gee whiz, you take away everyting else in Christianity, so where do you go to worship your "god," Stinger?

How about Islam?

How about Buddha or Hinduism?

Do you know where you are going, Singer?

I will pray for you for guidance............

GOD bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"Gloria in excelsis Deo"

(Intoned by the celebrant of the Mass.)

(The choir response.)

Et in terra pax homininus
bone voluntatis
Laudamus te
Benedicimus te
Adoramus te
Glorificamus te,
Gratias agimus tibi propter
magnum gloriam tuum.
Domine Deus, Rex Coelestis,
Deus Pater omnipotens
Domine Fili unigenite
Jesu Christe Domine Deus
Agnus Dei Filius Patris
Qui tollis peccata mundi
miserere nobis.
Qui tollis peccata mundi,
suscipe deprecationem nostram.
Qui sedes ad dexteramPatris,
miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus Sanctus,
Tu solus Dominus
Tu solus Altissimus
Jesu Christe.
Cum Sancto Spiritu
in gloria Dei Patris
Amen.

- The Ambrosian Gloria -


http://www.solesmes.com/sons/gloria.ram

(Real monks chanting....)


Gregorian Chant - God's music!

 

WP:

You're going to have to shorten up your posts if I'm going to continue arguing with you.
I'm not retired with my head stuck in a Catholic Bible like you are, so I have to share
my time elsewhere involved in things as or more important than picking on Catholics

I wish to make this announcement though:
THERE IS HOPE FOR WP !!!!

You finally typed something (two somethings actually) that I accept as an indicator
that the little light might have a chance to come on in your Catholic mind. They are as follows:

Sorry I brought it up, Singer, as the word "computer" came to the fore before Bill Gates
was even born!

Sorry, Singer, but your analogy makes no sense, as football existed long before Florida
State even existed! (I think!)

NO SENSE is the Key. NO SENSE in claiming that Bill Gates is the father of
computers because they "came to the fore" before Bill Gates was even born.

NO SENSE in claiming that Florida State is the author of football as it "existed long
before" Florida State even existed.

NO SENSE in claiming that Catholicism is the author of faith and salvation, as it
existed LONG BEFORE the Catholic Church existed.

NO SENSE in claiming that the pope is the father of instruction as instruction,
faith, grace and salvation existed LONG BEFORE the popes came
onto the scene.

That is called submmitting to the dictates and commandments of Christ,
Singer.........

I'd say that's Man Seeking God .


Singer.........

 

Singer replied:

Argue with me? Nah, your kidding, right?

But if shortening my posts has you responding to me, I am suddenly encouraged to lengthen them!

Hey, who is choosing to post here anyway? You do what you have to do, Singer, and I think all of us will understand. One day, you will be retired like I am!

Where I said:

Sorry I brought it up, Singer, as the word "computer" came to the fore before Bill Gates
was even born!

Sorry, Singer, but your analogy makes no sense, as football existed long before Florida
State even existed! (I think!)

Since you did not quote me in context to what you had originally said, I have a difficult time relating to your last comment, only to note that Bill Gates could be called the "Father of Operating Systems" even while I may get some protests from those who know the ultimate origins of DOS.

Whatever, Singer, our analogies are failing us, Singer.

But if "Catholicism" is identical to the same church that Christ founded, then it makes all the sense in the world for the claims I make! Now, Catholicism can stake a claim to her origins back to Christ Himself.

Show me another "church" who can make that claim (and you Orthodox types, be quiet now! )

Well, I made no such claim so far, but as you wrote it, I see little wrong with it. And certainly, the old covenant of Abraham came before Catholicism or the popes, and before Christ came to earth, which proves......................what?

That is called submmitting to the dictates and commandments of Christ,
Singer.........

Not seeing what prompted my response, but I would submit that when man seeks God and he finds Christ and believes in Him, does not submitting to his teaching and dictates naturally follow?

Or can it be said that if not doing so, man is not seeking God as you think he is?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not
thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn
away his wrath from him.
Proverbs 24:17-18