Purgatory, Foundation

Yes, I understand it's an issue of evangelism and not osas. Even at that,
it should be understood that wrongful teaching will still not be the basis
for lost salvation. Maybe Catholics can even get off the hook on this ruling.

(Singer)
Much like you do not adhere to the SDA teachings of honoring rest
beginning at sundown on Friday. Possibly you did not ever come to that
understanding and therefore put no emphasis on its importance in your
pursuit of eternal life.

(Bob)

Is this addressed to Bill?

(Singer
Yeah

(Bob)
In Romans 1:13 Paul states that he desires to come to Rome "in order that
I may obtain some fruit among you". His "reward" was in the saved that are
fed by his gospel. But if is "work" is hay and stubble - worthless for growth
and to be removed from the body of Christ - then his effort - his work is largely
nullified. Just a farmer who loses his crop.

(Singer)

Well imagine that !!
Paul was preaching a gospel that had the ability to save people and all this
was before Catholicism. Matter of fact, Bob, it was even before SDA.
Unchurched people being saved.....prior to baptism by water.....just because
they believed. Believed what? Believed in the name of the only
begotten Son of God. Not in something that Jesus said or started or that they
imagined that he implied, but believed in Him. There's a big difference isn't
there?

 

The gospel did not go to the gentiles in the form of "Jesus came to earth and said some things that you will find out about later. But for now just tell Him that you trust Him".

Rather - Christ said "Go therefore and make Disciples of ALL nations, Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Teaching them to Observe ALL that I commandED you" Matt 28.

So WHEN the apostles went out and reported ALL that Christ commandED them - the result is the publication of the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Matthew - the Gospel of Mark and even of Luke.

And when we Read what Christ said IN those post-Cross Gospel proclamations made by the NT saints After the Cross - what do we find there?

Not one word about Purgatory - that is for sure.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Not one word about Purgatory - that is for sure.

Au contraire mon ami, mois Christ did speak of Purgatory in the written Gospels. Albeit he did not use the term "Purgatory", we see this purification abiding within the Sacred Canonical text.

In the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus is teaching about Heaven and Hell, he says quite clearly:

"Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny" (5:25f).

 

"Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court,
lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard,
and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you
have paid the last penny" (5:25f).

Boy that's a pretty weak arguement For Purgatory, Carson.

When this unchurched and unbaptized Christian gets to heaven, it won't be
because someone prayed me out of that Imaginary Purgatory. Rather, the
stage is set on the basis of "whosoever believes in me". Too simple for some
minds; I know.

 

The "loss" is that their teaching does not bear fruit in the body of Christ - instead it is cut out. In 2Cor 3:1-4 makes the point that the disciples of these evangelists "are their letter".

In Romans 1:13 Paul states that he desires to come to Rome "in order that I may obtain some fruit among you". His "reward" was in the saved that are fed by his gospel. But if is "work" is hay and stubble - worthless for growth and to be removed from the body of Christ - then his effort - his work is largely nullified. Just a farmer who loses his crop.</font>[/QUOTE]Why do I get the impression that your explanation falls short of explaining what this "loss" is, almost to the point where there is no "pain" that this loss implies?

To simply "nullify" a previous "effort" is no loss at all, if there is not some remorse ane pain that goes with it.

Sorry, but the simple "nullifying" of a work that is straw and stubble in the afterlife looses all significance if that is all it means, Bob.

If what you say is all there is to it, why mention it at all in scripture?

It's like the long explanation in John 6, if it turns out that the Eucharist is simply a memorial and not the awesome sacrament we Catholics make of it.

Or why mention baptism so often in scripture as in "believe and be baptized" if all baptism is is an outward sign Paul had performed on him outside of the view of others, it seems?

In other words, you have trivilized these things to to point of non-importance which makes one wonder why mention them at all?

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

 

Bill,

Take away your baptism and your eucharist and you lose salvation ?
No..........so what is the gain ?

Pax
Singer

 

Why don't you also throw away your bible them? What do you "gain" if you maintain it, or what do you loose if you cast it aside?

Continue with your logic and give up the worship of Almighty God altogether, are you still saved?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


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

 

In this reference - the full price is "paid" and there is nothing here to say "this only applies to some sins - but not others". Rather the statement is made that the judgement is passed - and you are condemned "to pay". And the SINS explicitly listed as "CONTEXT" are of the worst - mortal sort EVEN by RC standards.

Matt 5
21 "" You have heard that the ancients were told, " YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and "Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
22 ""But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, " You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, "You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
23 ""Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,
24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.
25 "" Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
26 ""Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.
27 "" You have heard that it was said, " YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY';


THere is nothing in here about "NOW for LESSER sins than murder and adultery - we have ANOTHER judge and ANOTHER penalty on your way To HEAVEN".

The RCC simply "makes that up".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why don't you also throw away your bible them? What do you "gain" if you maintain it, or what do you loose if you cast it aside?

The bible can go, Bill. Once a person receives the knowledge of his need to accept Christ, believe in Him and receive the Holy Spirit, the bible is not needed for salvation. Jesus saved thousands upon thousands during his walk on earth and He
did it without the bible and without the Catholic Church.

Having the bible is no guarantee to salvation and casting it aside would
consititute no loss of salvation. Same as with your favorite church; belonging
to it does not create salvation and casting it aside (or not having it in the first
place) would be no loss.

Catholics on other forums use the same arguement that you posed, Bill.
Did you learn that from the "How to Promote Catholicism" in your course on
"Dealing with Protestants on the Internet" class ?

Continue with your logic and give up the worship of Almighty God altogether, are you still saved?

Yes, as long as you don't commit the unpardonable sin.

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15) </font>[/QUOTE]**Note: The bible is not referring to the Catholic Church here.

 

Singer replied, where I last said:

Why don't you also throw away your bible them? What do you "gain" if you maintain it, or what do you loose if you cast it aside?

Strictly speaking, yes, one could get along without the bible, after all, for about 300 years after Pentecost, Christians essentially did exactly that - Get along without the Bible.

They were either illiterate, too poor to actually own a copy of scriptures, ot scriptures was simply unavailable for them.

On the other hand, did Christ establish a church? Did He establish it with great authority per Matthew 16:18-19, given the power to "bind and loose," including the use of that power in Matthew 18:19 to discipline a brother who is obstinate in repenting of his/her sins? And if a Christian sins, why the power to "forgive or retain them" in John 20:22-23?

I seem to recall that Christ established a Church, not a bible. And while one could disregard the bible, I question if a person could really disregard the Church. Since Christ establlished the Church, is it not in the mind of Christ that we relate to it in membership, obedience and worship?

Singer, here is what I see in that statement of yours: To defend the Catholic Church of mischaracterizations and misunderstandings is equivalent to "promoting" Catholicism. In other words, I must shut up and say nothing, else I am guilty of "promoting" Catholicism.

Do you see me do this in any other forum that has a conference, say, on Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc.? No, you find me in the conferences on Catholicism where she is "raked over the coals" in unfounded accusations.

But if it remains in your mind that I am "promoting" Catholicism, fine. I will defend Christ's Church to the day I die, God willing, and in my dying breath and after receiving the viaticum, I will die peacefully in the arms of Holy Mother Church!

So there!

Continue with your logic and give up the worship of Almighty God altogether, are you still saved?

How about murder, adultary, stealing from the poor, etc., serious matters we see condemned in the Ten Commandments, Singer? If you or I were to commit any one of these grave sins without remorse and repentance, are we still saved?

If so, you have yourself a "license to sin!"

And I will repeat once more, those scripture quotes that deny the idea you believe that "Once saved, always saved:


WHY THERE IS NO ASSURANCE OF SALVATION

NOTE: When you see the word "hope" here, consider it's use, for if salvation is so assurred, why hope?

Mt 10:22
But whoever holds out till the end will escape death. (NAB)

Mt 24:13
The man who holds out to the end, however, is the one who will see salvation. (NAB)

Mk 13:13
Nonetheless, the man who holds out till the end is the one who will come through safe. (NAB)

Lk 9:62
Jesus answered him, "Whoever puts his hand to the plow but keeps looking back is unfit for the reign of God." (NAB)

Rom 5:2
... we boast of our hope for the glory of God. (NAB)

Rom 8:24-25
In hope we are saved. But hope is not hope if its object is seen; how is it possible to hope for what he sees? And hoping for what we cannot see means awaiting it with patient
endurance. (NAB)

1 Cor 10:12
For all these reasons, let anyone who thinks
he is standing upright watch out lest he fall! (NAB)

1 Cor 4:3-5
It matters little to me whether you or any human court pass judgment on me. I do not even pass judgment on myself. Mind you, I have nothing on my conscience. But that does not mean that I am declaring myself innocent. The Lord is the one to judge me, so stop passing judgment before the
time of his return. He will bring to light what is hidden in the darkness and manifest the intentions of hearts. At that time, everyone will receive his praise from God. (NAB)

1 Cor 9:27
No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.
(NAB)

1 Cor 10:12
Therefore whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall. (NAB)

2 Cor 6:3
We avoid giving anyone offense, so that our ministry may not be blamed. On the contrary, in all that we do we strive to present ourselves as ministers of God, acting with patient endurance amid trials, difficulties, distresses, beatings, imprisonments, and riots; as men familiar with hard work, sleepless nights and fastings...(NAB)

Gal 5:1-4
1. For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery. 2. It is I, Paul, who am telling you that if you have yourselves circumsised, Christ will will be of no benefit to you. 3. Once again, I declare to every man who has himself circumcised that he is bound to observe the entire law. 4. You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (NAB)

Phil 2:12
So then, my dearly beloved, obedient as always to my urging, work with anxious concern to achieve your salvation, not only when I happen to be with you but all the more now that I am absent. It is God, who, in his good will toward you, begets in you any measure of desire or achievement. (NAB)

Phil 3:11-14
11 if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. 12 It is not that I have already taken hold of it or have already attained perfect maturity , but I continue my persuit in hope that I may possess it, since I have indeed been taken possession of by Christ [Jesus]. 13 brothers, I for my part do not consider myself to have taken possession. Just one thing: forgetting what lies behind but straining forward to what lies ahead. 14 I continue my pursuit toward the goal, the prize of God's upward calling, in Christ Jesus. (NAB)

1 Tim 4:1
Not the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions...(NAB)

1 Tim 5:15
For some have already turned away to follow Satan. (NAB)

Heb 3:12-15
12 Take care, brothers, that none of you may have an evil and unfaithful heart, so as to forsake the living God. 13 Encourage yourselves daily while it is still "today," so that none of you may grow hardened by the deceit of sin. 14 We have become partners of Christ if only we hold the beginning of the reality firm until
the end, 15 for it is said:

Oh, that today you would hear his voice:
"Harden not your hearts as it the
rebellion." (NAB)

Heb 6:4-6
4 For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit 5 and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt.

Heb 6:11-12
Our desire is that each of you show the same zeal till the end, fully assured of that for which you hope. Do not grow lazy but Imitate those who through faith and patience, are inheriting the promises. (NAB)

1 Pet 1:13-15
So gird the loins of your understanding; live soberly; set your hope on the gift to be conferred on you when Jesus Christ appears. (NAB)

2 Pet 2:15
Abandoniong the straight road, they have gone astray, following the road of Baslaam, the son of Bosor, who loved payment for wrongdowing,...

2 Pet 2:20-21 20
For if they, having escaped the defilement of the world through the of [our] Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse then their first. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them.

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)

 

Bill,

There ya go quoting volumes of scripture from the "How to Deal with Protestants on the
Internet" schooling that you must have taken.

Why do you ponder the "ifs" and "maybes" of Christianity?
Why not dwell on the positives and the givens and the promises of God.
The list of promises is longer than your list of wannabees.
Did Jesus accomplish something on the cross or did He not?
Can't we claim God's promises or do we have to run them by the Vatican's
trained eyes first? Does the promise "Ye who labour and are heavy laden,
come unto Me and I will give you rest" need a decree from Rome before
it applies? Are my prayers unheard unless I'm a member of your church.....?

On the other hand, did Christ establish a church? Did He establish it with
great authority per Matthew 16:18-19, given the power to "bind and loose,"
including the use of that power in Matthew 18:19 to discipline a brother who
is obstinate in repenting of his/her sins? And if a Christian sins, why the power
to "forgive or retain them" in John 20:22-23?

You've worn that one out already, Bill.
No, Christ didn't establish a church. If he did, he forgot to name it. If the purpose
of creation was to establish some church, don't you suppose he would have at least
given us a little hint of his purpose other than "upon this rock I build my church"?
It makes sense to see this "rock" as faith in Jesus instead of the man, Peter.
Peter went on to make a fool of himself; worthy of being called "Satan" by Jesus
himself. Is this how Jesus would like to portray the first pope.....the man who would
be the father of Christianity? Were Peter's actions any way for the first pope to
act?

Either your prognosis is correct or John 3:16 is correct.
At least I can quote scripture without imagining that the word "Catholic" just
seems to jump out at me at every turn.

You might ask yourself about the "bind and loose" and the "forgive" theories.
If the Catholic Church has that exclusive power within its ranks, then has God
relenquished all of his power unto this mighty force? Or.......is he able to
forgive me and allow prayer to work within me without his need to check
in with the latest pope first?

What happens to promises like...
1John 5:11,12 "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life,
and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not
the Son of God hath not life".

Can you Catholicize that for me.

 

That is a strange reply, because most Protestants wants things proven from scripture only. So here you go, rejecting that as well!

Go figure.....

This is a totally and completely "non"-reply to my message, ispecially a lack of reply to the implications of the scripture I quoted.

I last said:

On the other hand, did Christ establish a church? Did He establish it with
great authority per Matthew 16:18-19, given the power to "bind and loose,"
including the use of that power in Matthew 18:19 to discipline a brother who
is obstinate in repenting of his/her sins? And if a Christian sins, why the power
to "forgive or retain them" in John 20:22-23?

Then explain Matthew 16:18 for me, please, or am I going too far in having you give a lettle exegesis on scripture?

So what? He simply called it "church" which, I understand, means "community" or as some have told me, "called-out ones." Take your pick, Singer, what name do you prefer?

Do you not realize that Christ presented a "gospel message" to His apostles, infused upon their hearts and minds that they, as the "charter clergy" of that church He established, with great and awesome authority we see in Matthew 16:19, that the mission of His church was to present the gospel message to "all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Sprit" per John 28:19? (Please excuse the long run-on sentence here.)

Peter "making a fool of himself" is exactly what we see in the bible, don't we, Singer? I also call it impetuousness, forthrightness, always-getting-into-trouble Peter, which this retired Navy guy sees as a sign of (gulp!) LEADERSHIP that also Jesus saw. And in the long run, Peter, now beaten into the form of a leader Jesus would have him, forgiving him of his three denials, He nevertheless tells him to "tend my sheep/feed my lamgs/feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17) in the final commissioning of Peter to be the leader of all the other apostles!

"...whosoever believeth in him shall never parish, but have everlasting life."

That last line is important because I need to get from you the depth of what it means to "believe in him," Singer. Is it a simple, "I believe in Jesus" or is it more then that? Might I suggest that it includes a total and complete belief in Him, but also a committment to follow Him, obey his edicts, doctrines and......Sacraments? Also, how about this church He established? No influence on you whatsoever, Singer?

It's funny you should say that, as that is exactly what happens when I read my bible!

God can do both, Singer. If I were to ask Him directly to forgive my sins, I believe He will forgive my sins. But if He also gave that power to forgive sins to His apostles, are you going to deny that He, being God, can do that? If so, you limit the power of God, and have yet to come to grips with an all-powerful and limitless God.

So, I think it is you that needs to consider those scripthre fragments.

Sure, my pleasure.

To "have the son" is to not only believe in Him, but to do as He commands, including the consideration of why He established a church, gave it awesome authority, and to be able to "have life" in Him is to respect and believe in His Church!

Wanna bet which "Church" I have in mind, Singer?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Receive the holy Spirit, Whose sins you shall forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained,
John 20:23

 

"Purge-atory" is a lie!

There is no scripture that supports it, while there is scripture that refutes it.

Refutation! "it is appointed unto man once to die, then the judgement" Thus, once man dies from this natural life, he is judged. Those found "lacking" are cast into the lake of fire...the second death. Those who are believers are not judged, but enter eternal life with the Christ!

There is no evidence whatever that there is a waiting period, or "holding tank" where we are sent to wait to be judged or to have a second chance or a "purging" unto salvation.

Of course, Wputnam believes in "Purge-atory" and will not see the truth that it does not exist. And he is so captured by his concept of the church that he will not accept the facts. So, the arguement without substance continues.

 

Bill,

Strictly speaking, yes, one could get along without the bible, after all, for about 300 years
after Pentecost, Christians essentially did exactly that - Get along without the Bible.

Why do you acknowledge that the bible did not exist for 300 years after Pentecost, but then
claim that the Catholic Church existed in the mind of Christ and that He himself was even
a Catholic as Carson says...? Truth is......neither one of them existed for that length of time.

I seem to recall that Christ established a Church, not a bible. And while one could
disregard the bible, I question if a person could really disregard the Church. Since Christ establlished the Church, is it not in the mind of Christ that we relate to
it in membership, obedience and worship?

He didn't establish a church. That is only in the minds of Catholicism that Christ
came to earth to establish a church. Pride and ego are the only two reasons for
supporting an idea like that. Everybody wants to have something over on the other
guy and you've found an unfortunate outlet for the application of your pride.

Singer, here is what I see in that statement of yours: To defend the
Catholic Church of mischaracterizations and misunderstandings is equivalent
to "promoting" Catholicism. In other words, I must shut up and say nothing,
else I am guilty of "promoting" Catholicism. Do you see me do this in any other
forum that has a conference, say, on Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians,
etc.? No, you find me in the conferences on Catholicism where
she is "raked over the coals" in unfounded accusations.

Well if you didn't make such outlandish, selfish and unfounded claims
in the first place, it wouldn't need any countering. If you "shut up and say
nothing", you might learn that you are wrong.

I will defend Christ's Church to the day I die, God willing, and in my
dying breath and after receiving the viaticum, I will die peacefully in the
arms of Holy Mother Church!

Why don't you just promote Jesus Christ himself and forget the nonsense..?
Holy Mother Church is about as able to save your hide as the Easter Bunny.

How about murder, adultary, stealing from the poor, etc., serious
matters we see condemned in the Ten Commandments, Singer? If you
or I were to commit any one of these grave sins without remorse and
repentance, are we still saved?

Are any of those the Unpardonable Sin?

Then explain Matthew 16:18 for me, please, or am I going too far
in having you give a lettle exegesis on scripture?

Verse 15...Jesus asked "Whom say ye that I am". Peter answered "The Christ".
Jesus responded with identifying Peter. That does not automatically appoint him
as the father of Christianity. The context surrounded the seeking of a sign and
Jesus made it clear that there would be no further signs and that He (Jesus) was
the saviour they sought. That "rock" of salvation was Jesus and Peter simply
acknowledged that fact.

So what? He simply called it "church" which, I understand, means
"community" or as some have told me, "called-out ones." Take your
pick, Singer, what name do you prefer?

I've attended a Community Church myself. Any name will do and yes,
we believers are "called-out ones". If you compare all bible references
to church and try to tag them onto the Catholic Denomination, you'll make
a fool of yourself.

Do you not realize that Christ presented a "gospel message" to His
apostles, infused upon their hearts and minds that they, as the "charter
clergy" of that church He established, with great and awesome authority
we see in Matthew 16:19, that the mission of His church was to
present the gospel message to "all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Sprit" per John 28:19?

Any beliver is a member of Christ's Church, Bill. Believers are the content
of church.

Peter "making a fool of himself" is exactly what we see in the bible,

Synonymous wiith Catholicism yet today isn't it ?

That last line is important because I need to get from you
the depth of what it means to "believe in him," Singer. Is it a simple,
"I believe in Jesus" or is it more then that? Might I
suggest that it includes a total and complete belief in Him,
but also a committment to follow Him, obey his edicts, doctrines
and......Sacraments?

There's always a church out there to tell us that "believe" means
something beyond what it implies. The group I was born into
used the same tactics to prove their way was superior. I didn't
believe that nonsense at age 14 and I don't believe it now.

You also like to use the "devils believe" line. I might ask how you
suppose they practice their "belief" ? Do they obey certain edicts,
doctrines and sacraments too?

I said:
At least I can quote scripture without imagining that the word "Catholic"
just seems to jump out at me at every turn.

And you responded with:
It's funny you should say that, as that is exactly what happens when I read my bible!

You should consider seeing your doctor, Bill. It could be a disease.

God can do both, Singer. If I were to ask Him directly to forgive my
sins, I believe He will forgive my sins. But if He also gave that power
to forgive sins to His apostles, are you going to deny that He, being
God, can do that? If so, you limit the power of God, and have
yet to come to grips with an all-powerful and limitless God.

So, I think it is you that needs to consider those scripthre fragments.

Yes God can do both and He can also forgive any sinner and even
those dreaded protestants without detouring to the local RCC.
Awesome ...isn't He !! Now the monkey is on your back to either
deny or accept that power of God.


I asked:
" Can you Catholicize that for me. "


Sure, my pleasure.

To "have the son" is to not only believe in Him, but to do as
He commands, including the consideration of why He established a church,
gave it awesome authority, and to be able
to "have life" in Him is to respect and believe in His Church!

Wanna bet which "Church" I have in mind, Singer?

You've been sippin too much of the priest's brew, Bill. I think you're a Cathaholic

 

Singer replied, where I last said:

Strictly speaking, yes, one could get along without the bible, after all, for about 300 years
after Pentecost, Christians essentially did exactly that - Get along without the Bible.

First of all, let me make one thing clear: The Old Testament existed before Christ came to us here on earth, so I am speaking of the New Testament, which came after Christ came to this earth in His divine mission, had ascended to the Father in heaven, and from the time the holy Spirit "jump started" the church at Pentecost.

For approximately 30 years, give or take, after Pentecost, there was no New Testament. Ink did not touch papyrus in it's writing until some years after. Until recently, it had been thought that the New Testament writings did not occur until after the destruction of Jerusalem (circa A.D. 70). But recent opinion has shifted to about the 30 year mark recently. In any case, there is no doubt that there was a period of time when there was no New Testament. It is also assumed that the New Testament writings were not completed until John wrote his Book of Revelation, believed done when he was in exile on the Island of Patmos by the Rome. His death marked the end of the apostolic era.

But for the next approx. 270 years, even while the New Testament was extant, it was not yet collated and canonized into one book. And in that time, it was not available to all churches in a total and complete collection. One church may have had the Gospel of Mark, another of Matthew, still another has all the gospels but none of the epistles and letters. It is in that sense that the Church did not have the Bible - the total bible, until it was finally collated, canonized and declared as the canon of scripture, included with the Old Testament, and declared divinely inspired "Good breathed" scripture. That is what happened in the late 3rd century, so far as what I have read.

Finally, to call "Christ a Catholic" is a bit strange sounding - I never made such an assertion - but I can say that Christ established an authority he called "church" that was to be embellished with the title of "Catholic." That happened with St. Agnatius circa A.D. 100. That was the church I looked for in my years of searching for the true church of Jesus Christ, and only the Catholic Church mete that qualification.

At Pentecost, Christ was with the Father in heaven! But at Pentecost, was there a "church" there? What do you call the apostles and all of the faithful who witnessed the coming of the holy Spirit, Singer?

I last said:

I seem to recall that Christ established a Church, not a bible. And while one could

disregard the bible, I question if a person could really disregard the Church. Since Christ established the Church, is it not in the mind of Christ that we relate to it in membership, obedience and worship?

Singer, the only comment I can make here is: Read matthew 16:18-19 and explain exactly what Christ did here. Also, take a gander at Matthew 18:18 and note someting about "taking it to the church" to resolve the obstinacy of a sinning brother. Note also the statement, Paul makes to Timothy in my "tagline" I give below, and tell me exactly what the "church" is here.

I last said:

Singer, here is what I see in that statement of yours: To defend the
Catholic Church of mischaracterization and misunderstandings is equivalent
to "promoting" Catholicism. In other words, I must shut up and say nothing,
else I am guilty of "promoting" Catholicism. Do you see me do this in any other
forum that has a conference, say, on Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians,
etc.? No, you find me in the conferences on Catholicism where
she is "raked over the coals" in unfounded accusations.

Singer, why don't you properly refute my "outlandish and unfounded claims" if they are indeed what you claim they are?

I have been a Catholic since 1953, an adult convert who studied in silence, all of the claims of Protestantism and found them wanting - for an authority that came directly from Christ. There was absolutely none, simply because their origins came from a spring-away form a more ancient Christian Church, a Church and the only Church who could trace her history to Christ Himself.

After that, I "broke my silence" in defense of her!

I previously said:

I will defend Christ's Church to the day I die, God willing, and in my
dying breath and after receiving the viaticum, I will die peacefully in the
arms of Holy Mother Church!

When I "promote" the Catholic Church, I promote CHRIST! Christ established the Church, therefore to support Christ, who is invisible and in heaven, I support His Church, who is visible here on earth, and with an authority given by Christ Himself! PRAISE GOD!

And from that Church, I receive Christ about as directly as it can be, in His holy Eucharist - daily! PRAISE GOD AGAIN!

I last said:

How about murder, adultary, stealing from the poor, etc., serious
matters we see condemned in the Ten Commandments, Singer? If you
or I were to commit any one of these grave sins without remorse and
repentance, are we still saved?

Singer, please note carefully, the sentence I will repeat for you in bold emphasis: "...without remorse and repentance... Do you get it now, Singer? If these sins are on the soul in their totality of commitment and deliberance, then the judgment of God at death is indeed, one on a sin that is "unpardonable" before Him. Hell is the next instant destination...

In great comfort, I consider John 20:22-23 where we find these sins to be most pardonable while we have the opportunity in this lifetime...

I previously said:

Then explain Matthew 16:18 for me, please, or am I going too far
in having you give a lettle exegesis on scripture?

Er, ah, Singer, I was speaking of verse 18...

I then continued:

So what? He simply called it "church" which, I understand, means
"community" or as some have told me, "called-out ones." Take your
pick, Singer, what name do you prefer?

Singer, please trace the history of that little "community church" you attend and find out when it got started. Take it as far back as you can, and tell me about it's founder. Did he/she spring away in protest from another "community," Singer? If so, where are it's credentials that it cann preach the gospel as Christ commanded His own church to do. In other words, show me the historical trail to this ancient church Christ founded. Is your "community" still "ion union" with that original ancient church, Singer?

(Continued in next message)

 

(Continued from previous message)

I last continued:

Do you not realize that Christ presented a "gospel message" to His
apostles, infused upon their hearts and minds that they, as the "charter
clergy" of that church He established, with great and awesome authority
we see in Matthew 16:19, that the mission of His church was to
present the gospel message to "all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Sprit" per John 28:19?

Even the Catholic Church acknowledges that, Singer, albeit in an incomplete way. We wish that somehow, someway, you could "complete" that union!

I last said:

Peter "making a fool of himself" is exactly what we see in the bible,

Of course, like so many Protestant biblicalists often do, you take my comments out of context with what I originally said in an attempt to caricature my Church to something I do not recognize at all. And all the Catholics who read this are then likewise steeled in their devotion to a church that is no where near such a description.

I continued:

That last line is important because I need to get from you
the depth of what it means to "believe in him," Singer. Is it a simple,
"I believe in Jesus" or is it more then that? Might I
suggest that it includes a total and complete belief in Him,
but also a committment to follow Him, obey his edicts, doctrines
and......Sacraments?

Yes indeed, there is a "church out there" that tells us what to believe. But if it is the actual church Christ founded with awesome authority you seemingly gloss over, you better believe it! Ya wanna know which church that is, Singer?

Others have used that line, and I have as well, but not recently.

While the devils and evil spirits "believe" that Christ exists, as they also know that God exists, they certainly do not partake of the sacraments, Singer, and neither do they obey Christ's edicts, while they burn for an eternity for the very disobedience they presented to God in the first place that resulted in their condemnation to hell.

You previously said:

I said:

At least I can quote scripture without imagining that the word "Catholic"
just seems to jump out at me at every turn.

And I responded with:

It's funny you should say that, as that is exactly what happens when I read my bible!

I do!

Every morning! At my church!

When I receive that "divine medicine" called The holy Eucharist!

I last said:

God can do both, Singer. If I were to ask Him directly to forgive my
sins, I believe He will forgive my sins. But if He also gave that power
to forgive sins to His apostles, are you going to deny that He, being
God, can do that? If so, you limit the power of God, and have
yet to come to grips with an all-powerful and limitless God.

Like John 20:22-23?

I tell you what, Singer, give it your best shot and do some convincing exegesis on it and let's see where you can go with it.

Singer, please know that I have never used the term "dreaded" in close conjunction with the word "Protestant."

But what I will do is acknowledge the fact that God is a God of infinite mercy and justice, and I do not abridge at all, what God will do in the forgiveness of the sins of ALL men, regardless of religion, Protestant, Catholic, Hindu or Moslem, etc.

But I will add that the Sacrament of reconciliation, Christ instituted in John 20:22-23, must be important, else why would Christ institute it?

Singer previously asked:

" Can you Catholicize that for me. "

And I replied:

Sure, my pleasure.

To "have the son" is to not only believe in Him, but to do as
He commands, including the consideration of why He established a church,
gave it awesome authority, and to be able
to "have life" in Him is to respect and believe in His Church!

Wanna bet which "Church" I have in mind, Singer?

"Cathaholic"?

You bet! PRAISE GOD!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


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

 

Bill,

At Pentecost, Christ was with the Father in heaven! But at Pentecost,
was there a "church" there? What do you call the apostles and all of the
faithful who witnessed the coming of the holy Spirit, Singer?

Not sure if you're intending that there was or was not a church present
at Pentecost. If you're saying there was a "church there", and that it
was a Catholic representation, I'd have to disagree with you........totally.

Singer, the only comment I can make here is: Read matthew 16:18-19
and explain exactly what Christ did here. Also, take a gander at Matthew
18:18 and note someting about "taking it to the church" to resolve the
obstinacy of a sinning brother. Note also the statement, Paul makes to
Timothy in my "tagline" I give below, and tell me exactly what
the "church" is here.

Protestants have a chain of command for the same purposes.

Singer, why don't you properly refute my "outlandish and unfounded
claims" if they are indeed what you claim they are?

Jesus himself did that for me, Bill. He said "Whosoever believes in
me shall never die" and you've added a multitude of "outlandish
and unfounded claims" with a Catholic tinge to that very simple
gospel that diffuses the entire gospel story and replaces it with a supercilious
promotion that is farflung from what Christ intended.

Finally, to call "Christ a Catholic" is a bit strange sounding - I never
made such an assertion - but I can say that Christ established an authority
he called "church" that was to be embellished with the title of "Catholic."

I think it's strange too and even stranger is the assertion that the kingdom of God,
the bride of Christ and the body of Christ are also the Catholic Church. Then to
say that God is also a Catholic because he's Jesus and the two are one. What a gas!!

Church was a term used long before Catholicism evolved from the misuse
of the word catholic. Don't you suppose those in the churches at Corinth,
Rome, Ephesus and Galatia were saved........they never came in contact
with the Catholic Church or endured any of the teachings that you portray
today.

Paul even warned the Galatians 1:9 "If any man preach any other gospel
unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.. That was told
to them before the bible was canonized and collated (to use your terms)
and before there was a structure that represented the Catholic Church.
That was after Jesus supposedly appointed Peter as the Pope and there
was no mention of that incident. If there was a change to now enroll in
Cahtolicism, don't you think Paul would have begun instructing those churches
he visited. He didn't even indicate that he knew anything about this 'new gospel'
you are so hung up on. There was only a warning to not depart from the
gospel with the result of being accursed if they did. Who departed here, Bill.....
can you imagine what church I'm thinking of ???

That happened with St. Agnatius circa A.D. 100. That was the church
I looked for in my years of searching for the true church of Jesus
Christ, and only the Catholic Church mete that qualification.

AD 100 was after Paul wrote to the Galatians and warned them not to "pervert
the gospel of Christ" (Gal 1:7) Your offer yourselves to be accursed in doing so,
Bill.

At Pentecost, Christ was with the Father in heaven! But at Pentecost,
was there a "church" there? What do you call the apostles and all of the
faithful who witnessed the coming of the holy Spirit, Singer?

They sure as heck weren't Catholics. You said yourself that St Agnatius coined the
term AD 100. Another Catholic was quoted as referring to St. Ignatius...which is it ?

I have been a Catholic since 1953, an adult convert who studied in
silence, all of the claims of Protestantism and found them wanting - for an
authority that came directly from Christ. There was absolutely none, simply
because their origins came from a spring-away form a more ancient Christian
Church, a Church and the only Church who could trace her history
to Christ Himself.

See how you merit yourself with your accomplishments. Those of us who
believe the simple gospel of Jesus Christ don't rely on the claims of
Protestantism or any other agency. You say there is ''abolutely none''
in reference to authority that came from Christ? I don't need Protestantism
or Catholicism to believe in Jesus Christ. Those who were saved by the
thousands after hearing Jesus' message didn't either. Forget
about tracing to Christ himself. Faith is traced to Christ...it is a product
of our makeup to desire God. It has no name....let alone Catholicism.

After that, I "broke my silence" in defense of her!


You didn't need to do that to have faith or salvation.

When I "promote" the Catholic Church, I promote CHRIST! Christ
established the Church, therefore to support Christ, who is invisible and in
heaven, I support His Church, who is visible here on earth, and with an
authority given by Christ Himself! PRAISE GOD!

Galatians 1:9 "If any man preach any other gospel.....................

And from that Church, I receive Christ about as directly as it can be, in His
holy Eucharist - daily! PRAISE GOD AGAIN!

Galatians 1:9 AGAIN !!

n great comfort, I consider John 20:22-23 where we find these sins to be most
pardonable while we have the opportunity in this lifetime...

And pouring money into the Catholic Coffers and confessing to another sinner
behind the curtain will resolve THAT ??

Er, ah, Singer, I was speaking of verse 18...

Oh...so you don't like to study the context that verse 18 was written in ?

Singer, please trace the history of that little "community church" you
attend and find out when it got started. Take it as far back as you can, and
tell me about it's founder. Did he/she spring away in protest from another
"community," Singer? If so, where are it's credentials that it cann preach
the gospel as Christ commanded His own church to do. In
other words, show me the historical trail to this ancient church Christ
founded. Is your "community" still "ion union" with that original ancient
church, Singer?

The "history of that little community church'' is based on faith and belief
in Jesus Christ. That preceeded Catholicism by a few thousand years
if you will study and find that it was faith that saved even those believers
in the Old Testament. Your Galatians 1:9 version fails the carbon tests
of Christianity

(My statement) Any beliver is a member of Christ's Church, Bill.
Believers are the content of church.


(Your response) Even the Catholic Church acknowledges that,
Singer, albeit in an incomplete way. We wish
that somehow, someway, you could "complete" that union!

You're so engrained in Catholicism that you didn't even notice that
I was not referring to the Catholic Church when I used the words
"Christ's Church". Salvation was offered to me and I took it without
the assist of the RCC. I AM of a completed nature, Bill.

Of course, like so many Protestant biblicalists often do, you take
my comments out of context with what I originally said in an attempt
to caricature my Church to something I do not recognize at all. And all the
Catholics who read this are then likewise steeled in their
devotion to a church that is no where near such a description.

Catholicism itself is something that Christ would not have recognized at all.
A person can be devoted to Christ outside of Catholicism too. I hope you
realize that some day.

Yes indeed, there is a "church out there" that tells us what to believe.
But if it is the actual church Christ founded with awesome authority you
seemingly gloss over, you better believe it! Ya wanna know which church
that is, Singer?

"And they were first called Christians at Corinth"....long BEFORE the Catholic Church
evolved. Do you think those churches that Paul visited and wrote to were
accursed then....or would the new pious church that makes such brave claims
to fiefdom be the accursed one?

Like John 20:22-23?

I tell you what, Singer, give it your best shot and do some convincing
exegesis on it and let's see where you can go with it.

You notice that Jesus was talking to the disciples. If the practice stalled out
with their individual deaths, it is of no use today. If it didn't, there is no script
outside the minds of the RCC that limits the use of Christ's teaching to Catholics
Only.

"Cathaholic"?

You bet! PRAISE GOD!

God easy on the Parish Sauce my friend !!

Singer

 

Singer replied, where I last said:

At Pentecost, Christ was with the Father in heaven! But at Pentecost,
was there a "church" there? What do you call the apostles and all of the
faithful who witnessed the coming of the holy Spirit, Singer?

Did you notice it was a question, Singer? But in any case, I think you do accent to the idea that it was indeed the church in her infancy. As to what church it was, I would simply have to show me the parting of the ways from this church, the Catholic Church made. If you say the times of Constantine, be aware of documentation, the writings of the early fathers prior to even Constantine's birth, the very smackings of Catholic doctrine in their writings.

Singer, the only comment I can make here is: Read Matthew 16:18-19
and explain exactly what Christ did here. Also, take a gander at Matthew
18:18 and note something about "taking it to the church" to resolve the
obstinacy of a sinning brother. Note also the statement, Paul makes to
Timothy in my "tagline" I give below, and tell me exactly what
the "church" is here.

I stand before with trembling anticipation, the presentation of documentation that supports this, Singer.

Singer, why don't you properly refute my "outlandish and unfounded
claims" if they are indeed what you claim they are?

What I get from this is the stubbornness of a person to wants to believe in Christ in the way he himself wants to believe, yet not incur the obligation of doing all that Christ commands you to do, Singer. Christ establishes a church, yet Singer wants nothing to do with it. Christ establishes the Eucharist (John chapter 6) and he casts it aside like the Jews and some of His own disciples who left him, and be extension, he then casts off the salvific nature of baptism, even while Christ specifies it in John 3:5 when He tells him that to be "born again" (or "born from above") takes "water and spirit," verified by Peter in 1 Peter 3:21. In other words, you want to pick and choose how it is you believe in Jesus.

The "cafeteria effect" is alive and well in Protestantism!

Finally, to call "Christ a Catholic" is a bit strange sounding - I never
made such an assertion - but I can say that Christ established an authority
he called "church" that was to be embellished with the title of "Catholic."

You doubt that definition of Christ's Church, Singer? Well, perhaps I expect too much, but I will be working on you so long as I have your ear…

Yes, it did take about 70 years after Pentecost before the term "Catholic" which simply means universal that the title was coined to describe Christ's church, which by that time, had spread throughout the known civilized world, and was indeed then "universal" in influence. If that is an "abuse," I will eat it, Singer. Incidently, the churches Paul wrote to have either ceased to exist, or their remnants are now in the Orthodox community, in schism from Rome where the "seat of Peter" is (You know, where John Paul II is, who is the latest in a long line of successors to the first Bishop of Rome) or, what is left of these churches, some may still be with the Catholic Church in their own ritual, generally the rite of St. John Chrisostom, who remain faithful (or who have returned) to the Mother Church. So somewhere along the line, there were in "contact" with the Church in Rome, even while they may have joined in an unfortunate schism from her in about the 9th century.

You know, I was thinking the same thing!

Do you suppose Martin Luther and others in his time read and pondered the words you indicate above, Singer? If there is anyone who is guilty of the above, it is obviously and completely Protestantism pure and simple!

Protestantism sprung in "protest" from Holy Church!

You cannot show me where Holy Church (i.e., the Catholic Church) has sprung from another original congregation.

That happened with St. Ignatius circa A.D. 100. That was the church
I looked for in my years of searching for the true church of Jesus
Christ, and only the Catholic Church met that qualification.

Therefore, you are saying that the only Church around in A.D. 100 fell into error so soundly, Christ's promise that "…the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" simply fell short? That from that time, the only church around wallowed in error until the so called "Protestant Reformation"?

At Pentecost, Christ was with the Father in heaven! But at Pentecost,
was there a "church" there? What do you call the apostles and all of the
faithful who witnessed the coming of the holy Spirit, Singer?

One thing is for sure - they surely were not Protestants!

Also, please note that I corrected the spelling above, Singer.

I have been a Catholic since 1953, an adult convert who studied in
silence, all of the claims of Protestantism and found them wanting - for an
authority that came directly from Christ. There was absolutely none, simply
because their origins came from a spring-away form a more ancient Christian
Church, a Church and the only Church who could trace her history
to Christ Himself.

I merit myself nothing other then what I consider the holy Spirit who guided me in my youth. In those days, I was nothing. Today I am nothing still…

Singer, I know you believe in Jesus Christ! My problem is, to what extent do you believe in Him? Do you believe Him completely and without reservation, to include all of what he taught, such as the indissolubility of marriage (another sacrament I mention here).

After that, I "broke my silence" in defense of her!

Agreed, I didn't have to. But when I converted, my heart began to sing! And even while I did revert to old sins, I did manage, with the help of God, to come back into His good graces once again, proving that I am a sinner like all of us are. I continued to sing in joy, and I continue to do so today! I want everyone to hear my story!

When I "promote" the Catholic Church, I promote CHRIST! Christ
established the Church, therefore to support Christ, who is invisible and in
heaven, I support His Church, who is visible here on earth, and with an
authority given by Christ Himself! PRAISE GOD!

Indeed! And again, I wonder what Luther thought when he and other contemporaries who abandoned the faith and preached "another gospel"…

And from that Church, I receive Christ about as directly as it can be, in His
holy Eucharist - daily! PRAISE GOD AGAIN! \

Read John, Chapter six, especially John 6:53-58! And when you do so, cease to be like the Jews who abandoned Him, along with some of His own disciples!

In great comfort, I consider John 20:22-23 where we find these sins to be most
pardonable while we have the opportunity in this lifetime...

As a matter of fact, YES! All priests, bishops and even popes are sinners, Singer! Yet that apparently did not bother Jesus at all when He gave that that power to forgive or retain the sins of other men! Did you know that all priests, bishops and popes go to confession themselves? Can you imagine John Paul II going to confession to a humble Franciscan or otherwise cloistered priest to hear his confession and grant him resolution?

It happens, Singer!

And by the way, there is no money collected when I go to confession! But I do tithe, my contribution goes into the collection basket every Sunday Mass! Do you give to your community, Singer? If not, why not? If yes, then why are you "pouring money" into your communities "coffers," Singer?

(Continued in next message)

 

(Continued from previous message)

Not knowing as I type this, what it is I am responding to (since I am not quoted), I previously said:

Er, ah, Singer, I was speaking of verse 18...

Of course, but verse 15 does what for you when you read verse 18? One of these days, I will get a little exegesis out of you yet! Look, we are getting nowhere with your dilly dallying around, Singer.

Singer, please trace the history of that little "community church" you
attend and find out when it got started. Take it as far back as you can, and
tell me about it's founder. Did he/she spring away in protest from another
"community," Singer? If so, where are it's credentials that it cann preach
the gospel as Christ commanded His own church to do. In
other words, show me the historical trail to this ancient church Christ
founded. Is your "community" still "ion union" with that original ancient
church, Singer?

Please document exactly how this little "community church" managed to "precede" the Catholic Church, Singer. From Pentecost until, say, the 16th century and the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, show me this "community church. Be real careful here, Singer, because if you mention the name of a heresy, I will be on you like a rooster on a June bug!

I think I have agreed with this already, albeit in an incomplete way. As I Christian, I welcome you into the community of Christians who are "at large Catholics" so to speak, where I pray that you may, one of these days, become full members in complete communion with us!

Even the Catholic Church acknowledges that, Singer,
albeit in an incomplete way. We wish that somehow,
some way, you could "complete" that union!

All I can say is, good for you, Singer! I'm glad for you!

But when ever someone speaks of "Christ's Church," I automatically think of and speak of the Catholic Church in those terms, simply because she is the only church to receive an establishment from the mouth of Jesus Himself. All the others, bless their hearts, sprung away in protest from her. I only wish they would come back into complete reunion and communion with her, the original and true church of Jesus Christ!

Of course, like so many Protestant biblicalists often do, you take
my comments out of context with what I originally said in an attempt
to caricature my Church to something I do not recognize at all. And all the
Catholics who read this are then likewise steeled in their
devotion to a church that is no where near such a description.

The best documentation we have are the writings of the early church fathers, especially those close to the end of the apostolic era (some even were students at the feet of an apostle) that indicates the doctrines of Christ's Church embarrassingly close, if not identical to Catholicism today. I say "close" because certain terms had not been coined, such as "Catholic," "Trinity," Transubstantiation," etc. But the content of their writings were essentially identical to Catholic Teaching. Therefore, I am positively sure, in my heart, that Christ would recognize His Church if He were to return today.

I only hope and pray that He would also recognize yours as well…at least in examination of the content of your hearts and minds.

Yes indeed, there is a "church out there" that tells us what to believe.
But if it is the actual church Christ founded with awesome authority you
seemingly gloss over, you better believe it! Ya wanna know which church
that is, Singer?

The church at Corinth was a regional/local church, Singer. So also was the church at Thessoloniki and Galatia. But they were all a part of THE CHURCH that was eventually called "Catholic."

Who "accursed" them, Singer? Methinks you are speaking of Revelations, but a little exegesis would be nice.

And by the way, there are churches there still, albeit most of them are schismatic and separate from THE CHURCH I speak of (other then what loyal churches may still be there that are still "in union" with the Holy See today).

Like John 20:22-23?

I tell you what, Singer, give it your best shot and do some convincing
exegesis on it and let's see where you can go with it.

Rats! I thought I was actually going to get you to do a little exegesis! Shucks, you bailed-out on me again!

Singer, hanging on tight to what ever little I can get from you, read Matthew 29:19 and notice that Christ tells His apostles to "…make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit" and then to go on, He tells them He "would be with them until the end of the age."

What does that mean to you, Singer? Did you notice the "all" in "all nations," Did the apostles accomplish that in their own lifetime, sir? Do you also realize that not "all nations" are converted yet, therefore do you at least get a smothering of an idea that Christ assumed a succession process, by the laying on of hands, that successors of them would continue the mission? And do you suppose that the powers to bring forth the Eucharist, as well as the power to forgive or retain the sins of men would be included?

I see nothing in scriptures where this power would cease at their death, Singer……

"Cathaholic"?

You bet! PRAISE GOD!

A Freudian slip that makes better sense!

And we say the blessing over all of our parish get-together's where we bring a covered dish, etc., as we meet in fellowship!

Now, I'm finished! We are both batting our heads against a brick wall, Singer! But if you insist, continue in your replies, but I will reserve the option to reply or not, as we are getting nowhere! I do this that others may read and judge for themselves, who speaks closer to the truth…Come holy Spirit.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

[b[ Protestants have a chain of command for the same purposes.


I stand before with trembling anticipation, the presentation of documentation that
supports this, Singer. [/b]

Bill, for gosh sake's; the bible was not written to Catholics. It could be
described as a love letter to Christians. My documentation is authorized
as a member of the human race whereas John 3:16 includes non-Catholics
too. God is not a respecter of persons...remember...?

The "cafeteria effect" is alive and well in Protestantism!

It's an easy yoke...this Christianity....those Protestants let the Holy Spirit
work and are not bound by the decrees of a system that departed from
Christianity per Paul's warnings to the Galatians.

quote:

I think it's strange too and even stranger is the assertion that
the kingdom of God, the bride of Christ and the body of Christ are also
the Catholic Church. Then to say that God is also a Catholic because he's
Jesus and the two are one.
What a gas!!


You doubt that definition of Christ's Church, Singer? Well,
perhaps I expect too much, but I will be working on you so long as
I have your ear…

I don't only doubt it, Bill. I reject it !! If you can convince me that the
Cavemen were the authors of the PT Cruiser, then I'll consider your wild
imaginations

Yes, it did take about 70 years after Pentecost before the term "Catholic"
which simply means universal that the title was coined to describe Christ's
church, which by that time, had spread throughout the known civilized world,
and was indeed then "universal" in
influence. If that is an "abuse," I will eat it, Singer.

Someday maybe I'll be able to describe the mindset of us, the enlightened,who
can see through our blinders and not allow the word Catholic to intimidate us.

Let's try this example.....
SAE threads on a machined bolt are termed such due to the standards
put out by the Society of Automotive Engineers. (SAE). This is a universal
standard; thereby causing unity and needed organization within the
metal industry.

There are many different sizes of threads and a large array of manufacturers.
None of the manufacturers, distributors, wholesale, retail or other handlers
have the right to establish an outlet and name it SAE STANDARD and
denounce all other users of the same standard as heretical.


Now compare that with the term universal (catholic).
It is a standard whereas all who believe the gospel story
of Christ's prophetic appearance, death and ressurrection on
earth are the makeup of the universal church. Someone wrongfully
took that word (catholic) and applied a capital C and make all
exclusive claims of tracing their church back to Christ.

Christ authorized all (universal) believers....the same as SAE standards
are recognized. I don't have to trace my particular bolt back to the
origin of the Engineering Company to become a recipient of their product.
Same with christianity....The invitation was given to Jews and Gentiles
alike. What gives the Catholic Church the right to intervene and start
grabbing titles ?

Do you suppose Martin Luther and others in his time read and
pondered the words you indicate above, Singer? If there is anyone
who is guilty of the above, it is obviously and
completely Protestantism pure and simple!

Bill, neither Protestantism or Catholicism existed when Paul made his
statement....where do you suppose that leaves both of them?

Protestantism sprung in "protest" from Holy Church!

No, Protestantism sprung in protest of the Catholicism.
Catholicism sprung in protest of universalism.

You cannot show me where Holy Church (i.e., the Catholic Church)
has sprung from another original congregation.

It sprung from the churches that Paul spoke to, because they were
not called Catholic. They were merely Christ's Church; a title that
is not becoming or authorized by the RCC to use.

Therefore, you are saying that the only Church around in A.D. 100 fell
into error so soundly, Christ's promise that "…the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it" simply fell short? That from that time, the only church
around wallowed in error until the so called
"Protestant Reformation"?

Paul said it did in Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from
him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Now we know this was not a Catholic Church, because you said
Ignatius coined the term around AD 100 (more like 110).
So the warning was to that church to not allow perversion by outside
influence (see verse 7). You have to admit that the Catholic Church
today does not appear traditional to the likes of those early churches.
So who did the perverting?



At Pentecost, Christ was with the Father in heaven! But at Pentecost,
was there a "church" there? What do you call the apostles and all of the
faithful who witnessed the coming of the holy Spirit, Singer?

quote:

They sure as heck weren't Catholics. You said yourself that St Agnatius
coined the
term AD 100. Another Catholic was quoted as referring to St.
Ignatius...which is it ?


One thing is for sure - they surely were not Protestants!

You're right Bill. As I said above, they were neither as they were
the church of Christ if you will.

Also, please note that I corrected the spelling above, Singer.

Thank you.

Singer, I know you believe in Jesus Christ! My problem is, to what extent
do you believe in Him? Do you believe Him completely and without reservation,
to include all of what he taught, such as the indissolubility of marriage
(another sacrament I mention here).

What are you asking me....if I believe in divorce ?

Agreed, I didn't have to. But when I converted, my heart began to sing!
And even while I did revert to old sins, I did manage, with the help of
God, to come back into His good graces once again, proving that I am
a sinner like all of us are. I continued to sing in joy,
and I continue to do so today! I want everyone to hear my story!

Remember the song..."I love to tell the story ...Of His redeeming Glory" or its
counterpart "I love to tell the story of unseen things above,
Of Jesus and His glory, of Jesus and His love."

I sing in joy too, from a standpoint of awe and appreciation for the
promises to my undeserving self. Maybe I'll send you a CD someday,
Bill.

And by the way, there is no money collected when I go to confession!
But I do tithe, my contribution goes into the collection basket every Sunday
Mass! Do you give to your community, Singer? If not, why not? If yes,
then why are you "pouring money" into your communities "coffers," Singer?

Do I give to my community you ask? My wife and I are asked to sing
at funerals and we host a biannual Gospel Jamboree with our musically
inclined friends that numbers in the dozens. Our outreach has spread to
four other communities in two states. There is no money changing hands.
There were 7 church denominations represented in the audience in one
of our last presentations. A Catholic layperson was asked to open with
prayer (per my suggestion) ...which she gladly did. We enticed her to sing
with us as she's a fun person on stage. Many of our entertainers are
Catholic and a prominent Catholic group from the state of South Dakota
invited us to organize the same type of engagement there....which we did.
Our entertainers receive no money and they perform out of a love of God,
and they display that in their motivations and talents. Music is a ministry
too. Donations are given to defray the cost of the events and also
given to benefit recipients and charities. We're not '' pouring money''
into coffers, we're just donating our time to enhance the gospel of
Jesus Christ. I like to think I'm ''giving to my community''.

One thing I've noticed, Bill, is that in song, we are all in harmony and in
one spirit with one accord in praise of our Lord....(Catholic, Protestant, my
unchurched friends and all) !!! It's a good feeling. One man who is known
to do drugs hadn't sang gospel since his mother's funeral and he previously
travelled on the pro circuit. He sang Amazing Grace while tears ran down
his face. Another Catholic couple who had inquired when the event would be,
sat up front and were obviously blessed by the music and comments.

There really is no difference between believers, Bill. The opposite of a believer
is a non believer........not a Protestant. Please know that this type of event
is tearing down barriers as we all are of the same mind in Christ. I'm glad to
be a part of it.


Please document exactly how this little "community church" managed
to "precede" the Catholic Church, Singer. From Pentecost until, say, the
16th century and the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, show me this
"community church. Be real careful here, Singer, because if you mention the
name of a heresy, I will be on you like a rooster on a June bug!


No.. it is not an issue of what church preceded the other, Bill. It is a
matter of faith in Jesus Christ as our Redeemer that precedes the
formation of any church. Faith will get me to heaven...a church will not.

I think I have agreed with this already, albeit in an incomplete way.
As I Christian, I welcome you into the community of Christians who
are "at large Catholics" so to speak, where I pray that you may, one
of these days, become full members in complete communion with us!

No thanks....I'd be throwing my salvation back in Jesus' face for a
restructuring. He had it right the first time...believe me. Please don't
pray for me to become Catholic. God would not honor that.

But when ever someone speaks of "Christ's Church," I automatically
think of and speak of the Catholic Church in those terms, simply because
she is the only church to receive an establishment from the mouth of Jesus
Himself. All the others, bless their hearts, sprung away in protest from her.
I only wish they would come back into complete reunion and
communion with her, the original and true church of Jesus Christ!

Well your dedication impresses me but I do not share your infatuation
or your beliefs. The establishment theory takes lots of imagination to
digest and falls out of line with the fact that Jesus said "Whosoever
believes in me shall never die". I'm a "Whosoever", Bill and I believe;
not as devils believe, I believe unto salvation.

But the content of their writings were essentially identical to Catholic
Teaching. Therefore, I am positively sure, in my heart, that Christ
would recognize His Church if He were to return today.

We need to display just what the word church means when
quoted from the bible. You'll find that constantly referring to
"church" as the "Catholic Church", will leave you stranded on
an island of confusion. I have a long list of the times that word
appears in the bible and it is interesting to note that it did not
appear in the OT even one time. Wouldn't it seem odd that
the precursor of salvation (the OT) would never even mention
a forming of a church...?

What God recognizes is who has the Son and who does not.
Denomination is the furthest thing from His mind; I'm sure.

[bThe church at Corinth was a regional/local church, Singer. So also]
was the church at Thessoloniki and Galatia. But they were all a part
of THE CHURCH that was eventually
called "Catholic." [/b]

There's no proof of that. Remember that not all facial tissues
are called Kleenex. They were churches of believers in Jesus.


Who "accursed" them, Singer? Methinks you are speaking of
Revelations, but a little exegesis would be nice.

Paul warned the Galatians to not depart from the faith. He said
there were others who would "trouble you" and who would pervert
the gospel. There were not Catholics in those churches, so it could
have been the Catholic Church he was referring to.


What does that mean to you, Singer? Did you notice the "all" in "all nations,
" Did the apostles accomplish that in their own lifetime, sir? Do you also realize
that not "all nations" are converted yet, therefore do you at least get a
smothering of an idea that Christ assumed a succession process, by the laying
on of hands, that successors of them would continue the mission? And do
you suppose that the powers to bring forth the Eucharist, as well as the power
to forgive or retain the sins of men would be included?

And you think that power is reserved for use by a meager denomination
that is suffering greatly under the abuse of its own clergy?

Now, I'm finished! We are both batting our heads against a brick
wall, Singer! But if you insist, continue in your replies, but I will reserve
the option to reply or not, as we are getting nowhere! I do this that
others may read and judge for themselves, who speaks
closer to the truth…Come holy Spirit.

I agree and I also glean from your writings, a most impractical application
of basic scripture that can only hope to feast upon a person's pursuit of a
way that is unfamiliar with the easy yoke and light burden that Jesus offers.

As a final statement, Bill, it doesn't really bother me that Catholics do not
accept non-Catholics as a completed brother/sister in Christ. What bothers
me is that the Catholic community feels they have a little extra pull with God
because of their actions. All this in light of the fact that God says we deserve
nothing but eternal damnation and that our works are as filthy rags and He
does not respect persons (or their attempts to appease). Christ appeased
the Father on the cross and our acceptance of His accomplishments is
what counts.

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

No Bill.....

"Whosoever has the Son", case is closed !!!!!