|
|
|
|
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/12/2008 6:47:24 PM |
*In case anyone needs a refresher and it seems that they do, the OP's topic question is in the bolded section below. Offtopic posts have been removed. Believers who wish to see an example of a post where the rules are followed, beliefs are expressed without treading upon the sensibilities of others may look to post 2 for a good example. Preaching, prosletyzing, soapboxing and exclusivity of truth are not acceptable in this forum and you can find the rules here if you need to check them. Continued abuse of those will result in bans handed out as my patience and tolerance for it has now worn quite thin. I might add that misquoting another poster is considered a form of LIBEL on these forums. If I get a report that someone is doing it you stand a good chance of getting your posting privileges revoked permanently and losing your profile - DO NOT DO IT. PERIOD.
Now stay on topic for this thread please.
If I have to come back, some people will be taking a pilgrimidge for 3 or more days to see the Holy Fountain of Ban. A Class 1 Relic. Very boring. You'll be going via the short bus. - TheMadFiddler - TheMadFiddler-*
just note that my POV here is just that--my POV.
with all the latest hype of a new pope in the Vatican, how is it that society still judges men in powerful positions to be akin to gods?
this man is a mere mortal--as we all are, regardless of our religious beliefs, and yet thousands will gather to get a glimpse of a mere mortal man.
has he or anyone of note, actually have contributed some knowledge of theirs (curing cancer and AIDS as severe examples) and aided on a grand and mutually beneficial scheme of things to better mankind, other than preaching good will?
as an atheist (not that it matters), I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the very idea of millions of people worshipping a mortal person as a god, one that has never really experienced the same crazy up and downs as we have as people just wanting to exist.
it amazes me that the masses still tenaciously cling to the idea of a single person as a holy and divine person, above all scrutiny.
how does that happen?
is my cynicism clouding my view & understanding of why this happens?
I don't and never deny that humans often seek a higher-being to acknowledge and derive solace from. I really just don't care. it's never been an issue with dating potentials or my social & work life for me anyway, if it did, then we were not going to mesh anyway.
tell me why, pls.
| |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/13/2008 5:20:59 AM | And even though I was raised Catholic, I've never understood ( or accepted) how one man - a mere mortal - could be seen as infailable. I know why "they" say he is. Doesn't mean it makes any sense to me - but that's me and this is just my opinion - to
each their own.
Oldsoul... I found this explanation of Papal Infallibility on-line and thought about you and how you having been raised a Catholic never understood Papal Infallibility, maybe this will help explain it a little better from an un-biased point of view. I too was raised Roman Catholic and didn't understand my Religion as well as I should. I am now learning more and more each day...and you know what?? The Roman Catholic Religion is beautiful, I wish I would have paid more attention when I was younger...but then, that is, as everyone here has stated "Just my Opionion" each of has our own..ah don't you just love "Free Will"..
"Papal infallibility
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the dogma that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. For all such infallible teachings, the Holy Spirit also works through the body of the Church to ensure that the teaching will be received by all Catholics.
This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. According to Catholic theology, there are several concepts important to the understanding of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium. The infallible teachings of the pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin.
In practice, popes seldom use their power of infallibility, but rely on the notion that the Church allows the office of the pope to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the church."[2] Since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I in 1870, this power has been used only once ex cathedra: in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics." | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/13/2008 9:32:45 AM | The MadFiddler - Moderator - thanks for cleaning house. You keen insights and regulating are always a warmly welcomed ocurrance of stunning impact.
OP wrote:
I don't and never deny that humans often seek a higher-being to acknowledge and derive solace from. I really just don't care. it's never been an issue with dating potentials or my social & work life for me anyway, if it did, then we were not going to mesh anyway. tell me why, pls.
Assuming this to be a genuine question - the answer I would offer is that, in The Holy Roman Catholic Church, we are taught and we believe in our faith formation that Jesus Christ founded The Holy Roman Catholic Church in it's earliest form.
Further we have good reason to believe that there is an unbrokern Apostolic Succession from Jesus Christ's ordination of Peter to the present day Pope Benedict XVI which illustrates what we believe to be a good cause to view Pope Benedict XVI, all Popes before him and all Popes to follow him as the outer head of The Church which we have good reason to believe was founded by Jesus Christ.
An example of this "good reason" for our belief can be viewed at:
http://www.transporter.com/FatherPeffley/Apologetics/deed.html
with all the latest hype of a new pope in the Vatican, how is it that society still judges men in powerful positions to be akin to gods?
I cannot speak for other sects, denominations, and certainly not for atheists, but from the perspective of a devout Roman Catholic, the 10 Commandments and even Christ Himself directs us not to judge anyone in powerful positions - so we don't.
Tourists are tourists and about anything from a car crash to a monkey throwing his waste in a cage proves sufficient to attrack and hold their attention - but waddya gunnu do, fuggeddaboudit!
this man is a mere mortal--as we all are, regardless of our religious beliefs, and yet thousands will gather to get a glimpse of a mere mortal man.
Again, when seated as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI very humbly stated that he was an simple woker seeking only to offer service to Christ's flock (My paraphrase) - and as for devout Catholic's we want to be present to show honor and respect to the person whom we Catholic's believe to be Christ's representative of His Church's authority on earth.
As for the tourists... I know how you feel - they chap my hide too.
has he or anyone of note, actually have contributed some knowledge of theirs (curing cancer and AIDS as severe examples) and aided on a grand and mutually beneficial scheme of things to better mankind, other than preaching good will?
Yes. In fact most great accomplishments and discoveries which lead to the pivotal turning point in the human race's advancement and social evolution over the past 2008 years can be traced directly to The Roman Catholic Church and The Pope.
I give you here links to The Secret Archives and Library at The Vatican so you may study this for yourselves.
http://bav.vatican.va/en/v_home_bav/home_bav.shtml
http://asv.vatican.va/home_en.htm
as an atheist (not that it matters), I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the very idea of millions of people worshipping a mortal person as a god, one that has never really experienced the same crazy up and downs as we have as people just wanting to exist.
Actually I think it does matter that you are an atheist because you have not had exposure to the teachings of Jesus Christ as passed down through The Roman Catholic Church, therefore you have no way of knowing any of the answers to the questions which you so justifiably ask.
it amazes me that the masses still tenaciously cling to the idea of a single person as a holy and divine person, above all scrutiny.
The Jesuit Order, and Orders whose identies are lesser known, are set in place with gaurds against a Pope going bad and misusing their office for purposes. It appears that there are those who treat this whole matter quite seriously.
how does that happen? is my cynicism clouding my view & understanding of why this happens?
It is in our DNA to seek out a leader. It is in our best interest to seek out the correct leader. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/13/2008 11:32:18 PM | as the OP, after my initial "heat" of passion passed 2 months ago, I am surprised to see that there has been a good stream of dialog still going strong.
I hadn't followed this up till tonight and I wonder what went "off-topic" to involve the mods, but I'm glad that the topic hadn't been pulled, if for no other reason than to allow those interested to give their POV.
it gladdens my heart to see discussion and not personal attacks for ones opinion. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/13/2008 11:45:44 PM |
Actually I think it does matter that you are an atheist because you have not had exposure to the teachings of Jesus Christ as passed down through The Roman Catholic Church, therefore you have no way of knowing any of the answers to the questions which you so justifiably ask.
actually.........as a baptized Roman Catholic (almost 58 years ago), I can say that I have been duly exposed to the teachings and have reached my own conclusions---again, at my choosing, and without coercion, I never expound my atheism on others.
no harm, no foul | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/14/2008 10:07:40 AM | I have found some wonderful information on the contributions of The Pope and the Catholic church, at:
VATICAN SECRET ARCHIVES
00120 - Vatican City
Tel. +39 06.698.83314 - 06.698.83211
Fax +39 06.698.85574
e-mail: asv@asv.va | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/14/2008 11:38:20 AM |
Actually I think it does matter that you are an atheist because you have not had exposure to the teachings of Jesus Christ as passed down through The Roman Catholic Church, therefore you have no way of knowing any of the answers to the questions which you so justifiably ask.
While I'm sure there are atheists who never studied any religions, I found that as I studied them and while looking for answers, I came to see atheism as the answer. Why people assume atheists are hate-filled, uneducated, immoral people who are mad at some god and/or just too ignorant of the subject to know better, kind of boggles the mind. Atheism is simply a lack of any belief in any supernatural powers that rule the Universe, it's not a religion of it's own, it's not a group of people with like-minded beliefs, etc., it's just people who don't believe in a divine power. Saying one is an atheist who doesn't know better because they haven't been exposed to the teaching of Jesus Christ as passed down through The Roman Catholic Church is like saying that Baptists aren't Christians because they didn't received their teachings from the Catholic Church. Which then brings up that many Christian religions do not see the Catholic religion as Christian because of practices that go against the Christian teachings. It really comes down to the fact that most people do not follow the teachings written in the Bible but instead twist religion to fit their lives as they want to live them. As for the Pope not being a celebrity; does he still sign autographs or have they made him stop that?
| |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/15/2008 12:42:15 PM | daynadaze:
From a strictly Christian standpoint, the only time one's atheism would be the concern would be "IF" the atheist makes their free choice not knowing the truth regarding Christianity.
Whereas this thread begs answers cocerning The Pope, whom it has been sufficiently stated that Catholics accept as the appointed representative of the church founded by Christ - answers have been offered in answer to these questions.
The person who asked the original question regarding The Pope has further expressed that she was introduced to Catholicism earlier in life. It is fair to ASSUME that had she had the answers she sought earlier, she may not have fallen into apostacy.
The Pope, while meeting with the heads of the various nations of the earth to propogate The Faith and while The Holy Father has recently addressed the world from a Mass l with more congragants gathered in one place than have ever gathered at any other religious gathering - and inasmuch as this Mass had more attendees than any rock show ever did - I have never known The Pope to ever sign autographs (not that accomodating the faithful would diminish his timeless significance.).
As to the remarks about Baptists not being authentic Christians because the Roman Catholic church is the church founded by Jesus Christ and all other sects which followed have seperated themselves from the Roman Catholic church founded by Christ - I wouldn't make it sound so divicive if I were you.
The Pope still acknowledges them as ecclesiastical societies which assist in the salvation which is the central charge of the Roman Catholic church. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/16/2008 9:32:30 PM | | Maybe if you think of the Pope in terms of being our spiritual father that would help you understand how many Catholics (not speaking for all here) feel about him. We don't worship him, but we respect and honor him as the chosen head of our faith family. Does that make sense? | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/17/2008 12:01:45 AM | Barbe,
I understand respecting and honoring that which any peoples believe in. for me that would be 'humankind', in all it's foibles.
the broadcast current events when I posted this prompted me to 'think out loud' --hence my thread. this was only 1 of 2 threads that I've ever started here, as I'm always afraid of being redundant with a topic....even though often my replies can be considered redundant  once I got my pov off my chest, I went my merry way and didn't care what were the responses--if any, to my thread..........and rant.
all my life, even while going (drum roll please) religiously to catechism & church at my parents urging...although they were not active themselves  , I never truly felt the pull of a supreme being. actually, I only went as a teen to satisfy my dad and gain dating privileges with a certain lt bf. as time has passed, I've come to acknowledge to MYSELF that I just don't believe in religion/god. I have no doubt that many think I'm daft. really, I don't care.
I NEVER expound my views on others.
my atheism has not, so far, hindered my dating relationships. hell! (pun intended) the 2 most important non-family men in my life are good catholic/parochial boys , born n' raised!
yes, adoration makes sense to me, just not the part about a supreme being, and giving someone such holy status.
I can understand someone coming up through the ranks and earning honor, just not the metaphysical sense that most do.
this is me and no one else's influence on my own conclusions as to.....as Mr. Cosby once asked "why is there air?"
btw...my spawn--without my influence, have chosen different paths--one believes in a god, the other flabbergasted me one night a decade ago by revealing his atheism! he was just as shocked at my choice! lol.
really, I mean no harm or disrespect.
I would hope to garner the same. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/17/2008 12:14:12 PM | mz taken:
In reading through this thread it seems like we just about come to terms with the answer to the question and then slip back into the grey area of confusion.
I have not read a single post where anyone has taken exception to your self professed atheism, and several posts where people identifying themselves as Catholic have in a friendly way offered you not only explanations but also access to Vatican sources to explain as to the Catholic perspective on The Pope.
Catholics don't worship The Pope - and groupies abound anywhere they think that by flocking around a figure head might get their mug in a magazine photo, news reel shot or whatever...
So when you look at a huge crowd around The Pope, you have to understand that a large number of them are the "groupies" and a smaller percentage of them are going to be people who understand and respect The Pope as a world leader and voice of a people and an even smaller percentage still are going to be devout Catholics who look upon The Pope as Christ's appointed head of the Catholic church founded by Jesus Christ.
Where you wrote:
yes, adoration makes sense to me, just not the part about a supreme being, and giving someone such holy status.
This is where I think reading up on the Vatican website may help you out bbecause it seems as though you are of the opinnion that people cannot be holy and this is a whole different theological argument having to do mostly with the division of the spirit from the flesh.
I can understand someone coming up through the ranks and earning honor, just not the metaphysical sense that most do.
The process you are talking about is the process whereby a Pope is selected, but metaphysics was rejected by The Catholic Church a long time ago by order of Papal Bull. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/17/2008 1:23:01 PM | Did you mean divisive? You mean like the Baptists not thinking that Catholics are Christians?
When did Christ found the Catholic Church? He was a Jew (not that I believe there was a person Jesus who was the Christ). What part of the Pope all dressed up and being of a divine bloodline and Holy did Christ teach?
I attended a Billy Graham Rally in LA many years ago, and when people in mass went down from the bleachers to what looked like a born-again movement, we were asked for 3.00 for the Billy Graham Newsletter subscription. I didn't even get his autograph, but I'm betting lots of people have some selective memory of it being a highly spiritual, moving experience, plus they got the newsletter every month for a year. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/17/2008 3:35:48 PM | No problem with you questioning this Mz at all. I can understand that from your standpoint it doesn't make sense, and I'm happy to discuss as I am sure are many of the other posters. I don't know if our answers helped or confused you more, but I'm hoping that you can understand our point of view. Again, we don't adore or worship the Pope, we respect, love and honor him as our spirtual head of our church on Earth. We worship Jesus. Does the difference make sense?
Day? I'm not sure what you are getting at? I'm not sure what Billy Grahm has to do with the Pope other than they are both very spiritual men? Would you expound on your POV? | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/17/2008 6:20:38 PM |
daynadaze wrote:
When did Christ found the Catholic Church?
Catholics believe that Christ founded the Catholic Church within His lifetime on earth. At some point in His ministry, Christ asked the chief apostle, St. Peter, "whom do you say that I am?" He replied, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." And so Christ said, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
And with the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Peter became the first Pope. All popes are known as the "successors of St. Peter", meaning they hold the same office of leadership and custodianship over the Church that St. Peter did.
You can disagree with that, of course, but I'm just informing you of what Catholics believe. You can go to this page to see the traditional list of 265 popes from Peter to Benedict XVI here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ages_of_popes
What part of the Pope all dressed up and being of a divine bloodline and Holy did Christ teach?
The Papacy isn't (usually) hereditary, so I'm not sure what "divine bloodline" you're talking about. For example, Benedict XVI and John Paul II bear no familial relation whatsoever. In the present day, new popes are elected by secret ballot from among the College of Cardinals.
What the Pope wears or doesn't wear is also irrelevant to the topic, although there is a potent symbolism to each of the papal vestments, just as there are to the vestments of all the clergy. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/18/2008 6:09:06 AM | daynadaze -
Where you wrote:
Did you mean divisive? You mean like the Baptists not thinking that Catholics are Christians?
Yes - I meant divisive - like Baptists not thinking the Catholics are Christians. As I stated, the Catholic church is the mother church of all Christian faiths (and by that I mean that historically, on a time-line, the Catholic church was the first Christian church).
In fact, one reason people get confused (our Baptist brethren noted) is because the word Catholic is derived from the Greek Catholica meaning Universal (as in the uniervsal saving grace of Jesus Christ who founded the Catholic church).
So, our Baptist brethren need not feel in the least diminished that they do not understand, or have forgotten that the Catholic church was the original act and all others are more like spin-off series.
So, again: 1. Jesus Christ founds The Church (we was the messiah spoken of in Jewish teachings and transfered the spiritual authority from them to the church he founded. 2. The first Christians adopt the name Catholic or Universal to decribe our scope and strategy, 3. Other churchs form around The Catholic church (usually things like Martin Luther disliking Germany having to kick up to Rome, and King Henry wanting to defy church teachings when he killed his wife to marry another and named himself the head of the Church of England a/k/a Episcapalians.
When did Christ found the Catholic Church? He was a Jew (not that I believe there was a person Jesus who was the Christ).
Does it occur to anyone else that if you do not believe there was so and so who was such and such then you asking questions about so and so to determine the authenticity of his such and such is a waste of everyone's time?
What part of the Pope all dressed up and being of a divine bloodline and Holy did Christ teach?
There is only one holy bloodline that anyone need concern themselves with in conjunction to Jesus Christ and that is the House of David which was rooted in Abraham. Any and all other alledged holy bloodlines are the matter of fairytales and conspiracy theories.
and as for his being all dressed up... it is a testament to the timeless quality of our tradition that he continues to wear his holy vestaments which are Roman in origin. I would think that anyone should understand that, just look at our judicial system in our USA - whose the man in the big chair wearing the ceremonial black robe?
I attended a Billy Graham Rally in LA many years ago, and when people in mass went down from the bleachers to what looked like a born-again movement, we were asked for 3.00 for the Billy Graham Newsletter subscription. I didn't even get his autograph, but I'm betting lots of people have some selective memory of it being a highly spiritual, moving experience, plus they got the newsletter every month for a year.
When you say "people in mass" you do not mean "people at Mass" right? Because it sounds like you know that Billy Graham was some sect of Protestant and that one of the things that Protestants left behind when they left The Church was Mass. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/18/2008 6:24:21 AM | Lashandra777 wrote:
So, again: 1. Jesus Christ founds The Church (He was the messiah spoken of in Jewish teachings and transfered the spiritual authority from the Jewish Patriarchs to the church he founded). 2. The first Christians adopt the name Catholic or Universal to decribe our scope and strategy, 3. Other churchs form around The Catholic church (usually things like Martin Luther disliking Germany having to kick up to Rome, and King Henry wanting to defy church teachings when he killed his wife to marry another and named himself the head of the Church of England a/k/a Episcapalians.
Dreamboat333 (please don't hi-jack this thread) turned me on to a fantastic Catholic website which tells it all.
If you want to know the way in which all other Christian faiths descended from the Catholic church go to:
http://www.transporter.com/FatherPeffley/Apologetics/ProtestantDivs.html
and
http://www.transporter.com/FatherPeffley/Apologetics/Timeline.html
and
http://www.transporter.com/FatherPeffley/Apologetics/HowOld.html
If you want to know when Jesus Christ founded the Catholic church (AD 33) and why we have been under the active attendance of a Pope from DAY ONE go to
An Unbroken List of Pontiffs from Peter to Today
List of the Popes of the Roman Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ
in the year A.D. 33, and contemporary historical events in each era
Which can be found at:
http://www.transporter.com/FatherPeffley/Apologetics/deed.html
These links take you to "Father Peffley's Web Site": Here you will find encouragement for your faith and materials to help you share your faith with others. Sharing the faith is crucial, especially in the world we live in today. The Holy Father has called for a New Evangelization and we must all rise to this most important task. The primary purpose of this web site is to share some of the material Father Peffley has made available for your use. These documents have been saved in Microsoft® Word© format, Portable Document Format (PDF, requires Adobe® Acrobat® Reader), and Rich Text Format (RTF). You are welcome to download any of the material on this web site. Print it for your personal use for catechesis, religious education, RCIA, evangelization, apologetics, and much more. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/18/2008 7:53:47 PM | To speak to the OP's questions, Catholics posting here have made it clear that there is no "worship" of the Pope. He is the titular head of their church. A very powerful man, yes, but as subject to the rules as anyone else (though historically that hasn't always been so). I suppose parallels can be drawn to the modern world. The leader of my country is the Prime Minister, but he is not generally an object of worship or in a place where absolute authority is his. He is subject to the same laws as I am. But, by virtue of his office, he gets to make decisions. I don't. He speaks for the nation. I don't. Etc.
There also seems to be some confusion in regard to the Doctrine of Infallibility. (Catholics, please correct me if I'm wrong) Papal Infallibility only applies to when he makes a declaration "ex Cathedra" (from the 'chair' of Peter). In that moment he is deemed to be speaking for God, directly to God's people, in a prophetic and authoritative sense. The number of times the Pope has spoken "ex Cathedra" is very few. Most times, his proclamations are authoritative but not deemed to be infallible. It's a subtle distinction that may not be obvious to some.
Regarding a post above...
like Baptists not thinking the Catholics are Christians. I don't think you made this statement first, but such statements are wrong because without a qualifier ('some', 'all', 'few', 'many', 'most', 'Baptists I know', 'I heard that', etc.) it appears to make a universal and general statement that is false. That is, that [n]all[/] who are in the group Baptists believe so. That is just not true.
As I stated, the Catholic church is the mother church of all Christian faiths (and by that I mean that historically, on a time-line, the Catholic church was the first Christian church). The first "Christian church" in the proper and classic meaning of the word "church" was the original apostles and disciples. A case may be made that there was no "church" until the Holy Spirit came to all Christians on Pentecost. In that case, the first "church" was the group that believed and were baptised in Jerusalem at Pentecost and shortly afterwards. Long before the Catholic Church was formed, there were many churches - in Antioch, in Ephesus, in Corinth, in Laodicea, in Colossia, in Galatia, etc. -- mentioned in the New Testament (the word used is "ekklesia"). The most common meaning of 'ekklesia' in the New Testament is a reference to all the believers in area. "To the ekklesia at Ephesus means "to all the Christians in Ephesus".
It would be more accurate to say that the Catholic Church was the first institutional Christian church. The Christian Church existed prior to that man-made creation. And it always will. The Catholic Church, like all other Christian churches, has always been a part of that whole, not the genesis of the whole. Jesus, and only Jesus created the "one true church", His "Bride". And He gave no one group authority or power over His "Bride".
Jesus Christ who founded the Catholic church) No more or less so than He founded any other church. All are derivatives of the Universal (through all time and space) Christian church.
Jesus Christ founds The Church... and transferred the spiritual authority from them to the church he founded. True if this is the Christian Church, all who meet and call on His name. Untrue if this is one of that group.
When you say "people in mass" you do not mean "people at Mass" right? Because it sounds like you know that Billy Graham was some sect of Protestant and that one of the things that Protestants left behind when they left The Church was Mass. I think she meant "en masse" (in large numbers). As for leaving behind the "Mass". If you mean the act of gathering together to worship and fellowship, all Christian groups have that commonality. If you mean the formalised Catholic Mass, it is a fine way to worship, but hardly the way that Peter, Paul, etc. gathered together, is it? There is no "church" today that looks exactly like that nascent Christian "church" (no that it has to). I have Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran services, and I'd say that these two follow an almost identical form to the Catholic Mass.
By the way, Billy Graham was a Baptist, and he stated many times that any Catholic who trusts Jesus for their salvation is saved. Just like everyone else. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/19/2008 5:54:47 AM |
The first "Christian church" in the proper and classic meaning of the word "church" was the original apostles and disciples.
That is the whole point of the Catholic Apostolic succession, which I and others like me, have pointed out as being the same unbroken line which leads directly to Pope Benedict XVI and our Catholic church today.
A case may be made that there was no "church" until the Holy Spirit came to all Christians on Pentecost.
This is one of the reasons that the Catholic church celebrates Pentecost as The Birthday of the Catholic Church. It is one of our holy days of obligation when we are required to attend Mass.
There have been groups of people every where and in all times calling themselves Sons of God, Children of Light and professing to be followers of Jesus, what matters to Catholics is that Jesus founded His Church in a specific way conferring, by word and laying on of hands, Apostolic Succession which line is unbroken from Jesus to Peter and from Peter to Pope Benedicts XVI in an unbroken line.
As a matter of fact, there have been times where, in addition to our authentic and verifiable lineage and charter, we have had an over abundance of Bishops/Apostles some in the form of Anti-Popes - so the point is well studied and confirmed in a manner I am prepared to accept as authoritative and demonstrable.
It would be more accurate to say that the Catholic Church was the first institutional Christian church.
I suppose if that is what I meant to convey then it would have been more accurate, but it is not. What I meant to say, I said, in a well thought out, well informed, significantly substantiated and quantitatively supported articulation.
The Christian Church existed prior to that man-made creation.
WHEREAS Jesus was a "man" and whereas Jesus is also God incarnate, (therefore the "creator"), and WHEREAS Jesus Christ founded the Catholic church from which every other contemporary sect and division of Christianity has descended - THEREFORE I am prepared to accept that is that very same "man-made-creation" which exists today as the Catholic church - and I LOVE IT!
The Catholic Church, like all other Christian churches, has always been a part of that whole, not the genesis of the whole.
NO - quite clearly that is the point that you and yours are trying to push in very sly ways - God, The Father Almighty, with Christ and The Holy Spirit is the Genesis of the whole.
Jesus Christ was the person of God who founded the Catholic church by giving charge to Saint Peter who has given it, in due form to Pope Benedict XVI through an unbroken line of Pontiffs.
Jesus, and only Jesus created the "one true church", His "Bride". And He gave no one group authority or power over His "Bride".
Yes, as I have stated, Jesus is the authority. However the Bible speaks very clearly of Jesus founding his church. This does not at all communicate a disorganized structure that permits anything and anyone. You fog the conclusion with a lack of the type of order which is inherent in the whole intent of a body of believers (those who believe and those who are coming to believe, those to instruct and those who are to be instructed).
What you put forth as a well intending spirit of all-inclusiveness I perceive as a veiled attempt to usurp the rightful spiritual authority of the church, and I therefore, on those grounds reject it.
No more or less so than He founded any other church.
Yes, very much less than he founded any other church. The Unitarian Universalists are a church (God Bless Them All) however, they admit Pagans and Atheists (neither of which have any use for our Judeo Christian beliefs in Jesus Christ). The Church of Satan was founded by Anton Szandor LaVey in 1969 (he used the argument of religious "tolerance" which "permits" anyone who wants to call themselves a church to be considered a church).
The readers can see that there is a significant difference between the Catholic church, which was founded by Jesus Christ, conferred to Saint Peter and transmitted in an unbroken line of Bishops to Pope Benedict XVI and the type of assumption that because these others call themselves churches that Jesus Christ somehow had something to do with it.
Billy Graham was a Baptist, and he stated many times that any Catholic who trusts Jesus for their salvation is saved.
Billy Graham, for heading up a church which has digressed from its Catholic origins would have made a fine Catholic.
All are derivatives of the Universal (through all time and space) Christian church.
Jesus Christ founds The Church... and transferred the spiritual authority from them to the church he founded.
If you mean the formalised Catholic Mass, it is a fine way to worship, but hardly the way that Peter, Paul, etc. gathered together, is it? There is no "church" today that looks exactly like that nascent Christian "church" (no that it has to). I have Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran services, and I'd say that these two follow an almost identical form to the Catholic Mass.
The oldest known Christian church which has been longest in operation is an ancient and primitive church of the Coptic order of Catholicism in Ethiopia. They still conduct all of their services in the original language of Jesus Christ, and yes, the conduct a form of the Mass which reflect the manner in which Jesus Christ directed us to worship in assembly.
| |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/19/2008 9:44:50 AM |
I said: The Catholic Church, like all other Christian churches, has always been a part of that whole, not the genesis of the whole.
lashandra said: NO - quite clearly that is the point that you and yours are trying to push in very sly ways
"You and yours"? HuH?? "Sly"? Huh?? Not another Conspiracy Theory!
Let me be as clear as I've been previously.
You are free to believe that you belong to a church that has a primary position in Christendom, that is the genesis of all Christian churches. that is your right, and one that I respect. But it is a matter of faith and not facts - and a fairly large helping of hubris in some cases - that you believe this to be so. Your unbroken lines, claims of apostolic succession, etc are irrelevant.
I believe that the The Christian Church belongs to Jesus Christ and He has not entrusted it to the Roman Catholic Church or any one church. It's HIS, and HIS alone.
I'm quite willing to stand before Jesus Christ with that belief. Should He disagree with me, I'm confident He'll let me know. Until then, I won't change. Especially on the basis of unproven claims from self-interested parties.
I think we should agree to disagree. What do you think?
Pax | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/19/2008 11:25:01 AM | Remember what the bible says......
James Chapter 4.. 11 Do not speak evil of one another, brothers. Whoever speaks evil of a brother or judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law. 6 If you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save or to destroy. Who then are you to judge your neighbor?
I read a bit on a post recently that said "most are here just to see a "good fight", I am beginning to see the truth in that statement." But in God there is hope..
Pacis exsisto vobis usquequaque | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/20/2008 11:47:00 AM |
"You and yours"? HuH?? "Sly"? Huh?? Not another Conspiracy Theory!
Nothing personal - just noting the obvious fact that there are a handful of posts which seem to be directed at Catholics, and the profiles attached to these posts have been traced back to the same parties who appear to have instigating the closure of threads and discussions involving Catholicism.
It was recommended that some of these posts and profiles might be "stalking" certain other profiles, although I for one have not as yet followed administration's recommendations to report this - because I am hoping that level heads will prevail.
Let me be as clear as I've been previously. You are free to believe that you belong to a church that has a primary position in Christendom, that is the genesis of all Christian churches.
...so much for level head prevailing, huh? What I said was that God is the final athority and that Jesus as God the Son founded the church. According to the Bible and all meritorious accounts, He gave his authority to Saint Peter who gave it to Pope Benedict XVI through an unbroken line of Pontiffs as can be researched at:
http://www.transporter.com/FatherPeffley/Apologetics/HowOld.html
and
http://www.transporter.com/FatherPeffley/Apologetics/deed.html
Our unbroken lines, verifiable claims of apostolic succession, etc. are relevant on the basis both of the faithful of our church and all other churches who descended from us as well as a matter of historic, academic, and cultural significance.
Your belief all denominations of Christian church's who, albeit schizmatically, descended from the Catholic church, (which we refer to as ecclesiatical communities) belonging to Jesus Christ is also relevant both to we Catholics as to you.
The relevance is because we should remain ever mindful of the fact that there is a natural order to the progress of any people and their faith so as not to fall into docternal and spiritual error.
He has not entrusted it to the Roman Catholic Church or any one church.
I read in the Bible that Jesus did in fact give directives to his followes for a formalized following of sorts. Some used the Greek word ecclesia, others "body of believers" of which Jesus is described as being the head.
Where we differ is that historical facts and evidance indicate that there is an unbroken line of Apostilic Succession which authorizes the Catholic church to a rightful claim to being the direct heir to this authority as handed down by Christ - and you choose to refute it.
I'm quite willing to stand before Jesus Christ with that belief.
I encourage you whole-heartedly to do so.
I think we should agree to disagree. What do you think?
I agree, you disagree.
Pax Eccelisia Romana. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/20/2008 11:59:28 AM | awildirishrose wrote:
Remember what the bible says. James Chapter 4.. 11 Do not speak evil of one another, brothers. Whoever speaks evil of a brother or judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law. 6 If you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save or to destroy. Who then are you to judge your neighbor?
I hope you do not believe that by pointing out the authentic right of the Catholic church to claim Her place as the mother church of all Christianity and as central to the plan of salvation that I am in some way speaking poorly of anyone.
It isn't I or any of the other people who have identified themselves as Catholic as I have read who have stalked others, harassed and badgered them and then sicked the thought police on them causing their discussion to be cut off.
I read a bit on a post recently that said "most are here just to see a "good fight", I am beginning to see the truth in that statement." But in God there is hope..
There is hope in The Father, Son and Holy Ghost - in Mary and all the Angels and Saints...
DISCLAIMER: "This statement is that of a Catholic and does not reflect the views of Plenty of Fish, it's advertisers nor the crypto-fascists who lord over these boards".
| |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/20/2008 2:27:34 PM |
DISCLAIMER: "This statement is that of a Catholic and does not reflect the views of Plenty of Fish, it's advertisers nor the crypto-fascists who lord over these boards".
*-The FAQ for the Religion/Supernatural forums is located here.It is unclear to me if this is being directed at the moderating staff, posters or someone else. In any event, ordinarily this would be deleted on sight...instead, I have elected to leave it up as an example of what NOT to do.
The first part is in fact, just fine. To illustrate your statement as the belief as that of a particular sect of a faith or group is ideal. It seperates your belief from the court of fact and says "this is not a statement of exclusivity of truth, in no way states that we are trying to arbitrate truth for others here on these forums, BUT, it does state that this is what we in our faith believe, like it or not.
That is a perfectly acceptable thing to do as the examples below of exclusivity of truth show. Going on to take a slap at other users or the moderating staff is clearly off limits. Any further doing so will result in a long or permanent forum ban by any party so doing. I trust that is clear. Now please stay on topic (restated back in post 26 for the attention impaired)and lose the flames or this thread will be shut down. -TheMadFiddler-*
Exclusivity of Truth
- Examples:
(Not okay)
"My (generic faith) beliefs are the one true way"
"Your religion is delusional because I don't believe in it"
"You are wrong because you aren't a true (generic faith)"
Note: Those making such statements are claiming to be the only arbiters of "truth".
(Okay)
"It is my belief that spinning dead chickens over my head is the only way to salvation"
"Not being religious, I see such things as being delusional"
"In (generic faith) this is held to be true"
The key here is prefacing the idea with "belief" as it is a belief or a teaching rather than an established fact and being clear that it is a teaching or belief you or your sect hold to be true, rather than something universal - because frankly it may not be something held to be universal despite the fervant wish of you or your sect for it to be so. As well, you or your sect may hold beliefs that denigrate or disparage the beliefs of other faith groups that precede or follow yours. In these cases it is ESPECIALLY important to note that what you hold to be true is a belief. Why? Because simply you can no more prove it to be true than you can prove their belief to be false...that's why it is a belief. And we don't want or need any holy wars fought in here. It's about an exchange of ideas. Nuff said. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/20/2008 4:21:02 PM | I'm not going to regurgitate the different opinion regrading your claim to the the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church. Obviously we disagree - both in conclusion and in claims of supporting "successions".
However, this constant reference to some sort of conspiracy is rude and offensive. If you have evidence that some sort of anti-Catholic conspiracy is occurring, bring it forth. I for one would like to see it dealt with. The truth will set you free and all that. As it is, you seem to be trying to defame those who disagree. For the record, I have one profile -- just in case you were trying to defame me with your innuendo.
Nothing personal - just noting the obvious fact that there are a handful of posts which seem to be directed at Catholics, and the profiles attached to these posts have been traced back to the same parties who appear to have instigating the closure of threads and discussions involving Catholicism.
It was recommended that some of these posts and profiles might be "stalking" certain other profiles, although I for one have not as yet followed administration's recommendations to report this - because I am hoping that level heads will prevail. | |
|
| Pope vs deitism
Posted: 6/20/2008 4:25:13 PM | | Sooooo, on topic... have I made it sufficiently clear that devout Catholics understand the Pope to be the authority appointed by Christ through Saint Peter and a long unbroken line of Apostolic Succession? Which in turn appears on good evidence to confirm the primacy of the Pope and the spiritual authority of the Catholic church as central to the Christ's plan of salvation? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
