Brother Adam Only Please.

[the lumberjack]

I was reading some stuff today...don't remember where, but it basically said that nothing has really changed since before the Vatican II, that the Catholic Church has only modernized the process with which they approach us "protestants"...you know, become more pleasing to the modern eye.

with that, I want to ask you, who is on the brink of "being reconciled"... what about all the writings that have every "protestant" anathema? what did the Vatican II do to change all that?

I mean, yeah, the Catholics on the board kinda say that maybe we're going to heaven, or WHO KNOWS...and the variety of answers given...along with the one that confirms what I'm posting, that we are all damned...

I want you to tell me what the Vatican II says that UNDID those writings that anathema all protestant Christians.

nothing vague, nothing iffy...point it out to me, give me a link, whatever...I want to read it for myself.

because as of yet, I have yet to read anything in VII besides the modernization of the Catholic Church, the [b]restating[/b] of ideas, doctrine and dogma, and nothing besides "absorption" of all protestants...

[Brother Adam]

My Day:

6am - work
3:30PM - phatmass
11PM - bed

lol.

I don't think I'm on the verge of reconciling. I think I'm still about 10,000 pages of reading away from just being able to make that kind of decision. However, if the Catholic Church is synomonous with the "Church" as recorded in scripture, I want in.


Okay, having read many of these early councils this is what I can offer. I will expand if it doesn't.

Most of the early councils dealt with one main purpose: Fighting heresy.

Here is a list of some of the heresies. Ignore that...em.."one" they put in there

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp[/url]

The Apostle Paul said:

Galatians 1:8-9 (ESV)
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

I believe this is the spirit in which the word anathema in it.

Please notice what I wrote to Catholic Crusader in my "checkmate post".

[the lumberjack]

ok, that verse is fine and what not...to substantiate the context of why THEY use it...but:

[quote]Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)

This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally, "icon smashers") appeared, who claimed that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints, despite the fact that in the Bible, God had commanded the making of religious statues (Ex. 25:18–20; 1 Chr. 28:18–19), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:8–9 with John 3:14).[/quote]

how do catholics use these verses against iconoclasts?

[quote]18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.

20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.[/quote]

1 Chron 28 says the same thing...

this was a DIRECT commandment of how to build the MERCY SEAT...where God was to RESIDE! not some statue of mary or the saints or whatever else they have... God does NOT reside in these statues, and neither do the saints which they have.

[quote]7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.[/quote]

John 3:14....yeah...just gives a historical account of it.

sorry brother...I ain't buyin it...or the graven images that are put up. "it reminds me of Christ...or whatever excuse is given to have them, they are graven images.

and this?:

[quote]Protestantism (16th Century)

Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide ("by faith alone"— the idea that we are justified by faith only).

The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation." A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church "against" the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.

The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.[/quote]

thats a great way of STEREOTYPING all protestant Christians...

Sola Scriptura...Sola Fide... I've discussed these pretty thoroughly on the Lumberjack thread...

so, to say the least...that article was little to no help...though some of those denoms/sects sounded kinda scary...otherwise...yeah.

[Brother Adam]

You know bro, you wanna call statues and other artwork graven, fine. That is your luxury to do so. You'll find many friends at our Baptist Church who claim that you are never allowed to say a formal prayer and you are never allowed to repeat a prayer, because either must be done in vian.

Frankly, it ticks me off. Especially non-Catholic Churches that have American flags, pictures (any pictures in the church of any kind), or the Christian flag, or any carved statues that are a part of the building. So Catholics have images of past Christians and other historical figures. So they want to remember their Christian heritage. Why the hell is this an issue? Protestants who walk up to Catholics and say "You worship statues" make me wanna go postal.

It is essential to understand worship. An act of worship is in essence an action that we do, either in thought or movement, to recognize someone or something as deity or as having a power of which only God alone can have. If I bow before the Queen of England as a sign of respect and reverence, I have not committed idolatry. This is because the intention of which I bow is not to recognize the Queen of England as God, but to recognize her as a ruling authority over part of God's creation. It is done in respect and reverence. If I bow in front of a statue of Mary or Joseph, as long as I do not intend to worship them, I am not committing idolatry. The intention behind which an action is done is very important to understand if the action is worship, or if it is out of respect or honor.

Numbers 22:31
Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand. And he bowed down and fell on his face.

Rev. 22:8-9
I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."

In both of these instances two people bow down to an angel. Balaam was permitted to do so because he bowed in fear, honor, and reverence. John tried to bow in worship. This was not permitted. So we see that even in the same action, in this case bowing, it may or may not be worship depending on the persons intentions.

Acts 10:25-26
When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man."

Same thing. Cornelius tried to worship Peter, so Peter did not allow it. The Pope may allow someone to bow in respect before him, but if the Pope senses the person trying to worship him, he would naturally stop it immediately.

Acts 12:21-23
On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them. And the people were shouting, "The voice of a god, and not of a man!" Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.

Herod accepted worship, and thus was struck dead by God.

[the lumberjack]

if its not of worship, fine.

rememberance, fine.

but when they pray in front of these statues...because it reminds them of whoever/whatever...thats pretty iffy... people throughout the Bible created statues to remind them of their idols, and to remember them...so this is where there is a problem.

but this isn't my question.

its still about the first post I put.

thanks for the clarification on the statue thing, though.

God bless.

[Brother Adam]

It gets iffy only if the communion of the saints is a false doctrine. I'm actually working on an article for my website now that shows through inductive Bible study that there is little room for doubt that it is an accurate doctrine (of course with all doctrine you have to decide for yourself). Naturally, it will be suplimented with historical writings.

Anyways you said:

"ok, that verse is fine and what not...to substantiate the context of why THEY use it"

I guess I'm not sure what the specific question is on the word that you still need me to answer.

[the lumberjack]

ok...here goes again.

I want you to tell me what the Vatican II says that UNDID those writings that anathema all protestant Christians.

what doctrines got changed? cuz I didn't see any, yet.

what did the VII do to undo the anathema of all noncatholic chrisitans...cuz I haven't seen anything to prove it did anything but restate doctrine, dogma, and the ideas of the church.

what did the VII do besides make the catholic church more "modern"...vernacular at Mass, amongst other things...

because as of yet, I still see all protestant christians anathema in the eyes of the catholic church.

[the lumberjack]

bump

[the lumberjack]

BUMP!

[Brother Adam]

lol. Lumberjack. Almost forgot about you.

I'm not sure that the council "undid" anything from previous councils. Unless you know something I don't? Which is possible, because I've maybe read 5% of what's available from all the councils and Church writings.

[the lumberjack]

well, I'll find some of the writings, but heres some other questions for you in the meantime...

what part does the brown scapulary play in salvation/purgatory?
doesn't that sound a bit like the mormons and their holy underwear?
how does this physical thing affect our spiritual life?

what about the corpses located in cathedrals all around the world?
doesn't that hint to a necromantic tendency?
where in the bible were dead corpses kept in the temple or church, and subsequently filled with wax and/or gold when they started to decay?

God bless.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 21 2004, 11:39 AM'] what part does the brown scapulary play in salvation/purgatory?
doesn't that sound a bit like the mormons and their holy underwear?
how does this physical thing affect our spiritual life?

what about the corpses located in cathedrals all around the world?
doesn't that hint to a necromantic tendency?
where in the bible were dead corpses kept in the temple or church, and subsequently filled with wax and/or gold when they started to decay? [/quote]
[quote]what part does the brown scapulary play in salvation/purgatory?[/quote]

It is a sign of salvation. Kindof like wearing a crucifix.


[quote]doesn't that sound a bit like the mormons and their holy underwear?[/quote]

Mormons gone and done and lost their mind. Catholics and Mormons are Apples to Oranges. That one I CAN debate.

[quote]how does this physical thing affect our spiritual life?[/quote]

It's a sacramental. It is meant to put our minds on higher things. Like empty crosses do in reformed protestant Churches.


[quote]what about the corpses located in cathedrals all around the world?[/quote]

Relics.

[quote]doesn't that hint to a necromantic tendency?[/quote]

Hell no. (pun intended)

[quote]where in the bible were dead corpses kept in the temple or church, and subsequently filled with wax and/or gold when they started to decay?[/quote]

Revelation.

[the lumberjack]

[quote]Later Carmelite writers give more details of such a vision and revelation. Johannes Grossi wrote his "Viridarium" about 1430, and he relates that the Mother of God appeared to Simon Stock with the scapular of the order in her hand. This scapular she gave him with the words: [b]"Hoc erit tibi et cunctis Carmelitis privilegium, in hoc habitu moriens salvabitur" (This shall be the privilege for you and for all the Carmelites, that anyone dying in this habit shall be saved)[/b]. On account of this great privilege many distinguished Englishmen, such as King Edward II, Henry, Duke of Lancaster, and many others of the nobility secretly work (clam portaverunt) the Carmelite scapular under their clothing and died with it on. In Grossi's narrative, however, the scapular of the order must be taken to mean the habit of the Carmelites and not as the small Carmelite scapular. As was the custom in medieval times among the other orders, the Carmelites gave their habit or at least their scapular to their benefactors and friends of high rank, that these might have a share in the privilege apparently connected with their habit or scapular by the Blessed Virgin. It is possible that the Carmelites themselves at that period wore their scapular at night in a smaller form just as they did at a later date and at the present time: namely, in about the form of the scapular for the present third order. If this is so they could give laymen their scapular in this form. At a later date, probably not until the sixteenth century, instead of the scapular of the order the small scapular was given as a token of the scapular brotherhood. Today the brotherhood regards this as its chief privilege, and one it owes to St. Simon Stock, that anyone who dies wearing the scapular is not eternally lost. In this way the chief privilege and entire history of the little Carmelite scapular is connected with the name of St. Simon Stock. There is no difficulty in granting that Grossi's narrative, related above, and the Carmelite tradition are worthy of belief, even though they have not the full value of historical proof (see SCAPULAR). That Simon himself was distinguished by special veneration of and love for the Virgin is shown by the antiphonies "Flos Carmeli" and "Ave Stella Matutina", which he wrote, and which have been adopted in the breviary of the Calced Carmelites. Besides these antiphonies other works have been incorrectly attributed to him. The first biographical accounts of Simon belong to the year 1430, but these are not entirely reliable. However, he was not at this time publicly venerated as a saint; it was not until 1435 that his feast was put in the choral books of the monastery at Bordeaux. It was introduced before 1458 into Ireland and, probably at the same time, into England; by a decree of the General Chapter of 1564 its celebration was commanded for the entire order.[/quote]

you see the part where it says that they would be saved by wearing it?

The Great Promise
given to St. Simon Stock, July 16, l251

[quote]"Whosoever dies weareing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire."
This was attached to my scapula...
This also is written on the paper...
THE SABBATINE PRIVILEGE
given to Pope John, xx11, 1322
"I, the Mother of Grace, shall desend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever I shall find in Purgatory, I shall free."[/quote]

hmmm...most of these dates seem WELL after Christ died, rose and ascended.

but these are still not the answer to my question...we'll get to the superstition and mysticism later.

God bless.

[Brother Adam]

There is nothing wrong with mysticism, in it's appropriate context. Like the carmalite scapular. Context matters. The intent with which a person wrote something matters even more. And that is what you need to do with your quote. Before thinking you just found a kill-all way to disprove Catholicism, consider the intent it was written with.

[the lumberjack]

and someone else answered my original question...

[quote]Vatican II did not remove any anathemas.[/quote]

but feel free to continue learning me on the extrabiblical mysticism and superstition.

like the papal tiaras and the catholic "shepherd's crook"...where those fit in with something Jesus would do.