How do you know if you are in Christ's Church?

[mulls]

everyone,

look at ironmonk be a tough guy and try to call me out as an anti-catholic. look at him get defensive.

i'm definately not avoiding anything. if you introduce something into a topic, such as a giant picture of "Christ's church" in your sig, than it's fair game. relax buddy. relax.

"If anyone is in a church that cannot show at least two people in each century since Christ that do not contradict anything taught by that church today, then they are in the wrong church."

in a church-- as in an institution....not a corporate gathering of believers, but an actual "thing." since our definitions of church don't match up, and since most protestants definitions of church won't match up with yours, your little challenge is rendered moot.

get off your high horse, and quit calling people out.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 25 2004, 01:07 AM'] everyone,

look at ironmonk be a tough guy and try to call me out as an anti-catholic. look at him get defensive.

i'm definately not avoiding anything. if you introduce something into a topic, such as a giant picture of "Christ's church" in your sig, than it's fair game. relax buddy. relax.

"If anyone is in a church that cannot show at least two people in each century since Christ that do not contradict anything taught by that church today, then they are in the wrong church."

in a church-- as in an institution....not a corporate gathering of believers, but an actual "thing." since our definitions of church don't match up, and since most protestants definitions of church won't match up with yours, your little challenge is rendered moot.

get off your high horse, and quit calling people out. [/quote]
Maybe you feel it's a high horse because you cannot prove the Catholic Church wrong.

The sig is another topic. You should start a new thread for that... the sigs follow through on all posts by a user.

Not getting defensive at all... simple facts.

What did the first Christians (say before 700 AD) believe "Church" meant?

Show us some that believe it was what you think it is.

Surely if you are correct on the meaning of Church, the first Christians would believe the same thing... since the Church will not be overcome... since Christ promised the Church to be guided in all truth.... since the Apostles called the Church the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.... Surely you can find someone who believes "Church" to mean a group of believers who disagree on this belief or that belief??? Can you????


Calling people out? Tough? LOL No bro... just simple facts.

If x and y is true, then z must be true also.... Logic bro.

People keep telling me I'm wrong... then prove it... I want to be right... I don't want to be wrong. I have changed for Christ, and I will change for Christ.

Please stop trying to dodge the topic... just do it.

Find them before 700 AD to prove me wrong...

What do you think it means if you cannot find anyone before 700 AD that believes "Church" to be the same definition as you?

What do you think it means if you cannot find anyone who believes the same things that you do from before 700 AD?


Trying to get you to think bro...

Every post that you make without doing it, just proves that you're trying to change the topic...

You are an anti-Catholic... you attack the Church on grounds that are not true or because of the way someone treated you or didn't treat you who happened to be Catholic. It's not the Christ's fault that Catholics did't try to keep you Catholic. Maybe they thought you were smart and would find the truth on your own or thought you should find it on your own.... Life's a learning lesson. Seek the Truth, then learn. Think. Add one and one. Use logic and reason couple with facts that are given... Does it all add up?

I've simply pointed out facts given in the New Testament, and if Christ is God, then He cannot be wrong or lie. Then that would mean what I posted is true...
The Church will never be overcome. The Church is One Faith. It will be like a city on a mountain which cannot be hidden. Which means that the One Faith will be visiable for all time for all to see.


I say again, please don't get sidetracked... please first do this before replying to me on any other topic.....

What did the first Christians (say before 700 AD) believe "Church" meant?
Here is the protestant set: [url="http://www.logos.com/products/details/518"]http://www.logos.com/products/details/518[/url]

Note: The Early Church Fathers CD-ROM comes in two versions, Protestant and Catholic. Simply put, the difference is that the Protestant edition contains additional front matter written at a later date. There is no difference in the actual ECF text.

You can read them all for free here: [url="http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/"]http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/[/url]

Show us some that believe it was what you think it is.

Surely if you are correct on the meaning of Church, the first Christians would believe the same thing... since the Church will not be overcome... since Christ promised the Church to be guided in all truth.... since the Apostles called the Church the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.... Surely you can find someone who believes "Church" to mean a group of believers who disagree on this belief or that belief??? Can you????



God Bless,
ironmonk

[Balthazor]

Well a mass is the highest fom of worship mulls. I know that when you look at the picture and see how rich and eleborate everything is you may raise an eyebrow. And go Jesus was poor and here you Catholics are in gold and incense and splendor.

But there is a reason for all the granduer, we love Christ dearly, and we want to give Him the best of eveything we have....it is natural to want to make something beautiful after all and I think it is natural to want to give the Best to God.

But you see the mass can be celebrated just as easily and validly if there were nothing but a tin cup to hold the Precious blood, instead of a golden chalice. However if you can afford it a gold chalice is much better.

The church is very old, even monastaries in which the monks are sworn to poverty, tend to have treasures and lands, as the centuries go by good common people and rich people and whoever may make a donation, or leave a land or money in a will. This isn't because the Church is taking it from people it is because people gave to the Church. Things add up after a couple centuries you know I look at my basement and wonder where all the stuff came from.

If you have never been to a mass I would suggest you go and see want it is all about. You may feel differently about it after words:)

[mulls]

balthazor thank you for the intelligent response, i really appreciate it. thats the kind of dialogue i like.

btw i grew up catholic, been to mass week in and week out for 19 years, so i know what its about. moreso now than i did then. but pictures like those really throw me for a loop sometimes....that stuff and the vatican stuff.

[Balthazor]

Thank you for the lovely complement mulls

Believe it or not there is usually a reason why catholics do what they do.

I just want to elaborate and correct a little bit on my "tin cup" statement....
(before someone does it for me )

Just so you know.
The general stand of the church is that the chalice should be made of a precious metal (so it won't break, yup...that means no crystal) or at least lined in precious metal. Gold is used because it is not only a fitting material for the sacredness of the vessels purpose, but also because it is practical.
Gold doesn't rust and it doesn't tarnish, and doesn;t shatter and it has a very smooth and shiny finish...you can see if you missed a piece of the Eucharist on the patton or in the chalice. This is important, since we believe in transubstantiation even a tiny piece of the host is actually Jesus, body, soul and divinty, and to miss it in the chalice or on the patton would not be a very respectful or very good thing in general.

Generally we make everything as nice as we can possibly afford in a vain effort to try and make the vessel and the space more fitting for the Sacredness of it's purpose.

I am sorry for hijacking the thread iron
And I am sorry for getting so off toic with you too mulls...I just looked back ot my statement and figured I better elaborate a little on my own comment. But if nothing else maybe ya learned something you didn't know before.

Ok I am done now you guys can go back to the talking about Christ's Church now....sorry again.

God bless,
Balthazor

[amarkich]

Okay, rather than arguing specifics, like liturgy, can a non-Catholic please address the post's point (no red herrings). Please find any "church" that has had consistent doctrine and been practiced by a group since 33 a.D. Thanks. Mulls, I am specifically asking you, but any non-Catholic can answer.

[M.SIGGA]

Mulls,

I might be reading you wrong because computers smell of elderberries, but your understanding of the Church seems to be almost totally Pauline without giving equal weight to the entire New Testament, which is all equally God's Word. Christ didn't wipe the slate clean and abolish the Old Law/ Tradition, He came to fulfill it. This is the Good News. There is nothing other than a true depiction of Christ's fulfillment in that sig pic.

The descriptions of Christian worship from the 1st 4 centuries is the basis for what you see in that pic. What is really the turnoff and what about that pic is not portraying Christ's fulfillment? Is it the gold, or the robes, or the motions/ movements? Everything in the liturgy, including the vestments, has a specific meaning. Do you think tradition is evil?

FYI, you might already know this, but until the 20th century, Protestant worship was derived copied in various different manners from the scene in that pic, even Baptists and so called non-liturgical protestants. Many still are today too.

Keep ya head up - God Bless - Pax Christi.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 25 2004, 02:02 AM'] balthazor thank you for the intelligent response, i really appreciate it. thats the kind of dialogue i like.

btw i grew up catholic, been to mass week in and week out for 19 years, so i know what its about. moreso now than i did then. but pictures like those really throw me for a loop sometimes....that stuff and the vatican stuff. [/quote]
If you know what it was all about, you wouldn't be wrong on so much of it.
Catechesis is where you learn about the Mass... not in the Mass.

There are many many people who go to a Catholic Church for years and not know what it's about and think that they do.

Please stop avoiding the topic, and prove what you claim.

Some people avoid the truth when they don't want the truth to be true... does that make the truth less true? No. Do it for Christ mulls. Can you do it for Christ?

Can you, for the love of Christ, show us Early Church Fathers (the first generations of Christians), that you hold their faith... the One Faith.

If your faith cannot be shown in teaching in the first 700 years of Christianity, how can you say that your faith is the faith of the Apostles?

Christ said never overcome and the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit in all truth....

How can truth contradict truth?

Mulls... you came onto this thread, please address the topic.

"Church" is not a philosophical arguement... It's this simple:

"What did the Early Church Fathers believe the Church to be?"

Please show us with quotes.... also, please use quotes from men that all of their writings do not contradict anything that you believe.

Wouldn't you think that if you are in the One Faith started by Christ, you will be able to do that little task?

Would you like help with this task?

Here is a google search on the Early Church Fathers writings for the word "Church":
[url="http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=site%3Anewadvent.org++fathers+Church"]http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en...+fathers+Church[/url]

If you would like further help, please let me know.




Everyone...
this is my delima... I love Christ... If I don't have an answer to someone's attacks on Christ or His Church, I'll find an answer. I know that His Church will never be overcome... so there will always be an answer. I keep hunting until I find it. I have always been able to find an answer. It boggles my mind how some people seem like they don't care... it's like they're lukewarm. "Yes, I believe in Jesus, but I don't know the answers to your questions, but you be happy with your answers and I'll just keep going on without answers"... it's absurd to say we believe in Jesus and reject the truth Jesus and what He did with His Church. (Some might say I'm being a little harsh with this statement, but prove the Church wrong and then it will be too harsh... if the Church is right, then the statement is needed)

I can't fathom why anyone who claims that they love Christ would be satisfied without having an answer for some of the most basic questions... unless they were running from the truth. If they are running from the truth, then they are running from Christ, because Christ wants us to have the Truth or He wouldn't have promised that the Holy Spirit would always guide the Church in all matters of Truth.

Christianity is not a buffet that we get to pick and choose what we want. We sit and eat what our Father gives us. We need to clean our plates.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited November 26, 2004 by ironmonk

[mulls]

i'm not searching for answers, i don't have any ultimate truth questions, at least none that i would come here in order to answer.

by the way, what did i ever claim?

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 26 2004, 12:13 AM'] i'm not searching for answers, i don't have any ultimate truth questions, at least none that i would come here in order to answer.

by the way, what did i ever claim? [/quote]
My questions towards you were subjective, about likes and dislikes. In order to make comments like this,

[quote]maybe i'm wrong. but honestly use some perspective....what does that look like to you guys? [/quote]

you must have some sort of opinion because you are obviously hinting towards something. I think my questions were fair.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 26 2004, 03:13 AM'] i'm not searching for answers, i don't have any ultimate truth questions, at least none that i would come here in order to answer.

by the way, what did i ever claim? [/quote]
[quote]speaking of that sig, you're telling me that's the church that Jesus started?

seriously. [/quote]

Again, changing the subject....

You claimed that the Church was not started by Christ.
You claim that you are in the Church started by Christ, but you have a different deffinition of what Church means than the Apostles did. If that is so, how can you be in the Church started by Christ if you do not define it as the Apostles and other first Christians did for over 700 years?


If you loved Christ, you would follow Christ, even if it leads you where you don't want to go.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 26 2004, 02:13 AM'] i'm not searching for answers. [/quote]
Interesting admission.

Anyway, I'm curious to see if you'd like to start a thread and explain the meaning behind your comments about Chanman450's signature picture.

[mulls]

[quote]Interesting admission.[/quote]

not really. most know i'm here simply to learn about catholocism, and stand up for christians who get wrongly bashed by catholics, just as most here stand up for catholic christians who get wrongly bashed by other christians. and obviously i like to debate a bit here and there, though i'm not nearly educated enough to hold my own with all these scholars. i'm all about learning though, and my beliefs haven't wavered one bit since the day i got here.


[quote]Anyway, I'm curious to see if you'd like to start a thread and explain the meaning behind your comments about Chanman450's signature picture.[/quote]

eh, doesn't really thrill me, but if you make it interesting i'll hop on board.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 27 2004, 02:06 AM']
not really. most know i'm here simply to learn about catholocism, and stand up for christians who get wrongly bashed by catholics, just as most here stand up for catholic christians who get wrongly bashed by other christians. and obviously i like to debate a bit here and there, though i'm not nearly educated enough to hold my own with all these scholars. i'm all about learning though, and my beliefs haven't wavered one bit since the day i got here.[/quote]
I really don't know much about you other than you are ex-Catholic, but still some kind of Christian. And, you like basketball.

In my time here, I have yet to see protestants get "wrongly bashed" without having the mods come to their defense. I would say that such personal attacks are the exception at Phatmass, and most people here are quite friendly in their treatment toward protestants.

If, by "wrongly bashed," you are refering to their beliefs being attacked wrongly, then your criticism is unfounded. Protestant novelties are a departure from true Christianity, and are "rightly bashed" by the Truth of Jesus Christ as taught by His Church. We have a moral obligation to correct those in error.

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 27 2004, 02:06 AM']eh, doesn't really thrill me, but if you make it interesting i'll hop on board.[/quote]

I only brought this up because I didn't know what you meant by the statement, and I thought it was off-topic. If you don't explain yourself when you throw out a statement with the sole purpose to offend, what purpose does that serve? I'll go ahead and start a thread so you can explain your position.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]1.) Prove it wrong
2.) Become Catholic[/quote]

Again with the either/or mentality when it's not warranted. Just because you can't prove something wrong doesn't mean it's true. I can't prove the boogyman wrong but that doesn't mean it's true.

You'll say that if the Catholic Church existed for so long, then a contradiction should arise. First of all, you're not proving the Catholic Church, you're just giving benefit of doubt. All those things that you assert as church.. truth.. one.. is what any church would believe. They just don't all claim to have the church the way you guys do.

To examine this assertion that no contraditions arise a few things should be noted.

One I think that no salvation outside the Catholic Church and the newer concept contradict.

I can find two people who believe what I do throughout history. Is it necessary to have them believe everything that I do?

I think what will happen is that iron will insist that what he has is factual proof for the validity of the Catholic Church. But we all know when we're honest that he doesn't necessarily. Then he'll just say well then prove it wrong. Notice he has those two arguments. The fact taht he has the second I think does indicate that his "proofs" are not adequate.

I'll show more in a bit.

Edited November 27, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c