Was I Better Off Back Then?

[Katholikos]

Anomaly wrote:

[quote]God HIMSELF has chosen to be present where 3 or more are gathered in His Name and NOT limit himself to the buildings that have "CATHOLIC" on the sign outside.[/quote]God HIMSELF is omnipresent. He is present to everyone, all the time.

But that Scripture passage about Christ being present to 2 or 3 gathered together in his name was said to His Apostles and was His assurance that when the leaders of His Church gathered, He was with them. You don't believe that whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, do you? Some things were promised to the Apostles exclusively. In the next verse, He promises that if they agree on anything in prayer, it will be granted to them. These verses immediately follow Jesus' dispute resolution instructions about bringing matters that are in contention to the Church. (Mt 18:15-20)

I've heard the televangelists on TBN exhorting, "come on, agree with me" and claiming that an agreement between two people in prayer absolutely obligates God to grant it. Bull-oney.

The same Jesus who said this about 2 or 3 also said there shall be ONE flock and ONE shepherd and pleaded for unity in His One Church.

You're saying that it's better for Mulls (or anyone) to belong to a one of a group of churches (who all disagree on doctrine) founded by German Pietists (all having Brethren in their name) in the 18th century than to be a member of the Church established by Christ for the salvation of the world.

Jesus says, "If you don't like my Church, go find one founded by some other guy or gal that you do like?" I don't think so.

"Luther said wax noses, like Scripture, can be twisted to fit" (fromer Lutheran Father Richard John Neuhaus).

-------------------------------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

Edited November 4, 2006 by Katholikos

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1110959' date='Nov 4 2006, 03:24 PM']
Anomaly wrote:

God HIMSELF is omnipresent. He is present to everyone, all the time.

But that Scripture passage about Christ being present to 2 or 3 gathered together in his name was said to His Apostles and was His assurance that when the leaders of His Church gathered, He was with them. You don't believe that whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, do you? Some things were promised to the Apostles exclusively. In the next verse, He promises that if they agree on anything in prayer, it will be granted to them. These verses immediately follow Jesus' dispute resolution instructions about bringing matters that are in contention to the Church. (Mt 18:15-20)

I've heard the televangelists on TBN exhorting, "come on, agree with me" and claiming that an agreement between two people in prayer absolutely obligates God to grant it. Bull-oney.

The same Jesus who said this about 2 or 3 also said there shall be ONE flock and ONE shepherd and pleaded for unity in His One Church.

You're saying that it's better for Mulls (or anyone) to belong to a one of a group of churches (who all disagree on doctrine) founded by German Pietists (all having Brethren in their name) in the 18th century than to be a member of the Church established by Christ for the salvation of the world.

Jesus says, "If you don't like my Church, go find one founded by some other guy or gal that you do like?" I don't think so.

"Luther said wax noses, like Scripture, can be twisted to fit" (fromer Lutheran Father Richard John Neuhaus).

-------------------------------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!
[/quote]
Which wax nose is being twisted?
Did Jesus lie and is not '[i]really[/i]' with the three or more 'others'([size=1]non-Catholics[/size])?
Or by being with the '[i]others[/i]' ([size=1]non-Catholics[/size]), Jesus violates his desire for unity?


Or....
We humans have an incorrect idea exactly what 'church' is and where Jesus is or isn't?

[mulls]

FYI for everyone i will be away until wednesday on a conference. it's good to be back, i'll talk to ya in a few days

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mulls' post='1111754' date='Nov 5 2006, 10:13 AM']
FYI for everyone i will be away until wednesday on a conference. it's good to be back, i'll talk to ya in a few days
[/quote]
Enjoy the conference.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1111731' date='Nov 5 2006, 09:11 AM']
Which wax nose is being twisted?
Did Jesus lie and is not '[i]really[/i]' with the three or more 'others'([size=1]non-Catholics[/size])?
Or by being with the '[i]others[/i]' ([size=1]non-Catholics[/size]), Jesus violates his desire for unity?
Or....
We humans have an incorrect idea exactly what 'church' is and where Jesus is or isn't?
[/quote]Hmmm. There's nothing in my several NT translations about non-Catholics in Mt 18:15-20 . The appropriation of this and many other NT verses to themselves are novel Protestant interpretations.

God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. Therefore He is everywhere, all at once. But He expects all His children to belong to His Church and not to one established by some guy or gal in opposition to His Church and therefore in opposition to His Will centuries later.

==============================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1113073' date='Nov 6 2006, 06:50 PM']
Hmmm. There's nothing in my several NT translations about non-Catholics in Mt 18:15-20 . The appropriation of this and many other NT verses to themselves are novel Protestant interpretations.

God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. Therefore He is everywhere, all at once. But He expects all His children to belong to His Church and not to one established by some guy or gal in opposition to His Church and therefore in opposition to His Will centuries later.

==============================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!
[/quote]
Actually, it seems you are dead wrong.
In light of what you just posted above, how do you explain Jesus telling the APOSTLES that the person(s) casting out demons in Jesus' name, [u]but not of their 'them'[/u], should not be stopped? If you are not against Jesus, you are for Him?

Edited November 7, 2006 by Anomaly

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1113546' date='Nov 7 2006, 08:56 AM']
Actually, it seems you are dead wrong.
In light of what you just posted above, how do you explain Jesus telling the APOSTLES that the person(s) casting out demons in Jesus' name, [u]but not of their 'them'[/u], should not be stopped? If you are not against Jesus, you are for Him?
[/quote]

"...all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. . . Hence, they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." Catechism of the Catholic Church 846

[Anomaly]

That's a claim, not a logical defense.
First off, let's agree that Christ is never divided.
Then let's find where Christ is or isn't. Is Christ not present in His Word or where His Word is preached? Are you to say that Christ is not found outside the current definition of the normative Catholic Church? It is not the intent for these people to be seperate themselves from the divinity of Jesus, but to seperate themselves from the human imperfections that were detrimental to their faith and grace. This again, begs a serious answer to mulls question, of whether he was better off. The key operative is knowingly leaving Salvation.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1113546' date='Nov 7 2006, 06:56 AM']
Actually, it seems you are dead wrong.
In light of what you just posted above, how do you explain Jesus telling the APOSTLES that the person(s) casting out demons in Jesus' name, [u]but not of their 'them'[/u], should not be stopped? If you are not against Jesus, you are for Him?
[/quote]

My understanding of this is that these folks 'not of them' were Greek (pagan). The Gospel was presented by Jesus to the Jews first. Later it was opened to the pagan. These guys were just getting a head start. Besides, exorcism is not directly a sacrament, so any Christian can pray a demon out without holy orders in some circumstances.

[Anomaly]

Ya'll are petering out. (Great pun, don't ya think?)

PeterKreeft has got a real great talk on his website regarding ecuemenism. Very interesting. Would be willing to discuss this with mulls since you Catholics seem to be stymied.

[AngelFire001]

I've seen most of the responses here in this forum and blam! Most fo the defense for the church here goes something like "christ's grace is in the church" or "christ is constantly renewing his church"..well,the church has been here for almost 1500 years people and yet most of the abuses and scandals remain essentially the same..you can't use the same excuses over and over again..to point out what anomaly seen been saying of roman catholicism..I've seen many people of the faith defend the inquisition and the killings of heretics as if it was ok,going so far to claim that it was the secular leaders' fault (yeah you wish )! I even personally know of a priest here where he destroyed a loving family relationship because he had an adluterous affair with a woman (the priest was shot dead by the jealous husband and the woman killed)..and I know of gay priests having sexual relations with men who were sent to another parish because of a scandalous affair. To say that the church is a house for sinners is a misstatement,..rather the opposite..I hate to say it but it has made me thought rather that this isn't even God's church at all..

[Aloysius]

1/12 of the first Apostles directly committed the worst sin any human being has ever committed-- deicide.

yet the percentage of priests committing the sins you just described is less than the 8% of Jesus' hand picked apostles. with the whole sex abuse crises in the american church you come up with less than 1% of priests as the culprits, adulterous affairs are probably hard to get a number on but your anectdotal evidence is hardly proof of widespread adulterous affairs among the clergy, et cetera. your anectdotal evidence proves absolutely nothing other than you have come into contact with sinful men and have emotional reasons to project that out onto the whole Church so that you can dismiss what the Church teaches.

oh, and the Church has been around longer than 1500 years. quotes can be provided from the first and second centuries referring to an institutional Church with much the same structure and liturgy as the current Catholic Church has.

anyway, the context of the biblical statement is clearly about gentiles/jews... but it has always had the traditional connotation in another sense-- that even those outside the Church can evoke the name of Jesus for good in the world. this does not, however, undermine the idea that the Church is the conduit of grace in the world founded by Christ or that it is Christ's true body. The Church does not stop anyone from doing good in the name of Christ inside or outside of her boundaries. She does, however, promote the idea that all who call upon Christ should come under her mantle because it is the true

I find it horribly tragic that modern american protestants are so caught up in the judgmentalism of the past and take for granted an automatic evil interpretation of the inquisiton et cetera without even looking at the facts (facts which must even be acknowledged by the likes of the History Channel and such anti-Christian sources as the BBC) which prove that, even during the time of the inquisition, any evil acts perpetrated in the name of the inquisition were by far in the minority among the clergy and that the inquisition courts were actually by far the most mercy-filled fair court system of the day... but that's all for another discussion isn't it.

one is best-off when one is a practicing Christian in the Catholic Church. an indifferent Christian in the Catholic Church blocking himself off from grace by his indifference is not receiving grace. a practicing Christian outside the Church doing good in the name of Christ is likely better off and is likely receiving more grace through Christ's body, the Catholic Church, than the one who is technically in the Catholic CHurch.

[AngelFire001]

Actually I'm not here to defend another religion or bash the catholic church and start the debate. What I just don't like about catholicism is that it won't accept the errors and instead makes claims of being infallible and the Pope the "supreme judge of the earth" which is supposed to be the only title reserved for God..anyways you have interesting points and you've made many of them so I'll dissect them one by one..


[quote name='Aloysius' post='1116684' date='Nov 10 2006, 03:45 AM']
1/12 of the first Apostles directly committed the worst sin any human being has ever committed-- deicide.
[/quote]

And yet that betrayal was necessary..without Judas' Iscariot betrayal,there wouldn't be a sacrifice and we would still be in our sins do we?Many Old Testament verses prophesy about Jesus' Lfe on Earth,His virgin birth,abandonment by friends and betrayal by one closest to him and that is Judas' Iscariot. Sometimes even God unwittingly uses people to accomplish His goals without necessarily infringing on their freedoms,in that case,Judas Iscariot was already a greedy person and Jesus accepted Him as one of the twelve so the plan would be carried out. And of course this doesn't even count since He wasn't a true apostle. On the other hand the Pope claims to be in succession of a great apostle and yet we all know what they have done in the past. So this argument hardly counts

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1116684' date='Nov 10 2006, 03:45 AM']
yet the percentage of priests committing the sins you just described is less than the 8% of Jesus' hand picked apostles. with the whole sex abuse crises in the american church you come up with less than 1% of priests as the culprits, adulterous affairs are probably hard to get a number on but your anectdotal evidence is hardly proof of widespread adulterous affairs among the clergy, et cetera. your anectdotal evidence proves absolutely nothing other than you have come into contact with sinful men and have emotional reasons to project that out onto the whole Church so that you can dismiss what the Church teaches.
[/quote]
I'm not even discussing what the church teaches,read my post..have I ranted on my disbeliefs yet?That would come at another..

You said that I was implying every priest is adulterous,again read my post..have I? The reason that the exact number of percentage of priests committing abuses is not documented well is the fact that they hide in the shroud of religion,in fact the sex scandal abuses rocking the US catholic church surfaced only 30years later when the victims were old enough and brave enough. Even other people don't have the guts to tell in plain sight that this man abused me,so or so..

And regarding the adulterous affair, I've never even said that all priests do this anyway and I'm not proving anything..just pointing out that many priests are not immune to temptations and not as Holy persons as Catholics make them out to be. Many have mistresses,one here was caught having sex with a nun in a car (local newspaper),one was so disrespectful that when parents complained he was simply shifted to another parish,one wouldn't even hold mass if there was less than 250 pesos a day offering in a population and as I said one was gay,wore a lipstick during mass and even went to a disco to dance with a male. My cousin saw this. Also my local radio station reported a priest who I knew shot dead by a jealous husband. The love triangle ended in a tragedy with all the involving parties dead (the husband committed suicide). So the fact is, with these abuses and scandals springing off all the time,surely this is not the church of God at all..and don't single out one country..these things happen here in the Philippines all the time where many priests have relationship with women..some even have children with them..

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1116684' date='Nov 10 2006, 03:45 AM']
oh, and the Church has been around longer than 1500 years. quotes can be provided from the first and second centuries referring to an institutional Church with much the same structure and liturgy as the current Catholic Church has.
[/quote]
True but the catholic church wasn't the only christian church even during its time, there were the Arians,the Lollards,the waldenses,the paulicans,the sabbath keeping churches,vadouis and the anabaptists..to say that the protestants only existed during latter times is way wrong. And the catholic church only existed at the time of constantine when he created a "universal" church to have a peaceful "one-religion" empire..

And the catholic church picked and choosed quotes that suited to their needs, Tertullian had other quotes as well saying that the passover should be kept instead of easter and other christian men at the time also had different views about scripture,just like todays..the only difference is that the Catholic church picked and choosed which seemed best for this particular church..oh and by the way we all know that those not of the catholic hurch were branded as heretics,hunted down and killed.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1116684' date='Nov 10 2006, 03:45 AM']
anyway, the context of the biblical statement is clearly about gentiles/jews... but it has always had the traditional connotation in another sense-- that even those outside the Church can evoke the name of Jesus for good in the world. this does not, however, undermine the idea that the Church is the conduit of grace in the world founded by Christ or that it is Christ's true body. The Church does not stop anyone from doing good in the name of Christ inside or outside of her boundaries. She does, however, promote the idea that all who call upon Christ should come under her mantle because it is the true
[/quote]

Nope you got it all wrong,the Old testament talks about how God will send a Messiah down to earth to save mankind from its sins and ultimately in the second coming establish his coming kingdom to finally have the peace that humans have been looking for,in fact Daniel,Isaiah,Jeremiah,Zecheriah and other prophets look forward to God's coming kingdom here on Earth.

And this argument that the church is the "beacon" of grace is so used up I won't even look up into it..as someone pointed here out,many people are leaving the Catholic church because they don't find God there..that's hardly grace at all..

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1116684' date='Nov 10 2006, 03:45 AM']
I find it horribly tragic that modern american protestants are so caught up in the judgmentalism of the past and take for granted an automatic evil interpretation of the inquisiton et cetera without even looking at the facts (facts which must even be acknowledged by the likes of the History Channel and such anti-Christian sources as the BBC) which prove that, even during the time of the inquisition, any evil acts perpetrated in the name of the inquisition were by far in the minority among the clergy and that the inquisition courts were actually by far the most mercy-filled fair court system of the day... but that's all for another discussion isn't it.
[/quote]

This statement just caught me! WOW, when someone brings up the inquisition it all immediately goes to protestants,and I'm not protestant either..and I'm not even american..LOL! The inquisition isn't even the only sin of the catholic church,it waged war against medicine,science astronomy,etc..case in point,the trial of Galileo..

And if you claim that the inquisition was much fairer at the time then I'd like to quote the words of the "infallible" pope Clement V when King Edward II protested that torture was opposed to English law:

"We hear that you forbid torture as contrary to the laws of your land.... I command you at once to submit those men to torture."

Now that is fair at best..and an example of christian love too

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1116684' date='Nov 10 2006, 03:45 AM']
one is best-off when one is a practicing Christian in the Catholic Church. an indifferent Christian in the Catholic Church blocking himself off from grace by his indifference is not receiving grace. a practicing Christian outside the Church doing good in the name of Christ is likely better off and is likely receiving more grace through Christ's body, the Catholic Church, than the one who is technically in the Catholic CHurch.
[/quote]

Then again,the catholic church isn't even necessary for God's grace..someone pointed out here that only through the Catholic Church's sacramental system can we receive grace..if that isn't arrogant I don't know what is! And by far,other individuals of christian religions have shown exemplary good deeds..

[Anomaly]

YOTO, AngelFire,
Thanks for stirring things up.
To address Aloy's points:
- 1/12 of the Apostles did not commit Diecide. He thought he was forcing events and causing Jesus to establish God's Kingdom. Judas did not intentionally want to kill God or kill Jesus.
- Judas' error is no EXCUSE to tolerate sins of the priests and Clergy.
- I'd certainly challenge you on the percentage of bad Clergy. Just take a quick glance at the common (typical) and pervasive errors.
- Abortion is less of an issue than 'Social Justice'
- Obvious homosexual preferences is okay (Please understand what I said. I'm not saying open homosexual activity, but just behaving where sexual preference is evident, especially in the sex-challenged US)
- Common 'pink palace' seminaries.
- Eucharist not even prominent or present near the Altars.
- Bad liturgy as the Rule, not the exception.
- Defiance of the Civil Laws
- Defiance of the Bishops
- Bishop's defiance of Rome

On and on and on. Most of you 'defenders' are kids and have this 'wide eyed innocence' and haven't had it thrown in your face for decades.

But still you see silly Catholics defend every aspect of what they think the 'Church' is, because to admit one thing, their whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

The Catholic Church is guarenteed an enternal presence of Grace. The Catholic Church's root is in Jesus Christ. That does NOT mean the ENTIRE Catholic Church will stay pure and uncorrupt, it means it's Head, Jesus Christ, will remain pure and uncorrupt. Once you get past the Roots, us humans bring in the error, corruption, sin, etc. It's Catholic arrogance and stupidity that can't intelligently and honestly address what's wrong with it that chases people out the door that want a relationship with Jesus. The Catholic Church's errors and mistakes should be the exception, not the rule. The Catholic Church should be about bringing people into a relationship with Jesus first, not about a relationship with the Church first.

It's the erroneous idea that Catholics think that everything in the Catholic Church is good and pure that is at odds with Truth. God has chosen to be present AND passive, careful to not overwhelm man's free will to choose sin or God. That goes for all the Apostles, all the Popes, all the Bishops, all the Priests, all the Nuns, all the Preachers, all the Deacons, all the Pastors, all the Youth Ministers, all the Liturgists, all the DRE's, and all us idjuts sitting in the pews or in the folding chairs under the revival tent.

I challenge you to listen to Peter Kreeft's talk on ecumenism and discuss it. He made an interesting statement, (but of course, there's more to it in his 23 minute talk). Christ's Churc of Christians will unify when Catholics become Evangilized and Protestants become Sacramentalized.
He also gave a great analogy that God's Will and Grace is like gravity. Eventually gravity (God's Will) will win out, but humanity has ample means and ability to thwart it, work against it, or cooperate with it. We can easily defeat gravity by holding our hand out and stoping a rock from falling, but humanity can't stop the rock for all eternity. Catholics have been doing a great job of thwarting God's Will, but are too hard headed to see it. Just like the Jews were God's Chosen and acted directly against God's will, God's Omniscience caused His Will to become fulfilled in the Gentiles. Jews or Gentiles, we're all God's Children and not beyond the all pervasive inevitablility of His gentle Will.
The ideal of "protestants" protesting against corruption in the Catholic Church was not / is not wrong. Sadly, the Catholic Church tried to force Christians to accept it's shortcomings along with the it's rightful claim of having Jesus as it's head. Jesus does NOT ABANDON His sheep, and THAT is why Grace is found outside the man-made temporal 'borders' of the Catholic Church.

Get back to the original question and central question. Is it better to be a lukewarm Catholic, or a lively engergetic non-Catholic Christian? The answers is NO if you believe a non-Catholic Christian can obtain Salvific Grace.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]What I just don't like about catholicism is that it won't accept the errors and instead makes claims of being infallible and the Pope the "supreme judge of the earth" which is supposed to be the only title reserved for God.[/quote]

You misunderstand infallibility. Catholics believe that the Church (the mystical Body of Christ) is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean that we think each and every individual Catholic is infallible. In the past many Catholics have done things that are horribly wrong - and we continue to go wrong today. We're sinners. But for me, the more awful acts that are carried out by Catholic people (including myself), the more beautiful and pure Church teaching appears. We don't always live up to the ideal. But the fact that the ideal has survived through generation upon generation of sinners should be ample proof that it is sustained by the Holy Spirit.

[quote]And yet that betrayal was necessary..without Judas' Iscariot betrayal,there wouldn't be a sacrifice and we would still be in our sins do we?Many Old Testament verses prophesy about Jesus' Lfe on Earth,His virgin birth,abandonment by friends and betrayal by one closest to him and that is Judas' Iscariot. Sometimes even God unwittingly uses people to accomplish His goals without necessarily infringing on their freedoms,in that case,Judas Iscariot was already a greedy person and Jesus accepted Him as one of the twelve so the plan would be carried out.[/quote]

Do you think so? I believe Jesus accepted Judas as his disciple not for some pragmatic, utilitarian purpose ("Oh, he's going to be necessary one day") but because he loved him. And Judas' agonising remorse after he had carried out the betrayal shows that no matter how wrong he had gone, he loved Jesus too. He [i]was[/i] a true apostle. His greatest sin was not necessarily the betrayal of Christ, but the belief that he could never be forgiven. His story presents us with a choice: we can be like Judas, a sinner who condemns himself to death; or we can be like Peter (a sinner who also betrayed Jesus, in his own way) and choose to reach out to that mercy, however painful it might be to take. There are plenty of Judases in the Church. There is also an abundance of Peters.

[quote]On the other hand the Pope claims to be in succession of a great apostle and yet we all know what they have done in the past. So this argument hardly counts[/quote]

Once again, popes are not infallible when they are solving maths equations, choosing the best breakfast cereal to have, speaking as private scholars, or making decisions of civil government. Their words are only infallible a.) when the Pope is teaching on faith and morals and, b.) when he is speaking [i]ex cathedra[/i]. As I mentioned before, the mere fact that the Church's teachings remain untarnished is a sign that they are under divine protection.

As for Peter being a 'great apostle'...I agree with you. But he was also a liar, a coward, and a fool - and God forgave him. I doubt he suddenly became perfect after he had uttered the words, "You know I love you," on the shores of Galilee. He still had many human imperfections. But that did not compromise his ability to lead the Church.

[quote]You said that I was implying every priest is adulterous,again read my post..have I? The reason that the exact number of percentage of priests committing abuses is not documented well is the fact that they hide in the shroud of religion,in fact the sex scandal abuses rocking the US catholic church surfaced only 30years later when the victims were old enough and brave enough. Even other people don't have the guts to tell in plain sight that this man abused me,so or so..[/quote]

Yes, you [i]have[/i] implied that the majority of priests are guilty of sex crimes. In this paragraph, you seem to be saying that the only reason the percentages are not higher is because people aren't willing to talk about abuse. That argument just doesn't hold up. In Britain, the highest number of sexual abuse cases occur within the teaching and medical professions rather than in the clergy. Are we expected to assume, based on your logic, that a huge number of teachers, doctors, etc. are committing sex crimes unrecorded? No one would dream of smearing the reputation of our educational and medical establishments in this way - but no one seems to have a problem with making such statements (implicit or overt) about the Church.

[quote]So the fact is, with these abuses and scandals springing off all the time,surely this is not the church of God at all..and don't single out one country..these things happen here in the Philippines all the time where many priests have relationship with women..some even have children with them..[/quote]

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Scandals happen in other churches, too - or haven't you been reading about the furore currently surrounding evangelical leader Ted Haggard? His sin doesn't mean his church is unChristian. There are also numerous other cases of high-profile evangelical leaders sinning and committing crimes (Jimmy Swaggart and James and Tammy Bakker, just to start with the famous ones). Does their behaviour alter the truth of the Gospel one iota? No.

[quote]And regarding the adulterous affair, I've never even said that all priests do this anyway and I'm not proving anything..just pointing out that many priests are not immune to temptations and not as Holy persons as Catholics make them out to be. [/quote]

Of course they're not immune to temptations! They shouldn't be. They're not robots. They're human beings. Being 'holy' doesn't mean being immune to temptation - it means having the strength and the courage to rise above it. Priests accept challenges that most people don't in the quest for personal holiness. They have farther to fall if they do fall. But the fact remains that the majority of priests are not involved in the kind of sordid love affairs that you describe. Your evidence is anecdotal, not empirical, and it is not representative of the entire Catholic population.

[quote]one wouldn't even hold mass if there was less than 250 pesos a day offering in a population[/quote]

Erm...it's compulsory for priests to say Mass every single day, even if they're totally alone. Money has nothing to do it. This sounds like sheer rumour to me.

[quote]True but the catholic church wasn't the only christian church even during its time, there were the Arians,the Lollards,the waldenses,the paulicans,the sabbath keeping churches,vadouis and the anabaptists[/quote]

WHAT? I am studying mediaeval literature at the moment and the Lollards crop up often. The Lollard movement began in England in the late fourteenth century - that's only seven hundred years ago! The Waldensians were founded in 1173 by a man named Peter Waldo, who lived in Lyon, France. The Paulicans were a dualist sect that rose up in Armenia in the seventh century - they too had no connection with the apostolic church in the Holy Land, which began seven hundred years before them. Anabaptism is the oldest of the lot - the groundwork for the movement's theology was laid in the fifteenth century, but there was no established Anabaptist church until the sixteenth. I don't know what on earth you mean by a 'sabbath keeping church', so I can't address that, but I can say that Arianism was a Christological viewpoint that only arose in the fourth century. It can hardly be said to have originated at the same time as our holy apostolic church.

I have a class now, but I will return later on. I daresay someone else on here can refute the usual tired accusations regarding Galileo and Co. But before I go:

[quote]Then again,the catholic church isn't even necessary for God's grace..someone pointed out here that only through the Catholic Church's sacramental system can we receive grace..if that isn't arrogant I don't know what is! And by far,other individuals of christian religions have shown exemplary good deeds..[/quote]

You have completely misread what was said. Catholics believe that there [i]are[/i] extraordinary means of God's grace and you don't have to be a Catholic to receive them. However, the [b]fullness[/b] of grace is only found within the Sacraments. There is a difference.