hyperdulia again Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 (edited) why did you edit? i think your original post made a very short and sweet point. Edited February 7, 2004 by hyperdulia again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 (edited) i donno... lol i'm just crazy one end tryin to be charitable and the other tryin to be nice... i should just be charitable but for some reason i'm tryin to be too nice. ummmm.... i donno :ph34r: and actually, on second thought, that was a comment for your sake. it will do no good for anyone else, and i'm editing it out... again. lol :ph34r: Edited February 7, 2004 by Aloysius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 There are other churches in this world that have more of an impact on people than the Catholic Church. I disagree completely. For starters none of the protestant Church's have been around nearly as long as the Catholic Church (2,000 years) and their numbers over the history of Christianity are a drop in the bucket compared to Catholicism. Second, even today there are vastly more Catholics in the world than all protestant denominations combined. Third there is no organization in the entire world that does more charitable and humanitarian deeds. Look at the numbers for Catholic hospitals around the world alone. It's staggering. If you broaden your scope to look at the history of western civilization it's even more staggering. Anyway, I think this is a bunk claim. There are other angles one could look at as well, the fact that the Pope has been seen and heard by far more people than anyone else in the world. World Youth Day in Rome was the biggest gathering of people in the history of Europe. World Youth Day in the Phillipines was the largest gathering of people in the history of the world. I'd say the Pope alone has had an unparalleled impact on peoples lives, not to mention Mother Teresa of Calcutta. These are two or the 1 billion Catholics in the world and I think by themselves they claim the prize for the Catholic Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 The Word of God, in fact, is blasphemed in the Roman Catholic Church. Some examples include your adoration of the Pope as a "Holy Father" and the ever-so-famous title he gets to proclaim "Your Holiness." This is blasphemy in the Highest. I believe in the faith of the Catholic Church, however I do not believe in the corruption that man has taken into the Church. They have defiled the Roman Catholic Church, and in turn, they have defiled God. This is quite a vile claim which I'd say is not grounded in reality. The Bible calls people holy all the time, and father. St. Paul often refers to normal Christians as "saints" which means holy ones. Paul also calls people father. It seems silly to say that calling the Pope the holy father is against the Bible. Also what you need to realize is that the title is based on the dignity of the office, not the holiness of the individual. The Papacy is holy because it is Christ's. Think of all the titles people use and have used for persons in particular offices. Calling a king "my lord", or even calling plain nobility "my lord" or "your lordship". I'm talking about good old protestants too. We call people "your honor", "your excellency" etc. There was a time when it was common to call a man of a particular office "your worship". Certainly calling a kind "your majesty" is based on his office as king, he might be a complete jerk and a looser, but you must respect the office. This is true with the Papacy too. You blaspheme the things of God by saying the Pope should not be called Holy Father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 I also think that that's blasphemed in the Word of God as well. Doesn't it say that you should not be of the world? You would be of the world wouldn't you by following Sacred Tradition? Do not be so hasty with the 'b' word. The Church's Sacred Tradition is not of this world anymore than the Scriptures are of this world. They are inseperable. Before the Canon was established there was only Sacred Tradition. And not everything is written in the Bible (Jn 21:25; Acts 20:35). There is a distinction between Sacred Tradition and tradition. One is from God and is part of the deposit of Faith entrusted by Christ to His Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit. The other is normal traditions, customs, and disciplines which can change. Do not confuse these two. Paul said to hold fast to the traditions which he handed on (1 Cor 11:2). He says to hold fast to these traditions whether oral or written (2 Thess 2:15). These Traditions were entrusted to the Church which was established by Christ and to which Orthodox Christians belong not through accepting the Bible and making private interpretations, but by association with the Apostles through the hierarchy of the Church, namely the successors of the Apostles and those given authority through the Holy Apostles and their successors (Bishops, Priests/Presbyters, Deacons) through the laying on of hands. This Church of the Apostles exists today in unbroken succession in the Catholic Church. The protestant groups are traditions of men that broke away from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is not an opinion but is historical fact. Every protestant tradition can be traced back ultimately to some man who broke away from the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 This context of the word catholic is referring to the christian faith as a whole, not Catholocism specifically. These definitions of universal don't quite fit your beliefs of complete and total acceptance. Not true. The use of the word Catholic in the patristic era (and hence in the creed) was to denote the One True Church of Jesus Christ founded on the Apostles and perpetuated through their successors. The heretics of the day (who by your standards would be christian) were excluded from the title "catholic". The fathers use the term in this way as seperating the true Church from the heretical sects. Also it was the authority of ecumenical councils (ie., Nicea) that propagated the creed and reciting the creed during the Divine Liturgy was an expression of the common faith of all who were united to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The thing that makes a local church part of the Catholic (Universal) Church is precisely communion with the successors of the Apostles (Bishops) thoughout the world. Apart from that you are a local sect. This is more faithful to the patristic use of the term and hence the meaning of the term in the creed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 4.) One can not say that because someone does not accept one piece of the church, they are not Catholic. This is like saying that if you disagree with the president, you are not an American, or if you disagree with your teacher you are not a student. Well, it depends on the nature of what you disagree with. If you don't believe in God you can't say your a Christian. If you deny the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. You certainly cannot pose as a Catholic. If you disagree with the Pope's take on the war in Iraq you are still a Catholic. There are always boundaries and limits. The doctrines of the Faith are interconnected and to deny a central doctrine of the Faith is essentially to deny the Faith as a whole. Part of being a Catholic is believing that the Catholic Church can teach authoritatively, this was part of Christ's promise to the Church. To deny a dogmatic or definitive teaching of the Church is in basically to deny the essence of Catholicism and hence be outside of Orthodox Christian belief. Being an american or a student is not based on faith, being a Catholic (or any religion) is so what you believe is central to what you are. If you don't profess the Catholic Faith you are not a Catholic, at least not in any really meaningful sense. You might be culturally "catholic" or something like that but you have not truly embraced that Catholic Faith. Also since being a Catholic is being a member of an institutional Church, that same Church can say what it requires for membership. Definitive teachings of the Church usually carry the weight of an anathema is they are denied. This means you are no longer Catholic in the Church's eyes. So what are you? You can't be Catholic just because you say so. It's an empty statement. Sort of like if I went around saying I was American but did not have citizenship (I am however a citizen). So if the U.S. government revoked your citizenship for denying an article of the constitution this would be binding. But the Church is a community of believers, correct belief is essential. If you go to Mass and recite the creed but don't believe it you are a liar and a false catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 (edited) If a priest is presenting something other than the Catholic faith to young people, not yet formed in their faith, there is a problem--the is teaching heresy and appendinng the name Catholic to it, it is an abuse of the trust people put in their priests. If a man taught this kind of trash to my children...nm... I'm writing a letter. He is using a building belonging to the Catholic Church to teach something other than the Catholic Faith. This is more important than his help with those struggling morally...our morals don't scare Satan...OUR FAITH IN CHRIST as revealed to HIS CHURCH does. Bishop Weurl is a good man. I have rarely seen priests here teach heterodoxy and get away with it. Several years ago a priest came out in favor of womens ordination during a sermon and was moved the next day. This had better be a simple failure of communication. I think Father thinks we are feeneyites, and thats why those particular answers were given. Edited February 7, 2004 by cmotherofpirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 Second, even today there are vastly more Catholics in the world than all protestant denominations combined. Actually is about 51%-Catholic to 49% Protestant/non-Catholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 On the issue of Salvation: The Catholic Church is the only NORMATIVE means of salvation. This means that for most people, in most of the world salvation comes through the Catholic Church. It secondly means that any salvation that occurs outside of the Catholic Church occurs because of the Grace and Power (and Authority) given to the Catholic Church through Apolstolic succession. I admire your desires to form unity among all Christians. However, unity must never be sought at the expense of Truth. We must never be so caught up in our pursuit of unity that we are willing to sacrifice the Truth as revealed through Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Lastly, on authority: It is not neccessary to have belief in every discipline of the Catholic Church. However, in order to avoid causing a scandal to the faith of others our public assent is neccessary. We can disagree on interpretation (sometimes) but we must always give our assent. If we withold our assent, we are out of communion with the Universal (which does mean Universal, not the largest part) Church and perhaps not even Catholic. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confessionator741 Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 i would like to congragulate all of you who participated in this debate so far. Not only have you more than likely dumbfounded those who were opposing the True view, you have deepend my believe in the Church. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Second. I am a member of the Church that has been under such controversy in the last few pages. I must say that yes, our youth groups and catechisis(sp) classes are under catholicised (again, sp). But i think that this is under no fault of theres. They (youth ministers) comfortable being as blunt as you are (being blunt as you are is a good thing). I understand fully what they are saying during their lessons, but that is because i am knowledgable on matters such as these, i mean c'mon, i hang out at the phat. But others, who are just taking what they say at face value might not understand fully the message they are trying to get across. It is no fault of there own, its just a communication issue. I must say that it is sad to see that there are so many that attend our youth groups every sunday and even more than that sometimes, and still know so little. It seems that we have created Cafeteria Catholic monsters (exaggeration). I really hope that their attendace here in phatmass, which i will be more openly promoting now at youth group, will have a + effect on their faith, a Truthfull effect. Please pray for them, our church and those leading it. Thank you. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 lol, get more ppl from St. Ferds on here arguin Hyper's bound to call in the Inquisition on our butts!!! :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confessionator741 Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 i dont an inquisition is necessary, i think that prayers are more suitbable for right now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 yeah i know. i understand y whoever was advisin JC said what they did, it's prolly a miscommunication, JC misunderstanding our position, he seemed to somehow think we condemned protestants to hell and don't accept Vatican II, which is UNTRUE however, i am concerned about the statement that pointing out errors is inherently un-Catholic. that's just a blatent lie. the Church HAS ALWAYS pointed out errors, if she didn't we would never have defined that Jesus was true God and true man, we'd have like 100 books to pick and choose from as to what is in the Bible, and all sorts of stuff. if the Church didn't point out error her truth would be currupted by it :ph34r: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-I---Love Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 Aloysius - would someone please edit his posts referring to who the religious authority may have been - seriously for my sanity and the good of all - we should not be presuming who it is and if we know who it is we should talk to them alone - I'd just really apprectiate if we deleted the presuming who the person is part out of here. Also great job to all debaters and I will continue to check out the progress in here...it's very profitable. Peace+ JMJ P.S. I must go reflect on the meaning of Cafeteria Catholic ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts