Catholicism & Christianity

[angellous_evangellous]

The prize inside the box. Don't get too excited though, the prize in the box is a piece of junk.

I've always really enjoyed the prize.

 

[doppelganger]

I've always really enjoyed the prize.

You take what you can get.

 

[Renji]

Official teachings, phooey. These guys are, or were, cultured by their bishops in order to retain credibility and popularity. It's what comes of getting your way for centuries with Peter's Second Sword, then haplessly finding yourself without it. The propaganda that could be successfully transmitted by coercion is too implausible to be accepted by any other means.

Official teachings are supposedly official. Even if majority of people think that a particular doctrine is "like this" or "like that", it would still be unaccepted in the eyes of the Church.

Amazed you didn't know, or at least found it feasible.

I don't usually count personal opinions feasible.

Through scholarship.

From who/ what/ where? Metal bikini scholarship?

But you follow the religion of those who did. It's impossible that your organisation could exist without the use of force. Your every post is testament to the use of force, if you did but realise it.

Pbb, this is an argument. Do you expect me to sit down and relax while I think that I couldn't agree with you?

Really? In the 15th century, a papal legate travelled from Rome to Austria. Not far. He got lost, though, comprehensively, and wrote bemoaning the lack of suitable priests on his route, from whom he expected to get travel directions. The problem was that few of the priests knew Latin, even though their Bibles were in Latin. And this failing generally got worse, the further you went from Rome.

Now you didn't get my point. What I meant is that, Christian doctrines works hand in hand with the Bible. If the books in the Bible isn't compiled, then where would you expect the Christendom to base its doctrines?

So Catholicism cannot be Christianity, can it.

Where would you suppose Protestantism and other Christian religions came about if there's no Catholicism first? In the outerspace?

 

[Villager]

Official teachings are supposedly official.

Supposedly. Quite so.

I don't usually count personal opinions feasible.

That cuts out that sentence very neatly, then.

From who/ what/ where? Metal bikini scholarship?

That, too!

Do you expect me to sit down and relax

Have a nice cup of tea, is my advice. I really don't mind.

Christian doctrines works hand in hand with the Bible.

And the rest. The Not-Bible. The Word of Man.

If the books in the Bible isn't compiled, then where would you expect the Christendom to base its doctrines?

By the way that the RCC got it? By mimicking the church?

Though actually, Christians make up their own minds on that, as they do everything else. Of course, theirs is the mind of Christ himself, so that's ok.

Where would you suppose Protestantism and other Christian religions came about if there's no Catholicism first?

From the Bible, of course. The apostles and the prophets on which the true church is founded.

That's where the Vatican went wrong. It should have destroyed every last copy.

But then it couldn't cite Matthew 16:18.

Oh, bother!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's where the Vatican went wrong. It should have destroyed every last copy.

Every last copy of what?

 

[Villager]

Every last copy of what?

That... that.... Bible.

 

[Renji]

Have a nice cup of tea, is my advice. I really don't mind.

I wouldn't have minded you too, only if your opinions are sensible. But the thing is, they're as is. Opinions.

And the rest. The Not-Bible. The Word of Man.

Tradition , not the word of man.

By the way that the RCC got it? By mimicking the church?

From what 'church' when it is the first Christian Church?

Though actually, Christians make up their own minds on that, as they do everything else. Of course, theirs is the mind of Christ himself, so that's ok.

Then that's what you should call the word of man.

From the Bible, of course. The apostles and the prophets on which the true church is founded.
That's where the Vatican went wrong. It should have destroyed every last copy.

But then it couldn't cite Matthew 16:18.

Oh, bother!

That's why I am saying that the Church and the Bible works hand in hand.:slap:

 

[krsnaraja]

Dear Villager,

I know from the past Popes were ruthless & unforgiving. That`s why we have the Inquisition, the Crusades, the excommunications of Catholics who criticized the Church & lately of priests involved in child abuse. I could go & on. My point here is we should not condemn them but the sins they committed. If Christ Jesus were alive I don`t think he would tolerate these Popes & priests what they did in the past.

I was excommunicated by the Bishop of Cebu for writing about Krishna consciousness after he suffered a heart attack reading my article printed in the Views & Comments section of The Freeman way back in 1987 & underwent a triple by-pass. I really did not mean it. I used a pseudonym Naradadeva Bhagavan in my column a Grain of Devotion. I was alienated from my friends, neighbors & family. & yet I continue to chant Hare Krishna.

I remember what Swami Prabhupada said, " No need to change religion as long as you chant sincerely the Hare Krishna mantra." & so I still embraced Catholicism & what do you know. The Bishop of Cebu, my friends & family as years passed they began to accept me for what I am & that somethings never change.

I hear Mass every Sunday & take the Holy Communion telling them that it`s Prasadam & they would no longer mind. In our Bible sessions with my co-neighbors in our subdivision presided by a priest, they don`t mind if I discuss to them Hindu religion. They simply have gotten used to it.

My point here is that we should learn to tolerate each others religion. After all we are on the same boat in different decks. There`s the lower deck, middle, & upper decks. But all of us are heading to the same destination & others did not because the boat caught fire & sunk.

Yours truly,

Krsnaraja

 

[Villager]

Dear Villager,

I know from the past Popes were ruthless & unforgiving. That`s why we have the Inquisition, the Crusades, the excommunications of Catholics who criticized the Church & lately of priests involved in child abuse. I could go & on. My point here is we should not condemn them but the sins they committed.

But sins are not what the church does. Not with premeditation, anyway. Whatever commits crimes cannot be the church of Jesus.

The record and apparent instinct of the RCC was actually to murder Christians, when the RCC had the political influence required to do that; and Christians have no reason at all to believe that the RCC would not do the same again, given the opportunity. Displacing the church was the original purpose of the RCC, and there is no reason to believe that this is not the purpose now. The continued warm association of supposedly democratic political leaders with the hierarchical, unelected Vatican looks sinister (and threatens more than just Christians).

But the RCC gets support from more than politicians and the wealthy, anyway. Given its moral record in every age, the RCC ought to be completely unacceptable, even to the non-religious. The reason that it survives, that its agents are free men, is because too many people fear the innocent real church more than they fear predatory priests and bishops. So the survival of the RCC is testament to the truth of the gospel, and it has some use.

In principle, Christians can associate with any Protestant organisation. As far as the RCC is concerned, Christians cannot agree to any association with it, in any way- except to inform and evangelise its members. It cannot agree that Catholics are Christians, because a Catholic declares himself not a Christian simply because he goes to Mass. To go to Mass is to declare the righteousness of Jesus insufficient, to say that he is not the Christ- it is in fact blasphemy. Christians can have no positive association with that; in fact they must condemn it unreservedly, or be in great danger of losing their own salvation. So on practical moral grounds, acceptance of the RCC is out of the question, and the same applies for theological reasons.

My point here is that we should learn to tolerate each others religion. After all we are on the same boat in different decks. There`s the lower deck, middle, & upper decks. But all of us are heading to the same destination & others did not because the boat caught fire & sunk.

The Christian view is that all but Christians (a very small percentage of those claiming to be Christians) are on the broad and easy road to destruction, while they are on the narrow path to life. Those on the broad road have the opportunity to get onto the narrow path, and Christians will assist those who want to so, but the rest stay on their headlong, suicidal flight of their own free will. It's not a question of toleration or not, because the Christian regards every non-Christian as a potential Christian, unless apostate.

 

[krsnaraja]

But sins are not what the church does. Not with premeditation, anyway. Whatever commits crimes cannot be the church of Jesus.

The record and apparent instinct of the RCC was actually to murder Christians, when the RCC had the political influence required to do that; and Christians have no reason at all to believe that the RCC would not do the same again, given the opportunity. Displacing the church was the original purpose of the RCC, and there is no reason to believe that this is not the purpose now. The continued warm association of supposedly democratic political leaders with the hierarchical, unelected Vatican looks sinister (and threatens more than just Christians).

But the RCC gets support from more than politicians and the wealthy, anyway. Given its moral record in every age, the RCC ought to be completely unacceptable, even to the non-religious. The reason that it survives, that its agents are free men, is because too many people fear the innocent real church more than they fear predatory priests and bishops. So the survival of the RCC is testament to the truth of the gospel, and it has some use.

In principle, Christians can associate with any Protestant organisation. As far as the RCC is concerned, Christians cannot agree to any association with it, in any way- except to inform and evangelise its members. It cannot agree that Catholics are Christians, because a Catholic declares himself not a Christian simply because he goes to Mass. To go to Mass is to declare the righteousness of Jesus insufficient, to say that he is not the Christ- it is in fact blasphemy. Christians can have no positive association with that; in fact they must condemn it unreservedly, or be in great danger of losing their own salvation. So on practical moral grounds, acceptance of the RCC is out of the question, and the same applies for theological reasons.

The Christian view is that all but Christians (a very small percentage of those claiming to be Christians) are on the broad and easy road to destruction, while they are on the narrow path to life. Those on the broad road have the opportunity to get onto the narrow path, and Christians will assist those who want to so, but the rest stay on their headlong, suicidal flight of their own free will. It's not a question of toleration or not, because the Christian regards every non-Christian as a potential Christian, unless apostate.

If this is your view- then the boat we are taking is bound to catch fire & sink. If Catholics are the fire then the Protestants are the water. There can`t be water without fire. There can`t be fire without water. So be it. If that`s what you & the rest of your flock thinks & feels. It was krishna who started the war { the Battle of Kuruksetra.) So don`t blame it on Krishna again if this boat we are taking, so to speak, catches fire.

 

[Astounded]

But sins are not what the church does. Not with premeditation, anyway. Whatever commits crimes cannot be the church of Jesus.

The record and apparent instinct of the RCC was actually to murder Christians, when the RCC had the political influence required to do that; and Christians have no reason at all to believe that the RCC would not do the same again, given the opportunity. Displacing the church was the original purpose of the RCC, and there is no reason to believe that this is not the purpose now. The continued warm association of supposedly democratic political leaders with the hierarchical, unelected Vatican looks sinister (and threatens more than just Christians).

But the RCC gets support from more than politicians and the wealthy, anyway. Given its moral record in every age, the RCC ought to be completely unacceptable, even to the non-religious. The reason that it survives, that its agents are free men, is because too many people fear the innocent real church more than they fear predatory priests and bishops. So the survival of the RCC is testament to the truth of the gospel, and it has some use.

In principle, Christians can associate with any Protestant organisation. As far as the RCC is concerned, Christians cannot agree to any association with it, in any way- except to inform and evangelise its members. It cannot agree that Catholics are Christians, because a Catholic declares himself not a Christian simply because he goes to Mass. To go to Mass is to declare the righteousness of Jesus insufficient, to say that he is not the Christ- it is in fact blasphemy. Christians can have no positive association with that; in fact they must condemn it unreservedly, or be in great danger of losing their own salvation. So on practical moral grounds, acceptance of the RCC is out of the question, and the same applies for theological reasons.

The Christian view is that all but Christians (a very small percentage of those claiming to be Christians) are on the broad and easy road to destruction, while they are on the narrow path to life. Those on the broad road have the opportunity to get onto the narrow path, and Christians will assist those who want to so, but the rest stay on their headlong, suicidal flight of their own free will. It's not a question of toleration or not, because the Christian regards every non-Christian as a potential Christian, unless apostate.

But....but Jesus tells you to do a todah in remembrance of Him and His sacrifice...the Mass is a todah..get it yet???? Protestants don't even bother to follow the todah instructions of Jesus.

 

[Renji]

But sins are not what the church does. Not with premeditation, anyway. Whatever commits crimes cannot be the church of Jesus.

Then what about in the OT?? The law of Moses allows people to be stoned to death. Killing is crime. Using your argument, the Judaism (that time) cannot be established by YHWH since it allows people to be stoned to death??

 

[Renji]

Using your argument again, Peter and Paul cannot be a "true" apostle of Christ, since Peter denied Jesus 3 times and Paul persecuted followers of Jesus.

 

[Kathryn]

Villager has no true understanding of RCC doctrine - isn't that obvious by now?

 

[Renji]

Villager has no true understanding of RCC doctrine - isn't that obvious by now?

I second to this. He couldn't even present factual evidence for the majority of his claims.

 

[Kathryn]

Notice the complete lack of sources as well, other than his own opinion.

 

[Jethro]

The argument has been that Catholicism is centred on man rather than Christ.

When a Catholic goes to Mass, why does he go there? It is not for the same reason that the faithful Anglican, for instance, has in mind on his way to communion. The Anglican goes to communion because he is justified; the Catholic to Mass in order to be justified. They are certainly not the same religions, then, and cannot properly be confused. If the Christ is one whose purpose is to justify sinners before God, the Anglican is the true worshipper, the Catholic not. If the Christ is one whose purpose is not to justify sinners before God, but to achieve something else, the Catholic may be the true worshipper, depending on what that purpose is. The purpose of the Catholic may be akin to that of the person on his way to a mosque, to fulfil an obligation of works. It may be akin to the person who lights candles and incense to please Krishna. Certainly, according to canon law, the Catholic needs to go to Mass, the Anglican does not need to go to communion. The Catholic goes to Mass because he has to, the Anglican goes to communion because he wants to.

Very well said fellow Christian:clap

 

[Renji]

Very well said fellow Christian:clap

Well opinionated I guess. Well said, not quite.

 

[Villager]

Then what about in the OT?? The law of Moses allows people to be stoned to death. Killing is crime.

So is capital punishment a crime?

 

[Kathryn]

I have been saved, I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved.

Christ's sacrifice covers all sins - past, present, and future. If it, and salvation, were static, we'd only have to ask forgiveness once in our lives and then never seek forgiveness again.

Christ died on this earth before my sins even occurred - if we're going to limit our understanding of His sacrifice to linear time. However, many churches (thankfully) don't do so - and understand His sacrifice as being once and yet eternal.