Roman Catholicism, how should it be viewed?

JimiTime

Just a thought. I've seen much disdain for Jehovahs Witnesses from the Christian community. Is Roman Catholicism a similar religion? People putting their faith in an organisation as mediator between God and man.

I understand the diplomacy/ecumenism that exists, and all the niceties etc. However, is this an organisation that actually leads people FROM Christ? Or do we look at the positives and believe they are just a church that is ill? The RCC enables such great work to be done, but then, I know some ex JW's who were lead to Christ eventually through the JW's, I.E. JW's made the knock and asked the questions, they became members, and subsequently seen their errors and became Christians. Does this excuse the JW religion though?

I have such mixed feelings on it. There are certainly many people 100 million times more Christian than I in the RCC, and I'm sure they will hear the masters voice. What though should we make of the religion? I find myself often angry with it, be it for the superstitions its encouraged, or half-truthed Gospel it has preached etc. The thing that redeems it in my heart is the Christians I meet from it. Take for example a couple of nuns I've known. They were not very religious, but everything was about Christ. You rarely heard sermonising about true churches etc, but much about Jesus Christ. Along with them dedicating their lives to helping the poor etc. Now, it seems that the RCC enabled this. So for all its badness, is it serving a very real and spirit directed purpose?

Its a very tough question for me, and would like to get your thoughts.

prinz

Certainly without rose-tinted spectacles, but also without pre-conceptions. It often seems to be misunderstood, but then does itself no favours the rest of the time.

Slav

JimiTime wrote: »

I've seen much disdain for Jehovahs Witnesses from the Christian community. Is Roman Catholicism a similar religion?

Totally different I think.

People putting their faith in an organisation as mediator between God and man.

I think it's misrepresentation of what Roman Catholics actually believe. The Church is not a mediator between man and God but Christ's body itself. We all believe in Holy Catholic Church and all our differences here are down to what the Catholic Church is and what it is not. In other words in not a theological issue really but an ecclesiastical one.

is this an organisation that actually leads people FROM Christ? Or do we look at the positives and believe they are just a church that is ill?

No Church is perfect. All churches are ill. We know it from our own experience and we know it from the the book of Revelation. Does RCC lead people to Christ? It definitely does. Does it lead some people away from Christ? Yes, unfortunately that happens too. Like every other church we know.

I have such mixed feelings on it. There are certainly many people 100 million times more Christian than I in the RCC, and I'm sure they will hear the masters voice. What though should we make of the religion? I find myself often angry with it, be it for the superstitions its encouraged, or half-truthed Gospel it has preached etc. The thing that redeems it in my heart is the Christians I meet from it. Take for example a couple of nuns I've known. They were not very religious, but everything was about Christ. You rarely heard sermonising about true churches etc, but much about Jesus Christ. Along with them dedicating their lives to helping the poor etc. Now, it seems that the RCC enabled this.

From my own experience with it the RCC looks much healthier at the parish level then in Vatican or on the Internet. I'm sure the two nuns you know did more for preaching the gospel then the Pope (with all due respect to the guy) and the Magisterium together.

Xizors Palace

The Catholic Church teaches the faith and morals of Jesus Christ which are necessary for salvation. Whilst this is the case, the Gospel is not always faithfully preached at the local level. As well as that, the Sacraments of the Church are not always offered with the reverence and respect that they deserve. If the teachings of the Church are not taught, then they remain a dead letter. The Gospel is being preached by the Catholic Church since it was founded on the rock of Peter, but not everywhere, and not always with total fidelity to Christ. The doctrine remained pure, but the Gospel was not always preached with fidelity to Christ.

The priests, bishops, and the faithful are not always faithful to the Lord. Sometimes, the priests may even lead away from Christ with their heresy, dissent, disobedience, their licentious example and so on. The people often bully the priests.

I suppose you could compare your own view of the CC with my view of the Protestant ecclesial communities. I believe that, despite the heresies, the rejection of graces, and the condoning of sin (especially sexual sins), there are sincere seekers and believers of Jesus in these communities, although their communion with Christ is wounded to a greater or lesser extent, according to whether or not they live in fidelity to Christ (and how do they do that without sound doctrine?), Who has given us the Church to teach His faith and morals pertaining to our salvation. It is more difficult for the non-Catholic to attain salvation, since they are deprived of most of the sacarments and sound doctrine. I suppose you might ask, ''How holy can a person be if they reject the Eucharist, or if they condone contraception?'' We know that nothing impure shall enter heaven, so these unrepented, unforgiven sins are problematic, to put it mildly: they are barriers to salvation. I find it hard to imagine that there could be many non-Catholics, or even Catholics, sadly for that matter, who do not condone contraception and increasingly, homosexuality, fornication, and so on. The rejection of graces, the condonment of sin, and various heresies, are all barriers to holiness, to communion with Christ and that applies to Catholic and non-Catholic alike. The Catholic has everything but may reject it, whereas the non-Catholic has, for whatever reason, rejected the teaching authority of the Church. Whatever truth he has of the Lord leads to Catholic unity. As he advances in the revealed truth, he should find himself increasingly drawn to the Catholic Church. This is the happy truth for the non-Catholic: the pursuit of communion with Christ and the fullness of truth leads directly to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

And lest we think that sexual abuse is an exclusively Catholic problem...

We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and abusive behavior know no ecclesial or other boundaries." Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, Good Friday Sermon, 2002.

This site documents the sex abuse in various Protestant denominations in the USA: http://reformation.com/

Manach

I'll start worrying about the OP's disdain for the Church when Protestantism overcomes its schismatic tendencies.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

Its a very tough question for me, and would like to get your thoughts.

To me it's rather simple.

Folk are in Christ or out of Christ and they are in or out of Christ as a result of the work of God.

God reveals himself as working out his plan through (and often in cooperation with) individuals. This is true in the specific case of his saving of men - the gospel is carried by man to men.

The spiritual church/congregation of God expresses it's being in physical congregating. It is driven to do so.

Saved men being sinners + the path to apprehension of truth being stepwise in nature + satan seeking out whom he can destroy ...produces splits in the physical church. It does that because that bit of the church is, in part, in the hands of men. That part of the church that is in the hands of God remains unified - the spiritual church.

The Roman Catholic church is but one such example. It might be a big example of this, but it's only an example of what is typical.

One has an opinion on how much men being sinners + the path to truth being a path + satan at work has caused the Roman Catholic physical manifestation of the church to deviate from the one true path but deviate it most certainly must have.

I would consider the Roman church to have deviated to the point of deviance. To the point where they have been spit out of God's mouth. That doesn't mean that God doesn't work through his who are in that church - he undoubtably does. But in so far as the organisation can be said to represent Christ, their lampstand has been removed.

SonOfAdam

Xizors Palace, it's odd that you accuse non-RCC christians of rejecting 'graces' when the RCC has utterly rejected the Gospel of Grace and replaced it with a gospel of works - it is a totally different gospel to that preached by the apostles to whom you claim an unbroken line of succession to Rome. While undoubtedly there are christians to be found in the RCC I find it impossible to reconcile some beliefs and practices with orthodox christianity - in effect it is another gospel.

antiskeptic

Xizors Palace wrote: »

We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and abusive behavior know no ecclesial or other boundaries." Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, Good Friday Sermon, 2002.

This site documents the sex abuse in various Protestant denominations in the USA: http://reformation.com/

There can be expected to be sexual abusers in all walks of life. What's unique about the Roman Catholic church is that the church institution itself aided and abetted the abusers in their abusing.

The attempt to duck your churches head down below the parapet is noted.

prinz

antiskeptic wrote: »

There can be expected to be sexual abusers in all walks of life. What's unique about the Roman Catholic church is that the church institution itself aided and abetted the abusers in their abusing..

Covering up, ignoring, and moving abusers around the place are not failings unique to the RCC.

coddlesangers

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would consider the Roman church to have deviated to the point of deviance. To the point where they have been spit out of God's mouth. That doesn't mean that God doesn't work through his who are in that church - he undoubtably does. But in so far as the organisation can be said to represent Christ, their lampstand has been removed.

Presume God told you this personally then? As a chosen one, proclaiming others to be "deviant". Meek much?

homer911

coddlesangers wrote: »

Presume God told you this personally then? As a chosen one, proclaiming others to be "deviant". Meek much?

Welcome to boards.

I'm sure antiskeptic was referring to the institution, not the membership.

The sheep follow the shepherd..unfortunately for some its the Catholic institution, not necessarily Jesus Christ

antiskeptic

prinz wrote: »

Covering up, ignoring, and moving abusers around the place are not failings unique to the RCC.

Probably not. But was it as systemic eleewhere?

prinz

antiskeptic wrote: »

Probably not. But was it as systemic eleewhere?

We don't even have to go beyond Ireland to see that.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/the-drowning-of-the-truth-454176.html

Allegations went uninvestigated. Attempts by people to bring abuse to the attention of swimming authorities were rebuffed. Officials excusing abuse. Allegations of abuse being reported to members of the IASA who were also abusers. Swimming coaches under investigation going to other countries to take up posts as swimming coaches... the IASA refusing to remove honourary life memberships from people accused of multiple accounts of sexual abuse...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6860325.ece

Gibney is still free in the US AFAIK.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/exswim-coach-convicted-of-sex-offences-against-five-children-1934505.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6908001.ece

The Boys Scouts of America is another appalling case...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/lawsuit_boy_scouts_covered_up_sex_rBjXDlRvOXHpNUJXSC8SNL

Xizors Palace

antiskeptic wrote: »

There can be expected to be sexual abusers in all walks of life. What's unique about the Roman Catholic church is that the church institution itself aided and abetted the abusers in their abusing.

The attempt to duck your churches head down below the parapet is noted.

Ian Paisley has questions to answer about Kincora Boys Home and subsequent cover-up/non-action. And he's one of yours!

JimiTime

SonOfAdam wrote: »

Xizors Palace, it's odd that you accuse non-RCC christians of rejecting 'graces' when the RCC has utterly rejected the Gospel of Grace and replaced it with a gospel of works - it is a totally different gospel to that preached by the apostles to whom you claim an unbroken line of succession to Rome. While undoubtedly there are christians to be found in the RCC I find it impossible to reconcile some beliefs and practices with orthodox christianity - in effect it is another gospel.

This is where I'm at. The question is then, what do you do? If we believe what you are saying above, we are making a most serious allegation. We are saying that they are preaching a false message. So if we are saying that, then as antiskeptic said, their lampstand will be removed. Though have they EVER preached the true Gospel? if not, would we not be saying that they never had a lampstand to begin with? If we say that they DID have a lampstand and subsequently had it revoked, then on what basis are we saying it was revoked? For what is the difference between false teaching back then and now?

I understand that this seems patronising to the forums respected RC posters, Prinz and lmaopml, but I don't wish to speak behind my teeth about it, so I'm being straight. I certainly don't agree with you on many things, but I certainly do respect your input. It is a bit of a dilemma, as I said in the OP. On one hand, I see the great work RC Christians are doing in the name of Christ, certainly exhibiting the fruits of the spirit. On the other hand though, I'm seeing an institution exhibiting the fruits of a completely different spirit.

homer911

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Ian Paisley has questions to answer about Kincora Boys Home and subsequent cover-up/non-action. And he's one of yours!

As a Presbyterian, may I "disown" Ian Paisley and the Free Presbyterians - they have different views on things and he is not one of "ours".

Protestant denominations are all very independent and often very "local" - we like our individuality

(I have no gripe against "Free Presbyterians" - they are just not "Presbyterians")

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

I understand that this seems patronising to the forums respected RC posters, Prinz and lmaopml, but I don't wish to speak behind my teeth about it, so I'm being straight..

I'd only see myself in partial communion with the RCC so fire away! I think many people within the RCC certainly lost the way and have done little in the way of being a good example. I would also say that the way many in the Church would use the faithful would be to further it's own ends rather than the cause of Christianity.

JimiTime wrote: »

On the other hand though, I'm seeing an institution exhibiting the fruits of a completely different spirit.

Aren't we all? It needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Luckily enough I have come across enough good people to restore my faith in what it could be rather than what it was/still is from time to time.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

This is where I'm at. The question is then, what do you do? If we believe what you are saying above, we are making a most serious allegation. We are saying that they are preaching a false message. So if we are saying that, then as antiskeptic said, their lampstand will be removed. Though have they EVER preached the true Gospel? if not, would we not be saying that they never had a lampstand to begin with? If we say that they DID have a lampstand and subsequently had it revoked, then on what basis are we saying it was revoked? For what is the difference between false teaching back then and now?

Addressing things from a bible-only perspective

For myself I'd view the warnings of lampstand removal in the light of their issuance - something that is threatened to occur "...unless". Which would indicate that things are judged as gone amiss but if repented of then restitution can occur. A false teaching is the same then as now, but a time might come when it is not tolerated. And the removal occurs.

I wouldn't view the Roman Church as something that was established "more or less as is" at some fixed point in time. Rather, it would have been something that evolved - just as the Revelation churchs would have evolved. And that as it evolved, it was shapen and misshapen by adherance/deviation to/from gospel truth.

I would see lampstand removal as being something that has long occurred - with perhaps the Reformation being a outward statement of that which had taken place at spiritual level (perhaps even well before that). The Roman Institution has been utterly cast adrift as a carrier of the gospel of Jesus Christ - it's message and practices have turned (in substance and in form) to become carbon copies of the Judaism of Jesus' day. Proof positive of a spitting out, I think.

The fact that the Roman Church continues on is neither here nor there. Nor that it has millions of adherants. That Christians are undoubtably produced from within it's walls is a testimony to the universal reach of the God from whom salvation comes. It is despite of - not because of the message of the Roman Church that those saved within - whether priests, bishops or laity - have been saved.

I understand that this seems patronising to the forums respected RC posters, Prinz and lmaopml, but I don't wish to speak behind my teeth about it, so I'm being straight. I certainly don't agree with you on many things, but I certainly do respect your input. It is a bit of a dilemma, as I said in the OP. On one hand, I see the great work RC Christians are doing in the name of Christ, certainly exhibiting the fruits of the spirit. On the other hand though, I'm seeing an institution exhibiting the fruits of a completely different spirit.

+1

The institution is not it's people

Xizors Palace

JimiTime wrote: »

This is where I'm at. The question is then, what do you do? If we believe what you are saying above, we are making a most serious allegation [If you are wrong...???]. We are saying that they are preaching a false message. So if we are saying that, then as antiskeptic said, their lampstand will be removed. Though have they EVER preached the true Gospel? if not, would we not be saying that they never had a lampstand to begin with? If we say that they DID have a lampstand and subsequently had it revoked, then on what basis are we saying it was revoked? For what is the difference between false teaching back then and now?

I understand that this seems patronising to the forums respected RC posters, Prinz and lmaopml[As opposed to the disrespected members like Onesimus, Xizor, Festus?], but I don't wish to speak behind my teeth about it, so I'm being straight. I certainly don't agree with you on many things, but I certainly do respect your input. It is a bit of a dilemma, as I said in the OP[You remind me of a scrupulous, dithering Nazi prison guard, hmm-ing and ha-ing about whether or not to gas those Jews, some of whom, are, after all, 'nice' people...:rolleyes:]. On one hand, I see the great work RC Christians are doing in the name of Christ, certainly exhibiting the fruits of the spirit. On the other hand though, I'm seeing an institution exhibiting the fruits of a completely different spirit.[The Mystery of Iniquity. It is visible everywhere people are. Even just one person experiences the battle between light and darkeness.]

prinz wrote: »

I'd only see myself in partial communion with the RCC so fire away! I think many people within the RCC certainly lost the way and have done little in the way of being a good example. I would also say that the way many in the Church would use the faithful would be to further it's own ends rather than the cause of Christianity. [No offense to you personally Prinz, but I find it highly ironic that the Church's most outspoken critics are persons who are deeply broken morally, often in ways linked to the teachings of the Church they most object to, yet cast accusations against the Church, usually in protest against those teachings. I'm not saying that is what you are doing, but I have seen it often, especially among high profile media priests and others.]

Aren't we all? It needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Luckily enough I have come across enough good people to restore my faith in what it could be rather than what it was/still is from time to time.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Addressing things from a bible-only perspective

For myself I'd view the warnings of lampstand removal in the light of their issuance - something that is threatened to occur "...unless". Which would indicate that things are judged as gone amiss but if repented of then restitution can occur. A false teaching is the same then as now, but a time might come when it is not tolerated. And the removal occurs.

I wouldn't view the Roman Church as something that was established "more or less as is" at some fixed point in time. Rather, it would have been something that evolved - just as the Revelation churchs would have evolved. And that as it evolved, it was shapen and misshapen by adherance/deviation to/from gospel truth.

I would see lampstand removal as being something that has long occurred - with perhaps the Reformation being a outward statement of that which had taken place at spiritual level (perhaps even well before that). The Roman Institution has been utterly cast adrift as a carrier of the gospel of Jesus Christ - it's message and practices have turned (in substance and in form) to become carbon copies of the Judaism of Jesus' day. Proof positive of a spitting out, I think.[You should read JESUS OF NAZARETH by Benedict XVI. He addresses this very issue.]

The fact that the Roman Church continues on is neither here nor there. Nor that it has millions of adherants. That Christians are undoubtably produced from within it's walls is a testimony to the universal reach of the God from whom salvation comes. It is despite of - not because of the message of the Roman Church that those saved within - whether priests, bishops or laity - have been saved.

+1

The institution is not it's people [Christ and the Church are one. That there are sinful members within the visible Church is not affecting the holiness of the mystical body of Christ.]

I made some comments in red.

IamtheWalrus

<snip> I was being an A-hole.

prinz

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I made some comments in red.

With regard to the comments in red in the section of my quote I also find that highly ironic, but I am having trouble connecting your response to what I had said.

Xizors Palace

prinz wrote: »

With regard to the comments in red in the section of my quote I also find that highly ironic, but I am having trouble connecting your response to what I had said.

If you find it ironic, perhaps it wasn't meant for you. It's not always clear what people are getting at. I assume there are two main kinds of critics, to a greater or lesser extent: faithful Catholics who mourn over the infidelity and misdeeds within the Church, and liberal Catholics who criticise the Church for the evil of some members, though all of this criticism is a psychological defense because the person knows they are not actually living fidelity to Christ so dump on the Church instead. If I assumed wrongly about you, I offer my profuse apologies. My other comments in red stand, however.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Slav

JimiTime wrote: »

We are saying that they are preaching a false message. So if we are saying that, then as antiskeptic said, their lampstand will be removed. Though have they EVER preached the true Gospel? if not, would we not be saying that they never had a lampstand to begin with? If we say that they DID have a lampstand and subsequently had it revoked, then on what basis are we saying it was revoked? For what is the difference between false teaching back then and now?

Is it always black or white? Is it always either the true message or the false one with nothing in between? Is it possible to preach a distorted message? Slightly distorted, greatly distorted, almost undistorted? How do we know that one we preach is the true message?

I have a feeling that quite often the Catholic-Protestant dialogue is still stuck somewhere in the 16th century. If we look carefully at the modern Roman Catholic theology and compare it with the modern Reformed/Protestant/Evangelical views will we find enough differences on the essentials to conclude that they are preaching different gospels?

Slav

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is true. Sermonising Catholics or the ones with the mission to enlighten the non-Catholic world live mostly in the internets.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

..it's message and practices have turned (in substance and in form) to become carbon copies of the Judaism of Jesus' day. Proof positive of a spitting out, I think

xizor wrote:

You should read JESUS OF NAZARETH by Benedict XVI. He addresses this very issue.]

Reading an online article dealing this particular possibly. Buying a book where the Pope diseminates a Catholic view of Christ, probably not.

Christ and the Church are one. That there are sinful members within the visible Church is not affecting the holiness of the mystical body of Christ.

True. We just probably differ on what constitutes the visible church.

lmaopml

antiskeptic wrote: »

Reading an online article dealing this particular possibly. Buying a book where the Pope diseminates a Catholic view of Christ, probably not.

Seriously, THIS book is a good read for any Christian.....'Jesus of Nazareth' It's truely worth reading without bias. I love love Lewis, and many other more contemporary speakers etc. of many Christian denominations....a 'veritas' regular by all accounts..

..please don't let our 'malfunctions' in communication let you lose out on this particular insight - it's beautiful...no matter what denom..really!

There are places where you 'wander' with your own thoughts like any other book you absorb, or your background... but there is something very personal about meeting 'Jesus of Nazareth' in 'This' book...

..a good read.

wolfsbane

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Ian Paisley has questions to answer about Kincora Boys Home and subsequent cover-up/non-action. And he's one of yours!

Yes, ALL those who love power are open to its corruption. But it's not the exception that determines the character of a movement, but the rule.

____________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 6:9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

11 But you, O man of God, flee these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness.

wolfsbane

Slav wrote: »

Is it always black or white? Is it always either the true message or the false one with nothing in between? Is it possible to preach a distorted message? Slightly distorted, greatly distorted, almost undistorted? How do we know that one we preach is the true message?

I have a feeling that quite often the Catholic-Protestant dialogue is still stuck somewhere in the 16th century. If we look carefully at the modern Roman Catholic theology and compare it with the modern Reformed/Protestant/Evangelical views will we find enough differences on the essentials to conclude that they are preaching different gospels?

Good point!

Yes, it does come down to the essentials of the faith, rather than secondary issues. That's why the 16th C. debate remains alive, for it was about the nature of justifying faith, not just about bells and smells.

But it's alive less as the RCC theologians and the rest converge away from their 16th C. positions. The Protestant theologians and their churches have and will go further and further, as no doubt will the RCC theologians. But will the RCC as an institution? Maybe, maybe not. If it doesn't it will be wiped out in the final Delusion of Antichrist. If it does, it will be part of that Final Delusion.

There is a movement of Reformed/Protestant/Evangelicals toward the RCC position. That may well feed into the latter idea.

The only other scenario I can think of is the RCC moving toward the Protestant (16th C.) position. I know many individuals in it, including priests, have done so - wonderful to see! But the institution is a long way from where it needs to go.

__________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

booksale

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

One or two Cathlic friends of mine did really say that RCC is the One True Church. And they quoted the verse 'Peter and Rock' for reference.

One Catholic friend of my friend commented protestants a 'disgrace' and 'stupid' (behind my back of course) but words went back to me. I did not take it personally. But yes, in real life, some people do think like that but they just dont show it directly in front of you. On the other hands, I also have heard Protestants said that Catholics are not Christians.

---

I am surrounded by a lot of very good Catholics. My brother is a Catholic. I worked in a Catholic school before and the principal (a nun) was a very good person. She is still one of my senior friends I trust and respect. I share a lot with her. The friend who told me RCC is the One True Church is a very good friend of mine. He and his Catholic fiance always help me out a lot...

---

I appreciate things in the Catholic church that sometimes other Christian church miss, but I can't agree with the 'One True Church', nor the Papal Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church.

Yet, I admire a lot of good Catholics. They are my brothers and sisters in Lord.

---

Protestant church has its own problems as well.

---

OP, I dont really know what I am exactly writing here, but would like to end my post with a story:

One day, a man was walking in the park. He found a pebble and picked it up. It was the pebble of truth! He was very happy and ran away.

Two devils were watching. The junior devil said, 'Oh, no, he has found the pebble of truth, let's go and get the pebble back from his hands.'

The senior devil replied, 'No, just let him have it. Let him believe that he has the whole piece of the truth.'

neuro-praxis

Christians fighting uncharitably with each other probably isn't what this forum was set up for?

lmaopml

Love that verse, Peter and the 'rock'! It's confounding if you let it...and don't concentrate too much on it and it's individuality and power in scripture..

Booksale, I think you'll find that all Christians come in very many colours - very rarely will they say they own 'half' the truth no? some are very very sure...and they arent' all 'Catholic'!


;
People are so sure of what's 'wrong' but not so sure of what's 'right' sometimes..even though our collective Christianity is born of the same God. There is only 'one' church that is in the news all the time though, and not always for the 'saints' it is supposed to hold up as an example..lol...quite literally..and us Catholics have to deal with that; and understand that 'people' making mistakes doesn't mean everybody has or did or will..We choose our own end..common sense..

..but the 'rules' are not enticing, anything but....they're not exactly advertising or compromising as far as moral values are concerned, which you would imagine would happen if the 'institution' was bad to the core, and money spinning and the glory of money was par for the course. It's far easier to compromise and be with it..


The Catholic church is an apostolic church, very old along with many others..

I think sometimes it's best to concentrate on 'So that we may be one..'...

It doesn't necessarily mean compromise or that something is 'wrong' with ones faith, it sometimes just means genuine understanding and an open heart imo..

It's a 'Catholic' and old orthodox idea, but we're all the same anyway, just sinners in need of repentance, humility and the real objective truth, our paths vary sometimes 'God' knows...and he knows us individually anyway..so no need to fret, better to take heart in that knowledge.

wolfsbane

Xizors Palace said:

You should read JESUS OF NAZARETH by Benedict XVI. He addresses this very issue.

Just now came across this 'fundamentalist' Catholic view of the man and his writings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIvbCoaRr7w

___________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Seriously, THIS book is a good read for any Christian.....'Jesus of Nazareth' It's truely worth reading without bias. I love love Lewis, and many other more contemporary speakers etc. of many Christian denominations....a 'veritas' regular by all accounts..

Hi LM

I've more than enough of a mountain of books to be going along with as it is. Application of the even the most basic of filter systems are going to preclude my ever reading this.

Although I'm judging Ratzinger by his RC cover, rest assured, there's a whole raft of books from even my denominational neck of the woods I won't be reading either.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

Xizors Palace said:

Just now came across this 'fundamentalist' Catholic view of the man and his writings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIvbCoaRr7w

To be fair to the Pope, this guy sounds exactly like the bloke who narrates "The White House actually conspired to blow up the Twin Towers under the guise of aircraft attack"-type Utube clips.

lmaopml

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hi LM

I've more than enough of a mountain of books to be going along with as it is. Application of the even the most basic of filter systems are going to preclude my ever reading this.

Although I'm judging Ratzinger by his RC cover, rest assured, there's a whole raft of books from even my denominational neck of the woods I won't be reading either.

LOL, that's ok..I think most of us censor our reading, there are so many many opinions, yours, mine, theirs etc. etc. the 'noise' of it all....it's not always 'recommendations' we're looking for, I was just doing my thing there..lol..

I don't blame you at all for that, I do it myself.. just pass by something that doesn't interest me or arouse my interest..

... although my favourite reads are those that challenge me equally as much as those that comfort me..and they don't have to be of religious origins..we live in a pretty cool age - 'that' is something really special. It's good to be alive, it's good to learn and discover...and it's really special if we are called to faith.

Donatello

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just now came across this 'fundamentalist' Catholic view of the man and his writings:

Those guys (all two of them) are not Catholic: they are sedevacantists. They do not recognise BXVI as a valid Pope.

wolfsbane

Donatello wrote: »

Those guys (all two of them) are not Catholic: they are sedevacantists. They do not recognise BXVI as a valid Pope.

I take your point. But if tomorrow the RCC decided BXVI was an anti-Pope, sedevacantists would be Catholic again, No?

___________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

georgieporgy

wolfsbane wrote: »

I take your point. But if tomorrow the RCC decided BXVI was an anti-Pope, sedevacantists would be Catholic again, No?

___________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

No. You're on the wrong track there Wolfsbane. Generally speaking , what most non rc christians dislike about the rc doesn't really exist in the first place. It's just a caricature provided by one of the guys your Scripture quote describes.

wolfsbane

georgieporgy wrote: »

No. You're on the wrong track there Wolfsbane. Generally speaking , what most non rc christians dislike about the rc doesn't really exist in the first place. It's just a caricature provided by one of the guys your Scripture quote describes.

At no stage did one of the Anti-Popes appear to be the authentic version? No revision was ever necessary?

An honest question, for I thought I read that in several sources (but age has dulled my memory somewhat).

___________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Donatello

georgieporgy wrote: »

No. You're on the wrong track there Wolfsbane. Generally speaking , what most non rc christians dislike about the rc doesn't really exist in the first place. It's just a caricature provided by one of the guys your Scripture quote describes.

This is cool:

What Is The Catholic Church ?
by Bishop Fulton Sheen

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues;” because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;” because they “say indulgence is a permission to commit sin;” because the Pope “is a Fascist;” because the Church “is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness..."

wolfsbane wrote: »

At no stage did one of the Anti-Popes appear to be the authentic version? No revision was ever necessary?

An honest question, for I thought I read that in several sources (but age has dulled my memory somewhat).

There was a case whereby there were two 'Popes' at once. It was kind-of like a Solomon splitting the baby in two case in how it was resolved. It was happily resolved. I can't think who the contenders were, but two men claimed to be Pope, only one was the genuine Pope.

At the minute we have a valid Pope. There are maybe one or two nutters in the world right now who claim to be Pope but they cannot be taken seriously.

georgieporgy

wolfsbane wrote: »

At no stage did one of the Anti-Popes appear to be the authentic version? No revision was ever necessary?

An honest question, for I thought I read that in several sources (but age has dulled my memory somewhat).

___________________________________________________________________
.

you're right, as Donatello has just said, there was a time when there were 2 reigning popes, each one with followers some of whom were subsequently canonized saints. I say this to show how difficult it was for the church at that time to settle the matter. Some political machinations got involved too.

To settle the matter both popes resigned and a third was chosen. So there were then 3 living at the same time but only one legitimate. There's more to it than that but it's such a long time since i studied the issue (25 yrs) i forget the details.

Good question though

if memory serves there was a brief period of a few false popes but they didn't live very long in office. There was also the great western schism which lasted quite a while but, alas, i don't remember a thing about it.

himnextdoor

Snip!

Please read the Forum Charter.