The church before the Bible

[Scott1]

So, how do you reconcile a faith in Christ, being led by the Holy Spirit - yet my faith and guidance has led me away from the Roman Catholic church for their unscriptural teachings?

Well.... really I don't.... I don't doubt your love for Christ or your salvation.... so what's to reconcile? You don't have to be Catholic to be a "true" Christian or go to heaven... just love the Lord your God the best you can and follow your conscience as you continually search for truth.

The funny thing is.... your signature shows how much St. Athanasius believed that every single part of the Catholic faith was based upon the Bible. Every single part: Eucharist-Priesthood-Confession etc..... and you use it as your quote. I wish more Christians would take the time to learn about the history of our faith.... then they wouldn't make themselves look foolish by taking a quote out of context. :-D

Your friend in Christ,
Scott

 

[Imagican]

So, how do you reconcile a faith in Christ, being led by the Holy Spirit - yet my faith and guidance has led me away from the Roman Catholic church for their unscriptural teachings?

If I may make a suggestion on why that is?

You experience God - but your experiences are subjectively based. Thus, the basis of "truth" for you is your opinions and individual readings of the Bible. Catholics who experience God base their experiences of Him on an objective basis, a standard outside of themselves, through the teachings of the Church. By submitting our experiences to the teachings of the Church, we have an objective standard, the standard that God has already set down and established.

Thus, while some of what you say is truth, it cannot be complete truth, because man, using himself as the guide, cannot come to the complete truth. He requires an objective guide.

Regards

And Fran,

What you offer here is NOT devotion to The Church, but "A" church. You opt to place your faith in a 'man-made' organization that may or may NOT have ANY chance of fulfilling that which is The Church.

While you may VERY WELL 'believe' in what you offer, there is NO substantiation for such a 'belief' except in the doctrine and dogma of the CC.

Christ NEVER taught 'such A church', the apostles NEVER taught such A church. We have been TOLD over and over throughout scripture that we ARE able to develope a PERSONAL relationship with God through His Son. And that DOING so brings us INTO The Church, NOT the opposite.

You would offer that it is ONLY 'A' church that is able to bring us to God or Christ. That is simply NOT SO.

And from reading the testimonials of those of the Catholic persuasion, it becomes apparent that the CC teaches ANYTHING BUT a personal relationship. That it teaches JUST THE OPPOSITE in fact. That the individual is to place their faith in the 'man-made organization' CALLED the Catholic Church. That they are ABLE to TOTALLY disregard a NEED for a 'personal relationship' and opt for a psuedo-relationship THROUGH this 'man-made organization'.

Now, from YOUR perspective, WHAT HAPPENS when one places their FAITH in the hands of one that actually has NO CLUE as to TRUTH. When one CHOOSES to be 'duped' out of a 'relationship' that IS able to BE developed simply for the sake of 'others'? Do you BELIEVE that God WILL forgive those that go AGAINST Him? Regardless of the REASON, do you honestly BELIEVE that one can follow 'falsity' and STILL receieve the 'gift' that has been offered?

The Holy Spirit IS there to guide those that are ABLE to accept and follow WHERE It leads. And that IS for the individual as well as The Church. For ONLY when one BECOMES a 'part of the Church' is the Spirit able to offer TRUTH and guidance.

Upon Pentacost we CLEARLY SEE the 'beginnings' of The Church. That the Holy Spirit CAME UPON INDIVIDUALS who were THEN ABLE to speak THROUGH The Spirit the 'wonderous Word of God'. That these BECAME 'members' of The Body and thus, The Church. And there is NO indication that this has 'changed in the LEAST' other than in the minds and hearts of those that would be UNSATISFIED with a Spiritual Church and opt for that which is PHYSICAL and designed by the wiles of MEN to satisfy their FLESHLY NEEDS.

No different than the NEED for PHYSICAL resemblences of that which CANNOT BE defined. Paintings of God or Christ CANNOT TRULY portray the REALITY of EITHER. Nor can statues made in the LIKENESSES of MEN be ABLE to contain ANYTHING but FALSE Hope and FALSE veneration. And these NO MORE or NO LESS than an INDIVIDUAL who PLACES himself in a position of SUPREMITY. For we have ALREADY been offered OVER AND OVER that it is HE that SERVES his brothers and sisters the MOST that IS in the SUPERIOR position. That it is HE that builds his treasures in HEAVEN rather than here on earth where they WILL decay and they CAN'T be 'taken with you'.

MEC

 

[Scott1]

And from reading the testimonials of those of the Catholic persuasion, it becomes apparent that the CC teaches ANYTHING BUT a personal relationship. That it teaches JUST THE OPPOSITE in fact.

My personal relationship with Jesus Christ began on March 25, 2003 when I accepted him as my Lord and Savior (I became Catholic in 04). Over time, through his grace, I have grown closer to him every day... a relationship with him that was not possible before I entered into the Catholic Church. The Protestant faith was sooooo subjective. Everyone was their own personal "god"... they were always right and everyone else was wrong. It was all about them and their "personal salvation". With the Catholic Church, I now have a community that believes the most important thing in life is building up the body of Christ... not just reading the Bible and telling everyone what it means to you.... I just pray that my non-Catholic friends learn that Christ is not trapped inside the pages of their Bible or between their ears.... he is present in the world.... Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity... and can transform you by God's grace.

Personal relationship?

You folks don't know the first thing about it. :-D

 

[francisdesales]

What you offer here is NOT devotion to The Church, but "A" church. You opt to place your faith in a 'man-made' organization that may or may NOT have ANY chance of fulfilling that which is The Church.

I am not "devoted" to a church, as you say. I am devoted to Christ who has expressed and continues to express Himself through His Body, the Church. My signature line explains this further.

While you may VERY WELL 'believe' in what you offer, there is NO substantiation for such a 'belief' except in the doctrine and dogma of the CC.

Sure there is. Now, if you can point me to another universal Church that has been in existence for 2000 years, let's talk about which was established by Christ.

Christ NEVER taught 'such A church', the apostles NEVER taught such A church.

Sure they did. The Bible is FULL of "a church"...

We have been TOLD over and over throughout scripture that we ARE able to develope a PERSONAL relationship with God through His Son. And that DOING so brings us INTO The Church, NOT the opposite.

We develop a relationship with Christ as a result of His working through His Church. For example, the Bible...

You would offer that it is ONLY 'A' church that is able to bring us to God or Christ. That is simply NOT SO.

I didn't say that God can only work through one Church. You are putting words in my mouth.

And from reading the testimonials of those of the Catholic persuasion, it becomes apparent that the CC teaches ANYTHING BUT a personal relationship. That it teaches JUST THE OPPOSITE in fact. That the individual is to place their faith in the 'man-made organization' CALLED the Catholic Church. That they are ABLE to TOTALLY disregard a NEED for a 'personal relationship' and opt for a psuedo-relationship THROUGH this 'man-made organization'.

More rhetoric with little substance. I have a relationship with Christ that is VISIBLY expressed through the sacramental actions of the Church... CHRIST FORGIVES ME when I go to confession. CHRIST BAPTIZED ME when I was baptized in the Church. CHRIST FEEDS ME when I receive Him during the Eucharist.

If anyone, your "relationship" is imaginative, since there is nothing objective about it. Anyone can have delusions of grandeur thinking they are "in union" with God when they aren't... Where's the proof besides your own "witness" - which sounds like a script probably handed out to you so you can relate it to others and say all the right buzz words...

yes, it is over the top, but that is par for the course for you... I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine. You just don't have enough information to judge other Catholics on their walk or relationship, so you should just be quite about such matters...

Now, from YOUR perspective, WHAT HAPPENS when one places their FAITH in the hands of one that actually has NO CLUE as to TRUTH. When one CHOOSES to be 'duped' out of a 'relationship' that IS able to BE developed simply for the sake of 'others'? Do you BELIEVE that God WILL forgive those that go AGAINST Him? Regardless of the REASON, do you honestly BELIEVE that one can follow 'falsity' and STILL receieve the 'gift' that has been offered?

By your words, you will be condemned... God established one Church, historically visible and present. IF you care to do the research, you will find this to be true. However, you prefer to be ignorant and preach to me about what you know very little about.

The Holy Spirit IS there to guide those that are ABLE to accept and follow WHERE It leads. And that IS for the individual as well as The Church. For ONLY when one BECOMES a 'part of the Church' is the Spirit able to offer TRUTH and guidance.

Upon Pentacost we CLEARLY SEE the 'beginnings' of The Church. That the Holy Spirit CAME UPON INDIVIDUALS who were THEN ABLE to speak THROUGH The Spirit the 'wonderous Word of God'. That these BECAME 'members' of The Body and thus, The Church. And there is NO indication that this has 'changed in the LEAST' other than in the minds and hearts of those that would be UNSATISFIED with a Spiritual Church and opt for that which is PHYSICAL and designed by the wiles of MEN to satisfy their FLESHLY NEEDS.

Sure, the Spirit gives us gifts individually, but for what purpose? For the sake of building up the Body, not puffing you up... Thus, we come together as a Body, since the Spirit inhabits the Body as a Temple.

No different than the NEED for PHYSICAL resemblences of that which CANNOT BE defined. Paintings of God or Christ CANNOT TRULY portray the REALITY of EITHER.

No one paints God or Christ with the intent on "truly portraying the reality" of Either... Clearly, you do not have a clue what art is for and its limitations. What fool would look at a picture and say that the painting FULLY portrayed the reality of God???? That's crazy talk.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

Well Scot,

All I can offer is that you NEED beware of the judgements that you offer AGAINST others.

I have stated NOTHING other than what I have observed through the writtings of those that proclaim Catholocism. And what YOU have offered varies GREATLY from what MOST others comonly AGREE upon.

for NOT ONLY do I discern through the words written by those on this forum, but I have read MUCH that pertains to Catholic dogma and doctrine. And YOUR offering certainly DOESN'T coincide with that which I have read.

But let me offer this: AT LEAST those that 'you claim' EACH have their OWN understanding that varies widely, they will NOT be FORCED to answer for 'someone elses doctrine' upon judgement. It would be TERRIBLE to be judged UNWORTHY on that day. But it would be TWICE as BAD to be judged UNWORTHY for 'following SOMEONE ELSE'.

I don't KNOW that MUCH about the intricate 'doings' of the Protestant churches. I can PLAINLY SEE that MUCH of what they DO IS contrary to that which we have been offered in Word. But then, I can PLAINLY SEE as well that the CC is FAR beyond the 'man-made' errors of the Protestants. I DEFEND NEITHER. I claim alliegance to NEITHER.

I am one that YOU would insist THINK I know the TRUTH even though it differs than YOURS. i simply GO where I am LED and accept what is 'thrown at me'. I choose to follow in Spirit and Word rather than in ANY 'man-made' doctrines or dogma. And I have found that the understanding that has been offered is MUCH 'purer' than MOST that I witness in others. Why God has CHOSEN to reveal MUCH is OBVIOUSLY because I can HANDLE MUCH. For He will ONLY reveal that which is ABLE to be 'grasped' by the individual. So in THIS respect, I guess there MOST LIKELY ARE MANY that are ONLY capable of 'accepting' what limited understanding that the 'churches are ABLE' to offer.

Paul stated that we are to 'put away childish things'. That we are to BECOME ADULTS, in essence, IN CHRIST. That AS HE IS HOLY, so TOO are WE to BE HOLY. That there IS a 'perfect understanding' to be grasped and that ALL one NEED do is submit to The Spirit.

Knock and it shall be opened. Ask and ye shall receive. IF one is ABLE to DO this with a sincerity in their HEARTS, do you DENY that God WILL offer what He has PROMISED? Or do you contend that I 'must' be a 'part' of the CATHOLIC CHURCH in order for God to LOVE ME? That I must BOW to men and statues to PLEASE GOD? PLEASE!!!!!

The Church is NOT a 'group' formed by the limited abilities of men. It is THE Body with Christ as it's Head. Not some 'orgainzation' of man that is subject to the CORRUPTION of those that seek their OWN, but a Spiritual Joining of those that DO Love God above all else and their neighbors AS themselves. Not contained within a Cathedral or INDIVIDUAL that is the HEAD, but in the HEARTS of those that accept and follow Christ and His Commandments. And these MOST LIKELY consist of THOSE that FEW of us have EVEN glimpsed in ANY 'man-made' church.

MEC

 

[Scott1]

All I can offer is that you NEED beware of the judgements that you offer AGAINST others.

Oy vey.... call the irony police.

I have stated NOTHING other than what I have observed through the writtings of those that proclaim Catholocism. And what YOU have offered varies GREATLY from what MOST others comonly AGREE upon.

Amen.... time you met some Catholics who know their faith.

for NOT ONLY do I discern through the words written by those on this forum, but I have read MUCH that pertains to Catholic dogma and doctrine. And YOUR offering certainly DOESN'T coincide with that which I have read.

Amen again... I teach at a Catholic college.... if you'd like to learn more about authentic Catholic teaching, feel free to ask.... and I'll not only provide my personal testimony, but teachings from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to show you the errors of those other Catholics you talked to.

i simply GO where I am LED and accept what is 'thrown at me'. I choose to follow in Spirit and Word rather than in ANY 'man-made' doctrines or dogma.

... but yet you choose to follow our Scriptures....???

Why don't you make up your own mind and actually read other works of the time period and the Church fathers to make up your own mind?

Or do you contend that I 'must' be a 'part' of the CATHOLIC CHURCH in order for God to LOVE ME? That I must BOW to men and statues to PLEASE GOD? PLEASE!!!!!

Have you suffered a trauma recently? Relax... let go of the anger.

A person need not be Catholic (or even Christian for that matter) to entertain the possibility of salvation.

Any chance you can speak to ME instead of attacking things I have not said and don't believe in?

I pray you calm down and we can actually get to know what the other believes.

 

[Imagican]

Scot,

Firstly, there is NO anger within my heart; towards YOU or 'any other'.

Secondly:

YOUR 'scriptures'? What a bold and proud statement you offer.

The CC attempted to conceal and REFUSE the laity the scriptures for well OVER fifteen hundred years. They attempted to buy up and CONTROL every PIECE know to exist. So is THIS the basis for your statement that it BELONGS to the CC?

The scriptures were offered BY GOD. That He CHOSE the CC to be the translaters and printers of the BOOK called The Bible has NO bearing on WHERE and HOW the scriptures CAME into BEING.

JUST as God USED Egypt for HIS OWN GOOD, so TOO has he used MANY for HIS OWN BENEFIT. That offers NOTHING so far as PROOF of ANYTHING other than His Power. It certainly doesn't 'condone' or 'confirm' the adherance to HIS WILL other than the INABILITY to 'go against it' should He DECIDE SO.

If you ARE a 'teacher' and have ANY 'true' knowledge of the 'workings' of GOD, then these THINGS you should ALREADY KNOW.

God did NOT reaveal the 'scriptures' to the ROMANS any more than to ALL men. That the CC had the POWER to SEPARATE God's written words from the masses has NO bearing on the FACT that the APOSTLES were the TRUE writters of The Word. The CC kept it AWAY from the 'people' as LONG as they COULD. Even TODAY, offering ANYTHING BUT encouragement of the READING of this SAME 'book' that YOU would state 'BELONGS TO THEM'. A book, by the way, that MANY of the clergy have OPENLY stated is full of 'myths', 'stories of NO ACTUALITY', and 'fairy tales'. NOT to BE taken LITERAL for NO ONE other than those that the CC deems FIT are ABLE to discern what it contains or it's validity.

No thanks. For the ignorant masses this MAY offer some kind of 'sense'. But to MOST that have discovered the TRUTH, there is little in such offerings.

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....The CC attempted to conceal and REFUSE the laity the scriptures for well OVER fifteen hundred years.....

You know MEC, one reason why we never advance our discussions is because someone always wants to resort to the Black Legends. Nobody ever tried to hide the scriptures, so please stop saying that. You must remember two things:

1) When the Church first promulgated the Vulgate, Latin WAS the language of the people. So at the very first, the scriptures were in the language of the common folk.

2) By the time multiple languages had arisen in Europe, the common peasent was illiterate, so he could not read a Bible anyway. On top of that, with no printing presses, there was usually only one Bible per village - in the Church, chained up so no one would steal what was usually a jewel encrusted book. But if someone COULD read, it was there for them to read.

Please don't buy in to anti-Catholic propoganda.

 

[Scott1]

Firstly, there is NO anger within my heart; towards YOU or 'any other'.

Good to hear it.... but actions speak louder.

YOUR 'scriptures'? What a bold and proud statement you offer.

Yes... by "our" I mean those in the Christian faith... how telling that you immediately jump to anger and attempt to attack my Church.

The CC attempted to conceal and REFUSE the laity the scriptures for well OVER fifteen hundred years. They attempted to buy up and CONTROL every PIECE know to exist. So is THIS the basis for your statement that it BELONGS to the CC?

Come on... you're really going to try to teach me history? You're not even close to the truth... but have no fear: there are probably several good institutions of higher learning in your area that you could attend to get a proper education of this (and other) subjects.

The scriptures were offered BY GOD. That He CHOSE the CC to be the translaters and printers of the BOOK called The Bible has NO bearing on WHERE and HOW the scriptures CAME into BEING.

Really.... so God guided the Catholic Church to translate and print the Bible..... and more importantly chose which books went into the Bible... but that has no bearing on where or how the Bible came to be?? Come on... this isn't history... and it's barely fiction.

Even TODAY, offering ANYTHING BUT encouragement of the READING of this SAME 'book' that YOU would state 'BELONGS TO THEM'.

You CONTINUE to show your ignorance of Catholic teaching...

For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body. Catechism of the Catholic Church # 103

"And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life." Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."

Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."

The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 131-133

A book, by the way, that MANY of the clergy have OPENLY stated is full of 'myths', 'stories of NO ACTUALITY', and 'fairy tales'. NOT to BE taken LITERAL for NO ONE other than those that the CC deems FIT are ABLE to discern what it contains or it's validity.

Once again....

God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." CCC# 105

The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." CCC# 107

I mean REALLY..... :crazyeyes: ..... do some reading my friend..... I'm not saying you're gonna convert, but don't make yourself look stupid by not knowing even the basics of what you're speaking about!

Peace be with you,
S

 

[RadicalReformer]

Francesdesales, my Church has existed for about 2000 years now. It is called the Body of Christ.

Any other questions?

The issue is that you CANNOT historically claim that the ROMAN CATHOLIC denomination is the ONE started by Christ, that would count Paul, Peter, Timothy, Epaphras, etc as "members".

Is it a shame that there are so many different denominations - to a point yes. However, you must accept that the RCC is but one of those denominations.

What is an really interesting study is looking at the RCC as a typology of Israel - the similarities are amazing, and frankly eerie.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Francesdesales, my Church has existed for about 2000 years now. It is called the Body of Christ. ....

Can you document an unbroken line of succession from your pastor to the apostles? No you cannot.

We, however, can. Your church is a breakaway sect. Ours is the 2000-year old authoratative Church. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The heretical protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The list of popes can be traced back to Peter himself, the first pope. Here is a list:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm


Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20). For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men

 

[Devekut]

What is an really interesting study is looking at the RCC as a typology of Israel - the similarities are amazing, and frankly eerie.

I do believe it is the other way around, Israel is a typology of the Catholic Church.

you must accept that the RCC is but one of those denominations.

I don't think the Catholic Church will ever consider itself a denomination among many. The bare fact is that it has no distinguishable point of origin apart from the initial impetus of Pentecost (perhaps we might say this only also of the Orthodox Church). The Catholic Church stands where it stood all along, claiming foundation by Christ while scores of others broke off in disagreement.

As long as no historian can show me when the Catholic Church began, I will not consider it a denomination.

 

[Scott1]

Francesdesales, my Church has existed for about 2000 years now. It is called the Body of Christ.

Far be it from me to try to interupt .... but I actually agree with you here RR... and so does my Church:

However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

We are all Christians.... and Christ wants us to be ONE... don't you agree?

 

[Devekut]

Yes Scott, it is true that Vatican II (if that is what you are quoting) has brought a refreshing nuance to the question of communities separated from visible communion with the Catholic Church.

But what we are really delving into here is the question of the visible and invisibe dimensions of the Church. It is uniquely true of the Catholic Church (and in my opinion, the Orthodox for their maintainence of the Sacraments) that it is the Church of Christ in both its visible and invisible dimensions. Thus a Reformed Church belongs to Christ's Church, but not insofar as it is "Reformed". I don't think we will find agreement with Rad. on this.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Yes. Like the human body, the Body of Christ - the Church - is corporeal and spiritual. She is an invisible Church, that much is true. But the physical Church also, which is animated by the Holy Spirit, has form and function. And its form must be functional, which can only happen if it has structure.


Protestants would have you think the Church has a billion heads, but no arms or legs. The Catholic view is that there is one head, but many fingers and toes and appendages

 

[Scott1]

I don't think we will find agreement with Rad. on this.

True... but I hope to spend more time trying to find places we can have common ground... with some exceptions (you for instance) there seems to be a desire among Catholics on this forum who hope to bash people over the head with truth and could care less if they learn a thing... I'm gonna continue to try to show our common faith and common history whenever I can.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Yes. Like the human body, the Body of Christ - the Church - is corporeal and spiritual. She is an invisible Church, that much is true. But the physical Church also, which is animated by the Holy Spirit, has form and function. And its form must be functional, which can only happen if it has structure.


Protestants would have you think the Church has a billion heads, but no arms or legs. The Catholic view is that there is one head, but many fingers and toes and appendages

There is but ONE head - that is Christ Jesus. Period.

What document do you possess that shows that pope number 2 was appointed by Peter?

 

[RadicalReformer]

I don't think we will find agreement with Rad. on this.

True... but I hope to spend more time trying to find places we can have common ground... with some exceptions (you for instance) there seems to be a desire among Catholics on this forum who hope to bash people over the head with truth and could care less if they learn a thing... I'm gonna continue to try to show our common faith and common history whenever I can.

Yes you make a good point.. there are too many "catholic crusaders" on this Christian Forum. I would suggest that if one wants to preach Catholicism, then do so on a Romanist forum.

And no, I am not apologizing for the valid term.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Yes. Like the human body, the Body of Christ - the Church - is corporeal and spiritual. She is an invisible Church, that much is true. But the physical Church also, which is animated by the Holy Spirit, has form and function. And its form must be functional, which can only happen if it has structure.


Protestants would have you think the Church has a billion heads, but no arms or legs. The Catholic view is that there is one head, but many fingers and toes and appendages

There is but ONE head - that is Christ Jesus. Period.

What document do you possess that shows that pope number 2 was appointed by Peter?

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses".

You see, it helps to read ancient Christian works, rather than create fantasy historys that support your ahistorical views

 

[francisdesales]

Yes you make a good point.. there are too many "catholic crusaders" on this Christian Forum. I would suggest that if one wants to preach Catholicism, then do so on a Romanist forum.

And no, I am not apologizing for the valid term.

Two problems...

First, there are very few Catholics on this forum that are relatively active. Thus, "too many" must mean one? Or do you consider anyone who disagrees with you an "enemy"?

Secondly, do you really think you have any moral traction by making the second statement???

RR, you can do better than that.

Regards