Universal Church

[francisdesales]

Guys, I can and have offered PROOF 'through The Word' over EVERYTHING that I have offered concerning the CC.

You have not once offered ANYTHING that shows that the Catholic Church is not the Church established by Christ. That, you are continuing to show, is YOUR mere fantasy.

All you have done is taken your own personal interpretations of the Catholic Bible and twisted their meaning - THEN, you claim that YOUR interpretation is THE TRUTH, and NO OTHER interpretation is valid. :P

PLEASE, MEC, give me a break. The Bible is subject to interpretation, and YOU do not possess the magic "key" to interpreting it in all cases. I have spent thousands of posts discussing different opinions with others, and what I have found, MEC, is that you will not be able to prove anything "from the Word" that shows the Catholic Church teaches anything antithetical to the Sacred Scriptures - when the bible is read as the Church Fathers intended it to be read. If it did, I would not be doing this...

All you offer is that the Catholic Church reads the bible differently than you do. That should be your clue to change your own reading of it... Otherwise, one is merely being quite arrogant to know more than the "pillar and foundation of the Truth".

Regards

 

[Imagican]

fran,

Are you asking me to show you scripture that states that we are to call NO MAN FATHER? Or that there would come a 'time' that there would be 'falsehood taught' in that those teaching such would 'forbid others to wed'?

Surely you have read The Word that you 'state' the CC follows?

We have evidence through The Word that Christ had 'brothers and sisters' OUTSIDE of the concept that we are ALL brothers and sisters. And NO evidence that these were anything other than 'biological' brothers and sisters. The concept of Mary as 'perpetually virgin' was 'created' by the CC. It is NOT found in The Word as offered by the apostles.

Considering ALL that was offered scripturally so far as the 'place' of women in The Body, it would be utterly IMPOSSIBLE for Mary to have the 'place' that the CC has 'risen' her to.

I guess I forget at times that there may CERTAINLY be those on this forum that have NOT 'read' The Word in it's entirety. And even more that have never studied The Word. I forget for I find that the possibility of Christians NOT having read The Word to be almost unbelievable. For we were PLAINLY TOLD that The Word is our FOOD and in order to 'grow' we MUST partake of that offered through The Word.

But, reality being what it is, I suppose that there are those that exist right here on this very website that have NEVER read The Word. Read in it, but only bits and pieces.

To those fran, you may be able to convince that what I offer is opinion. But I don't believe there is SINGLE person that has READ The Word that is unaware of the things to which I refer concerning the CC.

You have been taught and believe that the Paul was the FIRST Bishop of Rome. That is ONE of the falacies to which I refer in the PAST being 'altered' to fit the present. For this was NOT, by all indication of the history that we have, that which was believed in the beginning. That is more of a 'legend' that has nowdays begun to be accepted as fact when in reality there is NO evidence to 'back up' this claim EXCEPT that 'created' by the CC.

We could go on and on with this. As I have previously stated: I have already been through this with you and YOU KNOW that I have MORE than opinion to offer over such. The records of the CC itself proves MOST of what I offer and history that was NOT controlled by them offers the rest.

Look, PLEASE explain to the 'good folks' out there WHY Gallileo was IMPRISONED. Just explain the TRUTH of his imprisonment from YOUR perspective. For I would truly enjoy someone clearing up my misunderstanding of this. And while you are at it, explain to them WHY the CC felt that they needed to imprison or murder ANYONE that chose to refute their teachings? When you have finished offering your 'view' of this, then we can move on to issues such as EXACTLY HOW they were able to do these things while following the example offered by Christ.

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

GROAN:

MEC,

You seem to be dodging the issue again. If you cannot refute the evidence that the Catholic Church is the early church, please just bow out graciously. After all this, I think it is obvious that you have nothing to show that the Catholic Church coexisted with any other church during those times immediately following the apostles.

Now, as to all you other gripes, this is not the thread to discuss them. What happened to Galileo 1600 years down the road is not relevant to this discussion. All I will say on it at this time is that you may not know the facts about what happened. It is an interesting topic however and maybe you can start a thread on it, as I think Catholics would welcome the opportunity discuss such a misunderstood subject. Just remember, while Galileo was under comfy house detention, many on your side were burning people at the stake because of witch accusations.

Start some threads on the other things you listed also. It's important to focus on specifics as opposed to throwing non-relevant things out there as smoke screens to mask your inability to do well on this topic of the universal church.

Next, please stop reading anti-Catholic writings; it's hurting your positions.

Lastly, in fairness to you so that others won't think you’re that ill-informed, it was Peter that was the first Bishop of Rome, not Paul. I sincerely think you just made a typo.

Peace

 

[Imagican]

Guys, I can and have offered PROOF 'through The Word' over EVERYTHING that I have offered concerning the CC.

You have not once offered ANYTHING that shows that the Catholic Church is not the Church established by Christ. That, you are continuing to show, is YOUR mere fantasy.

All you have done is taken your own personal interpretations of the Catholic Bible and twisted their meaning - THEN, you claim that YOUR interpretation is THE TRUTH, and NO OTHER interpretation is valid. :P

PLEASE, MEC, give me a break. The Bible is subject to interpretation, and YOU do not possess the magic "key" to interpreting it in all cases. I have spent thousands of posts discussing different opinions with others, and what I have found, MEC, is that you will not be able to prove anything "from the Word" that shows the Catholic Church teaches anything antithetical to the Sacred Scriptures - when the bible is read as the Church Fathers intended it to be read. If it did, I would not be doing this...

All you offer is that the Catholic Church reads the bible differently than you do. That should be your clue to change your own reading of it... Otherwise, one is merely being quite arrogant to know more than the "pillar and foundation of the Truth".

Regards

Fran,

Is it 'personal interpretation' to state that those that murder their brothers and sisters in the Name of Christ COULD NOT be following His example?

Now, we have plenty of 'proof' that the CC used everything within their power to promote and perpetuate "THEIR" belief system upon ALL under their 'control'. And YOU know this as well as anyone that has ever taken the time to study it's history.

Is it 'personal opinion' for me to be able to discern the EXACT same things that Martin Luther recognized as being 'contrary to The Word'?

If the CC had NOT been abusing its power, Martin Luthers writtings could not have even existed in TRUTH. No one would have even acknowledged this man had it NOT been the 'church' that was misleading the 'people'.

Is it 'personal opinion' that there is NOT a single word offered through The Word concerning Mary the 'perpetual Virgin'?

And there are SO many things that the CC teaches and holds as doctrine that were NOT offered by the apostles. I know, the CC 'claims' that these things were offered even though they weren't 'written down'. The Jewish religious leaders did the SAME thing calling what 'they created' 'verbal tradition'. Each time that the religious leaders decided that it was 'time' to alter how they 'led' the people, they simply 'created' a 'verbal history' that would allow them to ALTER that offered BY Moses into that which benefited THEM, (the leaders).

Christ even spoke of these things without actually naming what it 'was'. He outright STATED that it's NOT what goes into the body that makes one 'unclean', but that which comes OUT OF IT. Yet the 'leaders' had decided to 'teach' the importance of one's hands being clean and had turned it into LAW by stating that it was 'verbal tradition' handed down by Moses but never written down by HIM.

The CC has offered MUCH in this SAME tradition.

Is it my 'personal opinion' that the CC persecuted the Jews for HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS of years?

It is only in recent years that the CC has even steped forward to offer apology for this OUTRAGEOUS behavior that they 'created' and perpetuated for HUNDREDS and HUNDRED of years. Murdering those of the ACTUAL lineage of the SAME Son of God that they professed to follow. Do you reacon that it was The Spirit that LEAD them to murder Jews? A spirit NO DOUBT, but the 'same' spirit that inspired Hitler to do the same.

So, you continue to accuse me of offering opinion and i will continue to offer the facts that you are simply unwilling to accept. And fran, we were told that is not only sin to perform, but to simply take pleasure in them that do is for us to err as well.

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

Is it my 'personal opinion' that the CC persecuted the Jews for HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS of years?

It is only in recent years that the CC has even steped forward to offer apology for this OUTRAGEOUS behavior that they 'created' and perpetuated for HUNDREDS and HUNDRED of years. Murdering those of the ACTUAL lineage of the SAME Son of God that they professed to follow. Do you reacon that it was The Spirit that LEAD them to murder Jews? A spirit NO DOUBT, but the 'same' spirit that inspired Hitler to do the same.

Now that is interesting. Can you show us your sources for this statement? I would like to check into this.

peace

 

[A-Christian]

Is it 'personal opinion' that there is NOT a single word offered through The Word concerning Mary the 'perpetual Virgin'?

Where does it say that she did not remain a virgin?

Peace

 

[A-Christian]

Now, we have plenty of 'proof' that the CC used everything within their power to promote and perpetuate "THEIR" belief system upon ALL under their 'control'. And YOU know this as well as anyone that has ever taken the time to study it's history.

If you want us to entertain these things that are not relevent to the topic, at least be specific.
List some instances.

Peace

 

[Imagican]

GROAN:

MEC,

You seem to be dodging the issue again. If you cannot refute the evidence that the Catholic Church is the early church, please just bow out graciously. After all this, I think it is obvious that you have nothing to show that the Catholic Church coexisted with any other church during those times immediately following the apostles.

Now, as to all you other gripes, this is not the thread to discuss them. What happened to Galileo 1600 years down the road is not relevant to this discussion. All I will say on it at this time is that you may not know the facts about what happened. It is an interesting topic however and maybe you can start a thread on it, as I think Catholics would welcome the opportunity discuss such a misunderstood subject. Just remember, while Galileo was under comfy house detention, many on your side were burning people at the stake because of witch accusations.

Start some threads on the other things you listed also. It's important to focus on specifics as opposed to throwing non-relevant things out there as smoke screens to mask your inability to do well on this topic of the universal church.

Next, please stop reading anti-Catholic writings; it's hurting your positions.

Lastly, in fairness to you so that others won't think you’re that ill-informed, it was Peter that was the first Bishop of Rome, not Paul. I sincerely think you just made a typo.

Peace

OK A,

How about this:

You would presume that the CC was ONE from the time of Christ. Here's your evidence to the contrary:

There were schisms among the 'different' CC 'locations' that are documented by even the CC. That they 'labeled' those that were NOT capable of standing up to the power of the ROMAN army 'heretics' does not alter the FACT that these divisions existed.

The issue of 'trinity' itself is a 'prime' example of just such a situation where there were 'groups' that WERE members of the CC that disagreed with the concept. But those with the MOST power at the time were able to insert it into their doctrine and simply 'label' those that didn't believe it to be 'proper' or 'founded' in The Word, heretics.

And A, this has happened over and over again throughout their, (the CC's), history.

Is this 'in line' with the opening thread?

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Is it 'personal opinion' that there is NOT a single word offered through The Word concerning Mary the 'perpetual Virgin'?

Where does it say that she did not remain a virgin?

Peace

The FACT that scripture points out that Jesus HAD brothers and sisters is pretty good indication that she was NOT. Now, this evidence is certainly able to be presented through scripture itself. Yet there is NO scripture pointing to 'perpetual virginity' This was 'created' by the CC in order to 'worship' Mary as some sort of 'diety', hence this "Mother of God" title that THEY bestowed upon her.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Is it my 'personal opinion' that the CC persecuted the Jews for HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS of years?

It is only in recent years that the CC has even steped forward to offer apology for this OUTRAGEOUS behavior that they 'created' and perpetuated for HUNDREDS and HUNDRED of years. Murdering those of the ACTUAL lineage of the SAME Son of God that they professed to follow. Do you reacon that it was The Spirit that LEAD them to murder Jews? A spirit NO DOUBT, but the 'same' spirit that inspired Hitler to do the same.

Now that is interesting. Can you show us your sources for this statement? I would like to check into this.

peace

Come now A, surely you 'jest'?????

Ever heard of the Crusades? How about the Plague? While the CC NEVER outright made LAWS to persecute the Jews, the clergy DID offer their personal opinions on the issue of Judaism and these opinions quite often consisted of personal views that the Jews were the murderers of Christ and therefore liable for His murder, (when in fact it was The Romans themselves that perpetrated the act), and didn't hessitate to make their views KNOWN and therefore encouraging said persecution. And then doing NOTHING to alter the 'faze' that had begun is further indication, (or proof to those that understand), that they not only encouraged, but APPROVED of the persecution.

Durring the plague, the church leaders in many parts of Europe encouraged the outright slaughter of Jews by labeling them to be the 'reason' for God sending the plague.

Come now. I'm not offering anything that you don't 'already KNOW' am I?

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

Is this 'in line' with the opening thread?

MEC.... :-D ,
The problem is that you make statements but never bother to show us where your information comes from. How can we discuss this if we cannot look at your sources friend? You say things like "well documented even by the Catholic Church". Please show us the writings of the Church that document these things you say. If they exist, I am very interested in reading them.

 

[biblecatholic]

Are you asking me to show you scripture that states that we are to call NO MAN FATHER?

Do you call your dad father? What about the phrase "founding fathers" do you use that phrase?.....

Let's see what the scriptures say....

Acts 7:1-2 Then said the high priest, Are these things so?
2And he said, Men, brethren, and FATHERS, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,

Looks like St Paul calls elders Father.

Acts 22
1Men, brethren, and FATHERS, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.

Romans 4 1What shall we say then that Abraham our FATHER, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Luke 16 24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. .............

if you interpret Matthew 23 as saying we cannot call anyone our spiritual father, then you have a problem with Jesus, Paul, Stephen, and the Holy Spirit...they must have all gotten it wrong.

 

[Imagican]

Look guys,

Christ did NOT come to offer a 'new world order', (not the first time at least). He came to offer peace and love through forgiveness in the hearts of those that were willing to accept the TRUTH.

A 'tyranical organization' was NOT the purpose of The Church. For The Church was NOTHING other than the BODY of Christ, (those that believe and FOLLOW the example given).

So, round and round we go in a debate that is NOT over 'truth' but 'belief'. For your 'belief' that the CC IS The Body and everything outside it is 'schism'. And this is simply a 'belief' that has NO basis in TRUTH.

The CC is quick to point out 'their' Martyrs. But HOW MANY true Martyrs did the CC itself create? How many that chose to follow TRUTH instead of 'their truth' were put to death or imprisoned simply for the sake of 'belief'?

Now, what I have attempted to point out is that this could NOT have been the FIRST Chruch. For one CANNOT offer hate to His brothers and sisters and 'claim' to be The Church in TRUTH. For those that DO NOT have love in their hearts for their brothers and sisters CANNOT have Christ in their hearts. THIS IS SCRIPTURE.

There will ALWAYS remain a 'remnant' remember? The largest denomination on the planet is NOT a remnant. And simply LOOK at all the warnings, (SPECIFIC WARNINGS), that were offered by the apostles that the CC came along and matched COMPLETELY. I have already offered a few; forbidding to wed. refusing to accept The Son AS, (and by the way, in the EXACT scripture where this is stated it warns the 'children of God' to REFRAIN from worshiping idols), The Son, calling priests 'Father'. The list goes on and on.

Now how do you suppose that the FIRST Church could possibly veer so far from that offered by the apopstles if they are nothing other than an 'Apostolic succesion'? How is it that they didn't understand what the apostles offered yet WERE the FIRST TRUE CHURCH?

Don't get me wrong. I am well aware that Paul and Peter visited Rome and that converts WERE present there. But there is NOTHING to indicate that organization such as that offered by the CC was EVER intended. For Christ Himself offered that to follow Him would make enemies of ones OWN HOUSEHOLD. NOW, how do you reacon that an organization such as the CC could possibly overcome this statement offered by Christ Himself? That THEIR ATTEMPTED ORANIZATION could one day bring all men together in a state of 'religious harmony' when we have the words of our Savior Himself stating that this is NOT POSSIBLE?

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

The FACT that scripture points out that Jesus HAD brothers and sisters is pretty good indication that she was NOT. Now, this evidence is certainly able to be presented through scripture itself. Yet there is NO scripture pointing to 'perpetual virginity' This was 'created' by the CC in order to 'worship' Mary as some sort of 'diety', hence this "Mother of God" title that THEY bestowed upon her.

When trying to understand these verses, the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother.

By the way, I do not worship Mary. No one I know worships Mary, and the Catholic Church does not instruct anyone to worship Mary. Showing respect toward such a person as Mary is far different than worshipping her.

As for her being the "Mother of God":
A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through herâ€â€not Josephâ€â€that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine personâ€â€Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)â€â€and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

Peace

 

[A-Christian]

Look MEC, unless you can show proof, not opinions, that the Catholic Church was not the church of early, maybe we should just end this thread. All the other things that you throw out there can be discussed , each in a dedicated thread. You gave it a good shot, it's just that you look for information from everyone except those that have it...the Holy Catholic (Universal) Church.

 

[A-Christian]

How about the Plague? While the CC NEVER outright made LAWS to persecute the Jews, the clergy DID offer their personal opinions on the issue of Judaism and these opinions quite often consisted of personal views that the Jews were the murderers of Christ and therefore liable for His murder, (when in fact it was The Romans themselves that perpetrated the act), and didn't hessitate to make their views KNOWN and therefore encouraging said persecution. And then doing NOTHING to alter the 'faze' that had begun is further indication, (or proof to those that understand), that they not only encouraged, but APPROVED of the persecution.

Durring the plague, the church leaders in many parts of Europe encouraged the outright slaughter of Jews by labeling them to be the 'reason' for God sending the plague.

Come now. I'm not offering anything that you don't 'already KNOW' am I?

Yes. Please point me toward your sources.

Peace

 

[francisdesales]

fran,

Are you asking me to show you scripture that states that we are to call NO MAN FATHER? Or that there would come a 'time' that there would be 'falsehood taught' in that those teaching such would 'forbid others to wed'?

You are again evading the proclamation that you earlier stated:

You have claimed that there was another Christian church before the Catholic Church. You claim that the Catholic Church was not established by Christ.

And because you have NO proof whatsover, you try your lame attempt to change the subject?

I have already been over this stuff regarding "call no man father". It is all over the place on the Roman Catholic forum. I had a long conversation with Heidi on this, and like you, she was too stubborn to admit her mistake. If Paul and John call their communities "children", and Paul was their "father" spiritually, apparently, Jesus did not mean the literal sense, as some Protestants stubbornly hold to in their silly attempt to deflect away from the main issue. By trying to show how the Catholic Church "deviates" from the Word, you are trying to "prove" that the Catholic Church was not established by Christ?

Ridiculous strategy...

What does Galileo have ANYTHING to do with 100 AD???

Does individual evil Jews prove that the Jewish bible was a sham??? Or that the High Priests were illegitame and NOT appointed by God???

This is really silly, merely showing how little you have thought about it.

Again, I ask you to show the proof that the Catholic Church was not established by Christ. So far, you have given me not one IOTA of evidence. And yet, you earlier claimed that 'everyone knows" and there was "lots" of evidence that it was not. Again, you are wrong. Just like the Trinity fiasco that you started. Apparently, you have learned nothing from that.

Don't say things you can't back up...

 

[Dunamite]

There is one church with a small "c", but even in the beginning there was division. The Jerusalem church had central authority before it was disbanded and Paul took the issue of Gentile Christians to Jerusalem, not Rome. The leaders of the Jerusalem church were more than just Peter. James and others had authority.

Peter and Paul had equal but different ministries. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter was the apostle to Jews. Paul never deferred to Peter, in fact his was critical of him. When Jerusalem was destroyed the authority was never transferred to Rome. The church scattered. There were churches throughout the Roman empire, including Asia minor. Paul planted most of the churches in Europe and Asia minor.

This is an old argument and there is no proof of Peter being a pope. He was a humble man and did not aspire to having authority over others. There is no proof that Peter led the church in Rome any more than Paul did. This is revisionary Catholic history written centuries later. There is no documentation from the first century even listing who the first leaders of the church in Rome were and there is no documentation showing that other churches looked to the Roman church for guidance.

Catholicism has long had an identity crisis. It has consistently tried to give itself more authority because it was weak. You do not do this out of strength. They want us to believe that it always had authority and that others have split off as a result of apostasy. In fact, there always were divisions. There was a strong tradition in Egypt that became the Coptic church. The churches of Asia minor go back to before there was a church in Rome. The eastern orthodox church goes back a long way and they never fully accepted Rome's authority. It was just a matter of time before these two sides would more clearly define themselves.

For every doctrine adopted by the Roman Catholic Church there has always been a split off. You can always find there was a minority report and people who were silenced in one way or another. There are popes, multiple popes and anti-popes. Church history is full of disagreement and deceit. Any attempt to put a rosy finish on such a divisive and discordant history is a joke. This goes for both sides of the Reformation. It is easier to define yourself, by what you are not than by what you are sometimes. We like to point out the shortcomings of others so we can ignore our own.

Protestantism is only one split. There were many. Not all have survived. Sadly, whenever we get into discussions to find common ground we reach stumbling blocks. There are some things that are just too big in the eyes of some to compromise.

I cannot even go to a Catholic funeral and take communion. I am a Christian in good standing before God, but that is not good enough it seems. How can we ever agree on anything if we do not accept each others as equals and treat each other with respect?

Blessings,
Dunamite

 

[Imagican]

fran, A:

It seems that I am not the ONLY one that has an 'understanding' of the basic history of the CC. Dun has offered MUCH of the exact thing that I have been saying from my first post here.

Dun,

A rather 'thought out and concise' summation. I commend you for 'speaking up' in the Spirit of Truth.

It seems that Dun has been reading from the 'same' sources that I have.

Guys, I cannot even remember where MOST of my knowledge of the CC came from. I have read MUCH over the years and there is MUCH that I cannot offer exact source from. But, I can offer this: MUCH of the history of the CC for about 1500 years has been relatively well recorded. Not that the CC itself will even now 'admit' to much of it, it IS there and offered through relatively unbiased sources.

I have REFUSED to offer 'exact' sources of ANY sort for I am well aware of the 'tactic' that would be attempted THEN. Been there and have 'witnessed that'. You would simply attempt to dispute the evidence for the sake of the CC. Chosing to ignore that offered by historians for the sake of that 'created' by the CC as propaganda to ensure those that follow, that it is THEY that have the TRUTH and many out there trying to persecute them with slander.

Scientology uses the SAME tactics in an attempt to discredit anyone that offers a 'truth' of their history as well. Claiming that it is an attack against them for the sake of 'them BEING right', and others being unable to accept it.

My sources are NOT difficult to find guys. My sources are pretty much ANYTHING written about European History involving the CC, NOT written by the CC itself.

I ask you: If you wanted to know the TRUTH about Bush's administration, WHO would you trust to offer information that was CLOSEST to The Truth? Bush? Ms Rice? A staunch Republican? Let's be serious here. The CC has even offered apologies for much of their treatment of others in times past. A PURE indication that even they realize that history CANNOT be 'completely altered' in a 'way' that can utterly HIDE the TRUTH.

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

Mec, Dunamite,
I'll pray for you both.
The world will be against the Church of course. I do encourage you to read Catholic issues from Catholic sources. I have read from both sides and know where my peace comes from.

Peace be with both of you.