Catholics Get In Here! :)

[dan1el]

For the record, I am Episcopalian. We generally consider ourselves part of the Catholic Church ("Catholic" means "Universal") but we are certainly not RCC, nor any of the other rites listed in the poll.

And it doesn't surprise me that you're used to losing arguments to Catholics. It's not something I'd brag about if I were you.

LOL it isn't that I "lost"; first of all, people shouldn't be "contentious", and talking about what I believe is True (based on Scripture) with the majority of Catholic people arouses contention, and we never get anywhere because of that; therefore, I don't waste my time in it, seeing as it was fruitless, and it isn't edifying.

If it isn't in the POWER and VOLITION of the Spirit, then I am in the wrong; and there will just be arguments... so, I am not in the Spirit enough, and I have to just do that; the rest will take care of itself.

Whether my doctrines are "right" or "wrong" isn't the main issue (won't make me be 'in the Spirit', or not) -- that is probably why I overlook doctrinal differences between myself and Catholics: you can know Jesus, and have imperfect doctrines. I do not subscribe to their doctrines, however; and I may explain once or twice about WHY I don't; but, I've seen the fruitlessness of contention... so, I don't "get into it" anymore.

 

[dan1el]

This is what I'm saying. You can't blame just one church for the actions of Christianity. (Well, you can, but it would be a lie.)



Woah, and they say we don't know Scripture.

Psst: Jesus never addressed any "singular, localized churches." Such were not in existence before his ascension to heaven.

Perhaps you meant PAUL? (See, I've joked that some evangelicals raise Paul above Jesus, but you're the first person I've met who actually confused the two!)

Paul addressed singular churches. No, that is not a rejection of Christianity. I never said addressing a local church was a rejection of Christianity.

Paul never addressed the church at Rome and said, "Wow, you should see those stupid people in Corinth, they have no clue what they are doing, they're just wrong."

But this is exactly what anyone does when they attack any denomination.

Paul addressed specific problems to the specific places they needed addressing. He didn't accuse any church of being not a church ... he simply corrected them where they needed it. As should we.

Jesus spoke directly to the churches in the Scriptures cited, sister (Revelation 2 & 3). I didn't attack a denomination; I WILL take issue with a doctrine, however.

 

[dscherck]

Meybe it will sound stupid but i dont hear much about episcopalian.... ure part of catholics right? well tell me smthing abot that

Episcopalians are also known as the Church of England. They parted way

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[zeroturbulence]

The Catholic Church butchered countless (some say millions -- 50 million) Christians simply for not conforming to their contaminated faith. I don't remember Jesus ever teaching his disciples to do that -- "John said to him, 'Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.'" Mark 9:38, 39.

Can't any of you people come up with an argument that hasn't been explained away yet? We've already heard it all (the pope is the anti-christ, our church is the great prostitute or the apostasy, we're a bunch of idolaters, the spanish inquisition and the crusades, we worship crackers/biscuits, we secretly support secret societies, etc..). We're really getting tired of explaining everything to you folks. Its like a broken record, I mean a skipping CD.

We are the favorite doctrinal punching bag for protestants, and its really really getting old.

 

[dan1el]

Can't any of you people come up with an argument that hasn't been explained away yet? We've already heard it all (the pope is the anti-christ, our church is the great prostitute or the apostasy, we're a bunch of idolaters, the spanish inquisition and the crusades, we worship crackers/biscuits, we secretly support secret societies, etc..). We're really getting tired of explaining everything to you folks. Its like a broken record, I mean a skipping CD.

We are the favorite doctrinal punching bag for protestants, and its really really getting old.

The fact remains -- it doesn't really go to prove your point too well, when you have the "fruit" of "murder" as the fruit of your doctrine (which you say is infallible, and therefore, you never change it): because people disagreed with you, or wanted to read the Bible in their own language, the RCC had them KILLED. How is that God's will? Just a question.

I don't want to get involved in being an accuser, or getting upset (because that spirit spreads as we speak words filled with hate and indignation to each other) speaking evil words at Catholic people.

I am not perfect, and my doctrines are not perfect -- and there isn't a Catholic alive who is perfect and their doctrines perfect, either.

 

[R3V07UTI0N]

We call the Father and the Holy Spirit persons in order to make distinctions that there are THREE different aspects of ONE True God.

God has revealed Himself in 3 distinct persons; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One God in essence but 3 different modes of operation, and so thus we call the three operations "persons" in order to know what we are talking about. To know that God used three different aspects (persons) of His one being in order to save us.

So what you are saying that there are not three "persons" but three manifestations just that you like to use the word "persons" to show that "they" are not the same.
As it is said that is what the catholic believes. Believing is not the same thing as Knowing...any one can believe they are going to win the lottery but do they? Any one can know if they won or lost the lottery by reading the numbers.
You could win by reading these numbers.

"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11) Old Testament
besides the Father there is no Saviour.
Yes the Father is Saviour "But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:"(2 Timothy 1:10) New Testament

"I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."(Isaiah 45:23) Old Testament
Every knee shall bow unto the Father.
Yes every knee shall bow to God! "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;"(Philippians 2:10)New Testament

"Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?..."-(Malachi 2:10) If Jesus is God it logically fallows that Jesus is the Father.

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."-(Isaiah 9:6) Jesus is the Son prophesied about and there is only ONE Father. The EVERLASTING FATHER

 

[NiceneChristian]

The Catholic Church butchered countless (some say millions -- 50 million) Christians simply for not conforming to their contaminated faith. I don't remember Jesus ever teaching his disciples to do that -- "John said to him, 'Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.'" Mark 9:38, 39.

They have no Scriptural basis for many of their dogmas; however, the Lord told me, "do not speak against them; they are My people" so I know that they are His people, in spite of these fallacies (God expends as much mercy on me as He does on them).

Now, what you must know is the I myself am not a Catholic. I am an Eastern Orthodox. We may be considered to be equal to Roman Catholics but we are not. We are very different. We are like the Catholic Church in that we have Holy Tradition, but we do not have a Pope which teaches infallibly. We adhere only to what has already been handed down to us from the consensus of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils which decreed the Creed's of the Faith. Also, we have never had the power or audacity to have a inquisition like the Roman Catholic Church has. We are the Eastern version of the Western, Roman Catholic Church. You see, during the year 1054, there was a huge schism that made a rift between the Eastern Church and the Western Church, this rift was called the GREAT EAST-WEST SCHISM, it happened because of the heresies that the Roman Catholic Bishops wanted to add into the Nicene Creed, which is called the FILIOQUE. Also, it was during this time that the Roman Catholic bishops declared that the Seat of Rome was infallible and so the Eastern and Roman bishops anathematized one another, and since then, they have never been reconciled to one another. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the 2nd largest Church other than the Roman Catholic Church, and it is the GOOD version of the Catholic Church. Don't let the Roman Catholic Church deceive you into thinking that they are the true Catholic Church because they are not, they have heresies and corrupted doctrines. The Orthodox Church is spotless and unblemished.


So basically, we are the good version of the Catholic Church, we do not believe in the heresy of the Papal Infallibility, or the heresies about the Virgin Mary, nor any Inquisitions, and we have not added anything to the Faith nor taken anything away. That is why we are called ORTHODOX (meaning "correct belief")

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Meybe it will sound stupid but i dont hear much about episcopalian.... ure part of catholics right? well tell me smthing abot that

Episcopalians are the American branch of the Church of England. In your country you may to refer to us as "Anglicans."

To answer your question, depending on what you mean by "part of catholics" .... The Church of English has Apostolic Succession, so in some ways it's even more "Catholic" than a lot of Continental RCs who had that whole "two popes" thing going.

How do you define "Catholic"? The writers of the poll certainly don't think Anglicans are Catholic, because they didn't offer that as a choice, but I'd like to know what the RCC and Eastern Rites have that we don't. (The Russian church also rejects the Roman Pope's authority, so you can't say that's it.)

 

[Warrior44]

Episcopalians are the American branch of the Church of England. In your country you may to refer to us as "Anglicans."

To answer your question, depending on what you mean by "part of catholics" .... The Church of English has Apostolic Succession, so in some ways it's even more "Catholic" than a lot of Continental RCs who had that whole "two popes" thing going.

How do you define "Catholic"? The writers of the poll certainly don't think Anglicans are Catholic, because they didn't offer that as a choice, but I'd like to know what the RCC and Eastern Rites have that we don't. (The Russian church also rejects the Roman Pope's authority, so you can't say that's it.)

When starting this thread I think it was intended to mean Catholics in the sense of those who recognize the authority of the Pope. So Roman Catholic and Estern Catholics. Yes, Catholic means universal. That is why we go by that description, because our Church is the same everywhere in the world. To answer your question, Catholics recognize the Pope as the Christ appointed Vicar of Christ, Head of the Church on earth - which you don't. We can trace this lineage back to St. Peter the first Pope. You can't, you can trace your apostolic succession back to the split from the Catholic Church but to split with the Catholic Church is to split with the Pope and the true apostolic succession. Also we have the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist at every Mass. Lastly, we have the assurance from Jesus Christ that the gates of Hell will not prevail against his Church. These are three large differences that make the Catholic Church the fullness of the Faith. God bless you.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

When starting this thread I think it was intended to mean Catholics in the sense of those who recognize the authority of the Pope. So Roman Catholic and Estern Catholics.

Many of the Eastern rite Catholics do not recognize the authority of the Pope. If you were not aware of that, that explains why you did include them as "catholic" but not Anglicans. For future reference.

you can trace your apostolic succession back to the split from the Catholic Church but to split with the Catholic Church is to split with the Pope and the true apostolic succession.

Nope. Wrong on 2 counts. First of all, A.S. goes back to JESUS, who appointed Peter as the bishop at Rome. Partial credit for that one -- you just missed one step. Second, the Anglican church's A.S. goes back to Jesus as well. We did not break the A.S. when we left Rome, because all our bishops were still within the A.S., and we maintain that to this day.

Also we have the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist at every Mass.

As do we. Body, blood, yup, we got it. You really should study up on some of your sister churches, hon. I understand if you have never been informed of these things, you wouldn't know, but if you don't know, you should just keep quiet rather than make assumptions.

Lastly, we have the assurance from Jesus Christ that the gates of Hell will not prevail against his Church.

We got that too. In fact, everyone has that assurance, even those who are not Christian. The gates of hell will not prevail against His Church no matter what religion anyone is. That's based on Jesus, not on us.

So if the 3 things that are required for one to be Catholic are (1) Apostolic Succession, (2) Real Presence at Eucharist, and (3) Jesus' victory over Death, then Anglicans are Catholic.

If you include obeisance to the Pope, then ONLY the Roman and Orthodox rites are Catholic.

For the record, I understand if you think Anglicans are not Catholic because of our split from Rome. As long as you're consistent about this, we're good.

 

[dscherck]

Many of the Eastern rite Catholics do not recognize the authority of the Pope. If you were not aware of that, that explains why you did include them as "catholic" but not Anglicans. For future reference.

He means Eastern rite Catholic. And we all recognize the Pope as first among equals. We just have some disagreements with our Orthodox brothers over what that means.

Nope. Wrong on 2 counts. First of all, A.S. goes back to JESUS, who appointed Peter as the bishop at Rome. Partial credit for that one -- you just missed one step. Second, the Anglican church's A.S. goes back to Jesus as well. We did not break the A.S. when we left Rome, because all our bishops were still within the A.S., and we maintain that to this day.

Depending on how you view things, when the ordination of women was approved was when A.S. was broken as we Catholics don't accept them as valid.

As do we. Body, blood, yup, we got it. You really should study up on some of your sister churches, hon. I understand if you have never been informed of these things, you wouldn't know, but if you don't know, you should just keep quiet rather than make assumptions.

I have talked it over with two of my friends who are Anglican priests, as near as I can understand, they do believe it is Our Lord's Flesh and Blood as well. So I'll concur there.

We got that too. In fact, everyone has that assurance, even those who are not Christian. The gates of hell will not prevail against His Church no matter what religion anyone is. That's based on Jesus, not on us.

So if the 3 things that are required for one to be Catholic are (1) Apostolic Succession, (2) Real Presence at Eucharist, and (3) Jesus' victory over Death, then Anglicans are Catholic.

If you include obeisance to the Pope, then ONLY the Roman and Orthodox rites are Catholic.

Catholic in this context though meant "in communion with the bishop of Rome" aka, the Pope. That would exclude the Eastern Orthodox but not the Eastern Catholics.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Many of the Eastern rite Catholics do not recognize the authority of the Pope.

I tried to edit this, but had waited too long.

After some research, I discovered I was wrong in the above. It is not "most" or "many" of the Eastern Rite / Orthodox churches that dispute the Roman Pope's supremacy, but ALL of them.

My point is still valid, I just didn't realize that if you include Rome's authority as one of the "make or break" things that makes someone Catholic, then the ONLY church that qualifies is the Roman Catholic Church.

Mea culpa

 

[zeroturbulence]

The fact remains -- it doesn't really go to prove your point too well, when you have the "fruit" of "murder" as the fruit of your doctrine (which you say is infallible, and therefore, you never change it): because people disagreed with you, or wanted to read the Bible in their own language, the RCC had them KILLED. How is that God's will? Just a question.

I don't want to get involved in being an accuser, or getting upset (because that spirit spreads as we speak words filled with hate and indignation to each other) speaking evil words at Catholic people.

I am not perfect, and my doctrines are not perfect -- and there isn't a Catholic alive who is perfect and their doctrines perfect, either.

Sigh. If you want to believe all that...thats great. Knock yourself out. But please, if you think we haven't heard all this already you are sorely mistaken.

 

[zeroturbulence]

...continued post...

Yes, the RCC did killed all those people, yes it was corrupt, yes there are priests who molested children, yes,yes , yes... but does any of that change the doctrine of our faith? No. Does our doctrine go against the bible? No. You and millions of anti-catholics love to "thorw it in our faces" but all of you misunderstand what we really believe. I know none of this will stop you, just like no common sense will get a political activist to admit they are wrong on an issue, but I felt like saying something so yay I said something. You know what would really impress me? If you could just once admit you are wrong about something that you misunderstood about our faith. Of course, thats not gonna happen because your pride is more important than your truth. Oh well.

 

[dan1el]

Now, what you must know is the I myself am not a Catholic. I am an Eastern Orthodox. We may be considered to be equal to Roman Catholics but we are not. We are very different. We are like the Catholic Church in that we have Holy Tradition, but we do not have a Pope which teaches infallibly. We adhere only to what has already been handed down to us from the consensus of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils which decreed the Creed's of the Faith. Also, we have never had the power or audacity to have a inquisition like the Roman Catholic Church has. We are the Eastern version of the Western, Roman Catholic Church. You see, during the year 1054, there was a huge schism that made a rift between the Eastern Church and the Western Church, this rift was called the GREAT EAST-WEST SCHISM, it happened because of the heresies that the Roman Catholic Bishops wanted to add into the Nicene Creed, which is called the FILIOQUE. Also, it was during this time that the Roman Catholic bishops declared that the Seat of Rome was infallible and so the Eastern and Roman bishops anathematized one another, and since then, they have never been reconciled to one another. The Eastern Orthodox Church is the 2nd largest Church other than the Roman Catholic Church, and it is the GOOD version of the Catholic Church. Don't let the Roman Catholic Church deceive you into thinking that they are the true Catholic Church because they are not, they have heresies and corrupted doctrines. The Orthodox Church is spotless and unblemished.


So basically, we are the good version of the Catholic Church, we do not believe in the heresy of the Papal Infallibility, or the heresies about the Virgin Mary, nor any Inquisitions, and we have not added anything to the Faith nor taken anything away. That is why we are called ORTHODOX (meaning "correct belief")

Amen, brother; I know a little about you guys... check out ''catholicbible'' on YouTube (that's his channel) for eastern orthodox ... love you in Christ, man

 

[dan1el]

...continued post...

Yes, the RCC did killed all those people, yes it was corrupt, yes there are priests who molested children, yes,yes , yes... but does any of that change the doctrine of our faith? No. Does our doctrine go against the bible? No. You and millions of anti-catholics love to "thorw it in our faces" but all of you misunderstand what we really believe. I know none of this will stop you, just like no common sense will get a political activist to admit they are wrong on an issue, but I felt like saying something so yay I said something. You know what would really impress me? If you could just once admit you are wrong about something that you misunderstood about our faith. Of course, thats not gonna happen because your pride is more important than your truth. Oh well.

We'll see who LIVED RIGHT (not whose doctrine was right) on the Day of Judgment. Let's be prepared, brother -- ALL of us. Amen?

 

[Warrior44]

It seems that the Anglican church is not exactly what i thought it was. Diva, I apologize. And ds, thanks for clearing things up. Also, i did not mean to imply that apostolic succession, transubstantiation, or the assurance of the Truth of Christs Church or even recognition of papal authority were the definition of what it is to be Catholic. I simply meant them to be examples of beliefs i thought were not common to the Anglican and Catholic Churches.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

He means Eastern rite Catholic. And we all recognize the Pope as first among equals. We just have some disagreements with our Orthodox brothers over what that means.

LOL, that's one way to put it. (Though I think most of the Orthodox would balk at the "first" part.)

Depending on how you view things, when the ordination of women was approved was when A.S. was broken as we Catholics don't accept them as valid.

Hey, it's not important to me what you think of as valid. You won't be standing before me on judgment day

I have talked it over with two of my friends who are Anglican priests, as near as I can understand, they do believe it is Our Lord's Flesh and Blood as well. So I'll concur there.

FYI: The Anglican and Lutheran understandings of the Eucharist are slightly different from the Catholic understanding, as follows.

Catholics believe in "transubstantiation." That is, the elements of wine and bread, at the words of institution, become the body and blood of our Lord, and cease being wine and bread.
Lutherans teach "consubstantiation." The Body and Blood are there in the Bread and Wine -- both/and, not either/or. The elements don't cease being bread and wine. Christ's body is "in, with, and under" the earthly element of bread, and Christ's blood is "in, with, and under" the earthly element of wine.
Anglicans, in true form of the "via media," prefer not to make any grand theological statements about what, exactly, is happening. We believe that it is the Real Presence of Christ. How exactly it happens is a mystery.

If you're interested, Methodists believe that the bread and wine (or grape juice, in most cases) are symbols of Christ's body and blood. I would have to say that is not "real presence," but at least they also recognize Eucharist as a means of grace. It's not just "in remembrance of...." but something real is happening. By the time you get to Presbyterians, it's pretty much just a memorial service.

I thought it was funny that one of the Catholic posters (I forget which one now) claimed that the Catholic belief is "real presence," because that is exactly what the Episcopal Church calls it.

Catholic in this context though meant "in communion with the bishop of Rome" aka, the Pope. That would exclude the Eastern Orthodox but not the Eastern Catholics.

As long as you admit that Anglicans are no less "catholic" than Orthodox, we're in agreement (at least to that point.)

FWIW, Anglicans all say the filioque, so in some ways we're "more" catholic than the Orthos.... (Of course, they would say that makes us more wrong. LOL)

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

It seems that the Anglican church is not exactly what i thought it was. Diva, I apologize. And ds, thanks for clearing things up. Also, i did not mean to imply that apostolic succession, transubstantiation, or the assurance of the Truth of Christs Church or even recognition of papal authority were the definition of what it is to be Catholic. I simply meant them to be examples of beliefs i thought were not common to the Anglican and Catholic Churches.

So it all comes back to, what do you mean by "Catholic." Sadly, that word that is meant to unite us still holds too many divisions.

 

[dscherck]

The fact remains -- it doesn't really go to prove your point too well, when you have the "fruit" of "murder" as the fruit of your doctrine (which you say is infallible, and therefore, you never change it): because people disagreed with you, or wanted to read the Bible in their own language, the RCC had them KILLED. How is that God's will? Just a question.

I don't want to get involved in being an accuser, or getting upset (because that spirit spreads as we speak words filled with hate and indignation to each other) speaking evil words at Catholic people.

I am not perfect, and my doctrines are not perfect -- and there isn't a Catholic alive who is perfect and their doctrines perfect, either.

Most of the instances you are describing are actually politically motivated -vs- religiously. That said, it's still a tragedy that there were instances of people being killed for being Protestant. Just as I'm sure you'd condemn the many many Catholics martyred at the hands of Protestants. Both sides of the theological divide have committed serious sins such as murder in the past. Does the fact that there have been bad Catholics invalidate all of the Catholic Church? What about the fact that Protestant Christianity also has it's share of bad members. Does that mean that all of Protestant Christianity is at fault? Obviously not.

You are aware that the Catholic Church was one of the first to translate the Scriptures to English right? The Church opposed Tyndale's translation not because he was a Protestant, but because it was inaccurate.