catholics/christians

Discussions on ecclesiology such as the nature, constitution and functions of the church.
ochotseat
Senior Member
Posts: 691
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 5:16 am

Postby ochotseat » Sat Jun 18, 2005 7:22 pm

kateliz wrote:You haven't thrown down my argument by that:



http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.htm

1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized. The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life. From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit" in order to enter the Kingdom of God.


That part of the catechism states that Christ's sacrifice was a form of baptism. The papacy has stated that baptism, including Christ's sacrifice, is necessary for entry into heaven.

Baptism, necessary for membership in the church, is administered to infants and adults by pouring or immersion; anointing with the holy chrism in the form of a cross follows baptism. Baptism 'Removes original sin" and is thus the point at which a baptised infant is 'born-again' in Roman Catholicism. However, those who genuinely desire Baptism or who suffer death for their Christian faith, but die before they can receive the Sacrament, are said to have received 'Baptism of desire' or 'Baptism of blood'. As for those who are not baptised before they die, we commend them in our prayers to the infinite mercy of God.


That talks about baptism into the Catholic Church. Baptism of desire mentions that people who had a mindset that desired baptism but didn't receive it are still eligible for heaven. Since you disapprove Catholicism and want all Protestants to abolish their denominations, which is unrealistic, you probably dislike views on baptism that differ from yours.

kateliz
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:07 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota, US
Contact:

Postby kateliz » Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:05 pm

*smiling while shaking head*

ocho wrote:That part of the catechism states that Christ's sacrifice was a form of baptism. The papacy has stated that baptism, including Christ's sacrifice, is necessary for entry into heaven.
Did you know that dying clothing by immersing them in the dye is a form of baptism? Baptism itself can speak of many different things. Christ had to be "baptized" in his sacrifice, but this does not say that I can be saved by His baptism, only that He Himself was "baptized" in it.

The papacy has stated that water baptism is necessary for salvation, (except in the cases mentioned in what you quoted, and also goes for martyrdom and catechumens who die before completing the RCC prerequisetes for baptism by water. They would be some of those who have a "baptism of desire," as the Catechism specifies.)

However, I actually did not have that stated desire for many years after my conversion. I wanted to show people, (I was very young, so please don't hold this against my current self,) that you could be saved without having been baptized in water, by myself not having been. I actually told people that, too: "No, you don't have to be baptized to be saved; I haven't been baptized and yet I'm saved." (And it convinced them, despite the poor logic!) So according to the RCC, if I had died during that time, I would have gone to hell despite my conversion by faith. I did not have a water baptism, and did not have a desire for baptism, and was old enough to have been accountable to God for my sins had I died.

Now, you know that I wouldn't have gone to hell if I had died then, and this says that you know a water baptism isn't necessary for salvation. But the RCC would've said something like, "We can only pray," (as they've stated before about similar situations,) and that they'd say because they'd get in trouble with people if they strictly and logically held to their doctrine on baptism.

ocho wrote:Since you disapprove Catholicism and want all Protestants to abolish their denominations, which is unrealistic, you probably dislike views on baptism that differ from yours.
Call me stupid, but I'm guessing "you probably dislike views on baptism that differ from yours" too. Yes, I dislike what I think is unbiblical. Everyone should. You do yourself, which is a good thing, (unless you base your understanding of it's biblicalness on something other than the Bible, which means you could very well be misled into believing something unbiblical.)

ochotseat
Senior Member
Posts: 691
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 5:16 am

Postby ochotseat » Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:06 pm

kateliz wrote:
Call me stupid, but I'm guessing "you probably dislike views on baptism that differ from yours" too. Yes, I dislike what I think is unbiblical. Everyone should. You do yourself, which is a good thing, (unless you base your understanding of it's biblicalness on something other than the Bible, which means you could very well be misled into believing something unbiblical.)



If you think the papacy teaches that their version of water baptism is essential for salvation, why don't as many ministers and priests discuss this? They believe that water baptism is necessary to enter their church, but they don't believe that all Christians who aren't baptized that way go to hell.
You still haven't explained why you hate denominations. :roll:

Mariano
Newbie Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:17 am
Christian: Yes

Re: catholics/christians

Postby Mariano » Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:28 am

Mastermind,

Evilbible.com is Dead.

Large portions of evilbible.com being considered, dissected and declared fallacious on very many levels.

Two examples of this fact are as follows:

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about rape. Why this omission? Who knows, but it would certainly have gotten in the way of a good session of emotive expression of prejudice—it would have discredited evilbible.com to reference this most important text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have an annoying way of getting in the way of good fallacious assertions.

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible does not command but condemns human sacrifice. Evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that human sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile Pagans who were not worshiping the God of the Bible but various false gods. When “Jews” were performing human sacrifices it was only when they turned away from the God of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans in worshiping various false gods. Yet, in typical militant activist atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not condemn Gentile Pagans but only condemns the Jews.

Links to the posts which provide the evidence are found at this URL:

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -dead.html

User avatar
StMonicaGuideMe
Valued Member
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:15 pm
Christian: Yes

Re: catholics/christians

Postby StMonicaGuideMe » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:08 pm

I would urge you to review the important differences between Vatican I and Vatican II. Many Catholics, like myself, found the rituals of the Mass post Vatican II to provide very little...but since finding the Latin Mass, I have renewed vigor and awareness of God. It was very much a night and day difference and now I find myself actually disgusted by the lack of focus on Christ at the modern Masses.
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge".

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17213
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: catholics/christians

Postby RickD » Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:25 am

It was very much a night and day difference and now I find myself actually disgusted by the lack of focus on Christ at the modern Masses.

StMonica, could you elaborate on this? You have peeked my interest. y:-?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
CeT-To
Senior Member
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:57 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: catholics/christians

Postby CeT-To » Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:47 am

Ditto, i would like to hear more of this! Sounds very interesting.
But joy and happiness in you to all who seek you! Let them ceaselessly cry,"Great is Yahweh" who love your saving power. Psalm 40:16

I Praise you Yahweh, my Lord, my God!!!!!

User avatar
StMonicaGuideMe
Valued Member
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:15 pm
Christian: Yes

Re: catholics/christians

Postby StMonicaGuideMe » Sun Dec 18, 2011 4:00 pm

My friends, I would love to! It is, at the very least, an interesting history and political lesson!

So first, a little "where did it come from?". The Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is based on the earliest surviving account of the celebration of the Eucharist/Mass in Rome by St Justin Martyr, whom died c.165, found in chapter 67 of his "First Apology". The descriptions of the Mass in Rome by Hippolytus and Novatian are similar.

Fast forward hundreds of years, the 1st Vatican Council was the 20th ecumenical council (about 300 years after the Council of Trent) that was convoked by Pope Pius IX in 1868 after about a four year preparation period. It dealt with the problems of the rising influence of materialism and liberalism and to determine official Catholic doctrine concerning the Church of Christ. There was discussion and approval of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (Catholic doctrine against the manifold errors due to rationalism) and the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ. The Latin Mass (also referred to as the "Tridentine"/"Extraordinary Form" Mass) continued as the official "service" of Catholics across the world, with only the homily being spoken in the national language of the country it was being held in. This was one of the drawing points for me, for in my travels, I now can understand the entire Mass because no matter where I go, it's in Latin! ;) The practice of the Latin Mass everywhere further attributed to the etymology of the word, Catholic, which suggests universalism. Language simply did not divide. It's a small but I believe, important feature.

The Latin Mass is extremely solemn. The focus is entirely on the worship of God. It is very guided and "official", one can attribute it's "course of action" being like stepping into a City Council meeting. There is a "protocol" in place. To some, that may seem very "dogmatic" but I very much appreciate the familiarity of the sequence. Some non-believers will criticize the Church for it's "robot-like kneeling/sitting/standing" but I argue that once your body is familiar of when to stand and sit, your mind and spirit are able to go to a whole other place to worship God, since you're no longer focused on the "mechanics".

There are two types of Latin Mass. The High Mass (which is sung by both the priest and the choir and is a little long) and Low Mass, which was traditionally said around dawn and is quite short (under an hour) and is said by the priest in very low tones. I favor the Low Mass myself, simply because I really appreciate the "quiet time" I get before the presence of Our Lord. Though, at times, particularly at Christmas and Easter Tide, I love the High Mass because the most beautiful music is used. Actually, when selecting my wedding music, I chose a few hymns that were my favorites that are often used in the Mass (I walked down the isle to this -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KUDs8KJc_c )

Vatican II, which occurred in the 1960's, changed the way Catholics worldwide practice the Mass and the practice of it in Latin ceased. In fact, it was forbidden to without express consent from the local bishop, who had to appeal to Rome. Many priests and leaders who wanted to continue the Latin mass were excommunicated (though this has only very recently been retracted, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summorum_Pontificum).

I will address my concerns here as a lay person, though I urge you to read up on the official papal and doctrinal specifics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditiona ... te_of_Mass). I grew up in the Vat II Mass, having never experienced the Latin Mass until I was almost 20. After many years of being separated from the "new" Mass, I now see many, many issues.

Through Vat II, many fundamental aspects were completely changed. The priest, who is the representative for the people, no longer was required to face the altar (or to God) instead, now faced the people with his back to the altar. The symbolism of the placement of the priest I believe is very powerful; with him facing God, and his back to the people (except at homily and times of peace offering) signifies his leadership and offering on our behalf.

Additionally, there was an introduction of what I now consider to be a very distracting "peace exchange" by shaking the hands with everyone around you and saying "Peace be With you". In the Latin Mass, the priest turns to the faithful and says "Dominus Vobiscum" which means "May God be with you" and the people respond in unison "et cum spiritu tuo" which means "and also with thy spirit" which is meant to show how intimately united the priest is with the people in their offering to God. This was *completely* removed, and again, the focus was on the people, and not on God.

A very recent addition to the Mass is "liturgical dancing", something that revolted me even when I first experienced it during one high school Mass. I kid you not, young girls in skin tight flowing dresses would come up before the gospel and perform what can only be defined as "contemporary" dance in *front of the altar*!
It disgusted me to no end; how is this glorifying God?! Where is the biblical support for this nonsense?! This was removing ALL focus on prayer and union with Christ by distracting us with dancing young women and especially for men, that must be awful. This addresses the entire issue of modesty, for men and women, which is highly respected in the Old Rite, and clearly, with no regard in the new.

The biggest impact, in my opinion, was the reception of Holy Communion by the people. No longer was it required to kneel together at the communion rail (many churches still have them) to receive Communion, but it also was no longer required to receive it on the tongue. By hand was now acceptable and this went completely against papal and doctrinal encyclicals of the past. The reason for it being originally received kneeling and directly to the mouth of the faithful was ultimately for the prevention of any contamination, as it is the Holy Body and Blood of Christ and should be handled with the utmost care and respect. Though, if the faithful wanted to continue to receive it kneeling and on the tongue, they could, but it happened less and less since it was seen as an "inconvenience" and arrogance raged, in my opinion. Many faithful began to acquire the attitude "why should I dirty myself and kneel on this floor?". Truly horrible...

That's the nutshell of it, my friends, though I urge you to read more on the details. Like anything regarding the history of the Church, it is long and jam-packed with documentation. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask!

Dominus Vobiscum :)
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge".

User avatar
StMonicaGuideMe
Valued Member
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:15 pm
Christian: Yes

Re:

Postby StMonicaGuideMe » Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:52 pm

Once4all wrote: There is no mediator between the Christian and Jesus. The insertion of Mary into such a status is simply not biblical, that I can see.

In Him,
Once4all


It's implied. Consider the tale of the Wedding in Cana. Jesus does whatever His mother asks of him simply because she is his mother. Yet of all people who wouldn't have to respect anyone for any trivial earthly role it would be Jesus, but he does it to set an example. Jesus also involved his mother in everything in his life, including the horrible event of his crucifixion. He gave her to us, as our spiritual mother, when he looked upon John and said "behold, your mother". He said that to all of us, as John represents all of us, as Christ's disciples. If there is anyone who would "go to bat" for us and who loves us like her own, it would be Mary. The simple fact she was chosen to be the mother of Christ should demand our respect of her.

And Catholics don't believe that Saints have inherent power. They ask for intersession and special aid. I think the idea of patron Saints is just another gift from a loving God who wants us to feel a human connection to those who have lived before and to have more modern models of virtue and grace. It would be hard, in our earthly condition, to recognize ourselves in men and women who've lived thousands of years ago in very different times. I think since God understands our nature and weaknesses (and why wouldn't He) He's granted us "friends" and benefactors to help us along our earthly trek. I really like the idea actually, a special heavenly mentor who can assist me in particular earthly trials.
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge".

CallMeDave
Valued Member
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Northwest FLorida

Re: catholics/christians

Postby CallMeDave » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:25 pm

Prodigal Son wrote:one thing i miss about the catholic church...the ability to kneel/the sign of the cross upon entering.

now that i'm going to a christian/non-denominational church i feel like a have a relationship with God (i grew up catholic, but never followed it, and never felt God's presence, did everything mechanically/ritually). but i miss kneeling. whenever i want to earnestly conversate with God (a need i deeply feel in church) i kneel. but now in a christian church, i feel i can't kneel; there aren't any kneeling posts and no one else does it. i feel awkward, but keep wanting to do it. i also feel like i have to make the sign of the cross.

:? anyone else experience these things?


im glad you are realizing a personal relationship with God in Christ instead of performing religiousity and rituals. May former catholics report a totally different experience when they leave the RCC . Many evangelical churches offer an alter time after the service and sometimes during the service which gives people a chance to go forward and kneel for prayer. There is no need to cross yourself when you come into church...that is a man made tradition going back to circa 500 and it offers no benefit ; benefit comes from communing with Christ and walking with him daily. Get into a good Small Group for Bible Study and youll grow fast in your walk with God . If you havent done this yet, make Christ the King and Lord of your Life by recieving unto yourself the merits he offers thru his shed blood on Calvary (Romans 10:8-14 explains how this is done ) . Reach out to other Catholics because so many are caught up in the mechanical mode of just going to church to make a showing .
"I never asserted such an absurd proposition, that something could arise without a Cause" -- staunch atheist Philosopher David Hume.

"What this world now needs is Christian love or compassion" -- staunch atheist Bertrand Russell.

CallMeDave
Valued Member
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Northwest FLorida

Re:

Postby CallMeDave » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:31 pm

Mastermind wrote:Catholics ARE Christian. I have no idea why people keep saying they're not. -____________-


A Christian is defined in the Bible as One who is trusting in the sole sacrifice of Christ on Calvary as a free undeserved gift from God . But the RCC teaches you need that PLUS . You ALSO need good works, meritorious deeds, charity showing , salvation merits thru doing sacraments, attending the RCC which the Vatican calls 'the visible sacrament of salvation' , trusting in Mary, trusting in the Eucharist , and trusting in dead Catholics good works which has been deposited into a CHurch treasury for you to draw from...plus other means .

So, it cant be both. It has to be either one or the other . Which is the correct one ?
"I never asserted such an absurd proposition, that something could arise without a Cause" -- staunch atheist Philosopher David Hume.

"What this world now needs is Christian love or compassion" -- staunch atheist Bertrand Russell.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17213
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: catholics/christians

Postby RickD » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:39 pm

Byblos? Are you there?
:popcorn:
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5581
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: catholics/christians

Postby Byblos » Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:38 pm

RickD wrote:Byblos? Are you there?
:popcorn:


Oh I'm here, watching the show just like you are. I honestly don't have the energy for this any more.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17213
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: Re:

Postby RickD » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:55 pm

CallMeDave wrote:
Mastermind wrote:Catholics ARE Christian. I have no idea why people keep saying they're not. -____________-


A Christian is defined in the Bible as One who is trusting in the sole sacrifice of Christ on Calvary as a free undeserved gift from God . But the RCC teaches you need that PLUS . You ALSO need good works, meritorious deeds, charity showing , salvation merits thru doing sacraments, attending the RCC which the Vatican calls 'the visible sacrament of salvation' , trusting in Mary, trusting in the Eucharist , and trusting in dead Catholics good works which has been deposited into a CHurch treasury for you to draw from...plus other means .

So, it cant be both. It has to be either one or the other . Which is the correct one ?

Dave, can you prove your points, by showing Catholic doctrine that what you said is true? Are all these you mentioned, official Catholic doctrine? I hope you're not just going to make another hit-and-run post, with no evidence to back up what you said.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Danieltwotwenty
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Aussie Land

Re: catholics/christians

Postby Danieltwotwenty » Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:11 pm

Byblos wrote:
RickD wrote:Byblos? Are you there?
:popcorn:


Oh I'm here, watching the show just like you are. I honestly don't have the energy for this any more.



I hear you buddy, if only we Christians spent less time fighting over denominations or creation positions and focused more on Christ.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.


Return to “The Church”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest