Support NeoGAF

[AngularSaxophone]

So outside of Catholic doctrine you don’t want to see anything. Why not have called it the Catholicism OT then? Even if it were the Catholicism OT I still wouldn’t be getting any answers. Like I said no different than the JWs that do nothing other than point you to their nonsense books and butchered scriptures.

 

[Airola]

Hey I hadn’t read that book before. I get excited when the stuff that’s deemed “non canon” still has the same messaging. You’d think the adversary would want to teach a different message

It's not a miracle that non-canonical texts have some or even a lot of things that go along with the canonical texts without a problem. But the thing is that there are these little things that are way off. Problems begin when people start to explain things in canonical books by things written in the non-canonical books. The things in canonical books make sense without those extra books. It's when you can't accept certain parts of the Bible without interpreting them through some "esoteric" texts, that's when you should see you've gone way too deep into the rabbit hole. Soon you explain things in one non-canonical book by what you've read from another non-canonical book, and end up dismissing simple things that are in the canonical books.

I guess that given your interest in conspiracy theories and the way you deal with them your way to explore religious texts makes sense. So at the very least you are consistent

 

[Straight Edge]

So outside of Catholic doctrine you don’t want to see anything. Why not have called it the Catholicism OT then? Even if it were the Catholicism OT I still wouldn’t be getting any answers. Like I said no different than the JWs that do nothing other than point you to their nonsense books and butchered scriptures.

Your beliefs don't seem to jive with any mainstream Christianity. The belief that Jesus is co-equal with the Father is fundamental to Christianity.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Wrong. It doesn’t jive with mainstream THEOLOGY. Many people have the exact same question and if you’re given the wrong answer by the same wrong teachings given to every pastor given the same doctrine in seminary and theology class then that doesn’t stop it from being wrong. Constantine was wrong. Arius was correct. God existed before Christ and Christ was born before the world was created through him by the command of God. You want to know why people keep asking the same question? Because it doesn’t sit well with their spirit. It doesn’t sit well with God given common sense nor does it fit scripture unless you twist it to. How is Christ co equal to the Father when he himself said the Father is greater than he? Again you’d be making Christ a liar.

 

[Straight Edge]

Wrong. It doesn’t jive with mainstream THEOLOGY. Many people have the exact same question and if you’re given the wrong answer by the same wrong teachings given to every pastor given the same doctrine in seminary and theology class then that doesn’t stop it from being wrong. Constantine was wrong. Arius was correct. God existed before Christ and Christ was born before the world was created through him by the command of God. You want to know why people keep asking the same question? Because it doesn’t sit well with their spirit. It doesn’t sit well with God given common sense nor does it fit scripture unless you twist it to. How is Christ co equal to the Father when he himself said the Father is greater than he? Again you’d be making Christ a liar.

I’m an atheist so I have no dog in this fight. All i know is that mainstream Christianity considers Jesus to be God and your beliefs are a minority akin to Jehova’s Witnesses.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Well that’s cool I guess. As far as I know and as far as what scripture says, you have to believe Christ is the Son of God, not God himself.

 

[Insane Metal]

After 33 years, I'm finally finishing my catechism. Next Saturday I'll receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. Thank You Jesus. I have all the reasons to thank You. My life has changed so drastically since I came back to church and stopped being stubborn and became a believer.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I guess God makes murderers too.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/20/pope-juan-carlos-cruz

If there is no sin in God, how can God make something sinful? Garbage doctrine.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

Well that’s cool I guess. As far as I know and as far as what scripture says, you have to believe Christ is the Son of God, not God himself.

The best metaphor I've heard about the holy trinity thing is it's like water, you have water, steam and ice, all the same fundamental thing but in different forms.

Jesus is God in the form of man, he does have his own mind in a way but it's not like he's literally an entirely separate entity, not like a human father and son.

Think of Jesus like the bridge between man and God, not an entirely separate thing.

Obviously it's a very mysterious, mystical thing that we can't fully understand, but that's the basic gist.

 

[VAL0R]

After 33 years, I'm finally finishing my catechism. Next Saturday I'll receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. Thank You Jesus. I have all the reasons to thank You. My life has changed so drastically since I came back to church and stopped being stubborn and became a believer.

Good to have you back brother.

 

[Insane Metal]

Damn, did you guys see the Pope's last statement to a gay man? "God made you that way". WOW

 

[appaws]

Damn, did you guys see the Pope's last statement to a gay man? "God made you that way". WOW

Well, it was reported that he did. The media has not exactly been clear in reporting the off the cuff statements he has made before.

This does fit his pattern though, I have to admit. Look we know he is a modernist, as are most of the Church leadership in the era since Pius XII died. I would actually be surprised if he takes any orthodox position on anything.

Since there are other faithful sons of the Church in this thread, I think we need to discuss the merits of the sedevacantist position. I have so far stuck with a diocesan parish and argued that the humans in the Church can be absolutely terrible, as long as they continue to teach correct doctrine. (Alexander VI being a perfect example of an abominable human who taught perfect doctrine from the throne of St. Peter.) But I have lately been facing up to the facts that the popes since Pius XII have started to teach things that are bordering on heresy, if not crossing the line completely.

Most disturbing is the drift toward universalism that we have seen with the implication being given (if not expressly stated) that non-Christians can achieve salvation without embracing Christ. Buried somewhere within the (necessary) condemnation of anti-semitism, there was planted the idea that we can no longer teach the Gospel to Jews, or that they don't need Christ to be saved. This is false, goes against the teachings of Christ, and actually of course does nothing to help the very people we are supposed to be bringing to the Lord.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Well, it was reported that he did. The media has not exactly been clear in reporting the off the cuff statements he has made before.

This does fit his pattern though, I have to admit. Look we know he is a modernist, as are most of the Church leadership in the era since Pius XII died. I would actually be surprised if he takes any orthodox position on anything.

Since there are other faithful sons of the Church in this thread, I think we need to discuss the merits of the sedevacantist position. I have so far stuck with a diocesan parish and argued that the humans in the Church can be absolutely terrible, as long as they continue to teach correct doctrine. (Alexander VI being a perfect example of an abominable human who taught perfect doctrine from the throne of St. Peter.) But I have lately been facing up to the facts that the popes since Pius XII have started to teach things that are bordering on heresy, if not crossing the line completely.

Most disturbing is the drift toward universalism that we have seen with the implication being given (if not expressly stated) that non-Christians can achieve salvation without embracing Christ. Buried somewhere within the (necessary) condemnation of anti-semitism, there was planted the idea that we can no longer teach the Gospel to Jews, or that they don't need Christ to be saved. This is false, goes against the teachings of Christ, and actually of course does nothing to help the very people we are supposed to be bringing to the Lord.

The thing is they aren’t teaching correct doctrine. That’s where all these problems are coming from. And what you’re saying goes directly against Corinthians

“I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner— not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.””
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭5:9-13‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Who of the churches are correcting anyone at this point. “Come as you are” they say. Where does correction come from? The Holy Spirit. Who bestows that upon you? Christ. How? By you seeking God and KNOWING who His son is. The churches today that are lead by Rome are like the ones Christ said you do things in my name but I do not know you.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Hmmm seems familiar

Among them are also the funeral games, established by bequests to render honor to the memory of private persons. This, too, is in accordance with ancient custom. For from the very beginning two kinds of games were distinguished: sacred and funereal; that is, games in honor of pagan deities and those in honor of dead persons.

But in the question of idolatry, it makes no difference to us under what name and title they are exhibited, as long as the matter concerns the same spirits that we renounce. Whether they exhibit these games in honor of their dead or in honor of their gods, they render the very same honor to their dead as to their gods. On either side you have one and the same situation: it is one and the same idolatry on their part, and one and the same renunciation of idolatry on our part.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Both kinds of games, then, have a common origin; common, too, are their names, inasmuch as the reasons for their being held are the same. Therefore, also, their equipment must be the same because of the common guilt of idolatry which founded them.

Somewhat greater pomp, however, is displayed in the spectacles in the circus to which the term is properly applied. The "pompa"'procession'--which comes first, proves in itself to whom it belongs, with the long line of idols, the unbroken train of images, the cars and chariots and conveyances for carrying them, the portable thrones and garlands and the attributes of the gods.

Moreover, how many sacred rites are observed, how many sacrifices offered at the beginning, in the course, and at the end of the procession, how many religious corporations, furthermore, how many priesthoods, how many bodies of magistrates are called upon to march in it--each is known to the inhabitants of that city where all the demons have gathered and taken up their abode.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

The huge obelisk, as Hermateles maintains, has been set up in honor of the Sun. Its inscription which, like its origin, is Egyptian, contains a superstition. The gathering of the demons would be dull without their Great Mother, so she presides there over the ditch.

Consus, as we have mentioned, keeps in hiding underground at the Murcian Goals. The latter are also the work of an idol. For Murcia, as they will have it, is a goddess of love to whom they have dedicated a temple in that part (of the valley).

Take note, O Christian, how many unclean deities have taken possession of the circus. You have nothing to do with a place which so many diabolic spirits have made their own. Speaking of places, this is the appropriate occasion for throwing more light on the subject in order to anticipate a question that some may raise.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

Most disturbing is the drift toward universalism that we have seen with the implication being given (if not expressly stated) that non-Christians can achieve salvation without embracing Christ. Buried somewhere within the (necessary) condemnation of anti-semitism, there was planted the idea that we can no longer teach the Gospel to Jews, or that they don't need Christ to be saved. This is false, goes against the teachings of Christ, and actually of course does nothing to help the very people we are supposed to be bringing to the Lord.

I agree that the overwrought fear of anything bordering on supersessionism has been disastrous for Christian teaching; it's fine and good to caution against using such doctrines to hold down the Jewish people in any way, but it's another thing entirely to deny the consistent historic belief that, yes, Christ presents Himself clearly as a stumbling block that cannot be somehow circumvented or avoided by holding to any prior covenant or genealogy.

 

[Bolivar687]

Well, it was reported that he did. The media has not exactly been clear in reporting the off the cuff statements he has made before.

This does fit his pattern though, I have to admit. Look we know he is a modernist, as are most of the Church leadership in the era since Pius XII died. I would actually be surprised if he takes any orthodox position on anything.

Since there are other faithful sons of the Church in this thread, I think we need to discuss the merits of the sedevacantist position. I have so far stuck with a diocesan parish and argued that the humans in the Church can be absolutely terrible, as long as they continue to teach correct doctrine. (Alexander VI being a perfect example of an abominable human who taught perfect doctrine from the throne of St. Peter.) But I have lately been facing up to the facts that the popes since Pius XII have started to teach things that are bordering on heresy, if not crossing the line completely.

Most disturbing is the drift toward universalism that we have seen with the implication being given (if not expressly stated) that non-Christians can achieve salvation without embracing Christ. Buried somewhere within the (necessary) condemnation of anti-semitism, there was planted the idea that we can no longer teach the Gospel to Jews, or that they don't need Christ to be saved. This is false, goes against the teachings of Christ, and actually of course does nothing to help the very people we are supposed to be bringing to the Lord.

First, we should pray for the Pope before we go out to criticize him.

Second, I'm wary of beginning down the rabbit hole of Sedevacantism, as I know at the far other end are "home-aloners" who do not believe a validly-ordained priesthood exists anymore and their faith life consists of scripture reflection and prayer in their home altars. I can't speak for you guys but, as you can tell from my posts, the magisterium and the guidance of the Holy Spirit are intertwined with the other things we believe (as I think they have to, if you believe in the Gospel). If the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against the papacy, then it seems the game is up and the rest of it comes into question as well.

For Francis in general, I try to remain optimistic. He has a prior history of holding firm on social morals in the face of state repression and he speaks quite a bit about satan, hell, and exorcism, to an almost surprising extent. Some of his thoughts on "universalism" seem in line with his predecessor: “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35). He's also publicly acknowledged in an interview the existence of gay and masonic cabals within the Vatican, which is pretty insane when you think about it, regardless of whether you believe in such things. Regarding the incident above, it's hearsay, and may have been taken out of context like his "who am I to judge?" quote.

I agree with you that Pope's aren't necessarily good people. Peter begged Christ not to bother with him, because of the extent of his sinfulness. He was impulsive, faithless, and lied multiple times to save himself, at the expense of someone he just said he would die for hours ago. Alexander VI can't satisfy our preferences for a Pope, but he may have been the right man at the time. He presided over the end of the Reconquest and the discovery of the New World, which led to the greatest expansion of the Kingdom since the ministry of Paul. History is complicated.

We should definitely beware of modernism (the heresy), not only doctrinally but from a practical standpoint. The data is starting to fairly conclusively show that "modern" churches that try to be welcoming and inclusive, that back away from moral teaching, that emulate protestant services just do not offer any real compelling faith experience. Meanwhile, the traditional communities like Lincoln Nebraska that only allow men in the Sanctuary, that unapologetically preach on morality, and teach authentic Catholic theology to the children in the schools, their vocations are booming. It seems that other parishes would prefer closing down instead of incorporating more traditional reforms, and we should very much be asking why that is.

Speaking about this stuff, have you guys ever heard of Father Malachi Martin or read his book "The Windswept House"? Really fascinating guy who had some pretty interesting things to say, I really want to read this book.

 

[VAL0R]

Yes, we never abandon Rome or the chair of Peter. No more schism.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

If brothers have approached him about the matter and he hadn’t or doesn’t change his ways then wouldn’t it go back to this?

Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.””
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭5:13‬ ‭

And if many are corrupted then

 

[Dice]

Sedevacantists seem to think that ordinations and consecrations are magical incantations that need to be just right to work rather than prayers that need faith to which God to responds and acts. They also seem to think that we are twisting God's arm to save us and he is looking for ways to get rid of us rather than it having been his idea to save us when we had no mind for it. They also seem to believe that when the Magisterium prior bound something under penalty of anathema, that they were creating new dogma rather than using canon law to restrict diversity of practice so as to curtail subversive/violent heretical/political sects that were trying to form. Along with this, they seem to think of the Magisterium loosing anathemas as them saying something isn't bad anymore and that truth has changed rather than taking on a more merciful response in a post-revolution/world wars/secularization/consumerism world that lost all notion of the divine and needs to encounter graces.

That said, yes there are many issues in the Church and plenty of people teaching nonsense. Matthew 13 shows us that the mature Church is expected to be full of good and bad, and that each become more mature and thus recognizable in their forms and fruit they bear. If you only focus on the intensity and magnitude of the evils that can be recognized, you will overlook the intensity and magnitude of the mercy and patience being displayed. You can either decide the gates of hell did prevail and nothing makes sense, or that the complexities and challenges for the virtuous within the Vatican are nearly incomprehensible for anyone outside not experiencing it directly and weighing every burden and the consequences which play out from any action or inaction.

Another danger of sedevacantism is not accepting any authority until you have personally validated it, which is not only against the pattern by which God appointed authorities and prophets for Israel and Christ appointed apostles for the Church, but it is a standard that places you as the supreme authority, which also lays upon you the burden of perfectly discerning all truth of all matters in yourself before you can do, say, or approve or disprove of anything. It is a spiritual trap of pride, blind to love and forgiveness, to cut you off from the life and support of the Church and immobilize you in fear and judgement of others and your own sin amid a cloud of confusion so you may not see a way out except to hide from view (in reality: to hide the light of the glory of Christ working in and through you) to only pray alone and from it to conclude no resolution of action but to wait more. It is a path that very clearly does not bear the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

All I’m saying is that that’s obvious not the Holy Spirit talking as being gay or gay acts would have never been something in the mind of God to begin with.

 

[Dice]

IF he actually said that, rather than being misconstrued as saying that (very common), then most Catholics would agree. But the Pope is not himself infallible. That protection only applies when he makes proclamation ex cathedra, which last happened with Pope Pius XII declaring the Blessed Assumption dogma. He can make mistakes, just as Peter himself did.

Matthew 16:13-19
“When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

When Jesus said this to Peter, establishing that he would be the first pope, do you think Peter remembered this?

John 1:41-42
“He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed). Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas (which is translated Peter).”

Jesus knew before they traveled together. More than that, he decided. And he did so knowing that Peter would deny him three times in the most crucial moments. I think when Peter reflected upon this in his weeping, he realized that Jesus didn't only foresee that he would deny him just before it happened, but even from the very beginning, and still chose him.

I think this is why in John 21 Jesus asks Peter if he loves him three times. Just as Christ knew his three denials, and indeed every failure of his whole life, he knew also all his affirmations and victories, because they only occur through Christ. So Peter says on the third time "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you” and Christ said to feed his sheep.

Not every pope would have the faith or virtue of Peter, but the office of each Pope would only do its measure of good through Christ. The weaker popes remind us that Christ does not grant this authority because any pope deserves it, but because of what Christ wishes to accomplish in the world through his Church. We do not fully see or understand the breadth of impact of the Church on the earth, let alone why it would be this or that way because one man was pope for a time rather than someone else, but we trust it to Christ.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Could you imagine some of the things that have been going on in the Catholic Church for decades now if not longer going on in the holy of holies of the temples? An absurd thought but people would be exploding before they could even attempt such things.

 

[Dice]

Which is the reason for the extensive warnings throughout the book of Hebrews pointing to Israel to show that you can be of God’s people and partaking in holy things while sealing your own condemnation, tying this to the Eucharist in chapter 12.

 

[base]

Speaking about the Christianity when Islam takes over Europe and churches are being closed in most countries.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Which is the reason for the extensive warnings throughout the book of Hebrews pointing to Israel to show that you can be of God’s people and partaking in holy things while sealing your own condemnation, tying this to the Eucharist in chapter 12.

Weren’t those the people that got the warnings? This is the leader of “the church” we are speaking of. The “supreme elder” the one who calls himself “father”. He should know better than anyone else when it comes to common sense things which this is. Anyway, I have a question about Catholicism. Is it true that you guys believe that when Christ returns it’ll be Mary leading that charge? Sword in hand?

 

[Dice]

Yes, many take issue with the pope over such things, but his words are also twisted by those reporting all the time. But whatever popes ought to be, there is no guarantee for them to actually be as such. See my post about Peter and also remember one time Paul corrected his bahavior.

As for Mary leading the charge, I never heard any such thing, but I wasn’t raised Catholic and there is much I don’t know about tradition. She does act as Queen of Heaven and has been given command of angels, but in this she is merely a servant of the Lord’s will. If such a view does exist somewhere in tradition, it is no dogma that must be believed.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

You ever see anyone mentioned in a good light as the queen of heaven in scripture? And where in scripture anywhere is it mentioned that Mary is the queen of heaven? And who on earth has the authority to give her such a title?

 

[Dice]

You ever see anyone mentioned in a good light as the queen of heaven in scripture? And where in scripture anywhere is it mentioned that Mary is the queen of heaven? And who on earth has the authority to give her such a title?

See book: “All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed: Biblical Mariology”

You seem to be working under a “sola scriptura” perspective on doctrine and authority, which is ignorant in regard to the matter of whose authority you presume in order to choose an interpretation. You will never comprehend Catholic teachings until you understand the difference in perspective on authority dynamics and what exactly took place during the original institution of the Church and apostolic succession. Scripture is only one of the two sources of teaching we have, the other being Tradition, and both are validated by the one authority of the Church, granted to it by Christ.

Helpful introductory books on that subject:
“The Apostasy That Wasn’t” and “Four Witnesses” by Rod Bennett

 

[AngularSaxophone]

throws out books and calls them “non canon” recommends non canon book written by God knows who on how Mary is the queen of heaven, “pope” spews nonsense and I’m the ignorant one.

 

[Dice]

You are being incredibly disingenuous. I did not offer these books as scripture, but as explanations on the biblical theology of the Church in regard to Mary, which you requested, and as a historical explanation as to how the Church was established and how the dynamics of its authority were set up. This was not even provided in order to convince you, but to help you understand what it is that Catholics believe, since you clearly do not.

You also cannot “throw out” books that were never accepted by the Church in the first place. If all you want to do is presume all authority in yourself to declare what is and is not scripture and how to interpret it, you need to own up to that and stop pretending that you are standing upon some other foundation, let alone upholding any real standard by which you have a basis to hold others to account. You are stirring fruitless argument, attempting to foment division, to lead others away from the universally accepted creed of Christianity, and repeatedly mocking and laughing at anything else. I will not have anything to do with such foolishness, so if you have no genuine questions or desire for proper communication, I’m done with this.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Christ doesn’t even call Mary mother.

“Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.””
‭‭John‬ ‭2:4‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

How can she be his mother if he came before her? and how is Catholic doctrine “universally accepted” if there are a vast many that disagree with it? The words Catholic or Catholicism don’t even appear in any of the letters I’ve read so far. And someone mentioned earlier that Catholicism is the religion of heaven? where does this come from? Wouldn’t that mean Catholicism existed before earth? Why wasn’t Abraham Catholic? As far as being disingenuous goes, did Christ not ALWAYS tell people to stop sinning? Show me once where he tells someone to continue in sin where they aren’t warned that doing so would end in ruin. The head of your church just spoke something that goes directly against that. No one born of God is going to be born made something not of God to begin with. Is it wrong to question the many things the Catholic Church just seems off about? If there is no error in God and your church claims to be his, why are the errors so many?

 

[Dice]

Again, your “questions” are some of the most shallow and common qualms with Catholicism in existence and you refuse sources of answers approved by the Church you are asking about. I do not believe you truly want to know, but are merely attacking and mocking behind a guise of inquiry. Since you bring this in response to my last post, I take it as confirmation and will have nothing more to do with this vain exercise.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

How are they shallow? And if many people have these same questions then something obviously isn’t right. Also people tend to have these questions because the things that are practiced within the Catholic Church or are taught by the Catholic Church don’t align with scripture at times and when asked why, we are told to go to a non scriptural source. Also is God not patient? People within your organization seem to get real impatient when questions like these are asked. I’d expect a spirit filled church to be overflowing with truth. Did Christ not say he’d send the spirit to lead us in truth?

 

[Dice]

How are they shallow? And if many people have these same questions then something obviously isn’t right. Also people tend to have these questions because the things that are practiced within the Catholic Church or are taught by the Catholic Church don’t align with scripture at times and when asked why, we are told to go to a non scriptural source. Also is God not patient? People within your organization seem to get real impatient when questions like these are asked. I’d expect a spirit filled church to be overflowing with truth. Did Christ not say he’d send the spirit to lead us in truth?

Shallow because it is completely surface level and demonstrably unwilling to study or think deeply. You expect everything to be completely spelled out in direct dictation from scripture. I am not a teacher of the Church, so you should not be even willing to listen to me personally as an individual to speak as though it is on behalf of the Church. So I refer you to works of the Church and you instantly reject them as “Non scripture sources.” It is not a matter of patience or the lack of it to realize when someone is unwilling to listen, to study, or to reason. Whenever something is answered, you just ignore it and throw out something new. You are not demonstrating any real desire to come to a common understanding of each other’s belefs, let alone to begin trying to reconcile them. If you truly want to receive answers on the basics, with sources, pick up a catechism of the Church and study that first. It was specifically designed for that very purpose. If you finish and still have questions, perhaps that may actually show you are serious and not just picking fights.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

So again you’re saying man is unfit to comprehend the scripture on his own and needs the Catholic Church instead of the spirit. Wouldn’t that be the equivalent of saying the Catholic Church is greater than the Holy Spirit?

 

[Dice]

The answers to those questions are provided in the catechism.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

What is this?

113 Canon. 1. If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema (condemned, i.e. excommunicated).

 

[Dice]

It is canon law regarding when someone is considered severed from the Church, even by their own doing without an official ruling by the Church for their particular case.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

So in heaven’s hierarchy, who is higher? God or Mary?

 

[Dice]

So in heaven’s hierarchy, who is higher? God or Mary?

God, of course. Mary, like all created creatures, has absolutely nothing in herself. What measure she shares in God's redemptive plan, as great as a share she is entrusted with--even so much as to be the gate through which of the grace of God (that is, Christ Himself) came to us--she is like the moon, shining only with the light of the sun shed upon it. There is no comparison between the highest created being and the infinite eternal Creator, for finite is finite and dependent is dependent. She has not even existence apart from him, like all else. In regard to the hierarchy and understanding how that works with her being Queen, it is important to look at how a Queen Mother functioned in Israel.

As for the authority of the Church, here is a very brief overview.

Matthew 16:18-19
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

John 20:19-23
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

Christ appointed Peter as the first Pope and gave the apostles authority in matters of teaching and priestly service. This second passage is not the basis of the practice of confession, but rather the scriptural confirmation of it, as we received it from tradition that was passed down from the apostles. For the sacraments they act in persona Christi, not as themselves. This is a grace and an authority transferred by the laying on of hands at ordination, which we see in Acts and mentioned of Timothy (1 Tim 4:12-16) and others.

Paul was miraculously chosen by Christ on the road, and one can infer from Acts 1:21 and Galatians 1:12 that he was being taught by Christ in person. But even then, he went to Peter and some others for approval as we see in Galatians 1:11-2:10. They are the ones who were appointed and specially gifted for leading the Church.

Ephesians 4:11-14
And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors,
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ; That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive.

1 Corinthians 12:27-31
"Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts. But I shall show you a still more excellent way."

This authority was not just in matters of judgement, but a protection upon the interpretation of scriptures, which is how the dogmas of the Church were formed and are protected.

2 Peter 1:16-2:1
"We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming[i] of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, “This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves."

1 Timothy 3:15
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

They did not tell believers to simply sort out everything for themselves because believers have the Holy Spirit, but rather to particularly be faithful to the teaching and traditions taught to them by the leaders of the Church, by letter or by oral teaching, and to defer to them, and to not accept alternative teachings, even if from themselves. Even to this day it applies; the Church cannot declare a dogma that is some innovation, but can only affirm what has always been of the Tradition.

Hebrews 13:7-9
"Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching."
17 "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."

2 Thessalonians 2:15
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."

Romans 16:17
"I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them."

Galatians 1: 8-9
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!"

And they said this because there were many false teachers around, spreading many heresies through the sorts of books that you are now receiving as scripture.

2 John 1:9-11
"Anyone who is so “progressive” as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him; for whoever greets him shares in his evil works."

2 Corinthians 11:12-15
"And what I do I will continue to do, in order to end this pretext of those who seek a pretext for being regarded as we are in the mission of which they boast. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."

Jude 1:17-23
"But you, beloved, remember the words spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, for they told you, “In [the] last time there will be scoffers who will live according to their own godless desires.” These are the ones who cause divisions; they live on the natural plane, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, build yourselves up in your most holy faith; pray in the holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in the love of God and wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. On those who waver, have mercy; save others by snatching them out of the fire; on others have mercy with fear, abhorring even the outer garment stained by the flesh.

Scripture is one means by which we know the original teachings and traditions, but there are other means. The Didache is one of the earliest sources detailing what the early church was like, itself far more trustworthy than books you seem to be receiving as scripture. We also have many letters from early church fathers, and extensive discussions and debates from the ecumenical councils and for every major heresy that popped up and was shut down. The Vatican website is a bit tricky to navigate but the best resource of all for proper content of all these things.

The resources are all there, but if you want to know it all, you have to put in the work to study. The veracity of the claims to authority of the Church are not easily refuted. The sources are complete, the apostolic succession is fully accounted for and the teachings and traditions are detailed. All along the way, throughout history, the fruit has come to bear and the work of God validated by the lives of saints, miracles, and transformation of nations.

I tried to point you to some books that explain these things. If you want to know more, you can look into that. For something more advanced than the catechism on theological questions, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas is excellent. Some other books that are nice are "By What Authority" by Mark Shea, "Crossing the Tiber" by Steve Ray, "The Protestant's Dilemma" by Devin Rose, "Stunned by Scripture" by John Bergsma, "Jesus and the Last Supper" by Brant Pitre, "The House of the Lord" by Steven C Smith, and "The Case for Catholicism" by Trent Horn.

Again, these are not "non-scripture sources" meant to be received authoritatively as scripture, but they are people within the Church explaining things to people who desire answers, just as I am doing in small part right now. If you would be willing to hear from me, you have no reason to reject hearing from them. They have been Catholic way longer than I have, have studied way more than I have, and in regard to the first things I mentioned they are works by founders and doctors of the Church. You will choose what to believe as truth or not, but if you want to know what it is that Catholicism teaches and why, that is what these are for.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

The sun doesn’t shine upon the moon. God does. And now I’m really confused. If Christ said the gates of hell would never prevail against his church, what’s all the worry for about the pope and the things going on in the Catholic Church?

 

[Dice]

Well what does "prevail" mean? Never winning any ground at all? That obviously isn't the case. So how far can it go? As I said before, Matthew 13 shows a mix of good and evil, with both becoming more mature in their forms toward the end. Perfection of institution is not to be expected until after the final judgement, but that it is expected doesn't mean that we are to stop caring. The church was in deep persecution before Constantine and suffered from many heretics in its ranks on the road to developing the creed, and even after. In the early times it was so bad that it seems the apostles were convinced it was the end already in their lifetimes. Even if Francis is problematic in new ways, we've had problematic popes before, as he still hasn't done anything the tradition teaches as impossible to occur, such as try and proclaim error ex cathedra. Clearly, things can get really bad with the faithful of God still going strong. The apostolic succession, the sacraments, the faithful, the scriptures, and the tradition will always exist.

 

[VAL0R]

Could you imagine some of the things that have been going on in the Catholic Church for decades now if not longer going on in the holy of holies of the temples? An absurd thought but people would be exploding before they could even attempt such things.

Yeah, can you imagine men taking part in sinful activities in and around the temple? It might make Jesus so mad he would flip over their tables and shout at them and weave a scourge of cords to drive them out for dishonoring his Father's house. O wait...

 

[appaws]

Dice, you are in the rabbit hole. Your posts are wonderfully done, but worthless to waste on Sax, who believes in the church of sax and no other.

My initial post about sedevecantism was meant to bring up discussion with Catholics here, as we seem to be the largest group. Of course anyone has a right to respond, including Sax, I am not quite sure why a non-Catholic, and with such an intense distaste for the Church no less, has so much to say about internal Catholic stuff.

Well what does "prevail" mean? Never winning any ground at all? That obviously isn't the case. So how far can it go? As I said before, Matthew 13 shows a mix of good and evil, with both becoming more mature in their forms toward the end. Perfection of institution is not to be expected until after the final judgement, but that it is expected doesn't mean that we are to stop caring. The church was in deep persecution before Constantine and suffered from many heretics in its ranks on the road to developing the creed, and even after. In the early times it was so bad that it seems the apostles were convinced it was the end already in their lifetimes. Even if Francis is problematic in new ways, we've had problematic popes before, as he still hasn't done anything the tradition teaches as impossible to occur, such as try and proclaim error ex cathedra. Clearly, things can get really bad with the faithful of God still going strong. The apostolic succession, the sacraments, the faithful, the scriptures, and the tradition will always exist.

I always took the "prevail" to mean in the end. I don't think it excludes bumps along the way, even really terrible ones! Even the possibility of the Throne of St. Peter being empty for a time. I am NOT a sedevacantist, but I know some really smart, faithful people who are, and I remain open to the idea. I am afraid that a pope or two down the line will declare some novel doctrine, and there won't be any spine left in the institutional Church to resist.

People have short memories and small horizons. The terrible changes of VII were accepted quietly by most, opening the door to all kinds of nonsense. The modernists know that the Church is not like a speedboat that can turn on a dime, but a giant cruise ship that takes a while to turn around. I think they are playing the long game, allowing bishops of nations around the world to float satanic trial balloons in their countries, but not creating any ruckus in the church overall. And Popes, including John Paul and Benedict by the way, allow Hans Kung types to run around teaching the most vile of heresy. They don't give them the imprimatur, but they don't shut them down the way it used to be done.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

It’s titled as a Christian OT not a Catholic one and Christ flipping over tables would be akin to him tossing up the church gift shop. There’s no doubt in my mind that sexual activities, abominable ones at that have taken place IN the church. Not all men were allowed in the holy of holies. Anyone is allowed in today’s church.

 

[Airola]

It’s titled as a Christian OT not a Catholic one

Are you implying Catholics are not Christians?

 

[highrider]

I just find that 99% of faithless modernists are looking for a way out of moral judgment, about themselves or others, because it makes their lives easier. A lot of them don't realize it, and claim to be using "reason." But isn't it amazing, just like the heretic Luther, that the conclusions their "interpretations" lead them to always justify their hedonism.

Modern man believes he should never be told "no," particularly about sexual behavior. It is the strongest tool in the Devil's toolbox.

This is just stupid. It’s so sad to me that most people in Christian faiths believe that human beings can’t be moral without a totalitarian overwatch and impending judgement/hellfire. It’s immoral to perpetuate this idea. I guess that’s why so many converts are people that have backed themselves into irrevocable moral positions, and so many in the faith use it for their own deviancy and they will always be forgiven.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Are you implying Catholics are not Christians?

No, I’m implying that anyone posting in this thread shouldn’t be expected to follow and agree with Catholic doctrine. This whole thing actually got me thinking this morning. Not even counting all of the megachurches, why are there so many churches out there, that probably far outnumber the number of Catholic Churches, that believe in Christ as the son of God yet shun things like saint veneration, rosaries, catechism and many other things that are exclusive to the Catholic Church? You don’t see many people defecting from those churches to the Catholic Church. It seems like it’s the other way around. Even the name Catholic itself. Why would there be a need for there to be a title above Christian?