RCC is not Christ's church 1
para...@technicianheaven.com
political/social/financial/religious megopoly. The REAL church Jesus
established includes EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE. Oh yes, some
can be found inside the rcc. But we are also found in Presbyterian,
Lutheran, Baptist, Evangelical Free, Bible, and other congregations
all around the world.
The rcc, despite its pathetic claims, is nothing more than a corrupt
and heretical religion, bordering on the cultic, believing and
practicing things they made up on their own centuries AFTER Jesus set
up His church.
parakaleo
? R. L. Measures
para...@technicianheaven.com wrote:
? If he said that his church was wherever two or three are gathered
together in his name, mega-churches just might be a bane.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
para...@technicianheaven.com
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
Naah, but Jesus never said any ONE person would head His church on the
earth, and He never made ONE congregation to be above the others.
The rcc, a political/social/financial/religious megopoly, just
doesn't fit the description.
parakaleo
David
It is the Catholic Church parakaleo, not the rcc.
> Christ's church is not any mere
> political/social/financial/religious megopoly.
Parkaleo is making up words here, so until he defines megopoly, we have
no way of knowing what he is talking about.
> The REAL church Jesus
> established includes EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE.
Unsupported assertion.
> Oh yes, some
> can be found inside the rcc.
It is the Catholic Church parakaleo, not the rcc.
> But we are also found in Presbyterian,
> Lutheran, Baptist, Evangelical Free, Bible, and other congregations
> all around the world.
>
Not arguing with you parakaleo, but are you now arguing Jesus
established the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist and Evangelical
churches? That is surpising news to historians, who thought they were
founded by people like Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc.
> The rcc, despite its pathetic claims, is nothing more than a corrupt
> and heretical religion, bordering on the cultic, believing and
> practicing things they made up on their own centuries AFTER Jesus set
> up His church.
>
Thanks for telling us your opinion parkaleo, but since you have all
sorts of opinions that are factually wrong, like your laughable opinion
that John Calvin did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, we
must take your opinions with a grain of salt.
If anyone is waiting to see parakaleo's reply to my post, don't hold
your breath, parakaleo is too afraid of me to respond.
JCarew
para...@technicianheaven.com wrote:
>The rcc is not Christ's church.
The term "rcc"(Roman Catholic Church)
is a protestant invention. The term "Roman
Catholic" is a invention of the English
speaking Protestants in order to legitmatize
referring to themselves as "Catholic"
especially the Anglicans i.e.
"Anglo-Catholic" etc.,etc.
See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm
And yet from another source we have:
quote:
When the term 'Roman Catholic' arose
Q: When did the term "Roman Catholic Church"
come into being?
A: It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic
Church began to be called the "Roman Catholic Church," it is
possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult
created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as
Catholic. They thus coined the term "Roman Catholic" to
distinguish those "other" Catholics and create a sense in which
they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to
deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).
Different variants of the "Roman" insult appeared at different
times. The earliest form of the insult was the noun "Romanist"
(one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in
England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective
"Romish" (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic
Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the
noun "Roman Catholic" (one belonging to the Catholic Church),
which was coined approximately 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter
came the verb "to Romanize" (to make someone a Catholic or to
become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Then between
1665 and 1675 we got the noun "Romanism" (the system of
Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a late-comer
term about 1815-1825-the noun "Roman Catholicism," which is
a synonym for the earlier "Romanism."
A similar complex of insults arose around the term "pope."
About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term "papist" and later
its derivative "papism." A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was
the adjective "popish." Next came "popery" (1525-1535), and
then "papistry"(1540-1550), with its later derivatives,
"papistical" and "papistic." (Source: Random House Webster's
College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)
This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of
animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other
religious body (perhaps no other group at all-even national or
racial ones) has such a complex of insults woven into the English
language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants
who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring
themselves to say "Catholic" without qualifying it or replacing
it with a Roman insult.
1997 by James Akin
See: http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q072.htm
unquote
Jim Carew sfo
George
Well, most of those things you say the Catholic Church made up centuries
later are still part of the doctrine that constitutes most of Christianity,
including the mainline Protestant churches, as well as the Anglican Church.
Peter
para...@technicianheaven.com
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
>later are still part of the doctrine that constitutes most of Christianity,
>including the mainline Protestant churches, as well as the Anglican Church.
Anglicans left the rcc for political reasons (to make England the
center of religion instead of rome), not theological reasons.
Anglicans still hold a lot of the rcc nonsense.
But which "mainline protestant churches" hold which "things [I] say
the catholic church made up centuries later" that are held?
This should be GOOD.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> JMJ
>
>para...@technicianheaven.com wrote:
>
>>The rcc is not Christ's church.
>
>The term "rcc"(Roman Catholic Church)
>is a protestant invention. The term "Roman
>Catholic" is a invention of the English
>speaking Protestants in order to legitmatize
>referring to themselves as "Catholic"
>especially the Anglicans i.e.
>"Anglo-Catholic" etc.,etc.
Look in any phone book, you find advertizing in the yellow pages for
that religion under "catholic, Roman," put there by the rcc itself.
That doesn't matter much though. the RELIGION of the rcc is NOT what
Jesus founded.
parakaleo
David
para...@technicianheaven.com wrote:
> "JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net>, posted this little bit of stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> > JMJ
> >
> >para...@technicianheaven.com wrote:
> >
> >>The rcc is not Christ's church.
> >
> >The term "rcc"(Roman Catholic Church)
> >is a protestant invention. The term "Roman
> >Catholic" is a invention of the English
> >speaking Protestants in order to legitmatize
> >referring to themselves as "Catholic"
> >especially the Anglicans i.e.
> >"Anglo-Catholic" etc.,etc.
>
> Look in any phone book, you find advertizing in the yellow pages for
> that religion under "catholic, Roman," put there by the rcc itself.
>
Notice that parakaleo ignores the Byzantine Catholic, Maronite
Catholic, and all the other Catholic Churches in the phone book. That
is because parakaleo ignores any evidence which contradicts his claims.
He even ignores the Biblical text at times.
> That doesn't matter much though. the RELIGION of the rcc is NOT what
> Jesus founded.
> parakaleo
It is the Catholic Church parakaleo, not the rcc.
JCarew
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote
> "JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net>, posted
> >para...@technicianheaven.com wrote:
> >
> >>The rcc is not Christ's church.
> >
> >The term "rcc"(Roman Catholic Church)
> >is a protestant invention. The term "Roman
> >Catholic" is a invention of the English
> >speaking Protestants in order to legitmatize
> >referring to themselves as "Catholic"
> >especially the Anglicans i.e.
> >"Anglo-Catholic" etc.,etc.
>
>Look in any phone book, you find advertising
>in the yellow pages for that religion under
>"catholic, Roman," put there by the rcc itself.
There talking about the Roman(Latin) "rite"
of the Catholic Church.
rite: A distinction within the Catholic Church
as determined by the liturgy practiced. There
nine such rites: Latin(Roman), Byzantine, Coptic,
Ethiopian, Chaldean, Armenian, Maronite,
Syrian, and Malabar.....
Source: The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary,
1965 edition.
In all cases the rituals for the Catholic
Church must be approved by the Holy
See in Rome.
Jim Carew sfo
? R. L. Measures
para...@technicianheaven.com wrote:
? Indeed, P.
For holy men, the problem with the teachings of the rabbi who called
himself "the Son of man" was that he stated that we do not need human
negotiators between us and our Creator. As a result, it was hardly
surprising that those persons who were in danger of losing their cushy
jobs as a result of his teachings concluded that the ideal solution was
his execution.
As I see it, Christianity:
1. bears little resemblance to the teachings of this rabbi.
2. has tried to obfuscate the fact that he had female disciples who he
taught separately in small groups, and Christianity has also tried to
ignore the significance of the fact that the first person to discover
that his grave was empty was his girlfriend - one Mary Magdalene.
3. adopted way too damn much paganesque taurine-feces during and after
the 2nd century.
4. basically has Enron-style corporate ethics.
Thus, I don't find it inconsistent that this rabbi reportedly said:
Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together in my name, there I am in their
midst. IOW, Mo' bigger ain't always mo' betta.
cheers, P.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
• R. L. Measures
"David" <davec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
• word games
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
para...@technicianheaven.com
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
The telephone books in the towns I live in and visit do not say
Roman(Latin) "rite." They just say "Catholic, Roman."
You may "define" that any way you want, but it is the rcc that tells
the phone company to use those terms, not I.
parakaleo
George
Roman in the sense that it's not Chaldean, Eastern Orthodox, etc. When the
context demands that the distinction be made, even the Vatican uses the term
"Roman Catholic".
If it's not Christ's Church, then what is? Even Protestants are nothing
without the Church they originally "protested" about, just like atheists
have to have the "thing" which they don't believe in. They believe in the
Bible as the only word of God, forgetting that the New Testament itself was
an act of choice by the Catholic Church. So, they are in effect sanctioning
the choices made by the early Catholic Church, a Church with exists in an
unbroken continuum 2 millenia later. God didn't magically suddenly make the
Bible appear. There were many things written by men, and it's the Catholic
Church which decided what among those writings would constitute the Bible
that even many Protestants continue to interpret literally to this day. But
they aren't interpreting Protestant words, they are interpreting Catholic
ones. There is no basis for Protestantism in its hundreds of different forms
without the Catholic Church.
As humanity continues to evolve and science continues to discover new things
that affect human morality, where would we be without the Catholic Church's
authoritative position in maintaining the culture of life vs the culture of
death? Protestantism by itself doesn't have a leg to stand on, only personal
opinion.
The Catholic Church has evolved and developed based on the decisions made by
men, who have tried to be as faithful as possible to what Jesus Christ
taught. Yes, men. The hundreds of Protestant offshoots have also evolved
based on the whims and interpretations of individual men, but without a
universal organization of men which tries to keep to the original teachings
and keep it philosophically coherent at the same time.
Every Protestant is free to believe whatever they want to believe. How can
that possibly add up to a body of Christ?
George
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:nu7a32dn0ujqvlsvb...@4ax.com...
David
No RL, I don't play your games.
• R. L. Measures
"David" <davec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
*** _____
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
David
Thanks for proving my point RL. Anytime you want to stop playing your
games, you let me know.
David
Notice that parakaleo ignores the Byzantine Catholic, Maronite
Catholic, and all the other Catholic Churches in the phone book. That
is because parakaleo ignores any evidence which contradicts his claims.
He even ignores the Biblical text at times.
> You may "define" that any way you want,
No parakaleo, we are not going to use your methods or RL's methods, we
are going to use definitions as established in dictionaries and by the
foremost established scholars in particular areas of expertise for
those cases where dictionaries are not sufficient.
> but it is the rcc that tells
> the phone company to use those terms, not I.
>
It is the Catholic Church parakaleo, not the rcc.
bam
You are a dunce.
BAM
para...@technicianheaven.com
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>Roman in the sense that it's not Chaldean, Eastern Orthodox, etc. When the
>context demands that the distinction be made, even the Vatican uses the term
>"Roman Catholic".
I agree. And in this case, it is a "red herring," meant to drag us
off the trail and onto a rabbit trail.
>
>If it's not Christ's Church, then what is?
It is a financial/political/humanitarian/religious megopoly. Nothing
more. A bunch of religious rites and trappings with little or no
substance in Christ.
>Even Protestants are nothing
>without the Church they originally "protested" about, just like atheists
>have to have the "thing" which they don't believe in.
Completely false! First off, the rcc pretends that all NON-rcc
members are "Protestants," when there is really little or no
"protesting" done at all, and most of the Christian groups had only a
brief association with the original protesters.
The TRUTH is that we are CHRISTIANS, bound together by Jesus Christ
through the Holy Ghost and through the Bible. It is the BIBLE, not
reformers that we get our doctrine, our beliefs, and that is the
source of our authority, not any reformers of hundreds of years ago.
So you theory falls completely on its face.
>They believe in the
>Bible as the only word of God, forgetting that the New Testament itself was
>an act of choice by the Catholic Church. So, they are in effect sanctioning
>the choices made by the early Catholic Church, a Church with exists in an
>unbroken continuum 2 millenia later.
More of the propaganda of the rcc. No, the rcc didn't exist prior to
Constantine. No, the rcc didn't choose the New Testament; they
ACKNOWLEDGED the books that were already in use and were already
inspired by God, and they rejected the books that were already
rejected by the rest of the Christians. There were separate groups
that also "canonized" the books of the New Testament as well, such as
the copts and the eastern church.
>God didn't magically suddenly make the
>Bible appear. There were many things written by men, and it's the Catholic
>Church which decided what among those writings would constitute the Bible
>that even many Protestants continue to interpret literally to this day.
Not true at all. There wre many things written by men, but it was the
CHRISTIAN church that knew which books were inspired. The rcc did not
exist until Constantine. And the "unbroken continuum? Began with
Constantine.
>But
>they aren't interpreting Protestant words, they are interpreting Catholic
>ones. There is no basis for Protestantism in its hundreds of different forms
>without the Catholic Church.
Of course the rcc claims that; they have a vested interest in doing
so. They cannot "explain" how we Christians can exist apart from them
when they claim to be "the only true church" if they don't make that
claim.
But the rcc, at the council of Trent decided to ADD the Apocrypha to
the Bible. It wasn't part of the Bible in the first century; those
books were considered to be "outside books." It took them twelve
centuries to change their minds.
>
>As humanity continues to evolve and science continues to discover new things
>that affect human morality, where would we be without the Catholic Church's
>authoritative position in maintaining the culture of life vs the culture of
>death? Protestantism by itself doesn't have a leg to stand on, only personal
>opinion.
We Christians would continue to use the Bible (not the rcc's
ever-changing positions in the culture of life and death) as our
authority.
How many catholics use birth control? How many catholics actually
BELIEVE the pope is infallible? How many catholics actually STUDY
their Bibles at all? I've visited a couple catholic "Bible studies."
They were the most superficial "studies" I have ever seen, with lots
of catholic "external junk" schlocked in.
>
>The Catholic Church has evolved and developed based on the decisions made by
>men, who have tried to be as faithful as possible to what Jesus Christ
>taught. Yes, men.
It has evolved, and invented an entire new religion, with fine
religious trappings, praying to people who have died, all sorts of
sorry excuses for religious practices (electric candles are out of
order at this statue today. . .please use the electric candles at the
back statue. . ."
>The hundreds of Protestant offshoots have also evolved
>based on the whims and interpretations of individual men, but without a
>universal organization of men which tries to keep to the original teachings
>and keep it philosophically coherent at the same time.
Nice try, but that is not how we Christians operate. That is how your
rcc religion CLAIMS we operate, but it has no connection with reality.
You might try visiting our services and Sunday schools sometime to see
how it REALLY works.
Your religion lies to you to protect its own interests.
>
>Every Protestant is free to believe whatever they want to believe. How can
>that possibly add up to a body of Christ?
Every Christian is bound by what SCRIPTURE says about God. Not by
their own imaginations.
OUR churches don't have statues to be prayed "through" with electric
"candles" to be lit as "indulgences." We don't pray to mary. We
don't "fiddle the beads" or repeat the same boring prayers over and
over and over again, 51+ times. (If you nagged ME 51+ times about
anything, you would have NO HOPE I would ever give it to you. Like
mary (I suspect) I don't like to be nagged!)
So far you have made a lot of totally false claims about us
Christians, falsely labeling us "Protestants" as though that were
something that described us, and with NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support
your religion at all.
(sigh) I guess that is all you have to offer.
parakaleo
• R. L. Measures
"George" <nos...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
> It's just semantics. Who cares, really? It's the Catholic Church, and it's
> Roman in the sense that it's not Chaldean, Eastern Orthodox, etc. When the
> context demands that the distinction be made, even the Vatican uses the term
> "Roman Catholic".
>
> If it's not Christ's Church, then what is? ...
• The real church would follow the teachings of the rabbi who called
himself the Son of man -- i. e., that we are forgiven of our trespasses
as we forgive others of theirs against us [Mt. 5-6-7], not that
participating in a ritual cannibalistic "sacrifice" will make everything
real peachy and save us from the hot place. However, the intrinsic
problem with the teaching of this rabbi is that forgiving others / being
forgiven requires no middlemen, a.k.a. "holy men". That holy men would
seek to have this rabbi executed comes as no surprise to me.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
? R. L. Measures
para...@technicianheaven.com wrote:
> "George" <nos...@nospamhotmail.com>, posted this little bit of
> stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >It's just semantics. Who cares, really? It's the Catholic Church, and it's
> >Roman in the sense that it's not Chaldean, Eastern Orthodox, etc. When the
> >context demands that the distinction be made, even the Vatican uses the term
> >"Roman Catholic".
>
> I agree. And in this case, it is a "red herring," meant to drag us
> off the trail and onto a rabbit trail.
> >
> >If it's not Christ's Church, then what is?
>
> It is a financial/political/humanitarian/religious megopoly. Nothing
> more. A bunch of religious rites and trappings with little or no
> substance in Christ.
>
? Yeah, but the rites and trappings are undoubtedly the best in the
salvation business -- even if c. 8% its priests that conduct these rites
look oh so longingly at their altar-boys.
> >Even Protestants are nothing
> >without the Church they originally "protested" about, just like atheists
> >have to have the "thing" which they don't believe in.
>
> Completely false! First off, the rcc pretends that all NON-rcc
> members are "Protestants," when there is really little or no
> "protesting" done at all, and most of the Christian groups had only a
> brief association with the original protesters.
? However, since "Protestant" churches adopted most of their rites and
doctrine from those invented in Rome, how much protesting is really
going on?.
>
> ...
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
• R. L. Measures
"David" <davec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Thanks for proving my point RL. Anytime you want to stop playing your
> games, you let me know.
*** It's a pretty damn good bet that I'll stop posting here when I stop
breathing.
cheers, "David".
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
George
the most important thing is to practice one's religion, no matter what
flavour it is. There are Protestant churches and individual Protestants, not
all, but some, who promote hatred against the Catholic Church very openly,
in a very un-Christian-like way. The reverse is rarely true. You almost
never hear a Catholic spout hate against Protestants.
George
para...@technicianheaven.com
LOL <G>
parakaleo
• R. L. Measures
"George" <nos...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
• One probable reason for past hostility toward the Roman church was
the fact that for many decades in the 20th century it claimed that the
members of all other denominations were going straight to the hot place.
Were it not for an insightful man by the name of Angelo Roncali, a.k.a.
John XXIII, this still might be the case.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
bam
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:rbtc321dagr5t9nnn...@4ax.com...
This guy claims to use the Bible only, but when it's convenient, he'll even
use the phone book to buttress his heresies.
BAM
George
". R. L. Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-716A6E.08...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>
> . One probable reason for past hostility toward the Roman church was
> the fact that for many decades in the 20th century it claimed that the
> members of all other denominations were going straight to the hot place.
> Were it not for an insightful man by the name of Angelo Roncali, a.k.a.
> John XXIII, this still might be the case.
>
> --
> Rich. 805.386.3734
I remember John XXIII very well. He was Pope when I was about 10. I grew up
a Catholic, and while some lay people and maybe some clergy may have said
that members of other denominations were going straight to hell, I don't
recall the Church itself talked much about anything like that. '
Personally, I know what being a Catholic means to me, but I don't care if
others practice their own form of Christianity.
George
David
I wouldn't have it any other way. If you stopped posting I couldn't
extend my recent 4-0 winning streak of refuting your errors and having
you slink off in defeat.
> cheers, "David".
>
Likewise RL. No need to put quotes around David.
Mysticmeg
There is a Little Church I know
Not very far away.
You'll be surprised to hear of it
Yet see it every day.
You need not walk to reach the Church
No riddle this, but true;
Nor wonder on what street it is,
That little Church is you.
Is not your noble brow the tower,
Your eyes the windows bright,
Your heart the Sanctuary lamp
That casts it's crimson light?
Is not your voice the organ sweet
That sounds the hymn of love
Your holy thoughts the altar pure
Whence God comes from above?
Is not your soul, your precious soul,
The tabernacle white,
And your poor body, not the veil
That hides Him from your sight?
Your tongue the table of the Lord
Your lips the open door,
Your prayers the tinkling of the bell
Your humble mien the floor?
Then place your hand upon your breast
A thousand times a day
And in Your own dear little Church
Oft loving visits pay!
JCarew
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote
>snip<
>But the rcc, at the council of Trent decided to ADD
>the Apocrypha to the Bible.
Wrong the Council of Trent re-affirmed the Canon
of the Catholic Vulgate Bible as previously
established by a decree of Pope Damasus I in
382 AD. See below
>It wasn't part of the Bible in the first century;
>those books were considered to be "outside
>books." It took them twelve enturies to change
>their minds.
The canon of the Bible was established by decree from
Pope Damasus I in 382AD at the Council of Rome. It has
been re-affirmed in several local synods and general
councils ever since. Although the Council of Rome was
a local synod, the Pope addressed the decree to the
universal church.
The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....
It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the
divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts
and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins:
Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book;
Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one
book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four
books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms,
one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book;
Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book;
likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one
book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book;
Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his
Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee,
one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one
book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book;
Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book;
Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list
of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two
books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees,
two books. Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New
and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church
receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew,
one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke,
one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle
Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the
Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians,
one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the
Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon,
one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of
John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the
canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter,
two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the
Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter,
two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle.
Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. Likewise it
is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic
and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have
listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God,
the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it
ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches
spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber
of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed
at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other
Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice
of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this
rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not
prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth
will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on
earth shall be loosed in heaven."
See: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3975/canon.htm
Also see: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
How the Protestants got there OT
In response to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and
to the growing Christian movement a group of Jewish rabbis
and scholars met in Jamnia (Javneh) around 90AD. Among
other things they settled on the Old Testament Hebrew
Canon without the Deuterocanonical(Protestant Apocrypha)
books and passages as the standard Jewish scriptures.
It was adopted by most Jews though not all, the Ethiopian
Jews still use the Septuagint to this day. This Jewish
council also rejected the use of the Christian Gospels
(See: Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, page 1147)
The Protestants are taking as their guide an Old
Testament Hebrew Canon published by Jewish rabbis
well after the death of Jesus and the establishment
of His Church. They had/have no authority over the
Christian Church and had/have rejected its founder
Jesus Christ.
Jim Carew sfo
para...@technicianheaven.com
When did I EVER say I didn't use the telephone book, dictionaries, and
other books when the occasion calls for them?
Your "intellectual" responses are sagging even worse! <G>
parakaleo
• R. L. Measures
"George" <nos...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
*** Let 'em burn in Hell.
>
cheers, George
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
JCarew
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message >
>snip<
>More of the propaganda of the rcc. No, the rcc
>didn't exist prior to Constantine.
History says otherwise. St Iraneus, a disciple of John,
wrote that there were hundreds of heresies floating around
before the end of the first century, and referred to the Catholic
or universal Church as the one we should recognize. In
other words, the Church that teaches the same thing
everywhere, not affected by local heretical disruptions.
At the beginning of the second century, we find in the
letters of Ignatius its first surviving use in reference to
the Church. At that time or shortly thereafter it was used to
refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.
Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes:
"As regards 'Catholic' ... in the latter half of the second
century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that
the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical
congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon) ... What these
early fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical,
visible society; they had little or no inkling of the
distinction which was later to become important between a
visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines,
190)
Ignatius of Antioch
"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the
bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is
celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a
presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be
there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the
Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr
Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic
teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every
word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will
be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).
The Muratorian Canon
"Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon,
and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love,
but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in
the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one
[letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians,
forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of
Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be
received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be
mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two
ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church ... Of
[the Gnostics] Arsinorus, also called Valentine, and of
Miltiades, we receive nothing at all. Those also who
wrote the new book of psalms for Marcion, together with
Basilides, the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians
[we do not accept]" (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).
Tertullian
"Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus,
the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the
disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived
not so long ago--in the reign of Antonius for the most part--
and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the
Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate
of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever
restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren,
they were more than once expelled" (Demurrer Against the
Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]).
unquote
Here's what REALLY happened in the 4th Century:
The Catholic Church was legalized by the Emperor Constantine
in the 4th century. In 312 AD, Constantine was set to fight
his rival Maxentius just outside Rome. Constantine won. He
told the historian, Eusebius, that he had seen a shining
cross in the sky, shining brighter than the sun, with the
words "In hoc signo vinces" (Which means "By this sign, thou
shalt conquer." in Latin) He gave full credit for his victory
to the Christian God and decreed Christianity a lawful religion
in the Roman empire. He built a church in Rome, St. John
Lateran (it's still there, by the way) and he presented this
church to..................THE POPE!!! Pope Militiades,
(sometimes spelled Melchiades) to be precise. Obviously,
the Catholic Church did not begin in the 4th century since
Pope Militiades was about the 33rd Pope. The Catholic Church
was "legalized" in the 4th century but has existed since St.
Peter. St. John Lateran is, to this day, the cathedral church
for the Bishop of Rome (a.k.a., The Pope).
Constantine also built a basilica across the Tiber on Vatican
Hill directly over the shrine marking the grave of St. Peter.
This is what is today called "Old St. Peter's" and stood until
rebuilt 12 centuries later under Pope Julius II. This is St.
Peter's Basilica as it stands today.
Jim Carew sfo
• R. L. Measures
"JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> JMJ
>
> <para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message >
>
> >snip<
>
> >More of the propaganda of the rcc. No, the rcc
> >didn't exist prior to Constantine.
>
> History says otherwise. St Iraneus, a disciple of John,
> wrote that there were hundreds of heresies floating around
> before the end of the first century, and referred to the Catholic
> or universal Church as the one we should recognize. ...
€€ "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie becane
truth".
-- George Orwell, *1984*
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
JCarew
". R. L. Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message news:r
> In article "JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > <para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message >
> >
> > >snip<
> >
> > >More of the propaganda of the rcc. No, the rcc
> > >didn't exist prior to Constantine.
> >
> > History says otherwise. St Iraneus, a disciple of John,
> > wrote that there were hundreds of heresies floating around
> > before the end of the first century, and referred to the Catholic
> > or universal Church as the one we should recognize. ...
>
> ?? "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten,
> the lie becane truth".
> -- George Orwell, *1984*
Your still "invincibly ignorant" when it comes
to the Catholic Church goes, but not to fear the
Church doesn't hold it against you. And I
quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Part 3, Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 6, SubSection 4
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is
invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible
for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by
the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains
no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must
therefore work to correct the errors of moral
conscience.
unquote
Example: A child educated in Protestant,
Muslim or Jewish surroundings would
probably be invincibly ignorant of the
Immaculate Conception.
Jim Carew sfo
• R. L. Measures
"JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net> wrote:
• Was it not an error of moral conscience for God's very own Holy
Church not to go to work at attempting to correct the altar-boy dilemma
on it's own 75 years before the feces hit the fan in January 2002?
> unquote
>
> Example: A child educated in Protestant,
> Muslim or Jewish surroundings would
> probably be invincibly ignorant of the
> Immaculate Conception.
>
• TBRCs were "invincibly ignorant" of the Immaculate Conception until
the time of Marie Bernarde Soubirous. 1844-1879.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
I think so. The same is to be said about all other such events,
including those perpetrated by non Catholic clergy. That has nothing
to do with the teaching of the Church; it has to do with the Church's
sinful, and often incompetent, leadership. In spite of all that, the
Church has survived, as Jesus predicted, for almost 2000 years.
>> unquote
>>
>> Example: A child educated in Protestant,
>> Muslim or Jewish surroundings would
>> probably be invincibly ignorant of the
>> Immaculate Conception.
>>
>• TBRCs were "invincibly ignorant" of the Immaculate Conception until
>the time of Marie Bernarde Soubirous. 1844-1879.
JP
You seem to not understand the teaching of the Church. It also seems
that you may be a former Catholic. A formal definition of a teaching
is not frequently made until it is widely challenged or if the Church
is prompted to make such a definition by a miraculous event, such as
that at Lourdes. This is in keeping with Jesus' teaching of his
Ascension. His disciples had to witness it so they could understand
its validity. The same could be said of the Transfiguration.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
www.jerryetal.org
• R. L. Measures
Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
• Not even the Rev. Jimmy Swaggert / Debra Murphee scandal comes close
to
>That has nothing
> to do with the teaching of the Church; it has to do with the Church's
> sinful, and often incompetent, leadership. In spite of all that, the
> Church has survived, as Jesus predicted, for almost 2000 years.
>
> >> unquote
> >>
> >> Example: A child educated in Protestant,
> >> Muslim or Jewish surroundings would
> >> probably be invincibly ignorant of the
> >> Immaculate Conception.
> >>
> >• TBRCs were "invincibly ignorant" of the Immaculate Conception until
> >the time of Marie Bernarde Soubirous. 1844-1879.
>
> JP
> You seem to not understand the teaching of the Church.
• When did the Roman church begin teaching that Mary was conceived
immaculately?
>It also seems
> that you may be a former Catholic.
• hardly
>A formal definition of a teaching
> is not frequently made until it is widely challenged or if the Church
> is prompted to make such a definition by a miraculous event, such as
> that at Lourdes. This is in keeping with Jesus' teaching of his
> Ascension. His disciples had to witness it so they could understand
> its validity. The same could be said of the Transfiguration.
> . . .
> Blessings,
• Are you an authorized dispenser thereof? Would in-vitro
fertilization be immaculate?
> Jerry
> www.jerryetal.org
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
Malcolm
> Church not to go to work at attempting to correct the altar-boy dilemma
> on it's own 75 years before the feces hit the fan in January 2002?
>
courts. Particulalrly a bishop shouldn't testify against his own priests,
just a father wouldn't testify against his own son. If the victims wanted
they could have taken action in an ecclesiastical court, but didn't. Or they
could have involved the authorities, but didn't, until a very late stage.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $7.20 paper, available www.lulu.com/bgy1mm
• R. L. Measures
"Malcolm" <regn...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> ". R. L. Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote
> > . Was it not an error of moral conscience for God's very own Holy
> > Church not to go to work at attempting to correct the altar-boy dilemma
> > on it's own 75 years before the feces hit the fan in January 2002?
> >
> Not really. Christians shouldn't be testifying aginst each other in secular
> courts.
*** So if a Christian altar-boy has been getting buggered by a priest,
the buggeree should not testify against the buggerer?
>Particulalrly a bishop shouldn't testify against his own priests,
*** And if a bishop saw a priest plugging into an altar-boy?
> just as a father wouldn't testify against his own son.
>If the victims wanted
> they could have taken action in an ecclesiastical court, but didn't.
*** This was tried numerous times and it didn't work worth a damn.
>Or they
> could have involved the authorities, but didn't, until a very late stage.
*** Many parents of buggered altar-boys tried and the one true chuch
essentially did nothing more than move the chicken hawks to fresh
hunting grounds and pay hush-money. However, with the shortage of
priests who are into coitus, they were between a rock and a hard place
for damn sure.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
Coming close or not is irrelevant. If you don't think Protestant
denominations are without this problem, search the Internet. I did
quite some time ago and found there is plenty of it. Also, ask the
headquarters of denominations for a list of their transgression in
this regard.
>>That has nothing
>> to do with the teaching of the Church; it has to do with the Church's
>> sinful, and often incompetent, leadership. In spite of all that, the
>> Church has survived, as Jesus predicted, for almost 2000 years.
>>
>> >> unquote
>> >>
>> >> Example: A child educated in Protestant,
>> >> Muslim or Jewish surroundings would
>> >> probably be invincibly ignorant of the
>> >> Immaculate Conception.
>> >>
>> >• TBRCs were "invincibly ignorant" of the Immaculate Conception until
>> >the time of Marie Bernarde Soubirous. 1844-1879.
>>
>> JP
>> You seem to not understand the teaching of the Church.
>
>• When did the Roman church begin teaching that Mary was conceived
>immaculately?
JP
I don't know. You can look at the Trent Catechism. It was likely
always believed since to think otherwise would have been to assert
that Jesus, God, took on sinful flesh which is contrary to God nature.
>>It also seems
>> that you may be a former Catholic.
>
>• hardly
JP
The reason I mentioned that is that I went to the prisons conducting
Bible studies weekly for ten years and many of the Protestants I met
were former Catholics that never knew their Catholic Faith.
>>A formal definition of a teaching
>> is not frequently made until it is widely challenged or if the Church
>> is prompted to make such a definition by a miraculous event, such as
>> that at Lourdes. This is in keeping with Jesus' teaching of his
>> Ascension. His disciples had to witness it so they could understand
>> its validity. The same could be said of the Transfiguration.
>> . . .
>> Blessings,
JP
I know of no one who is prohibited from asking God's blessing on
another person.
• R. L. Measures
Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
• Who created females' sinful flesh and those powerful female pheromones
that cause men's Jacobs gland to divert blood from the male logic unit
into the male unit?
> >>It also seems
> >> that you may be a former Catholic.
> >
> >• hardly
>
> JP
> The reason I mentioned that is that I went to the prisons conducting
> Bible studies weekly for ten years and many of the Protestants I met
> were former Catholics that never knew their Catholic Faith.
• The Roman church has always valued sheep more than lay intellectuals.
>
> >>A formal definition of a teaching
> >> is not frequently made until it is widely challenged or if the Church
> >> is prompted to make such a definition by a miraculous event, such as
> >> that at Lourdes. This is in keeping with Jesus' teaching of his
> >> Ascension. His disciples had to witness it so they could understand
> >> its validity. The same could be said of the Transfiguration.
> >> . . .
> >> Blessings,
>
> JP
> I know of no one who is prohibited from asking God's blessing on
> another person.
> . . .
• Does your drivers license specifically prohibit you from driving on
the left side of the road?
From a personal standpoint, I am not all that comfortable with receiving
a blessing from a divine being whose holy men have a penchant for
tailgating males.
cheers
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
David
> "George" <nos...@nospamhotmail.com>, posted this little bit of
> stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >It's just semantics. Who cares, really? It's the Catholic Church, and it's
> >Roman in the sense that it's not Chaldean, Eastern Orthodox, etc. When the
> >context demands that the distinction be made, even the Vatican uses the term
> >"Roman Catholic".
>
> I agree. And in this case, it is a "red herring," meant to drag us
> off the trail and onto a rabbit trail.
On the contrary, words are important and have meaning, which is why I
continue to correct parakaleo's error and point out that he is wrong to
say rcc, it is the Catholic Church.
Anytime parakaleo wants to dismiss a subject and move on in a hurry is
a good sign that there is something he does not want to be known, I
will show further down why parakaleo wants to simply sweep this matter
under the rug and pretend it does not exist.
> >
> >If it's not Christ's Church, then what is?
>
> It is a financial/political/humanitarian/religious megopoly. Nothing
> more.
Notice parakaleo has yet to define megopoly.
> A bunch of religious rites and trappings with little or no
> substance in Christ.
>
Unsupported assertion.
> >Even Protestants are nothing
> >without the Church they originally "protested" about, just like atheists
> >have to have the "thing" which they don't believe in.
>
> Completely false! First off, the rcc pretends that all NON-rcc
> members are "Protestants,"
No, the Roman Catholic Church does not pretend the members of the
Maronite Catholic Church or the members of the Greek Orthodox Church
are Protestant.
>when there is really little or no
> "protesting" done at all,
All parakaleo has done in his posts are whining and protesting.
>and most of the Christian groups had only a
> brief association with the original protesters.
>
Even using the word protester is misleading.
> The TRUTH is that we are CHRISTIANS, bound together by Jesus Christ
> through the Holy Ghost and through the Bible.
So you say.
>It is the BIBLE, not
> reformers that we get our doctrine, our beliefs, and that is the
> source of our authority, not any reformers of hundreds of years ago.
>
If that were true parakaleo, why do you contradict Biblical teaching?
> So you theory falls completely on its face.
>
The last time parakaleo said that, I had to help him off the floor.
> >They believe in the
> >Bible as the only word of God, forgetting that the New Testament itself was
> >an act of choice by the Catholic Church. So, they are in effect sanctioning
> >the choices made by the early Catholic Church, a Church with exists in an
> >unbroken continuum 2 millenia later.
>
> More of the propaganda of the rcc. No, the rcc didn't exist prior to
> Constantine.
Here parakaleo exhibits his now classic uneducated historical
viewpoint, and here shows us why he has to pretend that rcc is all the
Catholic Church is about. Constantine was a Roman emperor, and that
means making the association that the Catholic Church is "Roman" holds
a superficial plausibility to his otherwise laughable claim that the
Catholic Church did not exist before Constantine.
But if parakaleo has to acknowledge the existence of the entire
Catholic Church, then he runs into problems. The Malabar Catholic
Church in India has existed almost as long(if not as long) as the
Catholic Church in Rome. It has the same teachings as the Catholic
Church in Rome. But even an ignoramus might question how exactly
Constantine was supposed to have founded this particular Catholic
Church when a) India was never part of the Roman Empire, and b) nobody
in the Roman Empire had any significant contact or influence with this
Catholic Church.
> No, the rcc didn't choose the New Testament; they
> ACKNOWLEDGED the books that were already in use and were already
> inspired by God,
Parakaleo fails to explain how exactly one was supposed to know that a
particular book was inspired by God.
>and they rejected the books that were already
> rejected by the rest of the Christians.
Rest of the Christians? Is parakaleo referring to Arians here?
> There were separate groups
> that also "canonized" the books of the New Testament as well, such as
> the copts and the eastern church.
>
More smoke and mirrors from parakaleo. Here he pretends that the
Eastern Church was seperate at the time of Constantine, but he has his
dates a little confused. The Eastern Church didn't split for another
700 years, so, in fact, the Eastern Church was as Catholic as the
Western(aka "Roman") Church at the time of Constantine.
> >God didn't magically suddenly make the
> >Bible appear. There were many things written by men, and it's the Catholic
> >Church which decided what among those writings would constitute the Bible
> >that even many Protestants continue to interpret literally to this day.
>
> Not true at all. There wre many things written by men, but it was the
> CHRISTIAN church that knew which books were inspired. The rcc did not
> exist until Constantine. And the "unbroken continuum? Began with
> Constantine.
>
Any examination of the historical record refutes parakaleo here.
Unless, and this is key here, unless parakaleo means that a church does
not officially exist until a government official stamps his approval on
it. In which case, Jesus never founded any church, since he was not a
government official.
> >But
> >they aren't interpreting Protestant words, they are interpreting Catholic
> >ones. There is no basis for Protestantism in its hundreds of different forms
> >without the Catholic Church.
>
> Of course the rcc claims that; they have a vested interest in doing
> so. They cannot "explain" how we Christians can exist apart from them
> when they claim to be "the only true church" if they don't make that
> claim.
>
> But the rcc, at the council of Trent decided to ADD the Apocrypha to
> the Bible.
More historical ignorance from parakaleo, the Septuagint was not
written by the council of Trent.
>those books were in the Bible since It wasn't part of the Bible in the first century; those
> books were considered to be "outside books."
Notice that parakaleo does not define "outside books", that is because
he cannot.
>It took them twelve
> centuries to change their minds.
No parakaleo, Catholic Church councils do not last twelve centuries.
> >
> >As humanity continues to evolve and science continues to discover new things
> >that affect human morality, where would we be without the Catholic Church's
> >authoritative position in maintaining the culture of life vs the culture of
> >death? Protestantism by itself doesn't have a leg to stand on, only personal
> >opinion.
>
> We Christians would continue to use the Bible (not the rcc's
> ever-changing positions in the culture of life and death) as our
> authority.
>
> How many catholics use birth control? How many catholics actually
> BELIEVE the pope is infallible? How many catholics actually STUDY
> their Bibles at all? I've visited a couple catholic "Bible studies."
> They were the most superficial "studies" I have ever seen, with lots
> of catholic "external junk" schlocked in.
Parakaleo does not mention when he and I engaged in some Biblical
study. I refuted parakaleo's unsupported assertions and countered his
claims with the Biblical text that contradicted him. It was no contest,
I bitch-slapped parakaleo back to summer Bible camp.
> >
> >The Catholic Church has evolved and developed based on the decisions made by
> >men, who have tried to be as faithful as possible to what Jesus Christ
> >taught. Yes, men.
>
> It has evolved, and invented an entire new religion, with fine
> religious trappings, praying to people who have died, all sorts of
> sorry excuses for religious practices (electric candles are out of
> order at this statue today. . .please use the electric candles at the
> back statue. . ."
>
> >The hundreds of Protestant offshoots have also evolved
> >based on the whims and interpretations of individual men, but without a
> >universal organization of men which tries to keep to the original teachings
> >and keep it philosophically coherent at the same time.
>
> Nice try, but that is not how we Christians operate. That is how your
> rcc religion CLAIMS we operate, but it has no connection with reality.
> You might try visiting our services and Sunday schools sometime to see
> how it REALLY works.
>
> Your religion lies to you to protect its own interests.
> >
> >Every Protestant is free to believe whatever they want to believe. How can
> >that possibly add up to a body of Christ?
>
> Every Christian is bound by what SCRIPTURE says about God. Not by
> their own imaginations.
>
Too bad you do not follow that parakaleo.
> OUR churches don't have statues to be prayed "through" with electric
> "candles" to be lit as "indulgences." We don't pray to mary.
Parakaleo here boasts about not following Biblical teaching.
>We
> don't "fiddle the beads" or repeat the same boring prayers over and
> over and over again, 51+ times. (If you nagged ME 51+ times about
> anything, you would have NO HOPE I would ever give it to you. Like
> mary (I suspect) I don't like to be nagged!)
>
At least parakaleo admits he does not know.
> So far you have made a lot of totally false claims about us
> Christians, falsely labeling us "Protestants" as though that were
> something that described us, and with NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support
> your religion at all.
>
Parakaleo describes his own position well here.
> (sigh) I guess that is all you have to offer.
>
Parakaleo guesses wrong.
Mark Johnson
I doubt that's the point. The wftsradio.com folks would remind you
that such began largely after Vatican II, and that the relatively few
pederasts were assisted in a homosexual underground by the majority of
USCCB bishops. Apostates might still be in The Church. Good and bad
grow together. But one doesn't receive a blessing from a heretic or
apostate, particularly when one knows them to be just that. One looks,
instead, for a Catholic priest.
The Church is still there. The Church Triumphant and Suffering are
still there. The Church, Militant, survives in a remnant, with the
churchmen surrendering themselves to evil found everywhere else.
You heard me say this, many times. Make the distinction between
Catholicism - and anti-Catholicism. These are not the same.
Peace.
• R. L. Measures
Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> "• R. L. Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote:
>
> >From a personal standpoint, I am not all that comfortable with receiving
> >a blessing from a divine being whose holy men have a penchant for
> >tailgating males.
>
> I doubt that's the point. The wftsradio.com folks would remind you
> that such began largely after Vatican II,
• I know of cases that occurred decades before Angelo Roncali, alias
John XXIII called for Vatican-II.
>and that the relatively few
> pederasts were assisted in a homosexual underground by the majority of
> USCCB bishops. Apostates might still be in The Church. Good and bad
> grow together. But one doesn't receive a blessing from a heretic or
> apostate, particularly when one knows them to be just that. One looks,
> instead, for a Catholic priest.
• Hopefully one has a rear-view mirror when looking for one.
>
> The Church is still there.
• A church that teaches a somewhat different doctrine than that taught
by the rabbi who called himself the Son of man.
>The Church Triumphant and Suffering are
> still there. The Church, Militant, survives in a remnant, with the
> churchmen surrendering themselves to evil found everywhere else.
• Is it not evil to launder monies for cocaine and heroin dealers?
(The Institute for Religious Works)
>
> You heard me say this, many times. Make the distinction between
> Catholicism - and anti-Catholicism. These are not the same.
• The most effective anti-Catholics wear a Roman Collar.
>
> Peace.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
bam
"• R. L. Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-D8E6A5.05...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
You're an egghead.
BAM
• R. L. Measures
"bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
• This could be the case since I like omlettes, scrambled eggs, egg
fried in butter on a bagel with melted cheddar, soft-boiled eggs in
tuna salad. on and on. When I was eight, I could do serious damage to a
dozen Easter eggs before sunset.
cheers, B.
>
> BAM
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>In article <7dbj3296266ojk74v...@4ax.com>,
> Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
<snip>
JP
I don't know. You explain the relevance of that to me.
>> >>It also seems
>> >> that you may be a former Catholic.
>> >
>> >• hardly
>>
>> JP
>> The reason I mentioned that is that I went to the prisons conducting
>> Bible studies weekly for ten years and many of the Protestants I met
>> were former Catholics that never knew their Catholic Faith.
>
>• The Roman church has always valued sheep more than lay intellectuals.
JP
To what Church teaching do you refer? Please copy and paste.
>> >>A formal definition of a teaching
>> >> is not frequently made until it is widely challenged or if the Church
>> >> is prompted to make such a definition by a miraculous event, such as
>> >> that at Lourdes. This is in keeping with Jesus' teaching of his
>> >> Ascension. His disciples had to witness it so they could understand
>> >> its validity. The same could be said of the Transfiguration.
>> >> . . .
>> >> Blessings,
>>
>> JP
>> I know of no one who is prohibited from asking God's blessing on
>> another person.
>> . . .
>• Does your drivers license specifically prohibit you from driving on
>the left side of the road?
>
>From a personal standpoint, I am not all that comfortable with receiving
>a blessing from a divine being whose holy men have a penchant for
>tailgating males.
>
>cheers
JP
Oh, then you are an atheist? From what being are you comfortable in
receiving blessings?
. . .
Be in peace.
Jerry
www.jerryetal.org
para...@technicianheaven.com
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> JMJ
>
><para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message >
>
>>snip<
>
>>More of the propaganda of the rcc. No, the rcc
>>didn't exist prior to Constantine.
>
>History says otherwise. St Iraneus, a disciple of John,
That is interesting, since Ireneus was not born until sometime between
115 AD and 142 AD according to the Catholic Encyclopedia on CD ROM.
That would make John about ummmmmm 100 years old when this guy was a
teenager?
No, he wasn't a disciple of John. He was the Bishop of Lyons and was
anti-gnostic.
>wrote that there were hundreds of heresies floating around
>before the end of the first century, and referred to the Catholic
>or universal Church as the one we should recognize. In
>other words, the Church that teaches the same thing
>everywhere, not affected by local heretical disruptions.
>At the beginning of the second century, we find in the
>letters of Ignatius its first surviving use in reference to
>the Church. At that time or shortly thereafter it was used to
>refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.
CITATION please. I am not impressed with your "take" on Ireneus the
old, so give us a citation.
>
>Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes:
>"As regards 'Catholic' ... in the latter half of the second
>century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that
>the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical
>congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon) ... What these
>early fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical,
>visible society; they had little or no inkling of the
>distinction which was later to become important between a
>visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines,
>190)
Of course he is speaking merely for himself and nobody else. There
are all sorts of "historians," something for everybody.
>
>Ignatius of Antioch
>
>"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the
>bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is
>celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a
>presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be
>there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the
>Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
Of course by "catholic" he meant "universal" (the meaning of the
word," and NOT rcc.
>
>The Martyrdom of Polycarp
>
>"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr
>Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic
>teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every
>word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will
>be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).
Same thing. By "catholic" he meant "universal" (the meaning of the
word," and NOT rcc
>
>The Muratorian Canon
>
>"Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon,
>and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love,
>but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in
>the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one
>[letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians,
>forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of
>Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be
>received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be
>mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two
>ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church ... Of
>[the Gnostics] Arsinorus, also called Valentine, and of
>Miltiades, we receive nothing at all. Those also who
>wrote the new book of psalms for Marcion, together with
>Basilides, the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians
>[we do not accept]" (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).
Again, "catholic" but NOT roman or orthodox.
At least that is how the rcc has rewritten their history. The truth
is that constantine tried to take over the church because it gave him
more political power, and the so-called "lineage back to Peter" was
made up.
parakaleo
bam
Anyone who has even read The Song of Bernadette knows that the doctrine if
the Immaculate Conception was already in full swing at the time of the
apparition.
BAM
JCarew
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote
> "JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net>, posted this little bit of stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> ><para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message >
> >
> >>snip<
> >
> >>More of the propaganda of the rcc. No, the rcc
> >>didn't exist prior to Constantine.
> >
> >History says otherwise. St Iraneus, a disciple of John,
>
> That is interesting, since Ireneus was not born until sometime between
> 115 AD and 142 AD according to the Catholic Encyclopedia on CD ROM.
>
> That would make John about ummmmmm 100 years old when this guy was a
> teenager?
>
> No, he wasn't a disciple of John. He was the Bishop of Lyons and was
> anti-gnostic.
See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
Section 3: The formation of the Tetrammorph, or
Fourforld Gospel
• R. L. Measures
"bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
• The Immaculate Conception doctrine came about in 1546 -- but that
was c. 1200-years after the Roman church came to be .
>
> BAM
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
• R. L. Measures
Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
• "If you understand it, it is not God."
- - Saint Augustine (354 - 430), Sermon 117
>
> >> >>It also seems
> >> >> that you may be a former Catholic.
> >> >
> >> >• hardly
> >>
> >> JP
> >> The reason I mentioned that is that I went to the prisons conducting
> >> Bible studies weekly for ten years and many of the Protestants I met
> >> were former Catholics that never knew their Catholic Faith.
> >
> >• The Roman church has always valued sheep more than lay intellectuals.
>
> JP
> To what Church teaching do you refer? Please copy and paste.
• Were not Galileo and Copernicus a threat to the organization?
>
> >> >>A formal definition of a teaching
> >> >> is not frequently made until it is widely challenged or if the Church
> >> >> is prompted to make such a definition by a miraculous event, such as
> >> >> that at Lourdes. This is in keeping with Jesus' teaching of his
> >> >> Ascension. His disciples had to witness it so they could understand
> >> >> its validity. The same could be said of the Transfiguration.
> >> >> . . .
> >> >> Blessings,
> >>
> >> JP
> >> I know of no one who is prohibited from asking God's blessing on
> >> another person.
> >> . . .
> >• Does your drivers license specifically prohibit you from driving on
> >the left side of the road?
> >
> >From a personal standpoint, I am not all that comfortable with receiving
> >a blessing from a divine being whose holy men have a penchant for
> >tailgating males.
> >
> >cheers
>
> JP
> Oh, then you are an atheist?
• no
>From what being are you comfortable in
> receiving blessings?
> . . .
• Jerry -- There is no free lunch.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
para...@technicianheaven.com
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> JMJ
>
><para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote
>
>> "JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net>, posted this little bit of stuff:
>> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
>> ><para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message >
>> >
>> >>snip<
>> >
>> >>More of the propaganda of the rcc. No, the rcc
>> >>didn't exist prior to Constantine.
>> >
>> >History says otherwise. St Iraneus, a disciple of John,
>>
>> That is interesting, since Ireneus was not born until sometime between
>> 115 AD and 142 AD according to the Catholic Encyclopedia on CD ROM.
>>
>> That would make John about ummmmmm 100 years old when this guy was a
>> teenager?
>>
>> No, he wasn't a disciple of John. He was the Bishop of Lyons and was
>> anti-gnostic.
>
>See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
>
>Section 3: The formation of the Tetrammorph, or
>Fourforld Gospel
Cut and paste from there:
"Irenćus, in his work "Against Heresies" (A.D. 182-88), "
If the Apostle John were 25 years old when Jesus walked the earth,
that would make Irenaeus a minimum of about 157 years old or so when
he wrote "Against Heresies," would it not? Do the math.
Then admit he was not a "disciple of John."
LOL!
parakaleo
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
What does that mean?
>> >> >>It also seems
>> >> >> that you may be a former Catholic.
>> >> >
>> >> >• hardly
>> >>
>> >> JP
>> >> The reason I mentioned that is that I went to the prisons conducting
>> >> Bible studies weekly for ten years and many of the Protestants I met
>> >> were former Catholics that never knew their Catholic Faith.
>> >
>> >• The Roman church has always valued sheep more than lay intellectuals.
>>
>> JP
>> To what Church teaching do you refer? Please copy and paste.
>
>• Were not Galileo and Copernicus a threat to the organization?
JP
No. To what Church teaching did you refer?
>> >> >>A formal definition of a teaching
>> >> >> is not frequently made until it is widely challenged or if the Church
>> >> >> is prompted to make such a definition by a miraculous event, such as
>> >> >> that at Lourdes. This is in keeping with Jesus' teaching of his
>> >> >> Ascension. His disciples had to witness it so they could understand
>> >> >> its validity. The same could be said of the Transfiguration.
>> >> >> . . .
>> >> >> Blessings,
>> >>
>> >> JP
>> >> I know of no one who is prohibited from asking God's blessing on
>> >> another person.
>> >> . . .
>> >• Does your drivers license specifically prohibit you from driving on
>> >the left side of the road?
>> >
>> >From a personal standpoint, I am not all that comfortable with receiving
>> >a blessing from a divine being whose holy men have a penchant for
>> >tailgating males.
>> >
>> >cheers
>>
>> JP
>> Oh, then you are an atheist?
>
>• no
JP
From what divine being are you comfortable with?
>>From what being are you comfortable in
>> receiving blessings?
>> . . .
>• Jerry -- There is no free lunch.
JP
Salvation?
para...@technicianheaven.com
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
><para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
>> "bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net>, posted this little bit of
>> stuff:
>> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>>>
>>><para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
>>>> "JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net>, posted this little bit of stuff:
>>>> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>>>>> JMJ
>>>>>
>>>>><para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> "JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net>, posted
>>>>>
show one place where I "claim to use the Bible only." I believe the
Bible to be our measure of good and evil, our only accurate source of
doctrine, but I read MANY other books and use books like the phone
book regularly.
pimpo just likes to whine, don't you?
parakaleo
• R. L. Measures
Jerry Patterson <je...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
• It means that if you (the laity) don't understand what we come up
with when we aren't chasing cute altar-boys, it's because only we holy
men are smart enough to understand stuff from God.
>
> >> >> >>It also seems
> >> >> >> that you may be a former Catholic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >• hardly
> >> >>
> >> >> JP
> >> >> The reason I mentioned that is that I went to the prisons conducting
> >> >> Bible studies weekly for ten years and many of the Protestants I met
> >> >> were former Catholics that never knew their Catholic Faith.
> >> >
> >> >• The Roman church has always valued sheep more than lay intellectuals.
> >>
> >> JP
> >> To what Church teaching do you refer? Please copy and paste.
> >
> >• Were not Galileo and Copernicus a threat to the organization?
>
> JP
> No. To what Church teaching did you refer?
• Copernicus' book was on the popes' no-no list until just over a
century ago. The one true church taught that that the sun revolved
around earth and it took until Oct. 1992 for pope to admit that the one
true church dropped the football. (John Paul II)
>
> >> >> >>A formal definition of a teaching
> >> >> >> is not frequently made until it is widely challenged or if the
> >> >> >> Church
> >> >> >> is prompted to make such a definition by a miraculous event, such as
> >> >> >> that at Lourdes. This is in keeping with Jesus' teaching of his
> >> >> >> Ascension. His disciples had to witness it so they could understand
> >> >> >> its validity. The same could be said of the Transfiguration.
> >> >> >> . . .
> >> >> >> Blessings,
> >> >>
> >> >> JP
> >> >> I know of no one who is prohibited from asking God's blessing on
> >> >> another person.
> >> >> . . .
> >> >• Does your drivers license specifically prohibit you from driving on
> >> >the left side of the road?
> >> >
> >> >From a personal standpoint, I am not all that comfortable with receiving
> >> >a blessing from a divine being whose holy men have a penchant for
> >> >tailgating males.
> >> >
> >> >cheers
> >>
> >> JP
> >> Oh, then you are an atheist?
> >
> >• no
>
> JP
> From what divine being are you comfortable with?
• I haven't met one yet, but here's hoping.
>
> >>From what being are you comfortable in
> >> receiving blessings?
> >> . . .
> >• Jerry -- There is no free lunch.
>
> JP
> Salvation?
> . . .
• That's what the advertisement says, Jerry.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
Malcolm
>> if
>> the Immaculate Conception was already in full swing at the time of the
>> apparition.
>
> was c. 1200-years after the Roman church came to be .
>
Churuch councils do not invent dogma out of thin air. They clarify beliefs
when some doubt or dispute arises. For instance at Trent you can sense the
frustration of the council as they set down in black and white the full
canon of scripture.
You could do a genuine historical investigation of the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception. It is implicit in the salution of the angel "Hail,
most highly favoured, blessed art thou amongst women", but the understanding
that Mary was sinless was not fully developed. You could trace the idea
through early Christian documents. Unfortunatley someone who persists in
this nonsense that the Roman church only came into being with Constantine
isn't going to be a real historian. Therefore his opinions are likely to be
ignored.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
Now that is very cute. Perhaps you will be able to locate someone of
your mentality with whom to dialogue.
Jerry
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
www.jerryetal.org