It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


a question to catholics??

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 01:35 AM
...gee...pray to God, pray to Mary, pray to Jesus, pray to whoever...heck, pray to TV sitting in the corner of your lounge for all it really matters...if you find inner peace doing so, then good on you...let not others TELL you how to find your own peace...

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 12:17 AM
Hi Truth............

i disagree on the Great Schism that took place in 1054.......please read ........

I always thought that being a Christian was all the same.

There are now thousands of Schismatic Christian churches all over the world claiming Authority to being the truth...

The teachings of Jesus Christ began after He appointed His Apostles to go and preach......

The Gospel of John opens, "In the beginning was the Word (Logos, in Greek). For the pagans, the Logos was not God, as He is for Christians; rather he is a principle, a power or force by which "God: formed and governs the world. The Fathers pointed to the similarity between the Logos or Word of the Bible and the Logos of Greek philosophy as a sign of Providence. The difference between them, they attributed to the sinfulness of men and the weakness of the human intellect. They remembered the words of the Apostle Paul, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2: 8).

Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason. Its history shows the consequence of that trust. For example, in the Latin Middle Ages, the 13th century, the theologian-philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, joined "Christianity" with the philosophy of Aristotle. From that period til now, the Latins have never wavered in their respect for human wisdom; and it has radically altered the theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion.

2. The Development of Doctrine

The Orthodox Church does not endorse the view that the teachings of Christ have changed from time to time; rather that Christianity has remained unaltered from the moment that the Lord delivered the Faith to the Apostles (Matt. 28: 18-20). She affirms that "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) is now what it was in the beginning. Orthodox of the twentieth century believe precisely what was believed by Orthodox of the first, the fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries.

5. The Church

The Roman Catholic view of the Church (ecclesiology) differs from the Orthodox teaching on this subject in several ways.

The Latins teach that the visible head of the Church is the Pope, the successor to St. Peter, who was appointed to that sacred position by the Lord Himself with the words, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church . . . " (Matt. 16:18).

The Pope is, then, "the Bishop of the Catholic Church," her teacher, the vicar (agent, deputy) of Christ on earth. He is the interpreter of the Christian Tradition. When he speaks for the whole Church (ex cathedra), the Holy Spirit does not permit him to err. He is, therefore, infallible on matters of morals and doctrine. Other bishops are his lieutenants. He is the symbol of the episcopate's unity.

The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The president of a synod of bishops is called archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom).

However, the Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic "dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary," which was defined as "of the faith" by Pope Pius IX, on the 8th of December 1854. This dogma holds that from the first instant of her conception, the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by a most singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the human race, preserved from all stain of Original Sin. It is a doctrine revealed by God, and therefore to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful (from the Bull Ineffabilis Deus).

Such a theory has no basis in the Scriptures nor the Fathers. It contains many ideas (such as "the merits of Christ") likewise without apostolic foundation. The idea that the Lord and His Saints produced more grace than necessary. This excess may be applied to others, even those in purgatory (see below). cont...........

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 05:38 AM
With all due respect, i dis agree on the immaculate conception for the soul
reason of jesus telling peter

"" what ever you shall bound on earth shall also be ound in heeaven, whatever
you loose on eart shall be loosed in heaven ""

The orhtodox have the same scraments, but they reject a doctrine of papal primacy, papal inallibility divinely
given to st peter the apostle who was promised and had perpetual successors which the orthodox deny

Pope Boniface Vlll, unam sanctam, 1302

ex cathedra.

"" Further more, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to (every)
human creature that thy by necessity of salvation are entirely subject
to the roman pontiff ""

its a doctrine i must hold and do.


posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 06:56 AM
A fascinating topic: I would counsel some caution when bandying about "schism": it has a pretty precise theological and canon law meaning in a Roman Catholic context (and no real meaning at all in any other). it is most certainly not "heresy": there most certainly are not ":thousands" of "schismatic" churches.
The Greek Orthodox Church is certainly schismatic: it has never been declared heretical. And, for that matter, it does recognise the authority of the Patriarch of the West ( it just doesn't equate these with the powers that Roman Catholics ascribe to the Pope.
The origins lie in many areas (and 1054 was the culmination of about 800 years of schism as various local churches struggled for power and supremacy.)
The abstruse doctrinal factors -while fascinating to some -leave many cold and demand detailed study. Suffice it so say that the procession of the Holy Ghost was certainly no more important than the struggle between Constantinople and Rome. For Rome, the East bowed to Caesar rather than God.
Add to that the two worlds of Greeks and Latins - next to no bilingualism ( it is well attested that at meetings one side seldom if ever understood the other), little authority in terms of ritual: and you'll see how easy it was for separation to occur.
Also, the East had long been the home of heresies and of various "monophysite" teachings which tended to dismiss the notion of the Trinity (no doubt one of the reasons Islam took hold so readily in the Church of the East).
1054 wasn't the schism -true, Caerularius the Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated; but Orthodox believers were not. The Schism proper came 400 years later at the Council of Florence.
Schism is about obedience rather than theology as such- unbelievers are mere heretics. Little differences: celibate clergy, leavened or unleavened bread, sign of the cross etc are not fundamental: they are merely, in the eyes of Roman Catholics, a wilful disobedience.
For non-catholics to question this makes little sense: to be a Catholic is, in part at least, NOT to question this authority.
One always hopes of course that these topics are raised for the purpose of enlightenment rather than dull brainless post-generation.
I would advocate that any poster who is genuinely interested takes the effort to read up Photius and the other leading figures. and if it seems odd: what will they make of TV evangelists and the countless American denominations, in a millennium's time?
At least those old Greeks and Romans always tried to keep to reason and logic and learning.

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 07:05 AM
It's all about one's attitude to spiritual authority. the notion that the early church was some sort of "free-thinking democracy" is historical gibberish: hierarchies were defined from the beginning: with five patriarchates at the top and Rome, the apostolic See, at the top of them.
"ignorant slave" or "disciplined servant of Mother Church"; "free thinker with a personal God" or 'fool blinded by vanity and made senseless by the Sin of Pride".
You takes your pick.

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 08:40 AM
Religion divides people. I think you should think less of what other people are doing and crack on. If all/most? religions pray to "a" God then whats the difference "a rose by any other name..."

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 12:03 PM
True, schism is an act of disobedience to the papacy or the legit
authority in the church ie the pope.

u our same church does not teach (blind) obedience as im about to show you,, but
true obedience to the pope

for instance, if a pope is a manifest heretic we are not obliged to b obedient to him.

Fourth lateran council #3

"" Those who are suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of
anathema unless they prove thir innocents by an appropriate purgation. let such
individuals be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction ""

Vatican l #2

"" Both clergy and fathful are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchy
subordaination and ((true)) obedience ""

Pope Leo Xlll satis cgnitum #15

"" It is (absurd) to imagine that he who is (outside) can command
insie the church ""

Pope Innoent lll

"" It is necessary to obey a pope in all things as long as he does not go against
the universal customs of the church, but shouldhe go against theuniversal customs of the church
he need (not) be followed ""

St robert Bellarmine de romano pontifice 11,30

"" A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically per se ceases to be
the pope and head ""

Our church has always taght true obedience to the pope. Infact we have had may antipopes
in history, and, it ispossible or a pope to fall int heresy.


posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 12:32 PM
My dear Truth, these are almost all reference to which I might have alluded in, say, a U2U ( I should, of course, have omitted the reference to "many" Antipopes, and I should have clarified the western Schism, Avignon, etc. en passant); but do you not perhaps feel that you should at least entertain the notion of putting such allusions into a cogent thread that is largely sustained by your original narrative.
I hope you'll not think me impertinent here; but this would profit from a framework of something from you, rather than snippets of dogma. And let me not be thought impertinent when I suggest that you are on a hiding to nothing, trying to better the scholars here; but there is much to be said for trying to present your beliefs: they are, after all, about the only reason why you shoul be posting.
Tell us why you obey the Vatican and will obey any further cyclical within the bounds of conscience and obey an infallible statement without question.
It is this that makes you interesting. It is this that you can impart.

posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 01:01 PM
God promised that the church could not err regarding faith and morals, traditional
doctrines which are guided by the holy spirit and cannot err.

if tas the case god lies when he says..

"" upon this rock (of peter) i will build my (church) and the gates of ell
shall not prevail against it ""

again if god permited error in doctrinal dogmas created by the holy spirit which we are bound to believe then
god is a liar in letting us believe error.

this is wy the pope cannot error regarding faith and morals, that is dogmas of the roman
church, but, a pope or any of thehierarchy can error through personal opinion..

thats why i hold this true, and if a pope goes against these dogmas revealed
by the holy spirit, he has fallen into heresy.

"" I have prayed fo you that your faith will not fail ""

"" whatever you bound on earth is bound in heaven ""

Matt 28;20, christ tells the apostles to go an teach all that i have commanded, i am with you all
days even to the consummation of the world.

No pope or general council in almost 2000 years has annuled or revoked a (single) decree on faith and
morals enacted by a previous pope or council.

if god let the church teach error on faith and morals than god is a liar to his own
church which cannot be true.

and this is why i hold this even until i die.


[Edited on 12-3-2003 by Truth]

posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 01:27 AM
Truth, i have added a link concerning the ''On this Rock''

there are many other questions on the differences of opinions ..........please take some time to read them.........

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in