It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The Catholic Church

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2003 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Can you explain what these fatima miracles are, I have no clue what they are, thanks

and another question:

You say Jesus created the Catholic Church, I'm not doubting it but the thing that confuses me is how can Satan corrupt the church created by Christ himself, how does that work?




posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by arc
My comparatively small amount of research (compared to others on this forum) has given me an increasing belief that freemasonry and the vatican are virtually sworn enemies, with both claiming to hold the secrets and bloodlines of the true jerusalem church.


Well to actually go back to the original topic of this thread.

2 things, only the Church made Freemasonry its enemy, Masonry has never been at odds with any religion, even Catholicism.

And that's all changed I do believe, I'm not certain but I think Pope John Paul has ignored or discounted the "bulls" that some previous Popes had made against Freemasonry.

Lastly, I don't believe Masonry ever made a claim that it holds any Secrets or has any Bloodlines to the true Church of Jerusalem, though maybe some Masons have made such claims


Masonry's only roots lie in the Templars, where ever their roots lie exactly as to if they uncovered any secret or not, is a mystery.

*EDIT* I also do think where comes power comes corruption. While eastern religions seem void of this, it could be due to their usual detatchment from worldly things. While Masonry could be said to have "power", more properly it would be to say that some people with power are Masons. And it has staved off corruption, by never falling under ONE jurisdictional head.

Catholicism however, has been ruled by the bishops, and the Pope, forever. In the middle ages we saw how high corruption could go, all the way to the feet of God one could say. But today, it seems the Church is less so corrupt. It is actually a bit interesting, I may soon find myself researching the differences between Vatican "I" and Vatican II to see if the lack of apparent corruption has anything to do with that, and if the Church is still corrupt or not.

[Edited on 17-3-2003 by Hammerite]



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 02:06 PM
link   
hammerite, this is not a difference between v1 and v2.

Vatican l is just a council which taught the same thing as all the councils since 325 at nicaea.


vatican ll has created an entirely new religion while posing to be catholic in all forms.



Illmatic, ill dig up some links later but let me give you the basics.


mary started appearing to three kids for some time, in october of 1917 she told them she would send a miracle on a certain day and she would tell them of three secrets containing reat info
from god.


In 1917 70,000 all gathered in the predicted day of the miracles, pagans, jews, atheist, and non believers were all there, as well
asthe sick.


The sun started moving and coming to the earth while eery sigle person gae the same account
who attended. they thought it was the end.


All the sick were healed that day who attended, two ofthe secrets were revealed, she predicted a sign before WW2 that man will know when this war happened, this sign did happen right before ww2 where the sky lit up in a red
color in portugal.


The final and third secret was to be revealed at the latest in 1960, but was never released
by the church until 40 years after V2 which held it back for reasons of keeping info from the faitful while
at the same tim releasing a false third secret in 2000.



Much info was in the message of fatima itself, and ill finda link for you so you could read it for yourself.



peace.
in



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Oh yea.

"" if its jesus church, then how can satan attack it ""

He can attack its (name), its outside, but in no way can he ever attack its doctrines and teachings, if thats
true than god is a liar in letting us believe in falehood while saying the church cannot teach error in doctrine.


if thats true than his promise is false and satan hs overcome the church.


But its not true, because every council from nicaea 325 to V1 1800s has never revoked or annuled a single
decree of doctrine on faith and morals.


this is history. the only change came at V2 which is entirely a differen church which
has changed decrees and doctrines and the mass that was once proclaimed the same by every other council.



So, satan has created what appears to be catholicism but it is not, while most d think it is
a legit council its teachins are no atholic teaching.

his is how satan works. thats why since V2 you see the decline of morality like you do because of a false council which has
decieved billions of people.


The vatican ll church is not the catholic church but a imposter council proclaiming to be catholic while
all popes since V2 have proclaimed blasphemey and heresy and are not catholic.


So by these infiltrators attacking and making a new religion they pose as catholics but are not, and so christ church
has not been overcome by satan.

Some people today can see what is happening and traditional pre vatican ll catholics still exist while they are very few, meaning catholics
who deny V2 and all it antipopes.


scripture talks of a time where all faiths will be joined, where the faithfull will go without the mass for a while, where a new whore of babylon an
imposter church will reside in rome.


we are in the ends of all ends and you are witnessin the top of satans peak, and can you not
realize this by the culture of today?


We are living in chapters 12 through 13 right now in the apoc.


revelation 13 talks about one who was wounded and healed, while he blasphemes gods church and tabernacle.


no other person since V2 fits this description other than antipope Jp2 who was shot in 1981 and healed, and he has done
nothig but blasphemed god and his tabrnacle for 20 strait years.



peace.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 03:04 PM
link   
It actually was the other way around... the founders of the Masons were anti-Catholic. They didn't want to have anything to do with the Catholics. The Church eventually came up with their own similar (except sanctioned by the Pope) organization called the Knights of Columbus.

Both are very similar in that they have religious-based ceremonies, though the Masonic ones are based in Protestantism (more of a deistic Protestantism than, say, Baptist Church-ism or Calvinism.) The Knights' ceremonies are, of course, more Catholic based.

No, the Masons don't go back to the Knights Templar, as their own scholars (and non-Masonic scholars) have proven. That was made up (again, as Masonic scholars say) to give the group some credibility. Some of the more traditional (read "stubborn") lodges refuse to believe this, but the hard truth is gradually creeping in.

There is no known relationship between the Bavarian Illuminati and the Masons.

As you chat around with people, you'll run across members of both organizations and you'll find them no better and no worse and no more powerful than the people in your local Chamber of Commerce.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Kross, you need to stop turning every single you make into a Islam bashing contest because that's what you do.

This is thread is about the Catholic Church, not the Islamic (Church)

tell me who are MY people?

[Edited on 3-16-2003 by Illmatic67]


curious as to why you choose this post to respond to me again... being that you ignore most of what i say even when im asking you a serious... civilized question. maybe you are being very sensitive and defensive... got to be... because i wasnt trying to bash on islam in any way. funny how you took it like that. if thats islam bashing you are christian bashing x10 man. dont preach to me especially when you cant just chill and hold a civil disscusion with me without taken offense to every punctuation and letter in my response (when its clearly not ment to be taken as such).


stop whining and chill man.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I am speakin for Hammerite now because for some reason he cannot log in. HERE ARE HIS THOUGHTS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally posted by Byrd
It actually was the other way around... the founders of the Masons were anti-Catholic. They didn't want to have anything to do with the Catholics. The Church eventually came up with their own similar (except sanctioned by the Pope) organization called the Knights of Columbus.

Both are very similar in that they have religious-based ceremonies, though the Masonic ones are based in Protestantism (more of a deistic Protestantism than, say, Baptist Church-ism or Calvinism.) The Knights' ceremonies are, of course, more Catholic based.

No, the Masons don't go back to the Knights Templar, as their own scholars (and non-Masonic scholars) have proven. That was made up (again, as Masonic scholars say) to give the group some credibility. Some of the more traditional (read "stubborn") lodges refuse to believe this, but the hard truth is gradually creeping in.

There is no known relationship between the Bavarian Illuminati and the Masons.

As you chat around with people, you'll run across members of both organizations and you'll find them no better and no worse and no more powerful than the people in your local Chamber of Commerce.


"Byrd, you are wrong, perhaps if you've read the mountain of information Hammerite has posted for you to see the connection between the Templars and Masons, you'd understand you are wrong"

xmb.abovetopsecret.com...

Arc, if you want to know why Masonry and Catholicism is as they are, read the books in that thread, it explains the history of the two establishment







[Edited on 18-3-2003 by Quicksilver]



posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 01:31 AM
link   
''''Since the council of nicaea in 325 to vatican l in th late 1800s the church has proclaimed the same
unchanging doctrines that never changed''''''


reply to Truth............1800s???

the Roman Catholic church and the Catholic(universal) church are not one and the same church........

The creed reads........i beleive in one God, etc.............

""In one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"".........to this day, the trueCreed is held and said in the Old calanderist orthodox (Catholic)Church.....
Russia ......old calanderist,
Greece......old calanderist
Ethiopion .......old calanderist
Jurusalem.....old calanderist......etc.............

The Roman Catholic church as we see it today is not one and the same ....
Babtism ......has changed
Chrismation has changed
The original Creed has been changed
The authority of the Pope(father of the church) has changed to "infallable""and so the Roman Catholic church is not the same as was the early formed Apostles church............
Please correct me if im wrong...........but do some early history of the church study..........



posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 04:47 AM
link   
They did not change the original creed.

Heres how our creed reeds..

"" I believe in the (holy) spirit, the holy (catholic) church, communion of saints, forgiveness
of sins, resurrection of the body, and life ever lasting amen ""



There are several othr creeds used by the church in substance identical with the apostles creed, like
the nicaea creed and the athanasian creed which the church uses.



As for baptism, it has not changed at all. Its doneby a priest and is legit and can be done by anybody in case
of emergancy.


The orthodox are cut off from the church of christ, they deny the successor of peter who was
promised to feed the sheep and lambs..

That is a belief we must hold as god founded a pope, the head of his church. You cannot deny that not
one pope has taught error concerning faith and morals.


Thats what papal (infallibilty) is.

We have the eastern rite churches that still follow the pope, believe all doctrines, believe in the successor of peter
yet they are not subsided in rome.

While orthodox deny the successor of peter, a true (canonically) elected pope
who succeeds peter in rome.


you cannot deny that the apostles had successors to peter. which does not
change because of a shcism from orthodoxy.


The apostolic church believed.

1. Our saviour gave pre enimence to peter over other apostles. (i will give thee the keys
to the kingdom). (sregnthen your brethern). (feed my lambs feed my sheep).


The catholic church believes.


1. Gives the primacy of honor and jurisdiction to peter and to his successors.




think about it.


why did the church from 33 to 1054 have some (100s) of successors of peter, yet this is supposed to stop because of a dispute betwen east and west.



christ said, i will be withyou all days. This succession cannot and does not stop of popes who are truly canonically elected the supreme pontiffs. Christ promised as well
did the church of the apostles (perpetual) successors.



catholics must not deny this because the pope represnts christ himself, the supreme pontiff, the successor of peter.




Now, as for papal infallibility.


1. Its only concerning ex cathedra statemens which is true.


think about this.

Are you telling me because the old church did not define (papaal infallibility) they did
not teach the truth?


Thats like saying, yea, christ said the church would not teach error but they could unless they defined a doctrine of infallibility.



papal infallibilty was held by the church of the apostles, if it was not then they believe that popes could teach error which they know
to not be true. Its a doctrine which has always been true but just defined more clearly by the church of god.


Your saing that since they created papl infallibility, that means that the old church could teach error. thats not so.



when a pope speaks ex cathedra that means he speaks (for) the church and not for himself, which means if he can contain error in those
statements then christ promise if false and he has taught error, which means that if this doctrine is not true then whos to say the old popes
in the old church taught error?


it canno be true.the church cannot teach error concerning faith anf morals and history backs me up by the same unchanging
poclaimations the church has always taught concerning faith and morals.


And the perpetual successor of peter not only the old church believed until the end of the world, but
chris himself promised and the old church taught.



peace.



posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 06:09 AM
link   
truth.............sorry all.....

taken from ......link................


www.antiochian.org...&_CatholicismNB.htm


After years of Catholic religious education, I had come to accept the Rome-centered view of Church history: that Christ had chosen Peter to be the head of the Church, the first pope, and that the church founded by Peter, the church of Rome, from the very beginning had a preeminence and superiority over all of Christendom. Moreover, the bishops of Rome who succeeded Peter inherited his power as the head of the Church and the vicar of Christ on earth, down to the present day.



Rebelliousness, I was taught, led the Protestants to reject this divinely established structure of Church authority, giving rise to their heretical teachings and endless divisions. In my religious training, the Catholic view of Church history had been opposed to the Protestant view, which was presented as seriously deficient.



In college, however, I began to see that history is always written from a particular perspective. There is no such thing as objective history; all historians tell their story from a particular viewpoint. Thus, in an attempt to arrive at an honest appreciation of another Christian historical perspective, I began to explore the Protestant account of early Christianity.



To be sure, I detected flaws in it. It seemed to me that, in reaction to the abuses in medieval Catholicism, Protestantism had gone too far; it had ěthrown out the baby with the bath water,î so to speak. For example, the Protestant view did not adequately account for the sacramental and hierarchical aspects of the early Church so clearly described in ancient Christian texts; it simply dismissed them as evidence of early ěcorruptionsî and ěaberrations.î Nevertheless, the Protestant critique of the Catholic viewpoint forced me to confront some serious questions I would otherwise have ignored.



VEXING QUESTIONS



For example, even if Peter did enjoy a sort of preeminence among the Apostles, did that mean Christ intended for him to have the kind of primacy among bishops and the sort of universal power over the entire Church that the later popes claimed? When Christ said, ěYou are Peter, and on this rock I will build My churchî (Matthew 16:18), was the ěrockî on which the Church was to be built the person of Peter and his successors, or was it the confession that Peter had just made: ěYou are the Christ, the Son of the living Godî (Matthew 16:16)? It seemed if Christ did confer on Peter a sort of preeminence, it was by virtue of this confession of faith; it alone could serve as the foundation for the Church.



And if Christ gave to Peter the power to loose and to bind (ěAnd I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heavenî Matthew 16:19), he gave the same power to all the disciples as well (ěAssuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heavenî Matthew 18:18).



Furthermore, whatever Peterís privileged position was in the early Christian community, it certainly had little in common with the prerogatives claimed by later bishops of Rome. To say that the later papal office was simply a ěfleshing out, a logical development, of the role of the Apostle Peter in the primitive Church seemed more and more untenable to me.



And what about the Catholic teachings that precipitated the Reformation ó the doctrines concerning indulgences and purgatory? What of the Roman dogmatic pronouncements on the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, and the Assumption of Mary, all rejected by Protestants?

On the one hand, the Protestant critique raised vexing questions that pointed to flaws in the Catholic viewpoint. On the other hand, the Protestant viewpoint did not seem to present a satisfactory alternative. I was stymied.



It was only gradually that I came to realize that my dilemma was the result of seeing these questions solely in terms of the dispute between Catholicism and Protestantism. In the course of my reading, however, I saw that another perspective ó the most ancient of all ó was relevant to my search: the perspective of the Orthodox Church.

continued............................above link..................

.........................The schism caused many ""new"rules by the west
Celibacy....
The sign of the cross.......orthodox use three fingers to do the cross,from the forehead to the stomach and from right to left...............west go left to right and use four fingers or the whole hand....???(4th or 5th?)
babtism in the west is sprinkling of water, in the orthodox is is full emersion in the water 3 times......
the shaving of beards in the priest hood
the Chrismation seperate from Babtism........
the placing of statues in the church.........
the fasting of Apostles on wednesdays and fridays,which the Orthodox still do(for remberance of Jesus Christ on earth).......Roman Catholics have abolished and modernized these things..........
the 40 days of lent(no meat or dairy products is used in the orthodox)...........signifying the 40 days of Jesus Christ prior to His Crusifiction......................
And all this happened after the 1054 Great Schism of the East and West................
this is well before the 1800s....................


[Edited on 18-3-2003 by helen]

[Edited on 18-3-2003 by helen]

[Edited on 18-3-2003 by helen]



posted on Mar, 19 2003 @ 03:47 AM
link   
The church was founded on the head of the church the pope. Are you forgetting that all
the orthodox church is is the cathoic church who denies its head? and key doctrines divinely revealed by the holy spirit?


The orthodox used to (hold) the pope as head for 900 strait years until they rebelled against rome and peters successors, meaning at one point they
held the pope as head. so ths cannot stop (succession) because of a shcism caused by the east. if thats so than jesus promise is false.



Christ also told (peter) to (feed) my sheep feed my lambs.


Let me give you some examples.


1. In the (fifth) century when theodoret, bishop of cyrus in the (east), was deposed, he appealed
to (pope) leo and the pope ordered him reinstated. the pope was recognized everywhere as head of the church
not only the west but the east as well up until the 9nth century shcism.


2. St ambrose qouted this qoute.

"" Where peter is there is the church ""


You got to remember what the orthodox are, shicsms (from) the church of rome the true catholic faith meaning they held
a pope as head for 900 strait years until they (rebelled against) christ vicar.


3. At the council of chalcedon in year 451, thepopes letter was read to the assemblage of bishops. and they
ried with one voice: (Peter has spoken) by (leo) let him be anathema who believes otherwise.


Every nation convertedfrom paganism has recieved the faith from missionaries specially sent by the pope, or by bishops
acknowledging the pope as their head.


This is history, the church was founded by christ,, well before and after 1054 the church always held the head of th church the pope, the vicar of
christ. So questioning scripture is backed up by history of the curch.if christ never created a visible leader than from 33 to 1054 why did 100s of popes
succeed peter as the pope while east and west recognized this.


because christ did found a visible leader, and this cannot stop as chrst promised because of a shcism.



"" The shaving of beards ""

This does not matter to christ. i have no clue what this has t do with anything? if your telling me ineed
a beard to be a bishop than thats insane?



"" They changed baptism ""

Not so, with infants and all fathful they pour the water on their foreheads while qouting the father son and holy spirit. Baptism is valid by Immersion, infusion, and aspersion as long as it uses real
and natural water and the words of the trinity.



"" they have completely removed these things. ""


We as catholics have to fast before every comunion, wensdays, thursdays, and fridays after the first sunday
of lent, pentecost, all the days of lent, except sundays, the assumption, all saints, christmas we are
obliged to fast.

The days of abstinence are.

(all) fridays, wensdays and fridays of lent, the ember days of the church ect..



we have a strict teaching on these in our church as we always of had.


peace.




[Edited on 19-3-2003 by Truth]



posted on Mar, 19 2003 @ 09:25 AM
link   
have you read any of the links

The west (Rome) made desicions on its own ,and withou

www.orthodoxinfo.com...

You spoke of the ''vatican 11'' in your other threads as ''deceitful'' ???

below another web site...

www.encyclopedia.com...



Section: Schism between East and West
Related: Christian

In the 7th and 8th cent. the Eastern Church lost to Islam all Asia except Asia Minor. Alienation from the West was exacerbated by the bitter struggle over iconoclasm ; ecclesiastical animosity between Rome and Constantinople came to a head in the schism of the 9th cent. This schism centered on the addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed (see creed ) in the West and on the western church's use of unleavened bread in the celebration of the mass and insistence on clerical celibacy. The division between East and West grew wider and attained a sort of legal permanence in 1054 (see Leo IX, Saint ). Eastern and Western Christendom were already in the 9th cent. two different cultures; their one common tie was the Christian doctrineeven worship and practices were very different. From this time it is customary to distinguish Christian history in its Eastern and Western streams as that of the Orthodox Eastern Church and Roman Catholic Church .


Sections in this article:
Introduction
Central Beliefs
Divisions within the Religion
Early Christianity
Controversy and Growth
Schism between East and West
Bibliography

another link.........

www.gospelcom.net...

Did Leo I send the wrong man as legate?
The division of the Roman Empire into halves was eventually echoed in the church. The break came when Michael Cerularius was Patriarch of Constantinople and St. Leo pope in Rome. In 1053, Cerularius circulated a treatise criticizing the practices of the Western church in strong terms. Catholics did not allow their clergy to marry. This was contrary to scripture and tradition said Cerularius. Catholics used unleavened bread in their Eucharist, he charged. But the most serious concern was that the Latin church had added the word "filoque" to the Nicene creed, saying the Holy Spirit proceeded from both Father and Son.

It would seem that this was more political to Leo than religious, as it was pressed upon him by the Franks. Cerularius excommunicated all bishops of Constantinople who used the Western ritual and closed down their churches. This incensed Leo. He demanded that Cerularius submit to the pope. Any church which refused to recognize the pontiff as supreme was an assembly of heretics, he said--a synagogue of Satan. The Eastern patriarch wasn't about to accept this characterization. The five patriarchs, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome were equals. The bishop of Rome, as patriarch of the West, was given the courtesy title of "first among equals" and in a tie vote he could make the final determination according to tradition up to that point. His growing claims to authority were deemed unacceptable to his fellow patriarchs, who believed (and who still believe) that Christ alone is the head of the church.

Leo sent legates, headed by an unyielding man, Cardinal Humbert, to discuss the issues. Before they could complete their mission, Leo died. Humbert was so rude to Cerularius that Cerularius refused to speak with him. Aggravated by this treatment, the legates march
into St. Sophia on this day July 6, 1054, and placed a bull on the altar, excommunicating Cerularius. After this act, Humbert made a grand exit, shaking the dust off his feet and calling on God to judge.

Cerularius convoked a council and once more blasted Western practices. Humbert was anathematized. The Orthodox condemned all who had drawn up the bull. There was no chance of reconciliation between the factions. The once-united Church was now divided into two: Eastern/Orthodox and Roman Catholic. In many areas, Orthodox churches submitted to Rome while maintaining many of their rites and traditions. These became the Byzantine rite or Uniate churches, which still exist in many countries as distant in time and place as the United States.

The rift was inevitable. Traditions and doctrine had been diverging for hundreds of years. East and West would be even farther apart after the cruelties of the crusaders. Many of the crusaders' violent acts were against fellow-believers of the East whom, in simple ignorance they did not recognize as Christians. The unity of love which Christ had said should mark his followers was broken.



posted on Mar, 19 2003 @ 06:12 PM
link   
"" why did i say v2 was in heresy ""

because it has created.

1. a new mass

2. a new contradictory code of canon law

3. a different religion other than true catholicism which was taught and held
since the church began.


It is an imposter council posing as catholicism which sripture and saints talk about during
the end days.

the whore of babylon v2 church which is the church of satan.


many saints before 1054 recoginized the pope as head, al bishops as well did. this succession does not stop
because of heresy from the east.

1. the holy ghost does procceed from te father and son as scripture backs up over and over
and i could give some examples of this.


2. The eastern church such as the byzantines, ukrains, all accept the pope as valid head as well as
the holy spirit proceeding from the father and the son an the immaculate conception of mary.



The orhtodox deny the Pope who christ (only) gave to peter the keys to the kingdom, he told (peter) to feed his sheep feed his lambs, from
33 to 1054 we have had some 100s of successors of peter, furthermore christ promised this succession to the end
of the consumation of the world.

he is the vicar of christ which every saint and bishop before 1054 held.


It is a doctrine i will never deny because i know it is true and so as all the faithful knew
was true before and after 1054.


Now why do i not hold V2s popes as legit?

1. because they have publicly denied christ and blasphemed him in public literally 100s of times.


2. they come from an apostatecouncil which scripture and saints predict.



They are not catholic, while the orthodox reject divinely revealed doctrines. the head of the church which cannot be denied by (history), even when the popes
they reject have not commited blasphemey agains christ an are (truly) (canonically) elected) (successors) of (peter) therefore
they are the rpresentitive of christ the vicar of crist which god promised until the (very) end.


and we are living in the end of all ends where satan himself has placed his dwelling in rome with thesecond
vatican council and all its popes.


This is the apostasy predicted in scripture and many saints predicted the same thing.


peace.



posted on Mar, 19 2003 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Wow.

First the guy on this site calls our eucharist a wafer? that shows exactly the lack
of grace im talking about.

tell the people who had blood on heir toungues its a wafer, tell the priest who doubted
the body and blood who witnessed flesh and blood in the chalice its just a wafer.

truly it never amazes me what i hear, the orthodox believe its just a symbol.


Christ didnot say that.

"" This (is) my body, this (is) my blood, do this in rememberence of me.


Not this is the symbol for my body and blood.


I really think you need to read this link helen, oher than that ill pray that you might believe its actually his
real flesh and blood after consecration.


please read this whole link.


www.therealpresence.org...


God bless, peace.

[Edited on 20-3-2003 by Truth]



posted on Mar, 19 2003 @ 08:45 PM
link   
The Orthodox church has held onto the traditional early beleifs of the Apostles and has always been the same .....no change,no modern way of teaching...........(old calanderists are not with the ecumenical movement , world council of churches;this is another story in itself)

Body and blood, is called the 'Holy Mystery'...Sacred Mystery....

All i did was point out the differences in Roman Catholic and Orthodoxy............

The differences may seem like not much, but one small change, arrises more change.......in following with the footsteps of human reasoning (worldly thinking)and not what was from the begginning...........Jesus said, He came not to change the old, but to fulfill it.............

""quote below from ***
He three times bids Peter,''Feed my sheep""(John21:15-23) In this passage of Mathew Peter is given the ""Keys of the kingdom of heaven.This authority is later given to the other Apostles as well(John 20:20-23)
The rock upon which the Church would be built was the faith, the confession of Peter that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of the Living God.Christ Himself,who is the truth, is the One upon whom the church was built.
In this passage the Spirit of God reveals the truth to Peter, who is in turn given by Christ the authority to establish and build a community,the church,to maintain and live in truth.
As Saint Paul says,''the church of the living God(is) the pillar and ground of the truth''(Timothy 3:15)
Nor is it a historical.Peter,the first beleiver, and the Apostles with him,founded a living community, Thus both Peter's confession and Peter himself as the first confessor are the rocks upon which the Church is built....***

***Apostolic Succession By Gregory Rogers............. Ben Lomand,California.....Second edition 1994........



posted on Mar, 19 2003 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I think the main disagreements that have ever arisen between Truth & myself have all been based around my study of scripture & how it doesn't coincide with his faith in the "traditional teachings" as he's learned them.

History has already proven that scripture & tradition are *not* the same thing...And that's what I've been pointing out all of this time.



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Midnight - I have not followed your disagreements in the past with truth however it is important to point out that tradition was the founding presence in the early Church. "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). This is an important verse. Christ did not pick a book to be his Apostles, he picked Men. Men who would lead lifes which imitated Christ and taught by
both writing and more importantly word of mouth and actions. The Catholic Church is totaly founded in Scripture more than any of the other 40,000 plus protestant denominations and can be found if one is just willing to take time to learn like myself.
Truth, if you want to take an offline discussion on the post Vatican II Church I would love to trade e-mails with you. I would like to share dialog with you on this.

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).


JMJ
Paul


[Edited on 21-3-2003 by meter3]



posted on Mar, 21 2003 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Yes, the original scriptures were written by people based upon their own history & some of the traditions they followed...However, once the scriptures were written, it took centuries for *new* "traditions" to become canonized as "teachings". Many of the newer traditions (As they appeared after the OT) were based upon pagan religions that the early Christians encountered & converted. These "new traditions" became part of the "teachings", but very few of them had any real impact on the written scriptures, except perhaps as mistaken interpretations & faulty translations. Remember that the Old Testament are the original scripture & everything after that was how "traditions" have changed the basic tenants of the religion itself.

The subject of Hell as a place of "eternal punishment" is a good example. In other threads, I've posted quite a few links that discuss the concept of Hell & how it was *never* actually a part of scripture, but had been incorporated into "traditional teachings" that were based upon lies & politics.

One good link that also links itself to many other scholarly sources is what-the-hell-is-hell.com...
...The homepage has something of a humorous audio clip that you might want to hear, so turn up your speaker volume sufficiently to hear it.
The main thing to do there is to navigate around the site to get a *lot* of information that comes from Bible scholars...Please keep notice that this site has no intention of "bashing" any particular religion, but merely provides a pretty comprehensive source of the truth of the history of the scriptures themselves & the people who've had influence with them.


[Edited on 21-3-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I'm just interested

"1. because they have publicly denied christ and blasphemed him in public literally 100s of times. "

Can you get a hold of a statement of when the pope has publically blasphmed?

Where does jp2 fit in to being the antichrist, if the 7 heads of the beast signify the resurgence of the roman empire, how does jp2 fit into the account of the apostle john?




[edit on 19-10-2004 by TheWaffleDiet]



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 07:42 AM
link   
It seems to be these days the catholic church's reputation has been ruined thanks to the literally hundreds of child abuse allegations both proven and unproven against catholic preists and ministers. Im a confirmed catholic myself, and its hard for me 2 swallow but I dont think the curch has been altruistic or for the good of the people for a long time.

Im sure I read an article a while back, wherin it stated if the catholic church/Vatican cannot raise more funs in their churches, then because of the legal expense of court cases pertaining to child abuse and the payment of funds for compensation, the church is going broke fast.

Someone had mentioned ealier in this thread the recent finds of the gospels contained within the dead sea scrolls. It is my belief that the kingdom of god is within us and around us all the time, I dont need to go to a church or given place to communicate or be close to god, he is all around us and always with us. Im not putting down the average church goer......but I cant feel closer to god by watching a strange man who rejects the love of women in their life, wandering around the church reciting words that are'nt even his in the first place......there is to much pomp and ceremony.
Just my 10cents worth hehehehe




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join