Catholic Church & Jesus Christ-Why No One Should Be A Catholic

Apostolic Messianic Fellowship ^ | August 30, 2005 | Why No One Should Be A Catholic

[Salvation]

LOL! Good play on words.

[Mad Dawg]

The random Scripture generator strikes!

You DO know that we think the Pope is a sinner, don't you? The difference is that we trust in God's promises and celebrate the Love which prompted Him to make them. And you all look on and have no clue what we are doing.

When you say something that I recognize as something I believe, then I'll answer it. But as long as you continue to say things about us which we don't believe and revel in your lack of knowledge ..., well it's the Lord's day and I am feeding my animals and taking a nap. It's been fun, but too frivolous.

[betsyross1776]

This is not the time in History to condem Catholics. There are many bad protestants as well as fallen Catholics. Church, no matter what chruch, is not a haven for saints ,it is a hospital for sinners. Jesus OUR LORD said tend to your own house first. Take for instance John Edwards and his past evil posts on line . He never said he was sorry.If a person finds peace as I do in the Catholic chruch then I am sure Jesus < MY LORD AND SAVIOR> would not mind if I spoke to him there. He loves us all, as we must do . The people who condem the Catholic church have no problem not offending radical Islam though. We must all stick together , all churches and fight this ill will coming and it is in the world now. Do not destroy GOD's word church by church , stay together as Satin is here and working very hard to in the end destroy us all!

[Jaded]

Too funny. I must memorize that.

[uglybiker]

I know this is the Religion forum, but I gotta say it.

Here we have yet another screed that claims that a Catholic can't be Christian.

Elsewhere I can find similar screeds that claim that if one is not a Catholic, then they can't be a Christian.

Others are told they can't be Christian because they study the Book of Mormon.

I'm constantly being told I can't be Christian because I'm a member of a certain fraternity. Don't even get me started on the CR-EVO threads.

People, irregardless of how much fun it may be at the time, you will not build yourselves up by attemting to tear down others.

This incessant bickering among Christ's followers does nothing but serve the darkness.

Grow up. Not everyone is as pious, or as holy, or as enlightened, or as bathed in ethereal light as you are. Deal with it.

Just remember that in the dard days ahead, the person that God decides to work through just might be the one standing next to you who just happens to be one of those eeeeeeevil, un-Christian (..insert name of group here..)s.

And poeple wonder why I choose to study my Bible at home...... < END RANT>

[ex-snook]

Of interest is that Jesus believed in teaching through people, flawed and otherwise. Jesus did not believe in writing. His only time writing was in sand and that is most fleeting.

John concluded with "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that could be written."

The Bible contains sufficient. But the Holy Spirit is unfolding those 'other things', first to Peter, the Apostles and Paul and now to the Pope and the Catholic Church.

If Jesus wanted to teach from a book, He would have written it.

[Chi-townChief]

You know what's funny - When you compare the Lutheran and Roman Catholic services, there's not all that much difference other than that we Cross ourselves a lot. By ancestry, I'm half-Lutheran and half-Catholic (I know there's really no such thing) although my dad is pretty agnostic and my mother was very devout. My cousin is married to a Lutheran minister so I've been to a few weddings and funerals.

I fell by the wayside from about '68 to '84 but slowly came back to the Church although I can't say I'm really much better than the "bad Catholic" from Walker Percy's "Love in the Ruins."

[Salvation]

Thanks, I've been looking for that. The one I had was in German! LOL!

[Gumlegs]

Author nails it for me right at the top:

Why No One Should Be A Catholic

The first thing a Catholic learns when they open their Bible is they cannot buy their way out of hell fire.

If a religion won't allow me to buy my way out of hell fire, I'm just not interested.

[Kolokotronis]

"It is the sad fact of our schism, but the Apostolic Church was Rome and the East together and we have lost that. The united Orthodox Catholic Church."

Indeed it is a sad fact, a mistake we share and have all paid for. I particularly enjoy reading some of the writings of the Desert Fathers from, say, the 7th century. Throughout the Middle East in those days there were various heretical sects, the largest and best organized of which were called the Severians, named after a deposed Patriarch of Antioch called Severus. They were, at base, Monophysites on steroids. Anyway, when the monks encounter devotees of that sect, they always pray that the person will leave "the heresy of Severus and his false eucharist" and return to the "catholic church", no caps or simply "the church", again no caps. We read the same usage in the original Greek of the Nicene Creed and in the writings of +Ignatius of Antioch.

It is a terrible distortion of history we see when Protestants rail against the "Roman Catholic Church" in the same breath as Constantine, the Council of Nicea etc. Their blind hatred of the Church of Rome gets transfered to the whole Church and so they immediately dismiss the entire patristic era and beyond that 1200 years of Church history. They are less for it.

[Salvation]

*8This incessant bickering among Christ's followers does nothing but serve the darkness.**

You are so right here. Thanks.

[Uncle Chip]

The "Roman Catholic Church", at least the Church caled that, didn't exist until after the Great Schism. Before that it was simply the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, or so the Fathers called it.

And the Fathers who called it that were right but also a little idealistic. There were several clues early on that the small "c" was destined to become the big "C" with "Roman" in front it. One was when the Bishop of Rome circa 380 AD began to refer to himself as the "Pontiff" and the other was Augustine's anointing of Rome as the City of God. The handwriting was on the wall ---

[Diego1618]

When was the NT (not the Old Testament) compiled and agreed upon by the early Church? We are asking for a date.

How about the first century for the New Testament.....and prior to that...... 400/500 B.C. for the old.

The Old Testament canon was closed with Ezra and Nehemiah upon the return from Babylonian captivity by the Tribes of Judah, Benjamin and a portion of Levi. This, of course, would not include the spurious Deuterocanonicles.

Peter canonizes all of Paul's writings [2 Peter 3:15-16] around 60 A.D. and we are led to believe that Paul has acquired most of the early Churches scriptures by a few years later (mid sixties) as he awaits his fate in a Roman prison [2 Timothy 4:13]. This probably does not include the writings of John, but shortly after the death of Paul, Timothy and Mark would have seen to it that the "Parchments and the Scrolls" would have found their way to the last living Apostle. From there on it was the responsibility of the Greeks to preserve the canon.

Because of this statement in scripture, [Romans 3:1-2] What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God..... we must always look to the Jews for the canon.

As has been pointed out by Iscool, The Lord himself, told us to look to The Law, The Prophets and The Psalms [Luke 24:44-45] and this has been confirmed by the Jewish historian, Josephus....the actual number of books considered scripture by the Hebrews.

[Isaiah 8:16] tells us: Bind up the testimony and seal up the law among my disciples.

Mark, upon bringing all of Paul's scrolls to him would have included Peter's writings also since he, Mark, was the actual scribe. The Book of Matthew, written first and in the Hebrew, would have already been among Paul's collection. Of course, Paul's companion, Luke [2 Timothy 4:11}, was the author of Acts and the Gospel that bears his name and these writings would have also been with Paul and ushered into the safe hands of Mark and Timothy for delivery to John.

So....by the end of the first century the Greeks would have been in possession of all the sacred writings and unlike the Church of God, they were free to remain in their homeland, unpersecuted and able to treasure, preserve and copy the Holy Scriptures.

So...to answer your question....when was the New Testament canonized (compiled and agreed upon), the 27 books were being copied and distributed to the churches in Greece and the Holy land by the end of the first century. Paul, Peter and John would have been the final canonizers and thus put the New writings on an equal footing with that of the old. John, we know, gives a final warning in his Revelation that everything is now complete and not to add or take anything away [Revelation 22:18-19].

The Early Church Fathers quoted these books so much that all of the New Testament, except for eleven chapters, can be reconstructed from their quotations.

[Uncle Chip]

Read the post again and think about it ----

[Chi-townChief]

LOL - I'm not quite sure what this so-called pastor meant by that one.

[Jaded]

This is too stupid for word. This guy probably got ordained on the internet, 9.95 plus s/h.

[Mad Dawg]

If a religion won't allow me to buy my way out of hell fire, I'm just not interested.Just DARN! It's so, like, not fair!

[NYer]

ROFL!!!

If this is what you believe, then we Catholics truly have our work cut out for us :-)

Just returned home from Mass .... where .... oh, wait, what does this guy say?

What is the Mass? It is an artificial sacrifice. It is a mock sacrifice. It is the priest recrucifying Jesus in the emblems of the Eucharist and the Cup. Where in the Bible are we to think that observing the Lord's Communion or Passover memorial we are recrucifying Jesus on the Cross? It is not there! When a Catholic looks in the Bible for a priest to hold in his hands the Eucharist wafer and turn it into the flesh of Jesus, he/she will not find it. When they look in the Bible for a place where a priest blesses the cup and turns it into the blood of Jesus he/she cannot find it. This is shocking!

He's right! You won't find the Mass in the Bible because the Bible is in the Mass! I guess the author hasn't figured this out yet. Allow me to quote another Protestant - Dr. Scott Hahn.

"There I stood, a man incognito, a Protestant minister in plainclothes, slipping into the back of a Catholic chapel in Milwaukee to witness my first Mass. Curiosity had driven me there, and I still didn't feel sure that it was healthy curiosity. Studying the writings of the earliest Christians, I'd found countless references to "the liturgy," "the Eucharist," "the sacrifice." For those first Christians, the Bible - the book I loved above all - was incomprehensible apart from the event that today's Catholics called "the Mass."

"I wanted to understand the early Christians; yet I'd had no experience of liturgy. So I persuaded myself to go and see, as a sort of academic exercise, but vowing all along that I would neither kneel nor take part in idolatry."

I took my seat in the shadows, in a pew at the very back of that basement chapel. Before me were a goodly number of worshipers, men and women of all ages. Their genuflections impressed me, as did their apparent concentration in prayer. Then a bell rang, and they all stood as the priest emerged from a door beside the altar.

Unsure of myself, I remained seated. For years, as an evangelical Calvinist, I'd been trained to believe that the Mass was the ultimate sacrilege a human could commit. The Mass, I had been taught, was a ritual that purported to "resacrifice Jesus Christ." So I would remain an observer. I would stay seated, with my Bible open beside me.

As the Mass moved on, however, something hit me. My Bible wasn't just beside me. It was before me - in the words of the Mass! One line was from Isaiah, another from Psalms, another from Paul. The experience was overwhelming. I wanted to stop everything and shout, "Hey, can I explain what's happening from Scripture? This is great!" Still, I maintained my observer status. I remained on the sidelines until I heard the priest pronounce the words of consecration: "This is My body . . . This is the cup of My blood."

Then I felt all my doubt drain away. As I saw the priest raise that white host, I felt a prayer surge from my heart in a whisper: "My Lord and my God. That's really you!"

I was what you might call a basket case from that point. I couldn't imagine a greater excitement than what those words had worked upon me. Yet the experience was intensified just a moment later, when I heard the congregation recite: "Lamb of God . . . Lamb of God . . . Lamb of God," and the priest respond, "This is the Lamb of God . . ." as he raised the host. In less than a minute, the phrase "Lamb of God" had rung out four times. From long years of studying the Bible, I immediately knew where I was. I was in the Book of Revelation, where Jesus is called the Lamb no less than twenty-eight times in twenty-two chapters. I was at the marriage feast that John describes at the end of that very last book of the Bible. I was before the throne of heaven, where Jesus is hailed forever as the Lamb. I wasn't ready for this, though - I was at Mass!

Thank you for posting this thread! It's a gem.

[betsyross1776]

JUST REMEMBER ALL JESUS IS ALIVE! SOMETIMES WE MAY FIGHT ON HOW TO BELIEVE IN HIM< BUT HE LOVES YOU , ME, ALL OF US!GOD IS WITH US ALL!

[NYer]

ROFL!!!

If this is what you believe, then we Catholics truly have our work cut out for us :-)

Just returned home from Mass .... where .... oh, wait, what does this guy say?

What is the Mass? It is an artificial sacrifice. It is a mock sacrifice. It is the priest recrucifying Jesus in the emblems of the Eucharist and the Cup. Where in the Bible are we to think that observing the Lord's Communion or Passover memorial we are recrucifying Jesus on the Cross? It is not there! When a Catholic looks in the Bible for a priest to hold in his hands the Eucharist wafer and turn it into the flesh of Jesus, he/she will not find it. When they look in the Bible for a place where a priest blesses the cup and turns it into the blood of Jesus he/she cannot find it. This is shocking!

He's right! You won't find the Mass in the Bible because the Bible is in the Mass! I guess the author hasn't figured this out yet. Allow me to quote another Protestant - Dr. Scott Hahn.

"There I stood, a man incognito, a Protestant minister in plainclothes, slipping into the back of a Catholic chapel in Milwaukee to witness my first Mass. Curiosity had driven me there, and I still didn't feel sure that it was healthy curiosity. Studying the writings of the earliest Christians, I'd found countless references to "the liturgy," "the Eucharist," "the sacrifice." For those first Christians, the Bible - the book I loved above all - was incomprehensible apart from the event that today's Catholics called "the Mass."

"I wanted to understand the early Christians; yet I'd had no experience of liturgy. So I persuaded myself to go and see, as a sort of academic exercise, but vowing all along that I would neither kneel nor take part in idolatry."

I took my seat in the shadows, in a pew at the very back of that basement chapel. Before me were a goodly number of worshipers, men and women of all ages. Their genuflections impressed me, as did their apparent concentration in prayer. Then a bell rang, and they all stood as the priest emerged from a door beside the altar.

Unsure of myself, I remained seated. For years, as an evangelical Calvinist, I'd been trained to believe that the Mass was the ultimate sacrilege a human could commit. The Mass, I had been taught, was a ritual that purported to "resacrifice Jesus Christ." So I would remain an observer. I would stay seated, with my Bible open beside me.

As the Mass moved on, however, something hit me. My Bible wasn't just beside me. It was before me - in the words of the Mass! One line was from Isaiah, another from Psalms, another from Paul. The experience was overwhelming. I wanted to stop everything and shout, "Hey, can I explain what's happening from Scripture? This is great!" Still, I maintained my observer status. I remained on the sidelines until I heard the priest pronounce the words of consecration: "This is My body . . . This is the cup of My blood."

Then I felt all my doubt drain away. As I saw the priest raise that white host, I felt a prayer surge from my heart in a whisper: "My Lord and my God. That's really you!"

I was what you might call a basket case from that point. I couldn't imagine a greater excitement than what those words had worked upon me. Yet the experience was intensified just a moment later, when I heard the congregation recite: "Lamb of God . . . Lamb of God . . . Lamb of God," and the priest respond, "This is the Lamb of God . . ." as he raised the host. In less than a minute, the phrase "Lamb of God" had rung out four times. From long years of studying the Bible, I immediately knew where I was. I was in the Book of Revelation, where Jesus is called the Lamb no less than twenty-eight times in twenty-two chapters. I was at the marriage feast that John describes at the end of that very last book of the Bible. I was before the throne of heaven, where Jesus is hailed forever as the Lamb. I wasn't ready for this, though - I was at Mass!

Thank you for posting this thread! It's a gem.