Posted on 10/20/2015 12:34:51 AM PDT by OrthodoxIndianCatholic
Introduction :
It is my objective and endeavour to bring Ex-Catholics back to the Catholic Church in 2015 as well as in 2016. I intend to achieve this through "Catholic Classics".
What I mean is this -- I want Catholics who have left the Catholic Church to read awesome and amazing "Catholic Books" posted on my Catholic Blog.
Many Catholics in India specially in "Metro Cities" have left the Catholic Church and have joined "Non - Denominational Churches".
Most of them are unaware of "Catholic Classics" which encompass and explain the beautiful Catholic Faith.
In Cities like Mumbai in Maharashtra, Panjim and Margao in Goa, Bangalore in Karnataka, and Chennai in Tamil Nadu Catholics have left the Church for a variety of reasons; mostly for monetary reasons but some have also left because of animosity with Priests, or Nuns, or Bishops.
Let me tell you my personal story with regard to "Catholic Classics" and how they changed my life forever.
In Mid- 2012, 3 years back, I was quite angry with Catholic Priests because of negative experiences I had with them while growing up in Mumbai.
In the latter half of 2012, while surfing the "Net" for Catholic Websites I came across a beautiful, outstanding, and extra-ordinary Catholic Website called "E-Catholic 2000"-- "Catholics for the Third Millenium".
Once, I entered this amazing website I happened to stumble across four Catholic Classics--
1) Calvary and the Mass.
2) True Devotion to Mary.
3) Secret of the Rosary.
4) Secret of Mary.
After reading these 4 Catholic Classics over a number of months - I lost all animosity I may have had against Catholic Priests in Mumbai or anywhere else.
I promise you that when you read these 4 books, you will be changed forever and will fall in love with the Catholic - Christian Faith instantly as I did.
These are 4 Books, that positively changes lives and souls.
Read them and you will never be sorry that you visited my "Catholic Blog" accidentally or purposely.
These "Catholic Classics" proudly promote Jesus Christ as the "Centre of our Faith".
The Catholic Church is more than 2000 years old. Let us never forget that.
These Catholic Classics present to us the vibrant Catholic Faith as it has been through the centuries.
Conclusion :
No one will ever regret reading "Catholic Books" @ my blog. These Catholic Books help to build one up in the faith and help to strengthen one about the truths of the Catholic Faith.
I strongly recommend 4 Catholic Classics to Catholics who have left the Church and who might visit my Catholic Blog in the future.
1) Calvary and the Mass
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/calvary/mass.shtml
2) True Devotion to Mary
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/true/devotion.shtml
3) Secret of the Rosary
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/rosary/rosary.shtml
4) Secret of Mary
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/secret/secret.shtml
Happy and Holy Reading.
(I don't think there's a way to see someone else's stats)
Then how did you see mine?
It begins with the grace of God. For Christians,
Well, can you ? Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
Galatians, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses nineteen to twenty one,
Hebrews, Catholic chapter twelve, Protestant verses twelve to seventeen ,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
Exactly: I did not say a church at Rome did not exist, but in context , that the church of Rome to which the poster was referring to did not exist in Scripture. Why is it that you cannot or refuse to comprehend that?
I understand the context of bigotry,
And now, having been shown your were wrong, you must resort to the ad hominem assertion of bigotry, whole it is you who evidence that you are habitually obstinately unreasonably committed to your fallacious charge that i was referring to a church in Scripture as nonexistent, when the context makes it clear it was the RCC?
Raging continually against
"Raging continually? " Ever read your own numerous one-sided rants against Luther and the Jews, ignoring Rome's own history concerning the same? Bigotry anyone?
The church is the people, in, of, or at a real visible addressable location. ...There was a church in Rome at the time of the New Testament,and it was already honorable and famous among all the catholic churches.
None of which makes my reference to the church of Rome, "the Church that [it is claimed] brought you the Bible and even the FIRST English translation," into being the church at Rome in Scripture. Which did not even know English, and to which Paul wrote nothing of popes, priests, purgatory, prayers to saints in Heaven, etc.
And of which one tradition says was "written to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea." (Romans 16:27)
You could have attempted to argue that the the "the Church that [it is claimed] brought you the Bible and even the FIRST English translation" to which i referred, the church at Rome were one and the same, but that was not your contention, but instead you ignored the context of my use of "church of Rome," and that what that most always means here, and engaged in an ill-advised attempt to correct me as if (incredibly) i was ignorant of the fact that there was a book written to the church in the city of Rome!
Why do you refuse to admit you were wrong?
Fitting.
It’s a simple yes or no question.
“Dude, I ask you to explain the roman catholic catechism in relationship to who the church is built upon....Peter or Christ.”
And I told you how this would work. Compare the passages I listed by paragraph number and then figure out what the logical question is based on those passages. The very fact that you just demonstrated that you have not read or do not understand CCC 424 by misstating what is discussed does not bode well.
Here we see you make more errors:
“I presume, maybe an error on my part, that you’ve been properly catechized or whatever catholics go through to learn the CCC.”
I have been properly catechized. And you give every indication of having not been. You’re actually claiming that because I know the catechism and you apparently don’t (you admitted you need someone to explain CCC 424 to you, for instance) that I must be the one who is improperly catechized. No. That’s not even remotely logical. Did that even occur to you? Probably not.
“And what do you come back with....a serious attitude problem.”
No. Do some work. Compare the passages I listed. Ask the logical question. This isn’t hard.
“I see that same attitude in a lot of your replies.”
Since, generally speaking, Protestant anti-Catholics just keep attacking what they don’t know while claiming they know it better than Catholics I see no reason to be as blunt as I am.
“Well, vlad, as always, it’s been a pleasure dealing with you again.”
Glad you enjoyed it. It’s always going to be this way.
“It’s one of two things....either you don’t understand the CCC in question or you don’t want to explain it for obvious reasons.”
Neither. I understand it perfectly. I see no reason to explain it to you when I see no indication of someone actually wanting to understand it. The forum rules do not allow me to imply motives on the part of an individual, but they don’t prevent me from simply not complying with an unwarranted demand. Think about it: If someone really wanted to understand it, really wanted to know what it said and meant, and all they had to do was compare three small paragraphs and come to a logical question about it, is that asking too much? Nope. Pretty easy and pretty simple.
“However, if I were a catholic, and thankfully I am not, I would address the question regardless of if I thought the person was serious or not. It would be an opportunity to explain my faith.”
No, I don’t think you would, but the board rules prevent me from explaining why that is so.
“As you are unwilling or unable to do so I guess we have nothing else to say on this one. Have a good one.”
All you had to do was compare three short paragraphs and ask one question. You’re the one who is “unwilling or unable to do so”.
Got it.
You just introduced antisemitism into the discussion and took the side of the notorious and unrepentant antisemite Martin Luther, who hated the Jewish people and wrote a seven point plan that the Nazis adopted in the Holocaust, because you equated bigotry with an unyielding rejection of Martin Luther. What would cause you to take Luther's side against the Jews ?
You wrote: "Wrong, as the church of Rome simply did not exist as a visible church in the NT," which is demonstrably false as evidenced in the scriptures. A poor choice of words by you is not my error.
Now there you go again. Taking daniel1212 out of context.
Post the whole statement or use the ellipsis to indicate you've cut out part of the statement. If not you're engaging in intentional deception.
Elsie, thanks for proving once again that many Protestant anti-Catholics fundamentally don’t understand why bearing false witness is wrong.
“By this long verbose post I take it you’re either incapable or unwilling to explain to all of us who are not catholic what CCC 424 means. Got it.”
By that short post I take it you’re either incapable or unwilling to explain to anyone anywhere why you won’t compare three short CCC paragraphs and ask one logical question.
Got it.
But hey, thanks for playing.
“It’s your catechism.....”
False. It’s the Church’s catechism.
“you claim to be knowledgeable about it.”
I am. I also claim that you can compare three paragraphs and and ask the logical question based on that comparison. So why aren’t you doing it?
“It’s up to you to explain it.”
Nope. It’s up to you - if you really are as interested in knowing about the CCC on this point - to compare three paragraphs and and ask the logical question based on that comparison. So why aren’t you doing it?
“But hey, thanks for playing.”
But hey, thanks for proving my point: there’s no reason to think you’re actually interested in learning the CCC on this or any other point. You’ll just keep attacking it no matter what, right?
I guess you skipped over my droppings in post 310. To reiterate, the fact that the phrase “mother of God” is nowhere to be found in Scripture is not a problem for Catholics because our beliefs are based on both Scripture and Holy Tradition.
Having been exposed as one who ignored context and a made a literally in-credible assertion that has me saying a church of the Bible did not exist, vs the RCC which gave us the English Bible, you further degenerate into irrationalism, equating support of antisemitism due to my invoking of your "one-sided rants against Luther and the Jews, ignoring Rome's own history concerning the same"!
Talk about blind rage. If you cannot, or will not see that the censor here was not about opposing Luther's latter attitude toward the Jews, but your "one-sided rants against Luther and the Jews, ignoring Rome's own history concerning the same ," then it simply makes the term "bigot" even more fitting!
What is wrong with you?!!! I showed you that what i was responding to was the assertion of "the Church that brought you the Bible and even the FIRST English translation"! And yet you think i meant the church of the Book of Romans did not exist!
Ignoring context, let alone the typical use of "church of Rome" by us (thus which other RCs have taken offense at), is not my error. Report that to your head inquisitor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.