|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jun 20, 2005 2:58:22 GMT -5
The Catholic church after Vatican II can go to hell...
|
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jun 20, 2005 3:01:01 GMT -5
To me the Catholic Church isn't the church spoken of in the Bible, its based more on a bunch of men who agreed together on lies.
|
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on Jun 20, 2005 8:00:11 GMT -5
The more I read the Bible and observe the practices of Catholics, it is apparent to me that a significant amount of what they practice is non-scriptural. There is very little continuity between Catholicism and the tachings of the early church as written in the Bible. For example, purgatory, where is that found in the Bible? Praying to saints and even assigning 'patron' saints, where is it found in the Bible? |
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on Jun 20, 2005 8:01:05 GMT -5
To me the Catholic Church isn't the church spoken of in the Bible, its based more on a bunch of men who agreed together on lies. then you would have no bible.btw what happen to islam? have you converted to christianity? i cant believe you made this thread.once again proving you are only out for starting arguements. |
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on Jun 20, 2005 8:16:02 GMT -5
Catholicism could have incorporated lots of elements of Graeco-Roman mysticism. That's might be why some towns in the Mediterranean have "patron saints", just like each Greek town had a protective deity or something like that. Anyways, where-ever Christianity went, it often mixed with local customs, and fused into secular life. For example, the "Christmas tree" supposedly had something to do with Germanic(?) pagan customs. In non-European countries such as Korea, Catholicism even became somewhat shamanistic and cult-like than it was in the West. the point is everytime is in honor of God no matter what the origins might of come from. |
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on Jun 20, 2005 8:21:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jun 20, 2005 8:31:09 GMT -5
I am not Catholic and don't want to be. I am a Waldensian which is an easy and hard religion. Easy because there are no clergy, no holy waters, holy wafers, kneeling, excessive dogma, but hard because the Bible is it, the answers to all problems and spiritual dilemmas. After all this time, I was born in 1964, I couldn't stand priests or popes or some "holy" person telling me how to worship or what to believe.
Having said that, Catholicism is based on Christian beliefs, the Trinity, the divine nature of Jesus, the Resurrection, Jesus's ministry on Earth just as all Christians believe. Catholicism is also based on the Nicene creed which codified many Christian beliefs. So Catholicism is Christian, but just as I like women without excessive makeup and artifices, I like my religion without the things many Catholics like about their religion, the dress codes, incense, genuflection, numbered pictures of Jesus stuck on walls, a zoo of Saints, Lourdes and so on. The thing the Catholics never tell people is that the papacy is a recent custom. The pope was just one of about five bishops of Christianity, and his authority as exists now is not of long tenure. I love the period of the three popes, Catholicism was more interesting then. Now it is just a sinecure for old farts. Bring back the Borgias and the de Medicis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jun 20, 2005 9:55:40 GMT -5
There were only 3 patriarchs originally, Rome patriarch of the west, Alexandria of Egypt and Antioch of Asia, later the emperor decided to establish a patriarchy in Constantinople (which should not have happened because in Constantinople the church was not founded by an Apostle like in the other 3 cities) and declared the Bishop Ecumenical Patriarch.
The Pope disagreed, but he had no power to stop the Emperor from doing that.
Being the only Patriarchy that was not conquered by Muslims certainly helped, also remember Alexandria and Antioch supported the only one nature of Jesus belief, so 2 patriarchies became heretic. Later the emperor appointed Greek orthodox patriarchs with no real power as heads of the church in Egypt and Antioch, so there were 2 parallel patriarchs, that did not help their cause.
The Bishop of Rome always had more prestige than the other guys, whatever that means, no one disagrees with that, the orthodox think the Bishop of rome has a supremacy of Honor, and that he is the "first" among "equals".
Catholics believe the supremacy is Real, that the bishop of Rome is above the rest of the bishops in the same way Peter was above the rest of the apostles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jun 20, 2005 10:01:47 GMT -5
Mississipi, do you think Jesus said : TAKE, I send you the bible, so you can read it, and interpret it ... And the bible fell from the sky in a ray of light ?
No, Jesus established his church, the church came before the bible, and the church decided what books belong to the new testament.
|
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jun 20, 2005 10:36:22 GMT -5
The more I read the Bible and observe the practices of Catholics, it is apparent to me that a significant amount of what they practice is non-scriptural. There is very little continuity between Catholicism and the tachings of the early church as written in the Bible. For example, purgatory, where is that found in the Bible? Praying to saints and even assigning 'patron' saints, where is it found in the Bible? I am very ignorant in this matter, but maybe you should look into the letters of the apostles and the acts of the apostles. Maybe. Without an organised church the book you worship would never have arrived in your hands anyway. There's no point in this religious quarrels however, as once you enter that door (of religion) everything related to logic and coherence is gone. No logic, no arguing possible. You believe in the Bible or in what you think is written in the Bible (that likely you can't read in original so you actually worship the words of a translator - and translation of ancient texts is quite a creative job -; also I don't think that what you "interpret" is not filtered by your education), Catholics believe also in some other translations and interpetations of old texts. The idea that protestant church or other cults that allow direct approach to the Bible are more spiritual religions and that protestants make up their mind alone with their Bible always sounded fake to me. Only a very, very learned historician of ancient times who reads aramaic and hebrew can make up his mind about the Bible as if there hadn't been some 2000 years of interpretation before him. |
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jun 20, 2005 11:15:07 GMT -5
A lot of biblical texts are written in Greek. So being a linguist in ancient forms of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew does help a lot.
I did exaggerate about the number of bishops before the ascendency of the bishopric of Rome, but either way Rome was not it. The prestige may have existed for the bishop of Rome, but a lot was in the bishop of Rome's mind. Christianity was more closer to the people and less hierarchical in those days before the ascendency of Rome. The less than pious Popes are my favorites, Borgia, the de Medici whose indulgences sparked some German off and started the Reformation. That is some legacy to Christianity. I still think the period of the schism to be the best time for the Catholic Church: John XXIII, Benedict XIII and Gregory XII. Now those would have been fun days.
|
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jun 20, 2005 13:42:23 GMT -5
To me the Catholic Church isn't the church spoken of in the Bible, its based more on a bunch of men who agreed together on lies. then you would have no bible.btw what happen to islam? have you converted to christianity? I was never a Muslim Amadis, just shut up again. It's my own personal belief, just shut up Amadis |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jun 20, 2005 13:47:45 GMT -5
Mississipi, do you think Jesus said : TAKE, I send you the bible, so you can read it, and interpret it ... And the bible fell from the sky in a ray of light ? No, Jesus established his church, the church came before the bible, and the church decided what books belong to the new testament. The Bible was written by *DIVINELY INSIPRED* men, unlike the catholic Church who uses a bunch of cardinals and a man called a 'pope' to issue out religious edicts. The catholic Church is *NOT* the church thats spoken of in the Bible, the Bible is the only authority and guide for true Christians to follow, the words and traditions of worldly men don't qualify as divinely inspired. |
|
|
|
Post by lurker4now on Jun 20, 2005 13:54:02 GMT -5
Mississipi, do you think Jesus said : TAKE, I send you the bible, so you can read it, and interpret it ... And the bible fell from the sky in a ray of light ? No, Jesus established his church, the church came before the bible, and the church decided what books belong to the new testament. The Bible was written by *DIVINELY INSIPRED* men, unlike the catholic Church who uses a bunch of cardinals and a man called a 'pope' to issue out religious edicts. The catholic Church is *NOT* the church thats spoken of in the Bible, the Bible is the only authority and guide for true Christians to follow, the words and traditions of worldly men don't qualify as divinely inspired. what church is spoken in the bible? what authority is true? |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jun 20, 2005 13:57:11 GMT -5
The Bible was written by *DIVINELY INSIPRED* men, unlike the catholic Church who uses a bunch of cardinals and a man called a 'pope' to issue out religious edicts. The catholic Church is *NOT* the church thats spoken of in the Bible, the Bible is the only authority and guide for true Christians to follow, the words and traditions of worldly men don't qualify as divinely inspired. what church is spoken in the bible? what authority is true? The Christian Church, everything taught in the Bible has little to no parallel with Catholicism. |
|
