Evidence for God from Science

Thinker wrote:NOOO!!!! More lies from the RCC. This isn't good news at all! NOW they are telling the truth. Hope they don't say the whole Bible is fabricated!

So you choose to believe an unknown reporter with questionable ethics over a 2,000 year old organization established by Jesus himself?

Byblos wrote:

Thinker wrote:NOOO!!!! More lies from the RCC. This isn't good news at all! NOW they are telling the truth. Hope they don't say the whole Bible is fabricated!

So you choose to believe an unknown reporter with questionable ethics over a 2,000 year old organization established by Jesus himself?

IT makes me shudder to to here you say that Jesus himself extablished the Roman Catholic Church. Who formed the baptist church, who formed the presbytariens, who formed the pentacostals.

Jesus formed the church for sure, but this idea that he formed your paticular denomination is false.

IT is important to relize that the RCC is fallible and the inspired Word is not

Jbuza wrote: IT makes me shudder to to here you say that Jesus himself extablished the Roman Catholic Church. Who formed the baptist church, who formed the presbytariens, who formed the pentacostals.

Baptist Church-John Smyth in 1605
Presbytariens-John Knox in 1560
Pentecostal churches-not sure who specifiaclly started that church, but they are offshoots of Holiness churches, which are offshoots of the Methodist Church, which is an offshoot of the Anglican Church, which is an offshoot of the Catholic Church.

Jbuza wrote:Jesus formed the church for sure, but this idea that he formed your paticular denomination is false.

IT is important to relize that the RCC is fallible and the inspired Word is not

Once again, I urge you to read the article I posted. However, I will follow up on your comments either tonight or monday night, as I have to finish my math and science assignments right now and get ready for Mass right away, so I don't have time at the moment.

Blessings and Prayers,
Veronica

Veronica wrote:

Jbuza wrote: IT makes me shudder to to here you say that Jesus himself extablished the Roman Catholic Church. Who formed the baptist church, who formed the presbytariens, who formed the pentacostals.

Baptist Church-John Smyth in 1605
Presbytariens-John Knox in 1560
Pentecostal churches-not sure who specifiaclly started that church, but they are offshoots of Holiness churches, which are offshoots of the Methodist Church, which is an offshoot of the Anglican Church, which is an offshoot of the Catholic Church.

Jbuza wrote:Jesus formed the church for sure, but this idea that he formed your paticular denomination is false.

IT is important to relize that the RCC is fallible and the inspired Word is not

Once again, I urge you to read the article I posted. However, I will follow up on your comments either tonight or monday night, as I have to finish my math and science assignments right now and get ready for Mass right away, so I don't have time at the moment.

Blessings and Prayers,
Veronica

Thanks. So The only church Jesus started was the RCC then?

I think it important to realise the Jesus established "the Church", but not any particular church.

Drawing from my own knowledge, what followed after Christ were that many became Christian throughout the many areas that the gospel was taken to. Elders were setup to help look after and nurture Christians in certain areas, and eventually the structure of "a church" was formed with the purpose of keeping Christians inline with "orthodox" teachings and on the "correct" path. The Western Christian church (which encompasses Rome) was largely silent on many Christian doctrines until Augustine. But as time went on Rome became like the capital Christian church, and gained great power and influence especially in the West. Thus, the Catholic Church which means the "universal Church" (all those in Christ) eventually became associated with the Roman Catholic Church. Churches were essentially persuaded or made to submit to the Roman Church, and those who didn't were branded heretical or cults and pretty much done away with.

Thus, it could be said the Catholic Church is the one and true Church, since it really means all those who are in Christ. On ther other hand, the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church, and infact when you think about such a title seems quite contradictory—the "Roman [Universal] Church." Which is it? The Roman Church, or the Universal Church?

Kurieuo

Jbuza wrote:

Veronica wrote:

Jbuza wrote: IT makes me shudder to to here you say that Jesus himself extablished the Roman Catholic Church. Who formed the baptist church, who formed the presbytariens, who formed the pentacostals.

Baptist Church-John Smyth in 1605
Presbyterians-John Knox in 1560
Pentecostal churches-not sure who specifically started that church, but they are offshoots of Holiness churches, which are offshoots of the Methodist Church, which is an offshoot of the Anglican Church, which is an offshoot of the Catholic Church.

Jbuza wrote:Jesus formed the church for sure, but this idea that he formed your paticular denomination is false.

IT is important to relize that the RCC is fallible and the inspired Word is not

Once again, I urge you to read the article I posted. However, I will follow up on your comments either tonight or monday night, as I have to finish my math and science assignments right now and get ready for Mass right away, so I don't have time at the moment.

Blessings and Prayers,
Veronica

Thanks. So The only church Jesus started was the RCC then?

Theres a long history of the church from its inception and eary days in the Roman empire, to the Holy Roman empire, through the middle ages, the Renaissance, to the founding of its various denominations and Modern times. All of this history is relevant today and will help one to understand the origins of different interpretations and ideas found among the different denominations. The Roman Catholic church can trace its history back to the first "Pope" Peter. Simon or Cephas (Peter) was one of Jesus' twelve disciples.

During the early period of the church the church was heavily persecuted. This is documented in the New Testament. Later Christianity replaced the old Roman religions.

Read Ovid's Metamorphosis, on Christian influence on classic mythology.

Many of the rituals stem from this period. A study of classical mythology and the period in which it was practiced will enlight one to what a fundamental change this would have been in worldview and moral teaching. Before christianity morality and religion were not seen as a single entity. Many gods, with human traits, quarreled in the heavens with little regard for human affairs.

It is believed that many rituals were a cary-over from these older traditions.

Until the invention of the printing press the majority of the population was illiterate. There was no opportunity for a believer to read and interpret the word on their own. The Bible had to be painstakenly copied by hand.

With the invention of the printing press for the Western world by Gutenberg around 1455, this all changed. (Printing in the east was developed much earlier.) The Bible was chosen as his first large scale printing project. It was not an obvious choice because the bible at the time was not central to the teachings of the Church. A difficulty he ran into was that the scriptures were organized into Missals. A Missal is sort of a script for a priest containing prayers and songs and scripture which the priest would recite. This varied from region to region.

The printing press also brought with it the Renaissance. The middle ages now over as Enlightenment lifted the veils of the common man. This also brought corruption into the Church as interest in wealth and power grew.

During the middle ages the church was a spiritual lighthouse for the masses. Individual thought was not a concept familiar to the common man.

In the early period of the Renaissance a man named Martin Luther translated the bible into german. Martin Luther did not like the corruption of the Church, He wanted the Church to return to it's pure spiritual roots. He believed the priesthood was originally intended to belong to everyone. And with the printing press and his newly translated version of the bible this was now possible.

During the middle ages the Holy Roman Church unified Europe. The lutheran movement began spreading across Nothern Europe and the region was in a state of civil war.

With the advent of individual thought in the Renaissance the church began to fragment and continued to do so in the following centuries. The lives of ordinary people were to accept that they had no say and were subject to the whims and consequences of the actions of Kings, Queens, and other members of the aristocracy. Acceptance of this order of things began to break down as well.

(Everything in bold are concepts and subjects one may wish to read into in more detail)
The following is a list of denominations showing some of this breakdown.

1517? Lutheranism - 95 Theses, Spiritual root(rejection of church corruption) indulgences, universal priesthood.

1522? Ulrich Zwingli - scriptural roots(Anything non-scriptural was rejected.), the weakening of the eucharist(The symbolism of the last supper and communion)

1534 - Anglican Church - Complete break during Henry VIII due to Man's desire to divorce. =) As in the catholic church apostolic succession goes back to the beginnings.

1540's Calvinism - purification of christianity, rejection of earthly rule, french extension of the Reformation

1546 The counter-reformation

1609 Baptist - A belief in the accountability for covenant with the Lord, John Smyth

1640's? The Puritan movement - Society under direct rule of God, Theocracy (complete rejection of earthly rule, i.e. Kings)

1739? Methodists - Emphasis on rule, conversion, and holiness.

Kurieuo wrote:I think it important to realise the Jesus established "the Church", but not any particular church.

Drawing from my own knowledge, what followed after Christ were that many became Christian throughout the many areas that the gospel was taken to. Elders were setup to help look after and nurture Christians in certain areas, and eventually the structure of "a church" was formed with the purpose of keeping Christians inline with "orthodox" teachings and on the "correct" path. The Western Christian church (which encompasses Rome) was largely silent on many Christian doctrines until Augustine. But as time went on Rome became like the capital Christian church, and gained great power and influence especially in the West. Thus, the Catholic Church which means the "universal Church" (all those in Christ) eventually became associated with the Roman Catholic Church. Churches were essentially persuaded or made to submit to the Roman Church, and those who didn't were branded heretical or cults and pretty much done away with.

Thus, it could be said the Catholic Church is the one and true Church, since it really means all those who are in Christ. On ther other hand, the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church, and infact when you think about such a title seems quite contradictory—the "Roman [Universal] Church." Which is it? The Roman Church, or the Universal Church?

Kurieuo

Well said, I completely agree. MY problem than with the catholic church is that this teaching dictates that I am not in Christ because I am not a RC. The biggest differnce is that we realize that people in other churches and denominations may also be members of the church. Their is no Biblical foundation for the RCC to say you must conform to our teachings to be in Christ, yet that appears to be what they beleive. IF one conforms to the teachings of Jesus and accepts him completely than they are a member of the chruch that transcendes denominational lines.

Jbuza wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I think it important to realise the Jesus established "the Church", but not any particular church.

Drawing from my own knowledge, what followed after Christ were that many became Christian throughout the many areas that the gospel was taken to. Elders were setup to help look after and nurture Christians in certain areas, and eventually the structure of "a church" was formed with the purpose of keeping Christians inline with "orthodox" teachings and on the "correct" path. The Western Christian church (which encompasses Rome) was largely silent on many Christian doctrines until Augustine. But as time went on Rome became like the capital Christian church, and gained great power and influence especially in the West. Thus, the Catholic Church which means the "universal Church" (all those in Christ) eventually became associated with the Roman Catholic Church. Churches were essentially persuaded or made to submit to the Roman Church, and those who didn't were branded heretical or cults and pretty much done away with.

Thus, it could be said the Catholic Church is the one and true Church, since it really means all those who are in Christ. On ther other hand, the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church, and infact when you think about such a title seems quite contradictory—the "Roman [Universal] Church." Which is it? The Roman Church, or the Universal Church?

Kurieuo

Well said, I completely agree. MY problem than with the catholic church is that this teaching dictates that I am not in Christ because I am not a RC. The biggest differnce is that we realize that people in other churches and denominations may also be members of the church. Their is no Biblical foundation for the RCC to say you must conform to our teachings to be in Christ, yet that appears to be what they beleive. IF one conforms to the teachings of Jesus and accepts him completely than they are a member of the chruch that transcendes denominational lines.

Nowhere does it say if you're not Roman Catholic you're not Christian. In fact I am Catholic but not Roman Catholic. I belong to the Eastern Orthodox Catholisim where we fall under the Vatican for most of the church teachings but we do have our own traditions that are at times contradictory to RCC (ceratin orders of our priests can marry).

The Catholic church always tries to preach inter-faith as well as intra-faith tolerance (at least in recent days). The actions of certain individuals do not make a church-wide systemic policy. Yes, we do have many differences in our respective Christian-based faiths but it pains me greatly to hear disparaging comments about any branch of christianity towards another. As a catholic I do not feel any more right or superior over my fellow non-catholics. If I disagree with certain aspects of their faith I do not attribute that to their lack of understanding of my faith but rather to my own shortsightedness of theirs. I do not compare our faiths in an effort to prove me right and them wrong but rather in an effort to learn how we can bridge the gaps.

From a humble non-Roman Catholic,

God bless.

Byblos.

Byblos wrote:
Yes, we do have many differences in our respective Christian-based faiths but it pains me greatly to hear disparaging comments about any branch of christianity towards another. As a catholic I do not feel any more right or superior over my fellow non-catholics. If I disagree with certain aspects of their faith I do not attribute that to their lack of understanding of my faith but rather to my own shortsightedness of theirs. I do not compare our faiths in an effort to prove me right and them wrong but rather in an effort to learn how we can bridge the gaps.

From a humble non-Roman Catholic,

God bless.

Byblos.

Well said. I agree I don't like to make disparaging remarks either, and probably have been guilty of that here to some extent. Sorry if I offend. I was just trying to explain how I feel when I attend RCC mass. I feel like they do not want to commune with me, I feel like I am being treated like an outsider, not like a fellow Christian. I feel like they believe themselves superior, not that certian individuals do, but I get this feeling from the church and its observations that it, the RCC believes itself to be the light with their Pope and all. I reject this. Jesus is the light, and we are one church with our Catholic brothers. I feel like RCC preaches salvation within itself. Jesus saves not RCC and its observations

Jbuza wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Yes, we do have many differences in our respective Christian-based faiths but it pains me greatly to hear disparaging comments about any branch of christianity towards another. As a catholic I do not feel any more right or superior over my fellow non-catholics. If I disagree with certain aspects of their faith I do not attribute that to their lack of understanding of my faith but rather to my own shortsightedness of theirs. I do not compare our faiths in an effort to prove me right and them wrong but rather in an effort to learn how we can bridge the gaps.

From a humble non-Roman Catholic,

God bless.

Byblos.

Well said. I agree I don't like to make disparaging remarks either, and probably have been guilty of that here to some extent. Sorry if I offend. I was just trying to explain how I feel when I attend RCC mass. I feel like they do not want to commune with me, I feel like I am being treated like an outsider, not like a fellow Christian. I feel like they believe themselves superior, not that certain individuals do, but I get this feeling from the church and its observations that it, the RCC believes itself to be the light with their Pope and all. I reject this. Jesus is the light, and we are one church with our Catholic brothers. I feel like RCC preaches salvation within itself. Jesus saves not RCC and its observations

JBuza, if you were made to feel that way in a Catholic church then please accept my apology on behalf of all Catholics everywhere. That is not what the Catholic church is all about, the issue of receiving the eucharist notwithstanding if you're non-catholic. That issue is not one of arrogance or superiority. It is one of deep belief in the mystery of the sacrament where the church feels if a person is not in accord with the way the eucharist is administered, it is then best not received so as not 'downplay' so-to-speak its mystery and to also protect the non-catholic from confusion with their own beliefs. When a person receives communion in a Catholic church, he or she is receiving the symbolic body and blood of Christ exactly how the church sees Jesus had intended it. We are 'doing this in memory of' him as we were commanded. It is the most important part of the service and should be received in that spirit. Even at that, there are exceptions made.

On the issue of the pope, he is the head of an organization and to that he is extended the honor and respect he deserves as being at the helm of a church that can trace its roots back to St. Peter and to Jesus. That is a historical fact but that is where it stops. That fact does not in any way preclude other denominations from professing to be Christian. The pope is not God, he is not Jesus nor is he viewed as such (at least not by any Catholics I know). Like you said, Jesus is the light and the way. That is our faith and it is indisputable. How we get there is a matter of tradition and individual belief.

Aside from that, I wish you could visit some of the parishes I've been a part of over the years. You will no doubt see Catholics in a totally different light.

God bless,

Byblos.

...infact when you think about such a title seems quite contradictory—the "Roman [Universal] Church." Which is it? The Roman Church, or the Universal Church?

Actually, the modifier Roman only became popular after the Reformation, so as to distinguish between the breakaway Anglican Church, and the original Catholic Church. And we also need to keep in mind what is meant by universal. Though you are right, the very title does appear to be contradictory.

Deus te Benedicat!
Veronica

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:The Roman Catholic church can trace its history back to the first "Pope" Peter.

Er, no it can't, for two reasons:

* The earliest lists of the bishops of Rome (who were not called 'popes' until the later Christian church), date to the late 2nd century and contain no dates

* The earliest lists are fraught with problems - incomplete, contradicting each other, and unverifiable

It is believed that many rituals were a cary-over from these older traditions.

It is true. Many Christians reject these rituals for this very reason (they are un-Biblical).

This also brought corruption into the Church as interest in wealth and power grew.

It may surprise you to know that corruption existed in the church a long time before the Renaissance.

The following is a list of denominations showing some of this breakdown.

You're forgetting the denominations which existed as a result of the first major denominational fragmentations in the 4th and 5th centuries.

I think many Christians forget that when it boils right down to it, there are only two religions in all the world.

1) Those who believe you have to be good to get to heaven.

2) Those who believe CHRIST did all the good on the cross and all you have to do is trust Him It's the difference between “work” and “works.” Whereas true Christianity places its trust in His “WORK” alone to go to heaven , religious people place their trust in their “works.” Again, people don't go to heaven because they “live right” ; they go to heaven because they “die right.” The way to “die right” is by placing our faith in the only ONE who ever “lived right”.

Regardless of anyone's particular so called "Christian" denomination, and regardless of the church a person attends, it is what that person believes that determines if he/she is part of "the Church".

It is possible that a person can be under great teaching (denomination that teaches sound doctrine) and believe incorrectly. Or a person can be under horrible teaching (a cult) and still believe correctly.(although less probable).

So if your particular belief (regardless of what church you attend) says you need to add anything to Christ's work to go to heaven, then I would hope that you would seriously reconsider what you believe, and if this teaching has come from the denomination you subscribe to, then you may want to seek out what beliefs other denominations adhere to and ask yourself why they believe that way.

I have had contact with several people for which I have predominantly always heard that their "denomination" believed in a works salvation, (either added to grace or not). But their statements seemed to indicate that their belief was not the same as their denomination at least for them personally, even though some research of that denomination shows that the main teachings do add works to grace.

But the reverse is also true. People whose denomination I have always thought to believed in Grace only, seem to want to add works to acquire their salvation.

I do not mention any denomination (even though I could), because it is irrelevant, all that matters is that each person knows the difference between the 2 religions, and which one to believe in.

Blob wrote:I have noticed many Christians, though by no means all or even most, have a hang up about Catholicism. Indeed, not just Christians but many conspiracy theorists do too ranging from relatively sober sounding accusations of the Vatican being behind major world decisions and business through to wacked out claims that the Pope is a baby-eating lizard (I kid not - see David Icke for example - though I wouldn't waste your time actually reading that link, I certainly didn't.)

I'm not looking for emotive condemnations of Catholicism or the Vatican. But if anyone can give me a cool-headed handle on this seemingly widespread animosity I'd be intrigued to hear it.

I am by no means a scholar as many here are, however I read a book
titled " The Great Controversy" and from it I came away with the impression that the Catholics were pressuering people to join with them
and when that did not work they let some of the pagan beliefs into the Catholic church so that the pagans became Catholic, even though I am not sure this book is correct, it does give me thought for question.

Well I read all the posts and some information is good and some is not so good. For one I was raised as a Roman Catholic and of course went to a Roman Catholic Church in the Diocese of New York and attended Catechism classes for 10 years. When I started going with my parents the Mass was done in Latin. Oh did I give away my age? I've provided the link below because it is non-partisan and gives a detailed history of the Church from it's origins to present day. It also provides details on the customs, beliefs and practices. It is excellant reading and will open some eyes as to who, what, where and why. I think you might want to read it several times as you will absorb the reasons why the Roman Catholic Church was initially setup the way it was and why it operates the way in does today. I wish I was able to write it all down myself but the link does explain it very well. Enjoy the article and remember Catholics are just like every other Christian. Some people just study more than others and believe in what they are willing to accept. This happens in all faiths and all areas of the human experience. If you don't read communicate and discuss how can you learn anything? That's why I enjoy this forum and site so much.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church