Catholics

[BreadOfLife]

Oh, that would be a job for an executioner. Off the top of my head I imagine there are as many as the number of your posts...

Maybe...just a few:

Can you show them in context?
For example - I never called anybody on this forum a "conspiracy loon".

CONTEXT . . .

 

[aspen]

You can be Catholic and disagree with the church

 

[aspen]

And I'm not here to convert people.
I'm here to squash lies so that others who are reading these exchanges won't be seduced by these lies.

As for the term, "Anti-Catholic" - this applies to people, like yourself, who have lied about what the Church teaches to make their argument.
People who simply disagree with the Church are not anti-Catholic. Their simply non-Catholics.

Hmm....seems to me that Catechism does a fine job of summarizing Roman Catholic dogma. Don't you think that people who are interested in clarity on Catholic teachings would access the online Catechism? I know I do it AND it doesn't call me names or judge.....

 

[aspen]

Can you show them in context?
For example - I never called anybody on this forum a "conspiracy loon".

CONTEXT . . .

Context does not justify ad hominem- sorry

 

[BreadOfLife]

From "The Documents of Vatican II" (Walter M. Abbott, S.J. gen. editor, Very Rev. MSGR. Joseph Gallagher. Translation editor. American Press 1966)

Chapter 1--General Principles for the Restoration And Promotion of the Sacred Liturgy.
Under section III-"The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy", #38, p. 151.

"Provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is maintained, the revision of liturgical books should allow for legitimate variations..." Note the phrase 'Roman Rite'.

From the same Document noted above, 'Catholic -Orthodox declaration' p. 725, from Pope Paul and Patriarch Athenagoras,
"...I have not lost sight of the determination each then felt to omit nothing thereafter which charity might inspire and which could facilitate the development of the fraternal relations thus taken up between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church....they are responding to the call of that divine grace which today is leading the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church..." Note the term 'Roman Catholic Church'.

These are documents from Vatican II. They expressly use the terms 'Roman' and 'Roman Catholic'. Perhaps you need to read your own material.

Stranger

Yes - but these documents are using the term correctly.
YOU don't.

"Roman" simply refers to the RITE (Latin/Roman).
I go to a "Roman" Catholic Church, which again, refers to the RITE. There are over TWENTY Rites that make up the Catholic Church. Among these are Ruthenian, Alexandrian, Coptic, Maronite, Byzantine and many others.
ALL of these Rites make up the Catholic Church. and are ALL in communion with each other and with the Pope. None of thes Rites are "Roman" or "Latin".

So, when YOU refer to the "Roman" Bible or the "Roman" Church - you are saying it from a place of abject ignorance.
However, you are no longer ignorant of this - so hopefully, you won't continue making this mistake.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Context does not justify ad hominem- sorry

Context ALWAYS matters.
This is why YOU, who claims to be Catholic, don't understand the teachings of the Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hmm....seems to me that Catechism does a fine job of summarizing Roman Catholic dogma. Don't you think that people who are interested in clarity on Catholic teachings would access the online Catechism? I know I do it AND it doesn't call me names or judge.....

I would LOVE it if you and the rest of your anti-Catholic friends searched the Catechism before posting.
The sad fact is that NONE of you do - or you wouldn't post the lies that you do . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You can be Catholic and disagree with the church

Yup - those are called dissident Catholics - or Protestants.

If you disagree with the teachings of your Church - why do you belong to it??
I would never be a member of a church if I disagreed with it. Why are YOU??

 

[aspen]

Your posts condemn you, Bread of Life. You have been confronted by several people on this thread, yet you continue to justify yourself. I will be praying for you

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your posts condemn you, Bread of Life. You have been confronted by several people on this thread, yet you continue to justify yourself. I will be praying for you

While you're doing that - pray for guidance.
You shouldn't belong to a Church if you disagree with it . . .

 

[aspen]

I would LOVE it if you and the rest of your anti-Catholic friends searched the Catechism before posting.
The sad fact is that NONE of you do - or you wouldn't post the lies that you do . . .

Stranger just presented you with the Catechism and you explained it away. I presented you with the words of the Pope and you applied them to everyone but yourself. I am afraid to watch you argue with Jesus on Judgment Day.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Stranger just presented you with the Catechism and you explained it away. I presented you with the words of the Pope and you applied them to everyone but yourself. I am afraid to watch you argue with Jesus on Judgment Day.

Ummm, I explained to Stranger that his use of "Roman" was incorrect - whereas, the use of it in the documents he presented WAS correct.

As for your posting of the Pope's comments - they didn't pertain to me because I don't see myself as being infallible.
I don't have that charism. I simply argue the truth as taught by the Church. These aren't MY opinions.

Now - are you going to answer the question I asked of you in post #1568?
Here it is again:
If you disagree with the teachings of your Church - why do you belong to it??

 

[aspen]

I never said I disagreed with Church teachings. I said you can be a member of the Catholic Church and disagree.

This is another example of you making assumptions and presenting them as facts

 

[BreadOfLife]

I never said I disagreed with Church teachings. I said you can be a member of the Catholic Church and disagree.
This is another example of you making assumptions and presenting them as facts

You can disagree with Catholic non-essentials and remain Catholic - but you cannot be a Catholic and disagree with doctrinal or dogmatic positions.

As for making assumptions about you and your disagreements with the Church - I'm just going fro your posts on several threads.

 

[Truth]

JESUS
FIRST APOSTLE SECOND APOSTLE
3RD APOSTLE / 4TH APOSTLE 5TH APOSTLE / 6TH APOSTLE

7TH APOSTLE/8TH APOSTLE/9TH APOSTLE/10 APOSTLE/ 11TH APOSTLE/12 APOSTLE/

THE ABOVE is a pyramid form of leadership, starting with Jesus, then you have the right and left hand, of Jesus, then you have the right and left hands of the first and second, third and forth Apostles, then you have the right and left hands of the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth Apostles.

Every Government, Big and small business, and Every Church denomination is structured with this form of Authority. this is Nicolaitan-ism.
Nico- conquer --- Laity - people, Nicolaitan - conquer of the people. We do not need to be Ruled by MAN, the only chain of Authority acceptable to to God is--- GOD is the Head, then The SON, then the Man, and then Women. 1 Corinthians 11 vers 3, But I want you to know that the Head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. verses 4-7 are about men and or women, relinquishing their Authority to other people who claim to have Authority over them. NOT about having on a Hat, scarf, or any type of covering on their Heads. The Catholics have one Pope! and all the other Churches have One Pope behind every Pulpit!!!!!!! Well when I posted I lost the Pyramid effect

 

[aspen]

You can disagree with Catholic non-essentials and remain Catholic - but you cannot be a Catholic and disagree with doctrinal or dogmatic positions.

As for making assumptions about you and your disagreements with the Church - I'm just going fro your posts on several threads.

Like?

 

[aspen]

You shouldn't belong to a Church if you disagree with it . . .

according to whom?

 

[Stranger]

Yes - but these documents are using the term correctly.
YOU don't.

"Roman" simply refers to the RITE (Latin/Roman).
I go to a "Roman" Catholic Church, which again, refers to the RITE. There are over TWENTY Rites that make up the Catholic Church. Among these are Ruthenian, Alexandrian, Coptic, Maronite, Byzantine and many others.
ALL of these Rites make up the Catholic Church. and are ALL in communion with each other and with the Pope. None of thes Rites are "Roman" or "Latin".

So, when YOU refer to the "Roman" Bible or the "Roman" Church - you are saying it from a place of abject ignorance.
However, you are no longer ignorant of this - so hopefully, you won't continue making this mistake.

Oh...now I see. You always knew this was so but just didn't want to say anything. Sure.

So, yes you belong to the Roman Church. It likes to be called the Roman Catholic Church, but that is wrong, because that is an oxymoron. All believers belong to the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. But not to the Roman Church.

I'm sure you will label yourself properly now. You can thank me later.

Stranger

 

[tabletalk]

You can disagree with Catholic non-essentials and remain Catholic - but you cannot be a Catholic and disagree with doctrinal or dogmatic positions.

So, if a member of your church disagrees with a doctrinal position such as Transubstantiation, but stays and remains a member, then is that person really a member, or just not considered *Catholic* any longer because of their disagreement?

That person would not be excommunicated, correct?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh...now I see. You always knew this was so but just didn't want to say anything. Sure.

So, yes you belong to the Roman Church. It likes to be called the Roman Catholic Church, but that is wrong, because that is an oxymoron. All believers belong to the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. But not to the Roman Church.

I'm sure you will label yourself properly now. You can thank me later.

Stranger

Well - I had hoped that the explanation would have helped you to understand - but I wasn't holding my breath.
It's almost like talking to a wall - without the sincerity, that is . . .