Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
New question:
What is the Catholic viewpoint on repentance? Please explain the process and what exactly you are repenting of.
This from Jimmy Akin, on May 3,2016: "What if my priest doesn't believe in transubstantiation? Does the consecration still take place?"
The answer is that it does. It is not necessary for the priest to have the specific intention that transubstantiation take place so long as he has the generalintention to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist, even if he has a very erroneous understanding of that sacrament. "
So, it seems as if the Orthodox have a valid Eucharist.
New question:
What is the Catholic viewpoint on repentance? Please explain the process and what exactly you are repenting of.
I stand by my answer, (that I would say yes that if a priest celebrated the Eucharist without intending to do what the Church intends it is not valid). Jimmy's a great guy and he is correct, but I don't think he's answering the same question. Jimmy is addressing belief. I am addressing intent. If a priest goes through the motions flawlessly, saying all the words accurately but has a faulty intention, transubstantiation does not take place.
Here's a scenario: A Nazi breaks into a country church and demands, at gunpoint, that the little country priest confect the Eucharist so that they can desecrate it. One acceptable option would be to refuse and be killed--martyrdom and glory. The unacceptable option would be to ascent to their demands and be instrumental in an act of desecration. A third option would be acceptable, if the priest feels that his flock needs him to survive this incident. He could go through the motions with the intention that the sacrament not take place. The priest can withhold his consent for God to use him to perform the miracle.
The Orthodox do have valid Eucharist.
What can't be discussed? The Eucharist?That's because they don't want to discuss the thing that they're well known for. If it's a part of their beliefs, I don't understand why it can't be discussed. It's a serious subject and no one wants to talk about it. Why?
Idolatry. Apparently you guys offend really easy when confronted with the truth. If you'd like to continue the conversation we were having in that "Crosses" thread, I'm open for it. I don't think you are though. You haven't been back since the last dust off.What can't be discussed? The Eucharist?
In post #155 you imply your private commission to correct Catholics with James 5.
In post #157 you imply Catholics are walking in error.
In post #159 you make this false assumption that Catholics don't want to talk about whatever.
You don't want to discuss anything, your mind is made up.
Josho,This is not a debate thread, but is a thread where we could learn more about Catholics, these are all pretty basic questions I'm starting this thread of with, but I think a lot of us other Christians have been taught wrongly about the Catholics. Now i would rather hear from Catholics themselves, about what are the differences between Catholics to other Christians are? What makes a Catholic a Catholic? What are the traditions in the Catholic Church? What's the significance of Mary the mother of Jesus to the Catholics? When did the Catholic Church start? What were the original Catholics like compared to today?
Others please feel free to ask questions to our Catholic members on this forum as well, but please try not to turn this into a debate..... If that's possible. Lets give the Catholics a fair go.
Josho,
How about before you ask any questions of our Catholic brothers you start here: Catechism of the Catholic Church
If your question can't be answered on that website then there no Catholic members of the Catholic Church or this website that can answer you with authority...only with opinion.
It baffles me that our Catholic brothers are criticized on this website for their beliefs, however, the RCC puts all of their teachings and doctrines on a website for ANYONE to read, unlike most churches. Most of the people on this website have their own personal beliefs that change over time or when they discover something new in scripture. They are applauded for GROWING and learning scripture when they discover something "new" that was actually answered by the Apostolic or Church Fathers hundreds if not over 1,000 years ago. A Catholic is chastised on this website for adhering to something that has been taught by Christianity for almost 2,000 years. Teachings that are backed up by historical writings such as the Didache or the Apostolic and Church Fathers. But if Billy Graham or Luther or Calvin come up with a different interpretation then they are revolutionary; true bible scholars who have revealed the "truth' of scripture. The RCC isn't hiding or changing anything like a lot of churches do. I respect them for that. Even though we may disagree with them on some things they have remained consistent for over 1,000 years unlike us protestants who think Calvin and Luther didn't go far enough 500 years ago so we said they were wrong in their doctrine. Then we said 300 years ago that the men who disagreed with Calvin and Luther were wrong so we protested the men who protested against Calvin and Luther. And then new people 100 years ago protested the people who protested against the people who protested against Calvin and Luther. When does it end? It makes me feel like scripture isn't true or that there is no truth in scripture. It's all a matter how I am feeling that day.
What's the significance of Mary you ask? No Mary, no Jesus. That's the significance of Mary.
My two cents worth. Mary
Dear sir,though the Lord obliviously used, provided, and protected the catholic church, even unto this day, one should understand that it started out as the church of the state, or church of the empire if you like, even guys like St. Gregory the Great (in the 500's I do believe) was chosen by the emperor of his day, he didn't want to be pope in Rome.
and needless to say once Rome broke up, the church was the only semblance of civilized thinking in Europe until nations and kings where establish and once the church that was the ruler of the "holy roman empire" influence and power began to wane corruption became more and more obvious, that was already there. it became an organization that thought to be entitled to rule the western culture. so world power like that had nothing to do with the goals of the gospel. yes even though many low levels worked to the good of God's Kingdom.
no different then anything else left in the hands of man, hence those who thought the gospel was more important then the delusional authority of the catholic church leaders they moved on to greener pastures, and not without violence mind you.
this is no different then Israel's history, once the Lord left the kingship in the hands of men within four kings the kingdom was divided and corrupted in their worship. Israel was told by their king to worship gold caves because he reasoned that if his subjects would go to Jerusalem to worship he would loss his subject to the king in Jerusalem the house of David. it happens that fast. he corrupted the people to keep his place in power.
I said a lot that you ignored. You have a private definition of "idol" that isn't biblical, and I don't need to get in the last word after your nonsense has been repeatedly refuted.Idolatry. Apparently you guys offend really easy when confronted with the truth. If you'd like to continue the conversation we were having in that "Crosses" thread, I'm open for it. I don't think you are though. You haven't been back since the last dust off.
In any case, this isn't a debate thread. If you would like to debate this you know where to find me.
Have a nice day.
Please provide scholarly evidence (i.e. a Ph.D. in history) that supports these 2 lies.though the Lord obliviously used, provided, and protected the catholic church, even unto this day, one should understand that it started out as the church of the state, or church of the empire if you like, even guys like St. Gregory the Great (in the 500's I do believe) was chosen by the emperor of his day, he didn't want to be pope in Rome.
That is an opinion, and nothing more.and needless to say once Rome broke up, the church was the only semblance of civilized thinking in Europe until nations and kings where establish and once the church that was the ruler of the "holy roman empire" influence and power began to wane corruption became more and more obvious, that was already there. it became an organization that thought to be entitled to rule the western culture. so world power like that had nothing to do with the goals of the gospel..
That's not fair. We admit to the existence of bad popes, all 2.5% of them. Can you admit to the amoral and hypocritical reformers?yes even though many low levels worked to the good of God's Kingdom
no different then anything else left in the hands of man, hence those who thought the gospel was more important then the delusional authority of the catholic church leaders they moved on to greener pastures, and not without violence mind you.
I followed the links you posted. It was clear to me that you hadn't read the information in your links. If you had you wouldn't have posted it. Well I did read it and it backed everything I've been saying.I said a lot that you ignored.
Please provide scholarly evidence (i.e. a Ph.D. in history) that supports these 2 lies.
That is an opinion, and nothing more. That's not fair. We admit to the existence of bad popes, all 2.5% of them. Can you admit to the amoral and hypocritical reformers?
You are forced to re-write history to make it fit your system.
Another pointless "my daddy can beat up your daddy" discussion.
Dear sir,
I am a student of Christian history. What do you mean by "church of the state" or "church of the empire"?
Curious Mary
I can't find the words "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution.do to the fact that you don't know, shows me you just might not be. I mean you do understand why back in the day England separated its self from the Catholic authorities after Queen Elisabeth was excommunicated and England formed the church of England, and the king was its vicar, right? you do understand why the US constitutional writers agreed to separation of Church and state right? also in the same respect the emperor was the vicar (while there were yet emperors) of the Catholic churches Greek or Eastern and Roman. the Catholic Church in its hay day was "the Church" hence defining itself as universal (Catholic), and persecuted and prosecuted all heresies it deem as heresies. it executed civil and criminal courts through out Europe. back in King James' day that was an issue with the Church of Rome, England disagreed that the Catholic church should hold civil court. there is a book about Sir Edward Coke that points out some of this history.
maybe you should read some more on what a Church of the state is. also today its also my understanding that now after the Chinese cast out and persecuted the Church (and other religions) that they also have a church of the state that is monitored by the state of China for the Christian population.
the info ain't hard to find, good luck with that.
And I can't find in DPMartin's post where he said it was in the Constitution.I can't find the words "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution.