Questions For A Catholic

[Templar81]

mcorba,

We never stopped being part of the universal Catholic church, which is why we still state, "one holy Catholic and Apostollic church," in the Nicene Creed and we also mention it in the Apostles Creed; "we believe in: The Hly cathlic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the ressurrection of the body and the life everlasting." I know that some churches; particularly Methodists and Lutherans will tned to say; "one holy Christians church," so that they can avoid any aawkwardness about the word, "Catholic," which is synomymous with the Pope and Rome but it doesn't have to be. Int he Book of Common prayer it say's that if any mandisputes the apostallic succession of the Chruch of England then he is to be excommunicated and is only reconcilable by the Archbishop of canterbury. This is from the 1662 version.#

My mother grew up as a Methodist and she was only used to saying, "one holy Christian church," in the creed, so that by the time she was being Confirmed as an Anglican she did have some apprehension at saying, "I believe in one holy Catholic and Aposollic church" until she had it explained to her that the statement had nothing at all to do with the church of Rome specifically but the establisehd church as a whole and was a statement about Christian unity.

 

[Anastacia]

You asked me what I thought of the pictures and I told you. I also told you that venerating relics is outdated - my opinion is not wrong - it is my opinion. Also according to you anything I say is wrong so I will decline.

Do you have a real question rather than a "look at this evil practice! Defend this Aspen so I can call you a heretic"? - and no, I am not calling the practice evil.....

As soon as you are interested in having a real conversation instead of barking at a carnival side show - let me know.

Venerating relics is not outdated, as you said. Anyone can check on this. And you call the Catholic beliefs and practices a "carnival show"?


More pictures.....

Mark 12:38 As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces,

Mark 12:39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.

 

[Selene]

Bowing and Worship are two totaly different things.

Many here will disagree with me on what I'm about to say. That's fine and I completely understand why.

As some know I train Judo. (I don't go to the budhist place as I was originaly intending, I found a place that has no religious undertones) A few others on this forum have also trained martial arts. Here's some of the etiquite.

Before stepping on to the mat we all must bow to the mat. When we step off the mat we must bow to the mat. Before walking into Sensei's place (office or the like) We must bow. Before training we must first bow to a picture of Jigaro Kano (the guy who invented Judo). After we bow to the picture of Kano, We all bow to the Sensei's who are standing on the opposite side of the mat. We lower ranks must walk between Sensei and another Judoka who are talking we must bow. When going to talk to Sensei we must bow before we speak. After we're done talking to Sensei we must bow. At the end of the class we bow again to the picture of Kano and bow again to Sensei. Before and after we work with another Judoka we bow to eachother.

If we're doing Newaza (grappling) we even have a kneeling bow. Before doing Kata we bow kneeling. After Newaza and Kata we bow kneeling.

Bowing to the picture of Jigaro Kano seems like worship to some. It's not. We bow to the picture as a form of respect for the man he was and what he created. Much like people putting flowers on graves and remembering dead loved ones.

Bowing to the mat is a sign of respect for the place we train. We don't worship the mat.

We call our teacher Sensei because Sensei means teacher in Japanese. It doesn't mean worshipfull master. We bow to Sensei out of respect for his rank and his teaching.

We bow to eachother as a sign of respect.

We do all of this to show respect for others around us and for our dojo. It's a reminder to think of the others in a higher regard and value the teachings and memories of people who came before us. It's very humbling.

Now, Bowing in Japan is the equivalant of a handshake in the west. But, let's not forget to mention here,,,,,

Bowing to kings, queens, princesses, emperors, princes, etc. Salutes in the military. Handshakes with other people. It's all a sign of respect for others and the things they have done or will do.

I am certain that when I see Jesus the bow that I do will be different than the ones I do at the dojo.

Hello WhiteKnuckle,

Thank you for your input. I agree with you. Coming from the Asian-Pacific region, I know that bowing and worship are two different things. Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese children are taught to bow to their elders, but they are not worshipping their elders.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[bud02]

Venerating relics is not outdated, as you said.

Mark 12:39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.

Someone shake that guy I think hes my be dead :lol:

 

[Selene]

mcorba,

We never stopped being part of the universal Catholic church, which is why we still state, "one holy Catholic and Apostollic church," in the Nicene Creed and we also mention it in the Apostles Creed; "we believe in: The Hly cathlic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the ressurrection of the body and the life everlasting." I know that some churches; particularly Methodists and Lutherans will tned to say; "one holy Christians church," so that they can avoid any aawkwardness about the word, "Catholic," which is synomymous with the Pope and Rome but it doesn't have to be. Int he Book of Common prayer it say's that if any mandisputes the apostallic succession of the Chruch of England then he is to be excommunicated and is only reconcilable by the Archbishop of canterbury. This is from the 1662 version.#

My mother grew up as a Methodist and she was only used to saying, "one holy Christian church," in the creed, so that by the time she was being Confirmed as an Anglican she did have some apprehension at saying, "I believe in one holy Catholic and Aposollic church" until she had it explained to her that the statement had nothing at all to do with the church of Rome specifically but the establisehd church as a whole and was a statement about Christian unity.

Hi Templar,

The Eastern Catholic Churches that are in communion with Rome usually leave out the word "Roman" and just use "Catholic." They follow the same litugies as the Orthodox Churches rather than the Roman-rite liturgies, so many of them just call themselves "Catholic." The Orthodox Christians also say the Nicene Creed and also say "one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" despite that they are not in communion with Rome.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[Templar81]

Selene, I know.

Many Orthodox churches are national chruches like the Church of England or Luthernan churches in Scandinavia, (well a little bit anwyay, since they hae an archbishop who is the head as opposed to a king or queen like we have)

Are you familiar with the Maronites? I'm going to look into them further when I have the chance. There are also Orthodox monastries in Italy that have been part of the RCC since the 15th century when Constantinople fell to the Turks. They keep their liturgy and they worship the way they always have but they are very much a part of the RCC.

have you ever been to an orthodox Divine Liturgy Selene?
I went to one ocne, the servie as about 2 hours and you have to stand for the whole time. There are no prayer books for the congregation as they are expected to memorise the response and key prayers and th e priests celebrate the Eucharist twice; once of teh choire and then again for the congregation. The choir was amazing though, the best I've ever heard, very angelic. Oh and the women all covered their heads, just like St Paul say's. The service itself as in a mixture of English and Greek, the priest was an ex-Anglican who was trying to convert me and left with with the words, "remember the Holy Spirit comes straight from the Father, no the Father and the Son." "Ok Padre," I thought, "you said tomaeto I say tomarto." funnily enough, our modern english liturgy, "Common worship," actually contains the Orthodox version of the Nicene Creed for use in Eccumenical services where Orthodox Christians are present.

Also, just out of interest Selene! Hve you ever used the Athenasian creed?

 

[aspen]

Selene, I know.

Many Orthodox churches are national chruches like the Church of England or Luthernan churches in Scandinavia, (well a little bit anwyay, since they hae an archbishop who is the head as opposed to a king or queen like we have)

Are you familiar with the Maronites? I'm going to look into them further when I have the chance. There are also Orthodox monastries in Italy that have been part of the RCC since the 15th century when Constantinople fell to the Turks. They keep their liturgy and they worship the way they always have but they are very much a part of the RCC.

have you ever been to an orthodox Divine Liturgy Selene?
I went to one ocne, the servie as about 2 hours and you have to stand for the whole time. There are no prayer books for the congregation as they are expected to memorise the response and key prayers and th e priests celebrate the Eucharist twice; once of teh choire and then again for the congregation. The choir was amazing though, the best I've ever heard, very angelic. Oh and the women all covered their heads, just like St Paul say's. The service itself as in a mixture of English and Greek, the priest was an ex-Anglican who was trying to convert me and left with with the words, "remember the Holy Spirit comes straight from the Father, no the Father and the Son." "Ok Padre," I thought, "you said tomaeto I say tomarto." funnily enough, our modern english liturgy, "Common worship," actually contains the Orthodox version of the Nicene Creed for use in Eccumenical services where Orthodox Christians are present.

Also, just out of interest Selene! Hve you ever used the Athenasian creed?

That is so cool - I think I will find one of their Masses and attend.

 

[Selene]

Selene, I know.

Many Orthodox churches are national chruches like the Church of England or Luthernan churches in Scandinavia, (well a little bit anwyay, since they hae an archbishop who is the head as opposed to a king or queen like we have)

Are you familiar with the Maronites? I'm going to look into them further when I have the chance. There are also Orthodox monastries in Italy that have been part of the RCC since the 15th century when Constantinople fell to the Turks. They keep their liturgy and they worship the way they always have but they are very much a part of the RCC.

have you ever been to an orthodox Divine Liturgy Selene?
I went to one ocne, the servie as about 2 hours and you have to stand for the whole time. There are no prayer books for the congregation as they are expected to memorise the response and key prayers and th e priests celebrate the Eucharist twice; once of teh choire and then again for the congregation. The choir was amazing though, the best I've ever heard, very angelic. Oh and the women all covered their heads, just like St Paul say's. The service itself as in a mixture of English and Greek, the priest was an ex-Anglican who was trying to convert me and left with with the words, "remember the Holy Spirit comes straight from the Father, no the Father and the Son." "Ok Padre," I thought, "you said tomaeto I say tomarto." funnily enough, our modern english liturgy, "Common worship," actually contains the Orthodox version of the Nicene Creed for use in Eccumenical services where Orthodox Christians are present.

Also, just out of interest Selene! Hve you ever used the Athenasian creed?

Hi Templar,

We recognize all Orthodox Churches as Apostolic. I have not been to an Orthodox liturgy, but my priest described it at one time. Their liturgies and colored vestments are different from ours, but the Catholic Church accpets them. Yes, I've heard of the Maronite Catholics and the Athensian Creed. The Athensian Creed is very beautiful and we hold all those in the Creed to be true and sound beliefs.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[deprofundis]

I went to a Coptic Orthodox liturgy, which I think is very similar to an Orthodox liturgy. I'd like to see the Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox church more in action, since I speak Greek and Russian a lot better than I do Egyptian, although I knew enough to at least follow the service.

 

[aspen]

I went to a Coptic Orthodox liturgy, which I think is very similar to an Orthodox liturgy. I'd like to see the Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox church more in action, since I speak Greek and Russian a lot better than I do Egyptian, although I knew enough to at least follow the service.

Wow....it would be so great to know the languages too.

 

[deprofundis]

I don't see what pictures of feet have to do with anything. Can you clarify their importance, again, Anastacia?

 

[Selene]

I don't see what pictures of feet have to do with anything. Can you clarify their importance, again, Anastacia?

She has pictures of feet, and at the bottom of the picture, she makes the claim that Catholics kiss the feet of dead saints. Of course, you don't see her publish any pictures of any Catholic kissing the feet of those dead saints nor any pictures of them bowing to dead saints. Her words at the bottom does not match the pictures.

 

[Templar81]

The one I went to was Antiochan, ther Diocese was the Diocese of Western Europe and the Deanary was for Great britain adn Ireland. The Antiochan Orthodox church has a cathedral in London dedicated to St Sarkis.

Selene
Now when I wasked the Athenasian creed I was wondering if you've ever been to a service where it is used. We have it as a Creed or declaration of faith but I've never actually used it in a servie. Maybe I'll try to elarn it anyway.

The Maronites are very interesting, I'm goiong to find out more aobut them when I've got time.

Aspen
As far as I know they don't use the term "Mass," they call it "Divine Liturgy." As a Roman Catholic you could take communion at one if it is in communion with Rome, but those ones that aren't may or may not allow it. For obvious reasons I couldn't take communion in the Antiochan service, neither could I at the Catholic Mass I went to.

However, an Anglican can recieve the Sacrament where there is no Anglican church nearby. The Church of England has a deal with the Ctholic Bishops in France and we can take communion in French Catholic churches no problem so if I went to Lourdes I could take communion there. Also, I've been told I could recieve at Santiago de Compostella if I wish. One day I hope to go on pilgrimage there.

 

[aspen]

I think you were right about ignoring these types of anti-catholic posts, Selene

blessings

The one I went to was Antiochan, ther Diocese was the Diocese of Western Europe and the Deanary was for Great britain adn Ireland. The Antiochan Orthodox church has a cathedral in London dedicated to St Sarkis.

Selene
Now when I wasked the Athenasian creed I was wondering if you've ever been to a service where it is used. We have it as a Creed or declaration of faith but I've never actually used it in a servie. Maybe I'll try to elarn it anyway.

The Maronites are very interesting, I'm goiong to find out more aobut them when I've got time.

Aspen
As far as I know they don't use the term "Mass," they call it "Divine Liturgy." As a Roman Catholic you could take communion at one if it is in communion with Rome, but those ones that aren't may or may not allow it. For obvious reasons I couldn't take communion in the Antiochan service, neither could I at the Catholic Mass I went to.

However, an Anglican can recieve the Sacrament where there is no Anglican church nearby. The Church of England has a deal with the Ctholic Bishops in France and we can take communion in French Catholic churches no problem so if I went to Lourdes I could take communion there. Also, I've been told I could recieve at Santiago de Compostella if I wish. One day I hope to go on pilgrimage there.

That is really interesting information Templar

 

[Selene]

Selene
Now when I wasked the Athenasian creed I was wondering if you've ever been to a service where it is used. We have it as a Creed or declaration of faith but I've never actually used it in a servie. Maybe I'll try to elarn it anyway.

The Maronites are very interesting, I'm goiong to find out more aobut them when I've got time.

Hi Templar,

After Vatican II, we do not use the Athenasian Creed in our liturgies. I think it would be nice to say it on Trinity Sunday. But the Creed still exists in our Church.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[deprofundis]

She has pictures of feet, and at the bottom of the picture, she makes the claim that Catholics kiss the feet of dead saints. Of course, you don't see her publish any pictures of any Catholic kissing the feet of those dead saints nor any pictures of them bowing to dead saints. Her words at the bottom does not match the pictures.

Yeah, I mean, I saw the text, I just mean that I don't see what it has to do with much of anything, even if they do kiss the feet. Is it for any reason other than simply to show "shocking" images (which are really far from shocking; people die and bodies change over time, there is nothing horrifying about it) in lieu of actually formulating an argument? I mean, I'm a vegan, but I don't get what PETA expects to do with those pictures they put up, either. I know people say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but I see pictures used a lot when people can't use even a few. It's a cheap tactic that relies on a socially constructed "yuck" factour, not on His words or reasoning.

 

[TexUs]

Nothing surprising about it at all - the Roman Catholic Church, Coptic, and Orthodox understanding of scripture were the only forms of orthodoxy for the first fifteen hundred years of church history.

And as been established, their "understanding" has changed during those 1500 years.
And I also call nonsense because you are attempting to state that the only Christians were in the RCC for 1500 years which is utter nonsense.

And I am not sure how you have concluded that a commentary / concordance (Strong's) of the King James Bible is a majority translation - not that it matters, but the majority of Christians no longer read the KJV.

You don't understand. You were saying the "minority" of scholars didn't view this text as "full of grace". That's rubbish. Did you even look at the various translations I linked to? None of them translate it the way the Catholics do. I found only two translations that translated it "full of grace" and they were both Catholic translations.
So as I said, YOU, my friend, are the minority.

Jesus is full of grace in the same way Mary is and in the same way Stephen is, which are different.

"the same way but different".
Not only does Stephen being described differently than Christ work completely against the Scripture here, Christ being the same as Mary works completely against Scripture here.
Your entire argument has fallen apart on these scriptures. They don't support what you are trying to make them support.

You want the "odd duck out" in this triage of scriptures to be Stephen but the "odd duck out" is in fact, Mary.

The crazy thing about this whole argument is that if the same term was used to describe Mary

...But, there's not.

Just because Stephen is described as full of grace like Christ was doesn't mean that he is omnipresent, omnipotent or omniscient - being full of grace alone doesn't mean you are divine.

WAIT! But you were trying to apply this "full of grace" argument to mean more than it does to Mary! You were saying this passage supports her being sinless, earlier. But suddenly, when it's used with Stephen, we suddenly cannot use it to go beyond what it actually says. There's a double standard at work here.

If you ignore grammar, you are correct. Of course, neither is the word Trinity.

Grammar does not change the fact that "full of grace" is found nowhere in the passage.

 

[mcorba]

Anastacia, you win the award for being the most argumentative Christian on earth! Congratulations! :lol:

 

[aspen]

And as been established, their "understanding" has changed during those 1500 years.
And I also call nonsense because you are attempting to state that the only Christians were in the RCC for 1500 years which is utter nonsense.


Examples?
Wrong. Don't put words in my mouth. I said that the only doctrine that was orthodox was RCC, Orthodox, and Coptic - I said nothing about the presence of Christians outside those churches.


You don't understand. You were saying the "minority" of scholars didn't view this text as "full of grace". That's rubbish. Did you even look at the various translations I linked to? None of them translate it the way the Catholics do. I found only two translations that translated it "full of grace" and they were both Catholic translations.
So as I said, YOU, my friend, are the minority.


So you failed to read anything from Coptic, Othodox or even Anglican scholars - your feeble attempt to research included more Protestant scholars than churches that disagree with your interpretation.


"the same way but different".
Not only does Stephen being described differently than Christ work completely against the Scripture here, Christ being the same as Mary works completely against Scripture here.
Your entire argument has fallen apart on these scriptures. They don't support what you are trying to make them support.

You want the "odd duck out" in this triage of scriptures to be Stephen but the "odd duck out" is in fact, Mary.


LOL - you act like I made this stuff up! You are presenting the new doctrine here, not me. Your understanding of Mary is only 500 years old.


...But, there's not.


Ignoring grammar is your choice.


WAIT! But you were trying to apply this "full of grace" argument to mean more than it does to Mary! You were saying this passage supports her being sinless, earlier. But suddenly, when it's used with Stephen, we suddenly cannot use it to go beyond what it actually says. There's a double standard at work here.


You really need to go back and read my original post. You are confused


Grammar does not change the fact that "full of grace" is found nowhere in the passage.


You are right. But it sure changes the correct interpretation. Your argument is like translating "That car is really cool" as "it says the car is cold! Nowhere does it say that the car is exciting or popular!" Like I said it is your choice to be literal about this issue - I just totally disagree with you

 

[TexUs]

Sigh. I give up.
My understanding is based upon the original text, which predates any of your RCC heresy.

Have a nice discussion with others.