Confirmation - The Catholic Church

[JimmyPage]

I think for many or perhaps some its the social part of the church they go for , its there comunity

I cant remember where I heard it or who said it but the question was along the lines of " how can you listen to those sermons for so long "

The answer was "we switch of for that bit "

At the start you can see how it was good for a few to meet in a house in secret and call it church , it then morphed in to the big buildings etc etc , but the comunity part still stayed , obviously they are the majority rather than a minority now

Remember that *before* the Catholic church, there were still Christians. And quite a few of them had "heretical" beliefs such as "every man contains his own God" meaning you looked within for salvation, not to a priest. Also bear in mind that there's a reason it's the *Roman* Catholic church, and that's because it's effectively the last vestiges of the Roman Empire - which had every reason to suppress any brand of Christianity which *didn't* need hierarchy. After all, how can you get people to obey you, if they have this notion they are their own master ?

We're still doing it 2,000 years on.

[Guest bazzad9]

I'm not religious but the only people I know who go to church do a lot of work in the local community as well

Nobody ever seems to mention the good things as I suppose that doesn't fit with the idea that religion is just bad

People not in the church also do good you dont hear of it as much because its not under the one banner of a church

So both do good making the church part optional , ie you dont need church to do good

Not that I would argue the church is all bad anyway

What you do find often is the good is done as long as the preaching that goes with it are accepted , thats more on a bigger scale

Also not all the good done and money given under the name of the church is done by those that are members of or beleivers of a church ,

[Guest bazzad9]

Remember that *before* the Catholic church, there were still Christians. And quite a few of them had "heretical" beliefs such as "every man contains his own God" meaning you looked within for salvation, not to a priest. Also bear in mind that there's a reason it's the *Roman* Catholic church, and that's because it's effectively the last vestiges of the Roman Empire - which had every reason to suppress any brand of Christianity which *didn't* need hierarchy. After all, how can you get people to obey you, if they have this notion they are their own master ?

We're still doing it 2,000 years on.

Just to clarify mate, when I say at the start I mean the pre catholic christians meeting a few handed in a home , unlike budfan I realise the catholics didnt start chrisianity

(Sorry budfan )

Edit

When I say home I mean any lion free enviroment

Edited January 25, 2013 by bazzad9

[BudFan]

Hi Jimmy,

Remember that *before* the Catholic church, there were still Christians

The earliest Christians are the ones who started using the term "Catholic Church" to describe themselves.

The earliest evidence of the term "Catholic Church" we have dates from 107 AD - only a few decades after Christ died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism#Catholic_Church_use

The Romans continued to suppress early Christianity for over 200 years after this date. So it was Catholic Christians fed to the Lions, blamed for Romes troubles, who had to meet in secret etc. (it certainly wasn't your Anglicans, Presbyterians, or Methodists etc, who wouldn't exist for a further 1,500 years).

Christians have always been Catholic Christians. But naturally they only thought of themselves as 'Christians', until such a time (1,500 years later) when Protestant Christians first appeared and at times a distinction was needed.

Also bear in mind that there's a reason it's the *Roman* Catholic church

It is actually just "the Catholic Church". Catholic means "Universal". Putting a qualifier in front of universal is illogical / a syntax error.

Some protestants like the qualifier "roman" because they had to justify their existence: after all, what was the point of them, if there was already a Universal Church? The Church of England uses the "roman" prefix, so they can claim that they too, are Catholics (just different Catholics).

But they are not Catholics - something is either universal, or it is not, there are no shades of universality.

The Catholic Church itself is pretty easy going about the term "Roman Catholic", and even uses it itself occasionally, for the sake of peace.

The early Christians soon began to refer to themselves as "the Catholic Church", to show that Christianity was for everyone. This was Christianity as founded by Christ himself, with a Christian hierarchy, including the position of head of the church (pope), as per created by Jesus himself. This is another reason why Protestants cannot claim to be Catholic (as the CofE and others do), because they do not even follow the Christian model Christ gave to his people (and have also, by now, abandoned most of his teachings - marriage is the latest one which they will soon surrender).

Wiki coyly says (my italic emphasis):

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church, with more than one billion members worldwide.[1] It is among the oldest institutions in the world and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilisation.[2] The Catholic hierarchy is led by the Pope and includes cardinals, patriarchs and diocesan bishops. The Church teaches that it is the one true Church divinely[3][4] founded by Jesus Christ,[5][6] that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles and that the Pope is the sole successor to Saint Peter who has apostolic primacy

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

Sounds about right to me!

Saint Peters tomb (body carbon dated and checks out) is directly under his namesake Basillica in the Vatican state (you can visit it). This is the Church we are talking about, not just a Church.

that's because it's effectively the last vestiges of the Roman Empire

Another protestant myth aimed at justifying their own existence

The Roman Empire failed over 1000 years ago; since then the Church has exploded and grown exponentially around the globe - hardly the 'last vestiges' of an ancient failed empire. The Roman Empire was/is small beer compared with Christendom.

which had every reason to suppress any brand of Christianity which *didn't* need hierarchy

Catholic Church has a hierarchy because that's how JC created it.

Look at the Protestant Churches who do not have a hierarchy. They are not communities in any sense of the word. They are riven with factionalism and infighting. Many of the internal factions don't even like one another very much, yet they present themselves as a "Church". Their members all regard themselves as being the Pope and just so suit themselves. The lack of cohesion means they struggle to articulate a coherent position on religious or moral matters, which is why they prefer to talk about the banks and the environment etc. 'Church' implies common belief and values, yet there is no modern protestant denomination with these.

Look at the Church of England: they managed to agree in principle to women bishops, but then managed to vote against women bishops. Talk about "laying on the credibility thick" eh? Some of them think women cant be clergy at all. Some think women can be priests but not bishops. Some think women can be anything. Some think women can be priests, but not bishops, but gay men can be bishops as long as they don't have sex. Some of them believe in transubstantiation, (the ones trying to convince themselves that they are Catholics), yet others do not.

Its a bit of a joke isnt it? I mean, what do any of these people have in common with one another, and what does any of it have to do with Jesus Christ?

Surely it is not just coincidence that the oldest, largest (still growing globally) and most successful Church, is the one which JC himself founded? And the one which faithfully sticks to his teachings - even the tough ones - and model of Christian ministry, in spite of the volume of anger, rage, mockery, accusation, ridicule and spite this attracts from the secular world (because Jesus' ideas about what constitutes marriage, or Christian ministry, differs markedly from modern secular ideas about the same).

In contrast, the Churches with no hierarchy, are the failures, the ones dying a death. Look at the recent drop in English/Welsh people calling themselves Christians - down 12% in just 10 years. (it will be the same story in Scotland). This is fundamentally down to the failure of Protestantism, not any problem with Christianity or religion in general. (though some seek to present it as a society maturing beyond religion - in reality it is a society which has not been Christian for ~500 years finally being honest with itself).

Take it easy!

Cheers

BF

[BudFan]

Just to clarify mate, when I say at the start I mean the pre catholic christians meeting a few handed in a home , unlike budfan I realise the catholics didnt start chrisianity

(Sorry budfan )

Haha no problem mate, but see what I said to Jimmy, above:

The earliest Christians are the ones who started using the term "Catholic Church" to describe themselves.

The earliest evidence of the term "Catholic Church" we have dates from 107 AD - only a few decades after Christ died.

http://en.wikipedia....olic_Church_use

The Romans continued to suppress early Christianity for over 200 years after this date. So it was Catholic Christians fed to the Lions, blamed for Romes troubles, who had to meet in secret etc. (it certainly wasn't your Anglicans, Presbyterians, or Methodists etc, who wouldn't exist for a further 1,500 years).

Christians have always been Catholic Christians. But naturally they only thought of themselves as 'Christians', until such a time (1,500 years later) when Protestant Christians first appeared and at times a distinction was needed.

The Catholic Church is the original Christian Church. There is no getting away from it - the protestants have tried and failed for nearly 500 years

[Guest bazzad9]

Budfan the earliest christians where not catholics , the first groip calli g themselves catholic was when you say , although not the catholic church you follow , the name was kept when joining with rome

But its not the doctrine you follow

Another straw grasped at

[Ishmael]

Look at the Church of England: they managed to agree in principle to women bishops, but then managed to vote against women bishops. Talk about "laying on the credibility thick" eh? Some of them think women cant be clergy at all. Some think women can be priests but not bishops. Some think women can be anything. Some think women can be priests, but not bishops, but gay men can be bishops as long as they don't have sex. Some of them believe in transubstantiation, (the ones trying to convince themselves that they are Catholics), yet others do not.

Its a bit of a joke isnt it? I mean, what do any of these people have in common with one another, and what does any of it have to do with Jesus Christ?

I don't know quite what it is about your argumentative style that strikes me as so hollow. All this colloquial rhetoric, 'it's a bit of a joke isn't it?' etc, as if you were arguing in favour of Aston Villa's cup record, or the reform of the Welfare State, rather than matters of beliefs about the soul and its destiny. That's a deep sin surely? I think you're going straight to hell mate.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Ishmael

[Guest trilok]

As far as I can see, the only places on the up for the Church are in South America and Africa, they lost a generation almost in Ireland.

In India they're doing big business, they've a basilica in Kochi under renovation and a Jesus theme park thing, and all my rickshaw drivers were catholic too. Despite that had one had two daughters and still had to pay dowries for them both. Worst of both worlds... Big money too. That man worked 80+ hour a week to pay the catholic church, the hindu parents of his daughters husbands, and to pay Glaxo Smith Kline full wack for his mother in laws medicine. Put my shit in perspective anyway...

[Michael Luchóg]

It's a bit of a passing phase though eh

A farmer near me drove his tractor through a round mound in his field and it collapsed and he found a tomb with swirls on the stone walls . They don't want to meddle with the fairies or understand its relation to the solar system so because of superstition the farmer called a priest and he blessed it and they patched the ground up as best they could . I just thought it was really ironic . The fairy fort is four ,maybe six times older then JC and this guy's throwing holy water at it because of taboo and people that Christianity probably tried to turn into foclóir .i.e winged fairies .

Could ya not be catholic and pretend to be protestant ? If King Kenry was around I'd be hiding anyway

Heavy thread . Think I'll withnail anything I was thinking of !

[Guest trilok]

Catholicism is brainwashing, simple as that. I've never seen fully recovered catholic but I've known a few that effectively killed themselves with a head full that medieval guilt and mumbo-jumbo.

[BudFan]

Budfan the earliest christians where not catholics , the first groip calli g themselves catholic was when you say , although not the catholic church you follow , the name was kept when joining with rome

But its not the doctrine you follow

Another straw grasped at

Hi bazza

Another thread where my arguments are substantiated with links / info, but yours are not.

As per the "did jesus even exist" thread, as per the "HIV-condoms" thread, etc etc

Theres a definite pattern here!

[BudFan]

I don't know quite what it is about your argumentative style that strikes me as so hollow. All this colloquial rhetoric, 'it's a bit of a joke isn't it?' etc, as if you were arguing in favour of Aston Villa's cup record, or the reform of the Welfare State, rather than matters of beliefs about the soul and its destiny.

Hi ishamel,

Better to keep things light hearted, in keeping with the general forum, im no fan of impenetrable theological debate! (who is?!)

Plus, I contend that the description I gave of the infighting / lack of unity Church of England does give the impression of a joke. Agree on women Bishops, then vote against it? Cant they decide? Its not a hard question, surely. To outsiders eyes, how do you think this looks? What impression must all the infighting and disagreement give of Christianity to the many secular people in the UK? Might not they reasonably conclude it that was a joke, given their example?

That's a deep sin surely? I think you're going straight to hell mate.

Well, I can state "no" on the first, and "hopefully not" on the 2nd

Cheers

[BudFan]

Catholicism is brainwashing, simple as that. I've never seen fully recovered catholic but I've known a few that effectively killed themselves with a head full that medieval guilt and mumbo-jumbo.

Actually killed themselves or effectively killed themselves?

I never known anyone who has killed them self (fortunately!) and I have known a lot of Catholics!

Also, it is not 'brainwashing' to simply accept that which is the truth.

[Guest bazzad9]

Hi bazza

Another thread where my arguments are substantiated with links / info, but yours are not.

As per the "did jesus even exist" thread, as per the "HIV-condoms" thread, etc etc

Theres a definite pattern here!

Give me the list of what you think ive not backed up and ill gladly provide links

The condom and aids one I beleive falls under common sense , but still if you want links mate ill gladly back anything ive said

You provide the list and ill back it up , sound fair

[Arnold Layne]

Haha no problem mate, but see what I said to Jimmy, above:

The Catholic Church is the original Christian Church. There is no getting away from it - the protestants have tried and failed for nearly 500 years

Sorry budfan, but that is just plain old nonsense

The Prot denominations, just as invalid as then Roman fallacy, are none the less growing exponentially, especially the pentecostal types.

The Roman claim to be the only Church valid, is just plain old authoritarian silliness.