 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 02:29 am |
|
I'm curious about what you all's experience with Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM) is. I used it exhaustively when I took a (protestant) apologetics class as a teen. It is definately very protestant, and has sections refuting Catholicism, but like I said, I was wondering if anyone has any experience with it.
I was looking at its Catholic section and found an article on the Eucharist. The Bible was quoted extensively, but the beliefs of the early church weren't even mentioned. So, I emailed CARM.
------------------------
I just looked at your section on the Eucharist, and though you look at the mentions of the last supper in the Bible, you completely neglect looking at what the early church believed about the last supper and how it practiced it. Would not this help shed light on the issue, wouldn't this show us what Jesus actually taught the disciples? After all, every word of Jesus and reaction of the disciples is not recorded in the Bible. I would truly like to see your treatment of the early church's view of the Eucharist.
Thank you,
Rachaela Fultz
------------------------
I thought that I'd get a well-thought out reply examining and explaining away the beliefs of the early church. I couldn't have been more surprised when I recieved their reply, though:
------------------------
irrelevant. tradition is not scripture. Thank you for writing to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (http://www.carm.org)
--------------------------
I can't believe how disappointed I was. They didn't even want to get into what the early church believed and practiced AT ALL! I guess I expected more, a lot more, out of them, and I'm curious what kind of experiences you all have had with them.
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 10:10 am |
|
God's peace. While I haven't dealt with this group, your experience mirrors what I have had in talking to Protestants eveywhere. A recent example in my own experience had to do with the Campbellite "apologist" who asserted that since Christ is not referred to as "the Son" until the Incarnation in the NT, he therefore became the Son and is not eternally the Son. These people will allow no OT, not to mention holy tradition, to enter their thoughts.
I like to pose this question whenever I get into a spat with the sola scriptura crowd: Does your church allow just anyone to celebrate the Lord's Supper? No? Please show me in Scripture where the Lord's Supper requires an elder to preside and can't be celebrated by Mom and Pop in their homes! Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 214 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 07:19 pm |
|
Racaela Fultz wrote: I thought that I'd get a well-thought out reply examining and explaining away the beliefs of the early church. I couldn't have been more surprised when I recieved their reply, though:
------------------------
irrelevant. tradition is not scripture. Thank you for writing to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (http://www.carm.org)
--------------------------
I can't believe how disappointed I was. They didn't even want to get into what the early church believed and practiced AT ALL! I guess I expected more, a lot more, out of them, and I'm curious what kind of experiences you all have had with them.
That is the answer they must give you. If they honestly examined the belief of the Early Church Fatheer on this point, they would have no choice but to become Catholic.
God's Blessings,
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 4th, 2007 10:07 pm |
|
JasPax wrote: That is the answer they must give you. If they honestly examined the belief of the Early Church Fatheer on this point, they would have no choice but to become Catholic.
I have to admit that I agree. My experience with Protestant apologetics, as limited as it is, demonstrates that anything that contradicts their beliefs is irrelevant.
It is indeed unfortunate. An honest airing of beliefs might well show them why their teachings did not exist in the early Church until they were "discovered" by the "reformers".
And they accuse Catholics of inventing doctrine.....
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 4th, 2007 10:35 pm |
|
"And they accuse Catholics of inventing doctrines..."
I have to say that realizing this - that the protestants have actually invented the doctrines, that te beliefs and practices of my protestant church are actually very new - was pivital for me.
Actually, my devout cradle Catholic friend mentioned something similar to this the other day. He asked how people can accuse the Catholic church of not changing (they're too traditional, too much still in the middle ages, for the modern era) and of changing (they've invented docrine!) in same breath.
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 10:34 pm |
|
So, as I mentioned, I emailed CARM back after their disappointing reply. I said this:
I was not speaking of tradition as such. I am not a member of the Catholic Church, if that is what you are referring to. I merely asked what the historical record, the writings of the early church fathers, shows about the Lord's Supper. I am a history major and that sort of thing interests me, and I have a Catholic friend who said that the early church, from the very beginning, believed that the bread and wine actually become Christ's body and blood while the Lord's Supper is being celebrated. I know what the Bible says about it, but I know that we also have (uninspired) writings from early Christians, and was wondering exactly what they seemed to believe from their writings.
My Catholic friend, for instance, quotes the early church apologist Justin Martyr as saying the following in 110 AD:
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
I guess my question is what, in your research, you have found the early church believing (using writings outside the Bible, not as inspired but as historical documents) and how I should deal with these arguments. Believe me, I was raised to hold your view of the Lord's Supper, and I'm just trying to understand what is going on here. I was honestly disappointed with your answer to my previous email, as I had been taught to trust your opinions and writings a lot, but you merely dismissed my question without even trying to honestly answer it.
Racaela Fultz
-----------------------------------------------
Well, they just emailed me back again:
Dear Racaela
I hope you don't mind long answers.
I can appreciate the study of history. First thing i would say is this. Do not think for a second, that we as believers, do not have Roman Catholic fleas in our doctrine. What I mean to say is Rome was responsible for thousands of years of heresies and if you dared say a word, you didn't last long.
The evangelical church is filled with Roman doctrine. The denial of Adam's death imputed to all man, the doctrine of free will replaced with the toning down of Adam's sin imputed to ALL mankind. The rejection of Christ's righteousness imputed to the account of a sinner thereby making peace with God. The rejection of eternal security replaced with purgatory. We may not use these terms, but we share in the definitions. Rome has an alter call, Evangelical churches have alter calls.
What you have to know is the Roman Catholic Church hijacked the communion meal/agape feast and made it an abomination. What happened in time was the Jewish believers were either expelled or persecuted to leave the area.
First, I am a converted Jew. What you see today must have its roots in the Scriptures. Not the New Testament, but the Old Testament! If, for example, I cannot find the Mass in the Tanach, it must be rejected! If I do not see the sacrifice coming down to earth as a propitiatory sacrifice, at the call of a Priest from the Scriptures, It must be rejected.
What was practiced by the Jews was the Passover. The Seder had roots in the Exodus as a model to come. In the gospel of John we are told by the Messiah where he refers to himself as living water, the bread from heaven, the door, and later on the vine, etc. The one I want to focus on is John 6. Since, you are not a Roman Catholic, you have the ability to be honest and read out of the text.
Jesus states unless you we eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Is that where it begins? No! We must see where the dialog begins back in John 5. the Jews are heated up due to the healing on the Sabbath. As you follow it along, Jesus knows the right buttons to push and he does. He now brings Moses into the picture and says;
Joh 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"
Now we see in vs. 4 an important connection. I wont bore you with all the details, I want to keep these things in the back of your mind though.
Joh 6:4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.
What better time to go into the subject right?
Joh 6:26 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal."
Joh 6:28 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform?
Joh 6:31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
Now, I want you to see a familiar passage used in John 4. Parallels. What did these Jews say when offered bread from heaven?
Joh 6:34 They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
Give us this bread always. Jesus applies the bread to himself.
What did the woman at the well say? Jesus claims to become in her a wellspring.
Joh 4:14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water."
He now springs from works to manna. Law and Moses are in question. Bread is the subject. Here comes the grumbling.
Joh 6:41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."
What must be understood here is the rejection of election. Jesus tells these men and women that they cannot accept these words because they must be given to the Son by the Father. Jesus further states that those who are given to him are not ever cast out, He says in vs. 38 that those who come to him are by the will (thelema) of the Father. It is said what the will of the Father is. Jesus shall lose none of all that the Father has given to him. Why do I focus on this? Because this is what helps to separate self initiated salvation and those who are born from above by the calling and will of God.
Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Note again the grumbling.
Joh 6:43 Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves.
Jesus responds to the grumbling by saying the reason you wont or cant accept this teaching is because you must be drageed to the Son by the Father. This is important because it ties into vs. 65. these so-called disciples were having problems with associating the Jewish passover to the lamb of God. The passover was symbolic. Those who had blood on the top and the door posts were saved from the angel of death as he passed by.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day
Again, this is referring to the bread sent from heaven as well.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
What bread is being paralleled? The bread that was sent from heaven to temporarily sustain. They are not getting it because they are not listening to the parallel to the manna from heaven. They are thinking like cannibals. Now focus on verse 63 where it is explained to these noodleheads
Joh 6:61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
63. It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
They are spiritual!!!!!! Roman Catholics ignore this as they do when Jesus refers to himself as the door, the vine, the living water, etc. Only the devil would teach a cannibal jesus and he seems to like this idea of the Eucharist.
Jesus is clear in vs. 65 as to why men think cannibalism and ignore a spiritual teaching.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
Joh 6:66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
It must be granted by the Father for an individual to understand what Jesus was saying! If the Father doe not open the eyes of understanding, them men will distort this entire passage. When you think further of the Mass, what do you think is happening?
Racaela, do you believe the words of the Messiah? "Paid in full!" "It is finished!" Ask yourself, what was finished? The work was completed. The anger of God has been appeased. We are now at peace with him through the work of Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus was a propitiatory sacrifice. It is a done deal! Paid!
What happens in the Mass? Jesus is crucified again, and again, every four minutes around the planet. When the Priest says the magic words, jesus leaves his throne and comes down to heaven to become bread and wine for people to eat. It is said to be an unbloody sacrifice. I am a converted Jew as I mentioned. There is no "unbloody sacrifices when it comes to this particular sacrifice. Leviticus 17:11 says blood is given in the place of you and I. The Roman Catholic will argue that the mass is only a memorial.
Do not let them lie to you! If anyone says it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice, they are under the anathema of God. this sacrifice of the mass is said to also be a propitiatory sacrifice. How is that possible when propitiation has already been made by Jesus on the Cross? The Roman Catholic Church states the Eucharist is necessary for salvation. Better yet, let me help here.
Council of Trent Session XXII
That the Sacrifice of the Mass is style=""propitiatory both for the living and the dead.
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that style=""this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the [Page 155] grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles.
Canons On The Sacrifice Of The Mass
Canon 1. If anyone says that in the mass a true style=""and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.
Canon 3. style=""If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one;[23] or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.
My point is to show a Roman Catholic is not allowed to maintain the Mass is only a memorial. It is a real and true sacrifice offered to God. this is blasphemy.
Our memorial as Protestants is found in 1 Cor 11.
1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
Rome has jesus placed back on a cross in an unbloody manner. The Bible teaches that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission for sins. What a tragedy to see so many Roman Catholics who do not understand they are putting the Messiah back on the Cross. What did the writer to the Hebrews suggest at this type of teaching from Rome?
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
They are sacrificing him again and again to their own harm and holding up to contempt. I would encourage you to learn what the term propitiation means as I provide the term below. Follow it through in the New Testament. See how it stands against Roman Catholic heresy and blasphemy.
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Heb 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
The Greek word is
hilasmos
Meaning: 1) relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation 1a) used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins expiated); hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory 1b) an expiatory sacrifice 1c) a expiatory victim Origin: from a derivative of 2433; TDNT - 3:318,362; n n Usage: AV - propitiation 1, mercyseat 1; 2 If I seem passionate about this, don't read into it. Rome has millions who are deceived and I care about pleasing only my Master, Jesus the Messiah. With the above definition for the word propitiation, ask yourself, does Jesus continue the day of atonement? Has God's wrath been appeased? Yes.
We worship the risen Lord and when we get together for agape feasts, we celebrate the Lord's return as victor. Not victim!
Moshe
Thank you for writing to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (http://www.carm.org)
------------------------------------------
So, what are your thoughts?
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 180 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 11:55 pm |
|
I don't have the time or energy to address all the points Moshe brought up in his reply, but I'll touch on a few points.
First, he completely ignored the testimony of Justin Martyr (or else he relegated that to "the Catholic Church" which corrupted the "agape meal").
Second, yes, the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice, but it is NOT the re-crucifying of Jesus Christ over and over again. It is, like the Passover meal, a transcendental experience for the Church, being present at Calvary (as Jesus made the Apostles present there the night before it happened). We are witnessing the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ: it is unbloody, but it is the same sacrifice. It is not a representation of the sacrifice, it is re-presented. There is only one sacrifice, and it is eternally offered by the Son to the Father, and we are partakers in it and join ourselves to it as spiritual sacrifices. It is NOT symbolic, just as the Passover was not symbolic: you try telling an Israelite who neglected to spread the lamb's blood on his doorposts it was "symbolic". God clearly said He would pass over those houses with the blood on their doorposts; if you neglected to follow that ordinance, you were in trouble.
Third, he mentions how something must be based on the Old Testament and not (only) the New Testament. How, then, does he accept the teachings of Jesus which extended and altered the Mosaic Law? Moses taught nothing about loving one's enemies and praying for those who persecute you; rather, the Israel of the Old Testament had to fight against its enemies for survival. Why would Jesus have taught about reconciling before offering gifts at the altar if the Jewish temple would be destroyed in a few decades and the Jewish religion would be superceded by Christianity? And does he observe a Saturday sabbath, or accept the early Church's decision to meet and honor the Lord on Sunday, his day?
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1790 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 11:57 pm |
|
Racaela, I don’t see anywhere in that long essay that he answered your question about the value of history in determining early Christian belief and practice. So much for his note about Catholic “irrelevance.”
David
|
|
|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 12:05 am |
|
I agree with you, David. I actually emailed him back pointing that out and asking for clarification. We'll see what happens...
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 150 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 08:44 am |
|
| God's peace. I notice that your correspondent brings up the "Roman cannibalism" canard. I get hit with this all the time. Interesting, isn't it, that Jesus doesn't bother to chase after the Jews who turned away from his teaching to correct their "misunderstanding?" It would have been so easy for our Lord to set things right, if he had only been a little clearer at the outset, huh? Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 734 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 12:59 pm |
|
Racaela Fultz wrote: (quoting that other web site) Do not think for a second, that we as believers, do not have Roman Catholic fleas in our doctrine. What I mean to say is Rome was responsible for thousands of years of heresies and if you dared say a word, you didn't last long. Okay, bottom line: if our beliefs are to be equated with vermin and sin then, end of discussion. These are closed-minded people, not interested in reasoned discourse.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 01:49 pm |
|
:
Racaela,
I will do my best at addressing some of Moshe's comments. There are so many objections to the Catholic Church, that it would take hours to address them all.  BTW, he seems to be shouting at you with his large font in bold. My comments are in red. 
Dear Racaela
I hope you don't mind long answers. No kiddin. 
I can appreciate the study of history. First thing i would say is this. Do not think for a second, that we as believers, do not have Roman Catholic fleas in our doctrine. Moshe is subtly saying Roman Catholics are not "believers." What I mean to say is Rome was responsible for thousands of years of heresies and if you dared say a word, you didn't last long. That's very true. The Romans persecuted many Christians, including the Apostle Peter, whose bones are buried in Rome. But Moshe is using the term "Rome" as a derogatory term. This is an M.O. for staunch Anti-Catholics. Moshe says "thousands of years." Could it possibly be that the Catholic Church is the ORIGINAL Christian church?
The evangelical church is filled with Roman doctrine. Ah, but Moshe has the pure doctrine, I'm sure. The denial of Adam's death imputed to all man, the doctrine of free will replaced with the toning down of Adam's sin imputed to ALL mankind. The rejection of Christ's righteousness imputed to the account of a sinner thereby making peace with God. The rejection of eternal security replaced with purgatory. We may not use these terms, but we share in the definitions. Rome has an alter call, Evangelical churches have alter calls. He isn't very clear here. Except that he is admitting to believing in eternal security. I think what he's saying is that the Roman Catholic church is a conterfeit of the Real thing, which is Evangelical Protestantism.
What you have to know is the Roman Catholic Church hijacked the communion meal/agape feast and made it an abomination. Really? When did this hijacking take place? Must have been very early, within less than 100 years after Christ left this earth and even less time after the Apostles died. So where is the history as to when this hijacking occurred? Does he have an historic evidence for this hijacking? And is so, then what happened to the authentic Christians? Or did Jesus then lie to Peter when He said that the "gates of Hell would not prevail" against His Church? What happened in time was the Jewish believers were either expelled or persecuted to leave the area. By whom? The Roman Catholic Church? Wasn't it prophesied that the Jews would be scattered? What about the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., which our Lord predicted would happen? Read history from Josephus, a Jewish historian. He wrote about the fall of Jerusalem, which cannot be attributed to the Roman Catholic Church.First, I am a converted Jew. What you see today must have its roots in the Scriptures. So are Jesus' words insignificant? I suppose then that Moshe is including the Deuterocanonical books in his version of the Old Testament?  Not the New Testament, but the Old Testament! Really? Is Moshe inventing his own brand of Jewish Christianity? If, for example, I cannot find the Mass in the Tanach, it must be rejected! If I do not see the sacrifice coming down to earth as a propitiatory sacrifice, at the call of a Priest from the Scriptures, It must be rejected. So does Moshe reject that God could come down to this earth incarnate? Does he reject that Christ could be God in the flesh? This is what many of the pharisees rejected and found scandalous. They charged Jesus with blasphemy because He said, "Before Abraham was, I Am," making Himself equal with God.
What was practiced by the Jews was the Passover. The Seder had roots in the Exodus as a model to come. In the gospel of John we are told by the Messiah where he refers to himself as living water, the bread from heaven, the door, and later on the vine, etc. The one I want to focus on is John 6. Since, you are not a Roman Catholic, you have the ability to be honest and read out of the text. Those Catholics don't have the ability to be honest. BTW, from whom is Moshe getting his interpretation of the scriptures?
Jesus states unless you we eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Is that where it begins? No! We must see where the dialog begins back in John 5.Really? Why not John 1, or 2, or 3 or 4? What and who gives Moshe the right to say such a thing? Still, Moshe must address what Jesus was actually saying when He made this statement about His flesh and blood.
Ok, now I'm gonna take a breather.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 734 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 03:44 pm |
|
Hey, Darlene, let me know if you need an oxygen mask. You are great. Your effort is futile, of course, but great.
Remember, people with bigoted ideas are like the Borg, resistance is futile.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 04:12 pm |
|
I understand that some people just won't listen, believe me, I understand.
CARM is a ministry I was taught, as a Baptist (doctrinally), to trust, so I thought that they'd at least do a good job defending their beliefs.
All I really wanted here was an answer as to what they do with the testimony of the early church fathers. It seems I'm not going to get that. See, on the Eucharist, that's what convinced me, anyway.
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 180 |
| First Name: | Jeff (you can call me "japhy" | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 04:33 pm |
|
Racaela Fultz wrote: All I really wanted here was an answer as to what they do with the testimony of the early church fathers.
They ignore it as errant. It can't possibly be correct to them, because the Fathers' interpretation of Scriptures is simply wrong to them, and their interpretation of Scriptures is simply right. It's that easy, really.
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 734 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 04:45 pm |
|
japhy wrote: They ignore it as errant.
This is correct. They ignore anything they don't like as "errant." And we all know where "errant" people go, don't we, to the really bad hot place.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2007 08:28 pm |
|
We're still emailing back and forth (I know it's pointless, but I'd like to back him into a corner). He just keeps saying that the early Church believed that the Eucharist was a memorial, but doesn't provide any evidence for that. Anyway, he just emailed me this list:
Some Roman Catholic Heresies and Inventions, and the Dates of their Adoption:
Prayers for the dead; about 300
Making the sign of the cross; 300
Wax candles; about 320
Veneration of angels and dead saints, and use of images; 375
The Mass as a daily celebration; 394
Beginning of the exaltation of Mary, the term "Mother of God" first applied to her by the Council of Ephesus; 431
Priests began to dress differently from laymen; 500
Extreme Unction; 526
The doctrine of Purgatory, established by Gregory I; 593
Latin Language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by Gregory I; 600
Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints and angels; about 600
Title of pope, or universal bishop, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas; 610
Kissing the pope s foot, began with pope Constantine; 709
Temporal power of the popes, conferred by Pepin, king of France; 750
Worship of the cross, images and relics, authorized in; 786
Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest; 850
Worship of St. Joseph; 890
College of Cardinals established; 927
Baptism of bells, instituted by pope John XIV; 965
Canonization of dead saints, first by pope John XV; 995
Fasting of Fridays and during lent; 998
The Mass, developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance made obligatory in the 11th century
Celibacy of the priesthood, decreed by pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand); 1079
The Rosary, mechanical praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit; 1090
The Inquisition, instituted by the Council of Verona; 1184
Sale of Indulgences; 1190
Transubstantiation, proclaimed by pope Innocent III; 1215
Auricular Confession of sins to a priest instead of to God, instituted by pope Innocent III, in Lateran Council; 1215
Adoration of the wafer (Host), decreed by pope Honorius III; 1220
Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia; 1229
The Scapular, invented by Simon Stock, an English monk; 1287
Cup forbidden to the people at communion by Council of Constance; 1414
Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma by the Council of Florence; 1438
The doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed; 1439
The Ave Maria (part of the last half was completed 50 years later and approved by pope Sixtus V at the end of the 16th century); 1508
Jesuit order founded by Loyola; 1534
Tradition declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent; 1545
Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent; 1546
Creed of pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed; 1560
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, proclaimed by pope Pius IX; 1854
Syllabus of Errors, proclaimed by pope Pius IX, and ratified by the Vatican Council; condemned freedom of religion, conscience, speech, press, and scientific discoveries which are disapproved by the Roman Church; asserted the pope s temporal authority over all civil rulers; 1864
Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council; 1870
Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XI; 1930
Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death), proclaimed by Pope Pius XII; 1950
I know the refutations to almost all of these, and trust that any that might look concerning that I haven't heard of before are just misconceptions like all the others. I guess what I can't believe is that a protestant ministry I was SO taught to trust is run by someone who believes and regurgitates these lies! I feel betrayed by those who taught me to trust CARM. And, every day, more sure of my Catholic faith (which will be official at Easter!).
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
catholic
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Dublin, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 34 |
| First Name: | Paul | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Non-Specific Protestant -> Catholic (Latin Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2007 10:58 pm |
|
Racaela Fultz wrote:
We're still emailing back and forth (I know it's pointless, but I'd like to back him into a corner). He just keeps saying that the early Church believed that the Eucharist was a memorial, but doesn't provide any evidence for that. Anyway, he just emailed me this list:
Some Roman Catholic Heresies and Inventions, and the Dates of their Adoption:
...
chop
...
I know the refutations to almost all of these, and trust that any that might look concerning that I haven't heard of before are just misconceptions like all the others. I guess what I can't believe is that a protestant ministry I was SO taught to trust is run by someone who believes and regurgitates these lies! I feel betrayed by those who taught me to trust CARM. And, every day, more sure of my Catholic faith (which will be official at Easter!).
That list is a cut and paste from a compilation written by Stephen L. Testa, a fundamentalist Baptist.
Here is a nice article that references Mr. Testa's work: | | |
