|
Post by genesda on Apr 2, 2004 7:02:28 GMT -5
I see your still into editting! Now you want to insert the word "Roman" into what other people write. Lisa, take note. To make genesda happy (and keep his post count down) could you please insert the word "Roman" each time you use the word catholic or Catholic. This is regardless of whether you are referring to thr universal meaning of the denomination based out of Rome. I'm not editing at all, just setting the record straight and I explained it. If the intention is the worldwide Christian body is being referred to, "Catholic" is fine, but when beliefs of the Rcc are being discussed, then "ROMAN catholic" is proper and should be used to separate the Roman church from Christian churches. Another term that would be proper is "Papist catholic church" because Rc people follow the teachings and directives of the pope, even when they oppose the teachings of Jesus. Rc people would be properly defined as followers of the papacy instead of Jesus. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Apr 2, 2004 7:18:16 GMT -5
I have to speak up here...as I usually do in these threads eventually. I have known several Catholic brothers and sisters since coming to these boards. How did I know they were Catholic? Was it because they spoke of Mary and exalted her? Commanding that we pray to her? NO! It was because they told me they were. If they hadn't told me..I may never have known. I couldn't see a difference in the basic tenets of theology..the one that puts Christ first between any of them. I have been surprised..when viewing those "what denomination are you?" and "what church..." threads to see the diversity of denoms and churches..and wouldn't have been able to tell one from the other..without that information. I see a lot of loving, caring Christians among all of us. Christians who put Christ and His commands first. More later...time for work! It is a very fine line that I am trying to walk here. I do not want to condemn or attack individuals, nor do I wish to make personal attacks - which I have not done. But I do want desperately to cause individuals who are Catholics to confront the issues as to their views on the Holy Bible, and to seek to validate their doctrines upon the Word of God. My position from day one has always been that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17) and if we do not do all that we can to convince them that without the Bible there can be no possible salvation, we do them a disservice. If I have been rude or offensive to anyone I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 2, 2004 8:06:02 GMT -5
It is a very fine line that I am trying to walk here. I do not want to condemn or attack individuals, nor do I wish to make personal attacks - which I have not done. But I do want desperately to cause individuals who are Catholics to confront the issues as to their views on the Holy Bible, and to seek to validate their doctrines upon the Word of God. My position from day one has always been that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17) and if we do not do all that we can to convince them that without the Bible there can be no possible salvation, we do them a disservice. If I have been rude or offensive to anyone I apologize. I agree. The disputes come in when the Rc's try to convince non Rc's that they have it wrong and want to use their "traditions" to prove the bible is wrong. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Apr 2, 2004 8:13:09 GMT -5
gene, it's been understood, at least by most here that "catholic" (lower case) refers to the universal church while "Catholic" (upper case) refers to the particular Catholic denomination. Sorry if you did not know that, but that's the way it has always been here as long as I remember.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 2, 2004 8:22:47 GMT -5
gene, it's been understood, at least by most here that "catholic" (lower case) refers to the universal church while "Catholic" (upper case) refers to the particular Catholic denomination. Sorry if you did not know that, but that's the way it has always been here as long as I remember. It should be the other way around. Caps should denote the worldwide Catholic(universal) faith, and lower for a particular branch. Caps signify "THE", as in only, universal faith. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Apr 2, 2004 8:34:38 GMT -5
gene, it's been understood, at least by most here that "catholic" (lower case) refers to the universal church while "Catholic" (upper case) refers to the particular Catholic denomination. Sorry if you did not know that, but that's the way it has always been here as long as I remember. It should be the other way around. Caps should denote the worldwide Catholic(universal) faith, and lower for a particular branch. Caps signify "THE", as in only, universal faith. [/color][/quote] No, caps signify a proper name, etc. This is regards to a denomination... such like Seventh Day Advent (sorry if I got that wrong) or Baptist. The denomination is capitalized because it's a proper name.
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Apr 2, 2004 10:48:28 GMT -5
Excuse me, but huh??? from the page link: From a Catholic perspective, having to rely on the Scriptures alone to prove the teachings of the Church is illogical and "unbiblical." This is because we only know of the inspiration of the Scriptures due to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, who determined the canon of Scripture at the end of the fourth century. Nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. To the contrary, while every Scripture pkmtyolpage in the Bible is inspired (see, for example, 2 Tim. 3:16 in reference to the Old Testament Scriptures), it is the Church, not the Scriptures, that is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). So, to trust and rely on the "Scriptures" is unscriptural? The Rc leadership takes it for granted that the average Rc person won't study the scriptures so they make statements like the foolishness above to keep them in suspense and dependant on the "magestarium" for their answers and it's obvious from what they post that this is the case. To decide what is inspired, all one has to do is look at the words of Jesus. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus finally says, "they have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them". Moses and the prophets is the Old Testament, which everything Jesus quoted was from. If there is anything in the New Testament that is NOT in harmony with the O.T., it is to be rejected.
In the O.T. we are told that when a man dies his thoughts, envy, hatred, and his love no longer exist. In death, man no longer has anything to do with anything that goes on under the sun. Man's status didn't change when Jesus was born or when He died or when He arose. The apostles plainly told us that King David was still in his tomb, and so it is with Mary. Rc people like superstitions and that's why they can't explain, but believe Mary is somehow now an authority in heaven and that's why they pray to her for favors. They believe that she can go to her son and persuade Him to grant things that He wouldn't normally grant otherwise, or what would be the purpose of asking her if they could go directly to Jesus, as He said to do?
There is even Rc writings that state that "no one aproaches the Father but through Jesus and no one can approach Jesus except through Mary." It's all a crock, but that's what they think and believe. [/color][/quote] gene, Still refusing to find out what the RCC really teaches and still spreading out of context statements and misconceptions, huh? Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Apr 2, 2004 10:53:30 GMT -5
Excuse me, but huh??? from the page link: From a Catholic perspective, having to rely on the Scriptures alone to prove the teachings of the Church is illogical and "unbiblical." This is because we only know of the inspiration of the Scriptures due to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, who determined the canon of Scripture at the end of the fourth century. Nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. To the contrary, while every Scripture pkmtyolpage in the Bible is inspired (see, for example, 2 Tim. 3:16 in reference to the Old Testament Scriptures), it is the Church, not the Scriptures, that is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). So, to trust and rely on the "Scriptures" is unscriptural? Nic, You missed a very important word in the paragraph. In the first sentence, which you highlighted, It says From a Catholic perspective, having to rely on the Scriptures alone to prove the teachings of the Church is illogical and "unbiblical.etc.....The author is addressing the issue of sola scriptura. Blessings, ann
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Apr 2, 2004 11:00:28 GMT -5
Marysia told me that this question had already been discussed on THIS message board. That lengthy article on Mary does not point me to the answer to this question. For instance, What is the meaning of this prayer? "HAIL, HOLY QUEEN, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!" Catholics contend that Mary is the mother of us all, because Jesus gave her to John from the Cross - so when did He make her a queen? And this calls her "most gracious advocate." Advocate of what? Nic, Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you? You made them an advocate for you. Have you ever been asked to pray for someone else? You became and advocate for that person. We believe that Mary, as Jesus mother prays for us and thus is our advocate to her Son just as you pray for others and they pray for you. Really very simple. Blessings, Ann P.S. gene, we know your feelings and beliefs on this, so no need to reiterate it with more snide remarkds and insults. Thanx, Ann
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Apr 2, 2004 11:03:38 GMT -5
It is a very fine line that I am trying to walk here. I do not want to condemn or attack individuals, nor do I wish to make personal attacks - which I have not done. But I do want desperately to cause individuals who are Catholics to confront the issues as to their views on the Holy Bible, and to seek to validate their doctrines upon the Word of God. My position from day one has always been that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17) and if we do not do all that we can to convince them that without the Bible there can be no possible salvation, we do them a disservice. If I have been rude or offensive to anyone I apologize. I agree. The disputes come in when the Rc's try to convince non Rc's that they have it wrong and want to use their "traditions" to prove the bible is wrong. [/color][/quote] LOL gene, The disputes come in when people of different interpretation disagree on that interpretation. The RCC is based on the Bible and the traditions reinforce the Bible and Jesus teachings. (Are you a standup commedian?) Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Apr 2, 2004 12:42:30 GMT -5
Nicodemus;
1) please go through all the back threads in this forum. Try reading them; perhaps your questions will be answered
2) You say you were "saved" out of Catholicism. Perhaps your feeling a bit guilty, as it seems RC is constantly on your mind
3) I notice that you target only the RCC; Why not other Orthodox Churches which venerate the BVM? The Coptic Church has a special prayer to the BVM for every day of the week. Is it easier, in a base, animalistic way, to only cut one out from the herd at a time, and attempt to devour them? Are you afraid to confront what you perceive as error, in more than one Church at a time?
4) I do admit it. I get angry. Your a new board member with no other agenda except to spread anti-catholic propaganda on these boards. Please, go back through the old threads. I'm sure you will find an ample amount of catholic-bashing to sate your desires.
5) Upon looking at all of the division within your own brand of Christianity, Protestantism, clean your own house first. The Holy Spirit does not deliver that many truths, there is only one. I believe that truth lies in RC, and Orthodoxy
God bless
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Apr 3, 2004 8:33:27 GMT -5
Marysia told me that this question had already been discussed on THIS message board. ? yes and i also told you a few of the threads to look at -- i'm sorry but i'm unable to "click" you to them personally, i'm not that computer literate.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 3, 2004 11:23:32 GMT -5
No, caps signify a proper name, etc. This is regards to a denomination... such like Seventh Day Advent (sorry if I got that wrong) or Baptist. The denomination is capitalized because it's a proper name. A-Correct, except the term you're looking for is "noun". Proper nouns e.g., titles, names etc. are capitalized. In reference to the church in Rome, "Roman Catholic Church" is proper usage of capitals. When referring to the universal body of Christ, the word "catholic" is being used as an adjective and therefore should not be capitalized. If the author still feels this clarification is insufficient, the correct method of inserting "Roman" in a quote from another work is to put it in parentheses. For example, if using the quote, "Pope John Paul II said the Catholic Church is..." and the author believes further clarification is needed, the proper way to do so is, "Pope John Paul II said the (Roman) Catholic Church is...". It is not a matter of beliefs, it is a matter of proper syntax and punctuation.
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Apr 3, 2004 13:10:28 GMT -5
A-Correct, except the term you're looking for is "noun". Proper nouns e.g., titles, names etc. are capitalized. In reference to the church in Rome, "Roman Catholic Church" is proper usage of capitals. When referring to the universal body of Christ, the word "catholic" is being used as an adjective and therefore should not be capitalized. If the author still feels this clarification is insufficient, the correct method of inserting "Roman" in a quote from another work is to put it in parentheses. For example, if using the quote, "Pope John Paul II said the Catholic Church is..." and the author believes further clarification is needed, the proper way to do so is, "Pope John Paul II said the (Roman) Catholic Church is...". It is not a matter of beliefs, it is a matter of proper syntax and punctuation. Thanks steve! It's been a while since I've had a grammar lesson and I don't remember any of them! lol! ;D
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Apr 3, 2004 14:16:57 GMT -5
gene, it's been understood, at least by most here that "catholic" (lower case) refers to the universal church while "Catholic" (upper case) refers to the particular Catholic denomination. Sorry if you did not know that, but that's the way it has always been here as long as I remember. agreed -- that's they way we've been doing it on this board since i came here and how i always took it as people meant it to be.
|
|