DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,

Thanks for the Article. First I believe in original sin.. I just think that our definitions
may be different..

1. The verse you site from PS. 51:15, Could
that not also be interpreted as David taking about the Sin he and Bathseba committed, and this
is confession that is being related to the reader from the persepctive of the baby? This is a plausible explanation. Remember Psalms is a poetic book. Should it always be taken literally ?

2. What you said about Man being in a weakened
state to naturally reist sin and having the consequences of Adam's sin are all true...
We are living in a cursed world and that world will not be released from the curse until the return of Christ.

Where I think we differ is in one single point.
I don't see that we are born with a mark on our
souls that must be cleansed by baptism.
I believe we are under the consequences of that
sin and are prone to sin and so we all do sin at
some point in our lives of our own free will.. God gives us all a choice to follow or to rebell. All of us with the exception of Christ have or will rebell at some point in our lives.

There are numberous verses as I have pointed out
in other posts that say Repent and be baptised.
How can a baby repent when they haven't willfully sinned ?

Thus a baby is living in a sin corrupted world and is predisposed to willfully commit sin. But
Where does it say that the soul has a black mark
or the mark of original sin is on it? The soul is
clean until we sin against God and cause a mark
against it...

3. If all of mankind was born with an original blackmark on their souls then how did Mary the
mother of Jesus escape it? You have said that God
gave Mary some sort of retroactive grace to cleanse her of the sin. Why couldn't He have just
given that grace to Jesus Himself? After all Jesus is God in the Flesh. He was created in
Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit. Wasn't He already Holy because of who His Father is ?

I see the stain on the soul concept creating problems that had to be corrected later on.
An that is what the RCC did with Mary. They also
had to make baptism for infants to get around this problem that they created. They still however have a problem with infants and children
who die without baptism.

The concept of being born with a mark on our souls condemns all babies that die without the
chance of baptism through no fault of their own
to Hell... They were never given a chance to
Choose Christ... I don't believe God is that
cruel or unfair...

We have a difference of opinion here Jay ...
But of course the Catholic explanation is the
only correct interpretation because all of their
doctrines are infallible...

Jay, Why do you have this BLOG if everyone who
comes up with something contrary to the Official
doctrine is automatically wrong from the start.?
It's a No Win situation...

Why have an exchange of ideas if you are always
right and the other person is always wrong...?

Make this a website where no one can comment on
your articles because your articles are always
right anyway... I don't understand why you would create a situation where you could never be wrong. Don't you see how arrogant starting with such a premise is?

Probably not...

In search of God's Truth,

Clem

Was it really an ‘apple’ that Adam and Eve ate?

This is a very important question! The biblical answer will explain much and you will begin to get a little more color in your picture of life.

Contrary to popular belief, no, it wasn’t a apple nor was it any other type of fruit you’d by at the green grocer. Satan is extremely happy about the confusion as far as this ‘apple’ smokescreen goes.

Nowhere in the scripture does it indicate that it was a apple or any literal fruit that you would expect to sink your teeth into.

To answer this, I’m going to direct you to scriptures that will speak for themselves and where possible, quote the Holy Ghost revealed explanations of God’s prophet, as I intend to do throughout these answers.
Far be it from me to assume any credit for the explanations and revelations you are about to experience.
Praise and thank God for the humble manner in which His prophet conducted God’s work.

Genesis 1: 26-28 tells of God creating ‘man’ in His image, male and female he created them both in the one body of man. The man, God later called Adam. Meaning, Man. Earth, red earth.

God told man and woman to multiply and replenish the earth, though He had not told them how to reproduce. Eve was still in Adam at this time.

Let’s set the scene. Turn to Genesis 2: 8 & 9. It’s at the time when Adam was first placed in a garden that God had planted Eastward in Eden.
Adam was living in perfect harmony with God. It was all pure and holy. There was no sin and no defilement.
In that garden, God had made trees that are pleasant to the sight and good for food.
In the midst of the garden, God planted the ‘tree of life’ and also, the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil.’

Chapter 2:16 & 17. tells us that God, having placed Adam now in the Garden of Eden to dress it and keep it, commands Adam that he can eat freely of all the trees in the garden except from the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil.’

Let’s speed up time a little to Genesis 3: 8 & 23, 25. God had by this time taken the female he created out of Adam and called her ‘woman’. They were both naked and didn’t have any shame in their nakedness since that was all they knew, that was normal.

Genesis 3: 1 – 7 tells us of the lying, deception of the serpent, a creature more subtil (delicately constructed: fine: thin or rare: piercing or penetrating: shrewd: discerning: cunning ) than any beast of the field that God had created. This creature was obviously pretty good-looking and very intelligent. This serpent was approachable, certainly not wild and rampant and he could think and talk with reasoning. He could be influenced to make decisions.
Keep in mind that an atmosphere of total holiness and pure harmony prevailed among all of God’s creation. It must have been because our ‘Holy God’ used to come, in the cool of the day, to fellowship with Adam. Adam and his woman had probably chatted with the serpents and probably become quiet acquainted over time. Considering that they were the highest species below mankind and that they had been there for a good while already, they must have had families. This serpent, the missing link that science has been searching for, for so long, also displayed the intelligence to act on thought’s of evil inspired by Satan.
There was no other evil around.
Satan wanted to impregnate God’s chosen children with unbelief… Sin. God already knew, from before the foundations of the world, what Satan would do but God planned to make every thing work for the good for those who love the Lord. Satan’s action would just give God a way to demonstrate His attributes of a redeemer, saviour, husbandman and deliverer and to create, for Himself, a corporal body and a opportunity for God to call out of the sin, a many member bride from throughout the ages. From the beginning of time to the battle of Gog and Magog when time as we know it ceases. Thereafter, only eternity! No beginning and no end. Just being!

This serpent had it’s own mate. God had made all creatures with mates to multiply. The serpent had no reason to interfere with Adam’s mate but he seduced her into believing the lies and misinterpretation of God’s Word for their hour, which was “The day that you eat of the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that day you shall die’. Look how he tempted Eve (a type of the church) by misplacing and misinterpreting the Word of God and promises of ‘all knowledge and power as though she will be as a God’. That is exactly what was the cause of Satan’s fall from grace. He wanted to be a God. It’s the same way he tried to tempt Jesus in the desert. Satan thought that he was onto a good thing. He thought that he would seduce God’s

Children for revenge. Satan didn’t like Adam or woman and would devour them if God would allow him the privilege. God has a master plan. God knows Satan’s every move before he makes it so God always has a counter move that works for Him. Remember, God could send Satan and all the demons to a fiery end anytime he wanted to. God still has a use for him.

This is where everyone can learn what sin is. Sin is “disbelief of God’s message for any particular hour in time”.

Jesus later condemns the scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23. because of their unbelief of God’s word which He sent to them with His servants, the prophets.
In Rom.11:20 The branch of the tree of life is broken off because of ‘unbelief’.

So here’s this smooth talker chatting woman up. He even told woman that she wouldn’t really die, but that her eyes would be opened and she will be like a God, knowing right from wrong, good from evil.

What happened then revealed to them that they were naked and ashamed before God so they sewed fig leaves together to hide their nakedness. What’s more is that Eve’s was cursed. Sorrow will be greatly multiplied and in conception: in sorrow shalt she bring forth children; and her desire shall be to her husband, and he will rule over her. Woman was going to have a baby.
In fact, she was going to have twins. Adam knew that woman was going to die according to God’s command so, because of his love for her and his desire to save her, he partook of the fruit with the woman as had the serpent. Woman was then given the name Eve………….Mother of all living.
All this, from eating a forbidden fruit! I don’t think so.
Be careful. There are many forces that would have you believe that lie.

The serpent too was cursed. From that day forth he was to slither on the ground on his belly and to eat the dust of the field……… all the day’s of his life. He must have done something really bad. It had to have been something much worse than ‘beguiling’, ‘conning’ woman into eating a fruit she was told not to. What would today’s woman do under those circumstances? I ask you! Is woman that stupid?

God then sacrificed the first animals to hide their shame, a consequence of their unbelief of God’s Word. Then God took the skins and made clothes for Adam and Eve. Their state of immortality was gone. Their innocence was a thing of the past. They were now, mere mortals, dripping in innocent blood and destined to die.
From that moment forward, they and all their offspring would need to annually sacrifice a innocent, perfect and blameless animal to atone for their sin.

Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden.

But that is not all. Genesis Chapter 4. Says, And Adam knew Eve, (as in carnal knowledge) his wife; and she conceived and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

And she again bare his brother Able.

‘OK’ Were we discussing the eating of a fruit or were we talking about sex, adultery, ‘knowing a woman’, conceiving, having babies, realizing that you are naked. Let’s face it, surely God wouldn’t sentence His children to death for just eating a particular fruit.

There is still the issue of character differences of the two children….

Firstly, all life comes from God, so of course, Eve got a man from the Lord. She got two, one from the serpent and one from Adam. Proof that the serpent was the missing link. His seed could cause conception with the egg of another species. His D & A must have been so close to that of Eve’s, whose was the same as Adams.

Cain was first conceived and first born and he was a tiller of the field while Able, Adam’s son, was a keeper of the sheep. Cain had no revelation of what was required for a suitable sacrifice so he gave God fruit.

Able shed innocent blood.

Cain was jealous, hateful, vengeful………He had a murderously evil natured. His seed has had a desire of wrathful vengeance against God and His seed ever since then. The gospel of John, Chapter 15 describes how ‘Jesus’ is the ‘tree of life’ and how we must expect to be hated as he was, simply because we are not of this world but He has chosen us, because of our faith in His Word. See especially verse 19.

What is more, if Cain was seed of Adam, thus making him a child of God, a seed of God, you would certainly, expect to see his name in the linage of Jesus tracing back to Adam, considering that he was the first of the two children born, Wouldn’t you?
Well, That doesn’t happen. Go look in Luke 3; 23 – 38. The linage reflects Seth, Abel’s brother, not Cain. Cain’s seed is not mentioned. Able was murdered by Cain, his half brother, prior to having children.

So, in summary, there is every evidence that it was not a proverbial garden type fruit that Adam and his mate ate in the Garden of Eden with the serpent but it was blatant adultery, the perversion of the church, the result of years of persistent seduction on the weaker of God’s two children.
Note. It wasn’t until after the fall of man and woman that man was to rule over woman. That came with the curse. No doubt God saw a whole lot of problems coming. He knew that Satan would target woman to destroy man throughout the ages. Woman, let your desire be unto your husband.

If anything, this will surely help explain why there are godly people and evil people.

What is sin?

As in the previous question, death was the consequence for sin. Separation from God lay ahead. Where Adam would previously spend time with God but that would no longer happen. God was so disappointed with mankind. In Genesis 6; 1-6 it is explained that when men began to multiply, and daughters were born to them, God saw that son’s of God took to them wives as they pleased. Man exasperated God to the point that he set for him a life span of one hundred and twenty years knowing that His Holy Spirit would not always strive with man because evil was on his mind continually. His disappointment was so severe, He wanted to destroy everything that He created. Even the insects were to go.
Thank Noah when you see him, He found favour with God for our sakes. All God asked of Adam and his female mate was to honor Him by believing His Word for their time and show fruit of that faith by obeying Him, the evidence of which will be in their works. In other word’s, their behavior will reflect their belief in God’s word.

Look at it this way, God’s word say’s that we should love our neighbor as yourself. It simply means that. Believe it like that, letting your actions demonstrate your belief and everything regarding you and that particular Word from God is righteous. Should you covet his property that is the iniquitous act that is the evidence, that you don’t really believe that you are expected to believe ‘that you must love your neighbor as yourself’.
Because of the iniquity, (doing the deed knowing that it is taboo) you will need to ask God for forgiveness of your wickedness, praying for strength and wisdom to resist the devil in the future and he will flee and you will pay a price for it but for the disbelieving that God means what He say’s when He say’s it, ( you will have to repent of your sin ).

In Genesis 2; 16 and 17 God had given total control of the Earth. Adam even named everything. God really loved all of His creation. At this time, God issues Adams his one and only command. He say’s, “Adam, you can eat from every tree in the garden except that one over there, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. “The day that you eat from it, that day, you will die”.

The serpent later convinced woman, who was in Adam at the time that God gave them the commandment, that they surely will not die but they will be like God’s. All Satan wanted to do was sow a seed of discrepancy and doubt in God’s word. Woman fell for it and she was condemned. It wasn’t so much the deed that was sin, it was the fact that woman doubted God’s word which led to the disbelief of the command and the evidence was the fact that the did commit adultery.

Woman believed the serpent’s words over God’s. Someone was lying. Eve made the wrong decision. Death, deceit, fear, insolence, distrust and blaming made there ugly entrance into the world the moment woman slept with the serpent. She also conceived the first fruits of perdition.

Contrary to woman, Adam still believed that he would die if he also had sex with woman (ate from the fruit baring tree) but he loved her so much he interceded on her behalf. If she was going to die he was going to die trying to save her. Their Spiritual lights went out. They were on their own. That was the price they paid for their unbelief, the curses placed upon them was the price they pay for the iniquity……….. doing the deed that they knew not to. The whole question in the scripture is do you believe. If so , act upon it as an expression of your faith in your belief. Don’t be a hypocrite, be a believer who abides in the Word…….. for the glory of the Word.

In Matthew 23; Jesus indicts the scribes and Pharisees for being hypocrites because they go through the motions of being Godly but, because they continue killing God’s prophets, Jesus call’s them serpents and a generation of vipers who need a way to escape hell . See verse 33. They would not believe the word for their hour.

Jesus say’s that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Matt. Chapter 4 ; 4 & Luke 4 ; 4.
What Jesus is saying is bread will sustain you physically but to survive spiritually, you have to believe all the unadulterated Word of God. Don’t leave some out. Don’t have faith in someone’s personal interpretation of it. It has to be Holy Ghost revealed. Don’t be beguiled into believing there is more or less. God’s word is perfectly correct in the Authorized King James Version. Leave the other publications alone. They don’t and will never make perfect sense as does the KJV. The others were not inspired of God.
If Jesus say’s , “You are the temple” believe it just like that. You are the temple. 1 Corinthians 3; 16
Even if you don’t understand it , believe it.
If Jesus say’s that God is a spirit. God is a Spirit. Simple! St. John 4; 24
If Jesus say’s that He will send the comforter to you, he will. St. John 14; 16 & 17
Don’t question it. It will happen in His own time. If He say’s that the comforter will lead and guide you to all truth, so pray for Jesus to send the comforter to you and see what happens.
If God has set before you a set of rules to live by and He has placed a penalty on transgressors, be sure to believe that you will pay as you go should you choose to transgress, He is a just God.
You will receive the same treatment as everyone else. Acts 10; 34&35 and Ephesians 6; 9
On the other hand, if you receive a prophet in the name of a prophet, you will receive the reward of a prophet. Matt. 10 ; 41.

Jesus keeps his promises. He is unchanging in His ways.
He is the same…… yesterday, and today, and forever. Hebrews 13; 8
You can count on Him.
To disbelieve the above and to go about disregarding it will inevitably lead to the manifestation of iniquity since it is the evidence of unbelief. You’ll do it because you don’t believe.
God has a fierce enemy who will pervert every word of God’s if he can and you have to have faith in the Word.
Why does Satan do this, because he is intent on deceiving the very elect if possible. Matt. 24; 24.
How does he do that, he beguile you with false prophets and teachers misinterpreting, adding on and taking from the holy word of God. They are wolves in Sheep’s clothing.

The Pharisees and scribes weren’t smoking and drinking as some preachers do today. They didn’t mess around with the things of the world, yet, Jesus condemned them. Why, because they had the Word of the hour standing in front of them, fulfilling the scriptures they knew while announcing it in words and in works, till he even discerned there evil thoughts.
They rejected the word of their hour. Don’t make the same mistake.

Why would Peter in Acts 2; 38 answer the crowd of Jews, when they asked “what must we do to be saved” after Peter had preached to them Jesus being the promised Messiah, “repent every one of you and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of you sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost for the promise is unto you and to your children and to those that are afar off. ( the Gentiles)

Peter says repent.
Repent means to ‘ feel regret for deed or omission, contrition. What did the Jews do or omit that should make them feel contrite and forsake salvation. They had crucified their promised Messiah, they had omitted recognizing the word in their presence and they had to change their ritual of sacrificing to be replaced by baptism. They had been beguiled by the ‘denominations of the day, caught up in dogmas and creeds of man. Misinterpreted the scriptures so bad that the King of Kings they had waited for four hundred years came and went, fulfilling the prophecies in the word. They no longer heard sound teachings. They sinned and the act of not repenting was the iniquity of it all. They will burn in hell for not repenting and the people of Israel will be scattered into all over the world and they will loose their nationality and land. As a gentile I thank God that His children were so sinful because without it, we gentiles wouldn’t have had a chance at salvation, not to mention being God’s Bride.

John’s testimony of Jesus’ encounter with the scribes and Pharisees in Chapter 8 explains the
sin = unbelief teaching extremely well while it embraces and confirms the serpent seed teaching also. There’s Jesus telling the priests of that day that they were of their father the devil, a murderer from the beginning and never abode in the truth because there was no truth in him. He is a liar and the father of lies.
Who was the first person to lie in the Garden of Eden? It was the serpent. He lied to woman beguiling her into adultery and then further on, His son Cain, lied to God when he said he didn’t know where his brother Able was when Cain had just murdered him. Hey! What has changed. We still have the unbeliever persecuting Jews and Christian’s alike. If you are not feeling the persecution, check your church, it might be that the devil has already got you!

So, are you a sinner or are you righteous, an unbeliever or a believer?

So, there you have it. Sin if disbelief of the Word of God for the hour as is revealed to you.
Believe, all things are possible.
This is where the Mark of the Beast comes in. The mark relates to the teachings you believe. Are they of God or are they misinterpretations and lies we would expect from the devil.

Strait forward and simple isn’t it?

Bernard,
Unfortunately that isn't what Scripture teaches. You ignore virtually the whole Bible and select a few small verses that, put together (out of context) seem to agree with you. Basically you are making Scripture say what you want it to say.

Two questions:
1) If the Bible is so important, why didn't Jesus tell His apostles to write it? Or why didn't He at least indicate which apostles were to write in it?
2) Where does the Bible teach that it alone is the sole source of authority? Where is sola scriptura in Scripture?

A little hint: Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural and your understanding of the Bible is deformed because you don't have the fulness of Truth. In fact, the Bible calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of Truth" in 1 Tim 3:15 - is this an error?

God bless,
Jay

PS - just more proof that anyone can make the Bible say anything absent reason and Tradition.

Jay,

I would appreciate an answer to my post above..
Especially the last four paragraphs. I would
like you to specifically address the issue
of the point of this Blog. It appears that your premise is that your position is always correct and Infallible. I have never seen you concede a point with someone having a differing view regarding RCC church teachings. The desenter is always in Error or always Wrong ??

I have posted many replies to your articles with
scriptural references or with references of Theologans or of church fathers . I prefer to read the scriptures and I ask the Holy Spirit to show me the correct interpretation. I do not go to bible studies or to Mass expecting the teacher or the priest to interpret the bible for me or to tell me what it is saying.

You accept the teachings of the RCC without question as always correct and Always infallible..

In Search of God's Truth,

Clem

Clem,
Here's the deal: I am a member of the Church Christ founded in Matthew 16:18. The Bible calls this Church the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15. Do I believe this church's teachings can be wrong? Absolutely not.

The Holy Spirit guides my Church and while mortal sinners occupy the key posts, it is the Holy Spirit that ensures that the Church will never have an incorrect doctrine. The Pope is infallible on faith or morals, because the Holy Spirit would take the pope's life before allowing him to make an error on faith or morals. Do you follow? In fact, and I need to look it up and provide specifics, popes have died suddently while walking to the podium to define a doctrine containing error.

You also rely on the Church's inerrancy when you read Scripture, believe in the Trinity, worship on Sunday, etc. All of these come directly from the Church.

The point of this blog is to "Hold the Candle of Truth out to the World" as it says at the top. Well, the truth is that God founded a Church and it is easier to gain admittance to heaven if you go through the Church God created for this purpose. We're attempting to point out the truth to you - frankly, we know it's true and we have 2,000 years of thought backing it up.

The overwhelming majority of Christians today and ever have been Catholic. Think about that. Christ prayed that Christians remain "one" as He and the Father are one. Do you believe any protestant church lives up this billing? Can you really claim that for 1,500 years the only Christian church in existence was wrong, but now suddenly your church has it right?

Through the Church the "manifold wisdom of God may now be made known." If we really believe this (and I do), then the church Paul is writing about must be infallible - otherwise God's wisdom could not be made known in this sense.

You seem very upset that one would "tell" us what the Scriptures say. But if that one is eminently more knowledgable than us in Scripture, history, theology, etc., we would be ignorant (and arrogant) to suggest that we know more. In fact, Luther's revolution was all about moral teachings: Luther wanted to sin (a lot) and the Church condemned sin. So Luther created his own church where divorce was okay and he could practice fornication, etc. You can follow Luther if you'd like, but I'll follow Christ.

God bless,
Jay

Bernard,

What a load of . . . Where did you you come up with that? That is almost enough to prove Jay's point.

Jay,

While most rational Protestants will give credence to most of the early church father's writings and interpretations of scripture. We don't just assume that these writings are inspired or infallible based on one interpretation of one verse in the Bible. Nor do we assume that the church's teachings are infallible or inspired. We carefully inspect all writings and interpretations and teachings in light of our understanding of the whole of scripture.

That is why we are suspicious of church's present teachings and writings of the early church that appear to us to run contrary to the scripture when taken as a whole.

Grace, Peace and Truth,

Thomas

Jay,

I don't follow Luther and I will have to read the
document he nailed to the church's door. I have not studied Luther. But I highly doublt that he
started a church to okay divorce and to fornicate.

I think you are mixing him up with The king of
England Henry the Eighth that wanted to get an
annulment and the Church would not allow it so
he started the Anglican Church. I believe
Luther had problems with the church selling indulgences to obtain grace and other practices
he felt the church was doing in error. I will
look it up when I get time...

I can see there is no point in trying to have a
discussion with you.

1.You did not explain all of the warnings of Jesus and the Apostles about false teachers and
false teachings in the church. Teachers would
be Priests or Bishops or elders. In other words
part of the Magistirum... Those warnings were
not about the Protestant church. The Catholic
does not recognize Protestants as Christians.
So the warning had to be about the RCC.

2. In Revelation when Jesus talked to the seven
churches, these churches were actual churches that existed in Turkey and they were part of the
early church and you claim that the early church was the RCC. Jesus was only happy with One of the seven churches. The rest had errors or problems in them that displeased Jesus.

You conveniently IGNORE the many passages that warn against false teachers, Teachers that were
so craftty they might fool the very elect...

The RCC condemns millions of believers to hell
with the stroke of a pen at every church counsel.
They claim anyone who disagrees with them is
anathama or cursed..

Jay the church IS ONE.. The body of True believers all over the world in China and Russia
and other places who are not Catholics, who are being martyred for their faith are part of HIS body.. Yet the RCC says let them be anathama because they don't follow their rules...

Jesus made the Rules and He will be the Judge.
Keep trusting in Men and their teachings and
their interpretations... Trust in the Pope
who has done nothing concrete about pediphille
priests but just says that it is wrong...

The scriptures do not belong to the RCC. They belong to God and to ALL of His people. The RCC
did not write the OT.. It was written by the Moses and other Jews and the last time I checked they weren't part of the RC church. They were God's Chosen People and they never stopped being His Chosen People... Jesus commanded the apostles to go preach the gospel to the Jew first, then to the rest of the world. The NT was written by the Apostles and the disciples of Jesus. NOT the RCC.. The RCC did not exist until Constantine.

If the RCC is the one True church I believe
the Apostles would be shocked and distressed
with the institution it has evolved into with
all of its pomp and ceremony and the ornate buildings and priceless relics in the vatican ...
It in no way looks like the church they helped
to spread to the world. Did Jesus start the
Roman Catholic Church, Did the Apostles or was the church highjacked and used by Constantine?
Did pagan practices creep into the church through the influence of constantine and early
church father converts who were formerly followers of Greek and Roman mythology and greek
Psycology?

Again. Did Jesus say my church would be infallible (knowing that satan would try and
corrupt it the way he corrupted Adam and Eve)
Or did He say that the gates of Hell would not
Prevail against it ???? There's a big difference
in the two statements and the two concepts...

Since He said there would be false teachers and
false messiah's and false profits in the church
He could not mean that the church would be infallible.

He must have meant what He said. Satan would not prevail against HIS church of True believers....

The RCC basically says if you don't follow and
believe everything we teach and are not a member of our church you can not get into heaven....

Jesus says if you follow me and profess me before
men I will profess you before my father in
heaven. If you deny me I will deny you before
my father.

Again these words were not invented and do not
belong exclusively to the RCC... They are for
everyone who would have faith and believe in
Him. Not in a church organization...

Jesus is my judge..

Clem

Jay,

Here is a link to the 95 Theses of Martin Luther
http://alt.wittenberg.de/e/seiten/95thesen.html

Here is a link to a Historical website on
Martin Luther :
http://alt.wittenberg.de/en/seiten/personen/luther.html

In short it says he was a Monk, A Theologian.
It says he broke his Monk vows and married a
former Nun in 1525. If you consider his marriage
an endorsement of Divorce and fornication I am
not sure how you come to this conclusion?

I found this information in 2 minutes by doing a
Google search.. He did break his vow of celebacy
as a monk to get married and his wife broke her vow as a nun.. Maybe you consider the breaking of their vows a form of divorce and their marriage invalid and an endorsement of fornication..

Didn't the apostle Paul say it is better to Marry rather then to burn in your flesh with lust.. Priests were married in the OT.
Otherwise they couldn't keep the Levitcal line
of Priesthood going.. Celebacy is another example of the Catholic interpretation of scriptures..

As I said in my post above. The RCC does not own
the scriptures. They did not write them. They did put the OT books and did take part in deciding which books should be included in the NT and put them together in one book...

That does not give them authorship or ownership of the Scriptures.

The scriptures are the inspiration of God.

In Search of God's Truth,

Clem

Clem,
I think I've proven numerous times that you're wrong on this point - I'm not sure why you can't remember this: Members of the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament. Then, the Catholic Church compiled the New Testament. This isn't brain surgery, Clem, it's history. And although you can ignore facts, it's still true.

I suggest you read some history on Martin Luther. For instance, why did the "Church of England" start? That answer might give you some deep insights on why I tie Martin Luther to divorce, in particular. Also read up on the remainder of his life - virtually no protestant would argue that Martin Luther ended his life in a good way (as far as I know, all churches say he became a heretic later in life). The Catholic Church just contends that he became a heretic earlier in life.

St. Paul also strongly endorses celibacy for priests in the 1 Corinthians quote you cite above - it is "better" to be celibate. Shouldn't we expect our priest/pastors to choose what is better? By the way, in some situations Catholic priests can be married - this isn't a doctrine, but it is a recommended way of life (recommended by St. Paul by the way - how many pastors do you know who choose the "better" way?).

Hope this sinks in, Clem.

God bless,
Jay

No Jay, that is not what you have said. You have said in several posts that "The catholic church
wrote the bible"... This is incorrect and misleading... Contrary to what you may believe, I am well aware that the apostles wrote the new
testiment. If you check my posts that's what I
have been saying. So my memory isn't failing me
in this area....

Here is Where we part company, you believe that they were the first Catholics and ultimately Roman Catholics... I don't believe they would NOT be a part of what is now the Catholic Chruch.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad but Catholic just means "universal" I know you know that. It seems that this Universal church wants to limit the vision of what Christ envisioned for His church with their own list of beliefs doctrines and dogmas. If you don't believe or agree with any part of them you are anathma (Cursed or dammed to hell)If you call yourself
a Christian but are Not a catholic you are probably going to hell..

Jesus did say the road is narrow. But His criteria for membership was to follow HIM and Serve HIM. If your proclaimed His gospel and were not ashamed of Him, repented of your sins and abided in Him you would be saved.... He welcomed people unto Himself .... He rejected no one who accepted Him and His teachings. What were the two commandments HE gave? Love God with your whole heart and mind and Love your neighbor as yourself.

He didn't say we had to believe His mother was immaculately conceived...

But the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH and most churches
want to limit access to heaven.. If you don't
follow Them and their rules, beliefs and teachings you can not get into heaven..

Jay, I know this is probably useless but in my
view and the view of many others, the Catholic
church has fallen into error on some of it's
teachings. They are not being true to the original Apostolic teachings.

It is believed by many theologians that Peter and
Paul and many of the apostles were married at
some point. Now it only makes sense that if you
are going to be starting churches on the mission
field it would be better to be single because you could devote your whole life to that task without the added responsibility of taking care
of a wife and children. However this was not a
command but logical...

I have not done any in depth studies of Luther.
I know that He had some strange ideas about the
Jews and Hilter even used Luthers writings to
Justify the extermination of the Jews.

However, the fact still remains that his original
problem with the RCC and the selling of indulgences was a valid criticism...

I don't know if he advocated Fornication and divorce in any of his writings. If he did then
be kind enough to point me to what writings he
said this in ....

Jay, you and I are never going to agree...
You believe that All of the teachings and doctrines of the RCC are infallible, and I don't.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I know that I will never convince you or the other
main bloggers... I post because I believe there
is another side and because I believe that the RCC has gotten away from the Teachings of Jesus
and of the apostles.

In Christ,

Clem

Clem et al,

"Why have an exchange of ideas if you are always
right and the other person is always wrong...?

Make this a website where no one can comment on
your articles because your articles are always
right anyway... I don't understand why you would create a situation where you could never be wrong. Don't you see how arrogant starting with such a premise is?"

I'm sure the writers of this blog welcome your traffic, and I'm equally sure they welcome your questions, but you've got to stop treating their convictions as some sort of prejudice. Of course you can comment, you just did! You sound like you're a little disappointed because you can't get Jay to give, even a little bit - you can't change his mind. Could it be that it's not his or yours to change? How is it arrogant to bear witness?

The only reason worth believing anything is because it is true.

For what it's worth, one of the best descriptions of original sin I've heard goes as follows:

Original sin is not so much an absolute loss as a relative loss. It's as if one's grandfather lost a personal fortune at the track.

When God made Adam he gave him three things:
1. Human Nature
2. Grace
3. Integrity

Through Adam's sin mankind lost numbers 2 and 3.
Baptism restores 2, but personal mortal sin destroys it and personal venial sin makes one susceptible to mortal sin.

The loss of integrity has destroyed the harmony between body and soul, so that, like Paul, we do what we hate - we no longer enjoy absolute control over our bodies.

Fidens,

You are correct. We must believe in something
because it is true.. How do we determine
what is TRUE.. ? This politcal season is a
perfect example. Each side running puts out information that on it's face may be true but is
it the truth ?

Fidens, I don't know if you agree with Jays beliefs or not? He believes that the RCC is
the Truth. I don't... I believe the true church is made up of ALL who are believers in Jesus, not just Catholics. The body and Church of Jesus is made up of believers not labels or demominations..? That is my truth.. I believe it lines up with scripture .

After all Jesus and the Apostles were Jews not
Christians...

Jay believes if the Pope says it is doctrine
it is from GOD... I don't...

Answer me this, what right does the RCC have
or any Protestant church have to say if you
don't believe all of our doctrines you are anathama ( cursed) ???

Jay has a right to believe whatever He wants to
believe and to believe that it is TRUE or TRUTH
just like anyone else ... Everyone has that
right..

Jay does not have the right to Judge where you
or I will end up when we die ... Only GOD knows
and Only GOD can Judge...

But, When Jay professes the Truth of the catholic
church on this blog he judges that his opponents
are in error and they are not saved and going
to hell because they don't believe in what he believes is the truth namely the RCC.

Jesus says Judge not lest you be judged...
In the manner that you judge your brother
so shall you be judged.. So if you take those verses on face value if I judge you harshly
or make pronouncements about your salvation
I will be judged by God in the same manner.
WE only end up hurting ourselves when we are
judgmental.

The difference between the truth I believe in
and the Truth that Jay believes in is this:

I believe that anyone can be saved if they follow
Jesus and meet His criteria. That would be Catholic or Protestant. You don't have to be a
member of any church organization or follow their
criteria for admission, but God's requirements.
God will judge if they make it or not...

My impression from this blog and correct me if I
am wrong, is that Only Catholics in Good standing
have a chance of making it into heaven. Catholics
aren't sure if they are going to get in.. They
might get in or end up in purgatory.. They hope
they will get in. But since they are in the Only TRUE CHURCH they will be the only ones with a chance to get in... ??

Jesus accused the pharasee's of putting burdens
on the people that God never intended.. I see the
RCC doing the same thing as the Pharasees..

If this is not arrogance then what would you call it ???

In Search of God's Truth,

Clem

Clem,

All your points are well put. The only thing you and I can do is pray that truth be reached by all who post on these boards.

God Bless

Shame on you, Clem. We have never stated on this blog who is or is not going to heaven. Clem, you've been in multiple discussions with all of us, so I can only assume you're posting this nonsense to get attention, but I'll address it for those who haven't had as much conversation with us.

First, Clem, you should be ashamed of lying on our blog: no one has ever suggested you are going to hell. Frankly, we don't know. We haven't attacked you with lies, so I would appreciate you returning the favor.

Second, the point of this is, Clem, that you can have a closer personal relationship to Christ through the Eucharist and the Church He established. I'm merely presenting what Scripture says, I'm sorry you don't like it. I recommend you read this article that explains the Scriptural teachings on the physical church. But at some point, Clem, you have to ask yourself: am I really seeking to know the truth? Or am I just interested in arguing? Because, frankly, when you start telling lies it isn't because you're searching for the truth.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

If I have miss represented the Catholic Teaching I apologize. It is NOT my intention to Misrepresent the teachings of the RCC but to
UNDERSTAND them and see if they line up with the scriptures. My statement regarding condemnation
to hell stems from the use of the word Anathema
by the Catholic Church.

The reason I said what I said is based on my understanding of the word Anathema.

I have seen this term used in conjunction with Catholic doctrines which states if you do not
believe a particular doctrine let the unbeliever be Anathema

From what I have been able to determine from
reading the definitions of Anathema it means to mean separated from or set apart from.
The church takes it to mean, to be separated from God or from Christ.. It can also be used as a curse.

So, If this is an accurate definition of Anathema isn't the church saying when they
say if you do not believe this let them be
anathema, in effect saying let that person be separated from Christ or from God ?

Following through on this, how can anyone get into heaven if they are separated from
God or from Christ...? Are you following my
logic so far ...

So when the church or someone says if you do
not believe a doctrine or a teaching let them
be anathema are they not cursing that person or
saying let that person be separated from Christ
thus condemming them to Hell ?

Again Jay if this is a wrong interpretation
of Anathema please correct my error...

However if this is a VALID definition of Anathema then the Catholic Church is condemming the person in disagreement to Separation from God
and thus comdemming them to hell... ???

Jay I do not know if you are in agreement with the Catholic church on the practice of Anathemizing ? But if you are, and my definition above is accurate regarding this word
then you ARE in effect saying that someone in
disagreement with church doctrine should be anathema thus they should be separated from God and condemmed to Hell ???

This is how I came to this conclusion regarding
my statement about the RCC condemming Protestants and those not in agreement with the RCC to hell... If you are not in agreement with
this practice I apologize for including you in the practice of condemming non catholics to hell.

If this is not the case then explain to me what
anathema IS and is Not... Again I was not intentionally LYING. I was stating something
according to my understanding of the word
anathema. IF I have this Wrong I apologize...
I WAS NOT INTENTIONALLY LYING. I was making a point regarding the use of anathema..

However Jay. If I HAVE NOT MISUNDERSTOOD the MEANING of the word ANATHEMA AND ITS USE by
the CATHOLIC church I think you should take
back your accusation that I intentionally lied...

Grace & Peace,

Clem

P.S.
Jay, when you say you are only stating what scripture says and I am sorry if you don't like It. I have only doing the same thing Jay and you don't like my response.. Again you are ASSUMING
your interpretaion is RIGHT and I am automatically wrong...

That is the whole point of having a discussion BLOG.. People are not going to agree. You make it sound like I am only looking for attention, I give you scriptures but you IGNORE them... Your interpretation is the ONLY Correct interpretation... I admire that you truly believe what you believe.

But Jay please don't MOCK me and make me out to be some crazy when I am trying to defend my
beliefs just as you are doing... The tactic
of making the other person out to be a NUT is
beneath someon who professes to be a Christian.

This blog assumes that everyone posting that disagrees is automatically coming from a flawed position. Whether you want to accept it or not you ARE JUDGING us... Something Jesus tells us not to do. I am NOT Judging you for what you believe. I don't think you are some sort of NUT,

Please extend the same curtesy to those not in
agreement with you. Thank you.

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Jay,

Here is the definition of anathema from an online
dictionary :

In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. St. Paul frequently uses this word in the latter sense. In the Epistle to the Romans (ix, 3) he says: "For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh", i.e. "I should wish to be separated and rejected of Christ, if by that means I would procure the salvation of my brethren." And again, using the word in the same sense, he says

(Gal. i, 9): "If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." But he who is separated from God is united to the devil, which explains why St. Paul, instead of anathematizing, sometimes delivers a person over to Satan (I Tim., i, 20;

I Cor., v, 5). Anathema signifies also to be overwhelmed with maledictions, as in I Cor., xvi, 22: "If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

" At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics.
(NOTE THIS PART)
All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: "If any one says . . . let him be anathema".

Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two. A Council of Tours desires that after three warnings there be recited in chorus Psalm cviii against the usurper of the goods of the Church, that he may fall into the curse of Judas, and "that he may be not only excommunicated, but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven". This distinction was introduced into the canons of the Church, as is proved by the letter of John VIII (872-82) found in the Decree of Gratian, (c. III, q. V, c. XII):

"Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church." This distinction is found in the earliest Decretals, in the chapter Cum non ab homine. In the same chapter, the tenth of Decretals II, tit. i, Celestine III (1191-98), speaking of the measures it is necessary to take in proceeding against a cleric guilty of theft, homocide, perjury, or other crimes, says: "If, after having been deposed from office, he is incorrigible, he should first he excommunicated; but if he perseveres in his contumacy he should be stricken with the sword of anathema; but if plunging to the depths of the abyss, he reaches the point where he despises these penalties, he should he given over to the secular arm." At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.

The link is:http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defnanat.htm

So according to the definition above Anathama is used as a form of separation from Christ and
as a form of Mon Official Excommunication by the RCC. It is also used as a curse. So if you excommunicate someone from the Church and from Christ expalin to me how that person can get into heaven?

Scripture says we are all going to HELL unless we are found in Christ Jesus. If the church says you are separated from Christ then the Church is saying you are no longer in Christ and that person is Going to HELL.. I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion ???

SO, I believe this PROVES that I am NOT a LIAR Jay.... Unless you don't accept the definition above... My original statement was if the church says let anyone who does not agree with a doctrine be anathema is in essence saying let that person be separated from Christ which condemns that person to HELL.... WHERE IS THE LIE in this STATEMENT?

If you agree with the church in this practice HOW was I LYING? IF you don't agree with the church then I made a MISTAKE, I DID NOT
LIE ..... I assumed you agreed with all that the
church teaches ....???

Jay, I know that you will not apologize.. But this shows I am not speaking NON SENSE as you claim, or misintepreting the use of the Word anathema, and MOST IMPPORTANT I am NOT telling LIES....

By His Grace,

Clem

Clem, let me share an opinion on the meaning of the word "anathema". Jay, correct me if I'm going out on a limb.

Anathema (almost always associated with heresy) constitutes a serious matter but Catholic teaching always says that three conditions must be met for a sin to be mortal: first the matter must be serious (such as heresy), second person must have full knowledge of what they are doing, third they must fully consent to performing the sin.

Clem, unless you were once part of the Catholic Church (such as Luther or Calvin was), it is almost impossible that you could be even accused of heresy or schism (Vatican II speaks to this).

In addition, unless you are highly educated in matters of the Catholic faith (such as Luther and Calvin), it is almost impossible you would have the full knowledge required to commit a mortal sin of heresy. Someone once said: "you do not need a degree in theology to be a saint, but you do need a degree in theology to be a heretic".

I doubt people who accept the Council of Trent and its anathemas would even pretend to know how the Lord will judge you when you meet him. I believe that the anathemas in the Council of Trent and other councils (as a side note, Vatican II contains no anathemas) are there to clearly explain what teachings are definitely and permanently rejected by the Roman Catholic Church. In particular it makes it clear that if one holds certain views, they should no longer consider themselves in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

Clem, unless you claim to be a good Roman Catholic (which I do not believe you have ever done), I do not see how these anathemas could possibly apply to you. John Kerry on the other hand...

Richard,

Thank you for your explanation. It is
appreciated. As you probably know I was brought
up in the Catholic Church and left when I was in my twenties.. When I was attending the Mass was still in Latin

The church never taught me, my parents or my Grandparents about the bible or that we should study the scriptures. That is three generations of Catholics... Maybe you and others will disagree but I feel the Catholic church let our family down...

You may disagree with the Protestants on doctrine, but at least most demominations put a heavy emphasis on bible study and the scriptures and a personal relationship with Jesus.

I am back attending MASS and have been for the past five years. However I still disagree with many church doctrines which I have posted on this BLOG already.

Richard, correct me if I am wrong in this assumption. My understanding is if you are in disagreement with a clearly defined doctrine of the RC church you are considered in error. I understand anathema as being as a form
of excommunication the way I have read it.
Aren't Anathemas meant for ANYONE who is in disagreement with the Church's official Teachings ?

The Church uses Anathemas to say you should be separated from the church and Separated from Christ. So how can anyone in a state of separation from the church and from Christ get into heaven?

Isn't the proclamation of an Anathema in fact
condemming that person to HELL ? Since the person is separated from the church and from Christ HOW can they enter into heaven or even
purgatory ? The only place left is HELL

Do you see the confusion and how someone could
misunderstand what the church intention is by
proclaiming "Let anyone who doesn't agree be an anathema ?

Richard, I would appreciate your insight on this .. Thanks again for trying to help.. I appreciate that you are addressing my questions instead of ignoring me and saying that I am talking NON SENSE and accusing me of Speaking Lies..

Your Loving answer serves the Spirit of this BLOG. Which is Holding the Light of Truth to the World. Richard, you obviously understand the concept that answering those in disagreement in Love goes much further to help to change their hearts and minds..

In contrast the use of Sarcasm, and answers using a superior tone only serve to Alienate the very ones this BLOG professes to be trying to reach..It makes one question if the person using this approach is Really trying to promote God's Truth or if in realiy they are more like the Pharasees trying to show how educated and important they are ???

Thanks Richard for your Christian atttitude..
The Lord will Bless you greatly for it.

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Clem,
Just to clarify, you wrote:

Jay does not have the right to Judge where you
or I will end up when we die ... Only GOD knows
and Only GOD can Judge...

But, When Jay professes the Truth of the catholic
church on this blog he judges that his opponents
are in error and they are not saved and going
to hell because they don't believe in what he believes is the truth namely the RCC.

Please point out anywhere I have suggested that (a) I have the right to judge, or (b) that I have stated anyone is "going to hell".

You keep suggesting you aren't intentionally misstating my position, so please show me where I've done this.

God bless,
Jay

I sense some confusion over the meaning of the words "anathema". I found an interesting dialogue between a Catholic and a Protestant on the meaning of the word anathema.

It seems as if Clem has understood anathema to mean damnation and taken Jay's acceptance of Church teachings as damning Clem. Jay then sees what appears to him as false accusations.

Having read the above posts, I cannot help but think Clem and Jay have very different understandings of the word "anathema". The dialogue that I link to above in this post explores the two different understandings quite thoroughly.

Jay,

Richard is Correct in his assessment. I apologize if you took what I wrote to mean that
your are PERSONALLY DAMMING or JUDGING Souls
to Hell. I can see NOW how you may have gotten
that impression from my post and for that I apologize.

Richard articulated what my intended meaning was
very well.. Just to set the record Straight
Publically and so I can get the Label of someone spreading lies off of my good name.

Jay I DID NOT MEAN THAT YOU PERSONALLY JUDGED whether someone can get into heaven or not. It was more in line with how Richard put it..

I hope this puts the issue to Rest once and for all and that it removed the Label of Liar. I hope you accept my explanation and my apology for any mis articualtion of my thoughts.

Your Brother in Christ...

Clem

Richard,

Thanks for being so Thorough and catching the
miscommunication.. After I read my post again I saw how Jay could have misinterpreted what I was trying to say.... Great Catch Richard.

You are truly showing your love for two brothers
in dispute.. I appreciate that you pointed this
out.

You will be blessed ...

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Richard,

I went to the website and now I understand the use of the term better. What I saw from the
One speaking for the Catholic Position, It seemed
that in essence what he was trying to say was
even though anathema was used as a curse and
a form of excommunication the church didn't really mean what it was saying ? Very confusing?

He also said that the Catholic Chruch doesn't have the power to comdemm a soul to the fires
of Hell. Only God could do that... So when they
said let them to be condemmed to hell they did
not have the power to do it ? Again confusing.

But wait, didn't Jesus give Peter the power to bind and Loose ? Couldn't they condem a man to
hell by holding a man's sins bound ???

Thanks for pointing me to the site. It was interesting but it seemed contradictory..

Just my Humble non Theologian opinion.

May you be Blessed.

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Jay,
I cannot believe there is someone who honestly thinks that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church. This is not as bad as believing in the pope’s infallibility. Not only would that imply that humans can be sinless, but it endorses the Pelagian heresy, which Catholics condemned in 431 A.D.
I’m not an expert on theology, so I’ll keep this posting on matters I do know – history. There are numerous examples of Popes abusing their authority worse than many dictators. The most famous is probably Philip the Fair of France and Pope Boniface II. The monasteries in France sent a large portion of their earnings to Rome each year. Philip thought that some of that should stay in France and help the bishops there. Too much money in Rome meant more power in Italy and less in France. This was obviously undesirable for the French ruler. So, he decreed that half of the monasteries earnings had to stay in France for the benefit of the Church there. Boniface II ignored him and continued to collect the money (somewhere in the Bible, there is something about respecting authority placed over you, as they are placed there by God for a purpose). Philip seized the next shipment to Rome. Boniface II, somewhat upset excommunicated him. The loss of gold doesn’t seem to be very good grounds for denying someone the Sacraments, and thus Salvation. It gets better, though. When Philip refused to give the money to Rome (he had sent it back to the Church in France), Pope Boniface II, God’s vice-regent on earth, descendent of Peter, and defender of the True Faith, issued a papal bull and excommunicated the entire country of France. I think this is rather extreme. Deny heaven to hundreds of thousands because their ruler did not give the Church its money and “due” respect? (isn’t there something about turning the other cheek and forgiving your enemies in Scripture? I could be wrong.) Naturally, French peasants, being unlearned and unable to read the Bible, were distressed at being denied the Sacraments. Philip sent men to Rome and arrested the Pope, dragging him through the streets in his nightgown. The Pope changed his mind, and took back the excommunication of France and Philip. So, if the Pope was infallible, and every word of his was like a word of God’s, then God sure changes His mind easily at the request of humans.
I can list hundreds of other examples of a Pope’s behavior conflicting with the Bible and even other Pope’s decrees. This “infallibility of the Church” doesn’t add up. Men are sinful and will always act for their own glory when put in a position of power. I hesitate to bring up the recent convictions of Priests molesting children, but sexual sins are not a new story in the Catholic Church. Some monasteries, when finally investigated, had to be closed down because of the rampant homosexuality found there. The Church – no church, Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox is perfect or can claim any special benefit from God.
Themistocles

Themistocles,
There are so many inaccuracies in your post I can only assume your real goal was to get the comment spam on our site. I removed all the links to p*rnography - we aren't interested in p*rn links on this website.

First, excommunications can be reversed. In fact, the point of excommunicating someone is to get them to reverse course so that the excommunication can be lifted - only if they persist in their position is the excommunication not lifted. This has absolutely nothing to do with papal infallibility. I recommend you read this article on infallibility to clear up your misconceptions.

I'll ignore the sexual stuff at the end, since the only point of it was to post links to p*rn sites. Hopefully you'll actually read the rest, but if you keep linking to p*rn, I'll eventually block you.

God bless,
Jay

Did Jesus create the Catholic Chruch?

Caitlyn,
Yes, in Matthew 16:18 He founded the Catholic Church - Peter was the first pope.

God bless,
Jay

Caitlyn,

Permit a bit more precision to what Jay briefly offered in his last post.

Like Jay, I understand Mt 16:18 to indicate the establishing of the Catholic Church and the signifying of Peter as its first earthly head – Pope! However, the Catholic Church as we know it, see it, and experience it today is not what was known, seen, and experienced by the first and earliest believers in Jesus – including Peter, the first Pope.

After Jesus’ resurrection, the Judean believers (among whom both Peter and James were leaders), continued to practice their religion – i.e. first century Palestinian Judaism – yet, with the understanding that their Messiah had come, died, and been raised from the dead. In short, they continued to believe that they were being faith-full practitioners of Judaism. Even the Apostle Paul believed this to be true about himself. So, the Judean “church” not only worshipped Jesus, but they continued to be and practice their Judaism faithfully. This is not to say that they did everything just like those Jews who didn’t believe in Jesus. But then, there was so much diversity in the praxis of first century Judaism that it would be erroneous to claim that all Jews worshipped, believed, etc. etc. in the same way. They held some things in common, but not all things.

It was not until the very mid-late second century AD that the Pauline expression of faith in Jesus as Judaism’s Messiah – which was relatively lax with regard to Torah since Paul was bringing the Gospel to Gentiles – had won the day over the more “Jewish” expression of faith in Jesus of the Judean “church” (Peter, James etc. etc.). By the third century, the “parting of the ways” was well in motion, but it was not until Constantine’s Edict of Milan (AD 313) that the Church begins to take on a form that would be vaguely similar (even if ever so slightly) to the Catholic Church as we know, see, and experience it today.

Nevertheless, the seminal event in the Catholic Church’s story is reflected in Mt 16:18.

Peace.

Post a comment