|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 4, 2008 17:50:22 GMT -5
That's profound. Think about it, it's 100% true. Proof of The Church cannot be found in history because man can manipulate history. But, the rest of that sentence isinuates that proof of The Church is verified by the presence of The Holy Spirit. If there are two men in a public bathroom talking about Jesus, is that a/the church? No. But Jesus is there and where ever Jesus is, isn't The Holy Spirit there? So, "where" does The Holy Spirit dwell according to scripture with regards to The Church? Jesus only said that it would dwell with those Church leaders who started The Cathoic Church. No where in scripture did He nor The Apostles teach that The Holy Spirit would dwell with any other Christian church. So, if all we were to follow those very truthful words and were to follow The Bible, then we know that the only Church which was granted The Holy Spirit to guide it was The Catholic Church.  The Holy Spirit dwells in many of todays Churches, just as it does in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church of the past was all the Christian Churches established by the Apostles. Todays Catholic and Orthodox Churches. But God does restrict his Holy Spirit to these Churches. It also dwells in many of the Protestant Churches making them part of the Church. All it takes is a spirit that is open to God's Holy Spirit to see our brothers through the world. Where there is "true love" for God, there is the Church. I was at Mass about a year ago, when a deep sadness came over me. As I sat there praying, the Spirit began to let me see this sadness was how God felt because so many of his children fail to recognize that we are brothers but instead speak ugly of each other. That day will end and we will all know the truth. God's Spirit is universal. It dwells in many people but makes us each one, reguardless of the name on our Church. Yarddog |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 4, 2008 18:18:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by righteousone on Aug 4, 2008 18:53:51 GMT -5
AMEN  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 4, 2008 20:53:06 GMT -5
When you say "dwells", "guides" like Jesus said? Or just "exists"? When God baptizes someone with his Holy Spirit, that Spirit is their direct connection to God and the Holy Spirit is alive in that person and they are God's child, it makes absolutely no difference what Church he walks into. That person is a temple of God and part of the Church. Again, the way you use it may differ than the way I use it, but an Orthodox Christians who has been baptized in the Holy Spirit is no different than a Roman Catholic with the same Spirit. I don't know if "a" Protestant or "a" Catholic is part of the Church. There are many great christians that are Protestant just as there are many great christian Catholics. It makes no difference what Church they belong to, what matters is their faith in God. There are also many terrible Protestants and Catholics, I don't judge them though, God will do that in due time. I have no doubt that the Roman Catholic Church is part of that Church, which if any Protestant Church is, is also not for me to judge. God has told me to look for the Spirit that lives to know. The Bible doesn't say that Jesus "only" sent The Holy Spirit to the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit was sent into men and women and these were the first fruits, the Apostles, Disciples, and all the rest that received the Spirit. These people went out spreading the news of the Gospel. It was the Holy Spirit which led them. I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit guides many of the Protestant and Orthodox Churches. I have many, many friends who belong to God from these Churches. I have told you of my love for the Catholic Church and for the Mass. If a person has been baptized in God's Holy Spirit, the Spirit dwells in them. Not at the Church that I go to. I have been involved in apologetics for many years and see so many Catholics that fail to see the love for God and the Spirit in other Churches. I don't exclude many of the Protestants that are worse to Catholics. How can someone not see the Spirit of God alive in the Catholic Church? I was amazed at Pope Benedict's visit to the US. He is such a great leader of the Catholic Church. ( Many Protestant thought the same) Yes with Christ as the head. I loved JPII analogy useing the 2 lungs. There is a great call for ecumenism and we should follow what the RCC calls for us to do when we use dialogue with others. It saddens me when I read about the early Church and how because of misunderstandings, some of the Church broke off. Polycarp and, I think, Anicetus had their differences but for the sake of unity put them aside, that should have continued. As a Roman Catholic, that is what you would believe, but if a Coptic Orthodox were asked, they would say the same, just as a Greek Orthodox would, or an Oriental Orthodox. I don't look to Churches as much as to God. If God reveals the Spirit in another, that is my brother. If he reveals the spirit of the anti-christ in another, I do what God reveals for me to do. God Bless Yarddog |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 4, 2008 22:16:27 GMT -5
So, you're saying that all Holy Spirited Baptized persons are "churches" amongst themselves? When you say "it makes no difference", how do you mean that it makes no difference? No difference with respect to what? Part of "what" church? There is only The Universal Christian Church and Denominational Christianity (Christians outside of The Universal Christian Church started by Jesus Christ). Here's a very "real" truth for you to consider: Church Year Established Founder Where Established ____________________________________________________ Catholic 33 Jesus Christ Jerusalem
Orthodox 1054 Schismatic Catholic
Bishops Constantinople
Lutheran 1517 Martin Luther Germany
Anabaptist 1521 Nicholas Storch &
Thomas Munzer Germany
Anglican 1534 Henry VIII England
Mennonites 1536 Menno Simons Switzerland
Calvinist 1555 John Calvin Switzerland
Presbyterian 1560 John Knox Scotland
Congregational 1582 Robert Brown Holland
Baptist 1609 John Smyth Amsterdam
Dutch Reformed 1628 Michaelis Jones New York
Congregationalist 1648 Pilgrims and Puritans Massachusetts
Quakers 1649 George Fox England
Amish 1693 Jacob Amman France
Freemasons 1717 Masons from four lodges London
Methodist 1739 John & Charles
Wesley England
Unitarian 1774 Theophilus Lindey London
Methodist Episcopal 1784 60 Preachers Baltimore, MD
Episcopalian 1789 Samuel Seabury American Colonies
United Brethren 1800 Philip Otterbein &
Martin Boehn Maryland
Disciples of Christ 1827 Thomas & Alexander
Campbell Kentucky
Mormon 1830 Joseph Smith New York
Methodist Protestant 1830 Methodist United States
Church of Christ 1836 Warren Stone &
Alexander Campbell Kentucky
Seventh Day Adventist 1844 Ellen White Washington, NH
Christadelphian (Brethren
of Christ 1844 John Thomas Richmond, VA
Salvation Army 1865 William Booth London
Holiness 1867 Methodist United States
Jehovah's Witnesses 1874 Charles Taze Russell Pennsylvania
Christian Science 1879 Mary Baker Eddy Boston
Church of God in Christ 1895 Various churches of God Arkansas
Church of Nazarene c. 1850-1900 Various religious bodies Pilot Point, TX
Pentecstal 1901 Charles F. Parkham Topeka, KS
Aglipayan 1902 Gregorio Aglipay Philippines
Assemblies of God 1914 Pentecostalism Hot Springs, AZ
Iglesia ni Christo 1914 Felix Manalo Philippines
Four-square Gospel 1917 Aimee Semple
McPherson Los Angeles, CA
United Church of Christ 1961 Reformed and
Congregationalist Philadelphia, PA
Calvary Chapel 1965 Chuck Smith Costa Mesa, CA
United Methodist 1968 Methodist and United
Brethren Dallas, TX
Born-again c. 1970s Various religious bodies United States
Harvest Christian 1972 Greg Laurie Riverside, CA
Saddleback 1982 Rick Warren California
Non-denominational c. 1990s various United States _________________________________________________ John 14 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever,
17 even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you. Jesus sai this to the founders of The Catholic Church, The Apostles. Because there were no other Christian churches for a thousand and a half years "after" Jesus, it was The Catholic Church that was given The Comforter (The Holy Spirit which would be given to The Church in The Book of Acts). Jesus never gave The Paraclete to any other religious institution. If you could find one place in The Bible where He did, then you'd prove my statement wrong. Otherwise, Jesus only told The Apostles (those whom are the foundation of His Church) that they would receive The Paraclete. And they are those who founded The Catholc Church. Not how it was given to The Leaders of The Church. Book of Acts. See the difference between an Apostle and a Disciple. How many "disciples" raised the dead? How many "disciples" had Jesus miraculous powers? None. Only The Apostles (The Leaders of The Church). If you read The Didache, you'll learn much about The Early Church. This is the first Church Document (which preceded even The Holy Bible). It's literally called "The Teachings of The Twelve Apostles". ivanlewis.com/Didache/didache.htmlThat's a blasphemous statement. Churches that deny The Real Presence of Jesus in The Eucharist are simotaneously being led by The Holy Spirit? You are saying that The Holy Spirit is purposefully misleading these Christians or at the very least, that it is keeping this "truth" from them. They don't need a church for that. And, this doesn't automatically include them in any church. A person has to make a profession of faith in order to join a church. Even the forgoing of making a profession of faith is literally a profession of faith. You see a church that teaches lies as being led by The Holy Spirit. I can't see that. Any church that denies the true Presence of Christ in The Eucharist cannot be led by The Holy spirit. The Holy Spirit does not mislead followers of Christ. And what does The Orthodox Church believe? That Jesus is literally in The Eucharist. Plus, they are Apostolically founded (unlike church founded by men). As a Roman Catholic, that is what you would believe, but if a Coptic Orthodox were asked, they would say the same, just as a Greek Orthodox would, or an Oriental Orthodox.[/quote] Any Apostolic Church has that right. And, they don't deny The Catholic Church's origins. And "only" Apostolic Churches. All those Churches are members of The Catholic Church. They never denied The Catholic Church's founding (just had regional differences with them). And again, we are united by The Eucharist. In extreme circumstances, we can even share sacraments. It was God Who confirmed for me that The Catholic Church "is" His Church and that there is not other Church that His Son founded on Earth. I looked to Him and He brought me to The Church. Then, He opened up The Scriptures and revealed The Church in His Word. Pax. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 5, 2008 9:17:33 GMT -5
So, you're saying that all Holy Spirited Baptized persons are "churches" amongst themselves? HMMM, I'm not sure that you really don't understand or are messing with me. I hope that you know that when you received God's Holy Spirit that you have become a temple of God. None of us are churches amongst ourselves. God made us "One". A Catholic that lives in true faith in God and a Baptist that lives in true faith are both God's children. He gave him to the Jews, though not in the manner that he did the Church in Acts. The Prophets spoke the means of the HS. Jesus also said in John 14: 23 Jesus answered and said to him, "Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him." This applies to all, not just those which you consider the Church. Acts 1: 13 When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. 15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place).Acts 2: 1 When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. 2 And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were. 3 Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. 16 No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel: 17
'It will come to pass in the last days,' God says, 'that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh. Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams. 18 Indeed, upon my servants and my handmaids I will pour out a portion of my spirit in those days, and they shall prophesy. 38 Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. 39
For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day. There were many people who received the Holy Spirit that day. Luke 10: 1 After this the Lord appointed seventy (-two) others whom he sent ahead of him in pairs to every town and place he intended to visit. 2 He said to them, "The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest. 3 Go on your way; behold, I am sending you like lambs among wolves. 17 The seventy (-two) returned rejoicing, and said, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us because of your name." 18 Jesus said, "I have observed Satan fall like lightning from the sky. 19 Behold, I have given you the power 'to tread upon serpents' and scorpions and upon the full force of the enemy and nothing will harm you. 20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice because the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice because your names are written in heaven." These 70 or 72 also were able to preform miracles by the name of Jesus. These were the disciples apart from the 12 Apostles. I'm not sure what the Didache has to do with this. Though it is certainly a work of the early Church, it was not believe to be worthy of canonization, thus the early Church did not believe that it was the work of the Apostles. In what way is it blasphemous? Provide something to back up your statement our is it your opinion? PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM AD CHRISTIANORUM UNITATEM FOVENDAM 63. The spiritual life. In the ecumenical movement it is necessary to give priority to conversion of heart, spiritual life and its renewal. "This change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and can rightly be called ?spiritual ecumenism' ". Individual Christians, therefore, insofar as they live a genuine spiritual life with Christ the Saviour as its centre and the glory of God the Father as its goal, can always and everywhere share deeply in the ecumenical movement, witnessing to the Gospel of Christ with their lives. a) Catholics should also give value to certain elements and goods, sources of spiritual life, which are found in other Churches and ecclesial Communities, and which belong to the one Church of Christ: Holy Scripture, the sacraments and other sacred actions, faith, hope, charity and other gifts of the Spirit. These goods have borne fruit for example in the mystical tradition of the Christian East and the spiritual treasures of the monastic life, in the worship and piety of Anglicans, in the evangelical prayer and the diverse forms of Protestant spirituality.How do say that a Protestant Church has gifts of the Spirit without the Holy Spirit? No, I am not saying that the Holy Spirit is misleading them, that is their own spirit which has failed to see the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church. An Ecumenical movement began in the Protestant Churches in the early 20th century, The World Council of Churches. PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY I. The development of the Decree on Ecumenism The Decree on Ecumenism did not fall readymade from heaven. It forms a part of the ecumenical movement which had arisen outside of the Catholic Church during the 20th century and which achieved a decisive breakthrough with the formation of the World Council of Churches in 1948. This movement was for a long time regarded with suspicion by the Catholic Church. But its reception by the Second Vatican Council has roots reaching back to the Catholic theology of the 19th century.... The way was also prepared by the Holy See. Even prior to the Second Vatican Council the Popes fostered the Prayer for Unity and the Week of Prayer for Unity. Popes Leo XIII and Benedict XV prepared the way for openness towards ecumenism; Pope Pius XI gave express approval of the Malines Conversations with the Anglicans (1921-1926). Pope Pius XII went a step further. In an Instruction of 1950 he expressly welcomed the ecumenical movement and attributed it to the influence of the Holy Spirit. In addition, this Pope also paved the way for the Council with a series of groundbreaking encyclicals. It would therefore be erroneous to overlook this fundamental continuity and see the Council as a radical breach with tradition and the advent of a new church. I don't have time to go further. I am taking care of my Dad who has Alzheimer's. I hear him stirring and I gotta go. God Bless, Yarddog |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Aug 5, 2008 10:54:49 GMT -5
Oy!
"Protestantism" does complicate things doesn't it?
Now, we know that there is only one Church, only one Body of Christ, PERIOD.
We know that Jesus est. one Church which is both visible (the traditions, the offices--apostle, teacher, phrophet, etc. the sacraments) and invisible (in the sense that only God knows who truly belongs to Him.)
But the Church is made of people, and people are not invisible. Nor are doctrines, teachings, catechisms, Scripture etc. But because truth cannot contradict itself, we Catholics(rightly) claim that there can only be one visible CHurch that has faithfully been preserved through Apostolic Succession through the ages. Every teaching, doctrine, and practice that submits itself to the Church is part of the Church and every teaching doctrine and practice that contradicts the Church is not part of the Church.
We know that the Church teaches that we must be baptized by water(or at the least by desire or "blood") Therefore, those who by faith in Christ have been baptized are part of the Church, because there is "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism". Therefore, we must allow that all who have been regenerated by Faith and Baptism are part of the Catholic Church, though they may not be in full communion with Her(and do not realize that they are part of Her). Catholics are not to call any man unclean that God has made clean. However, we have every right and in fact it is our duty to lovingly direct those in broken communion to full communion. A person can be a part of the Church and yet teach something contrary to the Church. They must be gently instructed for their sake and the sake of the whole Church and for the sake of the Great Commission.
We don't judge people, but we must judge false teachings. Truth never contradicts itself!
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 5, 2008 11:16:54 GMT -5
I was responding to this that you wrote: "When God baptizes someone with his Holy Spirit, that Spirit is their direct connection to God and the Holy Spirit is alive in that person and they are God's child, it makes absolutely no difference what Church he walks into. That person is a temple of God and part of the Church."A temple is literally a church. So, by you saying that each person is a temple, they are a church. At least, that's what I got from your text. That's why I asked what it was that you meant. I take it that if I go to a Unitarian church, I am automatically a member of that church (according to you). Your words made it seem as if we are somehow individual churches that take our churchness wherever we go giving us instant membership in any Holy Spirit occupied church. I guess you would include the Pentecostal Snake Dancers and Polygamist churches too by default (if they have The Holy Spirit)? But they are not in the same C/church. Protestants are outside (by their choice or upbrining) of Jesus' universal Church. Catholics are members of Jesus' universal Church. This is what makes non Catholics "denominational" Christians...they belong to denominations of the original Christian Church, the universal Church. But those statements were made "to" The Church. They don't apply to anybody that dwelt outside of The Church. And there were people who called themselves Christians and that were baptized, but that were outside of The Church. Even in The Apostolic Age of The Catholic Church. And they became universal (Catholic) Christians that day because no denominations existed. There were no Protestants. There were only "universal" Christians. Everything you are posting only applies to "one" Church. No other Christian churches would exist for another 1,500 years and those were created by men where The Catholic Church was created by Jesus and founded upon The Apostles (themselves not "men" beause Jesus separated the office of The Priesthood from that of common man in Mark). None raised The Dead. And, those were no longer Disciples. Disciples are "laymen". Anyone who works for The Church are "vocations" (Deacons, Nuns, Consecrated, Bishops, Priests, etc...). You are making an excellent case for Apostolic Succession and the establishment of The Magiterium (something that only The Church believes in and that non-Catholic Christians reject). The Didache has everything to do with this exchange. It proves that the Primitive Church in The Apostolic Age practiced what are today known as "Catholic" practices. These practices are rejected by non-Catholic Christians. Only The Catholic Church reflects original Christianity. From The Altar to Confession to The Eucharist to The Priesthood to the communion of The Saints to her direct lineage from Pope Benedict right back to Saint Peter. A church that denies The Real Presence in The Eucharist is "not" led by The Holy Spirit as you stated. First, Jesus says that The Eucharist is "truly" His flesh. Unless you partake fo that sacrament believing that it is His flesh, you will not be allowed into Heaven. The Holy Spirit would not allow people He was guiding to "not" believe in The Real Presence. To say He (The Holy Spirit) would mislead Christians is literally blasphemous. Church Fathers:
Ignatius of Antioch"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]). Justin Martyr"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Irenaeus"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]). "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2). If you don't believe that, you're not a Catholic. Anathemas condemning anyone that rejects the Most Holy Eucharist or its Adoration “If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.”—Thirteenth Session CANON I “…It is the spiritual mystery that unites the Eucharist to us…Yet some heretics disclaim the truth of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. To some, it appears scandalous to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ… The body of Christ is not related to place…It is not divided into parts, but is entire in every single one…Every consecrated bread is converted into the entire Body of Christ.”—Aquinas, From Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 4, Chapters 61 to 69 The Fathers have spoken. For a Christian to deny The Real Presence of Jesus in The Eucharist, they cannot be led by The Holy Spirit. Their belief is a lie and only Satan is the author of lies. We are talking about guidance (not gifts). What The Holy Spirit does to bring people to God I don't know. But I know that it doesn't lead falsely (and that's what this exchange is about...which Church The Holy Spirit is leading). Jesus gave Peter gifts too and Satan managed to get into him. But after God gave Peter the "guidance" of The Holy Spirit, then everything changed. Peter never failed God again after that. So, one could have gifts of The Holy Spirit while not being led by it. I'm sure if it happened in scripture, it can happen today. A "gift" does not prove "guidance". God is known for using the worst sinners to serve His purpose (remember Saul?). Beautiful. Doesn't prove that they were given The Holy Paraclete in the Book of Acts. Only The Catholic Church existed then. I have no problem with ecumenism. But I have a problem with you saying that The Holy Spirit leads churches that deny The Real Presence of Christ in The Eucharist. It's 100% wrong. But I'll tell you what..."prove" to me that The Holy Spirit is guiding (leading) non-Catholic Christian churches that deny The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in The Eucharist. It's really simple. Instead of all this text, all you have to do is to prove that The Holy Spirit is guiding churches that preach literal Heresy that would get a Catholic excommincated for believing the same thing. Denying The Real Presence is not a universal Christian belief. It is a Protestant belief. Jesus was not a Protestant. Jesus was a universal Priest. He came for all who would believe His words...including John 6. My proof? The Church Fathers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 5, 2008 11:18:52 GMT -5
Oy! "Protestantism" does complicate things doesn't it? Now, we know that there is only one Church, only one Body of Christ, PERIOD. We know that Jesus est. one Church which is both visible (the traditions, the offices--apostle, teacher, phrophet, etc. the sacraments) and invisible (in the sense that only God knows who truly belongs to Him.) But the Church is made of people, and people are not invisible. Nor are doctrines, teachings, catechisms, Scripture etc. But because truth cannot contradict itself, we Catholics(rightly) claim that there can only be one visible CHurch that has faithfully been preserved through Apostolic Succession through the ages. Every teaching, doctrine, and practice that submits itself to the Church is part of the Church and every teaching doctrine and practice that contradicts the Church is not part of the Church. We know that the Church teaches that we must be baptized by water(or at the least by desire or "blood") Therefore, those who by faith in Christ have been baptized are part of the Church, because there is "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism". Therefore, we must allow that all who have been regenerated by Faith and Baptism are part of the Catholic Church, though they may not be in full communion with Her(and do not realize that they are part of Her). Catholics are not to call any man unclean that God has made clean. However, we have every right and in fact it is our duty to lovingly direct those in broken communion to full communion. A person can be a part of the Church and yet teach something contrary to the Church. They must be gently instructed for their sake and the sake of the whole Church and for the sake of the Great Commission. We don't judge people, but we must judge false teachings. Truth never contradicts itself! teresa And we know that it is The Catholic Church that is the foundation of The Truth (even The Bible calls The Church The Pillar of Truth). The Bible is a product of The Church (not the other way around). |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 5, 2008 13:26:24 GMT -5
I was responding to this that you wrote: "When God baptizes someone with his Holy Spirit, that Spirit is their direct connection to God and the Holy Spirit is alive in that person and they are God's child, it makes absolutely no difference what Church he walks into. That person is a temple of God and part of the Church."A temple is literally a church. So, by you saying that each person is a temple, they are a church. At least, that's what I got from your text. That's why I asked what it was that you meant. I take it that if I go to a Unitarian church, I am automatically a member of that church (according to you). No, you fail to understand. If you have the Holy Spirit alive within you, then you are a temple because you are a house of God. God lives in "you." You are also a member of the Roman Catholic Church and Jesus' Church. You accept the beliefs of the RCC and not the Unitarian Church and unless you accept the Unitarian beliefs, whatever they may be, you will not be a member of the church. That is what you chose to see in what I wrote but that was never implied. Many people also start out with prejudiced ideas of something and have a hard time getting past them. I have never been to any of their churches and have no idea if the Holy Spirit is in them or they are expressing their own spirit. That is your outlook but I will remain faithful to the spoken Word of God. Those statements were made to Judas but he does not restrict to whom they are for. He says : 23 Jesus answered and said to him, "Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him. Anywhere this applies God will keep his wrod. Whether you will admit it or not, the Church did do as Jesus and Paul asked, they separated over matters of faith. The one thing that still binds us together is a deep love for Christ. Whether Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc... we all have that deep love for Jesus. It is the Holy Spirit that lives in us that still keep us One, even though some cannot see the tie that binds. We are all disciples because we follow Christ. Whether you're a Pope or a layman, we are disciples. I agree with Apostolic succession but that doesn't mean that God cannot give his Spirit to a Baptist or Methodist minister and endow them with authority to do what the Spirit gives them. This discussion was about the Holy Spirit in the Church. If you want to side line that go ahead, I'll skip it. The Catholic Church accepts the baptism of most of the Protestant churches, does it not? Where did the Protestants get the authority to baptize? I guess what happened in Antioch wasn't a failure, huh. Galatians 11 And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. 12 For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. 13 And the rest of the Jews 13 (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Peter and the other were filled with the Holy Spirit but Paul clearly shows that they failed. This was due to a weakness of their own spirit not of God's. We are the same as Peter in this, though God's Spirit lives in us, we can follow our own spirit far too easily. That is my point from the above paragraph. I sure do. God can choose anyone he pleases, including Protestants. Prove to an atheist that the Holy Spirit is leading the Catholic Church to the truth of the Real Presence. You can't but God can. If God was to open their eyes to the truth of Jesus, an atheist would believe, just as if he were to open your eyes to the Spirit in non-catholics. God Bless, Yarddog |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 6, 2008 10:44:46 GMT -5
Remember that The Word of God (Jesus) told His Apostles to make Disciples Catholically...not denominationally. Believing that a member of The Catholic Church could be denominational doesn't match Jesus' command to The Apostles that they make Disicples Catholically (not denominationally). Denominationalism completely contradicts Jesus' wish that we may all be "one" and Paul's teaching that we all be of the same speech and of the same mind and The Apostles Creed that The Church is one (united), holy (founded by Christ), catholic (universal and "not" deniminational) and Apostolic (succeeded from The Apostles, not created "after" the 16th Century). In fact, that very Word of God soundly condemns Denominationalism (and I'm sure it would still be applicable today): 1 Corinthians 1 10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. Here, Paul orders The Church to not deviate from Church teachings. He clearly states that they must all be of the same belief and that they must all profess the same things (not have different beliefs). He tells them that they are to be in complete (perfect) accordance with each other (not that they are to be "protesting" each other). Catholic Christians and non-Catholic Christians are "not" perfectly joined so it cannot be a Christian belief that we are all members of The Church in The Bible. 11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Here, Paul is referring to different Churches and their arguments amongst themselves. 12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Here, he soundly preaches against "denominationalism" (one could replace those names with "Luther", "Calvin", "Miller", etc...today). 13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? And finally, the last nail in the coffin of Christians "dividing" themselves into sub-churches. No, they "debated" over matters of faith, but never separated over them. And, not all Christians are bound together by just their deep love for Christ because some hate Catholics and Jesus said that the best way to prove that they were His was to love each other as He loved us which we know is not the case today as we see with the lies being spread about us "by" Christians. So, they "don't" love Christ when they sin against us. Whatever is done to even the least of His (us) is done to Him (Jesus). How can someone love Christ deeply, yet lie about His followers? The title "Christian" doesn't automatically equate to deeply loving Christ. Praising Him with one tongue while condemning His followers with another contradicts Jesus' teaching to John: Mark 9 38And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40For he that is not against us is on our part. We (Catholics) are undoubtedly "with" Christ. So anyone who is against us, is against Christ. I see no deep love for Christ there. Only personal illusion on their part. A "Disciple" an "Apostle" does not make. Jesus told Apostles to do things that He never told Disciples to do. Yes it does. God only gave The Catholic Church the authority. If you can find one scripture where it says that God gave anybody else but the founders of The Catholic Church any authority, please feel free to post it. Until you can, your belief is an "unBiblical" belief and not grounded in scripture. You can believe that "personally", but you cannot state that "Biblically". Sidelined? I provided "proof" of how The Catholic Church is the only Church to have been given The Holy Spirit through the use "of" The Didache. The Church mentioned in The Bible is The Catholic Church. Only she was given The Holy Spirit in Acts. Notice that no other Christian Church is mentioned in Christian besides The Catholic Church. It accepts their baptism into "Christianity". Protestants get baptized into "denominations". For example, when they change sects, they have to get "re-baptized" into their new denomination because they reject each other's baptisms as denominationally based. Catholics (being the first Christians) have the true understanding of what "baptism" actually is. We don't get baptized "into" The Catholic Church, but as "Christians". This is why we accept the baptism of any one who does it in a Biblically valid manner, because the graces of baptism cannot be denied Biblically speaking. No that "wasn't" a failure. That was Paul calling Peter out on his "personal behavior", not on matters of doctrine. Peter wasn't teaching what he was corrected on. It is how he was acting. Remember, when Jesus reconized The Pharisees Authority and told even His own followers that when The Pharisees taught, they were to be followed because they had the authority of God to do that by the Chair of Moses, but Jesus too told the Disciples that they were not to do as they did while still doing what they say. So no, there was no "failure" there...why? Because, Peter wasn't teaching people to do what he did. Peter never failed as the Head of The Apostles. That is how you could prove me wrong. Show me where Peter taught incorrect Doctrine and where he was corrected? You will not be able to because Peter never taught incorrect Doctrine (which is "what" we should base our following him on, not on his personal behavior). Again, you attach a man's personal failures to his vocational responsibilities (which the passage I listed above shows you should not do...that is, according to Jesus Christ's teaching of doing what they say and not what they do). Matthew 23 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples,
2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat:
3 all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe:
but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not. Yep, and all the Protestants he chose to become leaders in His Church converted to Catholicism and were ordained Biblically as Priests. That's not proving to me that The Holy Spirit is guiding (leading) non-Catholic Christian churches that deny The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in The Eucharist. And, I can prove to an Atheist that The Church is being led by The Holy Spirit by quoting The Book of Acts and by producing a historical list which proves that The Leader of The Catholic Church as chosen by God (Matthew 16) and ordained by Jesus Christ (John 21) was there.... List of PopesFirst Century
St. Peter (c.33-67AD)
Linus (? 67-76)
Anacletus (? 76-88)
Clement I (? 88-97)
Evaristus (? 97-105)
Second Century
Alexander I (? 105-15)
Sixtus I (? 115-25)
Telesphorus (? 125-36)
Hyginus (? 136-40)
Pius I (? 140-55)
Anicetus (? 155-66)
Soter (? 166-75)
Eleutherius (? 175-89)
Victor I (189-99)
Zephyrinus (199-217)
Third Century
Calixtus 1 (217-22)
Urban I (222-30)
Hippolytus ((222-35)
Pontian (230-35)
Anterus (235-36)
Fabian (236-50)
Cornelius (251-53)
Novatian (? 251-58)
Lucius I (253-54)
Stephen I (254-57)
Sixtus II (257-58)
Dionysius (259-68)
Felix I (269-74)
Eutychian (275-83)
Caius (283-96)
Marcellinus (296-304)
Fourth Century
Marcellus I (308-09)
Eusebius (309-10)
Miltiades (311-14)
Sylvester I (314-35)
Marcus (336-36)
Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
Felix II (353-65)
Damasus I (366-84)
Ursinus (366-67)
Siricius (384-99)
Anastasius I (399-401)
Fifth Century
Innocent I (401-17)
Zozimus (417-18)
Boniface I (418-22)
Eulalius ((418-19)
Celestine I (422-32)
Sixtus III (432-40)
Leo I (440-61)
Hilarius (461-68)
Simplicius (468-83)
Felux III (II) (483-92)
Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
Symmachus (498-514)
Laurentius (498-505)
Sixth Century
Hormisdas (514-23)
John I (523-26)
Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32)
Dioscurus (530)
John II (533-35)
Agapetus I (535-36)
Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
Gregory I (590-604)
Seventh Century
Sabinian (604-6)
Boniface III (607-7)
Boniface IV (608-15)
Deusdedit (Adeodatus) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Hononus I (625-38)
Severinus (640-40)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
Martin I (649-55)
Eugene I (654-57)
Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus II (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
Agatho (678-81)
Leo II (682-83)
Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
Theodore II (687)
Paschal I (687-92)
Sergius I (687-701)
Eighth Century
John Vl (701-5)
John Vll (705-7)
Sisinnius (708-8)
Constantine (708-15)
Gregory II (715-31)
Gregory III (731-41)
Zacharias (741-52)
Stephen II (752-52)
Paul I (757-67)
Constantine (767)
Philip (767)
Stephen III (768-72)
Adrian I (772-95)
Leo III (795-816)
Ninth Century
Stephen IV (816-17)
Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
John VIII (844)
Sergius II (844-47)
Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58)
Anastasius III (855)
Nicholas I (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John Vlll (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen V (Vl) (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface Vl (896-96)
Stephen Vl (Vll) (896-97)
Romanus (897-97)
Theodore II (897-97)
John IX (898-900)
Tenth Century
Benedict IV (900-3)
Leo V (903)
Christopher (903-4)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo Vl (928)
Stephen Vll (928-31)
John Xl (931-35)
Leo Vll (936-39)
Stephen VIII (IX) (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John Xll (955-64)
Leo Vlll (963-65)
Benedict V (964-66)
John Xlll (965-72)
Benedict Vl (973-74)
Benedict Vll (974-83)
John XIV (983-84)
Boniface VII (984-5)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
Eleventh Century
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1004-9)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict Vlll (1012-24)
Gregory VI (1012)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-44)
Sylvester lll (1045)
Gregory Vl (1045-46) (John Gratian Pierleoni)
Clement II (1046-47) (Suitgar, Count of Morsleben)
Damasus II (1048) (Count Poppo)
Leo IX (1049-54) (Bruno, Count of Toul)
Victor II (1055-57) (Gebhard, Count of Hirschberg)
Stephen IX (X) (1057-58) (Frederick of Lorraine)
Nicholas II (1059-61) (Gerhard of Burgundy)
Alexander II (1061-73) (Anselmo da Baggio)
Honorius II (1061-64)
Gregory Vll (1073-85) (Hildebrand of Soana)
Clement III (1080-1100)
Victor III (1086-87) (Desiderius, Prince of Beneventum)
Urban II (1088-99) (Odo of Chatillon)
Paschal II (1099-1118) (Ranieri da Bieda)
Theodoric (1100-2)
Albert (1102)
Sylvester IV (1105)
Twelfth Century
Gelasius II (1118-19) (John Coniolo)
Gregory VIII (1118-21)
Calixtus II (1119-24) (Guido, Count of Burgundy)
Honorius II (1124-30) (Lamberto dei Fagnani)
Celestine II (1124)
Innocent II (1130-43) (Gregorio Papareschi)
Anacletus II (1130-38) (Cardinal Pierleone)
Victor IV (1138)
Ceiestine II (1143-44) (Guido di Castello)
Lucius II (1144-45) (Gherardo Caccianemici)
Eugene III (1145-53) (Bernardo Paganelli)
Anastasius IV (1153-54) (Corrado della Subarra)
Adrian IV (1154-59) (Nicholas Breakspear)
Alexander III (1159-81) (Orlando Bandinelli)
Victor IV (1159-64)
Paschal III (1164-68)
Calixtus III (1168-78)
Innocent III (1179-80) (Lando da Sessa)
Lucius III (1181-85) (Ubaldo Allucingoli)
Urban III (1185-87) (Uberto Crivelli)
Gregory Vlll (1187) (Alberto del Morra)
Clement III (1187-91) (Paolo Scolari)
Celestine III (1191-98) (Giacinto Boboni-Orsini)
Innocent III (1198-1216) (Lotario de Conti di Segni)
Thirteenth Century
Honorius III (1216-27) (Cencio Savelli)
Gregory IX (1227-41) (Ugolino di Segni)
Celestine IV (1241) (Goffredo Castiglione)
Innocent IV (1243-54) (Sinibaldo de Fieschi)
Alexander IV (1254-61) (Rinaldo di Segni)
Urban IV (1261-64) (Jacques PantalŽon)
Clement IV (1265-68) (Guy le Gros Foulques)
Gregory X (1271-76) (Tebaldo Visconti)
Innocent V (1276) (Pierre de Champagni)
AdrianV (1276) (Ottobono Fieschi)
John XXI (1276-77) (Pietro Rebuli-Giuliani)
Nicholas III (1277-80) (Giovanni Gaetano Orsini)
Martin IV (1281-85) (Simon Mompitie)
Honorius IV (1285-87) (Giacomo Savelli)
Nicholas IV (1288-92) (Girolamo Masci)
Celestine V (1294) (Pietro Angelari da Murrone)
Boniface Vlll (1294-1303) (Benedetto Gaetani)
Fourteenth Century
Benedict Xl (1303-04) (Niccol˜ Boccasini)
Clement V (1305-14) (Raimond Bertrand de Got
John XXII (1316-34) (Jacques Dueze)
Nicholas V (Pietro di Corbara)
Benedict XII (1334-42) (Jacques Fournier)
Clement Vl (1342-52) (Pierre Roger de Beaufort)
Innocent VI (1352-62) (ƒtienne Aubert)
Urban V (1362-70) (Guillaume de Grimord)
Gregory Xl (1370-78) (Pierre Roger de Beaufort, the Younger)
Urban Vl (1378-89) (Bartolomeo Prignano)
Clement VII (1378-94) (Robert of Geneva)
Boniface IX (1389-1404) (Pietro Tomacelli)
Benedict XIII (1394-1423) (Pedro de Luna)
Fifteenth Century
Innocent Vll (1404-6) (Cosmato de Migliorati)
Gregory Xll (1406-15) (Angelo Correr)
Alexander V (1409-10) (Petros Philargi)
John XXIII (1410-15) (Baldassare Cossa)
Martin V (1417-31) (Ottone Colonna)
Clement VIII (1423-29)
Benedict XIV (1424)
Eugene lV (1431-47) (Gabriele Condulmer)
Felix V (1439-49) (Amadeus of Savoy)
Nicholas V (1447-55) (Tommaso Parentucelli)
Calixtus III (1455-58) (Alonso Borgia)
Pius II (1458-64) (Aeneas Silvio de Piccolomini)
Paul II (1464-71) (Pietro Barbo)
Sixtus IV (1471-84) (Francesco della Rovere)
Innocent Vlll (1484-92) (Giovanni Battista Cibo)
Alexander Vl (1492-1503) (Rodrigo Lanzol y Borgia)
Sixteenth Century
Pius III (1503) (Francesco Todoeschini-Piccolomini)
Julius II (1503-13) (Giuliano della Rovere)
Leo X (1513-21) (Giovanni de Medici)
Adrian Vl (1522-23) (Hadrian Florensz)
Clement Vll (1523-34) (Giulio de Medici)
Paul III (1534-49) (Alessandro Farnese)
Julius III (1550-55) (Giovanni Maria Ciocchi del Monte)
Marcellus II (1555) (Marcello Cervini)
Paul IV (1555-59) (Gian Pietro Caraffa)
Pius IV (1559-65) (Giovanni Angelo de Medici)
Pius V (1566-72) (Antonio Michele Ghislieri)
Gregory Xlll (1572-85) (Ugo Buoncompagni)
Sixtus V (1585-90) (Felice Peretti)
Urban Vll (1590) (Giambattista Castagna)
Gregory XIV (1590-91) (Niccol˜ Sfondrati)
Innocent IX (1591) (Gian Antonio Facchinetti)
Clement Vlll (1592-1605) (Ippolito Aldobrandini)
Seventeenth Century
Leo Xl (1605) (Alessandro de Medici-Ottaiano)
Paul V (1605-21) (Camillo Borghese)
Gregory XV (1621-23) (Alessandro Ludovisi)
Urban Vlll (1623-44) (Maffeo Barberini)
Innocent X (1644-55) (Giambattista Pamfili)
Aleander Vll (1655-67) (Fabio Chigi)
Clement IX (1667-69) (Giulio Rospigliosi)
Clement X (1670-76) (Emilio Altieri)
Innocent Xl (1676-89) (Benedetto Odescalchi)
Alexander Vlll (1689-91) (Pietro Ottoboni)
Innocent Xll (1691-1700) (Antonio Pignatelli)
Eighteenth Century
Clement Xl (1700-21) (Gian Francesco Albani)
Innocent Xlll (1721-24) (Michelangelo dei Conti)
Benedict Xlll (1724-30) (Pietro Francesco Orsini)
Clement Xll (1730-40) (Lorenzo Corsini)
Benedict XlV (1740-58) (Prospero Lambertini)
Clement Xlll (1758-69) (Carlo Rezzonico)
Clement XIV (1769-74) (Lorenzo Ganganelli)
Pius Vl (1775-99) (Gianangelo Braschi)
Nineteenth Century
Pius Vll (1800-23) (Barnaba Chiaramonti)
Leo Xll (1823-29) (Annibale della Genga)
Pius Vlll (1829-30) (Francesco Saverio Gastiglioni)
Gregory XVI (1831-46) (Bartolomeo Alberto Cappellari)
Pius IX (1846-78) (Giovanni Mastai-Ferretti)
Leo Xlll (1878-1903) (Gioacchino Pecci)
Twentieth Century
Pius X (1903-14) (Giuseppe Sarto)
Benedict XV (1914-22) (Giacomo della Chiesa)
Pius Xl (1922-39) (Achille Ratti)
Pius Xll (1939-58) (Eugenio Pacelli)
John XXIII (1958-63) (Angelo Roncalli)
Paul Vl (1963-78) (Giovanni Battista Montini)
John Paul I (1978) (Albino Luciani)
John Paul II (1978-) (Karol Jozef Wojtyla)
Twenty-First Century
John Paul II (1978-2005) (Karol Jozef Wojtyla)
Benedict XVI (2005-) (Joseph Ratzinger) Pax. |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 6, 2008 15:00:23 GMT -5
Remember that The Word of God (Jesus) told His Apostles to make Disciples Catholically...not denominationally. Believing that a member of The Catholic Church could be denominational doesn't match Jesus' command to The Apostles that they make Disicples Catholically (not denominationally). Hello Capha, I completely agree that Jesus never wanted what is here now. But it is here. I'm sure that you've enough research into the history of the Church to know that portions of the early Church left over matters of faith. The Church that Jesus founded is not whole at this time. "Us' does not apply only to Catholics but all of God's children. Praising Him with one tongue while condemning His followers with another contradicts Jesus' teaching to John: Mark 9 38And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40For he that is not against us is on our part. We (Catholics) are undoubtedly "with" Christ. So anyone who is against us, is against Christ. I see no deep love for Christ there. Only personal illusion on their part.[/Quote] Read carefully verse 40. Why does John not use the word Apostles? He gave those Spirit filled men authority. Whoever has this Spirit has whatever authority God gives them. Does the Catholic Church believe that Sacred Tradition ended with the scripture or does it continue until today. I'm sure that you are not Sola Scriptura. Did I ever say that it was scriptual? I said that it is the spoken Word of God. No one said that you have to believe that. No one is saying anything against what happened 2000 years ago. At the begiining of the Church all that receivced the Holy Spirit were part of the Church. That had nothing to do with today and God giving his Spirit. That is correct but it also shows that the Catholic Church recognizes that many of the Protestant Churches have the authority, from God, to baptize. Do you know if there are any which it does not recognize? I'm not sure. Do they recognize and "Oneness" Pentecostal's or a JW's? That isn't what you said though. You said Peter never failed God, which isn't true. When we sin we fail. But I agree, Peter didn't fail God on matters of faith but neither did any of the Apostles. Where have I ever tried to do that?  I'm sure some have. You miss the point again, I can't prove to you that the HS is guiding the non-Catholic Christain churches, only God can open your heart to understanding, not me. You can't prove it to them. You can show them where it is written in the Bible but you can't make them believe it, which is needed for proof. Only God can do that, as he did in the case of Paul. God Bless, Yarddog |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 6, 2008 23:22:11 GMT -5
Hello Capha, I completely agree that Jesus never wanted what is here now. But it is here. So are a number of unspeakable wrongs. But we are not to accept those things either. That's a very generalized statement. Are you referring to the Great Heresies? Could you list an example or two? And, The Church that Jesus founded "is" whole. It is The Catholic Church. It never divided. You are completely wrong on that. Don't believe me? Ask a Priest. I'm really the wrong person to discuss this with because I'm not a expert, but I can tell you this...you are wrong on that fact. Jesus did "not", I repeat, did "not" create a Church that would fail. And "not" being whole is a sign of failure. Men fail, but not Christ's creation. You must not be familiar with what it takes to be "kin" to Jesus. Remember what Jesus said when He was told that His mother was outside? He said that anyone who does the will of His Father is his kin. Anyone who rejects The Catholic Church is "not" doing the will of His Father, therefore, are "not" Jesus' Kin. That is, "spiritually" speaking. 40For he that is not against us is on our part.So then you agree, that anyone who rejects that Jesus is truly "in" The Eucharist is against Him because they deny his teachings in John 6 about The Real Presence? If they are against us for believing Him, then they are against Him too. Just like Jesus said about the founders of The Catholic Church: Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me.I agree with Jesus 100%. Do you mean in the "Gospel of John"? I know he uses the word Apostles in The Book of Revelations. I think I'm confusing the question. Could you be more specific? The only persons He gave authority to were Catholics. We get criticized for being "too" traditional. And it is The Tradition of The Church that only The Catholic Church has a "valid" Priesthood and authority. Just clearing up where your position originates. That's a very "Protestant" way of thinking (that what happened then isn't valid or that "new" beliefs that contradict scripture are allowable). If I'm wrong as to what I believe you are saying, feel free to correct me. I don't want to misrepresent your views. Anybody can baptize anybody. You don't have to be a Priest to baptize anybody. There is no restriction on who can baptize. I can (and have) baptized and those baptisms are valid according to The Catholic Church. Here's what I found and it's basically how I've always understood it to be: wiki.answers.com/Q/What_baptisms_does_the_Catholic_Church_recognizeAlmost any Trinitarian Christian baptism is valid in Catholicism. "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." All Orthodox Christians use this formula, as do most Protestants. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians do not use this formula and/or have different understandings of the Trinity than the rest of Christians, so Catholicism does not recognize their baptisms since they do not have the same intention. Note In reality, the Church only accepts one baptism, Her own, given to Her by Christ as a sacrament. The reason why the Catholic Church will accept any baptism rendered by anyone of any sect (or lack thereof) as long as water is poured/sprinkled/immersed on the person while the words, "I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is because the Catholic Church considers this sacrament Her own no matter who performs it. Baptism can be performed validly by anyone, except for self-baptism, and is efficacious because of the merits of Christ, which cannot be impeded when a sacrament is validly conferred. For baptism, this involves the desire of the person to receive the sacrament and the intention of the other person to administer it, even if they do not have full knowledge of what they are administering as well as the matter and form, that is the water and words, that go with baptism. Whenever I speak of Peter with regards to The Church, it is in his office as head of The Apostles and thus The Leader of The Church (as Jesus gave only Peter that authority to be the Shepherd to His Flock and The Shepherd to His Apostles too in John 21). Again, Jesus made it clear that we weren't supposed to judge the Word of God by the person delivering the message, else, there'd be no evangelization since no man is perfect enough to literally rival His Word. This is a failsafe for us to trust The Word undoubtedly (for all men fail personally. You assume that He already hasn't just because your understanding of this issue differs from mine. That is presumptuous of you. I literally had a vision of Christ appear to me when I in complete humility to God asked "if" I was right to believe what I believed about His Church, that it was truly His Church and that she was the only one who held all authority. And it was literally confirmed to me. Without a doubt. So, my beliefs matched the scriptures and teachings of The Church. I'll never say that God didn't move a man to preach or to spread The Gospel, but I can say this without a doubt. God only gave The Catholic Church The Holy Paraclete. That can be said without a doubt. Anybody can have The Holy Spirit, but no Church that denies The Real Presence and that preaches lies that contradict Jesus' teachings can have The Holy Spirit. Find me one non-Catholic Christian Church that believes in The Real Presence of The Eucharist? My brother, this was the test in John 6 that many of Jesus' supposed followers failed and they walked away from The Church back then. And this repeated itself in the 16th Century. Many found the teaching of The Real Presence in The Eucharist too difficult to hear and they walked away from The Church. I call your beliefs the "Kumbaya" approach of eucamenicalism. You are willing to put aside facts just to have peace, but The Pope is the first to say that no unity can come unless truth is the basis of that unity. I'd love for them to stop disobeying Christ and to stop doing it their own way, but not at the cost of truth. No church that preaches against Christ's teachings is led by The Holy Spirit. I can prove it to them undoubtedly. What you mean to say is that I cannot convince them. But their refusal to accept the truth as presented to them is not that I failed in proving it to them. The failure is on their part. And God is the God of choice, not of force. He wouldn't force someone to believe something that wasn't in their heart. That would contradict the very nature of our creation. It's just like Adam & Eve bro...He told them something that was true. They refused to accept this and chose to believe Satan. Same deal. If they could be wrong even with the living proof of God Himself there and make the wrong decision, what makes you think that those to whom God isn't physically present to would be any wiser? Yet the proof was right in their face too. Pax |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Aug 7, 2008 13:22:32 GMT -5
What happened to "testimonials"?
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 7, 2008 14:40:32 GMT -5
Yesterday at 11:22pm, Cepha wrote:So are a number of unspeakable wrongs. But we are not to accept those things either. I've never said that we should accept the wrongs but we should not allow the differences to keep us from finding the Spirit of others that love God. The call for ecumenism doesn't say that we are to put aside the truth that is in the Catholic Church. www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontif....enis mo_en.html As Cardinal Kasper put it, "Only an ecumenism based on the teaching and discipline of the Church will have a future."....... 3. The good results achieved so far together with the new challenges demand that the conception of the ecumenical movement's future be clarified in agreement. A deeper, shared reflection on the foundations of ecumenism is becoming essential: the common Baptism and baptismal faith; the profession of the Trinitarian God and of Jesus Christ as the one Saviour and Redeemer, together with the commitment to live in accordance with God's commandments and the spirit of the Gospels. A vague family spirit does not suffice. We must encourage ecumenical formation in what unites and on what still divides us. Ignorance and indifference to one's own faith and the faith of others are obstacles that impede true ecumenism. We must clarify the goal of ecumenical activities: full communion in the faith, in the sacraments and in the apostolic ministry. This communion must not be confused with uniformity; it leaves room for a legitimate diversity in expression, spirituality, rite, theology, inculturation, etc. In another writing he says: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontif....umenism_en.htmlBecause of these differences the Council warns against frivolous and imprudent zeal. “Ecumenical activity cannot be other than fully and sincerely Catholic, that is, loyal to the truth we have received from the Apostles and the Fathers and in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed” (UR, 24). The Council however also warns against polemics. It is significant that the word “dialogue” recurs repeatedly at the conclusion of the different paragraphs, almost as a refrain (UR, 19, 21, 22, 23). That expresses once more the new spirit in which the Council addresses the task of surmounting the differences. The underlined, above, is what I see soo many Catholic doing. Polemics (pronounced /pəˈlɛmɪks/, /poʊ-/) is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach. The word is derived from the Greek word polemikos (ðïëåìéêùò) which means "warlike", "hostile". Quote: That's a very generalized statement. Are you referring to the Great Heresies? Could you list an example or two? Partially, The Nestorian heresies separated the Assyrian Church. By the way, here is a site for the Chaldean Church, which is in communion with Rome. But the article also tells of the great damage the Bush War on Iraq has done to Christianity there. www.byzantines.net/epiphany/chaldean.htmThe Coptic Church as well, this was more misunderstanding and politics. www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/Quote: And, The Church that Jesus founded "is" whole. It is The Catholic Church. It never divided. You are completely wrong on that. That is more each person's way of viewing the matter. Quote: Don't believe me? Ask a Priest. I'm really the wrong person to discuss this with because I'm not a expert, but I can tell you this...you are wrong on that fact. Jesus did "not", I repeat, did "not" create a Church that would fail. And "not" being whole is a sign of failure. Men fail, but not Christ's creation. Have I said fail? Make mistake, that is undoubtedly true. The Church has not failed because all is still in process. When I look at each of the separated Churches, I see a great love for Christ and for the most part desire greatly to mend the rift. Quote: You must not be familiar with what it takes to be "kin" to Jesus. I am very aware of my kinship with Jesus. Jesus himself has revealed that he is my brother and God is my Father. Born in the blood of our Lord and Savior. Quote: Remember what Jesus said when He was told that His mother was outside? He said that anyone who does the will of His Father is his kin. The last line above is right, anyone who does the will of his Father. He wishes us to love. Quote: Anyone who rejects The Catholic Church is "not" doing the will of His Father, therefore, are "not" Jesus' Kin. That is, "spiritually" speaking. Anyone who rejects a child of God is not doing his will. So if you reject a child of God who is non-catholic, as you say it, then you are not doing his will. Quote: 40For he that is not against us is on our part. So then you agree, that anyone who rejects that Jesus is truly "in" The Eucharist is against Him because they deny his teachings in John 6 about The Real Presence? That is not what Mark is saying in chapter 9:40. Jesus says, "For he that "is not against us" is on our part." The NAB says it this way. 39 Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us. Most of the Protestant Churches do not speak ill of Jesus but have great faith in him. This does not apply to how you use it. Quote: If they are against us for believing Him, then they are against Him too. Yoou are creating your own scripture because you cannot provide any that applies in the case of the Churches today. Quote: Just like Jesus said about the founders of The Catholic Church: Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me. I agree with Jesus 100%. I agree as well but I disagree with you interpretation. If we use your way then apply it to apply to the Church that Jesus founded, then when the East or the West rejected each other, they rejected Christ. Quote: Do you mean in the "Gospel of John"? I know he uses the word Apostles in The Book of Revelations. I think I'm confusing the question. Could you be more specific? We had been talking about the 72 disciples that Jesus sent out. They were endowed with the same power that the 12 had. Your definition of disciple does not fit the Bible's definition or use. Each and every christian is a disciple, from the Pope down to the laymen. Not each are called in the same manner. A laymen is not endowed with the same authority as a deacon, he not as a priest, he not as a bishop, he not as a Cardinal, he as the Pope. But we are all disciples, which means followers of Christ. In the Gospel of John, he never uses the word apostle to refer to the 12. he points them out as the 12. The 72 that were sent and the 12 Apostles all did their work by the authority of Jesus. That is where all comes from Jesus by way of the Father. None have authority of their own. Quote: The only persons He gave authority to were Catholics. So how did the ones from Mark 9:39-40 get authority to cast out demons? Jesus can give authority to anyone he wishes. Quote: We get criticized for being "too" traditional. And it is The Tradition of The Church that only The Catholic Church has a "valid" Priesthood and authority. Then why does the Catholic Church recognize the authority of many Protestant Churches to baptize? Or to Marry? etc... Quote: Just clearing up where your position originates. My original position has always been exactly what I said, there is no need to clear up what hasn't changed. Quote: That's a very "Protestant" way of thinking (that what happened then isn't valid or that "new" beliefs that contradict scripture are allowable). If I'm wrong as to what I believe you are saying, feel free to correct me. I don't want to misrepresent your views. You seem to always start with a prejudice angle. I didn't in any way imply that what happened at the beginning isn't valid. This seems to happen a lot with in people that are in apologetics. They talk to the opposing point of view so much that they can't get past it. God is not bound by what people believe his Church is. Just as when the Church was founded and the only christians were Jews but God then, years later, showed Peter that all people were clean and Gentiles were given the Spirit of God, He can do that today. Peter recognized that the Gentiles had received God's Spirit and the Catholic Church also recognizes God's Spirit in many of the Protestant churches. We all need to do the same. Quote:Anybody can baptize anybody. You don't have to be a Priest to baptize anybody. There is no restriction on who can baptize. I can (and have) baptized and those baptisms are valid according to The Catholic Church. V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE? 1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation. ARTICLE 1 - THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." Okay, the Catechism says that through baptism we are reborn as sons of God, plus we are incorporated inti the Church. Doesn't that also apply to Protestant baptisms? Quote:Here's what I found and it's basically how I've always understood it to be: wiki.answers.com/Q/What_baptisms_does_the_Catholic_Church_recognize Thanks for the info. Here is a link www.catholic-pages.com/church/marks.asp where this is said: Of course, it is a sad fact that in the course of its history, rifts have arisen in the Church, sometimes leading whole groups of the faithful to separate from the Church. This is a scandal, unpleasing to God. Our Lord wishes that "all may be one" and it is the duty of all Christians to strive towards and pray earnestly for that day when all Christians will be united in the Lord. This does not, however, mean that a proliferation of denominations means the Catholic Church is not one. In fact, all those separated from the Catholic Church remain part of her, in a mysterious way. All those who receive Christian baptism belong to the Catholic Church! I have to go, talk to ya soon, God Bless, Yarddog |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 7, 2008 16:18:25 GMT -5
Really? Ask a Priest. Matter of fact, ask The Pope and see what he tells you. I guarantee you that he'll tell you that you're wrong. Truth as no room for "comfort". Because He was bringing you to The Church. Those who "don't" believe what He teaches are against Him. And thus, are "not" His kin. Do you agree? (Think The Real Presence in The Eucharist before you answer that...) You asked me to focus on 40. Now you want to jump back to 39 when my response was to 40? Fact is, that whoever speaks against The Apostles and their teaching of The Real Presence are not only against them, but they reject Jesus and God. Now, all Protestants literally teach "against" Jesus' teaching that The Eucharist "truly" is His flesh and Blood. Do you or do you not concede this fact? If you do, then you have to acknowledge that by teaching against what The Apostles taught (especially Paul), they are literally rejecting their teachings and rejecting them and rejecting Christ and God. That's a poor accusation to make against me: Luke 10:16 "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me. Whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me." And again, you are still very Protestant in believing that only certain parts of The Bible apply for all eternity. The Word of God is timeless, not time sensitive. Wrong. The Eastern Church never rejected The Catholic Church. It broke off, but it is a legitimately established Apostolic Church. That can never change. And, they recognized our legitimacy. Our differences are in 3% of Doctrine. But they hold the Sacraments, The Veneration of Mary, the Saints, Purgatory, etc... They are still "catholic" Christians, members of The True Church which Jesus Christ started and since they didn't exist until 1000 years "after" Jesus and His Church was founded, what does that tell you about The Church from which they schisimed? They believe they are The True Church and they are literally, but, they do not reject The Catholic Church's place as the original Church. They see themselves as Catholic Christians who adhere to a Pre-Niceene period. And, they do not reject Jesus in The Eucharist. None of the 72 raised the dead. That's not a "same" power. Only The Apostles had specifically Christlike powers. If you can find me a scritpure where one of the 72 raised the dead, you'd have something then. A disciple is a believer. An apostle is a dicsiple, but a disciple is not automatically an apostle. I dont know how my definition differs from the one you just listed or from scripture. Only the Apostles were given Christlike powers. These powers weren't transferred to anyone else but them. The only thing they transferred was Apostolic teaching authority. Only God can transfer Christlike powers (not individual human beings). Jesus never calls Mary His mother. Ever. Does that make her "not" His mother? He can, but didn't. The Authority given to The Apostles that wasn't given to anybody else was His teaching authority. Anybody can do works in His name, but not just anybody can teach in His name. Biggggg difference. And that's the point...Jesus only gave The Holy Paraclete to The Apostlic Church which today is only one Church...The Catholic Church. As I told you, anybody can baptize (even if they are "not" Priests). Baptizing isn't teaching. And, marriage is "not" teaching authority and guidance of The Holy Spirit (which is what we're talking about here). Show me one place where we accept a Protestant "teaching". Then you'd be crediting them with guidance of The Holy Spirit. Loaded question...there is no instance in which we accept a Protestant teaching. You should've kept reading your Catechism...you would've run into this: The sacramental bond of the unity of Christians 1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church:
"For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.
Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."
"Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."They are "not" members of The Catholic Church which is The Original Church. They are Christians, no doubt, but not members of the universal Christian Church. And, because they deny The Real Presence of Christ in The Eucharist, they are considered heretical Christians. 1398 The Eucharist and the unity of Christians. Before the greatness of this mystery St. Augustine exclaims, "O sacrament of devotion! O sign of unity! O bond of charity!"237 The more painful the experience of the divisions in the Church which break the common participation in the table of the Lord, the more urgent are our prayers to the Lord that the time of complete unity among all who believe in him may return.
1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."238
1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240
1401 When, in the Ordinary's judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.241 "Not" members of the universal Church period. But hey, who better to teach us about those who refute The Real Presence than Christ Himself... John 6:66Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. No. They belong to Christianity. But not to The Catholic Church. That is something they must affirm for themselves. The Catholic Church is one. You picked the wrong book to try to prove your unCatholic beliefs; I. THE CHURCH IS ONE
"The sacred mystery of the Church's unity" (UR 2)
813 The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit."259 The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body."260 The Church is one because of her "soul": "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church's unity."261 Unity is of the essence of the Church:
What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her "Church."262
814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."263 The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. and so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."264
815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:
- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.266Matter of fact, read the whole page and adjust your beliefs accordingly. Ask a Protestant if they are members of The Catholic Church by virtue of their Christian Baptism then be prepared to duck as they take a swing at you! ;D Pax |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 8, 2008 21:32:39 GMT -5
What happened to "testimonials"? teresa Hello Teresa, Out of the mouth of babes, you're absolutely right. I gave the last testamonial, so tag, your it. Yarddog |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 9, 2008 13:30:25 GMT -5
The story of how Jesus served me...I was born a cradle Catholic. I was baptized as an infant. I went to Church since I could breathe. I was placed into Communion classes at about 10 years old where I was indoctrinated as to what Christianity was. As soon as I had the freedom to choose whether or not I could go to Church, I stopped (this was at about 16 years old). As I got more freedom, I thought less and less about Jesus, God, The Church, etc...and I lived my teenage life without restriction or guidance. I began to look into all other religions (Protestantism, Jehovah Witnessism, Islam, Buddhism, etc...), but found fault in all of them and by now, I was convinced that The Catholic Church was full of lies, that she was the Whore of Babylon, blah, blah, blah, because of al the televangelists and the tracts I was exposed to and all of their convincing arguments with them using The Bible to prove it. I too became vehemently Anti-Catholic. I never in my life drank alcohol, smoked cigarettes or did drugs. While I did go out to clubs a few times, I never felt comfortable there. I was too judgemental of the people there. I never saw the purpose for drinking alcohol and getting drunk and for having to congregate with others in a public place. I certainly thought that it was stupid and a waste of time, effort and money to go to a club and to dance and to act in a manner that demeaned one. I was a serious playboy. I've had over 250 women in my life (before I stopped counting at about 21 years old...I wouldn't be surprised if that number went up to 300 by now). I never had a problem getting women. I would say that women were my personal addiction (so I could never judge anybody who had weaknesses for drugs or nicotine or alcohol). I'd say that was my vice. I was a big time fornicator. Sometimes, several girls in one day...or at the same time. By the age of 19, my mother moved to Puerto Rico, my sister had moved out and I had the house all to myself. This is when I began to become more conservative with myself. In this loneliness, I found silence. In silence, I found myself. I remember the day I stopped actively fornicating. I was about 20. I was in the middle of a session and I just stopped. I got up and told the young woman I was with, I just couldn't do this anymore. And I stopped cold turkey that day. She was shocked. After that, I began to contemplate on "why" it felt wrong for me to not want to have sex anymore. By now, I had discounted God from my life. I had been to school and found all the evil done in God's name so I thought He must be either fake or wrong. I judged God by His followers and thought no real God would allow that if He was all powerful. But, I forced myself to be alone more. I remained like this for a while. The more alone I grew, the more I had time to think. Then, I found my Mom's Bible. I picked it up and began to read it. It was difficult to read, until I came upon the Book of Sirach. Then, my entire outlook on life changed! This book answered all my questions...why I felt "how" I felt and it spoke to my heart and it made me want to beleive in God. It was the first time in years that I had read anything straight through non-stop until I completed it (actually, the last time was when I was about 10 and that was The Black Stallion). Then, as I looked through the rest of The Bible, it began to make sense to me. What Sirach (AKA The Wisdom of Jesus) taught was that man was born to live a righteous life. That any man could turn their lives around. That any man could come from the depths of depravity and by following God in their hearts pick themselves up and rise to the true nature that they were meant to be. Reflective "of" God, not of "self"...their selves would be glorified by reflecting God (not because of their selves). When I came to this revelation, in my loneliness, I all of a sudden felt accompanied. I remember dropping to my knees, stripping off all of my clothes until I was completely nude and I through my hands up into the air committing myself to God telling Him that I gave unto Him all that I was in deed, in mind, in body and in spirit. I dropped to the floor with my face flat on the floor. I cried. I fell asleep like that. I woke up later, took a shower to ritually clean my body to reflect the cleansing of my mind and soul. This wasn't my greatest revelation nor would I say that it was the time that God really touched me. This was (I believe) the first time He took mercy on me and because I showed true interest in following what was internally in me (to live a good life), He opened my eyes to scripture. It was like going to a 3D movie without the special glasses. Until you put those glasses on, it's all a blur and doesn't make sense. No matter how much you try to squint, you cannot make the movie understandable. But when you are given the special glasses, then all of a sudden, you see everything clearly. Granted, you still have to actually "watch" the movie to understand it, but at least now, you have the means to watch it. God's will is the story. The Bible is the film. The glasses are discernment. Where's Jesus? Well, Jesus is the ticket to get "into" the movie in the first place. The cost? Your own will. At 21, I met my daughter's mother. We had a hardcore relationship. We had 2 daughters. While she wasn't for me, I tried my best to remain with her because I wanted to have a family with the mother of my children. We grew apart, but I was willing to stay with her putting aside my personal wants to provide the structure of a family for my children. We separated. Which was ok. We were better parents apart than we were together. Everything was fine. She had a new boyfriend, I didn't mind. Everything went south when "I" got a new girlfriend. So, my daughter's mother got mad at me, abandoned the home I gave her and dissappeared with our daughters (who were 5 & 3). This was when my truest test came. I lost 50lbs. I left my "new" girlfriend. I lost my mind. I lost my business. I lost everything. I was literally just like Job in The Old Testament. I was literally like a zombie. For months, I didn't eat. All I did was just stare at the ceiling from the mattress on the floor of the basement where I now slept in my house (leaving the rest of my house empty because I couldn't stand being in there without my girls). I accepted that I was going to die. I just didn't care. There were times that I just stopped breathing literally. I was ravished with feelings of vengeance, of anger, of wrath. I fought all this off, but in "not" releasing it, it consumed me from the inside, depleting me of all my energy and will. I didn't know what was night, what was day. I didn't know what month it was. I didn't know what day it was. To be honest, I don't even remember how many months I went through this, but I know that seasons changed. One night, I got up and walked to the bathroom when I saw a man in my room. He looked like a crazed crackhead. His hair was like a bush, he had an obviously unkept beard, he was so skinny, I could count his bones. I was terrified. I literally stopped when I saw him. I just knew he was going to kill me. When I'd move, he moved. I thought I had no where left to go. Then it hit me...I was looking at myself in the mirror. I had grown to a point where I didn't even recognize myself, but this person I encountered in the mirror was surely killing me. That, I knew for sure. Again, I dropped to my knees and cried out to God (who I had forgotten throughout all this I was suffering). I began to cry out to Him as did Job asking what did I do to deserve this? Why were my children being subjected to this? I demanded an answer. But, I also promised God something. I told Him that I leave it all up to Him. I told Him that if He placed my daughters back in my path literally, I would clean myself up and begin to take care of myself. Again, I was so emotionally exhausted after that prayer, that I dropped to the floor. I was literally beaten to my knees and into the ground. I woke up with the first thought being in my mind to clean myself up and to eat. Which I did. Then I was led out from my home. The sun shined on my as if I were a vampire (my skin had become white because I hadn't seen the sun in months). I remember "feeling" the sun on my skin...not as warmth or heat, but literally feeling it. Almost as if I were absorbing it back into my skin. I began walking without knowing where I was going. I just turned without thought. I found myself "in" a Church. A Catholic Church. I walked in and asked to speak to a Priest. I met Father Regis. This was about 10 years ago. It was about 10:00 am when I went in. I left at about 4 or 5 in the afternoon. We stayed in this little room. I let it all out. I made my general confession. He prayed over me. I walked out of that Rectory a new creation. I returned to receive communion after that. And that was how I began to revert "back" to the faith of my fathers. A week after that, months afte having lost the two reasons in my life for existing, my daughters, I was called to go adopt a dog in a different city. I asked this "voice" how I could I adopt a dog? I couldn't keep it in my house, I couldn't take care of it. So how? Why would I want a dog? This callig told me very authoritatively to go adopt a dog. And it told me where to go adopt it (again, in a city miles away from wher I lived even though there was a pound literally a few minutes away from me). So I said ok, ok, I'll go to said town to go adopt a dog. The next day, I went to go and adopt this dog. By now in my life, I was "back" to rebuilding my business, I was working again, I was taking care of myself (bathing daily...yes, it must be mentioned because I went months without bathing). I was gaining weight. I was reading The Bible. I was going "to" Church. As I got off of the train in this strange town (which was odd that I would take the train since I had a truck that I could've used), I was lost. I passed this housing complex. I saw this woman and though, oh, she must know where the dog pound is. So I called out to her...she was about 100 feet away from me..."Excuse me miss, do you know where the dog pound is around here?" Then I heard something..."Dadddddyyyyy!!!!!" And I looked down, and my daughters were next to this woman who I then recognized as my daughters' mother! And the two little girls with her were my daughters! And they came running up to me like two little bottle rockets and hit me so hard I landed on my back and they showered me with kisses and hugs and my older daughter turned around and said "Papi, that's where we live! Are you going to come to visit us now?" To which I replied "Of course I am!" The mother walked up and snatched them from me and walked off with them. Needless to say, I had her in court the next day and began the process that would lead to the situation I have today. I have total peace with her and we are good frieds and I see my daughters (not 14 and 16) whenever I want to everyday. As I walked to the dog pound thinking of how I just found my babies and went "into" the pound, as I looked at the dog I was supposed to adopt, it hit me...I wasn't there to adopt a dog I couldn't keep anyway. I didn't leave my truck at home and take the train for no reason. I was there for precisely one reason...to find my daughters because The Almighty God placed my daughters back in my path as I had prayed to Him for. I told Him that I believed with all my heart that I knew that if I would obey Him, He would place them back in my path. And I obeyed Him. And He was faithful to a promise He never made directly to me, but that I believed in my heart that He would fulfill because I believed that what was done to me was unjust. And that's just "one" of the miracles. Do I believe "in" God? Yes. I believe "in" God. And that is my undeniable proof that there is a God that science nor human reasoning can either prove, nor disprove. God is, always was and always will be. And this is "my" testimony.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 9, 2008 13:42:48 GMT -5
Real life miracles before and after?
Jesus appearing to me when I was a child looking into Pagan worship.
The image of Christ "in" Church while I was in deep prayer.
My levitation while in deep prayer & contemplation.
The glow around a woman I met who would lead me to a monk who brought me deeper into the faith.
My death (not near death, but actual clinical death) where I saw the entry "to" Heaven.
My father's coming out of a coma as I prayed at his bedside...tears began to flow from his
eyes as I read prayers to him...he woke up after I left.
My own personal Stigmata.
My prayer that God drop my blood pressure at a trying time and it going down from 190 to
under 140 overnight.
My prayer for an exact amount of money needed and my door literally being knocked on with
someone with the exact amount of money I needed literally seconds "after" my prayer.
The complete healing of my leg in days that was clinically with X-Rays confirmed to have been
permanently damaged with the strong possiblity of a permanent deformation of it and
permanent handicap.
My intercessory power in prayer when I prayed for my loved ones and they received miracles.
|
|
|
|
Post by righteousone on Aug 9, 2008 16:22:22 GMT -5
Wow Cepha, great story of faith and courage. We seem to always come to God during depression or something catastrophic. I am just glad you found the one church Jesus founded.
I will pray for you. God has blessed me too with many many things that have happened to me and my loved ones. The gift of locution I received from God in 2006 was the greatest of all.
|
|
