Evoken
New member
I agree, Totton is cool. Couldn't pos rep her as I need to spread some rep before giving to her again
toldailytopic: The Catholics: what did they get right, and what did they get wrong?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I agree, Totton is cool. Couldn't pos rep her as I need to spread some rep before giving to her again
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I'll add to the lists if I think of other items:
What did we get right?
What did we get right?
Apostolic succession
Sacraments
Bible
Early Church Councils which defined dogma, fought heresies, and formed the canon of the Scriptures used by all Christians to this day -
(even though Luther removed some of the books. You all are missing out if you don't read the book of Wisdom, btw...)
Worldwide missionary action
Universities
Beautiful churches and cathedrals
Battled Islam
Largest charitable organization in the world
What did we do wrong?Sacraments
Bible
Early Church Councils which defined dogma, fought heresies, and formed the canon of the Scriptures used by all Christians to this day -
(even though Luther removed some of the books. You all are missing out if you don't read the book of Wisdom, btw...)
Worldwide missionary action
Universities
Beautiful churches and cathedrals
Battled Islam
Largest charitable organization in the world
The wheels of the Vatican have moved too slowly at times. While prudential judgments require deliberation, certain instances necessitated moving at greater speed. I'm thinking in particular of the abuse crisis and all that entails, but also in not moving quickly enough to muzzle unorthodox clergy and religious in teaching/pastoral positions, squelching liturgical abuses, etc.
Allowing Vatican II to remove a lot of what was beautiful in our Masses and our churches, allowing them to be flattened dimensionally - the prayers were clumsily and unexcusably translated from the Latin to the English, the entire Mass was put into the vernacular when all the main prayers were to have remained in Latin. The churches were "wreckovated," in an attempt to make them look less Catholic and more modern. A sort of self-imposed iconoclasm that would have made Cranmer proud. How ironic, really.
Again after Vat. II, the banal liturgical music which replaced the beautiful sacred hymns and liturgical music. There's absolutely no comparison between the polyphonic Agnus Dei or Sanctus, or Holy God We Praise Thy Name, for example, and "They'll know we are Christians by our loooove, by our looooooove....." peace and justice songs inflicted on us in the 60's and after.
Catholic universities who have shaken hands with the world, and turned their backs on Catholic teaching. There are many of them, and it's shameful.
Allowing Vatican II to remove a lot of what was beautiful in our Masses and our churches, allowing them to be flattened dimensionally - the prayers were clumsily and unexcusably translated from the Latin to the English, the entire Mass was put into the vernacular when all the main prayers were to have remained in Latin. The churches were "wreckovated," in an attempt to make them look less Catholic and more modern. A sort of self-imposed iconoclasm that would have made Cranmer proud. How ironic, really.
Again after Vat. II, the banal liturgical music which replaced the beautiful sacred hymns and liturgical music. There's absolutely no comparison between the polyphonic Agnus Dei or Sanctus, or Holy God We Praise Thy Name, for example, and "They'll know we are Christians by our loooove, by our looooooove....." peace and justice songs inflicted on us in the 60's and after.
Catholic universities who have shaken hands with the world, and turned their backs on Catholic teaching. There are many of them, and it's shameful.
some other dude
New member
You gotta have some real ****s to wear a hat like that.
(Won't ever get to use them though :grumble: )
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
We're the same. Mostly we just call ourselves Catholic, at least in the U.S. Maybe not everywhere, I don't know.
Mostly, non-Catholics call us Roman Catholics. Or RCC. Romanists. Papists. Children of the Devil. And so on.
But just plain Catholic works for me.
Mostly, non-Catholics call us Roman Catholics. Or RCC. Romanists. Papists. Children of the Devil. And so on.
But just plain Catholic works for me.
Right: The Lord Jesus Christ is undeniably the King of the Roman Catholic Church and Organization, by any possible definition of the word King. :banana:
Wrong: The Roman Catholic Church and Organization must pay closer attention to the actual words of their King, the Lord Jesus Christ, and not equate them with - or worse subjugate them to - the words of other men. The Lord Jesus Christ is God Most High's Word come in the flesh, and nobody else is! Not Apostle Paul, not Simon Peter, not Prophet John (Rev 22:9). In a red-letter Bible, the red letters are God Most High's literal Word and words.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Right: The Lord Jesus Christ is undeniably the King of the Roman Catholic Church and Organization, by any possible definition of the word King. :banana:
Wrong: The Roman Catholic Church and Organization must pay closer attention to the actual words of their King, the Lord Jesus Christ, and not equate them with - or worse subjugate them to - the words of other men. The Lord Jesus Christ is God Most High's Word come in the flesh, and nobody else is! Not Apostle Paul, not Simon Peter, not Prophet John (Rev 22:9). In a red-letter Bible, the red letters are God Most High's literal Word and words.
Exhibit A: Nihilo is not actually a Catholic (despite his profile designation), so his use of the term "Roman Catholic" is not surprising given what I said previous to his post.
Ted L Glines
New member
Personal opinion only, and I really do not mean to offend individual Catholics, but I have always seen Catholicism, the Pope, and the Vatican, as a monumental power-play, beginning from the time that they rebuilt Rome as the Holy Roman Empire. And they really did get this right, for their empire continues into today. And, if you want to see their expertise at pillaging the spoils of war, visit the Vatican "Libraries" to see the treasures of the world blatantly on display. The stuff from the Dresden museums is there, too.
What did they get wrong? There is a wrongness in some of the things that Papal power tried to do. The Crusades accomplished nothing more than the building of Middle Eastern hatred against Christians (Muslims still remember). In medieval Europe, they banned the number 0 (zero) because it had been invented by an Arab (heretic). Merchants, however, defied the Church and used it anyway. During the same time period, they banned personal possession of the Bible -- not their brightest move because this added fuel to a few already burning fires and internal divisions birthed Protestantism. What Catholicsm got wrong was/is all about totalitarian control issues which backfired -- as they always will.
zippy2006
New member
What are your sources for these things? :sigh:
Do the Catholic churches in other countries go strictly by Roman Catholic?
Did the Catholic church have something to do with the actual preservation of some of the original writings of the Scriptures?
zippy2006
New member
Indeed it did, as was even acknowledged by many of the Reformers and is common knowledge today. I suppose that may be of great importance to a Protestant (and I agree it is a great thing), but it tends to pale in the face of some of the other things we believe the Catholic Church stands for and makes available to us.
Okay thanks. I was under the impression that the Catholic church had some of the original writings.
I don't particularly care for how the article itself puts the Catholic church above the ability of God to preserve the word himself. I know that there have been found some original writings of the New Testament that the Catholic church must have never had access to.
What was the split at writing the Bible as we "protestants" use? In other words at what point and at what council did the split take place as far as the Catholics having more than 66 books?
I don't particularly care for how the article itself puts the Catholic church above the ability of God to preserve the word himself. I know that there have been found some original writings of the New Testament that the Catholic church must have never had access to.
What was the split at writing the Bible as we "protestants" use? In other words at what point and at what council did the split take place as far as the Catholics having more than 66 books?
Evoken
New member
Well, to be clear, The Church did not start with an original canon of 66 books to which she subsequently added.
The collection of 73 books that we Catholics accept as sacred and canonical was determined and fixed by The Church in several councils starting with the one at Rome in 382 A.D. (ratified by Pope Damascus), Hippo in 393 A.D. (ratified by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D.), First Carthage in 397 A.D., Second Carthage in 419 A.D. and Basel in 1431 A.D. This same canon was affirmed again at the Council of Trent in 1545 A.D. given the fact that some were not only adding words to the Scriptures but also taking books out of them.
The same canon defined at the Council of Rome has been maintained by The Church to this day and was reaffirmed by the two councils at the Vatican held in 1869 A.D. and 1962 A.D. respectively.
Evo
Last edited:
Thanks.
CANONIZATION: THE APOCRYPHA
I do not know the whole content of this website but it did have the most concise information about the Apocrypha that I have found on line. I did read their statement of faith and it is Christian.
CANONIZATION: THE APOCRYPHA
I do not know the whole content of this website but it did have the most concise information about the Apocrypha that I have found on line. I did read their statement of faith and it is Christian.
You might consider starting at the Catholic Catechism. I don't only say this because this is where you can find Her doctrines, but also because, from what I've seen, the Catechism tends to be pretty rife with footnotes and references.
Next are the writings of the Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church.
In general, I have a major bias against secondary literature.
What the Church got right:
Christ is present. Whenever the priest absolves a sinner, it is not Fr. X who says "I absolve thee." We are kneeling at the foot of the cross, and it is Jesus Christ Himself, bleeding and broken for our sins, who says those lifegiving words: "I absolve you from your sins." Whenever we are at mass, it is not Fr. X who lifts up the host. On the contrary, it is Christ Himself who lifts the bread and the wine and says: "This is my body...this is my blood." And then, just then, the bread and the wine are transformed: there is our Savior offering up His Passion, Death and Ressurection for our salvation. It is not by the merits of Fr. X that baptism washes away sins: rather, the Holy Spirit Himself breathes new life into fallen humanity, enlivens us and makes us one body in Jesus Christ our Lord: a new creation.
What the Church got wrong:
If Wittgenstein is right in saying that some sentences don't have a sense, then the above ("What the Church got wrong") is nonsense. Those words can't meaningfully be put together like that.
Christ is present. Whenever the priest absolves a sinner, it is not Fr. X who says "I absolve thee." We are kneeling at the foot of the cross, and it is Jesus Christ Himself, bleeding and broken for our sins, who says those lifegiving words: "I absolve you from your sins." Whenever we are at mass, it is not Fr. X who lifts up the host. On the contrary, it is Christ Himself who lifts the bread and the wine and says: "This is my body...this is my blood." And then, just then, the bread and the wine are transformed: there is our Savior offering up His Passion, Death and Ressurection for our salvation. It is not by the merits of Fr. X that baptism washes away sins: rather, the Holy Spirit Himself breathes new life into fallen humanity, enlivens us and makes us one body in Jesus Christ our Lord: a new creation.
What the Church got wrong:
If Wittgenstein is right in saying that some sentences don't have a sense, then the above ("What the Church got wrong") is nonsense. Those words can't meaningfully be put together like that.
Renouncing my spiritual heritage is worse than renouncing my ethnic heritage.
:e4e:
I don't know. "Children of the Devil" has a certain ring to it, don't you think? :chuckle:
I assume you are referring to the Hebrews passage?
It doesn't tell us to pray to them.
I see no reason to take that literally.
I'm sure many Christians who don't believe it to be actual body and blood can say the same thing.i have noticed throughout my yrs as a Christian that the more i partake of the Eucharist, the stronger i am in resisting Satan.
it just stands to reason that this would be so - If Jesus is living inside you, wel....
OK, if you believe it is actual body and blood, fine, but are you actually trying to say that it is common sense? That of course God would do it that way? :AMR:
Jesus' sacrifice is not something to be taken lightly.