₦airaland Forum

pilgrim.1:
The 10 Commandments in General Outline

Before we go on, it may help at this point to give a rough outline of what are regarded as the Decalogue - the 10 Commandments. These are found in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. Below is a sketch of how the Decalogue is generally outlined in the Biblical faith:

         https://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/TenCommandments.jpg

Please note: the commandment forbidding the making of graven images does not stand alone - it is rather expressly stated as to why God forbade it: “you shall not bow down to them or worship them” for this very thing (bowing down to them in worship) is what constitutes that very act as “idolatry”. In so many instances where we read of this connection, we find that idolatry is expressed in hard evidence of people worshipping images, however fashioned. Let’s review some of them:

        ●  Exodus 32:8 - ‘they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it’

        ●  Exodus 34.15 - ‘they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods’

        ●  Leviticus 26:1 - ‘You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar,
            and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am
            the LORD your God.’

It is not simply the making of any image or figurine in and of itself that completes the commandment forbidding idolatry - it is its connection with any expression of worship that gives that commandment its meaning.



Catholic Catechism and the 2nd Commandment

Various sources reproduce the verses Exodus 20:2-5 on the warning against idolatry, and some of these sources for Catholic listing also quote the entire verses:

    _________________________________________________________

       "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
       out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
       You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of
       anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
       that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them
       or serve them."

                   The first commandment according to the Catechism of
                                        the Catholic Church
    _________________________________________________________

       source: Wikipedia; and also Catechism of the Catholic Church


The quote above is what the Catholic Church makes provides as her own 1st commandment in her list. Question is whether that commandment is retained or has been “dropped” or "done away with" in Catholicism, so that Catholics are expressly violating that commandment.

Again, the numbering you just posted is the protestant numbering of the Ten Commandments; i[b]t is not the Jewish number, nor the Catholic numbering, nor the Eastern Orthodox numbering.[/b]

pilgrim.1:
@Omenuko,

Thank you again for contextulaizing your question. Indeed, the expression ‘does not feature’ may be misleading, and I’m willing to acknowledge that it was my fault there. If I may explain, it was used in the sense that the Catholic Church does not give the 2nd commandment its due respect - hence why it is not “featured” in the sense it is lacking its due “special treatement” in Catholicism. This again was why I noted in my previous post that the 2nd commandment has been “dropped” in Catholicism -

[list][/list].

In consequence thereto, you asked an important question:

        ‘how does the Catholic Church drop the 2nd commandment?’

. .  which again has been asked more pointedly:

        'How has the Catholic Church done away with this commandment?'

I should have been clearer in my response, which I failed to do; but if you may, I shall now discuss it to show HOW the Catholic Church has “dropped” or not “featured” or "done away with" the 2nd commandment in the sense of no longer obeying that command.

pilgrim.1, I don't know what game you are playing, but I just showed you the 2nd commandant (according to the protestant numbering) in the Catholic number of the Ten commandments.  You clearly stated that the Catholic Church dropped the 2nd commandment.  I showed you we didn't.  All one had to do was read the wikipedia page that chukwu44 posted.  Now, you want to change your wording and say how the Catholic Church is not giving the 2nd commandment its due respect.  Instead of apologizing because you made a mistake (I'm beginning to believe it was on purpose to bear false witness) and ending it there you want to continue to argue.  All I wanted was for you to acknowledge that you were wrong and withdraw the false statement.  Why do you want to argue?

@pilgrim.1

The Ten Commandments (Catholic numbering)

1"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Catholic teaching distinguishes between dulia—paying honor, respect and veneration to saints and also indirectly to God through contemplation of objects such as paintings and statues—and latria— adoration directed to God alone. (See Catechism 2084–2141.)

2 "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

This commandment prohibits not just swearing but also the misappropriation of religious language in order to commit a crime, participating in occult practices, and blaspheming against places or people that are holy to God. (See Catechism 2142–2167.)

3 "Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day."

4 "Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you." . . . . . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments#Text_of_the_Ten_Commandments

How has the Catholic Church done away with the 2nd commandment?

pilgrim.1:
Hi Omenuko,

Okay, if you say so.

However, although some contend that the numbering differs between various listing, the fact is that the 2nd commandment is not contained in the Catholic list. Specifically, it is the very commandment that forbids the bowing down to graven images as an expression of worship.

Taking from chukwudi44's referral to Wikipedia, the 2nd Commandment in particular that is being spoken of here is this one:

        ___________________________________________________________

        "Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, "

         This prohibits the construction or fashioning of "idols" in the likeness of
         created things (beasts, fish, birds, people) and worshipping them.

        ______________________________________[source: Wikipedia]______

While this commandment is featured in the various other lists regardless of the numbering system, it simply does not feature in Catholic listing. Instead, what has happened is that the Catholic list divide the 10th commandment into two and then made one single commandment into #9 and #10 to have a "10 commandment" list.

My question still stands. . . .How has the Catholic Church done away with this commandment?

@pilgrim.1

It's funny how you want to wriggle from this issue. BOTH Christians and Jews agree on the same things in the Decalogue - they also quote the 2ND COMMANDMENT. Not so with the Catholic Church that deliberately dropped the 2nd commandment in order to keep bowing to idols.

Also, the protestants and the Jews do not number the commandments the same. All groups (non-catholics, Jews, and Catholics) include the ten commandments, the only difference is in the numbering. The numbering according to the Jews is slightly different from that of the Catholics, which in turn, is different from that of the non-catholic christians.

pilgrim.1:
I see. If the Catholic Church was taking money from people on pretext of false doctrines, as long as it is not tithes, you're quite at home to celebrate Catholic money-grabbing charade?

False. Patently false. We know that Roman Catholicism does not have any list of the 10 commandments where the 2nd commandment features.

WHY is that very commandment dropped from the Catholic list of the Decalogue?

Why is the 2nd commandment not in Catholic list?

Did either Moses or Solomon bow down in worship to them?

Nope, not all of us are guilty of bowing down to images - the very thing that Catholicism enjoys and without which is will self-destruct.

Do they bow down to the images - ALL of them?

I criticize your shameless duplicity - live with it. It is not today that Catholics have been shouting that non-Catholics are not Christians and are not saved. That is no news - but the OP opened a thread asking that Christians should not let Catholicism deter them from the Christian Faith. You can knock your head a million times and make many false assertions - they will be bleached as many times as you want them.

I don't have pastors that dragoon tithes from people, just as there are MANY Catholic churches that explicitly state that they are a "tithing" church or parish. If tithing is your worry, start from your Catholic priests who are still tithing before worrying over others.

Sorry, Malachi was not about the Law - the Law made absolutely NO MENTION of any storehouse. And I know many Catholic Churches that also mention Malachi when preaching tithes.

_______________________________

It's funny how you want to wriggle from this issue. BOTH Christians and Jews agree on the same things in the Decalogue - they also quote the 2ND COMMANDMENT. Not so with the Catholic Church that deliberately dropped the 2nd commandment in order to keep bowing to idols.

I did not make any such claims. If you're going to be insolent all your days because Catholicism is making you sweat for your wea defences, I can well bear with you. As for your arrant trash about Wikipedia, I've addressed it well in another thread. Dress well if you're still struggling to excuse your weak defences for the Popery.

I know this is off topic, but how does the Catholic Church drop the 2nd commandment?

@pilgrim.1

I do think it odd that you quote an outdated dictionary that uses words that clearly illustrates bias and offense towards Catholics.  It claims that the term 'Catholic' was used for the Christian church in general, which is false.  Even if that is the case, it does not give any dates as to when the word Catholic was appropriated by this "Christian church in general".  I'm assuming when it states "Romish church" it is referring the the Roman Catholic Church.  The word 'Romish' is a derogatory word that protestants call Roman Catholics.  Even the definitions you posted for 'Romish' states that it is frequently used in a disparagingly sense.  Why do you claim that this definition is a fact.  I clearly showed you quotes that show the word Catholic being used as early as the 1st century.  Even the definition I posted from Merriam-Webster states that the word 'Catholic' was used to refer to the ancient undivided Christian church or to those churches that claim continuity from it.  The Merriam-Webster definition substantiates the claims from the quotes of the church fathers I posted earlier.  The same church fathers that you claimed were dubious and far removed from the Bible. 

Please be honest to yourself. Catholics (such as Omenuko) had quipped that "the way they are using the term is the exact same way the Catholic Church uses it today" - and I wondered if this meant the Roman Catholic Church - having pointed to the Wikipedia source that clarifies this point. Was it used before the reformation as an OFFICIAL title before the reformation?

Yes, do you want me to post the other quotes of christians referring the the Church as the Catholic Church before the reformation?

Aww, I knew you'd come up with such an excuse. In other words, what you can't establish in Scripture is to be excused away? Brilliantly romish.

Can you not refer to Catholics or Catholic ways as 'romish'?  I would greatly appreciate it.

The Catholic understanding of the early church is different from most present day protestant and non-catholic churches.  For one, we call Peter our first Pope.  You may disagree and that's ok.  If we believe that Peter is the first Pope, doesn't it go to show that his writings and the writings of many of the apostles are 'Catholic letters'?  The Church refers to many writings of the New Testament as Catholic letters.

Catholic Letters
Aspects of this topic are discussed in the following places at Britannica.
Assorted References

in biblical literature: The Catholic Letters

As the history of the New Testament canon shows, the seven so-called Catholic Letters (i.e., James, I and II Peter, I, II, and III John, and Jude) were among the last of the literature to be settled on before the agreement of East and West in 367. During the 2nd and 3rd centuries, only I John and I Peter were universally recognized and, even after acceptance of all seven, their varying,

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/99842/Catholic-Letters

The term "catholic letter," first appears, with reference only to 1 John, in the writings of Apollonius of Ephesus, a second- century apologist, known only from a citation in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History.  Eusebius himself (A.D. 260-340) used the term to refer to all seven letters.  The reason for the term "catholic," which means "universal," was the perception that these letters, unlike those of Paul, which were directed to a particular local church, were apparently addressed more generally to the universal church.  As as been stated before, the term Catholic has been used both as a descriptive for the early Christian Church and as a proper noun to distinguish it from other false churches, writings, and teachings (which were many).

@pilgrim.1

If you don't mind me asking, where did you get the below definition?

Catholic:
      Universal or general; as the Catholic church. Originally this epithet was given
      to the Christian church in general, but is now appropriated to the Romish church,
      and in strictness there is no Catholic church, or universal Christian communion.
      The epithet is sometimes set in opposition to heretic, sectary or schismatic.
      ~~ Websters 1828 Dictionary

      Catholic:
      Applied to the Church in Rome c.1554, after the Reformation
      ~~ Etymological Dictionary

For that definition to have words like 'Romish Church' signals red flags for me.  I tried searching for the word using using the Merriam-Webster dictionary and this is what I found:

Etymology:
Middle English catholik, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole — more at cata-, safe

1 a often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal; b often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it ; c capitalized : roman catholic
2: comprehensive, universal ; especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests <a catholic taste in music>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholic

Am I to presume the writers of this dictionary are also dubious and far removed from the Bible?

@piligrim.1

Using 'Catholic' as the actual name of any church was dubious - which was why I explained by using the example of Cyril of Jerusalem in your earlier quote. When we quote someone, we ought to be careful to think for ourselves and not just swallow anything and everything they assert just because they said so. Many of the quotes of the so-called 'church fathers' have been demonstrated to be quite naive and far removed from Biblical Christianity - in some cases, one wonders whether such quotes were deliberately made to perpetuate great heresies with Romish authoirty, as in this quote from chukwudi44:

Ok, so let me undstand you clearly.  You (pilgrim.1) are asserting that Cyril of Jerusalem (a bishop) was being dubious and far removed from the Bible for using the term 'Catholic' as a title for the Church of Christ, is that right?  You go on to use this quote to buttress your point to negate chukwudi44's quote where it states that Rome has some form of authority (see below). 

Tertullian also writes: "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John (the Baptist, by being beheaded)."

You go on to say:

Bottomline is that no Christian church was named "Catholic" by any of the apostles anywhere. Even among those who used it to falsely claim that it was the name of the Church, one wonders what kind of ojoro they were waving in people's faces to name a local church with a 'universal' term. How could someone be speaking of the "Catholic Church which is in Smyrna", as if Smyrna was larger than a small locality?

And dismiss the writings of 1st century bishops because you believe they were on "ojoro" (whatever that is) and state your unbelief in their subscribing the term 'Catholic' to a particle Church in Smyrna. 

You ask:

Or, how do you explain the assertion in your quote "the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome", as if Rome was the 'universe' and larger than its locality? Remember, you had stated that: "the way they are using the term is the exact same way the Catholic Church uses it today." In other words, the Catholic Church uses the term 'Catholic' today to speak of a system of the papacy with its seat in Rome, no? This was one reason why I repeatedly quoted faith69 -

In addition, you ask:

Or, how else does this differ from the fact that many people TODAY understand the term 'Catholic Church' in reference to Roman Catholicism? Were the apostles going about with the stretched and unfounded system of Romish papacy and Catholicism as their message?

I clearly can't tell if you are reading what we are posting.  This whole discussion started because someone made a silly comment about not following the Catholic Church, because yadda yadda yadda. . . .Catholics entered, and stated that the guy must be a hyprocit (or maybe ignorant) because the Bible he is using to castigate the Catholic Church was compiled, safeguarded, and distrubted by that same Church, the Catholic Church.  Not even you, pilgrim.1, can deny this.  All you have to do is check your history books (Catholic and non-catholic). 

Some one then stated something to the effect of, the Catholic Church wrote the Bible (I'm sure the person probably meant New Testament).  This was countered.  Both sides to that argument have valid points.  It was further stated that all churches came from the Catholic Church or put differently, the Catholic Church is the mother of all Churches.  It seemed like you, pilgrim.1, assumed that the term 'Catholic Church' meant Roman Catholic Church.  Well, Lady corrected you a while back and posted all of the churches within the Catholic Church (see list below): 

[size=15pt]Latin/Roman Catholic Church[/size] (over 1 billion members)
Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): Cairo, (163,849), Egypt (1741)
Ethiopian Catholic Church[1] (metropolia): Addis Ababa, (208,093), Ethiopia, Eritrea (1846)
Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition
Maronite Church[2] (patriarchate): Bkerke, (3,105,278), Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Brazil, United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico (union re-affirmed 1182)
Syriac Catholic Church[3] (patriarchate): Beirut,(131,692), Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United States and Canada, Venezuela (1781)
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church[4] (major archiepiscopate): Trivandrum, (412,640), India, United States (1930)
Armenian liturgical tradition:
Armenian Catholic Church[5] (patriarchate): Beirut, (375,182), Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Ukraine, France, Greece, Latin America, Argentina, Romania, United States, Canada, Eastern Europe (1742)
Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
Chaldean Catholic Church[6] (patriarchate): Baghdad, (418,194), Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, United States (1692)
Syro-Malabar Church[7] (major archiepiscopate): Ernakulam, (3,902,089), India, Middle East, Europe and America (date disputed)
Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
Albanian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic administration): (3,510), Albania (1628)
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): (10,000), Belarus (1596)
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church[8] (apostolic exarchate): Sofia,(10,107), Bulgaria (1861)
Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci[9] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Križevci, Ruski Krstur (21,480) + (22,653), Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro (1611)
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church[10] (two apostolic exarchates): Athens, (2,325), Greece, Turkey (1829)
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church[11] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Nyiregyháza, (290,000), Hungary (1646)
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): (63,240), Italy (Never separated)
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): Skopje, (11,491), Republic of Macedonia (1918)
Melkite Greek Catholic Church[12] (patriarchate): Damascus, (1,346,635), Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Brazil, United States, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt and Sudan, Kuwait, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina (1726)
Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic[13] (major archiepiscopate): Blaj, (776,529) Romania, United States (1697)
Russian Catholic Church[14]: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): Russia, China (1905); currently about 20 parishes and communities scattered around the world, including five in Russia itself, answering to bishops of other jurisdictions
Ruthenian Catholic Church[15] (a sui juris metropolia[16], an eparchy[17], and an apostolic exarchate[18]): Uzhhorod, Pittsburgh, (594,465), United States, Ukraine, Czech Republic (1646)
Slovak Greek Catholic Church (metropolia): Prešov, (243,335), Slovak Republic, Canada (1646)
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church[19] (major archiepiscopate): Kyiv, (4,223,425), Ukraine, Poland, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and Scandinavia, France, Brazil, Argentina (1595)

Pilgrim.1, as you can see from the list. . . .the way the title 'Catholic Church' is used today is the exact same way Cyril of Jersulam used it during his time.  There is the Catholic Church in Russua, in Antioch, in Ethiopia, in Ukrain, in Romania, etc.  Do you object to the way the term 'Catholic Church' is being used to describe particular churches or do you not understand why we use it the way we do?  That same Church that Jesus founded is the same Church that early century christians and latter day christians call the "Catholic Church."  I posted a qoute from a 4th century bishop (not from Rome) that gives you the reason why the Church of Christ came to be called the Catholic Church.  I'll post it again:

The Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,' on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly. . . for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;' that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350)

Why was the term Catholic used to describe the Church of Christ?  To identify it among the multitude of false churches that were claiming to also be the "Church of Christ."  You (pilgrim.1) disregarded the above qoute because it was written in the 4th century (note: this was before the approval of the Bible canon by the Pope).  I then posted bishops of the Catholic Church (none of them from Rome, lest you guys claim them to be liers and biased) from the 1st and 2nd centuries who used the term 'Catholic Church' the same way we use it today.  You (pilgrim.1) countered by saying 'where in the Bible' do we find the term 'Catholic Church'?  How ridiculous is that argument?  It was the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible.  The term Catholic was used both to describe the universality of the Church and also as a way to determine where the Church of the apostles is located (the one founded by Christ). 

You guys conitinue to dilude yourselves in believing the Bible just appeared from no where and had nothing to do with the Catholic Church.  Well, I didn't come here to argue and convert people to the Catholic faith, but rather I came to educate some who ignorantly believe the Bible fell down from heaven.  I think I have provided statements from 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th century christian bishops that have adequately addressed this topic.     

from pilgrim.1

One should not just believe everything gullibly, especially where what these so-called church fathers make statements which have no bearing whatsoever on what the apostles taught.

The same church fathers that compiled your Bible. . . .go figure.

1. Don't you think there is a problem with your responses when not one of your responses is based on the Bible, but instead are based on questionable catholic church material.

No

2. Please give us your definition of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church of Christ in Rome.

3. Is there a different between the words Roman Catholic and catholic

The Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church in Rome.  Catholic means universal (roughly translated).

4. What is the relationship between your definition and the present day Roman Catholic church.

Like I said, the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church in Rome.

5. Show via the bible:
 - When the Catholic church stated.
 - How Peter became a Pope.
 - When Peter became a Pope.

Sorry, I don't practice 'sola scriptura'. . . .which is unbiblical by the way.

I'm sorry, many Catholics here and elsewhere are the ones confusing "catholic" for "Catholic" - and that was why I have repeatedly quoted faith69's allusion to bend this to mean 'Roman Catholic', and therefore asked Catholics on Nairaland to sort out this issue for themselves. The term 'catholic' was not used as a denominational title such as we have the 'Catholic Church' referring to the Roman Catholic institution - that is where the problem is, and until this is sorted, I'm afraid Catholics will continue to wave that weak excuse endlessly around.

Oh yeah, well can you interpret the below quotes for me.  Give me you understanding of what these bishops mean when they refer to the Church of Christ as the 'Catholic Church'.  Because, the way they are using the term is the exact same way the Catholic Church uses it today.  It is not only and adjective (describing a noun) it is also used as a pronoun, as in the actual name of the their Church.

"All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and [size=15pt]bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna[/size]. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline, one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the [size=15pt]Catholic Church[/size], But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the [size=15pt]Catholic Church[/size] possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the [size=15pt]doctrine of the Catholic Church[/size], in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

Ignatius did not identify the term 'catholic' to the Church in the sense that Catholics do today.

The way Ignatius uses the term 'catholic' is the exact same way the Catholic Church today uses the term.

"The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament. . . . In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord's Supper is celebrated. . . . In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted."  Catechism of the Catholic Church, 312.

The Body of Christ among the apostles did not give the Church any such names - A. D. 350 is far removed from the apostles - and is it any wonder that we don't find any such terms ('catholic') so plastered as a NAME of any church in the BIBLE? Men who come later and claiming all sorts are not authority when they claim things which they nowhere can substantiate in Scripture. So much for Cyril to claim that it was called this and that - whereas the apostles nowhere made such a claim anywhere. NONE.

See above quotes. . . .

Thank you, Omenuko - that was precisely what I've been asking catholics to sort out. Now can you see why your inital assertion was unbalanced and why I appreciate you coming back to contextualize it on the previous page? And can you see why I deliberately asked those questions and repeatedly quoted faith69's assertion as to how Catholics are mixing issues up for themselves?

Your welcome . . .I respect your opinion and understanding of what you believe the Church of Christ is, but it is not the historical (meaning 1st and 2nd century christians) understanding of what constitutes the Church of Christ.

Two things here:

(a) The 'Catholic Church'  with the papacy could be taken from yours to mean that it did not start as that denomination from the onset - I take this from the highlighted words ("began to be";

No, the 'Catholic Church' to me is that very same Church that Jesus founded.  Just because the early christians (starting from the 1st century) began to identify that same church as the 'Catholic Church', does not mean it changed its name or a new denomination was formed.  The Catholic Church is the nomination.  All other churches are denominations.

(b) there were churches that developed independently from other churches yet had fellowship one with another as far as keeping the faith was concerned. The Church as the Body of Christ was 'catholic' in the sense of its being 'universal' across geography and time - that is a different thing from its being 'Catholic' as an institution.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'fellowship.'  The churches that were in communion with one an other were part of the same Church.  Those that separated themselves from the Catholic Church were identified as being heterodox.  In addition to the Catholic Church being universal, it had one belief, one doctrine, and one faith.  Like I posted earlier, the Catholic Church today is comprised of many different churches and cultures.  All churches have there own adminstrative functions.  But, if ever there was any theological dispute the Pope would step in.

Take the example of Acts 15 for such a council - who was the "pope" there that was presiding over the meeting and had the last say?

The Pope was Peter and he was in agreement with the decision of that council.  He is the one that gave his testimony to not forcing the gentiles to perform Jewish rites.  The Pope does not have to preside over a council.  There are many ecumenical councils that the Pope did not attend.  He does not have preside over a council for him to be in agreement. I guess I don't understand your reasoning in the above qoute.

gen2genius:
No need to take cover, Joke. You made good observations. The Catholics were NOT the ones who made the Bible available to us as some would have us believe. In fact, just as you said, their leaders were actually preventing the laity and every one else from having access to the Scriptures. One of the ways this was done was restraining it from being translated to popular languages. Anyone who dared it was labelled a heretic and burnt at the stake. Why? Because allowing general access to the Scriptures would expose the hypocrisy of the religious leaders who constantly misinterpreted the Scriptures for commercial and other personal reasons. (Read the Foxe's Book of Martyrs - and you'll be shocked at the numerous atrocities perpetrated by these people)

Thank God for the great men and women of old who, despite various attempts by the false teachers to destroy and discredit them, refused to be deterred and secretly translated and distributed the Bible for the masses to read!

Source please. . . .thanks

@pilgrim.1

I saw all that - which was reason why I repeatedly called your attention to the fact that the claim by Catholics that ALL CHURCHES were part of Catholicism (of 'Catholic Church') is false. If the problem was about criss-crosses in replies between you, myself, tpiah and omenuko, what difference does it make who was making that same claim anyhow?

Pilgrim1, if I may. . . .do you believe Jesus Christ started a Church here on earth whereby we are to be joined with.  If you agree, fine.  If not, why not.  From the Bible one can easily read and comprehend that in Jesus Christ there is one Church, not multiple churches that are independent of one another.  Is the Church that Christ built united or divided?  Why would Christ build a divided Church or churches that develop independently from one another (according to you) with separate doctrine and confusion? 

During the time of the apostles, the ‘Church’ was understood to be one.  In other words, there was one Church.  This Church had different communities across different geographical areas (e.g., the church of/in Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Corinth, etc.), but all communities were part of one Church, one faith, one belief.  All churches (sister communities) were part of the one Church founded by Jesus Christ.  It was not meant for them to develop independently of one another.  As such, periodic councils were called to settle disputes and define theological doctrine so that the community of believers would know what is orthodox and what is heterodox (e.g., the first ecumenical council of Jerusalem, Acts 15).

That's where the problem actually is, and the same thing that has brought us thus far - the claim that "ALL CHURCHES were Catholic before the schism" is unfounded and patently false. Several sources I referenced pointed this out, such as the BBC in brief - and you came back dismissing them for not reading the default false assertion you had hoped they would! Anything that does not read "Catholic" or catholicism to you is illogical, whereas we haven't seen any clues about how strong your 'logic' is to bend those references to say what they do not say.

Let me help in clearing this up.  The Church that Jesus founded was one.  Jesus did not create multiple churches.  As the early church developed and grew there came about a necessity to identify or distinguish this Church from the false churches (pseudo-christians).  From the first century, the christian community called this Church, the Catholic Church.  It was termed Catholic, because only this Church could be found all over (Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, etc.).  Only this church held onto correct belief.  As opposed to the heterodox christians that were not.  This 2nd century bishop of Antioch says it better:

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Ignatius of Antioch was the bishop of Antioch (not Rome) and readily identifies the term ‘Catholic’ in identification of the Church of Christ.  Furthermore, he encourages the followers of Christ to be in allegiance and in communion with their bishops as Jesus is with the Catholic Church.

1. What exactly in your understanding was the 'Catholic Church'?

I’ll quote from a 4th century bishop on what is meant by the Catholic Church:

The Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,' on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;' that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. [size=15pt]And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church[/size]. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350)

The Roman Catholic Church is but one church within the Catholic Church.  The bishop of the Roman Catholic Church is the bishop of Rome.  Just as there are heads or patriarchs to the different sister churches (e.g., Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.), there is also a head or leader to the Catholic Church, namely the Pope.

2. What do you mean by 'they were part of one church (aka the Catholic Church)' ?

Jesus founded one Church.  This Church is located in various geographical regions and cultures.  Although the Church was located in different places, it was one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.  There was no such thing as developing independently and separately from one another.  If there was a church that was separated from the Catholic Church it was either because of 1) theological reasons, or 2) Political reasons.  It still stands that all orthodox churches originated from the Church of Christ.  This Church began to be identified as the Catholic Church to distinguish it from other false churches.

3. Where's the papacy in all these churches?

I don’t understand your question.  If you are asking, ‘where is the Pope in all this,’ then all you have to do you check the history books.  Peter was the first Pope and follow the direct line of succession.  I think you need to tailor you question more.

4. which church among them had jurisdiction over them, since they were all 'one church'?

Each sister church had administrative jurisdiction over an agreed upon geographical region.  Now, when theological disputes arose, many times the Pope had the final say, at other times a council had the final say (as long as the Pope was in agreement with the council).

pilgrim.1:
@Omenuko,

The Assyrian Church was not "part of" the Catholic Church as a single denomination - we've been through this before and it's needless repeating the same thing like a broken record. You guys are reading things into the quotes and forcing the Assyrian Church into the 'Catholic Church'; whereas, the quotes often referred to do not lead to that inference.

No, I'm not - as could be seen, that idea often emerges in the minds of 'Catholics', as could be seen in faith69's earlier response. Let me quote faith69's direct response to my post earlier as regards how Catholics define 'Catholic Church'  -

[list][/list]

Just wondering: what makes everyone in any Council to automatically be 'Roman Catholic' (or even 'Catholic Church')? Is any quote so far from any source saying that everyone in any council had to be '[Roman] Catholic'? If this misconception keeps popping up from catholics themselves, is that my worry? The only thing I could do is take the ideas of Catholics themselves and discuss accordingly, so that we can move on and minimise confusion. To this end, I'd be glad to see you guys reading your own ideas into quotes that do not say what you want them to say.

It seems to me that you're leading on to a dilemma here. Could I just begin to ask questions instead of trying to point out quotes to you? I think probably that may be more helpful if you still fail to see the basic point here.

    1. What exactly in your understanding was the 'Catholic Church'?

    2. What do you mean by 'they were part of one church (aka the Catholic Church)' ?

    3. Where's the papacy in all these churches?

    4. which church among them had jurisdiction over them, since they were all 'one church'?

Perhaps these would help contextualize the discussion and then we can distinguish between terms and maintain a balance and a focus.

It all depends on what you mean by 'Catholic Church'.

What 'one church' do you mean? Please take the time to identify that 'one church' and let's talk about it, as it's not enough to keep repeating the same thing about 'Catholic Church' and mistaking it for something else midway.

I hear. Just bear that in mind as you explicate what you mean by 'Catholic Church'.

Being in communion is not the issue - there are several churches today and back in early history that were in communion but could not be said to be "part of" one vague term. Please identify the term 'Catholic Church' and then we can mirror your assertions against it.

I knew the words in bold is what is controlling the mindset of most Catholics - especially naija Catholics. Just because someone attended a council automatically makes that person a Catholic, kwo? No wahala, please follow through with the simple oft-repeated request above and we can develop your ideas consequently.

Shalom.

Lady posted the below a while back.  It basically is a list of eastern catholic churches and rites.  These churches, along with the Latin/Roman Church, make up the Catholic Church.  We do not call them different denominations; we call them different traditions or rites.  Basically, the Catholic church consists of sister churches; same faith, same belief, and in communion with the Pope. Hopefully, Lady and others can help define what is meant by the Catholic Church.  I'm busy now and will respond later.

Alexandrian liturgical tradition
Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): Cairo, (163,849), Egypt (1741)
Ethiopian Catholic Church[1] (metropolia): Addis Ababa, (208,093), Ethiopia, Eritrea (1846)
Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition
Maronite Church[2] (patriarchate): Bkerke, (3,105,278), Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Brazil, United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico (union re-affirmed 1182)
Syriac Catholic Church[3] (patriarchate): Beirut,(131,692), Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United States and Canada, Venezuela (1781)
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church[4] (major archiepiscopate): Trivandrum, (412,640), India, United States (1930)
Armenian liturgical tradition:
Armenian Catholic Church[5] (patriarchate): Beirut, (375,182), Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Ukraine, France, Greece, Latin America, Argentina, Romania, United States, Canada, Eastern Europe (1742)
Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
Chaldean Catholic Church[6] (patriarchate): Baghdad, (418,194), Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, United States (1692)
Syro-Malabar Church[7] (major archiepiscopate): Ernakulam, (3,902,089), India, Middle East, Europe and America (date disputed)
Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
Albanian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic administration): (3,510), Albania (1628)
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): (10,000), Belarus (1596)
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church[8] (apostolic exarchate): Sofia,(10,107), Bulgaria (1861)
Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci[9] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Križevci, Ruski Krstur (21,480) + (22,653), Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro (1611)
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church[10] (two apostolic exarchates): Athens, (2,325), Greece, Turkey (1829)
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church[11] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Nyiregyháza, (290,000), Hungary (1646)
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): (63,240), Italy (Never separated)
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): Skopje, (11,491), Republic of Macedonia (1918)
Melkite Greek Catholic Church[12] (patriarchate): Damascus, (1,346,635), Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Brazil, United States, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt and Sudan, Kuwait, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina (1726)
Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic[13] (major archiepiscopate): Blaj, (776,529) Romania, United States (1697)
Russian Catholic Church[14]: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): Russia, China (1905); currently about 20 parishes and communities scattered around the world, including five in Russia itself, answering to bishops of other jurisdictions
Ruthenian Catholic Church[15] (a sui juris metropolia[16], an eparchy[17], and an apostolic exarchate[18]): Uzhhorod, Pittsburgh, (594,465), United States, Ukraine, Czech Republic (1646)
Slovak Greek Catholic Church (metropolia): Prešov, (243,335), Slovak Republic, Canada (1646)
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church[19] (major archiepiscopate): Kyiv, (4,223,425), Ukraine, Poland, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and Scandinavia, France, Brazil, Argentina (1595)

@Pilgrim1,

The the Nestorian church was part of the Catholic Church.  This church was initially known as the Assyrian Church of the East and was later tiltled Nestorian after the Archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius.

Nestorianism is the doctrine that the two individual natures of Christ, the human and the divine, are joined in conjunction ("synapheia" rather than in hypostatic union.[1] The doctrine is identified with Nestorius (c. 386–c. 451), Archbishop of Constantinople. This view of Christ was condemned at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, and the conflict over this view led to the Nestorian schism, separating the Assyrian Church of the East from the churches adherent to the First Council of Ephesus, among them being the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church.

Pilgrim1, what is your definition of the Catholic Church?  You seem to be conflating the Catholic Church with the Church of Rome (aka the Roman Catholic Church).  The quote above asserts that, 1) the Nestorian Church was previously known as the Assyrian Church of the East, 2) that it was in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church, 3) this church was separated from its sister churches (i.e., Rome/Latin, Eastern/Greek, Oriental/Egypt), and 4) the Assyrian, Roman, Eastern, and Oriental Churches were, before the schism, part of one church (aka the Catholic Church).

And how does the quote you provided from wikipedia prove that the Assyrian (Nestorian) church was not part of the Catholic Church (see below):

Strangely, the church which spread throughout most of Asia bears the apellation “Nestorian, after the fifth century patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, who was condemned by Rome as a heretic in A.D. 430. The name is actually a misnomer which became current in the West; the Roman See had sought to discredit this church, which had renounced Rome's primacy for geographical, political, linguistic, and doctrinal reasons. Nestorian was not the name by which the church knew itself., nor was it so commonly designated in Asian lands.

What it does hint at is that there were political misgivings between the Assyrian Church and the Roman church.  It does not in any way say that the Assyrian church and the Roman church developed separately or where not in communion. . . .talk less of not being part of one church.  From your logic, its as though the Anglican or Lutheran Churches waking up one day and saying they were never part of the Catholic Church, because they separated from Rome and were labeled Protestants.  Whether they (Anglican and Lutheran) like it or not they were part of the Catholic Church.  The situation the occurred between Catholic church and the Protestants churches (i.e., separating) can be likened to the situation between the Catholic Church (Rome, Greek, Egyptian) and the Assyrian or Nestorian Church.   

You're the one trying ever so hard to "make them Catholics" - just because they were present at some councils? This is what the link says about Ephesus - "431 Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus condemns Nestorius as a heretic" - and yet, the 'Nestorian Church' did not know itself by such a name, because it was a misnomer. The reason why they came to be known as such is partly due to Rome seeking persistently to discredit them for the reason that they held the view that Nestorius was not a heretic. More to the point was that this Church had its own See and were not under the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Any ideas about why the same link states that "School of the Persians in Edessa first closed by Romans" in just about the same period?

Pilgrim1, what you are saying doesn't make sense.  The Assyrian church was in communion with the churches of Rome, Constantinople, and Egypt.  The Roman/Latin church had administrative influence over most of western Europe and parts of north Africa.  The church of Constantinople had administrative influence over the Greek speaking areas of Europe and parts of the near middle east (including Assyria).  The Coptic/Egyptian Church had administrative influence over parts of north Africa, Ethiopia, and parts of the middle east.  The churches of Antioch and Jerusalem eventually came under the influence of Constantinople.  All of these churches (Rome, Constantinople, and Egypt) were part of the Catholic Church.  They had the same belief and doctrines and were in communion with one another.

Just because they were present at the Council of Nicea does not "make them Catholic" - that is simply laughable. Mar Aprim was the representative of the Assyrian Church in the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325A.D., but it does not make the Assyrian Church a Roman Catholic church - rather, the Roman Catholic Church "recognized" his great role in the literary and religious life of all Christians until today. Just being present at a Council does not in itself constitute "origin" of a Church from Catholicism.

The very fact that they attended this council and participated is the very reason why they were Catholic.  No one is saying the Assyrian Church is part of the Roman Catholic church.  What we are saying is that the Assyrian Church, and the Roman Church were sisters churches within the Catholic Church.  The Assyrian Church was indeed part of the Catholic Church.

pilgrim.1:
That is precisely the problem. From all points considered, it does not follow that all churches were at any point "part of" the Catholic Church. If we revisit Church history, we find that some churches indeed grew almost indepently apart from the Catholic Church; and it was only when they convened to deliberate on doctrines that the schisms occured. Many people interprete these schisms as people leaving the Catholic Church to become other churches - that is not honest by any means.

I just thought to make the basics plain without yet pointing to specific examples, since it's not my desire for people to grow ill-feelings either ways. But yes, I'd be glad to offer examples where requested. Cheers.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.  All of the churches I mentioned in my post (Armenian, Egyptian, Greek, and Ethiopian) were at one point or another part of the Catholic Church. I do agree with you that there were some churches (though quite small in number) that developed apart from the 'Catholic Church'.  As that may be the case, they practiced a faith that is very similar to that of the sister churches within the Catholic Church (e.g., Latin, Greek, Ethiopian, Syrian, etc.) and remained autonomous (so to speak).  They maintained similar doctrinal beliefs and way of worship as the Catholic Church.  Although all churches were independent, they all sought to maintain communion with one another and have sameness of faith.   

In other instances, some of the churches that developed in isolation were forced to do so because of uncontrolled circumstances, such as religious persecution by the Romans and later the muslims, communication problems, wars, etc.  The Chaldean Syrian Church of India that 'tpiah' mentioned may be one such example.

pilgrim.1:
Hallo omenuko,

I understand how you feel and have been watching this thread grow. I hope my contributions and observations will not make things worse towards your feelings; but there's reason to believe that faith69 was not correct about that idea. There's more we can share about this - and this has been done sometime in 2007; but point still remains that faith69 was wrong.

Cheers.

What tpiah posted is below:

Can you people do your homework before logging on the web.

You've never heard of the Greek Orthodox church? Huh

The Ethiopian Church? The Egyptian Coptic church? The Armenian church?

In response, faith69 posted:

Better go and study the history of the church ,the Ethiopian Egyptian and Armenian churches were part of the catholic church until the council of chalcedon in 451AD ,it was after that council that they left the church.
The Greek orthodox church with the other eastern orthodox churches left in 1054AD.

Please, explain how faith69 is wrong in this regard?  My understanding is that the Armenian, Egyptian/Coptic and Ethiopian Churches are called non-chalcedonians (Oriental Orthodox) and were separated from the Greek and Latin churches around 451AD.  Afterward, the Greek (Eastern Orthodox) and Roman/Latin churches separated around 1054AD (although it was not a hard split). All churches were at one point part of the Catholic Church.

tpiah:
as I said before, the churches in my post he quoted, were [b]example[/b]s and not meant to serve as a comprehensive list.

Kindly note that. There are many more and no, not every church was at one time or another affiliated with a mother church somewhere.

learn to acknowledge this without feeling hurt.

I should learn to acknowledge what, without feeling hurt?

Your response to faith69's post was inaccurate and misleading.  Did faith69 say all of the "Christian sects" (orthodox and heretic) were part of the Catholic Church?  No. . .what he posted was that the churches that you presented were all once part of the Catholic Church.

The person who created this thread said, "Don't let the Catholic Faith Deter You From the Christian Faith."  What the originator fails to understand is that the Christian faith is the Catholic Faith.  The Catholic Church is the original church.  The term 'Catholic' was the term the members of the early church used to distinguish between orthodox belief and heretical doctrine from pseudo-christian sects.  What the poster fails to understand is that the Catholic Church included all of the apostolic churches, such as the Roman/Latin, Russian, Greek, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Indian, etc.  And those orthodox churches that were not initially part of this Catholic Church had their leaders (aka Bishops) appointed by Catholics.  What the poster fails to understand is that the very Bible that he/she uses to better know and grow closer to God was assembled, compiled, and protected by bishops and priests of the Catholic Church.

So if you think about. . . .when Catholics hear things such as what the originator of this thread claims, it goes to show how ignorant and hypocritical many people are.  Talk less of being, anti-catholic.  How foolish can one be to believe that the originators of their Bible (the Bible was compiled some 300 years after the death of Christ) are not Christian?  Now, if the originator of this thread stated the reasons why Catholics are not Christians then he must prove it.  Nothing wrong with a healthy discussion.

@tpiah

Better go and study the history of the church ,the ethiopian egyptian and armenian churches were part of the catholic church until the council of chalcedon in 451AD ,it was after that council that they left the church.
The Greek orthodox church with the other eastern orthodox churches left in 1054AD.

stop confusing yourself.

I dont want to get bogged down in tautology and dogma because if we start analyzing all these churches this thread will derail and most people will lose sight of whatever's being discussed.


Here's just one church not on your list:

Chaldean Syrian Church


Chaldean Syrian Church is the name used for the Assyrian Church of the East in India. It is one of several groups of Saint Thomas Christians tracing their origins to St. Thomas the Apostle who, according to tradition, came to India in AD 52.

This Nasrani faith had many similarities to Judaism, and, owing to the heritage of the Nasrani people, developed contacts with the non-Chalcedonian religious authorities of Edessa, Mesopotamia.

The local church maintained its autonomous character under its local leader. When the Portuguese established themselves in India in the 16th Century, they found the Church in Kerala as an administratively independent community. Following the arrival of Vasco de Gama in 1498, the Portuguese came to South India and established their political power there. They brought missionaries to carry out evangelistic work in order to establish churches in communion with Rome under the Portuguese patronage. These missionaries were eager to bring the Indian Church under the Pope's control.  They succeeded in their efforts in 1599 with the `Synod of Diamper'.The representatives of various parishes who attended the assembly were forced by Portuguese authorities to accept the Papal authority.


Following the Portuguese colonization of several coastal regions of India, Christians in Malabar were allied with the Roman Catholic Church. Beginning in the 17th century, ecclesiastically conservative groups began to seek leadership from the Syrian Orthodox Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldean_Syrian_Church

His points still stands. . . .the Ethiopian, Coptic, and Armenian churches were all at one point part of the Catholic Church.  What is more telling than even this is that the beliefs/dogmas/doctrines of all of the apostolic churches (including the above Chaldean Syriach Church) are pretty much the same.  The main thing that separates us is unity with the pope.  They believe in, 'the real presense of Christ in the Eucharist', 'the sacrements', 'prayer to the saints', 'apostolic succession', and understand and accept what is meant by the title, 'Mary mother of God (theotikos), etc. 

Although we (all of the apostolic churches) may not all be in communion with the Pope of Rome, our beliefs and way of worship are essentially the same.  These churches did not pick of the Bible yesterday and foolishly believe and proclaim that it came down whole and intact from heaven; the way these 'born again' churches do.  They know the history of the Bible and how it came to be.

@viee,

I greet you oh! Nnoo! O di ka i bu ezigbo mmadu hohaa! My greetings to all! If we can't get a Catholic sub-forum we can always discuss catholic related topics in the religion forum.

Glory to Jesus, Honor to Mary,

@Bastage,

My guy, read am again:

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

@Bastage

It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

Our human nature is wounded and inclined towards sin because of Adam and Eve's transgressions; original sin (in Catholic theology) is the absence of original holiness and justice (aka grace).

How is this different from what David posted?

@Bastage

Catachism of the Catholic Church

404

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man."  By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act.

405

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence." Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

@davidylan

view this view that . . . As clearly enunciated by the bible . . . we are not responsible for Adam eating the apple. We wont be judged by his decision to eat an apple but by OUR OWN personal choices in life.

However the consequence of Adam's sin was that after he fell, he lost spiritual fellowship with God (typified by his presence in the garden). It is the fallen nature, the sinful nature . . . the flesh that is prone towards sin rather than righteousness . . . that is what we inherited and that is why Christ had to die NOT to redeem us from the curse of Adam's apple but to redeem us from the law of sin and death that we inherited from Adam.

I'm not "propounding" human nature . . . i'm only expressing the views of the bible as CLEARLY explained here:

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

and here:

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

and here

Romans 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Sin didnt jump on us from the sky, its a natural tendency for fallen man. That is the bible's understanding of "original sin" . . . not that we are paying for Adam eating the apple.

Well said. . .this is the Catholic understanding also.

@OLAADEGBU

Find out the origin of the Roman Catholic Church in the link below:

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

Lol, rubbish

Answer me this:  Why do all of the Apostolic Churches (Ethiopian, Orthodox, Indian, Chaldean, Egypt/Coptic, Roman) all have basically the same belief and understanding of what it means to be Christian (e.g., the sacraments, communion of the saints, apostolic succession)?  You can't possibly believe that all of the apostolic churches "Christianized the pagan religions and paganized Christianity".

@All, Greetings. . .

@Lady

oya u need to call me sap sap, i haven't received a congrats on graduation from u o?

Madam, my apologies. . .congrats o, make i call you sometime tonight.

I have this idea.
But me thinks we should have a separate forum as there are many topics in Catholicism to discuss, and I think we need to be discussing them here. We need to make sure that people correctly understand their faith, and that we address certain issues of the Catholic faith.
What do ya think?

Sounds like a good idea. . .you get no qualms from me.

Question to all. . .What country do you guys reside?  As for me, i dey washington DC (US)

@chukwu44,

Nna, ano m ya, i just dey o. O nwere otutu ihe m na-eme ebe a, mana nsogbu adighi. Ke kwanu?

@uplawal,

theres no point using the bible to clarify it. . .

You claim that we (Catholics) worship Mary (I'm assuming you would likewise level the same claim on us for our revernce towards the other saints) and give Mary praise only given to God.  I posted a poem that likewise gives the mother of the author of the poem praise and honor similar to the 'Hail Holy Queen' excerpt you posted.  You find nothing wrong with the poem.  I asked that you show me how the prayer is wrong using the bible and you sit there talking out your backside.  Well, your above response shows that you are not serious.  Another question:  While growing up in the US, we recited the 'Pledge of Allegiance' everyday in school before starting the day.  Would you consider this pledge anti-biblical (see below, note the boldened part):

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

@pilgrim.1,

Nice to see that your back.  I'm doing quite well.  I look forward to dialoging with you on matters of faith,  you seem to be well versed in yours. 

You've given a good summary of Cardinal Arinze's consideration. This is not directed at you; but methinks the reason why there are mixed reactions to the Cardinal's take is because it does not make good theological sense. Outside of "worship, prayer and song", what other circumstances may (in his view) be considered 'appropriate' for the use of God's Name? I don't mean to be funny here; but it would suggest that if God's holy Name could not be used in any of the aforementioned circumstances, then perhaps it makes one wonder if less honourable situations are more 'appropriate' for the use of the divine Name. Just a thought.

I definitely understand where you're coming from.  From reading the article there seems to be two things the Cardinal is advocating: 1) The tetragrammaton 'YHWH' should not be distinguished from who we know and worship as Jesus Christ.  It seems to me that the Vatican does not want the faithful to see 'YHWH' and Jesus as separate, but rather as one and the same.  Alot of Christian denominations use the name 'YHWH' in a way that divorces the God of the Israel (the OT) from the Messiah (Jesus Christ).  Maybe this phenomenon is trickling its way into the Catholic Church and they (the Vatican) want to emphasize the oneness of God, I don't know.  Why limit the usage of 'YHWH' in liturgy and prayer and song?  I don't know.  What are the other circumstances where we may use the name 'YHWH'?  I'm clueless; and 2) The Cardinal may have issued this request in giving deference to our Jewish brothers/sisters (just my thoughts).  I believe the Jews do not call out or speak aloud the name 'YHWH' (I could be wrong).  What do you think of the article I posted?

@No2Atheism, my guy, calm down

I googled Yahweh and I found this interesting article by Jason Dulle (he seems to be a Protestant scholar).  Note the part in bold.

In the OT God declared that His name was YHWH (Exodus 6:3; 20:7; see also 3:14). Scholars believe that "YHWH," or "Yahweh" is the third person singular form of the ancient Hebrew verb, "haya," meaning "to be." The basic thrust of this verb describes the state of existence. As the third person form of haya, Yahweh literally means "He is," or "He exists." It is a description of who God is. He is the self-existing one.

To understand the import of this we must understand the nature of Hebrew names. Hebrew names are not simply nominal devices used to identify one person from another as they are in the English language; they are actually sentences in themselves. It is similar to how the Indians named their children "rising sun" or "running bear." These were not quite complete sentences, but they were descriptions (partial sentences). God's name, YHWH, is a full sentence. It just so happens to be the shortest sentence in any language--"I am."1

Has YHWH always been God's name? While it is possible, it is unlikely. God existed long before the Hebrew language, so it would seem unlikely that God has always had a Hebrew name. It must be remembered that God did not reveal a name to the Hebrew people that they were unfamiliar with; God revealed Himself to the Hebrew people using existing Hebrew vocabulary (haya) to express to His chosen people who "He is" (pun intended). It was a word/sentence they were familiar with because it already existed in their language before God declared it to be His name. . .

Jesus vs. Yahweh?

. . .In Hebrew Jesus' name is spelled as "Yeshua." The "Ye" in Yeshua is the abbreviated form of YHWH. "Shua" is from the Hebrew word for salvation, yasha. Jesus' name literally means "YHWH is salvation." The name "Jesus," then, actually contains the name "YHWH" in abbreviated form. While YHWH simply describes who God is, when it is combined with a verb it describes what God does. The name "Jesus" describes the fact that YHWH has become salvation. Who is Christ? He is YHWH, saving His people from their sins. If YHWH is not God's name, then Jesus' name becomes meaningless. To deny that God's name is YHWH is to ultimately deny the name of Jesus.

[b]We should pick up on the fact that God is never referred to as "Yeshua" (Jesus) in the OT. He is always referred to as YHWH. If God's name has always been Jesus (as some claim) it would seem strange that He never referred to Himself as such, nor was He ever called that until the NT. It might be counter-argued that while God was called YHWH in the OT, He is never called by such in the NT. But is God called YHWH in the NT? Yes, in its expanded form as "Jesus," meaning "YHWH is salvation." The name "Jesus," found exclusively in the NT, is a continuation of the revealed name of God found throughout the OT. "Jesus" is not a new name. The name of Jesus encompasses the fullness of God's revelation of Himself to man--as Savior. The name "Jesus" is so important to us because it is an expanded form of the same divine name revealed in the OT. It is not a different name. It is only greater in that it more fully expresses who God is to us--Savior. Truly God's name is Jesus, because God's name is YHWH. We confess that God's name is YHWH every time we confess Him as Jesus.[/b]

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/yahorjesus.htm

Of course I'm no bible scholar, but I found this article interesting.

Greetings to All,

Glory to Jesus, Honor to Mary!

@uplawal,

u can see for yourself that the one i wrote up there is totally different from the poem below, if u don't know, was born a catholic,comfirmed,but thank God the truth is known other than lies, is it the church that don't carry bible to church i wanna start going or the church that is full of politics, bow down to status, burning candles like hell,don't even praise God only to stand and listen to AVE MARIA HYMN supported by the piano and make the whole place dead like graveyard,most people even sleep during the gospel imagine!

To let u know the above is prayers, an act of worship,and is said alltimes compared to the poem below  which the writer just simply honour her or his mother.

I understand you disagree with the prayer (which by the way is not obligatory for Catholics to pray), but can you better explain why you feel the prayer is not biblical.  In other words, point out parts of the prayer that are anti-biblical and provide biblical verses to buttress your point.  I'm in no way trying to be antagonistic.  At one point, I to had reservations about this prayer, but as I grew in my faith and got rid of alot of Jevoha's Witness (JW) doctrine, I began to realize the beauty in the prayer (I used to attend a JW bible fellowship growing up).