Zone1 Hating Catholics (or the Original Church) is not from God

[Meriweather]

Like I've already posted, Jesus didn't found the Catholic Church, He founded a Jewish Church that expanded to include Gentiles and ultimately morphed into the Catholic Church, but He did not sit down with His disciples and lay out the power structure, saying "Okay, now you're going to need a Pope, some Cardinals, some Bishops and a lot of Priests. Here are the clothes that they're supposed to wear and the staffs they're supposed to lean on. Oh, and call yourself Catholics". All that was added later, and He most CERTAINLY did NOT found an organization whose adherents were supposed to proclaim themselves superior to followers of other denominations.

Such bitter resentment!

Jesus had Apostles and Disciples. And he was their leader. The New Testament speaks of Bishops. The Bible speaks of priests. Jesus is called the high priest. Why the need of high priest if there are not lower priests. The New Testament also has deacons.

The clothes priests wear today is because as fashions changed, priests retained the idea of robes because they were more sober than the evolving fashions.

Finally, the Church did not call itself Catholic--people began referencing it as catholic because it was/is open and welcoming to all. The Church accepted the name bestowed upon it. This is the genealogy and history of all Christian churches.

Consider that Jesus wished his followers to remain one and all the divisions during and since the Enlightenment. Recall that the Catholic church is still open and welcoming to all.

I truly do not understand the bitterness and the resentment.

 

[Meriweather]

Then tell me this, what is the purpose of proclaiming that the modern Catholic Church is the one Jesus founded? Is it not to exclude denominations of other names, or to insinuate that the Catholic Church is somehow "superior" to the others?

It's simple genealogy. In the beginning there was one Church, know as the Catholic Church, open and welcoming to all. Then came the branches: Lutheran, Calvinists, Church of England, Baptists, etc. Let's use the analogy of a tree. The Catholic faith is the trunk from which the other branches sprang from. The branches and the trunk all have the same root. Do you consider that the trunk of a tree considers itself "superior" to the branches? It is simply the conduit of the branches without being a branch itself. Are the branches any less necessary to the tree? There is no need at all for any to feel inferior. The fact that you keep referencing the Catholic Church as "superior" is an advertisement that you believe the branches to be inferior. It mystifies me as to why anyone would keep putting branches in the position of inferiority.

Think of it this way: Is the trunk proud of being a trunk? Does this mean the branches should not be equally proud of being branches?

We both know that if we were to teleport an early church member through time to a modern Catholic Church service, he would be totally bewildered and have no idea what was going on, assuming of course we removed the language barrier. Likewise, if we took a modern Catholic back through time to an early church service, he would have no idea what was happening either.

The Catholic Mass is based upon the Didache, used by the very early Church. While not exactly the same, all from every generation, would easily recognize a very familiar assembly.

The point is, the Church that Christ founded is world-wide, in all cultures and languages, and extends far beyond any artificial man-made denominational boundaries. That's why I do not identify myself by the name on the door of the church of which I am a member.

Do you feel the same way when people ask where you are from, where you live, where you work, went to school, etc? Are you ashamed of your denomination?

 

[hadit]

Such bitter resentment!

Jesus had Apostles and Disciples. And he was their leader. The New Testament speaks of Bishops. The Bible speaks of priests. Jesus is called the high priest. Why the need of high priest if there are not lower priests.

We are all saints. We are all priests. That is the Biblical stance.

The New Testament also has deacons.

Deacons exist in virtually every denominations as they were specifically ordained in the early church, and they had teachers and preachers, for example. We all know this. Jesus, however, did not found His Church on these power structures.

The clothes priests wear today is because as fashions changed, priests retained the idea of robes because they were more sober than the evolving fashions.

Likewise, the Amish and Conservative Conference Mennonites eschew modern fashions in order to stand out from the world. I'm simply stating, however, that the early church had no differentiating clothing choices or requirements for their leadership, they simply wore what they had and you could not pick them out of a crowd based on their clothing.

Finally, the Church did not call itself Catholic--people began referencing it as catholic because it was/is open and welcoming to all. The Church accepted the name bestowed upon it. This is the genealogy and history of all Christian churches.

Yes, the Church itself is open to and accepting of all. I would like to see your fellow Catholics be reminded of that when they start waxing vitriolic towards other denominations, calling their leaders heretics, et al. And yes, some non-Catholics are guilty of that as well.

Consider that Jesus wished his followers to remain one and all the divisions during and since the Enlightenment. Recall that the Catholic church is still open and welcoming to all.

As are the other denominations. See, the point here is NOT to elevate one denomination over another because down that road lies division, not unity.

I truly do not understand the bitterness and the resentment.

There is no bitterness or resentment, as I have no reason to resent the Catholic Church. I am, however, pointing out that I regularly see efforts on here from Catholics to elevate the Catholic Church to higher levels than that of other denominations, via such statements as, "The Catholic Church is the one Christ founded", as if the other denominations are inferior in some way because they began later on. The reality is, the Church that Christ founded doesn't look or sound like any modern church today. He did not found the modern Catholic Church, for example. All followers of Jesus Christ can now trace their spiritual lineage back to Jesus Himself.

 

[Meriweather]

We are all saints. We are all priests. That is the Biblical stance.

And it is Catholic teaching: Priests, prophets, kings as well.

 

[Meriweather]

Deacons exist in virtually every denominations as they were specifically ordained in the early church, and they had teachers and preachers, for example. We all know this. Jesus, however, did not found His Church on these power structures.

Yet he had his own...

 

[Meriweather]

Likewise, the Amish and Conservative Conference Mennonites eschew modern fashions in order to stand out from the world. I'm simply stating, however, that the early church had no differentiating clothing choices or requirements for their leadership, they simply wore what they had and you could not pick them out of a crowd based on their clothing.

Bitter resentment. City on a hill...light not to be put under a bushel basket. Why do you care what someone wears?

 

[Meriweather]

Yes, the Church itself is open to and accepting of all. I would like to see your fellow Catholics be reminded of that when they start waxing vitriolic towards other denominations, calling their leaders heretics, et al. And yes, some non-Catholics are guilty of that as well.

There is so much else to see and to observe. Why focus on the mud?

 

[Meriweather]

As are the other denominations. See, the point here is NOT to elevate one denomination over another because down that road lies division, not unity.

It seems you are the only one who sees "elevation".

 

[hadit]

It's simple genealogy. In the beginning there was one Church, know as the Catholic Church, open and welcoming to all. Then came the branches: Lutheran, Calvinists, Church of England, Baptists, etc. Let's use the analogy of a tree. The Catholic faith is the trunk from which the other branches sprang from. The branches and the trunk all have the same root. Do you consider that the trunk of a tree considers itself "superior" to the branches? It is simply the conduit of the branches without being a branch itself. Are the branches any less necessary to the tree? There is no need at all for any to feel inferior. The fact that you keep referencing the Catholic Church as "superior" is an advertisement that you believe the branches to be inferior. It mystifies me as to why anyone would keep putting branches in the position of inferiority.

Think of it this way: Is the trunk proud of being a trunk? Does this mean the branches should not be equally proud of being branches?

The "branches" are proud of being trees in their own right, dependent only on Jesus, not the Catholic Church for their existence or well-being.

The Catholic Mass is based upon the Didache, used by the very early Church. While not exactly the same, all from every generation, would easily recognize a very familiar assembly.

Do you feel the same way when people ask where you are from, where you live, where you work, went to school, etc? Are you ashamed of your denomination?

No shame at all. If I were to be ashamed of the church I was attending, I likely would not continue attending that church if I could not bring about change. You know, like Martin Luther did when he realized the Catholic Church was not going to throw off its corruption.

 

[Meriweather]

There is no bitterness or resentment, as I have no reason to resent the Catholic Church. I am, however, pointing out that I regularly see efforts on here from Catholics to elevate the Catholic Church to higher levels than that of other denominations, via such statements as, "The Catholic Church is the one Christ founded", as if the other denominations are inferior in some way because they began later on. The reality is, the Church that Christ founded doesn't look or sound like any modern church today. He did not found the modern Catholic Church, for example. All followers of Jesus Christ can now trace their spiritual lineage back to Jesus Himself.

No bitterness or resentment?! It's a never-ending focus! Why indicate other denominations are inferior?! No one else sees it that way--not it is inference that is indicated by the "as if..." Is the reason for saying, "The sun is shining today" to indicate clouds, rain, and snow are inferior? Or is it a simple statement of fact? Get over it. I see no embarrassment by any Lutherans or Calvinists I know that they belong to a church that would not exist had it not been for Luther or Calvin. Everyone knows it is a branch deeply rooted in Christianity, and therefore Christ. There is no reason to be so sensitive and to continually look for reason to take offense.

 

[hadit]

Bitter resentment. City on a hill...light not to be put under a bushel basket. Why do you care what someone wears?

Illustrating how many layers man has put on top of what Christ actually taught.

 

[hadit]

No bitterness or resentment?! It's a never-ending focus! Why indicate other denominations are inferior?! No one else sees it that way--not it is inference that is indicated by the "as if..." Is the reason for saying, "The sun is shining today" to indicate clouds, rain, and snow are inferior? Or is it a simple statement of fact?

I'm pointing out the futility of repetitively claiming it. As one of your compatriots indicated, he thinks I should be warned that Christ might not like me daring to criticize the Church He founded, as if that makes the Catholic Church immune to criticism.

Get over it. I see no embarrassment by any Lutherans or Calvinists I know that they belong to a church that would not exist had it not been for Luther or Calvin. Everyone knows it is a branch deeply rooted in Christianity, and therefore Christ. There is no reason to be so sensitive and to continually look for reason to take offense.

Why are you arguing that with me when your compatriots definitely go into defensive fight mode in these discussions?

 

[hadit]

There is so much else to see and to observe. Why focus on the mud?

Do we not focus on other things in OUR discussions? I do not appreciate those who try to divide the Body of Christ.

 

[forkintheroad7]

Do we not focus on other things in OUR discussions? I do not appreciate those who try to divide the Body of Christ.

You appear to be bent on doing that yourself. But I guess it's easy to give yourself a pass.

 

[hadit]

You appear to be bent on doing that yourself. But I guess it's easy to give yourself a pass.

I argue with those who hold extra-Biblical beliefs, especially when they give those beliefs very high status, but I do not separate myself from those who follow Christ in the best ways they know how, as if I have it all figured out while they do not.

Have you, for example, said explicitly that Christ followers can be found in all Christian denominations as I have?

 

[forkintheroad7]

I argue with those who hold extra-Biblical beliefs, especially when they give those beliefs very high status,

You do that yourself and you can't even see it!

It is an extra biblical belief to say that Mary did not remain a virgin when you have scriptural proof provided by yours truly and others showing that she had NO intention of ever having sex, even though she planned to marry. It is irrefutable.

so much for going by the Bible all the time. So now you can't point your hypocritical finger at Catholics who appear to do the same.

 

[hadit]

You do that yourself and you can't even see it!

It is an extra biblical belief to say that Mary did not remain a virgin when you have scriptural proof provided by yours truly and others showing that she had NO intention of ever having sex, even though she planned to marry. It is irrefutable.

I already refuted it. There is no Scriptural reason to believe Mary remained a virgin and forced Joseph to be celibate the rest of his life. That passage you reference in no way says she had no intention of ever having sex. It says she had not had sex up until then and was not with a man to get pregnant when the angel appeared to her. In Israeli tradition, she had no idea when her husband was going to appear and take her from her father's house to his. It could have been a long time. Scripture then goes on to say that Joseph didn't touch her until AFTER Jesus was born. THAT is irrefutable. For what purpose would she decide unilaterally to remain celibate while marrying and forcing her husband to also be celibate?

so much for going by the Bible all the time. So now you can't point your hypocritical finger at Catholics who appear to do the same.

No hypocrisy needed. You have to twist the Scriptures to maintain the fiction that Mary remained a virgin the rest of her life, forcing Joseph to be celibate.

 

[forkintheroad7]

Hadit couldn't respond for some reason. The box is blank.

I guess he didn't like my comment?

 

[forkintheroad7]

Have you, for example, said explicitly that Christ followers can be found in all Christian denominations as I have?

I would never judge someone who calls himself a Christian and appears to be following Jesus as best he can but is not Catholic. I understand fully why people are not Catholic. It's been 500 years since Luther broke w/ his Church. He was a catholic priest, as you may know and then people broke with Luther and broke with those who broke from him and ad nauseum throughout history, so today we have something like 60,000 different denominations, all professing to be "the church." Then when a Catholic says the Catholic Church is "the one," it is like OMG OMG!

so anyhow, where was I?

I applaud anyone who attempts to follow Christ outside His Church. I just don't think they, as "fish" will last long outside the water (Church)

 

[hadit]

I would never judge someone who calls himself a Christian and appears to be following Jesus as best he can but is not Catholic. I understand fully why people are not Catholic. It's been 500 years since Luther broke w/ his Church. He was a catholic priest, as you may know and then people broke with Luther and broke with those who broke from him and ad nauseum throughout history, so today we have something like 60,000 different denominations, all professing to be "the church." Then when a Catholic says the Catholic Church is "the one," it is like OMG OMG!

In my experience, most denominations think their theology works for them, but consider "the church" to be all those who believe in and follow Christ, regardless of their denominational attendance. In fact, I see that attitude expressed by Catholics more than I do by others. Let's see what the rest of your post says:

so anyhow, where was I?

I applaud anyone who attempts to follow Christ outside His Church. I just don't think they, as "fish" will last long outside the water (Church)

And there it is, your conviction that someone who is not a Catholic is "outside" the Church which means you believe the Catholic Church to be "the church", and therefore the other denominations are not. News flash, Christians do not have to be Catholic or even ever walk through the doors of a Catholic Church to be fully in the Body of Christ. Like I've stated multiple times, there will be representatives from all denominations rubbing elbows in heaven, so if you're expecting to find only Catholics there, you're in for a rude awakening. I do not for a moment believe that Jesus will give a rat's patoot about the name on your church door, only if He knows you or not.

Oh, and just in case you've forgotten, Jesus' Church has no denominational name and extends far beyond any artificial man-made denominational boundaries.