True, and why would any "Gentiles" other than Catholic "gentiles" care one way or the other what the Catholic Church considered them bound to?

I respectfully reject your correction. There is no such different desiganation. Catholic Doctrine is Christian doctrine.

If baptized Catholic, then automatically and immediately Christian. There is only one true Christian faith and that is Catholicism. Her doctrines are the only true Christian Apostolic doctrines. From the year 33AD and Apostolic times onward, "Catholic" was synomous with "Christian".

The distinction between Christian and Catholic, between Christianity and Catholicity, as it exists in many minds today, was unknown prior to the establishement of Protestantism 500 years ago.

Ever since the 1500s, and the establishment of Protestanism, the word "Christian" is used in vague and loose ways. As you well know there are some who call themselves Christians, yet they deny the Divinity of Christ; that Jesus is God; Original Sin, the necessity of Baptism, and on and on. Baptists, Mormons, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, and all the rest of the churches are reputed to honor in some manner Jesus Christ, but they subjectively pick and choose what to believe of Him and which of His teachings to follow and obey.  

So, again, I respectfully reject your suggestion that there is a difference between Catholic and Christian.  I won't join in your propaganda of a divided and diluted Christianity. Unlike Protestants and the wide divergence of doctrines within Protestantism, Catholics and Catholicism tell the world that Christ is not divided. The Chruch and her Councils signify doctrinal definiteness in religious principles and moral standards; It says unequivacally that we hold Christianity in its fullness.

Leauki, to be clear, a Christian is a Christ follower...not just a believer.  To believe and follow is to turn away from everything else and follow Christ.  You prove your belief by following Him.  It's about making Christ your Lord AND Savior.  Many want him as Savior but not Lord.  Both are important. Many might believe he was the Messiah but don't follow him.  Non Christians may even say that without really understanding the full scope of who the Messiah was.   In the case of the Muslims they follow Mohammad not Jesus. 

I would go further and say not all Catholics are Christian.    They may "say" they are because they believe they are in the "right" church but that doesnt' make them Christian.  I can say the same about every Christian denomination out there.  The saying is..."just because you're in the garage it doesn't make you a car" is true about the people filling up the pews as well.   There are many out there that say they are Christian but the evidence doesn't point in that direction.  They have no wheels to their "faith." 

To be a Christian has nothing to do with an earthly denomination.  Lula is deceived.  She believes that the RCC is God's church when it's not about that.  It's about the temple built without hands.  It's the believers of all walks and earthly denominations that make up the church. We are the temple of God.  The Holy Spirit indwells God's temple just like in the OT when his meeting place was in the Holy of Holies. 

Some churches are more Christ centered and I believe they have more believers attending.  Others are nothing more than businesses or meeting places to get their consciences purged once a week/month/year and therefore, most likely have less genuine Christians attending.  I've been in some pretty dead churches over the years.  And I've also been in some that were filled with the Holy Spirit and you knew so when you walked thru the door.  The more genuine believers, the more of the Holy Spirit fills the place. 

Bingo!  This is exactly correct.  Around the 4th century alot changed in the name of religion. 

Lulapilgrim, I understand why you would say that, but for you to say that Catholicism has always been the only real form of Christianity, then you have to say that every murder in the inquisition was committed with Christ's blessing; everytime a pedophile priest was granted the opportunity to attack another young boy, it was done with the blessing of Christ.

Is that what you are truly saying?

Leauki: Not necessarily "individuals", but the Pope himself.  From my understanding of Catholic Doctrine, only the Pope has the authority to speak for, or make policy the Church on behalf of Christ.  If the inquisition and the moving around of, and absolving of pedophile priests weren't both Churchwide policies, I would accept them as crimes committed by individual church leaders.  However, both were official policies from the only person authorized to make such policies.

There's nowhere in scripture where it says the church is infallible.  The church is made up of people.  People are not by any stretch infallible no matter how Godly they really are.  When I say church keep in mind I'm referring to "eclessia" which means called out ones from all walks.  I've been privileged to meet some very godly people in my life not to mention have read some great men/women bios in history who also were, as close to God as can be (in all appearances) but not one of them would even dare utter their name and infallible in the same sentence.  In fact, it's quite interesting, but the closer you get to God the more you realize how dirty and sinful you really are.  It's like holding anything up to a bright light.   When you do, all the flaws and gross mistakes normally hidden become very visible. 

Besides the history of the RCC shows alot of leadership infighting, jealousy and even murder to get on that Pope's throne.  I know at least once there were two Popes claiming the throne which caused quite the schism. 

speaking of cardinals...you may want to check the history books and see just how fallible they were.  Many had mistresses.  Most lived in luxury in the style of secular princes.    For instance one of them (even having a mistress)  in 1492 Rodrigo Borgia was elected Pope taking the title of Alexander VI.  It was charged that he obtained the election by wholesale bribery of the cardinals.  .  From what I read, he did turn out to be a decent pope tho.  He was pro Mary in the disputes of belief about the immaculate conception of Mary. (not all were united on this non-fact)  He even had four children by his mistress and by other mothrs had two more children.  One of his children, Caesar Borgia was given a career in the Church by his father.  At the age of seven he was given benefices.  Later he was made bishop and when his fathr become Pope he was made archbishop and then cardinal. 

Oh, there's all sorts of sordid details in this church going all the way into the future with our modern times.  No, the RCC is far from infallible.  Christ said, "you will know a tree by it's fruit."  Nuff said. 

To be clear.  There is no such thing as ANY church being infallible.  Catholic or Protestant. 

This is true pretty much.  I know Christ established the church (meaning united believers)  for us.  He wanted us to be united to worship God corporately and edify each other.  While this is being done all over the world, it's also been, like everything else man tends to do, very abused.   I'm not much for rituals but do believe as long as the ritual draws you closer to God and you're not focusing on the ritual itself it's probably ok. 

lula posts:

leauki posts:

parated2k posts: 76

The Book of the Acts of the Apostles chapter 15 describes a controversy and its resolution. The dispute began when the claim was made that Gentile converts first had to become Jews. "And some coming down from Judea; taught the brethren: that except you be circumcised after the manner of Mose4s, you cannot be saved." 15:1. The converts at Antioch included Christian Pharisees from Judea who maintained that there was no salvation without circumcision, and thought the law of Moses eternal and immutable. They objected to baptizing uncircumcised pagans and insisted on circumcision and observance of the law for Gentile Christians.

This was contrary to the Apostolic teaching that all, Jew, and pagan, were saved "by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ". 15:11.

Throughout her long history, whenever the Chruch has been troubled with a dispute, she has called a Council to settle it. In the matter of the Christrians atANtioch, the questions calling for authoritative answers were raised by the enormous influx of Gentiles into the Chruch recorded in Acts 13 and 14. Could Gentiles keep the moralprecepts of the Old Law of Moses, still binding, without observing those which had been of a transitory, perparatory nature?

When the converts at Antioch were told that those who wished to enter into the Messianic Kingdom must undergo circumcision and keep the Law, "the Apostles and ancients" 15:6 gathered in 49AD, at the Council of Jerusalem to settle the question:

Did the Gentile who embraced the one Faith of Christ first have to become Jews? Out of the Council came the decision....the Gentile converts were not bound by the Old Law. BUt they must avoid certainthings particularly offensive tothose Christians who had formerly been Jews.

 kfc posts:

You are a reader of the Bible aren't you? Read Acts 15.

KFc, you'll say what you will for lack of knowledge, but your outright bigotry and hatefullness against the CC is unwarranted.

In this Council of Jerusalem decree, the Church, a new religion guided by the Holy Spirit, indeed, speaking through the hierarchy, v. 6 said in part, "It hath seemed good to the Holy GFhost and to us, to lay no furhter burden upon you than those necessary things....That thou abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from fornication: from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well." 15:25-29.

Again Lilipilgrim, why would anyone who isn't Catholic care what any Catholic council decided?  I respect the Apostles as having the authority to act in Christ's name, but nowhere in Scripture does it ever name any of them as Pope, or document the establishment of the Catholic church.  There is no reason for anyone who isnt' Catholic to believe that the church has any authority beyond its own leadership.

lula posts:

leauki posts:

Almighty God.

First, for terminological exactitude...

when I wrote, "the Gentile converts were not bound by the Old Law, by "Old Law", I'm referring only to the Old Mosaic Law and of the Old Mosaic Law, I'm referring only to the rites, rituals and ceremonies. The moral precepts, such as the Ten Commandments of the OLd Mosaic Law are still in effect and will be until the end of the world.

At the moment of Christ's death on the Cross, the Temple Veil was rent from top to bottom..and by this God wes effectively saying Old Testament Judaism was done its Divine mission. The end of referring to the religious world being divided between Jews and Gentiles (non-believers) came when the Old Mosaic Law and th eProphecies recorded in the Old Testament were fulfilled by the coming of the predicted "emmanuel" (God with us), Jesus Christ and His establishement of the Catholic Chruch with its hierarchy, priesthood, Sacrifice (fulfillment of Malachais 1:11), and Sacraments (New Covenant rites); which displaced the Aaronic priesthood, Temple Altar and Mosaic sacrifices.

lula posts:

leauki

First, as in all things, Christ is the dividing line.

Again, terminological exactitude is called for....The term Jews cannot rightly be used interchangeably to mean both those who worshipped God according to the Old Testament Mosaic Law and those Jews of modern Jewry. Sacred Scripture and history give the proper use of the terms.  

re: the highlighted ....who are "the former Jews" as I used in my statement?

Jews...the first record of the term Jews in the OT is in 4Kings 25:25 where it's applied to the people of Judah and is related to a worshipper of the one True God for the first time in the Book of Esther 2:5. This was about a thousand years after Moses became the father of the religion called Judaism through God's revelation to him of the ceremonial law on Mt. Sinai about 250 years after Jacob's name was changed to Isreal.

HISTORICALLY, until the advent of modernism in Jewry, shortly after 70AD, the term Jews was universally applied to believers and worshippers of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob according to the Mosaic Law.  St.Paul understood the term Jew to apply to a person who is a Mosaist in spirit, and not accordingto his birth, DNA or circumcsion.

The Jews were Jews becasue they worshipped the one true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob according to the Mosaic Law.  As per Acts 2:38-47, those Jews converted and were batpized in the one Christian Faith, CHristianitry.  So from that point on, they were former Jews in that they no longer worshipped God according to the Mosaic law , but worshipped in the New Covenant in Spirit and Truth.  

In St. John chapter 8, Jesus tells us who are the "Jews".

Jeremiah 31 is quite clear that God's new covenant with the Jews would be unconditional and would last forever.  He's keeping them around so he can fulfill the Abrahamic covenant which was also unconditional.  There are three unconditional covenants in scripture (unlike the Mosaic covenant which was conditional)...the Abrahamic, the Davidic and the New Covenant. 

"Thus saith the Lord; which gives the sun for a light by day and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divides the sea when the waves thereof roar.....if those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.  Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done saith the Lord." 

Last I checked, the sun was still hanging as well as the moon and stars.  So this means God has a plan for the nation Israel and this is NOT any sort of "new Israel aka the RCC. 

The permanence of the cycle of nature and the immeasurableness of heaven and earth guarantee the survival of the Hebrew people.  The fact they are still here and becoming mighty once again just proves it. 

Exactly.

And that's the big "forever", the one that takes a while and does not end after a few years, not even in 70 CE or whenever the Romans decided to make away with the people of Israel.

When G-d says "forever", He means "forever" and not "as long as the Romans want it to be".

Perhaps Lula confuses the god of Abraham with Jupiter.

# 91

kfc posts:

I did show that the Council of Jerusalem as per the Book of Acts, ch. 15 was the first Catholic Council in post 70.

lula posts: 70

Put away all the false things that Protestantism has taught you concerning the Catholic Church. Start by reading for true Spiritual understanding  St.Matt. 16:18-19 where Christ established  His Church upon St.Peter as its first earthly head,giving him the keys and the authority to "bind and loose" and then read 28:19-20 when CHrist gave the Apostles His authority to teach, govern and sanctify in His Holy name...and commands them to baptize all nations ("all" means including the Jews) until the end of the world.  Christianity came to humanity from Christ through His ChuRch which He promised He would be with until thE end of time. Scripture teaches the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" and the Chruch Christ commanded "to be heard" CANNOT possiblyt BE YOUR DEFINITION OF CHURCH AS BEING ALL BELIEVERS (post 80). 

 The Book of Acts 1-38 is an actual account of the beginnings of the Catholic Church. The fledgling Catholic Chruch is the Church of the New Testament.

"Ye search the Scriptures" said our Lord to the Pharisees who scrupously perused them, yet failed to see there the Christ that stood before them. The same may be said of you...You boast of how you read and study and even teach the Scriptures, yet, you refuse see the priestly Church commissioned by CHrist to teach, preach, define and govern in matters of faith and morals; that was to have an unbroken existence from the First Christian Pentecost Day, (Acts 2) as had the Catholic Church, and the CC only, and will continue to have as per Christ's promise until the end of the world.

This is not deception, rather actual history, historical fact and to keep denying this is ignorant and hurling accusations that I and the Chruch are deceptive is anti-Catholic bigotry that has been ingrained in you for years.  

lula posts:

kfc posts 66

leauki posts:

parated2k posts:

leauki posts:

leauki posts:

After re-reading these comments, I wonder Who are the Gentiles to Leauki, to KFC, to Parated2k?

The designation, Jews and Gentiles, was entirely proper during the pre-Christian revealed-religion centuries.  The term, Jews, distinguished believers in the Mosaic Law which was Divinely exclusively given in the keeping of the children of ancient Isreal, believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, from non-believers.  

The Judaism of the pre-Christian centuries was the one and only holy religion of Almighty God. So it was correct to refer to the world as being divided between Jews and Gentiles, before the Christian era.

   The end of referring to the religious world as being divided between Jews and Gentiles came when the Mosaic Law and the prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The Term Gentiles, contemptuously expressed in the Hebrew equivalent, "Goyim" referred to non-believers in Judaism who were suspect of debauchery, and murder, being sometimes compared to "dogs" according to St.Matt. 15:26. "Goyim" means strangers, idolators, pagans. deniers of belief in the one true GOd.

Interestingly, I was told the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", popularly called Mormons, refer to all who are not members of the sect, including the Jews, as "Gentiles". Is that true Parated2k?

Christians are not Gentiles....the designation of CHristians as "Gentiles" is an offense, though not so intended by most who through failure to appreciate its historic significance.