See for yourself. There are some legitament arguments with evidence including statements from the papacy itself.

http://www.sxws.com/charis/bits.htm

of interest in past threads:

http://www.sxws.com/charis/apol11.htm seeking help from dead saints...etc.

What are the thoughts on some of these topics? If large issues like transubstantiation or the "worship" of Mary (ie. mariology)are legitamate arguments, how can the Catholic church be in Gods Favor?

Interested to know? I don't want to be the blind sheep led to slaughter. Isn't best quoted from the bible to learn our lesson by persisting in turning aside from His law. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge," was His message to them through Hosea. "Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee: . . . seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God." Hosea 4:6.

Law of God, not the Law of Man.

-- Catholic or pagan? (really?@joblow.com), March 26, 2001

Answers

Jmj

Hello, "C or p."
You entitled your thread, "Is [sic] the Catholic traditions steeped in Pagan beliefs?"

The correct answer is "no."
[You provided your own answer to your question, but your answer was wrong. You wanted us to go to a site created by a bigoted anti-Catholic person, but we need not waste our time there. If you want the truth about a religion, talk to its adherents ... Don't expect to educate yourself by reading things written by people who hate that religion.]

St. James, pray for us. Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), March 26, 2001.

I might agree with your comments on those who may be opposed to the Catholic church. However, if the person who constructed that web site made the same argument about how someone in the Catholic church might be supporting a religion that has strayed from God.....I might be inclined to believe his argument just the same.

It seems there are some fundamental issues and topics within the doctrine of the church that might border on witchcraft and divination. The egyptian trinity, etc. Through presentation it seems he has brought proof to the table speckled with common practices of the time. Most of the comments that are made by catholic believers seem programmed and/or structure beliefs by tradition.

Who to trust? I feel there is alot of logic in what that site has to say. About the praying the rosary etc., much less the tainted history of the church. Shouldn't we be critical of our religious leaders and peers? Question the folklore that has spurned such practices. The eruption of stories meant to scare paritioners? (i.e. transubstantiation....someone tried to keep the bread in their hand and it began to bleed, the priest must watch you take the bread, etc.?)

-- Catholic or pagan? (really?@joblow.com), March 26, 2001.

If you are predisposed to believe anti-Catholic slurs, then proceed. You choose to accept false testimony. This site isn't here to lend dignity to such ridiculous accusations. Jesus Christ predicted from the start His Church would suffer calumny. ''No disciple is above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and for the servant to be like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of his household!'' (Matt 11: 24-25)

Your words: --I might agree with your comments on those who may be opposed to the Catholic church. However, if the person who constructed that web site made the same argument about how someone in the Catholic church might be supporting a religion that has strayed from God.....I might be inclined to believe his argument just the same.

Would you hesitate to believe your own ancestors followed the Catholic faith? That the very ancestors of the builder of this anti-Catholic web site were faithful Catholics, as lately as the 16th century? Well, believe it.

Unless you are of Chinese or Moslem descent. Or some other exotic bloodline. It's true.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 26, 2001.

Dear Catholic or pagan:

If you are wanting a religion as different from paganism as possible, then atheism's the religion for you. Pagans (and Jews, and Christians, and Muslims) believe in "higher powers." Atheists are the only people who don't. The question of Catholicism being pagan, is, in my mind, quite ridiculous. Christianity could be said to be pagan. Our Bible has a flood story. So did the ancient pagan Greeks, and so do a few Native American tribes. Christianity has a creation story. So does every religion, pagan or not, under the sun. *Every* Christian bible has a story of a virgin birth, foreshadowed in the Old Testament. The pagans in the Middle East worshipped the pagan goddess Astarte was a virgin-warrior who had many children. Now you might say that *you* don't worship Mary, while those crazy Catholics do (we don't), but the fact remains that, if you are a Christian, you believe that a virgin gave birth, just like those ancient pagans did.

Catholicism's pagan, eh? Well, atheists believe Judaism HAS no truth at all, and is a descendant of the pagan religions in that geographical location, and that Christianity is a corruption of Judaism. So, you better not say Catholicism's pagan around an atheist, because he or she will laugh in your face and tell you that your religion is no different.

Oh, and I think that modern pagans would not be too pleased by your post either. I know that my pagan friend would not be happy if her other pagan friends converted to Catholicism (she as much as told me so last time we talked). Obviously, she sees her religion as totally different than mine. We here see the religions as totally different. Some non-Catholic, non-pagan says otherwise. Well, religions are some of the most complicated things in the world, and I think you should take our word for what we believe. Don't trust me to tell you accurate information about any other religion, and don't trust anyone else to be accurate about religions they are not part of.

-Hannah

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), March 26, 2001.

Eugene,

While our European ancestors may have been of a catholic (universal) religion, I don't think they were all Roman Catholic do you?

-- sam smith (ssmith@hotmail.com), March 27, 2001.

Dear Sam,
If I never answer another single question in here again --forwardly, sincerely and emphatically --this one for certain I do!

There is no other Christian church in antiquity (dating from the holy Apostles); none but the Catholic Church, now commonly called *Roman*. Some denominations nowadays falsely contend there existed an opposite to the ''Roman'' or ''Papist'' Christian community. None ever existed, outside of the well-documented heretical sects of Christianity. These can be seen historically pointed out to the world as heretical by the Roman Catholic Church ! NO other universal body of believers in Christ existed as a counterpart or pretender to the faith of the Apostles. That is historical fact. Not until the coming of the so-called Reformation. One concrete and substantial proof of this can be seen today. It is the tombs of the Catholic martyrs, saints and even Popes; all entombed under the city of Rome, in the catacombs! NOT ONE non-Catholic denomination can point to a single tomb there occupied by anyone else but a *Roman* Catholic ancestor.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 27, 2001.

Jmj

Hi, folks.

Well, ordinarily I would not be posting a message now. I have avoided mentioning a certain controversial matter here during the 15 months that I have been visiting. But I have been amazed to notice that the subject has come up in private e-mail from two different people -- and then again here today. So I am taking this as a sign that the time has come for me to speak up publicly, especially for Sam Smith's benefit. I am not directing this as a criticism of anyone -- but just trying to be informative. I want to talk about the term, "Roman Catholic."

I never use that term, because (1) it has a negative history and (2) it is shunned by millions of loyal, orthodox Catholics who consider it misleading and a bit hurtful. Please let me explain.

As one can see by looking at the new Catechism, the Codes of Canon Law (Western and Eastern), the documents of the Second Vatican Council, etc., there is a religious body (to which most of us here belong) that is simply and officially called "the Catholic Church" -- not "the Roman Catholic Church." We abbreviate the name of our Catechism the "CCC" not the "CRCC" -- and for a good reason. Its title is "Catechism of the Catholic Church."

The Catholic Church is made up of more than 20 "rites." There are a few so-called Western Rites and numerous Eastern Rites (of which the largest are various "Byzantine" Rites). By far, the largest Catholic rite of all is the Latin Rite (a Western rite).

1. With no disrespect meant to Sharon Guy (and other separated Anglican brethren), I must say that the term "Roman Catholic" was coined in England during the 16th/17th-century persecutions -- as a pejorative term. The term was sometimes used to isolate or "localize" Catholics, as if they did not truly belong to a universal church. Sometimes the term was used (in its mildest form) to imply that the "Roman Catholics" were just one branch of a multi-branch Christian Church (other equal branches of which were the Anglicans, the Eastern Orthodox, and sometimes even the Protestants). And sometimes the term was used (in its most vicious form) to label Catholics as disloyal to the British monarch and as loyal to a "foreign prince" (the pope). This last was done as a ploy to encourage adherence to the Church of England, since it was hard to accept being considered a traitor to the crown. Although I have noticed an exception or two, the term "Roman Catholic," because of its Britannic history, is generally restricted to speech and writing where English is spoken.

2. As I mentioned above, the Catholic Church consists of over 20 rites, all of which are fully in union with the pope. Each rite, while agreeing with the others on doctrine, has its own distinct liturgy and customs. The Western rites have their own Code of Canon Law, distinct from the Eastern rites' Code. The millions of Catholics of the Eastern rites are properly proud of their ancient traditions and equal dignity to the West -- and they refer to the universal Church, taking in all Eastern and Western rites, as the "Catholic Church." They don't want to be forgotten or neglected, but many of them do feel slighted when the media, general public, and Latin Rite Catholics refer to a "Roman Catholic" Church. They can feel forgotten, since the pope, the Bishop of Rome, is also called "the Patriarch of the West." The millions of Eastern-rite Catholics have never called themselves "Roman Catholics," a term that they associate with the Latin Rite.

I realize that what I have just written may not be persuasive to any Catholic here who is accustomed to using the term, "Roman Catholic." As I mentioned earlier, I have not been bringing this up for the last 15 months as if I were on a crusade to change people's habits. I know that many good Catholics, including orthodox priests and bishops, use the term "Roman Catholic." I would not seek to criticize them, but only to inform them. Perhaps some would not use the term if they could read the reasons I have presented, but I have no way of knowing.

Many of you know me well enough to realize that, when I avoid calling myself a "Roman Catholic," this action does not imply the slightest bit of disrepect to the Bishop of Rome, the pope, whom I love dearly and desire to obey in his capacity of Vicar of Christ on earth.

St. James, pray for us. Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), March 27, 2001.

Dear John,
Every point you've made is absolutely correct and true. We really aren't *Roman* Catholics. The Pope is the bishop of Rome, and there's a misconception about Rome. It is not a particular sign of the Universal Church. That is, ''Roman'' is not one of the four essential marks: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. It has been inadvertantly accepted (as the Church's name) by modern Catholics as well as well-meaning western countries. Mainly because Rome is where the Pope lives. It's probably too late to do anything about this. But I wish everyone in the world could read your above post. It would clarify to doubters any remaining questions about why ''Roman Catholic'' is not mentioned by the Early Fathers. They said simply, ''Catholic,'' literally: Universal.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 27, 2001.

I would like for ''Catholic or Pagan'' who began this thread, to return and read every one of our posts in this thread-- regarding Paganism, Catholic belief and practice, and historical references-- read each one carefully. Because his own scriptural quotation is warning him;

Isn't best quoted from the bible to learn our lesson by persisting in turning aside from His law. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge," was His message to them through Hosea. "Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee: . . . seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God." Hosea 4:6.

Not to reject true knowledge of the Catholic faith; as opposed to the anti-Catholic attacks he brings here from other sources. He is truly being afforded a chance, by God to come OUT of his own lack of knowledge. This is his opportunity to come out of it.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 27, 2001.

Thanks for your kind words, Eugene. ... John

-- (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), March 28, 2001.

Hi Alex. I don't know if your posts are still being deleted or not. Just wanted to let you know that the Church is currently taking a VERY unpopular stand against some of the most powerful "kings and princes" of this world. The pope has spoken out against actions that American law and presidents have condoned, such as contraception and abortion. The Church, far from sucking up to governments, is constantly annoying them.

I would also like to ask you: what specific problems/concerns do you have with John Paul II, our present pope? You mentioned Pope Innocent. The last Pope Innocent was Pope Innocent XIII, who died in 1724, before the Revolutionary War. What about the Pope who is alive and influencing the lives of millions of Catholics today?

-Hannah

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), April 04, 2001.

Sorry, but the "It's not in the Bible!" statement is not valid when looking at the rich history of Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian practices which you may disagree with. It may shock you to learn that the Church existed for quite a while without the "Bible" that we now have. It was the institutional Church ( the Church you dislike) which put together the various books that comprise the Bible in its' present form in the first place, and the Bible was never regarded by the early or later Church as a record of everything that Jesus said and did. The Church was guided not only by Sacred Scripture, but by oral and Sacred Tradition as well, these being also inspired by God and a source of His authority! Scripture and Sacred Tradition together are the traditional sources of God's authority in His Church.

The Reformation, rightly seeking to eliminate some abuses, threw the baby out with the bath water in regards to these. If you assert that Scripture is the only source of authority for Christians, than you are saying that the Church and its' Councils, Apostles, Saints, Martyrs and Teachers who lived before the present day Bible existed, were without the authority and protection of God in their undertakings, and that the Church was in darkness until the Reformation! Are you serious? Who do you think YOU are? :) I'll take the teachings of the Saints and Church Fathers over a million conflicting self-interpretations of the Bible any day.

-- Nicholas Churchill (cianlugh@hotmail.com), October 08, 2001.

That's excellent, Nicholas. You make a very convincing case, and I hope you remain with us as time goes by. The forum can use more good contributors. I've never seen a Churchill in these threads before. Welcome.

I am an ardent admirer of the late Sir Winston Churchill. Last year my wife and I visited his beautiful home at Chartwell, outside Kent. It may amuse you to know, we stood all alone at the edge of a very large pool by his beautiful old house. Here Sir Winston kept his own Koi fishes; big, beautiful pets of his; many, many of them.

I had a bread roll in one pocket, and began to throw bits of bread in the water, which they scooped up quickly. It was fun to watch them. My wife warned me of a sign right next to us, saying: DO NOT FEED THE FISHES! But, I joked at her, saying, ''Let 'em eat. It's only good bread.''

About an hour later, inside the mansion, we saw an old photo, of the great man; standing in the very spot I'd been feeding the Kois. He had a long cigar in his mouth; and he was tossing bits of bread into the same pool!!! I was thrilled when I saw it! You have a great name, and you should be proud of it!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 08, 2001.

Most religions believe in a higher power of some sort that when taken apart boiles down to the same thing. A higher power, leader, who is worshiped and held in the highest honor by heir followers. Listen to the modern youth. If a man lives an honorble life, does not commit many sins, and worships God, he goes to Heaven. If a man lives an honorable life, does not commit many sins, and does not believe in God, he goes to Hell. To be in Heaven you must repent for all your sins, making oyu into a perfect being. Quite frankly that sounds a bit like Hitler's views. No, God is not going about killing humans because they aren't perfect, but to enter into Heaven they must become perfect. Isn't God supossed to be the only perfect thing? Then by default no one could enter into Heaven unless they became God's equal, which would denote God o an average person. Then he would not be worshipped because he would belike everyone else. Why can't the man who leads a goodlive, but does not believe in Heaven and Hell enter into Heaven if his beliefs are wrong?

-- Jennifer Lynn (SanguisugaFemale@aol.com), October 30, 2002.

"Isn't God supposed to be the only perfect thing? Then by default no one could enter into Heaven unless they became God's equal, which would denote God an average person."

The individual perfection of various beings does not necessarily bring them into equality with each other, since perfection of a particular being would be strictly in accord with its own nature. A bird's perfection would pertain to its own nature, and an apple's perfection would pertain to its own nature. But the apple and the bird would not be brought into equality with each other upon becoming perfect.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 30, 2002.

TO: -- Jennifer Lynn (SanguisugaFemale@aol.com), October 30, 2002. -- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 30, 2002. and to all others who stopped at the point that they did.

Jennifer, in your own words;

If a man lives an honorble life, does not commit many sins, and worships God, he goes to Heaven. If a man lives an honorable life, does not commit many sins, and does not believe in God, he goes to Hell. To be in Heaven you must repent for all your sins, making oyu into a perfect being. Quite frankly that sounds a bit like Hitler's views. No, God is not going about killing humans because they aren't perfect, but to enter into Heaven they must become perfect. Isn't God supossed to be the only perfect thing? Then by default no one could enter into Heaven unless they became God's equal, which would denote God o an average person. Then he would not be worshipped because he would belike everyone else. Why can't the man who leads a goodlive, but does not believe in Heaven and Hell enter into Heaven if his beliefs are wrong?

I am appauled by the lack of Biblical knowledge, Spiritual leading, Christlike behavior in this thread of nonsense.

Jennifer, this is for you: Let's get to the main issue. The main point. How does one become 'acceptable' to God, the Almighty, the Alpha and Omega? In other words, how is one saved? Is it not by what the Son of God stated, the same thing that the apostles taught and died for? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He became our sacrifice for our sins. According to scripture, if one does not belief in the Lord Jesus, then one does not believe in His Father, our Father. Jesus Christ, is the only way into Heaven. DON'T BE DECIEVED. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one gets to the Father, except by Me, says Jesus.

To compare the Wisdom, the Knowledge, the Will, the Sacrifice, the Urging, of the Most High God, to Hitler is by far the most damaging words on this link of threads, and the only person who replied to it, spoke of nothing but apples and sparrows. Take off your robe. Take your degree off the wall. Go to a Christ loving believer, and ask to be lead through the sinners pray. Ask God to forgive you for your lack luster faith and belief. Ask Him, as the Book says, to teach you His Ways. I pray for forgiveness for all of you.

God have mercy.

-- (dejaviewbooks@hotmail.com), April 19, 2003.

That guy's site is laughable for many reasons, one his twisting of history. He trys to distinguish the Catholic Church and other churches by ripping on the Catholic Church and then showing how holy other churches are and ending with Luther. Now if he had done any homework and knew ANYTHING about history he would know the following: Lutherans weren't succesful at all after Martin Luther, he won very little converts. It was Calvinism with its clear message that God doesn't matter at all and accepting Jesus has no bearing on one's life that made Protestanism happy, predestination gave many ample opprotunity to sin, and do whatever they wanted with the excuse, "It's all decided before, what I do doesn't matter!" That whole time period had many atrocities commited on both sides, Calivnists and Catholics, from torture of Catholics to slaughtering of Calvinisits. Also this idiot seems to think that religion played a role in people turning away from the Catholic Church. Anyone with a shred of intelligence and knowledge of the past knows there was only ONE reason princes and countries broke away from the Church: Money. Princes could suddenly declare they follow Calvinism in order to break away from the Holy Roman Empire, become individuals and not have to be taxed by the Empire and the Pope.

-- Mike (whoknows@aol.com), June 24, 2003.

I can't help but wonder if all the "Christian" and "Catholic" denominations have it wrong. As I have read through the New Testament, I have become more convinced that Messianic Judaism is the way to go. As Christians, we are all seeking the perfect example by which to live our lives - why not Jesus Christ and his chosen apostles? In the Gospels, Jesus adheres to Jewish Law and traditions. He even states (this is not a direct quote) that He did not come to abolish the Law, but rather to fufill it. While it is clear that faith in the sacrifice that was made on the cross is where salvation lies, I often wonder if obedience to God's Law is the way to show our love for God. In Acts and the epistles, it is understood that the early Christians are still practicing their Jewish faith, but now zealously, with the understanding that Christ came as the ultimate sacrifice, to nullify the system of sacrifice that existed under the Law and set the people who believed right with God. As for His Law - wouldn't the Law still apply? After all, the Law was put in place to teach man how to live a righteous life for God - why would that model change drastically?

There are many references in the Bible that are contradictory to modern-day "Christian" or "Catholic" teachings, but that fit the model of Messianic Judaism. At this point, I have not converted, but I am considering it. I would be interested to hear what others have to say about this - at this point, I am seeking to know God and do not profess to have all the answers.

-- K.L. (faithbasedgrammarschoolgrad@yahoo.com), July 18, 2003.

The Law which Jesus observed was the Mosaic Law. But at Calvary He ratified the New Covenant in His blood; replacing the Old Covenant and its observances. Even after He rose again from the dead, He gathered with disciples in the breaking of the bread (Holy Eucharist). After His ascension into heaven, the Law chnged. No more circumcision, nor Temple worship. There was a new priesthood in Christ's Church. They celebrated His death and resurrection in the Mass (breaking of the bread). The commandments were still in force. This is what Christ meant saying He did not come to abolish the Law, but rather to fufill it. Otherwise, the Church had her own holy ritual and observances, beginning with Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit. They replaced Temple observances. No Jew observed these at all. Jews have no sacraments even to this day. Catholic faith in Our Redeemer makes full use of all His teachings, and sacraments are essential to the reception of His grace. Grace which flows to his faithful from the sacrifice of His Body and Blood on the cross. Messianic Jews will be called someday into His Holy Church; not the other way around. We must convert them all just as the nations, to faith. That is the mission of His Holy Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 18, 2003.

"As Christians, we are all seeking the perfect example by which to live our lives - why not Jesus Christ and his chosen apostles?"

A: Yes! Why not? Jesus Christ founded one Church - a Church which never existed before He founded it - and stated His intention that all men were to belong to that One Church. The Apostles belonged to that Church. Obviously they continued to observe some of the practices they had adhered to all their lives. Likewise, Gentiles who converted to His Church continued to observe certain elements of their past lives. But the Church which these Jews and Gentiles accepted was not Judaism and it was not paganism. It was something brand new, something the world had never seen before. They celebrated the Eucharist and the other sacraments, provided for them by a newly ordained priesthood. Following Jesus Christ means being a member of the Church He founded. As you said, He "nullified the system of sacrifice that existed under the Law" and personally became the New Sacrifice, perpetually provided for all men through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. While He did not come to totally abolish the Law of the Old Covenant, there were many aspects of the Old Law He did not observe, which in fact is why the Jewish leaders wanted to get rid of Him. If He had been a great preacher and defender of Judaism, do you think the Jewish authorities would have demanded his execution?

You say: "I often wonder if obedience to God's Law is the way to show our love for God"

A: Of course it is! But under the New, fulfilled Covenant, not the incomplete Old Covenant.

You say ". In Acts and the epistles, it is understood that the early Christians are still practicing their Jewish faith"

A: No, they are not. They are incorporating some of their Jewish practices into their newfound Christian faith. Their Jewish faith was centered on the idea of awaiting the Messiah. Their new faith was centered on salvation as a result of the fact that the Messiah had come.

You state: "There are many references in the Bible that are contradictory to modern-day "Christian" or "Catholic" teachings, but that fit the model of Messianic Judaism"

A: Well of course there are! Three quarters of the Bible was written by religious Jews. But there is nothing in the New Testament that contradicts Catholic beliefs, because the New Testament itself is an outgrowth of Catholic beliefs - beliefs that Jesus Christ Himself gave to His apostles by word of mouth, and which they preached and taught for years before writing any of it down. What they wrote was the result of what the Holy Spirit had led them to believe, and the Church Christ founded was the means by which that was accomplished. The Church is the means Christ provided for men to come to know Him, accept Him, and serve Him. And history clearly reveals the identity of that Church - the only Christian Church which existed for 1,000 years after His death and Resurrection - the Church which had adopted the name "Holy Catholic Church" before the end of the first century.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 18, 2003.