- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Cool Video Describing Ancient Christian Liturgy
Posted on 4/23/25 at 3:41 pm to mudshuvl05
Posted on 4/23/25 at 3:41 pm to mudshuvl05
quote:
our knowledge of the Apostolic church history is anything but factual. On a scale of 1-10, you're at about a 1 on knowing what in the hell you are talking about.
You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Both churches claim to be the original. I understand your frustraiton, as nobody really considers the orthodox church in general as the Catholic church is 5 times larger.
In regards to your criticism of St. Peter, Jesus said "Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means 'rock'), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it. And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." - Matthew 16:18-19.
It is hard to argue against what Jesus said and to call that false.
Additionally, St. Peter is entombed at St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, which is the home of Roman Catholicism.
I am sorry that your feelings are hurt, but we are both Christians who aspire to be with Christ forever. We are brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of denomination.
1
Posted on 4/23/25 at 3:43 pm to RobbBobb
I will just reply with this:
Matthew 16:18-19 - Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means 'rock'), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it. And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.
So are you insuating that Peter did not understand Christ in this instance?
Matthew 16:18-19 - Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means 'rock'), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it. And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.
So are you insuating that Peter did not understand Christ in this instance?
Posted on 4/23/25 at 3:48 pm to Richleau
First, the Church is not a building as you insinuate.
Second, Jesus picked the apostles and the apostles picked apostles, and so forth. This is the apostolic tradition in which priests are selected.
Let me ask you this. Who is it that you think started Christianity? The Catholic Church?
Your continued comparison with Chritsian and Pharisees is very strange. What you seem to be saying is that any organized church with any type of leadership is the same as the Sanhedrin. In that view all churchs on earth would be bad.
Second, Jesus picked the apostles and the apostles picked apostles, and so forth. This is the apostolic tradition in which priests are selected.
Let me ask you this. Who is it that you think started Christianity? The Catholic Church?
Your continued comparison with Chritsian and Pharisees is very strange. What you seem to be saying is that any organized church with any type of leadership is the same as the Sanhedrin. In that view all churchs on earth would be bad.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 3:58 pm to mudshuvl05
quote:
Constantinople
Posted on 4/23/25 at 4:03 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
practiced worship in a non-liturgical form
Not true. In fact, the OP's video demonstrates that. Also, Paul in one of his letters praises a congregation for being faithful to the sacred tradition of "the prayers, the breaking of the bread". That's Liturgy.
So, I don't know where you learned that early Christianity was done on a "non-liturgical form" but that is not historically accurate.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 4:11 pm to Furious
Catholic tradition with the rules and priest forms of the Pharisees. Christianity is the teaching of Jesus which expands upon old testament teaching and perfects it. Catholics fricked up the end game with hierarchical games. Imagine thinking the pope is the one who has a direct line with God. It contradicts Jesus’ teaching. There’s a reason it took Protestantism to shepherd us out of the dark cloak of Catholic tyrannical rule. Hell, they put to death the Englishman who simply translated the book to English, the language for the common folk. Before then, their grip of power wouldn’t even allow folks to read the book just “trust us bro”. That’s pretty evil, man.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 4:13 pm to mudshuvl05
quote:
Again, nonsense from a know-nothing Catholic in your echo chamber. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem do not "fall" under the Vatican in any shape, form or fashion, and certainly no pope with imagined supremecy and an affinity for lgbtq perversions and universalism.
Everyone listens when the Pope speaks.
I cant say that for any other religion.
The fact non-Catholics argue so fiercely against the religion and the Pope is because deep down inside they know...
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 4/23/25 at 4:16 pm to Furious
Many mouth storms have unfolded with bluster like this
and most of the time? There is not a shred of untainted documentation of their history and presence per their claims - scholars almost entirely reject just about every aspect as unfounded, erroneous, contrived. False.
not much of a base
unless the point of your organization is the rape of children and other shameful treachery and false "religious" presence.
and most of the time? There is not a shred of untainted documentation of their history and presence per their claims - scholars almost entirely reject just about every aspect as unfounded, erroneous, contrived. False.
not much of a base
unless the point of your organization is the rape of children and other shameful treachery and false "religious" presence.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 4:29 pm to jizzle6609
Replace the pope with the ayatollah. Same shite. Both wrong headed. Where did Jesus talk about any of the traditions put forth by the Catholics. Give me one biblical case where the pope is mentioned, bishops, cardinals, any of the traditions, the rosary, any of it.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 4:34 pm to SkiUtah420
quote:how would it mimic something that it precedes? Also strange they didn't say anything about praying to Mary or saints, nothing about indulgences, buying or praying people out of purgatory, nothing about infallible popes, nothing about priests granting absolution, or any number of a long list of stuff that got added through the years.
that it mimics the Catholic Liturg
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 4/23/25 at 4:54 pm to Champagne
quote:
What in particular about this discussion and debate do you love? With regard to the original post and title of this thread, what in particular do you find most interesting?
I find religious debates like this intriguing because many confidently claim their denomination is wholly correct, yet scriptures can easily challenge most denominations’ practices or beliefs. More people don’t admit, “I’m drawn to this faith, but I’m unsure every detail is right,” which feels honest. It’s fine to say, “I grew up Catholic, so I’m comfortable here,” without insisting others are wrong.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 5:06 pm to SkiUtah420
I’m a younger guy but always felt closer to God with the high liturgy, bells and smells. I grew up with it but there is something powerful about doing rites that have been said by early Christians to today.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 5:21 pm to Furious
quote:
You are someone that lacks understanding of the one true Catholic church. Priests being unmarried and celibate is not a mandate handed down by God, nor is it in the gospels. It is simply church tradition. The pope can at anytime change this and it would not undermine sacred scripture in anyway. Tradition in the Catholic Church can be changed. The Word of God can’t be changed, and that is what the video shows in the testimony of Justin Martyr.
The first Pope of the Catholic Church, St. Peter, was married as well.
I know it’s a tradition that was formalized in the 1100s. My point was that, according to Paul in the Bible, the Church should seek out leaders who are married men of good reputation in the community, with demonstrated leadership reflected in how they manage their own families. That’s a tough standard to uphold when those very qualities are disqualifiers in the Catholic Church. It appears the Catholic Church decided not to follow scripture in reference to selecting leaders. They decided to change that aspect of the Church over 1000 years after it began. If your reading it differently please enlighten me.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 5:23 pm to Diego Ricardo
Don’t confuse the rites with the purpose and meaning. Jesus drilled down on the heart of the teachings of the Old Testament. For instance, while the Old Testament speaks of “thou shall not commit adultery” Jesus spoke of clearing it from your thinking or your heart and related the two acts as one.
Still though, I’d like to see one Catholic defend the tyrannical grip of power over the people for hundreds of years and the murder of those who would stand against such rule. Catholics killing Christians for simply bringing the gospel to the people. That doesn’t sound very Christian at all, don’t you think?
Still though, I’d like to see one Catholic defend the tyrannical grip of power over the people for hundreds of years and the murder of those who would stand against such rule. Catholics killing Christians for simply bringing the gospel to the people. That doesn’t sound very Christian at all, don’t you think?
Posted on 4/23/25 at 5:32 pm to dickkellog
quote:
i'm sure people will reply with that's in the bible. maybe, but it wasn't in the bible for the first 1600 years.
You do realize we have manuscripts that date within a century or two of Jesus’ ministry. They can go back and translate those (and they have) and most Bibles aren’t adding a bunch of information that isn’t in the original documents. For the most part, the 1611 translations is quite accurate.The difference in translation is usually readability and direct word for word style translation (ESV & NASB) or thought for thought translations like (NLT & NIV)
Posted on 4/23/25 at 5:35 pm to SkiUtah420
quote:
as its a Sovereign State that is arguably the most influential Religio-Political entity of all time.
Of all time? Sure. But today? Their political might is no more powerful than the Maldives. And their religious influence is slowly being fractured by Zionists (like the Rothschilds) who have invested in blasphemous protestant movements that serve Israel's interest (Google Scofield Bible). Brainwashed Christian Zionists have done a number on Catholicism all across Europe and Latin America by undermining local Catholic churches with gifts and empty promises to marginalized communities.
(Important to note that not all Jews are Zionists. There are many good Jews who have no interest in causing global issues in the name of Judaism...so let's not go down the antisemitic rabbit hole).
quote:
It is quite different than donating to Buckhead Church, so Andy Stanley can buy another Lake House
This is true. Say what you want about Catholic priests and their church workers....but the vast majority of them live modest lives. Protestant movements are manufactured by sacrilegious people who want to mold Christianity to fit THEIR beliefs and lifestyle. When was the last time Joel Osteen washed the feet of the people he is supposed to look after?
Posted on 4/23/25 at 5:51 pm to Richleau
quote:
Catholic tradition with the rules and priest forms of the Pharisees.
So much wrong with your whole post that there's no way to refute all of it, and even after somebody did, you still would not believe them.
Don't you realize that the first Church to translate the Bible into English was the Roman Catholic Church or its clergy operating under the blessing of the Church? I'm speaking of Old English, of course, since this was accomplished by the Church during the time of Anglo-Saxon England.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 5:54 pm to Richleau
quote:
Where did Jesus talk about any of the traditions put forth by the Catholics.
When Jesus gave us the Eucharist, he gave us the most Sacred Tradition that we have. There are other examples that contradict you but I won't go into all of them.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 6:09 pm to Furious
quote:
So are you insuating that Peter did not understand Christ in this instance?
* And after hearing that, Peter denied Christ 3 times
* Voted to instill the brother of Jesus as the head of the 1st church
* Denied the ability for Gentiles to enter Heaven
* And shared decision making with James and Paul throughout his life
At no point would Peter himself claim the title of the first pope of the Gentile church
The Catholics stole his legacy as their first pope, an act that he would have said 'No' to upon the death of Christ. He didnt think you deserved salvation
James declared to the other apostles that Gentiles would be allowed in
quote:
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God.
But you couldnt have James (brother of Jesus) as the pope. Because you cling to the bizarre notion that Mary was either a virgin her entire life, or only gave birth to one child
Posted on 4/23/25 at 6:20 pm to Champagne
quote:
So, I don't know where you learned that early Christianity was done on a "non-liturgical form" but that is not historically accurate.
I learned it directly from the Bible. Ya know that book the Catholics put together. I even quoted it for you
quote:
When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. - St. Paul
Where in the Catholic liturgy is there participation from everyone, individually? Where is the song? Where is the congregational sharing or teaching? Where is the prophecy from the attendees? Where is the baptism? Where is the shared meal? Where is the tongue or the interpretation? As demonstrated by the acts of the apostles, as a sign of their very own salvation?
None of that is liturgical. It was an act of a secret, community led service. Not an example of an organized service with a specific script to follow. There was no script. There wasnt even a Bible (or guide) yet. It was as non-liturgical as one could get. Especially when the Gentiles came on the scene. They had no shared practices with Jews, and James said that was OK, too
Page 3 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News