re: New technology and the shroud of Tourin. Happy Easter!!!

And people without a lick of sense or faith will belly ache over this.

People of today could be shown heaven and say it wasn't real.

quote:

---

Are there people that worship the shroud probably, and i would say they're misguided, the shroud is just further proof of the existence of a man who was crucified for preaching a gospel that would save humanity,

---

More importantly evidence of a supernatural, miraculous resurrection. And then the clear imprint of a man, though a photo negative in appearance. Is anyone aware of any other cloth that captures the movement of the soul at death. Even though this is evidence of a resurrection and not passage of the soul. Don't we believe in souls or is that a Catholic versus "Christian" thing?

quote:

---

So a blanket that makes xerox copies? Right…

---

Photo negatives. I guess a Xerox can do that.

Christianity is more of a Paul thing if you want to be exact.

quote:

---

The warning was against putting your faith in the cloth

---

You have lost your mind.

quote:

---

Christ's Church is not in one ecclesiastical structure based in Rome.

---

Never said it was. Catholic isn’t just Roman Catholic but all of the Apostolic Churches. They are the church founded by Christ and can still trace their lineage to Christ through the apostles that founded each of them. The Roman right being founded by Peter for example.

quote:

---

I believe this is still true, where each faithful congregation or denomination is a member of the one catholic Church of Jesus Christ. Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. are part of Christ's one Church.

---

You’re close, but wrong. No Protestant church has a traceable lineage to Christ. They all start with Luther’s break with Rome and the. Splinter from there. Christ never wanted 30,000+ churches all with their own authority based on what one person thinks and if a person disagrees with a teaching they can just go start another. That was not the case for 1500 years and the. With Luther’s split now look.

Catholic still means universal because it is universal. On any given day the same biblical readings are heard around the world in every Catholic Church. No Protestant church can claim that. There are a few exceptions - for example the church of the nativity in the holy land has Christmas reading through out the year, but those are exceptions.

Good luck on your faith journey.

quote:

---

Never said it was. Catholic isn’t just Roman Catholic but all of the Apostolic Churches. They are the church founded by Christ and can still trace their lineage to Christ through the apostles that founded each of them. The Roman right being founded by Peter for example.

---

Anglicans claim apostolic succession through bishops. Do you accept them as belonging to the one Catholic (big 'c') church due to that alone? If not mistaken, their claim at succession has been rejected based on theological grounds, not mechanical and historical grounds, which undermines that claim from Rome.

It also puts Rome in a strange place by accepting that the Eastern churches are true churches with valid sacraments because of their claim to apostolic succession while they are estranged by their lack of recognition of the Pope. Rome claims that to be part of the true Church, you must submit to the authority of the Pope as the legitimate successor to St. Peter and the head of the Church, and yet the Eastern churches don't recognize him as such, making them outside of the true Church.

This is strange because there is claimed to be one Catholic Church, but more than one ecclesiastical body with valid sacraments but not in communion with one another. Or in other words, there is schism with two different reporting and authority structures, and with different doctrine, but it is claimed that both churches are valid. I don't know how you square that circle without equivocating on terms.

quote:

---

You’re close, but wrong. No Protestant church has a traceable lineage to Christ.

---

Again, the Anglicans claim direct succession.

Regardless, I believe Rome is doing the same thing the Jews were doing in looking at direct Jewish succession to be claimed as Abraham's seed. Paul refuted that claim, saying that those who are true Jews are those who are by faith, not by blood. Likewise, Protestants claim that apostolic succession is not through an unbroken chain of bishops, but through the apostolic teaching as found in the Scriptures.

Another tension that Rome needs to wrestle with is that the elders of Israel during Jesus' time had real successive authority from Moses that Jesus recognized, handed down from generation to generation, and yet when Christ established the Church, He appointed His own apostles that were not from this "line". Jesus' apostles were those who taught true doctrine from Christ, and the truth was central to ordaining men to the office of elder/bishop.

quote:

---

They all start with Luther’s break with Rome and the. Splinter from there.

---

It's important to remember that the reason why the movement was called the "Reformation" is because the Protestants were attempting to reform the one Church of Christ, and were kicked out of Rome because of it. They were not creating a new Church, but reforming the existing Church, going back to the teachings of the apostles through the Scriptures. They saw the Church being so corrupted that reform was absolutely necessary, and therefore the reformers carried on the apostolic succession of teaching scriptural doctrine that Rome had abandoned.

quote:

---

Christ never wanted 30,000+ churches all with their own authority based on what one person thinks and if a person disagrees with a teaching they can just go start another.

---

You're right that Christ does not want such divisions, and yet He also doesn't want tyrannical shepherds abusing His flock and teaching false doctrines that corrupt His people. That's why the Reformation occurred; Rome was abusing Christ's flock with false teaching. Sin typically causes division, and the only way to prevent division with sin is to force unity by the sword, which is what Rome resorted to by killing (in partnership with the State) those who disagreed with them.

quote:

---

That was not the case for 1500 years and the. With Luther’s split now look.

---

I just mentioned the split with the East. That occurred 500 years prior to Luther, and that happened exactly as you described in your previous statement ("...with their own authority based on what one person thinks and if a person disagrees with a teaching they can just go start another"). Instead of starting another church, in that example, they just excommunicated the other and claimed that they alone were the one, true church that Christ founded.

quote:

---

Catholic still means universal because it is universal. On any given day the same biblical readings are heard around the world in every Catholic Church. No Protestant church can claim that. There are a few exceptions - for example the church of the nativity in the holy land has Christmas reading through out the year, but those are exceptions.

---

Is it merely reading the same text at the same time or on the same day? That's what it means to be the universal church? Is it the same reading each day for every congregation/parish? Is that all that matters to be said to be part of the universal church? Can you disagree with Rome in every way most Protestants disagree with them on but mechanically read the same things and therefore claim to be part of the one Church?

This is a huge problem I have with Rome. She teaches a false and superficial unity based on things like succession (even though you can have false Popes through laying on of hands, like when there were 3 Popes at once) and shared readings, while having different parishes teach a variety of different doctrines and applications. You offer a mechanical unity of succession while rejecting the Anglicans for their theology on the subject. Your definitions are absolutely arbitrary and always support Rome rather than appeal to what God's word teaches.

quote:

---

That's a common mistake Christians make regarding the shroud.


How common? I’m pretty sure I’ve never run across anyone who worships a piece of cloth. How many have you?

---

Maybe not "worship". But do you rember Chaucer's Canterbury Tales? It's a pretty good eye witness account of what life was like during that time, especially with corrupt church officials. For centuries, Catholic officials suckered the uneducated poor out of money by allowing them to see supposed "relics."

About The Pardoner, Chaucer said...

"For in his bag he had a pillowcase
The which, he said, was Our True Lady’s veil:
He said he had a piece of the very sail
That good Saint Peter had, what time he went
Upon the sea, till Jesus changed his bent.
He had a latten cross set full of stones,
And in a bottle had he some pig’s bones.
But with these relics, when he came upon
Some simple parson, then this paragon
In that one day more money stood to gain
Than the poor dupe in two months could attain.
And thus, with flattery and suchlike japes,
He made the parson and the rest his apes."