User Profile: by faith

by faith

Member Since: September 27, 2011

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 16, 2014 at 7:04pm

    Catholic Mass in 155AD

    Description of the mass as it was celebrated in his day.

    “All who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoir of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader is finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves…and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss [of peace]. Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: Amen.” When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the ‘eucharisted’ bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.”
    Quoting Justin Martyr “First Apology” pages: 65-67 written: 155AD

    Sound like a Catholic Mass to me.
    That’s 227 years before the canonization of the Bible

  • April 16, 2014 at 6:54pm

    Authoritative Church
    Mt 28:18-20 – Jesus delegates all power to Apostles
    Jn 20:23 – power to forgive sin
    1 Cor 11:23-24 – Power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist)
    Lk 10:16 – power to speak with Christ’s voice
    Mt 18:18 – power to legislate
    Mt 18:17 – power to discipline
    St Irenaeus (AD200) “…the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth.” Against Heresies 1,10,2.

    Eusibius of Caesarea (AD 4th Century) “but the brightness of the Catholic Church proceeded to increase in greatness, for it ever held to the same points in the same way, and radiated forth to all the race of Greeks and barbarians the reverent, sincere, and free nature, and the sobriety and purity of the divine teaching as to conduct and thought” Ecclesiastical History 4, 7, 13

    St Augustine (AD392) “The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, and achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints…

  • April 16, 2014 at 6:53pm

    History and Facts just don’t back up your assertions

    First written reference to the Catholic Church AD107
    St. Ignatius of Antioch is responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), meaning “universal”, “complete” and “whole” to describe the church,

    It is from the word katholikos that the word catholic comes. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word catholic, he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation Catholic Church with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the 1st century.

    Timeline of how the Bible came to us
    AD 51-125 – The New Testament books are written.
    AD 382 Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.
    AD 393 the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.
    AD 397 The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch).
    AD 787 The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, adopted the canon of Carthage.
    AD 1442 At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 boo

  • April 16, 2014 at 4:33pm

    “It matters not what the catholic church says”

    Since the Catholic Church pre-dates the Bible by 3 centuries and the Bible was collected, compiled and canonized under the councils of the Catholic Church (guided by the Holy Spirit)…yea it kinda does.

  • April 16, 2014 at 2:31pm

    They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon affected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics — all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents. And the Vatican Observatory has been involved with astronomy longer than anyone else. There are numerous craters on the moon named after their discoverers, Jesuit priests, like Mario Bettinus and Guiseppe Biancani.

    The scientist credited with proposing in the 1930s what came to be known as the “Big Bang theory” of the origin of the universe was Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest.

  • April 16, 2014 at 2:29pm


    Your have very good and valid points in 1,2 and 3

    And Christians have done damage to the science/religion relationship.

    Please don’t paint with too broad a brush. Not all Christians are so dogmatic about a 6,000-10,000 year old earth. The Catholic Church does not teach that.
    Many people believe that faith and reason, or religion and science, are locked in an irreconcilable war of attrition against one another. One must choose to be a person of learning, science, and reason, or choose to embrace religion, dogma, and faith alone. On this view, the Church opposes science, and if one embraces science, then one ought to reject the Church.
    Historically, Catholics are among the most important scientists of all time, including Rene Descartes, who discovered analytic geometry and the laws of refraction; Blaise Pascal, inventor of the adding machine, hydraulic press, and the mathematical theory of probabilities; Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel, who founded modern genetics; Louis Pasteur, founder of microbiology and creator of the first vaccine for rabies and anthrax; and cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, who first developed scientifically the view that the earth rotated around the sun. Jesuit priests in particular have a long history of scientific achievement; they contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity.

  • April 16, 2014 at 2:10pm

    I probably should define Ga

    Ga (for gigaannus), is a unit of time equal to 10 to the 9th years
    one billion on the short scale, one milliard on the long scale

    It is commonly used in scientific disciplines such as cosmology and geology to signify extremely long time periods in the past.

    For example, the formation of the Earth occurred approximately 4.57 Ga (4.57 billion years) ago

  • April 16, 2014 at 1:58pm

    According o NASA

    The Moon continues to spin AWAY from the Earth, at the rate of 4.4cm (1.73 in) per year.

    That’s about the same speed at which our fingernails grow.

  • April 16, 2014 at 1:46pm


    The more I read your post, the less sense it makes.

    You start with:
    “The RC stance is logically inconsistent. Genesis is clear.”
    But then you never address the illogical part of what you perceive to be Catholic teaching.

    “God created Adam” …Catholic’s believe that too. Adam was the first to have an immortal soul.

    “God then created Eve for Adam”…still fail to see illogical Catholic teaching

    “Symbiosis and food and water”…do you think Catholic’s don’t believe this?

    “Evolution requires death”… Life requires death. LOTS OF DEATH from Genesis to Jesus.

    “Catholic church is going ecumenical” – based on your explanation of how illogical the Church is, I don’t think you understand this one either.

    “biblical truth “– Do you mean your interpretation of biblical truth? Show me where I go against Biblical truth.

    “Moon crashing into the earth” – you need to reread what I posted, the moon is getting farther away from the earth (4.4 cm/yr) not closer.

    “Reason to support a younger earth” – Yes, I know that is why I posted them too.

    “We are in a position in the universe that is fragile, and that cannot be created by natural events” – I know, that is why God put us here.

  • April 16, 2014 at 11:40am

    The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Catholic Priest

    Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, was a Belgian Catholic priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Université catholique de Louvain.

    He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe.
    He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble’s law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble’s article.

    If there was a “Big Bang”, God created it.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 16, 2014 at 11:24am

    BTW if you read the Bible as you read my posts, that explains a lot. I never said the earth definitely was billions of years old, neither did I say the earth was definitely 6000 years old.

    Many people believed there are only two positions when it comes to the question of origins: naturalistic evolutionary biology or a literal interpretation of Genesis that holds that the entire universe was created in six days about 6,000 years ago.
    You seem like it was your way or the highway. I’ll let you read Matt Fradd for a Catholic answer.

    Catholic Church has no official position on scientific questions like the age of the earth or the evolution of life. Catholics are free to hold basically any position on those questions so long as they acknowledge that God directly created man’s immortal soul.

    Pope John Paul II wrote in Fides et Ratio:
    “Even if faith is superior to reason there can never be a true divergence between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals the mysteries and bestows the gift of faith has also placed in the human spirit the light of reason. This God could not deny himself, nor could the truth ever contradict the truth.”

    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    ― Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

  • April 16, 2014 at 11:17am

    The Church is simply acknowledging facts. There is insufficient proof of evolution as the “be all/end all” answer to man’s existence. The Church makes it very clear: if man was crated or evolved is irrelevant to the story of creation. God made and implanted the soul, which is what matters.

    The Bible, was compiled, collected, protected and canonized by the Catholic Church. FACT
    Led by the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus, the Church decided which books belong and which books did not. So you trust the Church to tell you this is the Bible, but everything else they got wrong?
    To prove me wrong, you will need to show me the list of which books make up the Bible, in the Bible. Table of Contents does not count, that was added centuries later by publishers. If you can’t prove the correct list of the Books of the Bible by using only the Bible, then you logically must admit there is a designated source (outside the Bible) that is chosen by Jesus and led by the Holy Spirit.

    Personal interpretation? Seriously?
    For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms (the Monophysites, Nestorians, the Orthodox, and a very few others). Now in just 500 years we have 35,000+ denominations? I hardly think that when Jesus prophesied there would be “one shepherd and one fold” in Jn. 10:16, this is what he had in mind. It seems quite clear to me that not only is sola scriptura unreasonable and unbiblical, but it is unworkable.

  • April 16, 2014 at 11:16am

    Your bias toward the Catholic Church is clouding your argument.
    “The RC stance is logically inconsistent.” In what way? Are you saying God is all powerful but cannot under any circumstance create man without an evolutionary element? The body and the brain are not what makes us important to God, it’s the soul.
    The Bible Says It, I Believe It, That Settles It: I am sympathetic to the argument that scientists must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to account for why science works. The Christian worldview explains why things like the laws of logic or the laws of physics are universal, unchanging, and ground the conclusions arrived at through science. Indeed, I believe the regularity of the universe’s natural laws is better evidence for God than the complexity found in living creatures, because the latter can be explained through evolution while the former cannot.
    But, explain why we should believe that the Bible can be trusted as a source about the pre-recorded history past. Simply take the Bible as a starting point and run with it?
    Rather than start with an assumption that the Bible is the Word of God, the Catholic approach to the inspiration of Scripture follows arrives at the conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God through a series of valid logical and historical inferences. Proof is always more valuable than assumptions or accusations.

  • April 16, 2014 at 10:00am


    There is no evidence to support lunar/earth contact. Whether the moon was created “somewhere” else or some other planet collided with the earth and a piece broke off… the capture theory has been discredited. The debris from this collision however minimal would have left a trail similar to Saturn.

    Magnetic fields, to the best of my knowledge, no definite conclusive evidence concerning the related risks of magnetic fields and living matter. It is difficult to prove indisputably what risks exist or don’t. The risks appear to be limited to specific situations.
    I wouldn’t want to spend a week in an MRI, but I don’t think it would rip me to pieces.

    Could Biblical longevity be explained by stronger magnetic fields? That question may never be answered.

    Could God have allowed the mag field to decrease enough to support life before man was created/evolved? That’s a question you’ll have to ask Him. I do not know.

  • April 16, 2014 at 9:18am

    Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

    While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

    The Time Question

    Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

    Responses (6) +
  • April 16, 2014 at 9:17am

    What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

    Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

    The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6).

    Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

    Responses (2) +
  • April 16, 2014 at 9:10am

    The equation would result in the time for the moon to recede from the Roche limit to its current location would be 1.3 Ga. This is the maximum age of the moon based on physics. Seriously challenging the evolutionary age of 4.6 Ga.

    The lunar recession rate has been essentially constant at the present value. However, assuming a multi-billion year age, lunar recession rates would have been much higher in the distant past than now. The currently accepted parameters indicate that the moon would have required 1.3 Ga to move from its origin at the Roche limit to its present position. This is the moon’s upper-limit age and shows that the conventional chronology is incorrect. If the solar system were actually 4.6 Ga old, the moon would have receded to a distance from earth approximately 20% beyond its present position.

    Responses (3) +
  • April 16, 2014 at 9:08am

    The Roche limit is the distance from a central body, such as a planet, inside of which orbiting debris cannot coalesce. The gravitational force of the central body on an orbiting particle is stronger on the particle’s near side than on its far side. Within the Roche limit, this differential gravitational force is greater than the particle’s own self-gravitation, and particles break apart rather than joining.
    A satellite can exist within the Roche limit if non-gravitational cohesive forces hold the object together, but once torn apart into smaller pieces, the pieces cannot rejoin. Saturn’s rings are evidently fragments of moons once orbiting Saturn inside the Roche limit. Forces due to collisions, or disruptive forces within the moons, tore the moons apart. Before they fragmented, cohesive forces held the moons together, but once they disintegrated, they could not re-form. Similarly, the earth’s moon could never form inside the Roche limit out of debris due to fission.

    The moon’s maximum age is less than 4.6 Ga
    Highly accurate lunar laser ranging measurements have shown that the moon is very slowly receding from the earth. Based on these measurements we can compute the time, which would hypothetically be required, for the moon to recede from the Roche limit to its present position. The recession rate is 4.4 cm/yr.

  • April 16, 2014 at 9:07am

    The capture theory has been discredited because of the improbability of Earth capturing an approaching moon-size object. Rather than explaining the origin of the moon itself, this theory merely displaces the problem of lunar origin to an indeterminate point far from Earth.
    The accretion theory claims that the moon coalesced from debris remaining from the solar nebula in close orbit about the earth. The accretion theory says that the earth and the moon formed in tandem from the solar nebula. If this theory were true, the earth and the moon should have similar structure and composition. The moon is a unique heavenly object; its composition (especially the difference in iron content) does not match the earths. This theory has been discredited because of difficulty in explaining how debris can coalesce, and also because of the problem of ‘explaining why the abundance of iron in the Earth and the Moon is so different.
    The fission theory claims that the moon coalesced from debris spinning off the presumably molten earth eons ago; while the impact theory claims that a Mars-size asteroid once impacted the earth,7 with the debris eventually coalescing into the moon. The fission and impact theories both require that the debris forming the moon begin coalescing at or near earth’s Roche limit.

  • April 16, 2014 at 9:06am

    Lunar Dust Depth
    The pre-lunar landing predictions of evolutionary scientists gave great concern to the astronauts. Their predictions were that due to a presumed 4.5 billion year age of the moon and the rate of influx of dust and the lunar physical processes of rock break-up, the astronauts might be lost in a great depth of dust on the moon.4 Fortunately the evolutionary predictions of great dust depth were wrong. Our astronauts were not lost in the predicted “quicksand” of age-accumulated dust on the moon. The creationist predictions of only a thin layer of dust were correct.
    Magnetic evidence of a younger earth
    The known decay of the earth’s magnetic field clearly points to an inevitable end of this magnetic field. The rate of decrease is about 5% per hundred years. The earth’s magnetic field extends into the space around the earth. Providing a protective “shield” against cosmic rays and solar winds. The half-life of this field is 1400 years (meaning every 1400 years its strength is cut in half). The field strength is now about 1/3 as strong as it was during the time of Christ.

    Theories of lunar origin: the capture theory (‘daughter’ theory); the accretion theory (‘sister’ theory); the fission theory (the ‘spouse’ theory), popularized first by George Darwin, son of Charles Darwin; and the impact theory. The impact theory is currently in favor as the other theories have been found to ‘have serious flaws’.