A Faith question

[TOmNossor]

HOW, and then When, Where and WHY did the Roman Catholic Faith lose it’s Mandate; that is become an “apostate” Church?

My personal opinion is that God’s church has always been guided by “public revelation” from God. Such was true for the leaders in the Old Testament. Such was true for the leader in the New Testament.
Such was expected by brilliant Christians such as Tertullian as late as the third century.
But, in response to purported revelation contrary to what the leaders thought was true, the leaders declared “public revelation has ended.” We are to INFALLIBLY guard the “public revelation” already present.
God never sealed their teachings with the chrism of infallibility THUS they made errors. Without REVELATION the correcting of these errors by God’s direct communication to mankind through “public revelation” could not happen. This was restored by God outside the “Roman Catholic Faith,” because the as a matter of dogma the Roman Catholic Faith declared that “public revelation” (“corporate revelation”) had ceased.
I currently believe this rejection of REVELATION is the easiest “why” to convey to folks who ask questions like you have. I am not sure what authority existed from the 3rd century to today in Catholic, EO, Protestant or other circles. I am not sure why God didn’t REVEAL to those who opposed Tertullian that revelation would be the means by which God lead His church. It just seems that those who opposed him declared it was not and NEVER would be until Christ returned. And this has been the mantra of the vast majority of Christianity ever sense (but was not before this the 3rd century).
Charity, TOm

 

[MichaelP3]

Probably because they know perfectly well that they have no such authority.

Is this now all 5 sees or just the other 4? You confuse me here. It sounds like you say they know they didn’t have the authority, yet break from the “one” they “knew” had it?

Yes, and it is. If the only Church in existence for the first 900~ years of Christianity was the Roman Catholic Church then it stands to reason that this was the Church established by Jesus Christ, and it is the one that He expects His people to be members of, in good standing, visibly and accountably.

Wait so the Roman Catholic Church was the first one for 900 years? Didn’t we just talk about other eastern rites? Or was there so many “rites” inside Christianity that it was actually called the catholic church which I proclaim to be fully part of. Again, you have some contradictory assumptions there.

Yes, proven. See above.

It’s times like this when I really wonder if people read my posts before they comment. I put down an entire quite lengthy scenario you didn’t even respond to. Maybe you mean you believe it, and I concur it is possible. Historically you have some reading to do.

Schism is schism. You jumping off the Ark of Salvation because you don’t like the captain doesn’t cause the Ark to cease to exist. It just means you’re not on it.

But I do like Jesus

 

[MichaelP3]

MichaelP3;14518177

REALLY:shrug:

Please GOOGLE the list of Popes & or Catholic Church history

Patrick

PJM, you seem to jump into posts without ever really reading the posts. You have answered to many of my posts before and by now you must know Catholic Church history is something that is not new to me. It is one topic by far that keeps me reading about Catholicism. From Pepins gift to Vatican II you would be hard pressed to point to something I haven’t at least heard about. So yes, REALLY

MichaelP3;14518177

SORRY:blush: But I missed that; PLEASE share same with Me again: THANKS, & I will respond to them…

It’s a few posts back.

MichaelP3;14518177

Here’s WHY:

The Orthodox remained FULLY united with Rome until AD & the GREAT Eastern Schism.

Yes there was a less recognized, less notorious smaller schism from BOTH the Orthodox & Rome around the year AD

The G.E.S. while retaining DIRECT apostolic succession, nevertheless lost it claim to “Illicitness” as the bible clearly, directly, exclusively and precisely left the KEYS and the Power & Authority; directly, precisely and exclusively to Peter Eph 2: 19-22

READ and compare Mt 10:5-8 to Mt 28:119-20

And yet the question still remains that it cannot be proven this was the consensus in the first centuries. My original post was nothing on the fact that it’s definitely not true. It just takes a great leap of faith to state it as proven.

MichaelP3;14518177
The age 50 is NOT historically provable

[1] newadvent.org/cathen/08377a.htm

[2] biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a38.htm

[3] moodycatholic.com/Q10.html

[4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

Here I am confused. Either I don’t understand your reply or you never understood me on this. The age 50 cannot be proven, you are correct. But you write it as f I said it’s true. Yet its a pretty large consensus through numerous branches of Christianity that agree it’s definitely not 50. Yet the most quoted Saint on here said so… Just 2 centuries into “Oral Tradition”

MichaelP3;14518177

Again my friend GOOGLE the historical LIST of Popes and the History of the RCC, which are directly, precisely & exclusively proven biblically by
:
Mt 10:1-4
Mt 16:18-19
John 17:17-20
Mt 28:18-20
Eph 2: 19-22
Heb 6: 1-7

GBY

Patrick

PJM, I respect your zeal here but I get the idea you never actually read posts you respond to fully. You basically always quote the same verses and say the same thing. See above to the “proven” theory and go from there. I have responded to this kind of question there.

And for someone who agreed recently with a post that stated the Catholic Church does not need the Bible (something I am still getting over considering what I have read from you before), you are relying quite a lot on it to “prove” these things.

Regards

 

[jmcrae]

Wait so the Roman Catholic Church was the first one for 900 years? Didn’t we just talk about other eastern rites? Or was there so many “rites” inside Christianity that it was actually called the catholic church which I proclaim to be fully part of. Again, you have some contradictory assumptions there.

No contradiction. The Eastern Rites were in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Read St. John Chrisostom’s homily on the Primacy of Peter, and the continuation of the Papacy. It’s in The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, for June 29th.

 

[MichaelP3]

No contradiction. The Eastern Rites were in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Read St. John Chrisostom’s homily on the Primacy of Peter, and the continuation of the Papacy. It’s in The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, for June 29th.

So why don’t defend those poor souls on here who gets “corrected” when they are told “The Roman or Latin rite is one of the many rites of the Catholic Church”?

 

[jmcrae]

So why don’t defend those poor souls on here who gets “corrected” when they are told “The Roman or Latin rite is one of the many rites of the Catholic Church”?

I didn’t say the Eastern Rites were part of the Roman Rite; I said they were (and continue always and forever to be) in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

We can be in full communion with St. Peter’s Successor as our leader, without all being of the same Rite.

Don’t make the mistake of confusing the Eastern Orthodox who are in schism, with the Eastern Rites who are in full communion, and always have been.

It would be clearer to call them “Catholic” full stop, except then you get jokers who say that Lutherans, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox, etc., are also “catholic” so I find it necessary to indicate which Catholic Church I’m talking about.

 

[PJM]

Someone you might respect said, “TRUTH can ONLY be singular per defined issue.”
I agree.
G.K. Chesterton has lamented the end of philosophy in the 20th century. Part of this as I understand it, is the prevalence of postmodern philosophies. They have taken the metaphysical separation of OBSERVER and OBSERVERED and built it into a meme that says one persons “truth” is hopelessly conflicted with their individual observations/experiences such that there are multiple truths. This is wrong thinking IMO.

BTW this is a different questions than the one you asked first.
Charity, TOm

I LOVE what Poe Benedict XVI said:

“There CAN"T be your truth and my truth or there would be NO truth” AMEN!

I agree with the person you quoted too

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Being a simple person I may have missed in your first few posts that for this thread you only want to engage with those who espouse your views 100%. If that Is the case I’ll bow out of this thread. God bless you too.

THANK YOU

And NO, as the OP, I’m not seeking only like minded views; BUT any contrary views must be provable.

GBY!

Patrick

 

[PJM]

What meaning of the word “mandate” are we using on this thread?

A “Command” or" requirement" I think covers it:shrug:

GBY

 

[PJM]

We can do many things. I suspect your question is, rather, “Is it moral to …” “Is it God approved to …” “Should one …”
I would respond to this question with: When one has the truth, it is not immoral to look to the source of truth and neglect the teachings of those who lack the truth. I simply do not spend much time delving into the truth claims of the Branch Davidians. I doubt you do either.
My experience with you suggests you place very little importance on understanding what I claim to be true precisely because you claim to know the truth and to know that what I believe is in error. I consider you mistaken. I think it possible that there are “stumbling blocks” that lead you in errant ways, but I consider it possible that there are “stumbling blocks” that lead me in errant ways. The “Christ crucified” was a “stumbling block” for the Jews. Most Jews then and many Jews today believe that the Messiah must be the “conquering king” not the “suffering servant.” I consider it possible that there is no “Patrick culpability” in your error however. As best I can tell you find it impossible that there is no “TOm culpability” in my error.
Charity, TOm

Tom my friend that’s a bit convoluted for me.

Here is what I mean by truth:
Truth

Ps.145 Verses 17 to 18 “
[17] The LORD is just in all his ways, and kind in all his doings. [18] The LORD is near to all who call upon him, to all who call upon him in truth.

Dictionary Definition of “Truth”

1. The true or actual state of a matter:
   conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement
2. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like mathematical truths.
3. the state or character of being true.
4. actuality or actual existence.
5. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
6. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
7. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and
   transcending perceived experience:
8. agreement with a standard or original.
   9… accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
9. Archaic. Fidelity or constancy.

TEN REALITES of a single truth

Fr. John A. Hardon S.J.
“Truth” is the condition of grace; it is the source of grace; it is the channel of grace, it is the divinely ordained requirement of grace.”

In Georges Bernanos’ Diary of a Country Priest, the elderly Curé de Torcy gives his young priest friend a bit of advice about proclaiming the Gospel: “The Word of God is a red-hot iron,” he says. “Truth is meant to save you first, and the comfort comes later.”

John.8 Verses 43 to 47: “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

John 1 :17 “because while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”

TOm, truth is an OBJECTIVE reality, and can be nothing else:thumbsup:

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

My personal opinion is that God’s church has always been guided by “public revelation” from God. Such was true for the leaders in the Old Testament. Such was true for the leader in the New Testament.
Such was expected by brilliant Christians such as Tertullian as late as the third century.
But, in response to purported revelation contrary to what the leaders thought was true, the leaders declared “public revelation has ended.” We are to INFALLIBLY guard the “public revelation” already present.
God never sealed their teachings with the chrism of infallibility THUS they made errors. Without REVELATION the correcting of these errors by God’s direct communication to mankind through “public revelation” could not happen. This was restored by God outside the “Roman Catholic Faith,” because the as a matter of dogma the Roman Catholic Faith declared that “public revelation” (“corporate revelation”) had ceased.
I currently believe this rejection of REVELATION is the easiest “why” to convey to folks who ask questions like you have. I am not sure what authority existed from the 3rd century to today in Catholic, EO, Protestant or other circles. I am not sure why God didn’t REVEAL to those who opposed Tertullian that revelation would be the means by which God lead His church. It just seems that those who opposed him declared it was not and NEVER would be until Christ returned. And this has been the mantra of the vast majority of Christianity ever sense (but was not before this the 3rd century).
Charity, TOm

TOm for your supposition to be true, GOD and the bible must be in error.

Such is an impossibility, but thanks for not giving up

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

PJM, you seem to jump into posts without ever really reading the posts. You have answered to many of my posts before and by now you must know Catholic Church history is something that is not new to me. It is one topic by far that keeps me reading about Catholicism. From Pepins gift to Vatican II you would be hard pressed to point to something I haven’t at least heard about. So yes, REALLY

It’s a few posts back.

And yet the question still remains that it cannot be proven this was the consensus in the first centuries. My original post was nothing on the fact that it’s definitely not true. It just takes a great leap of faith to state it as proven.

Here I am confused. Either I don’t understand your reply or you never understood me on this. The age 50 cannot be proven, you are correct. But you write it as f I said it’s true. Yet its a pretty large consensus through numerous branches of Christianity that agree it’s definitely not 50. Yet the most quoted Saint on here said so… Just 2 centuries into “Oral /U]Tradition”

My friend Saints ONLY speak FOR the RCC when they speak in unity with the Catholic Magesterium.

PJM, I respect your zeal here but I get the idea you never actually read posts you respond to fully. You basically always quote the same verses and say the same thing. See above to the “proven” theory and go from there. I have responded to this kind of question there

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;14519985:

We can do many things. I suspect your question is, rather, “Is it moral to …” “Is it God approved to …” “Should one …”
I would respond to this question with: When one has the truth, it is not immoral to look to the source of truth and neglect the teachings of those who lack the truth. I simply do not spend much time delving into the truth claims of the Branch Davidians. I doubt you do either.
My experience with you suggests you place very little importance on understanding what I claim to be true precisely because you claim to know the truth and to know that what I believe is in error. I consider you mistaken. I think it possible that there are “stumbling blocks” that lead you in errant ways, but I consider it possible that there are “stumbling blocks” that lead me in errant ways. The “Christ crucified” was a “stumbling block” for the Jews. Most Jews then and many Jews today believe that the Messiah must be the “conquering king” not the “suffering servant.” I consider it possible that there is no “Patrick culpability” in your error however. As best I can tell you find it impossible that there is no “TOm culpability” in my error.
Charity, TOm

Tom my friend that’s a bit convoluted for me.
Here is what I mean by truth: …

Followed by a soliloquy written by you on truth.
I note the dictionary definition of truth does not include that “truth is a condition of Grace.”
It would seem to me that you have declared that you are PRIVILEGED in our dialogue by your receptions of supernatural grace. That may or may not be true, but it has zero persuasive power and is a poor way to invite others to truth.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;14520034:

My personal opinion is that God’s church has always been guided by “public revelation” from God. Such was true for the leaders in the Old Testament. Such was true for the leader in the New Testament.
Such was expected by brilliant Christians such as Tertullian as late as the third century.
But, in response to purported revelation contrary to what the leaders thought was true, the leaders declared “public revelation has ended.” We are to INFALLIBLY guard the “public revelation” already present.
God never sealed their teachings with the chrism of infallibility THUS they made errors. Without REVELATION the correcting of these errors by God’s direct communication to mankind through “public revelation” could not happen. This was restored by God outside the “Roman Catholic Faith,” because the as a matter of dogma the Roman Catholic Faith declared that “public revelation” (“corporate revelation”) had ceased.
I currently believe this rejection of REVELATION is the easiest “why” to convey to folks who ask questions like you have. I am not sure what authority existed from the 3rd century to today in Catholic, EO, Protestant or other circles. I am not sure why God didn’t REVEAL to those who opposed Tertullian that revelation would be the means by which God lead His church. It just seems that those who opposed him declared it was not and NEVER would be until Christ returned. And this has been the mantra of the vast majority of Christianity ever sense (but was not before this the 3rd century).
Charity, TOm

TOm for your supposition to be true, GOD and the bible must be in error.

Such is an impossibility, but thanks for not giving up GBY

Patrick

Actually, there is another possibility. Perhaps you do not understand God or the Bible. Perhaps you do not have a “privileged view of truth.” Thus, what you THINK makes God and the Bible in error within my post, is just a product of your non-TRUE concepts. That is what I think is TRUE.
Charity, TOm

 

[MichaelP3]

I didn’t say the Eastern Rites were part of the Roman Rite; I said they were (and continue always and forever to be) in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

We can be in full communion with St. Peter’s Successor as our leader, without all being of the same Rite.

Don’t make the mistake of confusing the Eastern Orthodox who are in schism, with the Eastern Rites who are in full communion, and always have been.

It would be clearer to call them “Catholic” full stop, except then you get jokers who say that Lutherans, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox, etc., are also “catholic” so I find it necessary to indicate which Catholic Church I’m talking about.

Okay so do you say all of the Eastern “Churches” (if you wish) even the ones not “in communion with Rome today” but nevertheless can claim to have “been there from the start” have at some time professed “To be in Communion with Rome”?

You see, I am perfectly well aware of the differences so I think you missed me somewhere there. What I was asking, would the 4 sees have proclaimed to especially be in communion with Rome and understood it the same way as you “think” and then so easily take part in the Schism? The question is still not answered. Was Rome considered the same from the beginning. The fact is, the Eastern Orthodox did not see it that way, and at that time was a pretty big part of the catholic Church.

I’m not sure if the last part is a joke from you as we are all part of the universal Church.

But please. In the future when someone gets chastised for saying “Roman Catholic Church” and then gets schooled on all the rites, help the guy out

Side note: I see our responses are getting smaller and points are being left out.

 

[MichaelP3]

My friend Saints ONLY speak FOR the RCC when they speak in unity with the Catholic Magesterium.

Firstly I am perfectly well aware of how Saint’s should be read by the Catholic Church. But you see. This is where “yet another problem” comes in. So Catholics can quote all the quotes helping their case but when something strange come up it should just be ignored. So the “helping” parts are mined out to “prove” things through “oral Tradition”.

The fact that I often use the same bible passages [thanks for noting same], nevertheless does not lesson their validity and authority.

I agree with what you intend to say there. Yet following your posts, you have been answered (I’m not saying refuted, as I guess that’s a matter of opinion. Many times two people will walk away and both will think they nailed it) on many parts. Where you should come up with something answering the person. I always read your responses and with no disrespect, I always see the exact same answers.

Michael I NEVER claimed the RCC “never needed the bible”; I COULD be quoted as saying the that the EARLY Church existed for a time without it; and grew without it.

I use the bible for evidence as it is widely available and some on this FORUM are of the mind that “if its not in the bible; its not valid”

But secular history also is proof of the foundational teachings I share

GBY you!

Patrick

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1035638&page=19

See post 268. You agreed with someone very clearly trying to attract a reaction in a very heated monologue. Afterwards you went on defending your wording and tried to make it sound softer. Honestly, after those posts I do read you responses differently.

But you touched upon secular teaching there? Okay, can you share that with me?

Regards
M

 

[PJM]

Is this now all 5 sees or just the other 4? You confuse me here. It sounds like you say they know they didn’t have the authority, yet break from the “one” they “knew” had it?

Wait so the Roman Catholic Church was the first one for 900 years? Didn’t we just talk about other eastern rites? Or was there so many “rites” inside Christianity that it was actually called the catholic church which I proclaim to be fully part of. Again, you have some contradictory assumptions there.

YES the RCC was the ONLY Christian Church NOT is Schism [there was a schism around 500 Ad from both the RCC and the Orthodox churches;] BUT the Orthodox GREAT Schism was not until 1054 AD, so that statement as shared is TRUE The "eastern rites were a part of the RCC until 1054 AD

It’s times like this when I really wonder if people read my posts before they comment. I put down an entire quite lengthy scenario you didn’t even respond to. Maybe you mean you believe it, and I concur it is possible. Historically you have some reading to do.

But I do like Jesus

Me TOO

GBY

 

[PJM]

Followed by a soliloquy written by you on truth.
I note the dictionary definition of truth does not include that “truth is a condition of Grace.”
It would seem to me that you have declared that you are PRIVILEGED in our dialogue by your receptions of supernatural grace. That may or may not be true, but it has zero persuasive power and is a poor way to invite others to truth.
Charity, TOm

OK, thanks for sharing

GBY

 

[PJM]

Firstly I am perfectly well aware of how Saint’s should be read by the Catholic Church. But you see. This is where “yet another problem” comes in. So Catholics can quote all the quotes helping their case but when something strange come up it should just be ignored. So the “helping” parts are mined out to “prove” things through “oral Tradition”.

SORRY Michael, I’m sure its just ME, but I’m not following you here. What do you mean by “something strange?”

I try * not to ignore any relative points.

I agree with what you intend to say there. Yet following your posts, you have been answered (I’m not saying refuted, as I guess that’s a matter of opinion. Many times two people will walk away and both will think they nailed it) on many parts. Where you should come up with something answering the person. I always read your responses and with no disrespect, I always see the exact same answers.

I SUSPECT because truth is singular has a role in that.

Secondly, as you generously noted, I don’t get refuted too often, so the message I share seems to have staying power.

However for you MY FRIEND, if you’d care to share a specific issue or two, I’ll see what I can do about changing my “stock” replies

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1035638&page=19

See post 268. You agreed with someone very clearly trying to attract a reaction in a very heated monologue. Afterwards you went on defending your wording and tried to make it sound softer. Honestly, after those posts I do read you responses differently.

Michael I TRIED the above and just got the CAF home page. But no indication of the STRING you have in mind. Again, no doubt it’s me, but I struggle a bit with the computer, so a bit more guidance would be APPRECIATED.

But you touched upon secular teaching there? Okay, can you share that with me?

Regards
M

If you can give me a bit [perhaps even a lot] more guidance; I will certainly try to do so.

God Bless you my friend!

Patrick*

 

[Peter_J]

Okay so do you say all of the Eastern “Churches” (if you wish) even the ones not “in communion with Rome today” but nevertheless can claim to have “been there from the start” have at some time professed “To be in Communion with Rome”?

In a way that’s true, because all true churches have “lineage” back to the Apostles and they were all in communion with the first pope, Simon Peter.

Btw, “church” and “rite” are not the same – I’m not saying you don’t already know that, maybe you do, I just want to say it for the record.

I always read your responses

That’s pretty impressive – well, I’m guessing you don’t mean you’ve read all his posts since the beginning, which would be 13,000+, but it’s still pretty impressive.