A Faith question

[PJM]

Can {may} we stop our pursuit of truth and simply relying on what the church closest to my beliefs says both theologically and philosophically?

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

May {Can} I STOP my pursuit of truth and simply rely on what the church closest to my beliefs says both theologically and philosophically?

Or is my truth as good as anyone’s truth?

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Dear friend in Christ,

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

God Bl;ess you,

Patrick

 

[po18guy]

Being provocative here. Church shopping is consumer Christianity - where does God agree with ME?

 

[MichaelP3]

Dear friend in Christ,

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

God Bl;ess you,

Patrick

Even checking out Wikipedia on the issue will show you this is not “a thing”. Never has been in the whole of the Reformation.

Yes, maybe within some other US Churches (funny they are always US) you may find something of that kind. Still, the “GREAT APOSTASY” is not a Protestant belief. (At least not at the beginning)

But you are saying something strange here. You are assuming “they had” a mandate in the first place.

 

[Lorenz_Michael]

Or is my truth as good as anyone’s truth?

Why of course your piece of the truth you’ve been given is as good as anybody elses, but limited to some degree, as anybody else. We can say it’s like you having one great cymbal of resounding truth, finding me with my great cymbal of resounding truth and between us making an unholy racket, the sound of cymbals clashing, as Paul would say, we’re missing something, though we’re both holding the truth, we’re only interested in playing our own tune.

But out of interest in another seeking the truth, what do you say the truth is?

 

[jmcrae]

Even checking out Wikipedia on the issue will show you this is not “a thing”. Never has been in the whole of the Reformation.

Yes, maybe within some other US Churches (funny they are always US) you may find something of that kind. Still, the “GREAT APOSTASY” is not a Protestant belief. (At least not at the beginning)

But you are saying something strange here. You are assuming “they had” a mandate in the first place.

“Thou art Peter [a rock] and upon this rock [Peter] I will build my Church.” Matthew 16:18

Jesus intended to establish a Church. He gives the name “Peter” [the rock] to his friend Simon bar Jonah. Literally translated, Jesus is saying, Simon bar Jonah, you are the rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.

In John 21:15-19 it is even more explicit that Peter is supposed to be the leader of Jesus’ Church, as Jesus commands him to “Feed my sheep.”

History shows us that Peter was the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

That looks like a mandate, to me.

 

[gazelam]

Dear friend in Christ,

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

God Bl;ess you,

Patrick

Here’s some light reading that addresses this topic. Here is a link to an essay by Hugh Nibley titled “The Passing of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme”: publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1104&index=6

And here is a link to “Early Christians in Disarray”: publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1100&index=1

Enjoy!!

 

[PJM]

Being provocative here. Church shopping is consumer Christianity - where does God agree with ME?

THANKS, that does seem like a prudent question

GBY

 

[PJM]

Even checking out Wikipedia on the issue will show you this is not “a thing”. Never has been in the whole of the Reformation.

Yes, maybe within some other US Churches (funny they are always US) you may find something of that kind. Still, the “GREAT APOSTASY” is not a Protestant belief. (At least not at the beginning)

But you are saying something strange here. You are assuming “they had” a mandate in the first place.

OK,

Then for the sake of discussion here,

WHAT then was [is] the impetus and justification for Protestantism? I’m REALLY trying to understand it.

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Why of course your piece of the truth you’ve been given is as good as anybody elses, but limited to some degree, as anybody else. We can say it’s like you having one great cymbal of resounding truth, finding me with my great cymbal of resounding truth and between us making an unholy racket, the sound of cymbals clashing, as Paul would say, we’re missing something, though we’re both holding the truth, we’re only interested in playing our own tune.

But out of interest in another seeking the truth, what do you say the truth is?

REALLY:shrug:

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.
2. the state or character of being true.
3. actuality or actual existence.
   . 5. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
4. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
5. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and
   transcending perceived experience:
6. agreement with a standard or original.
   9… accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
7. Archaic. Fidelity or constancy.

TEN REALITIES 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.”

THANKS & GBY

 

[PJM]

“Thou art Peter [a rock] and upon this rock [Peter] I will build my Church.” Matthew 16:18

Jesus intended to establish a Church. He gives the name “Peter” [the rock] to his friend Simon bar Jonah. Literally translated, Jesus is saying, Simon bar Jonah, you are the rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.

In John 21:15-19 it is even more explicit that Peter is supposed to be the leader of Jesus’ Church, as Jesus commands him to “Feed my sheep.”

History shows us that Peter was the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

That looks like a mandate, to me.

Thank you!

Here’s more evidence of that

Eph 2:19-22
[19] Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, [20] Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: [21] In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. [22] In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit" AMEN!.

 

[PJM]

Here’s some light reading that addresses this topic. Here is a link to an essay by Hugh Nibley titled “The Passing of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme”: publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1104&index=6

And here is a link to “Early Christians in Disarray”: publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1100&index=1

Enjoy!!

I don’t mean to dismiss your (name removed by moderator)ut, but as you do not believe in the bible, NOR history, I don’t see a foundation on which we can discusses this topic:shrug:

Thanks & GBY

Patrick

 

[MichaelP3]

OK,

Then for the sake of discussion here,

WHAT then was [is] the impetus and justification for Protestantism? I’m REALLY trying to understand it.

God Bless you

Patrick

You know all of this. Protesting against the Catholics of the time against very real problems (of the time). Even a simple knowledge of Luther would make it it clear, he never wanted to break away. He rather felt the issues needed to be addressed. Sadly Rome just wouldn’t listen and made him out as a lunatic. Maybe that is one thing Rome should learn from this. Listen and fix! Rome didn’t want to and voila! You have the Reformation which spread so quickly and maybe that is a concern to look at. Why was it so ripe? Because of one man? Not sure thatt is the main reason?

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

“Thou art Peter [a rock] and upon this rock [Peter] I will build my Church.” Matthew 16:18

Jesus intended to establish a Church. He gives the name “Peter” [the rock] to his friend Simon bar Jonah. Literally translated, Jesus is saying, Simon bar Jonah, you are the rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.

In John 21:15-19 it is even more explicit that Peter is supposed to be the leader of Jesus’ Church, as Jesus commands him to “Feed my sheep.”

History shows us that Peter was the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

That looks like a mandate, to me.

This is not a new argument. And to a Catholic it may sound very profounding and I guess that is okay. You can believe that (Take note, it still takes faith)

You are still assuming many things there. Was that verse really seen that way until Rome invoked it? Just that is a question discussed so many times.

Secondly, claiming Peter is one thing. But history does not show he was the first Pope. History has never even proved he was in Rome in the first place. I do concede, it is possible but we should distinguish very clearly between FACT and ASSUMPTION (Even if possible) here. So no, the history part is very vague on this one. And that doesn’t even address the inconsistencies in the line. Popes being chosen because the Holy Roman Emperor wished it. Popes elections being annulled because major Catholic Empires in Europe actually had a veto and another being chosen because a dove sat on his shoulder? So yea, history doesn’t prove anything here.

And this is also assuming Church = Catholic Church (the structure and hierarchy) while to me the Church of Jesus is very much present.

So no, the mandate isn’t that simple and “just there” because of Mt 16:18. And I haven’t even started on the Orthodox yet? Also an Apostolic Church who never understood the mandate this way?

This is somewhat more intricate than you seem to realise. Unless you take it by faith, which is perfectly fine with me

Regards

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Secondly, claiming Peter is one thing. But history does not show he was the first Pope. History has never even proved he was in Rome in the first place.

We have his remains in Rome.

Is that proof enough?

 

[MichaelP3]

We have his remains in Rome.

Is that proof enough?

Hi LA

Although remains were found under St Peters, many more remains were also found there as it was burial site. So yes, it is possible, but not provable by history.

Regards

 

[pablope]

You know all of this. Protesting against the Catholics of the time against very real problems (of the time). Even a simple knowledge of Luther would make it it clear, he never wanted to break away. He rather felt the issues needed to be addressed. Sadly Rome just wouldn’t listen and made him out as a lunatic. Maybe that is one thing Rome should learn from this. Listen and fix! Rome didn’t want to and voila!

You sure about this? Maybe, you should look closer.

Let me introduce to you…Cardinal Contarini…home.newadvent.org/cathen/04323c.htm

He used his influence with the pope to suppress abuses in the papal government and to secure virtuous men for the Sacred College. Contarini was the president of a commission appointed by the pope in 1536 to submit plans for a reform of evils in the Roman Curia or in other parts of the Church. It was largely due to him that, early in 1537, the commission could present its programme, the “Consilium de emendandâ ecclesiâ”. He advised the pope not to abuse the great jurisdiction placed in his hands; and encouraged his friends among the bishops to take appropriate measures for discipline and good order in their dioceses, setting an example in his own Diocese of Cividale di Belluno, to which he was appointed in October, 1536.

Even a simple knowledge of Luther would make it it clear, he never wanted to break away.

 

[pablope]

Hi LA

Although remains were found under St Peters, many more remains were also found there as it was burial site. So yes, it is possible, but not provable by history.

Regards

Actual bones were certainly found…content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,941620,00.html

And the actual book detailing the search…amazon.com/Bones-Peter-John-Evangelist-Walsh/dp/0385150385/ref=pd_sim_14_3/162-6852797-0508949?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0385150385&pd_rd_r=4MJ1DJE5FK6GPKNJSE3Y&pd_rd_w=z0Q0l&pd_rd_wg=1Fj7O&psc=1&refRID=4MJ1DJE5FK6GPKNJSE3Y

But I guess, when you really want to doubt Peter was ever in Rome…no amount of secular proof will suffice.

And I guess, you would also doubt that Paul was even in Rome…correct?

vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/en/basilica/storia.htm

 

[gazelam]

I don’t mean to dismiss your (name removed by moderator)ut, but as you do not believe in the bible, NOR history, I don’t see a foundation on which we can discusses this topic:shrug:

Thanks & GBY

Patrick

This is a great opportunity for me to correct a grave misconception that you seem to have. Both I and my religion believe the Bible and Latter-day Saints are encouraged to learn history. Therefore, the foundation you are seeking is there.