A Historical Dare to Protestants

[elvisman]

The Great Schism, when the Roman Catholic Church formally separated itself from Christianity, choosing to be its own denomination.

jonathon

A revisionist lie, my friend.
Please try to rise above such drivel. You seem to be a little more intelligent than that.

 

[Matariel]

Now I had never heard of Kerala, but google can be your friend.

You are absolutely right.

Here is an article about the Kerala church. And no it was not Catholic.

Actually, that’s debateable…

Many historians think that the Martoma (St. Thomas) Christians lost connection with Rome and the other patriarchates due to large geographical separation.

They were originally a part of the Catholic Church that St. Ignatius of Antioch, the personal disciple of St. John, speaks of, but this large geographic separation, and plus hostility by other Indians who were pagans, lead to separation from the rest of the Church.

But… it’s debateable.

 

[jblake]

elvisman;:

Which book?

EpLa.

Also, any Church that claims to be Catholic and changes doctrines is

a) Doctrine is neither theology, nor practice.

b) I didn’t write anything about the doctrine of the French Catholic Church;

jonathon

 

[SD_Catholic]

catholic daddy…

Could you give a brief meaning behind this screen name? I think I know but I may be wrong…

SD

 

[jblake]

elvisman;:

A revisionist lie

Which of the following are you claiming is a lie:

• The Great Schism never took place;
• The Roman Catholic Church did not separate itself from Orthodox Christianity;

jonathon

 

[elvisman]

EpLa.

a) Doctrine is neither theology, nor practice.

b) I didn’t write anything about the doctrine of the French Catholic Church;

jonathon

Okay - any “Catholic” church that changes its canons without approval of Rome is not loyal to the Catholic Church. An individual diocese or region doesn’t have the authority to change canons, doctrine or dogma.
That’s what has happened to those hundred or so “Catholic” churches in the U.S. that I mentioned earlier.

Is that clear enough?

 

[mmplps7783]

You say you go to church and read the Bible, yet your profile says you adhere to “NO RELIGION”.

If you were familiar with the Scriptures, you would know that true religion is spoken of as "pure and undefiled before God." (James 1:26-27)

What church do you belong to?

That was an ignorant mistake on my part. I need to change that part of my profile. Thank you. Since visiting these forums I have learned the difference. What I should have said is that my “religion " is Christianity. But I do not 'belong” to any particular denomination. The church that I attend differs. My husband is Catholic so now every Sunday (most ) we go to the catholic church and on wednesdays I go (sometimes we go) to a non-denominational church (which of course is considered a denomination ). So as you see I am not fixed on a religion (denomination) I am fixed on Christ. If the pastor or priest says or teaches something that is contrary to the Bible (as i know it) then I look for anther church.

As for the scripture that you gave me what point were you trying to make? My Bible (and I leave room for translation 'cause it’s the “Inspirational Bible” ) says James 1:26-27 - “If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”

 

[catholic_daddy]

I would like to read this book-- could you give the title and author?

As for the validity or legitimacy of the Sacraments, the movement of the Spirit of God has certainly remained among many of the non-Roman Christian communions; i.e., the Roman Church discusses the validity of the Eucharist and Confirmation and other Sacraments in the Orthodox communions, and is somewhat convinced of them in Lutheran and Anglican communions, Old Catholic and others who either have retained or repaired their Apostolic Succession. However, I would also offer for our Christian brethren outside these historic lines, that the Sacraments are works of the Spirit of God rather than the works of men, so while Rome may doubt their validity due to their own cannonical regulations, I think it unwise to pressume that the Spirit of God is not doing what is necessary among the other Christians in their seperated communions.

There’s a difference between validity and whether a thing is licit or not. Might be a discussion for another forum.

Peace.

So we have that going for us, too. Which is good.

 

[stbruderklaus]

EpLa.

a) Doctrine is neither theology, nor practice.

b) I didn’t write anything about the doctrine of the French Catholic Church;

jonathon

Point of order-- Luther did not remove any books from the Bible. He did argue for priority among the written documents, and in his German translation, retained even the Apocrypha. As a Doctor of Sacred Scripture, he was within his academic field to use the Patristic scholarship available and call into question the relative utility of certain books, much as other Doctors of the Church had done since Jerome and earlier.

By the way, so did the 1611 King James translators. The removal of the Apocrypha was not done until later… which I think was unfortunate. Too many non-Roman and non-Eastern Christians are ignorant of them.

Peace.

 

[jblake]

Matariel;:

They were originally a part of the Catholic Church

The manuscript and archeological evidence indicates that they were a branch of Syriac Christianity.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

stbruderklaus;:

Point of order-- Luther did not remove any books from the Bible.

Do you have an alternative reason for why both the opponents, and supports of Luther dropped that book from their Canon, after he published his translation of the Bible into German. (A book that was included in every printing of the Bible in German, and most (?all) Bibles printed in Latin, in Germany, until then.)

He did argue for priority among the written documents, and in his German translation, retained even the Apocrypha.

Which is a slightly different issue.

By the way, so did the 1611 King James translators.

The 1611 KJV contains books in the Anglican Canon, not the Catholic Canon. Furthermore, it did not contain the book that Luther dropped from the Canon.

jonathon

 

[stbruderklaus]

The manuscript and archeological evidence indicates that they were a branch of Syriac Christianity.

jonathon

Out of shear curiosity, could you reference which manuscript and acheological evidence corresponds to this conclusion?

Cheers,
Brad

 

[mmplps7783]

Let’s not forget, the Catholic Church (as well as the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox) are pre-denominational.

Protestantism, Anglicanism, and Independent/Old/Jansenist Catholicism is divided into many different sects, call denominations.

So it’s improper to speak of the Catholic Church as a “denomination”, only as pre-denominational.

Sorry, but I’m techical. Can’t help it.

Sorry i just had to bring to our attention a previous post that would support the claims of denomination. It really doesn’t matter if (name removed by moderator)eting is pre or post denomination is denomination just like prehistoric is historic:shrug:
You are right, though - “Catholic” is an adjective that describes the Universal Christian Church established by Jesus in Matt. 16:15-19. This was what the Church was called since the first century by St. Ignatius, who was the student of St. John the Apostle. Elvisman post #381

 

[catholic_daddy]

catholic daddy…

Could you give a brief meaning behind this screen name? I think I know but I may be wrong…

SD

I’ve been asked that a couple of times now. My Dad was raised Catholic.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Do you have an alternative reason for why both the opponents, and supports of Luther dropped that book from their Canon, after he published his translation of the Bible into German. (A book that was included in every printing of the Bible in German, and most (?all) Bibles printed in Latin, in Germany, until then.)

Which is a slightly different issue.

The 1611 KJV contains books in the Anglican Canon, not the Catholic Canon. Furthermore, it did not contain the book that Luther dropped from the Canon.

jonathon

OK, friend-- you’ve got me scratching my head. I don’t know what book you’re referencing. Luther retained the books that I’m aware of from the Latin Vulgate, including the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT, and the Apocrypha as far as I know. I’ll go back and count them, but I don’t know what you’re referencing.

Cheers,
Brad

 

[elvisman]

That was an ignorant mistake on my part. I need to change that part of my profile. Thank you. Since visiting these forums I have learned the difference. What I should have said is that my “religion " is Christianity. But I do not 'belong” to any particular denomination. The church that I attend differs. My husband is Catholic so now every Sunday (most ) we go to the catholic church and on wednesdays I go (sometimes we go) to a non-denominational church (which of course is considered a denomination ). So as you see I am not fixed on a religion (denomination) I am fixed on Christ. If the pastor or priest says or teaches something that is contrary to the Bible (as i know it) then I look for anther church.

As for the scripture that you gave me what point were you trying to make? My Bible (and I leave room for translation 'cause it’s the “Inspirational Bible” ) says James 1:26-27 - “If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”

I understand.

---

The problem with changing churches every time you disagree with something is that your search for the truth will never end.
Jesus established ONE Church with ONE authority (Matt. 16:15-10, Matt. 18:15-18) and he felt so strongly about it that he identified his very self with it (Acts 9:7).

---

As for the scripture reference - it was only to show that pure and undefiled religion is good. Some people are offended by that word because they don’t really understand what it means.

 

[jblake]

elvisman;:

Is that clear enough?

The only thing that is clear, is that you are confusing the French Catholic Church with either Roman Catholic Churches in France, or Roman Catholic Churches that use French, or with Sedevacantist organisations.

jonathon

 

[elvisman]

Which of the following are you claiming is a lie:

• The Great Schism never took place;
• The Roman Catholic Church did not separate itself from Orthodox Christianity;

jonathon

The Great Schism did take place but you have it backwards, my friend.

**You like to play word games. This is what you actually said:
"The Great Schism, when the Roman Catholic Church formally separated itself from Christianity, choosing to be its own denomination."
**That **is a lie. The Church never chose to be a denomination and didn’t want the East to go it’s own way. You really need to do some homework here instead of making silly statements like this.

The Catholic Church didn’t separate itself from anything. It was the Church. The Church in the East (Greek) separated itself from the Church in Rome (Latin) for a variety of reasons that included authority and location.

 

[elvisman]

The only thing that is clear, is that you are confusing the French Catholic Church with either Roman Catholic Churches in France, or Roman Catholic Churches that use French, or with Sedevacantist organisations.

jonathon

I’m not confusing anything. Re-read my post - slowly.

I’m saying that any church that claims to be Catholic and deviates from the Authority of the Catholic Church - is NOT Catholic.

 

[jblake]

stbruderklaus;:

I’ll go back and count them, but I don’t know what you’re referencing.

EpLao. 3Cor is the other book that is no longer found in any NT Canon. There are roughly a dozen NT books in the Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (Broader Canon) that aren’t in the Catholic NT.

jonathon