A Historical Dare to Protestants

[jblake]

elvisman;:

Evil acts from individuals do not nullify the Church.

And when there is a constant, repeated pattern of such acts?

Altar calls

Is this an objection to the specific term, or the practice of requesting people who want to know more about Christ, to obtain “Christian Counselling”?

rejection of regenerative baptism;

That is an aspect of Reformed Christianity. (And, in an ironic twist, Restoration Christianity rejects the concept, but not the practice.)

At issue are:

• What constitutes baptism;
• What is the meaning of baptism;

Several conflicting ideas are present in Scripture. Tradition is of equally little use, in determining exactly what Jesus,and the disciples meant by “baptism”.

rejection of the Real Presense in the Eucharist;

The data suggests that this started in the First Century.
The issue here is whether it is a literal, spiritual, or metaphysical change that occurs.

accepting Jesus as personal Lord and savior;

Depending upon what is meant by those terms, with each and every word individually defined, and then the individual phrases defined, this could be anything from a rejection of traditional Catholic Dogma, to complete acceptance,and adherence of traditional Catholic Dogma.

jonathon

 

[catholic_daddy]

Hm… you do know that it was the Roman-based Catholic Church whose bishops wrote that Creed, and that it is the Roman-based Catholic Church they are referring to, right? Do you know who first used the term “Catholic Church”? Yes-- that’s right-- a “Roman” Catholic (gasp!) bishop and Catholic Church Father, St. Ignatius of Antioch!

The term has been hijacked by non-Catholics…

By the way, you never responded to my posts.

Ignatius used it as it was commonly used. It simply meant ‘universal’! There was nothing religious about the adjective!

The oldest form of the Apostles Creed is dated around 140 AD and did not have the word ‘universal’ (catholic) in it at all. It simply read “…the holy Church”

I don’t see your posts usually. I don’t navigate this site very well! Don’t take it personally

 

[mmplps7783]

We already KNOW what Jesus said about that:

Matt 18:17-18
If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Luke 10:16
The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.

John 20:22-23:
***And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. ***
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

You are probably the first person who has ruffled my feathers! First of all if you insist on quoting scripture quote it in context. Jesus said and I do correcty quote: Matt 18:15-19 " Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his faults between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained a brother.But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to listen to the church,let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector…Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth…For where two or three are gathered in my name,I am in the midst of them.

 

[Matariel]

Ignatius used it as it was commonly used. It simply meant ‘universal’! There was nothing religious about the adjective!

But what I’m saying is that St. Ignatius, if you know his writing well, was a bishop of the Catholic Church and taught Catholic doctrines rejected by almost all Protestants…

The oldest form of the Apostles Creed is dated around 140 AD and did not have the word ‘universal’ (catholic) in it at all. It simply read “…the holy Church”

I know.

I don’t see your posts usually. I don’t navigate this site very well! Don’t take it personally

I don’t. I’m just telling you to keep an open mind and realize that you might be wrong-- or right, I’m just saying keep an open mind.

 

[jblake]

Matariel;:

Yes-- that’s right-- a “Roman” Catholic (gasp!) bishop and Catholic Church Father, St. Ignatius of Antioch!

Lest you be misled, Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, is the direct and 122th successor to the post of Patriarch of Antioch, which was held by St Ignatius of Antioch.

IOW, claiming him exclusively for Catholicism contradicts history — especially since JPII had conciliatory talks with HH Ignatius Zakka I Iwas about the misunderstanding the See of Rome has had for 1600 years.

jonathon

 

[mmplps7783]

What do you mean by "legalism of organized religion"?
Wold you prefer disorganized religion? (kidding)

When I hear that phrase, I think of people who want their cake and eat it, too. It’s called "Cafeteria Christianity". You take what you like and throw away the rest.

Whether you like it or not, Jesus set up a Church with Authority to bind and loose in earth and in heaven. He didn’t take that lightly and neither should we.

**Consider the Early Church Fathers - some of whom knew **the Apostles. At any rate, they were so very close to the time of Jesus - and they were transparently and unashamedly Catholic.

One of the earlies documented fathers, St. Ignatius of Antioch, on the way to his death, wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans. In it, he said:
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Can you beleive that there are some other relgions that also believe that Jesus also attends their services on Sunday (I go back to your favorite chapter to quote…Matt18:20 “For where 2or 3 are gathered in my name there shall I be also” Wow! So my question would be does that make me Catholic since St Ignatius said that where Christ is ,there is the Catholic Church?

 

[Matariel]

Wow! So my question would be does that make me Catholic since St Ignatius said that where Christ is ,there is the Catholic Church?

Non-Catholics who have been baptised validly are imperfectly united to the Catholic Church.

But, whereas the various Protestant sects have the spiritual presence of Christ, the Church has in her tabernacles the physical, literal, Real Presence of Christ.

 

[Matariel]

Lest you be misled, Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, is the direct and 122th successor to the post of Patriarch of Antioch, which was held by St Ignatius of Antioch.

IOW, claiming him exclusively for Catholicism contradicts history — especially since JPII had conciliatory talks with HH Ignatius Zakka I Iwas about the misunderstanding the See of Rome has had for 1600 years.

jonathon

So? The Coptic Orthodox Pope is also adirect Successor of St. Mark. I misunderstood nothing. Just because different schisms have occured doesn’t nullify what I said. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox can also claim him, since they were still united to the Catholic Church at that time.

My point still stands.

 

[jblake]

Katrina5;:

Recent Popes have wanted to reconcile the differences with the East, the Anglican Church, and with The Disciples of Christ Church in America, since we are already so much alike.

Episcopalians in the US and Disciples of Christ might merge. Whilst there is a big gap theologically between the two, they have been shifting closer together.

Unless Rome does an about turn on a number of issues, they aren’t even close to either Episcopalians in the US, or Disciples of Christ. Rome and Traditional Anglicans probably will merge. (Probably the most visible difference is three books in their canon that are ignored by nearly everybody. Switching allegiance from Canterbury to Rome won’t be an issue, for unrelated reasons.) I also suspect that a significant percentage of those within the Anglican Communion, will switch to Rome — especially if they get a prelature of their own.

My guess is that United Church of Christ, Metropolitan Community Church, and Disciples of Christ will merge before Canterbury and Rome reconcile. (You can probably toss United Methodist Church into that “supermerger”.) All four denominations (UCC, MCC, DoC and UMC) are pretty close theologically. Most of what needs to be done is figuring out who gets what power and authority.

Mormons, on the other hand, are so far away from Catholicism, that it isn’t likely.

I don’t see that happening either. Mormons — well at least the Quorum of Seventy — like their Third Testament too much. (Sometimes I wonder if the only time Mormons read it, is when they are getting ready to hit the mission field.)

They believe Christ and the Apostles came to the US in a big boat.

They claim to have archaeological proof in Mexico that that really occured. (Problem is, that evidence also supports other theories — theories that fit in much better with prevailing knowledge.)

I think that this happened with the Reformation. It started out as a good idea, but lost its way. I also think there were some big egos, anger, and power problems.

Something akin to the Reformation was bound to occur. Dissent along the lines of some Protestant theology can be traced back to the Tenth century. (The specific theology of the Ninth century groups is unclear. )

Had Rome not attempted to wield political power, the theological differences that Luther,and the earlier reformers had, could have been resolved.

And then Vatican II happened…(just kidding)

The major issue with Vatican II, is that in seeking change, it tossed out that which had been the practice.

McDonald’s nearly changed its menu after the changes of Vatican II, because there was no religious justification for inclusion of an item on its menu. Fortunately (?) sales of that item were enough to keep it on the menu. I think it is still on the menu. (I never ate it. The only things I liked at McDonald’s are no longer on the menu.)

jonathon

 

[jblake]

elvisman;:

What do you mean by legalism of organized religion"?

In contemporary American Christianity, one is presented with an array of explanations and definitions of what does, and does not constitute a sin.
It is a sin to dance.
It is a sin to attend a service at the wrong church.
it is a sin to take communion.
It is a sin to not take communion.
It is a sin to be rich.
It is a sin to be poor.
etc. (Paraphrasing, but all of the above can be found in the theology of several denominations in the us.)

However, regardless of theology, those denominations do not consistently apply the entire body of commandments found in the New Testament, much less those of both the TaNaKh and the New Testament.

When I hear that phrase, I think of people who want their cake and eat it, too. It’s called Cafeteria Christianity. You take what you like and throw away the rest.

Whilst I think of people trying to figure out whether or not they committed a sin,because they didn’t think of something that was done at a specific time,and wondering if they need to rectify it, and if so,how.(If you aren’t sure, go rectify it. Part of the Grace of God, is that one can be forgiven for one’s sins, even if one doesn’t recognise at the time that what one does, or is not doing, is a sin.)

Whether you like it or not, Jesus set up a Church with Authority to bind and loose in earth and in heaven.

That Church, being those who have faith and belief in him,

Consider the Early Church Fathers - some of whom knew the Apostles. At any rate, they were so very close to the time of Jesus - and they were transparently and unashamedly Catholic.

“Catholic” acquired a specific meaning, related to the theology of Rome, at a much later stage of history. The Early Church Fathers used the term to emphasise that they were united with each other, regardless of geography, or anything else.

jonathon

 

[Matariel]

In contemporary American Christianity, one is presented with an array of explanations and definitions of what does, and does not constitute a sin.
It is a sin to dance.
It is a sin to attend a service at the wrong church.
it is a sin to take communion.
It is a sin to not take communion.
It is a sin to be rich.
It is a sin to be poor.
etc. (Paraphrasing, but all of the above can be found in the theology of several denominations in the us.)

However, regardless of theology, those denominations do not consistently apply the entire body of commandments found in the New Testament, much less those of both the Tanakh and the New Testament.

So what do you believe is the true Church? And don’t say it’s an “invisible, spiritual” Church and not a visible one because that was an opinion made up by the revolters and to justify their departure from the Church.

That Church, being those who have faith and belief in him,

God set up a Church with “diocesan” presbyters, “local” presbyters, and deacons-- which later came to be know as bishops, priests, and deacons. Only the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthdox, churches, some Traditional Anglican churches, some Old Catholic churches, and the Mar Toma churches have retained that, along with the transferral of authority via apostolic succession.

“Catholic” acquired a specific meaning, related to the theology of Rome, at a much later stage of history.

I totally disagree. St. Peter’s Chair was aknowledged as the center of unity of the Church by many Church Fathers, and by all of the traditional (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental, etc.) churches, only they consider the Pope to have a first-among-equals type rôle only.

The Early Church Fathers used the term to emphasise that they were united with each other, regardless of geography, or anything else.

Perhaps you should read the Church Fathers about Rome’s primacy if you haven’t already. My point is not Rome’s position on this, just the fact that Rome was preëminent, not necessarily authoritative (Catholic position) or first-among-equals (Orthodox position).

 

[jblake]

Matariel;:

And don’t say it’s an “invisible, spiritual” Church and not a visible one because that was an opinion made up by the revolters and to justify their departure from the Church.

I’m glad to hear that you consider the Early Church Fathers to be revolters, who departed from the church.

God set up a Church with “diocesan” presbyters, “local” presbyters, and deacons-- which later came to be know as bishops, priests, and deacons.

And He also laid out minimal requirements for them. Requirements that virtually all priests and bishops with the Roman Catholic Church fail to meet.

just the fact that Rome was preëminent, not necessarily authoritative (Catholic position) or first-among-equals (Orthodox position).

Still doesn’t change the fact that they meant “universal”, rather than a specific schism that hijacked the term, and rephrased it to mean something completely different.

jonathon

 

[Matariel]

I’m glad to hear that you consider the Early Church Fathers to be revolters, who departed from the church.

What are you talking about?

And He also laid out minimal requirements for them. Requirements that virtually all priests and bishops with the Roman Catholic Church fail to meet.

How so?

Still doesn’t change the fact that they meant “universal”, rather than a specific schism that hijacked the term, and rephrased it to mean something completely different.

Evidence? So when did the Catholic Church come along and change it?

 

[catholic_daddy]

We already KNOW what Jesus said about that:

Matt 18:17-18
If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Luke 10:16
The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.

John 20:22-23:
***And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. ***
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

Sorry Bro, but A) That goes against the RCC’s official position on other Christian churches and B) that is definitely not what Jesus had in mind and C) The fruit of evangelicals is plentiful and points the the hand of God on them.

 

[guanophore]

The Roman Church is CATHOLIC. And the Catholic Church predates all other divisions. It also predates the NT. So do simple math, what Church existed BEFORE the Bible and AFTER Jesus asceneded into Heaven? The Catholic Church. The Universal Body of Christ. No protestant can ever deny that. This is what makes the Roman Church the truth. History of The Church refutes everything else that came after it.

God Bless.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. The Latin Rite did not emerge for centuries.

To be more clear, the Roman Catholic Church is the same Church that St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about in his letters. This Church has existed since Jesus ascended into Heaven. The Roman Church is supported by this historical fact.

No, which is why Iggie wrote in Gk, not Latin. the Antiochan Church is much older, and that is why there are Divine Liturgies in Syriac and Gk much older than the Latin.

People lie…history dosen`t:thumbsup:

God Bless the Roman Catholic Church.

It is my prayer that ecumenism, tolerance, and blessing will be extended to the Catholic Church that is non-Roman. Once that is accomplished, then perhaps unity can really take root!

 

[guanophore]

St. Ignatius, St. Cyprian, St. Justin Martyr, and many others of the 2nd and 2rd centuries wrote of the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Roman Church was a part of the Catholic Church, just as was the church in Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Ephesus… and on down the list. There was one Catholic Church, united in faith, hope, and love.

This one Catholic Church of the 1st through 7th centuries is nowhere exclusively claimed to equate to the Roman Church. Nor, if you read the ecclesiastical histories, did the whole church during the first 7 centuries ever assume that the Roman bishop had primacy over the other great Patriarchs in anything other than honor.

While the first part of this statement is true, the second is not. Rome had primacy because of the doctrine. It was the labors there of Peter and Paul together that made the Church of Rome the center of unity in the faith.

Communion among the ancient Patriarchs of the ancient churches, including an ecumenical role by the bishop of Rome which was subservient to the ecumenical role of the Church gathered in true Ecumenical Council, was the rule of the Catholic Church for it's first millenium.

This is true. It was unthinkable to do anything apart from the successor of Peter (except heresies).

Roman appeals to assume dictatorial control of the other historic Patriarchs ushered in the first great schism between east and west in 1054, and was the root of the second great schism of the Reformation in the 16th century.

I think you need to do some history. There were numerous other factors involved. While it is true that the Latin Patriarch exercised ignorance and arrogance, it was equally shared on both sides of the schism.

The Roman demand for total dominance of the Catholic Church ushered in two great schisms in one millenium… something the last couple Popes and Vatican II have been trying to amelliorate as we enter the 3rd millenium. But that’s only if we’re really going to discuss history…

Cheers.

I think you will need to read some history before you will be able to discuss it effectively. What creates division is error. Separating from the Apostolic Doctrine will always cause division.

 

[catholic_daddy]

Non-Catholics who have been baptised validly are imperfectly united to the Catholic Church.

But, whereas the various Protestant sects have the spiritual presence of Christ, the Church has in her tabernacles the physical, literal, Real Presence of Christ.

But where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, they have His presence in the only ways He actually spoke of–He is in them individually and ‘in their midst’ collectively!

 

[guanophore]

Wouldn’t the Catholic Church say one is Saved by ‘following the rules’ (i.e. not committing mortal sin)?

Certainly not! One can only be saved by doing the work of God.

 

[mmplps7783]

People lie…history dosen`t:thumbsup:

God Bless the Roman Catholic Church.

That is a funny way of looking at things considering history is nothing more than a story passed down from generation after generation. As you stated people lie. Who do you think wrote history? Think about it

 

[Hisalone]

But where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, they have His presence in the only ways He actually spoke of–He is in them individually and ‘in their midst’ collectively!

God is enthroned on the praises of His saints.