A Historical Dare to Protestants

[Hisalone]

If that’s the case then the “difficult passages” will not be difficult for you. There would then be no difficult passages in the Bible which would then nullify your earlier statement regarding that there are difficult passages in the Bible. PUHLEEESE!

That is not what I said. What it does show is the limitation of someone who doesnt rely on the Spirit of Truth

 

[Tomster]

Is this what you are referring to?

Ecclesia: assembly, meeting, convocation. The kingdom of God on earth governed by apostolic authority.

Institution. Jesus Christ, as is strikingly evident on every page of the Gospel, represented Himself to the world as the founder of “the kingdom of God,” which in its earthly phase is ordained to gather together all men (cf. the parables of the kingdom): the people.

As rulers of his kingdom He appointed the Apostles (cf. Luke 6:13; Matthew 18:15-18; John 20:21; Matthew 28:18-19, etc.): the clergy in the people.

As head of the Apostles He constituted St. Peter (cf. Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:17): the primacy in the clergy.

With these elements our Lord instituted a real society, hierarchically constituted (with subjects and superiors), visible to the eyes of all, but with a nonpolitical and religious end 9cf. Matthew 4:3-10; 5:3-12; 6:33; 16:26, 27, etc.), assigning it the function of applying, through the centuries, the fruits of the Redemption.

Essence. From this we clearly understand that the Church is the continuation and the prolongation of the Incarnate Word, His Mystical Body (Romans 12:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:4), which actualizes in each individual as in all humanity the work of the Redemption, through the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass and the triple ecclesiastical power of teaching, ministry and jurisdiction.

As its Founder is a Person subsisting both in the human and in the divine nature, so the Church is at the same time a human and divine society; the human element, visible, perceptible to the senses, consists of the multitude of men socially organized; the spiritual, invisible, divine element is furnished by the supernatural gifts which put the human aggregate under the influence of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, Soul and unitive Principle of the whole organism (theandric constitution of the Church). The Church is, therefore, the union of man with Christ in a social form, “the social synthesis of the human and the divine.”

Properties. If the Church is the union of humanity with Christ in a social, hierarchically organized form, it has to be necessarily one, since Christ is one and the human race is one; it has to be holy, because contact with Christ is sanctifying; it must be catholic, ie. universal, since the union of humanity in Christ embraces (in tendency) all the individuals of the human species; it must be apostolic, because, since it is a union in hierarchical form, it is necessarily based on Peter and the Apostles and their successors, who constitute the hierarchy.

One, holy, catholic, apostolic: These are the four properties of the Spouse of Christ: its individual characteristics which become also marks of identification; when considered in historical reality they appear to the eyes of all as distinctive signs of the true institution of Jesus Christ.

Power and operations. Being human-divine, visible-invisible, the Church operates in a way corresponding to its nature: through a teaching body which transmits the divine thought in the clothing of human words; through ministry which, by means of sensible rites, the sacraments, infuse supernatural life; through a government which makes known laws of the spirit in a form perceptible to the experience of the senses, the Church being the very prolongation of Christ in time and space.

Is this what you are referring to?

Hisalone,

Have you at least read and digested this?

Since you have shown your intolerance (to say the least) in regards to Christ’s true Church, I am expecting a point by point, Spirit-filled, Biblically-based, refutation from you from my above statement. Give us your best shot. I have included Scriptural references (if you have taken the time to read it) and am prepared to give you more.

But for now, again, give us your best shot.

 

[Tomster]

I was trained by the fine nuns of St Francis.

They taught me not to plagerize and take credit for the works of others.

Ahh, but that’s the beauty of Catholic Sacred Tradition. It’s free for everyone. But then again, the only tradition you adhere to is the tradition that tickles your ears.

 

[Tomster]

That is not what I said. What it does show is the limitation of someone who doesnt rely on the Spirit of Truth

Well, since you claim to be relying on that Spirit, then you should not have any difficulty with the difficult passages.

 

[Hisalone]

So you don’t have a NT in your Bible… Don’t the Jews and Muslims trace their roots to Abraham also?

Please tell me you weren’t referring to the CC when you said “Hellenization” of Christianity???

SD

Yes the Jews do the Muslims claim Abraham but they follow after a pagan god.
What is Helleniztion? It is incorporating Greek concepts and beliefs.
This was an issue with the Jews when some were dispersed to Babylon where ther fevorishly tried to maintain their hebrew identity and those who were dispersed elsewhere such as Egypt where they were “Hellenized”.
Have ancient Greek concept and beliefs had influence on Christianity?
Why would I call it the Roman Catholic Church if I believed that it was inluence by ancient Greece?

 

[Hisalone]

Well, since you claim to be relying on that Spirit, then you should not have any difficulty with the difficult passages.

Difficult passages are difficult.
If you ask and are persistant then the Spirit of Truth will lead you.

 

[Tomster]

Difficult passages are difficult.
If you ask and are persistant then the Spirit of Truth will lead you.

How far has the Spirit lead you up to this point in time? Can you interpret the whole Bible by yourself?

 

[Hisalone]

Hisalone,

Have you at least read and digested this?

Since you have shown your intolerance (to say the least) in regards to Christ’s true Church, I am expecting a point by point, Spirit-filled, Biblically-based, refutation from you from my above statement. Give us your best shot. I have included Scriptural references (if you have taken the time to read it) and am prepared to give you more.

But for now, again, give us your best shot.

Tom I am intolerant of falsehood. People who make false claims.

If this is your original work then plainly state that it is( I have my reservations, that is why I have asked)
If it is not your original work then please provide your source.

 

[Tomster]

Is this what you are referring to?

Ecclesia: assembly, meeting, convocation. The kingdom of God on earth governed by apostolic authority.

Institution. Jesus Christ, as is strikingly evident on every page of the Gospel, represented Himself to the world as the founder of “the kingdom of God,” which in its earthly phase is ordained to gather together all men (cf. the parables of the kingdom): the people.

As rulers of his kingdom He appointed the Apostles (cf. Luke 6:13; Matthew 18:15-18; John 20:21; Matthew 28:18-19, etc.): the clergy in the people.

As head of the Apostles He constituted St. Peter (cf. Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:17): the primacy in the clergy.

With these elements our Lord instituted a real society, hierarchically constituted (with subjects and superiors), visible to the eyes of all, but with a nonpolitical and religious end 9cf. Matthew 4:3-10; 5:3-12; 6:33; 16:26, 27, etc.), assigning it the function of applying, through the centuries, the fruits of the Redemption.

Essence. From this we clearly understand that the Church is the continuation and the prolongation of the Incarnate Word, His Mystical Body (Romans 12:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:4), which actualizes in each individual as in all humanity the work of the Redemption, through the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass and the triple ecclesiastical power of teaching, ministry and jurisdiction.

As its Founder is a Person subsisting both in the human and in the divine nature, so the Church is at the same time a human and divine society; the human element, visible, perceptible to the senses, consists of the multitude of men socially organized; the spiritual, invisible, divine element is furnished by the supernatural gifts which put the human aggregate under the influence of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, Soul and unitive Principle of the whole organism (theandric constitution of the Church). The Church is, therefore, the union of man with Christ in a social form, “the social synthesis of the human and the divine.”

Properties. If the Church is the union of humanity with Christ in a social, hierarchically organized form, it has to be necessarily one, since Christ is one and the human race is one; it has to be holy, because contact with Christ is sanctifying; it must be catholic, ie. universal, since the union of humanity in Christ embraces (in tendency) all the individuals of the human species; it must be apostolic, because, since it is a union in hierarchical form, it is necessarily based on Peter and the Apostles and their successors, who constitute the hierarchy.

One, holy, catholic, apostolic: These are the four properties of the Spouse of Christ: its individual characteristics which become also marks of identification; when considered in historical reality they appear to the eyes of all as distinctive signs of the true institution of Jesus Christ.

Power and operations. Being human-divine, visible-invisible, the Church operates in a way corresponding to its nature: through a teaching body which transmits the divine thought in the clothing of human words; through ministry which, by means of sensible rites, the sacraments, infuse supernatural life; through a government which makes known laws of the spirit in a form perceptible to the experience of the senses, the Church being the very prolongation of Christ in time and space.

Is this what you are referring to?

Hisalone,

I have to leave this message board for awhile.

I am serious. Try and refute the above statement. Your credibility is at stake.

 

[SD_Catholic]

Yes the Jews do the Muslims claim Abraham but they follow after a pagan god.

QUOTE]

 

[Tomster]

Tom I am intolerant of falsehood. People who make false claims.

If this is your original work then plainly state that it is( I have my reservations, that is why I have asked)
If it is not your original work then please provide your source.

This is official, dogmatic, Roman Catholic teaching. It always was, always has been, always will be.

Refute it or (I’m trying to be polite) keep quiet.

 

[SD_Catholic]

gotta run

SD

 

[With_Questions]

Now where were we. This thread has advanced.

The New Testament recounts the direct instruction of the Lord to Peter, and only Peter to '…feed MY sheep, tend MY flock, feed MY sheep…" Combined with the keys of authority, again given only to Peter
(and better understood in the light of Isaiah’s story of the chief steward who was in charge of the kingdom until the return of the King)
we can see that the authority rests in the office , which Peter was the first to hold.

For the time being I am not going to argue the point about Peter having some type of greater authority than the remaining apostles. You at least can make a reasoned case that is in fact true (not that I am totally sold on this yet though).

ACTS recounts the importance of filling an office, namely that of Judas… not with just anyone, but only with a qualified man. There were only two who were eligible to fill the spot of the 12th Apostle. And much like the selection of a pope, the office holder was chosen by lot.

One problem though is that an instance of an event in Scripture does not necessarily mean that event is meant to be the norm. In other words, just because we see Matthias replacing Judas, it does not follow from this passage that Gods intention was that all apostles would be replaced from the beginning until the end of the church age.

Otherwise you could persuade me to be a follower of Ken Copeland.

And this instance is sort of weak in that Judas really never served as an apostle since he committed suicide before the part of the church age.

Caveat, this does not necessarily mean that I hold the dispensationalist view that the office of the apostle died after the twelve.

Laying on of hands is found often in the early Church as a means of conveying power/authority. (Paul to Timothy etc). Today the bishops are elevated under the authority of the Pope., the prime among equals, Bishop of Rome.

OK. We practice laying hands in our church too.

The office will be “alive” until the end of the age, No other group can offer evidence that they fill that office, established by the Lord to shepherd His flock.

Well, once I visited a church in the county next to mine and the senior pastor was also listed as an apostle.

Now I am skeptical of all claims of apostles until I see somebody that can perform miracles at will like the apostles in the book of Acts. Benny Hinn does not qualify here.

But if I were to assume my standards for apostleship are too high, why shouldn’t I believe that this senior pastor is an apostle as well as your pope.

Now of course we could lead into infallibility etc, but… there are many threads that treat that topic again and again.

And of course I have absolutely no reason to believe that your pope is incapable of being incorrect when speaking on faith and morals. I don’t believe that of my pastor, why should I believe that of your pope.

Question… do you see any correlation between the development of a new group of believers, and the “problem” of Catholic Church Authority??

Yeah, I do too.

I have absolutely idea what you are saying here.

Anyway, I don’t see whereas your particular denomination has any more authority than any other denomination in my phone book anyway.

 

[catholic1seeks]

It is more important to find God.
Does your church teach you to hear Gods voice?
Do not look for a church Look for God.

The Church is the sacrament of Jesus Christ. It is the “dwelling place” of the Holy Spirit, bringing the Good News of Jesus Christ to the entire world. The Church is “catholic” (universal) in that the mission given to the apostles was to make disciples of all nations.

You cannot draw a sharp line between Jesus Christ and His Church. It’s His Body (1 Cor 12:20-27), and when baptized (Rom 6:4, 1 Pet 3:21), we become members of His Body.

The mission entrusted to Christ’s apostles continues this day: The Good News is proclaimed to the ends of the Earth. In this way, you cannot separate the Church and Jesus. The truth is brought to us by the Church (1 Tim 3:15).

As St. Irenaeus says (c. 200):
“For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God, there the Church and every grace. The Spirit, however, is Truth.” Against Heresies 3, 24, 1.

 

[With_Questions]

With Questions…

You keep asking questions… this is good…

Asking questions is good methinks, That is the way you grow in understanding.

we answer to the best of our knowledge from what we’ve studied… Then you have said a thousand times, “but that is your opinion” … Some of it yes, but a lot of it has come from facts that have been studied, and would become quite apparent if a person took the time to study in the right places.

I try to say “it is your opinion” when a statement of belief is states as a matter of fact without any reasons behind them.

When reasons are given, I try to analyze these reasons and come up with questions to sanity check what I am hearing.

All a part of testing everything and holding fast to what is good.

Personally (my opinion), I will stand with the Apostles, their disciples, and other Fathers of the early Church when they explain what the Apostles and Jesus taught… 100 times before I would trust some 21st century self-proclaimed Biblical expert.

I am fine with this in principle.

You say you’ve studied, but studied what or how much? Yes, I agree it could be a grueling task, especially if you expect clear-cut answers to all your questions… The best any of us can hope for is to ask the questions, study the answers, study the history and facts, and come up with the best educated decision we can based on this information… Once you’ve exhausted all the information (could take a lifetime), you have to trust that you are making the right decision…

Well first of all, I am just a schmuck that has a normal job and normal responsibilites. So I don’t have the calling on my life to be as informed on this as say a pastor or evangelist.

Second, I don’t pray and read as much as I should anyway. So any studying of course has the Bible as top priority. I do read in Scripture where I am to study the Bible to show myself approved. I have yet to find the Scripture that command me to study anything else.

But, that is not to say studying anything else is not useful. In fact, if I am to invest time by reading Christian literature, I would probably prefer reading Clement, Ignatious, Wesley, and Martyr’s Mirror to The Purpose Driven Life, The Prayer of Jabez, The Shack or whatever your current hot Christian book is (caveat: I did like The Purpose Driven Life though).

But if you’re going to ask us the questions please don’t toss aside every answer we give declaring it to be “just our opinions”, because usually they are more than just our opinions, and even if they are, they can still be checked for validity…

OK. If you make a statement and back it up with some reasoning, then I will at least try not to be too dismissive,. However if it is a statement of faith that is presented as fact without any substantiation, then it is in fact an “opinion”.

ps… you do know John Wesley died an Anglican priest (which has quite the same theological beliefs as the CC)… which is probably why you like him so much
SD

Actually I like John Wesley because he is one of the early Protestants who really shows exceptional character. But that is a separate topic.

Oh…and I am pretty close to him theologically too.

 

[With_Questions]

Read the Acts of the Apostles and 1 Corinthians and ask yourself the the Roman Church look anything like this? And throw the diadche in also.

I have already asked that question. Good one though.

I have searched in vain for the verse in the Bible where Peter, Paul, John, Jude, Luke or any other apostle claimed they were incapable of being incorrect (now I have found verses that claim they have apostolic authority but that is not the same animal). But who knows, maybe these verses exist in Romans 17 or some other part of the Bible I have yet to read.

However, I don’t get the sense that any of the churches I have seen totally line up to what I read in the Bible and have read in early church fathers. So then we get into what Jesus said about specks and logs.

 

[With_Questions]

You dont even have to go there.
The Roman Church taught a false gospel prior to the counter reformation. Examine what they taugt compare it to scripture and ask yourself Is thsi the true Church of God?

Well I do get a disconnect when I study Scripture and then I read what the Catholic church puts forth as dogma. It would seem to me that if any denomination in my phone book is “The One True” church, I would then open my Bible and “wow…it makes total sense when I read it this way”. The last thing i would expect would be a disconnect.

But then again, I have encountered quite a bit of silliness on my side of the fence too. In fact, I have found that anything I can criticize the Catholics for, I can find in one form or another on my
fence if I am really fair about it.

So then again we get into specks and logs.

 

[With_Questions]

With Questions read the works of John Wesely and see where he departed from Catholic teaching.

Wesley most certainly was not Catholic.

But then again, I have also read his “Letter to a Catholic”. Here it is. You have to search on the word “Catholic” to find it.

Interesting read. From this letter I can conclude he was not a knee-jerk Catholics are not Christian type either. Hmm sometime I might start a thread to elicit reaction on this letter.

 

[TOME]

The point I wish to introduce here is one I have presented in other threads however I haven’t seen any responses to it. Still I will be interested in seeing a response or two from anyone involved in this discussion.

From the title of this thread I think the dare is misplaced. I think it is misplaced because the Catholic Church herself has declared that the Church established by Christ, which is ONE, HOLY, Catholic, and Apostolic subsists in the Catholic Church but is not the Catholic Church. The Council Fathers when debating what would become the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) rejected the teaching that the Catholic Church is solely the Church established by Christ. This is brought out most clearly in Lumen Gentium # 8 where the constitution uses the words “Subsists in” as opposed to “Is” when describing the the relationship between “The Church” and the “Catholic Church” (let alone ‘The Roman Catholic Church’).

It seems, to me, this point is often over looked by many yet it is a “Dogma” of the Church (Lumen Gentium being a Dogmatic Constitution).

While The Church “Subsists In” the Catholic Church, I think it is wrong for we Catholics, given our Church’s teaching, to insist that the Catholic Church “Is” the Church founded by Christ and therefore the dare is inappropriate.

 

[Hisalone]

LOL!!! … that is pretty funny… now it is either obvious you haven’t studied it or you refuse to accept it… Most honest Christians atleast admit that the Catholic Church played a role in canonizing the books of the NT, but I see you hate the CC even more than I thought.

I don’t even know what to say to you… you are so blinded by your hate that you can’t see beyond the year 1500… All I can say is you are wrong and the smallest amount of research is all it takes to reveal this.

SD

Not hate just truth