All I Want Is Evidence

[sambos671]

Emperor participation doesn’t mean they controled the council. The authority of the Catholic Church didn’t come from council or emperor. It came from Jesus Christ.

Yet each council was called together by the emperor not a bishop. Hmmmm.

Nestorius ,Tertullian, Apollinarius, and Origen fell into heresy. Jerome and Chrysostom are doctors of the Church.

History is funny that way each of these men discented from the the majority of the church and some are doctors. Chrysostom was a diposed before he was held a doctor which was after his death.

Like what?

Like Nestorius teaching and Arius and others. None of them went to the bishop of Rome first they taught it first and made songs to help the people remember it first.

Co-redemtrix is NOT a teaching of the Catholic Church. Although I personally have no problem with it properly explained.

You’re right the catholic church doesnt and I do have a problem with it. I think if Mary had disobeyed God (hypothetical) he still would have found a way to save the world. And by its definition anyone who believes God and does his will and people are lead to Christ whereby they are saved is a Co-redemer. And there is no way Mary suffered more than anyone else.

Now keep in mind I’m putting for the protestant point of view. Not views I necissarily hold.

 

[Reformed]

I did a quick review of your thread. I think 2,000 years of history is a long time. Now, we should know that Christianity didn’t really start 2,000 years ago because we are a faith of Judeo-Christianity. The OT is essential to the NT. God works through men throughout redemptive history, but only one source is agreed among Christians (Protestants, Orthodox, Catholics) as divine inspired, infallible revelation. We have the light of the Scriptures illuminated by the Spirit as our guide to all truth.

I find it very troubling that Roman Catholicism has a very difficult time defining Sacred Tradition, or defining the actual contents of the deposit of faith to Sacred Tradition. Did you follow the Sacred Oral and Written Sacred Tradition Thread? Roman Catholic theologians cannot even decide between themselves (in-house debate) of what are the actual contents of Sacred Tradition. Therefore, it is not trustworthy revelation. Even the Orthodox and Catholic Church have mutally exclusive Sacred Traditon and mutual exclusive apostolic succession, and mutually exclusive claims of being the One True Church. Only Holy Scripture can remain the authorative source of truth in all of Christendom. Does that make sense? Otherwise, we mix and comingle doctrines of men with doctrines of God. I am not saying all of Sacred Tradition is bad. There is much in Sacred Tradition that is truth. However, Scripture needs to be the deciding factor to discerning spiritual truth from above.

 

[steve_b]

Yet each council was called together by the emperor not a bishop.

Every council?
sambo:

History is funny that way each of these men discented from the the majority of the church and some are doctors. Chrysostom was a diposed before he was held a doctor which was after his death.

Chrysostom was deposed by heretical bishops from Alexandria in collusion with Constantinople. The East had many problems with heresy. If Chrysostom was unorthodox or a heretic he wouldn’t have been made a saint and doctor of the Church. Same with Jerome.

the other names you mentioned were involved with heresy.
sambo:

Like Nestorius teaching and Arius and others. None of them went to the bishop of Rome first they taught it first and made songs to help the people remember it first.

And they were condemned just the same
sambo:

I think if Mary had disobeyed God (hypothetical) he still would have found a way to save the world.

But He didn’t find another way. So we deal with what is there, not hypotheticals…
sambo:

And by its definition anyone who believes God and does his will and people are lead to Christ whereby they are saved is a Co-redemer. And there is no way Mary suffered more than anyone else.

1. 
   *]There is no official Church teaching on it, therefore there is no definition to hang your hat on.
   *]we have NO idea how much Mary suffered.
   sambo:
   

   Now keep in mind I’m putting for the protestant point of view. Not views I necissarily hold.

   What views then DO you hold?

 

[steve_b]

I did a quick review of your thread. I think 2,000 years of history is a long time. Now, we should know that Christianity didn’t really start 2,000 years ago because we are a faith of Judeo-Christianity.

then how many years ago did it start?

reformed:

The OT is essential to the NT. God works through men throughout redemptive history, but only one source is agreed among Christians (Protestants, Orthodox, Catholics) as divine inspired, infallible revelation. We have the light of the Scriptures illuminated by the Spirit as our guide to all truth.

I find it very troubling that Roman Catholicism has a very difficult time defining Sacred Tradition, or defining the actual contents of the deposit of faith to Sacred Tradition.

Are you kidding? I could give you tons of references. But here’s one mark-shea.com/tradition.html

reformed:

Even the Orthodox and Catholic Church have mutally exclusive Sacred Traditon

what are they?

reformed:

and mutual exclusive apostolic succession, and mutually exclusive claims of being the One True Church.

Apostolic succession was maintained by the Orhodox but the one true Church rests with the Catholic Church alone. That’s where the chair of Peter is.

reformed:

Only Holy Scripture can remain the authorative source of truth in all of Christendom.

That’s not scriptural and I’m sure you know it. Sacred Tradition whether written or oral is authoritative.

reformed:

Otherwise, we mix and comingle doctrines of men with doctrines of God.

That’s how Protestantism came about. Show me in scripture where division of the Church is allowed. Please quote me the passage

reformed:

I am not saying all of Sacred Tradition is bad. There is much in Sacred Tradition that is truth. However, Scripture needs to be the deciding factor to discerning spiritual truth from above.

IOW sola scriptura?

 

[tGette]

**+Come, Holy Spirit+
**
By the grace of God I am starting this thread and it is a sincere request…so…I am seeking honest answers. Because of that I ask that everyone, please, pray for the gift of charity before responding!

This is directed mostly for Non-Catholics. Anyone can join in!

We see great evidence (historical) of division anytime a theology and/or belief is challenged. We see evidence of this in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox schism. We see this in the Protestant Reformation. (Well at the time it was political but turned theological). We see this in all the Protestant churches splitting amongst each other. Regardless, we see great uproars in certain times of history of great changes occurring in the Christian community.

So onto my question(s): (Sorry if there are too many questions on this thread)

If, indeed, as non-Catholics tell us, the Catholic Church did adopt false doctrines down the line, then where is the evidence for this? Can anyone give me any specific dates?

Why are there not churches splitting when these “false doctrines” were being introduced? Do you not think people would try to refute what they once believed as they were now being told they had to adopt a new belief?

Was the Catholic Church that good at creating new doctrines that the churches that existed everywhere through out the world other than Rome were somehow able to adopt these changes? It is not like they had the internet or cell phones to just call up the local Bishops and tell them “We are deciding to say that Mary is a perpetual virgin now.” I mean, if Rome did make changes and then you traveled to a church in a different country, you would expect them to believe something different, right?
*
The point I am trying to get at is that if the Church was making changes there would be people/churches at those times who would disagree and there would have been many churches/beliefs WAY before the Protestant Reformation. There would be an historical event of people arguing over new doctrines being introduced to the Christian faith.*

I hope I explained myself well enough. Please let me know if clarity is needed.

Thanks!

May His Peace be with us all!

 

[tGette]

I did a quick review of your thread. I think 2,000 years of history is a long time. Now, we should know that Christianity didn’t really start 2,000 years ago because we are a faith of Judeo-Christianity. The OT is essential to the NT. God works through men throughout redemptive history, but only one source is agreed among Christians (Protestants, Orthodox, Catholics) as divine inspired, infallible revelation. We have the light of the Scriptures illuminated by the Spirit as our guide to all truth.

I find it very troubling that Roman Catholicism has a very difficult time defining Sacred Tradition, or defining the actual contents of the deposit of faith to Sacred Tradition. Did you follow the Sacred Oral and Written Sacred Tradition Thread? Roman Catholic theologians cannot even decide between themselves (in-house debate) of what are the actual contents of Sacred Tradition. Therefore, it is not trustworthy revelation. Even the Orthodox and Catholic Church have mutally exclusive Sacred Traditon and mutual exclusive apostolic succession, and mutually exclusive claims of being the One True Church. Only Holy Scripture can remain the authorative source of truth in all of Christendom. Does that make sense? Otherwise, we mix and comingle doctrines of men with doctrines of God. I am not saying all of Sacred Tradition is bad. There is much in Sacred Tradition that is truth. However, Scripture needs to be the deciding factor to discerning spiritual truth from above.

You did not address the thread at all.

By the way, where does Holy Scripture say that Holy Scripture is THE authoritative source of truth in all of Christendom?

 

[Reformed]

You did not address the thread at all.

By the way, where does Holy Scripture say that Holy Scripture is THE authoritative source of truth in all of Christendom?

http://www.casadecookie.blogger.com.br/Dog_Pug-Smile.jpg

 

[JMJ_coder]

The Filioque ?

Added by the western church without the knowledge of the eastern church, for which they got very very upset and slamed the door behind them?

I think?

Have I oversimplified it???

You oversimplified it a bit. The basic problem with the Filioque is a linguistic one, not a doctrinal one. The issue is the difference in linguistical meanings of words between Latin/Coptic/Syriac languages and Greek. We actually mean the same things, except it didn’t translate well (and us in the West were unaware at the time of just how poorly it translated into Greek).

And the Filioque wasn’t the only reason (and I would say not a primary one, but they certainly have made a big issue of it for reasons that we don’t need to go into here). There was also other misunderstandings. The only true theological difference that there is between us is ecclesiology.

 

[tGette]

**+Come, Holy Spirit+
**
By the grace of God I am starting this thread and it is a sincere request…so…I am seeking honest answers. Because of that I ask that everyone, please, pray for the gift of charity before responding!

This is directed mostly for Non-Catholics. Anyone can join in!

We see great evidence (historical) of division anytime a theology and/or belief is challenged. We see evidence of this in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox schism. We see this in the Protestant Reformation. (Well at the time it was political but turned theological). We see this in all the Protestant churches splitting amongst each other. Regardless, we see great uproars in certain times of history of great changes occurring in the Christian community.

So onto my question(s): (Sorry if there are too many questions on this thread)

If, indeed, as non-Catholics tell us, the Catholic Church did adopt false doctrines down the line, then where is the evidence for this? Can anyone give me any specific dates?

Why are there not churches splitting when these “false doctrines” were being introduced? Do you not think people would try to refute what they once believed as they were now being told they had to adopt a new belief?

Was the Catholic Church that good at creating new doctrines that the churches that existed everywhere through out the world other than Rome were somehow able to adopt these changes? It is not like they had the internet or cell phones to just call up the local Bishops and tell them “We are deciding to say that Mary is a perpetual virgin now.” I mean, if Rome did make changes and then you traveled to a church in a different country, you would expect them to believe something different, right?
*
The point I am trying to get at is that if the Church was making changes there would be people/churches at those times who would disagree and there would have been many churches/beliefs WAY before the Protestant Reformation. There would be an historical event of people arguing over new doctrines being introduced to the Christian faith.*

I hope I explained myself well enough. Please let me know if clarity is needed.

Thanks!

May His Peace be with us all!

 

[ralphinal]

After the tons of ink spilled on this subject, do you REALLY think that’s the way it happened?

True.

Yes and no. That was the final part of it. There is much more leading up to that point, and it was, in my opinion, a valid addition.

Would you have a better way of summerizing it in 30 words or less?

 

[Ag_not]

I find it very troubling that Roman Catholicism has a very difficult time defining Sacred Tradition.

From what Ive read, the Catholic Church has no such trouble at all, YOU have a very difficult time accepting what you have been told.

That’s a different thing.

 

[w_stewart]

I find it very troubling that Roman Catholicism has a very difficult time defining Sacred Tradition, or defining the actual contents of the deposit of faith to Sacred Tradition.

Have you consulted the Catechism regarding your concern?

 

[guanophore]

We have the light of the Scriptures illuminated by the Spirit as our guide to all truth.

Isn’t it curious that the scriptures don’t say this about themselves

I find it very troubling that Roman Catholicism has a very difficult time defining Sacred Tradition, or defining the actual contents of the deposit of faith to Sacred Tradition.

It is no trouble for Catholics, or any of those who have received the Apostolic faith.

“As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, continue to live your lives in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.” Col 2:6-7

The Apostles taught that we receive the gospel from those to which it was entrusted. Sacred Tradition is the living out of the received faith. We are rooted and built up in him just as we are taught. Perhaps you might be able to understand why this, a lifestyle (in the NT called The Way) does not lend itself to a “list”.
I can understand why it is hard to understand this for people who have been separated from the paradosis.

Protestants failed to obey the Apostolic commandment:

2 Tim 1:14
“Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us.”

The paradosis has been, to a large extent, lost.

Did you follow the Sacred Oral and Written Sacred Tradition Thread? Roman Catholic theologians cannot even decide between themselves (in-house debate) of what are the actual contents of Sacred Tradition.

This is quite irrelevant. Theologians will always be debating doctrine until the end of time. Theologians don’t define Sacred Tradition,and are not necessarily in the Apostolic Succession, and therefore, not committed to the task of guarding that which has been entrusted.

Therefore, it is not trustworthy revelation. Even the Orthodox and Catholic Church have mutally exclusive Sacred Traditon and mutual exclusive apostolic succession, and mutually exclusive claims of being the One True Church.

This statements are false.

Only Holy Scripture can remain the authorative source of truth in all of Christendom.

Where does the scripture say this about itself?

Does that make sense? Otherwise, we mix and comingle doctrines of men with doctrines of God. I am not saying all of Sacred Tradition is bad. There is much in Sacred Tradition that is truth. However, Scripture needs to be the deciding factor to discerning spiritual truth from above.

Do you think that is why Jesus appointed the teaching authority to the Apostles?

 

[wildrumpus]

**+Come, Holy Spirit+
**
The point I am trying to get at is that if the Church was making changes there would be people/churches at those times who would disagree and there would have been many churches/beliefs WAY before the Protestant Reformation. There would be an historical event of people arguing over new doctrines being introduced to the Christian faith.

The Bible itself documents this kind of arguing, WAY before the Church was even created!

I would recommend that you stop looking for answers from people and pray, pray, pray. Pray out loud! Pray with passion! Pray the Holy Spirit gives you the answers you need.

Reading all of the posts on this thread makes it very clear to me that everyone involved is more intent upon proving their own beliefs instead of concentrating on Him. Why focus on the differences between you instead of concentrating on Him and His teachings? If you tried to find your commonalities instead of your differences, maybe there would be less stress and frustration, and maybe you wouldn’t be sidetracked from what (Who) is really important. Stop the quibbling. Satan is laughing with all of this nonsense, and Jesus is crying.

 

[sambos671]

Every council?

Chrysostom was deposed by heretical bishops from Alexandria in collusion with Constantinople. The East had many problems with heresy. If Chrysostom was unorthodox or a heretic he wouldn’t have been made a saint and doctor of the Church. Same with Jerome.

the other names you mentioned were involved with heresy.

And they were condemned just the same

But He didn’t find another way. So we deal with what is there, not hypotheticals…

1. 
   *]There is no official Church teaching on it, therefore there is no definition to hang your hat on.
   *]we have NO idea how much Mary suffered.
   
   What views then DO you hold?

1. 
   My post were in responce to the OP. Protestants are not as ignorant as might be supposed but have valid points which of course was my point. As far as Chrysostom, You don’t find the bishop of Rome fighting to keep him there. And you don’t find Cyril of Alexandria or the monks that assisted with deposition of certain “orthodox” christians deposed themselves or excluded from fellowship. The Golden Mouth was only brought back after the next Emperor brought him back and kissed his casket. The others were heretics which was my point. The method of transmitting doctrine was to the uneducated laity first then disputed amoung the clergy and bishops.
   
   My views with regards to what? The formation of Doctrine through Christian history? I’ll only be happy to share them. You’ll find I find more value in the teachings of the RCC than you suppose but I do have problems with Mariology. I can buy into the consept of Theotokos with relation to the nature of Christ. I may even get buy with Immaculate conseption by the Churches definition of what that implies. But I don’t know about this marriage to the Holy Spirit continually celebate or the Assumption verses the orthodox view. And since, as you say, Mary as Co-redemtrix is not an official teaching of the RCC I can accept that though there are Marian prayers both in english and latin that keep me on my guard as well certain over veneration of the Saints. ( I don’t have a problem with the communion of Saints. I do have a problem with burying St. Joseph stature in your garden to sell your house)

 

[guanophore]

You'll find I find more value in the teachings of the RCC than you suppose but I do have problems with Mariology.  I can buy into the consept of Theotokos with relation to the nature of Christ.  I may even get buy with Immaculate conseption by the Churches definition of what that implies.  But I don't know about this marriage to the Holy Spirit continually celebate or the Assumption verses the orthodox view.

Where do you find a difference in viewpoint between Orthodox on the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Dormition and the Catholic?

 And since, as you say, Mary as Co-redemtrix is not an official teaching of the RCC I can accept that though there are Marian prayers both in english and latin that keep me on my guard as well certain over veneration of the Saints.  ( I don't have a problem with the communion of Saints.  I do have a problem with burying St. Joseph stature in your garden to sell your house)

I am relieved to hear that you don’t fall for idolatry and supersition.

 

[elvisman]

( I don’t have a problem with the communion of Saints. I do have a problem with burying St. Joseph stature in your garden to sell your house)

The Catholic Church doesn’t endorse this superstition either so you’re in good company.

 

[steve_b]

Yes and no. That was the final part of it. There is much more leading up to that point, and it was, in my opinion, a valid addition.

Would you have a better way of summerizing it in 30 words or less?

Given Latin and Greek,both are correct.

 

[steve_b]

My post were in responce to the OP. Protestants are not as ignorant as might be supposed but have valid points which of course was my point.

As you said, the points you raised were NOT your own opinion but how you thought Protestants would answer. I answered you based on what you wrote…
sambos:

As far as Chrysostom, You don’t find the bishop of Rome fighting to keep him there.

Here’s John’s letter to Pope Innocent, and keep scrolling down to see Innocent’s letter to John & to Constantinople’s clergy. Problem is, by the time Innocent found out about Chrysostom’s plight, he had already been deposed.

newadvent.org/fathers/1918.htm
sambos:

You’ll find I find more value in the teachings of the RCC than you suppose but I do have problems with Mariology. I can buy into the consept of Theotokos with relation to the nature of Christ. I may even get buy with Immaculate conseption by the Churches definition of what that implies. But I don’t know about this marriage to the Holy Spirit continually celebate or the Assumption verses the orthodox view.

Let me ask you

1. 
   *]Jesus is the bridegroom, and the Church is the bride. How do you explain the marriage?
   *]What’s your sticking point on the assumption
   sambos:
   

   And since, as you say, Mary as Co-redemtrix is not an official teaching of the RCC I can accept that though there are Marian prayers both in english and latin that keep me on my guard as well certain over veneration of the Saints. ( I don’t have a problem with the communion of Saints. I do have a problem with burying St. Joseph stature in your garden to sell your house)

   Re: your last point
   jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/05/burying_a_st_jo.html

 

[sambos671]

Let me ask you
Jesus is the bridegroom, and the Church is the bride. How do you explain the marriage?

Primarily the fact that scriptures speak of the church as his bridegroom time and again. It never referrences Mary in this way. So it would seem she is no more a special bride than any of us.