Exactly. People who say the church is wrong with a specific doctrine (Purgatory, Infallibility,etc) at times say the church is pagan or adopted pagan beliefs? Really? I usually ask such people the following:
That’s a major step, getting people thinking about the origin of the Bible. In my thirty-plus years in Fundamentalist churches, I never once heard a syllable about how we got the Bible. In fact, I never thought that much about it until I started reading about the Catholic Church. Looking back, it seems my old church was pretty much of the unstated opinion that the Bible in its current form, essentially KJV with 66 books in earlier languages, was around from the birth of the early church.Exactly. People who say the church is wrong with a specific doctrine (Purgatory, Infallibility,etc) at times say the church is pagan or adopted pagan beliefs? Really? I usually ask such people the following:
If the CC is pagan and has pagan beliefs, then I am curious why are you using the Bible canonized by a pagan church,according to you?
It’s not because “an altar is used.” It is the theological implications of “re-sacrificing Jesus.” You could do that with or without an altar and it would still be a problem for many Protestants.
Who said it should be the pastor’s right to decide?
It is derived from Scripture. Electricity is a utility. Nothing from Scripture tells us that we are to limit certain utilities in the house of God. Early churches were first held in people’s homes. If there had been electricity in the 1st century, there would have been electricity in homes and therefore electricity in the churches. Scripture also says that a Fruit of the Spirit is self-control. Marijuana affects self-control.
It’s a principle that helps us avoid making circumstantial beliefs into doctrine.
Because the fact is that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have erred. The Protestant Churches have erred. I don’t view receiving the canon as “submission to the Church’s authority.” I see it as the Church submitting to the authority of God and by consensus over a period of time identifying those books that had apostolic origin and authority. One way they did this were to look at the books that the people of God were already reading. Those that were universal and that were judged to be authentic were chosen.
How long have you been here?
In what? Matters of doctrine and dogma? Absolutely not! For you to claim they have erred in such matters also puts your own salvation at risk or in question.
When,where and who decided such would be used as a principle?
“Re-sacrificing Jesus” was in quotes because those were not my words. I was replying to someone else. Call it whatever you want, “re-sacrificing Jesus,” “the sacrifice of the Mass,” or whatever. It was one of the doctrines that the Reformers broke from Rome over, and it had nothing to do with the fact that the sacrifice was on an altar. It was the whole idea that was the problem.How long have you been here?
You know that is not what happens at the Mass. You should know that nothing more than anti-Catholic propaganda.
It is called historical ignorance.
And the Reformers were wrong and all because of their deep-embedded pride.
The Reformers used it in reaction to the problems existing in the Catholic Church.
Which confirms it is a late innovation never used as “the” principle by the early church.
Dear folks, we are supposed to stick with one topic per thread. While these rabbit trails are interesting, they’re way off topic. There have already been numerous threads, over, and over, and over again, trying to discuss sola scriptura, which is where this thread is veering off towards. It’s a worthy topic, but it’s not the one topic of this thread.Peace to all!
Have any of you ever seen on tv when the pastor calls people up for altar calls?First of all, I thought these groups do not believe a physical altar is necessary? Second, they attack ancient liturgical churches for sacrificing Jesus over again? Finally, if such is the case, then where is the altar he or she call people to approach? :ehh:
I do not want anything. I basically brought up an observation and wanted others to say whatever they wanted.
By dissenting and taking the Holy Book out of the Church…
Actually, Luther was all for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and understood it wasn’t resacrifising. Now, what the yea hoos after him did, that’s another story.
You keep saying “the reformers”.
You sure about that? It is my understanding that Luther accepted the Real Presence but denied the sacrificial nature of the Mass. For him, viewing the Mass as a sacrifice turned it into a work. For Luther, the Mass was not an offering or sacrifice. The celebration of the Mass was in receiving and benefiting from the Christ’s word of promise and the signs of bread and wine.
All the Reformers accepted Sola Scriptura. Henry VIII wasn’t a “Reformer.” He was a monarch who piggie-backed on the Protestant Reformation to replace the Pope’s power in England with his own, but he didn’t really introduce any doctrinal reforms. Those came later.