Authority of the Church

[elts1956]

Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Churches are all agreed on everrything? What about the homosexual priests, women priests, those who accept abortion, etc…?

I have been trying to get this thread back on topic but haven’t been able to.

Please stop thinking of the Roman Catholic CHURCH as Churches. It is one Church with many fallible members. These members have many ideas of their own and have fallen away from many of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Those members who adhere to the Doctrines and Dogmas pronounced by the Pope in Rome are the Faithful. I haven’t heard that our leaders in Rome approve of abortion, homosexual acts, or women priests. and they have taught these are wrong. Just as in school, some hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe. This has come from our now relativistic society which snowed us in the 60s and keeps on going.

 

[elts1956]

Christ gave no instructions except to ‘eat the bread’ and ‘drink the wine.’ He made no mention of doing one and getting the other automatically. That’s another of those ‘men’ things.

Well if I remember my bit of Science correctly, the blood of any being is within the body. Perhaps this would explain the optional choice of receiving only the bread at Mass. Christ said, “This is my Body, this is my Blood, do this in remembrance of me”. But if you think of the blood as being in the body, then having only the bread is acceptable. After the Transubstantiation we receive the Body and Blood of Christ, not the bread and wine.

 

[elts1956]

Christ gave no instructions except to ‘eat the bread’ and ‘drink the wine.’ He made no mention of doing one and getting the other automatically. That’s another of those ‘men’ things.

Except for the fact that the Bread was given much reverence in the early church to the point that those saying the Mass were concerned that particles of the bread could fall on the floor and be stepped on.

 

[elts1956]

If you read the Bible, it outlines all the qualifications for a bishop or elder. He cannot be taken to drink as well. But I notice a great deal of drinking going on with bishops and priests. I believe the Episcopalians are even worse.

I am confused. Are you talking about the Old or New Testament? If the old, I believe Christ came to create a New Covenant. He drank wine.

 

[elts1956]

If you read the Bible, it outlines all the qualifications for a bishop or elder. He cannot be taken to drink as well. But I notice a great deal of drinking going on with bishops and priests. I believe the Episcopalians are even worse.

The authority to bind and loose was given to the church and it is not what you claim it is.

Of course issues within the church should be settled in the church. We have explicit directions for that.

And we keep the traditions passed down, so long as they do not conflict with any matter of faith and morals. The church has many traditions but no ‘sacred tradition.s’

Christ does not give authority to forgive sins. That can be done by God alone.

I do believe the bread is Christ’s body and the wine is His blood. I just don’t believe in transubstantiation as RCC members do. It is still wind and bread when you eat it but it, to a believer, is Christs blood and body. Look at it next time though and see if it is blood and flesh. Of I forgot, Catholics don’t get to fully participate in this sacrament. You rarely, if ever, get the wine…How sad!

“Christ does not give authority to forgive sins. That can be done by God alone”.

Don’t you believe Christ is God?

 

[Pier]

One proof of Her authority…

Where is Peter buried?

 

[elts1956]

There is no position of priest in the Bible. Those we call bishops are to be married, according to Scripture…

And in order to find out what the church believed in the first 4 or 5 cneturies, read the early church writers…

There is also no mention of ministers, or pastors. Isn’t this what you call the heads of your church?

 

[elts1956]

There is no position of priest in the Bible. Those we call bishops are to be married, according to Scripture…

And in order to find out what the church believed in the first 4 or 5 cneturies, read the early church writers…

If you have read this entire post, you will find that there is no record of the Lutheran Church ever sanctioning contraception or forbidding it.

Why is this?

 

[elts1956]

The two purposes of the conjugal act is also still fulfilled when other methods of birth control are used. There is no difference in ‘avoidance’ and taking a pill or using other methods.

If you are going to be fruitful and multiply, then do it—don’t think of ways to get around it by suggesting such things as ‘rhythm methods’ and others.

I don’t want to create a wrong impression here. I am in favor of large families. I would have had 10 or 12 kids if I could have. I am already responsible for 26 people. I think people should have children. I am only discussing this subject because it came up. I am not advocating birth control although I have no objection to it if it is done in such a manner as to not kill a human life.

I just think it is odd that the RCC so viciously condemns birth control, yet allows one method.

“There is no difference in ‘avoidance’ and taking a pill or using other methods.”

When a woman takes a birth control pill she is taking an abortificant. There has not been a bcp discovered as yet, that is not. Since abortion is one of the great evils of our time, I am sure you can understand why the Church forbids contraception using a bcp.

"

 

[elts1956]

The two purposes of the conjugal act is also still fulfilled when other methods of birth control are used. There is no difference in ‘avoidance’ and taking a pill or using other methods.

If you are going to be fruitful and multiply, then do it—don’t think of ways to get around it by suggesting such things as ‘rhythm methods’ and others.

I don’t want to create a wrong impression here. I am in favor of large families. I would have had 10 or 12 kids if I could have. I am already responsible for 26 people. I think people should have children. I am only discussing this subject because it came up. I am not advocating birth control although I have no objection to it if it is done in such a manner as to not kill a human life.

I just think it is odd that the RCC so viciously condemns birth control, yet allows one method.

“There is no difference in ‘avoidance’ and taking a pill or using other methods.”

When a woman takes a birth control pill she is taking an abortificant. There has not been a bcp discovered as yet, that is not. Since abortion is one of the great evils of our time, I am sure you can understand why the Church forbids contraception using a bcp.

"

 

[elts1956]

The two purposes of the conjugal act is also still fulfilled when other methods of birth control are used. There is no difference in ‘avoidance’ and taking a pill or using other methods.

If you are going to be fruitful and multiply, then do it—don’t think of ways to get around it by suggesting such things as ‘rhythm methods’ and others.

I don’t want to create a wrong impression here. I am in favor of large families. I would have had 10 or 12 kids if I could have. I am already responsible for 26 people. I think people should have children. I am only discussing this subject because it came up. I am not advocating birth control although I have no objection to it if it is done in such a manner as to not kill a human life.

I just think it is odd that the RCC so viciously condemns birth control, yet allows one method.

“There is no difference in ‘avoidance’ and taking a pill or using other methods.”

When a woman takes a birth control pill she is taking an abortificant. There has not been a bcp discovered as yet, that is not. Since abortion is one of the great evils of our time, I am sure you can understand why the Church forbids contraception using a bcp.

"

 

[elts1956]

The two purposes of the conjugal act is also still fulfilled when other methods of birth control are used. There is no difference in ‘avoidance’ and taking a pill or using other methods.

If you are going to be fruitful and multiply, then do it—don’t think of ways to get around it by suggesting such things as ‘rhythm methods’ and others.

I don’t want to create a wrong impression here. I am in favor of large families. I would have had 10 or 12 kids if I could have. I am already responsible for 26 people. I think people should have children. I am only discussing this subject because it came up. I am not advocating birth control although I have no objection to it if it is done in such a manner as to not kill a human life.

I just think it is odd that the RCC so viciously condemns birth control, yet allows one method.

“There is no difference in ‘avoidance’ and taking a pill or using other methods.”

When a woman takes a birth control pill she is taking an abortificant. There has not been a bcp discovered as yet, that is not. Since abortion is one of the great evils of our time, I am sure you can understand why the Church forbids contraception using a bcp.

"

 

[NoelFitz]

OS
Thank you for your reply to me in post 522.
You quoted:

The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church will continue to strive together to deepen this common understanding of justification and to make it bear fruit in the life and teaching of the churches.

I am in full agreement with you on this
.
All Christians agree on so much.

The basic beliefs are that God exists and Jesus is Lord.

Yet we seem to concentrate on relatively minor differences.

To me the common enemy is secularism.

Remember my enemies’ enemy is my friend.

 

[NoelFitz]

OS
You wrote:

There is no position of priest in the Bible. Those we call bishops are to be married, according to Scripture…

And in order to find out what the church believed in the first 4 or 5 cneturies, read the early church writers…

In the thread on EPISCOPOS, PRESBUTEROS, DIAKONOS there is an attempt to study offices in the early Church.

You and others might like to contribute to this debate.

 

[NotWorthy]

No not really. There aren’t 1/2 million people partaking of the Eucharist. Just those inside the mass. I know the church has enough facilities to provide enough chalices for everyone to partake. They provide enough people to pass out the bread with no problem and usually there are no more than 6 or 8 o them.

Are you talking of the Masses in St.Peter’s Square on Easter and Christmas?!? There’s over a million people attending those Masses. I was using 1/2 a million just to be conservative.

Also, as I have mentioned before, I know and have worked with many Catholics who went to mass often and those churches did not offer the chalice at all to the laity. I would guestimate that of all I have made sure they were able to attend mass when they wanted to, about 80% of them attended mass where the chalice was not offered. I have no reason to say this if it was not my experience. In addition, I have quoted Roman Catholic decrees, bulls or whatever you call them where the laity has been denied the chalice. Probably in this very thread.

I’m going to start a poll on this. We’ll see.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well if I remember my bit of Science correctly, the blood of any being is within the body. Perhaps this would explain the optional choice of receiving only the bread at Mass. Christ said, “This is my Body, this is my Blood, do this in remembrance of me”. But if you think of the blood as being in the body, then having only the bread is acceptable. After the Transubstantiation we receive the Body and Blood of Christ, not the bread and wine.

Watch out. You’re treading on thin ice. When we receive the Host, we are partaking of HIs Body and Blood. The same with the Chalice.

 

[Old_Scholar]

So can’t we say the same of the TRADITIONS and DOCTRINES of the Church? The writings of the Early Church Fathers are always referred to when a decision is to be made about beliefs in addition to Scripture and Tradition. ie. Tradition which is the core of Catholic belief such as the Sacrifice of the Mass and the other six sacraments. What is decided by the Church as necessary for the spiritual welfare of its members is not pulled willy nilly from various undocumented sources.

Unfortunately the RCC only considers the early fathers after the first 4 or 5 hundred years as authoritative. If they listened to the very early leaders they would understand all about false tradition.

Once you deviate from the written word of the Bible, then you are using theological opinions only and not the word of God. That is the problem.

When you have to wonder what the ‘dogma of the day’ is then that should tell you something.

Cyprian wrote that he viewed traditions of the church acceptable only when they agreed with the Bible and wrote about those traditions that contradicted Scripture, thus; “custom without truth is the antiquity of error.”

Cyprian proves here that he viewed traditions of the church to be acceptable only when they agreed with the Bible and for those “traditions” that contradict scripture Cyprian says, “custom without truth is the antiquity of error”.

 

[Old_Scholar]

As I said in a previous post. The Old Testament of the Bible was “written” by many different people. Those writings which we call the New Testament were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. All of the accepted writings, from both the Old and New Testaments were then consolidated by the Catholic Church into what we now call the Bible.

Now that’s much better except you forgot the author of most of the Bible, Paul. You mentioned only the gospels, and who wrote some of them are in question.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Please stop thinking of the Roman Catholic CHURCH as Churches. It is one Church with many fallible members. These members have many ideas of their own and have fallen away from many of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Those members who adhere to the Doctrines and Dogmas pronounced by the Pope in Rome are the Faithful. I haven’t heard that our leaders in Rome approve of abortion, homosexual acts, or women priests. and they have taught these are wrong. Just as in school, some hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe. This has come from our now relativistic society which snowed us in the 60s and keeps on going.

Would you then say that all churches that are in communion with the Pope in Rome are Roman Catholic?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Well if I remember my bit of Science correctly, the blood of any being is within the body. Perhaps this would explain the optional choice of receiving only the bread at Mass. Christ said, “This is my Body, this is my Blood, do this in remembrance of me”. But if you think of the blood as being in the body, then having only the bread is acceptable. After the Transubstantiation we receive the Body and Blood of Christ, not the bread and wine.

Anything other than separate species, eating the bread and drinking the wine as two separate things violates God’s word and that should be obvious. Attempting to authenticate a false belief by such means is foolish.

I wonder why Paul called it wine and bread. Also I wonder why Christ called it the ‘fruit of the vine’ instead of blood.