N
Nicea325
Guest
Schaick never seems to absord what he is told.
Oh well,some people will always live in darkness.
Can anyone start a church, and call it the church founded by Jesus Christ?
- Status
Oh well,some people will always live in darkness.
E
elvisman
Guest
Apparently not.
**One BLINDING example is the belief in multiple Baptisms by many Protestant sects. **The creed says there is "… ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
Another is the Protestant of the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that is professed in the Creed.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Now…now…elvisman.Remember what I said before? Many non-Catholics love to use the term “one” and many others very loosely…Apparently not.
One BLINDING example is the belief in multiple Baptisms by many Protestant sects. The creed says there is "… ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
Another is the Protestant of the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that is professed in the Creed.
E
elvisman
Guest
So, Mike -Mike - if you truly believe that the Orthodox Church is the only Church that has remained faithful - why are you a Lutheran?
Are you avoiding the question because you finally saw the hypocrisy of your comment - or because you have no smug, anti-Catholic comeback?
E
elvisman
Guest
Hmmmm . . . and I always thought "one" meant ONE. (John 17:21-23).Now…now…elvisman.Remember what I said before? Many non-Catholics love to use the term “one” and many others very loosely…
**
N
Nicea325
Guest
I agree 100%. One = One,not thousands .Hmmmm . . . and I always thought* “one*” meant ONE. (John 17:21-23).
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
Just take a look at your phone book and You can answer Your question
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Martin Luther was as wrong as any fallible theologian could be in his opinion. The doctor may just as well have asserted that only Peter and the Apostles had the authority to preach the gospel and baptize converts, that the authority invested in them by Christ was not transmitted to the men whom they had appointed to be their successors through the laying on of hands and reception of the Holy Spirit.
“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by Him [our Lord Jesus Christ] by us [Bishop of Rome], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.”
St.Clement, Bishop of Rome, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1, 59:1 (c.A.D. 96)
“Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”
Luke 10, 16
P
pablope
Guest
Or the Saturday or Sunday paper that has all those Sunday services published…
H
Holly3278
Guest
Isn’t this what Joseph Smith did? 
S
schaick
Guest
Catholic simply means universal.
Doesn’t really matter whether you call it a branch or part as in a part of the body.
1 Corinthians 12
12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!”
And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!”
Yes and I am glad that Orthodox aren’t Catholic and Lutherans are not Catholic- we need all of the units of the body.
S
steve_b
Guest
Catholic has always meant a specific Church universally established. It’s not some nebulous idea of universal. If you knew history you’d know that.
Regarding your selections from Paul, does Paul think people can’t be seperated from the body? He definitely says they can be seperated.
Protestantism got its start by dividing from the Church of Rome in the 16th century. From there protestantism went into serial division. Since you quote Paul, allow me to also quote Paul as it applies to this point being made. Paul addresses the Church of Rome regarding division, and those who do it, i.e. he speaks against protestantism…
Rom 16:
17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I rejoice because of you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
People who divide from the Church of Rome aren’t serving our Lord but their own appetites. By deception, those who divide and get others to do it, do so by fooling the minds of the naive. Paul says stay away from THEM. Paul goes on to say, Unity requires obedience to faith which is good, Division is disobedience to faith and is evil. That’s because division comes from Satan.
therefore, you should ask yourself, what are the consequences to the soul
- who directly dissents and divides from the Church of Rome?
- or once one finds out they are seperated from the one true Church and refuses to reunify
Gal 5:
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Schaick, you said:
"…there should be no division in the body…
I don’t get your logic at all, and I have tried; trust me. Now, you may still disagree with me which is cool, but this is a perfect example of why sola scriptura is so unreliable. You and I take away from the bible something different. Sola scriptura is dividing us, and it is not the fault of the bible; it’s the fault of the people wrongly interpreting the bible. One of us is clearly wrong and the bible is of no help in clearing up our differences. What should our next step be, once we realize this obvious fact Schaick???
Schaick, if the bible is the Christians sole authority (not people) - via the Christians sole interpretation, then why do we need teachers?
*“And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers…” *
Depending on your response, I might have to just give up on attempting to understand your position vis-a-vis this issue. Regarding said issue, for me, it’s like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. At a certain point it is time to amicably agree to disagree brother.
Looking forward to your response.
Agreed. One (not 100) - holy catholic church.
If one rejects tradition, then yes, for scripture does not mention Jesus’ church as a branch. Where, in the bible, is Jesus’ church called a branch? Maybe I over looked it. Jesus said: I will build my church. He didn’t say: I will build my branch.
According to those passages, Jesus’ church, as His Body, is to be one, and all its many parts form one body, and there should be no division in Jesus’ body…no division in Jesus’ church. We were all suppose to be baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body (one church) - not many divided churches. There are many parts to Jesus’ body, the church, but there was only suppose to be one body, one church according to the preceding passages. Where is that one body, that one church, comprised of many parts? The Orthodox church is one church; the Catholic church is another separate church and the Lutheran church is yet another divided church and I could go on and on…These churches are divided, not united and one and the preceding passage says:
"…there should be no division in the body…
I don’t get your logic at all, and I have tried; trust me. Now, you may still disagree with me which is cool, but this is a perfect example of why sola scriptura is so unreliable. You and I take away from the bible something different. Sola scriptura is dividing us, and it is not the fault of the bible; it’s the fault of the people wrongly interpreting the bible. One of us is clearly wrong and the bible is of no help in clearing up our differences. What should our next step be, once we realize this obvious fact Schaick???
Schaick, if the bible is the Christians sole authority (not people) - via the Christians sole interpretation, then why do we need teachers?
*“And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers…” *
You are happy about division, even though Jesus fervently prayed in John 17 that His church **would be one just as He and the Father are one? **
Depending on your response, I might have to just give up on attempting to understand your position vis-a-vis this issue. Regarding said issue, for me, it’s like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. At a certain point it is time to amicably agree to disagree brother.
Looking forward to your response.
E
elvisman
Guest
Ahhh - so you’re going to continue to evade my responses to you in posts 100 & 102?
PLEASE don’t tell me you another one of those hit and run Anti-Catholic posters who makes riduculous comments about the Church - then runs when somebody annihilates your claims.
**Still waiting for some answers to my responses to your previous anti-Catholic remarks . . . **
S
sleeping_gecko
Guest
So, you’re saying that she just read the Scriptures, perhaps translated into the particular vernacular dialect of Mandarin? Because anything beyond that (interpretation, application, practical exhortation, etc) is doctrine of some sort or another. Any time we do anything beyond strictly READING the Scriptures aloud, we are interpreting them. The question isn’t, “Was she teaching doctrine?” or “was her doctrine correct (according to my interpretation of Scripture?”, but, Does it fall in line with the way all Christians have believed since the time of Christ.
In other words, was she teaching the traditional CATHOLIC meaning of the Scriptures she taught? If not, she wasn’t teaching the truest faith possible. Some truth, perhaps (and we certainly pray so!), but not the fullness of truth.
S
schaick
Guest
Prove Clement had authority from GOD- you can’t.
Christians don’t reject the Disciples, Paul, the Apostles or their authority. We have GODS Word saying HE gave them authority.
What can not be proven is authority was passed down or that it was given to any spercific branch of Jesus’ Church.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Jesus said he started his church with Peter, no longer Simon but Peter the rock.
So we are not just only one, holy – from Christ --, universal, but also apostolic.
The seat of Peter gets its authority from Christ Himself. Christ sustains the Church through the sacraments.
So we are not just only one, holy – from Christ --, universal, but also apostolic.
The seat of Peter gets its authority from Christ Himself. Christ sustains the Church through the sacraments.
S
schaick
Guest
**Obviously hitting a nerve here - only reason I see for you being so rude. **Schaick never seems to absord what he is told.
elvisman -said*Get your story straight, Schaick. The Church never allowed the sale of indulgences. That was carried out by individuals who were acting on their own with no mandate from the Church
In fact, the Council of Trent issued some severe reforms regarding the practice of granting indulgences. Because of previous abuses by some individuals, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This illustrated the Church’s
seriousness about stopping abuses from indulgences. *
There are 2 sides to every story and the Catholic Church has white washed their part-Yes exactly why the Council of Trent had to reform some issues - abuses.
Does the Pope have the authority to speak for the Catholic Church?
Who other then the Pope speaks for the Catholic Church?
Did Leo stop the selling of indulgences? No. He placed a gag order on the Agustine Order of monks.
Other then Luther did anyone in the Catholic Church try to stop the selling of indulgences? Why not?
Did Leo ever denounce the burning of heretics?
S
schaick
Guest
Only your opinion.
You can teach Bible stories without teaching doctrine. Our Church School pre-K through 6th grade does it everyday every year for ?? years. During confirmation is when Church Doctrine is taught- not very much of it so it doesn’t but 2 years of a couple of hours on Saturdays during the school year.
A person can cover a huge amount of Bible story without having to use any interpretation.because so much of it is literal.
E
elvisman
Guest
Yours is a self-refuting argument.
**You *say *that you do not doubt the authority of the Apostles because it was given to them by GOD.
**
You then, make an about-face rfrom that statement and deny God’s passing of authority onto them.
What part of the following statements by Jesus do you not understand?
Matt 18:18
***"*I say to you: whatever you bind on earth, heaven will keep bound; and whatever you unbind on earth, heaven will keep unbound." ********
John 16:13-15
**“But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you." ** **
He gave them COMPLETE authority on earth to do his will and it would be ordained in heaven as well as on earth. No matter how many times you deny this fact - it doesn’t make it any less true.
**
- Status