Catholic Doctrines: Development versus Change

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soldier_Of_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The doctrine, or teachings of the church should be those espoused by Jesus (ie: in the bible). And then carried forth by his apostles.
If the church teachings contradict what is written in the bible then there is a problem.
How does salvation by faith and works contradict the Bible?
The bible is written. There are no more prophets, and nothing is to be added to it.
When theologians try and elaborate on scripture and make doctrines that are not explicitly contained in the bible and then the church makes people beholden to doctrines developed by theologians then there is a problem.
The church splitting apart is the effect of such actions.
But what doctrines do you believe are “explicitly stated” in Scripture, and on what basis do you make such a determination?
Examples of such are: papal infallability, immaculate conception of Mary, the trinity, the natures of Christ, doctrines on salvation, the rosary, Mary as mediatrix, cults of apparitions, …etc.
I take all of the above with a grain of salt.
You “take… with a grain of salt” even the trinity and two natures of Christ? Are you considering conversion to the Jehovah’s Witnesses? 😛

I don’t want to take this thread off-topic, but I’m genuinely puzzled. Perhaps a moderator can split this discussion into a new thread.
 
🙂 Thank you

The bible is the final word of God, I believe.
Not a Bishops word.

The Pope can say the opposite of what the bible says, and the bible is still the truth, not the Pope. Therefore, the bible is preeminent.
CCC 95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
 
The doctrine, or teachings of the church should be those espoused by Jesus (ie: in the bible). And then carried forth by his apostles.
If the church teachings contradict what is written in the bible then there is a problem.
I’m sorry, but did I miss a memo somewhere? Can you show me a passage of scripture that states what you have expressed there? The reason I ask is because if what you say is true then there should be a specific passage of scripture to support it. That has to be the case because according to you everything that we believe must be in the Bible.

I know of no teachings of the Church that contradict scripture, and if you think there are then I would like you to name them and we can take a look, but I can tell you that I have already researched a great deal of Church teaching, and have not found what you assert there.
The bible is written. There are no more prophets, and nothing is to be added to it.
I can assure you that faithful and knowledgeable Catholics will certainly agree with your first and last statements, but even the Bible tells us that your second statement is in error. Please see Revelation 11:3-12.
When theologians try and elaborate on scripture and make doctrines that are not explicitly contained in the bible and then the church makes people beholden to doctrines developed by theologians then there is a problem.
Here you have also erred in what I have bolded. Can you please point me to any passage of scripture that explicitly states that God is a Trinity? Can you supply me with a passage of scripture that explicitly explains Purgatory? These are just two examples of Biblical doctrines that are not explicitly stated in the Word of God. I urge you to back up and begin to very carefully study your faith and the Bible. I did that side by side and it hurried me home to our most holy faith. (See My Testimony)
The church splitting apart is the effect of such actions.
That’s not true at all. Errant individuals have led many astray with new modern winds of doctrines of men in the last 500 years. Please see my blog articles Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”? , “I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said. , and Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.
Examples of such are: papal infallability,
immaculate conception of Mary,
Mary: “Full of Grace”
the trinity,
If you question this then you apparently have fallen in among some bad teachers such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Oneness Pentecostals who have revived the ancient Arian heresy that the church refuted very early on. The Trinity is very much found implicitly in scripture.
Nicene CredenceThe Great Heresies
(Cont’d)
 
the natures of Christ
Really? And just what have you come to believe in this regard? In fact, you must have missed Mass last Sunday because the epistle reading was Philippians 2:1-11 which reads in part.
5] Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

That’s pretty clear as to our Lord’s two natures.
, doctrines on salvation,
Really? You have been sorely misled. How Is A Catholic Saved?
the rosary, Mary as mediatrix, cults of apparitions
Let me know when any of these three become doctrines of the church, because none of them have, so whoever misled you has you barking up the wrong trees there. 🤷
I take all of the above with a grain of salt.
I recommend that you take the persons who fed you all this with much more than just a grain of salt, because they have taught you wrong.
And I know I’m going to be attacked now and people will tell me " BLA BLA BLA - YOU ARE NOT A CATHOLIC!"
Not by me you won’t, though I can prove that you are being misled, and I’ll use both the Word of God and Catholic teaching all the way back to the early church. Please feel free to Pm me with these things if you don’t want to do this publicly.
Well, if the Catholic church existed from the beginning then I am a Catholic if I stick to what the church has taught always and everywhere.
Then you need to follow the instructions of St. Paul when he wrote Timothy to “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth”

Notice please that he says nothing about that study being only the Bible.
The bible is the final word of God, I believe.
Not a Bishops word.
Where exactly does the Bible say that? Specifically, where does it lay claim to being the final and ultimate authority for all that Christians believe and practice? I sincerely would like you to show me these passages because I’ve read the Bible several times over (all 73 books of it), and continue to do so and I have never found any such claim within it.
The Pope can say the opposite of what the bible says, and the bible is still the truth, not the Pope. Therefore, the bible is preeminent.

  1. *]I have read the Bible and the writings of many pontiffs. Which ones say the opposite of what the Bible does? Please show me and we’ll see if that is true.
    *]You will never encounter a faithful Catholic who will tell you that the Bible is not true. You will, however find many faithful Catholics, like myself, who will both tell you and show you where the misinterpretations of scripture by some persons are not true.
    *]You really do not understand Christianity, my friend, and you have been seriously messed up by some people with Bibles in hand. So far you have not proved a single allegation that you have made, and I urge you to try to, because myself and the other faithful and knowledgeable Catholics here will prove them terribly wrong. I WAS among them for over 35 years, so I know what they believe and teach and what they often allege against the Catholic Church. I faced most every such thing on my way home to the Catholic faith, so I know what I’m talking about; and I’m not the only one here…

    As the Mary Foundation says, "Get the facts. Decide for yourself."
 
🙂 Thank you

The bible is the final word of God, I believe.
Not a Bishops word.

The Pope can say the opposite of what the bible says, and the bible is still the truth, not the Pope. Therefore, the bible is preeminent.
The Bible is a document. It cannot interpret itself. Why do you think there are so many denominations–all claiming they have the right interpretation of Scripture? Because the Bible is not just any book that anyone can read–it’s God written word. And the significance of that is only one body of men was given the commission to preach and teach God’s word–the Apostles. Jesus entrusted them with his message–with God’s message to men. So, they have the authority to decide what the Bible means. No Church teaching contradicts the Bible. It’s impossible because the Church only teaches God’s word and nothing else, and the final word of God to men was Jesus Christ. The Bible is a part of Sacred Tradition, passed on from prophets and the elders chosen by God until Christ came. Then he gave that commission to his Apostles. Their writings make up the NT. How could they contradict each other when we have the successors of the Apostles with us today, who have the same authority to speak for Christ that was given to the original Twelve? You are placing a book, a partial relating of God’s word, as higher than Christ himself. It was Christ himself who gave the Apostles and their successors the authority to preach and teach in his name. You are confused about this matter and should talk to you priest about it ASAP.
 
The bible is the final word of God, I believe.
Not a Bishops word.
It was never argued that a bishop’s word is the final word of God. Rather, what was stated is exactly what scripture states: that the Word of God is is Christ, who came down from heaven and became man.

Christ is the infinite Word of God. The Bible is small enough to be carried in one hand. I’m pretty certain that the Bible reveals PART of God’s Word and Truth, since it is impossible for a very finite object to contain an infinite being (such as Christ).

The problem when we start calling the Bible the “final word of God” is that this very view is contrary to scriptures themselves and supplant’s CHRIST as the Word of God.
The Pope can say the opposite of what the bible says
I think what you mean is that the pope can magisterially teach the opposite of what the scripture says. If that is what you mean, the answer is no he can’t.

The scripture ITSELF is a magisterial revealed teaching of the church, and two doctrinally revealed truths cannot conflict. The pope can never teach that which contradicts scriptural truth.
and the bible is still the truth, not the Pope. Therefore, the bible is preeminent.
But how does one KNOW that the Bible is truth? Because the Bible says it is true? Logically speaking, the Bible cannot provide it’s own verification. The Koran says the same thing, and so does the book of Mormon.

We KNOW the Bible is true because the Church (that pope you dislike so much) has authoritatively told us that it is true. Every time you use the Bible, you are affirming the authority of the Catholic church in canonizing that scripture.

Final question for you: did anyone who saw Christ’s miracles follow sola scriptura, yes or no?
 
How does salvation by faith and works contradict the Bible?

But what doctrines do you believe are “explicitly stated” in Scripture, and on what basis do you make such a determination?

You “take… with a grain of salt” even the trinity and two natures of Christ? Are you considering conversion to the Jehovah’s Witnesses? 😛

I don’t want to take this thread off-topic, but I’m genuinely puzzled. Perhaps a moderator can split this discussion into a new thread.
I meant differing opinions about salvation, ie: baptism by desire, invincible ignorance, salvation for those outside the Catholic church…etc… Are Orthodox saved? Are only Catholics in communion with Rome saved? Are Baptists saved?..

I don’t understand the second question.

Haha, that was funny about the Jehovah’s Witnesses.😃 I don’t know? Maybe I would want to be one? I don’t know anything about them.

Yes, I take the trinity and the natures of Christ with a grain of salt. Why? Because the trinity was developed in the 300’s. And the
natures of Christ is one of the issues that split up the early church. It wasn’t necessary to split the church over theological debates.
That just seems so sad looking back on it. So that is why I take it with a grain of salt. If I was a Coptic Christian or a Catholic they might
have a different view on the natures of Christ but it shouldn’t divide us because… JESUS did not say - HEY everybody…let me break it down for you:
this is how my natures work…
What theologians speculate on should not be sufficient enough to DIVIDE the body of Christ.

In my humble opinion. And the trinity, well, that was mostly a political issue. Again, Jesus did not say, Let me break it down for you people: this is how the
Godhead functions:… It is not crucial to our salvation to percieve the godhead in one way or another. So again, it should not DIVIDE the body of Christians.

Politics is what does that. And power hungry people.
 
I’m sorry, but did I miss a memo somewhere? Can you show me a passage of scripture that states what you have expressed there? The reason I ask is because if what you say is true then there should be a specific passage of scripture to support it. That has to be the case because according to you everything that we believe must be in the Bible.

I know of no teachings of the Church that contradict scripture, and if you think there are then I would like you to name them and we can take a look, but I can tell you that I have already researched a great deal of Church teaching, and have not found what you assert there.
I can assure you that faithful and knowledgeable Catholics will certainly agree with your first and last statements, but even the Bible tells us that your second statement is in error. Please see Revelation 11:3-12.Here you have also erred in what I have bolded. Can you please point me to any passage of scripture that explicitly states that God is a Trinity? Can you supply me with a passage of scripture that explicitly explains Purgatory? These are just two examples of Biblical doctrines that are not explicitly stated in the Word of God. I urge you to back up and begin to very carefully study your faith and the Bible. I did that side by side and it hurried me home to our most holy faith. (See My Testimony)That’s not true at all. Errant individuals have led many astray with new modern winds of doctrines of men in the last 500 years. Please see my blog articles Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”? , “I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said. , and Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.
If you question this then you apparently have fallen in among some bad teachers such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Oneness Pentecostals who have revived the ancient Arian heresy that the church refuted very early on. The Trinity is very much found implicitly in scripture.
Nicene CredenceThe Great Heresies
(Cont’d)
Zoiks! Can you say Can of Worms?

Yes, everything we believe must be in the bible.

Some teachings that contradict Jesus are praying repetitions, calling men “Father”.

You will have to explain how Revelation 11:3-12 is revelvant to this topic because I’m not sure.
“I will grant my two witnesses authority to prophesy for 1,260 days, wearing sackcloth.”

Scripture doesn’t say God is a trinity so that is what I am saying. It is one thing to speculate but its another thing to make people beholden to man’s theology.

Well, if the church was more reasonable, then maybe it could have worked something out where everyone could have remained in one church. But no, they had to make the issues do or die issues. They had to set themselves up as gods saying who will be saved and who won’t based on their power to excommunicate someone who has a slightly different view than theirs on a point that was NOT elaborated on or specified by Jesus or his apostles. That is rediculous. And this is what caused churches to split apart because of the attitude of Rome which is “MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY”.

That is a problem. If they can’t all get along then that is a problem. Its just a bunch of fighting like little kids - “I’m saved”, “No! I’m Saved”, “No I am.” “No I am.” “No you’re not!” “No, YOU’RE not!”… ad nauseum…
Christ’s natures are like this, …no, they are like this, no they’re not, yes they are, no theyre not, yes they are, - EXCOMMUNICATED, get the hell out of here.

Seriously? You can’t tell me this isn’t pure politics.
 
I meant differing opinions about salvation, ie: baptism by desire, invincible ignorance, salvation for those outside the Catholic church…etc… Are Orthodox saved? Are only Catholics in communion with Rome saved? Are Baptists saved?..

I don’t understand the second question.

Haha, that was funny about the Jehovah’s Witnesses.😃 I don’t know? Maybe I would want to be one? I don’t know anything about them.

Yes, I take the trinity and the natures of Christ with a grain of salt. Why? Because the trinity was developed in the 300’s. And the
natures of Christ is one of the issues that split up the early church. It wasn’t necessary to split the church over theological debates.
That just seems so sad looking back on it. So that is why I take it with a grain of salt. If I was a Coptic Christian or a Catholic they might
have a different view on the natures of Christ but it shouldn’t divide us because… JESUS did not say - HEY everybody…let me break it down for you:
this is how my natures work…
What theologians speculate on should not be sufficient enough to DIVIDE the body of Christ.

In my humble opinion. And the trinity, well, that was mostly a political issue. Again, Jesus did not say, Let me break it down for you people: this is how the
Godhead functions:… It is not crucial to our salvation to percieve the godhead in one way or another. So again, it should not DIVIDE the body of Christians.

Politics is what does that. And power hungry people.
Your last statement is the key here. It’s not theology that broke up the Church, but men wanting to grab power.

You misunderstand why councils are held to decide matters of faith. They aren’t held to divide anyone from the Church. Individuals do that when they decide they know better than those appointed and anointed by God. The Trinity only had to be defined because some people were dividing the Church, trying to take control, over this issue.

The Church MUST teach the truth. If some people do not wish to accept the truth, that is for them to decide, and if they leave because of that, once again, that was their decision. It’s like saying I don’t believe in gravity no matter how much those in authority tell me it’s real, so I’ll go jump off a cliff to prove my point. Is it the fault of the authorities if that person follows through on his idea?

The Church is not responsible for people leaving who simply will not accept that its authority is God-given. If no one had ever challenged what Catholics believed about the Trinity, no council would have been held to define it. After all, no Catholic/Christian denies the existence of God so no councils have been held to define his existence. It’s in the creeds, but that’s all. Indeed, the creeds are attempts to define our beliefs so everyone is on the same page.

Jesus prayed that we all might be one–not many. It is people who have divided us, not doctrines. People who are unwilling to accept Jesus’ own words to the Apostles in which he promised they would be led into all truth and that they were to teach and preach in his name. If some will not accept that, how is that the Church at fault?
 
Thank you, Philippians 2:1-11

If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Is it clear as to the lord’s two natures?
 
Churchmilitant, thanks again for the scripture quotes,
2 Timothy 2:14
Remind them of this and warn them before God that they are to avoid wrangling over words, which does no good but only ruins those who are listening.

Hmm, I seem to recall the church wrangling over words regarding Christs natures, and also the words of the trinity “persons”…etc…

What GOOD did that do??? Except DIVIDE the body of Christians?
 
…Where exactly does the Bible say that? Specifically, where does it lay claim to being the final and ultimate authority for all that Christians believe and practice? I sincerely would like you to show me these passages because I’ve read the Bible several times over (all 73 books of it), and continue to do so and I have never found any such claim within it. …
You might be right here. I was referring to Revelation 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

This could very well not apply to the entire bible as this book may have been written before some of the other books in the bible. I don’t know.

Are you saying that the bible is not the final authority?
 
This could very well not apply to the entire bible as this book may have been written before some of the other books in the bible. I don’t know.
You are correct with this statement. Revelation was not the last book in the Canon of Scripture to be written. Some of the Gospels came afterwards. Likewise, there were books of “scripture” which were rejected which were penned BEFORE Revelation.

Therefore, as you said, this verse does not apply to the whole of the Bible, only to Revelation.

But the Canon of Scripture IS closed. Why? Not because the Bible says so. The Canon is closed because the church declared the Canon closed in 397 AD, and affirmed that statement dogmatically at Trent. Like I said, every time you open the Bible and say “this is the Canon and the only valid scripture” you are affirming the authority of the Church.
 
You are correct with this statement. Revelation was not the last book in the Canon of Scripture to be written. Some of the Gospels came afterwards. Likewise, there were books of “scripture” which were rejected which were penned BEFORE Revelation.

Therefore, as you said, this verse does not apply to the whole of the Bible, only to Revelation.

But the Canon of Scripture IS closed. Why? Not because the Bible says so. The Canon is closed because the church declared the Canon closed in 397 AD, and affirmed that statement dogmatically at Trent. Like I said, every time you open the Bible and say “this is the Canon and the only valid scripture” you are affirming the authority of the Church.
I don’t think the RCC teaches it has closed the canon. Sure, it’s declared 73 books to be canonical but I’m pretty sure it never said these are the only inspired books.

Also, the council of carthage certainly didn’t close the canon.

As Raymond F. Collins notes:

“Doubts about the deuterocanonical books keep recurring in the history of the Church among those who are aware of the Jewish canon. Those who prefer the shorter canon or express some doubt about the full canonical status of the deuterocanonicals include Cyril of Jerusalem [A.D. 315-386], Gregory of Nazianzus [A.D. 325-389], Epiphanius [A.D. 310/320 – 403], Rufinus [A.D. 340/345 – 410], Gregory the Great [A.D. 540-604], John Damscene [A.D. 676-749], Hugh of St. Victor [A.D. 1096 – 11 February 1141], Nicholas of Lyra [A.D. 1270–October 1349], and Cardinal Cajetan [A.D. February 20, 1469 - August 9, 1534].” - The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999. p. 1042. (This is a landmark Roman Catholic Biblical commentary, btw)

Though all of these names should cause pause for thought (for instance, Cyril wrote a catechism explicating the beliefs of the Church!) I want to draw most attention to Gregory the Great and Cardinal Cajetan. The former is one of very few popes to be called ‘the great’ and the latter “At the Diet of Augsburg in 1518…was entrusted with the task of examining and testing the teachings of Martin Luther. He was also one of the nineteen Cardinals who refused King Henry VIII of England an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, causing the king to break with the Roman Catholic Church and establish the Church of England.”

So if carthage did anything near closing the canon the above facts are near unintelligible.
 
The question really isn’t is the canon closed? but rather the point being made is that the Church has the authority to establish the canon and decide whether or not it should be closed. Christ gave his Apostles the authority to decide matters of faith and morals, as is clearly demonstrated in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts, including deciding what is and what isn’t inspired. The canon of Scripture was established for the liturgies of the Church, so everyone would be using the same writings. So far, the Church has seen no need to add to or subtract from (as the Reformers did) the canon of Scripture.
 
I don’t think the RCC teaches it has closed the canon. Sure, it’s declared 73 books to be canonical but I’m pretty sure it never said these are the only inspired books.
That is incorrect. The church teaches that general revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. There is nothing new to add to scripture at this point.
Also, the council of carthage certainly didn’t close the canon.
I actually wasn’t referring to the council of carthage. Rather to Pope Damascus’ declaration of the Canon, which was affirmed at the Synod of Hippo, and then again at the Councils of Carthage. Basically by 410 AD the entire western church was using the single canon as taught by Pope Damascus… the same NEW testament Canon that all of Chrisendom uses today, and the same old testament canon that Catholics (and some protestants) still use.
So if carthage did anything near closing the canon the above facts are near unintelligible.
No, Trent was were the Canon was infallibly settled. But it was Carthage, Hippo, and the Pope who promulgated the Canon which was infallibly declared at Trent. It is their new testament canon that protestants STILL use to this very day.
 
Zoiks! Can you say Can of Worms?
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emot-can.gif Yep, you sure did.
Yes, everything we believe must be in the bible.
You say that as if it’s a given, but where’s your scripture that says so?
Some teachings that contradict Jesus are praying repetitions,
If this were true then why then did Our Lord Himself repeat the same prayer 3 times in the Garden of Gethsemane? See Matthew 26:36-44. Why do the Psalms repeat parts over and over again? Why do most Christians repeat the Our Father again and again? Obviously that is not what Our Lord meant, especially since none of us are pagans, which He specifically mentions.
calling men “Father”.
Call No Man Father?
You will have to explain how Revelation 11:3-12 is relevant to this topic because I’m not sure.
“I will grant my two witnesses authority to prophesy for 1,260 days, wearing sackcloth.”
You stated that there were no more prophets, yet this passage plainly shows that there are indeed prophets yet to come which refutes your position. There are other scriptures I could cite, but I don’t think that’s needed.🤷
Scripture doesn’t say God is a trinity so that is what I am saying. It is one thing to speculate but its another thing to make people beholden to man’s theology.
You are dead wrong. Let’s start with one scripture right off. Matthew 28:18-20
[18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. If that isn’t trinitarian then I don’t know what is. Moreover, in Deuteronomy 6:4 it says, " [4] Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." Now you may be thinking “Aha!”, but the Hebrew word for “one” in that verse is “echad”, the very same word used in Genesis 2:24 where it says, “Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.” (Emphasis mine) Now that does not prove a Trinity, but it certainly proves a plurality and refuting those who deny the Trinity. Also, at the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, we have the manifestation of all three members of the Trinity. God the Father speaking and affirming Jesus as His son, and then the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove. See Matthew 3:16-17
[16] And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. [17] And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Well, if the church was more reasonable, then maybe it could have worked something out where everyone could have remained in one church. But no, they had to make the issues do or die issues. They had to set themselves up as gods saying who will be saved and who won’t based on their power to excommunicate someone who has a slightly different view than theirs on a point that was NOT elaborated on or specified by Jesus or his apostles. That is rediculous. And this is what caused churches to split apart because of the attitude of Rome which is “MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY”.
This is grossly inaccurate and dead wrong. You cannot objectively read the New Testament and not see the authority of the Church to excommunicate those who depart from the truth and teach errors for whatever reason. look at St. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians Church for example. (BTW, excommunication has been around all along. See Acts 5:1-11 for a very serious example. Talk about "do or die issues?)
 
That is a problem. If they can’t all get along then that is a problem. Its just a bunch of fighting like little kids - “I’m saved”, “No! I’m Saved”, “No I am.” “No I am.” “No you’re not!” “No, YOU’RE not!”… ad nauseum…
No one had this problem much until the 16th century when modern new winds of doctrines of men blew through Christianity and have persisted to this day…descending into the chaos that you seem to be speaking of. Every error and heresy in the 2,000 years of Christian history has been answered by the Catholic Church. If you knew any such history you’d have known that and not been so easily misled by whoever you’re listening to. (Who is it BTW? You have never said, and you should have.)
Christ’s natures are like this, …no, they are like this, no they’re not, yes they are, no theyre not, yes they are, - EXCOMMUNICATED, get the hell out of here.
Show me where you have any scriptures to base this on. I don’t think you can. Moreover, what exactly do you think the natures of Christ is? So far, all you’ve done is ineffectively try to run the Catholic Church down with a lot of polemics and yet no scriptures or proof. If this is what you have based your thinking on then then it’s ill founded indeed. How old are you, anyway?
Seriously? You can’t tell me this isn’t pure politics.
I can and I will, especially since you have yet to make any support for your remarks in anything other than a polemic denial. If you do not know the Word of God and the teachings of the Catholic Church any better than this, then it’s little wonder that you are so messed up at this point and it’s a good thing that you joined us here at CAF where these false beliefs can be challenged and refuted with truth from both scripture and authentic sacred Tradition and Church teaching, which will prove to be all tied in together.
 
Thank you, Philippians 2:1-11

If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Is it clear as to the lord’s two natures?
What’s your point here? The fact is that St. Paul plainly tells us that Our Lord had 2 distinct natures at the same time. One Divine and one human. That’s exactly what incarnation means.
 
Churchmilitant, thanks again for the scripture quotes,
2 Timothy 2:14
Remind them of this and warn them before God that they are to avoid wrangling over words, which does no good but only ruins those who are listening.

Hmm, I seem to recall the church wrangling over words regarding Christs natures, and also the words of the trinity “persons”…etc…

What GOOD did that do??? Except DIVIDE the body of Christians?
So you seem to feel that the Church should not stand up for and defend objective truth as revealed. Is that so? If not the Catholic Church, who then? Who else was there when Arius preached his heresy? Who else was there to respond when the Donatist and Gnostics preached theirs? Certainly not the modern error ridden faith communities of the last 500 years who have no one in authority, espouse the scriptures as it’s own self interpreting authority,(An authority that the scriptures nowhere claim for itself), and cannot and have not agreed even with each other as to doctrinal truth.

Division happens…that’s just how it is. Even Our Lord said that there would be a division of the sheep and goats and wheat and tares at His coming. Debate and discussion are generally healthy in that they help us discern what is right and true. You should be thanking God for those like Jerome, Justin Martyr, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Sienna, and others who have studied so carefully to insure that Christian truth was protected and maintained by the grace of God and the faithful promise of Our Lord that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top