J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Wouldn’t you agree?
Context is everything! Using, a so-called “Catholic source” to try to “disprove” any aspect of Catholicism makes absolutely no sense, what so ever!
- Status
T
tbuley
Guest
In the thirteen hundreds as some franciscan monks were being burned at the stake for questioning the Popes excess lifestyle, an understanding that church could be corrupted by man if it was just a physical body, and thus the church is were the Gospel is preached properly and sacraments are distributed. The Parakleet is not subject to the Pope nor His inspired Word.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello tbuley,
More information please…Like I wrote, context is everything, are you referring to the Templar Knights?
If you are going to post something and claim it as being factual, then please provide your source.
All context is important, the good and the bad. One cannot connect the “Christian dots” without first connecting the “Catholic dots”. “Good” Christian history is just as important as “bad” Christian history and all Christian history must be viewed in context.
Your comments here, lack any context what so ever, and you are helping me ,prove my point here, that context is imporatant…
Thank you,
Peace .
I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
What about Hans Kung using Councilar documents to “prove” Church infalibility is false?
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Some more unsupported “facts”, which lack any context what so ever and proving exactly – nothing, once again proving my point that context is everything!
T
tbuley
Guest
My argument was against your claim of sole dominion of the Word of God belonging to the papist, in so much as the Bible being a Catholic (big c) source, if you want to put a little c in front I can agree with you. What I was trying to allude to in my previous post was that by looking @ the history of the Roman church you can see a shift in views and opinions, errors in actions, and atrocities, not that the rest of fallen man is different. (1316, and on 7 August, Jacques, Cardinal-Bishop of Porto, was chosen pope. After his coronation at Lyons on 5 September as John XXII, the pope set out for Avignon, where he fixed his residence…in 1317 ordered the refractory friars to submit to their superiors…On 23 January, 1318, many of their doctrines were declared erroneous. Those who refused to yield were treated as heretics: many were burned at the stake. (Catholic Encyclopedia 1913)). So I view the papist as being distinct from the church. My church believes that THESIS XI
The Ev. Lutheran Church is not the one holy Christian Church outside of which there is no salvation, though it has never separated from the same but acknowledges it alone. (By Dr. C.F.W. Walther)
The Ev. Lutheran Church is not the one holy Christian Church outside of which there is no salvation, though it has never separated from the same but acknowledges it alone. (By Dr. C.F.W. Walther)
K
kristie_m
Guest
A fun argument I like to make whenever people start throwing out of context scripture around is where it says in the bible “there is no God.”
Of course, the full verse reads “The fool believes there is no God.”
Of course, the full verse reads “The fool believes there is no God.”
S
Steadfast
Guest
- Jimmy, that argument cuts both ways, and
- tbuley is probably referring to the Spiritual Franciscans
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello agian
Why would I use a "little “c”, when it was actulally the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Popes which authorized the Bible?
“Lutheran Church is not the one holy Christian Church outside of which there is no salvation”
Does this comment here, in your opinion… apply to the Cahtolic Church as well?
Peace
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello Steadfast,
I am sorry to have to disagree with you and say, “No it doesn’t”, all other Christian denominations originate from Catholicism, in on way or another, which is the first Christian religion.
And a General comment -
I have always found it amazing that when a non-Catholic “Protestant” Christian, “likes” something from the early Catholic Church, they call it the “Early Church” and when they do not, they call it the “Catholic Church”…Why is that? There can only be one Christian Church that was “first” and that was the Catholic Church, all others followed. The Roman Catholic Church was the first Christian Church!
Note: I did notice that your were Catholic.
Peace
S
Steadfast
Guest
Hello Steadfast,
I am sorry to have to disagree with you and say, “No it doesn’t”, all other Christian denominations originate from Catholicism, in on way or another, which is the first Christian religion.
It’s true that the Protestant churches descend taxonomically from the Western Catholic church but I think our Orthodox brethren have an equally compelling claim when it comes to issues of origination.
My point was that if you substitute presuppositions about authority from “the church” to “the bible”, a Protestant can say exactly the same sort of thing back to any Catholic regarding circularity.
I have always found it amazing that when a non-Catholic “Protestant” Christian, “likes” something from the early Catholic Church, they call it the “Early Church” and when they do not, they call it the “Catholic Church”…Why is that? There can only be one Christian Church that was “first” and that was the Catholic Church, all others followed. The Roman Catholic Church was the first Christian Church!
These are your presuppositions, others would say that the church as an organic unity at its very earliest transcended any reference to submission to the see of Rome as Catholics now understand it.
I vacillate widely. I have no doubt you would consider me a heretic. To me it is always about history a very messy business, not conducive to soundbytes and polemical packaging if one cares at all about truth.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
These are your presuppositions, others would say that the church as an organic unity at its very earliest transcended any reference to submission to the see of Rome as Catholics now understand it.
I vacillate widely. I have no doubt you would consider me a heretic. To me it is always about history a very messy business, not conducive to soundbytes and polemical packaging if one cares at all about truth.Hello again Catholic friend…
It’s true that the Protestant churches descend taxonomically from the Western Catholic church but I think our Orthodox brethren have an equally compelling claim when it comes to issues of origination.
Your response here is irrelevant to my comment, being that I wrote, “Catholic” not “Roman Catholic”. This is a totally different topic.
My point was that if you substitute presuppositions about authority from “the church” to “the bible”, a Protestant can say exactly the same sort of thing back to any Catholic regarding circularity.
You are correct, they can, they do, and they are wrong…. and that is my point…the Catholic Church came before the Bible…Before the Roman Catholic Church the books of the Bible, were “just” a collection of early Christian writings.
These are your presuppositions, others would say that the church as an organic unity at its very earliest transcended any reference to submission to the see of Rome as Catholics now understand it.
In order for you to come to this conclusion, you would have to know me personally and you don’t. I have heard these remarks with my own ears… where the term “Early Church” is clearly being used to refer to the Roman Catholic Church.
*I have no doubt you would consider me a heretic. *
Nope…not yet…but I do wonder why you seem to give me, a Catholic so much attention and you don’t “spread the love around” with our non-Catholic friends?
… soundbytes
Don’t steal my comments
…this is how I describe some non-Catholic Christians denomination…I used it first…I think…:doh2:Be nice to me…
Peace
C
Calliope
Guest
I think a lot of people accept this premise, even if they haven’t thought it through. I also think it is the reason many people who leave the Catholic church become atheists or simply never bother looking at another religion, because they believe that it is either the Catholic church or nothing.
When they look at history, especially the history of the Bible, then it is hard to argue that Christianity is anything but Catholic. So if/when they reject Catholicism, they give up on all of it.
I know this isn’t the kind of proof and sources that please the OP, but I have met many people over the years who have shared their story and that seems to be the underlying principal. Christ founded the Catholic church, the Catholic church wrote the Bible and normalized the theology, if they are “wrong” or undesirable…there is no where else to go.
This keeps a number of people in the Church as well. They may not be happy with things, but they accept that it IS the Church founded by Christ, and it IS responsible for the Bible, so there is no point looking elsewhere.
I have noticed this from both personal conversations with people and reading posts here and on other Religious forums for years.
Calliope
When they look at history, especially the history of the Bible, then it is hard to argue that Christianity is anything but Catholic. So if/when they reject Catholicism, they give up on all of it.
I know this isn’t the kind of proof and sources that please the OP, but I have met many people over the years who have shared their story and that seems to be the underlying principal. Christ founded the Catholic church, the Catholic church wrote the Bible and normalized the theology, if they are “wrong” or undesirable…there is no where else to go.
This keeps a number of people in the Church as well. They may not be happy with things, but they accept that it IS the Church founded by Christ, and it IS responsible for the Bible, so there is no point looking elsewhere.
I have noticed this from both personal conversations with people and reading posts here and on other Religious forums for years.
Calliope
T
tbuley
Guest
So as you would have it, christians would not have had a reliable Bible until Trent, April of 1546?
I think God gave the books to the church when He inspired the apostles to write them, not when Rome reckoned the canon infallible.
You said “Before the Roman Catholic Church the books of the Bible, were “just” a collection of early Christian writings.” This is a sad statement, Gods Word was “just” a collection of early Christian writings?
I think God gave the books to the church when He inspired the apostles to write them, not when Rome reckoned the canon infallible.
You said “Before the Roman Catholic Church the books of the Bible, were “just” a collection of early Christian writings.” This is a sad statement, Gods Word was “just” a collection of early Christian writings?
T
tbuley
Guest
Yes the RCC would not be the one holy Christian Church outside of which there is no salvation, yet the portion you left out “though it has never separated from the same but acknowledges it alone.” would not apply to the RCC, nor would it apply to Lutheran denominations who do not hold to a confessional understanding.“Lutheran Church is not the one holy Christian Church outside of which there is no salvation”
Does this comment here, in your opinion… apply to the Cahtolic Church as well?
Peace
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello tbuley,
I knew someone was going to parse my words here, and misinterpret what I said…Gee what a surprise.
Obviously, I know that God inspired the Books of Bible, and those who wrote the Bible, because the Roman Catholic Church “told me so”, a Catholic child who has attended Catechism classes knows this. There is no need to play games here with my words, in an attempt to slander me.
When you wrote “I think God gave the books to the church”, don’t you mean, “I think God gave the books to the Roman Catholic Church”, because it was the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Popes who authorized the Bible as we know it today. I suggest that you research, the formation of the Bible…
Additionally, maybe you can explain, why the “Protestant Bible”, King James Version (the KJV and all those based on the KJV), is named after an English King? Was King James an Apostle? Was he a “Holy man”?
This ought to be good…
Peace
Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
The Bible is a “Catholic Book”!
****Collected, organized, translated, protected, preserved and authorized by Catholics and for Catholics. **
Moreover, the Catholic Church did not “add” anything to the Bible. Protestants removed and changed much of the Catholic Bible. Today, many non-Catholic and Protestant Christians misinterpret the “changed” Bible.
**
****Collected, organized, translated, protected, preserved and authorized by Catholics and for Catholics. **
Moreover, the Catholic Church did not “add” anything to the Bible. Protestants removed and changed much of the Catholic Bible. Today, many non-Catholic and Protestant Christians misinterpret the “changed” Bible.
**
T
tbuley
Guest
I am glad you know God inspired the Bible, I was not “playing games” nor trying to slander you. The quote I used didn’t have much context and seemed to speak for itself, I am glad you clarified yourself and receded a straw man argument.
I don’t see a RCC form until Theodosius I or later, and your church did not have your full dogmatic articulation until Trent!!!
The “Protestant Bible” KJV has served the English speaking world for some time, I’m not Anglican and don’t know to much about how the Royal family interacts with that church body.
The translation I prefer is the ESV and I think it will take the role as the dominant translation from the NIV in conservative congregations it is a word for word translation “authorized” by Crossway Bibles.
As far as Canonical and Deuterocanonical (Antilegomena) Books and and variations in the early church by region I am not learned enough to argue, I have read lists of different Books excepted by different groups at different times.
I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God but I don’t think Man was infallible in the collection for canonization, I believe that the Books that have been gathered in what is now the “protestant” Bible are correct but if any one wants to argue otherwise against or for another Book let them but the burden is on them.
I don’t see a RCC form until Theodosius I or later, and your church did not have your full dogmatic articulation until Trent!!!
The “Protestant Bible” KJV has served the English speaking world for some time, I’m not Anglican and don’t know to much about how the Royal family interacts with that church body.
The translation I prefer is the ESV and I think it will take the role as the dominant translation from the NIV in conservative congregations it is a word for word translation “authorized” by Crossway Bibles.
As far as Canonical and Deuterocanonical (Antilegomena) Books and and variations in the early church by region I am not learned enough to argue, I have read lists of different Books excepted by different groups at different times.
I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God but I don’t think Man was infallible in the collection for canonization, I believe that the Books that have been gathered in what is now the “protestant” Bible are correct but if any one wants to argue otherwise against or for another Book let them but the burden is on them.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
The CC does tend to behave as though it were the owner & maker & proprietor of the BibleThe CC does tend to behave as though it were the owner & maker & proprietor of the Bible
- it does have a duty to it; but it is not its Master; the Word of God is not bound: not even to the Church.
It is…
it does have a duty to it; but it is not its Master
I agree…
The CC does tend to behave as though it were the owner & maker & proprietor of the Bible
Probably because the bible is a “Catholic Book”… research the formation of the Bible…
- Status