M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Could you elaborate on that a bit? I"m curious what it is in the early church history that makes you believe your current beliefs and practices/worship are correct. Thank you.
The peace of Christ,
Mark
- Status
The peace of Christ,
Mark
M
MichaelP3
Guest
I had a a thread on that a while back and it took a great amount of my time. I would not like to repeat that with all due respect.
In short, I do not only refer to the early church. I refer to analysing basically every council, every pope and every controversy . And the math just doesn’t add up. And I don’t think an institution claiming infallibility should sit with that conundrum.
This was just to answer your question (As short and best I could), if anything more you want to know Ill be happy to see how I can respond in a private message.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
It just dawned on me.
What do you say Jesus said in Matthew 23:9?
I’d prefer to read the exact text and then “self interpret it”. What you did was just … I have no words…
P
Peter_J
Guest
etc.
I basically apply that approach to the whole Internet. I don’t expect to find a public venue with only good posts, but at least with CAF we’ve got the “Ignore List” feature. (I know from experience that it’s quite a pain to be on a forum where you just manually skip all the posts you don’t want to read – or, worse, you just give up your standards and read whatever.)
M
Michael68
Guest
This says call no man on earth your father in heaven. Do you not call your male parent father?
M
Michael68
Guest
Very sorry! Getting off topic. I’ll be good
M
MichaelP3
Guest
9 And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
Public Domain (Why are modern Bible translations copyrighted?)
I even used a Catholic accepted translation. I rather read the exact text before I “self interpret” it normally.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
From the earliest days of the Church you can find that they reserved the Eucharized bread not used (we have evidence of the special containers used to reserve and transport it) and to take to those who could not be present at the Mass. Why would they do this if the bread was not changed? Justin Martyr (approx 150 AD) In his first apology writes:
" There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone."
This is pretty early testimony with regards to the Eucharist. He’s describing the practice and belief of the early Christians. Do you still say protestants accept all that was taught in the early centuries of the church? Are you going to dismiss this as some fringe writing? What are the early teaching of the church in your understanding?
The peace of Christ,
Mark
M
Michael68
Guest
This does not say I can’t call my priest father or my father, father. I don’t consider them my heavenly father.
St. Paul says in 1Cor 4: 14-15 to consider him and the priests, such as Timothy, as their spiritual father. Obviously St. Paul sees it different than you
P
Peter_J
Guest
This may be slightly random, but reading this post I’m reminded of a few years ago when a Protestant told me that the literal meaning of that is not to call anyone religious leader “father”. (I questioner her further, but she just continued to insist that she was taking the verse literally.)
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
I can look for the old thread at some point. Thanks for the offer and thank you for the response.
The peace of Christ,
Mark
M
MichaelP3
Guest
I prefer to think a Priest is on earth. As for my male parent. He is in heaven, didn’t have much of a conversation in a while.
I still struggle to see the priesthood in those Paul verses.
14 I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest children.
15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
Public Domain (Why are modern Bible translations copyrighted?)
Honestly, I hardly think calling your priest father will condemn you to hell. So maybe this is not on topic.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Can you bold the part that makes your point please?
M
Michael68
Guest
Sorry to hear about your male parent, my condolences!
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
You can address the point that historically, the Protestants got their very beliefs in God and the Bible directly from the Roman Church. The first Reformers were Roman Catholics to begin with and without the Roman Church, they would not have the basic teachings they had–in fact, they would still have been pagans, or more likely, Muslims, if not for the Roman Catholic Church. So, yes, the Greek Christian Scriptures were a Catholic book which the Protestants took over: history, not an assumption. (Parenthetically, now with the modern liberals, belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures is being abandoned. Scripture was a cudgel to beat the Catholics with, but is now being casually cast aside. And why not, since belief in scriptural inspiration is finally recognized to be simply a Catholic tradition; and if tradition can be ignored, indeed, why not?)
There is an Ebionite-Nazarene, Messianic Jew, on this thread who denies the Pauline corpus as being inspired, and hence all churches adhering to Pauline scriptures (such as the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches as well as Orthodox) are deviations from the genuine faith as taught by Jesus and his apostles. Hence the Catholic Church wrongly accepted Paul’s writings as scripture and therefore bequeathed a false canon and false religion to the Protestants.
There is internal evidence that Paul was a false religionist, because he referred to Timothy as his son! It is apparent that Paul did not know of Jesus’ command not to call anyone on earth as your father. He therefore was able to want Timothy to think of him as his father in faith, which would be contrary to Jesus’ wishes, if Paul had known about it, which he didn’t, not being a true apostle.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Interesting in the last 2 paragraphs. I remember that post but I will need to think about it a bit more before I can answer that.
As for the first. Yes, the Reformers were all Catholics. Some even Priests. I would think this is rather a good thing as it can’t be said they didn’t understand Catholicism. Or maybe it can, but that will also be a matter of perception.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
True, a matter of perception. Catholics do not think Luther understood Catholicism very well, in spite of being a Doctor.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Personally I think Luther was a depressed individual with tons of problems. I really feel for him, although I admire his boldness!
M
Michael68
Guest
That’s my take on it
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
You’ve got to admire that, and his faith.
- Status