Divine Authority of the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrew_Larkoski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just purchase any European history book. The pages are filled with bloody accounts of the Inquisition. Don’t tell me you think that the history books are fabricated!!!
I didn’t say that. But be careful in some of the books that you’re reading. They often try to twist history and say “this is what really happened” just to earn $$$$$$. One day it might say, “John Smith appeared and is here in Salt Lake City!”

Pio
 
Ah…an “Offshoot Church” from Mormonism… kinda like Protestants from Catholicism…

I didnt know Joe Smith was around since the beginning of time… :rolleyes:
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
Ah…an “Offshoot Church” from Mormonism… kinda like Protestants from Catholicism…
An offshoot? When one compares the beliefs of the different sects that came forth from the restored church in 1830, you will discover that the LDS church in Utah is doctrinally an offshoot of that restored church. Just because the LDS church boasts over 10 million members, it does not mean that it is the continuation of the church restored in 1830. Size does not determine what church is the original.
Faithful 2 Rome:
I didnt know Joe Smith was around since the beginning of time… :rolleyes:
Who said that he was around since the beginning? He was born in 1805. But all of us were created spiritually first at the beginning of this world we live in. We have all been around since God created us in the beginning, even though we have not all been on Earth physically since the beginning.
 
rod of iron:
Yet, no mention of the Catholic church being the church spoken of in those 2 verses. I can make the same claim about my church.
The first reference to the Catholic Church being called the Catholic Church is in the year 107AD, by Ignatious of Antioch I believe. It was the only church that was around at that time.
 
rod of iron:
Yes, you are correct. My church is not only 2000 years old. My church was established before the formation of the world. I belong to the Church of the Firstborn. This Church of the Firstborn is the church that Jesus established in the beginning. That church is spiritual first. It continues spiritually whether or not it is physically upon the Earth. It appear that the Catholic church is just physical. This is what makes the Catholic church a man-made church. But my church was established by Jesus before the world was made. It was established with Adam and Eve. It was restored by Jesus when He came to Earth in the flesh. It was restored for the last time by Jesus through His servant Joseph Smith. It continued through the RLDS church and now continues through the remnant branches of the RLDS church. They have the authority of God. The Catholic church as it exists is the successor of the Roman Empire. The Catholic church adopted the hierarchical structure of the Roman Empire and used its power to persecute all that opposed the Catholic church for many, many centuries. The church of Jesus Christ does not persecute. That is one way you can tell a fraud. If a church persecutes others who do not believe like them, the church is not Christ’s church. The Catholic church has such a track record of persecution. This record can be seen in the Inquisition and the Crusades. The Catholic church spent centuries trying to force non-Catholics into believing what the Catholic church taught. Christ’s church does not force people to believe. Forcing others to bellieve like you and taking away their agency are ploys of the devil. Since the Catholic church has this track record of forcing people to believe its doctrines and comply to them, it cannot be the church that Jesus established on the Earth.
Your church was established by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. My favorite quote from the book of Mormon is where they predict that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem.

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin…"Alma 7: 10

Jesus was born in Bethlaham. They are two separat places.
 
40.png
jimmy:
The first reference to the Catholic Church being called the Catholic Church is in the year 107AD, by Ignatious of Antioch I believe. It was the only church that was around at that time.
If the only church in existence at that time was the church in Antioch, what happened to all the different churches that Paul corresponded with through his epistles? Why are there 7 churches mentioned in Revelation? What leads you to believe that this Catholic church was the only one in existence in 107 AD???
 
40.png
jimmy:
Your church was established by Joseph Smith in the 19th century.
Nah! In 1830, Joseph Smith was the man whom Jesus restored His church through. In 1830, the church was restored as the “Church of Christ”. It did not pick up the “Latter Day Saint” part until years later. The Church of Jesus Christ has been around since Jesus established it upon the Earth in the time of Adam and Eve.
40.png
jimmy:
My favorite quote from the book of Mormon is where they predict that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem.

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin…"Alma 7: 10

Jesus was born in Bethlehem. They are two separate places.
I see that you have misread that verse. It does not say that Jesus will be born in the city of Jerusalem, but rather, at the Land of Jerusalem. Big difference! I have covered this argument in a prior thread.

I think one of the most memorable quotes from the Bible is in 1 Tim 4:1-3, which reads, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” Whenever I look at these verses, I have to say, “Hello Catholic church! How well it is described!”
 
rod of iron:
If the only church in existence at that time was the church in Antioch, what happened to all the different churches that Paul corresponded with through his epistles? Why are there 7 churches mentioned in Revelation? What leads you to believe that this Catholic church was the only one in existence in 107 AD???
“Catholic” means universal – those 7 churches are geographical churches, much like dioceses, they were obviously united in doctrine and submitted to Peter’s authority and his successors’s
 
rodofiron:

As discussed in an earlier thread, that passage from Timothy does not say that the majority or all will fall from the faith, but some (i.e., heretics). Also, the Catholic Church does not seduce spirits, speak lies in hypocrisy, sear consciences with hot irons, forbid marriage, or command abstaining from meats. I don’t know what Catholic Church you are thinking about, but the one to which I am faithful to under the Vicar of Christ, Pope John Paul II, is nothing like that description.

Please explain why you see the Catholic Church in that passage.
 
rod of iron:
If the only church in existence at that time was the church in Antioch, what happened to all the different churches that Paul corresponded with through his epistles? Why are there 7 churches mentioned in Revelation? What leads you to believe that this Catholic church was the only one in existence in 107 AD???
The church in Corinth was the same church that was in Antioch. They were all the same church, they were like diocese.
I think one of the most memorable quotes from the Bible is in 1 Tim 4:1-3, which reads, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” Whenever I look at these verses, I have to say, “Hello Catholic church! How well it is described!”
This staement is true but it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. They do not forbid anyone to eat meat or to not marry. We just ask preists that they will stay celibate and unmarried so they can devote there entire lives to Christ. If you look have read the bible you have probably read this.
  • “But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.”* 1 Cor 7;6-8
He is clearly in favor of the unmarried life.
I see that you have misread that verse. It does not say that Jesus will be born in the city of Jerusalem, but rather, at the Land of Jerusalem. Big difference! I have covered this argument in a prior thread.
It does not say the land of Jerusalem. It says Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.

Wheather it says the city of Jerusalem or the land of Jerusalem it does not matter. Jerusalem is not part of the land of Jerusalem they are two distinct places. Just like Ohio is not part of the land of delaware.
 
Andrew Larkoski:
rodofiron:

As discussed in an earlier thread, that passage from Timothy does not say that the majority or all will fall from the faith, but some (i.e., heretics). Also, the Catholic Church does not seduce spirits, speak lies in hypocrisy, sear consciences with hot irons, forbid marriage, or command abstaining from meats. I don’t know what Catholic Church you are thinking about, but the one to which I am faithful to under the Vicar of Christ, Pope John Paul II, is nothing like that description.

Please explain why you see the Catholic Church in that passage.
You say that the Catholic church does not forbid to marry, yet priests take a vow to be celibate. Do you want to claim that Catholic priests and bishops are free to marry and have a wife and kids? If this was true, there would not be a push to have married priests ordained to solve the priest shortage. When the Catholic church compels potential priests to vow that they will be celibate, that is indeed an example of “forbidding marriage”. That verse I quoted did not say that the church would forbid **all **people from getting married. All the church has to do is forbid a certain group of members from marrying and the church then fulfills the verse I quoted. Also, aren’t Catholics told that they must abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent? This is what I understand to be true. If the Catholic church declares that its members must not eat meat on Fridays during Lent, this too would fulfill the verse I quoted. As for the rest, it would be hard to show them, because how do you show that people’s consciences have been seared with hot irons? When one looks at the persecution that the Catholic church has imposed upon those who it deemed heretical, that church was obviously not following the dictates of the Holy Spirit at those times. I still want to know why the Catholic church felt justisfied to persecute or eliminate all those who did not share the same doctrines and beliefs that the Catholic church espoused?

On a side note, I find it peculiar that Catholics call the pope by the title, “Vicar of Christ”. Vicar means: substitute. I don’t want a substitute for Christ. I want the genuine Jesus Christ who died on a cross and rose from the dead so that I can be saved and have my sins atoned for by His blood. You can be satisfied with a substitute if you want, but I want the genuine article.
 
40.png
jimmy:
He is clearly in favor of the unmarried life.
Paul is just giving his opinion of how much he enjoys being unmarried. That verse is hardly enough to form a doctrine around or to force men to vow to remain unmarried if they want to enter the Catholic priesthood.
40.png
jimmy:
It does not say the land of Jerusalem. It says Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers. Whether it says the city of Jerusalem or the land of Jerusalem it does not matter. Jerusalem is not part of the land of Jerusalem they are two distinct places. Just like Ohio is not part of the land of delaware.
And the difference is what? In that verse, it is clear what was meant by Jerusalem. According to the Book of Mormon, the Nephites knew Jerusalem to be the name of a land, or region, in the part of the world that their ancestors had come from. It does not matter if Jerusalem is just the name of a city today. The Nephites knew Jerusalem as a region, the land where their forefathers had come from. You say that the city of Jerusalem is not part of the land of Jerusalem. Where is this land of Jerusalem located then?
 
rod of iron:
Paul is just giving his opinion of how much he enjoys being unmarried. That verse is hardly enough to form a doctrine around or to force men to vow to remain unmarried if they want to enter the Catholic priesthood.
He says nothing about how much he enjoys being unmarried. He is saying that it is better to be unmarried. You can not be married and still be completely devoted to God. You have to worry about your family. As a preist everything you do should be for God.
And the difference is what? In that verse, it is clear what was meant by Jerusalem. According to the Book of Mormon, the Nephites knew Jerusalem to be the name of a land, or region, in the part of the world that their ancestors had come from. It does not matter if Jerusalem is just the name of a city today. The Nephites knew Jerusalem as a region, the land where their forefathers had come from. You say that the city of Jerusalem is not part of the land of Jerusalem. Where is this land of Jerusalem located then?
Jerusalem is a leand and Bethlahem is a separate land. It would be like saying I was born in Germany the land of Hitler. Germany is not where I was born so it is a false statement.
 
If you were even remotely familiar with HISTORY - which you clearly are not - you would not be making the claims about the inquisition that you are making.
Did you know for example that people in Spain actually preferred going to the Church for resolutions of their disputes and or charges because it was the Spanish gov’t that was just outright killing people for no good reason? Yes, they went to the Church because they knew that the Church would be much more lenient and would require an “upright” (for lack of a better word) trial? In effect, they would probably be saved by the Church rather that murdered!

Before you continue to the claims of murder and persection - you need to do some serious reading! What you are pandering are LIES!
You, like so many others have fallen for the lies of others who PERSECUTE US!
 
Andrew Larkoski said:
“Why does the Catholic Church have authority from God to teach in His name and no other churches do? It doesn’t say that in the Bible anywhere. I need some proof.”

1 Tim 3:15-but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. A pillar holds something up. A bulwark offers protection and defense. The Catholic Church is the upholder, protector and defender of the truth. No other church can claim to be the upholder, protector and defender of the truth for 2 reasons:
  1. No other church existed at the time that Paul wrote his letter to Timothy
  2. No other church has remained unchanging in what it declares to be truth

    ***One example of changing truth- birth control. Before 1930 all Christian churches, without exception, taught that birth control was absolutely wrong. The Anglican church caved first, soon to be followed by every other Christian sect but one, the Catholic Church. Truth cannot change, yet the truth about birth control DID change.
 
40.png
Britta:
You will find your proof more in history than in scripture. First of all, it was the Catholic Church that established the canon of the bible, around 400 AD. There was no other Christian church at that time. It was the Church that existed first and scripture was born from that.

In short, the reason the CC has authority is because it was the only one for many years, 1500 to be more precise. Jesus started the CC, man started the rest.
Does anyone know where I can find good historical proof of this? I believe it was the first, but I have confrontations before that people say we were divided from the beginning, hence, the Orthodox churches. They say the apostles taught different things to different churches started. A common argument I’ve had is that the Catholic church followed Peter and accepted him as Pope, and then The Orthodox church followed Paul and did not accept the Pope. Every time this comes up, I have a hard time thinking of a good way to back myself up with references.
 
rod of iron:
Yet, no mention of the Catholic church being the church spoken of in those 2 verses. I can make the same claim about my church.
It’s the only Church there was when the verses were written. Anyone can ask the Holy Spirit to guide them and whoever does will be led directly to the Catholic Church. Try it. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you in Truth to the Church which Jesus Christ established.

Let us go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
 
rod of iron:
If the only church in existence at that time was the church in Antioch, what happened to all the different churches that Paul corresponded with through his epistles? Why are there 7 churches mentioned in Revelation? What leads you to believe that this Catholic church was the only one in existence in 107 AD???
No one said it was the Church at Antioch. The only Church at the time was the Catholic Church.

God Bless and keep you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top