Foundation

  • Thread starter Thread starter awfulthings9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
myfavoritmartin:
You know Montana I follow the biblical instructions given to the Berea
in Acts 17:11 and listen to what is being preached to me and then study it in the infallible scriptures to see that it is true. Based on this Biblical instruction why would I need to have an earthly authority over me for Biblical interpretation.
Click to expand...
Because the Bible shows that Jesus etablished a Church, gave authority to its hierarchy, etc.

But you’ve already submitted to the Church in one respect–you take the Church’s word for it that the Bible is inspired. You just reject that same Church.
 
40.png
montanaman:
Because the Bible shows that Jesus etablished a Church, gave authority to its hierarchy, etc.

But you’ve already submitted to the Church in one respect–you take the Church’s word for it that the Bible is inspired. You just reject that same Church.
Click to expand...
catholic: definition: (universal) universal body of believers this church I believe is the true church.
Not
Roman Catholic, which in itself is kind of funny “roman universal”
somewhat of an contradicting title don’t you think.
 
40.png
myfavoritmartin:
catholic: definition: (universal) universal body of believers this church I believe is the true church.
Not
Roman Catholic, which in itself is kind of funny “roman universal”
somewhat of an contradicting title don’t you think.
Click to expand...
You are confused. The Catholic Church is East and West and covers the whole world. There are Latin Catholics (Roman). There are Byzantine Catholics (myself). There are Maronite Catholics (Lebanese). Etc., etc., etc…all united to the see of Peter! 🙂
 
40.png
Mickey:
You are confused. The Catholic Church is East and West and covers the whole world. There are Latin Catholics (Roman). There are Byzantine Catholics (myself). There are Maronite Catholics (Lebanese). Etc., etc., etc…all united to the see of Peter! 🙂
Click to expand...
I am not confused, I was simply stating I believe that The Church is the universal body of believers. Not Cap C Catholic rather if you wish to attatch catholic to the term church I will accept it in the definition of universal
 
…all united to the see of Peter!

This is another thread, but to many there is as much or more evidence for paul being the superior of the 2. That should probably wait to be done on a later thread.
 
40.png
Fredricks:
I will bite. I did not want to.
. . . . say the Roman bishop is involved in the “development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon”.
Please.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was a Pope, Pope St. Damasus I, who decreed which are the books of the New Testament in A.D. 382.
DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

***It is likewise decreed: Now, . . .what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. ***
*********the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. *
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

***Eleven years later The Council of Hippo in A.D. 393 reaffirmed the canon as did the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397 *****

I hope this helps answer your question about the Popes being involved in “development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon”
.

May the grace of Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

Your brother in Christ.
 
40.png
myfavoritmartin:
catholic: definition: (universal) universal body of believers this church I believe is the true church.
Not
Roman Catholic, which in itself is kind of funny “roman universal”
somewhat of an contradicting title don’t you think.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken my friend. The term “Roman” Catholic is actually incorrect when referring to the entire Catholic Church in communion with the See of St. Peter. The term ‘Roman’ Catholic is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. In the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.
Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as “I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church.” Simply that – Catholic Church. There are references the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is used, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!

Although the Diocese of Rome is central to the Catholic Church, this does not mean that the Roman rite, or, as is sometimes said, the Latin rite, is all that there is to the Catholic Church. The Roman Rite is not co-terminus with the Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites which are all very much part of the Catholic Church with whom the Holy See of St. Peter is in Communion.

There are a number of Churches sui iuris that, together, constitute the Catholic Church –There are Western, Eastern and OrientalChurches. The term sui iuris means, literally, “of their own law”, or self-governing.

(CONTINUED)
 
(continued)
Here, then, is a break-out most frequently referenced members of The Catholic Church:
  • Alexandrean
  • Coptic Tradition
  • Coptic Catholic Church
  • Ge’ez Tradition
  • **Ethiopian****Catholic Church **
  • Includes the Eritrean Catholic Church
  • Antiochene
  • East Syrian Tradition
  • Syro-Malabarese Catholic Church
  • Knanaya Usage
  • West Syrian Tradition
  • Syriac Catholic Church
  • Syro-Malankarese Catholic Church
  • Knanaya Usage (informal)
  • Armenian
  • Armenian Catholic Church
  • Byzantine
  • Byzantine-Greek Tradition
  • Greek Rescension
  • Albanian Catholic Church
  • Greek Catholic Church
  • Grieco-Arabic Rescension
  • Melkite Catholic Church
  • Grieco-Georgian Rescension
  • Georgian Catholic Church
  • Grieco-Italian Rescension
  • Italo-Grieco-Albanian Catholic Church
  • Italo-Albanian Catholic Church - Eparchy of Lungro degli Italo-Albanesi in Calabria
  • Italo-Albanian Catholic Church - Eparchy of Piana in Sicily degli Albanisi
  • Italo-Greek Catholic Church - Exarchic Abbey & Territorial Monastery of Santa Maria di Grottaferrata degli Italo-Grieco
  • Byzantine-Slav Tradition
  • Great Russian Rescension
  • Belarusan Catholic Church
  • Bulgarian Catholic Church
  • Russian Catholic Church
  • Russian Catholic Church - Apostolic Exarchate of Moscow of the Russians
  • Old Ritualist Usage
  • Russian Catholic Church - Apostolic Exarchate of Harbin of the Russians
  • Romanian Rescension
  • Romanian Catholic Church
  • All jurisdictions except Eparchy of Maramures of the Romanians
  • Ruthenian Rescension
  • Croatian Catholic Church
  • Includes* the Apostolic Exarchate of Serbia & Montenegro for Faithful of the Eastern Rite*
  • Hungarian Catholic Church
  • Romanian Catholic Church
  • *Eparchy of Maramures of the Romanians *only
  • Ruthenian Catholic Church
  • Ruthenian Catholic Church - Metropolitan Archeparchy of Pittsburgh of the Ruthenians
  • Ruthenian Catholic Church - Eparchy of Mukachevo of the Ruthenians
  • Slovakian Catholic Church
  • Includes* Apostolic Exarchate of the Czech Republic for Czech Faithful of the Eastern Rites*
  • Ukrainian Catholic Church
(CONTINUED)
 
(Continued)
  • **Chaldean**
    • Chaldean Catholic Church
    • Arabic Usage
  • **Maronite**
    • Maronite Catholic Church
    • Latin (Roman)
    • Roman (Latin) Catholic Church
    • *Archdiocese of *Milan
    • Ambrosian Rite
    • *Archdiocese of *Braga
    • Bragan Rite
    • *Archdiocese of *Toledo
    • Mozarabic Rite
    • Monastic Usages*
    • United States of America
    • Anglican Use
    There are literally tens of millions of these Catholics who are all in communion with the Holy See of St. Peter that are not “Roman” Catholic.* So, you see that the Catholic Church is comprised of much more than the Roman Catholics.*

    May the peace of Christ be with you.

    Your brother in Christ.
 
40.png
montanaman:
No, you don’t understand. You start with a false, anti-Biblical assumption, (sola scriptura),.
Click to expand...
Do you really want to start in on anti-biblical assumptions?
 
40.png
myfavoritmartin:
Do you really want to start in on anti-biblical assumptions?
Click to expand...
I’d love to hear what you think is an anti-Biblical assumption Catholics approach scripture with. By all means…

But throwing up that smoke still won’t magically insert a verse into scripture that says “One day, when an entity of no particular importance compiles the holy writings, you shall treat it alone as authoritative for Christians…”
 
What Ignatius says I said:

“Originally Posted by Fredricks
I* will bite. I did not want to.
. . . . say the Roman bishop is involved in the “development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon*”.”

What I said
“I would like you to quote where Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus say the Roman bishop is involved in the “development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon”.”

Clement circa 88 CE
Ignatius died at Rome between 98 and 117 CE.
Iranaeus circa 170 CE
Actually, it was a Pope, Pope St. Damasus I, who decreed which are the books of the New Testament in A.D. 382.
Click to expand...
I asked for information from those three men which meant prior to 175 or so CE. He gives me someone 200 YEARS LATER
I hope this helps answer your question about the Popes being involved in “development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon”
Click to expand...
That was not my question. Your editing changed the context of my statement. I am sure you(IGNATIUS) are familiar when Ignatius lived, I am very glad I saw this before I went home to my broken computer. I really do hope that a few of the Protestants on here will read this. Selective editing.
The authority of the Bishop of Rome for the 1st 200 years, although incorrectly claimed by citing Pope Clements letter(despite ignoring letters from other bishops to Rome or other jurisdictions that show that what Clement did is not uncommon) or Pope Victor’s excommunication of some Eastern Bishops(despite the fact that Eusebius clearly states the difference between one person, Victor excommunicating, and when the WHOLE church did it).
 
I could wish to speak about how protestants see the unbiblical Catholic assumption is that Mary ascended to heaven, body and soul, so that she might be close to her Son and intercede before the Father on behalf of the church. But…

Montana man what I dont want to do is attack your beliefs the way you attack ours, but just as you may view our beliefs to be unbiblical we also view many of yours the same, I see these as the reasons we all wish to be on forums such as this. Seriously, I dont see the Catholics view of the assumption of Mary as detrimental to my salvation or yours for that matter, not enough that I will be judgemental about it. Therefore to me it is kind of a mute point. If you think that the protestant belief in sola scriptura is detrimental to your salvation you have the right to speak the way you did if not, please don’t attack and have a look down your nose, your right and all protestants are wrong attitude. It’s not very becoming.
 
Fredricks your taking exception to “selective editting” does nothing to further your cause.
It may well be that Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus said nothing about the development of Scripture because they had and used the Apostolic Tradition in addition to the Scriptures available at the time.
The fact that 200 YEAR LATER someone, specifically the Pope, approved the current listing of accepted books of the Bible only shows that the Holy Spirit continued to work in the Catholic Church at it’s highest level well past the beginnings of the Church and the death of the Apostles. That’s Tradition with a capital ‘T’.
 
40.png
myfavoritmartin:
I could wish to speak about how protestants see the unbiblical Catholic assumption is that Mary ascended to heaven, body and soul, so that she might be close to her Son and intercede before the Father on behalf of the church. But…

Montana man what I dont want to do is attack your beliefs the way you attack ours, but just as you may view our beliefs to be unbiblical we also view many of yours the same, I see these as the reasons we all wish to be on forums such as this. Seriously, I dont see the Catholics view of the assumption of Mary as detrimental to my salvation or yours for that matter, not enough that I will be judgemental about it. Therefore to me it is kind of a mute point. If you think that the protestant belief in sola scriptura is detrimental to your salvation you have the right to speak the way you did if not, please don’t attack and have a look down your nose, your right and all protestants are wrong attitude. It’s not very becoming.
Click to expand...
Point taken. I know how I come across on this board, and whether it’s a real reflection of my true thoughts, or just the way anonymity brings out a bad kind of aggressiveness, I apologize. I don’t hate Protestants. Of course, I DO think Protestantism is a vile heresy, but as Protestants often say about Catholics, “I’m sure some are Christians.”

I suppose it does seem like I’m attacking, but really, that’s not my intent. I’ve pretty much given up on the fantasy that men of good will can come together, weight their arguments for something against each other, and then yield to the truth. That doesn’t happen in real life, and it doesn’t happen here. It’s an idea from Lala Land. So, until I can purge this disordered desire to argue about things on anonymous message boards, well, there’s no way to end that charitably.

Sadly, every time I post here I try to make it humorous but I fail. Instead of sounding like Chevy Chase I end up sounding like Hitler. I’ll try to work on that.
 
40.png
myfavoritmartin:
If you think that the protestant belief in sola scriptura is detrimental to your salvation you have the right to speak the way you did if not, please don’t attack and have a look down your nose, your right and all protestants are wrong attitude. It’s not very becoming.
Click to expand...
I think that the protestant belief in solo scriptura is detrimental to your salvation, not mine.
I don’t think it’s a matter of Montana man being right, it’s a matter of what the Church teaches.
Someone is right and someone is wrong.
The Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is right.
Montana man is simply in agreement.
Protestants, in their disagreement with the Church, are wrong.
Each and every protestant can (and I submit does) come up with their own doctrines based on their own Biblical interpretation.
When the Catholic Church makes Doctrine based on Biblical interpretation and the Tradition of the Apostles, it is going to be correct.
When a protestant makes doctrine based on his own Biblical interpretation, who knows?
Am I going to trust any man or am I going to trust the Church that Jesus founded?
It’s not a difficult question for me to answer.
 
40.png
montanaman:
. I don’t hate Protestants. Of course, I DO think Protestantism is a vile heresy, but as Protestants often say about Catholics, "I’m sure some are Christians."I.
Click to expand...
That was a post I needed, it made me smile even laugh I might add. I am guilty as charged.
I’m done shortly God bless everyone and have a great evening.
-Simon
 
Fredricks your taking exception to “selective editting” does nothing to further your cause.
Click to expand...
Really?
A person goes back 133 posts to take **ONE ** sentence from something I said and then edits it to suit their cause is a good thing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top