Here is your chance Protestants!

[dennisknapp]

oriel36:

Even if Jesus Himself were to appear before you and shake you by the scruff of the neck it is clear that your love of generalised denominational differences and the racket it produces has more value for you than what is common and good among Christians with the Word at the center.

The early Christian author who was a disciple of ther original apostles expresses all that is good about a heritage which is neither Catholic nor Protestant,at least not as empty can numbskulls would have it.

God forbid that you would learn things such as flexibility and common sense or that people who excuse themselves in remaining silent when amid this Catholic/Protestant racket they imagine they praise God by their absence.Again,there is a good fellow Christian here who has more in common with the exquisite thinking of the early Apostolic Church than a blinkered denominational view which goes nowhere and does nothing.

You want to know how early Apostolic Christians thought -

“I do not speak of things strange to me, nor do I aim at anything inconsistent with right reason; but having been a disciple of the Apostles, I am become a teacher of the Gentiles.”

newadvent.org/fathers/0101.htm

“Even if Jesus Himself were to appear before you and shake you by the scruff of the neck it is clear that your love of generalised denominational differences and the racket it produces has more value for you than what is common and good among Christians with the Word at the center.”

This is productive… So, I am to take your word on what Jesus thinks over that of the Church He founded?

I have one question for you (and please do not avoid this one).

Should Protestant be allowed to take Communion in the Catholic Church?

Peace

 

[CatherineofA]

“Even if Jesus Himself were to appear before you and shake you by the scruff of the neck it is clear that your love of generalised denominational differences and the racket it produces has more value for you than what is common and good among Christians with the Word at the center.”

This is productive… So, I am to take your word on what Jesus thinks over that of the Church He founded?

I have one question for you (and please do not avoid this one).

Should Protestant be allowed to take Communion in the Catholic Church?

Peace

That could be examined by the consideration of Catholic Church standpoints. In your research, what does the church say about Protestants and communion? What are the facts? are opinions? You posed this question without distinguishing which you meant? Since the church’s position would have a documented answer, what is and where is it found?
I noticed that there have been no responses to your excellent question on the roots of Protestantism in the early church. Therefore, it appears no one knows or there is no basis for the Protestant argument. So, what are the historical facts and dates that indicate the Catholic Church’s position was the only position and that Protestantism is a total offshoot of Catholicism? Since you are sure of this and posed this to the Protestant point of view, I know that you have an excellent and documented case for why there is no Protestant case. I would love to see it as I am sure it would be very revealing and educational.

 

[dennisknapp]

CatherineofA:

That could be examined by the consideration of Catholic Church standpoints. In your research, what does the church say about Protestants and communion? What are the facts? are opinions? You posed this question without distinguishing which you meant? Since the church’s position would have a documented answer, what is and where is it found?
I noticed that there have been no responses to your excellent question on the roots of Protestantism in the early church. Therefore, it appears no one knows or there is no basis for the Protestant argument. So, what are the historical facts and dates that indicate the Catholic Church’s position was the only position and that Protestantism is a total offshoot of Catholicism? Since you are sure of this and posed this to the Protestant point of view, I know that you have an excellent and documented case for why there is no Protestant case. I would love to see it as I am sure it would be very revealing and educational.

One question–

The Catholic Church’s accessment of history is that it is the Church Christ established and maintains through the successor of St. Peter.

Do you agree that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established and is maintained through the successor of St. Peter?

If you want evidence I can give you sections from the CCC, but this is common knowledge.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

A very informed Protestant named Contarini posted this on another thread:

"I don’t know of any reputable reference work that would list 606. When you think the “Roman Catholic Church” began is a subjective matter, because both Catholicism and Orthodoxy developed over time from the early Church. There is no date that one can assign, except the various dates when the Church split. So you could argue that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy date from 1054 or whatever other date you give for the East/West split. You could also claim that “Roman Catholicism” originated with the Council of Trent. But it’s all subjective, really. What can’t be disputed is that there is a continuous, organic link between modern Catholicism and Orthodoxy (including the “Oriental Orthodox” and the “Church of the East”) and the New Testament Church, and that no other church existing today can trace such a link except through Catholicism or Orthodoxy. All the claims of some kind of apostolic succession of dissenting Christians throughout the Middle Ages are bogus. I don’t know of any credible modern historian who believes those claims."

This is what I am looking for.

Peace

 

[mtr01]

oriel36:

The Church is founded on Christ,not on Peter.

." On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus."

newadvent.org/fathers/1701124.htm

I know this response is a little late in coming, but I felt I had to respond to this. Quoting Church Fathers out of context is like quoting Bible verses out of context. Since Augustine is my patron saint, I often get discouraged at how many times people try to use him to support a view he never had. Let’s look at another passage from Augustine:

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!”

newadvent.org/fathers/1102053.htm

You have to realize that Augustine never held an eith/or position. For him, Peter could be the rock precisely because Christ was a rock. Peter’s “rockness” derived from Christ. He stressed different perspective depending on who his audience was, and his purpose in writing.

 

[banjo]

Shibboleth:

Each one of these can be refuted on one level or another but I will begin with what most people recognize as the first document that supposedly displays the Authority of the Roman Bishop.

This document is a letter by St. Clement to the Corinthians. With this letter certain people wish to show that the Pope was utilizing his Papal power to make the Corinthians comply. There is a problem here though… the note states that it is written after a persecution - some people want to say that it was after the 95-96 persecution of Domitian; however, the letter also speaks of Jewish sacrifices still occurring in the Temple of Jerusalem. The Temple of Jerusalem was torn down by Titus in 70 A.D. so the letter must have been written after the persecution of Nero from 64-68 that only leaves the year of 69 that the letter could have been written.

Considering that Clement didn’t become the Bishop of Rome till the twentieth year of Domitian’s reign this letter was written 24 YEARS before Clement was the Bishop of Rome - HE HAD NO AUTHORITY!

Now that we understand how people wrote back then even without authority that opens up our understanding of future documents. I will continue from here when I get time.

I did not refer to the letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians in my post. As an aside, however, The Faith of the Early Fathers W.A. Jurgens, dates this letter to 80 AD, when Clement was Bishop of Rome. If, as you say, “Each of these (my quotes) can be refuted on one level or another” then proceed if that is your wish. Regarding your last paragraph, “Now that we understand…” I ask a small favor, please do not co-join me with your statements or opinions. Nothing personal. It’s obvious that we are not in agreement at least on this point.

 

[ruzz]

dennisknapp:

One question–

The Catholic Church’s accessment of history is that it is the Church Christ established and maintains through the successor of St. Peter.

Do you agree that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established and is maintained through the successor of St. Peter?

If you want evidence I can give you sections from the CCC, but this is common knowledge.

Peace

I don’t quite understand what you are seeking. Protestants don’t deny that the Church formed and has existed for 2000 years. That would be like denying that men landed on the moon. I think they question other things.

Protestants don’t think Jesus meant to form a single head of his church with a representative to be an authority to speak in Jesus’ absence. They don’t question the church formed, but they question it’s authenticity and authority.

This becomes an entire debate over Mat 16:18 etc. Are you looking to discuss that? I think that is a different thread altogether. Nothing to do with history.

So Protestants don’t view The Church as an authority. Therefore any doctrine that was produced from The Church, they ignore.

As for history, they have a sketchy view on the time of Christ’s crucifixion until The Chruch was formed. The Church has written its own record of the history. Outside of the Church, the history is not as clear. There were apostles preaching in other regions while the RCC was already into its 5th pope. Many protestants question the early church leadership as being Peter’s (or God’s) choice. This part of the historical record has many versions. They aren’t protestant versions because that didn’t occur for 1500 years later.

So there are 2 discrepancies in Protestant version of Church history. They feel:

A) Jesus didn’t mean for a corporation to be built with a single representative. All doctrine built from this is not from Jesus but from the men who formed and operated the early church.

B) The original Church formation and leadership (Peter’s sucessors) is questionable.

I think that is the protestant (non-catholic) view on early Church history.

History can and is always debated. America views the revolutionary war as a fight for freedom. The English probably viewed it as a rebellion against a protecting force and a denial of the heritage of the new world. Some people view the American force in Iraq as liberators. Others view them as invading occupiers.

dennisknapp, I’m not sure where you are going with this thread or what point you are trying to make. Are you interested in the protestant view of the reformation?

I think the world is in a crisis with Christianity right now. History isn’t nearly as important as the future. The direction America is going is to follow in Europe’s trail where they have almost abandoned Christianity completely. We in America need to focus on the future and revival and not so much in what different versions of history are told.

.

 

[oriel36]

“Even if Jesus Himself were to appear before you and shake you by the scruff of the neck it is clear that your love of generalised denominational differences and the racket it produces has more value for you than what is common and good among Christians with the Word at the center.”

This is productive… So, I am to take your word on what Jesus thinks over that of the Church He founded?

I have one question for you (and please do not avoid this one).

Should Protestant be allowed to take Communion in the Catholic Church?

Peace

I explicitly stated that if you cannot,I repeat cannot discern that Jesus adresses two types of Christian and take my word for it,it is His Majesty that addreses you to drop the matter.

“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=11&version=31

If you do not do not speak for Christ or Christianity.

There are too many undisciplined clowns running around with our sacred writing .

 

[oriel36]

mtr01:

I know this response is a little late in coming, but I felt I had to respond to this. Quoting Church Fathers out of context is like quoting Bible verses out of context. Since Augustine is my patron saint, I often get discouraged at how many times people try to use him to support a view he never had. Let’s look at another passage from Augustine:

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!”

newadvent.org/fathers/1102053.htm

You have to realize that Augustine never held an eith/or position. For him, Peter could be the rock precisely because Christ was a rock. Peter’s “rockness” derived from Christ. He stressed different perspective depending on who his audience was, and his purpose in writing.

Sir

The center of my faith as a Catholic is Jesus,it is not Peter nor any man that followed him up to any including our late Pope who I am proud of for his work with fellow Christians.

You are most certainly incorrect and this lousy process of dilution has got to stop.If you don’t like Augustine then try Paul but I quote these men simply to demonstrate my own belief and I rely on neither to acknowledge what I know myself.

“11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=3&verse=11&version=31&context=verse

Don’t even think of diluting something which is a central tenet of faith.

 

[dennisknapp]

ruzz:

I don’t quite understand what you are seeking. Protestants don’t deny that the Church formed and has existed for 2000 years. That would be like denying that men landed on the moon. I think they question other things.

Protestants don’t think Jesus meant to form a single head of his church with a representative to be an authority to speak in Jesus’ absence. They don’t question the church formed, but they question it’s authenticity and authority.

This becomes an entire debate over Mat 16:18 etc. Are you looking to discuss that? I think that is a different thread altogether. Nothing to do with history.

So Protestants don’t view The Church as an authority. Therefore any doctrine that was produced from The Church, they ignore.

As for history, they have a sketchy view on the time of Christ’s crucifixion until The Chruch was formed. The Church has written its own record of the history. Outside of the Church, the history is not as clear. There were apostles preaching in other regions while the RCC was already into its 5th pope. Many protestants question the early church leadership as being Peter’s (or God’s) choice. This part of the historical record has many versions. They aren’t protestant versions because that didn’t occur for 1500 years later.

So there are 2 discrepancies in Protestant version of Church history. They feel:

A) Jesus didn’t mean for a corporation to be built with a single representative. All doctrine built from this is not from Jesus but from the men who formed and operated the early church.

B) The original Church formation and leadership (Peter’s sucessors) is questionable.

I think that is the protestant (non-catholic) view on early Church history.

History can and is always debated. America views the revolutionary war as a fight for freedom. The English probably viewed it as a rebellion against a protecting force and a denial of the heritage of the new world. Some people view the American force in Iraq as liberators. Others view them as invading occupiers.

dennisknapp, I’m not sure where you are going with this thread or what point you are trying to make. Are you interested in the protestant view of the reformation?

I think the world is in a crisis with Christianity right now. History isn’t nearly as important as the future. The direction America is going is to follow in Europe’s trail where they have almost abandoned Christianity completely. We in America need to focus on the future and revival and not so much in what different versions of history are told.

.

Thank you for your great response. This is exactly what I am looking for.

I do agree with you on the state of the world, but what you say against the Catholic Church nullifies her role in it.

If the Church says that she is the Church Christ established with infallible regarding such things as Faith and Morals, and this is not true then she is a liar and should be avoided, for no other Church claims such a thing.

The reason I said that this is your chance, is because if you debunk the history of the Church and her claims, you debunk her!

Why do you think the Da Vinci code is so popular? To many it does just that, it debunks Church history (and is total devoid of schoralship).

Don’t get me wrong, I trust that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established with infalliblity regarding faith and moral, but I could be wrong.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

oriel36:

I explicitly stated that if you cannot,I repeat cannot discern that Jesus adresses two types of Christian and take my word for it,it is His Majesty that addreses you to drop the matter.

“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=11&version=31

If you do not do not speak for Christ or Christianity.

There are too many undisciplined clowns running around with our sacred writing .

His Majesty is addressing me to drop the matter? Who is this Majesty? You?

You never answered my previous question (which I knew you wouldn’t). Should Protestants be allowed to recieve communion in the Catholic Church?

Peace

 

[wabrams]

dennisknapp:

Should Protestants be allowed to recieve communion in the Catholic Church?

I say yes, as long as they are baptised.

 

[oriel36]

dennisknapp:

His Majesty is addressing me to drop the matter? Who is this Majesty? You?

Peace

You are a modern form of the Alogi or those people who made a nuisance of themselves by trying to deny the Johannine works and subsequently it shows up in your views of the Church as dictating faith and morals.

"But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God."usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm

You became a Catholic by your own decision but I am a Catholic who became an Apostolic Christian by the gift of God.This is why there are always two Christians within the ranks of Apostolic Christianity.While I treaure my Catholic heritage from the community,the ground in which God chooses to bestow the gift,just as the Johannine Word says is non denominational Love.

Anyone on either denominational side who works towards baiting is not a Christian,Catholic or otherwise.

Go serve your master - the devil.

 

[Ignatius]

oriel36:

Originally Posted by oriel36
It is easier to shout insults at someone than to find

Ignatius:

Originally Posted by Ignatius
I have read this thread and didn’t see that. Would you please cite the postings from this thread that are shouting insults?

The early Church recognised a very specific group of people known as the ‘Alogi’ or

I apologize if I was not clear. You made an accusation of shouting insults. Is this a false accusation and you are trying to sidestep the fact? If not, please cite the postings from this thread that are shouting insults!

 

[Ignatius]

CatherineofA:

The Catholic side has been criticized to the nth degree. I’d like to see what kind of evidence the protestants have that they have some root in early christianity other then through the Catholic Church.

Why couldn’t they protestants had any other roots? .

Didn’t say they couldn’t; I’d just like to know what they are.

 

[ruzz]

dennisknapp:

Thank you for your great response. This is exactly what I am looking for.

I do agree with you on the state of the world, but what you say against the Catholic Church nullifies her role in it.

I don’t think so. Look at the great work of JPII. Good is good. The church has done some great things. However, some athiests have too. But they don’t give the credit to Jesus Christ.

If the Church says that she is the Church Christ established with infallible regarding such things as Faith and Morals, and this is not true then she is a liar and should be avoided, for no other Church claims such a thing.

I don’t think someone should be avoided for making mistakes. Your father could have told you that you were Irish decent. He could be wrong. But that doesn’t change YOUR character at all. Just that your heritage is not what you thought. But you are still a good and moral person.

The reason I said that this is your chance, is because if you debunk the history of the Church and her claims, you debunk her!

There are plenty of websites dedicated to debunking the heritage of the RCC. There is a lot of lies and probably some truth. What really matters is what it is today.

The fact that my great great great grandfather was a slave owner doesn’t mean I condone it or approve of it. And conversely, just because my great great…great grandfather was George Washington, doesn’t make me a good person.

Why do you think the Da Vinci code is so popular? To many it does just that, it debunks Church history (and is total devoid of schoralship).

Maybe. The secular world certainly likes to see “holy people” shot down.
Harry Potter is more poplular and goes against God’s word to not practice sorcery.

Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons is a much better book and actually is quite timely. It is based around the conclave of electing a new pope. Although it is riddled with fiction, it actually is pretty kind to the RCC and the need for morals and spiritual guidance. In fact, Dan Brown received and audience with JPII before writing it.

Pax vobiscum

 

[reggie]

Oriel,

What do you mean by two types of Christians? You certainly have a very cryptic way of arguing. I may be dense as I find it hard to discern the intent of many of your posts. However, I am certainly not a madman! I do not fling words about; I am a student of Catholic theology, not an expert and I have only spoken of my understanding of what the church teaches in regards to the primacy of Peter and the authority of his successors.

Once one accepts these assertions, one then logically ascribes to the church the duty to dictate morals and doctrines. Submission is encouraged and admirable. For when we do not submit to leadership on these matters anarchy results. That is the case today in Christianity outside and inside the church. It is not interdenominational bickering and baiting that causes the rift among Christians, it is the relativistic and flexible view that people are the sole judges of what is proper worship of the Trinity and the proper beliefs and practices of a Christian.

I do not think that the church is an institution nor a building. I have addressed what I believe is the church and no where did I say that it is a building. You may counter that that is what you have inferred from what I wrote but your assumption would be wrong. I do believe that the actual buildings are an important part of the church, but only because of who resides there, and what transpires when the faithful are assembled there.

My faith begins with God as Father, Jesus as Son and the Holy Spirit as guide and paraclete. That faith is deepened, strengthened and sanctified through the church as commissioned by Jesus when He said to Peter "Feed my lambs. Tend my sheep. Feed my sheep. I have a personal relationship with Jesus through personal prayer and a communal relationship with Him through communal prayer, namely the mass.

I hardly think you are qualified to speak to the type of Christian I am. I post here as a way to hopefully teach but also to learn. You speak of flexiblility, that would suggest that you believe that differing doctrines are equally valid. The church does not teach this. I follow Christ as He has revealed Himself through the church. I do not claim to judge anothers’ faith, I do not claim that those outside the church are damned. But, I do believe that for those who desire to know the fullnes of truth, it is to be found in the church Jesus founded on Peter.

 

[reggie]

Kevan:

Are you aware of the origin of this expression?

I imagine there is some sinister origin of this expression, i.e. the inquisition or the Salem witch trials or some such thing. I suppose it was a poor choice of words on my part. I simply meant that we are to hold protestants to clearly explain their positions by asking hard questions and standing strong in our defense of the CC. I certainly didn’t mean it literally or to offend.

As to baptized non-Catholics receiving communion. St. Justin Martyr spoke of those allowed to receive the Eucharist as professing faith in Jesus and accepting the teaching of the church. When you receive, you are saying Amen to Christ but also Amen to the church. Why would a protestant want to receive in the Catholic church when they do not accept her teachings on the Eucharist itself?

 

[reggie]

Ignatius:

The early Church recognised a very specific group of people known as the ‘Alogi’ or

I apologize if I was not clear. You made an accusation of shouting insults. Is this a false accusation and you are trying to sidestep the fact? If not, please cite the postings from this thread that are shouting insults!

You will not receive a direct response to this as there have been neither insults nor shouting directed at Oriel.

On the other hand, he/she has called me a madman and unchristian and said explicitly that dennisknapp and others serve the devil and are a nuisance.

A case of the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[wabrams]

reggie:

As to baptized non-Catholics receiving communion. St. Justin Martyr spoke of those allowed to receive the Eucharist as professing faith in Jesus and accepting the teaching of the church. When you receive, you are saying Amen to Christ but also Amen to the church. Why would a protestant want to receive in the Catholic church when they do not accept her teachings on the Eucharist itself?

I see nothing wrong with a Protestant taking communion in a Catholic Church. By doing so, we are praising Jesus and His sacrifice for us. It has nothing to do with accepting the teaching of the Church, but merely sharing our faith in Jesus.