Historical Christianity is One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Catholic Church, the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth, told me and you that the Bible is Inspired. But here is the catch…, it takes faith to believe this, faith from the Grace of God, that the Church is right.
 
The protestant communties get their bible from the Catholic Church, because the Church preserved it from when the Church bound it.
 
The protestant communties get their bible from the Catholic Church, because the Church preserved it from when the Church bound it.
Exactly! Rightlydivide will not have a Bible if it were not from the Church. God did not drop the Bible from Heaven.
 
I have a friend that will not listen to anything the Early Church Fathers have to say, his reasoning is because he says “they’re all wrong.” Rightlydivide do you happen to be Oneness Pentecostal, because you seem to take this approach?
 
Here some other teaching of the Didache still practiced by the CC.

Chapter 14.—Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day
  1. But** every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure**. 2. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. 3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.
So who does the Didache say should partake of the meal?
but those who have been baptized into the Lord’s name.
Those baptized, so why does the catholic church not follow this from early Christian history as well?
 
I have a friend that will not listen to anything the Early Church Fathers have to say, his reasoning is because he says “they’re all wrong.” Rightlydivide do you happen to be Oneness Pentecostal, because you seem to take this approach?
If they were “all wrong” then Jesus Christ is not God, there is no such thing as The Holy Trinity, Jesus did not died and rose from the dead, etc. Rightlydivide reasoning behind the Early Church Fathers wittings does not stand. Rightlydivide doctrines are only 500 years old.
 
I have a friend that will not listen to anything the Early Church Fathers have to say, his reasoning is because he says “they’re all wrong.” Rightlydivide do you happen to be Oneness Pentecostal, because you seem to take this approach?
No, I am not a pentecostal. I have read most of the ECF, I think I have clearly shown that.
 
If they were “all wrong” then Jesus Christ is not God, there is no such thing as The Holy Trinity, Jesus did not died and rose from the dead, etc. Rightlydivide reasoning behind the Early Church Fathers wittings does not stand. Rightlydivide doctrines are only 500 years old.
They are all in the Bible, 4000 years old, some of it anyway.
 
They are all in the Bible, 4000 years old, some of it anyway.
Some of your doctrines, such as Bible alone, only came about in the 1500s by a man! You still have not proven the Bible alone theory. . . . .

The Apostles did not believe in Bible alone nor any Christian prior to the 1500s, so we do not have to believe that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. All the Traditions were passed on by the Apostles as the Bible clearly teaches.
 
Once again, I hope people will read the Didache, from around the year 50 or 60 AD and see that absolutely NOTHING in it contradicts my beliefs and many things contradict present Catholic doctrine.
 
Some of your doctrines, such as Bible alone, only came about in the 1500s by a man! You still have not proven the Bible alone theory. . . . .

The Apostles did not believe in Bible alone nor any Christian prior to the 1500s, so we do not have to believe that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. All the Traditions were passed on by the Apostles as the Bible clearly teaches.
You have no clue where any of the extrabiblical traditions originated. Who is the first person to pray before an Icon? Who is the first person to ask Mary to pray for them? Who is the first person to say it is a “discipline” that priests may not marry? Who is the first person to do any of the practices that differ from the Bible? They do not know.
What is more, there are other churches who also claim to follow this tradition and they disagree with the Catholic Church!
 
Once again, I hope people will read the Didache, from around the year 50 or 60 AD and see that absolutely NOTHING in it contradicts my beliefs and many things contradict present Catholic doctrine.
Please list the things in the Didache that contradicts the Catholic faith. . . .
 
You have no clue where any of the extrabiblical traditions originated. Who is the first person to pray before an Icon? Who is the first person to ask Mary to pray for them? Who is the first person to say it is a “discipline” that priests may not marry? Who is the first person to do any of the practices that differ from the Bible? They do not know.
What is more, there are other churches who also claim to follow this tradition and they disagree with the Catholic Church!
First, the Bible alreadly mention that Christ’s Church will not fall into error. Second, the Bible clearly teaches Apostolic Traditions + Bible and not Bible alone as you want others to believe. What other Churches, besides Christ’ Church, claim to believe is not my concern. Christ’ Church has the Authority as Jesus imposed on Her. What has been passed down by the Church is the truth.

The Bible alone theory can not be proven Biblically or Historically, which is why you have not proven it till date.
All of your arguments hangs around a theory that is 500 years old my friend.
 
Read from your own Catholic Encyclopedia as it draws the differences between the early church of the Didache and the present Catholic belief, this is from the Catholic encyclopedia not less!!
There are other signs of early date: the simplicity of the baptismal rite, which is apparently neither preceded by exorcisms nor by formal admission to the catechumenate; the simplicity of the Eucharist, in comparison with the elaborate quasi-Eucharistic prayer in Clem., I Cor., lix-lxi; the permission to prophets to extemporize their Eucharistic thanksgiving; the immediate expectation of the second advent. As we find the Christian Sunday already substituted for the Jewish Sabbath as the day of assembly in Acts, xx, 7 and I Cor., xvi, 2, and called the Lord’s day (Revelation 1:10), there is no difficulty in supposing that the parallel and consequent shifting of the fasts to Wednesday and Friday may have taken place at an equally early date, at least in some places. But the chief point is the ministry. It is twofold: (1) local and (2) itinerant. — (1) The local ministers are bishops and deacons, as in St. Paul (Phil., i, 1) and St. Clement. Presbyters are not mentioned, and the bishops are clearly presbyter-bishops, as in Acts, xx, and in the Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul. But when St. Ignatius wrote in 107, or at the latest 117, the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons were already considered necessary to the very name of a Church, in Syria, Asia Minor, and Rome. If it is probable that in St. Clement’s time there was as yet no “monarchical” bishop at Corinth, yet such a state of things cannot have lasted long in any important Church.
 
So who does the Didache say should partake of the meal?

Those baptized, so why does the catholic church not follow this from early Christian history as well?
The Catholic Church does follow this. What are you talking about?
 
First, the Bible alreadly mention that Christ’s Church will not fall into error.

The gates of hell means death. Please defend the belief that the “gates of hell” means…that an earthly church will not teach an error on matters of faith and doctrine…two different things entirely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top