C
Historical Christianity is One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church
- Status
D
DarkMark
Guest
clmowry;2930816:
Pick me! Pick me! I know, I know!
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Those already baptized.
The EC was Catholic back then there was NO DIVISION. Today, there are different Christians not in communion with Rome. Protestants and Orthodox being one of them.
Many Protestants no longer acknowledge Real Presence and believe Communion is only Symbolic. Catholics still firmly believe like in the beginning, that Jesus is truly present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Blessed Eucharist.
No one can partake of it unless he is Catholic, and free of mortal sin.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
What does the gates of hell mean to you?
To us Catholic it makes perfect sense. The Catholic Church cannot teach error in terms of moral and faith issue. She cannot teach heresy or doctrine contrary to Divine Revelation (Public Revelation).
For over 2,000 yrs, the Catholic Church has not change its moral teaching nor its faith issue.
However, in Protestantism, they aren’t always faithful. Before the 1930s, Protestant Churches use to consider the use of contraception as sinful. After 1930, the Anglican Church no longer consider it sinful. Other Protestant denomination follow the Church of England.
Only the Catholic Church has remain firm.
D
DarkMark
Guest
C
clmowry
Guest
100%
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Catholic Church=True Church of Christ because it is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.
Protestantism= Fragmented form of Christianity which continues to divide today.
Protestantism= Fragmented form of Christianity which continues to divide today.
D
DarkMark
Guest
Our Lord said: “There shall be one fold and one shepherd”, yet it is well known that the various Christian denominations cannot agree on what Christ actually taught or which Church is the true Church. Since Christ roundly condemned interdenominationalism ("And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."Mark 3:25). Protestantism is just a house divided.
If the Church can fall into error, then Christ and Paul is a liar. . . .
If the Church can fall into error, then Christ and Paul is a liar. . . .
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Exactly. If the Church is wrong then I have no reason to believe Jesus is who he claims to be. The Church is in fact, the Mystical Body of Christ. The Church then was One, and Jesus is his Head. There were Schism and fragmentations but the Church is still Catholic.
I always keep this in mind when Jesus instruct his disciples.
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16. Before this he appointed 70 others disciples.
If I reject the Catholic Church, I reject Jesus Christ, I reject Jesus Christ, I reject God, the Father. Woe to me on the of judgment if I reject his Church.
A
Atreyu
Guest
So exactly when did “they” depart from the so-called “true” teachings of Christ?
The Lord of the Rings does not contradict itself, yet I do not believe it to be Scripture. The fact that the Bible contains prophecy fulfilled by Christ is a witness for the truth of Christ and not the Bible. Similarly with the Resurrection - but note that our strongest witness for this is actually extra-Biblical. Your listed reasons don’t contain any method by which a person could know the scope of the Bible. Why is Philemon Scriptural? Why is James Scriptural? What about Baruch?
Matthew 18:
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
The Church must be a visible entity in order for a brother to carry out Our Lord’s instructions in this passage.
But you have no good reasons to use the Bible that you do use.
No. Ignatius of Antioch has seven genuine letters, written at the beginning of the 2nd century and quoted by Eusebius and Jerome. The “long recension” contains the seven genuine letters + interpolations + the 6 spurious letters. We all admit that these 6 letters and the interpolations are all spurious and not written by Ignatius. However, the original 7 letters without the interpolations are genuine. And these letters are accepted as genuine by the vast majority of historians. This includes all Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican scholars. In fact, I reckon the only historians that reject these letters as genuine are those that have the most to lose if the letters are true - ie those that don’t believe in the visible Catholic Church and those that don’t believe in the Real Presence.
On the contrary, Ignatius’s views on ecclesiology are exactly in line with current Catholic and Orthodox teaching. And there are only seven letters - he didn’t set out to write the first version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and so it would be silly to expect him to mention everything. However, he does mention what he feels to be the most important thing - fidelity to the bishop.
I didn’t read the link. I mentioned Calvin because AFAIK, he was the first person to do away with an episcopal ecclesiology. I might be mistaken here, but this was the reason I mentioned him.
According to you. But according to the Catholic Church, Ignatius most definitely is not a heretic - and you won’t find anything in his seven genuine letters to suggest he is.
Y
YADA
Guest
This is just not true. I posted earlier and you ignored…
Jesus quotes Isaiah 22 when he gives to Peter the “keys” of the kingdom…Jesus establishes a new Kingdom as the heir of David, the Church The Prime Minister is given authority in his office to open and close on behalf of the king…Jesus gives to Peter that Office…and the keys that designate it. The People call this Personage [the Prime Minister] given this authoritative role “Abba” [Father, Patriarch, Pater, Papa, Pope…all being dirivatives of the term Father]. It is an office that one holds with the permission of the King! It is filled whenever it becomes vacant, and as long as the kingdom servives…
Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, declares that a successor must be chosen for the Office that Judas left vacant by his betrayal and suicide…Peter quotes the OT…“Let another his office take”…This is not Jesus choosing another…Jesus does not instruct that a replacement…Peter makes this determination…clearly Peter saw a need for apostolic succession…Peter recognized the Office…and just as clearly the testimony of the historical record illustrates the apostolic tradition from Peter to the present day!
Y
YADA
Guest
I have read the Didache and do not find it to be in conflict with what the church teaches today, yesterday or 2000 years ago…
You can not read the Didache and see protestantism, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide or once saved always saved theology…
IMHO, you canot see that if you read the Didache in good faith and with an unbiased heart…or perhaps you are reading a bad translation?..
But then you clearly ignore scripture on apostolic succession and the 'Offices" that are clearly present…
and you apostles saw Jesus…is not accurate…Paul is an Apostle who had an encounter witthe the Ressurected Christ [after the Ascension] This is not the same encounter that Peter James, John and the rest of the twelve had with the Man Jesus…in fact many people throught he ages have had encounters [moments of epithany] where they have encountered Jesus in ways very similar to the Damascus Road incident…Paul still had to travel to Jerusalem to meet with Peter [and others] to have his ministry blessed and accepted by te Chirstian community…
That my friend is apostolic succession and it is an authoritative church organization…
Just like your minister friend, Paul had a life changing conversion, began preaching the Gospel of Jesus but then had to get the approval of the leadership tat Jesus established to have that message authenticated and accepted…Paul did not start his own version of Christianity based upon his personal revelations…he taught the message he was handed on by Peter and thr rest…including the Eucharist [Paul was not present at the Last Supper] that you cannot eat unworthily unless you eat to your death…becuase by partaking of the Eucharist, you partake of the Body and Blood of Jesus, proclaiming that Chirst has died, Christ is risen and Christ will come again…
Y
YADA
Guest
Because they deny the truth of the Eucharist…
Protestants do not know why they deny their symbolic communion to those who are unbaptized…no where in scripture does it identify baptism as necessary for receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus…it is found in the practice of the church, the early church fathers and early christian writings like the Didache…
Protestants could [and can by reception into the Church by completing all of the Sacraments of Initiaition - Baptism being only one third of the way there] recieve the Eucharist…but then they have to stop identifying themselves as being 'Baptist, Non-denom, Methodist, etc…
It is not that the Church denies these baptised members of the Body of Christ…it is a sign of respect for their faith traditions…
Coming together for the Eucharist means we have to eliminate what seperates us and come in charity, love and respect…laying aside the animosity and divisions…scripture [your Paul specifically] gives this instruction…
To come together in a false sense of unity to the Eucharist would be a denial of Jesus, especially if those who join us do not even perceive the Truth that they receive…
D
DarkMark
Guest
Rightlydivide has ignored a lot of posts and then come back with his same old song. . . .
Y
YADA
Guest
Rightlydivide,
You miss understand the teachings of Vatican II - we are calld to perform a penetential act every Friday - this is true pre Vatican II and it is true post Vatican II. We ar also called to be obedient to Jesus [and to the Church JEsus provided to hand on the faith and to be a Pillar and Foundation of Truth]
Pre-Vatican II that penetential sacrifical act was abstaining from meat on every Friday…
Post Vatican II the church acknowledge the pre-eminance of fasting, prayer and abstinance. They acknowledged the tradition and benefits to this holy practice but left it to the individual to establish their own penetential act [while encouraging the faithful to abstain from meat] but allowing for other pious practices…
Afterall. what is penetential about abstaining from meat on Fridays for the vegetarian? Is not working in a soup kitchen or an HIV/Aids Hospice also a sacrificial act…
People eat fish or vegetarian meals many times a week and a lobster dinner [or salmon orhalibut] any form of sacrafice…
Disciplines can change doctrines cannot. Obedience is required of all Christians… it is not for you to say what the Church may require or not…
Y
YADA
Guest
Yes, I see that in the thread…you have been waging a brave fought front … it is too bad he just can not see the Truth … or answer the straight question…
D
DarkMark
Guest
All of you have given great answers. The only thing that is left is for one to open their ears and listen. The hardest part is for one to accept the truth. The Catholic Church is One; She never changed Her Doctrines, but simply passed along what Her Husband Has revealed to Her. . . .
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
My guess is RD may just ignore our answers. If he wish to win his argument, he needs to provide better resources not just his mere opinions. All we got from him “ECF are heretics…Catholic Church is not the first Christians…etc…etc…” without providing the evidence to prove his claim.
He has yet to prove his claim to be true. We can show both in Scripture and Tradition and historical record that the Jesus Christ’s Church is Catholic.
D
DarkMark
Guest
You right. I am still waiting for RD to provide biblical evidence that supports Bible alone (etc), but he have not provided any yet. All we have is RD theories. The Bible and History proves that the Jesus’ Church is 100% Catholic and 0% Protestant.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
- Status