History of the Roman Catholic Church

[twb1621]

Thank you for that.

(Stepping back, taking a deep breath.)

Ok,let me try this again, without making any accusations or pointing fingers.

I know that CC (notice I am refraining from using RCC) relies heavily upon Tradition to support claims to being the church that Christ founded. I am not denying the documentation that is used to support this claim either. Truthfully, recorded history itself supports the lineage of the CC and the Church does not rely on it’s tradition to support this, but to teach the word of God. If you consider the Bible itself originated from the Church in accompanyment with Sacred Tradition which is how the word of God was always presented, and that the written word was a part of those teachings, it is not hard to understand where the “Tradition” part comes in. If you take the Bible away from its source and companion traditional teachings, you are left with partial teachings at best. The Sacred Traditions obviously were passed on through apostolic succession whic is the critical foundation of the authentic Christian teaching and if researched, it is verifiable including the apostles offering of the Eucherist. Although we in the CC defend for clarification purposes the authenticity of the CC, the CC does not deal with such issues of doubt when it comes to her teacings including the sacred traditions passed on through the successors of Peter, the apostles or Church Fathers.However, and correct me if I am wrong, it is my understanding, through reading scripture, that God does not change. And if God does not change than the relationship he had with the Nation of Isreal should be that same relationship that he has with us, barring the ceremonial laws of which Christ is the fulfillment thereof. Granted, the Bride of Christ (the Church) has possession of the NEW COVENANT, but the NEW COVENANT was originally made with the Nation of Isreal or the Jews. Actually, no. The New Covenant included gentiles and all believers who accepted the Son of God just as Jesus instructed the proclamation to all nations and peoples. Jesus was the fullfillment of the OT, yes. He did away with nothing of the OT but added to it the offer of Salvation for those who accept Him and His teachings. God has not changed and the OT in its entirity expresses the love and will of God for His chosen people but how many times they drifted or turned away from Him. It reflects His accepting them back when they repented also but the most common response of God when the Jews turned from Him was most times to allow them to take their chosen course and crash (if you will) without His guidence and support. He did not protect them when they were on their own. This is not to say that He didn’t react at times with just punishment when He so chose. The nature of the New Covenant only differs from the Nature of the Old Covenant in that the Law is now written on the hearts of the Believers and Followers of Christ. The argument concerning the validity of the Moral Law, Decalogue, has raged and raged on this forum since even before I joined, the archives here show this to be true. And in each case it has been shown, by Catholics, that the Moral Law is still valid. Being the case and knowing the history of the Nation of Isreal and its relationship with God, would how a church’s relates to God be evidence as to whether or not it could be the One True Chruch the Christ founded? Could a church claiming to be Christ’s One True Church violate these Laws, even though the Church is under Grace, and still lay claim to being such? Does being under Grace give Christ’s Bride license to violate his Laws?
In this regard I do not know what specifically you are referring to as violations but I would be glad to discuss it further if you elaborate.
In my earlier posts I was just trying to lay a foundation for intellegent discussion on the OP’s subject instead of jumping to conclusions or resorting to accussations (sic) through sound reasoning. I don’t really care that the SDA or any other denomination, including the CC (Roman Rite), can or cannot trace their lineage back to the beginning, what is important to know is that God preserved the Nation of Isreal for over 3000 years and he has preserved the Bride of Christ since it’s inception and will continue to do so until Christ returns. Christ knows who are his and he’ll sort them out in the end.

The people of Isreal are still the chosen people for those who recognize and accept Christ but so are all people accepted as the adopted children of God in their acceptance of Him. Remember that those who do not follow the Will of God are not saved regardless of Jew or gentile. Being chosen doesn’t mean it is based singularly on nationality, but on belief, faith and acceptance.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Thank you for that.

(Stepping back, taking a deep breath.)

Ok,let me try this again, without making any accusations or pointing fingers.

I know that CC (notice I am refraining from using RCC) relies heavily upon Tradition to support claims to being the church that Christ founded. I am not denying the documentation that is used to support this claim either. However, and correct me if I am wrong, it is my understanding, through reading scripture, that God does not change. And if God does not change than the relationship he had with the Nation of Isreal should be that same relationship that he has with us, barring the ceremonial laws of which Christ is the fulfillment thereof. Granted, the Bride of Christ (the Church) has possession of the NEW COVENANT, but the NEW COVENANT was originally made with the Nation of Isreal or the Jews.

Hi Sabbath Keeper,

The New Covenant was made with all people, Jews and Gentiles. It was first preached to the Nation of Israel, and then to the Gentiles, but it was always meant to be entered into by anyone, who with faith, believed and was baptized and joined the Church.

The nature of the New Covenant only differs from the Nature of the Old Covenant in that the Law is now written on the hearts of the Believers and Followers of Christ. The argument concerning the validity of the Moral Law, Decalogue, has raged and raged on this forum since even before I joined, the archives here show this to be true. And in each case it has been shown, by Catholics, that the Moral Law is still valid. Being the case and knowing the history of the Nation of Isreal and its relationship with God, would how a church’s relates to God be evidence as to whether or not it could be the One True Chruch the Christ founded? Could a church claiming to be Christ’s One True Church violate these Laws, even though the Church is under Grace, and still lay claim to being such? Does being under Grace give Christ’s Bride license to violate his Laws?

No, of course not, the True Church cannot violate God’s laws. And contrary to what some denominations teach, The Catholic Church does not teach anyone to violate God’s law. This is the case in regards to “days” as well. This is an area that needs to be studied more openly and more deeply in order to understand the truth of this. And I know that is difficult for many of us who were, or are, deeply ingrained with the notion that the Catholic Church disregards, or sets itself above, God’s law. It really does not.

In my earlier posts I was just trying to lay a foundation for intellegent discussion on the OP’s subject instead of jumping to conclusions or resorting to accussations (sic) through sound reasoning. I don’t really care that the SDA or any other denomination, including the CC (Roman Rite), can or cannot trace their lineage back to the beginning, what is important to know is that God preserved the Nation of Isreal for over 3000 years and he has preserved the Bride of Christ since it’s inception and will continue to do so until Christ returns. Christ knows who are his and he’ll sort them out in the end.

Since the Church is so important in the New Covenant, as the Nation of Israel was in the Old Covenant, it is very important to know which Church is the The Church of the New Covenant. The One Jesus Christ began, The One that Jesus Christ formed, The One that Jesus Christ guuided in its early stages, The One that Jesus Christ has been with from the beginning, The One that Jesus Christ will see through to the end of time, The One that Jesus Christ promised would not be overcome by the powers of hell.

A 2,000 year unbroken lineage is very important, and should not be discarded nor discounted because at times “Judas” was in its midst and worked terrible mischief. Jesus is in the midst always and is willing to take the risk of entrusting His work for the salvation of souls to sinful humans. He never promised the Church would be perfect, only that it would endure to the end and be triumphant!!

God bless all!!!

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Part 1 of 2

You really made it difficult for me to respond to your last post so let’s hope I can unjumble this an respond appropriately.

Originally Posted by Sabbath Keeper
Thank you for that.

(Stepping back, taking a deep breath.)

Ok,let me try this again, without making any accusations or pointing fingers.

I know that CC (notice I am refraining from using RCC) relies heavily upon Tradition to support claims to being the church that Christ founded. I am not denying the documentation that is used to support this claim either.

Truthfully, recorded history itself supports the lineage of the CC and the Church does not rely on it’s tradition to support this, but to teach the word of God. If you consider the Bible itself originated from the Church in accompanyment with Sacred Tradition which is how the word of God was always presented, and that the written word was a part of those teachings, it is not hard to understand where the “Tradition” part comes in. If you take the Bible away from its source and companion traditional teachings, you are left with partial teachings at best. The Sacred Traditions obviously were passed on through apostolic succession whic(h) is the critical foundation of the authentic Christian teaching and if researched, it is verifiable including the apostles offering of the Eucherist. Although we in the CC defend for clarification purposes the authenticity of the CC, the CC does not deal with such issues of doubt when it comes to her teacings including the sacred traditions passed on through the successors of Peter, the apostles or Church Fathers.

I have already stated in earlier posts my views concerning Tradition. I have not denied, nor accepted for that matter, the claim that the CC has lineage back to the beginning. I have stated that it may be possible, if the CC does actually have this lineage, than any of the “Protestant” denominations that came out of her, and the fact that the CC deems them as daughters, that they too would have lineage through the CC’s parenthood. But this is not the point I am trying to make.

And I understan that the CC does not deal with with such issues of doubt, rather, and I mean no disrespect for I have read the CCC on the issue of questions concerning CC doctrine, it is expected the unwavering obedience be given to the doctrines of the CC by authoritative direction of the Pope.

However, and correct me if I am wrong, it is my understanding, through reading scripture, that God does not change. And if God does not change than the relationship he had with the Nation of Isreal should be that same relationship that he has with us, barring the ceremonial laws of which Christ is the fulfillment thereof. Granted, the Bride of Christ (the Church) has possession of the NEW COVENANT, but the NEW COVENANT was originally made with the Nation of Isreal or the Jews.

Actually, no. The New Covenant included gentiles and all believers who accepted the Son of God just as Jesus instructed the proclamation to all nations and peoples.

The New Covenant does include Gentiles, however, the promise of a New Covenant was given to the Jews. It through the Jews that the Gentiles were included, it was for the Jew first, and after they rejected Christ as the Messiah it passed to the Gentiles.

Jesus was the fullfillment of the OT, yes. He did away with nothing of the OT but added to it the offer of Salvation for those who accept Him and His teachings.

You might have a problem with this with some of your fellow Catholics as they will tell you that the Law was nailed to the cross and therefore done away with. However, as stated before, I believe the OT needs to be used to learn how we are to relate to God. Although we are under Grace, it does not mean that we can blatantly ignore what we learn from God’s relationship with the Jews.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Part 2 of 2

God has not changed and the OT in its entirity expresses the love and will of God for His chosen people but how many times they drifted or turned away from Him. It reflects His accepting them back when they repented also but the most common response of God when the Jews turned from Him was most times to allow them to take their chosen course and crash (if you will) without His guidence and support. He did not protect them when they were on their own. This is not to say that He didn’t react at times with just punishment when He so chose.

This is the part of the point of which I was trying to direct the course of this thread and in doing so answer the question of whether or not the “Traditions” of the Church had or had not been in some way corrupted and if so when and how.

The nature of the New Covenant only differs from the Nature of the Old Covenant in that the Law is now written on the hearts of the Believers and Followers of Christ. The argument concerning the validity of the Moral Law, Decalogue, has raged and raged on this forum since even before I joined, the archives here show this to be true. And in each case it has been shown, by Catholics, that the Moral Law is still valid. Being the case and knowing the history of the Nation of Isreal and its relationship with God. Would how a church’s relates to God be evidence as to whether or not it could be the One True Chruch that Christ founded? Could a church claiming to be Christ’s One True Church violate these Laws, even though the Church is under Grace, and still lay claim to being such? Does being under Grace give Christ’s Bride license to violate his Laws?

In this regard I do not know what specifically you are referring to as violations but I would be glad to discuss it further if you elaborate.

I am refering to possible violations of the Moral Law of God. Those law of which the CC deems as Natural Laws and which it further seperates out, pardon me, those that seemingly are no longer valid because of the New Covenant. But my point is that if God does not change then those Laws, whether considered Moral or Natural, would not change either. Thus making them as valid today for the Christian as they were in the Old Testament for the Jew.

In my earlier posts I was just trying to lay a foundation for intellegent discussion on the OP’s subject instead of jumping to conclusions or resorting to accussations (sic) through sound reasoning. I don’t really care that the SDA or any other denomination, including the CC (Roman Rite), can or cannot trace their lineage back to the beginning, what is important to know is that God preserved the Nation of Isreal for over 3000 years and he has preserved the Bride of Christ since it’s inception and will continue to do so until Christ returns. Christ knows who are his and he’ll sort them out in the end.

The people of Isreal are still the chosen people for those who recognize and accept Christ but so are all people accepted as the adopted children of God in their acceptance of Him. Remember that those who do not follow the Will of God are not saved regardless of Jew or gentile. Being chosen doesn’t mean it is based singularly on nationality, but on belief, faith and acceptance.

Agreed.

 

[twb1621]

Part 1 of 2

You really made it difficult for me to respond to your last post so let’s hope I can unjumble this an respond appropriately.

Paragraph #1… I have already stated in earlier posts my views concerning Tradition. I have not denied, nor accepted for that matter, the claim that the CC has lineage back to the beginning. I have stated that it may be possible, if the CC does actually have this lineage, than any of the “Protestant” denominations that came out of her, and the fact that the CC deems them as daughters, that they too would have lineage through the CC’s parenthood. But this is not the point I am trying to make.

Paragraph #2… And I understan that the CC does not deal with with such issues of doubt, rather, and I mean no disrespect for I have read the CCC on the issue of questions concerning CC doctrine, it is expected the unwavering obedience be given to the doctrines of the CC by authoritative direction of the Pope.

Paragraph #3… The New Covenant does include Gentiles, however, the promise of a New Covenant was given to the Jews. It through the Jews that the Gentiles were included, it was for the Jew first, and after they rejected Christ as the Messiah it passed to the Gentiles.

Paragraph #4… You might have a problem with this with some of your fellow Catholics as they will tell you that the Law was nailed to the cross and therefore done away with. However, as stated before, I believe the OT needs to be used to learn how we are to relate to God. Although we are under Grace, it does not mean that we can blatantly ignore what we learn from God’s relationship with the Jews.

ok, we’ll try it this way

RE: Paragraph #1
I’m not sure how you meant “came out of her” but Just to clarify a point or two, the protestant denominations did not come out of the CC but from people who formed their own opinions on what in the gospels was acceptable and what belief systems they felt most comfortable following. They were completely independant of the Catholic teachings and in fact, Luthers or anyones teachings which go against the teachings of the CC resulted in excommunication of one’s self regardless of proclamation by the Church. the Church only recognizes other denominations (some) as "Christian brothers and sisters based on Baptism, not in their belief systems. This is based on the fact those who seperated 500 years ago knew what they were doing where as those of various denominations today are not learned in the Catholic Faith to make the same choice. Your ussue regarding no stand pro or con regarding tradition is understood, no problem there.

RE: Paragraph #2
No problem, no disrespect assumed…

RE: Paragraph #3
This is correct…

RE: Paragraph #4 and remaining
It was the laws and the traditions established by man that was referred to as departed from but the commandments of God which in fact do deal with morality and ethics and every aspect of humility and charity toward others was reinforced and strengthened by Jesus. This is the teachings of the CC. All of the teachings of Christ in the Church today were carried forth from the Apostles including the principles of the mass and the day of the Lord. Although clarification has been offered throughout the centuries, no aspects of the teachings of Christian faith are ever changed.

 

[twb1621]

In regard to Sunday Worship for instance

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.”
Didache,14(A.D. 70),in ACW,VI:23

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death–whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master”
Ignatius,To the Magnesians,9:1(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:62

“The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest–abstraction from ills–preparing for the Primal Day,[ie. The Lord’s Day] our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth–a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following Him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impossible; and this is to rest.”
Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,6:16(A.D. 202),in ANF,II:512

“In fine, let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of the threat of death, teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath, or practised circumcision, and were thus rendered “friends of God.” For if circumcision purges a man since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did He not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? At all events, in settling him in paradise, He appointed one uncircumcised as colonist of paradise. Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended; while He accepted what he was offering in simplicity of heart, and reprobated the sacrifice of his brother Cain, who was not rightly dividing what he was offering. Noah also, uncircumcised–yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath–God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and in-observant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world; who did not first taste death, in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might by this time show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God.”
Tertullian,An answer to the Jews,2(A.D. 203),in ANF,III:153
continued at
cin.org/users/jgallegos/sunday.htm

 

[jblake]

Actually you can go back further still.

Since not everybody can read the writings of 景教. I was restricting the literature search to the Romance and Germanic languages.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Benjamin8o8;:

the only reason people didn`t specifically call it the Catholic Church is because there was no calvinists, JW, Baptists, Methodist, Adventists around…

For the size of the Early Christian movement, the number of factions within it was surprisingly high. The diversity of beliefs that they represented was proportionally equivalent to that espoused today as “Christianity”.

jonathon

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

For the size of the Early Christian movement, the number of factions within it was surprisingly high. The diversity of beliefs that they represented was proportionally equivalent to that espoused today as “Christianity”.

I think "factions’ is a misnomer. There were different opinions, particularly about the nature of the Lord and His divinity juxtaposed to His humanity, the nature of the Lord’s Supper, the Sabbath as opposed to the Lord’s Day, etc., and it took a century or so to sort it all out. As to the ‘diversity of beliefs’ they are called heresies and none of them existed for very long. The diversity of beliefs that exists today had their genesis with the
16th Century Catholics who left the Church to form what is today protestantism. None of them existed before the 16th Century.

 

[jblake]

Ferde Rombola;:

I think "factions’ is a misnomer.

Of the groups that didn’t survive, we have Ebionites, Nazarenes, and Marcionites, to name just three.

Then there is the range of theological positions within the Church that received a name, but whose proponents were not outside of proto-orthodox Christianity.

As to the ‘diversity of beliefs’ they are called heresies and none of them existed for very long.

Those beliefs that did not survive into orthodox Christianity, were declared heretical. However, my point was that beliefs on both sides of that divide survived, and continued to be spread.

For most of the heresies, the only side we have, is that of the winners, not the losers. Of specific interest, is those things which were once claimed to be heresies, but now described as “simple misunderstandings.”

None of them existed before the 16th Century.

You have to look at each specific point of theology, and trace it back. Not TULIP, but each component of TULIP.

jonathon

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Those beliefs that did not survive into orthodox Christianity, were declared heretical. However, my point was that beliefs on both sides of that divide survived, and continued to be spread.

For most of the heresies, the only side we have, is that of the winners, not the losers. Of specific interest, is those things which were once claimed to be heresies, but now described as “simple misunderstandings.”

You’ll have to be more specific before I can comment on your statement. “Both sides of that divide” is something I don’t understand. What ‘divide?’

You have to look at each specific point of theology, and trace it back. Not TULIP, but each component of TULIP.

That one is a Calvinist invention which is a non-starter with me. Sorry, but it’s not theology.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

However, and correct me if I am wrong, it is my understanding, through reading scripture, that God does not change.

“God does not change” doesn’t mean He doesn’t change His mind.

"When the Lord saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth…He regretted that He had made man on earth, and His heart was grieved. So the Lord said, “I will wipe out from the earth the men whom I have created, and not only the men, but also the beast and the creeping things and the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them.” Gen. 6:5-7. And He did.

And if God does not change than the relationship he had with the Nation of Isreal should be that same relationship that he has with us

That does not scan and ‘should be’ is inoperative. God’s covenant with what you call 'the Nation of Israel, “I will be your God and you will be my people.” has nothing to do with the New Covenant in the Blood of Jesus Christ. Jews are not Christians. They have rejected Christ. God took note of it and acted accordingly. The beliefs of your sect do not conform to the beliefs of orthodox Christianity.

 

[po18guy]

For the size of the Early Christian movement, the number of factions within it was surprisingly high. The diversity of beliefs that they represented was proportionally equivalent to that espoused today as “Christianity”.

jonathon

And just as condemned! Your idea of “diversity” is nothing more than what Saint Paul decried as “factions”. Think about that for a few. Read what the Saint wrote in 2 Corinthians 12: “I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder”.

Paul also wrote in Galatians 5: "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Saint Paul constantly preached unity. For this very reason, and many others, the Catholic Church has declared this the year of Saint Paul. Amen.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Actually I like doing it this way better, it makes it easier to read and understand, point by point.

RE: Paragraph #1
I’m not sure how you meant “came out of her” but Just to clarify a point or two, the protestant denominations did not come out of the CC but from people who formed their own opinions on what in the gospels was acceptable and what belief systems they felt most comfortable following. They were completely independant of the Catholic teachings and in fact, Luthers or anyones teachings which go against the teachings of the CC resulted in excommunication of one’s self regardless of proclamation by the Church. the Church only recognizes other denominations (some) as "Christian brothers and sisters based on Baptism, not in their belief systems. This is based on the fact those who seperated 500 years ago knew what they were doing where as those of various denominations today are not learned in the Catholic Faith to make the same choice. Your ussue regarding no stand pro or con regarding tradition is understood, no problem there.

My reference to “coming out of her” refers to a mother giving birth to a child. And the reference to the CC being the mother of the Protestant denominations comes for the letters written by the Pope when he was still the Cardinal in charge of the Congregation of Faith and Doctrine (I believe that was the name of that branch of the CC), in any case the letter stated that Protestant churches were NOT brothers and sisters but DAUGHTERS of the Catholic Church. This, of course, is in an effort to promote Ecuminicalism and bring these churches back into the fold of the CC.

RE: Paragraph #2
No problem, no disrespect assumed…

RE: Paragraph #3
This is correct…

RE: Paragraph #4 and remaining
It was the laws and the traditions established by man that was referred to as departed from but the commandments of God which in fact do deal with morality and ethics and every aspect of humility and charity toward others was reinforced and strengthened by Jesus. This is the teachings of the CC. All of the teachings of Christ in the Church today were carried forth from the Apostles including the principles of the mass and the day of the Lord. Although clarification has been offered throughout the centuries, no aspects of the teachings of Christian faith are ever changed.

So which commandments of God are valid and which are not? Do we, as Christians, no matter at what level, have the right to change these laws? Much has been stated on other threads as to the changing by “implication” of some but where is the concrete evidence save for writtings of men after the Apostles were no longer on the scene that are used to support these claims? God dealt with Isreal in a certain manner, punishments were meted out due to disobedience to his commandments, as Christians, ADOPTED heirs to Abraham, the father of Isaac, the father of Jacob, who became Israel, are we subject to these same commandments?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Actually I like doing it this way better, it makes it easier to read and understand, point by point.

RE: Paragraph #1
I’m not sure how you meant “came out of her” but Just to clarify a point or two, the protestant denominations did not come out of the CC but from people who formed their own opinions on what in the gospels was acceptable and what belief systems they felt most comfortable following. They were completely independant of the Catholic teachings and in fact, Luthers or anyones teachings which go against the teachings of the CC resulted in excommunication of one’s self regardless of proclamation by the Church. the Church only recognizes other denominations (some) as "Christian brothers and sisters based on Baptism, not in their belief systems. This is based on the fact those who seperated 500 years ago knew what they were doing where as those of various denominations today are not learned in the Catholic Faith to make the same choice. Your ussue regarding no stand pro or con regarding tradition is understood, no problem there.

My reference to “coming out of her” refers to a mother giving birth to a child. And the reference to the CC being the mother of the Protestant denominations comes for the letters written by the Pope when he was still the Cardinal in charge of the Congregation of Faith and Doctrine (I believe that was the name of that branch of the CC), in any case the letter stated that Protestant churches were NOT brothers and sisters but DAUGHTERS of the Catholic Church. This, of course, is in an effort to promote Ecuminicalism and bring these churches back into the fold of the CC.

RE: Paragraph #2
No problem, no disrespect assumed…

RE: Paragraph #3
This is correct…

RE: Paragraph #4 and remaining
It was the laws and the traditions established by man that was referred to as departed from but the commandments of God which in fact do deal with morality and ethics and every aspect of humility and charity toward others was reinforced and strengthened by Jesus. This is the teachings of the CC. All of the teachings of Christ in the Church today were carried forth from the Apostles including the principles of the mass and the day of the Lord. Although clarification has been offered throughout the centuries, no aspects of the teachings of Christian faith are ever changed.

So which commandments of God are valid and which are not? Do we, as Christians, no matter at what level, have the right to change these laws? Much has been stated on other threads as to the changing by “implication” of some but where is the concrete evidence save for writtings of men after the Apostles were no longer on the scene that are used to support these claims? God dealt with Isreal in a certain manner, punishments were meted out due to disobedience to his commandments, as Christians, ADOPTED heirs to Abraham, the father of Isaac, the father of Jacob, who became Israel, are we subject to these same commandments? I ask, doesn’t the teachings of the Christian faith also include in it the history of Israel? And aren’t those teachings there to tell us how we are to relate to God?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Actually I like doing it this way better, it makes it easier to read and understand, point by point.

RE: Paragraph #1
I’m not sure how you meant “came out of her” but Just to clarify a point or two, the protestant denominations did not come out of the CC but from people who formed their own opinions on what in the gospels was acceptable and what belief systems they felt most comfortable following. They were completely independant of the Catholic teachings and in fact, Luthers or anyones teachings which go against the teachings of the CC resulted in excommunication of one’s self regardless of proclamation by the Church. the Church only recognizes other denominations (some) as "Christian brothers and sisters based on Baptism, not in their belief systems. This is based on the fact those who seperated 500 years ago knew what they were doing where as those of various denominations today are not learned in the Catholic Faith to make the same choice. Your ussue regarding no stand pro or con regarding tradition is understood, no problem there.

My reference to “coming out of her” refers to a mother giving birth to a child. And the reference to the CC being the mother of the Protestant denominations comes for the letters written by the Pope when he was still the Cardinal in charge of the Congregation of Faith and Doctrine (I believe that was the name of that branch of the CC), in any case the letter stated that Protestant churches were NOT brothers and sisters but DAUGHTERS of the Catholic Church. This, of course, is in an effort to promote Ecuminicalism and bring these churches back into the fold of the CC.

RE: Paragraph #2
No problem, no disrespect assumed…

RE: Paragraph #3
This is correct…

RE: Paragraph #4 and remaining
It was the laws and the traditions established by man that was referred to as departed from but the commandments of God which in fact do deal with morality and ethics and every aspect of humility and charity toward others was reinforced and strengthened by Jesus. This is the teachings of the CC. All of the teachings of Christ in the Church today were carried forth from the Apostles including the principles of the mass and the day of the Lord. Although clarification has been offered throughout the centuries, no aspects of the teachings of Christian faith are ever changed.

So which commandments of God are valid and which are not? Do we, as Christians, no matter at what level, have the right to change these laws? Much has been stated on other threads as to the changing by “implication” of some but where is the concrete evidence save for writtings of men after the Apostles were no longer on the scene that are used to support these claims? God dealt with Isreal in a certain manner, punishments were meted out due to disobedience to his commandments, as Christians, ADOPTED heirs to Abraham, the father of Isaac, the father of Jacob, who became Israel, are we subject to these same commandments? I ask, don’t the teachings of the Christian faith also include in it the history of Israel? And aren’t those teachings there to tell us how we are to relate to God?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

“God does not change” doesn’t mean He doesn’t change His mind.

"When the Lord saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth…He regretted that He had made man on earth, and His heart was grieved. So the Lord said, “I will wipe out from the earth the men whom I have created, and not only the men, but also the beast and the creeping things and the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them.” Gen. 6:5-7. And He did.

Thank you, I got to thinking about this after I posted the refered to post and this very thought came to mind. So at least we are, hopefully on common ground. So let me clearify what I mean when I say “God does not change.”

To me this phase refers to his relationship with man and his justice. Take for instance his dealings with Jonah and Nineveh. After Jonah had reluctantly agreed to preach to the Ninevites the warning of their coming distruction because of God’s displease in their wickedness the repented, upsetting Jonah but pleasing God and therefore averting their distruction, for the time being. Had the inhabitants of Earth at the time of Noah listened to Noah’s warnings and repented of their wickedness don’t you think God would have changed his mind as well? Of course he would have, this is God’s justice. He is faithful to himself to carry out and to implement his laws as he has laid them out to all mankind. We can either choose to obey HIS laws or we can choose to disobey, in either case, HE will deal with us accordingly. The question now remains, as I have stated before, Does God Change in this respect?

That does not scan and ‘should be’ is inoperative. God’s covenant with what you call 'the Nation of Israel, “I will be your God and you will be my people.” has nothing to do with the New Covenant in the Blood of Jesus Christ. Jews are not Christians. They have rejected Christ. God took note of it and acted accordingly.

Actually, it has everything to do with the New Covenant. The point being that the promise was GIVEN to the Jews and received by the Gentiles THROUGH the Jews. For the first Seven years of the Church it was made up of nothing but Jews. Remember, Christianity was considered a SECT of the Jews, not it’s own entity. Yes MANY of the rejected Christ, but, in the first Seven years, the church was made of of ONLY Jews. So the fulfillment of the New Covenant truely went to the Jews.

The beliefs of your sect do not conform to the beliefs of orthodox Christianity.

I have really been trying to keep religious anomosities out of this discussion, but in difference to this statement it is obvious you know nothing about the beliefs of SDAs other than what you have been told by others. I too viewed them as you do now until I got to really know what they taught and believed. I politely and respectfully suggest you study up on what it is that is believed thuroughly before making this kind of statement.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Sorry about the triple postings, that was unintentional. Must have been a brain freeze on the part of the server and I didn’t realize It had done it before I could delete two. Again, my apologes.

 

[twb1621]

Actually I like doing it this way better, it makes it easier to read and understand, point by point.

My reference to “coming out of her” refers to a mother giving birth to a child. And the reference to the CC being the mother of the Protestant denominations comes for the letters written by the Pope when he was still the Cardinal in charge of the Congregation of Faith and Doctrine (I believe that was the name of that branch of the CC), in any case the letter stated that Protestant churches were NOT brothers and sisters but DAUGHTERS of the Catholic Church. This, of course, is in an effort to promote Ecuminicalism and bring these churches back into the fold of the CC.

I understand your reference now.

So which commandments of God are valid and which are not? Do we, as Christians, no matter at what level, have the right to change these laws? Much has been stated on other threads as to the changing by “implication” of some but where is the concrete evidence save for writtings of men after the Apostles were no longer on the scene that are used to support these claims? God dealt with Isreal in a certain manner, punishments were meted out due to disobedience to his commandments, as Christians, ADOPTED heirs to Abraham, the father of Isaac, the father of Jacob, who became Israel, are we subject to these same commandments?

I have no idea where it came from that anything of the commandmants were removed but the CC never did away with any of the commandments. The CC teachings of the commandments can be found in the Catechism at this link. vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

I have no idea where it came from that anything of the commandmants were removed but the CC never did away with any of the commandments. The CC teachings of the commandments can be found in the Catechism at this link. vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Nothing was said about removing the commandments what was said was "So which commandments of God are valid and which are not? Do we, as Christians, no matter at what level, have the right to change these laws? According to the CCC the intents of some of the Commandments have been changed. Why and by whom and are these changes actually valid? What proof can be shown that Apostles or even Christ would have approved of these changes?

And if anybody is concerned that this is off topic, it goes directly to the lineage of the True Church. Think about it.