T
TULIPed
Guest
You sir, have the patience of Job. I commend you.
How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?
- Status
T
TULIPed
Guest
Have you spent any time reading the Catholic Catechism?
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Christ’s body was divided? This is branch theory, one that has many flaws because in the end it would mean Holy Spirit failed His job to guide us and preserve the Church. Either there is a denomination that got everything right or there is no real way to return to the “right” denomination anyway. It also contradicts Nicene Creed, if that’s of any matter to you. Was Church not unified because Gnostics left Apostles? Did Apostles lose the authority too?
No I am not, I am claiming he has lesser yet similar corner, thanks to Holy Spirit. Apostles couldn’t define anything new either, but when they came and said Sunday will be day of the Lord and not Sabbath, how many could go and say it was against Tradition? Or Scripture (Old Testament? They directly contradicted God’s Old Testament in many things and yet early Church believed them. Why do we not believe their successors to be able to discern same things? Apostles passed on their office, why would God want to abolish such office in the first place, if it was necessary for the Church after His Ascension?
I’m implying prophets were sent to help people of Israel, they all claimed to have God’s revelation and proved themselves. Saints who healed the sick or those who performed miracles are there to help the Church too- and those mostly claimed true doctrine of at least Apostolic Churches (meaning Orthodoxy or Catholicism). I do not mean to go miracle-hunting, but how can one be certain Luther’s interpretation of Bible is the correct one? He changed his doctrine several times, Catholic Church has no recorded change of doctrine afaik, and prophets were told to be false if their words did not come true, they did not change opinions etc.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
No, I deliberately chose them as I wanted to make a point, I am not sure which denomination should I pick because I am not sure which denomination who is following here, but I was sure it was trinitarian so I picked non-trinitarian. They interpret Bible one way, we interpret it other way, if there’s no magisterium there is virtually no difference other than saying “but but we have it right and they dont!” which is not as argumentative.
Yes, thanks. For that point, how can we be sure their translation is wrong and ours is correct, if there is no Magisterium?
Administration, sure. Logic? Well, unlucky… only if Jesus had promised us to give Church Holy Spirit to guide Her, or that gates of Hell shall not prevail against it… oh wait
Title was different, but Peter’s Authority is not. Bishop of Rome was not called Pope all the time, but he had same power he has now. Pope is a title which can be always modified but Petrine succession can’t. Even Calvin said Pope Gregory was “last good Pope” and Pope Gregory actually defended Papal Infallibility and Supremacy over Ecumenical Councils. When Pope Gregory came to power, Papacy had long been recognized as Patriarchate and First Patriarchate at the very least. To make claims Bishop of Rome was equal to them until 6th century is nonsense, Church had clear hierarchy in the very least after Nicea (well yes, and supposedly even before that).
Tradition evolves, tradition is a living thing that changes and adds to itself.
Yes, and Protestants believe Holy Ghost failed and let Church be corrupt for what, 5 centuries? 3? 2? Still a bit too condescending to claim Holy Spirit failed to uphold promise Our Lord made.
Last edited:
E
Episcopalian
Guest
Of course Hell can never prevail against the Church.
I was speaking more of doctrinal logic, such as transubstantiation not existing as a concept until the 12th century.
It was an incorrect leap in logic, based off of an action or statement made in Holy Scripture.
Sort of like how you inferred though my previous statement that I thought Christianity could fail against dark forces…or how you’re insinuating that Protestantism is equivalent to the gates of Hell…
S
steve-b
Guest
Continued from a previous post
The Church of Rome has always been considered the final see of Peter. A bishops see during his life, is NOT where he was, but where he is. However, in Peter’s case, where Peter is, he is over the entire Church for all time. THAT comes from Jesus.
To make the point, after the resurrection but before the ascension back to heaven, Jesus said to Peter alone, the one Jesus would give the keys to His kingdom to, and build His Church on,
Feed , βόσκε my lambs
shepherd/Rule/govern ποίμαινε my sheep
Feed, βόσκε my sheep
And Peter’s office is to continue.
Just as Judas was replaced after he died, so Peter was also replaced when he died. We see the succession already listed by Irenaeus, down to his day, in his work “Against Heresies” where he lists in successive order 12 bishops, by name, of Rome, from Peter starting in para 3 count them yourself .
Due to space, I’ll add this link showing Peter’s position from scripture … THE PRIMACY OF PETER - Scripture Catholic .
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
#1 = Yes to both, and it was proven by his own words AND actions.HopkinsReb:
Maybe, but there are two issues brought up.
- the claim that Luther considered himself his own boss, his own magisterium, and does his contemptuous remarks in the open letter prove it.
The answer is no to both.- was Luther’s serious explanation reasonable. That can be debated
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I’m not saying Protestantism itself is damnable or anything, but I view it as heretical (or at least, not orthodox). How can we know judgment of Protestant Fathers is the correct one, and they are not making a mistake much like Non-Chalcedonians or any other heretics in Early Church?
I
Isearch
Guest
I sympathized with some disagreements about Roman Catholic doctrines, but you have lost me on your statement that Protestants didn’t persecute Roman Catholics. That definitely isn’t true at all.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Please give your source for this historyOrbisNonSufficit:
I’m quite aware that Catholicism believes there is a line of unending Pope’s from the current back to Peter. If you study the early records of the Nicene and post Nicene fathers you will find a great many men writing letters calling each other Papa or Pope. The Papa of Alexandria might write to the Papa of Hippo etc… I’m not sure how Catholicism explains this.No, it was in Rome. Other Churches were in communion with Rome though. Peter died in Rome and left behind his successor Linus, and Catholic Church remains in communion with Linus, Peter and all other PopesIf you read history, you will find that Church was much more organized than your standard American non-denominational Church and it was not centered only upon Scriptures (if it were, Scriptures would have been codified before) but also upon Tradition.
At the council of Nicea there were over 300 bishops from all over, many of whom referred to one another as Papa. The bishop of Rome was not in attendance. It wasn’t until the 6th century that political power was centered in Rome when Gregory the Great came into power that the Roman Catholic Church as an organized body came into existence.
Catholicism claims its own history but unbiased historians have written the truths
From the Catholic Encyclopedia “Traditional truth was confided in the Church as a deposit which it would guard and faithfully transmit as it had received it, without adding to it or taking anything away”
Catholicism claims to have always maintained their same teachings but it’s simply not factually accurate. The truth is Catholicism has added to and taken away traditions for centuries.
Prayers to the dead and making the sign of the cross were instituted in 330AD
In 600 AD they confirmed Latin as the language of worship
In 610 AD they instituted the homage of kissing the Pope’s feet
In 965 AD the blessing of the bells
In 998 AD the abstinence of meat on Friday
In 1220 AD blessing of holy water
In 1079 AD forbidding priests to marry
In 1215 AD transubstantiation was pronounced
In 1216 AD auricular confession of sins to a priest was decreed
In 1414 AD the cup of wine was forbidden at Communion
In 1438 AD Purgatory officially announced
In 1546 AD Council of Trent established tradition as equal to the Bible
In 1546 AD Council of Trent added back to the Bible the apocryphal books which were rejected by the Jews even before Jesus was born. The Jewish council of Joppa in the 1st century also declared them non-canonical.
And Re: the Jewish council, keep in mind those were Jews who didn’t accept Jesus. The Jews who DID accept and were in the Church Jesus established, used the Septuagint. Those 7 OT books were in the Septuagint.
Last edited:
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Loth as I am to defend RTB, that’s not what he said.ReadTheBible:
I sympathized with some disagreements about Roman Catholic doctrines, but you have lost me on your statement that Protestants didn’t persecute Roman Catholics. That definitely isn’t true at all.
He’s still wrong, though.
G
GKMotley
Guest
I already mentioned it, of course, though no way to tell if he recognized it.
And what Jewish council is being referred to?
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
I think the one that probably didn’t happen.
S
steve-b
Guest
I suspect Jamnia.steve-b:
And what Jewish council is being referred to?
E
Episcopalian
Guest
It’d be more helpful if you address the point being made as opposed to quibbling over year #s.
S
steve-b
Guest
My point is, where is his source for what was saidsteve-b:
It’d be more helpful if you address the point being made as opposed to quibbling over year #s.
K
kainosktisis
Guest
Catholics don’t worship the Blessed Virgin Mary contrary to Protestant perception on the matter. She is venerated. There is a difference in the worship & adoration given to God & the veneration given to those in the communion of saints - & especially to the Mother of God - the Mother of Our Lord. She, being a mere creature, was chosen by Him to bring Him into the world, uniting the Divine with humanity, thereby making our salvation & our spiritual adoption possible.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
E
Episcopalian
Guest
Your point doesn’t address his.
Again, it would be more helpful for the discussion here to address his point (current Catholic teaching developing and being defined over thousands of years rather than being in place as you know it since day 1).
If you want I could look up these facts for you?
N
nightshade
Guest
I never said that Catholics worship Mary?
- Status