I just don't get...

[guanophore]

Do you think it’s possible the Reformers saw themselves as attempting to preserve the ancient faith because they’d concluded that the Catholic Church was, through its fallible clerics, teaching innovative and false doctrines?

Absolutely I think that. I think that it was about a millenia of the Church getting involved in politics, and the personal greed, corruption, and licentiousness of those in leadership, both in secular and clerical roles.

But I think you’re correct to refer to doctrinal disputes as ***legitimate***.  If you can take your logic just one step further and conclude that some people may ***legitimately*** come to the view that the Catholic Church does not hold the fullness of truth because it has to some extent embraced error you’ll perhaps go some little way toward working your way free of your befuddlement.

I agree. Either Jesus committed the Truth to the Church, or He did not. Either He kept His promise to lead the Church into all error, or He did not.

Once one can accept that the powerful appearing Jesus portrayed in the book of Revelation abandoned His Church, it goes a long way toward being able to accept the premise that the Church fell into error and disarray.

 

[Mosacked]

Originally Posted by adstrinity
We would know our true Father the same way we know the true Eucharist. We test the blood.

What you’re saying is totally NON-BIBLICAL.

Christians have only 1 Father - God. It is the SPIRIT that bears witness to this within us that calls out ‘Abba, Father’.

Do YOU have the Spirit?

**John 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

John 14:17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

Romans 8:15 For you did not receive a Spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of Sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”

.**

 

[guanophore]

Do you know you're not the only ones calling yourself the true church?

yes, of course.

Most everyone who does not agree with someone else’s doctrine of behavior can start one they believe is more “true”. Anyone can get a minister’s license online to go with it.

Can someone can go to your house and says he is your true father during the absence of your real father (who had left you a manual for reference) and make changes to your family structure?

This is an interesting question to ponder. Since I know my father, I will recognize the imposter, and he would not be allowed in.

I also have a lot of relatives who know him, and will be there to support me. This is one of the blessings of the Apostolic Succession.

It is also good to note that the Scriptures are only a manual for reference. they are not the Source of our faith.

And how are you going to stop him? By believing his claims that your grandfather had passed the baton to him using his historical claims and that he is therefore your true father?

If he had the family baton, it would certainly bear some investigation. The baton, however, or the symbol of authority left by Christ, is separate from the person who holds it, or claims to hold it.

Is the manual which your father left for you in his absence now made almost defunct and subjected to your new ‘father’s’ ‘additions’???

Mo, you have been steeped in a tradition that has been separated from the Apostolic Faith for 500 years. It is therefore not surprising that you would think these elements of the faith were “added”. On the contrary, they have been progressively subtracted by the Reformers, and their spiritual offspring.

What did the Holy Bible say? - Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Mo, the book of Rev. was a stand alone book. The verse refers to the book of Revelation only. It was a book that was in much dispute for centuries. The Catholic Church declared it definitevly as part of the Canon in 382. At that time, all those elements you claim were “added” had already been practiced by the Church for nearly 400 years.

 

[adstrinity]

Christians have only 1 Father - God.

Ummm…nooooo…

We have God the Father, we have our Spiritual Fathers (priests), we have the Holy Father (Pope), we have our own biological fathers (Dad), and we have godfathers (witness to Baptism).

That’s at least 5.

 

[adstrinity]

Mo, you have been steeped in a tradition that has been separated from the Apostolic Faith for 500 years. It is therefore not surprising that you would think these elements of the faith were “added”. On the contrary, they have been progressively subtracted by the Reformers, and their spiritual offspring.

I thought Mosacked was a Muslim. Mosacked argues like a Moslim.

 

[guanophore]

What you’re saying is totally NON-BIBLICAL.

No, Mo, it is just in one of those parts of the Bible that you choose to ignore:

1Jn 5:8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

We are filled with the Spirit in the waters of baptism, where we are joined with Him in His death, and covered by His blood.

Christians have only 1 Father - God. It is the SPIRIT that bears witness to this within us that calls out ‘Abba, Father’.

Do YOU have the Spirit?

Would you know for sure if we had the Spirit if we agreed with your point of view?

If we would come out of the Catholic Church, and go to a Bible Church, would you know?

 

[guanophore]

I have just finished a Church History course (by reformed theologians) and it was fascinating. It was a wonderful exposition of the development of church doctrine and belief. How the early church had the trinity leaping out of the gospels and epistles and struggling with how to explain it theologically. The background on each church father and how the early church solidified this developed understanding in the councils was great.

It actually brought tears to my eyes to hear in detail (from the history course) about the persecutions from the jewish people and then later from the successive roman emporers. Man, the faith and courage evidenced by these Catholic believers was awesome. Would I have the courage to say three times that “I am a Christian” to a man ready to throw me to wild animals. Especially when I could walk away free and clear with a simple “no, I am not a Christian.” Makes me realize that I am not worthy to tie the sandal of any of those martyrs.

Not once during the whole 32 lecture course did the professor slam the RCC. If anything, he commended the Church for its fight against heresy and its survival from viscious persecution. It is truly and act of God that the Church survived those early centuries. I thank almighty God that the Catholic/Orthodox church was their to protect the faith. What we have is built on the blood of those martyrs.

For twenty years (and I am an entrenched evangelical) I have had both sets of the ante and post nicene fathers. I have read many but not all. I say this to give you an example that not all protestants ignore the early church history. It is incredibly valuable to study these writings.

My priest uses the Church Fathers often in Sunday school and in his sermons. The reformed systematic theology books that I have been studying often use the Church Fathers as illustrations as well.

Reformed theology, while I know you guys totally disagree with it, does not hate the early church or ignore it. The whole foundation is the early church. Like a previous poster said, reformed theology is predicated on the belief that the RCC added doctrine that was not supported by scripture. It does not throw away the baby with the bathwater to use an old phrase.

Anyway, not here to argue reformed vs catholic, but just wanted to state that I do not agree with some of the previous posts that all “Protestants” ignore the church fathers. That is patently not true.

Jeff

This is well said Jeff. I took such a course during a three year stint in a Protestant Seminary. It was that course, along with the historical theology course, that made me realize that the early Church was Catholic. I can credit my separated brethren for showing me this road home.

 

[Mosacked]

Ummm…nooooo…

We have God the Father, we have our Spiritual Fathers (priests), we have the Holy Father (Pope), we have our own biological fathers (Dad), and we have godfathers (witness to Baptism).

That’s at least 5.

YOU have multiple fathers…I have only ONE - Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

PS. I am fully compliant of this teaching in Matthew 23:9. You are not in compliance of the Holy Bible.

.

 

[Mosacked]

No, Mo, it is just in one of those parts of the Bible that you choose to ignore:

1Jn 5:8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

We are filled with the Spirit in the waters of baptism, where we are joined with Him in His death, and covered by His blood.

You are? Where is the Spirit?

The Bible says the Spirit CALLS out Abba Father. Can you tell me if there is a spirit now inside you that calls out Abba Father…(not you of course, but a spirit).

Would you know for sure if we had the Spirit if we agreed with your point of view?

Those who belongs to Him hears Him. You don’t have to agree with me.

If we would come out of the Catholic Church, and go to a Bible Church, would you know?

I would not unless it is revealed to me.

 

[Dokimas]

Guanophore in black; Doki in color.

This might come as a shock to you, Mo, but the Bible is a collection of historical books. Like all historical documents it is best understood within the historical context in which it was written. A point I’ve made when told I deny history.

What you are saying is that your beliefs are based upon your perceptions. As We ALL do; unless we base it on the perception of others.

You read the Scripture, apparently in isolation from the history and culture in which it was written ,and attempt to extrapolate the meaning while you are in separation from the succession of the Apostles who wrote it. Ah, your understanding is more correct because your church tells you yours is the correct perception. I see.

Such statements bear out your lack of knowledge of the history of your own faith. In fact, the NT demonstrates that Peter did, indeed, officiate teh postiion, and also passed it down to his successor. Chapter and verse showing Peter thought he was the #1 leader and selected the one to follow him as #1 leader?

It is likely that you must continue in your denial of the facts because accepting them would jeapardize your belief system. I hope you admit this could be true for you as well!!! If not, I have to say you’re not being truthful to yourself.

Indeed this is true. This is also the reason Jesus appointed a Teaching Authority to preserve the proper understanding of the Scripture. Without that, we are left with everyone’s individual opinion. How much of the teachings in real Christian churches are that significantly different???

I agree. One of the most dangerous assumptions is that the Faith of the Apostles can be extrapolated from the pages of the writings 2000 years after the fact. And the writings of 1900 or 1850 or 1800 or 1750 etc years ago are better and more accurate?

The truth is that the human mind functions on assumption. We cannot “refrain” from assuming, because it is in our nature to do so. What we can do is be aware of our assumptions, and check them for accuracy. Good point.

What you are saying is that you have to rely on your own perceptions. There fore, if you cannot perceive that Peter officiates as Pope in Scripture, then it must not be there. You are doing the very thing you warn against. You have your preconceived assumptions about what is in the Bible, and what is not, and you read it with those fixed boundaries and beliefs in mind. This prevents you from seeing the evidence that exists. It is a form of researcher bias. And what you’re saying is that accept the perceptions of other 1750 yrs old and as I’m sure you’ve researched it thouroghly, you’re researcher bias is a lot older than Mo’s.

If we were to discard anything not found in the Bible, we would not HAVE a Bible. Huh? I’m pretty sure you’re saying that the CC is responsible for the Bible. I say the Holy Spirit is responsible.

Does that mean that you think God wants to you discard anything not in the Bible? If this is God’s perspective then why don’t we find THAT in the Bible?

At least we are in agreement that God never intended all of His revelation of Himself to be confined to scripture.

The Catholic Church most certainly has the right to add to Scripture. The Church added the entire New Testament. Taking credit for the Holy Spirit’s work?

BTW, I’m not a fan of Mo’s perspective. That’s not why I’m responding to you.

 

[Dokimas]

Guanophore in black; Doki in color.

It is hard to look at things objectively when one has been indoctrinated against a certain point of view. And you’re always objective?

Certainly Catholics have plenty of responsibility, as there was rampant corruption among the European clergy at the time. The Reformers had many valid complaints. People are always in need of reform. The problem was the idea that the doctrine of Christ needed “reform”. Which of the doctrines of Christ did the reformers ‘reform’?

When those persons departed from the Apostolic Teaching, they made the choice to embrace heretical beliefs. At that point they separated themselves from the Church. It is the duty of the Church to distinguish between Truth, as committed by Christ through the Apostles, and departures from it. The views that represented departures from the Apostolic faith were clearly stated to be heresies, to protect both those who embraced them, and those who might follow the ones who had embraced error. Let me quote you, “It is hard to look at things objectively when one has been indoctrinated against a certain point of view.”

The Catholic Church had no part in forming these heretical protestant ecclesial communities. In the beginning the CC kicked out those who wanted to reform from within. So you tell us what those early ‘reformers’ were supposed to do? Didn’t you agree reform was needed?

Certainly not! All those who departed from the One, Holy, and Aposotlic faith were Catholics at one time. It is very possible the corruption they experienced prevented them from hearing the gospel. That seems like either an ignorant statement or uneducated one: the early reformers took the Gospel to many who didn’t have it. The Gospel was spread by them.
Why are you here on CAF, Doki? You tell me.

 

[KathleenGee]

I think alot of confusion comes about in understanding the role of Scripture and the role, functions, and code of Church as an institution.

Catholics believe that Scripture is the Word of God; He is the author of Scripture. But it was orally recorded and eventually written by fallible men. We should generally agree that at the time of Christ, what we had were individual books. It took the Church many people and many years to finally compile and form the first Bible.

As the Word of God is vulnerable to various interpretations that can potentially fracture the unity of faith, the Word must be interpreted through the Holy Spirit by those consecrated to the truth and called to total service to the Lord. Christ repeatedly called us to be one.

The Catholic Church’s main crux is that it believes that Jesus is the Savior and Redeemer, died for our sins and rose from the dead at the Resurrection, giving us a new life, making all of creation new. And we are incarnated in Christ through the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, nourished by His Body and Blood, to go out and make things new.

The Universal Catholic Church, I am avoiding the use of Roman for now, was founded by Christ through the Oral tradition given to His apostles. In early church history, the Holy Spirit always directed issues to be finally resolved by the seat of Peter. The Vicar of Christ, an old title, does not mean that the pope takes the place of Christ as a deity. The Holy Father is not assured of salvation just because of his office. The Holy Father’s position is that being the point of unity and final arbitrator.

The Holy Father does not come to an individual case and make a decision solely on his own. He makes a final decision on an issue in unity of the bishops and advisors.

The Holy Father is not Christ’s Lone Ranger. As such, we Catholics are not in some cult.

Tradition reflects how Christians have understood and responded to the Oral Tradition passed down by the apostles to the bishops and priests, and received and lived out by the laity. Tradition represents us.

Scripture reveals the Word of God, Tradition is the Holy Spirit revealed through the people of the Church. Therefore, illuminations of God and His creatures can also be further defined through Tradition, such as that pertaining to the Blessed Mother.

The sheep know their shepherd and he knows them.

 

[adstrinity]

YOU have multiple fathers…I have only ONE - Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

PS. I am fully compliant of this teaching in Matthew 23:9. You are not in compliance of the Holy Bible.

.

In compliance? You seem to ignore that my Church codified the Bible. We know the rules.

Also, that is the cherriest picking of a verse I’ve ever seen cherry picked. In more context:

8 But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren. 9 And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, Christ.

And yet, people are also called “teachers” and “Rabbi” and “Master”. Also, as it has been stated elsewhere, “if we are to call no man,” ‘father,’ literally, we couldn’t call our OWN father ‘father.’

Elsewhere St. Paul refers to those he’s writting to his sons. If they are his spiritual sons, then, since we are a family, he is their spiritual father.

When we read these things in context, one will easily see which churches aren’t in compliance.

 

[Bill_Pick]

John 21:25 —
The Poison of Assumption again! Let me ask you. Do you believe that God created this world? If you do, may I ask you why didn’t God give you 2 noses instead of one so that you can breathe better? Do you think that perhaps he might have left it out because there’s not enough room on your face? No offence here. But it’s the same point I want to draw….Its because He decided it to be so. Same thing with the Bible. It is COMPLETE and SUFFICIENT.

Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

2 Peter 3:16 —
The distortion comes from within ignorant & unstable persons. Are you claiming that because you suffer the same you are given the right to take your dosages through your selected external interpreter? You must recall what Satan told Adam after God gave the warning “You shalt surely die”…and Satan enters the scene to convince Adam/Eve that they had actually ‘mis-understood’ what God said and that what God actually meant to say is…‘You shalt not surely die”.

2 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. – (These are ACTS of GOD. Not the works of any man, and certainly not the work of an establishment).

Acts 8:31 —
1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Bible is very clear on this. That the understanding of scripture comes from the Spirit of God. NOT through any man.

James 1:5 Now if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives to all generously and without criticizing, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith without doubting. For the doubter is like the surging sea, driven and tossed by the wind.

• God has been standing at the Opened Gate with Opened arms and there you are going around in circles and asking those on the streets if they know how to enter the kingdom. For once, to just God Himself (not through any man or system)…JUST ASK GOD !

Romans 3:11 there is no-one who understands, no-one who seeks God.

Jesus give us two eyes to see but On mouth to keep shut

 

[adstrinity]

…Has coolduuude come back since the first post?

 

[SSTeacher]

…Has coolduuude come back since the first post?

No.

Factually,
Mick

 

[coolduude]

…Has coolduuude come back since the first post?

I’m here, just taking everything in

This thread exploded so fast that I couldn’t keep up with everything. It went from 1 page to 3 in no time at all. But I have been reading the posts. Very interesting actually. I didn’t want to get involved with the debate above, so I kept my head low.

But I am here nonetheless.

 

[DorianGregorian]

First off the RCC is not an “evil” instiution. I know many Catholics (in fact my entire family on both sides are Catholic). It leads many people to a relationship to Christ, and all Christians are the “Church”, as long as you believe in Jesus.

I don’t think non-Catholic Christians are against the Church per se, it is that most would regard some things in the Church as “add-ons” from the time of Charlemagne, until the Middle Ages. Things which did not destroy the Church, but diverted people from the only relationship that matters, the one with Christ.

Let us not forget that the RCC has many bright Theologians and Scripture Scholars, but the idea that you can’t understand why non-Catholics have a legitimate disagreement with the Church shows why non-Catholics disagree with the RCC.

I can just as easily argue how come Catholics don’t stay in Communion with the East, or why the Orthodox recognize Anglican orders but the RCC does not, or any other nonsense. In the end it’s about Jesus being raised from the dead. Period.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think a lot of Catholics take it for granted that all Protestants mostly don’t know about Catholicism or have been fed gross misconceptions about it or else otherwise they would’ve converted to Catholicism. I think that’s wrong. I know PLENTY of Protestants that know a great deal about Catholicism as well as ex-Catholics who were very well-catechized, who left Catholicism out of disagreements over doctrine, dogma and theology in general. Not all former Catholics are people who just didn’t like the bingo night or who got their feelings hurt from a priest. Not all are divorcees or haters. And many Protestants who read everything about Catholicism and who don’t decide to convert make a decision that the Church isn’t what it says it is.

Most hardcore Catholics in CAF say things like, “The Catholic Church put the Bible together, Protestants!” An Orthodox might reply, “yeah, that’s right, when you were in union with us pre-1054 AD when the Church was one. The Church you are now is schismatic and heterodox in many areas.” Did the Catholic Church compile the Scriptures without the help of the East completely?

Many Catholics claim that the Catholic Church fought off all the heresies or they say the Popes fought off all the heresies. From an Anglican and Orthodox point of view, the popes didn’t do it unilaterally but in the company of other orthodox “small o” bishops are heroic churchmen.

Anglicans, for example, don’t believe that Apostolicae Curae, which effectively declared Anglican orders worthless in the late 1800’s, is something that de-legitimizes their church. They don’t believe in infallibility and they don’t see a need for papal permission to scrutinize their orders.

Lutherans, many I’ve known, look back at the Church Fathers frequently, and they point to the fact that the Fathers constantly referenced and used Scripture in making their decisions. If you read Ignatius and Polycarp and Irenaeus, they always quote Scripture, constantly, when they explain their opinions, backing it up Biblically as a proof text. So does a Lutheran ignorantly believe in sola scriptura or do they believe in it because they think the Fathers did, too?

I hear a lot of “you left Catholicism because you couldn’t hack it!” leveled at people or “hey man, if you want to be a cafeteria catholic go ahead” and other labels. The fact is, we all arrive at our beliefs on a personal level. We have to accept that the pope is infallible intellectually at some point and we are the ones who make that determination. Others don’t. We can’t assume that someone examined the same evidence we examined, and because they chose another route that they’re just mindless goobers. I don’t feel that way.

Christianity is complex. It’s not the simple math formula many folks in here make it out to be. Nothing is a slam dunk IMO.

I read a thread in the last few days in CAF saying that the Devil doesn’t attack Protestants, just Catholics, because we hold the truth and he’s more desperate to attack us. That’s just nuts. I know many Protestants being attacked by the devil. There are people of all walks of life attacked by Satan. There are people considering accepting Christ as their Saviour who are attacked viciously. There are atheists under attack, Jews, Muslims, Satan isn’t choosey.

My point with this post is just to say that we must drop the notion that anyone who isn’t Catholic, who deliberated intensely about the Church, and who opted not to be Catholic, possibly did so for intelligent, thoughtful, serious, and in their minds moral reasons. Not everyone who chose the “NO” box on the ballot to become Catholic are mindless drones or rebellious turkeys.

 

[tweetymom]

I think a lot of Catholics take it for granted that all Protestants mostly don’t know about Catholicism or have been fed gross misconceptions about it or else otherwise they would’ve converted to Catholicism. I think that’s wrong. I know PLENTY of Protestants that know a great deal about Catholicism as well as ex-Catholics who were very well-catechized, who left Catholicism out of disagreements over doctrine, dogma and theology in general. Not all former Catholics are people who just didn’t like the bingo night or who got their feelings hurt from a priest. Not all are divorcees or haters. And many Protestants who read everything about Catholicism and who don’t decide to convert make a decision that the Church isn’t what it says it is.

Most hardcore Catholics in CAF say things like, “The Catholic Church put the Bible together, Protestants!” An Orthodox might reply, “yeah, that’s right, when you were in union with us pre-1054 AD when the Church was one. The Church you are now is schismatic and heterodox in many areas.” Did the Catholic Church compile the Scriptures without the help of the East completely?

Many Catholics claim that the Catholic Church fought off all the heresies or they say the Popes fought off all the heresies. From an Anglican and Orthodox point of view, the popes didn’t do it unilaterally but in the company of other orthodox “small o” bishops are heroic churchmen.

Anglicans, for example, don’t believe that Apostolicae Curae, which effectively declared Anglican orders worthless in the late 1800’s, is something that de-legitimizes their church. They don’t believe in infallibility and they don’t see a need for papal permission to scrutinize their orders.

Lutherans, many I’ve known, look back at the Church Fathers frequently, and they point to the fact that the Fathers constantly referenced and used Scripture in making their decisions. If you read Ignatius and Polycarp and Irenaeus, they always quote Scripture, constantly, when they explain their opinions, backing it up Biblically as a proof text. So does a Lutheran ignorantly believe in sola scriptura or do they believe in it because they think the Fathers did, too?

I hear a lot of “you left Catholicism because you couldn’t hack it!” leveled at people or “hey man, if you want to be a cafeteria catholic go ahead” and other labels. The fact is, we all arrive at our beliefs on a personal level. We have to accept that the pope is infallible intellectually at some point and we are the ones who make that determination. Others don’t. We can’t assume that someone examined the same evidence we examined, and because they chose another route that they’re just mindless goobers. I don’t feel that way.

Christianity is complex. It’s not the simple math formula many folks in here make it out to be. Nothing is a slam dunk IMO.

I read a thread in the last few days in CAF saying that the Devil doesn’t attack Protestants, just Catholics, because we hold the truth and he’s more desperate to attack us. That’s just nuts. I know many Protestants being attacked by the devil. There are people of all walks of life attacked by Satan. There are people considering accepting Christ as their Saviour who are attacked viciously. There are atheists under attack, Jews, Muslims, Satan isn’t choosey.

My point with this post is just to say that we must drop the notion that anyone who isn’t Catholic, who deliberated intensely about the Church, and who opted not to be Catholic, possibly did so for intelligent, thoughtful, serious, and in their minds moral reasons. Not everyone who chose the “NO” box on the ballot to become Catholic are mindless drones or rebellious turkeys.

Thank you for a really awesome post. And why wouldn’t be A giants fan no less