Is the Catholic church today the same church that codified the Bible in 400ad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
realityofitall:
The truth is the truth no matter where one is…I could be in an islamic church…the fact remains that the catholic church has rewritten it’s history for it’s own benefit.

If you believe they are proper nouns…you can capitalize them, I chose not to give them undue respect.
Click to expand...
Give us some examples of the rewritting of history that the Catholic Church has done. I would also like some proof that it was how you are saying it was. Without some examples and some proof to back you up, all you are doing is babbling.
 
40.png
realityofitall:
No, there are clear HISTORICAL indications that there are gaps in church history…of course we aren;t allowed to discuss them on this board without fear of bing removed from the discussion…

So basically the evidence one would use to refute your claims on serves to get one banned from further discussions…the full truth can’t be discussed here.
Click to expand...
I guess he/she was right…some discussions aren’t allowed…:confused:

Why is that?
 
40.png
Semiramus:
I guess he/she was right…some discussions aren’t allowed…:confused:

Why is that?
Click to expand...
PM the mods, ask, then share the answer with us.

Justin
 
40.png
Semiramus:
I guess he/she was right…some discussions aren’t allowed…:confused:

Why is that?
Click to expand...
Seems to me the problem is NOT that certain discussions are not allowed. But rather that people–whose only goal is to goad and agitate, rather than sincerely asking for and considering the information proferred–are not free to persist in those offensive behaviors. At least, that is my assessment of the banning of Becky and realityofitall. And frankly, as someone who tried to be patient with those two, I am not at all unhappy that the moderators pulled the plug on their attempts to control the threads. Don’t we and the moderators have better things to do than deal with people who demand answers and then ignore whatever responses are given them? That said, let’s go back to the topic of the thread. 🙂
 
Well, I don’t know if there is anyone left who disagrees? But here is a question anyway.

If the Church has been corrupted since the time of the apostles, how does that kind of person explain the following Bible verses. But this also applies to those who feel that the Catholic Church lost the authority by its actions, (as well as teachings?).

Scripture tells us

Mt 16:18 …and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

**Col 1:18 **And He is the head of the body, the church…

1 Tim 3:15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God,** which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.**

and of course,

Mt 28:20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."Amen.

My personal favorites are 1 Tim 3:15 along with Mt 28:20. When did these promises stop applying to the Catholic Church. For me, either the Church will always be a pillar and foundation of truth or she won’t. If The Church will at some time stop being a foundation of truth, how can you trust anything in the Bible at all? The promises are not about the behavoir of people in the Church, they are about the teachings that are supposed to be taught.

And Jimmy brought a wealth of evidence showing the development of doctrine. Trinity is a development of doctrine. Development is very different than invention. Why aren’t Catholics accused of inventing the Trinity by most Christians? Because they agree with it. Catholics are only accused of inventing doctrine that others choose not agree with. There is no difference between the development of doctrine of the Trinity solidified in the fifth century, and the development of doctrine of the Immaculate conception. Both used Sacred Tradition and Scripture as the source.

God Bless,
Maria

P.S. You’re welcome Little Mary. I think both threads are deserving of targeted discussions!
 
40.png
MariaG:
Well, I don’t know if there is anyone left who disagrees? But here is a question anyway.
Click to expand...
I’d venture to guess that anyone who does disagree won’t say so now…everyone who states a contray arguement gets banned. Doesn’t do much to inspire open discussion. I’d sermise that most members are happy that they don’t have to deal with disenting beliefs though, it certainly makes it easy for everyone to agree on everything when everyone has the same beliefs.
 
Respectfully, It has nothing to do with dissenting opinions, but has everything to do with actually wishing to intelligently discuss things. Simply stating dissenting opinions without providing any documentation, as well as simply dismissing any documentation provided with a wave of the hand and no intelligent discussion is not what this forum wishes to encourage. You’ll need to travel elsewhere if that is your desire. This thread is for discussion of the aforementioned. If you have nothing to contribute that is to the point of the discussion, please refreain from posting.
 
Respectfully, It has nothing to do with dissenting opinions, but has everything to do with actually wishing to intelligently discuss things. Simply stating dissenting opinions without providing any documentation, as well as simply dismissing any documentation provided with a wave of the hand and no intelligent discussion is not what this forum wishes to encourage.
Click to expand...
The problem is that this certainly gives the appearance that such discussion is banned. Not more that a few hours after reassuring them that such discussion is appropriate, they were banned after posting (admitedly very shaky and easily demolised) back-up to their claims. When I have more time I believe I’ll PM the mods about the situation in hopes of some clarification. It will be that much harder to defend the Church in the future on these forums if it appears that contrary views are bannable.
 
40.png
MariaG:
Respectfully, It has nothing to do with dissenting opinions, but has everything to do with actually wishing to intelligently discuss things. Simply stating dissenting opinions without providing any documentation, as well as simply dismissing any documentation provided with a wave of the hand and no intelligent discussion is not what this forum wishes to encourage. You’ll need to travel elsewhere if that is your desire. This thread is for discussion of the aforementioned. If you have nothing to contribute that is to the point of the discussion, please refreain from posting.
Click to expand...
You’ve missed my point entirely. The forums usage rules clearly state that anti-Catholic references are not permitted. How is someone to defend a position that requires that information if they get banned for citing it?

The forum administration has created a situation where you can’t provide the documentation you speak of to defend the dissenting position without getting booted.

Basically in order for a discussion to move forward everyone has to agree with the basic premises of the Catholic Church. Based on that, no real discussion ever happens, only a statement and a bunch of agreement.
 
40.png
Semiramus:
You’ve missed my point entirely. The forums usage rules clearly state that anti-Catholic references are not permitted. How is someone to defend a position that requires that information if they get banned for citing it?

The forum administration has created a situation where you can’t provide the documentation you speak of to defend the dissenting position without getting booted.

Basically in order for a discussion to move forward everyone has to agree with the basic premises of the Catholic Church. Based on that, no real discussion ever happens, only a statement and a bunch of agreement.
Click to expand...
Odd, then, that Kinsman, Homer, Rodofiron, Spokenword etc., are not banned. We have quite a few members who disagree vehemently with the Catholic Church and do not get banned. And they quote whatever works they wish, it seems. I don’t think you are correct in your assessment. The difference, ISTM, is that the members I mentioned (however obdurate they may be :p) are trying to engage in argumentation, not provoke people, like the ones that get banned. It is the apparent intention of the poster–“by their fruits you shall know them”-- that is the deciding factor.

Justin
 
40.png
Semiramus:
You’ve missed my point entirely. The forums usage rules clearly state that anti-Catholic references are not permitted. How is someone to defend a position that requires that information if they get banned for citing it?

The forum administration has created a situation where you can’t provide the documentation you speak of to defend the dissenting position without getting booted.

Basically in order for a discussion to move forward everyone has to agree with the basic premises of the Catholic Church. Based on that, no real discussion ever happens, only a statement and a bunch of agreement.
Click to expand...
Semiramus,

Anti-Catholic references are not permitted. That is not unreasonable. However, non-Catholics who wish to discuss differing points of view are welcome. There is a big difference.

The forum administration allows differences of opinion and beliefs. They do not allow hatred or disrespect or overall schoolyard bullying. The moderators here are fair.

Not everyone here has to agree with the basic premises of the Catholic Church in order for a discussion to move forward. All you have to do is read several other threads here and you will quickly become familiar with many non-Catholic regular visitors to these boards. Their beliefs differ, but their posts do not reek of hatred and disrespect like those of Becky and realityofitall did.
 
Jimmy,

As you know, I could provide quotes from fathers who disagree with the quotes from your fathers. What that would demonstrate is that disagreement on these future dogmas was alive and well and accepted. None of these future dogmas enjoyed “the unanimous consent of the fathers”, no matter how much you abuse the definition of “unanimous”. To address the subject of the thread, I think this evidence (not in and of itself proof) that the church of 400 AD is not the same church as the Catholic Church of modernity.

As I mentioned in another thread, my posting time will be scarce in the near future.

Brian
 
40.png
Contarini:
the Orthodox churches have a valid claim to be descendants of the original Catholic Church, just as you do. So you can’t simply identify the historic Catholic Church with those churches that today are in communion with Rome. Valid apostolic succession has been preserved outside your communion, and you can’t get around that fact.

In Christ,

Edwin
Click to expand...
Edwin, the Catholic Church doesn’t even TRY to get around that fact. It is the greatest tragedy of the Church that this split exists. The Orthodox are our true brothers, members of the Apostolic family.
 
Well, I don’t recall there was a Lutheran, or Baptist, or Anglican Church in the year 400 AD. So I don’t think there could have been a Lutheran, or Baptist, or Anglican Bible back then. The only Bible was the Catholic Bible.

Moreover, a thousand years later Gutenberg was a German Catholic who invented the printing press and who sped into publication for the whole world that same old Catholic Bible. Doesn’t that sort of make us Catholics first and foremost among Bible Christians?
 
40.png
brianberean:
Jimmy,

As you know, I could provide quotes from fathers who disagree with the quotes from your fathers. What that would demonstrate is that disagreement on these future dogmas was alive and well and accepted. None of these future dogmas enjoyed “the unanimous consent of the fathers”, no matter how much you abuse the definition of “unanimous”. To address the subject of the thread, I think this evidence (not in and of itself proof) that the church of 400 AD is not the same church as the Catholic Church of modernity.

As I mentioned in another thread, my posting time will be scarce in the near future.

Brian
Click to expand...
It wasn’t unanimous that Jesus was God. The Arians did not believe he was God. It also was not unanimous that he was fully man also and had two wills. The monothylites did not believe he was fully man. Just because something is not unanimous does not mean it is not the truth. There have been many heresies in the past, but they have all been rejected. The church still teaches that Jesus was man and God fully.

If you can quote fathers for the other side then go ahead but the church does not have to be unanimous on a teaching in order for it to be taught, they just have to be in majority and the teachings must be consistent. You can not deny that this is proof, it is direct quotes to the subject from the earliest teachers of the faith. Especially the councils I quoted, the councils expressed things that were to be taught.
 
mercygate, I know that the Catholic Church as a whole doesn’t try to get around the existence of the Orthodox. But a lot of Catholic apologists make claims for Catholicism that make no sense given the existence of valid particular churches out of communion with Rome.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
40.png
jimmy:
You really need to go into history much more than you have. That statement about the OT canon shows your ignorance.

Look at the councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Flerence. They all define the OT and the NT canon in the same way and they all include the deuterocanonicals.
Click to expand...
Hey sorry to drift off thread, but could you send me a PM with the references for the OT Canons? I have a source that lists a Maccabees 3 from one of the Councils. Is that correct?
 
40.png
jimmy:
It wasn’t unanimous that Jesus was God. The Arians did not believe he was God. It also was not unanimous that he was fully man also and had two wills. The monothylites did not believe he was fully man. Just because something is not unanimous does not mean it is not the truth. There have been many heresies in the past, but they have all been rejected. The church still teaches that Jesus was man and God fully.
Click to expand...
I’m talking about contradictory opinions expressed by those who were members of the church, not heretics.
If you can quote fathers for the other side then go ahead but the church does not have to be unanimous on a teaching in order for it to be taught, they just have to be in majority and the teachings must be consistent. You can not deny that this is proof, it is direct quotes to the subject from the earliest teachers of the faith. Especially the councils I quoted, the councils expressed things that were to be taught.
Click to expand...
I don’t really want to get into a proof text war but, like I said before, I can provide evidence of contradictory opinions on what are now considered dogmatic teachings. In the church of 400AD one could hold and teach views that contradict purgatory, indulgences, mandatory confession to a priest (with exceptions), papal infallibility and universal jurisdiciton, Marion doctrines, and still be a member of the church in good standing.

Brian
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top