T
teancum79
Guest
That all comes down to how history is viewed.
- Status
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
In a box on the top shelf in the front hall closet
I have to agree with Lost Wanderer here:
D
dosdog
Guest
Who taught you The history of the catholic church? I will if you are truley interested
N
newshadow
Guest
It’s all around. It’s in the schools and hospitals we build and run. In the community outreach programs we participate in. It’s every week, at the least, when we celebrate the Eucharist.
I notice you keep ignoring Rebecca J, is there a reason?
M
Milliardo
Guest
It would be hard to prove Papal primacy as evident in Nicaea since the Council decided on the canons by itself. Rome’s participation would only be inasmuch as it agreed with the other bishops present; it certainly did not hinge on Rome by itself giving the canons any approval of any sort.
T
teancum79
Guest
opps no I clicked the last page button and missed her post.
M
mercygate
Guest
First READ some history. Actual history. You cannot “view” history if you do not know what it is.
As for the faith of everyday Catholics, it ranges from non-existent to the most profound and intimate personal relationship with Jesus Christ that human beings can have – through the Eucharist, in Scripture, in deep, contemplative prayer, in service to others in need . . .
D
dosdog
Guest
The Eastern Church Defends Petrine Primacy and the Papacy!
web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm
T
tomarin
Guest
i think you’re right actually, if you’re saying that it comes down to either catholicism or orthodoxy. orthodoxy and catholicism have a lot in common (they were one undivided church for the first milennium or so) and we catholics recognize the validity of their sacraments. so you would be a lot closer to the truth with them than with other christian groups.
i wrestled for a while with this question and came to the conclusion that it is difficult to believe that orthodoxy is the “true” branch, partly for historical reasons and partly for scriptural ones. but i would never argue it is utterly impossible.
another possibility of course is that neither is true and christianity is an entirely false religion. but i’m not sure you or i want to go there.
T
teancum79
Guest
I don’t see the consistency of doctrine between the current church and the one set up by Christ. That what is now the CC and what the CC was in say 350 AD or so I think is close enough to call the same.
What I see is a claim that a history kept by people who where well served by keeping a story looking the same way. I am well awake. I study my Bible and like Luther and many other wise men what I see now in the CC as nice as many things are does not jive with what I read in the Bible.
I don’t have “anti-catholic” beliefs.
As to a date I don’t know I’ve thrown out the guess of 150 AD, but thats a guess. The Apostles died. The beliefs and practices of the CC and not the same as the Church that Paul et el. wrote to and taught.
S
SisterSnowflake
Guest
Let me put it to you as my students would say it:
“Dude, we’ve got the Eucharist…that is all you need!!”
“Dude, we’ve got the Eucharist…that is all you need!!”
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
History failed to be “actual” on Jesus, the apostles, and what they did. It was a chaotic period open to corruption & interpretation.
If Jesus was really God, the least he could have done is manipulate reputable non-christian historians into making independent & accurate recordings of his life. and those of the apostles.
M
mercygate
Guest
What you should look for is how the Church’s **understanding **has matured over the years. There is continuity in her thinking, growth in understanding as the Church has confronted intellectual, philosophical, and scientific challenges. ANYBODY can say, “Today’s Church doesn’t LOOK the same as the Church in 150 A.D.” The question is HOW did it come not to “look” the same?
As a Mormon, you would know.
That is because you read the Bible as if it were a stand-alone book.
I’ll take your word for it.
Yes they are. The deposit of the faith cannot expand or contract. Our UNDERSTANDING expands, but not the deposit of faith.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Orthodoxy understands that Peter certainly has rights to a primacy of honour, but not a universal jurisdiction. The salutations given on that site only shows that the Patriarchates give due honour to Rome, but never defer to any sort of supremacy that Rome supposedly has.
D
dosdog
Guest
In the year 95, Clement, the fourth bishop of Rome, wrote a response to the Corinthians instructing them to receive back the bishops who were expelled by a turbulent faction. After explaining that the hierarchy was of divine origin, he said in part, “But if there are any who refuse to heed the declaration He [the Holy Spirit] has made through our lips, let them not doubt the gravity of the guilt and the peril in which they involve themselves” (1Clement 59:1). So now we find that even before the last apostle had died, the bishop of Rome was directing the affairs of another church. A few years later in the year 107, Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged Rome’s authority when he addressed the Roman church as “presiding over the brotherhood of love.”
The first Bishop was St. Peter before his travels to Rome. The third Bishop was the Apostolic Father St. Ignatius of Antioch. Antioch became one of the five original Patriarchates
experiencefestival.com/a/…ory/id/1748222
Around 189, there was a controversy between the churches of Asia and the rest of the Christian world. Eusebius tells us that Victor, bishop of Rome, directed that they conform. Polycrates of Ephesus resisted him. Victor replied with an excommunication. When Irenaeus intervened and pleaded Polycrates’ case, Victor withdrew the excommunication. Although there was disagreement, the resistance of the Asian bishops did not deny Rome’s authority (The History of the Church 5:23-25).
staycatholic.com/the_pope.htm
T
teancum79
Guest
I don’t read the Bible as a stand alone.
I’ve stated this elsewhere and I suppose I will again the trinity is not a biblical teaching. It takes a lot of creative work to try and fit that beliefs to the words of Christ.
I’m all for improving our understanding I think it is a great think.
The CC has played a very important role in the history of the world in general and Europe in particular. Much of the current western world is how it is beacuse of and in some cases in spite of the CC. I simply don’t think the CC and the Church set up in 30ish AD are the same. I find too many differences between what the church now believes and what I find in the Bible.
M
Milliardo
Guest
This is all well and good, and I realize you would give this as evidence of a supposed supremacy, until one notes that this occured in 95 A.D., well before Constantinople and would have been more or less within its jurisdiction anyway.
This would again be a no-brainer as Rome was also the seat of the Empire, and Ignatius would give honour to its bishop being in that same place. Note though that he never urged any of those he wrote with to give due deference to its bishop–something that would be strange since he himself was bishop of Antioch.
On the contrary; it actually showed that the resistance to Rome’s encroachment is exactly a denial of Rome’s authority. In doing so, the bishops of Asia Minor exercised their freedom to administer their jurisdiction as they see fit, and not be held to any imagined authority coming from Rome. In this particular case Rome clearly failed to exercise its authority.
D
dosdog
Guest
Prove they did not use the Septuagint
Perhaps one of the most important instances of the New Testament writers’ use of the Septuagint is Matthew 1.23, in which the Gospel writer quotes Isaiah 7.14. The Hebrew word almah, argued by some in our day to indicate a young woman of marriageable age but one not necessarily a virgin, is translated in the Septuagint as parthenos. This Greek word means virgin, indicating that the Jewish translators before the time of Christ understood the prophecy correctly. Other Jews after the advent of the Christian era translated the word into Greek as neanis, ‘young woman’, in order to distance the prophecy from fulfilment in Jesus. Matthew quotes the Septuagint, applying it to Jesus.
Other New Testament writers also used the clear translation from the Septuagint in their writings. In Hebrews 1.6 is a quotation from Psalm 97.7. The Old Testament passage speaks of the “graven images”, “idols” and “gods”. The final word in Hebrew is elohim (gods); the Septuagint renders this aggeloi (angels). The book of Hebrews takes the Septuagint rendering and incorporates it, in which is urged that “all the angels of God” worship Jesus.
apostlesbible.com/esvws.htm
Care to continue Coach?
MARGINAL REFERENCES TO THE APOCRYHA DELETED
Apocrypha in the margins of the Old and New Testaments of the King James version as printed in 1611
Mat 6:7 Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Mat 23:37 -2 Esdras 1
Mat 27:43 -Wisdom 2
Luke 6:31 -Tobit 4
Luke 14:13 -Tobit 4
John 10:22 -1 Maccabees 4
Rom 9:21 -Wisdom 15
Rom 11:34 -Wisdom 9
2 Cor 9:7 -Ecclesiasticus 35
Heb 1:3 -Wisdom 7
Heb 11:35 -2 Maccabees 7
Matthew 6 7 And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.
Ecclesiasticus 7:14. Be not willing to make any manner of lie: for the custom thereof is not good. 7:15. Be not full of words in a multitude of ancients, and repeat not the word in thy prayer.
Matthew 23 37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?
2Esdr 1:30 I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.31 When ye offer unto me, I will turn my face from you: for your solemn feastdays, your new moons, and your circumcisions, have I forsaken. 32 I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, saith the Lord.
Luke 14 13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind; 14 And thou shalt be blessed, because they have not wherewith to make thee recompense: for recompense shall be made thee at the resurrection of the just.
Tobias 4:7. Give alms out of thy substance, and turn not away thy face from any poor person: for so it shall come to pass that the face of the Lord shall not be turned from thee 8. According to thy ability be merciful.
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM
one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection.(Heb. 11:35). If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.
The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, during the Maccabean persecution
2 Machabees 1 36 And Nehemias called this place Nephthar, which is interpreted purification. But many call it Nephi.
M
mercygate
Guest
That’s EXACTLY what I mean when I say that the Bible is not a stand-alone document. You CAN find the Trinity in the Bible but not as it is understood by the Church that wrote the New Testament. One of the decisive “proofs” that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person that was undisputed in the early Church when this was being promulgated was the undeniable feeling – burning in the bosom – that Christians had when receiving the Eucharist. Since it was deemed that only God could dwell in the human heart, it was concluded that the Holy Spirit MUST be a Divine Person.
Huh?
This is because you do not see how our understanding of the faith has developed. You say “I don’t think”, “I don’t see”. Well, OK. But don’t equate “I don’t see . . .” with “It is not there.”
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Which doctrines have changed?
You can find historical documents, research, books, etc from non-Catholic sources that verify Catholic historical claims. Can you do the same for Mormonism?
Pseudo-reformers like Luther almost got it right. You should read more on Luther. What were his issues? Some, if not most of them, were very valid. He never claimed the Catholic Church was not Christ’s Church. He had a list of things that bothered him, as something that people in Christ’s Church should not be doing.
The Council of Trent addressed many of them. And many more have been addressed since then. Take his list today, and tell me what reforms need to be done to address them that have already not happened.
Also, take a look at what people like St. Francis of Assisi were doing around the same time period.
It is you who is choosing to see what you want to see, in order to feed your Mormon need for apostasy. You can try to justify it all you like, but you are only going to conclude what you want to conclude. It isn’t possible for you to do otherwise, not as long as you are a Mormon.
- Status