"Litmus Test" for the true Church...

  • Thread starter Thread starter hlgomez
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Tanais:
Call it as I wish? It is not a matter of semantics but of a clear distinction. For instance, we as Christians are not longer bound to the ceremonial, i.e. disciplinary, laws of the Old Testament, e.g. circucision. However we are still bound to be *moral and doctrinal *principles of the Old Testament. Like I said, doctrines are absolutes and eternal whereas disciplines are relative and temporal. An example from nature might help, all of matter are composed of atoms. Atoms are everywhere and you cannot have anything material without them, they are necessary for the material world and for the sake of argument absolute. However, atoms can be composed in different ways to form different objects, however these objects are not necessary and can change, thereby making them relative. Atoms are in a sense the absolute principle, the “doctrine”, of the material world. The Other thigns they form are not necessary but ways of the atoms acting out their atomness, but these things are not absolute and can change so they are the “disc(name removed by moderator)lines” of the material world.
In Summary, it is not a matter of semantics.
Click to expand...
That seems all too convenient to be able to uphold the assertion that the Catholic church makes. Anything could be adjusted from doctrine to discipline to meet the need….

I just don’t understand how it is that the church can for example canonize a host of saints (I still don’t see that tradition in the bible anywhere but…) and then demote them at a later time……they are either saints or they aren’t. You can call that a discipline or a doctrine, either way, it’s a substantial change in what beliefs are held, and how the congregation practices.
 
40.png
darcee:
There is a problem with this test. While I certainly agree that these are all issues of morality and ethics of the upmost import they are not a “Litmus” test with any validity. While it is unlikely that a true Christian group would support any of them you could easily have a totally non-Christian group (Like the Taliban) that might well be strongly against them all.

-D
Click to expand...
Excellent point Darcee.
 
Gator, are you trying to tell us that you belong to a church that is exactly like the 1st century christian church? A church that has the EXACT same practices, beliefs, traditions, disciplines and doctrines of the apostolic church? That is the criteria you are laying out to condemn the Catholic church. I’m curious where is such a church in the world today? If that is your criteria then the Christ’s church has vanished from the earth.
 
Gator,
It is a clear distinction. It is not simply us “conviently” labelling something a discipline or a doctrine and then changing it to suit our purposes, it is a clear and defined distinction that has been held for centuires. This is why there are many variations in disciline among Catholics, e.g. the different rites of the Church such as Melkite, Roman, etc. We all have different ways of practicing our faith however we all agree on Faith and Morals, i.e. the Incarnation of Christ, Papal infallibility, etc. They are not any less catholic than we Romans are, they just practice their faith differently.
 
40.png
darcee:
There is a problem with this test. While I certainly agree that these are all issues of morality and ethics of the upmost import they are not a “Litmus” test with any validity. While it is unlikely that a true Christian group would support any of them you could easily have a totally non-Christian group (Like the Taliban) that might well be strongly against them all.

-D
Click to expand...
I agree as well, ethics is not the essence of our faith. It is perfectly conceivable to have an atheist agree with all those propositions above, and I have met some who do. Especially since we Catholics derive a lot of our attacks against these things from natural Law, not necessarily from doctrine. The only true litmus test is the one the ancient Church gives us, the Marks of the Church: One, Holy, Cathoilc, and Apostolic.
 
40.png
Tmaque:
Gator, are you trying to tell us that you belong to a church that is exactly like the 1st century christian church? A church that has the EXACT same practices, beliefs, traditions, disciplines and doctrines of the apostolic church? That is the criteria you are laying out to condemn the Catholic church. I’m curious where is such a church in the world today? If that is your criteria then the Christ’s church has vanished from the earth.
Click to expand...
What I’m questioning is whether or not you are, as you and other Catholics hold out. Somewhere you all have held out the assertion that you are the ONLY real church, and that your teachings have been unchanged over the past 200 years.

I just don’t see that. When someone challenges that assertion, you “whoa, whoa, whoa, you don’t understand, you confused this with that” or “it’s propaganda”, or “your misinformed” but you never provide any NON CATHOLIC facts that support the assertion you make…independent facts, I’ve seen no independent facts. I’m beginning to believe that there are no independent facts to support the catholic church’s position, so in order for one to believe the assertions; you would have to have faith that what the church says is in fact the truth, which seems like circular fallacy
 
There aren’t any non-Catholic facts prior to 1054 – the whole Church was Catholic until then. There are no Protestant facts at all until the 16th Century. Even which books were to comprise Holy Scripture was settled by the Catholic Church. Where do you want us to go for data?
 
Khoria Anna:
There aren’t any non-Catholic facts prior to 1054 – the whole Church was Catholic until then. There are no Protestant facts at all until the 16th Century. Even which books were to comprise Holy Scripture was settled by the Catholic Church. Where do you want us to go for data?
Click to expand...
So you’re telling me that there are no independant historical records of the catholic church prior to 1000AD?
 
Gator,

It would take a book to answer the list of baloney that you posted, so instead of writing one, I just pointed out one that was already written. If you are unwilling to buy a book to learn the answers, you really don’t want to know. You’re just trying to bait us.
 
40.png
tgdanne:
Gator,

It would take a book to answer the list of baloney that you posted, so instead of writing one, I just pointed out one that was already written. If you are unwilling to buy a book to learn the answers, you really don’t want to know. You’re just trying to bait us.
Click to expand...
Does that book contain INDEPENDENT facts or more catholic facts?

Khoria Anna says that there is no independent information to support the claims of the catholic church…

It’s only baloney if it is refuted. I still haven’t seen any proof that it’s anything other than the simple truth.

Bait you…I’m giving you an opportunity to prove that list wrong, you’ve chosen not make use of the opportunity.
 
Gator,
Would you take the testimony of the early Christians as proof? If so I recommend you to read the Early Church Fathers and other writings from that period. If you truly seek the truth, then you will read.
 
**In those earliest times all in Christian world acknowledged that the Lord Jesus Christ was God, and to Him was given all power in heaven and on earth,and power over all flesh, as His actual words declare (Matt. 28:18; John 17:2). A trinity of three Divine persons from eternity was never taught in the early Christian Church by the Apostles. I disagree with both the Catholic and Protestant Church in their beliefs of three persons. The Divine Trinity is in one Person,Our Lord Jesus Christ. God is one,in Person and in Essence,and that God is Our Lord Jesus.

The New Church agrees the Catholic Church concerning repentance,charity and good works as one with faith. Charity is the greatest of all.

Harry
**
 
40.png
Tanais:
Gator,
Would you take the testimony of the early Christians as proof? If so I recommend you to read the Early Church Fathers and other writings from that period. If you truly seek the truth, then you will read.
Click to expand...
Again, that appears self-serving, looking to the early church documents and teachings as proof. It is becoming ever clear that the claims made by the catholic church regarding it status as the one and only true church are not founded in independent irrefutable facts, but rather on facts created and held solely by the church……

This clearly brings their authenticity and accuracy into question. One has to have faith that the church has not in any way altered the information held out as facts. This clearly bring into question the reality that the catholic church is the one and only true church. It also makes the items in my first post on this thread seem more and more possible.

No one has yet stated any clear independent information to refute the items in my first post.
 
40.png
Gator:
What I’m questioning is whether or not you are, as you and other Catholics hold out. Somewhere you all have held out the assertion that you are the ONLY real church, and that your teachings have been unchanged over the past 200 years.

I just don’t see that. When someone challenges that assertion, you “whoa, whoa, whoa, you don’t understand, you confused this with that” or “it’s propaganda”, or “your misinformed” but you never provide any NON CATHOLIC facts that support the assertion you make…independent facts, I’ve seen no independent facts. I’m beginning to believe that there are no independent facts to support the catholic church’s position, so in order for one to believe the assertions; you would have to have faith that what the church says is in fact the truth, which seems like circular fallacy
Click to expand...
You didn’t answer my question. Your criteria for a “true” church seems to be indenticality with the 1st century church. Where is such a church today?
 
Gator,
You make rather sweeping claims. It seems to me that any authority from early on that we do bring you say “well the Church could have altered these.” It seems like that is sort of a “snow blow” technique. If the Church corrupted those documents, why couldn’t it have done the same about other secular documents that possibly show the beliefs of the early christians. Also, many of the Early Church Fathers bickered with one another and some, like Tertullian, became a heretic later in life. If we wanted to only brign out the good, why would we not edit this out. Also, you make no effort, despite the fact we have asked, to find uncorrupted sources. You have repeatedly dodged our questions of what kind of source you are looking for. It seems as if your only defence is to just say the documents were corrupted.
 
40.png
Tmaque:
You didn’t answer my question. Your criteria for a “true” church seems to be indenticality with the 1st century church. Where is such a church today?
Click to expand...
No, I never said that, I’ve not made myself clear. You claim that the catholic church has infallable doctrine, but no one has produced independent evidence of such. your evidence stems directly from the church…it would be in the church’s best interest to maintain documents and facts to hold the ‘infallible doctrine’ theory up, even if it wasn’t exactly the case…

Once again, I ask, is there no independent evidence that the catholic church is the one true church, and that it’s doctrines have not ever changed in the course of history? independant evidence that the items that I pointed out are not true?
 
the only real good evidence that the Church hasn’t changed her teachings is to consult the early Church Fathers and other early christian writings to find out what they believe. The Pagans of the time only knew somewhat of the early doctrines and spread false rumors about them in the interest to suppress them. However, the best non chrsitian source i could think of would be Marcus Aerulius asking the bishop of Rome who the true bishop of Antioch was, in a way it is a secular source demonstrating papal authority.
 
40.png
Tanais:
the only real good evidence that the Church hasn’t changed her teachings is to consult the early Church Fathers and other early christian writings to find out what they believe. The Pagans of the time only knew somewhat of the early doctrines and spread false rumors about them in the interest to suppress them. However, the best non chrsitian source i could think of would be Marcus Aerulius asking the bishop of Rome who the true bishop of Antioch was, in a way it is a secular source demonstrating papal authority.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the honest informative exchange!

G
 
Gator said:
310 Prayers for the dead were introduced
.
.
.
Like these changes in teachings…
Click to expand...

This in not correct.
Please refer to 2 Maccabees 39:42.

This OT work clearly indicates that praying for the dead existed long before 310AD. No other items on the list need to be addressed.
 
Sounds pretty good to me.
40.png
hlgomez:
Basically, Catholics and Protestants will argue about this and that doctrine and the arguments seem to be endless.

To be able to recognize a true Church from that of a false Church, I want to make your comments, Protestants and Catholics, about basic morality issues that the devil is trying to confuse us believers in Christ. Here are some basic current issues, among others, affecting our faith.
  1. Gay Marriage
  2. Divorce
  3. Abortion and Contraception
  4. Cloning
  5. Stem Cell Research
This will be a “litmus test” to show if your Church teaches what is true–and you will recognize if where you are in is the true Church. I want you to be reminded one thing, Christ Church will never teach doctrines that go against the Gospel of Life.

Pio
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top