Older is Wiser?

[FCEGM]

The New Testament seeds the views of both interpretations of Christianity.

It does for Protestantism, but for the Church the child does not give birth to its mother.

 

[ProVobis]

The Protestant Church has the same lineage as the Catholic Church, up until the Reformation.

The Reformation is the reformation of the Catholic Church, without yielding unbroken lineage back to Christ.

Einstein completely unhinged Newton’s concepts of physics; but, as Einstein said: it is on the shoulders of Newton that I have been able to see.

The church of physics now has Einsteinian and Newtonian branches of thought, both with the same lineage pre-dating Aristotle.

Einstein didn’t reform Newton; he added an important ingredient into the equations when realizing speeds approaching light. In similar ways Coriolis forces didn’t reform linear momentum laws either.

The Protestant Reformers OTOH opposed Christian principles to the point of completely breaking Apostolic Succession. They wrote their own laws and their own interpretations of the truth. Far different than what Einstein did with Newton.

 

[Jehoshua]

The Church of Christ is undivided; but, dogma within it is divided.?QUOTE]

This sums up your error.

There is one God, and therefore there MUST be one truth becasue God is truth and it is impossible for there to be “different” truths about God since he is one.

God does not lie, he is the way the TRUTH and the life. and to say “oh we believe that scripture alone is the source of authority, but your other teaching is also valid” for example is a totally fallacious understanding of truth. Truth by its very nature is singular and undivided, there is right and there is wrong, there is falsehood and there is truth.

What you are suggesting is relativism and it is heresy. Truth is absolute and to say otherwise is to fall into the mentality of the world and right into the snares of Satan.

You seem to fail to understand the fundamental nature of Truth as an absolute, or at the very least you are simply avoiding adressing the question (like my second post) because you simply cant conjure up a reasonable answer to support the logical fallacy that underpins the protestant understanding summed up in your quote i mentioned.

 

[Iotaunum]

"The Church of Christ is undivided; but, dogma within it is divided.

The Catholic Church is one branch of the Church of Christ; the Protestant Church is another.

Both are under Christ; yet both have agreements and disagreements with each other, over issues of history, doctrine, and interpretation.

Hope that is less confusing, for you. "*

I was never confused, but if you read my previous response you will see that I was trying to clear up some of the confusion from which you still seem to be suffering. The “branch theorey” was NEVER accepted by the Church. The very idea was always consistantly rejected as heretical. Only those who founded paralell churches which rejected Christ’s doctrine, yet realised that the Catholic Church alone can trace its roots to Christ came up with this theorey, in order to justify their departure, yet still claim lineage/apostolic sucession. It is obviously fraudulant, since Christ founded only one Church- one fold with one shepherd - not multiple.

*"The Protestant Church has the same lineage as the Catholic Church, up until the Reformation.

The Reformation is the reformation of the Catholic Church, without yielding unbroken lineage back to Christ."*

Again, you are misguided. The reason protestants had the same lineage as Catholics before the “reformation” is because no protestant Church existed before the reformation. All their anscestors were Catholic.
*
"Einstein completely unhinged Newton’s concepts of physics; but, as Einstein said: it is on the shoulders of Newton that I have been able to see.

The church of physics now has Einsteinian and Newtonian branches of thought, both with the same lineage pre-dating Aristotle."

Hope that helps you."*

It certainly helps me to see how your knowledge of the Church is lacking. You seem to confuse Faith with secular organisations/schools of thought. Although I disagree with your thoughts regarding the above, whats more important is that your reasoning is defective. One cannot reject a teaching of Christ, reject the authority He set up - and claim to found a seperate “branch” of the Church Christ founded. It is no longer the Church of Christ. It may include some/ alot of Christian doctrine, along with man made ones and reject the rest. This, however does not make a new Church of Christ, but a new church of Man.

*"Jews who followed Jesus - a Jew - were eventually referred to as Christians.

Sorry, if I left you confused there. "*

Only because they accepted the fulfillment of the Christian religion, and held fast to the teachings of Christ and His Church. The distinction is important: not a mere label.

*"The Catholic Catechism and Pope Benedict XVI would disagree with you that only Catholics are Christians.

But, you are entitled to your own view, in “branching off.”"*

Whether Pope Benedict XVI would disagree (according to your reading) is superflous, since the Scriptures, Tradition and the Magesterium have been consistantly clear on this point.

“He who hears you (Peter) hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me" - Lk 10:16

Those who reject the Church reject Christ. One cannot reject Christ and be a Christian. Even for the most simple mind, the logic in this is obvious.

“If any man preaches any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” - Gal 1: 9

This is also clear - Luther etc preached a false gospel of sola fide etc.

"If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house or welcome him” -2 Jo 1:10

Would this admonition apply to a fellow Christian?

“So long as the member was on the body, it lived; separated, it lost its life. Thus the man, so long as he lives on the body of the [Catholic] Church, he is a Christian; separated from her, he becomes a heretic” - Satis cognitum (June 29, 1896)
“Interesting, but not addressing the nature of my search.” *

• To address the nature of your search it is essential that you first understand the nature of the Church founded by Christ. You seem drawn into 16th century innovations of Anglicanism’s branch theorey.

“The Protestant Church traces back to Christ; the Catholic Church traces back to Christ; the Way Church [churches prior to the Catholic Church] traces back to Christ.”

The protestant Churches go back no further than their founders. The Church in which they were educated and which give them their Bibles and taught them to read and exegete them was a different Church entirely; the Catholic Church. It is foolish and illogical to suppose, as the Anglicans are want to do, that they can create a new Church and claim that the Church they violently surpressed is their link with Christ. If I were to slaughter priests and found a new sect, teaching false and contrary doctrine I could not calim truthfully that I am their lawfull and legitimate successors.

All within the Church of Christ trace back to Christ, whether Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Colossian or Ephesian.

If it is the Truth you seek, then you first need to address the “branch theorey” in which you are convinced that anyone can found a sect teaching contrary to Christ and claim to be part of His Church, while at the same time rejecting it.

 

[Iotaunum]

"The Church of Christ is undivided; but, dogma within it is divided.

The Catholic Church is one branch of the Church of Christ; the Protestant Church is another.

Both are under Christ; yet both have agreements and disagreements with each other, over issues of history, doctrine, and interpretation.

Hope that is less confusing, for you. "*

I was never confused, but if you read my previous response you will see that I was trying to clear up some of the confusion from which you still seem to be suffering. The “branch theorey” was NEVER accepted by the Church. The very idea was always consistantly rejected as heretical. Only those who founded paralell churches which rejected Christ’s doctrine, yet realised that the Catholic Church alone can trace its roots to Christ came up with this theorey, in order to justify their departure, yet still claim lineage/apostolic sucession. It is obviously fraudulant, since Christ founded only one Church- one fold with one shepherd - not multiple.

*"The Protestant Church has the same lineage as the Catholic Church, up until the Reformation.

The Reformation is the reformation of the Catholic Church, without yielding unbroken lineage back to Christ."*

Again, you are misguided. The reason protestants had the same lineage as Catholics before the “reformation” is because no protestant Church existed before the reformation. All their anscestors were Catholic.
*
"Einstein completely unhinged Newton’s concepts of physics; but, as Einstein said: it is on the shoulders of Newton that I have been able to see.

The church of physics now has Einsteinian and Newtonian branches of thought, both with the same lineage pre-dating Aristotle."

Hope that helps you."*

It certainly helps me to see how your knowledge of the Church is lacking. You seem to confuse Faith with secular organisations/schools of thought. Although I disagree with your thoughts regarding the above, whats more important is that your reasoning is defective. One cannot reject a teaching of Christ, reject the authority He set up - and claim to found a seperate “branch” of the Church Christ founded. It is no longer the Church of Christ. It may include some/ alot of Christian doctrine, along with man made ones and reject the rest. This, however does not make a new Church of Christ, but a new church of Man.

*"Jews who followed Jesus - a Jew - were eventually referred to as Christians.

Sorry, if I left you confused there. "*

Only because they accepted the fulfillment of the Christian religion, and held fast to the teachings of Christ and His Church. The distinction is important: not a mere label.

*"The Catholic Catechism and Pope Benedict XVI would disagree with you that only Catholics are Christians.

But, you are entitled to your own view, in “branching off.”"*

Whether Pope Benedict XVI would disagree (according to your reading) is superflous, since the Scriptures, Tradition and the Magesterium have been consistantly clear on this point.

“He who hears you (Peter) hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me" - Lk 10:16

Those who reject the Church reject Christ. One cannot reject Christ and be a Christian. Even for the most simple mind, the logic in this is obvious.

“If any man preaches any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” - Gal 1: 9

This is also clear - Luther etc preached a false gospel of sola fide etc.

"If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house or welcome him” -2 Jo 1:10

Would this admonition apply to a fellow Christian?

“So long as the member was on the body, it lived; separated, it lost its life. Thus the man, so long as he lives on the body of the [Catholic] Church, he is a Christian; separated from her, he becomes a heretic” - Satis cognitum (June 29, 1896)
“Interesting, but not addressing the nature of my search.” *

• To address the nature of your search it is essential that you first understand the nature of the Church founded by Christ. You seem drawn into 16th century innovations of Anglicanism’s branch theorey.

“The Protestant Church traces back to Christ; the Catholic Church traces back to Christ; the Way Church [churches prior to the Catholic Church] traces back to Christ.”

The protestant Churches go back no further than their founders. The Church in which they were educated and which give them their Bibles and taught them to read and exegete them was a different Church entirely; the Catholic Church. It is foolish and illogical to suppose, as the Anglicans are want to do, that they can create a new Church and claim that the Church they violently surpressed is their link with Christ. If I were to slaughter priests and found a new sect, teaching false and contrary doctrine I could not calim truthfully that I am their lawfull and legitimate successors.

All within the Church of Christ trace back to Christ, whether Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Colossian or Ephesian.

If it is the Truth you seek, then you first need to address the “branch theorey” in which you are convinced that anyone can found a sect teaching contrary to Christ and claim to be part of His Church, while at the same time rejecting it.

 

[Warrenton]

QUOTE=Curious Seed;7602325For thousands of years, the Sun was believed to circle the Earth.

From the earth, the sun does circle the earth. Celestial navigation, as well as practical astronomy, functions on the assumption of a geocentric universe. It works.

For thousands of years, kings and emperors were believed to have a divine/royal authority to govern.

C

They still do, but the names have changed. If you doubt it, go over to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and tell the occupant to get his junk out of the way, you’re moving in.

You will get the “divine right 2.0 version” pdq!

 

[CopticChristian]

:idea:

The Church of Christ is about 2000 years in experience, under the appellation Catholic Church.

The Church of Christ is about 500 years in experience, under the appellation Protestant Church.

The Catholic Church holds that there is merit in existing some 1500 years prior to the appearance of Protestantism.

Is there anything of merit or value in that claim?

Orthodox Judaism was in existence some 4000 years, prior to some of its members branching off into a Judaism re-labelled Catholicism (Christian) and the Catholic Church.

Orthodox Catholics were in existence some 1500 years, prior to some of its members branching off into a Christianity re-labelled Protestantism (Christian) and the Protestant Church.

Today, the orthodox jewish traditions have been around some 6000 years; the orthodox catholic traditions have been around 2000 years; the orthodox protestant traditions have been around 500 years.

By rank of age, the Catholics and Protestants are as meritless as Catholics now think Protestants are.

Further:

For thousands of years, the Sun was believed to circle the Earth.

For thousands of years, kings and emperors were believed to have a divine/royal authority to govern.

Clearly, age alone is not necessarily sufficent to satisfy truth.

You have no knowledge of logic. Your premise has no merit. Jesus is the new Adam, the first among many, the beginning of the New Covenant. It is His creation you speak of. Age of the Body of Christ is the question you are trying to answer with logic that defies logic.

Paul made it clear in Romans that God is impartial, all nations are to come to Him through Christ. Abraham was the father of all nations and all nations had a history. The Old Covenant was supplanted by the New Covenant or have you not read Romans 7. In consideration that your are belittling the history of the New Covenant what is your logic about?

 

[CopticChristian]

"The Church of Christ is undivided; but, dogma within it is divided.

The Catholic Church is one branch of the Church of Christ; the Protestant Church is another.

Both are under Christ; yet both have agreements and disagreements with each other, over issues of history, doctrine, and interpretation.

Hope that is less confusing, for you. "*

I was never confused, but if you read my previous response you will see that I was trying to clear up some of the confusion from which you still seem to be suffering. The “branch theorey” was NEVER accepted by the Church. The very idea was always consistantly rejected as heretical. Only those who founded paralell churches which rejected Christ’s doctrine, yet realised that the Catholic Church alone can trace its roots to Christ came up with this theorey, in order to justify their departure, yet still claim lineage/apostolic sucession. It is obviously fraudulant, since Christ founded only one Church- one fold with one shepherd - not multiple.

*"The Protestant Church has the same lineage as the Catholic Church, up until the Reformation.

The Reformation is the reformation of the Catholic Church, without yielding unbroken lineage back to Christ."*

Again, you are misguided. The reason protestants had the same lineage as Catholics before the “reformation” is because no protestant Church existed before the reformation. All their anscestors were Catholic.
*
"Einstein completely unhinged Newton’s concepts of physics; but, as Einstein said: it is on the shoulders of Newton that I have been able to see.

The church of physics now has Einsteinian and Newtonian branches of thought, both with the same lineage pre-dating Aristotle."

Hope that helps you."*

It certainly helps me to see how your knowledge of the Church is lacking. You seem to confuse Faith with secular organisations/schools of thought. Although I disagree with your thoughts regarding the above, whats more important is that your reasoning is defective. One cannot reject a teaching of Christ, reject the authority He set up - and claim to found a seperate “branch” of the Church Christ founded. It is no longer the Church of Christ. It may include some/ alot of Christian doctrine, along with man made ones and reject the rest. This, however does not make a new Church of Christ, but a new church of Man.

*"Jews who followed Jesus - a Jew - were eventually referred to as Christians.

Sorry, if I left you confused there. "*

Only because they accepted the fulfillment of the Christian religion, and held fast to the teachings of Christ and His Church. The distinction is important: not a mere label.

*"The Catholic Catechism and Pope Benedict XVI would disagree with you that only Catholics are Christians.

But, you are entitled to your own view, in “branching off.”"*

Whether Pope Benedict XVI would disagree (according to your reading) is superflous, since the Scriptures, Tradition and the Magesterium have been consistantly clear on this point.

“He who hears you (Peter) hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me" - Lk 10:16

Those who reject the Church reject Christ. One cannot reject Christ and be a Christian. Even for the most simple mind, the logic in this is obvious.

“If any man preaches any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” - Gal 1: 9

This is also clear - Luther etc preached a false gospel of sola fide etc.

"If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house or welcome him” -2 Jo 1:10

Would this admonition apply to a fellow Christian?

“So long as the member was on the body, it lived; separated, it lost its life. Thus the man, so long as he lives on the body of the [Catholic] Church, he is a Christian; separated from her, he becomes a heretic” - Satis cognitum (June 29, 1896)
“Interesting, but not addressing the nature of my search.” *

• To address the nature of your search it is essential that you first understand the nature of the Church founded by Christ. You seem drawn into 16th century innovations of Anglicanism’s branch theorey.

“The Protestant Church traces back to Christ; the Catholic Church traces back to Christ; the Way Church [churches prior to the Catholic Church] traces back to Christ.”

The protestant Churches go back no further than their founders. The Church in which they were educated and which give them their Bibles and taught them to read and exegete them was a different Church entirely; the Catholic Church. It is foolish and illogical to suppose, as the Anglicans are want to do, that they can create a new Church and claim that the Church they violently surpressed is their link with Christ. If I were to slaughter priests and found a new sect, teaching false and contrary doctrine I could not calim truthfully that I am their lawfull and legitimate successors.

All within the Church of Christ trace back to Christ, whether Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Colossian or Ephesian.

If it is the Truth you seek, then you first need to address the “branch theorey” in which you are convinced that anyone can found a sect teaching contrary to Christ and claim to be part of His Church, while at the same time rejecting it.

This is polite and I applaud you. Where is the Church, where you see the Bishop there is the Church. The Church is visible and invisible. I know where the Catholic Church is. Where do you propose the “arm” Protestant Church is?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

:idea:

The Church of Christ is about 2000 years in experience, under the appellation Catholic Church.

The Church of Christ is about 500 years in experience, under the appellation Protestant Church.

The Catholic Church holds that there is merit in existing some 1500 years prior to the appearance of Protestantism.

Is there anything of merit or value in that claim?

Orthodox Judaism was in existence some 4000 years, prior to some of its members branching off into a Judaism re-labelled Catholicism (Christian) and the Catholic Church.

Orthodox Catholics were in existence some 1500 years, prior to some of its members branching off into a Christianity re-labelled Protestantism (Christian) and the Protestant Church.

Today, the orthodox jewish traditions have been around some 6000 years; the orthodox catholic traditions have been around 2000 years; the orthodox protestant traditions have been around 500 years.

By rank of age, the Catholics and Protestants are as meritless as Catholics now think Protestants are.

Further:

For thousands of years, the Sun was believed to circle the Earth.

For thousands of years, kings and emperors were believed to have a divine/royal authority to govern.

Clearly, age alone is not necessarily sufficent to satisfy truth.

Judaism is not considered wrong but fulfilled. Christ did not come to destroy the Law or the prophets but to fulfill them and He did just that. In doing this He founded His Church and when Christ creates a Church it is perfect in doctrine. Protestantism is a heresy because it claims to be the fulfillment of Christianity by saying that the First Church Christ founded was not perfect in doctrine. When you do this and create new doctines you’re not reforming the original Church but starting a new one.

 

[archangel04]

Oh, but the seeds of the United States are traceable to England !

If the American descendents hailed from China, it would be a different American society today.

The Catholic Church was wrong for some of its members and they sought reformation - and thus - the Protestant Church resulted.

T**oday, the Protestant Church is as much a Church of Christ, as the Catholic Church.

**The New Testament seeds the views of both interpretations of Christianity.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the protestant churches are not the same nor are they equal to the Catholic Church. If this were the case this would make Christ a liar, and truly not devine. We know this is not true. We know that Christ came and starte His one true Church. One still means one, wether it’s yesterday, today, and tommarow. There is not “many” there is just one. Truth does not compromise, truth will always be truth. Prtestant churches all have different meanings of this truth, so which is it?

 

[CopticChristian]

Sorry to burst your bubble but the protestant churches are not the same nor are they equal to the Catholic Church. If this were the case this would make Christ a liar, and truly not devine. We know this is not true. We know that Christ came and starte His one true Church. One still means one, wether it’s yesterday, today, and tommarow. There is not “many” there is just one. Truth does not compromise, truth will always be truth. Prtestant churches all have different meanings of this truth, so which is it?

Amen, Amen and Amen

 

[CopticChristian]

Judaism is not considered wrong but fulfilled. Christ did not come to destroy the Law or the prophets but to fulfill them and He did just that. In doing this He founded His Church and when Christ creates a Church it is perfect in doctrine. Protestantism is a heresy because it claims to be the fulfillment of Christianity by saying that the First Church Christ founded was not perfect in doctrine. When you do this and create new doctines you’re not reforming the original Church but starting a new one.

This completes my thoughts thank you.