V
Verita
Guest
Well, only one of them can be right. Personally, I stick by the one who is led by the Vicar of Christ, not the one who rebelled against Papal authority. 
- Status
R
R_McGeddon
Guest
Why the sarcasm?Well, only one of them can be right. Personally, I stick by the one who is led by the Vicar of Christ, not the one who rebelled against Papal authority.
They both claim to be led by the vicar of Christ. You will believe your church’s claim, the Orthodox will believe their church’s claim.
It doesn’t alter the fact that one harmonious church fell apart after 1000 years.
Not very inspiring is it?
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
How would you answer and refude these claims? I’m simply not so capable when it comes to apologetics. He was answering the site I gave him: scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html. Can anybody please help?
Continued in the next post…
Continued in the next post…
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
I’m sorry it’s so long. I simply copied it and pasted it.
God bless!
Gandalf
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
R McGeddon
from the Catholic Encyclopedia
*Among the Greeks it was natural that while Catholic served as the distinctive description of the one Church, the etymological significance of the word was never quite lost sight of. Thus in the “Catechetical Discourses” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he insists on the one hand (sect. 26): “And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is–for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord–nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all.” On the other hand when discussing the word Catholic, which already appears in his form of the baptismal creed, St. Cyril remarks: (sect. 23) “Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other.” But we shall have occasion to quote this passage more at length later on. *
How do you answer this? And when you do, if you do, please cite your source so that we won’t have to suspect that you are rewriting history in your own head.
from the Catholic Encyclopedia
*Among the Greeks it was natural that while Catholic served as the distinctive description of the one Church, the etymological significance of the word was never quite lost sight of. Thus in the “Catechetical Discourses” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he insists on the one hand (sect. 26): “And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is–for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord–nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all.” On the other hand when discussing the word Catholic, which already appears in his form of the baptismal creed, St. Cyril remarks: (sect. 23) “Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other.” But we shall have occasion to quote this passage more at length later on. *
How do you answer this? And when you do, if you do, please cite your source so that we won’t have to suspect that you are rewriting history in your own head.
D
DesertBrother
Guest
I just started a new thread which is a bit similar to what’s being discussed here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=121100
Here’s what I said:
Forget about the word “catholic” for a minute and consider this. What about the Eastern and Western Churches, which developed individually over the first thousand years of Christianity, both having seven sacraments, priesthood, bishops, belief in the real presence, etc? These were the only Christian Churches in existence, both being nearly identical in their structure and beliefs. So, what are the chances that developing separately, they’d end up so similar, unless they were both started by the same group of people?
If these are not the Churches started by the Apostles themselves, then the only answer is that the Church Jesus intended never got off the ground, and it was only 1500 years later that some individuals finally figured out the way Christ originally intended it to be. These men may have had a deep love for Jesus, and probably had the best intentions, after all there were indeed many injustices going on in the Church at that time. There needed to be reform. But how can anyone believe the reformers were right to take it upon themselves to start their own church and re-invent the wheel? It just sounds to me like a conspiracy theory to think 1500 years went by walking in the completely wrong direction until a few people finally discovered real Christianity more recently, through their own private interpretation of Scripture.
Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, non-infant baptism, assurance of salvation, were not to be found in either the Western or Eastern ancient Church traditions. So if there were never supposed to be structure and sacraments in the Church, a Protestant should really ask, “when did both the East and West fall in to error?” They tend to ignore all together the Apostolic tradtiions of the East.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=121100
Here’s what I said:
Forget about the word “catholic” for a minute and consider this. What about the Eastern and Western Churches, which developed individually over the first thousand years of Christianity, both having seven sacraments, priesthood, bishops, belief in the real presence, etc? These were the only Christian Churches in existence, both being nearly identical in their structure and beliefs. So, what are the chances that developing separately, they’d end up so similar, unless they were both started by the same group of people?
If these are not the Churches started by the Apostles themselves, then the only answer is that the Church Jesus intended never got off the ground, and it was only 1500 years later that some individuals finally figured out the way Christ originally intended it to be. These men may have had a deep love for Jesus, and probably had the best intentions, after all there were indeed many injustices going on in the Church at that time. There needed to be reform. But how can anyone believe the reformers were right to take it upon themselves to start their own church and re-invent the wheel? It just sounds to me like a conspiracy theory to think 1500 years went by walking in the completely wrong direction until a few people finally discovered real Christianity more recently, through their own private interpretation of Scripture.
Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, non-infant baptism, assurance of salvation, were not to be found in either the Western or Eastern ancient Church traditions. So if there were never supposed to be structure and sacraments in the Church, a Protestant should really ask, “when did both the East and West fall in to error?” They tend to ignore all together the Apostolic tradtiions of the East.
R
R_McGeddon
Guest
What are you getting at? All that passage says to me, is that the church took a Greek word as a descriptive name for itself.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The identity of the CC today with the Apostolic Church (but which one ? That is an immensely complex issue too) can’t be proved. It is one interpretation of the NT data about the new religious community arising from the life of Jesus - there are other interpretations, which are also possible, whether in part or as a whole. Some of them do a better job of attending to some of the data than the CC’s interpretation.
**How the new religious community arising from the life of Jesus is to be related to or identified with any body or bodies existing today, is a further question - no proof (were such a thing possible) that the new religious community arising from the life of Jesus is the same as the Church in (say) 300, is a proof of its identity with any particular body existing a thousand years later, or now. Even if the corporate identity of the new religious community arising from the life of Jesus with that of a Church in 1300 could be proved, & even if that body could also be proved to be the Church today, that could not & would not prove anything about the Presence of the Spirit in any of these Churches. Mere corporate continuity or identity (two things which are related but not the same) proves nothing at all about the Presence of the Spirit of Christ in a Church. **That’s why faith is so important - it’s a bad idea to try to prove that everything is true: it’s a form of rationalism, not of faith. ##
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
That’s a good argument against various Mary-related dogmas & ideas. No Apostle mentions the co-redemption, no Father calls her saviouress: the logic that makes absence of Protestant belief X from the records of the past a fatal objection to them, undermines Catholic dogmas Y or Z - or if not the dogmas, a lot of the apologetic for them. Luther came along in 1517 - if that disqualifies him, why is to be said about even later Catholic dogmas & would-be dogmas, such as:
- The Immaculate Conception (1854)
- **Papal Infallibility (1870) **
- Papal, Supreme, Full & Immediate Juridiction over the entire Church militant (1870)
- The Assumption of the BVM (1950)
- the attempt to dogmatise the titles of Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces, & Advocate of the People of God [current]
Two of these - perhaps more - the Orthodox reject: they may be assumed to be familiar with their own Fathers.
**If those Roman things are not disqualified by their lateness - why should Luther be ? Why is date such a big issue anyway ? Surely it is whether Luther spoke truly or not, that is really important; not when he spoke ## **
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
Originally Posted by Gilbert Keith forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*R McGeddon
from the Catholic Encyclopedia
*Among the Greeks it was natural that while Catholic served as the distinctive description of the one Church, the etymological significance of the word was never quite lost sight of. Thus in the “Catechetical Discourses” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he insists on the one hand (sect. 26): “And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is–for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord–nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all.” On the other hand when discussing the word Catholic, which already appears in his form of the baptismal creed, St. Cyril remarks: (sect. 23) “Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other.” But we shall have occasion to quote this passage more at length later on. *
How do you answer this? And when you do, if you do, please cite your source so that we won’t have to suspect that you are rewriting history in your own head.*
What are you getting at? All that passage says to me, is that the church took a Greek word as a descriptive name for itself.
What that passsage should have said to you is that by the time of St. Cyril the true church had come to call itself Catholic, and it still does.
If you have an alternative interpretation that makes sense, let’s hear it. And if you are going to cite someone else beside St. Cyril as an authority on his own times, please site that person too.
*R McGeddon
from the Catholic Encyclopedia
*Among the Greeks it was natural that while Catholic served as the distinctive description of the one Church, the etymological significance of the word was never quite lost sight of. Thus in the “Catechetical Discourses” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he insists on the one hand (sect. 26): “And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is–for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord–nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all.” On the other hand when discussing the word Catholic, which already appears in his form of the baptismal creed, St. Cyril remarks: (sect. 23) “Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other.” But we shall have occasion to quote this passage more at length later on. *
How do you answer this? And when you do, if you do, please cite your source so that we won’t have to suspect that you are rewriting history in your own head.*
What are you getting at? All that passage says to me, is that the church took a Greek word as a descriptive name for itself.
What that passsage should have said to you is that by the time of St. Cyril the true church had come to call itself Catholic, and it still does.
If you have an alternative interpretation that makes sense, let’s hear it. And if you are going to cite someone else beside St. Cyril as an authority on his own times, please site that person too.
- Status