P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah. So not so simple, then. Christianity needs to obviate the obfuscatory elements, eh?
Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...
- Status
F
freerf
Guest
No. None of the above.
Again, he established a universal church. I think we’ve gone over this definition a lot. Perhaps the breakdown is that you guys feel Jesus’ church must be of a similar character as my church or your church. It must have four walls, a roof, a sign up sheet, it must have a library and artifacts, it must be physically traceable through histroy, like the lineage of David to Jesus himself.
I don’t see why this must be so. And no one has demonstrated why this must be so.
We believe His church is a church comprised of people that transcends denominations. Some Catholics will be part of it, some will not. Some Prot too. The church teaches truth in so far as it lines up with the Word of God, Jesus’ will, and the holy spirit.
Hopefully this helps clarify.
F
freerf
Guest
see my other post. Perhaps I should again clarify my meaning. . .it is more in line with what i’d consider mere christianity, as outlined by CS Lewis (i’m sure you’re familiar). In that sense it’s simple, compaired to Catholicism, but certainly not simplistic.
You can spend a lifetime studying the OT alone. It’s not in the slightest simplistic. Please try to understand my meaning.
F
freerf
Guest
Regarding the worship of Mary. Yes, I agree. I understand the CC position here, though I don’t agree with it. I wasn’t trying to pick a fight. someone asked me where the Church varied from jesus’ teachings so i used that example. i believe it has. most catholics don’t worship mary, but some do.
F
freerf
Guest
I guess this was an insult. I’m rather disappointed.Ah. So there you have it. What I call the CAFs version of Godwin’s Law.
Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions —regardless of topic or scope —inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis. Also the poster who mentioned Nazis loses all debates/discussions they had in said topic, and their insults are nullified.
Here’s the CAF version of Godwin’s Law I’m proposing: “As an online discussion about the CC grows longer, the probability of a reference to sexual abuse by priests approaches 1”
However, the poster who mentions the abuse loses all debates/discussions said in topic, and his insults are nullified.
I dunno if you’ve made a reference the abuse scandal prior to today, but at under 700 posts you’re well within the top 5 posters who’ve invoked the CAFs version of Godwin’s Law so quickly.
Funny though.PR, it was pertinent to the discussion. I was asked “How can a church, which teaches truth, teach contradictory doctrines?” This question implies that the asker believes a church cannot be fallable, to which my response is, really?! and i gave a contemporary example of the Catholic Church’s fallibility. Now, had this happend 40 years ago, and was not contemporary, I’d agree it was a bit out of the blue.
Oh never mind about being disappointed, I though it was Joe who posted this. it was PRMerger. . .I’ll have high expectations for Joe. Sorry to bring up a soar subject PR.
F
freerf
Guest
Anywho ladies and gentlemen, I’m starting to realize my time tonight is better spent in prayer. Perhaps i’ll visit again tomorrow and check in.
God Bless.
Anyway, PR pointed out that I’ve lost the debate already due to an apparently inappropriate reference.
God Bless.
Anyway, PR pointed out that I’ve lost the debate already due to an apparently inappropriate reference.
J
joe370
Guest
I promise I wasn’t picking a fight, but you do seem to be doing a wonderful rope-a-dope. LOL…Muhammad ali joke. I am the greatest…LOL…He was the greatest by the way. I am just trying to get an accurate beat on what you are saying regarding the following:
When Jesus said, I will build my church and guide my church into all truth until the end of time, Jesus was specifically referring to the Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church (offshoots of the EOC) - the Anglican church and every single Protestant church, past, present and future? That is what Jesus meant when He said: I will build my church?
Again, yes or no, and then perhaps you could sell that idea to me because I didn’t get it as a former protestant?
G
guanophore
Guest
Why not? If they are right, would it not be in our best interest to do so?
It is really a matter of personal perception, or as scriptire calls it “private interpretation”.
You see, the HS is not going to reveal something to one individual 2000 years after the Scriptures were written that contradicts what He has already revealed to the Church.
Is it your contention, then, that the Catholic Church did not exist before that time?\
Your concept of anything other that “one Church” is contradictory to scripture, which states there is only one.
I am curious what you mean when you say “succession of Peter”.
Glad we are in agreement on this fundamental point. It is also a point of agreement between Catholic and Orthodox. Where you lost me is that you keep saying you don’t believe in the “succession of Peter”. I am unclear what you mean by that, but without an authentic Apostolic Succession, there is no valid bishop, which means the method being shown here to determine the True Church would not work.
No, that would not clarify, as the Roman or Latin Rite had been in existence for about nine centuries at that point.
No, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”, and neither was Ignatius. Today there are 23 Rites in the Catholic Church, all of them in communion with the successor of Peter, only one of them uses the “Roman” or Latin Rite.
Well, not “every” other man.
Catholics and Orthodox RECEIVE the faith from where it is faithfully handed down through the paradosis. This is why we understand the scriptures differently than those of you that have been separated from the Apostolic Succession for 500+ years.
We understand that the HS does not reveal things to moderns that contradict what He revealed to the ancients.
F
freerf
Guest
this is so very absurd. it’s a good way of discounting another person’s ideas however, and avoiding discussion. congrats. nice dodge. nice insult too.Ah. So there you have it. What I call the CAFs version of Godwin’s Law.
Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions —regardless of topic or scope —inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis. Also the poster who mentioned Nazis loses all debates/discussions they had in said topic, and their insults are nullified.
Here’s the CAF version of Godwin’s Law I’m proposing: “As an online discussion about the CC grows longer, the probability of a reference to sexual abuse by priests approaches 1”
However, the poster who mentions the abuse loses all debates/discussions said in topic, and his insults are nullified.
I dunno if you’ve made a reference the abuse scandal prior to today, but at under 700 posts you’re well within the top 5 posters who’ve invoked the CAFs version of Godwin’s Law so quickly.
F
freerf
Guest
I feel really bad but i’m totally ignoring you. lol. don’t have time to read your posts too. you probably have a lot of great things to say… . sorry. too many people to respond to at once. sorry again.Why not? If they are right, would it not be in our best interest to do so?
It is really a matter of personal perception, or as scriptire calls it “private interpretation”.
You see, the HS is not going to reveal something to one individual 2000 years after the Scriptures were written that contradicts what He has already revealed to the Church.
Is it your contention, then, that the Catholic Church did not exist before that time?\
Your concept of anything other that “one Church” is contradictory to scripture, which states there is only one.
I am curious what you mean when you say “succession of Peter”.
Glad we are in agreement on this fundamental point. It is also a point of agreement between Catholic and Orthodox. Where you lost me is that you keep saying you don’t believe in the “succession of Peter”. I am unclear what you mean by that, but without an authentic Apostolic Succession, there is no valid bishop, which means the method being shown here to determine the True Church would not work.
No, that would not clarify, as the Roman or Latin Rite had been in existence for about nine centuries at that point.
No, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”, and neither was Ignatius. Today there are 23 Rites in the Catholic Church, all of them in communion with the successor of Peter, only one of them uses the “Roman” or Latin Rite.
Well, not “every” other man.
Catholics and Orthodox RECEIVE the faith from where it is faithfully handed down through the paradosis. This is why we understand the scriptures differently than those of you that have been separated from the Apostolic Succession for 500+ years.
We understand that the HS does not reveal things to moderns that contradict what He revealed to the ancients.
F
freerf
Guest
I think I responded to this in 930. . I’ve reposted it below.
No. None of the above. He was referring to the universal church.
Again, he established a universal church. (I think we’ve gone over this definition a lot.) Perhaps the breakdown is that you guys feel Jesus’ church must be of a similar character as my church or your church. It must have four walls, a roof, a sign up sheet, it must have a library and artifacts, it must be physically traceable through histroy, like the lineage of David to Jesus himself.
I don’t see why this must be so. And no one has demonstrated why this must be so.
We believe His church is a church comprised of people that transcends denominations. Some Catholics will be part of it, some will not. Some Prot too. The church teaches truth in so far as it lines up with the Word of God, Jesus’ will, and the holy spirit.
Hopefully this helps clarify.
Anyway, i really must be going now. It’s been a pleasure, Joe. Take care.
God Bless and Peace.
G
guanophore
Guest
Of course there is nothing inherintly wrong with study and prayer. The problem lies in doing these things in isolation from what God has already revealed to the Church. When Catholics study and pray, we do so through the lens of Sacred Tradition. This keeps us from departing from the meaning of what is written. The NT was produced from Sacred Tradition, so there will be perfect harnony.
A “denomination” is something that takes it’s name from somthing else. "Denominations’ were created when certain persons chose to separate themselves from the Apostolic faith. They defined themselves by which part of the Catholic faith they reject. This is one of the reasons they are called “protestant”.
How is it determined who becomes an “elder”? Can I just wake up one day and call myself one?
I think you are right, that when there is a dispute, the visible heirarchy of the Church is to be consulted to resolve the matter. The issue then becomes (hence, the purpose of this thread) how does one determine which :elders" represent the true faith?
If the “elders” are not in agreement with one another, then how is a dispute arbitrated?
Who decides what is “essential” and what is not? Where is that list in scripture?
How come some people use scripture and come up with opposite conclusions if it is “easily refuted”?
Do you honestly believe that much straying has not taken place by each person doing what he thinks is right in his own eyes?
R
rainman10
Guest
This is interesting. So Christianity is based on individual opinions? Sounds very protestant to me.
I think we should all agree simply because it is God’s Word, not His opinion. He wants us to be one in the belief in His Truth, but protestantism doesn’t allow it because they all have their own fallible personal opinions. They take pride in their personal opinions, claiming to be lead by the Holy Spirit, yet it is so obvious that this is not true, because the Holy Spirit only leads to one Truth, not thousands.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Were you under the misapprehension that the CC proclaims who’s in hell?
You’ll find not a single document with that proclamation. :nope:
Rather, we entrust to the mercy of God, the souls of the unbaptized.
Your objection to Catholicism seems to be a pornographized version–one that exists only in your own imagination. True Catholicism–in all its beauty, majesty, truth and love–has not been considered by you yet, if you believe that we know who’s in hell.
P
PRmerger
Guest
The breakdown comes because the Church must teach TRUTH, which even you acknowledge.
And it simply cannot be that the Holy Spirit would inspire its flock to teach different, and often CONTRARY doctrines–sometimes to the tune of 30,000 different inspirations. (Again, the number is arguable, conceded.)
P
PRmerger
Guest
Again, if Protestantism is more simple (not simplistic), then why the need for a bible studies?
Why are there Protestant seminaries? Why spend months learning: I believe in Christ and Him Crucified!
G
guanophore
Guest
I hope you are still reading during your leave of absence
which I hope will be brief.You make a very salient point here. The Church founded by Christ is not one that is “established biblically”. Jesus did not write, or instruct the Apostles to do so. He founded HIs Church by daily training the 12 for about 3 years, then promising to remain with them until the end of the age.
The Church was intended to be built from person to person, as the HOly Faith is handed down, and formed in the lives of the disciples. It is not to be extracted from the pages of scripture and someone’s imagination of what those scriptures mean used to manage it. Scripture is a very important part of the Church, but the foundation is made of people, not books, however Holy.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is certainly true, A person can practice heresy, disobedience, rebellion, etc. no matter what affiliation he claims. There are wolves among the sheep everywhere.
Sin is not a justification for more sin, though.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is certainly true of Luther, especially in the beginning,and for King Henry. They wanted the church to bend to accomodate their way of thinking and moral choices.
However, when a person rejects the teaching of the church, they don’t need to be “kicked out”. For the most part, they have excommunicated themselves by rejecting the doctrines of the faith. This was the case for Luther.
You are also correct that there were some people that perpetrated torture and death upon those who did not conform. Some people were unjustly accused (some women, for example who appeared to be too powerful so were accused of being witches, like Joan of Arc).
The “needs for reforming”, though were in the people, not the doctrine. This is where the problem still lies today. People will always be in need of reform, but the Teaching of Christ is not.
G
guanophore
Guest
I can see why it woud seem that way. Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, what God has in store for those who love Him. He intended that we be able to judge angels, and that is quite an elevated position!
1 Cor 6:2-6
2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels — to say nothing of ordinary matters? 4 If you have ordinary cases, then, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide between one believer and another, 6 but a believer goes to court against a believer — and before unbelievers at that?
Clearly the Apostle is scolding them because they are slow to take responsibility for the direcion and discipline that is to be exercised among them,a by them.
Jesus chose to direct and discipline through the authorities He appointed. Not trusting that He is able to do this is a failure to trust in Him. It is difficult to entrust one’s soul to another human being, but God knows what we need to perfect our character.
The Aposltes were empowered by Christ, and they chose bishops to succeed them and exercise the authority given to them:
Titus 2:15
15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.
If this authority did not come from Christ, through the Apostle, there would be none.
And who does scripture say is to do all this guidance and disciplining?
Eph 4:10-14
11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.
God gave the responsibility for equipping the saints to certain persons through gift and calling. We are to receive them as from Christ, and cooperate with their guidance and discipline:
Heb 13:17
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account.
During the Reformation, certain persons decided that this verse did not apply anymore.
- Status