C
Contarini
Guest
It’s not a confusion, just a different way of using “sola scriptura.” Which is why the term is effectively useless–it can mean so many different things.
Edwin
- Status
Edwin
A
advert123
Guest
CATHOLICS ARE TRUE BELIEVERS RIGHT READ THIS
**1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols.
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
SO ARENT YOU SINNING? AND THIS IS FROM NEW TESTAMENT
**
**1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols.
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
SO ARENT YOU SINNING? AND THIS IS FROM NEW TESTAMENT
**
E
estesbob
Guest
If God allowed his Church to be wrong on some doctrinal points how can we trust any doctrines to be true. And what kind of inept god would allow his Church to be in error for 1,500 years?
Even a cursory reading of Church History shows that the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church for at least the first 1,000 years after Chirst died. Even those who left in the great schism embraced none of the false Doctrines the protetstants made up some 500 years later
Of course there is-the Church Jesus Christ founded and has withstood everything thrown at it for 2,000 years. Just becuase the Protestants got in wrong doesnt mean Chirst allowed his Church to get it wrong.
Why would you expect us to stop telling the truth ?
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
I read this sort of comment repeatedly on this forum. Yet, it requires that one read back into history with the type of logic found in George Orwell’s 1984 to arrive at the conclusion you do. But then, Orwell might have been correct in saying that “he who controls the present controls the past”.
The Catholic Church you speak of is something that evolved over time. The Church which was catholic (meaning universal) was that because the Church understood itself as one body, not divided. And as far as I am concernd there still exists a catholic (again meaning universal, not meaning connected to Rome) Church in that all Christians belong to one body in belonging to Christ. But being catholic doesn’t make us Catholic. When you start using Catholic with a capital “C” then you are talking about something different than the original catholic Church. So, the Catholic church might have emerged from the catholic Church, but they are not the same. The catholic Church of today includes all manner of Christians from many different ecclesiastical communities. How paradoxical that the Catholic church in declaring itself the one true church, actually rejects the catholicity of the Church that it centuries ago emerged from.
E
estesbob
Guest
It only requires one to study Church History. if you have evidence of any other Chrisitan churchs that existed prior to the Great schism please post it. There simply were not any.
Again a reading of Church History shows that the Catholic Church is the same church it has been from the first century on. Read the writings of the Church fathers and you will see this is true. They most certainly believed the Catholic Church was the Church founded by Christ , as did ALL Christians until the so called reformation occured… There was no concept of Christs Church being invisible until the 16th century .
The doctines /beliefs of Protestant denominations can not be found in Scripture, tradition or History.
C
Contarini
Guest
Churches with historical continuity to the present:
“Nestorian” (Church of the East)
“Monophysite” (Jacobite Syrian, Coptic, Ethopian, Armenian, Malankara)
Churches/movements with no continuity to the present (though some of the same ideas keep popping up)
Montanist
Marcionite
Valentinian
Novatian
Donatist
Arian
These are just the main ones!
Your reading of Church history appears to be quite superficial.
The exact same? In every respect? Are you sure you want to claim this? Of course the things you think are important are the same (“you” here meaning Catholicism in general, informed by excellent patristic scholarship–you personally may think some things are the same that really aren’t). But there are other things that may be important to the rest of us that have changed. One obvious example is communion in both kinds. Another is the mode of election of bishops, and the growth of papal power generally. Another is access to Scripture for laypeople. Attitudes and practices have changed dramatically over the centuries, so no, you cannot claim that Catholicism today is identical to Catholicism in the early centuries.
Edwin
G
George_Waters
Guest
I’m sorry, but where is it claimed the Catholic church is the exact same in “every respect” and nothing has changed? Did I miss that? Is it the same One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? Yes. Is everything exactly the same as it was on day one? No, of couse not. Looks like you are adding to what was said in an attempt to make a point.
C
Contarini
Guest
First of all, because we can be confident that God will not allow the Church to err on essential matters. And in the second place, because we have reason to think that certain doctrines are true and others are more dubious!
The same “inept god” who allows the Church to be full of sinners, and even to be led by them (this applies to any Christian group). The same “inept god” who allowed the Church to make grave mistakes in practical pastoral and administrative matters, including issues with serious moral implications. The same “inept god” who doesn’t appear to ensure that everyone on the planet hears the Gospel. The same “inept god” who sent His only Son to die on a Cross. The only God I know and worship seems to have an embarrassing habit of doing things that human beings consider inept.
In Christ,
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, and my point is that Catholics pick and choose what counts as “change” in order to make their point. Anglicanism, for instance, is not part of the “same Church” because it’s not in union with Rome, but a Catholic parish that doesn’t offer communion in both kinds (and you know they still exist, but my point rests on the fact that they once existed) is part of “the same Church,” according to you. Your addition of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception to the dogmas of the Faith don’t constitute a basic change, but our ordination of women does.
This is perfectly consistent on the theory that your Church has the authority to decide what is “change” and what is “development.” But you cannot then use a lack of change as an argument against people not yet convinced of your Church’s claims. And that’s what estesbob was doing by claiming that Catholicism is “the same Church” and thus has the same authority as the early Church. To the rest of us it looks different enough that the truth of its claims is far from self-evident.
Edwin
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
I didn’t say that other Christian churches existed prior to the Great schism. I am saying the churches that existed after the Great schism are not the continuations of the Church that existed before. That pre-schism Church is preserved now only in the invisible union that exists between members of the body of Christ that are willing to look beyond visible church membership and to see the one that yet remains in the body of Christ.
You may read it that way, but I most certainly do not. In fact I think you are fooling yourself if you believe this to be true. It was exactly for this reason that I made my reference to Orwellian thinking.
Again that is what you choose to believe. Personally, I think you are greatly in error, and I think that if this is truly what is being taught in the Catholic church that it is teaching error and has been doing so ever since this heresy entered the thinking of the leadership in Rome in the years leading up to the Great Schism. You make me think of another story, the King who wore no clothes, only it would be the Catholic church who has dressed her self up in nothing and claimed it is the teaching of the ancient, truly catholic Church.
I know you will not accept this critique of mine. But you base your defense of so many beliefs in the idea that God would not allow his church to be in error for 1500 years. You misread the scriptures and you misunderstand yourself in thinking he was speaking of the Catholic church you imagine in your mind. He was indeed speaking of the very church you say was not even conceived of till the 16th century. It was conceived of years, centuries before by people like Peter, Paul, James, John, Silas, Barnabbas, Timothy, Apollus, Priscilla, Aquilla, Epaphroditus, Philemon, Onesimus, Demas, Demetrius and Luke. And after them by people like Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Polycarp.
But when Cyprian of Carthage said “outside the church there is no salvation”, he was wrong. It wasn’t the Holy Spirit or scripture that guided him to that conclusion. And while I don’t hold to Novatian’s intercessory view of the church, he was certainly right to stand against Cornelius in suggesting that a bishop could forgive sins for it assumes that the bishop can dictate the activity of the Spirit.
Or do you think that Cyprian was right? And was this same Cyprian right when he, like Iraneus, challenged the bishop of Rome when they thought him to be in error? This idea that the bishop of Rome was always the first among equals is another invention of the Catholic church that was unknown by the catholic Church. There is no conclusive evidence that the bishop of Rome ever exercised jurisdiction outside of Rome prior to the time of Constantine. Honor yes. Jurisdiction no. That the Catholic church today teaches otherwise is just another part of the Orwellian nature I was referring to earlier.
I believe that what Ignatius meant when he said that the Church was catholic was that though there were many congregations, each with their own bishop or presbyter, that wherever individual congregations might gather, they were not separate institutions but one in Christ. So, though there were many scatter congregations and though (despite what I expect you to claim) there was no central authority, it was still one Church because it all belonged to the one Christ. I submit that this is what we still have today. Though there are some that look to their own particular bishop or presbyter for governance of their local congreation(s), we still belong to the one Christ (thus there is no need for any other central authority) and this body of Christ represented by Orthodox and Roman and Coptic and various protestant congregations spread around the world (each with many different earthly leaders) is still one catholic Church in the sense that Ignatius first used the term. Any other interpretation is simply to move away from what Ignatius taught at the time.
M
Man
Guest
Nah:
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.”
That is pretty strong language. The Orthodox where happy with it until the Rome began to express what they considered (and likely was often) an excessive use of power.
Lots of good and bad came out of Rome and Europe, however, the Pope never lost his honor and primacy. Even if it was denied by many. He still hasn’t or you wouldn’t be here. The prudence of it is also astonishing, especially when the Church is becoming uncompromisingly Holy filled with holy individuals as if struggles against the growing over-tolerance of secularism.
The Pope notes that it is tragic that the Church is so divided even during this time of testing. It isn’t fitting. The EO churches grow closer. The protestant churches resolutely deny their responsibility to honor the Pope’s position.*
M
Man
Guest
Nah:
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.”*
M
Man
Guest
Nah:
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.”
~110 AD. Ignatius is an Apostolic Father, for he had heard the teachings of Saint John.*
A
anthony022071
Guest
H
Hellisreal
Guest
Be an eastern othodox not in communion with Rome if you think Peter is not the man with the keys.
At least then you would have…
Need I say more?
At least then you would have…
Need I say more?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
One has to distinguish the perfectly patristic notion of the bishop of Rome as “first among equals”, from the non-patristic notion of the bishop of Rome having universal jurisdiction outside of Rome.
H
Hellisreal
Guest
Dear Ahimsa,
The real issue is if this role was played out "in Love" or not…
This is the issue. They say NO.
They are intitled to their feelings, of course.
This is only my take and understanding from a EO Priest I visit often.
The real issue is if this role was played out "in Love" or not…
This is the issue. They say NO.
They are intitled to their feelings, of course.
This is only my take and understanding from a EO Priest I visit often.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Love is certainly part of the equation, but, paraphrasing the Arabs, love of God doesn’t mean you shouldn’t tie your camel.
H
Hellisreal
Guest
I can say no more at this point.
E
estesbob
Guest
You cant have it both ways. you cant agree that there were no other Christian Church’s prior to the great Schism and then claim the the Catholic Chutch is not the one true Church. There was no need for this invisble Church you refer to in that the Church Christ founded was quite visible-was then and is today
I know you love to refer to Orwell(maes me think nazi analogies are coming next) but there is no need for a Catholic to change or distort History for the History of Christianity is the histoy of the Catholic Church
First those who split during the Great schism have absolutely NOTHING in common with those who rejected the Church in its entirety 500 years later. As far as wearing no clothes that would appear to be those who claim that a very visible Church became "invisble " only after 1,500 years and that the God had allowed his visible Church to be in error for the vast majoroty of that time.
You obviously have not read the writings of all those you list above. not only did the embrace the Catholic Church as the one true Church none of them I repeat None of them embraced anything close to the man created doctrines that are the pillars of Protestanism.
But it wasnt just Cypreian that beleived this. it was EVERYONE believed it and believed it for the better part of 1,500 years.
Claiming to know what the Spirit says is a very arogant idea that allows Proetestants to claim anything they want without offering any proof. In Catholicims, OTH, we depend on the three pillars of the Church-Scripture, Tradition and the Magestrium to lead us all to a common truth. The Spirit speaks via his Church. Your position is tenable only if one beleives that the Spirit speaks presonally to you and has revealed that all these people were wrong
- Status