Positive proof the Invisible, non-Catholic Christian Church is right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AshleyBelle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CHESTERTONRULES said:
So you believe that the bible was infallibly compiled by the Catholic Church with no (name removed by moderator)ut from the Holy Spirit?

Please point out a doctrinal error taught by the early Church.
Click to expand...
I do not believe the Catholic Church that you belong to compiled the Bible.
Many of the early members of the Christian churches held the doctrine of the Nicolatians and they ate food sacrificed to idols. Things that God hates.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I do not believe the Catholic Church that you belong to compiled the Bible.
Many of the early members of the Christian churches held the doctrine of the Nicolatians and they ate food sacrificed to idols. Things that God hates.
Click to expand...
And this was approved by the Church?

Keep trying!
 
Rightlydivide said:
I do not believe the Catholic Church that you belong to compiled the Bible.
Many of the early members of the Christian churches held the doctrine of the Nicolatians and they ate food sacrificed to idols. Things that God hates.
Click to expand...
Whether you believe it or not, it is a fact that the Catholic Church compiled the bible.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I do not believe the Catholic Church that you belong to compiled the Bible.
Many of the early members of the Christian churches held the doctrine of the Nicolatians and they ate food sacrificed to idols. Things that God hates.
Click to expand...
Rightlydivide,
Kindly prove your statement and educate us. This is the 2nd request, 1st is by CHESTERTONRULES. If you can’t prove it, STOP spreading this non-sense on Catholic.com. Nice try and I will give you E for effort. Patiently waiting for your response.

JVSantos
 
Bible canon history

**Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther. **

**The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon. **

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

**Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon. **

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

**The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books. **

**Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books. **

**The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time. **
 
MarcoPolo said:
Does the Church have bishops?
Click to expand...
Why ask about just bishops? What about the other offices?
Yes, a church if they follow the Bible has the different offices. I understand, reasonably, there is a period where a church is small enough, 3-5 people to start, that it might seem odd to have the different offices but to follow the Bible they need to have them.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I agree with about 75 percent of this link. I am not sure if I am allowed to post this link but if not; I hope the moderators will delete it. Thank you.

bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm
Click to expand...
What I would suggest is that you research for yourself on this site the answers to the following:

The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,
  1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
  2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
  3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
  4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
  5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
  6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
  7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
  8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).
  9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
  10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
  11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
  12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
  13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
  14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
Right off the bat in reference to # 2:

In Luke 11: 27-28, Jesus redirected the credit to Mary where it belonged. Jesus was saying that Mary’s attentiveness to God’s word, her obedience, was more important than her biological relationship with Jesus. So it is in Luke 11:27-28 Jesus is redirecting credit where credit is due: Mary’s faith and obedience to God.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I agree with about 75 percent of this link. I am not sure if I am allowed to post this link but if not; I hope the moderators will delete it. Thank you.

bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm
Click to expand...
You mention you agree with 75% of the link you provided, but do not specify which 25% you disagree with. Please elaborate.

Also, I provided writings from St. Ignatius that were written around 100 to 106AD, where he clearly calls the Church, the Catholic Church, but the website you provided denies a Catholic Church existed at that time. Is this what you disagree with on the link you provided?

**See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. **

I also mentioned I would bring St. Ignatius’ writings back up, because I had some specific quesitons. Does your Church believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus Christ as the early Christians believed? (The link above provides the writing below as well as the one supplied above.)

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Rightlydivide said:
1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)
Click to expand...
I believe you might have missed my request for the “lots” of phrases and passages that speak of the rock that followed the Israelites through the desert that you asserted existed. Please provide those, I’d like to see them.

If you’re not reading the material provided, please say so. I don’t want to waste the effort of discussing points and issues to see “snap” responses that don’t explain your position or point of view. Because of the answers being provided, I have to ask what do you see the purpose of these discussions being?

God Bless,
Click to expand...
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
You mention you agree with 75% of the link you provided, but do not specify which 25% you disagree with. Please elaborate.

Also, I provided writings from St. Ignatius that were written around 100 to 106AD, where he clearly calls the Church, the Catholic Church, but the website you provided denies a Catholic Church existed at that time. Is this what you disagree with on the link you provided?

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

I also mentioned I would bring St. Ignatius’ writings back up, because I had some specific quesitons. Does your Church believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus Christ as the early Christians believed? (The link above provides the writing below as well as the one supplied above.)

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

I believe you might have missed my request for the “lots” of phrases and passages that speak of the rock that followed the Israelites through the desert that you asserted existed. Please provide those, I’d like to see them.

If you’re not reading the material provided, please say so. I don’t want to waste the effort of discussing points and issues to see “snap” responses that don’t explain your position or point of view. Because of the answers being provided, I have to ask what do you see the purpose of these discussions being?

God Bless,
Click to expand...
I have written about Ignatius before. It is certainly possible that Ignatius is authentic and not heavily interpolated. I wrote a paper, not substantial…8-10…on the topic.
I do think there were people very early on that held that the Lords Supper was not symbolic. Once again, this early view would not mean that it was the view held or intended by Christ. I have cited the Didache, the earliest recorded work, that clearly shows that the earliest Christian order of worship contained nothing to indicate that the bread and wine are changed into the literal flesh and blood.
I have absolutely no interest in talking about the site other than to give a general idea of what I believe about the matter.
The thread is all over the place. I was trying to give a response and it blew up with lots of questions and so forth. To whatever extent I did that, I apologize. I try to keep up and I do not have a lot of time. I thought my answers were good but to have them phrased as snap shows me that were not received as such.
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top