P
- Status
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
We are actually Apostolic.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Et tu, Quoque?
Except Paul went to the Church. He did not made himself an authority or made a new denomination.
But even a trained parrot can say that. And what I mean by this, is that even when the parrot learns to say it, the parrot doesn’t understand what is meant by it.
Say you are a Roman citizen, a Gentile in the 1st century. And you hear Paul preaching, and he mentions Scriptures, but like in his letters - he doesn’t say what he means by Scriptures. You need to find out what Scriptures are, they are breathed out by God, as Paul says.
How do you find out what Scriptures are? Where do you go to find the true meaning of what Scriptures are?
K
Kliska
Guest
No, Paul was going to the unreached, he was going to proclaim Christ and Him crucified in new territory when the Holy Spirit lead him personally as to where to go.
I’m sorry, but that is a bit too much rhetoric for me to answer. I’ll just say that I certainly don’t see my fellow Christians who disagree with me as any type of “trained parrot.” Those who trust Christ and confess Him, are baptized, and those who can stand beside me and recite and mean the earliest creeds are not mimics, as I understand it, the RCC doesn’t even teach that.
Many times it would have been self-evident, as much of the early teaching took place, in part, in and around the synagogues. The OT scriptures were well known, as were the Jewish people. The key to the OT scriptures is the factual story of Jesus; Who He was, what He did, why He did it, what He taught, how He died, and that He arose. Again, Paul was teaching Christ and Him crucified.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Until you start talking with those fellow baptized Christians about what it means to be a Christian.
Then you get everything from OSAS to Saturday is the Lord’s Day to there is no hell to the Epistles of St. Paul are satanic.
This is testimony to the existence of Tradition, not Scripture, being what one deferred to.
That actually comes from the Apostles and the Church. Not from the OT.
Amen! But since he preached in the temple for 3 months, he actually said quite a bit more than that!
B
benjohnson
Guest
Either the pope is supreme, or he isn’t.
Either the Filioque belongs in the Nicene Creed, or it doesn’t.
Either priest cannot marry (Latin Rite), or they can (Eastern Catholics).
Either there was an Immaculate conception, or there wasn’t.
The confusion of which Jose spoke started prior to the Reformation.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
The EO do proclaim that the pope is supreme, do they not?
And it does not belong in the Nicene Creed. The Eastern Catholics do not have that in their liturgy.
No priest can marry in the Catholic Church, Jon.
However, in both rites a married man may be a priest.
All Catholics and Orthodox believe this, whether it is called the IC or not, they believe that Mary was immaculate from her very beginnings.
Or, I will submit to the doctrines of the Church that I was brought up in, that the confessions of said Church confirm. It has nothing to do with prideful-ness, any more than a Catholic submitting to the teachings of the Catholic Church is prideful-ness.
There is no such thing as a protestant paradigm, as there is no such thing as a Protestant Church.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
True, dat.
But when I speak of a Protestant paradigm I merely mean: that paradigm borne from those who have divorced themselves from the CC.
Primacy is not supremacy
I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have made the comparison to EO
You are the first Catholic I have heard say this.
My understanding is they believe the IC is unnecessary, as they view Original Sin differently.
You get the point. Correct? “Confusion” and disagreement exist in either domain. But, I suspect you are not confused. You believe firmly the teachings of your communion. I am not confused either. what Presbyterians or Methodists or Baptists, or even the local non-denom teach is not a source of confusion for me.
Jon
Thank you, PR. Sincerely.=PRmerger;11687749]
Or consider the fact that many were never “married” to the CC in order to be divorced. And my comments do not preclude the fact that some non-Catholics DO change parishes at a whim, or disagreement, or for convenience. Sad that.
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough.
It is but a hop, skip and a jump from primacy to supremacy.
Take that, and compare it to: OSAS vs one’s salvation can be lost; Saturday is the Lord’s day vs Sunday is; abortion is murder vs it is a necessary evil.
EO can become a priest and then marry?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=581365
If you ask them if Mary was sinless from her very beginnings, they will say YES.
Yes. But the difference is that the Protestants have no magisterium to pronounce definitively on these areas of differences.
That leads to a church of chaos and confusion.
And yet all of those denominations have read the very same Bible and come to very, very differing conclusions.
So clearly the Bible needs a final arbiter.
And that is the CC.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. This is an example of the sins of the father being visited upon the sons for generation upon generation.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Absolutely Not. Not Paul and the Holy Spirit alone.
Acts 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. 4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;[a] 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
Christ told Paul to go into the city and that at the city he was going to be told what to do. Who was in the city?
Christ’s Church! Specifically a disciple called Anani′as.
*Acts 9:26 And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, 29 preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. And he spoke and disputed against the Hellenists; but they were seeking to kill him. 30 And when the brethren knew it, they brought him down to Caesare′a, and sent him off to Tarsus.
31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samar′ia had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.*
The Church, not Paul alone, walked in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit. Not Paul alone.
The Church brought Paul to Caesare’a. Not Paul alone.
The Church send Paul to Tarsus. Not Paul alone.
Acts 15:15 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Paul (and Barnabas) were sent to Church Authority to settle this. Not Paul alone.
I can go on and on and the point is clear.
Paul responded to the authority of the Church.
Not by Paul Alone.
Don’t dodge the question.
You are a gentile in the 1st century. You are probably polytheistic without any Jewish heritage, who did not have a closed and definite canon at the time.
You need to find out what are these Scriptures.
How do you find out?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Amen. That’s why I reverted back to Catholicism instead of becoming a Protestant Pastor.In short, it is up to me to get out of the way enough, and to be humble enough to accept His teaching and His leading. I’ve had to do it in the past, and feel that I’m willing to do it in the future on whatever He is teaching me by His written word, and by His Spirit. Each of us, as individuals, will be held responsible for what we embrace. And each of us is responsible for what we believe. Obviously some of us are right and some are wrong… in fact allow me to quote Rocky for a second, “Only God ain’t wrong.”All of us Christians believe that, but we then believe that truth is supported in different ways; for the RCC for example, this is seen in following the magisterium, who are responsible to follow the Spirit, for me it is seen in my responsibility in following the Spirit directly.
K
Kliska
Guest
We are talking about two different instances, Jose. Yours surrounds Paul’s conversion, mine surrounds Paul’s going forth and preaching in his mission to the Gentiles. But as long as we are talking about Paul’s learning, he loved to point out that it was God (Jesus) Who taught him directly, and not man.
I didn’t. Do you think we’ll get anywhere if I say to you “Don’t dodge the answer?”
This makes no logical sense. Read the scriptures, Paul and the others went to the synagogues first; Paul was Jewish before conversion which you know. Paul was extraordinarily well versed in scripture and Jewish law; he told anyone that didn’t know about the Jewish scriptures because a major part of the Gospel message is how Jesus fulfilled Jewish scriptures and their wait for a Messiah. Also, if you lived in a well traversed area, esp. on trade routes, you would have been familiar with the Jewish people.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Father Google has provided an answer!
“Priests and deacons may be married, provided that they are married prior to their ordination to the diaconate.”
source: kurskroot.com/orthodox_priests.html
So it appears the EO and the CC are in communion on this, too.
Are you sure? A married man can become a Catholic priest (other than clergy from other communions that convert)?Father Google has provided an answer!
“Priests and deacons may be married, provided that they are married prior to their ordination to the diaconate.”
source: kurskroot.com/orthodox_priests.html
Maybe, but their guys have better beards.So it appears the EO and the CC are in communion on this, too.
Jon
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Paul was accountable to Christ’s Church and to Her authority. This is all over Scriptures.
See below.
Take off your 21st century glasses. There is no Bible, no printing press, no defined canon. In fact, the LXX is not even one collection of writings but several. And then you have the Jewish texts. You can’t walk into a store and buy a study bible on sale. You are not Jewish.
You want to know what are the Scriptures that God breathed out. You want to know which books are the ones to be considered as such.
How do you find out?
ETA: You look for Paul but can’t reach him, you want to ask him what are the Scriptures.
Did Paul already answer this question?
- Status