O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
That’s an incorrect view of history. King Henry’s view of the Anglican church was nothing as it is today.
Protestants: What are the "Basics" that all Non-Catholic Christians agree on? And who determines what the "basics" are?
- Status
C
CopticChristian
Guest
I am amused. The Protestant cry that the Catholic Church of today is not the Catholic Church of yesterday…what you and others complain is the problem with the OHCAC as you see it you accept as the norm for yourself…That’s an incorrect view of history. King Henry’s view of the Anglican church was nothing as it is today.
Explain as you see it the Anglican Church concerning Henry and today…as to how it has changed.
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
The Question was what is central to non-Catholics and I answered it. A response was that the Scriptures are also central to Catholics in which I asserted Catholic teachings and asked where they came from. Why can’t that just be answered?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Sola Scriptura cannot be proved from Scripture so how can you ask for what you cannot do?
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
Henry didn’t promulgate the doctrine and the practice of Anglicans. What else are you looking for?
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
You crack me up. It has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura and you know. That’s really getting played out.
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
And this discussion was with myself and another poster. Why do you and so many here feel the need to “Pour it On” or pummel somebody who doesn’t share your views into the ground??
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
Again, show me in Scripture where you get Papal Infallibility, the Assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception etc. etc. just show us.
Prove your points.
N
nickybr38
Guest
Our points are proven in Church Tradition (and no, that’s not an evil word). These things have been believed by Christians since nearly the very beginning. We don’t need it to be in Scripture because these things were believed before Scripture was canonized even (and I don’t have names off hand but I’m sure someone on here probably does).
I will take what the majority of Christians have believed since the beginning of Christianity over what a minority of Christians believe after divorcing the Bible from the Church.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Omar…
I have been reading your posts…and we have many threads that cover in depth the doctrines you brought up…I would go to them…as you brought up several at a time…
We all agree there were some serious abuses going on in the Church prior to the Reformation. Luther did not intend to go as far as he did, but his later writings definitely had a militancy and a break in belief in apostolic succession…which would imply then the ceasing of the Holy Spirit at work in the Church. There were areas in Germany and Great Britain seeking their own jursidiction, to become like Orthodox Churches…but without the Apostles as founders.
The dismantling of Christianity has brought Europe to where it is today, and a great loss of faith. United we stand, divided we fall.
Christ said upon the rock of Peter, the primacy of Peter, He would build His church. And it is Peter that the universal and evangelical character of the Church, the apostolic witness is retained. You can see that witness today in the moral authority of the Pope, and the witness of Christ’s will to the world, and certainly no dictatorial or heavy handedness there.
I have been reading your posts…and we have many threads that cover in depth the doctrines you brought up…I would go to them…as you brought up several at a time…
We all agree there were some serious abuses going on in the Church prior to the Reformation. Luther did not intend to go as far as he did, but his later writings definitely had a militancy and a break in belief in apostolic succession…which would imply then the ceasing of the Holy Spirit at work in the Church. There were areas in Germany and Great Britain seeking their own jursidiction, to become like Orthodox Churches…but without the Apostles as founders.
The dismantling of Christianity has brought Europe to where it is today, and a great loss of faith. United we stand, divided we fall.
Christ said upon the rock of Peter, the primacy of Peter, He would build His church. And it is Peter that the universal and evangelical character of the Church, the apostolic witness is retained. You can see that witness today in the moral authority of the Pope, and the witness of Christ’s will to the world, and certainly no dictatorial or heavy handedness there.
N
Nicea325
Guest
According to Anglicans,but not what history has taught. Your church as a human founder and split,no changing facts.That’s an incorrect view of history. King Henry’s view of the Anglican church was nothing as it is today.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Once you show us where the Bible mentions anything about a canon or a one volume book?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Again…once you show us where the Bible mentions anything about a canon or a one volume book and to be read on Sundays?
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Think logically.
P
PRmerger
Guest
The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
Originally Posted by Randy Carson
The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?
Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?
Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?
Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?
John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—
Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?
John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?
John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?
Now, consider the following three verses:
1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.
Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?
In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
That’s not the point. The point is, it is completely illogical, not to mention self-annihilating, for a human person to start a religion on the basis of not being another religion.That’s an incorrect view of history. King Henry’s view of the Anglican church was nothing as it is today.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Mary’s Assumption into Heaven
Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?
2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.
Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.
2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.
Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.
1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.
Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.
source
P
PRmerger
Guest
Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant
Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.
2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.
1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.
1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.
Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.
Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.
Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.
Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.
Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.
Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.
Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.
Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.
Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.
Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.
Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.
Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.
Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.
Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.
source
L
Loknar
Guest
I may have to borrow this quote
P
PRmerger
Guest
Heh. Ask and you shall receive.
- Status