Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[Bernadette173]

//God ordained which books would be included. the CC did NOTHING in this regard. the cannonization the bible was an act of GOD not of the CC.//

but why did God use the CC instead of the real church to put together his precious and Holy Word. Why did He use the false Catholic Church to spread the words in this Bible far and wide? Why didn’t He use the real church to do all his work?

unless you believe the Bible just fell out of the sky complete with a table of contents, you must acknowledge that the Catholic Church was God’s tool in assembling His Word- instead of your church. You must acknowledge that is was first Catholics who were missionaries in far countries dying to spread the words contained therein.

Ok, first off, you must understand that Christ taught those who would be His successors to build up and preserve His Church here on earth. Jesus set up a continuing living authority to interpret, teach and govern what is and is not Scripture.The Apostolic Authority [the 12 Apostles, namely Peter as the head of that authority], decided the canon of the Bible, its contents to be the true and authentic teachings of Jesus, to be taught, read and printed in uncorrupt form, free from error until the end of time. Peter is the ‘‘shepard of the Catholic Church’’. Solid evidence is given within the Bible of Christ bestowing the first Papacy through Peter. The Church was built upon Peter and his Apostolic leadership. To deny this is to deny the CC’s teachings and Apostolic authority. So, yes the Catholic Church DID canonize the Bible, through the Apostles, and the Catholic Church is one Holy and Apostolic Church in Jesus Christ.

I hope I have cleared things up for you some.

Peace be with you,

 

[Ubenedictus]

This is the REAL problem with all this “my denomination” vanity: you are ALL CHRISTIANS! yes, I was yelling.
You are all supposedly followers of Christ. All supposedly living your life as a reflection of God’s Grace, the Holy Spirit’s leadership and the generosity of Jesus the Christ’s sacrifice.
Yet all I see in the face of the tremendous generosity of God Grace is “mine is bigger than yours” and “I am right and you are wrong” and “your stupid and I am not”.

 

[LittleSoldier]

LS,
I pick up a widow and take her to church on Sunday morning and evening. She lives in the basement apartment at her son’s home … who lives with his girlfriend (that Marie loudly, strongly disapproves of) … but last week her son, for the first time ever, asked his mom to pray for him. (They will know we are Christians by our love). She spends lots of time at Pioneer Courthouse Square here in Portland OR, She calls it Portland’s living room because so many homeless people spend so much time there. Hundreds of people know Marie by her first name. And every time she goes downtown people approach her and ask her to pray for them … or some situation that they are going through. A few weeks ago she prayed for a tweaker (crack addict) that she sees on the square once in a while. Two days later she came up to Marie and said … Miss Marie Please pray for me again… I dont want that feeling to leave… It is awesome and it has been with me for three days. I dont even want to get high anymore… Now … people, Christians that I am good friends with… When they first meet Marie… they think that she is valueless. What I mean by that … She doesnt seem to be the kind of person that has much to offer. She is as plain as can be. She is very simple in the way she expresses herself. She has absolutely no sense of fashion… she looks like she shops at goodwill and she probably could do with a new set of teeth. But she has incredible love for Jesus. I mean … INCREDIBLE!! … And she has an innate wisdom that just makes me smile. She tells me stories about how Jesus leads her into conversations and confusing situations … and then he works through her simple faith and love to change peoples lives. Its amazing. She is an incessant chatterbox… spills her coffee in my truck. plays Christian music way too loud on her cheap cricket phone and she drives me nuts with her constant chatter when Im driving. It can wear a strong man out!! But she is a dynamo.
She literally gives anything and everything she has to the street people… and her simple, pure love and sincerity are infectious. She lives where the rubber meets the road.
All of the bickering around here is … Just that.
Marie wouldnt even understand … let alone care about all the stuff people argue about around here …
… but she will walk the streets of gold one day and Jesus will hug her and smile with delight as he says … Well Done!!!

Marie has a heart after God… and God has a heart after Marie.
Marie… IS Christianity… Walking, talking, breathing Christ.

All this other stuff … is just that…
. stuff.

Isn’t it amazing when you see a person who has that joy of Christ in their eyes and everyone can see it? I’ve only known one person who was like that. I don’t know if he is any more because he was transferred to another parish. But he was very popular with everyone in town. It was strange. It was in his eyes. Remember how Manson’s eyes looked all evil and demonic? This person’s eyes looked exactly the opposite. I think if you took his eyes and put them next to Manson’s eyes, Manson’s eyes would have shriveled up into little bits of ashes and then poof disappeared. And only good would be left.

I don’t have that look in my eyes. People tell me I have very sad eyes and I know that is true. I’ve been told that all my life. I even have a photo of it that someone sneaked at work when I was off-guard. My eyes are full of sadness and pain.

I am happy for Marie (nice name, too!) and if she is one tenth the person you claim she is she will walk the streets of gold with God one day. Remember when the rich man asked Jesus how to get to heaven and Jesus said to follow the Commandments and the rich man said he had followed them since his youth. And Jesus looked at him with love because He knew that it was true. But that rich man could not give up everything to follow Jesus and that made him very sad. He was tied to his riches. We tie ourselves to so much absolutely stupid stuff. It sounds like Marie does not do that.

If she is ever in my SUV she can turn up that Christian music as loud as she wants but it will already be turned up - by me; that is, as long as it’s new Country Christian. When I listen to some of those songs (sung by (gasp!) Protestants usually (except for Collin Raye who is Catholic and I do recommend his latest CD - it will give you chills) I cry because I love Jesus and I want to be with Him so much and I want it to be RIGHT NOW.

But (there’s always a “but”, isn’t there?) Jesus founded the Catholic Church and it has the full deposit of faith. It is the true Church and those that are blessed enough to belong to it are very blessed indeed. I didn’t always think this was true. If you haven’t noticed, I’m a revert and I was a fallen-away “lazy Catholic” who didn’t really care about anything but…OK, we won’t go there. Since I’ve come back there have been times when I have felt an ecstasy in a religious sense. I’ve also felt myself fall into such deep despair that I wish I had never been born.

We all walk down that road and we’re at different places. I’m not very far along because I wasted a lot of time doing stupid things with my life. But I’m getting there.

If I am ever uncharitable it is not my intent. I get frustrated just like everyone else. I’m also having some problems with language processing and I get confused as to other people’s intent. I have hurt people because I honestly thought they were insulting me when they weren’t - when they were trying to be kind. I hope that in a few years time I’ll be able to understand what people mean. In the meantime I have decided that I am not going to buy into the notion that I am being insulted without first asking for clarification.

God bless Marie! God bless you, 1voice. And maybe, maybe, God will bless me a little, too. He has already given me so much!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Ok, first off, you must understand that Christ taught those who would be His successors to build up and preserve His Church here on earth. Jesus set up a continuing living authority to interpret, teach and govern what is and is not Scripture.The Apostolic Authority [the 12 Apostles, namely Peter as the head of that authority], decided the canon of the Bible, its contents to be the true and authentic teachings of Jesus, to be taught, read and printed in uncorrupt form, free from error until the end of time. Peter is the ‘‘shepard of the Catholic Church’’. Solid evidence is given within the Bible of Christ bestowing the first Papacy through Peter. The Church was built upon Peter and his Apostolic leadership. To deny this is to deny the CC’s teachings and Apostolic authority. So, yes the Catholic Church DID canonize the Bible, through the Apostles, and the Catholic Church is one Holy and Apostolic Church in Jesus Christ.

I hope I have cleared things up for you some.

Peace be with you,

I think there was a problem with the QUOTE function. Either that or there are two people using the same user name and one is Catholic but the other says the CC is not the true church. Or else it’s very late and I am very tired. But something is wrong with that post.

BTW, I agree with everything you said.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Very true. And the Church also does not claim that non-Catholic Christians can’t go to heaven, even if that heresy rears its ugly head over and over.

 

[johnjay01]

This question is intended mainly for Protestants. When, exactly did the Catholic Church as we know it now cease to be the true Christian church? Back when I was Protestant, we always focused on the early Church (up to Augustine), and then skipped to Luther, Calvin, et al. When I started looking into it, I found that Augustine and a lot of the REALLY early Christians (Ireneus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch) were very “Catholic,” especially compared to the reformers. Just out of curiosity, where do most Protestants draw the line (e.g. a certain council, pope, theologian, etc.) between the early Church and the “corrupt” Roman Catholic Church?

*Morning folks,

Ok lets see here… Lets talk about how God reveiled Himself to the early church… mostly this way… “in waves” to handle problems as they came up… the theory is called “progressive revelation”. It means that the Holy Spirit explained to us the dogma of the Church Universal as we went along (see John 15:26;16:8;16:13;16:14;12:31. These references are the words of Jesus) So we had the problem of Jesus being “Begotten” (incarnation) and it took Athanasius and the Holy Spirit some 60 odd years to turn it a
around. He literally stood against the whole of Christianity (contra mundum) as Arius was a very popular belief. So the Church Universal goes through these growing pains giving time for God to reveal Himself.
The Roman Church is not bad or even Non-catholic AND the same can be said for most Protestant Churches. The theology is often much closer than you might think listening to all the name calling here. The Current pope has said some VERY interesting things about “Faith Alone” in his theological writings. The “Order of Salvation” is a common topic among theologians.
Most Orthodox and Protestant Theologians wont have any problem with the theology for the first 1000 years. (speaking in generalities, of course) Some of the political “events” that the Roman Church put itself into suggest serious issues but that is not theology.
The big issues comes in the last thousand years when Rome decide it was a temporal power along with spiritual. Then we start to see real abuses (some even Roman Catholics will agree too). Some of those abuses are “johnny-come-lately” in that we look back and say “how could you do that” when it was culturally ok for the time. But some are just plain sin and no amount “twisting” is gonna make it right except for repentance. This happens for everyone in the Church Universal as Roman Catholic have no special warrant on sin.

So our differences, so far, are mostly matters of polity (Church Structure, ie, “when do we speak infallibly”) and some discussion on interpretation and practice (Orthopraxi). If we handles those two, especially the first then I think most problems would clear up. As for particular dogma that is gonna take lots of grace on both sides. “Magisterium” has the potential of being a popularity thing. Like the controversy over St Christopher the traveling Saint - removed becasue there was no evidence he existed in history but people still wear the medal; and, how did it get there in the first place? From the outside it looks a lot like a rabbit’s foot but saying that is rude and a great way to get a right hook in the jaw. some authorities (both inside the Roman Church and outside the Roman Church) think the growing push to make Mary a Co-Redeemer with Jesus is the same kind of error. It has come up before during the Gnostic times and was rejected. Same as the Assumption of Mary (rejected as anathema earlier by a papal authority) but was made dogma almost a 1000 years later. That is why there is a difference.
So when did the Roman Church go wrong? There is plenty of error to go around to all sides. I think ultimately the biggest error was thinking that it (the Roman Catholic Church) is/was the SOLE arbiter of salvation and then seeking to politicize that fact by killing those who didn’t agree instead of working it out and giving time for the Holy Spirit to work. Being a temporal power has not been a good thing for any Church (see the Moral Majority or the Southern Baptists Conference on the Protestant side).*

Gotta go mow the grass…
Have a God filled day,

Jay

 

[johnjay01]

johnjay01;9122643:

wow! Surprised to see this. Well im way past my bed time to begin to compose an apologia, let me ask you to provide proof to your idea that rome wanted to impose itself as first and was rejected. Do you make your own history? Maybe i’ll refer to this again when i wake up.
Ubenedictus

Morning…sorry have to go mow the grass… I will make this short and sweet…
The first time that I am aware of is at the Council of Chalcedon (451??) (Monophysitism -the false teaching that Christ had only one nature) section 28. Council of Bishop spoke “ex-cathedra” and the Pope (Leo the first, i think) rejected only one section (28, if I remember correctly) the section that said he was the same as the other Patriarchs. Now you can’t have a council speaking with the powers of the Holy Spirit and then say where your personal vanity or power was concerned “that aint so”.
At least you have to admit it is VERY suspicious.

Talk to you later…

Have a God filled day.

Jay

 

[CopticChristian]

*Morning folks,

Ok lets see here… Lets talk about how God reveiled Himself to the early church… mostly this way… “in waves” to handle problems as they came up**… the theory is called “progressive revelation***”. **It means that the Holy Spirit explained to us the dogma of the Church Universal as we went along **(see John 15:26;16:8;16:13;16:14;12:31. These references are the words of Jesus) ** So we had the problem of Jesus being “Begotten” (incarnation) and it took Athanasius and the Holy Spirit some 60 odd years to turn it a
around. **He literally stood against the whole of Christianity (contra mundum) as Arius was a very popular belief. So the Church Universal goes through these growing pains giving time for God to reveal Himself.
**The Roman Church is not bad or even Non-catholic AND the same can be said for most Protestant Churches. **The theology is often much closer than you might think listening to all the name calling here. The Current pope has said some VERY interesting things about “Faith Alone” in his theological writings. The “Order of Salvation” is a common topic among theologians.
Most Orthodox and Protestant Theologians wont have any problem with the theology for the first 1000 years. (speaking in generalities, of course) Some of the political “events” that the Roman Church put itself into suggest serious issues but that is not theology.
The big issues comes in the last thousand years when Rome decide it was a temporal power along with spiritual. Then we start to see real abuses (some even Roman Catholics will agree too). Some of those abuses are “johnny-come-lately” in that we look back and say “how could you do that” when it was culturally ok for the time. But some are just plain sin and no amount “twisting” is gonna make it right except for repentance. This happens for everyone in the Church Universal as Roman Catholic have no special warrant on sin.

So our differences, so far, are mostly matters of polity (Church Structure, ie, “when do we speak infallibly”) and some discussion on interpretation and practice (Orthopraxi). If we handles those two, especially the first then I think most problems would clear up. As for particular dogma that is gonna take lots of grace on both sides. “Magisterium” has the potential of being a popularity thing. Like the controversy over St Christopher the traveling Saint - removed becasue there was no evidence he existed in history but people still wear the medal; and, how did it get there in the first place? From the outside it looks a lot like a rabbit’s foot but saying that is rude and a great way to get a right hook in the jaw. some authorities (both inside the Roman Church and outside the Roman Church) think the growing push to make Mary a Co-Redeemer with Jesus is the same kind of error. It has come up before during the Gnostic times and was rejected. Same as the Assumption of Mary (rejected as anathema earlier by a papal authority) but was made dogma almost a 1000 years later. That is why there is a difference.
**So when did the Roman Church go wrong? There is plenty of error to go around to all sides. I think ultimately the biggest error was thinking that it (the Roman Catholic Church) is/was the SOLE arbiter of salvation and then seeking to politicize that fact by killing those who didn’t agree instead of working it out and giving time for the Holy Spirit to work. ** Being a temporal power has not been a good thing for any Church (see the Moral Majority or the Southern Baptists Conference on the Protestant side).

Gotta go mow the grass…
Have a God filled day,

Jay

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and you hit the nail on the head recognizing that Athanasius/Holy Spirit via the Church solved the problem of Arius. The Church proclaimed this. Athanasius was not a Luther, Calvin, or any other such entity operating outside the Church.

While you argue and believe you are pointing out the obvious. Yes everyone who has been here awhile knows that Protestant theology is close to the theology of the OHCAC. So let’s see Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Erasmus were all Catholic. Their deformed theology emanates from the OHCAC so you would expect it to be close. The notion of Sola Scriptura is a dead horse formulated by a bunch of Catholics. These were not Bishops that led flocks like Arius, Pelagius…just a bunch of foot soldiers in the Church militant. Yet they deformed the theology.

Your conclusion that the Church went wrong by thinking it was the sole arbiter for slavation. You may want to blame Jesus for this via Paul…

If ye have heard ….that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Paul describes this entrance into the Covenant in the book of Romans and in particular Romans 7 calling the New Covenant a new spouse. The spouse is Christ, the body of Christ, the bride of Christ. The mystery is the Church with Christ as the head and imperfect humans as the body. Do you expect the body to be perfect or to be headed towards perfection on its journey?

 

[septimine]

I’ve always kind of understood the Magesterium as a sort of “Supreme Court” if you take the metaphor. It’s like in the US with our Supreme Court – the problems come up, perhaps not specificly addressed in the Constitution – and the court rules on the rules of the day. So if the court makes a decision on healthcare, it does so not on the specific wording of the COnstitution – there is no HC clause at all, medicine generally being in a poor state in the 1780’s and not all that expensive, so HC insurence would not have been addressed. So what happens is that the courts use the ideas that are present in the US constitution and decide what the constitution means.

So it’s not exactly like the rulings on some issues is progressive – just that much like George Washington isn’t going to talk about MRIs before they exist, there’s no reason to address the question of Prostestantism in 800 before they exist. There’s no reason to answer the question of infant baptism when most of your baptisms are for converts who are in their mid-30s. it’s only when such a problem becomes large enough to address that it gets addressed.

 

[stewstew03]

The Roman Church…

JohnJay01 - Referring to our Church as “the Roman Church” is a slur and is disrespectful.

…is not bad or even Non-catholic AND the same can be said for most Protestant Churches.

You’re making a value judgment here, which can only be asserted if one claims to know the truth. As has been stated previously, truth is important.

The theology is often much closer than you might think listening to all the name calling here.

Sometimes, yes.

Most Orthodox and Protestant Theologians wont have any problem with the theology for the first 1000 years.

That’s because some protestants like to pretend to have ties to the early Christians, but then have difficulty explaining their opposition to infant baptism and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist (e.g., evangelical protestants).

Some of the political “events” that the Roman Church put itself into suggest serious issues but that is not theology.

Examples? When did the “Roman Church” insert itself into a political event? It’s hard to argue with broad generalizations, so I understand your comfort in casting them.

The big issues comes in the last thousand years when Rome decide it was a temporal power along with spiritual. Then we start to see real abuses (some even Roman Catholics will agree too). Some of those abuses are “johnny-come-lately” in that we look back and say “how could you do that” when it was culturally ok for the time. But some are just plain sin and no amount “twisting” is gonna make it right except for repentance.

Some historians actually trace “Rome’s power” back to the 4th century during Constantine’s rule. But despite terrible Catholics and terrible popes - Christ’s doctrine remained protected and unchanged.

So our differences, so far, are mostly matters of polity (Church Structure, ie, “when do we speak infallibly”) and some discussion on interpretation and practice (Orthopraxi).

Many protestants, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, would strongly disagree with you. So, again, how do you know who is right? Who holds the keys? Who protects the truth?

“Magisterium” has the potential of being a popularity thing.

No idea what you mean… feel free to elaborate, or not.

Like the controversy over St Christopher the traveling Saint - removed becasue there was no evidence he existed in history but people still wear the medal; and, how did it get there in the first place?

You may want to read this article.

some authorities (both inside the Roman Church and outside the Roman Church) think the growing push to make Mary a Co-Redeemer with Jesus is the same kind of error.

The Church cannot “make Mary a Co-Redeemer” any more than it can “create” the Trinity.

Same as the Assumption of Mary (rejected as anathema earlier by a papal authority) but was made dogma almost a 1000 years later.

This is false. I’m beginning to think you’re reference is an anti-Catholic source; as such, you’re making a great case for having these discussions on CAF (to dispel these myths and misconceptions) and hope you will reconsider the opinion you expressed in your earlier post.

So when did the Roman Church go wrong? There is plenty of error to go around to all sides.

Then, as I’ve said before, the protestant “reformation” was in vain. The Church tolerates disagreement among its followers. There is no need to run out and start your own church only to realize you’re not perfect either.

I think ultimately the biggest error was thinking that it (the Roman Catholic Church) is/was the SOLE arbiter of salvation and then seeking to politicize that fact by killing those who didn’t agree instead of working it out and giving time for the Holy Spirit to work.

This is basically ad hominem and not intended to advance dialogue in any way.

Being a temporal power has not been a good thing for any Church (see the Moral Majority or the Southern Baptists Conference on the Protestant side).

As I said, no need to start your own church only to realize you’re not perfect either. It’s far better for Christ’s Body to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, rather than separated and confused.

Have a God filled day,

The Peace of the Lord be with you.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve always kind of understood the Magesterium as a sort of “Supreme Court” if you take the metaphor. It’s like in the US with our Supreme Court – the problems come up, perhaps not specificly addressed in the Constitution – and the court rules on the rules of the day. So if the court makes a decision on healthcare, it does so not on the specific wording of the COnstitution – there is no HC clause at all, medicine generally being in a poor state in the 1780’s and not all that expensive, so HC insurence would not have been addressed. So what happens is that the courts use the ideas that are present in the US constitution and decide what the constitution means.

So it’s not exactly like the rulings on some issues is progressive – just that much like George Washington isn’t going to talk about MRIs before they exist, there’s no reason to address the question of Prostestantism in 800 before they exist. There’s no reason to answer the question of infant baptism when most of your baptisms are for converts who are in their mid-30s. it’s only when such a problem becomes large enough to address that it gets addressed.

Bless you for your insights and understanding.

 

[adf417]

Many protestants, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, would strongly disagree with you. So, again, how do you know who is right? Who holds the keys? Who protects the truth?

Stew, Glad to see you made this correlation with the protestants and JW’s. It is extremely horrible to consider our brother Christians (Protestants) in the same grouping as JW’s but it is true. Until someone can show me how the “scripture alone” concept cannot be extrapolated to its extreme without ending up where the JW’s have, I can only see destruction & chaos.

God bless all!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Morning…sorry have to go mow the grass… I will make this short and sweet…
The first time that I am aware of is at the Council of Chalcedon (451??) (Monophysitism -the false teaching that Christ had only one nature) section 28. Council of Bishop spoke “ex-cathedra” and the Pope (Leo the first, i think) rejected only one section (28, if I remember correctly) the section that said he was the same as the other Patriarchs. Now you can’t have a council speaking with the powers of the Holy Spirit and then say where your personal vanity or power was concerned “that aint so”.
At least you have to admit it is VERY suspicious.

Talk to you later…

Have a God filled day.

Jay

Jay - it is indeed short but I will have to disagree with you on it being sweet. It is not sweet at all. I do not admit it is VERY suspicious and I don’t have to admit it, regardless of what you claim. I’m not even sure what you are trying to say in your post. With all due respect, it doesn’t make much sense.

To clarify, there has been only one *ex cathedra *statement ever made by the Pope. There was one infallible statement that is sometimes considered *ex cathedra *but, technically, it was announced before *ex cathedra *statements were made.

I googled to find a website to back me up. I have done so in the past and that is how I found out that there has been only one dogma defined ex cathedra. I would continue searching except that I had the misfortune to find a rabid, nasty anti-Catholic website complete with scary music and a skull with crossbones. I made the mistake of reading part of it (I need to stop doing that). It was BAD. It made a horrible reference to the Host, which I will never post (however, I will be happy to share the website address via PM if someone feels that he/she can read it and make me feel a bit less sad about what it said). These sites fill me with despair and this particular one was not only anti-Catholic but anti-Christian.

So - I’m going to make an exception here and refer to Wiki (sorry; I know it’s a terrible website but sometimes it is the best one available).

“This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1869-1870.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

And that puts it in the 19th century. Only one teaching has been declared *ex cathedra *and that is the Assumption of Mary. The Immaculate Conception was taught as infallible before the dogma of *ex cathedra *was announced (though by only about 15 years). One teaching. Only one. Statements made *ex cathedra *are obviously very rare.

I am NOT saying that certain teachings of the Church were not made infallibly; I am only clarifying the term “ex cathedra” as it is used by the Church.

BTW, would you please fix the QUOTE function as you are using it? It’s coming up all loopy and weird when I quote your post. Thanks. I suspect there is a problem with the software used and if so, I apologize for asking you to fix something you can’t fix.

One more thing: All our days are filled with God. We can’t help it. However, I appreciate the sentiment and will pray that your day is filled with insight and wisdom provided by the Holy Spirit and that God sends abounding grace to you and yours.

 

[CopticChristian]

Morning…sorry have to go mow the grass… I will make this short and sweet…
The first time that I am aware of is at the Council of Chalcedon (451??) (Monophysitism -the false teaching that Christ had only one nature) section 28. Council of Bishop spoke “ex-cathedra” and the Pope (Leo the first, i think) rejected only one section (28, if I remember correctly) the section that said he was the same as the other Patriarchs. Now you can’t have a council speaking with the powers of the Holy Spirit and then say where your personal vanity or power was concerned “that aint so”.
At least you have to admit it is VERY suspicious.

Talk to you later…

Have a God filled day.

Jay

Jay,

I am confused by what you post. Your identity states Christian, Catholic.

May I ask for clairty as a Christian which Catholic Church do you ascribe to and which type of Catholic Church do you attend.

I understand that you are studying for the ministry. The question is are you studying to be a Priest, a Deacon or other and where is it you are studying for the ministry?
You are an enigma.

Thank you.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Meter’s running toward 1000 guys.

 

[CopticChristian]

Excuse me, please allow me to drop a line or two on this…May I suggest you read Acts chapter 10 and /or a good commentary on that chapter and look to see what is meant by Cornelius “whole HOUSEHOLD” being converted and what was meant by that. I sure you will find that even Protestant theologians admit that it strongly suggests infant Baptism and not Credo (believers) baptism. Infant Baptism and the controversy around it has been around since the beginning since it was also a Jewish tradition to have a ritual bath to become “clean” as in after a sacrifice of atonement.
One other thing, more than a few of the protestant traditions were formed out of political rejection of Roman Christianity and had nothing to do with true biblical scholarship.
The RC has often acted politically rather than spiritually in religious controversy and there were consequences to that behavior becasue it was not always in the best interest of souls.

Define Roman Christianity for me.

Define true biblical christianity for me.

 

[JustaServant]

Define Roman Christianity for me.

Define true biblical christianity for me.

I’d just like to know why he has ‘catholic’ in religion when he obviously is not.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Morning folks,

Ok lets see here… Lets talk about how God reveiled Himself to the early church.

Why would God reveil Himself? I would think He would want to make Himself more clear. OK - I know it’s a typo. I’m just teasing you about it in an attempt to decrease the tension that has suddenly become much more pronounced in this thread.

mostly this way… “in waves” to handle problems as they came up… the theory is called “progressive revelation”. It means that the Holy Spirit explained to us the dogma of the Church Universal as we went along (see John 15:26;16:8;16:13;16:14;12:31. These references are the words of Jesus)

The concept of “progressive revelation” is complicated. I honestly think it should have its own thread. But here I will say that nothing the Holy Spirit shows us will contradict anything He has shown us in the past.

So we had the problem of Jesus being “Begotten” (incarnation) and it took Athanasius and the Holy Spirit some 60 odd years to turn it around. He literally stood against the whole of Christianity (contra mundum) as Arius was a very popular belief. So the Church Universal goes through these growing pains giving time for God to reveal Himself.

What is the problem of Jesus being begotten? Are you saying Jesus wasn’t begotten? Of course He was! He was and is God Incarnate; 100% God and 100% man. Arianism held that He was not equal to the other members of the Holy Trinity and is a heresy. Yet we still say that Jesus “was begotten, not made.” And how can one stand against “the whole of Christianity?” Christianity is true. Standing against it would be a most horrible error.

The Roman Church is not bad or even Non-catholic AND the same can be said for most Protestant Churches. The theology is often much closer than you might think listening to all the name calling here. The Current pope has said some VERY interesting things about “Faith Alone” in his theological writings. The “Order of Salvation” is a common topic among theologians.

What is the “Roman Church?” I though we were discussing the Catholic Church in this thread. She is not centered in Rome; she is centered in God and Vatican City. This seems to me like the beginnings of a straw man attack; you misuse the name of our Church and then attack it.

Most Orthodox and Protestant Theologians wont have any problem with the theology for the first 1000 years. (speaking in generalities, of course) Some of the political “events” that the Roman Church put itself into suggest serious issues but that is not theology.
The big issues comes in the last thousand years when Rome decide it was a temporal power along with spiritual.

Please offer some more detail here instead of a statement which I don’t even think is true. The Church is the Body of Christ - is the Body of Christ temporal along with being spiritual?

Then we start to see real abuses (some even Roman Catholics will agree too).

And some Roman Catholics (thank you for including the word “Catholics”) murder and steal and commit adultery and fornicate. What is your point? That because some Roman Catholics will agree that their agreement lends strength to your argument (which I’m not even understanding in the least). I don’t agree - does that now weaken your argument? It appears that once again you are starting to establish a fallacy - argumentum ad popularum.

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

Some of those abuses are “johnny-come-lately” in that we look back and say “how could you do that” when it was culturally ok for the time. But some are just plain sin and no amount “twisting” is gonna make it right except for repentance. This happens for everyone in the Church Universal as Roman Catholic have no special warrant on sin.

Yet you have no examples. You call them “just plain sin” but offer nothing more in the way of example. Please provide some examples so they can be discussed. If you feel there is not enough room I hope you start another thread so that they can, again, be discussed. You’re making accusations without any explanation, much less proof!

So our differences, so far, are mostly matters of polity (Church Structure, ie, “when do we speak infallibly”) and some discussion on interpretation and practice (Orthopraxi). If we handles those two, especially the first then I think most problems would clear up.

It is true that there should be one catholic Church and this is the goal. However, the Catholic Church contains the full deposit of faith. She is the true Church established by Jesus. She alone has the power to bind and loosen what is then bound and loosened in heaven. She alone has been given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. She alone has continued Apostolic Tradition and Apostolic Succession. Her roots are traced back to Peter and through him, to God. No other church can truthfully makes those claims.

As for particular dogma that is gonna take lots of grace on both sides. “Magisterium” has the potential of being a popularity thing.

The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. What do you mean by “a popularity thing?” This makes absolutely no sense.

Like the controversy over St Christopher the traveling Saint - removed becasue there was no evidence he existed in history but people still wear the medal; and, how did it get there in the first place?

The Church has a list of saints. These are people that the Church believes are actually in heaven. They are called canonized saints. The removal of St. Christopher from the list does NOT mean that he is not a saint (if he existed). What it means is that the Church does not know if he is a saint - just like she does not know if my Mom is a saint. It has absolutely no bearing on his sainthood (or on my Mom’s sainthood). It only has bearing on the inclusion of his name on a list. That’s all. And yet I was told that I was now going to hell because I belonged to a church that actually believes it has the power to take saints out of heaven and put them into hell (I was also told I was going to be damned because when the discipline of abstaining from meat on every Friday was lifted I had eaten meat on a Friday).

From the outside it looks a lot like a rabbit’s foot but saying that is rude and a great way to get a right hook in the jaw.

So, in all charity, why did you say it?

some authorities (both inside the Roman Church and outside the Roman Church) think the growing push to make Mary a Co-Redeemer with Jesus is the same kind of error. It has come up before during the Gnostic times and was rejected. Same as the Assumption of Mary (rejected as anathema earlier by a papal authority) but was made dogma almost a 1000 years later. That is why there is a difference.

What difference? I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Mary is not a member of the Holy Trinity. The title is not “Co-redeemer” but “Co-Mediatrix” and the meaning of those terms is complicated. Please allow me to tell you what the Church teaches about Mary. She is the most perfect human being to exist, with the exception of Jesus Christ (who was 100% man and 100% God). She is Jesus’ Mother. We venerate her. And we should, along with every other Christian. One of the Ten Commandments is “Honor thy father and thy mother.” Jesus was a good Jew and followed the Ten Commandments; hence, He honored His mother. And as God, He honored her perfectly. He didn’t just send her roses on her birthday and ignore her the rest of the year. He honored her as best as He could (and when one is God, that is very good indeed). Now, we are supposed to be as much like Jesus as we can be, although we fail miserably. We should honor Jesus’ mother as He does - the best we can. So we do. She is the Queen of Heaven and Earth. She is absolutely full to the brim of grace and was that way before she even ran into Gabriel (which is why he said, “Hail, Full of Grace!”). It was not necessary that Jesus be born of a virgin. He could have come to earth in a flaming chariot surrounded by a million angels, singing and praising Him. However, it was fitting that He be born of a pure woman - a virgin. If it had not been fitting it would not have happened in the way it did.

We pray to Mary but we don’t have to. Some people worship Mary and they are doing wrong by doing so, whether they are Catholic or not. No Catholic ever has to say a Rosary or even one Hail Mary. The Church is NOT saying that Mary is equal to any member of the Holy Trinity and if we worshipped her we would be committing sacrilege. And, once again, I think this “Co-Mediatrix” concept deserves its own thread, although it is certainly your right to post your thoughts here and they are appreciated. It’s difficult to condense a tome into a post!

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post------

So when did the Roman Church go wrong? There is plenty of error to go around to all sides. I think ultimately the biggest error was thinking that it (the Roman Catholic Church) is/was the SOLE arbiter of salvation

Oh, but she is the sole arbiter of salvation (if I understand what you mean by sole arbiter and come to think of it, I don’t, and so request clarification)! No one can achieve salvation without the Church. I’m not referring to the heresy of Feeneyism. I am saying that the Church is necessary for all to achieve salvation, whether they are members of her faithful or not.

and then seeking to politicize that fact by killing those who didn’t agree instead of working it out and giving time for the Holy Spirit to work.

Really. That is uncharitable and completely uncalled-for. You agreed to treat the Catholic Church with respect when you joined this forum. Please do so. The Church does not murder people!

Being a temporal power has not been a good thing for any Church (see the Moral Majority or the Southern Baptists Conference on the Protestant side).

Please clarify what you mean by “temporal power.” Thank you.

Gotta go mow the grass…
Have a God filled day,

Jay

Again, all our days are filled with God. But, again, I appreciate the sentiment and will pray that God sends you joy today, in His Name. Amen!

I apologize for the length of this post but so much was brought up in the post to which I have responded that I felt I needed to explain as much as I could, even if it took up so much space.