K
KatholikosMercy
Guest
I posted this same question on carm once myself and only encountered anti-catholicism. Not a single intelligible answer.
- Status
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Yes, all of that, Manny. But sometimes we have to start folks off with the basics. And it is really important to pry them loose from the notion that Jesus is a text.
R
rr1213
Guest
I don’t think we’re supposed to cross post to CARM or other forums per CA rules, so I won’t do that here…but it is in the Church History section.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Can the Church error?
That is a general question. We can break this down easily.
Can the Church error when teaching moral and faith?
No.
Can the Church itself error in any other way?
Do you mean error as in fall into sin? Yes. The Church consist of human members who can fall into sin. So yes they can err in opinions. Fr. Corapi pointed out that Biblical scholars can make analysis and state the Jesus never intended to build a church. That is an err. They can correct it by saying, “Oops”
But the Magisterial Authority of the Church cannot. It never been in error period. The Magisterial Authority, that is the bishops in union with the Pope cannot err. The teaching office is guided by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit Himself cannot error. To say that the Church can err is to imply the Holy Spirit, God is in error. Perhaps we are then deceived.
If the Church is deceived then perhaps Protestantism itself is also deceived because Protestantism came out of the Catholic Church. Protestantism received the Sacred Scripture from the Catholic Church before those reformers divorce the Mother Church.
So this thread is just going in circle.
K
KatholikosMercy
Guest
Granted there is always a more robust defense than one of mine but I do not feel I am defending a negative. This is why:
Though the fallible men in the church themselves err the infallible church herself does not.
Please do not misunderstand me to be defending any scandal within the church any more than disobedient devisiveness existing in the world.
No one bishop makes the church. Collectively she is guided by the Holy Spirit and thus infallible.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I think the rule is about not swarming other forums. We are just getting the best points of view from over there. Is that OK? Have there been any good points of view over there on the OP question?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
This is hilarious, Manny.
R
rr1213
Guest
Now that is truly funny. Even Catholics should be able to laugh at that one.
R
rr1213
Guest
Ok, see below:
christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=53798
Please respect CA Rules and don’t forum swarm or cross post though.
christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=53798
Please respect CA Rules and don’t forum swarm or cross post though.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
OK. Sheesh. I tried but they want me to register and I just can’t bring myself to do that.
G
Grateful4mercy
Guest
Hmm, there is only one or two truly serious answers over there. One guy seems to know the heart of 1.25 billion people, which is amazing. That guy should have his own reality TV show or something.
What the heck is the ‘Red Zone of darkness’? I’ve never heard that term before.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Wasn’t there a Dark Zone of Redness on Lexx?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The teaching of the Catholic Church can be shown to have developed, slowly but distinctly, from roots going back to apostolic times, and the earliest picture of Church doctrine does indeed look like a small Catholic tree! (It certainly does not resemble a Protestant seed.)
The Catholic tree appeared early. If it were not the original apostolic teaching, then the Church somehow defected very quickly, perhaps as early as the death of the last apostle–all of the Church, everywhere, until the Reformation, when, finally, Evangelical Protestants managed to “rediscover” the true gospel, hidden from all the Church.
This should give many pause. Just to state such a thesis is to demonstrate its untenability. If the Church in fact defected from the truth so early, surely there would have been a great protest, and surely there would be a record of such a protest. But there was not. Heresies certainly abounded, but where were the “Bible Christians”? The Bible was certainly not unread. Indeed, it was written in the “vernacular,” the Koine Greek of its day.
Why is it that Bible-reading Christians did not “reform” the early Church? If these early Christians could not comprehend the true gospel from reading the Bible in their own language at a time so close to the apostolic era, how is it that Protestants were suddenly able to do so some fifteen centuries later in translation and in a culture remote in time and space from the apostolic age?
Do Evangelicals today possess some infallible understanding that early Christians lacked? Surely it was not that the early Church possessed means of enforcing doctrinal uniformity such as were developed (rather unsuccessfully, it seems) in the Middle Ages. The early Church was quite weak, scattered, and despised. What accounted for its uniformity–indeed, its Catholic uniformity?
(An interesting aside: With all the affirmations the Apostles’ Creed makes, why doesn’t it affirm that we believe in Holy Scripture? Why does it instead affirm that we believe in the Holy Catholic Church?) Could it really be true that the Church - and not the Bible - is the pillar and bullwark of the truth?
Adapted from “I Will Be Where Peter Is” by William Reichert
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001fea1.asp
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
The Catholic tree appeared early. If it were not the original apostolic teaching, then the Church somehow defected very quickly, perhaps as early as the death of the last apostle–all of the Church, everywhere, until the Reformation, when, finally, Evangelical Protestants managed to “rediscover” the true gospel, hidden from all the Church.
This should give many pause. Just to state such a thesis is to demonstrate its untenability. If the Church in fact defected from the truth so early, surely there would have been a great protest, and surely there would be a record of such a protest. But there was not. Heresies certainly abounded, but where were the “Bible Christians”? The Bible was certainly not unread. Indeed, it was written in the “vernacular,” the Koine Greek of its day.
Why is it that Bible-reading Christians did not “reform” the early Church? If these early Christians could not comprehend the true gospel from reading the Bible in their own language at a time so close to the apostolic era, how is it that Protestants were suddenly able to do so some fifteen centuries later in translation and in a culture remote in time and space from the apostolic age?
Do Evangelicals today possess some infallible understanding that early Christians lacked? Surely it was not that the early Church possessed means of enforcing doctrinal uniformity such as were developed (rather unsuccessfully, it seems) in the Middle Ages. The early Church was quite weak, scattered, and despised. What accounted for its uniformity–indeed, its Catholic uniformity?
(An interesting aside: With all the affirmations the Apostles’ Creed makes, why doesn’t it affirm that we believe in Holy Scripture? Why does it instead affirm that we believe in the Holy Catholic Church?) Could it really be true that the Church - and not the Bible - is the pillar and bullwark of the truth?
Adapted from “I Will Be Where Peter Is” by William Reichert
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001fea1.asp
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
G
Grateful4mercy
Guest
I had to do a Google search, what a cool looking show, why wasn’t it released in the US
R
rr1213
Guest
I think it was somewhere. I believe I’ve seen episodes.I had to do a Google search, what a cool looking show, why wasn’t it released in the US
J
jmcrae
Guest
I saw it once - it completely creeped me out, at the time.
I suppose the “red zone of darkness” is a place where truth cannot be known.
A
angelusm
Guest
S
SyCarl
Guest
Jesus founded the catholic church, the body of all true believers, as distinct to the Catholic Church, the institution. The church exists wherever 2 or 3 gather in his name. The church includes members from all denominations. I believe the promise was to the invisible church, not to a speciifc institution. I am reluctant to call anything Roman Catholic heresy. The main error of the Roman Catholic Church to me is that it requires belief in too much. For example, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and Papal Infallibility. Some of these may be true but are not necessary for belief, as is shown by the late declaration of these things as dogmas that have to be believed. If they did not have to be believed from the start, I don’t see how they can be added later. As to the number of sacraments, most Protestants have similar practices, although they are not viewed as sacraments, except baptism and the Lord’s Supper. However I see nothing wrong in confessing to a priest as long as it is realized that God is the one who forgives. I attend the Prebyterian Church and we confirm new communicants, although not in the same manner and we have Christian marriages. Our ministers and elders are ordained, although you might not recognize them as having been.
As for things like the Real Presence in the Eucharist, we believe that Jesus is present in a real way, although the actual way is a mystery. It may be through transubstantiation but regardless, we know he is present in some way. We do not believe that only a priest can consecrate the communion elements. There is nothing in the Bible that says who can do the consecration. As long as we do what Jesus commands then he will be present in whatever way it is. I have attended Mass and, if anything, find our celebration of the Lord’s Supper as more solemn, praying while the elements are distributed and then partaking together.
I am uncomfortable with the ideas of works meriting salvation but as the Church strongly emphasizes them as only being possible through Grace and not having any intrinsic value except that God accepts them, I don’t know how important that is.
N
Nancie_Lew
Guest
The problem is that Catholicism believes people have to have both Jesus and an organized visible Church to be saved. That’s an error in itself. In Catholicism a person just can’t have faith in Jesus alone to be saved so they have added all of these mechanical sacraments (works) for conditions of salvation.
- Status