Prove it!

  • Thread starter Thread starter dizzy_dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tweetymom said:
Thank you and I do not bristle about the CC’s authority, just do not agree with some of the doctrine. If you do I say God Bless you and may God’s Grace shine upon you as you journey with our Savior.
Click to expand...
But you do however do not regard the Church as having any authority…your only authority is that of yourself,not scripture for you read and you alone decide what the words mean to you or teach you to believe.
 
Dokimas said:
Maybe that’s because there is a difference. Catholic means universal, doesn’t it? We believe in a universal (catholic) church made up of believers. It’s invisible for two reasons: it has no walls and because we don’t know who is and who isn’t truly a child of God by rebirth. We don’t know a persons heart, only God does. Sure we can tell some things by actions and words. However actions and words can come from a deceptive heart.
Click to expand...
Ecclesiology deals with 2 differing aspects of the church. The invisible church and the visable church. If you read 1 TIM 3:15 in context and look at the Greek it is clear that the Church being spoken of in this verse is a physical entity. It would be quite a stretch to deny this.

So, if Christ established a physical Church that would be the pillar and foundation of truth, which church is that? It would be illogical to conclude that it is any other than the Catholic Church as no other Church existed for 1500 years. Christ would not allow His pillar of truth be silent for 1500 years, would He?
 
fbl9 said:
But you do however do not regard the Church as having any authority…your only authority is that of yourself,not scripture for you read and you alone decide what the words mean to you or teach you to believe.
Click to expand...
My authority is from God and His Word the Bible. Thank you and have a Blessed Christmas.
 
Dokimas said:

Correction, that’s my answer and its not canned. It wasn’t intended to be nast; I suppose it may be harsh but the truth can be harsh to some.​

Your correct about love and nastiness don’t go together (I guess that’s your point). Why do you and other from your side of the discussion act the way your admitting is not loving? I’ve harshly tried to point this out before.
Click to expand...
It may not have been your intention but it is a common, canned, reply from protestants. It is the loving thing to do to tell people they are wrong and going to hell. To let them stay in their current state of ignorance would be unloving. You and I have never met, to my knowledge, but we both can cite that pretty easily. It seems that we both learned it somewhere. 🤷

I think we all get heated and defensive regarding our views. I was critiqueing your reply that it is loving to be harsh. I disagree with you. It is simply harsh.
 
guanophore said:
No, this passage was written to the Church. It only applies to those who are in union with the Apostles, and their successors. Individuals such as you and I can only benefit from this promise to the extent that we are in union with the Church in which John was a foundation stone. The HS does not lead individuals in directions opposite from what He has already revealed to the Church.
Click to expand...
It does not say that of imply that…it was for us.
 
Dokimas said:
Maybe that’s because there is a difference. Catholic means universal, doesn’t it? We believe in a universal (catholic) church made up of believers. It’s invisible for two reasons: it has no walls and because we don’t know who is and who isn’t truly a child of God by rebirth. We don’t know a persons heart, only God does. Sure we can tell some things by actions and words. However actions and words can come from a deceptive heart.
Click to expand...
Amen
 
fbl9 said:
But you do however do not regard the Church as having any authority…your only authority is that of yourself,not scripture for you read and you alone decide what the words mean to you or teach you to believe.
Click to expand...
No tweetymom knows of what she speaks. She is very clear and she relies on Christ not herself…Read her more closely.
 
Dokimas said:
And I thought it had to do with Pharoah cursing himself and Egypt with his self imposed prophecy (of course intending it to be on Moses).
Click to expand...
This is also true. 👍

But the firstborn has special privileges, responsibiliites, and obligations, even if he is the “only” born. Firstborn does not imply that more will be coming. Mary never had any intentions of having marital relations with Joseph, which is why she said “how can this be, since I know not man”?
 
Dokimas said:
I was responding to the idea that a person or group not connected to the CC has no authority to settle disputes. I don’t remember who made the statement. I said history reveals that the CC is no better able to settle disputes than any other Christian organization. That’s all.
Click to expand...
I think your assertion is false, Doki. I think the longevity of the Church testifies to this.

However, I think it is false because the CC is not a mere Christian organization (a man made entity). On the contrary, it is founded by Christ, built upon the foundation of Apostles and prophets, and she settles disputes infallibly as He intended because she has Christ as her Head, and the HS as her soul.👍
 
Dokimas said:
  • My point is that false teachings have been around (like gnosticism) from the beginning. My guess is that one such teaching is that Mary had no more children. The NT writers didn’t have to directly address this as a wrong teaching because the NT has things in it that reveals she had children, subtle as they may be, so the wrong teaching about Mary’s celebacy must not have come til after Paul and John finished their writings. Of course, that’s my opinion gleaned from the NT and your comments.
Click to expand...
Your guess is wrong, Doki. the earlyl church had furious outcry against false teachings, and the evidence is there. The heresy that Mary had other children is one of those false teachings. If and when you ever get ready to learn your family history, you will find this in the documents, as well as the unbroken teaching of the Apostolic Church.

There is nothing in the NT htat “reveals she had children”. One can only extrapolate such a conclusion by ignoring the evidence.

I am glad you are gleaning, and that you have an opinion. It is my prayer that your gleanings and opinions will one day be informed by the facts. 😉
 
Dokimas said:
That’s a nice point but I’d say a wrong conclusion. We don’t know why Jesus gave John the command to watch over His mother. Let’s think about it for a moment in light of the evidence in the NT that probably had siblings: maybe none of His siblings were at the foot of the Cross; or, maybe the siblings of Jesus were not in tune enough yet with His teachings so He’d choose someone He could trust to take care of His mother.
Click to expand...
Well, YOU don’t know, because you refuse to accept the witness of the Church to the events. The rest of us know, because we received the Apostolic faith, rather than trying to glean crumbs from the NT, which itself testifies that it does not contain everything.

Even if any siblings were not at the foot of the cross, they would still have legal obligations to care for their mother.

If these “siblings” were concerned enough to go take Him into custody because they thought He was off His nut, they were responsible enough to take on the family duty to Mary. The fact is, there were no other children of Mary, Joseph was dead, and Mary lost her only child on the cross. That is why Jesus gave her to John.
 
guanophore said:
Your guess is wrong, Doki. the earlyl church had furious outcry against false teachings, and the evidence is there. The heresy that Mary had other children is one of those false teachings. If and when you ever get ready to learn your family history, you will find this in the documents, as well as the unbroken teaching of the Apostolic Church.

There is nothing in the NT htat “reveals she had children”. One can only extrapolate such a conclusion by ignoring the evidence.

I am glad you are gleaning, and that you have an opinion. It is my prayer that your gleanings and opinions will one day be informed by the facts. 😉
Click to expand...
Guanophore… Yet another reason I love this forum.

BTW, what does the name mean?

Not to Hijack the thread at all, but…

FSC
 
Dokimas said:
I don’t believe I have any problem with the church Jesus started. It is your understanding that is hard to synthesize with the NT and original teaching of the original disciples. (I’m not sure if I spelled synthesized correctly or if it’s the correct term I want so I hope I’m understandable.)
Click to expand...
Yes, you do. But it is because you dont recognize that the Church He founded is Cathlolic. this will become clear when you read the early fathers.

No, it is not hard to synthesize teh NT and the original teachings of the Apostles. This is what Sacred Tradition does.

It is hard to synthsize you VIEWS with both, because you have departed from the Apostolic faith.
 
tweetymom said:
And why don’t you since it is non of your business.
Click to expand...
It is the business of all Catholics when our faith is misrepresented Tweety.

May I commend you and appreciate you for taking steps to rectify the misunderstanding?

👍:extrahappy::dancing::clapping::bounce::love:
 
tweetymom said:
It is not a deceptive posting I am a Catholic but do not agree with all the CC teaches. And you are very disrespectful!!!
Click to expand...
No, Tweety, Des is not disrespectful at all, not one bit.

You might feel disrespected because you are not getting approval for your error, but it was a very respectful expression of how we feel when you insult all of us and our faith by claiming to be Catholic when you are not. To be Catholic means that you believe all that the Church teaches. You left the Catholic faith a long time ago, and though your body is back in the parish, your faith is not Catholic. God bless you for the faith you have. It is obviously fervent. But it is not Catholic. Claiming that it is insults all of us.
 
No we took Holy Communion with a waffer that stuck to the roof of your mouth, and we never got the wine or juice… In many of the CC they still do it that way. I was refering to acctually breadinng bread…and to say that not using wine is ludicrous is rediculous…You give wine to acoholics…not wisdom and it says we are not to stunble our brother. And if the sacrament couldn’t be accomplished in the CC without wine, then why for so many years the people could not have any…only the Host. and no Jesus did not hop down to the 7-11, and pick up some grape juice, but there was unfermented grape juice that was put in the new slins to ferment…It takes time for wine to bloom…as one point it is just grape juice, so the sarcasum is silly. and as far as our breaking of bread and drinking of the grape, we weill leave that to Jesus and see if its accepted or not…and unless your name is God…do not judge.
 
izoid said:
YOu are certainly entitled to your opinion, regardless of how wrong it is. Why didn’t you answer my question?

Christ had an expectation that His followers would fast. To not live up to His expectations of us is sin, is it not?
Click to expand...
Refer me to the passage or passages that tells us Jesus expect fasting from all Christians and if that’s what it says, I’ll agree with it. If this is your answer to how can the CC call not fasting on Friday a sin, then why did they change the rule? If the rule was to obey the command of Jesus, did Jesus change His mind?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top