R
Radical
Guest
well, if they can’t dismiss your beliefs out-of- hand, then they might have to honestly reflect on their own…it must be much easier to just “label and dismiss”.
and Peace to you and may you have a wonderful Easter.
- Status
R
Radical
Guest
what a lovely Easter sentiment…
R
RyanBlack
Guest
By what authority do you tell anyone to get out? There is no one for whom the Church has no use, just as there is no one for whom God has no use.
G
guanophore
Guest
Clearly you were not in attendance during Divine Liturgy.
Silly.
“priest” is a Latinized contraction of the Gk. word “presbyter”. It did not emerge until around the 3rd century. Why would you have seen it before then?
If you wish to reject the role of the Presbyter, though, you will have to also find a way to dispatch the existence of this office in all the Churches started by Apostles all over the world. Since it is not a “Roman” invention it is found all over the world where there is Apostolic Succession, even in communities that have no love lost on Rome.
Granted, there have always been heresies, as is evident from the early writings. However, the belief in the Real Presence, clear in the NT, can be followed through all the fathers to the present day. What you are saying is that Jesus allowed His Church to exist in error for 1600 years (even all the Reformers accepted this doctrine). Jesus could not find even ONE prophet or teacher that could correct His church? He was too weak and unable (the powerful Jesus we see in the book of Revelation had the flu?) to reach into the hearts and minds of the faithful to change them? Or, maybe there WERE no “faithful”? The whole church aposotasized until 1600?
It is amazing that anyone would even say this. One has to wonder if the person has not really READ Augustine, or having done so, had blinders on.
Radical, you apparently have been misinformed about the Catolic faith. The Catholic Church teaches that grace is free. Persons who were traffiking grace, such as “selliing” indulgences (a theological impossibility in the first place) were wolves among the sheep, and were not acting according to the Teachings of the Church.
I am mystified why this bothers you so much. Do you know why Paul left Titus in Crete?
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.the “Catholicity” of the earliest church is as glaringly obvious as the magnificence of the emperor’s new clothes.
.
For some reason, it is important to your faith practice to be blind and hateful toward Catholcism. It behooves you to feed this need by embracing lies. I think it is a sign of a weak faith.
G
guanophore
Guest
No one has dismissed his beliefs, Radical. It was pointed out to him that they are not consistent with the Teachings of Jesus. No one has “labeled” him, either. When confronted that his ideas contradict with Scripture, he responded “Scripture says a lot of things”. I find that comment to be dismissive.
He is free, as are you, to create any faith practice you wish, and live according to your own interpretation of it. This is the method that he is using.
In fact, one reason I am here so much on CAF is because it does cause me to reflect on my own beliefs. Reading your posts helps me to appreciate the faith that was passed down to me from the Apostles even more.
G
guanophore
Guest
Really! That even scared me! Let’s pray for him.what a lovely Easter sentiment…
R
Radical
Guest
one would have seen it if there was a role for a “priest” that could be considered as a counterpart to the Levitical priesthood…wouldn’t have to wait for any contraction to develop
right, and one can enjoy the magnificence of the emperor’s clothes from the start of the parade to its end.
yeah…tis odd how renowned biographers of Augustine can make that assertion in their peer reviewed works…if we are to wonder who has actually read the works of Augustine…the respected historians who have specialized in Augustine or the copy and paste legion of internet Catholics…I’ll go with the former. BTW, some of those renowned historians are Cafeteria Catholics …go figure.
I guess I have been misinformed about a treasury of merits?..grace isn’t earned and banked in the treasury? …it isn’t apportioned out by the clergy every now and then?
tis convenient how the “Teachings of the Church” can be (re)defined (or is it clarified?) to exclude anything that is no longer is acceptable.
to appoint a plurality of elders in each church that Paul had established there?
well, finally something that I can agree with
R
Radical
Guest
tis good to see some Catholics speaking up in response.
not a bad idea …you could pray for me too, if you feel so inclined…I’ll pray that you will be blessed this Easter. Cheers
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed. This is the essence of this paradigm: when one creates any faith practice–that which he finds palatable vs that which God reveals–then he has created a faith in his own image and likeness.
One must examine his faith–his praxis as well as his orthodoxy–to see if there is anything there that he finds difficult to believe God said.
I daresay that those who leave Catholicism or are quite comfortable in their own Protestant denomination are guilty of creating their own religion.
And I daresay that if there’s* nothing *in your religion that makes you think, “I really wish God hadn’t said this”, then you have a false religion.
I challenge those here to examine their religious beliefs. Is there nothing that you’re uncomfortable with? Your belief about God’s teaching on divorce and remarriage? On contraception? On homosexual unions?
NB: there are many teachings–such as to turn the other cheek, to feed the poor, to lay down one’s life–that Protestants accept that are uncomfortable to follow. I am not referring to these concepts. But rather to any teaching of your church that you accept because of its authority over you, but that you would not believe otherwise.
P
PRmerger
Guest
On what evidence do you state this, Radical? Where is the term “plurality of elders in each church” found in Scripture?
And could you cite what Church fathers used the term “plurality of elders in each church”?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Interesting. I just did a google search of “plurality of elders” and found multiple references (none Scriptural) which seem to present it as a novel concept in Protestantism.
Are there any references to this “plurality of elders” in, say, the 16th century? Or the 10th?
C
CMatt25
Guest
Not coming from a Protestant background I am not always adept at offering Protestant explanations. So I don’t know. But perhaps if they were selling indulgences, then that could have brought into question other practices or even teachings as well? Or as Christian Scripture became more available for the masses in their own languages, then perhaps more were able to search the Scriptures as Paul had directed the Berians to do?
But I truly don’t see Radical practicing hate toward Catholicism. Just because someone’s faith does not equate to yours, does not mean they hate or have contempt.
G
guanophore
Guest
I agree. Were you suggesting that such a thing exists?
I will pray for you, Radical. One must deny a great deal of historical evidence to espouse your view. It must be difficult.
If you read Augustine through the heretical lens, then you will probably find passages to support those beliefs. The same is true for the Scriptures. That is why there are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons.
I don’t know if you have or not. Grace is a gift of God. Has your faith tradition not taught you anything about the concept of “rewards”?
G
guanophore
Guest
I think there is ample evidence in the NT and in the Fathers to support such an approach. Of course, I can see this easily exisiting alongside the Apostolic and Episcopal authority. I think Presbyterians have to see them as mutually exlusive.
The concept was developed for anti-Catholic purposes, so you can’t expect Protestants that embrace it to be very warm and accepting of the Apostolic idea of authority preserved in the Catholic Church.
Paul ordained Titus as a bishop, and writes to him about the duties and character that he is to espouse:
Titus 1:5-10
5 This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you, 6 if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate. 7 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; 9 he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.
Clearly one of the duties of the monarchial bishop is to correct errors in the faith. Bishops are entrusted with the doctrine of the faith, and their primary duty is to teach.
Another duty of the bishop is to appoint elders “in every town”. Obviously the bishop cannot be in every town at once, but only he has custody of the sacraments “or one he appoints”. A valid Eucharist is one that is celebrated in unity with the bishop.
C
CMatt25
Guest
I think what you’re saying then is all the many non Catholic faithful Christians in the world who are not completely faithful to all that Catholics teach, are not consistent with the teachings of Jesus because you place faith in what the Catholic Church interprets about the teachings.No one has dismissed his beliefs, Radical. It was pointed out to him that they are not consistent with the Teachings of Jesus. No one has “labeled” him, either. When confronted that his ideas contradict with Scripture, he responded “Scripture says a lot of things”. I find that comment to be dismissive.
He is free, as are you, to create any faith practice you wish, and live according to your own interpretation of it. This is the method that he is using.
In fact, one reason I am here so much on CAF is because it does cause me to reflect on my own beliefs. Reading your posts helps me to appreciate the faith that was passed down to me from the Apostles even more.
Scripture does say a lot. And there may be some but I don’t know one Christian who truly takes it all literally. Some might take a 6 day, 24 hr/day with the evening and morning being a day Creation literally. Others do not. Either because of science or for whatever reason they might now believe the earth is older. Some take the word “eat” literally. Others take the words “believe” and “remembrance” literally. I don’t know of any Catholics nor many other Christians nowadays who take the NT words that women should be silent in churches literally. There are a multtitude of things said in Scripture that most do not take literally. The practice of slavery, many things appearng in Scripture we do not follow by doing or practicing today. So that was not meant to be “dismissive”. It’s just so. And this is where faith comes in.
B
bluelake
Guest
Please read Rom.1:24-32 This may help you with the sin question.
All denominations teach this.
Read the Bible and pray!
God bless you,
bluelake
Abortion, Read the Ten Commandments .
G
guanophore
Guest
Indeed they were, and indeed I am sure it did. The contamination from secular involvement had been going on for centuries.
But I guess he was objecting to the concept that Christians are able to help one another in the spiritual realm, and that spiritual benefits can be applied from one believer to another as needed. It is the spiritual principle he is rejecting. I am sure it probably started with the abuses over the indulgences.
I am sure they were. The printing press was invented by a Catholic, and the Bible was the very first book he printed on it. I am sure no one was more excited than he to get the Holy Word of God into the hands of the average person.
His posts have such a tone of disdain and sarcasm, it is hard to read them any other way.
I agree, though, just because someone does not agree, it doesn’t equate to hate and contempt. There are many of my separated brethren on these threads that don’t have that tone.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Guan, Radical of course can answer. But perhaps to charitably discuss and learn of different faiths on the non Catholic forum?
G
guanophore
Guest
No, I am not saying that. I think there are plenty of Protestants, and even non-Christians, for that matter, that live a more upright life than most cafeteria catholics.
How can a non-Catholic be expected to be faithful to what the Catholic Church teaches?
You are making a good case for why Jesus placed a Teaching Authority in HIs Church, and taught them how to understand the Scriptures, so that they could pass this on to their successors.
His promise that the Church would be led into 'all Truth" prevents any individual from getting too far afield interpreting and applying the Scriptures. As long as each one does not depart from what God has already revealed to the Church, they can have confidence as they study, pray, and apply the Scriptures.
Is there any other way to take them?
Really? Like what?
Are you suggesting that it literally did not exist at the time?
Basically what you are saying is that you live in a different culture than the one in which Scripture is written, so you can pick and choose for yourself what applies to you, and what does not. That is an example of what I meant when I said your faith begins and ends with yourself. This is the fruit of Sola Scriptura - that everyone reads and interprets for himself.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think if that were true, he would not be leaking such an uncharitable attitude toward Catholicism.
Besides, he is not here to ask questions, or learn, he is here to make assertions against the Catholic faith. He does not want to see things from any different point of view than the one he already has. That is why I asked. I have been reading his posts for a long time now, and it is clear that there is nothing we can say to him that will enlighten him, or contribute to his learning in any way.
- Status