B
Bengoshi
Guest
Thank you!
- Status
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Radical,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you…
Now, let’s get to work.
Sorry it took so long to get back to you…
Now, let’s get to work.God blessand a bunch of gnostics etc. I certainly did not mean to slight the Gnostics - actually, I saw them as preceeding the 1st Century Christians and simply grouped them with other pagans. But, that was not exactly accurate. Here is a link if you want to follow up on this group: newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm The focus of my comment is that there not the 30,000+ splintered Protestant sects, churches, camps, etc then that there are today.
I had said:
yes, same name…but then as I have already pointed out, the “Mormon Jesus” has the same name as the “orthodox Jesus”. Also, I think your date is too late… the synods/councils of the late 4th century codified existing opinion.
and you replied:
This is a simple concept Tom. A name is merely a label…it does not determine the substance of a thing. The Mormons call their savior by the name of “Jesus” and you call your savior by the name of “Jesus”. It would seem that you can not envision any difference existing between the two (b/c they possess the same name) You are correct: a name does not determine the substance. But, just because a concept is ‘simple’ does not apparently make it easy. The focus I had was that the Mormons view Jesus differently then Catholics. And, to mis-label something is simply not appropriate. You can put a the label, “Rose” on a lily - and that does not change the flower - but, it can mislead others. “Mormon Jesus” is totally different…and this is not just a misapplication of a lable. If you are casual with definitions you will quickly wind up in more error.
.
b/c it is not of apostolic authority. Again, you are correct, but unfortunately, miss the point. The ECF were not the Apostles. But, unless you believe that everything was held in suspended animatimation from the year 100 AD when the Apostle John died until about 1520 with the entry of Luther and Company (ah, and those guys weren’t Apostles, either…) you have to account for the time from the Apostles to us. The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius of Antioch was taught by John) carried on the work of spreading the Gospel (it did not spread itself) with the Power of the Holy Spirit. And, if you are sincere about Apostolic Authority, consider the authority Christ gave to Peter when he was given the Keys. “Whatever you bind on earth…” (Matt 16:19) does not provide for ANY limitations!
Peter did die - but, his leadership position was passed on to another - this would be an example of Apostolic Authority and this was recognized by those closest in time (not the guys 1500 years removed - but, the guys right then and there!) and acknowledged. The ECF respected the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ - and referred disputed matters of Faith to him for resolution. The classic example comes from St. Augustine (354 - 430) who stated “Rome has spoken the case is closed”, regarding the heresy of Pleganism.
where is it that you think the Arians came from. Before the issue erupted, for the most part they would have been sitting in the catholic church. Probably so, most heretics were once Catholics who somehow decided to follow the beat of their own drummer. Those who refuse to listen to Christ’s teachings through His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) will listen to the Divine Judge on their last day.
Pretty good? Man, first your oil began drying up and now your cattle seem to be doing the same… This analogy was apparently lost on you. So, let me explain it a little better: it makes no difference what ‘good’ you think you are doing if you go and destroy it in the end. I am quite confident young Father Martin Luther did good as a Catholic Priest - but, unfortunately, this is not what he is remembered for today.
if nothing else, it explains quite a bit about your thought processes **Ah, from time to time my wits do not carry me as far as I would like - but, I do try…I hope I did not diappoint you too much. **
are you sure it ain’t floating on a sea of split milk from your dear aunt’s cow? ** Now, you would not be guilty of mixing a metaphor would you…**
B
bMAC93
Guest
ok let’s step back and look at this what you guys are saying is that the church in the Bible is some kind of invisable unity of all Christians but the Bible makes it clear that the church is a visable institution (John 17:21) how can the world see that that we are one as Jesus and the Father are one if the church in invisable. and if we are part of the same church than we are not living up to Jesus’ wish “…that thay may all be one…”
P
Peter_J
Guest
N
NotTooSmart
Guest
Um…Peter…
I was not saying that every church in itself is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”.
What I was saying (or meant to say anyway) is that since we believe that we are the church of Jesus Christ as much as you, that the phrase “pillar and foundation of the truth” applies to us.
Sometimes I word stuff poorly.
Obviously this goes to different understandings of church.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, NotTooSmart,
And, just to make sure I am on the same page with what you have just said…
God bless
And, just to make sure I am on the same page with what you have just said…
Any group claiming in any way that they are following Jesus is a church and therefore entitled to be considered as a “pillar and foundtion of the truth”. Is this what you mean?
God bless
B
Bengoshi
Guest
The verse you quoted does not state that there should be one juridical entity to be the Church. The people can see the Church because the Church is the people of Christ (ekklesia-an assembly of called out ones) People see people that is why they can see the Church. Our living testimony as disciples of Christ is what people (non-believers) could see, not necessarily a monolithic juridical entity known as the Roman Catholic Church. What is invisible is the bond or mantle we share as believers/disciles of Christ, not the people. It’s a bit difficult to explain here but I hope you catch my drift.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Oh. Sorry my mind-reading powers aren’t better.
P
Peter_J
Guest
The Catholic Church (or, as you say, “the Roman Catholic Church”) contains many juridical entities, but we are all united under the Pope.
Secondly I would say yes, it is true that we have been a bit “monolithic” at times. That’s a result of our fallen human nature, not an intrinsic flaw in the Church. (I guess you would claim that we’ve been monolithic a lot of the time – since, presumably, you believe that it’s “monolithic” for us to have the papacy in the first place.)
N
NotTooSmart
Guest
Almost. I wouldn’t consider JW a church. There has to be some benchmark of Orthodoxy.
The ancient creeds like the Apostles works for me.
And I am not sure two people in the house studying the Bible qualifies as a church at least in the sense of this Scripture (but there is wherever two or more are gathered in my name there I am). There has to be some type of organization (pastor, elders, deacons or what not).
But close. I see no reason why I can’t look at the church I attend and consider it a part of the pillar and foundation that Paul refers to.
I know your pope disagrees with me.
Oh, what I said in another thread applies here. Right now I am tired of debating. Maybe sometime I will get untired. But not now.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well that comes as no surprize. The idea that any group claiming in any way that they are following Jesus is a church and therefore entitled to be considered as a “pillar and foundtion of the truth” is, to my mind, absurd, and I’m surprized we’re even talking about it.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, NotTooSmart,
Take a rest.
Debate can be tiring…
Not to put too fine a point on it, but, strictly from a chronological stand point - just how do you think Paul could have possibly been referring to the church you attend when it could not have been established until at least 1520 - probably much later. There were a very limited number of religions in existence when Paul wrote - as opposed to today.
A simply historical check will show you a very clear progression from the Apostles to the Early Church Fathers - with their acknowledgement of the authority of the Pope - to the Catholic Church today. A line of apostolic succession from Peter to Benedict XVI. No, Paul was not talking about the church you attend. Do some research and see which group he was writing to and about.
God bless
Take a rest.
Debate can be tiring…
You are correct, my Pope does disagree with you … and, it should come as no surprise, i do, too…
Not to put too fine a point on it, but, strictly from a chronological stand point - just how do you think Paul could have possibly been referring to the church you attend when it could not have been established until at least 1520 - probably much later. There were a very limited number of religions in existence when Paul wrote - as opposed to today.
A simply historical check will show you a very clear progression from the Apostles to the Early Church Fathers - with their acknowledgement of the authority of the Pope - to the Catholic Church today. A line of apostolic succession from Peter to Benedict XVI. No, Paul was not talking about the church you attend. Do some research and see which group he was writing to and about.
God bless
A
Anthony_Joseph
Guest
I feel compelled to make this statement. Anyone who believes in the holy scriptures, AKA The Bible and says they follow Jesus Christ (except for those who have added to the gospels or claim to know different ones) can be called Christians. But there is only one Pillar of Truth and Faith. It is the Catholic Church. Sorry for not being ecumenical but its the truth. Paul said it and it is what was believed for 1500 years (give or take). The Catholic church has many rites in it but only one leader and only one profession of faith. The one Catholic Church is the Pillar of Faith. It protects the original teaching of the apostles and the Holy Bible. Remember the bible wasn’t put into one volume to be read until many years after the Ascension of Christ. But the Cannon of the Bible was decided by the Apostles at the first Council of Jerusalem. The Bible is not that which upholds the Faith, it is the Church.
Finally, the Bible says “if your brother sins against you rebuke him. If he doesn’t listen to you take two or three with you and if he still doesn’t listen to you, take it to the Church. If he doesn’t listen to the Church treat him as a tax collector.” I believe this is from First Corinthians. Your neighbor or brother is a Baptist and your are a Methodist who do you take issue with? If you take it to your Methodist church he’s not going to listen, of you go to his they won’t listen to you. There is only one Church that Paul talks of and that is the Catholic Church.
If you believe in a Scripture only interpretation, you must acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church because Christ commanded the people do do what the Pharisees told them to do because “they sit on the seat of Moses.” The power is no longer in the seat of Moses it resides in the Chair of Peter now. So do what he who speaks with the authority of Peter says. Obedience to the Successor of Peter is obedience to Christ, and How can that be bad?
Finally, the Bible says “if your brother sins against you rebuke him. If he doesn’t listen to you take two or three with you and if he still doesn’t listen to you, take it to the Church. If he doesn’t listen to the Church treat him as a tax collector.” I believe this is from First Corinthians. Your neighbor or brother is a Baptist and your are a Methodist who do you take issue with? If you take it to your Methodist church he’s not going to listen, of you go to his they won’t listen to you. There is only one Church that Paul talks of and that is the Catholic Church.
If you believe in a Scripture only interpretation, you must acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church because Christ commanded the people do do what the Pharisees told them to do because “they sit on the seat of Moses.” The power is no longer in the seat of Moses it resides in the Chair of Peter now. So do what he who speaks with the authority of Peter says. Obedience to the Successor of Peter is obedience to Christ, and How can that be bad?
You can believe the CC is the only Pillar of Truth and Faith, and still ecumenical. The two are far from mutually exclusive.
This was not believed by all for 1500 years. These claims had been contested for 500 years before the Reformation. If you wish to say this about the undivided Church, ok.
And if you are Catholic and your neighbor is Orthodox… Same deal.
I acknowledge the authority of the Church. How am I, as a simple Catholic of the Augsburg Confession, to know which is truly the Church founded at Pentecost? Which Patriarch has maintained the true teachings?
Jon
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, JonNC
You have provided a number of comments, but, not all are as accurate as they should be … Let me try and help…
As I recall, the big issue with SS and Lutherans is that individual members can interpret scripture as they will. There is no final authority on how a particular verse is to be interpreted. A knowledgeable person can that a verse means “X” but, it is up to each person to take or leave what they want from scripture. Is this correct?
God bless
You have provided a number of comments, but, not all are as accurate as they should be …
Let me try and help…I acknowledge the authority of the Church. How am I, as a simple Catholic of the Augsburg Confession, to know which is truly the Church founded at Pentecost? Which Patriarch has maintained the true teachings? ]You got me on this one, Jon - I have never heard of a Catholic “of the Augsburg Confession” I have, however, heard of Lutherans from this confession.You can believe the CC is the only Pillar of Truth and Faith, and still ecumenical. The two are far from mutually exclusive. No. These terms are not mutually exclusive - ecumenical means cooperation. Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical It is a recognition of diffeences but also a acknowledgement that there are areas we can work together and bring about a good outcome. This in no way changes the historical context (beginning with Matt 16) of Christ founding His Church on Peter and re-confirming the choice He made of Peter being in the leadership position (John 21:17) and the Apostles having passed on their authority to their successors, the Early Church Fathers. We have Apostolic Succession moving from Peter to Benedict XVI - and this is something that is quickly argued about, but still stands the test of time.
This was not believed by all for 1500 years. These claims had been contested for 500 years before the Reformation. If you wish to say this about the undivided Church, ok. You know, there have been challenges to doctrine from the beginning - look at Acts 15 for a historical grounding. There there were those who denied the Trinity, denied the Divinity of Christ, then Christ’s Humanity was quesioned… and the necessity of Baptism - the list is endless. But, at least in my opinion, what made the Protestant schism so significant is that is was combined with the political realities of nationhood. Here were countries that wanted to exert their independence - and being bound to Rome (especially sending money to Rome!
And if you are Catholic and your neighbor is Orthodox… Same deal. ] In my view, the Eastern Schism has been quite a blow to the unity that Christ had wanted. I do not have any answers for this - except, quite simply there is more in common between the Orthodox and Catholic Church, then there is between the Lutheran or Methodist or Pentecostal churches then the Catholic Church.
As I recall, the big issue with SS and Lutherans is that individual members can interpret scripture as they will. There is no final authority on how a particular verse is to be interpreted. A knowledgeable person can that a verse means “X” but, it is up to each person to take or leave what they want from scripture. Is this correct?
God bless
Tom, you are always soooo helpful.=tqualey;5688849]Hi, JonNC
You have provided a number of comments, but, not all are as accurate as they should be …
I think there is accuracy in your comments here.
Well, I think some Orthodox might argue with your view. I might also add that I, as a Lutheran, would consider myself much closer to Catholicism than Pentecostal.
as you may know, the term “Lutheran” has similar origins as “Roman Catholic”. It was a pejorative used by opponents of the Reformation. So, “Evangelical Catholic” or “Catholic of the Augsburg Confession” are quite accurate descriptions.
Not true. Read from Martin Chemnitz:
Were I to, for example, interpret the accounts of the Last Supper as meaning a symbolic presence, I would no longer be Lutheran.
I hope I have been helpful, too.
Jon
D
DeusVult09
Guest
why is the concept of sola scriptura not found in the bible?
B
banjo
Guest
Just found your post today. The Church only claims infallibility in binding the whole Church to a teaching in matters of faith and morals. You say the Church is not infallible and that they have “corrected their doctrine”. Please point out a specific dogma of the Church that was changed, when and by whom.
S
St_Aloysius_1
Guest
Dogma and doctrine, once declared by the Church do not change. Certain rites, practices or language might be revised, but the beliefs of the Church are unchanging. They may be revisited to try to gain a clearer understanding, but they remain constant.
B
banjo
Guest
Agree, dogma cannot change.
- Status