G
guanophore
Guest
What does this mean? Followed what?
- Status
L
lofktis14kr
Guest
For instance, in the punishment of heresy. The ante-Nicene church was purely ecclesiastical, and consisted in reproof, deposition, and excommunication. It had no effect on the civil status.
But as soon as church and state began to be united, temporal punishments, such as confiscation of property, exile, and death, were added by the civil magistrate with the approval of the church, in imitation of the Mosaic code, but in violation of the spirit and example of Christ and the apostles.
Rome should have seen greater disaffection from the other churches for this, but instead, was allowed to increase in her influence over Christendom.
G
guanophore
Guest
OIC, thanks. I think perhaps you are underestimating the degree of disaffection that has existed since the Latin Rite merged with secular rulership.
L
lofktis14kr
Guest
Perhaps, but history reveals that as Rome maintained her influence over the church, the religion of Christianity evolved into a complex system of rites and practices not warranted by the Canon. And to this day Roman Catholicism continues as a religion full of so many sights and smells foriegn to the religious experience of the ante-Nicene church.OIC, thanks. I think perhaps you are underestimating the degree of disaffection that has existed since the Latin Rite merged with secular rulership.
S
savedsinner
Guest
You might want to read the book “The Mass of the Early Chrisitians” by Mike Aquilina
And then maybe rethink this statement.
G
guanophore
Guest
I strongly urge you, so that you will not repeat this drivel, that you educate yourself, or take the advice of Abraham Lincoln, who said “it is better to be silent, and thought a fool, than to speak, and remove all doubt”.
The sights and scents of the Liturgy are by no means “Roman” (I apologize to my Latin Brethren, but this stuff really irks me). Please attend an Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy, then come back and try to tell us that any of what they do is from Roman extraction. The problem with such accusations is that “rome” meaning Pagan Rome is blamed for “infiltrating and corrupting” the Holy Church of God. One who wishes to level such calumny has no basis unless it can be shown that all the Apostolic communiites, even those not in communion with Rome, have been “corrupted” in the same way. On the contrary, we see even isolated communities that were cut off for centuries due to politics that continue to practice what they received from the Apostles.
po18guy
Well-known member
But, being a bible Christian, you have to ask yourself one question: "Is Jesus greater than the bible?" Well, is he??? You either have Jesus in the flesh in your church, or you have just the bible. Pity those who do not have Christ in their church.
But every word from the mouth of God IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!!! The bible even says so! Now what? Don’t you feel somehow cheated?
Well do you believe Jesus? Even when He said “Whatever you bind on earth is held bound in Heaven”? Jesus’ word “Whatever” gave them all authority, directly from Christ. Yes, the authority is there, but it will not be exercised, as it is contrary to the will of God, and to do so is not by the leading of the Holy Spirit/ The Commandments are for all time, being written on the hearts of all men.
Also, recall that nasty little fact that the Church is the pillar and foundation (reflect on that a bit, non-Catholics) of truth. If your church has 20-30 (or even 20,000-30,000) members, how on earth is it to be the pillar and foundation? Especially if it disagrees with the church across the street? Only a unified, universal (catholic) Church, with apostolic succession as founded by Christ, can be the pillar and foundation. The rest have been self-reduced to arguing factions, which Saint Paul railed against. The truth here is self-evident to an increasing number of Christians.
B
benedictus2
Guest
I am coming more from a logical point.
If the Church guided by the Holy Spirit was the one who proclaimed which of the Gospels being peddled at the time is the true word of God, then of course it is the Church who is the final authority. It is like the chicken and egg question except that in this case we know that the Church came first.
But since Holy Scripture is God’s Word, then once that has been established, the Church is bound not to teach anything contrary to it, so in a sense, Holy Scripture will always be the final Word on the matter because it is God’s word.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Totally not. And the Church has never taught anything contrary to Holy Scripture.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Thomas Howard in his book Lead Kindly Light after years of study has come to this conclusion: that the Protestant way of worship will be something that the Apostles will not recognize.
But to going back to your post: which sights and smells are foreign to the religious of the ante-Nicene chuch? Specifics please.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Even for those who believe in sola scriptura, scripture is not the final authority. Their own human understanding is.
After all, they are the ones interpreting scripture for themselves…
After all, they are the ones interpreting scripture for themselves…
M
Mailman
Guest
The final authority is God. Scripture is God’s Word. Therefore, Scripture is the final authority. The Church possesses the truth therefore it has the proper understanding of God’s Word. Its teachings, beliefs and practices are all Scriptural. It does not teach anything contrary to the written Word.
Where is the problem? The only problem I see is your presupposition that the Scriptures can be interpreted privately when we say the Bible is the final authority. But that is ridiculous, for then it will nullify the statement itself. When there are many interpretations there would be many final authorities. How about this for you, then: “Scripture, properly interpreted, is the final authority in faith and life.” Would that be acceptable?
The Scriptures [of the OT and NT] are God’s revelation to man. It contains that ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE which man could not ascertain for himself. It contains ALL the truths necessary for man to gain salvation. While there were many other inspired records during the OT period, God caused only that which was profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness to be preserved.
You are right that the rule of conduct is LOVE – and that is precisely what the Scriptures teach and expound. But you are wrong that people are able to follow this rule of conduct even without a revelation from God. A simple example proves this point. Let us assume that the RCC teaches the truth about Sunday. Now, how could a man know, without being told, that it is a mortal sin to deliberately not attend mass on Sunday? And another example: How could man know that committing adultery does not follow the Law of Christ which is Love? The Scriptures teach, “LOVE is the fulfilling of the law…” (Rom. 13:10). The Law [Ten Commandments] defines to man what is love. Man cannot ascertain for himself ALL of the things he needs to do to fulfill God’s law of love – the love of God and love of fellow human beings.
M
Mailman
Guest
Is Jesus greater than the Bible? What kind of question is that? The Bible is the word of Jesus. Is Jesus greater than His Word???
The Bible is God’s revelation to man. It contains that ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE which man could not ascertain for himself. It contains ALL the truths necessary for man to gain salvation. . That is why the Bible claims it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. Where does it say in the Bible that it is lacking in that respect?
“… the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Is that true? Is the Church the pillar and ground of the truth? Of course! So then, should we go to the Church to know the truth? Absolutely! Is the Church, then, more important than the Bible? Or, does the Church have more authority than the Bible and can it do as it pleases without regard for what is written in the Bible? NO!
Consider this second Scripture: “Now therefore you [the Church of God] are… built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:19:20).
This Scripture explains WHY the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. And why is that? Because the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets – in other words, the whole Bible! And it says Jesus Christ is its head, not some human “pope.”
The Bible is the foundation of the Church that is why it has the truth. Without the Bible, there could be no truth in the Church. That’s how the two Scriptures come into perfect harmony. When you take the Bible away from the Church, or if the Church disregards the teachings in the Bible and “does its own thing,” it won’t have the truth anymore! Truth is based on God’s Word – “Thy word [the Bible] is truth” (John 17:17), thus saith the Lord!
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Precisely, the Church possesses the Truth, which is Jesus.
From the viewpoint of the Catholic, Jesus is the Word. And the Church, being founded by Jesus, headed by Him, and being His body, transmits the Word, the final authority, and hence cannot teach anything contrary to the written aspect of the Word.
However, Jesus Christ, being God’s Word, is not limited by scripture, but lives beyond it. “I am the Truth, the Way…” It is true, scripture contains God’s word, but Jesus, being God’s Word, His Truth, exceeds scripture.
M
Mailman
Guest
Here is one [of many]. And this is a frank admission from a Catholic priest James Cardinal Gibbon in his book “Faith of Our Fathers.”
“You may search the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.”
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Right. But the idea is that for Christians, observance of a sabbath is no longer required. Sunday worship is entirely a tradition of the Catholic Church, and as such is not *contrary *to scripture; it is simply not in scripture. There are indeed hints, indirect evidence of observance of the “first day of the week” in scripture, but hints only.
Oddly, Sunday worship is a Catholic tradition that Protestants continued, even insofar as making it an offense not to go to church on Sunday, as the New England Puritans.
If you reject tradition, and go by bible only, it should be logical to observe a Saturday Sabbath, but it has taken centuries for Protestants to live up to their own logic, and go to back to keeping Saturday, as the Seventh Day Adventists now realize.
po18guy
Well-known member
You’re an Adventist, right? Have no fear, you are well accepted here. God could have chosen any day to raise His Son. Which did he choose? Which day did the Apostles meet on after the resurrection? Were they wrong?
B
benedictus2
Guest
The change from Saturday to Sunday is not contrary to the third commandment. The Church from it’s infancy has always celebrated Sunday as the Lord’s day because it is the day of the Lord’s ressurection and it was also the day when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles.
Christ said that He Himself is the Lord of the Sabbath. And that is why the 1st day of the week became the Lord’s Day.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Bravo:clapping:
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
I,being a protestant, voted No. One of the many lamps that Jesus commanded to not be put under a bushel is intellect. It is intellect that denies me the ability to accept sola scriptura since if the Bible were meant to be the end-all, be-all of it all then I think that it would say so. I have read the cannonized Scripture, the deutero cannon and books from Nag Hammadi and Kum-ran and nowhere in any of them is scripture declared the final authority. The reason for checking these other sources is to eliminate the possibility that one of them said so and that the RCC simply excluded it to further their own desires. It is not there anywhere. Therefore the scriptures as collected are valid and are “useful” for teaching (2 Tim 3:16) but not the final authority.
- Status