SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[CentralFLJames]

Does it make sense for there not to be a central authority for Christ’s Church? To me, I can’t see Christianity being a democracy. Something’s either 100% truth or it isn’t. A vote can’t determine that.

Just my opinion on the matter.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

Absolutely not in my opinion.

Heaven itself is hierarchically ordered as a monarchy kingdom. It would be rational to assume that God’s Church on earth would have a similar order and hiearchy to pair up with the King and Queen (Bride and Groom) and Kingdom imagery of the bible. Also, given that the early Christians came from very ordered societies themselves (Jews [very ordered] and Greeks [very ordered] living under Roman authority [ultra ordered]) and that there is so much leadership imagery in the bible (kings, shepherds, fathers/mothers, master/slave etc.) it almost becomes unthinkable that Jesus intended to have a completely flat anarchical structure. In fact Jesus taught to be obedient to authority.

I think The Catholic Church has it right with a modified benevolent monarchy but permitting self managed local control under a bishop and further laity control within the framework of a Catholic subsidiary principal.

James

 

[MariaG]

I am going to ask this question on another thread. Another poster insinuated that a thread is cut off at 1,000 posts and this one is getting close to that now.

Not exactly, but yes, threads get closed just at or after 1000 posts.

Not sure if that is something to :clapping: or :crying: about

 

[Pwrlftr]

Let me try to answer:
We know that this is not true from actual fact and tradition. The papal succession list clearly shows a papal succession all the way back to Peter. We do not have at hand evidence for Linus (see the other thread on 2nd pope) but its clear that if the Bishops were not in accord with this tradition and account that they would have not cooperated to elect successive popes for many centuries since Peter. We had a few scandals here and there but The Church through her Bishops and Cardinals always came together to appoint a new pope. Each time a new pope was appointed that was essentially a re-ratification by the Bishops of the concept of one head of the church (Vicar/Pope); or they never would have settled on a pope.

Do you have any evidence prior to Luther’s rebellion that shows at anytime in the early history of The Church that a majority or even more than a few bishops protested and challenged the papacy as being unauthorized? I am no expert here but I think no significant challenge comes till Luther comes along 1500 years after the tradition was well established and some bishops fell into that heresy.

Don’t you think that if there was a challenge to the papacy concept that it might have come out before the first 1500 years or so? The Greek schism does not count since that was a split under an assumption of an existing papal leadership structure that was more territorial and petty bickering over breaches in protocol.

James

You read way to much into my question. It is a fact that “some” ECF’s say the chair of Peter belonged to all the bishops and not just the bishop of Rome. I don’t have the references handy but can provide them if you wish. I don’t know if this was a common view up to a certain point or a minority view.

You can’t be so naive to think the church of the first few centuries resembled exactly what you see now so I would imagine that you have some concept of what your church teaches regarding the development of doctrine.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You read way to much into my question. It is a fact that “some” ECF’s say the chair of Peter belonging to all the bishops and not just the bishop of Rome. I don’t have the references handy but can provide them if you wish. I don’t know if this was a common view up to a certain point or a minority view.

You can’t be so naive to think the church of the first few centuries resembled exactly what you see now so I would imagine that you have some concept of what your church teaches regarding the development of doctrine.

Well I think you may have read-out way too much from my response and failed to comprehend and missed my point altogether. My reply was sincere.

But how do you get to a scenario where “naivety” is involved from my post? I never intimated that The Church did not evolve to where we are today. But the basic principals and core doctrine have not been deprecated - only added to or refined.

Don’t you think that if all the bishops did not agree with electing each successive new pope to replace the prior one (usually martyred) that they would have stopped that tradition long ago? I see the bishop’s appointment of each new pope as two things. First is the obvious thing - we get a new pope. But also, each time we do that the bishops reaffirm the validity of the papal succession “concept”. The Catholic Church bishops to date have now elected 266 pontiffs but more to the point here that means they have reaffirmed that succession of papal leadership 266 times! If the bishops of The Church did not believe in a papal succession or single seat of authority ( we Catholics actually see it as a seat of service) then they would never have appointed this many popes over the many centuries. That means The Church clearly had an opportunity to reject the papal succession 265 times (Peter was appointed by Christ) but never did do! There is no evidence anywhere that even suggests that there was widespread disagreement among bishops of papal authority nor succession. In fact the succession history is proof positive that the bishops did agree with papal succession or we would not have the church we do today?

James

 

[MariaG]

You read way to much into my question. It is a fact that “some” ECF’s say the chair of Peter belonged to all the bishops and not just the bishop of Rome. I don’t have the references handy but can provide them if you wish. I don’t know if this was a common view up to a certain point or a minority view.

You can’t be so naive to think the church of the first few centuries resembled exactly what you see now so I would imagine that you have some concept of what your church teaches regarding the development of doctrine.

Why don’t you start a new thread, post a link in this one while it is still open and post these references.

You are correct, there is much from the ECF on this subject and I know many would love to go more indepth than the time left in this thread

 

[Old_Scholar]

I believe this thread has about run its course and we still don’t have good answers for the questions asked in the beginning.

So I will start another post on another subject, namely “why Catholics don’t accept Sola Scriptura.” Your comments will be welcomed.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I believe this thread has about run its course and we still don’t have good answers for the questions asked in the beginning.

So I will start another post on another subject, namely “why Catholics don’t accept Sola Scriptura.” Your comments will be welcomed.

Show me the questions left unanswered. Please.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Show me the questions left unanswered. Please.

What he really means is he didn’t get he answers he wanted to hear.
No doubt now he wants to compel us to do all his homework for him too by going back through the screens and screen full of replies to assemble a huge spreadsheet of answers all sorted by question # and so on. Anyone up to doing extra charity and posting them here or a link here? I’d imagine it has to be worth at least a plenary indulgence to help somone too lazy to read the truth - especially if we can get him really saved and converted to the real Catholic Church.

James

 

[Old_Scholar]

What he really means is he didn’t get he answers he wanted to hear.
No doubt now he wants to compel us to do all his homework for him too by going back through the screens and screen full of replies to assemble a huge spreadsheet of answers all sorted by question # and so on. Anyone up to doing extra charity and posting them here or a link here? I’d imagine it has to be worth at least a plenary indulgence to help somone too lazy to read the truth - especially if we can get him really saved and converted to the real Catholic Church.

James

Perhaps you are correct. I did not see the answers for the questions I posed. The truth is that so many hit me so hard that I didn’t have time to read each one as completely as I would have liked. I didn’t want to get accused of not answering.

I will be glad to list them one by one if anyone wants to answer them and we can take them that way, one by one. I just didn’t want the thread to run out before they were answered.

I’ll go ahead and ask the questions one by one.

First one:

Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. Make sure however that the same method cannot apply to the Orthodox Church, or any other, or else it can’t be true…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
First one:

Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. Make sure however that the same method cannot apply to the Orthodox Church, or any other, or else it can’t be true…

Well I am not going to read the 65 pages of past posts, however the Catholic Church has apostolic tradition which is a direct succession from today’s Bishops to the original Apostles ordained and sent out by Christ. The Orthodox Church was not a separated entity until after the first 1000 years. The difference between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church was one of authority within the Church not a significant change in teaching. The issue is the direct authority of Peter (see Acts) resides in the Roman side of the Catholic Church.

 

[MrS]

I’ll go ahead and ask the questions one by one.

First one:

Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. Make sure however that the same method cannot apply to the Orthodox Church, or any other, or else it can’t be true…

Well, I am off to Adoration, but I will propose this as a method.

The process of elimination.

An honest investigation into the history of any faith community, church, assembly etc will lead you back only to the man or woman who started it all. This will be true of a storefront Bible study or a mega church of thousands.

The history of the Catholic Church goes back directly to Jesus and the Apostles. The Orthodox does also… but that split that is yet unresolved does not jeopordize doctrine… but rather the final authority for safeguarding the doctrines.

One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism… that all might be One.

If there was an apostasy as some anti-Catholics would have us believe, that alone would mean Two.

To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant.

.

 

[Good_Fella]

What about those doctrines not taught by Jesus and the Apostles i.e. indulgences, purgatory and the marian doctrines? Must a catholic believe those to?

JA4, do you believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ? The Gospels do not record Jesus ever having mentioned it to the multitude who followed him to hear his teachings or be cured by him. And why should he mention it, or his mother’s Immaculate Conception or Perpetual Virginity for that matter? Perhaps you can tell us, since you believe Jesus would have mentioned these truths to the Jews if they were true. I doubt our Lord’s followers would have been able to grasp the significance of it all at that time. The Paraclete hadn’t yet descended on the Christian community while Jesus was still with us on earth.

“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth…and will declare to you the things that are coming.”
{John 16, 12-13}

Jesus certainly alludes to Purgatory. On one occasion he tells the scribes and Pharisees that anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven in this life or the next. In heaven there is no need of forgiveness, and in hell nobody can even hope for forgiveness. So this place in the afterlife is between heaven and hell, namely Purgatory. {cf. Mt 12, 32}. There are several other NT passages, also in Luke, that allude to Purgatory.

Concerning Indulgences, I don’t think you understand what they actually mean. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Jesus Christ, intervenes in favour of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the ‘termporal’ punishment due for their sins (CCC #1478). Indulgences are of no benefit for the souls who have been eternally damned in hell. They benefit the souls in Purgatory in their temporal state of existence between heaven and earth. The Church also grants indulgences for Christians in this life, not only as an aid, but to encourage them to works of “devotion, pennance, and charity.” Jimmy Akin points out that the granting of an indulgence is illustrated in the Gospel account of the Canaanite woman asking Jesus for the healing of her child in Matthew 15, 22-28. The blessing of some people as a reward to others is one of several aspects of indulgences. Jesus himself sets an example of granting an indulgence for his Church to follow. Indeed, Jesus did transfer the authority he received from the Father to his apostles and their validly ordained successors. This is one instance of the power to bind and loose. :yup:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[geezerbob]

Old Scholar, this thread is about to close and it will be helpful to all concerned if you confine any future threads to the discussion on one topic, and one topic only, to avoid the disaster that this thread has become.

Your first post contained way too many questions to be dealt with in one thread. Read the rules: One question per thread. Moreover, another poster researched “your” questions and found that they had been copied and pasted from another web site. You never did respond to the allegation that you had claimed these questions as your own when, in fact, they weren’t. Just to keep things on the up and up, please clarify this for us.

On this thread, whenever someone has thoroughly rebutted one of your claims, you have frequently changed the subject and attacked from another direction rather than responding to the rebuttal. This makes any meaningful discussion impossible and leads to mass confusion. No wonder you lost track of which posts you had responded to and which ones you hadn’t. If you pose one question per thread and stay on topic, you can get answers and discussion. Being overwhelmed by the responses isn’t going to cut it as an excuse for not replying, especially since this mess is one of your own creation.

I look forward to reading your questions and the responses to them, but, please, keep it simple for us simple old geezers.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Well I think you may have read-out way too much from my response and failed to comprehend and missed my point altogether. My reply was sincere.

But how do you get to a scenario where “naivety” is involved from my post? I never intimated that The Church did not evolve to where we are today. But the basic principals and core doctrine have not been deprecated - only added to or refined.

Don’t you think that if all the bishops did not agree with electing each successive new pope to replace the prior one (usually martyred) that they would have stopped that tradition long ago? I see the bishop’s appointment of each new pope as two things. First is the obvious thing - we get a new pope. But also, each time we do that the bishops reaffirm the validity of the papal succession “concept”. The Catholic Church bishops to date have now elected 266 pontiffs but more to the point here that means they have reaffirmed that succession of papal leadership 266 times! If the bishops of The Church did not believe in a papal succession or single seat of authority ( we Catholics actually see it as a seat of service) then they would never have appointed this many popes over the many centuries. That means The Church clearly had an opportunity to reject the papal succession 265 times (Peter was appointed by Christ) but never did do! There is no evidence anywhere that even suggests that there was widespread disagreement among bishops of papal authority nor succession. In fact the succession history is proof positive that the bishops did agree with papal succession or we would not have the church we do today?

James

Yup, I did mis-read your last post. I thought you were jumping on me for asking a honest question.

 

[Pier]

Well, I am off to Adoration, but I will propose this as a method.

The process of elimination.

An honest investigation into the history of any faith community, church, assembly etc will lead you back only to the man or woman who started it all. This will be true of a storefront Bible study or a mega church of thousands.

The history of the Catholic Church goes back directly to Jesus and the Apostles. The Orthodox does also… but that split that is yet unresolved does not jeopordize doctrine… but rather the final authority for safeguarding the doctrines.

One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism… that all might be One.

If there was an apostasy as some anti-Catholics would have us believe, that alone would mean Two.

To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant.

.

Definitely worth repeating…

 

[mercygate]

You read way to much into my question. It is a fact that “some” ECF’s say the chair of Peter belonged to all the bishops and not just the bishop of Rome. I don’t have the references handy but can provide them if you wish. I don’t know if this was a common view up to a certain point or a minority view.

You can’t be so naive to think the church of the first few centuries resembled exactly what you see now so I would imagine that you have some concept of what your church teaches regarding the development of doctrine.

Even today the Church refers to authority lying with “the Pope and the bishops in communion with him.” Even with a “supremacy” model, it is a team proposition.

And yes: the papacy as we know it today – even allowing for an early acceptance of the primacy of the see of Rome – DID develop as the Church grew. With imperial power hamstringing the Eastern Churches and the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Church took on a model of governance that enabled her to function and to grow in the destabilized environment of the time.

Note: the assumption of a more distinct style of leadership emanating from Rome did not arise from the tyranny of a single bishop wielding power over a cowering Church.

I must say, however, that it made a strong impression when Pope Leo the Great to rode out to the city gates on his white horse and simply raised his hand to command Attila the Hun to stay out of town – and Attila DID.

http://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif
http://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif

 

[Church_Militant]

I believe I understand the message quite clear. However I am always trying to learn and to assure I have the truth.

I cannot tell from your posts so far.

Shouldn’t you be trying to do the same? If you would only researchy what I am writing, then you would see how wrong you are on so many things.

I already have and I have used easily verifiable sources in my refutation of your posts. I have heard so much of this trash and waded through it as research only to find that it is virtually libelous propaganda from dishonest people.

Go back to the original Catholic Church and study the beliefs and then look at them now and remember what Christ said about changing things.

Gee, I did and guess what I found!? The Eucharistic Real Presence in both the New Testament and the writings of the earliest ECF, infant baptism in the New Testament and in the verifiable testimony of an early church Bishop and martyr, and quotes of the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament in the New Testament from Our Lord Himself and the apostles, just to name a few.

You must be able to do that but I don’t think you want to know the truth.

I really have to resent that allegation. After all, OS, it wasn’t any of us who plagiarized an anti-Catholic website and didn’t have the common integrity to cite that source or any sources in all your posts on this thread.

I did my homework, and that is precisely why I am Catholic. It is you in fact who has failed to prove a single allegation that you have made nor even cite a single source for your rhetoric.

It appears to me sir that you are the one whose posts cannot stand up to objective scrutiny, and that is actually you who don’t “want to know the truth.”

 

[Church_Militant]

The contradictions come from the interpretations of men. Thats the problem

Well…you can see that in action as a result of Sola Scriptura with what? A good thousands of different denomination with a myriad of varying interpretations?

Ja4, let me ask you this. How do you know that what you have been taught is correct? Especially in view of your interactions with me and other faithful Catholics here at CAF?

 

[guanophore]

Since i’m not a catholic i don’t know. What does the catholic say?

Catholics say that nothing unclean can enter heaven, so to whatever extent we have not been completely cleansed of our natural carnal ways, we will have that purification after we depart this world.

Some people are so holy and pure that they need no cleansing, and their souls go straight to heaven. We call them “saints”.

What spirtual benefits are spelled out in the OT for being circumcised?

Paul mentions one of them|:

Rom 3:1-3
3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.

and again:

Rom 2:17-20

17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the law and boast of your relation to God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed in the law, 19 and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth -

As the keepers of the Law, they had what was, up until that time, the embodiement of knowledge and truth. This is part of the Jewish covenant, into which the infant male was brought by circumcision.

God intended for His holy people to be a light in darkness, and guide to the blind.

 

[EJTMJR]

Thank you for your question. Most seem to want to scream instead of seeking the truth…God Bless OS

OS, You just quoted 2Tim 3:16 then you stated it said “sufficient”. I am sorry but I dont see that would in the text, I see profitable.
. Scripture does say "the Pillar and foundation of truth is the Church, it does not say the Bible.

There was already a growing Church before the New testament was compiled.

What they were writing about was the Church so the writings could not come before the Church.
Also I would suggest that you read the Early Church Fathers.