R
ralphinal
Guest
Talk to some of the EO sometimes. There is a thread on here somewhere that says that if you do the sign of the cross wrong, you are committing a serious sin.I always thought you catholics were to legalistic
Ha
- Status
S
sambos671
Guest
I was almost going to say something similar. However, a thought occured to me; Protestants (Iām not saying you grampden or referring to your post) protestants have protrade Catholics as being both too legalistic or too permisive. Which is it I wonder?I always thought you catholics were to legalistic
Ha
G
grampben
Guest
Lol I meant it as a joke.
It depends which protestant you ask I suppose
P
Peter_J
Guest
S
sambos671
Guest
Noā¦ You Peter facetious? Noā¦Dude, are you saying I was being facetious?
D)
R
ralphinal
Guest
Who, me? No, never, neverā¦Dude, are you saying I was being facetious?
According to the Sixth Council of Trent, better known as the Return of the Trentii, accusing another poster of being facetious anathematises both parties.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
An interesting assertion. Care to prove it?
For my part, I do not believe it is possible for the Church to go āoff the railsā as Protestants need so desperately to believe in order to justify their own separation from her. Hereās why:
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church āwent off the railsā, does this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?
Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
Q: If the Church āwent off the railsā for nearly 1x00 years prior to the Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church āalwaysā?
John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you foreverā
Q: If the Church āwent off the railsā, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church āforeverā?
John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
Q: If the Church āwent off the railsā, did Jesus actually leave us as āorphansā during all that time prior to the Reformation?
John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church āall thingsā or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?
Now, consider the following three verses:
1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in Godās household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong manās house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.
Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by ābindingā Jesus in any way?
In light of the above, is it possible that the Church āwent off the railsā? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church āwent off the railsā at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christās own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant ā not by her own efforts or innate qualities ā but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that āthe gates of hell will not overcome it.ā
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Randy,
This was an excellent presentation - thanks for posting these Scriputural references (since this is all our Protestant brothers accept).
God bless
This was an excellent presentation - thanks for posting these Scriputural references (since this is all our Protestant brothers accept).
To my way of thinking, the evidence from Scripture alone is overwhelming - and, any attempt to refute would have to address each reference assembeled in this post. Simply stated, if anyone is interested in keeping to the plain and simple meaning of the words -no such refutation is possible.
God bless
C
Cinette
Guest
Thank you Randy!
That is powerful and I will copy it into my Scripture directory and reflect on this. Your posting is powerful and certainly provides an answer to those who think the Church is legalistic and has failed.
Thank you again.
That is powerful and I will copy it into my Scripture directory and reflect on this. Your posting is powerful and certainly provides an answer to those who think the Church is legalistic and has failed.
Thank you again.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
:tiphat:
N
nbtb1348
Guest
Do you know what the essence of legalism is?
N
nbtb1348
Guest
This is a moot point. What you say can apply to the universal church composed of all born again people, just as easily as to the RCC. How do you define āoff the railsā? Rather, what is āon the railsā? Perfect doctrine with no missteps or contradictions? The RCC has not been perfect, but it has endured, just as evangelicals have. Orā¦perfect conduct? We know the history of the RCC there. (We even remember whenPaul had to rebuke Peter) Orā¦evangelism that sees the kinds of conversions described in Acts, when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost and thousands were saved on the spot? Is the RCC āon the railsā there? There is no perfection anywhere, but there are men and women of God who know the Savior and know His word and live it and proclaim it, and there is a body of truths that are the fundamentals of the faith. Those who embrace this comprise the true Church, and she is alive and well around the globe, on fire in many corners of the world!
C
Cinette
Guest
Hi!
I agree with some of the things you say. I do believe in the sincerity of many of the non-Cathlic faithfull.
When we speak of the Catholic Church we are speaking of the Church Christ founded and which has been in existance for 2000 years. This Church is both Divine and Human. On the Human side we have erred terribly many times but on the Divine side we have the Holy Spirit to guide us just as Jesus promised. Randyās posting lays it out clearly and all you need to do is really reflect on it.
The Catholic Church has endured since the time of Jesus - when Jesus empowered Peter and the Apostles. The Evangelicals have their origin from the 1500 at the time of the Reformation and have splintered into over 40 000 threads. Can you say this is endurance?
"If this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them"
Acts 5:38-39
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, nbtb1328,
In my opinion, there are some significant issues that have not been addressed in your post.
In reality, these are all moot points - that is, they are subject to debate
There is a universal church and you look for it as those who are following Christ in the manner He identified:
1.) John 15: 1-11 Christ is the vine and we are the branches. Either we are connected to Him or we are not. If not, then we have no life in us. This is not a ādead chruchā we are talkng about.
2.) John 6: 53 Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man you have no life in you. Christ specifically identified that His Flesh (not some idea of āfleshinessā was Real Food and His Blood was real Drink. Only the Apostles were given the Authority and Power to consecrate common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church is the direct line from the Apostles. Those who left the CC and its belief in its Founder, Jesus Christ, have no life in them - per the very words of Christ. Again, we are not talking about a dead church.
3.) Matthew 7: 21-23 Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom. The ability to follow Christ - and not just in some form of hollow immitation - means we must do the works of Christ. These guys prophesied, cast out demons and worked miracles - but, were not acceptable. Christ says He did not know them. Truly, these were dead branches.
Looking beyond Scripture - because not everything was written down (John 21:25) we now look at history. The history of the CC begins with Jesus Christ building His Church on Peter (Matthew 16:18). In my opinion, Christ chose Peter specifically to show that His Church is Guided and Protected by the Holy Spirit - not some type of strength and dynamic from just Peter. Look at all the times it is recorded that Peter shot his mouth off, tripped up on simple understandings and his eventual denial of Jesus under interogation from a local maid. I do not think anyone with any sense of business would have picked Peter to lead any group for any purpose. But then, we do not have the ways of God (Isaiah 55:8). The difference in Peter is truly dramatic on Pentecost Sunday - the first sermon by the Head of the Church - the CC.
āPerfect doctrine with no missteps or contradictionsā is something I can work with. From the very beginning (as evidenced by the writers of the NT) the CC has followed the doctrines of Jesus Christ. Here are just four examples:
1-) The need for Baptism (Mark 16:16)
2-) Confession of sins to men properly commissioned (John 20:19-23)
3-) The ordained priesthood to carry on the works of Christ (1 Cor. 11:24)
4-) The Eucharist: the command for us to eat and drink Christ - not a symbol, but the Real Christ now under the form of common bread and wine (Luke 22: 19-20)
The issue as you framed it was related to doctrine: no contradictions or missteps. Ever since 33A.D this has been the doctrine of the CC and it is the doctrine today. It should be pointed out that the Holy Spirit is the Guide and Protector of the CC concerning doctrine (John 14:23-26). This guarantee of perfect doctrine does not apply to the humans in charge. Just like Peter - all Leaders of the CC (Popes) have been human. To be human is to be weak and inclined to avoid doing good. Some Popes have been amazing models of the Love of Christ, while others have essentially served as the bad example.
It is noteworthy that during those times when the āBad Exampleā Popes were visible that the best opportunites for doctrine confusion, contradiction and missteps were present. Guess what? The Holy Spirit Protected the CC from error. These guys came and went - replaced by men more dedicated to following Christ - and the CC had no doctrine problems. There are no doctrinal contradictions.
I think you get the point: there is a real distinction between the doctrine of the CC and the men who lead the CC. Lumping the two together is like trying to add apples and prunes.
God bless
In my opinion, there are some significant issues that have not been addressed in your post.
In reality, these are all moot points - that is, they are subject to debate
The idea that there is, āā¦the universal churchā¦ā defined as you have explained it, is certainly not scriptural. You are now invited to supply the text to refute this statement.
There is a universal church and you look for it as those who are following Christ in the manner He identified:
1.) John 15: 1-11 Christ is the vine and we are the branches. Either we are connected to Him or we are not. If not, then we have no life in us. This is not a ādead chruchā we are talkng about.
2.) John 6: 53 Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man you have no life in you. Christ specifically identified that His Flesh (not some idea of āfleshinessā was Real Food and His Blood was real Drink. Only the Apostles were given the Authority and Power to consecrate common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church is the direct line from the Apostles. Those who left the CC and its belief in its Founder, Jesus Christ, have no life in them - per the very words of Christ. Again, we are not talking about a dead church.
3.) Matthew 7: 21-23 Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom. The ability to follow Christ - and not just in some form of hollow immitation - means we must do the works of Christ. These guys prophesied, cast out demons and worked miracles - but, were not acceptable. Christ says He did not know them. Truly, these were dead branches.
Looking beyond Scripture - because not everything was written down (John 21:25) we now look at history. The history of the CC begins with Jesus Christ building His Church on Peter (Matthew 16:18). In my opinion, Christ chose Peter specifically to show that His Church is Guided and Protected by the Holy Spirit - not some type of strength and dynamic from just Peter. Look at all the times it is recorded that Peter shot his mouth off, tripped up on simple understandings and his eventual denial of Jesus under interogation from a local maid. I do not think anyone with any sense of business would have picked Peter to lead any group for any purpose. But then, we do not have the ways of God (Isaiah 55:8). The difference in Peter is truly dramatic on Pentecost Sunday - the first sermon by the Head of the Church - the CC.
My understanding of āoff the railsā would be like looking at a train wreck. While āon the railsā would be focused on the purposeful movement of the train to its destination; in this case: heaven.
āPerfect doctrine with no missteps or contradictionsā is something I can work with. From the very beginning (as evidenced by the writers of the NT) the CC has followed the doctrines of Jesus Christ. Here are just four examples:
1-) The need for Baptism (Mark 16:16)
2-) Confession of sins to men properly commissioned (John 20:19-23)
3-) The ordained priesthood to carry on the works of Christ (1 Cor. 11:24)
4-) The Eucharist: the command for us to eat and drink Christ - not a symbol, but the Real Christ now under the form of common bread and wine (Luke 22: 19-20)
The issue as you framed it was related to doctrine: no contradictions or missteps. Ever since 33A.D this has been the doctrine of the CC and it is the doctrine today. It should be pointed out that the Holy Spirit is the Guide and Protector of the CC concerning doctrine (John 14:23-26). This guarantee of perfect doctrine does not apply to the humans in charge. Just like Peter - all Leaders of the CC (Popes) have been human. To be human is to be weak and inclined to avoid doing good. Some Popes have been amazing models of the Love of Christ, while others have essentially served as the bad example.
It is noteworthy that during those times when the āBad Exampleā Popes were visible that the best opportunites for doctrine confusion, contradiction and missteps were present. Guess what? The Holy Spirit Protected the CC from error. These guys came and went - replaced by men more dedicated to following Christ - and the CC had no doctrine problems. There are no doctrinal contradictions.
I think you get the point: there is a real distinction between the doctrine of the CC and the men who lead the CC. Lumping the two together is like trying to add apples and prunes.
God bless
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Hardly. Either Luther had just cause for starting the Protestant Rebellion or he didnāt. Either you have justification for remaining separated from the Church founded by Christ (now based in Rome) or you donāt.
The Church was in need of reform, and she reformed herself. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, et al, did not reform the Catholic Church. They rebelled against her and left her.
My questions about those verses are designed to evoke an answer to one question: At anytime during its admittedly colorful history, was the Catholic Church so completely corrupt that God was forced to start over with Protestantism?
IMO, scripture does not permit an answer in the affirmative.
G
grampben
Guest
The church didnāt āself-reformā until after the reformation. The only reason these guys didnāt directly reform the church is because the church chucked them out.
Without the reformation, the Council of Trent and the āself reformā of the church would not have happened.
E
elvisman
Guest
The āReformationā was nothing of the sort. It was a rebellion and a āNewā formation.
The only reason the Church āchucked them outā, as you say was because of their unrepentant heresy and prideful stubbornness.
G
grampben
Guest
Oh yes, the church didnāt need reforming. What about the nepotism and corruption at the highest level? What about abuse of indulgences? What about not letting the laity read the word of God!
E
elvisman
Guest
The Church abolutely did need reform at the time - but nothing like what the āReformersā did.
As for indulgences - they were never sold and the Church never condoned their abuse. These were actions by individual men within the Church.
**As for the myth of not allowing the laity to read scripture - prove it. **This is a long-debunked and slanderous lie.
Yes, bibles were chained to the pulpit but only because they could ill-afford to acquire new ones should they be stolen. Remember that they were hand-written and very expensive to come by in the middle ages. They couldnāt simply go to the corner bible store and get a new one.
G
grampben
Guest
They were NOT handwritten! What about the innovation of the printing press? When Tyndale translated the Bible into the vernacular, using a printing press to print it, he was killed.
The regular peasant could not read latin, so regardless of whether it was chained up or not is irrelevant.
Every christian has a right to be able to read the Bible in the vernacular. Wyclif and Tyndale were condemned for this (I know they were heretics to catholics too, but one of their ācrimesā was translating the Bible into English.)
- Status