The Church of Jesus Christ was never in apostacy?

[peary]

This is total bunk.
The earth is not flat , the sky is blue.

Wow, talk about arrogance on your part…unbelievable!

 

[pismopal]

I do not think so.

It is impossible to keep up with what each and every protestant religion teaches in their private theology, since there are so many and since individuals make up the rules, and doctrines according to their own interpretation of scripture. Besides, there are thousands of new religions calling themselves “Christian” that do not even have a phone number, a listing in the phone book, or even a congregation, because they are so brand new. Most do not stick around long, especially those that you see pop up in the strip mall, and then disappear a short time later.

How could we even begin to try to know what they teach in their new and invented religion?

You used the words “private theology” so correctly as most of the non Catholic denoms that I have had contact with profess the theology of whomever happens to be the “head preacher” at the time. He/she explains their theology and you are expected to nod your head and believe every word.

 

[peary]

Catholics will hold the view that Tetzel was a “loose cannon” and that their church should not be judged by the actions of this individual.
But is that the case?
Did Tetzel have the backing of the Pope?
Did he have the backing of the bishops whose dioceases which he visited?
Why did the Catholic Church allow this practice to arise to such a point that it became as much an issue as any other in its ultimate breakup?

I have come to the conclusion that the pope not only knew aboutthe selling of indulgences but in fact santioned it.
The bishops wo allowed this “wolf” to pry on their sheep did so with full culpability.
Rome allowed this practice to continue to the point of that the Reformation can be placed fully on their doorstep.

If that were true, I’m sure that a phone call to Tetzel from the pope would have sufficed. Don’t you agree?

 

[guanophore]

Now the Roman Church is God?
At least all pretenses are off!

No, but Jesus identifies Himself completely with the Church. There are elements of the Church that are divine, there are elements that are sanctified, and there are elements that are not yet perfected in faith, or downright fallen. There are separated elements, and there are elements in perfect unity. None of the other parts of the Church take away from the Divinity of the Head, which is Christ. Though there are many joined to Him that are not ye made Holy, their lack of holiness does not subtract from His perfect holiness.

So this is what at the root of the heresy that the Catholic Church s infallible?

Eph 1:22-23
“the church, which is his body”

With which part of this do you disagree? What makes the Church infallible is the Divine element. Jesus is the Head, and being God, is infallible. To the extent that the members of His body remain in unity with Him, He protects them from the gates of hell (entering error).

To claim that the pope was ingnorant of the sali of indulgences and of Tetzel is pure folly. Catholics lose all credibility when making such claims.

Being aware that error is being committed is quite different than mandating it.

 

[guanophore]

Exactly! How do you, JA4, know the Bible is inerrant?

A few posts up, he said that his authority for this is the Greek Lexicon.

 

[peary]

A few posts up, he said that his authority for this is the Greek Lexicon.

So, the Greek Lexicon explicitly says that the Bible is inerrant?

 

[guanophore]

No, though I can see where you’re going with this. What I meant was simply that there seems to have been a lot going on in the highest echelons of the Church - the sale of indulgences, the earth being the center of the universe, etc., that were accepted as common belief/practice - though they may or may not have been “written down”. In other words, the fact that they were commonly accepted beliefs and/or practices would indicate that they had official sanction, thus were defacto “teachings”.

When we speak of the Sacred Tradition, we are only referring to the Teachings revealed by Jesus. There are many other beliefs and practices, but they don’t rise to the infallible level.

 

[peary]

So, the Greek Lexicon explicitly says that the Bible is inerrant?

**Isn’t that a source outside of scripture ?

 

[guanophore]

If Christ founded the church on Peter then you are on some very shaking ground being that the foundation is built on a sinful fallible man and his successors.

How is this any more “shaky ground” that the Scriptures, which were penned by fallible men? I reject the premise that they were sinful,because I believe that God made them Holy. He was able to breathe through them to write the scripture, and He is able to breathe through them to guide the Church. Jesus chose to do it this way, that is why the foundation is solid.

The foundation for the church is not Peter but Christ. See I Corinthians 3:11. The apostles are also part of this foundation and not just Peter… .See Ephesians 2:20

Well, we see it differently, ja4. We see that Jesus grafted Peter into His own rockyness, and that is why He changed His name to Cephas (the Rock)

Eph 2:19-22
you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

It seems that you imagine there is separation here, instead ofthe closely knit structure that Jesus has built. Cephas is in unity with Christ, the other Apostles an prophets are in unity with Peter. The whole structure is a household, a temple, a dwelling place of God. This is why we say “welcome home” to our separated brethren. This is why we also say that the Soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit.
justasking4;3479329:

Secondly, if the church is divine (whatever that means) must it be pure?

Yes

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

The sanctified part of the church is pure. Those of us that are still working out our salvation are somewhat lacking in purity, to one degree or another.

Catholics will hold the view that Tetzel was a “loose cannon” and that their church should not be judged by the actions of this individual.

This is true, and maybe he had aposticized. There is not enough historical evidence to indicate that he ever really was orthodox in his belief. If he was a Dominican friar, one can certainly hope that his profession of faith was genuine at one time. Clearly the actions of his from later in life that are preserved do not appear to be consistent with a believing Catholic.

Why did the Catholic Church allow this practice to arise to such a point that it became as much an issue as any other in its ultimate breakup?

The Catholic Church did not have any “ultimate breakup”. People left the Church, the Magesterium met and made reforms, and the Church has moved forward. The Gates of Hell have not prevailed.

I have come to the conclusion that the pope not only knew aboutthe selling of indulgences but in fact santioned it.
The bishops wo allowed this “wolf” to pry on their sheep did so with full culpability.
Rome allowed this practice to continue to the point of that the Reformation can be placed fully on their doorstep.

It is the rightful offspring of the Reformation to place the blame for one’s own actions upon others. This habit of man, and it’s fruit, were first seen in the Garden of Eden, and have been rampant ever since. No, the Reformers are responsible for their own actions, just as Rome is responsible for hers. Doing more wrong in the face of wrong is not the way of Christ.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I cant believe that this teaching exists among Non Catholic circles that the Roman Catholic church went into apostasy?

I would like to know where do SDA, Mormons and any other non catholic faiths , get their information that the first Century Church of the Apostles went into apostacy. And lost their succession to the Apostles.

Now in the second century the Roman Catholic church records, that the Roman Emperors forced Catholic bishops to sign a document and honor their false god’s. The Roman Catholic church has documents revealing these bishops went into apostasy and were excommunicated. When the emperor died, these bishops recanted their apostacy, and were recieved back into the Persecuted Catholic church. One saint even wanted to rebaptise them, but the Roman Pope was against rebaptising these apostate bishops or anyone else.

The Catholic church has no record of Apostasy other than her bishops members went into apostasy, not the Catholic church herself. The other Popes and bishops, desired death, before going to apostasy, or recanting Jesus teachings to their enemies of the church. That is why we have so many saints, and martyrs during these first centuries, they refuse to an apostate, and die first before denying the Catholic churches teachings from Jesus.

So I say to anyone who makes the claim that the Holy apostolic church went into apostacy is being decieving and has been decieved. And should repent of this false teaching or prove your case here.

Mormons, Seventh day adventist or others please defend your teaching on the apostasized Catholic church, or stop decieving others with this false teaching.

This is reather intersting, Muslims believe that God’s message was taken from the jews and given to them through the prophet muhammad. could be a connection here?

 

[Hisalone]

Why can’t you answer any of my questions and be honest?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

???

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by guanophore
But how do YOU know that!? since you reject the church that Jesus founded?

Lampo
Exactly! How do you, JA4, know the Bible is inerrant?

The Scriptures themselves claim to the Word of God. Surely you are familar with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which says:
16 **All Scripture is inspired by God **and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

It is God Who makes the Scriptures inspired-inerrant and not the church.

 

[justasking4]

So, the Greek Lexicon explicitly says that the Bible is inerrant?

Yes. The word “inspired” in 2 Timothy 3:16 means—to breathe or blow. Prompted by God, divinely inspired, occurs only in 2 Tim. 3:16 in the NT
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is reather intersting, Muslims believe that God’s message was taken from the jews and given to them through the prophet muhammad. could be a connection here?

Islam does not come on the scene until the 4th century after 400 years after Christianity. Islam has the mixture of both Christian , and Judaism. And began in order to do away with paganism in the Arab lands. Once muhammad got his epeliptic vision in the cave, The killing began there after of those who would not believe in their Allah. I dont find the comparison, other than the pagan religioins being forced out. Where do you find the apostacy?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3482932]When we speak of the Sacred Tradition, we are only referring to the Teachings revealed by Jesus.

That would mean you are talking about the NT since these are the only teachings of Jesus. There are no teachings of Jesus outside the NT…

There are many other beliefs and practices, but they don’t rise to the infallible level.

Is the teaching of the assumption of Mary and praying the rosary at the infallible level?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3483195]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Secondly, if the church is divine (whatever that means) must it be pure?

guanophore
Yes

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

The sanctified part of the church is pure.

What part is this?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Islam does not come on the scene until the 4th century after 400 years after Christianity. Islam has the mixture of both Christian , and Judaism. And began in order to do away with paganism in the Arab lands. Once muhammad got his epeliptic vision in the cave, The killing began there after of those who would not believe in their Allah. I dont find the comparison, other than the pagan religioins being forced out. Where do you find the apostacy?

i guess i did not explain this well. i never said that CC went into apostacy. i was thinking about this as in relation which protestants i dont know if all of them but my protestant friend told me once that her pastor told in her Bible study that the catholic was the Church that Jesus found but that she had fallen into apostasy and God had turned away from the catholic church and now her church is the true church. i tried to explain to her this is not true but she does not listen to me.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No Gabriel the selling of indulgences is apostate.
To teach, to play on the fears of believers, to practice the selling of indulgences to free loved ones from an imaginary place called purgatory is a direct conflict to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The selling of indulgences is a sin in my eyes, The whole Catholic church cannot be in apostacy because one of her members falls into sin.

That’s like saying When I sin, or a priest sins, or a bishop sins, or the Pope sins, the whole Catholic church falls into apostacy?. This is a unreasonable argument for an apostate Catholic church.

Apostate is one who denies his faith for another faith. For example Martin Luther, denied his Catholic faith, and took parts with him and started his own belief system of Sola fide,sola scriptura, now I learn Sola gratia. Does this mean that because Martin Luther went into apostacy, that the whole Catholic church went into apostacy? See how ridiculous your arguments appear to be for an apostacised Catholic church, on the basis of One who decided to sell indulgences, You claim because of this one person or persons,the whole Catholic church went into apostacy. It does not prove the Catholic church went into apostacy.** I can think up worst things than selling of indulgences that Bishops did in history** that did not bring this Lie about the Catholic church falling into apostacy.

You cant Judge the whole Catholic church by one mans sin to judge the whole Church sinned. I think the lesson that applies here is when one hurts we all hurt, not in the pretense you pretend to make it an apostacy of the whole Catholic church.

The thing to remember if the Catholic church went into apostacy, That means your Christianity never was. Because your Christianity comes from the Catholic church. Something to ponder. Catholicism brought the world the Apostolic Christianity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

i guess i did not explain this well. i never said that CC went into apostacy. i was thinking about this as in relation which protestants i dont know if all of them but my protestant friend told me once that her pastor told in her Bible study that the catholic was the Church that Jesus found but that she had fallen into apostasy and God had turned away from the catholic church and now her church is the true church. i tried to explain to her this is not true but she does not listen to me.

**This is what I am talking about, where are they getting this Lie taught to God’s people? and how do they justify this apostacy, and claiming our Lord to be a Liar, that he has forgotten his Church he bled and died for. Satan is the only father of Lies, and he is dressed in sheeps clothing to decieve God’s Children. Because it is his children that are suseptible to these Lies. That is why I am calling him out on these forums, to expose this father of Lies. **

 

[wisdomseeker]

**This is what I am talking about, where are they getting this Lie taught to God’s people? and how do they justify this apostacy, and claiming our Lord to be a Liar, that he has forgotten his Church he bled and died for. Satan is the only father of Lies, and he is dressed in sheeps clothing to decieve God’s Children. Because it is his children that are suseptible to these Lies. That is why I am calling him out on these forums, to expose this father of Lies. **

i was just thinking, are we free from guilt if we believe in lies and continue to rejecting the truth? were Adam and Eve excused because they were deceived by believing in the lie of the devil and dissobeyed Our God? not judging no one, just wondering.