The Early Church: If They Weren't Catholic, What Were They?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpectatorX
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
crazzeto said:
Ferde Rombola has put more time into it, and it’s apparent that his personal opinion differs than that of JPII. But, there’s the thing, there is no doctrine of what hell is. Therefore, Ferde Rombola is free to disagree with the Pontiff. With no offence to Ferde Rombola, I expect most people to weight more heavily JPII’s opinion that his own, but the important thing to understand is that Ferde Rombola is not a heretic. He doesn’t disagree with the orthodox interpretation of doctrine.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Crazzeto for your kind words. There are few greater admirers of John Paul II than I, but my admiration falls somewhat short of adulation. He was a brilliant man but, as Supreme Pontiff, tended to lose focus. He spent a lot of time traveling and writing, involving young people in the Church and building bridges to other faith confessions, much to his credit, but he allowed the heresies of the Church in the US and Western Europe to fester and didn’t do as much as he should have done to eliminate homosexuality from the clergy. That said, where I think he’s wrong, I’m entitled to say he was wrong. And I did. It doesn’t mean I’m right. It means I think I’m right.
 
crazzeto said:
So what I said about accepting authority is very true, but individual catholics are still free to agree or disagree with certain theologies when violating sacrade doctrine isn’t at stake.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it hilarious how non-Catholics condemn the Church as being dictatorial and dogmatic, then condemn Catholics who express an independent opinion? If there’s a better way to exemplify anti-Catholic bigotry, I’d like to see it.
 
Anna_Scott said:
In ferde Rombola’s case, it seems his “private interpretation” of Scripture trumps the interpretation of Pope John Paul II. This is confusing, since Catholics criticize Protestants for “private interpretation.” It’s a regular occurrence on the forums. I’m not saying this as a “gotcha” kind of thing. I’m just getting confusing signals.
Click to expand...
I’m sure it seems that way, but it’s not. Protestant private interpretation involves a private interpreter’s right to declare dogma by virtue of his private interpretation. My disagreement with JPII involves opinion, not dogma. I do not declare myself right, as protestant private interpreters do. I merely say I disagree with another Catholic about the properties of Hell.

As I said, your problem is not me, it’s your misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, the authority of the papacy and the rights of conscious as extended to all the faithful.
 
crazzeto said:
Indeed there is a strong case also to be made for hell being a physical place, full of real fire. Either way, I don’t want to be there :bigyikes:
Click to expand...
I’m with you, brother. Pray daily. Pray often. Pray always!!!
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
That one disturbing line is pretty conclusive…
Click to expand...
Not necessarily! A lot of words,sentences,paragraphs may appear conclusive when not read in their entirety with the whole document/work. Case in point, I see many anti-Catholics constantly doing the same with the works of the early church fathers to prove a Protestant agenda or doctrines,such as Sola Scriptura. But when one takes the time to read the entire work of the church father, one can notice he was not even saying anything what the anti-Catholic wanted to protray.

It is called a classic case of “proof-texting” or “reading-into” what is not there.
 
Anna_Scott said:
Crazzeto,

I think what everybody is missing here is that my issue lies in how a Catholic relates to fallible teachings of the CC.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. You’ve been told at least three times you do not understand the doctrine of infallibility. Instead of investigating what the doctrine actually teaches, you insist on forcing a definition of your own invention on us.

We’re Catholics. We understand the doctrine of infallibility. You don’t.
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
No it isn’t. You’ve been told at least three times you do not understand the doctrine of infallibility. Instead of investigating what the doctrine actually teaches, you insist on forcing a definition of your own invention on us.

We’re Catholics. We understand the doctrine of infallibility. You don’t.
Click to expand...
but my friend. she is willing to listen and learn. its really not her way of forcing a definition of her own invention on anyone. she has come further than you can possibly realize. a little patience please? thank you. Peace 🙂
 
Anna_Scott said:
Again, my issue lies in how a Catholic relates to fallible teachings of the CC,
Click to expand...
A faithful Catholic agrees and follows the infallible teachings of the Church.
Anna_Scott said:
…and the fact that those fallible teachings change over time.
Click to expand...
The infallible teachings of the Church NEVER change and I defy you to prove otherwise.
Anna_Scott said:
This is important to sort out when considering Catholicism.
Click to expand...
From what I gather from you, you have no intention to consider Catholicism. You seem to want to prove the Church’s teachings are wrong. Good luck with that.
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
A faithful Catholic agrees and follows the infallible teachings of the Church.

The infallible teachings of the Church NEVER change and I defy you to prove otherwise.

From what I gather from you, you have no intention to consider Catholicism. You seem to want to prove the Church’s teachings are wrong. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
again my friend. her aim IS to consider Catholicism. she is a dear sister in Christ, who is trying to find just where she belongs. trust me when i tell you, she really is trying to understand. please try to be long suffering. if you need a little comic relief, look at my exchanges with the Adventist, on the info on SDA thread. myself and others have been going at it for months with them. 😃 humor works. Peace and grace to you 🙂
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
The VERY disturbing part of this archived statement is this part for me:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

That seems to take obedience futher with the papacy than Catholics claim it to be?
Click to expand...
Indeed. I prefer to ignore it.
 
crazzeto said:
A direct quotation of the KJV:
It was the Apostles who taught that Jesus rose on the 8th day, the new sabbath. Are you charging that Christ’s Apostles were wrong?
Click to expand...
I am saying that you are wrong about what this passage is telling us. Do you agree that this passage you quoted has to have the same message for both of us?
 
Protestant101 said:
I am saying that you are wrong about what this passage is telling us. Do you agree that this passage you quoted has to have the same message for both of us?
Click to expand...
Sorry dude,but SDA are wrong to believe Christians must worship on Saturday. It is a dead horse and only SDA’s are the ones holding on to an issue settled long ago.
 
Nicea325 said:
Sorry dude,but SDA are wrong to believe Christians must worship on Saturday. It is a dead horse and only SDA’s are the ones holding on to an issue settled long ago.
Click to expand...
so i guess you wont be joining us on the info on SDA thread? we would love to have you. its been getting interesting lately! Peace and Grace to you my friend 🙂
 
Anna_Scott said:
Yeah, it does. Crazzeto says he’s going to try calling Fr. Mitch Pacwa, tomorrow, to see what his thoughts are about it.

Anna
Click to expand...
I have a couple of things to say with respect to the document you posted, for instance, when the pope writes an encyclical about why we cannot allow female priests should we disregard this as optional (teaching of the faith) simply because it was not spoken ex-cathedra, or are we to submit to his understanding of the faith (which should not conflict with the deposit of faith) mind and will? When Pope Paul IV wrote humanae vitae does the fact it was not spoken ex-cathedra make it less truthful and therefore optional? No. Are we as Catholics to adhere to what he taught on birth control? Yes, in that we submit mind and will. There are so many encyclicals which deal with issues of a moral nature which are not classified as ex-cathedra statements but which nevertheless do not violate the deposit of faith either, i.e., teachings on abortion, stem cell research, invitro fertilization . . . etc. We are to submit mind and will when we understand that the mind and will of popes are in accord with the faith, i.e., the Pope cannot teach that which is not part of the deposit.
 
I understand the problem with “proof-texting.” My observation is that Catholics proof text in here as much as hardcore evangelicals proof text the Bible. But when we actually read an official Catholic document like that that actually says

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, I don’t really see any other way to take that? Doesn’t sound out of context and I can’t imagine a context that would justify that statement? Anna posted it and I’m sure you can read the whole thing from her citation.
Nicea325 said:
Not necessarily! A lot of words,sentences,paragraphs may appear conclusive when not read in their entirety with the whole document/work. Case in point, I see many anti-Catholics constantly doing the same with the works of the early church fathers to prove a Protestant agenda or doctrines,such as Sola Scriptura. But when one takes the time to read the entire work of the church father, one can notice he was not even saying anything what the anti-Catholic wanted to protray.

It is called a classic case of “proof-texting” or “reading-into” what is not there.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t think that anyone has mentioned that Christ spoke Aramaic and in the Aramaic language there is no symblism in their lanquage. Therefore the followers who defected after hearing the Eucharistic words at the Last Supper, they totally understood what Christ meant and that is why they said that this is a dificult saying and left. Even the pagans believed that the Way followers were having bloody sacrificial offerings. Go to the web and look up Robert Sungeni and his book Not By Bread Alone. It is a scholarly work by a layman.
In Christ,
Charles:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top