R
ralphinal
Guest
SIA,
Where did Jesus say you could disagree with His Church?
Where did Jesus say you could disagree with His Church?
- Status
M
mercygate
Guest
Often a question the questioner believes to be “simple” is, in fact, extremely complex. For example: “Is Jesus God?” It took 300 years for the Church to hammer out how and why and in what respect Jesus is God. It was NOT a “simple” question. Catholicism is old. Her teachings have been formulated against the background of many force-points.
Of course the Church acknowledges taht there were problems in the Church at that time.
There have been many reforms within the Church over the centuries. And this was a period when the Church needed to untangle the practice of her faith from her involvement with political forces. No question: reform had to happen. And it DID: from INSIDE.
The Church is not infallible. She is indefectible. Only persons can be infallible, hence the matter of Papal infalliblity. This *protection from teaching error *applies to official teaching on faith and morals. The ancient doctrine that holds that the Church will never be false is called “indefectibility” – this means that the Church cannot “defect” from the truth as revealed in Jesus Christ. Scriptural references are in Mt. 16, Jn 14, Jn 17, and Mt 28.
A dogma is a teaching that may not specifically be spelled out in detail in Scripture but that derives **by inexorable logic **from the deposit of faith, a teaching that does not contradict Scritpure, and that through the Holy Spirit, the Church, in her teaching office, has deemed to be true.
P
Peter_J
Guest
ryanclewis,
You asked,
For example, as recently as the second half of the 19th century, I can think of a couple of problems that were perhaps not as bad as the time period you’re talking about, but still pretty major. See:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=262873
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4119723&highlight=discipline#post4119723
You asked,
Not only would I agree that there were “some very real problems during the time of the Reformation”, but I would add that there have been some since then as well.
For example, as recently as the second half of the 19th century, I can think of a couple of problems that were perhaps not as bad as the time period you’re talking about, but still pretty major. See:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=262873
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4119723&highlight=discipline#post4119723
P
Peter_J
Guest
The Church is both infallible and sinless, but the members of the Church are fallible and sinful.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
that is so simply written. I like it.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Indulgences don’t “fogive sin” - Jesus does that. But when you do the actions associated with an Indulgence (the indulgenced act itself, going to Confession, receiving Holy Communion, etc.), it remits the temporal consequences that would have occurred in Purgatory, that are associated with sins that have already been forgiven by Jesus.
Also, an Indulgence isn’t a physical object that you can “buy.” What was going on was that people were giving money to various good causes and charities, and, after following the other requirements for an Indulgence, they were receiving the remission of Purgatorial penance. This remission was coming from God; not from any human being, although the Pope, being “keeper of the keys” has the power to say what is an Indulgence, and what is not. God hears the Pope and binds in Heaven what he has bound on earth, and looses in Heaven what the Pope has loosed on earth, in fulfillment of His promise to St. Peter in Matthew 16:18-19.
After such a fuss was made about the Indulgences being given for charitable giving, though, it is no longer possible to gain an Indulgence by giving money to the poor or to good causes.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I actually look that up in the Scripture and I can’t find it. I do see, he who hears you, hears me, and binding and loosing, or if there is any disagreement amongst you, take it to the Church.
R
Reformed
Guest
Please understand Scripture does not speak of the church as the Roman Catholic Church. What do you consider Protestant or Orthodox institutions? Do you consider them churches too? Paul and John (Revelation) speaks of multiple physical churches and a universal invisible church.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I consider the Eastern Orthodox Church with valid Holy Orders and Seven Sacraments. I also believe they are Apostolic just like the Catholic Church.
However, I beg to differ on Protestantism because in essence I do not consider them as “Truth” Churches. Mostly because Evangelical Protestant churches don’t have bishops. The bigs ones have Mega-Churches, and live concerts? Some even have rap music used at their worship service. It’s almost like an entertainment event rather than true worship.
Of course not all Protestant Churches worship like this. The Angelicans whose liturgy are similiar to ours are an exception to the rule.
They are consider Churches and back then before the split between West and East, there was only. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.Do you consider them churches too? Paul and John (Revelation) speaks of multiple physical churches and a universal invisible church.
Even today, The Eastern Orthodox considered themselves as the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I respect the Eastern Christians more than I do Protestants because for the most part, the Protestants have perverted the Sacred words of Jesus Christ.
M
mercygate
Guest
The “multibple physical churches” of the New Testament were all part of the WHOLE (i.e., catholic) Church. No distinctives in doctrine. Orthodox Churches are “true” churches in that they have apostolic succession, valid sacraments, and consistent Apostolic theology.Please understand Scripture does not speak of the church as the Roman Catholic Church. What do you consider Protestant or Orthodox institutions? Do you consider them churches too? Paul and John (Revelation) speaks of multiple physical churches and a universal invisible church.
Protestant ecclesial groups reject much orthodox teaching; some reject sacraments; many reject much of the apostolic faith. They define THEMSELVES as “churches” in a way that neither Paul nor the Catholic Church EVER intended when referring to the universal Church, visible or “invisible.”
There is no “invisible” church in the New Testament. The only invisble church is the Church made up of those who have died in Christ.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Well said, mercygate.
R
Reformed
Guest
I have always stated that I believe in the catholic church:
The Apostles’ Creed
The basic creed of Reformed churches, as most familiarly known, is called the Apostles’ Creed. It has received this title because of its great antiquity; it dates from very early times in the Church, a half century or so from the last writings of the New Testament.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. [See Calvin]
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
Articles:
The Apostles’ Creed-- The Oldest Creed: by James Orr
Exposition of The Apostles’ Creed: by James Dodds, D.D.
*The word “catholic” refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html
The Apostles’ Creed
The basic creed of Reformed churches, as most familiarly known, is called the Apostles’ Creed. It has received this title because of its great antiquity; it dates from very early times in the Church, a half century or so from the last writings of the New Testament.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. [See Calvin]
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
Articles:
The Apostles’ Creed-- The Oldest Creed: by James Orr
Exposition of The Apostles’ Creed: by James Dodds, D.D.
*The word “catholic” refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html
J
jmcrae
Guest
The Apostles’ Creed was given to us by the same One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that even in those days had its headquarters in Rome. 
(By the way, why should we “see Calvin” about the line, “he descended into hell”? Calvin didn’t write that line; the Fathers did, and their writings, which we Catholics have easier access to than to the writings of Calvin, are more than adequate to explain it. (In fact, I’m sure Calvin himself most likely references their writings in his own explanation of it.)
(By the way, why should we “see Calvin” about the line, “he descended into hell”? Calvin didn’t write that line; the Fathers did, and their writings, which we Catholics have easier access to than to the writings of Calvin, are more than adequate to explain it. (In fact, I’m sure Calvin himself most likely references their writings in his own explanation of it.)
R
Reformed
Guest
The head of my catholic church is not in Rome, nor at the Roman Catholic altar. The head of the catholic church is at the right hand of God interceeding for the elect of God. He is not leaving the right hand of God everytime a Roman Catholic Priest calls Him down to be at a Roman Catholic mass. Jesus is ruling and reigning.The Apostles’ Creed was given to us by the same One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that even in those days had its headquarters in Rome.
(By the way, why should we “see Calvin” about the line, “he descended into hell”? Calvin didn’t write that line; the Fathers did, and their writings, which we Catholics have easier access to than to the writings of Calvin, are more than adequate to explain it. (In fact, I’m sure Calvin himself most likely references their writings in his own explanation of it.)
2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Romans 8:34
Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Jesus is omnipresent - He can be in a great many places all at the same time (including physically in every Tabernacle of every Catholic Church in the whole world). He does not “leave” the right hand of the Father every time He “comes down” on to the Altar to re-present His Sacrifice, because for Him, space does not matter. He occupies all space and all time, all in one go, so there is no need for Him to “move” anywhere when He acts.
It is Jesus who set up the Church; your arguments about whether or not to have its headquarters in Rome are with Him; not with us.
R
Reformed
Guest
I know God is om(name removed by moderator)resent. I know we cannot seperate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit…since the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. But do you think God the Son in the godhead is om(name removed by moderator)resent? I think you are thinking more about the Spirit in the godhead as being om(name removed by moderator)resent, maybe? I would like to hear the Catholic undestanding of the Son being omnipresent? Isn’t God the Son limited by His forver dual nature of being fully God and fully man? I do embrace the understanding of the hypo-static union of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church did not create the Trinity or the Holy BibleJesus is omnipresent - He can be in a great many places all at the same time (including physically in every Tabernacle of every Catholic Church in the whole world). He does not “leave” the right hand of the Father every time He “comes down” on to the Altar to re-present His Sacrifice, because for Him, space does not matter. He occupies all space and all time, all in one go, so there is no need for Him to “move” anywhere when He acts.
It is Jesus who set up the Church; your arguments about whether or not to have its headquarters in Rome are with Him; not with us.
.
M
mercygate
Guest
Of course the Catholic Church did not “create” the Holy Trinity, but it certainly DEFINED the doctrine as it is understood and accepted by all main line Christians today.I know God is om(name removed by moderator)resent. I know we cannot seperate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit…since the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. But do you think God the Son in the godhead is om(name removed by moderator)resent? I think you are thinking more about the Spirit in the godhead as being om(name removed by moderator)resent, maybe? I would like to hear the Catholic undestanding of the Son being omnipresent? Isn’t God the Son limited by His forver dual nature of being fully God and fully man? I do embrace the understanding of the hypo-static union of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church did not create the Trinity or the Holy Bible
Did the Catholic “create” the Bible? All the New Testament authors were part of the undivided Church, which was the Catholic Church. And the Church canonized the O.T. Scriptures for the Christian Church. So you wouldn’t have your Bible if not for the Church.
J
jmcrae
Guest
He showed us how this was possible in the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes, which precedes the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 - we have three movements in that chapter - first, Jesus feeds the multitudes with bread and fish by causing a small amount of bread and fish to be located in many different places all at the same time. This shows us that it is also possible for Jesus Himself to do the same, even in His body.
Next, Jesus walks on the water (reminding us of the passage in Genesis where God moved upon the waters) and then we have the Bread of Life discourse.
No, but it is through this Church, and through this Church alone, that God transmits all of these things to us.I do embrace the understanding of the hypo-static union of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church did not create the Trinity or the Holy Bible
R
Reformed
Guest
How about sharing the Catholic answer in regards to Jesus being om(name removed by moderator)resent. How can Jesus be at the right hand of God and at multiple masses for the Eucharist at the same time? Doesn’t Rome acknowledge that Jesus is forever the God man being fully God and fully man? Does Jesus’ humanity and body prevent Him from being om(name removed by moderator)resent?
J
jmcrae
Guest
The same way that the loaves and fishes could be in (at least) five thousand different places at the same time, in the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes.
Yes.
No - see the first section in John 6, where St. John the Evangelist sets the scene for the Bread of Life Discourse.
- Status