This Wednesday, 8/6/2008, I will be leaving communion with the Roman Catholic Church

[Isa_Almisry]

First, the idea that God contradicts Himself – God never contradicts Himself. God’s rules are to be obeyed; and only He can enumerate exceptions to those rules. God commanded the Israelites to destroy and pillage defeated enemies, does this mean He created an exception to commandments against such behavior, like murder?

The command to kill, like the prohibition against idols, is in a new context: Luke 9:51 When the days were approaching for Him to be received up, He was determined to go to Jerusalem; 52 and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him. 53 But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. 54 When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them". He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

The way you divide up the commandments doesn’t accurately portray this rule. In fact in several instances the command not to make idols is not preceded by another commandment (see Leviticus 26:1). God didn’t even want us making images of Himself.

Already dealt with:

He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?"

cont…

And Matthew 28:17 When they SAW Him they WORSHIPPED Him.

And that’s all scripure alone.

 

[theistgal]

Could it be that we’ve already beat that dog to death?

“Supremacy” rather than primacy of Rome - not found historically. Primacy, per history is due to the fact that Rome was the Secular Capitol of Rome - had nothing to do with the person of St. Peter. Remember that St. Peter founded the Church in Antioch prior to stepping foot in Rome 3 years before his death. So if it had to do with his person, then the Catholic Church would be claiming both sees as the “vicar of Christ”

Filioque - a Latin word added to the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed which is not only wrong in it’s Theology (an attempt at saying that God the Father is not the Eternal Source of the Most Holy Trinity with Jesus being Eternally Begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit Eternally Proceeding from the Father - but rather that the Holy Trinity has two Eternal Sources: The Father and the Son and that the Holy Spirit Eternally Proceeds from both of them - this is not only wrong, but disrespectful of the Holy Spirit as it attempts to lower the Holy Spirit), but also was wrong in adding it to the Creed as once the Creed was in it’s completed form 2 separate Church Councils condemned any addition or ommission from the Creed - that anyone who would dare such a heresy would be anathema.

Purgatory - the Roman Church came up with this idea that because we as Christians have always prayed for the dead that somehow there are 2 Fires. The Eternal Fire of God and a Temporal Fire - again, not a part of historical Christianity

Limbo & Immaculate Conception - both developments from the misunderstanding of Original Sin and it’s affects on the rest of the human race born into this world. Developments derived primarly from mistranslations into Latin from Greek.

Papal Infallibility - developed from the continued misunderstanding of the role of each of the Patriarchates. One Pope, which I could remember his name off the top of my head, in either the late 1800’s or early 1900’s even claimed in an encyclical or letter that He was God on Earth - sounds more Ancient Egyptian than Christian. Even the Old Catholics broke away from Rome at that point.

Plus just look at the results, since Rome has removed herself from communion with the rest of the Church she has given birth to more than 30,000 different denominations! While the Orthodox continue to remain One Church.

Are you here to get answers to your questions, or just to put Catholics down before you leave?

 

[Christy74]

Citation, please. I ask because it is generally agreed that Andrew was the younger brother, not the elder.

Paul

Paul,

You know, just as the New Testatment says, that Christian Tradition is both written and oral. If you are unable to locate a citation in the written Tradition (Sacred Scripture) than it is an oral Tradition which is just as valid. It’s been held generation to generation starting with people who know St. Andrew and St. Peter down to the present day just as accurately as if it had been written down - this is because of the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Best Wishes,
Christy

 

[Christophorus72]

Are you here to get answers to your questions, or just to put Catholics down before you leave?

I was wondering the same thing. This appears to have turned more into a Roman Catholic bashing and “Hey look at me, I’m leaving your Church” thread rather than a discussion of contrasting beliefs.

Nonetheless, I wish the OP well with her new found faith.

 

[Christy74]

Are you here to get answers to your questions, or just to put Catholics down before you leave?

What you quoted me saying was an answer to someone else’s question. Has nothing to do with putting anyone down.

 

[Christy74]

I was wondering the same thing. This appears to have turned more into a Roman Catholic bashing and “Hey look at me, I’m leaving your Church” thread rather than a discussion of contrasting beliefs.

Nonetheless, I wish the OP well with her new found faith.

I’ve never equated speaking of Church History with Roman Catholic bashing before. Quite frankly, I am shocked by the comment. Perhaps you are upset because Church History is contrary to several of the current teachings of the Church of Rome, but bring up Church History has nothing to do with “bashing” another Church. Now I’m confused.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

How are you sure it’s the Catholic Church which has drifted in schism and not the Orthodox Church… or even both?

Look what the arguement was about in 1014, when the Pope of Rome was struck from the diptychs for inserting the filioque.

Pope Leo III condemned the councils of Frankfurt and Aachen for inserting it (and for condemning the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Frankfurt, however did good:It condemned the persecution of alleged witches and wizards, called the belief in witchcraft superstitious, and ordered the death penalty for those who presume to burn witches. Btw, the Renaissance and especially the “Enlightenment” was the age of witch persecution, not the “Dark Ages”). In Rome he put on the doors of St. Peter’s and on St. Paul’s Without-the-Walls, the Creed in Greek and Latin WITHOUT FILIOQUE, and the inscription "HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith)(VITA LEONIS, LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26).

The Councils of Constantinople I (canon 1) and Ephesus (canon 7) forbade tampering with the Creed.

So who changed? That will answer your question.

 

[Christophorus72]

I’ve never equated speaking of Church History with Roman Catholic bashing before. Quite frankly, I am shocked by the comment. Perhaps you are upset because Church History is contrary to several of the current teachings of the Church of Rome, but bring up Church History has nothing to do with “bashing” another Church. Now I’m confused.

Like I said, I wish you well.

 

[Christy74]

What is wrong in that doctrine? Mary, according to that doctrine, was saved just as the rest of us. Only, she was saved in advance, right at conception. Don’t the Eastern Churches believe the same thing?

No, the Eastern Church has always had the original Greek of both the Scriptures as well as the writings of the early Christians so they never had a mistranslation to get confused by. The Eastern Church has never misunderstood Original Sin to cause each person conceived to be “guilty” of that Original Sin without having personal sinned. Each human being is born innocent of sin; however, each person born has the affects of Original Sin: defects of nature (could be born without an arm, or born mental handicapped, etc.), subject to illness and death. Even Jesus was subject to Original Sin - He died on the Cross (later of course, He rose again) - dying is on of the affects of Original Sin. Mary was also subject to Original Sin; however, personally, just like Jesus she personally never sinned. She could have. Certainly she would have been tempted to sin just as Jesus was tempted to sin; however, she remained Pure. She is a wonderful example to us! But to say that she was conceived without Original Sin, as understood in original Christianity, would be saying that she is actually “above” Jesus since we know that he was subjected to the affects of Original Sin with His death, but of course, Mary the Theotokos is not greater than her Creator.

 

[spauline]

There are three types of Christians:

the Faithful
those ticked off at Peter
those ticked off at all Bishops

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If it’s the Orthodox Church that jesus founded, how come saint Ignatius of Antioch, who died in 107 (!), calls it the Catholic Church in his letters?

We still do, in the ORIGINAL Creed we preserve, One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostlic Church.

Btw St. Ignatius was the successor (and ordained by) St. Peter in his original Patriarchate, and Ignatius writes this to a Church that would be in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The full quote also says that where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church, not “where the bishop sent by Rome is.” In fact, in his letter to Rome, Ignatius doesn’t mention bishops at all.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Because, also, the Catholic Church certainly is no less orthodox than the “Orthodox” Church. You still haven’t told me which heresies… I am still waiting. Could it be that you don,t even know which?

I think filioque has been mentioned a time or too. And Vatican I.

 

[Lapell]

Could it be that we’ve already beat that dog to death?

“Supremacy” rather than primacy of Rome - not found historically. Primacy, per history is due to the fact that Rome was the Secular Capitol of Rome - had nothing to do with the person of St. Peter. Remember that St. Peter founded the Church in Antioch prior to stepping foot in Rome 3 years before his death. So if it had to do with his person, then the Catholic Church would be claiming both sees as the “vicar of Christ”
You don’t seem to object much to Peter’s primacy itself. As for the location, it had to do with where Peter died, quite simply! The schism with the Eastern churches, moreover, came more than 1400 years later, not in 300!!!

Filioque - a Latin word added to the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed which is not only wrong in it’s Theology (an attempt at saying that God the Father is not the Eternal Source of the Most Holy Trinity with Jesus being Eternally Begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit Eternally Proceeding from the Father - but rather that the Holy Trinity has two Eternal Sources: The Father and the Son and that the Holy Spirit Eternally Proceeds from both of them - this is not only wrong, but disrespectful of the Holy Spirit as it attempts to lower the Holy Spirit), but also was wrong in adding it to the Creed as once the Creed was in it’s completed form 2 separate Church Councils condemned any addition or ommission from the Creed - that anyone who would dare such a heresy would be anathema.
Here, I believe you forget one thing from the Prologue of the Gospel according to John. Jesus is the Son of God, and before the Incarnation He is the Eternal Word of God. Nothing did the Father do without Him, everything He did along with Him. So, why not the sending the Holy Spirit. Yes or no, is God One. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ARE ONE!

Purgatory - the Roman Church came up with this idea that because we as Christians have always prayed for the dead that somehow there are 2 Fires. The Eternal Fire of God and a Temporal Fire - again, not a part of historical Christianity
Why pray for dead people if they are either in Heaven or in Hell, which can’t be changed?

Limbo & Immaculate Conception - both developments from the misunderstanding of Original Sin and it’s affects on the rest of the human race born into this world. Developments derived primarly from mistranslations into Latin from Greek.
What is the actual teaching of the Catholic Church on “limbo”?
As for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, tell me what’s wrong with it, if you can.

Papal Infallibility - developed from the continued misunderstanding of the role of each of the Patriarchates. One Pope, which I could remember his name off the top of my head, in either the late 1800’s or early 1900’s even claimed in an encyclical or letter that He was God on Earth - sounds more Ancient Egyptian than Christian. Even the Old Catholics broke away from Rome at that point.
Again, where do you see it in the present CCC? About that “encyclical or letter”, you must be more precise and not just quote hearsays, it would be a grave thing if it was said of the pope himself rather than of Jesus the Christ! I doubt it would have been said, if it ever was, in one case under proper infallible teaching channels! Distortion and mis understanding can have happened even in those days, you know!

Plus just look at the results, since Rome has removed herself from communion with the rest of the Church she has given birth to more than 30,000 different denominations! While the Orthodox continue to remain One Church.

Yep! with all the Nestorians, Arians, Monophysites, Pelagians, Donatists, etc., you name them! All before the schism between the “Orthodox” and the Catholics…
Your view seem not to have taken those previous divisions into account…

 

[Lapell]

I think filioque has been mentioned a time or too. And Vatican I.

What exactly about Vatican I?
As for the Filioque, read my previous post.

 

[Lapell]

We still do, in the ORIGINAL Creed we preserve, One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostlic Church.

Btw St. Ignatius was the successor (and ordained by) St. Peter in his original Patriarchate, and Ignatius writes this to a Church that would be in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The full quote also says that where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church, not “where the bishop sent by Rome is.” In fact, in his letter to Rome, Ignatius doesn’t mention bishops at all.

So what? There was no need to, there was no schism between East and West then! “It went without saying”, like we say sometimes…

 

[spauline]

the falseness of Orthodoxy is shown in her treatment of human sexuality, that is, their allowance of artificial birth control and divorce and remarriage.

In time, the Minor Chastisement shall show the errors of Orthodox, and their need of the Rock, which is Peter.

 

[theistgal]

I’ve never equated speaking of Church History with Roman Catholic bashing before. Quite frankly, I am shocked by the comment. Perhaps you are upset because Church History is contrary to several of the current teachings of the Church of Rome, but bring up Church History has nothing to do with “bashing” another Church. Now I’m confused.

LOL - you can’t even post a denial of Catholic bashing without Catholic bashing.

 

[TriuneUnity]

At least the Eastern Church hasn’t deviated as far from Biblical truth as the Latin Church has. As far as I know, while holding a view similar to the Lutheran, Episcopalian, and RCC view that Mary was sinless and a perpetual virgin you haven’t gone as far as to declare the immaculate conception as part of your doctrine – so there’s still hope.

The Lutheran and Episcopalian view? Where in the official doctrinal statements of either group is Mary’s sinlessness affirmed?

Frankly, Lutherans and Episcopalians are barely protestants. They’ve been coddling up to Rome for decades, groveling for a bite at the apostolic succession apple. The whole idea of apostolic succession as its framed by both the Eastern and Western churches is just wrong. Frankly so much is apparent since it is used in furtherance of organizational supremacy.

Apostolic succession? Again, where in any Lutheran confessional statements is apostolic succession as Rome or the Anglican church teaches affirmed? I haven’t seen any major Lutheran Synods attempting to foister notions of apostolic succession. If they have, they are contradicting the confessions of our faith. What is your definition of barely Protestant? Is rejection of everything in the 1517 years prior to the Reformation fully Protestant?

 

[Christy74]

Yep! with all the Nestorians, Arians, Monophysites, Pelagians, Donatists, etc., you name them! All before the schism between the “Orthodox” and the Catholics…
Your view seem not to have taken those previous divisions into account…

What you are refering to where all heresies which were all squashed by the Church through the Power of the Holy Spirit. Your comparison to them with the more than 30,000 Protestant Churches holds no water…the Catholic Church has been unable to squash them…why? Some would say because the Catholic Church is no longer being directed by the Holy Spirit since she left the Church. But you can draw your own conclusion as to why that is.

 

[Christy74]

LOL - you can’t even post a denial of Catholic bashing without Catholic bashing.

So if I were to say that Buddhism has some teachings that are not true…you would consider this Buddhism bashing. Only God can help you with your line of reasoning and I pray He will.