What Church Is Most Biblical?

[Mannyfit75]

People were splitting a LONG time before any group that can accurately be described as Protestant came around. But its much easier to make Protestants the boogeyman in this debate.

To find the True Faith. That faith have to be united just as Jesus prayed His believers to be. Where is the unity in Protestantism? There isn’t none.

The Catholic Church for 2,000 yrs have attest to this. For Her founder is Jesus Christ. The doctrines of the Catholic Church and defined. Even if there are Catholics who dissent on her teachings, they have no authority to bind and loose. The Magisterium have the authority to bind and loose which Jesus gave to his Bride. We do not see that in Protestantism.

The most recent one is the Anglican Community. The Archbishop of Canterbury couldn’t even declare his authority as binding as the Pope. The compromise they set. Dissatistify conservation Anglicans who are oppose to gay ordinations, and blessings.

Some of these conservatives, are so upset. That they break and some even went to go as far as to reunite with Rome.

 

[dosdog]

People were splitting a LONG time before any group that can accurately be described as Protestant came around. But its much easier to make Protestants the boogeyman in this debate.

The Coptic Rite, which is situated primarily in Egypt, reunited with Rome in 1741

The Ge’ez Rite, based primarily in Ethiopia, Jerusalem, and Somalia, reunited with Rome in 1846

The Chaldean Rite, located primarily in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and the United States, reunited with Rome in 1692

The Albanian Rite, centered in Albania, reunited with Rome in 1628

The Croatian Rite, based primarily in Croatia with a significant population in the United States, reunited with Rome in 1611

The Greek Rite, which is centered in Greece and Turkey with congregations also in Asia Minor and Europe, reunited with Rome in 1829

The Hungarian Rite, situated in Hungary with significant populations throughout Europe and North and South America, reunited with Rome in 1646

The Georgian Rite, based in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, reunited with Rome in 1329, severed ties in 1507, then in 1917 broke with the Russian Orthodox Church and again reunited with Rome as the Georgian Byzantine Rite

The Ruthenians reunited with Rome in the Union of Brest-Litovek in 1596 and the Union of Uzhorod in 1646. They employ Old Slavonic and English in the liturgy.

Finally, the Ukrainian Rite has large populations in the Ukraine, Poland, United States, Canada, England, Australia, Germany, France, Brazil, and Argentina. The Ukrainians reunited with Rome about 1595. However, Stalin forced the Ukrainian Rite Catholics to enter the Russian Orthodox Church in 1943, but since the independence of the Ukraine, they have reunited with Rome. This rite uses Old Slavonic and Ukrainian.
catholicherald.com/saunders/97ws/fs970213.htm

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Coptic Rite, which is situated primarily in Egypt, reunited with Rome in 1741

The Ge’ez Rite, based primarily in Ethiopia, Jerusalem, and Somalia, reunited with Rome in 1846

The Chaldean Rite, located primarily in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and the United States, reunited with Rome in 1692

The Albanian Rite, centered in Albania, reunited with Rome in 1628

The Croatian Rite, based primarily in Croatia with a significant population in the United States, reunited with Rome in 1611

The Greek Rite, which is centered in Greece and Turkey with congregations also in Asia Minor and Europe, reunited with Rome in 1829

The Hungarian Rite, situated in Hungary with significant populations throughout Europe and North and South America, reunited with Rome in 1646

The Georgian Rite, based in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, reunited with Rome in 1329, severed ties in 1507, then in 1917 broke with the Russian Orthodox Church and again reunited with Rome as the Georgian Byzantine Rite

The Ruthenians reunited with Rome in the Union of Brest-Litovek in 1596 and the Union of Uzhorod in 1646. They employ Old Slavonic and English in the liturgy.

Finally, the Ukrainian Rite has large populations in the Ukraine, Poland, United States, Canada, England, Australia, Germany, France, Brazil, and Argentina. The Ukrainians reunited with Rome about 1595. However, Stalin forced the Ukrainian Rite Catholics to enter the Russian Orthodox Church in 1943, but since the independence of the Ukraine, they have reunited with Rome. This rite uses Old Slavonic and Ukrainian.
catholicherald.com/saunders/97ws/fs970213.htm

You know what I noticed. We hear a lot of Protestants converting to Catholicism. But having entire Churches from a different tradition reunitying with Rome is truly the workings of the Holy Spirit.

 

[BrianH]

To find the True Faith. That faith have to be united just as Jesus prayed His believers to be. Where is the unity in Protestantism? There isn’t none.

The Catholic Church for 2,000 yrs have attest to this. For Her founder is Jesus Christ. The doctrines of the Catholic Church and defined. Even if there are Catholics who dissent on her teachings, they have no authority to bind and loose. The Magisterium have the authority to bind and loose which Jesus gave to his Bride. We do not see that in Protestantism.

The most recent one is the Anglican Community. The Archbishop of Canterbury couldn’t even declare his authority as binding as the Pope. The compromise they set. Dissatistify conservation Anglicans who are oppose to gay ordinations, and blessings.

Some of these conservatives, are so upset. That they break and some even went to go as far as to reunite with Rome.

I will tell you Manny based upon what I have read about today when the topic of liturgical abuse came up earlier in the day, and this is not a topic I had read a lot about, I think you guys should spend a little more time “binding” up the liberals in your own church
Thanks to OUR growth in Africa, I think we (United Methodists) will stay fairly orthodox and not fall off the deep end like some of our brethren…unfortunate as it is.

 

[dosdog]

You know what I noticed. We hear a lot of Protestants converting to Catholicism. But having entire Churches from a different tradition reunitying with Rome is truly the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Churches back plan to unite under Pope
The proposals have been agreed by senior bishops of both churches.

In a 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are urged to explore how they might reunite under the Pope.
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1403702.ece

Church of Ireland to unite with Rome under the Pope
This is a statement issued by the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster coinciding with the visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Northern Ireland in March, 2000
ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=irelandunite

 

[Mannyfit75]

I will tell you Manny based upon what I have read about today when the topic of liturgical abuse came up earlier in the day, and this is not a topic I had read a lot about, I think you guys should spend a little more time “binding” up the liberals in your own church

I did mention dissenters which you coined as “liberals.” Believe me there are dissenters in the extreme conservative and extreme liberals. They object to the authority of the Magisterium of the Church. These liberals or dissenters have no binding authority to declare moral and faith issue, nor do they have authority to give law in the Church.

It is the bishops, and the Pope who can do this. The Church does not run like a democracy. It’s laws are not set by democratic votes by the people.

 

[BrianH]

I did mention dissenters which you coined as “liberals.” Believe me there are dissenters in the extreme conservative and extreme liberals. They object to the authority of the Magisterium of the Church. These liberals or dissenters have no binding authority to declare moral and faith issue, nor do they have authority to give law in the Church.

It is the bishops, and the Pope who can do this. The Church does not run like a democracy. It’s laws are not set by democratic votes by the people.

Yes, I heard that line earlier. The Catholic Church has the authority of the Magisterium but a fat lot of good it seems to do. If people can do what they want, and they do it appears to me, its not a democracy, its a libertarian free for all. What good are laws without enforcement? Bind and loose what? What can the Catholic Church bind? Their seat in heaven? Are they going to have to spend extra time in purgatory as punishment for their liturgical abuses? Do the people who speak in tongues commit a mortal sin by doing so? If not, then what real authority does the church have? Im not trying to demean the process but it strikes me as the old saying:
STOP DOING THAT or…I will tell you to stop again!

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes, I heard that line earlier. The Catholic Church has the authority of the Magisterium but a fat lot of good it seems to do. If people can do what they want, and they do it appears to me, its not a democracy, its a libertarian free for all. What good are laws without enforcement? Bind and loose what? What can the Catholic Church bind? Their seat in heaven? Are they going to have to spend extra time in purgatory as punishment for their liturgical abuses? Do the people who speak in tongues commit a mortal sin by doing so? If not, then what real authority does the church have? Im not trying to demean the process but it strikes me as the old saying:
STOP DOING THAT or…I will tell you to stop again!

Speaking in tongues is not a mortal sin. The Church doesn’t teaches that. I don’t know where you get that idea. Speaking in tongues is fruitful because it strengthen your faith.

I won’t stop it until you have some understanding of what we Catholic believe. Which I think you don’t.

 

[Mannyfit75]

To answer the Question of the thread. What Church is the most Biblical?

The Catholic Church. It has complete fullness of truth. It is united in faith and its not fracture like you see in Protestantism.

 

[BrianH]

Speaking in tongues is not a mortal sin. The Church doesn’t teaches that. I don’t know where you get that idea. Speaking in tongues is fruitful because it strengthen your faith.

I won’t stop it until you have some understanding of what we Catholic believe. Which I think you don’t.

Yes but you have another Catholic poster saying it is a form of liturgical abuse.
You also do not understand my analogy, so I will explain it again. The Catholic church, not Mannyfit75, reminds me of the old saying:
Stop that…or I will tell you to stop again.
In other words, to overexplain again, the Catholic church has no real teeth behind its Magisterium to stop liturgical abuses or liberals. They talk about the powerful Magisterium but the powerful Magisterium could not stop Chritianity from splintering. The Magisterium were the ones around when the splintering started. The Magisterium from my perspective IF it is binding, has no real effect. The only real power it has in binding is to say something is a mortal sin. Outside of something being a mortal sin, which apparently all of these liturgical abuses and liberalism are not, what real “umph” does it have.
I mean it SOUNDS good but it seems to have no real practical effect on the day to day Catholic church in A LOT of cases.
When it comes down to keeping people in line…it is not working.

 

[pyropam]

Yes but you have another Catholic poster saying it is a form of liturgical abuse.
You also do not understand my analogy, so I will explain it again. The Catholic church, not Mannyfit75, reminds me of the old saying:
Stop that…or I will tell you to stop again.
In other words, to overexplain again, the Catholic church has no real teeth behind its Magisterium to stop liturgical abuses or liberals. They talk about the powerful Magisterium but the powerful Magisterium could not stop Chritianity from splintering. The Magisterium were the ones around when the splintering started. The Magisterium from my perspective IF it is binding, has no real effect. The only real power it has in binding is to say something is a mortal sin. Outside of something being a mortal sin, which apparently all of these liturgical abuses and liberalism are not, what real “umph” does it have.
I mean it SOUNDS good but it seems to have no real practical effect on the day to day Catholic church in A LOT of cases.
When it comes down to keeping people in line…it is not working.

Many Catholics speak in tongues.

The last sentence of you post is really sad**…“When it comes down to keeping people in line… it is not working”. **
The Catholic Church doesn’t work that way, and unfortunately, other denominations do. A church is not meant to “Keep people in line”. The Church is hear to help people know God, Follow God, and strive to sin no more. To follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, a person becomes closer to God! With Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium, this is the one True Church. Jesus apointed and anointed it from the start.

If you want to know more about the Catholic faith, join up in some RCIA classes at a local parish. Otherwise, please don’t assume you know the faith.

 

[jmcrae]

People were splitting a LONG time before any group that can accurately be described as Protestant came around. But its much easier to make Protestants the boogeyman in this debate.

The only split I know of prior to the Reformation period that still exists today is the Eastern Orthodox schism in 1059 AD.

Individuals were falling into heresy (Wyclif, Hus, etc.), but they normally didn’t take large groups of people with them, and their movements died out with them - there are no modern-day Hussians, or Wycliffians (thank God).

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, I heard that line earlier. The Catholic Church has the authority of the Magisterium but a fat lot of good it seems to do. If people can do what they want, and they do it appears to me, its not a democracy, its a libertarian free for all. What good are laws without enforcement? Bind and loose what? What can the Catholic Church bind? Their seat in heaven? Are they going to have to spend extra time in purgatory as punishment for their liturgical abuses?

Liturgical abuse is a serious sin.

Do the people who speak in tongues commit a mortal sin by doing so?

At Mass, or at other times? It’s okay for people to speak in tongues outside of Mass. But they should not replace the responses of the Mass with glossalalia - this is inappropriate.

If not, then what real authority does the church have? I’m not trying to demean the process but it strikes me as the old saying:
STOP DOING THAT or…I will tell you to stop again!

The Catholic Church proposes - it does not impose. We don’t clap people in irons and haul them away when they sin, nowadays. (Maybe we should - there are some who pine for the days of the Spanish Inquisition - but we don’t.) We try to take a more pastoral approach - teaching and proposing, instead of forcing.

Those who go to Hell in the end will know already that they were disobedient to the teaching of the Church - it will not come as any surprise to them. This behaviour of theirs is not something that is under our control, though - we don’t pretend to be able to “puppeteer” people’s behaviour, and we know (and I think we really always did know) that coercion doesn’t really work - all it gets us is people who are sullenly and outwardly obedient, but inwardly rebellious - which does not save their souls.

We just tell them what is right, and either they do it, or they do not do it. Just because there are no earthly consequences doesn’t mean that God is asleep, or isn’t noticing them, though. As the old Negro folk song says, “Dey’s a Judgement Day a’comin’.”

 

[dosdog]

The only split I know of prior to the Reformation period that still exists today is the Eastern Orthodox schism in 1059 AD.

Individuals were falling into heresy (Wyclif, Hus, etc.), but they normally didn’t take large groups of people with them, and their movements died out with them - there are no modern-day Hussians, or Wycliffians (thank God).

It is important to note that Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria was never labeled as heretic by the council’s canons. The precise differences in theology that caused the split are still disputed, and highly technical.

The Church belongs to the Oriental Orthodox family of churches, and has been a distinct church body since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD,

the Coptic Orthodox Church is the Church of Alexandria that was established by Saint Mark, the apostle and evangelist, in the middle of the 1st century (approximately 42 AD). The head of the church, and the See of Alexandria, is the Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy See of Saint Mark, currently His Holiness Pope Shenouda III. More than 95% of Egypt’s Christians belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, though other churches also claim Patriarchates and Patriarchs of Alexandria, among them:
The Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria,
The Coptic Catholic Church of Alexandria,
The Greek Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Church

The Sacrament of Baptism has the first rank among the Seven Holy Sacraments, as it is the door by which the believer enters the church and has the right to partake in the rest of the Sacraments.

Baptism is a redemptive Sacrament, necessary for redemption and entry to eternal life according to what the Lord said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3). It is one of the four redemptive Sacraments: Baptism, Myron, Confession and Communion of the Holy Body and precious Blood of the Lord.

but if the new-born is sick and his parents are afraid the baby will die, they must request the priest to baptize and anoint the baby with the Myron, even if the child is one day old, and under any circumstance (as the priest may not be fasting or unable to baptize him by immersion); the baptism must be carried out quickly, so that the child does not die without Baptism and is deprived from entry or sight of the Kingdom, according to the words of our beloved Savior (John 3). The method to be followed is that someone, except the mother, should take the child to the church to be baptized. If the baby lives, the Baptism is correct and should not be repeated.

If his parents neglect the Baptism, and the child dies without Baptism, it is the right of the church to impose a punishment on the parents for a period of one year, of prayers and fasting with prostration. They may also be forbidden to receive the Holy Eucharist during this whole year. copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/1_baptism.htm

 

[BrewMax]

Christine,

It is very clear to me the introduction of Protestantism in the 16th Century is completely an erroneous doctrine. It teaches new doctrine no different than Mormonism.

New concept of Protestantism:

1. Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
2. Sola Fide: The doctrine of sola fide or “faith alone” asserts that it solely is on the basis of God’s grace through the believer’s faith alone that believers are forgiven their transgressions of the Law of God.

None of these two doctrines were ever taught in the Bible itself nor did our Early Church Fathers taught it. These beliefs are completely man-made created by the Fathers of the Reformers.

In the course of time, we see Protestantism itself splinter into hundreds, and then into thousands.

From its Sola Scriptura Doctrine, it produce new faiths like Mormonism and the concept of Rapture Theory. Though Mormonism themselves would not be consider Protestants or Christian. Joseph Smith, however was Protestant.

None of these are doctrines are taught by the Apostles, or Jesus. Like Paul said. “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So, therefore, my brethrens, don’t carry any strange doctrine.”

The fractured sects of Protestants is 33,000 and growing. They just splinter into more sects base on personal private interpretation. Protestants in a way have made themselves the Magisterium and Popes. It’s also very individualistic religion.

It’s always, its me, Jesus, and Bible. I once heard a Protestant say. “I don’t need the Church. I don’t have to go to Sunday service. I have Jesus in me and I read the Bible. Why bother?” So by his self-interpretation, he can excuse himself by not going to Sunday service. Oh the errors of Protestantism.

Even you are smarter than this. You know very well that you are stereotyping all of Protestantism and you don’t care that you are… It’s just a constant rant against anyone who isn’t Catholic. Just how do the Scriptures give you that authority or do you even bother needing the Sciptures to give you that authority?

 

[BrewMax]

Liturgical abuse is a serious sin.

At Mass, or at other times? It’s okay for people to speak in tongues outside of Mass. But they should not replace the responses of the Mass with glossalalia - this is inappropriate.

The Catholic Church proposes - it does not impose. We don’t clap people in irons and haul them away when they sin, nowadays. (Maybe we should - there are some who pine for the days of the Spanish Inquisition - but we don’t.) We try to take a more pastoral approach - teaching and proposing, instead of forcing.

Those who go to Hell in the end will know already that they were disobedient to the teaching of the Church - it will not come as any surprise to them. This behaviour of theirs is not something that is under our control, though - we don’t pretend to be able to “puppeteer” people’s behaviour, and we know (and I think we really always did know) that coercion doesn’t really work - all it gets us is people who are sullenly and outwardly obedient, but inwardly rebellious - which does not save their souls.

We just tell them what is right, and either they do it, or they do not do it. Just because there are no earthly consequences doesn’t mean that God is asleep, or isn’t noticing them, though. As the old Negro folk song says, “Dey’s a Judgement Day a’comin’.”

So you don’t just propagate things that are untrue but you also now are condemning people to hell as well. This just shows that through all of your Catholic propaganda, you have all but completely disregarded Scripture. I am not surprised.

 

[Stephen_C]

So you don’t just propagate things that are untrue but you also now are condemning people to hell as well. This just shows that through all of your Catholic propaganda, you have all but completely disregarded Scripture. I am not surprised.

Where in her post did she comdemn anyone to hell??? She said those who go to hell… Just show that through all your Protestant propaganda You just keep taking things out on context…saying things we said that where not said/meant/inferred/etc… (twisting)…Just as you do with our Bible. I am not surprised.

 

[qui_est_ce]

People were splitting a LONG time before any group that can accurately be described as Protestant came around. But its much easier to make Protestants the boogeyman in this debate.

Yes, they were called heretics. Some claimed Jesus was not God, some claimed Jesus was not man…Read the Early Church history. Had it not been for the Authority of Rome, we would not have Christianity as we have it today.

Long story short:
The early church was One. All believed the same. It was not until a heresy occured that doctrine had to be established.

 

[qui_est_ce]

So you don’t just propagate things that are untrue but you also now are condemning people to hell as well. This just shows that through all of your Catholic propaganda, you have all but completely disregarded Scripture. I am not surprised.

Brew,

It has been explained to you personally here and in other threads the historocity of the origins of the New Testament. There was no NT as we know it today until approx. 393 AD. You want to ignore this and continue rants.

Please stick to the topic if you are going to come here, or start a new thread “Rant against Catholic Propoganda.”

Let’s try not to fall for the Protestant attempts to derail subjects with which they are uncomfortable. This is a good thread, and I would like to continue in it and not have it shut down because it wandered off topic.

Thank you.

 

[AgnosTheist]

The fractured sects of Protestants is 33,000 and growing.

but such divisions are mainly just a matter of administration, rather than doctrine.

catholics - protestants, you are all brothers with each other. your core beliefs are the same. excepting the JWs.