What evidence is there that The Catholic Church

[salival]

vern humphrey:

Therefore, if there is a true church, it must be the one Church which has maintained a constant and consitant message since the time of Christ.

Ok, but if you start by being wrong it doesn’t matters how long you have mantained the same belief. It is still wrong.

So, the meat of the matter is on determining if The Catholic Church is in fact correct in it’s interpretation of scripture. The fact that it has mantained the same interpretation and claims carries no weight until you stablish that the claims and interpretation of the Catholic Church are correct.

 

[Manphibian]

I don’t believe that it’s the one true church, though I’ve tried very hard to do so.

Salival, you’ll have to rephrase your other question, I’m not sure I undersatnd it.

vern humphrey:

Truth, of necessity, is unity. There cannot be two opposing doctrines which are both truth.

Sorry, vern, I think you’re wrong here. Christ says that he came to cause division between people. And that means that people will split over doctinal issues when one party is in error. The ancient church taught what was handed down from the apostles, both in scripture and otherwise, but when the church at rome decided to make itself the earthly authority many christians took exception, thus we have orthodoxy. When dogmas of Marian devotion, and similar non-biblical theology crept in, or as you’d say, became more formalized, more took exception, luther took exception tho some things, people took exception to luther, others took exception to those, etc, etc, etc. Does this make rome right? No, it makes them assertive, while the ancient church did fend off many heresies, that church and the roman catholic church of today are not the same thing. And it is very clear that many of the church fathers, there were many, many more than those oft quoted by catholic apolgists, did not all subscribe to the same dogmas, it’s history, my friend, like it or not. So while the church at rome claims many adherents, that doesn’t make her right, you know, the whole narrow is the path and few will enter thing.

Manphibian, citizen with the lesson plan.

 

[MonicaC]

salival:

Ok, but if you start by being wrong it doesn’t matters how long you have mantained the same belief. It is still wrong.

So, the meat of the matter is on determining if The Catholic Church is in fact correct in it’s interpretation of scripture. The fact that it has mantained the same interpretation and claims carries no weight until you stablish that the claims and interpretation of the Catholic Church are correct.

How can you prove that it has been wrong? Since there is no proof of the Bible being interputed wrong (since this was the only book being used for about 1600 years) that is my first clue.

 

[MonicaC]

Manphibian:

And it is very clear that many of the church fathers, there were many, many more than those oft quoted by catholic apolgists, did not all subscribe to the same dogmas, it’s history, my friend, like it or not

. So while the church at rome claims many adherents, that doesn’t make her right, you know, the whole narrow is the path and few will enter thing.

Manphibian, citizen with the lesson plan.

I really think that you really need to reread history. Luther and Calvin had no problem with the Marian devotion,in fact they were both very Marian.

I highlighed the part about the Church fathers who you are saying didn’t agree with the Church. I am going to have to ask you to point these out to us so that we can properly defend ourselves.

Monica

 

[Ghosty]

I just want to point out that Scholasticism is nothing more than a philosophical model based on Greek philosophers. There are scholastic Orthodox seminaries in Greece. The Orthodox complaint has not been about Scholasticism, but rather what they perceive as an over reliance on Scholasticism on the part of the medieval Catholic Church at the expense of a more mystical relationship with God.

The Orthodox do not reject scholasticism as such; scholasticism originated with the Greek Fathers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I said:

Truth, of necessity, is unity. There cannot be two opposing doctrines which are both truth.

You said:

Manphibian:

Sorry, vern, I think you’re wrong here. Christ says that he came to cause division between people. And that means that people will split over doctinal issues when one party is in error.

Read what you just wrote, “when one party is in error.” In writing that, you affirm the proposition that truth is unity – there cannot be two opposing doctrines which are both truth. As you said, “one party is in error.”

Manphibian:

The ancient church taught what was handed down from the apostles, both in scripture and otherwise, but when the church at rome decided to make itself the earthly authority many christians took exception, thus we have orthodoxy.

That’s historically inaccurate. “Rome” had been recognized as the earthly authority for nearly a thousand years when the Great Schism occurred. The Great Schism was due to personalities as much as anything else.

Manphibian:

When dogmas of Marian devotion, and similar non-biblical theology crept in, or as you’d say, became more formalized, more took exception, luther took exception tho some things, people took exception to luther, others took exception to those, etc, etc, etc.

Again, historically wrong. Marian devotion goes right back to the very early Church, and Luther did not take exception to it.

Manphibian:

Does this make rome right? No, it makes them assertive, while the ancient church did fend off many heresies, that church and the roman catholic church of today are not the same thing.

You need to read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and their successors – you’ll find they believed and taught exactly what the Catholic Church teaches today.

Manphibian:

And it is very clear that many of the church fathers, there were many, many more than those oft quoted by catholic apolgists, did not all subscribe to the same dogmas,

Find one. In ancient times, there were indeed disputes. But the early Church Fathers rarely dispute what forms the core of Catholic belief.

Manphibian:

it’s history, my friend, like it or not.

As we have shown, your “history” is bad history. You are in error about Marianism, about Luther, about the causes of the Great Schism, and many other matters.

Why not simply read reputable historians on the subject? If you think you have a case, give us some cites?

 

[vern_humphrey]

salival:

Ok, it may have come after it but The Catholic Church does relies a lot on Aquinas, a couple of Popes have encouraged and recommended it as the main philosophy of The Church. And this seems to bether the Orthodox and it also makes things a bit narrow. They also rely a lot in Augustine. Why are the other fathers given so little attention?

First of all, Aquinas was born after the Great Schism – he could hardly be a cause, then, could he?

Secondly, the Church pays great respect to a great many writers and theologians. Augustine and Aquinas are Doctors of the Church – but by no means the only ones. You may have the impression that the Church over-relies on them, but you are wrong.

Manphibian:

None of the apostles mentioned any of this nor is it found in any of the writtings up to the fourth century. So it is not really what has always been believed. Maybe her virginity, but not her assumption to heaven.

The known writings of the Apostles are all found in the New Testament. The Tradition of the Church includes that which was handed on by word of mouth as well as that which was written. The early Christians believed Mary was bodily assumed into heaven.

Manphibian:

I know, it says that the Pope when speaking ex-cathedra in matters of faith and morals if free from erring. But this statement is rare, how can the Pope declare an infallible statement declaring himself to be infallible when declaring infallible statements? This seems like circular and biased.

The statement is not based on reasoning but on historical facts. Peter assumed the mantle of infallibility.

Manphibian:

Why does it prefers not to declare a given belief dogma if what The Church delcares to be infallible is free from error?

You should read the history of the early Church. There were many heresies that came from people assuming they knew more than they did. The Church is eternal – it will last until the end of days. It has no need to be hasty.

Manphibian:

I have a hard time accepting that the Christians have always accepted the Pope to be infallible in matters of faith and morals. What evidence is there for this?

Have you ever eaten a ham sandwich? What does the Old Testament say about that? Who told you you could dispense with the Dietary Laws?

Manphibian:

Also note, that Peter, the first Pope, erred and was corrected by Paul.

Different kind of error – Peter was eating with Jews and not associating with Gentiles. No doctrinal issues involved.

Manphibian:

So, if there seems to arise some controversy over the Rosary then the Church could/would define that custom as de fide?

A “controversy” over the Rosary? I can’t imagine what it would be.

Manphibian:

And what is the difference? Jesus didn’t give any explanation about the Trinity or the relationship between the persons or the filogue. It came about much latter thru the use of greek philosophy and was much later deepened and developed by Augustine, Aquinas, etc.

Do you reject the Trinity?

 

[vern_humphrey]

salival:

Ok, but if you start by being wrong it doesn’t matters how long you have mantained the same belief. It is still wrong.

So, the meat of the matter is on determining if The Catholic Church is in fact correct in it’s interpretation of scripture. The fact that it has mantained the same interpretation and claims carries no weight until you stablish that the claims and interpretation of the Catholic Church are correct.

Since we started at the beginning, with the Apostles, if we are wrong, there is no Church!

 

[FCEGM]

Sure, let’s say that we got The Bible from The Catholic Church, but so what? Just because of this does not means that The Church cannot err or that it is infallible in it’s interpretation of it. It can wander into error very much like the pharisees in the day of Jesus.

If the Church can err in Faith and Morals, than why in the world would you even accept the Bible, particularly the New Testament, since it would then only be a collection of ancient writings that may or may not be divinely-inspired? If the Church is fallible how would it be determined just which scriptural “claimants” are to be recognized, and why should we accept that decision?

 

[AquinasXVI]

Salival:

By necessity and default, the author of a work is the true interpreter of it. There’s no two ways about it. What the author wrote and says he means by it is the absolute dogma and doctrine of the matter.

It would make no sense at all that if I write a book about triangles and claim it to be about triangles that someone else would come and say no this book is about squares and he would be more correct than me.

In a nutshell your argument boils down to that. The only contention left is: did the church canonize scripture. And the answer is yes.

in XT.

 

[angelmessenger]

Hi,

I think you have to remember that Christ promised to be with His Church—The pillar and foundaton of truth"— and to protect it from all error so that–“The gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against it” The members may err but the Holy Spirit protects His own truths!

Now which church are we talking about? Which has come down from the Apostles (lineage) Christ instituted only one Church?

God bless

Jan