What Iam in your eyes?

[Nicene]

Again interesting, so your position appears to be in your response that God wants confusion. To compare Orthodox to Protestants is disingenuous. I hope you see that. However to be honest, the reformers were just more heretics. Nothing the church hasn’t seen either in the bible or succeeding centuries, Jesus warned that it would happen, so died the apostles. He also warned there would be scandals in the church. Amazing how he has been right so far.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[mcq72]

Again interesting, so your position appears to be in your response that God wants confusion.

On the contrary. He shed His blood to have us be set free in Truth.

To compare Orthodox to Protestants is disingenuous. I hope you see that.

I hope you see that the O’s and P’s really have one central difference with CC, and that is office of pope as man made, even CC made. Also that is the crowning argument for unity by the CC, and justification for said office, the " fix" against division. So it is fair game for comparison of each others " problems" relative to our church governance positions.

However to be honest, the reformers were just more heretics.

Well, it is to be seen for sure, but that is pretty much how Jesus and apostles were treated. As heretics, even new comers, against the old established succession/ lineage and tradition to Abraham and Moses.

 

[mcq72]

The creeds, themselves, produced by the same Church are attempts to corral and summarize the basics of those beliefs in concise form.

Yes. So it was in the beginning, even middle, but not the end of church history unfortunately.

And for its part the RCC considers the EO to be Church in the full sense and for its beliefs to be consistent with her own while yet in schism. Protestants, OTOH, are considered to possess truth more or less fully, and associated with the Church imperfectly.

Well I am learning in another thread that we are not a " church" but only " ecclesial (church) community". One must maintain an elevated position, unfortunately in error.

 

[Nicene]

On the contrary. He shed His blood to have us be set free in Truth.

And yet you asked:

Is that the wisely instituted fix for an otherwise sinful nature in these areas, of coralling divine revelation in one tidy package?

I hope you see that the O’s and P’s really have one central difference with CC, and that is office of pope as man made, even CC made. Also that is the crowning argument for unity by the CC, and justification for said office, the " fix" against division. So it is fair game for comparison of each others " problems" relative to our church governance positions.

Actually quite different, their dispute is “first among equals” , and according to you it is made up. Again disingenuous.

Well, it is to be seen for sure, but that is pretty much how Jesus and apostles were treated. As heretics, even new comers, against the old established succession/ lineage and tradition to Abraham and Moses.

Interesting that you compare yourself with Jesus as a heretic. So Jesus didn’t come to fulfil but to dismantle. Is that how you actually read sacred scripture? Not to mention how you think of yourself?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[mcq72]

Actually quite different, their dispute is “first among equals” , and according to you it is made up. Again disingenuous.

No, I agree with first amongst equals for Peter, even a patriarchal system being historical, even Rome patriarch having an honorable distinction, …but I was of understanding that O’s, along with P’s, see anything beyond that, which office has become, is man made, not “God breathed” tradition,or strictly a Catholic understanding.

 

[mcq72]

Interesting that you compare yourself with Jesus as a heretic. So Jesus didn’t come to fulfil but to dismantle. Is that how you actually read sacred scripture? Not to mention how you think of yourself?

Well, you said reformers were heretics, to which I then compared unbelieving Israel view of Jesus during His ministry, and apostles thereafter as such.

What, you believe the Jewish leadership killed Him because He fulfilled the Law, and did not dismantle their incorrect paradigm, in blasphemous, even heretical fashion?
Of course not, like myself.

Otherwise did not know I was seen as a heretic or reformer by your mistaken inference, as Jesus and His disciples were by His enemies.

 

[fhansen]

Yes. So it was in the beginning, even middle, but not the end of church history unfortunately.

Didn’t know church history ended. Care to elaborate on what happened at the end? Did God fail to keep His church together somehow-such that there no longer exists a central entity capable of creating creeds, canonizing Scripture, calling councils to resolve controversies, etc?

One must maintain an elevated position, unfortunately in error.

Like I said, there can only be one Church, necessarily error-free BTW. But maybe you could spell out some of her errors?

 

[mcq72]

Didn’t know church history ended.

Sorry…i did not mean end, but up to now, like beginning, middle, and now the present.

Actually does “history” end at the split second edge of now?

 

[mcq72]

Like I said, there can only be one Church, necessarily error-free BTW. But maybe you could spell out some of her errors?

What would be the point of doing so?

 

[mcq72]

Did God fail to keep His church together somehow-such that there no longer exists a central entity capable of creating creeds, canonizing Scripture, calling councils to resolve controversies, etc?

Is there more canonizing of Scripture needed, more creeds to be had ? Bishops or churches cant call a council? Why an emperor of the world called the second council.

Does God really have to fail for an understanding of church to be wrong?

 

[fhansen]

Actually does “history” end at the split second edge of now?

No, I was mainly asking the question, ‘how did RCC history end up?’ How/why/when did the church slip into error?

What would be the point of doing so?

To prove your point-that there’s no need for a visible Church having the purpose, for one thing, of maintaining a unity of faith.

 

[Willing_Spirit]

You sound like me in my late high school years. I never considered myself ex-Catholic, but I did face a lot of doubts and began exploring protestant denominations of Christianity. I think by definition, if you protest the authority of the Church, then you are a Protestant even if you do not claim a denomination.

I would suggest asking more questions about the reasoning behind Church teachings and where it is based in scripture. Jesus established the Church, made Peter his rock, to interpret scripture for us. If we all interpret it for ourselves we are not united.

 

[fhansen]

Does God really have to fail for an understanding of church to be wrong?

Not so long as we can point to an obvious and logical source somewhere, possessing a unity of faith. And why would the need for correction and resolution of controversies end, where humans are involved? The truth is that some kind of authority and unity must exist in order to call an ecumenical council, an authority Rome has in regard to eastern and western Catholic churches in various countries throughout the world, and actually beyond those churches/boundaries in terms of authority at least, whereas eastern Churches have historically been isolated in and limited in authority to their national boundaries.

Two things that such an “obvious and logical source” would possess; 1) a direct historical lineage traceable to the beginnings of Christianity, and 2) the certitude and confidence necessary to recognize and proclaim itself to be that source or authority. Either way, that entity has been and remains essential to the Christian faith.

 

[adf417]

Does God really have to fail for an understanding of church to be wrong?

I would say not and that it would be much more likely that humans are more likely to develop their own misunderstanding of church. But thats just me.

Peace!!!

 

[mcq72]

fhansen:

Two things that such an “obvious and logical source” would possess; 1) a direct historical lineage traceable to the beginnings of Christianity, and 2) the certitude and confidence necessary to recognize and proclaim itself to be that source or authority.

Either way, that entity has been and remains essential to the Christian faith

Thank you. Understand…essential to, even justifying, the Roman Catholic Christian faith.

 

[fhansen]

Thank you. Understand…essential to, even justifying, the Roman Catholic Christian faith.

The Church was established by God, and is essential for that reason alone, wherever one may find it and however one wants to define and describe it. Either way, simply proclaiming oneself to actually be that Church in no way invalidates that claim-it may or may not be true. Our job is simply to be open to and find the truth for ourselves.

 

[De_Maria]

…The Bible is the word of God and has the highest authority , but The writings of the apostlic age father’s are important help but not to the same level as the Bible…

Scripture says that you should obey the rulers in the Church:

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

And that Church Tradition is the Word of God:

Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

And that the Church is the highest authority:

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Your belief makes you the highest authority of your “faith” for lack of a better name. But, even if you really believe that Scripture is the highest authority, where do you get that belief? Scripture doesn’t say that. The Protestants teach that. But if you claim that Scripture says that, please provide the chapter and verse.

 

[RebeccaJ]

i think i cleared it up in my comment i was not refering to that transmition of grace

Sorry, for me no. You’re hard for me to follow.

Essentially, I read that you see no continuity, based on Protestant talking points, while claiming to have come to novel, non-Protestant conclusions.

To answer your question, what am I…just some guy or gal, who is firing up their own church.

 

[historyfan81]

Now I personally dont consider myself
Any authority on ecclisiatical matters

IAM.not against bishops or anything htyw are necessary.( The only thing IAM against is papal surprmacy i mean a practical context but it’s not an early doctrine it’s most likely a later addition)

Not all tradition is wrong and we see the biblial Canon being fairly early on and later becoming what is and there are enough sources to support it .

but traidtion is not infalibale I always say if evedince does not support something doudt it .

If evidence is few and contradict . Then most likely it’s false.

Until new evidence comes to support the original claim

For some one ( not me but I know of some ) that can open Pandora’s box if one chruch tradition was added later /wrong/ or not like they told us .

How much more are like that ? Maybe all of them ?
And to a person who thinks that and you tell him just obey the church is to his eyes saying shut up and don’t question it .

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

For some one ( not me but I know of some ) that can open Pandora’s box if one chruch tradition was added later /wrong/ or not like they told us .

Yes, and that is why Church needs to be infallible, otherwise there is no valid way to distinguish EVEN Scripture from False Books. If Church is wrong about one thing, how can we be sure it was right about anything?