What Iam in your eyes?

[RebeccaJ]

Well, I will find a quote from Pope Benedict XVI, but paraphrasing, he said that the Church has nothing to say to anyone, until they understand the love of God that has been poured out for them. He didn’t say, first order of importance is to understand the authority of the Holy Roman Church and the Holy Father!

For myself, my conclusion was based on history, combined with a new realization that Jesus loved the world enough to establish a Church, whose sole mission, the only reason it exists, is to bring people to Himself. The authority given to the Church is for this purpose. Obviously, history shows us that this authority can and has been abused, so we are within safe boundaries to be skeptical. While simultaneously, we are safe in accepting obedience to what Christ has established.

Prudence is a virtue.

 

[RebeccaJ]

For some you loves history yes both churches have free differences.

The mostly slipt do yo serveral reasons

Like the muslim conquest isolating both churches
Political motivation etc
But the main reason was the authority of the papacy while the Eastern orthodox chruch view him as first among equals
The pope fashined himself as king over thr chruch with high authority to over ride say and do things with out consolting the bishops or the church.

I found, in my reading and understanding of the papal authority dispute, is that both sides had ego in play. The EO are not right just because they say they are.

 

[historyfan81]

Both sides committed errors in that regard
Even though in some cases the orthodox where rigth like the filioque
Or the events of Benedict the IX

Like inthe words of blue

Prestige and dignity of the Catholic cruch of that time. -7

Meme capacity of the Catholic Church maximal
The saddest part is that he is not wrong

 

[RebeccaJ]

Both sides committed errors in that regard
Even though in some cases the orthodox where rigth like the filioque
Or the events of Benedict the IX

I like the JPII quote, that is often often cited, where he said the RCC and EO are the two lungs of the Church. I don’t see a reason to view differently.

Again, compared to my personal history, where the Trinity is denied, the difference is minor. I find the EO/RCC doctrinal disputes to be straining at gnats. Just my opinion of course. Obviously history takes them very seriously.

You probably should engage someone who feels strongly about these topics, one way or the other. :hugs:

Bad popes. Why be shocked?

Someone once told me the path the Church takes is to Christ. Sometimes it winds around, not going very straight, but it is still the same path, to Christ. As individual we do the same thing. Our straight path to Christ, sometimes takes some sharp curves.

Do we believe God abandons us? I don’t. Not even in my atheism, was I abandoned. I can’t personally judge any other Catholic.

 

[historyfan81]

I think that God knows best faith is good
I mean I never seen Jesus but I believe he is real .

But I dislike blind Faith its almost synonymous in many instances to the raod of hell is paved with good intentions
Because not always but blind Faith leads to extreme views
Either way thank you and I will read what you recommend .

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, I don’t recommend blind faith. You can work it out.

My faith is in Jesus Christ, and my faith itself, is a miracle. (No hyperbole.) Read St. Paul’s letter to the Romans.

 

[De_Maria]

Many things have authority

But you admitted that Scripture says that the Church is a higher authority.

I mean the church is called the supportet of truth according to Paul and revelation.
It’s still a debate from me of that tradition has the same level of scripture.

Scripture says it does, 2 Thess 2:15

Since like I mentioned some traditions have evidence of not being true or not complete Truth.

Not true. We can go through any Traditions you like anytime you like. I’d also like to point out that you have already admitted that your original claim that Scripture was the highest authority, was wrong.

Speaking of that , that is a very good question by what standard we judge true tradition and the false tradition of men?

By the authority of the Church. See Matt 18:17

But I will read what you mentioned la Paz

Y con tu espiritu

 

[historyfan81]

Never did I deny the chrcuh has high authority i just said it’s not infalibale
One can have a high authority but commit errors
They are not mutually exclusive.

But words have different meanings and context is key
Fot example 2 the

The word “tradition” is “παράδοσιν.” It occurs 13 times in the Greek New Testament.

6 times (six occurrences), Jesus responds to the Pharisees by condemning them for their traditions (Matt 15:3,6; Mark 7:5,8,9,13) and thus negating the word of God. This is hugely important because Jesus is telling us that traditions are not to negate the word of God .

Which then again adds to a in my view circular reasoning

Since Catholics claim that tradition valiated scripture by the Canon
But there tradition are valiated by scripture

Who validated who ?

If they both so that is a very good example of circular reasoning.

And if that’s the case why is Jesus saying things like invalidating the word of God via traditions or violating then commandments via tradition .

Note how Jesusa says these traditions violate the word of god and its commandments.

So Jesus is at least implying that he is using these 2 as points of judging certain things in this case the traditions of the Jews .

Which some are found in the oral Torah example the washing

Now on the matter of the context

“Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.”

( Paul is speaking about the return of Christ. He continues and warns the Thessalonians not to be deceived because the return of Christ won’t happen until after the great apostasy

Paul had already instructed them about this in verse 5 .

He then speaks of the Man of Lawlessness in the verses 6 to 10 and the delusion

Then Paul says that God has chosen them for salvation (v. 13) and called them through the gospel

It is after this that Paul then tells the Thessalonians to stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught.

Question is what tradition have they been tough?
Well in that early time oral stories of the teachings of chirst and what the disciples where teaching.

So not only does the verse not imply tradion = scripture.
The context doesn’t even remotely add up

 

[De_Maria]

Never did I deny the chrcuh has high authority …

Did I say that you denied the church had high authority? Please provide the quote.

Until then, I can only assume that you’re responding to someone else.

 

[historyfan81]

Well you did always pointed out verses about church authorityg . The new later church infallibility

You even told me “You just argued against your position.” And “you are confusingly authority with error”

Even thought I thought I made it clear that church doesn’t have high authority but it is not infalible if I did not made that clear up until now sorry for the confusion

 

[YADA]

I am surprised by the fact you hold scripture as the primary and highest authority. The Hebrew texts predate the advent of our Lord Jesus and the Church but the New Testament does not. The Church - a group of believers complete with a hierarchy existed before the first of the New Testament writings by years. Also the complete scriptures took many many years to be written individually before they were ever compiled into “one” volume of work. And that collection of writings was discussed and debated and then settled upon - for a time. The Orthodox have a longer cannon than the Latin Church and of course the Protestants have a shorter one …

The scriptures [NT] themselves testify to an authoritative Church [which since church is a community of believers - then leadership within the Church community]. Jesus did not give the keys of authority to every believer - he gave the authority to forgive/retain sins to all the apostles but he gave a greater authority to Peter before that - to Peter he gave the keys not just to bind and loose sins but to open and or close the very gates of Heaven. He did this in the same way the Davidic Kingdom had a Prime Minister … that PM did not usurp the King’s authority but who exercises and operates that authority with, for and through the King. Jesus founded a Church not a Book. Jesus gave authority to members of that Church not a Book.

The Church according to Scripture is the foundation not itself. The Scriptures cannot interpret itself - it cannot have a higher primacia authority.

 

[mcq72]

. 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 chapter and verse that says authorities are not subject to the written word of God.

 

[historyfan81]

And I agree that the chruch has authority

No one here denies that, the only thing I said it’s that the Catholic Church is not infalibale
And some of its tradition are dubious or have strong evidence about them not being added later .

“Peter and the apostoles forgiving sins”

I don’t claim this is fact just doudt that there is no clear place where Jesus have the power of forgiveness of sins to the apoatoles .

I mean final forgiveness since forgiveness against transgression can be forgiven but I think we can both agree that ultimate forgivess

"Not only to open but to close the gates of hell "

This I don’t understand what your trying yo say

Since In my mind it sounds like your saying that the Pope’s have the power if they wanted to decide who goes to hell and heaven

But I don’t like assuming so please elaborate

Also I dont know what type of catholisim you follow but to claim the church is superior to scripture is an anti Catholic statement

( If this was not not your intented message then please refrase it even though you it very clearly implies that )

Even though catholisim states

Thay Scripture is always superior to the Magisterium. Dei Verbum declares, “This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it” , and the Catholic Catechism declares: “Yet, this Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant”
But yes the magisteruim can determine what is scripture.

ie at least to an outsider perspective this is
circular reasoning .

As for the church being the foundation

I have talked this before foundation in Greek Is not what you most like think
In English we understand it as

an underlying basis
But the Greek word for it means

To aid or support

And yes the church is the supporter of the aid of the truth .

No one is denying that

 

[Elias]

what am I in your eyes?

You are a Protestant in desperate need of the Gospel and historical truth to be saved in the Christian church.

 

[historyfan81]

Thanks , i do investigate a lot but I guess my skeptic nature more so in my agonistic years .

Also define" historical truth" If that means historical facts then like I said it’s unknow in some regards.

No church here historically can claim to be 100% right or that their beliefs and tradition are from god or originated early on in chirstianity.

You can believe that and it’s great that you do
But when Catholic claim

"The church has historical truth or it’s a historical fact that our tradition days back to the apotoles "

It’s not true at least historically there is no way to prove that .

my opinion don’t claim something as historical fact

Something that is not true or can’t be definined , proven or has little to no evidence since it cant be a a historical fact.

This is why I never denied most Catholic teachings a lack of evidence doesn’t automatically mean it’s false but it does cause doudt .

Either way thank you on your perspective