Which church is God's true church? Is it the Roman Catholic Church?

[Mickey]

All you done is accused me of being faithless, paranoid, and other lovely characterizations.

Oh please—stop. This does not suit you. I never said you were faithless–you made that up. I suspect you are a bit paranoid, but that is only because your conscience is awakening. It is a good thing.

I’m not sure why disagreeing with certain Catholic theological positions would give rise to the charges you’ve made against my personal character

I have not indicted you. Chill out.

or how you could even stand in such judgment of someone you don’t know beyond a short discourse at arms length on the internet?

I do not judge you–the individual. Sadly you have been misled by the false doctrines of Jean Cauvin.

I guess you think somehow you’re the logical one here

I am not a big fan of logic. It is a human shortcoming.

At any rate unless you want to discuss something then perhaps you could find someone else to toss your insults at?

I have not insulted you. Your conscience has been pricked. I always attempt to make great effort to love my neighbors.

Indeed nothing you say will compel me to toss mud, just not my style.

Amen brother. And I would not expect such a thing–because nothing I have said should compel you towards such behavior.

Peace and blessings

 

[sola_scriptura]

Oh please—stop. This does not suit you. I never said you were faithless–you made that up. I suspect you are a bit paranoid, but that is only because your conscience is awakening. It is a good thing.

I have not indicted you. Chill out.
I do not judge you–the individual. Sadly you have been misled by the false doctrines of Jean Cauvin.

I am not a big fan of logic. It is a human shortcoming.

I have not insulted you. Your conscience has been pricked. I always attempt to make great effort to love my neighbors.
Amen brother. And I would not expect such a thing–because nothing I have said should compel you towards such behavior.

Peace and blessings

Here is one of things you said:

That is because you are a weak human being with weak human reasoning. Your ways are not God’s ways.

And here is the link to the post where you said it.

If that’s not a character assault then I don’t what is?

 

[Steven1620]

Here is one of things you said:

And here is the link to the post where you said it.

If that’s not a character assault then I don’t what is?

Why on earth would you be personally offended by this remark? Are you not a human with human weakness? Perhaps you should both ‘chill’.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Why on earth would you be personally offended by this remark? Are you not a human with human weakness? Perhaps you should both ‘chill’.

It’s okay I forgave you anyway

Whether you originally meant it in the way you now frame it or not!

If you meant to say I’m a mere human and therefore have weaknesses (unlike God) then I admit it, and apologies. It certainly wasn’t worded that way, but you’re right – at this point let’s move on.

BTW I don’t have soft skin, I don’t mind getting beat around a bit. However, if there’s not a rational basis for it obviously I’ll remark about it?

 

[Steven1620]

Alright, now that we’ve chilled…why is your moniker ‘sola scritptura’? (forgive me, I’m not a frequent forumer)(is ‘forumer’ a word?)…I’m sure you’ve heard all the arguments against ‘sola scriptura’ so what do you base your belief in this idea on? I’m curious to know, not to ‘beat you up’ over it, but just to get a handle on where you’re coming from…keep in mind, I’ve just entered this thread and have not read the whole thing word for word…Peace.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Alright, now that we’ve chilled…why is your moniker ‘sola scritptura’? (forgive me, I’m not a frequent forumer)(is ‘forumer’ a word?)…I’m sure you’ve heard all the arguments against ‘sola scriptura’ so what do you base your belief in this idea on? I’m curious to know, not to ‘beat you up’ over it, but just to get a handle on where you’re coming from…keep in mind, I’ve just entered this thread and have not read the whole thing word for word…Peace.

First there is scripture that lends some degree of support to the doctrine. We at least know that we may test tradition against scripture – and scripture should always win. That being said the doctrine does not mean we ignore history or tradition all together.

The divergence between Protestants and the RCC isn’t so much that the RCC does not rely on Scripture, of course they do. However, the split comes over interpretation of Scripture.

For example I will say there’s no purgatory and Mary was not born without sin; and here’s why those ideas tread against ideas presented in Scripture. The conflict is never over the type of well settled doctrine we find in the Apostles Creed; but rather the things that cannot be outright proven with direct language from Scripture.

For example, no where does it say there is a purgatory, but Scripture also does not say there is not one. We derive these ideas from exegesis (if it can even be called that sometimes).

You will say purgatory is not punishment.We will say Christ paid the price in full for our sins, there is no purification by fire – that is the same thing as punishment – why, because common sense tells be that my soul being burned is punitive.

So our exegesis of the central theme of the New Testament tells us the idea of purgatory is erroneous. We think that it was an invented doctrine used to raise money. You guys will quote a bunch of saints, maybe a couple Popes, and maybe even a church father and say this was tradition handed down from the Apostles. We will say no it was invented centuries after the Apostles were dead and buried.

And the circular debate goes on to no end. We think the debate is pointless because you guys filter everything through your church and cannot hold independent positions, while you wonder why us lost protestants just won’t get it?

It’s a sad state of affairs really – but I guess it could be worse. God could have had us born poor Pakistani villagers living under Taliban control, so I think we have much to be thankful for to spite our semantical bickering.

 

[guanophore]

Why don’t you believe that Peter was not a Roman Catholic?

Peter was not “Roman” because that specific Rite of the Catholic Church did not emerge for centuries. The Rites are distinguished by culture and language, which at the time of Peter, were continuous throughout the Empire.

 

[cazayoux]

For example I will say there’s no purgatory and Mary was not born without sin; and here’s why those ideas tread against ideas presented in Scripture. The conflict is never over the type of well settled doctrine we find in the Apostles Creed; but rather the things that cannot be outright proven with direct language from Scripture.

The trinity is not something that can be outright proven with direct language from Scripture, either.
It’s plain an obvious to us today because of the history of the church and councils.
However, the trinity was not obvious from scripture and was rejected by many in the church. Arianism was not a quick and passing heresy, either. The Arians were very adept at scripture and used it to ‘prove’ their position.

You define the doctrine of the trinity as ‘well settled’.
Why do you treat the doctrine of purgatory differently?

To note, fire isn’t always punitive.
Many times in the new testament fire is associated with God’s burning love.

Even if you reject Maccabees as scriptural, do you think it was an inaccurate representation of those Jews praying for their dead?
To say it was uninspired writing is one thing, but to say it is a lie or misrepresentation of Jewish culture is another.

Cheers!

michel

 

[sola_scriptura]

The trinity is not something that can be outright proven with direct language from Scripture, either.
It’s plain an obvious to us today because of the history of the church and councils.
However, the trinity was not obvious from scripture and was rejected by many in the church. Arianism was not a quick and passing heresy, either. The Arians were very adept at scripture and used it to ‘prove’ their position.

You define the doctrine of the trinity as ‘well settled’.
Why do you treat the doctrine of purgatory differently?

To note, fire isn’t always punitive.
Many times in the new testament fire is associated with God’s burning love.

Even if you reject Maccabees as scriptural, do you think it was an inaccurate representation of those Jews praying for their dead?
To say it was uninspired writing is one thing, but to say it is a lie or misrepresentation of Jewish culture is another.

Cheers!

michel

I agree the Trinity is not explicitly enumerated by scripture; but it’s more than sufficiently discussed. In other words all the components for the doctrine are contained in Scripture, and applying a term to the concept is a logical extension of those revelations. Whereas no such support exists for Mariology (particularly concepts like the immaculate conception). Consider the following:

*Eadmer (1066-1124), amonk at Christ Church, Canterbury. England was one of the first proponents of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He discussed it in his book “De Conceptione sanctae Mariae.”

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and St. Bonaventure (1221-1274) “… believed that Mary was completely free from sin, but that she was not given this grace at the instant of her conception.” Their beliefs were were supported by the Dominicans.*

religioustolerance.org/virgin_b3.htm

Here we have a doctrine that was always a source of contention in the church (this debate stretches back to Origen and Irenaeus).

So this doctrine is not analogous to the Trinity with regard to the support it enjoys in scripture – and further the humanity of Christ and the need for Him to be born of flesh, under the law, and so forth seems contrary to the idea that Jesus had a mother who never sinned.

So I think these disagreements are valid.

Blessings

 

[cazayoux]

I agree the Trinity is not explicitly enumerated by scripture; but it’s more than sufficiently discussed. In other words all the components for the doctrine are contained in Scripture, and applying a term to the concept is a logical extension of those revelations. Whereas no such support exists for Mariology (particularly concepts like the immaculate conception).

You switched from purgatory to mariology.

While purgatory is not *explicitly *enumerated by scripture, it is more than sufficiently discussed.
Is it that just because it is a ‘Catholic’ word, it means that the time, discussion, theology, and even scripture don’t support it.
Please tell me this is not the case.

michel

 

[cath2lic4ever]

switching from purgatory to mariology. that’s what i call doctrinal dance!

 

[distracted]

scriptures that refute sola scirpturea and/or sola fide:

St. Matthew 16:27

1 Cor. 1:17

2 Thessalonians 1:7: Jesus from Heaven with his mighty angels, in blazing fire, inflicting punisment on those who do not acknowledge God and **on those who do not obey the gospel **of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal ruin, separated from the presence of te Lord and from the glory of his power."

St. Matthew 19:16: “Teacher, what good must i do to gain eternal life?” Jesus told him, "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments… If you wish to be perfect “Be perfect as your father in Heaven is perfect”] go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven. then come, follow me." (Similar to St. Mark 10:17)

James 2:12

(etc)

 

[justasking4]

Peter was not “Roman” because that specific Rite of the Catholic Church did not emerge for centuries. The Rites are distinguished by culture and language, which at the time of Peter, were continuous throughout the Empire.

What was the first “rite”?

 

[catholiconce]

I’m catholic too (universal). When you put the word Roman in front of catholic, things change radically.

The picture of Noah and entering the ark is a picture of being in Christ. It is not a picture of entering the Roman Catholic Church.

Well Put fellow Catholic(universal) Roman Catholics call themselves Roman catholics but If somebody else uses the word Roman look out.

 

[catholiconce]

What was the first “rite”?

The catholic Church was a universal christian church.People followed Jesus and became Christians not Catholics The word Catholic means universal.

 

[distracted]

The catholic Church was a universal christian church.People followed Jesus and became Christians not Catholics The word Catholic means universal.

the 1st documentation (written) that we have of the word Catholic being used was by St. Ignatious in the year 107… when only the Catholic Church existed…

 

[distracted]

i believe the absolute FIrst Church is the great outdoors… preferably with no humaoids around…

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by catholiconce
The catholic Church was a universal christian church.People followed Jesus and became Christians not Catholics The word Catholic means universal.

distracted
the 1st documentation (written) that we have of the word Catholic being used was by St. Ignatious in the year 107… when only the Catholic Church existed…

Does this mean the church at this time was not Roman Catholic and did not have a pope as its leader?

 

[Steven1620]

First there is scripture that lends some degree of support to the doctrine. We at least know that we may test tradition against scripture – and scripture should always win.

Ok wow! Now where did that enter the discussion?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Ok wow! Now where did that enter the discussion?

So you weren’t really asking me what Sola Scriptura means – you wanted to bait into a clash over this protestant doctrine?

Ummm … nahhh – it’s too late at night & frankly I’ve been down this road. It’s dark, windy, and the road is slippery.