J
joe370
Guest
Sometimes I think you are just as catholic as I am, at least in your thinking…
We almost agree on everything, regarding the CC. 
- Status
We almost agree on everything, regarding the CC. I think that ought to be the case.Sometimes I think you are just as catholic as I am, at least in your thinking…
eek: Blasphemy!! )Jon
N
Nicea325
Guest
Of course! Evidently you nothing legit to spport your distorted view that Purgatory was invented.
As for this:
Old news as usual. Taken out-of-context.
I
Izdaari
Guest
Not just all churches, but all believers.
I don’t trust them because of their authority. I trust them because, looking at their conclusions, they seem to have been correct.
Any one church? No, not one more than the rest. The church as a whole, yes. Individual believers, sometimes.No one is denying that the Holy Spirit may be found anywhere Christians are found. The only point, which seems rather plausible, is the fact that the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth, would never guide one body of believers to believe one thing and another body of believers to believe the exact opposite e.g. either the Eucharist is what the catholic church says it is, as per the ineffable guidance of the Holy spirit or the Eucharist is what the Baptist church says it is, via the ineffable guidance of the Holy spirit. The only other viable option to entertain is the idea that the Holy spirit no longer ineffably guides any one church anymore.
Btw, I’m not Baptist. That was just a hypothetical. I’m Episcopalian, and I think the Eucharist is what most Anglicans and Lutherans say it is. I.e., pretty much the same as what the Catholic Church says it is, with Real Presence, but substituting ineffable holy mystery for transubstantiation.
J
joe370
Guest
I think that ought to be the case.
Jon
J
joe370
Guest
I was given God-given authority to teach doctrinal truth in the name of Jesus? Must have missed that memo…
Well, that would make you the final authority regarding those doctrinal truths - right?
Everyone is guided by the holy spirit to teach doctrinal truth?
I wasn’t suggesting that you were Baptist; just illustrating…Many, such as my sister, claim that you are wrong regarding the real presence. To whom can we go to settle the matter? Scripture is of no help simply because you and my sister both defer to scripture and come away from scripture with polar opposite conclusions.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Going beyond Scripture? Where is the canon of scripture mentioned in the Bible? Where does the Bible mention translating in different languages or versions? Is that an issue of authority to you as well?
And does any military require a life-long marriage? Obviously you have never taken the time to learn WHY the church enforced a discipline.
You are missing the point. It is a case of discipline,plain and simple. The military instills discipline. Some can handle it or others not, precisely why they are weeded-out at boot camp, I speak from experience. And no different than many men and women who do not have the military bearing or integrity to adhere to military life-and? And if one is called to celibacy (religious),why should that elminiate him from eligibility to be a priest? Why should marriage be necessary or mandatory?
Which still begs the question: Where does the Bible explicitly state or teach it is the FINAL authority? Jesus’ founded His church without authority,but yet, left us a nicely compiled book to be the final authority? Where is that in the Bible?
I am very aware of church history and its early dynamics,however, you also seem to forget despite the diverse dynamics Jesus still founded an orthodox church.
And yet there has always been ONE church founded by Jesus teaching and defending the Truth. Does not matter what diversions or disagreements existed, His church was still there.
Indeed, but as stated, does not matter, Christ still founded His Church and divisions in no shape negate the facts.
Well hopefully we will get to see such a day.
There is a massive difference teaching the fullness of Truth and making a blank statement the CC is demanding it of others. As I said, where is the official CC document demanding it from others?
Sorry,but that is called infallibility. Infallibility is limited to Scripture authors only? Really? So you know without a doubt God is not capable of inspiring others through the Holy Spirit to teach and defend morals and faith? Then by your standards all the official Christian doctrines such as the Trinity,Incarnation, ,etc are FALLIBLE doctrines?
J
joe370
Guest
j
“Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist.”
Only the universal Bishop of Jesus’ church could excommunicate John the Faster (Patriarch of Constantinople). Surely he could not have had such universal jurisdiction had he not believed that he possessed the authority?
In many of his letters he insists that the bishop of Rome holds the place of Peter and that he is the head of the “Faith,” and “of all the Churches.” He declared that all the bishops are subject to the Apostolic See. Context is so important…
You accept the authority of the church, just not the catholic church - right?
Was he really denying his own universal jurisdiction? OK, then what gave him the right to make such a universal statement regarding John the Faster (Patriarch of Constantinople), the very reason why he made the following statement:
“Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist.”
Only the universal Bishop of Jesus’ church could excommunicate John the Faster (Patriarch of Constantinople). Surely he could not have had such universal jurisdiction had he not believed that he possessed the authority?
In many of his letters he insists that the bishop of Rome holds the place of Peter and that he is the head of the “Faith,” and “of all the Churches.” He declared that all the bishops are subject to the Apostolic See. Context is so important…
N
Nicea325
Guest
Indeed. Something a college feshman taking history would know. Its implications are so important when quoting statements.jYou accept the authority of the church, just not the catholic church - right?
Was he really denying his own universal jurisdiction? OK, then what gave him the right to make such a universal statement regarding John the Faster (Patriarch of Constantinople), the very reason why he made the following statement:
“Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist.”
Only the universal Bishop of Jesus’ church could excommunicate John the Faster (Patriarch of Constantinople). Surely he could not have had such universal jurisdiction had he not believed that he possessed the authority?
In many of his letters he insists that the bishop of Rome holds the place of Peter and that he is the head of the “Faith,” and “of all the Churches.” He declared that all the bishops are subject to the Apostolic See. Context is so important…
K
kbwall
Guest
On what grounds do you deem them correct though?
E
englishredrose
Guest
I wont go as far as saying that to have a Pope is wrong because that be too much especially when as has been said all religions have some kind of nominated person figurehead.
I think its the idea of absolute authority? His word goes, for all Catholics. If you don’t like the rules then you can leave. Good Catholic Priests would be able to educate their parishioners so that they do like the rule? But is that healthy too?
That to me is roboticness and ignoring that we are all unique individuals. So its not the role of the Pope I don’t object to but the style of how the role is carried out - its as good as backdoor dictatorship because you not allowed to think for yourselves. You have got to agree to it each and every point.
I prefer to be able to seek guidence from a Priest when I am struggling and they help to work a way through and not just be told I should think xyz. And yes I listen to the sermons and struggle with the challenging bits at times but work through it in my own time but not necessarily agreeing.
I think its the idea of absolute authority? His word goes, for all Catholics. If you don’t like the rules then you can leave. Good Catholic Priests would be able to educate their parishioners so that they do like the rule? But is that healthy too?
That to me is roboticness and ignoring that we are all unique individuals. So its not the role of the Pope I don’t object to but the style of how the role is carried out - its as good as backdoor dictatorship because you not allowed to think for yourselves. You have got to agree to it each and every point.
I prefer to be able to seek guidence from a Priest when I am struggling and they help to work a way through and not just be told I should think xyz. And yes I listen to the sermons and struggle with the challenging bits at times but work through it in my own time but not necessarily agreeing.
I
Izdaari
Guest
Are we not His followers? Are we not all priests?I was given God-given authority to teach doctrinal truth in the name of Jesus? Must have missed that memo…
Not for anyone else, but I certainly am for me. All of us are our own final authorities, unless we abdicate that responsibility and let others do our thinking for us. Man is a being of volitional consciousness. We can choose to think, or we can choose not to.
No. But any believer could be.Everyone is guided by the holy spirit to teach doctrinal truth?
Oh, does that require a definitive answer? Jesus didn’t tell us to debate the nature of it and write tomes of theology about it, He told us to do it.
S
seeker57
Guest
As one who isn’t Christian, I would say the problem with the pope is the idea of infallibility.
It just doesn’t make sense. No human being can be infallible.
As far as the subject of church hierachy goes, as congregationalists, we don’t believe in hierarchy of any sort. Each congregation is autonomous and decisions are made by the members of that congregation.
That is so important to us, that one of our seven principles is the support of the democratic process.
So, aside from that, I have no particular problem with the pope.
Peace,
Seeker
It just doesn’t make sense. No human being can be infallible.
As far as the subject of church hierachy goes, as congregationalists, we don’t believe in hierarchy of any sort. Each congregation is autonomous and decisions are made by the members of that congregation.
That is so important to us, that one of our seven principles is the support of the democratic process.
So, aside from that, I have no particular problem with the pope.
Peace,
Seeker
J
joe370
Guest
All followers of Jesus have the God-given authority to teach doctrinal truth? Where is that found in scripture?
Where in scripture does scripture say: “All of us are our own final authorities” when it comes to the teachings of Jesus?
E
Erich
Guest
Those would most likely be the same Protestants who believe in essential vs. non-essential doctrines and in a sort of Rodney King Christianity: “Why can’t we all just get along?” In other words, as long as we believe in the “essentials,” it’s okay to disagree on the “non-essentials.” And, as long as we agree on the “essentials,” then we can have union with one another and we’re all saved. Problem is, who gets to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential doctrine? And, since doctrines come from the Word of God, which part of the Word of God does one actually dare to call “non-essential?”
The notion that we can be in union with those we have doctrinal disagreements with - that there can be true unity among those with doctrinal differences, i.e. those with different versions of what is and is not truth - is a false one. 1 Cor 11:18-19 shows that divisions among Christians - the Corinthians being written to by Paul were all members of the Church; they were all Christians - cannot simply be ignored by using a contrived theological system which divides doctrines into essential vs. non-essential. Differences among Christians are serious matters that lead to some being approved by God and some not being approved by God.
Can you be saved if you do not have God’s approval? It doesn’t make any sense to me that God would say of anyone who was saved that they did not have His approval, would He? If you can be saved if you do not have God’s approval, then why worry about His approval? His approval or disapproval wouldn’t really mean a thing in that case. If on the other hand you can’t be saved if you do not have God’s approval, then you are admitting that doctrinal differences, differences that lead to divisions within Christian congregations, can get someone sent to Hell. Which means that differences in the beliefs of the various Christian faith traditions cannot simply be glossed over because they can, and do, have very serious eternal consequences.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Really? Where does Jesus teach such a premise? May you please give me one name of a lay person who helped ratify the Trinitarian doctrine or Incarnation?
E
Erich
Guest
From The Authority of the Pope: Part I, which covers the views of the popes and other Church Fathers up to the year A.D. 341: [T]he Church Fathers recognized that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church, that this gave Peter a special primacy, that Peter went to Rome, and that he left successors there. … [T]hey also understood that Peter’s successors shared in his special authority or primacy.
In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome “holds the presidency” among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree” with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is “the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”
Most significant are the passages below in which the popes, by their statements or their actions, reveal their understanding of their own authority in the Church, such as when Pope Clement I commanded the church of Corinth to reinstate its leadership, or when Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, after which the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication.
From The Authority of the Pope: Part II, which covers the years from A.D. 342 to A.D. 597:Council of Chalcedon
“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).
Something certainly changed between 451 AD and the Great Schism!*
N
Nicea325
Guest
Very true. If that where the case from the get-go, each Apostle would be all on his own deciding what is “essential” and what is not “essential” for our salvation.
E
Erich
Guest
We are all called to the universal priesthood. We are not all called to the ministerial priesthood. What’s the difference? We are all called to pray, worship God, etc (i.e. service to God). We are not all called to administer the sacraments, etc. (i.e. service to the people of God).
Although many Protestants apply St. Paul’s words, “rightly divide the word of truth,” to themselves, in fact, these words were written to St. Timothy specifically, not to the congregation in general.
N
Nicea325
Guest
I have noticed many Protestants will apply many words to the general congregation, when in fact Jesus or Paul were referring to a specifi individual.
- Status