WHY do you [if you do?] think the RCC is not the One true Church founded by Christ?

[Wannano]

Maybe its just ME:shrug:

But POST # 405 & 468 are the same reference

1. It’s Paul not Christ or Yahweh
2. And even here Paul is NOT accepting other gods, BUT explaining their error as be superstition & then explaining Christianity
3. POST #424: a time of “ignorance” is not precisely articulating another faith and no specific example is give here for me to respond too

GREATLY appreciate your heads up, but don’t see where my position is in error?

GBY

Patrick

In post 468 you respond with “thanks, we’ll done” to a quote that was showing you verses that were refuting your claim that:
“Not one time, not one place in the Bible can it be shown where God ever desired, accepted, WAS TOLERANT OF OR EVEN OVERLOOKED any competition faiths, God’s or beliefs other than the ONE set He commanded.”

The verse is Acts 17:30 Douay -Rheims “And God INDEED HAVING WINKED at the times of this ignorance, now declare the unto men, that all everywhere should do penance.”

God winked means He overlooked the ignorance of the OT people worshipping with statues, gold etc.

Another time He accepted and was tolerant of the Israelites disobedient belief was their request for an earthly King other than God Himself. It wasn’t His timing.

 

[prodromos]

that said, when you say that requisite, i.e. using quotes from scripture, ECF’s, and sacred documents, to show and demonstrate one’s position, is alien to the Orthodox mindset, is that true? Or is that your personal position?

That you would misinterpret my comment so badly shows just how different our mind sets are.
Catholic apologetics are replete with numerous websites which are essentially “quote mines”, where Councils and Church Fathers have been trawled for specific terms and any quotes which can be interpreted favorably towards the modern view of the papacy are cherry picked and presented out of both their textual and historical context. Such an approach is notably absent in Orthodox apologetics. We take a much broader approach. As his eminence Patriarch Bartholomew stated in his Georgetown University address, we have become ontologically different. It is not just our answers that are different, we don’t even ask the same questions.

 

[Moonboots]

(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4-6)

Make with it what you want. I am not here to say you are wrong and do something my way, just to point out that saying a Church Father said this or quoting him doesn’t just prove it immediately. I was once “very thoroughly schooled” here on CAF on who Irenaeus was and “he knew what he was talking about”.

Well, maybe he did know? But then that just puts more questions into my head that I am too tired for this time of night.

Regards

Needed to pop in to reply to this. Mark Bonocore gives this topic an interesting treatment (in response to James White) here: biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a38.htm

Make of it what you will. In any case, there’s nothing that says that a Church father has to be right about everything in his writings. Writers like Tertullian and Origen, who provided lots of valuable insight into the thought of the early Church, each fell into heresy at some point or another. St. Thomas Aquinas, considered by many the best thinker that the Church has produced, believed that Mary was kept immaculate from her birth, not her conception (before that particular dogma was affirmed officially by the Church).

The nature of this conversation itself begs the question of how we determine what anyone with an opinion is right about or wrong about on matters of faith and morals. Every accomplished and well read theologian down to every street preacher and even that guy at work who misquotes and misuses Bible verses to support his personal viewpoints. Once we get outside the sola scriptura mindset (which I know you’ve mentioned that you do not believe), the search for authority really ramps up.

If Jesus didn’t intend the Truth regarding his saving message of the Gospel to be transmitted through a book, and a book alone, how else did He do so and whom can we trust? We know He prayed for Peter’s faith. Poor, bumbling Peter who began to sink when walking on water, denied the Lord three times, and so on and so forth. We know at the beginning of Acts that an Apostle gets replaced (with Mattias who replaced Judas Iscariot). So there’s a “seat” or “chair” that belongs to the Apostle, and it is potentially eternally occupied between Christ naming the Apostles and Christ coming again.

I couldn’t look at how the early heresies were handled - Arianism, Donatism, Gnosticism, etc. without realizing that their solution was never to pull out their Bibles (which weren’t compiled yet) and say “pray to the Holy Spirit, then tell me the true meaning of Romans 3:28.” It was “who holds the office of Peter and the rest of the Twelve? They are whose teaching we trust.” If the former, or any other method of determining orthodox teaching, were true, then any of the heresies from the first three or four centuries (and every heresy since) has the same chance of being the true and rightful teaching of Christ. If succession of the Apostles makes enough sense, that leaves two options - Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. From there, seek the reasons for the split (primacy vs. supremacy of Peter and his office, filioque, a few others) and go from there.

But that’s my processing of it - and I know that doesn’t apply to everyone. As my guy GK Chesterton says: “The Church is a house with one hundred gates, and no two men enter at the same angle.” Mine was more of a reversion. A cradle Catholic who attended Mass weekly and did my best to be a “good person”, 18 years of Catholic schooling, but really not much drive in the way of theology or truly living my faith. Dating a beautiful, faithful woman (now my fiancee) who practices as an Evangelical forced me to stand back and really dig into what this was all about. What is Truth? Where is it found? How can I live it entirely? And I ended up here.

If I may steal once more from Chesterton: "It’s one thing to conclude that Catholicism is good and another to conclude that it is right. It is one thing to conclude that is right and another to conclude that it is always right.” That, even as a cradle Catholic, made me shudder because it’s hard.

But now I joyfully advocate for the Catholic faith at places like here and on Reddit, not because I seek to demean or belittle my Christian brothers/sisters from other denominations (or those who don’t believe, or believe something entirely different), but because I love each of them and desire to share this awesome thing with them, and hopefully am communicating with the highest level of charity afforded to me by God’s Grace.

Every time another doctrine or teaching fits neatly into place on the testimony of Scripture and Tradition, every insight from the writings of a saint throughout the ages, every visible sign of conversion through the Sacraments is like a little tickle from heaven. And once I realized it, there no longer remained a need for questioning because I knew I was home. In the spirit of this thread, how could one not want to share that?

Peace,

DK

 

[steve_b]

IOW the question remains unanswered.
J:

I once asked the question also, the further you research the more you find the ‘question’ you are asking is deliberately combative and created to serve a need to create a certain outlook and view of the issues **that was not present in antiquity or until far, far later. **It is not possible to get anywhere with this as I feel we are talking past each other at this point.

without giving evidence of early existence, of the name “Orthodox Church” (which I’ve been waiting to see for 13 years on these forums), then one can’t insist on an early existence of that name, that Church, without giving evidence properly referenced. THAT’s the whole point of insisting on references properly referenced.

 

[steve_b]

How is this my problem?. I’m asking a question that not even the Orthodox are answering nor have answered after many years being on this forum.
J:

I once asked the question also, the further you research the more you find the ‘question’ you are asking is deliberately combative and created to serve a need to create a certain outlook and view of the issues that was not present in antiquity or until far, far later. It is not possible to get anywhere with this as I feel we are talking past each other at this point.

With respect, I see it differently. I ask that question because the answer is designed to be instructive. It turns out though, the avoidance of answering the question and the drama that goes with it, is the most instructive

 

[rcwitness]

Needed to pop in to reply to this. Mark Bonocore gives this topic an interesting treatment (in response to James White) here: biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a38.htm

Make of it what you will. In any case, there’s nothing that says that a Church father has to be right about everything in his writings. Writers like Tertullian and Origen, who provided lots of valuable insight into the thought of the early Church, each fell into heresy at some point or another. St. Thomas Aquinas, considered by many the best thinker that the Church has produced, believed that Mary was kept immaculate from her birth, not her conception (before that particular dogma was affirmed officially by the Church).

The nature of this conversation itself begs the question of how we determine what anyone with an opinion is right about or wrong about on matters of faith and morals. Every accomplished and well read theologian down to every street preacher and even that guy at work who misquotes and misuses Bible verses to support his personal viewpoints. Once we get outside the sola scriptura mindset (which I know you’ve mentioned that you do not believe), the search for authority really ramps up.

If Jesus didn’t intend the Truth regarding his saving message of the Gospel to be transmitted through a book, and a book alone, how else did He do so and whom can we trust? We know He prayed for Peter’s faith. Poor, bumbling Peter who began to sink when walking on water, denied the Lord three times, and so on and so forth. We know at the beginning of Acts that an Apostle gets replaced (with Mattias who replaced Judas Iscariot). So there’s a “seat” or “chair” that belongs to the Apostle, and it is potentially eternally occupied between Christ naming the Apostles and Christ coming again.

I couldn’t look at how the early heresies were handled - Arianism, Donatism, Gnosticism, etc. without realizing that their solution was never to pull out their Bibles (which weren’t compiled yet) and say “pray to the Holy Spirit, then tell me the true meaning of Romans 3:28.” It was “who holds the office of Peter and the rest of the Twelve? They are whose teaching we trust.” If the former, or any other method of determining orthodox teaching, were true, then any of the heresies from the first three or four centuries (and every heresy since) has the same chance of being the true and rightful teaching of Christ. If succession of the Apostles makes enough sense, that leaves two options - Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. From there, seek the reasons for the split (primacy vs. supremacy of Peter and his office, filioque, a few others) and go from there.

But that’s my processing of it - and I know that doesn’t apply to everyone. As my guy GK Chesterton says: “The Church is a house with one hundred gates, and no two men enter at the same angle.” Mine was more of a reversion. A cradle Catholic who attended Mass weekly and did my best to be a “good person”, 18 years of Catholic schooling, but really not much drive in the way of theology or truly living my faith. Dating a beautiful, faithful woman (now my fiancee) who practices as an Evangelical forced me to stand back and really dig into what this was all about. What is Truth? Where is it found? How can I live it entirely? And I ended up here.

If I may steal once more from Chesterton: "It’s one thing to conclude that Catholicism is good and another to conclude that it is right. It is one thing to conclude that is right and another to conclude that it is always right.” That, even as a cradle Catholic, made me shudder because it’s hard.

But now I joyfully advocate for the Catholic faith at places like here and on Reddit, not because I seek to demean or belittle my Christian brothers/sisters from other denominations (or those who don’t believe, or believe something entirely different), but because I love each of them and desire to share this awesome thing with them, and hopefully am communicating with the highest level of charity afforded to me by God’s Grace.

Every time another doctrine or teaching fits neatly into place on the testimony of Scripture and Tradition, every insight from the writings of a saint throughout the ages, every visible sign of conversion through the Sacraments is like a little tickle from heaven. And once I realized it, there no longer remained a need for questioning because I knew I was home. In the spirit of this thread, how could one not want to share that?

Peace,

DK

Thanks for the post.

 

[Peter_J]

Of course not, the Lord is my Shepherd, He LEADETH me…gives me direction, purpose and fulfillment.

Just so. Likewise we can say, Francis is our pope, God is our father. With no contradiction

 

[Peter_J]

Not remotely.

I wonder why no one ever says “because iocane comes from Australia” anymore.

 

[Peter_J]

Catholic apologetics are replete with numerous websites which are essentially “quote mines”, where Councils and Church Fathers have been trawled for specific terms and any quotes which can be interpreted favorably towards the modern view of the papacy are cherry picked and presented out of both their textual and historical context.

That’s one reason I like to say, the Catholic Church is not a website. In any case I don’t think that’s a specifically Catholic phenomenon.

Whether it is true that “Such an approach is notably absent in Orthodox apologetics” … well I’ll leave that as a topic for another thread if someone wants to start one.

 

[Rohzek]

IOW the question remains unanswered.

without giving evidence of early existence, of the name “Orthodox Church” (which I’ve been waiting to see for 13 years on these forums), then one can’t insist on an early existence of that name, that Church, without giving evidence properly referenced. THAT’s the whole point of insisting on references properly referenced.

You should look at PJM’s post 494.

 

[prodromos]

I wonder why no one ever says “because iocane comes from Australia” anymore.

Possibly because Australia is no longer populated entirely with criminals

Inconceivable, I know.

 

[PJM]

In post 468 you respond with “thanks, we’ll done” to a quote that was showing you verses that were refuting your claim that:
“Not one time, not one place in the Bible can it be shown where God ever desired, accepted, WAS TOLERANT OF OR EVEN OVERLOOKED any competition faiths, God’s or beliefs other than the ONE set He commanded.”

The verse is Acts 17:30 Douay -Rheims “And God INDEED HAVING WINKED at the times of this ignorance, now declare the unto men, that all everywhere should do penance.”

God winked means He overlooked the ignorance of the OT people worshipping with statues, gold etc.

Another time He accepted and was tolerant of the Israelites disobedient belief was their request for an earthly King other than God Himself. It wasn’t His timing.

 

[PJM]

In post 468 you respond with “thanks, we’ll done” to a quote that was showing you verses that were refuting your claim that:
“Not one time, not one place in the Bible can it be shown where God ever desired, accepted, WAS TOLERANT OF OR EVEN OVERLOOKED any competition faiths, God’s or beliefs other than the ONE set He commanded.”

The verse is Acts 17:30 Douay -Rheims “And God INDEED HAVING WINKED at the times of this ignorance, now declare the unto men, that all everywhere should do penance.”

God winked means He overlooked the ignorance of the OT people worshipping with statues, gold etc.

Another time He accepted and was tolerant of the Israelites disobedient belief was their request for an earthly King other than God Himself. It wasn’t His timing.

In post 468 you respond with “thanks, we’ll done” to a quote that was showing you verses that were refuting your claim that:
“Not one time, not one place in the Bible can it be shown where God ever desired, accepted, WAS TOLERANT OF OR EVEN OVERLOOKED any competition faiths, God’s or beliefs other than the ONE set He commanded.”

The verse is Acts 17:30 Douay -Rheims “And God INDEED HAVING WINKED at the times of this ignorance, now declare the unto men, that all everywhere should do penance.”

God winked means He overlooked the ignorance of the OT people worshipping with statues, gold etc.

Another time He accepted and was tolerant of the Israelites disobedient belief was their request for an earthly King other than God Himself. It wasn’t His timing.

THANKS for paying attention

My gratitude was for the EFFORT, even though it failed, as I have explained in a prior recent POST.

Acts 17:30 [excellent find]

[30] And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should everywhere do penance.

Explained by Haydock’s Bible commentary

“Ver. 30. Overlooked. Despiciens, uperidon. It may either signify looking down on the ignorant world, and so taking pity of it; or rather that God having overlooked, and permitted mankind to go on so long in their sins, now invites them to repentance, by sending Jesus, their Saviour and Redeemer. See the Analysis, dissert. xxxiv. (Witham)”
Acts 17: 26] And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation. [27] That they should seek God, if happily they may feel after him or find him, although he be not far from every one of us: [28] For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring. [29] Being therefore the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art, and device of man. [30] And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should everywhere do penance. [this last part MEANS to repent & Convert; certainly not an acceptance or over-looking their ignorance; BUT the fact that God Is patient ought NOT be taken for God’s tolerating such acts]

Judith 8:14
But forasmuch as the Lord is patient, let us be penitent for this same thing, and with many tears let us beg his pardon:

I admire your tenacity!

GBY!

Patrick

 

[PJM]

You should look at PJM’s post 494.

THANKS for the assist!

GBY

Patrick

 

[Wannano]

THANKS for paying attention

My gratitude was for the EFFORT, even though it failed, as I have explained in a prior recent POST.

Acts 17:30 [excellent find]

[30] And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should everywhere do penance.

Explained by Haydock’s Bible commentary

“Ver. 30. Overlooked. Despiciens, uperidon. It may either signify looking down on the ignorant world, and so taking pity of it; or rather that God having overlooked, and permitted mankind to go on so long in their sins, now invites them to repentance, by sending Jesus, their Saviour and Redeemer. See the Analysis, dissert. xxxiv. (Witham)”
Acts 17: 26] And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation. [27] That they should seek God, if happily they may feel after him or find him, although he be not far from every one of us: [28] For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring. [29] Being therefore the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art, and device of man. [30] And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should everywhere do penance. [this last part MEANS to repent & Convert; certainly not an acceptance or over-looking their ignorance; BUT the fact that God Is patient ought NOT be taken for God’s tolerating such acts]

Judith 8:14
But forasmuch as the Lord is patient, let us be penitent for this same thing, and with many tears let us beg his pardon:

I admire your tenacity!

GBY!

Patrick

You must have graduated with a Masters of Equivocation! :bowdown:

 

[rcwitness]

Of course not, the Lord is my Shepherd, He LEADETH me…gives me direction, purpose and fulfillment.

I know you are not telling us you do not have a Pastor. Here is a Wiki explanation of the term:

The word “pastor” derives from the Latin noun pastor which means “shepherd” and relates to the Latin verb pascere - “to lead to pasture, set to grazing, cause to eat”. The term “pastor” also relates to the role of elder within the New Testament, but is not synonymous with the biblical understanding of minister. Many Protestant churches call their ministers “pastors”.

So “Pastor”, which means shepherd, is Latin, just as the name “Jesus” is also Latin.

Take careful note of John 21 where Jesus commissions Peter to Shepherd His sheep, and feed His lambs.

Jesus is the Good Shepherd, the Rock of our faith, and feeds us with Hiself. Peter was the first Steward of the Church, shepherd of Christ’s flock, and Prime Minister of the Body of Christ. We have many pastors, but One Divine Shepherd.

Would you not receive Peter’s affirmation and guidance as from Jesus? We do the same with our leaders. But we also take much care to discern whether our leaders are in unity with the Magisterium. The Magisterium is lawful, so the man of God is lawful. The highest law, is the Love of Christ.

When Peter showed fault in separating from the Gentiles, he was contradicting Christ’s Law. But he did not deny the admonishment from Paul. Therefore, he did not formally Teach anything against the Shepherd whom he was Steward of.

 

[steve_b]

You should look at PJM’s post 494.

I did. And your point?

 

[Rohzek]

I did. And your point?

It’s that you cannot read.

 

[PJM]

You must have graduated with a Masters of Equivocation! :bowdown:

Naw, I’m still working on it

 

[steve_b]

That you would misinterpret my comment so badly shows just how different our mind sets are.

And how did I misrepresent your comment?
P:

Catholic apologetics are replete with numerous websites which are essentially “quote mines”, where Councils and Church Fathers have been trawled for specific terms and any quotes which can be interpreted favorably towards the modern view of the papacy are cherry picked and presented out of both their textual and historical context.

Taking this in steps

• What’s really going on here is, you can’t find “Orthodox Church” in the early historical records or you would present it.
• And while we’re at it, show where “Orthodox Church” appeared in the 7 councils you accept as ecumenical? Please give the quotes properly referenced of course, and maybe we can answer this question.
• Re: the papacy as being modern and references taken out of context, to fit some “modern view” where is your evidence for this?

As for quote mining, I give a quote and reference it properly to support the point being made. MOST of the time, I also give the link.

Did you ever think that given the virtual avalanche of information available in history supporting the papacy and the Catholic Church, that it is you who is wrong about your view?
P:

Such an approach is notably absent in Orthodox apologetics. We take a much broader approach. As his eminence Patriarch Bartholomew stated in his Georgetown University address, we have become ontologically different. It is not just our answers that are different, we don’t even ask the same questions.

Cardinal Kasper, was in charge of ecumenical outreach for the Vatican. He had this to say back in 2002.
“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

from zenit.org/articles/the-crisi…rdinal-kasper/

When everybody thinks they are in charge then no one is in charge.