Why the catholic church is most the target

[cazayoux]

Could Protestants not make the same argument? The Scriptures are true, regardless of our ability to follow them perfectly or completely understand all things. It is the Scriptures that are truth, not the poor examples that do not live up to that truth.

But then we get into understanding the scriptures.
Even the Ethiopian Eunuch needed a guide.

It’s as if I wrote a book and sold it widely.
Someone read it and misunderstood something I put in it.
They don’t ask what the right understanding is, they say ‘I have the book, so I know’.
This line of thinking just doesn’t make sense.

There is SO much disagreement about what this or that passage actually means.
To love Jesus is to follow him.
This means to love scripture and the church that He Himself set up which is the pillar and foundation of truth.

michel

 

[Peter_J]

Could Protestants not make the same argument?

Absolutely. (You didn’t even have to ask permission. )

The Scriptures are true, regardless of our ability to follow them perfectly or completely understand all things. It is the Scriptures that are truth, not the poor examples that do not live up to that truth.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Satan! … just as hawkeye says.
He will not succeed though.

ahh that good old devil. What is any good religion without a bad guy (heck, even as a country we always need that bad guy right). It’s simple human psychology.

Give people an imaginary devil who is trying to devour them and their families … and you’re sure to keep most people in the club.

I’ll tell you who is a far greater target of persecution than your billion strong church, people who aren’t brainwashed by mythology and fantasy who aren’t afraid to speak the truth.

 

[elvisman]

ahh that good old devil. What is any good religion without a bad guy (heck, even as a country we always need that bad guy right). It’s simple human psychology.

Give people an imaginary devil who is trying to devour them and their families … and you’re sure to keep most people in the club.

I’ll tell you who is a far greater target of persecution than your billion strong church, people who aren’t brainwashed by mythology and fantasy who aren’t afraid to speak the truth.

Ummm, like who, for example?

 

[elvisman]

A very sad thing indeed.
Personally, I’d like these priests strung up.
I have NO tolerance for those that target children.

My faith in the Catholic Church has nothing to do with the holiness of the individuals within it.
My faith in the Catholic Church has everything to do with Jesus.

It’s the teachings that are truth, not the poor examples that do not live up to that truth.

michel

Excellent post.

 

[cazayoux]

I’m not so sure the Catholic church “allowing” or “disallowing” had anything to do with it. The Catholic church was no longer able to exercise that authority over secular leaders; it did not suddenly just decide to give it up. I would compare this to saying Saddam Hussein decided to give up Iraq.

not what i meant.
We’ve even had priests in Congress.
The pope put out a decree barring priests/bishops from holding public office.

michel

 

[ckempston]

But then we get into understanding the scriptures.
Even the Ethiopian Eunuch needed a guide.

It’s as if I wrote a book and sold it widely.
Someone read it and misunderstood something I put in it.
They don’t ask what the right understanding is, they say ‘I have the book, so I know’.
This line of thinking just doesn’t make sense.

There is SO much disagreement about what this or that passage actually means.
To love Jesus is to follow him.
This means to love scripture and the church that He Himself set up which is the pillar and foundation of truth.

michel

Let’s say you have two sons that were with you as you wrote the book. We go to the sons and ask them to clarify what the meaning is. They disagree. Which one do we believe? This is, in essence, the situation with the Catholic and Orthodox faiths.

As I pointed out in another thread (or maybe this one), “foundation” is not the correct interpretation (correction: translation) of that passage. The word is Hedraioma, which means prop or support. “Foundation” is the Greek word Themelios:

1 Corinthians 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The “Foundation” is Jesus Christ, not the church.

 

[cazayoux]

ahh that good old devil. What is any good religion without a bad guy (heck, even as a country we always need that bad guy right). It’s simple human psychology.

Give people an imaginary devil who is trying to devour them and their families … and you’re sure to keep most people in the club.

I’ll tell you who is a far greater target of persecution than your billion strong church, people who aren’t brainwashed by mythology and fantasy who aren’t afraid to speak the truth.

y’all hear something?
i guess it was nothing after all.

michel

 

[ckempston]

not what i meant.
We’ve even had priests in Congress.
The pope put out a decree barring priests/bishops from holding public office.

michel

This was probably after the secular authorities already took most of those offices away. Do you have a reference for this decree? I couldn’t find it…

 

[cazayoux]

As I pointed out in another thread (or maybe this one), “foundation” is not the correct interpretation of that passage. The word is Hedraioma, which means prop or support. “Foundation” is the Greek word Themelios:

1 Corinthians 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The “Foundation” is Jesus Christ, not the church.

understood … i’ll use ‘bulwark’ from here on out.
i can see that ‘foundation’ isn’t the right word to use.

michel

 

[ckempston]

understood … i’ll use ‘bulwark’ from here on out.
i can see that ‘foundation’ isn’t the right word to use.

michel

But the changing of the word changes the meaning of the Catholic interpretation. A prop holds something up that exists separately…namely, the Truth. The church is neither the source, nor the final arbiter of what is Truth; it merely holds it up.

 

[cazayoux]

Let’s say you have two sons that were with you as you wrote the book. We go to the sons and ask them to clarify what the meaning is. They disagree. Which one do we believe? This is, in essence, the situation with the Catholic and Orthodox faiths.

Their separation was not over doctrinal issues.

So at the least … you can trust what they agree on, right?
Seven sacraments.
The real presence in the Eucharist.
:
:

So which will you join?
Do you see them as diametrically opposed?
Do you at least think that one of them must be the ‘true’ church? … or is the fact that they are in schism give you the comfort of choosing neither and staying in your current church that IS opposed to both the Catholic and E.O. churches?

love, brother … with love…

michel

 

[ckempston]

Their separation was not over doctrinal issues.

The papacy and Marian devotion are not doctrinal issues?

So at the least … you can trust what they agree on, right?
Seven sacraments.
The real presence in the Eucharist.

I guess that depends on your definition.

“You shall hear how many sacraments there be, that were instituted by our SAVIOUR CHRIST, and are to be continued, and received of every Christian in due time and order, and for such purpose as our SAVIOUR CHRIST willed them to be received. And as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a sacrament, namely, for visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in CHRIST, there be but two; namely, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.” St. Augustine

:
:

So which will you join?
Do you see them as diametrically opposed?
Do you at least think that one of them must be the ‘true’ church? … or is the fact that they are in schism give you the comfort of choosing neither and staying in your current church that IS opposed to both the Catholic and E.O. churches?

No, this example only serves to illustrate that the Catholic claims of Protestant disunity are somewhat misleading, because the Catholic church itself is not perfectly unified.

Actually, I believe I could say with confidence that everything my church affirms is orthodox (little o). What I oppose is the idea that man can add things to God’s message, which is what these churches have done.

love, brother … with love…

michel

Thanks, trying to keep it that way.

 

[cazayoux]

This was probably after the secular authorities already took most of those offices away. Do you have a reference for this decree? I couldn’t find it…

I found an article about one of these priests. Looks like he stepped down around 1980.

Haven’t spent the time to search the Vatican web site.

michel

 

[ckempston]

I found an article about one of these priests. Looks like he stepped down around 1980.

Haven’t spent the time to search the Vatican web site.

michel

I saw one too recently about some leader in Latin America who was a Bishop and had to be released from his vow to go into politics. The main point of the story, though, was about him fathering a child by a parishoner while he was Bishop.

 

[cazayoux]

The papacy and Marian devotion are not doctrinal issues?

The split was about primacy and position.
They did not disagree in 1054 on doctrine.
This is why it is called a schism, as opposed to what is called the reformation a few hundred years later.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

I saw one too recently about some leader in Latin America who was a Bishop and had to be released from his vow to go into politics. The main point of the story, though, was about him fathering a child by a parishoner while he was Bishop.

Another man that is a bad example.
Good thing I pin my faith on Jesus and follow His church.

michel

 

[ckempston]

Another man that is a bad example.
Good thing I pin my faith on Jesus and follow His church.

michel

Yes, and like I said before, Protestants can claim the same thing when Catholics start making accusations. However Protestants act, that would not change the fact of the Scriptures being the rule of faith. These two arguments are in the same exact form. Catholics are engaging in special pleading when they point to disunity among Protestants as proof that it is wrong, but then do not allow Protestants to point out the numerous problems in the Catholic church as proof that IT is wrong. I’ll agree that we should put our faith in Jesus, but we should only follow others as they follow Christ, not blindly.

1 Corinthians 11:1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

 

[cazayoux]

“You shall hear how many sacraments there be, that were instituted by our SAVIOUR CHRIST, and are to be continued, and received of every Christian in due time and order, and for such purpose as our SAVIOUR CHRIST willed them to be received. And as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a sacrament, namely, for visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in CHRIST, there be but two; namely, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.” St. Augustine

So do you follow Augustine and have the sacrament of ‘the Supper of the Lord’ at your church?

No, this example only serves to illustrate that the Catholic claims of Protestant disunity are somewhat misleading, because the Catholic church itself is not perfectly unified.

So you see the E.O. as part of the Catholic Church.
I pray for reunification.

You agree that both are sons, have the apostolic succession traced to the apotles.
Why don’t you at least trust what these two sons agree upon?

Actually, I believe I could say with confidence that everything my church affirms is orthodox (little o).

Including the sacrament of ‘the Supper of the Lord’?

Let’s see what else St. Augustine said.
St. Augustine (c. 354 - 430 A.D.) “You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.” (Sermons 227)

What I oppose is the idea that man can add things to God’s message, which is what these churches have done.

Change? Clarify?
It is men that Jesus founded a church on and for.
Trust in the truth that was given to them to be stewards over.
It is the church that is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
It is Jesus’ authority these men were given.
To ignore His church is to ignore Him.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Yes, and like I said before, Protestants can claim the same thing when Catholics start making accusations. However Protestants act, that would not change the fact of the Scriptures being the rule of faith. These two arguments are in the same exact form. Catholics are engaging in special pleading when they point to disunity among Protestants as proof that it is wrong, but then do not allow Protestants to point out the numerous problems in the Catholic church as proof that IT is wrong. I’ll agree that we should put our faith in Jesus, but we should only follow others as they follow Christ, not blindly.

1 Corinthians 11:1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

Please do not see Catholics as following blindly.
You see many examples on these forums that Catholics indeed know their bible and why they believe what they do.

There is a difference between the Catholic and E.O. schism and the multitude of Bible-only Christian churches. The schism isn’t a lynch-pin to say ‘disunity is okay’.
Nobody can be the perfect example that Christ was, but that is still what we hope to do.

I don’t see the two arguments in the same form.
One says - protestants split churches daily based on doctrinal issues.
The other says - you have bad people in your church.

Having sinners in your church does not ‘prove IT is wrong’.
We are a church of sinners.
That is why Jesus came for us.

Non-Catholic Christians only follow what Luther taught them. If you don’t like it, start a new church and you get to define the doctrine, which comes straight from the bible, though.

michel