Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Callers to my door.

  • 30-04-2011 8:03pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭


    Earlier today, two Baptist preachers called to my door. They were handing out leaflets explaining their churches view on sin and death.

    I explained to both of the callers that I am a practicing RC and that their literature was wasted on being given to me.
    One of the preachers became slightly defensive and asked me if I read the Bible.
    I told the preacher that I did and he immediately stated that I could get absolution from God without having to attend confession.
    I explained to him that it is my belief and the RC teaching that one has to receive the sacrament of penance.
    He tried to claim that a priest had no power to absolve sins. I told him that God absolves sin but that every priest has been enpowered by God to administer the sacrament of penance.
    he immediately started quoting the Bible at me saying that nowhere in the Bible does it state this.
    He cited John 3:16.
    There followed a protracted and lively discussion with me citing John 20:22-23.

    Do any of my fellow RC members here get in to protracted discussions with callers like these?


«1345678

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,339 ✭✭✭tenchi-fan


    hinault wrote: »
    There followed a protracted and lively discussion with me citing John 20:22-23.

    Good for you! Catholics are meant to know enough about the bible to defend their faith, especially given that these preachers know enough about Catholicism to try to sway you from it.

    Out of interest, what was their view on John 20:22-23?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭Quo Vadis


    hinault wrote: »
    Do any of my fellow RC members here get in to protracted discussions with callers like these?

    I would say you were a rare challenge for them. Thanks to very poor Catechesis in recent years, most Catholics would not be up to it.
    "Always be prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" 1 Peter 3:15


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    tenchi-fan wrote: »
    Out of interest, what was their view on John 20:22-23?

    Not apostolic succession apparently..what with them being able to read and everything.

    :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    I dont bother. I just say ''no thank you'' and return to eating my toast and spending time reading forums. In the case of Jehovahs I might end up having to close my blinds as well as they are more annoying than X-Factor.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Donatello


    Onesimus wrote: »
    I dont bother. I just say ''no thank you'' and return to eating my toast and spending time reading forums. In the case of Jehovahs I might end up having to close my blinds as well as they are more annoying than X-Factor.

    I once spent an hour talking with some Mormons in Carlisle city centre. It was a most enjoyable experience. Although we got absolutely nowhere, I figured that for the hour they were stood talking to me, they were not getting any new recruits.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    tenchi-fan wrote: »
    Good for you! Catholics are meant to know enough about the bible to defend their faith, especially given that these preachers know enough about Catholicism to try to sway you from it.

    Out of interest, what was their view on John 20:22-23?

    Their view was that John 20:22-23 did not explicitly confer rights upon the clergy?

    This isn't a case of me trying to inflict my views upon them. More a case of my defending my point of view when challenged about the sacrament of penance and how this sacrament is not needed, in the view of Baptists.

    I have no difficulty with anyone from any denomination dropping literature in to my home.
    However, I do take exception to others trying to undermine the tenets of the RCC teaching.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    Donatello wrote: »
    I once spent an hour talking with some Mormons in Carlisle city centre. It was a most enjoyable experience. Although we got absolutely nowhere, I figured that for the hour they were stood talking to me, they were not getting any new recruits.

    I never hold conversations with them. Its pointless. They are not interested in friendly conversation, they are just interested in converting you. I dont even respond to them on the street when I pass them and they try to stop me and say ''hi''. this is not out of uncharitbleness Lord knows I love them dearly, but I'd rather avoid such a conversation and have the freedom to do so as long as I'm not doing it out of ''hatred'' but rather protection of both myself and family.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    "You are Peter on upon this rock I will build my church."

    Singular, possessive.

    Not my 1000's of churches, but the one true church.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    They should have a bit of respect if they are calling to your door.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭Quo Vadis


    Here's a very good site for providing scriptural backup for the teachings of the Catholic Church. It also provides lots of writings from the early Church confirming our Catholic traditions.

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/


    From the same site, here's a useful top ten of biblical quotes for Catholics to learn off chaper and verse for such debates.

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/my_top_ten.html


    Remember :

    "Always be prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" 1 Peter 3:15

    God Bless


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,025 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    hinault wrote: »
    Earlier today, two Baptist preachers called to my door. They were handing out leaflets explaining their churches view on sin and death.

    I explained to both of the callers that I am a practicing RC and that their literature was wasted on being given to me.
    One of the preachers became slightly defensive and asked me if I read the Bible.
    I told the preacher that I did and he immediately stated that I could get absolution from God without having to attend confession.
    I explained to him that it is my belief and the RC teaching that one has to receive the sacrament of penance.
    He tried to claim that a priest had no power to absolve sins. I told him that God absolves sin but that every priest has been enpowered by God to administer the sacrament of penance.
    he immediately started quoting the Bible at me saying that nowhere in the Bible does it state this.
    He cited John 3:16.
    There followed a protracted and lively discussion with me citing John 20:22-23.

    Do any of my fellow RC members here get in to protracted discussions with callers like these?

    ha good for you. As an atheist if anyone tries to quote the bible to me for a reason for anything I point out that their logic is circular. And that is just met usually with an empty face. Occasionally you'll get someone like PDN say "What do you know about logic?"

    I reckon I am in the top 2% of the population for logical ability. But obviously people are allowed to disagree on this serious issue :pac:;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Quo Vadis:

    Here is a quote from the start of your list of quotations:
    The following is a list of my Top Ten Scripture passages which Protestants cannot adequately explain without embracing the teachings of the Catholic Church

    How come I as a non-Catholic a number of possibilities arise for these verses in light of the Christian church as a whole rather than the RCC specifically?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ha good for you. As an atheist if anyone tries to quote the bible to me for a reason for anything I point out that their logic is circular. And that is just met usually with an empty face. Occasionally you'll get someone like PDN say "What do you know about logic?"

    I reckon I am in the top 2% of the population for logical ability. But obviously people are allowed to disagree on this serious issue :pac:;)

    While your selective memory is remarkable, your logical abilities are about on a par with your humility.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭Robert ninja


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Quo Vadis:
    How come I as a non-Catholic a number of possibilities arise for these verses in light of the Christian church as a whole rather than the RCC specifically?

    Because the bible, despite what christians may say, is not perfectly written and indeed lends its self to be read, understood and used for almost any purpose the reader wants it to be used for. It's the big book of multiple choice.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Because the bible, despite what christians may say, is not perfectly written and indeed lends its self to be read, understood and used for almost any purpose the reader wants it to be used for. It's the big book of multiple choice.

    I don't think I'm the one putting my assumptions into it. When I see people going on about Peter being the rock of the church along Matthew 16 or Mark 8. I do nothing apart from said that Peter was chosen to lead the Christian church. It is others who go the step further and assume that this is the Roman Catholic Church without basis.

    That's the same for every reference to church on that page. None of those references to church make explicit reference to the Roman Catholic Church. I suspect this is largely because the RCC didn't exist until after Constantine. The word "catholic" means universal, it doesn't mean the Roman Catholic Church which is a particular denomination of the catholic church.

    Also, just because clergy can be used to confess Biblically, it doesn't mean that this is the only way to confess. I don't take any issue with someone going to their priest or pastor to confess. What I do take issue with is the claim that if I don't I won't be forgiven, despite the fact that the Bible says that one can repent directly to God:
    Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that He may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Donatello


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think I'm the one putting my assumptions into it. When I see people going on about Peter being the rock of the church along Matthew 16 or Mark 8. I do nothing apart from said that Peter was chosen to lead the Christian church. It is others who go the step further and assume that this is the Roman Catholic Church without basis.

    I suspect this is largely because the RCC didn't exist until after Constantine. The word "catholic" means universal, it doesn't mean the Roman Catholic Church which is a particular denomination of the catholic church.

    No Catholic will say that sacramental confession is the only way to confess, but it is the ordinary means by which Catholics can be forgiven from their mortal sins and be welcomed back into communion with the Church and receive the Holy Eucharist. We can and should confess our venial sins directly to God each day, and if we commit mortal sin, we can and should make a confession to God directly and make a sincere act of contrition, ensuring that we get to confession asap, and certainly before receiving Holy Communion again.

    The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ. The Protestant ecclesial communities which broke away from the Catholic Church during the Protestant revolt, and the offshoots from those, can be referred to as denominations.

    The Catholic Church was established by Christ and He gave Peter the authority and He gave him the keys to the Kingdom. This fulfils the Old Testament. Peter and his successors are the 'prime ministers' in the Davidic Kingdom, just as in Isaiah.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Quo Vadis:

    Here is a quote from the start of your list of quotations:

    How come I as a non-Catholic a number of possibilities arise for these verses in light of the Christian church as a whole rather than the RCC specifically?

    Robert Ninja makes a good point. In the final analysis, this is the main issue for Protestantism: authority.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Slav


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I suspect this is largely because the RCC didn't exist until after Constantine.
    Sorry for dragging it further off-topic but could you explain why it did not exist before Constantine? For example why the Paul's epistle to the Romans could not be considered an epistle to the RCC?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Donatello wrote: »
    No Catholic will say that sacramental confession is the only way to confess, but it is the ordinary means by which Catholics can be forgiven from their mortal sins and be welcomed back into communion with the Church and receive the Holy Eucharist. We can and should confess our venial sins directly to God each day, and if we commit mortal sin, we can and should make a confession to God directly and make a sincere act of contrition, ensuring that we get to confession asap, and certainly before receiving Holy Communion again.

    I thought if you didn't confess to a priest that your sin wasn't forgiven. Would you mind running through what the difference between a venial and a mortal sin is. The only sin I am familiar with is that which separates us from God, what falls short of His standard for mankind. The essential reason why Jesus needed to come into the world to stand in our place.
    Donatello wrote: »
    The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ. The Protestant ecclesial communities which broke away from the Catholic Church during the Protestant revolt, and the offshoots from those, can be referred to as denominations.

    It is though. The Roman Catholic Church was one church amongst others which were set up by the Apostles such as the Jewish church, the Indian Mar Thomas Church, or the Armenian Apostolic church. All these came under the banner of the universal Christian faith. All were established by the Apostles and all were in existence simultaneously.

    You seem to speak about the Reformation as if it was a bad thing, but wasn't there valid grounds as to why the Reformers challenged the church. For example indulgences and large scale corruption in the churches. Wouldn't it have been better if the RCC had listened to the Reformers rather than forcing them to set up outside?

    All branches of Christianity are denominations. The RCC, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, Baptist, Presbyterianism etc can be referred to as denominations of the overall Christian faith. Unless you are saying that non-Catholics aren't really Christians.
    Donatello wrote: »
    The Catholic Church was established by Christ and He gave Peter the authority and He gave him the keys to the Kingdom. This fulfils the Old Testament. Peter and his successors are the 'prime ministers' in the Davidic Kingdom, just as in Isaiah.

    The RCC didn't exist until Constantine, so I don't understand how you can make that leap with the text and what was the case historically.
    Donatello wrote: »
    Robert Ninja makes a good point. In the final analysis, this is the main issue for Protestantism: authority.

    I wouldn't call it authority but cohesion certainly. We are going to be all accountable to God, and there are structures in churches that provide order in worship amongst other things or there should be. As one of the quotes mentions the Eucharist can be abused if there isn't guidelines as to how it should be regarded.

    Reformed churches put the Bible first people disagree as to what the Bible says so therefore there is division. The RCC puts the church and tradition first limiting peoples interpretation of Scripture, thus denying them this liberty in favour of cohesion. There are disadvantages in both approaches. Largely I would think that it is better to allow people to come into a personal relationship with God by encountering Jesus and then providing a means for them to learn more about Him through the Christian church and indeed to find opportunities to serve Him rather than just sitting in the pews and leeching from the church.
    Slav wrote: »
    Sorry for dragging it further off-topic but could you explain why it did not exist before Constantine? For example why the Paul's epistle to the Romans could not be considered an epistle to the RCC?

    The RCC as in the institution that currently exists didn't exist until after Constantine.

    The churches in Rome certainly did exist as a part of the overall Christian church. Which could be called the catholic church, but the catholic church merely meant the Christian church, not the RCC as it currently stands. The term "catholic" has been twisted and distorted beyond recognition since. If Donatello was only saying that the RCC means the Roman branch of Christianity and that other people were able to look to other branches of Christianity I wouldn't have a problem to be honest with you. It is the claim to superiority that I find to be simply incorrect.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭Quo Vadis


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The RCC as in the institution that currently exists didn't exist until after Constantine.

    The Catholic church is the same church it always was, until Luther, Calvin, Knox, Henry VIII etc. decided to invent their own to suit. Now we have 30,000 Protestant denominations, and every time they don't agree with something among themselves, they start their own Protestant church.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Donatello


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I thought if you didn't confess to a priest that your sin wasn't forgiven.

    If you commit a mortal sin, you put yourself out of communion with the Catholic Church. If you make a perfect act of contrition, you will be forgiven by God, and if you died before getting to confession, you will not go to hell (assuming you did actually make a perfect act of contrition, and they don't grow on trees), but to be reconciled and welcomed back into the Church, you must go to confession. Only after confession can you receive the Eucharist again. Sins hurts the entire Body of Christ, so you have to be reconciled in the Sacrament of Penance.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Largely I would think that it is better to allow people to come into a personal relationship with God by encountering Jesus and then providing a means for them to learn more about Him through the Christian church and indeed to find opportunities to serve Him rather than just sitting in the pews and leeching from the church.
    The Catholic Church desires all Her children to come into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In case you haven't noticed, the Catholic Church in Ireland has not been very well run, so it should not be regarded as the model example, but merely an example of what happens when things go very badly wrong. When the bishops and priests get it wrong, the WHOLE Church suffers.

    I believe I have addressed your other points in the past on many occasions, so I'm not going to rehash.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Quo Vadis wrote: »
    The Catholic church is the same church it always was, until Luther, Calvin, Knox, Henry VIII etc. decided to invent their own to suit. Now we have 30,000 Protestant denominations, and every time they don't agree with something among themselves, they start their own Protestant church.

    It simply doesn't hold up with history, how do you account for the other churches that existed before the Roman Catholic Church and indeed Apostolic churches which operated outside of the Roman Catholic Church such as the Mar Thomas Church in India.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Quo Vadis wrote: »
    Here's a very good site for providing scriptural backup for the teachings of the Catholic Church. It also provides lots of writings from the early Church confirming our Catholic traditions.

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

    From the same site, here's a useful top ten of biblical quotes for Catholics to learn off chaper and verse for such debates.

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/my_top_ten.html

    Remember :

    "Always be prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" 1 Peter 3:15

    God Bless

    Thanks for this link, QV.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It simply doesn't hold up with history, how do you account for the other churches that existed before the Roman Catholic Church and indeed Apostolic churches which operated outside of the Roman Catholic Church such as the Mar Thomas Church in India.


    You are Peter and on this rock..

    Q.E.D.

    :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Slav


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The RCC as in the institution that currently exists didn't exist until after Constantine.

    Why? What exactly happened during the Constantine's time? I don't recall any events that would let us say that yes, this is the starting point of RCC as the institution in its current form.

    Obviously Christianity was legalised and even raised up to the status of the new state religion but it had no effects on Christian ecclesiology as far as I'm aware.

    It was also the time of the first ecumenical council but it hardly can be seen as evidence of RCC formation - Rome was only represented by 2 presbyters. The idea of a council as the highest Church governing body was not an invention either as we know from the book of Acts.

    Finally, Constantine finished the process of moving the capital out of Rome and founded another centre of Christianity in Constantinople which in a way can be seen as Rome's competitor.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    FISMA wrote: »
    "You are Peter on upon this rock I will build my church."

    Singular, possessive.

    Not my 1000's of churches, but the one true church.
    True. All true Christians are members of that one true church.

    Sadly, many people think it is the RCC. Given the RCC's doctrine - not to say, practice - that is obviously not the case. The true church will be known by her resemblance to the NT pattern of faith and practice, not the traditions of men.

    There are many local churches throughout the world, many not deserving the name 'Christian', but also many following Christ in a substantial manner. Each of the latter may be properly called Christian churches, local expressions of the one true church.

    In addition, many individuals call themselves Christian, without warrant. Many others however are true Christians. Most of the latter are in true local churches. Some are in churches not worthy of the name Christian - to whom Scripture directs the call, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues." Rev.18:4b.

    *************************************************************************
    1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
    34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Slav wrote: »
    Why? What exactly happened during the Constantine's time? I don't recall any events that would let us say that yes, this is the starting point of RCC as the institution in its current form.

    I don't believe the RCC is the same thing as the early Christian church, and there is no reason to believe that it was as far as I would see it.
    Slav wrote: »
    Obviously Christianity was legalised and even raised up to the status of the new state religion but it had no effects on Christian ecclesiology as far as I'm aware.

    The Roman Catholic Church came into existence as being distinct from other Christian churches that existed at that time. Namely the Jewish church, the Mar Thomas Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church. Before then it was Christianity that united these churches not Roman Catholicism or any other denominational mindset.

    It was also the time of the first ecumenical council but it hardly can be seen as evidence of RCC formation - Rome was only represented by 2 presbyters. The idea of a council as the highest Church governing body was not an invention either as we know from the book of Acts.
    Slav wrote: »
    Finally, Constantine finished the process of moving the capital out of Rome and founded another centre of Christianity in Constantinople which in a way can be seen as Rome's competitor.

    Indeed, and we know what happened with that eventually. It is interesting to note that much of Donatello's frustrations lie with Protestants though rather than previous apostates if you will :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Donatello


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It simply doesn't hold up with history, how do you account for the other churches that existed before the Roman Catholic Church and indeed Apostolic churches which operated outside of the Roman Catholic Church such as the Mar Thomas Church in India.

    You have misunderstood the meaning and application of terms.

    The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded by Christ on the rock of Peter. The Lord gave Peter the keys and the power of binding and loosing. To be in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ, one must be in communion with the Pope, the successor of Peter. Peter made his way to Rome, and he was the first Bishop of Rome. All the Particular Churches of the world and their bishops must be united to the Bishop of Rome, otherwise they are not part of the Catholic Church.

    I've seen the same argument you are attempting to make, by a man, a member of the CoI, who tried to make out that the Roman Catholic Church was just one among many Churches. The logic is flawed. Yes, the Church at Rome is a Particular Church - the Diocese of Rome, and yes, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the Bishop of that Particular Church. HOWEVER, The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. You can use the title Roman Catholic Church if you like, so long as you understand that this means only the Church at Rome, i.e. the Diocese of Rome, the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), but not in any way so as to understand the Roman Catholic Church as simply a denomination, among the Baptists, Pentecostals, Anglicans etc... for it is not. The Church at Rome, the Diocese of Rome, with the Pope as its Bishop (the Bishop of Rome) is a particular Church. But it is not a denomination. Denomination has no use as a term within the Catholic Church. Denomination is simply a term used to describe those who broke away from the Catholic Church during the Protestant Revolt, and the offshoots from these (30,000+). The successors of the first Pope, Peter, have resided at Rome, and the Bishop of Rome has a supreme jurisdiction over the Universal Church, that is, the Catholic Church.

    The Catechism also helps to explain this:

    The episcopal college and its head, the Pope

    880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399

    881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

    882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

    883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

    884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor."406

    885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407

    886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."408 As such, they "exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,"409 assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches.410 The bishops exercise this care first "by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church," and so contributing "to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches."411 They extend it especially to the poor,412 to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.

    887 Neighboring particular Churches who share the same culture form ecclesiastical provinces or larger groupings called patriarchates or regions.413 The bishops of these groupings can meet in synods or provincial councils. "In a like fashion, the episcopal conferences at the present time are in a position to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegiate spirit."414

    Let us summarise:

    - The Catholic Church is not a denomination.
    - The Church at Rome (the Particular Church at Rome, the Diocese of Rome) is overseen by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, just as Dublin Archdiocese (the Particular Church of Dublin) is overseen by Archbishop Martin.
    - The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, commonly referred to as the Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, although that term is not so much used now. The Catholic Church has the Pope as it's supreme earthly head, as ordained by Christ.
    - The Catechism tells us: ''The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Donatello


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Indeed, and we know what happened with that eventually. It is interesting to note that much of Donatello's frustrations lie with Protestants though rather than previous apostates if you will :)

    The Orthodox are schismatics, not apostates.

    It would be easier for the Orthodox as a group to return to the one fold than the Protestants in their plethora of sects, although neither is beyond the grace of God, though each would require copious amounts of grace and the good will of men, and the setting aside of old pride and prejudices.

    As the Catechism reminds us:
    817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

    Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

    2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

    The following link explains these terms: Heresy, Schism and Apostasy

    The oneness of faith that Christ desired can only come about when all are within the one fold, which Christ desired should be shepherded by Peter and his successors, along with the Apostles, and their successors, the other bishops of the world.

    Christian unity comes from oneness with God as expressed by one reality, one truth, one belief, one faith, and one doctrine.*


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Donatello wrote: »
    The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded by Christ on the rock of Peter. The Lord gave Peter the keys and the power of binding and loosing. To be in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ, one must be in communion with the Pope, the successor of Peter. Peter made his way to Rome, and he was the first Bishop of Rome. All the Particular Churches of the world and their bishops must be united to the Bishop of Rome, otherwise they are not part of the Catholic Church.

    There is no reason to believe this from Scripture. The passage says church, the Christian church, it doesn't make any mention to Catholicism. Unless you are saying that the RCC is the only Christian church, there is no logic behind stating this.
    Donatello wrote: »
    I've seen the same argument you are attempting to make, by a man, a member of the CoI, who tried to make out that the Roman Catholic Church was just one among many Churches.

    He seems like a wise man.
    Donatello wrote: »
    The logic is flawed. Yes, the Church at Rome is a Particular Church - the Diocese of Rome, and yes, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the Bishop of that Particular Church. HOWEVER, The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. You can use the title Roman Catholic Church if you like, so long as you understand that this means only the Church at Rome, i.e. the Diocese of Rome, the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), but not in any way so as to understand the Roman Catholic Church as simply a denomination, among the Baptists, Pentecostals, Anglicans etc... for it is not. The Church at Rome, the Diocese of Rome, with the Pope as its Bishop (the Bishop of Rome) is a particular Church. But it is not a denomination. Denomination has no use as a term within the Catholic Church. Denomination is simply a term used to describe those who broke away from the Catholic Church during the Protestant Revolt, and the offshoots from these (30,000+). The successors of the first Pope, Peter, have resided at Rome, and the Bishop of Rome has a supreme jurisdiction over the Universal Church, that is, the Catholic Church.

    This logic is flawed. Let me bring you on a thought experiment.

    1) Is the RCC a Christian church? - Yes.
    2) Does the RCC account for all Christians? - No.
    3) If the RCC is a Christian church and the RCC doesn't account for all Christians isn't it fair to say that the adherents of the RCC are merely a subset of all Christians? - Yes.
    4) The RCC can only account for its own members, and there are other churches which account for other Christians. Therefore the RCC as a church is a subset (denomination) of Christianity.

    Catechism or no Catechism.

    The only logical way to resolve the difficulty you are in is to claim that all Christians outside of the RCC aren't really Christians. In doing so that would mean that RCC <=> Christian both words are homogenous. At present it cannot follow that all Christians are RCC, but it can follow that some Christians are RCC. Therefore this means that the RCC is a subset.

    Thanks for engaging us as always Donatello :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    It always pains me to see and hear Catholics trying to defend their man-made doctrine when faced with biblical truth. From reading the OP I didnt find one thing that those callers said that wasnt true, especially in regard to the forgiveness of sin. My own church has a team coming over from North America to do door to door work next month and bring the gospel to lost sinners. Thankfully, the Word is getting true and people are being saved.

    Praise the Lord that some of the people we speak to on the doors accept biblical truth and dont hide behind the fallible teaching of men.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭Quo Vadis


    keano_afc wrote: »
    It always pains me to see and hear Catholics trying to defend their man-made doctrine when faced with biblical truth. From reading the OP I didnt find one thing that those callers said that wasnt true, especially in regard to the forgiveness of sin. My own church has a team coming over from North America to do door to door work next month and bring the gospel to lost sinners. Thankfully, the Word is getting true and people are being saved.

    Praise the Lord that some of the people we speak to on the doors accept biblical truth and dont hide behind the fallible teaching of men.

    What church are you, and where in the bible does it teach sola scriptura ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Donatello


    Jakkass wrote: »


    This logic is flawed. Let me bring you on a thought experiment.

    1) Is the RCC a Christian church? - Yes.
    2) Does the RCC account for all Christians? - No.
    3) If the RCC is a Christian church and the RCC doesn't account for all Christians isn't it fair to say that the adherents of the RCC are merely a subset of all Christians? - Yes.
    4) The RCC can only account for its own members, and there are other churches which account for other Christians. Therefore the RCC as a church is a subset (denomination) of Christianity.
    The Catholic Church is not a denomination. Denomination, as a term, has no meaning within the Catholic Church. Denomination can be used to describe the various groupings which originated from the Protestant Revolt, and which sprang from that (30,000+).

    The 'other Churches' you refer to are all those in communion with Rome - all the Particular Churches that make up the Latin rite, and all the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. The term can also be used to refer to the Orthodox, who are, in the words of the declaration DOMINUS IESUS true Particular Churches.

    The groupings that orginated from the Protestant revolt and those that sprung from that, cannot be referred to as Churches, but are properly referred to as ecclesial communities.

    Below is the relevant explanatory section from the above declaration, with my explanatory comments in [red]:
    17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches [i.e. the Orthodox], even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

    On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense [e.g. the Anglicans, Baptists, etc...]; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

    “The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”. “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

    The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.

    It is a beautiful document - I read it once - and it describes how Christian unity is to come about.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Donatello wrote: »
    You have misunderstood the meaning and application of terms.

    The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded by Christ on the rock of Peter. The Lord gave Peter the keys and the power of binding and loosing.

    The scriptural 'case'.


    To be in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ, one must be in communion with the Pope, the successor of Peter. Peter made his way to Rome, and he was the first Bishop of Rome. All the Particular Churches of the world and their bishops must be united to the Bishop of Rome, otherwise they are not part of the Catholic Church.

    I've seen the same argument you are attempting to make, by a man, a member of the CoI, who tried to make out that the Roman Catholic Church was just one among many Churches. The logic is flawed. Yes, the Church at Rome is a Particular Church - the Diocese of Rome, and yes, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the Bishop of that Particular Church. HOWEVER, The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. You can use the title Roman Catholic Church if you like, so long as you understand that this means only the Church at Rome, i.e. the Diocese of Rome, the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), but not in any way so as to understand the Roman Catholic Church as simply a denomination, among the Baptists, Pentecostals, Anglicans etc... for it is not. The Church at Rome, the Diocese of Rome, with the Pope as its Bishop (the Bishop of Rome) is a particular Church. But it is not a denomination. Denomination has no use as a term within the Catholic Church. Denomination is simply a term used to describe those who broke away from the Catholic Church during the Protestant Revolt, and the offshoots from these (30,000+). The successors of the first Pope, Peter, have resided at Rome, and the Bishop of Rome has a supreme jurisdiction over the Universal Church, that is, the Catholic Church.

    The Catechism also helps to explain this:


    Let us summarise:

    - The Catholic Church is not a denomination.
    - The Church at Rome (the Particular Church at Rome, the Diocese of Rome) is overseen by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, just as Dublin Archdiocese (the Particular Church of Dublin) is overseen by Archbishop Martin.
    - The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, commonly referred to as the Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, although that term is not so much used now. The Catholic Church has the Pope as it's supreme earthly head, as ordained by Christ.
    - The Catechism tells us: ''The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

    Padding.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Quo Vadis wrote: »
    What church are you, and where in the bible does it teach sola scriptura ?

    The church of Christ in my case (seeing as it's a spiritual and not physical entity).

    It's less that the Bible teaches sola scriptura and more my having no basis for trusting the traditions of men when the Bible teaches men as being able to go abominably astray. Since the Roman (and other) church displays so many of the category errors displayed by biblical church men, my trust in it's (scriptures) wisdom is increased.

    Scripture is first up, best dressed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    Off the top of my head, have a look at Deut 12:32. Also read the end of Revelation where we are warned not to add or take away from scripture.

    Nothing I see in scripture requires any addition. I know I am a saved born again believer who is going to heaven because the Bible tells me I am. I know God hears my prayers and forgives my sin because the Bible tells me He does. What more do I need?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Donatello


    The church of Christ in my case (seeing as it's a spiritual and not physical entity).

    It's less that the Bible teaches sola scriptura and more my having no basis for trusting the traditions of men when the Bible teaches men as being able to go abominably astray. Since the Roman (and other) church displays so many of the category errors displayed by biblical church men, my trust in it's (scriptures) wisdom is increased.

    Scripture is first up, best dressed.
    If the Church is a spiritual and not a physical entity, what was the point of the Incarnation? Is the physical body of the Christian not a temple of the Holy Spirit? Does our physical body have no part in the Church?

    One man with his Bible can go abominably astray. What makes you so sure you have not gone astray, just you and your Bible?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Donatello wrote: »
    The Catholic Church is not a denomination. Denomination, as a term, has no meaning within the Catholic Church. Denomination can be used to describe the various groupings which originated from the Protestant Revolt, and which sprang from that (30,000+).

    It is a denomination in so far as it doesn't account for all Christians. If it did it wouldn't be a denomination. If the RCC isn't a denomination it would have to account for all Christians, meaning that those outside of the RCC aren't Christians and aren't saved by Christ's grace.

    As for the Reformation, I've asked already, but I'll ask again. Do you not think that the structures of the 15th century corrupt RCC lent itself to the Reformation taking place?
    Donatello wrote: »
    The 'other Churches' you refer to are all those in communion with Rome - all the Particular Churches that make up the Latin rite, and all the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. The term can also be used to refer to the Orthodox, who are, in the words of the declaration DOMINUS IESUS true Particular Churches.

    So are Protestants Christians would be the logical question to ask?
    Donatello wrote: »
    The groupings that orginated from the Protestant revolt and those that sprung from that, cannot be referred to as Churches, but are properly referred to as ecclesial communities.

    I know that the Pope said this, but it still means that the RCC is a denomination unless it can account for all Christians. Logically.
    Donatello wrote: »
    It is a beautiful document - I read it once - and it describes how Christian unity is to come about.

    And we differ on this too I suspect. I would see mutual co-operation between churches as the way forward. The RCC sees an absorption of each church one by one as the way to Christian unity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    Donatello wrote: »
    One man with his Bible can go abominably astray. What makes you so sure you have not gone astray, just you and your Bible?

    "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Is 53:6.

    We all go astray, regardless of whether we go on Bible alone or the teachings of men. Whats your point exactly?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Donatello


    keano_afc wrote: »
    Off the top of my head, have a look at Deut 12:32. Also read the end of Revelation where we are warned not to add or take away from scripture.

    Nothing I see in scripture requires any addition. I know I am a saved born again believer who is going to heaven because the Bible tells me I am. I know God hears my prayers and forgives my sin because the Bible tells me He does. What more do I need?

    The warning in Revelation pertains only to that book, not the entire Bible...

    If your warning was heeded, would Luther have thrown out from the Bible the books he didn't like? Only his mates persuaded him otherwise, he would have thrown out the Book of James. What authority did Luther act with when he threw the books out?

    The Church gave us the Bible. Only the Church had the authority to say which books were or were not part of the Biblical canon.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Slav


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't believe the RCC is the same thing as the early Christian church, and there is no reason to believe that it was as far as I would see it.

    Neither do I believe it but I don't see the 4th century as the changing point or that there was ever one single changing point. Moreover, I think post Vatican II RCC is not the same thing as the 16th century RCC which is in turn not the same thing as the RCC of the Reformation time.

    The Roman Catholic Church came into existence as being distinct from other Christian churches that existed at that time. Namely the Jewish church, the Mar Thomas Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church.
    Not sure what you mean here. If by Jewish Church you mean the Church of Jerusalem then in the 4th century it was in communion with Rome (as well as with Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and all other bishops of undivided and catholic Church) and remain in communion with Rome until 1054. Same story with the Armenian Church which remained in communion with chalcedonean Churches (including the one of Rome) until early 6th century. As far as Indian Churches are concerned, it's not clear whether Indian Christian communities can be traced back to Thomas the Apostle or to Thomas Knai (4th century). In any way, even if there was a Church in India before the fourth century, starting from Thomas Knai, Indian Christians were under the patriarchate of Antinoch and therefore were in communion with Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome at least until the Nestorian controversy.

    Before then it was Christianity that united these churches not Roman Catholicism or any other denominational mindset.
    Before when? But I agree with the second point, Roman Catholicism (whatever we can mean by that) or any other denominational mindset never united the undivided catholic church. It's exactly at the time when a single "denominational" mindset oppose (maybe for a valid reason or maybe not so valid one) another mindset in the Church then we were starting to have schisms, apostasies and divisions.

    Indeed, and we know what happened with that eventually. It is interesting to note that much of Donatello's frustrations lie with Protestants though rather than previous apostates if you will :)
    True! :)
    It's probably because from the most common Roman Catholic point of view we are just a strange sect that for some unknown reason or because of pride rejected Papacy at some point in history. Pretty much everything else (from their perspective) is grand with us. ;) :P


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Donatello


    My comments in red.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It is a denomination in so far as it doesn't account for all Christians. If it did it wouldn't be a denomination. If the RCC isn't a denomination it would have to account for all Christians, meaning that those outside of the RCC aren't Christians and aren't saved by Christ's grace. [Now you're just applying your own meanings to terms, the meanings of which I've already given.]

    As for the Reformation, I've asked already, but I'll ask again. Do you not think that the structures of the 15th century corrupt RCC lent itself to the Reformation taking place?[Again, that has already been addressed, in one of the Catechism excerpts I posted a couple posts back on this thread. Did you not read it?]

    So are Protestants Christians would be the logical question to ask?[If they are validly baptised, they are Christians. But they have rejected so many of the ordinary means by which Christ intended us to keep our baptismal robes clean.]

    I know that the Pope said this, but it still means that the RCC is a denomination unless it can account for all Christians. Logically.[No, not logically. See above!]

    And we differ on this too I suspect. I would see mutual co-operation between churches as the way forward. The RCC sees an absorption of each church one by one as the way to Christian unity.
    I don't know what more I can do. I honestly don't think you have actually read my posts, or at least you have not internalised the arguments, the material, most of which I have included from official Church documents.

    I provided the meaning of terms in my posts above, but you insist on applying your own contrary meanings to terms and pasting them to your own arguments and insisting on what has already been refuted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Donatello


    Slav wrote: »
    Moreover, I think post Vatican II RCC is not the same thing as the 16th century RCC which is in turn not the same thing as the RCC of the Reformation time.

    Not sure what you mean here.

    Nor am I. The same thing... It depends what you mean by 'thing'. This could be straying into dangerous territory.

    From Lumen Gentium:
    8. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.(73) (11*)

    This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    keano_afc wrote: »
    It always pains me to see and hear Catholics trying to defend their man-made doctrine when faced with biblical truth. From reading the OP I didnt find one thing that those callers said that wasnt true, especially in regard to the forgiveness of sin. My own church has a team coming over from North America to do door to door work next month and bring the gospel to lost sinners. Thankfully, the Word is getting true and people are being saved.

    Praise the Lord that some of the people we speak to on the doors accept biblical truth and dont hide behind the fallible teaching of men.

    If they call to my door, they'll be dispatched pronto.
    And that's a promise.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Donatello


    hinault wrote: »
    If they call to my door, they'll be dispatched pronto.
    And that's a promise.

    Well I hope you go a bit easier on them than they did with Bin Laden! :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Donatello wrote: »
    I don't know what more I can do. I honestly don't think you have actually read my posts, or at least you have not internalised the arguments, the material, most of which I have included from official Church documents.

    I provided the meaning of terms in my posts above, but you insist on applying your own contrary meanings to terms and pasting them to your own arguments and insisting on what has already been refuted.

    You can deal with the points.

    Let's use the dictionary? -
    A recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church
    True. The RCC is a branch of Christianity.
    A group or branch of any religion
    True. The RCC is a group or branch of Christianity.
    A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity.
    True. The RCC fits this definition.

    All of these definitions are in keeping with the RCC. A subset of Christianity at large. You've not explained the logic of how the RCC cannot be regarded as a denomination other than that the Pope doesn't think so.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    keano_afc wrote: »
    Off the top of my head, have a look at Deut 12:32. Also read the end of Revelation where we are warned not to add or take away from scripture.

    Nothing I see in scripture requires any addition. I know I am a saved born again believer who is going to heaven because the Bible tells me I am. I know God hears my prayers and forgives my sin because the Bible tells me He does. What more do I need?

    How many different Protestant/Reformed churches are there anyhow?
    They all claim that the Bible is their only source :D:D:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Jakkass : The reformed/Protestant churches initially separated themselves from the RCC.
    Subsequently these denominations in certain case split and devolved in to other
    sects.

    Here is the definition of a denomination :
    A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭Quo Vadis


    The church of Christ in my case (seeing as it's a spiritual and not physical entity).

    It's less that the Bible teaches sola scriptura and more my having no basis for trusting the traditions of men when the Bible teaches men as being able to go abominably astray. Since the Roman (and other) church displays so many of the category errors displayed by biblical church men, my trust in it's (scriptures) wisdom is increased.

    Scripture is first up, best dressed.

    By that rational, you could not trust the apostles or early church fathers, as you know, the bible contents were not agreed until 300 AD, and the contents were altered again in the 1500's by Protestants to suit each of their own seperate factions.


    Is this your church ? : http://www.churchofchrist.ie/

    keano_afc wrote: »
    Off the top of my head, have a look at Deut 12:32. Also read the end of Revelation where we are warned not to add or take away from scripture.

    Nothing I see in scripture requires any addition. I know I am a saved born again believer who is going to heaven because the Bible tells me I am. I know God hears my prayers and forgives my sin because the Bible tells me He does. What more do I need?

    Deut 12:32 - this commandment only refers to the book of Deuteronomy, and why did it not preclude Christians from accepting all the Old Testament books after Deuteronomy, and the New Testament ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭Quo Vadis


    hinault wrote: »
    How many different Protestant/Reformed churches are there anyhow?

    According to World Christian Encyclopedia, there are "over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries," having increased in number from 8,196 in 1970. Every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations. Although they can't agree, they do have one thing in common : they all think they are right.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Donatello wrote: »
    If the Church is a spiritual and not a physical entity,

    By physical entity I mean physical instution. The physical church I walk into on a Sunday isn't the church of Christ.

    One man with his Bible can go abominably astray. What makes you so sure you have not gone astray, just you and your Bible?

    I'm pretty sure I've gone astray. Whether me and my Bible or me and my Bible and the various other sources of insight I consult. How do you know you haven't gone astray .. in plumping for the Roman Church.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement