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
Protestant/Catholic megathread
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
the whole "you aren't part of the church Jesus founded" thing.....
in a tree analogy
there was the church
then it split into Eastern Orthodox and what became called the Roman Catholic church
then some folk split from that root and started Protestantism.
so they all grew out of the same root, so all are still as close to being part of what Jesus founded as any other.
so carrying on the tree thing, test the fruit (ha! went a bit biblical there!)
there are branches of Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and others where it is a self serving club that Jesus wouldn't recognise
equally there are large parts where he would fit right in.
Bear in mind that the folk that Jesus went after.... were the religious ones who thought that they were the only ones who were right.0 -
I'm saying that they're not part of the only church founded by Jesus Christ.
I have to say that, as an outsider, I find this thread terribly interesting and at times hilarious. However, I have one question for you hinault. Let's say for a moment, that you're right, that Jesus only founded one church. What happens if, over the course of time, that church through its own traditions begins to deviate from the teachings contained in the bible. Shouldn't people then rightfully move away from that church and back to the teachings of Jesus in the bible itself.
For example, Section 83 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with "sacred" tradition and speaks about traditions handed down by the successors of the apostles but also of local traditions (theological, disciplinary, devotional etc.). However Jesus offers a stern rebuke against such practices in Mark 7:
"And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition."
Furthermore, Jesus offers an even stronger rebuke to the Pharisees in Matthew 23 when he describes them as seated in the Chair of Moses. Some Christians would no doubt see the Catholic Church as seating itself in the seat of Jesus in a similar way, behaving the same way as the Pharisees.
After all, there are a number of Catholic practices which run counter to instructions found in the New Testament. Like celibacy, for example:
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"
1 Timothy 3:2-5
"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth."
1 Timothy 4:1-3
I mean, being married is something which is normal and expected of priests according to the New Testament and was practiced by the Catholic Church from Peter all the way to 1079 when celibacy was introduced by Pope Gregory. So surely, that is a shining example of the Catholic Church deviating not only from its own tradition but the clear instruction of the New Testament.
Another clear yet probably less important example is the idea of saying the Rosary. Being raised a Catholic I had to sit through interminable novenas and devotions as a child, saying the same prayers over and over again. But surely that's something that the gospels teach explicitly against:
"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
Matthew 6:7
And that's all before we get to the more controversial teachings like the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Assumption of Mary which, at best, are unsupported by the evidence of the New Testament.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't buy the "One True Church" thing and in practice I don't think that most Catholics do either,given their active participation in ecumenical work.Possibly it depends on what you define as "church".It shouldn't come as a huge surprise that Catholic and Protestant viewpoints on that differ but for the most part it doesn't act as a barrier to cooperation and friendship.
Regarding traditions,pretty much any church out there will have traditions that don't appear in the New Testament.I'm a Quaker and although Quakers are known for being fairly minimalist in terms of ritual,we still have practices which would look strange,if not ridiculous to outsiders.I think the issue arises where something is practised solely for the purposes of outward piety and appearances instead of being a useful practice to bring you closer to God.In that sense,the Rosary may or may not be a good thing,depending on where the heart of the person saying it is.0 -
I have to say that, as an outsider, I find this thread terribly interesting and at times hilarious. However, I have one question for you hinault. Let's say for a moment, that you're right, that Jesus only founded one church. What happens if, over the course of time, that church through its own traditions begins to deviate from the teachings contained in the bible. Shouldn't people then rightfully move away from that church and back to the teachings of Jesus in the bible itself.
For example, Section 83 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with "sacred" tradition and speaks about traditions handed down by the successors of the apostles but also of local traditions (theological, disciplinary, devotional etc.). However Jesus offers a stern rebuke against such practices in Mark 7:
"And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition."
Furthermore, Jesus offers an even stronger rebuke to the Pharisees in Matthew 23 when he describes them as seated in the Chair of Moses. Some Christians would no doubt see the Catholic Church as seating itself in the seat of Jesus in a similar way, behaving the same way as the Pharisees.
After all, there are a number of Catholic practices which run counter to instructions found in the New Testament. Like celibacy, for example:
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"
1 Timothy 3:2-5
"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth."
1 Timothy 4:1-3
I mean, being married is something which is normal and expected of priests according to the New Testament and was practiced by the Catholic Church from Peter all the way to 1079 when celibacy was introduced by Pope Gregory. So surely, that is a shining example of the Catholic Church deviating not only from its own tradition but the clear instruction of the New Testament.
Another clear yet probably less important example is the idea of saying the Rosary. Being raised a Catholic I had to sit through interminable novenas and devotions as a child, saying the same prayers over and over again. But surely that's something that the gospels teach explicitly against:
"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
Matthew 6:7
And that's all before we get to the more controversial teachings like the perpetual virginity of Mary and the Assumption of Mary which, at best, are unsupported by the evidence of the New Testament.
In respect of the verses that you supplied for Timothy 1 : chapter 3, v2-5.
Father Haydock supplies the following commentaryVer. 2. A bishop (the same name then comprehended priest) to be blameless, as to life and conversation, adorned, (says St. Chrysostom) with all virtues. See also St. Jerome in his letter to Oceanus. --- The[1] husband of one wife. It does not signify, that to be a bishop or priest he must be a married man; nor that he must be a man who has but one wife at a time; but that he must be a man who has never been married but once, or to one wife: because to be married more than once, was looked upon as a mark of too great an inclination to sensual pleasures. It is true, at that time a man might be chosen to be a bishop or priest whose wife was living, but from that time he was to live with her as with a sister. This St. Jerome testifies as to the discipline of the Latin Church. (Witham) --- The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife, (for St. Paul himself had none) but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once. (Challoner) --- Sober.[2] The Greek rather signifies watchful. --- Chaste.[3] There is nothing for this in the Greek text at present, unless in some few manuscripts. Perhaps the ancient Latin interpreter added it, as being signified and comprehended in the other words. --- Teacher: a doctor, as the Greek signifies. (Witham)
Ver. 3. Not given to wine, or a lover of wine. This, says St. Chrysostom, is less than to be a drunkard; for such are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, whoever they be. (1 Corinthians vi. 10.) --- No striker. St. Chrysostom understands not striving, fighting or quarreling even with his tongue. --- Not covetous[4] of money, as appears by the Greek text. (Witham)
Ver. 4. Ruleth well his own house, &c. Before he is set over the Church, let him have given proofs of his talents for governing within his own house, by the regularity he has made all his dependants observe. In the infancy of the Church, it was frequently necessary to ordain the most regular fathers of families bishops, for want of others of a sufficient age who had observed perpetual continency. --- With all chastity. The Greek implies, grave, sober, temperate; but as this seems to answer what is said in Titus i. 6., it seems to be properly understood of chastity. (Witham)
It is matter of church practice that those called to Holy Orders be not married men. Of course one could cite St.Peter and the reference to his mother and law. The Church accepts that some of the apostles were married men. But the Church teaches that each of these apostles "left everything behind them" to follow their ministry, including presumably the wives that they had. In addition there is no mention of any of the apostles wives assisting in the ministry that their husbands were called to. It is reasonable to conclude that Jesus called men to serve solely as priests/bishops/apostles. How can someone serve solely as a priest, if they are married at the same time? The conflict is clear in that situation because either the ministry suffers or the marriage suffers.
Jesus himself was not married also.
In respect of 1 Timothy Ch 4 v1-3, here is Father Haydock's commentaryVer. 1. In the last times. Literally, last days; i.e. hereafter, or in days to come. --- To spirits of error and doctrines of devils; or, to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, as in the Protestant translation. The sense must be, that men shall teach false doctrine by the suggestion of the devil. (Witham)
Ver. 2. Their conscience seared; hardened: a metaphor from the custom of burning malefactors with a hot iron. (Witham)
Ver. 3. Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, &c. Here says St. Chrysostom[1] are foretold and denoted the heretics called Encratites, the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. who condemned all marriages as evil, as may be seen in St. Irenæus, Epiphanius, St. Augustine, Theodoret, &c. These heretics held a god who was the author of good things, and another god who was the author or cause of all evils; among the latter they reckoned, marriages, fleshmeats, wine, &c. The doctrine of Catholics is quite different, when they condemn the marriages of priests and of such as have made a vow to God to lead always a single life; or when the Church forbids persons to eat flesh in Lent, or on fasting-days, unless their health require it. We hold that marriage in itself is not only honourable, but a sacrament of divine institution. We believe and profess that the same only true God is the author of all creatures which are good of themselves; that all eatables are to be eaten with thanksgiving, and none of them to be rejected, as coming from the author of evil. When we condemn priests for marrying, it is for breaking their vows and promises made to God of living unmarried, and of leading a more perfect life; we condemn them with the Scripture, which teaches us that vows made are to be kept; with St. Paul, who in the next chap. (ver. 12) teaches us, that they who break such vows incur their damnation. When the Church, which we are commanded to obey, enjoins abstinence from flesh, or puts a restraint as to the times of eating on days of humiliation and fasting, it is by way of self-denial and mortification: so that it is not the meats, but the transgression of the precept, that on such occasions defiles the consciences of the transgressors. "You will object, (says St. Chrysostom) that we hinder persons from marrying; God forbid," &c. St. Augustine, (lib. 30. contra Faustum. chap. vi.) "You see (says he) the great difference in abstaining from meats for mortification sake, and as if God was not the author of them." We may observe that God, in the law of Moses, prohibited swine's flesh and many other eatables; and that even the apostles, in the Council of Jerusalem, forbad the Christians, (at least about Antioch) to eat at that time blood and things strangled; not that they were bad of themselves, as the Manicheans pretended. (Witham) --- St. Paul here speaks of the Gnostics and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage and the use of all kind of meat, because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle: whereas the Church of God so far from condemning marriage, holds it to be a holy sacrament, and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever, in proper times and seasons, though she does not judge all kinds of diet proper for days of fasting and penance. (Challoner) --- We may see in the earliest ages[centuries] of Christianity, that some of the most infamous and impure heretics that ever went out of the Church, condemned all marriage as unlawful, at the same time allowing the most unheard of abominations: men without religion, without faith, without modesty, without honour. See St. Clement of Alexandria, lib. 3. Strom.
I've bolded certain parts.0 -
Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »I don't buy the "One True Church" thing and in practice I don't think that most Catholics do either,given their active participation in ecumenical work.Possibly it depends on what you define as "church".It shouldn't come as a huge surprise that Catholic and Protestant viewpoints on that differ but for the most part it doesn't act as a barrier to cooperation and friendship.
I've no difficulty with the concept of good relations with those holding a different faith and none. In fact it's crucial to have at least cordial relations concerning matters temporal at least.
However in matters spiritual, what are we discussing here? It seems to me that we are discussing articles of faith here. Where does "ecumenism" begin and end? If salvation is not confined to the Catholic Church where is it confined to? Is salvation open to non-Christian faiths therefore?
I've no doubt that some of the reformer faiths contain to a lesser or greater extent some Catholic truths.
Personally I have no difficulty with anyone choosing to believe what they believe. However it's when they try to assert that what they believe is true and that what they believe has been ordained by Jesus Christ, then I cannot agree with their assertion, because their assertion is not fully truthful.0 -
I'm surprised you haven't seen it throughout the NT: when Jesus sent out the 72 (Lk 10) he says "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me." Jesus chose the 72, gave them authority and parameters.antiskeptic wrote: »Where did he say that regarding the New Covenant. Which authority did he identify and how are we to recognize it as the authority?
If you are in doubt about there being a New Covenant (so very different to the Old but with parallels / notes everywhere then perhaps we should establish that fact first.
Which sets aside the authority being the one charged with conveying the Old Covenant (the Mosaic Law and the Prophets contained in the OT). We appear to be clear on that.
The NT law expands on the OT law (and I'm not talking shellfish here either). The OT law told the Jews not to covet another mans wife (adultery). The NT law says to lust after after anyone at all: whether neighbours wife or anyone else .. is adultery.
I don't dismiss either but consider myself beholden to the New.
Indeed. The question then is "what is the church?" The answer I consider the correct one is the body of believers. They as individuals form the building blocks for the structure. There is no other church in my view.
Fine if people want to congregate and out of that form denominations. But I don't see that kind of structure as the one Christ ordained.
Through the apostles actually. People who had seen the risen Lord with their own eyes.
These are two quite separate things. Deciding there is apostolic provenence for writings is quite a different matter to deciding what the writings mean. It would be worth looking up how the canon of scripture was decided upon at btw. It's not as if the RC church is a monolithic structure which traces it origins back to the very start without there being evolution / schism / offshoots all the way through. It wasn't the RC church which decided upon the canon of scripture for example.
As I have pointed out to hinault, the decision to accept the canon of scripture is the decision of an individual. The self-decision extends to every aspect of one's belief whether you decide to interpret something yourself, use the wisdom of others you figure are in a position to understand better than yourself, or farm out the whole kit and kaboodle to e.g. the RC church
The only guarantee you have is your own judgement - irrespective of the direction you chose to exercise that judgement in.
Which is kind of fair. It means we all stand before God by ourselves, unable to point the finger at another for the beliefs we held and what arose on account of those beliefs..
The authority given to Peter (alone) in Mt 16 "And now I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church; and never will the powers of death overcome it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you unbind on earth shall be unbound in heaven." Jesus reiterates this, in speaking to the 12 only in Mt 18 "I say to you: whatever you bind on earth, heaven will keep bound;and whatever you unbind on earth, heaven will keep unbound."
And Mt 28, at the end, Jesus calls the 11 and said "I have been given all authority in heaven and earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples from all nations. Baptise them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you."
In Acts 1, the Apostles decide to fill the vacated position of Judas Iscariot. There is the first case of Apostolic Succession. They had the authority to do so. In Acts 2, we hear that the people "devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles."; the Apostles, the leaders in the Church, those authorised and commissioned to transmit the message of Christ. I could go on but I'm getting tired and you seem think choice is a prime agent in decision making, so biblical references mightn't convince you of what has been written for nearly 2,000 years.
"Through the apostles actually" No, actually. Matt - yes. Mark was Peter's secretary, Luke was a Greek doctor (I think) John, yes. Paul, an Apostle, yes, but not one who knew the Lord in His life on Earth. There is discussion on whether the letters of Jn were from the same author as Jn/Rev but that doesn't really matter. So we have less than 17% of the authorised Teachers of Our Lords words committing them to paper for record. There are more accounts but who decided whether they were to be accepted?
Lastly, your judgment is as fallible as every other faculty. Proverbs 3 says "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding". Your judgment, opinion and understanding are fallible, partial and finite. Your conscience is the only part of yourself that would come close to the level of importance you attribute to facultires, but even conscience isn't guaranteed to work right or correctly without God's grace.
PS - Please don't dissect everything; it's hard to respond to many paragraphs0 -
martinedwards wrote: »the whole "you aren't part of the church Jesus founded" thing.....
in a tree analogy
there was the church
then it split into Eastern Orthodox and what became called the Roman Catholic church
then some folk split from that root and started Protestantism.
so they all grew out of the same root, so all are still as close to being part of what Jesus founded as any other.
so carrying on the tree thing, test the fruit (ha! went a bit biblical there!)
there are branches of Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and others where it is a self serving club that Jesus wouldn't recognise
equally there are large parts where he would fit right in.
Bear in mind that the folk that Jesus went after.... were the religious ones who thought that they were the only ones who were right.
I know you meant it differently but using your analogy proves the point. Christ planted the tree and men have split it. But if Christ planted one tree, which is it?0 -
Advertisement
-
martinedwards wrote: »the whole "you aren't part of the church Jesus founded" thing.....
in a tree analogy
there was the church
then it split into Eastern Orthodox and what became called the Roman Catholic church
then some folk split from that root and started Protestantism.
so they all grew out of the same root, so all are still as close to being part of what Jesus founded as any other.
so carrying on the tree thing, test the fruit (ha! went a bit biblical there!)
there are branches of Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and others where it is a self serving club that Jesus wouldn't recognise
equally there are large parts where he would fit right in.
Bear in mind that the folk that Jesus went after.... were the religious ones who thought that they were the only ones who were right.
A better tree analogy.
There was a church composed of people who loved Jesus and did their best to follow him.
Then there was a guy called Constantine who twisted one branch off at a weird unnatural angle. Soon that branch began to claim that it was the only true part of the tree.
Meanwhile there were other small branches which still grew straight and true. But Constantine's followers kept burning them and snapping them off.
But that tree just kept on sprouting new branches, because there was an organic life in it that just wouldn't be denied.
Today there's a whole load of branches. Some of them are big, some of them are small, some of them are a bit twisted and ugly. A lot of the branches are imperfect, but the sap still flows through them. They are alive and connected to the tree.
And Constantine's branch still occasionally says, "Oi, we're the only true tree!"0 -
A better tree analogy.
There was a church composed of people who loved Jesus and did their best to follow him.
Then there was a guy called Constantine who twisted one branch off at a weird unnatural angle. Soon that branch began to claim that it was the only true part of the tree.
Meanwhile there were other small branches which still grew straight and true. But Constantine's followers kept burning them and snapping them off.
But that tree just kept on sprouting new branches, because there was an organic life in it that just wouldn't be denied.
Today there's a whole load of branches. Some of them are big, some of them are small, some of them are a bit twisted and ugly. A lot of the branches are imperfect, but the sap still flows through them. They are alive and connected to the tree.
And Constantine's branch still occasionally says, "Oi, we're the only true tree!"
Great analogy Nick...just a pity hinault wont agree with it;)0 -
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Mt 7:19But Constantine's followers kept burning them and snapping them off.
Did 'Constantine's branch' ever team up with Atheists and Muslims to stop the message of Christ being given to children?And Constantine's branch still occasionally says, "Oi, we're the only true tree!"0 -
Atlas Gorgeous Shutterbug wrote: »Great analogy Nick...just a pity hinault wont agree with it;)
I know this is a discussion forum and all, but given that you are neither Catholic nor Protestant, you are not contributing to the thread at all. So is Hinault the reason you keep posting? You know you are being ignored, so why do you keep seeking to be noticed or interacted with? It's funny when children use the "I'm not talking to X, so can you ask him to pass the gravy" line at the dinner table but for an adult, and supposedly mature Christian, it's boring. You can add something good to the thread if you want.0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Mt 7:19
I'm really hoping that you're not seriously suggesting that Jesus was advocating the execution of those who dared to disagree with your denomination.Did 'Constantine's branch' ever team up with Atheists and Muslims to stop the message of Christ being given to children?
I'm not aware of anyone doing that now.
But, to answer your question, no, when Constantine's branch stopped the message of Christ being given to both adults and children (e.g. by executing Gospel preachers) they generally managed to do it all by themselves.0 -
Today there's a whole load of branches. Some of them are big, some of them are small, some of them are a bit twisted and ugly. A lot of the branches are imperfect, but the sap still flows through them. They are alive and connected to the tree.
And Constantine's branch still occasionally says, "Oi, we're the only true tree!"
Very accurate. You could also say that this tree is just one in a forest of Belief.0 -
No, simply stating that the tree needs constant(ine) pruning and the unproductive bits go in the fire.I'm really hoping that you're not seriously suggesting that Jesus was advocating the execution of those who dared to disagree with your denomination.I'm not aware of anyone doing that now.
But, to answer your question, no, when Constantine's branch stopped the message of Christ being given to both adults and children (e.g. by executing Gospel preachers) they generally managed to do it all by themselves.
Memory not so sharp, eh?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057558207
really wanted to show the pic!0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »No, simply stating that the tree needs constant(ine) pruning and the unproductive bits go in the fire.
So you find the killing of people to be amusing?Memory not so sharp, eh?
No, my memories just fine, thank you. My position, which I outlined then, and which I still hold, is that no child should have to attend a religious school against their parents' will purely because no secular alternative exists in their locality. And those parents who want to send their children to religious schools should have the freedom to do so.
It's a perfectly reasonable position, and it would take an extremely dishonest person to pretend that it somehow equates to stopping children from receiving the message of Christ.0 -
The RCC stopped the gospel of faith and grace being preached, along with the need for a person to be born again. Instead it equated infant baptism with rebirth and tied people into a system which had them believe that if they toed the line they might get to heaven but only if their families did enough to get them to heaven.
The end result was a population living in fear and without the knowledge and assurance of Eternal Life.
Those that said any different were branded heretics. If anyone stopped children hearing the gospel,it was the RCC.0 -
An analogy answered with an analogy is construed as murderous glee? Well done.So you find the killing of people to be amusing?No, my memories just fine, thank you. My position, which I outlined then, and which I still hold, is that no child should have to attend a religious school against their parents' will purely because no secular alternative exists in their locality. And those parents who want to send their children to religious schools should have the freedom to do so.
It's a perfectly reasonable position, and it would take an extremely dishonest person to pretend that it somehow equates to stopping children from receiving the message of Christ.
I didn't stay in the thread long enough for you to give your version: I read Michael's paragraphs and assumed he spoke for all of you - seeing that you didn't correct his introduction.
"We also want legal changes to be made to ensure that the curriculum is delivered objectively critically and pluralistically and not combined with the religious instruction classes or the ethos of the school." How ever did I mistake your intentions?0 -
Advertisement
-
lazybones32 wrote: »I'm surprised you haven't seen it throughout the NT: when Jesus sent out the 72 (Lk 10) he says "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me." Jesus chose the 72, gave them authority and parameters.
The authority given to Peter (alone) in Mt 16 "And now I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church; and never will the powers of death overcome it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you unbind on earth shall be unbound in heaven." Jesus reiterates this, in speaking to the 12 only in Mt 18 "I say to you: whatever you bind on earth, heaven will keep bound;and whatever youu unbind on earth, heaven will keep unbound."
We agree the apostles where given personal authorization. Two issues/questions here thereafter
Remarkable claims, as you know, require remarkable evidence. We have a single statement here on which the institution of the Roman Catholic church is supposed to stand. You'll be aware of the various interpretations that applied to this verse - suffice to say this is simply nowhere near enough evidence for the claim being made by the RC church.
I'm not sure what the intent of "only" is. Are you suggesting something is diminished by the "only"In Acts 1, the Apostles decide to fill the vacated position of Judas Iscariot. There is the first case of Apostolic Succession.
Whoa! If an apostle or apostles decide to do something then they are presumed to be acting as if God? Can apostles sin? Can apostles make mistakes?
If the apostles mistakenly decide that the square root of 9 is 2.7 then all the binding and loosing in the world won't make that the case. They are evidently imperfect men and aren't rendered infallible by a verse.
Apostolic Succession, a significant, if not the most significant cornerstone of RC church, couldn't be more lacking. Cornerstones are big, solid, prominent, strong. They tie (as apostolic succession must in order for the RC church to stand) everything else together.you seem think choice is a prime agent in decision making so biblical references mightn't convince you of what has been written for nearly 2,000 years.
Choice is involved in you arriving at the conclusion you presumably arrive at from the above passages. Else you chose to accept the argument given to you by another you chose to consider an authority. There is no difference.
I chose otherwise (in the above case, by virtue of what I think flimsy / insufficient evidence)
I can't fathom what core difference there is between us."Through the apostles actually"
Sorry - head wasn't plugged inLastly, your judgment is as fallible as every other faculty. Proverbs 3 says "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding". Your judgment, opinion and understanding are fallible, partial and finite. Your conscience is the only part of yourself that would come close to the level of importance you attribute to facultires, but even conscience isn't guaranteed to work right or correctly without God's grace.
I fully accept that without him I can do nothing. I remember when the lights went on and the Bible turned from being a near-impossible read to vitality in my hands. That light going on wasn't my intellect, it could only be Him.
My question: if my judgement if fallible (which I don't deny) then so is yours. Assuming you currently consider the RC church to be the one true church, how then do you suppose your assessment of the RC churches claim about itself is correct? If your judgement is fallible, that is.
It is you doing the assessing of the claim isn't it?0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »How ever did I mistake your intentions?
If it was a genuine mistake then you would apologise for posting a falsehood about me.0 -
Lazybones in quoting the passage you refer to, you ignore the revelation Peter had beforehand regarding Jesus being the Christ. It was in this context Jesus made His claim.
Jesus was the Rock which scripture is clear on, Cephas as his name suggests was a only a small stone. You only have to look at this passage in the Greek to see the difference. But it suits the RCC agenda to ignore the facts and replace them with "doctrine".
As for me being neither Protestant or Catholic. Hinault makes no distinction between those of us in said boat and self proclaimed Protestants.:)0 -
A better tree analogy.
There was a church composed of people who loved Jesus and did their best to follow him.
Then there was a guy called Constantine who twisted one branch off at a weird unnatural angle. Soon that branch began to claim that it was the only true part of the tree.
Meanwhile there were other small branches which still grew straight and true. But Constantine's followers kept burning them and snapping them off.
But that tree just kept on sprouting new branches, because there was an organic life in it that just wouldn't be denied.
Today there's a whole load of branches. Some of them are big, some of them are small, some of them are a bit twisted and ugly. A lot of the branches are imperfect, but the sap still flows through them. They are alive and connected to the tree.
And Constantine's branch still occasionally says, "Oi, we're the only true tree!"
The Catholic Church pre-dates Constantine.
That is where your conspiracy theory sinks, because the Catholic Church existed long before Constantine.
But if Constantine is not being blamed no doubt someone else would be falsely accused.0 -
It was not a genuine mistake; it is genuine suspicion about you and your aims. Is that clear enough for you?If it was a genuine mistake then you would apologise for posting a falsehood about me.antiskeptic wrote: »We agree the apostles where given personal authorization. Two issues/questions here thereafter
Remarkable claims, as you know, require remarkable evidence. We have a single statement here on which the institution of the Roman Catholic church is supposed to stand. You'll be aware of the various interpretations that applied to this verse - suffice to say this is simply nowhere near enough evidence for the claim being made by the RC church.
I'm not sure what the intent of "only" is. Are you suggesting something is diminished by the "only"
Whoa! If an apostle or apostles decide to do something then they are presumed to be acting as if God? Can apostles sin? Can apostles make mistakes?
If the apostles mistakenly decide that the square root of 9 is 2.7 then all the binding and loosing in the world won't make that the case. They are evidently imperfect men and aren't rendered infallible by a verse.
Apostolic Succession, a significant, if not the most significant cornerstone of RC church, couldn't be more lacking. Cornerstones are big, solid, prominent, strong. They tie (as apostolic succession must in order for the RC church to stand) everything else together.
Choice is involved in you arriving at the conclusion you presumably arrive at from the above passages. Else you chose to accept the argument given to you by another you chose to consider an authority. There is no difference.
I chose otherwise (in the above case, by virtue of what I think flimsy / insufficient evidence)
I can't fathom what core difference there is between us.
Sorry - head wasn't plugged in
I fully accept that without him I can do nothing. I remember when the lights went on and the Bible turned from being a near-impossible read to vitality in my hands. That light going on wasn't my intellect, it could only be Him.
My question: if my judgement if fallible (which I don't deny) then so is yours. Assuming you currently consider the RC church to be the one true church, how then do you suppose your assessment of the RC churches claim about itself is correct? If your judgement is fallible, that is.
It is you doing the assessing of the claim isn't it?
13 paragraphs and I disagree with nearly all of them. I won't be writing 13 counter arguments...so which will I choose?
- If you are interested, you might look into the significance of the 'binding and loosing' authority.
- the authority of Rome doesn't depend on my judgment but on the Word of Christ. This has already been said, time and again on this thread. The authority given to the disciples still exists and is practiced.
- Again with choice....I'm tired of that bit.0 -
The Catholic Church pre-dates Constantine.
That is where your conspiracy theory sinks, because the Catholic Church existed long before Constantine.
But if Constantine is not being blamed no doubt someone else would be falsely accused.
The Catholic Church, meaning the Christian church to which all true believers belong irrespective of denomination, certainly existed before Constantine.
However, it was nothing like the institution in Rome that developed after Constantine disastrously welded Church and State together. That was when a persecuted minority turned into the persecuting majority, when people who were willing to die for Christ became people who were willing to kill others for Christ, and where the Church, in the words of Thomas Aquinas, could no longer say "silver and gold have I none" but tragically lost the power to effectively say "in the name Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."
The untangling of Christianity from the corrosive influence of political power is something many of us are still struggling with. To his credit, I think the current Pope wants to assist in that process and has a sincere desire to cooperate with other denominations to see more authentic expressions of Christianity that are closer to Jesus than Constantine.0 -
Atlas Gorgeous Shutterbug wrote: »The RCC stopped the gospel of faith and grace being preached, along with the need for a person to be born again. Instead it equated infant baptism with rebirth and tied people into a system which had them believe that if they toed the line they might get to heaven but only if their families did enough to get them to heaven.
The end result was a population living in fear and without the knowledge and assurance of Eternal Life.
Those that said any different were branded heretics. If anyone stopped children hearing the gospel,it was the RCC.
"Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit." Jn 3:5 Baptism is the sharing in the crucifixion and Confirmation is the promise of the Spirit (the laying of hands). So we don't have to obey Jesus' words in order to hear the words "Well done, good and faithful servant."?
None of us actually have a guarantee that we will be saved. God wants us to be saved and He makes available every grace necessary (and more) but His willingness to help doesn't mean that everyone will respond or cooperate effectively. We have our part to play too - we have to pray, to have faith, to live according to the Word as best we can, to grow and fulfill His will.
I get you now...Jesus, when speaking to Peter, was really speaking of and to Himself when He spoke those words...to peter...That makes much more sense.:rolleyes:Atlas Gorgeous Shutterbug wrote: »Lazybones in quoting the passage you refer to, you ignore the revelation Peter had beforehand regarding Jesus being the Christ. It was in this context Jesus made His claim.
Jesus was the Rock which scripture is clear on, Cephas as his name suggests was a only a small stone. You only have to look at this passage in the Greek to see the difference. But it suits the RCC agenda to ignore the facts and replace them with "doctrine".
You mean there is someone on the Internet who is wrong?! It is your duty to correct them all!Atlas Gorgeous Shutterbug wrote: »As for me being neither Protestant or Catholic. Hinault makes no distinction between those of us in said boat and self proclaimed Protestants.:)0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »"Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit." Jn 3:5 Baptism is the sharing in the crucifixion and Confirmation is the promise of the Spirit (the laying of hands). So we don't have to obey Jesus' words in order to hear the words "Well done, good and faithful servant."?
None of us actually have a guarantee that we will be saved. God wants us to be saved and He makes available every grace necessary (and more) but His willingness to help doesn't mean that everyone will respond or cooperate effectively. We have our part to play too - we have to pray, to have faith, to live according to the Word as best we can, to grow and fulfill His will.
I get you now...Jesus, when speaking to Peter, was really speaking of and to Himself when He spoke those words...to peter...That makes much more sense.:rolleyes:
You mean there is someone on the Internet who is wrong?! It is your duty to correct them all!lazybones32 wrote: »"Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit." Jn 3:5 Baptism is the sharing in the crucifixion and Confirmation is the promise of the Spirit (the laying of hands). So we don't have to obey Jesus' words in order to hear the words "Well done, good and faithful servant."?
None of us actually have a guarantee that we will be saved. God wants us to be saved and He makes available every grace necessary (and more) but His willingness to help doesn't mean that everyone will respond or cooperate effectively. {/quote]
Either you're right or the Word of God is right!!! I'll go with the Bible on this one:)
"These things have I written to you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God 1 JOhn 5:13
"what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, " Acts 16:30-3I get you now...Jesus, when speaking to Peter, was really speaking of and to Himself when He spoke those words...to peter...That makes much more sense.
{/quote]
He was referring to both Himself (The Rock) and Peter (the stone) When its read correctly, he says .You are Peter ( a stone), upon this Rock (Himself ) I will build My Church. That came from the statement Peter made saying that Jesus was the Christ.You mean there is someone on the Internet who is wrong?! It is your duty to correct them all!
If they are wrong and I've opportunity.....YES
0 -
If it's a Christian Church ... then it takes its legitimacy directly from Jesus Christ ... who said "where two or more are gathered together in my name, there I am also" ... and we don't require the endorsement of a Roman Emperor ... or the Church he founded to do this.You might be in a Christian Church. It certainly isn't one founded by Jesus Christ.
Deluded in what way?You're as deluded as the other non-Catholics here, sadly.0 -
Advertisement
-
A church is any group of Christians gathered under the authority of Jesus Christ.I'm saying that they're not part of the only church founded by Jesus Christ.
... and a Christian is anybody who has a saved relationship directly with Jesus Christ ... who is the one mediator between man and God.
No room for Constantine ... or any other 'middle-men' there.:)0
Advertisement