The True Church and the Bible

http://www.marianland.com ^ | Marianland.com

[NKP_Vet]

TRUE CHURCH and BIBLE

Catholic Church History Facts

When did the Church established by Jesus Christ get the name Catholic?

Christ left the adoption of a name for His Church to those whom he commissioned to teach all nations. Christ called the spiritual society He established, "My Church" (Mt. xvi, 18), "the Church" (Mt. xviii, 17).

In order to have a distinction between the Church and the Synagogue and to have a distinguishing name from those embracing Judaic and Gnostic errors we find St. Ignatius (50-107 AD) using the Greek word "Katholicos" (universal) to describe the universality of the Church established by Christ. St. Ignatius was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome. It is in his writings that we find the word Catholic used for the first time. St. Augustine, when speaking about the Church of Christ, calls it the Catholic Church 240 times in his writings.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of the Apostle John, concerning the heretics of his day wrote: "They have abstained from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ."

St. Justin Martyr, another Church Father of the second century wrote: "This food is known among us as the Eucharist... We do not receive these things as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior, being made flesh by the Word of God."

[CommerceComet]

How convenient. Only if they swim the Tiber toward Rome are they serious students of the Bible who are true to themselves and listen to God's calling.

Since when does a majority determine spiritual truth? Obviously, the remnant of 7,000 "who had not bowed a knee to Baal" (1 Kings 19:18) were wrong by the standard you're trying to impose. (It is also known as the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity.)

Have a great day.

[ravenwolf]

One Church, One Truth, One Faith for ALL times. The rest is heresy. Shallow Protestantism does rains down quotes of scripture with no clue to their coherent meaning.

---

That no doubt holds true for both Catholics and protestants on many issues.

Any one who reads the bible can not completely agree or disagree with either side.

[Springfield Reformer]

I don't think the problem is so much understanding as belief. We don't accept the premise that people can will themselves to be perfectly objective. Every allegedly secular source is composed of real individuals who do have personal filters through which they view everything, and of which they are mostly unconscious.  This is a common problem for example with liberal Democrats.  Some that I've interacted with genuinely believe their personal views do not contaminate their analysis of anything.  According to them, only we on the right are biased. Yet they are in fact biased, and those biases will show up in anything they produce.  Granted, on any given topic, they might appear to be more or less objective.  But filters leave things out.  What part of the conversation did they omit that might help an analyst develop a more global view of the question?

That was my frame of mind when I looked at the Encyclopedia Britannica on this and found it to be useless in terms of figuring out the current state of Ignatian scholarship.  It could be as much as ten to twenty years behind the cutting edge.  The author(s) apparently do not care about the current state of the debate. To get that added information, one has to gather up data from as many good sources as possible.  Bias will be present in all of them.  But hopefully the adversarial nature of the conversation between the partisans will help us get a better picture of what the real issues are.  As APU and GZ have said, this sort of analysis is labor intensive.  Those like Schaff and Lightfoot, and their modern counterparts, who have time-tested methodologies designed to minimize personal bias, and who have worked hard at the primary sources, deserve a place at the table (though Parvus I'm not so sure of - methodological issues). That doesn't mean we have to agree to them.  But we are only doing harm to our own understanding by preemptively dismissing them because they have a particular denominational history.

In fact, did you know Schaff was an ecumenist of sorts?  He nearly lost his situation within the German Reformed Church because he was accused at one point of being too pro-Catholic.  This was evidently because in analyzing pre-Reformation church history he labored hard to be that honest, objective reporter you say you want.  For a detailed accounting of the issues and the trial, see here: http://www.cristoraul.com/ENGLISH/readinghall/GalleryofHistory/Philip-Schaff.html

Peace,

SR

[Elsie]

You’re still not dealing with the facts.

I will continue to REFUSE to look thru all of your, uh, stuff.

You want to make a point do it.

[Elsie]

There you go again.

[Elsie]

Oh?

A conversation?

It sure sounds like a monolog from you.

[Elsie]

One RC fantasy after another exposed by God's grace, from eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking his blood being required in order to obtain spiritual life, to the premise that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for God to provide and preserve Truth, to "One billion Catholics perfectly, indomitably united in belief, in organization, and in worship."

[Godzilla]

Since you don't understand the difference between secular and secularism, there is no point in continuing the conversation.

You want to continue with your straw man don't you. If the source echos a secular world view it is biased towards secularism - DUH.

There has been no 'conversation' - just smh at your inability to understand the point you are failing to make.

[ravenwolf]

Is AUGUSTINE mistaken here?

---

I pretty muck agree but there is a lot of ways to see it.

Jesus Christ is the foundation but the building continued.

Upon this confession, upon this that you said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’>>>>>>>>

That is pretty much what I have always believed but it is paraphrasing and it does not explain why only Peter was picked out to be called the rock.

By his name we can see that he was the only one called the rock

Mathew 16
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

There were no doubt other apostles who had just as much or even more faith as Peter did, how about John who was given revelation in his old age?

Yet Simon is the one Jesus renamed rock and he is called that to this day, (Peter).

Could it be that Jesus knew that Peter would take the lead as shown in acts?

Very little is known, as the apostles were not sent to glorify them selves but to glorify Christ, it is also probable that most could just barely read and write if at all.

I think it is a big mistake to take Peter ( rock ) lightly as with the other eleven apostles his name will be on a gate of the new Jerusalem.

As for the Catholic Church, they claim to be successor’s of Peter but there is no record of Peter glorifying him self what so ever so it is very doubtful.

[vladimir998]

“You want to make a point do it.”

Since the article I linked to refutes your apparent contention I already made my point. Then you made another point for me by refusing to look at it.

[vladimir998]

“There you go again.”

Yep.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm

[ravenwolf]

Much not muck stupid.

[RnMomof7]

Ya'll don't DARE READ the rest of the Bible.

My friend, I have read the bible.. and it tells me I am not saved or damned by keeping the law.. I am saved by Jesus, that kept the law perfectly for me

[Steelfish]

The thing about Catholics being Protestant forefathers won’t wash. The canonical text were established as the Word of God based on Petrine authority. That Petrine authority did not vanish eleven centuries after the Synod of Rome in AD 382.
Why is it “puffery” when intellectuals from all stripes, from all nations, and from all countries and persuasions convert to Catholicism? That they all converge at one singular conclusion is telling. It’s like when all mathematicians agree on a matter of science.

[metmom]

The CCC is non-editable, but it’s certainly subject to anyone’s personal interpretation.

1.2 billion popes strong.....

[metmom]

“If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” —Jesus

Cherry picked out of context again.

Which again leaves a wonderful opportunity for a correction of that error to be posted.

Which is NOT a command of Jesus to believers.

Posting it as if it were will lead someone to the wrong interpretation of that passage.

What Jesus said when He spoke those words, is: Matthew 18:15-18 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

For all the criticism non-Catholics receive about cherry picking verses and taking them out of context, there is simply no way anyone is going to one up this abuse of Scripture.

Taking a fragment of a sentence and posting it as a command of Jesus' is the ultimate in cherry picking verses to support a doctrine.

It will lead to deception.

This passage is only about settling personal disputes between individual believers, and the taking it to the church part is the LAST step in in process.

What it most certainly is NOT is a blanket command by Jesus to listen to, or submit to, the Catholic church.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.

[ravenwolf]

True.

[CommerceComet]

The thing about Catholics being Protestant forefathers won’t wash.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Catholics don't share common forefathers in the faith. I suppose that you'll claim the Hebrews 11 saints as exclusive Roman Catholic property as well.

The canonical text were established as the Word of God based on Petrine authority.

So Paul's letter to the Galatians, for example, wasn't the Word of God until AD 382 and got the Pope's seal of approval?

The charge of puffery refers to your habit of lavishing fawning praise on the people whose opinions you want to promote. If someone is renowned, why do you have to tell everyone? Either the person is renowned and it is unnecessary and condescending to say so or he or she isn't renowned and you proclaiming so is self-serving or dishonest.

[daniel1212]

Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.

Yes, it certainly was about a certain poster, that of his manner of persistent posting of polemical propaganda. Followed, it seems, by hitting the abuse button when reproved once again rather than engaging the issue. There ought to be a law...