Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Blogger
Upon what do you base your belief that the Catholic church was founded by Christ in 33 AD?

The testimony of the Church.

And, NO. That is NOT Gnosticism.

Yes it is. It denies the material aspect of the Church, making its unity *merely* spiritual, something far inferior to the unity which Christ's prays in John 17 that His disciples would have.

Grow up.

That's an ad hominem.

As an organism, we are part of Christ's body. Christ's body is NOT an organization but an organism.

You are assuming that an organism cannot be an organization. That's a false assumption. Christ founded a Church, with a hiearchical authority structure: Apostles, and bishops, presbyters, and deacons.

Otherwise, you are saying Christ allowed his body to be polluted by all of the SSOEAs throughout history. Popes with illegitimate children. Priests having sex with children. Popes having orgies in the vatican. Anti-popes.

This is just as true if the body of Christ is an organism. When believers (especially those in authority) do evil, they bring shame and pollution into the body of Christ. That requires repentence and confession and reparation. But it does not destroy Christ's body; the gates of hell cannot prevail against Christ's Church.

The church of Christ is ALL BELIEVERS. Regardless if they are in a Catholic church structure, Baptist, Methodist, Presybterian. If one believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, then one is a part of His body.

That is true, but as I said already, Christ's Church subsists in the Catholic Church. In other words, baptized Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians, etc. are in fact (whether they know it or not) Catholics who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. By their [Trinitarian] baptism they are brought into [incomplete] communion with the Catholic Church.

-A8

2,775 posted on 12/22/2006 2:33:37 PM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2770 | View Replies ]


To: adiaireton8
To: Blogger Upon what do you base your belief that the Catholic church was founded by Christ in 33 AD?

The testimony of the Church.


Aside from the fact that this is Circular reasoning (which I will admit to on my own behalf but you will not on your own in all likelihood) How do you know your interpretation of the Church's testimony is correct?

And, NO. That is NOT Gnosticism.

Yes it is. It denies the material aspect of the Church, making its unity *merely* spiritual, something far inferior to the unity which Christ's prays in John 17 that His disciples would have.


No it isn't. I didn't deny a material aspect. We are humans. We are in physical human bodies. Christ will resurrect these physical bodies and glorify them in the future. I deny that the church of Christ is an Organization centralized in Rome.



Grow up.
That's an ad hominem.

No. That's an observation.

As an organism, we are part of Christ's body. Christ's body is NOT an organization but an organism.

You are assuming that an organism cannot be an organization. That's a false assumption. Christ founded a Church, with a hiearchical authority structure: Apostles, and bishops, presbyters, and deacons.


But that hierarchical structure is NOT the church. The church is the people. Not the structure.

Otherwise, you are saying Christ allowed his body to be polluted by all of the SSOEAs throughout history. Popes with illegitimate children. Priests having sex with children. Popes having orgies in the vatican. Anti-popes.

This is just as true if the body of Christ is an organism. When believers (especially those in authority) do evil, they bring shame and pollution into the body of Christ. That requires repentence and confession and reparation. But it does not destroy Christ's body; the gates of hell cannot prevail against Christ's Church.


Nice try, but not quite the right answer. We do not have to make reparations. We don't do penance. We don't have more sacrifices made for us. Christ's one sacrifice perfected us once for all. That is our only standing and claim to righteousness before God.

However, These Popes, Cardinals, and other SSOEAs have foisted upon those under their care many falsehoods over time - speaking ex-cathedra. By what authority can a church that for most of the Middle ages was made up largely of SSOEAs engaging in Simony, Pluralism, Selling Indulgences have any claim to any authority?

The church of Christ is ALL BELIEVERS. Regardless if they are in a Catholic church structure, Baptist, Methodist, Presybterian. If one believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, then one is a part of His body.

That is true, but as I said already, Christ's Church subsists in the Catholic Church. In other words, baptized Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians, etc. are in fact (whether they know it or not) Catholics who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. By their [Trinitarian] baptism they are brought into [incomplete] communion with the Catholic Church.

We weren't proclaimed so at Trent.
2,779 posted on 12/22/2006 3:08:25 PM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2775 | View Replies ]

To: adiaireton8
St. Vincent of Lerens (400-450 AD)

On Development in Religious Knowledge.

"But some one will say, perhaps. Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else.

The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant… In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits…

This rather should be the result,--there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind--wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth…

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,--if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,--this, and nothing else,--she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.

Heretics appeal to Scripture that they may more easily succeed in deceiving.

Here, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics also appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture,--through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavour to shelter under words of Scripture. Read the works of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and the rest of those pests, and you will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Testament or the Old.

But the more secretly they conceal themselves under shelter of the Divine Law, so much the more are they to be feared and guarded against. For they know that the evil stench of their doctrine will hardly find acceptance with any one if it be exhaled pure and simple. They sprinkle it over, therefore, with the perfume of heavenly language, in order that one who would be ready to despise human error, may hesitate to condemn divine words. They do, in fact, what nurses do when they would prepare some bitter draught for children; they smear the edge of the cup all round with honey, that the unsuspecting child, having first tasted the sweet, may have no fear of the bitter. So too do these act, who disguise poisonous herbs and noxious juices under the names of medicines, so that no one almost, when he reads the label, suspects the poison.

It was for this reason that the Saviour cried, "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." What is meant by "sheep's clothing"? What but the words which prophets and apostles with the guilelessness of sheep wove beforehand as fleeces, for that immaculate Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world? What are the ravening wolves? What but the savage and rabid glosses of heretics, who continually infest the Church's folds, and tear in pieces the flock of Christ wherever they are able? But that they may with more successful guile steal upon the unsuspecting sheep, retaining the ferocity of the wolf, they put off his appearance, and wrap themselves, so to say, in the language of the Divine Law, as in a fleece, so that one, having felt the softness of wool, may have no dread of the wolf's fangs. But what saith the Saviour? "By their fruits ye shall know them;" that is, when they have begun not only to quote those divine words, but also to expound them, not as yet only to make a boast of them as on their side, but also to interpret them, then will that bitterness, that acerbity, that rage, be understood; then will the ill-savour of that novel poison be perceived, then will those profane novelties be disclosed, then may you see first the hedge broken through, then the landmarks of the Fathers removed, then the Catholic faith assailed, then the doctrine of the Church torn in pieces…

Heretics, in quoting Scripture, follow the example of the Devil.

BUT some one will say, What proof have we that the Devil is wont to appeal to Holy Scripture? Let him read the Gospels wherein it is written, ‘Then the Devil took Him (the Lord the Saviour) and set Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple, and said unto Him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee, that they may keep thee in all thy ways: In their hands they shall bear thee up, lest perchance thou dash thy foot against a stone.’ (2) What sort of treatment must men, insignificant wretches that they are, look for at the hands of him who assailed even the Lord of Glory with quotations from Scripture? ‘If thou be the Son of God," saith be, "cast thyself down.’ Wherefore? ‘For,’ saith he, ‘it is written.’ it behooves us to pay special attention to this passage and bear it in mind, that, warned by so important an instance of Evangelical authority, we may be assured beyond doubt, when we find people alleging passages from the Apostles or Prophets against the Catholic Faith, that the Devil speaks through their mouths. For as then the Head spoke to the Head, so now also the members speak to the members, the members of the Devil to the members of Christ, misbelievers to believers, sacrilegious to religious, in one word, Heretics to Catholics.

But what do they say? ‘If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down;’ that is,. If thou wouldst be a son of God, and wouldst receive the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven, cast thyself down; that is, cast thyself down from the doctrine and tradition of that sublime Church, which is imagined to be nothing less than the very temple of God. And if one should ask one of the heretics who gives this advice, How do you prove? What ground have you, for saying, that I ought to cast away the universal and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? he has the answer ready, "For it is written;" and forthwith he produces a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities from the Law, from the Psalms, from the apostles, from the Prophets, by means of which, interpreted on a new and wrong principle, the unhappy soul may be precipitated from the height of Catholic truth to the lowest abyss of heresy. Then, with the accompanying promises, the heretics are wont marvellously to beguile the incautious. For they dare to teach and promise, that in their church, that is, in the conventicle of their communion, there is a certain great and special and altogether personal grace of God, so that whosoever pertain to their number, without any labour, without any effort, without any industry, even though they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock, have such a dispensation from God, that, borne up by angel hands, that is, preserved by the protection of angels, it is impossible they should ever dash their feet against a stone, that is, that they should ever be offended.

What Rule is to be observed in the Interpretation of Scripture.

BUT it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? HOW ARE THEY TO DISTINGUISH TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD IN THE SACRED SCRIPTURES? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred canon according to the traditions of the universal church and in keeping with the rules of catholic doctrine, in which catholic and universal church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent. And if at any time a part opposes itself to the whole, novelty to antiquity, the dissent of one or a few who are in error to the consent of all or at all events of the great majority of Catholics, then they must prefer the soundness of the whole to the corruption of a part; in which same whole they must prefer the religion of antiquity to the profaneness of novelty; and in antiquity itself in like manner, to the temerity of one or of a very few they must prefer, first of all, THE GENERAL DECREES, IF SUCH THERE BE, OF A UNIVERSAL COUNCIL, or if there be no such, then, what is next best, they must follow the consentient belief of many and great masters. Which rule having been faithfully, soberly, and scrupulously observed, we shall with little difficulty detect the noxious errors of heretics as they arise. [St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Ch. 23-27 (c. A.D. 434)]

*My, my. The great St. Vincent didn't mince words :)

plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"

2,822 posted on 12/23/2006 3:34:08 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2775 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson