Posted on 07/20/2007 8:52:53 AM PDT by Between the Lines
Catholics believe protestant tenants to be HERETICAL and a perversion of the WORD OF GOD.
For what worldly reason do you expect the leader of all Catholics to proclaim otherwise?
Dan Brown’s DaVinci code was well received by far too many Christians.
Those are mere claims without evidence. Show us documentary proof of exactly when this alleged magisterium came into existence and of its magisterial succession -—
it is clear in matthew that Christ gave the keys to bind and loosen to the apostles and that the apostles held councils IN THE BOOK OF ACTS.
magisterial is your silly word so cling to it all you like, the apostles trained leaders whom had already been baptized and believed and come under the sway of the Holy Spirit, and these leaders met 7 times in ecumenical councils.
1400+ years after Christ a flunky lawyer decided he knew better than the entire assembled church and decided, without the help of modern archaeology btw, to retranslate the entire bible using new sources, and made up the notion that the Bible was the unabridged encyclopedia of the faith.
Since Jesus Himself never wrote a document, your requirement would imply that even the Twelve had no authority, since they could not therefore produce any "documentary proof" that they had been authorized and commissioned by Christ Himself. Do you deny the authority of the Twelve? Or do you in their case make an ad hoc exception to your demand for "documentary proof"?
-A8
Nicely said. Our common denominator is the most important. Within that though, it is also important that we engage in correction and rebuke of each other when necessary. Correction and rebuke though based on a real love of both God and our neighbour.
None of our churches or denominations is ‘perfect’, yet we serve a God who is.
the people in a denomination may not be perfect however the infallible Holy Spirit has come upon one, and inspired the truth as Christ promised.
If you mean that no Church has the whole truth or has perfect doctrine, then I wonder how you know that?
-A8
If the attendees of this council of Jerusalem had the keys and the authority therein, then why is it that this council and its decrees were subsequently either forgotten or ignored or set aside by later church "magisteria" who came to revere the Council of Nicea as the first council of the Church rather than the Council of Jerusalem?
Look at it as iron sharpening iron. I find arguing “points” with others causes me to challenge myself. I’m forced to think beyond my normal comfort zone & I’ve learned a lot in the process, more than I would have by being in an environment where there are only gentle strokes & universal agreement.
um they were all bishops as they were at the council in nicea; all bishops (the Pope btw didn’t even bother going to nicea and instead sent a bunch of western bishops). both councils were a meeting of represenative bishops from the whole church.
the folks who think that way would trade the perfect truth of the revealed WORD of God for manly unity...
Nobody forgot or ignored the Jerusalem Council. The shared and inherited knowledge of the Jerusalem Council was precisely how the bishops knew what an ecumenical council was when they received the invitation to convene in Nicea in 325. (Of course there were a number of local synods/councils convened prior to 325, again though grounded in the example of the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem in 50 AD.) Nicea (325) is not the first ecumenical council *strictly* speaking, but the first in a qualified sense, that is, after the death of the Apostles.
-A8
Not just true presence, but true presence brought forth only by the hands of a "priest" within the apostolic succession. They've established a quasi Levitical priesthood to dispense the new law.
actually a close look at early christians will show the parallels to the levitcal priesthood.
that said the priest does nothing more than pray to God to accomplish the change.
If apososltlic succession offered any "church" full protection against error, you'd have no other "Churches", such as the "imperfect Churches" recognized by the RCC's latest document on the issue of "churches".
If Peter's See was to be more than greatest among equals, why only the holder of his See in Rome & not the holder of his earlier See in Antioch?
I'll have to get back to you with more on this part later, cuz I have to leave shortly & don't have time right now.
that said the priest does nothing more than pray to God to accomplish the change.
True with the way the Orthodox treat the transformation, but there seems to be a claim in RCC teaching about the "when", essentially putting a portion of the change into the hands of their priests. As long as their priest follows proper form, the Holy Ghost answers to him.
Only accepting the Lord and attempting to live by his will will get me in the gate.
Some come through water, some can come through a flood but, my only way is through the “BLOOD”!!!!!
well i don’t know enough of the latins specifics on the matter to defend it...
that said i think we can agree that the priest would have to be a believer and baptized (as Christ mentions is necessary to be saved) in order for the holy spirit to be present... even if you believe in an ‘invisible’ church that is made up of various members from many denominations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.