Posted on 01/19/2008 7:02:14 AM PST by Gamecock
What people such as Bill Hybels and Rick Warren have done is created a genie they cannot put back into the bottle. Thousands of pastors have followed their methods of "do whatever it takes to attract the crowd" without ever considering how this waters down the message of sin and its consequences. These pastors now realize that the "cookie" that attracts the crowd must get bigger and better or the crowd will stop coming.
Gimmicks such as a McDonald's theme service, using Christian mimes and comedy nights are a mockery to the house of God because they never challenge the audience to face up to their sin and what God requires for forgiveness.
(Excerpt) Read more at goerie.com ...
More proof that the 2,000 year old Catholic Church is the true Church.
The lure of the Sacraments and their power in our lives if we avail ourselves of them has been the same all these years. They do not depend on the charisma of the priest or the popular culture. They are just there for our benefit.
>More proof that the 2,000 year old Catholic Church is the true Church.
>The lure of the Sacraments and their power in our lives if we avail ourselves of them has been the same all these years. They do not depend on the charisma of the priest or the popular culture. They are just there for our benefit.
How is this proof of a church being true? The buddhists and hindus have a longer tradition, does this mean they are TRUER than the Roman Catholic Faith? How about the Jews?
Perhaps a better explanation is that a strong, central authority of the Roman Church has made it more difficult for many fast changes in the tradition for the last 1500 years. Thus while many things were not solidified for 1500-1800 years, such as Papal infallibility, the Canon of Scripture and the Marion Dogmas, many of the traditions were solidified into dogma much earlier.
So please, praise the iron-handed central authority of the Roman Church, for lack of fast change by squashing those that differed, and note that this has nothing to do with the truth of the sect.
As for the sacraments, please show me proof that the early church shared the same beliefs about them as you do. Heck, show me that the Orthodox Church, who are actually older by some few years, believe the same dogmas that the Roman Church does.
And anyone who disagrees will be tortured on the rack.
Your response is so full of misunderstandings that I cannot answer them all.
I said MORE proof. There are many proofs.
One more proof is an ability to trace the teachings of the Church back to its founder.
As an aside, I believe Buddhists and Hindus have primarily a religion of meditation and individual progress.
Show me that in modern times. Also show me that the Protestants have quit killing Catholics as they did in England and Europe.
I think that a recent history of Protestant persecution can be found in Ireland of the Twentieth Century.
My Church never tortured or killed anyone. Too bad you can’t say the same.
Well, then, show me how this is proof that it is true. There are many proofs that the Catholic faith is much different than that of the book of Acts and the early church.
Please correct my misunderstandings, or at least point out what is amiss?
If I know which was your Church, I might have an answer.
And always remember, it was members of the Church’s who did not live up to the teachings.
Don’t forget that it was the Catholic Church which compiled the accurate writings which form the Bible and rejected many other writings and not accurate.
One also must realize that the Catholic Church relies on tradition as well as Scripture. Tradition complements Scripture, but never opposes it.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
Also try:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901clas.asp
I thought of this covert to Catholicism who has written extensively on the faith.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/bible-church-tradition-canon-index.html
>Don’t forget that it was the Catholic Church which compiled the accurate writings which form the Bible and rejected many other writings and not accurate.
Um. How about the Christian church saw what was inspired writings, and this church, though through many schisms, is represented by the Catholic, the many Orthodox, Coptic and even the Protestant faiths. The Romans claiming the truth is profoundly arrogant, and laughable. It has as much claim as the Greeks, and probably less of a claim. God inspired the writings, and handed them to all of the church, even those that are currently running away from the Scriptures as noted in the article.
>One also must realize that the Catholic Church relies on tradition as well as Scripture. Tradition complements Scripture, but never opposes it.
Well, there we will have deep disagreements. Which traditions are we to follow? Are we to cherry pick the writings of the Early Church Fathers, for so many of them disagree with the Roman faith with so many things. Starting with Irenaeus, who said Jesus died in his fifties, and laid claim that the Apostles themselves taught him that; to Jerome who rejected the deuterocanonical works; to Athenasiaus who stood against the whole of the bishops of the faith in his defense of the deity of Jesus; to Augustine who rejected the Matthew 16 confession of Peter as the establishment of Peter as the chief apostle.
Too much of what the Early Church Fathers disagree with the Modern Roman church to say that they share the same faith. There is more agreement betwixt the Missouri Synod Lutherans and the Presbyterians than the Modern Catholic Church and the mosaic panoply of the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers.
But the Magisterium claims that it as the TRUE faith CAN cherry pick which are truths, yet hold the right to anathematize anyone who disagrees, as they did in Trent, which means 100% of the early church is condemned to hell for their beliefs. Funny that.
Oh please. Not Dave ‘you have five words before I start the invectives’ Armstrong. Mitch Pacwa, Sungenis, Matatics (before his re-apostacy, and I contend even after), even Steve Ray is better than Armstrong.
(The picture of Dave in the tree is enough to make even Mother Theresa cringe. I would almost believe in Purgatory to see him PAY for that one.)
Thanks for your respectful responses. It is people like you who push legitimate questioning to ultimate truth and understanding.
RE: Romans claiming the truth. The Church acknowledges the truth in all of the Protestant and non-Christian religions. What it holds is that the FULNESS OF TRUTH, is held by the Roman Church.
RE: your examples. The Protestant Church rejected some Scriptures the Catholic Church still retains. Do you think the Lord left the early Church to pick wrong Scriptures?
Yes, we do cherry pick the early Church Fathers and every theologian who ever lived. It is the teaching Magisterium who is inspired by the Holy Spirit to do the cherry picking, not the individual, even if it is Henry the VIII or Martin Luther or Calvin or any other person who has broken with them.
“Upon this Rock....” “and the gates of hell shall not...”
By the way, why do you dislike Dave Armstrong so? He may not be a sophisticated theologian, but he does a pretty good job. Actually, why do you dislike all those converts?
>Hi,
>Thanks for your respectful responses. It is people like you who push legitimate questioning to ultimate truth and understanding.
Thank you for YOUR responses. Too many times people bring their emotions to the debate, spouting invectives rather than actually defending their faith. I appreciate that you are willing to set yours aside, and I pray I am able to do so also.
>RE: your examples. The Protestant Church rejected some Scriptures the Catholic Church still retains. Do you think the Lord left the early Church to pick wrong Scriptures?
Note the long list of Early Church Fathers that also forgo the deutero-canonical books (to be abbreviated DCB for sake of my fingers) from the canon. You know the list, or can look it up. It is no only the Protestant Church, but many of those that formed later dogma of the Roman Church, as well as those that were given the “Oracles of God” (Romans 3:2), the Jews themselves. The Protestant church does not stand alone in this.
Lets look to the 31 of the members of the Council of Trent that refused to vote, or voted against the 24 members that approved the DCB. When not even a majority of the learned scholars could agree to the inspiration of the books in question, it proves that amongst the Catholic learned scholar world of the 1500’s it was still very much in doubt. A mere 40 some odd percent of the scholars decided the matter, infallibly, against the consciences of the others involved. Even Cardinal Cajetan, famous for his standing against Luther in Wittenberg, supported Luther’s view of the canon.
Did the Lord leave the Church to pick the wrong Scriptures? No, indeed, the church recognized what was Gospel and what was heresy. It recognized, it did not write or even authorize. Gods word has power outside the church.
Thus the early church recognized that the Gnostic gospels were false and they were rejected. However, the DCB’s were not universally rejected, nor approved, and being apart from the Gospels and Epistles, were never used to the extent that the NT works were, so their influence were never all that great. Not enough of the ECF’s knew Hebrew or even would associate with Jews, so the matter stood unsettled in the church.
>Yes, we do cherry pick the early Church Fathers and every theologian who ever lived. It is the teaching Magisterium who is inspired by the Holy Spirit to do the cherry picking, not the individual, even if it is Henry the VIII or Martin Luther or Calvin or any other person who has broken with them.
Well, at least you are not arguing that the traditions of the Roman Catholic Faith have not changed for 2000 years. So you are a developmental traditionalist? The acorn and the oak?
As for Mr. Armstrong, I have followed some of his ‘discussions’ with Dr. James White, James Swan and other Protestants. It just seems that he throws in the towel early and goes ad hominum early.
As for the other ‘converts’? I have no problem with the others I mentioned. Oftentimes they can put forth pretty good points, wrong from my point of view of course.
Just a couple of thoughts. A Council does not need a majority to establish truth on faith or morals. It needs the ratification of the Pope. Trent just ratified the Canon as originally determined in apx A.D. 310.
Of course History teaches that the Traditions of the Church can change. But I think one must distinguish between tradition in those things which are just common practice among the faithful and those which are related to faith and morals. The first change often, the latter must not change in such a way as to contradict their history. An example might be meat on Friday which can change versus the duty to do sacrificial acts as a reminder of our creaturehood and Christ’s ultimate sacrifice and of our submission to God. The Church has always taught the necessity of sacrifice. It has not always taught that not eating meat on Friday was a necessary sacrifice.
>I would like to continue, but have other things I must do
I understand. I would like to continue, but time is valuable, and I appreciate your giving me yours. If you wish to continue this, but at a less regular schedule, I have no problems with that. If this is the case, I submit a few points to ponder.
>Just a couple of thoughts. A Council does not need a majority to establish truth on faith or morals. It needs the ratification of the Pope. Trent just ratified the Canon as originally determined in apx A.D. 310.
Ratified by Trent, yet between the times some of the DCB’s were rejected by a Pope (Gregory the Great rejected Maccabees). So if one Pope says no, it is not canonical, and one does, we are at an impasse. A infallible mexican standoff as it were.
I agree that a majority does not truth make, as I would argue that when Athenasus stood against the holy magesterium of the Catholic faith, as it stewed in its Arian Heresy, condemning and excommunicating the only bishop who was in the Scriptures. Again, proof of normal human fallibility from something that claims infallibility.
>Of course History teaches that the Traditions of the Church can change. But >I think one must distinguish between tradition in those things which are just common practice among the faithful and those which are related to faith and morals. The first change often, the latter must not change in such a way as to contradict their history. An example might be meat on Friday which can change versus the duty to do sacrificial acts as a reminder of our creaturehood and Christ’s ultimate sacrifice and of our submission to God. The Church has always taught the necessity of sacrifice. It has not always taught that not eating meat on Friday was a necessary sacrifice.
So you are saying that Papal infallibility, the Marion Dogmas, Purgatory and the Treasury of Merit ARE traditions which have been handed down en toto from the early church?
Infallibility is about faith and morals only and is found in three ways. One, when the Pope intends to declare something infallible and does so in a formal declaration. Two, in an Ecumenical Council when the Pope ratifies it. Three when the Pope with the bishops scattered world wide holds something as true. This is not very precise language because I am writing off the top of my head, but it is close I think.
The same analysis goes for Athanasius. The Arian heresy is proof that Popes and Bishops can hold error and that infallibility is in the Church in a very limited way.
_________
Papal infallibility, the Marion Dogmas, Purgatory and the Treasury of Merit ARE traditions which have been handed down en toto from the early church?
_
No. I am saying that those teachings are traditions which DEVELOPED (Please read John Henry Cardinal Newman, an Anglican convert on the Development of Doctrine) The understanding of tradition and of revelation can grow. It must however, be logical and not contradictory with what has gone before. It also must have its seeds in Scripture or early traditions.
Hope that helps.
Back to the actual topic of the actual article: :þ
What’s a “McDonald’s theme service”?
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.