Posted on 02/26/2010 7:32:49 PM PST by marshmallow
whoa, that’s scary, lol.
Sideline?
Proof is on the papacy's superiority complex/their own established man-made “traditions” of control/power plays that other Patriarchs scoffed at (Later Western Reformers thank goodness).
Scripture is absent, first 7 or so centuries after the Crucifixion is absent (Again, the OTHER equal Patriarchs), just some arrogant "in house" spiritual delusions of grandeur by power whores which tried to build by DIVINE right, an "earthly empire" that "blew up" later. Capital of Roman Empire, I get it, but strictly a figure head at the center of power that was surrounded by equal Patriarchs of "structure". Show me where DIVINE right was established "externally" mind you.
I have been waiting for that since my first post in the thread. Proof of my POV is in history, not the Fantasy land of being in the "only" true Church that can only offer salvation which is based in Rome. Had it been your way the Patriarchs could have NO unquestionable reason to split. Yet they did (And a lot of stuff before that which they defied/were amused at the arrogance while CONTROLLING their "own" territory without Rome's input). Then later Roman "stewardship" in the West got out of control, thus the Reformation, and all that persecution (Both parties are guilty of that).
Makes you appreciated the colonization of the United States from a spiritual side (Took the Great Awakening/the more than usual tolerant middle colonies to set an example) even more if you look at it.
Yes, the Church of Rome is a "mother church" but only one of several (As Tertullian puts it).
And you think I am the illogical one here??? Let me put it this way: we both agree the Bible is the inspired word of God. We both agree that the Bible is the authority (I say sole, you say not the sole) for doctrines of the Christian faith. Okay so far? Why you felt the need to bring up aliens, I don't know, but I'll proceed.
You said: If I say Mormonism is unscriptural, that does not mean sola scriptura is true. That only means Mormonism is not supported by scripture. Do you see the difference? Umm...yeah, do you??? How can you say anything is wrong if you have no sole, objective authority by which to judge it? I'm not convinced you really know what sola scriptura means. There are many verses that speak to the inspiration by God of holy men. Verses also say that scripture exists so that the man of God may be "fully furnished unto all good works". They've been quoted numerous times here. Why do you think God bothered to record his messages to mankind and preserve it for him for all time?
Finally, how could the traditions and dogmas of fallible men be held at the same level of reliability for truth as God's own revealed word? That is really the gist, I think. You cannot admit that the Bible is the ultimate authority we must all use if we call ourselves Christian. It contains everything God wants us to know is true concerning the faith. Obviously, not EVERYTHING that exists in the world is in it, but what pertains to salvation and Godliness is there. Does the Bible say don't go to movies? No. But the guidelines are there so that we know right from wrong. I understand that on minor issues (things that are not expressly spelled out) we have liberty. The major doctrines are clear and we should have unity. And as Christians, we should always have love.
Since poor Joan was murdered - burned at the stake - and her ashes scattered across the river, what do you think happened to her during those 26 years in between being excommunicated and then a saint?
You still have not posted a single thing that actually goes against the legitimacy of the papacy.
You wrote:
“As I thought, the entire point is lost because of preconceived ideas. What is TRULY ridiculous is to say the fact that something can be non scriptural does not mean that sola scriptura is true.”
No, everything I said was perfectly logical. I even gave analogies that show my point is sound.
“And you think I am the illogical one here???”
No, I KNOW you are the illogical one here. I can see it in your posts.
“Let me put it this way: we both agree the Bible is the inspired word of God.”
Agreed.
” We both agree that the Bible is the authority (I say sole, you say not the sole) for doctrines of the Christian faith. Okay so far?”
Nope. I believe the Bible is AN authority. I do not believe it is the only authority. To believe the Bible is THE authority is to believe in a form of sola scriptura. I do not believe in any heretical doctrines - and that includes sola scriptura.
“Why you felt the need to bring up aliens, I don’t know, but I’ll proceed.”
Because it helps prove my point. Are alien life forms from another planet in the Bible ANYWHERE. No. So how could there non-existence in the Bible prove sola scriptura? It can’t. It is completely illogical to think it does.
“Umm...yeah, do you??? How can you say anything is wrong if you have no sole, objective authority by which to judge it?”
Why is a sole authority needed to judge the non-existence of something in a book? Again, is Mormonism in the Bible? You know it isn’t. I know it isn’t. Thus, it is unscriptural. That tells us nothing about the Bible itself other than it lacks any support for Mormonism. It doesn’t tell us the Bible is inspired, has a black leather cover, has 73 books, was written in Semitic languages and Greek or anything else - other than it says nothing supportive of Mormonism. You are making the INCREDIBLE logical leap from the non-existence of something in a book to the conclusion that that means that books must be the sole authority on religious matters. The one in no way leads to the other. First, it is a completely illogical and unsupportable idea. Second, it in no way precludes the existence of other authorities.
“I’m not convinced you really know what sola scriptura means.”
I’m not convinced you do.
“There are many verses that speak to the inspiration by God of holy men.”
Inspiration does not mean sole authority.
“Verses also say that scripture exists so that the man of G”
od may be “fully furnished unto all good works”.”
Which still doesn’t mean sole authority.
“They’ve been quoted numerous times here.”
And none of them point to sole authority.
“Why do you think God bothered to record his messages to mankind and preserve it for him for all time?”
So we would know it. Not so we would be confused about how to use it like Protestants who believe in sola scriptura.
“Finally, how could the traditions and dogmas of fallible men be held at the same level of reliability for truth as God’s own revealed word?”
Simple: God entrusted them to an infallible Church which would never be overcome by Hell.
“That is really the gist, I think. You cannot admit that the Bible is the ultimate authority we must all use if we call ourselves Christian.”
Sola scriptura is a 16th century invention. It is not from Christ, nor the Church.
“It contains everything God wants us to know is true concerning the faith. Obviously, not EVERYTHING that exists in the world is in it, but what pertains to salvation and Godliness is there. Does the Bible say don’t go to movies? No. But the guidelines are there so that we know right from wrong. I understand that on minor issues (things that are not expressly spelled out) we have liberty. The major doctrines are clear and we should have unity. And as Christians, we should always have love.”
Sola scriptura is a 16th century Protestant invention. Christians should never buy into heretical ideas like it. Scripture is far too sacred to be degraded with such silly heretical notions.
You may well be right. I can only speak for myself and for the position held by the Catholic Church as I know it to be. It is a sin to presume someone's judgement, including, but the way, one's own.
And charges of espionage often bring a death sentence today. This is very true that the accusation of heresy is a serious matter. Note, however, that the Holy Inquisition of the Catholic Church only had jusrisdiction over people who are self-described Catholic, and the civil punishment was not imposed by the Church.
But when I explain that the Protestant views are largely heretical, I first do not condemn anyone specifically for any punishment, and secondly, what I condemn is the view that is heretical, and I can explain why. Anyone who is interested in the authentic Christian faith should pay attention to what is and what is not heretical and stay away from such views. The real punishment for heresy is not the civil punishment, however cruel, but the eternal punishment. " fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Mt. 10:28)
Of course the denominations will disappear. It is a scandal that they exist today. The Catholic Church, Christ promised, will prevail against hell itself.
That is not what Tramonto is asking. No dispute, there are several references to “brothers” of Jesus in the Bible. If you wish to believe that they were biological children of Mary, despite the fact that those who are identified by name also have their mother identified, and she is not Mary — if you still want to believe that, there is nothing stopping you. There are other absurd beliefs held by sundry Protestants, that are graver error than that.
The question was though, does the text of Mathew 1:24-25 say that St. Joseph “waited to consummate” his marriage with Mary, and of course it doesn’t.
A church is apostolic when she can trace every bishop to a bishop who consecrated him, and then to the apostles. They all have positions that are, at the very least, not innovative. The Armenians, for example, formed their beliefs prior to Chalcedon and considered Chalcedon itself innovative. So while Chalcedon is an important Church council — they all are, — that they do not subscribe to it is not evidence contrary to their apostolicity.
The modern denominations may call themselves whatever they like, neither their clergy of their theology are of apostolic origin.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Seems fairly Christ-like and sufficient for me.
LOLOL!!!! Scripture is FAR TOO SACRED? You're contradicting yourself again. Maybe someone else would like to bat you around like a catnip mouse for awhile. I can't seem to get through. Mom's call it "hardheadedness".
What a cutie!!! I stolded it. :o)
You wrote:
“LOLOL!!!! Scripture is FAR TOO SACRED? You’re contradicting yourself again.”
Not one bit. Sola scriptura is a false system. Why would I apply a false system to anything let alone to something sacred? You are the one who is wrong, again.
“Maybe someone else would like to bat you around like a catnip mouse for awhile. I can’t seem to get through. Mom’s call it “hardheadedness”.”
I may be hardheaded, but I’m right. You’re the one patently wrong. You are making the ridiculous claim that the sacredness of scripture necessitates a Protestant 16th century system of handling it.
Good morning Vlad.
Check the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia again.
I found there no reference the THE Apostolic Church.
Indeed, the reason I looked it up was to learn if such a physical church even existed.
Of course, most (or is it all?) churches claim to belong to the spiritual Church -- apostolic and catholic (small "a", small "c"), but I have never heard of an actual "super church" which somehow includes Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox and maybe some others, but specifically excludes Protestants and anyone else the "supers" don't like on any given day.
If such a physical super-church exists, that will be news to me.
Also, go back to my original post, #104, and the question:
"Was there ever a historical time, since the resurrection and Ascension of Christ, when there existed only one human Church, with only one precise doctrine, and one exalted leader to whom all others must submit? If so, can you describe that time, how it began and how it ended?"
In post #112, Annalex responded with Acts 1:14, and then commented:
"This is how it began. Where there is Mary there is peace and unity. It never ended. We have One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church today. The internal divisions, such as with the liberals, the SSPX, and the Eastern Orthodox, exist but they are all bridgeable. That some leave the Church and invent their own "denominations" (like Christianity were currency) does not alter anything in that regard."
In post #633 Cronos claimed that to the list of Apostolic churches should be added:
"Eastern Orthodox are part of the Apostolic Church, the Western Church (aka the Catholic Church) is also part of this, as are the Orientals (Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, Syriacs) and the Assyrian Church. The Marthomite (St Thomas) Christians too are Apostolic and part of the Apostolic Church."
This sent me to the Catholic Encyclopedia to learn, how exactly should the word "apostolic" be defined? What I found there was a list of ancient churches, almost NONE of which could be described as "Roman Catholic."
So I think my point remains valid -- there never was a historical time:
"since the resurrection and Ascension of Christ, when there existed only one human Church, with only one precise doctrine, and one exalted leader to whom all others must submit".
Christ our Saviour and His, those chosen to pen the New Testament NEVER celebrated the ancient pagan 'spring' time ritual called Easter that is an adaptation of the old spring time festivities also called Ishtar. Just did not happen.
The 'Germans' ancestors were not called 'Germans' back in the days of ancient Mesopotamia.
Now the only place where the Saxon word their goddess Eastre, same as Astarte, and English word Easter got inserted in the WHOLE of the Bible is Acts 12:4. It simply is not the correct word or celebration that Peter was about to remember. How can one know this, well in verse 3 of Acts 3 there are these words (Then were the days of *unleavened* bread.) Not one word about a sun rise service.
Astarte was the Syrian Venus, a place called Ashtoreth and it is only mentioned one time in the book of Deuteronomy 1:4 After he had slain Sihon the king of he Amorites, which dwelt in Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, which dwelt at *Astaroth* in Edrei; this worshiping a goddess or queen of heaven is NOT a new thing and it was not acceptable to the children of Israel at the first 'passing' over nor was it ever to leaven the final blood sacrifice of the One and for all time perfect Passover lamb, Christ our Savior. All these gentile nations had their version of this goddess, and or queen of heaven and the children have not seem to be able to withstand her temptation to make it holy.
You wrote:
“Check the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia again.
I found there no reference the THE Apostolic Church.”
And yet we all know that the editors believed in only one Apostolic Church. They believed there were different congregations within that ONE APOSTOLIC CHURCH but it was still ONE Church. See, if you look elsewhere in the old Catholic Encyclopedia you find this:
“The term church (Anglo-Saxon, cirice, circe; Modern German, Kirche; Swedish, Kyrka) is the name employed in the Teutonic languages to render the Greek ekklesia (ecclesia), the term by which the New Testament writers denote the society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
Notice, it says THE society, not the societies.
Also, after discussing the origins of the Church and several basic doctrines about it, there’s this:
“The Church is One because its members;
1.Are all united under one government
2.All profess the same faith
3.All join in a common worship”
ONE Church.
That unity is clearly at the base of the following:
“The Apostolicity of the Church consists in its identity with the body which Christ established on the foundation of the Apostles, and which He commissioned to carry on His work. No other body save this is the Church of Christ. The true Church must be Apostolic in doctrine and Apostolic in mission. Since, however, it has already been shown that the gift of infallibility was promised to the Church, it follows that where there is Apostolicity of mission, there will also be Apostolicity of doctrine. Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of Holy orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from the Apostles. Any religious organization whose ministers do not possess these two powers is not accredited to preach the Gospel of Christ. For “how shall they preach”, asks the Apostle, “unless they be sent?” (Romans 10:15). It is Apostolicity of mission which is reckoned as a note of the Church. No historical fact can be more clear than that Apostolicity, if it is found anywhere, is found in the Catholic Church. In it there is the power of Holy orders received by Apostolic succession. In it, too, there is Apostolicity of jurisdiction; for history shows us that the Roman bishop is the successor of Peter, and as such the centre of jurisdiction. Those prelates who are united to the Roman See receive their jurisdiction from the pope, who alone can bestow it. No other Church is Apostolic. The Greek church, it is true, claims to possess this property on the strength of its valid succession of bishops. But, by rejecting the authority of the Holy See, it severed itself from the Apostolic College, and thereby forfeited all jurisdiction. Anglicans make a similar claim. But even if they possessed valid orders, jurisdiction would be wanting to them no less than to the Greeks.”
“This sent me to the Catholic Encyclopedia to learn, how exactly should the word “apostolic” be defined? What I found there was a list of ancient churches, almost NONE of which could be described as “Roman Catholic.””
Why would they? “Roman Catholic” was invented by Protestants. We’re Catholic, not “Roman Catholic.” How could the early Church call itself “Roman Catholic” when that phrase wasn’t invented yet because no Protestants yet walked the earth?
“So I think my point remains valid — there never was a historical time:”since the resurrection and Ascension of Christ, when there existed only one human Church, with only one precise doctrine, and one exalted leader to whom all others must submit”.”
Your point is invalid, silly in fact for any Christian to even believe in it. Christians do not believe in a “human Church”. The Church is from God. It is not human. It has people IN it, but it is not a human institution.
During this time while in purgatory she obviously went to pieces. ;O)
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.