Posted on 11/27/2012 4:05:51 PM PST by greyfoxx39
Well, I don't say that the Roman church emerged in the 300s; I acknowledge it existed before then...
But as the excerpt below points out...there was essentially one church til the time of Augustine...yet many strains...Eastern orthodox...the Roman church...the coptic church in Egypt & thereabouts...the Nestorian church...on the fringes...
A sort of diversity within semi-unity...
But if you're going to call it the ROMAN church...then that means you're talking about the church as centered in ROME...and the quote below shows you that other segments of the church simply didn't acknowledge Rome's authority til later...if even then!
The Roman Catholic church of today is not the church of Jesus, neither is it "catholic." The word "catholic" means universal and it is far from being universal. In the early church, until the time of Augustine, there was basically one church, which was universal, which was not centered in Rome. When the Roman bishops began to claim supremacy about the middle of the first millenium, the rest of the church did not agree. The church in Egypt, the Coptic Church, is more ancient than the Roman church and it has never been part of the Roman church. The Nestorian Church (the Eastern Church now found primarily in Syria and Jordan) has a history that is much older than the Roman church. The Orthodox Church also has origins that predate the Roman Church. There are many Christian groups that existed before the Roman church and continue to this day. The Roman church, with a strong bishop who claimed supremacy, was a late edition to Christianity, in the time-table of the church. Most of the Christian world rejected the Roman bishop's claim.
Source: A Short Summary of the History of Christianity
I admire Evangelicals (are they Protestant?) (anyone feel free to answer...) for their love of G-d and country. (sure, love of Israel too...we’ll take it.)
Of Christian denominations, it seems they most readily reject (better, do not subscribe to) any oral (or written-oral) tradition. If it ain’t in scripture, it ain’t valid. How can one have the text and nothing but the text? (I know, G-d’s text...and I know, there are interpretations of the text that show how nothing else is demanded but faith, etc...)
How do Christians explain verse in the Torah Deuteronomy 6:8, “”You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead.”
What is the sign? What is a ‘frontlet?’
We believe that no word or even letter is superfluous. If G-d says ‘frontlet,’ it has a meaning. We know what “totafot’ is in Hebrew—it means a chambered box. (the point is not that Christians should wear these, called “tefilin,” and worn by orthodox Jewish men since Sinai: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWy102DvmRrCYWH1dje9YVXgCeCy7fa_SSOX9TvnE_WGpOHF5j) rather Torah was given with the Oral law, explaining the hundreds of commandments that Jews follow to the letter—G-d’s letter.
Catholics seem to me to follow a doctrine or tradition since the founding of the Church.
What is Evangelical/Protestant tradition? It seems that the more untied to a long-standing tradition the better when it comes to them. I understand that there was a break-away (rejection) of the Catholic Church....so does that mean you have traditions long-standing since the Reformation?
AND finally.... I contend that the belittling of others’ traditions (laws, etc) is based in this assumed free-spirit-ness. I could write it off in that Mormons codified their laws, seemingly, in the 18 and 1900s...so why adopt silly “new” laws for oneself? (Jeesh, it’s not like G-d said “wear white undergarments” at sinai...plenty of other stuff though....) BUT Evangelicals seem to have more of a beef with Catholics too. Am I right? Or is it just to emphasize the differences between the two that it seems E/P act such? Or am I looking myopically and painting the group based on sparing anecdotal evidence?
[11] And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the scandal of the cross made void. [12] I would they were even cut off, who trouble you. [Galatians 5:12] [Latin] [13] For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty: only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit serve one another. [14] For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [15] But if you bite and devour one another; take heed you be not consumed one of another.
Try another older translation (Douay-Rheims) instead of KJV.
And yet I read it and responded.
Ain't FREErepublic WONDERFUL!!??
You are DAMNED, Sandy!!
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned;
and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given,
and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.
Brigham Young - JoD 3:266 (July 14, 1855)
Sure you do!
Sandy; your personal demon has a VERY short memory tonight!
You are STILL telling this LIE?
You must be a canned program instead of a real human.
http://www.manifestation.com/neurotoys/eliza.php3
They succeeded in killing Joseph, but he had finished his work.He was a servant of God, and gave us the Book of Mormon.He said the Bible was right in the main, but, through the translators and others, many precious portions were suppressed, and several other portions were wrongly translated; and now his testimony is in force, for he has sealed it with his blood.As I have frequently told them, no man in this dispensation will enter the courts of heaven, without the approbation of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jun.Who has made this so?Have I?Have this people?Have the world?No; but the Lord Jehovah has decreed it.If I ever pass into the heavenly courts, it will be by the consent of the Prophet Joseph.If you ever pass through the gates into the Holy City, you will do so upon his certificate that you are worthy to pass.Can you pass without his inspection?No; neither can any person in this dispensation, which is the dispensation of the fulness of times.In this generation, and in all the generations that are to come, everyone will have to undergo the scrutiny of this Prophet.They say that they killed Joseph, and they will yet come with their hats under their arms and bend to him; but what good will it do them, unless they repent?They can come in a certain way and find favor, but will they?
--JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, vol. 8, p. 224
|
Temple Recommend Questions
1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? 2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer? 3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? 4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? 5 Do you live the law of chastity? 6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church? 7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? 8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel? 9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen? 10 Are you a full-tithe payer? 11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom? 12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations? 13 If you have previously received your temple endowment: Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple? Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple? 14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been? 15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances? |
Sandy; is YOUR Temple Recommend® current?
Merely Christians; although ones with a desire to ACTIVELY reach out to the lost.
It's just that the GOSPEL is simple.
When men put a bunch of unnecessary stuff surrounding it; then it becomes difficult.
This aggravates an Evangelical who is trying to GIVE away the Gift of GOD, and Satan has muddied the water SO much with STUFF!
As the saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it.". My comments were in response to both the subject of this thread and the false premise that the Roman Catholic Church has unity. Rev. Wylie points out that such "unity" is because of the compelling nature of the dogmas of the RCC throughout its history as well as the absence of genuine liberty when ones eternal salvation is put on the line. WRT the thread, many Mormons are brought up in the faith and, as another put it, its all they have known since childhood so they should be given a "pass" on not investigating their beliefs further.
Of course, this doesn't apply to you as you have stated you, "spent a lot of years researching the RCC in scripture, the fathers, and other sources", so you are not among those who stay because of comfort. Still, you must agree that all religions have within them those who don't want to "rock the boat" and who do not care to know if what they believe is really true or not (I'm not just picking on Catholics and Mormons here).
I do not agree when you say no one is compelled to agree with Catholic dogmas and that membership is "voluntary". Thank God we live in a time and country where this is true, but a few centuries ago, it wasn't. People were indeed compelled to be Catholics if they were born into it and baptized as babies. Even here, on this thread, we were reminded again that, "once a Catholic, always a Catholic", and if one is baptized as a baby into the RCC they remain a Catholic. Do you disagree with that? And with the dogmas of the Catholic Church, there have been numerous Bulls, Councils, Papal declarations and even catechisms that clearly lay out that full and total obedience of faith is to be given to all that the Magesterium deems is of the faith. We are also reminded on this forum that, unless a Catholic holds to ALL that the church proclaims, they have excommunicated themselves from the church. Those who are in excommunication are then to be denied the sacraments (in theory) and that then precludes them from attaining the "beatific vision" (heaven). So, you may deny it, but it sure sounds a lot like compelling to me.
Grace and peace to you.
nope, I don't...if you recieve a valid baptism, regardless of where, or by whom, or when...you are baptized Catholic. You see, there is only one true Christian church on earth and it is Catholic. Now the baptized person may choose one of 20,000 or so denominations to follow, they might even reject Catholicism out of hand, they might become a world famous preacher....but basically they are a fallen away Catholic.!
It's interesting that the author you cite refers his questioner to the Fathers but neglects to mention the Fathers who disprove his assertion that Roman authority didn't emerge until the 500s. For example, Irenaeus tells us (paragraph 3) that Rome handled a matter of dissension among the Corinthians. Clement, about the year 96, asserts his authority (paragraph 59). There are other sources prior to the middle of the first millenium that acknowledge the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
That said, I agree that there was dissension in some communities. Not everyone neatly lined up behind Rome. A refusal to obey Rome, however, doesn't make Roman authority a new invention around the 500s.
Peace be with you.
Catholic priests wear ceremonial clothing for "ceremonies" like Mass, funerals, weddings etc. Basically moet of them can wear what they want and usually do. Some wear their roman collar most of the time, others don't and certainly wear "street clothes" when they are out on their own. When they go swimming, they actually wear swim gear!!!
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.
Of course, there were (and are) certain people that feel they alone are entitled to use the word - almost like they copyrighted it. Ignatius meant it to mean the whole body of Christ - the universal church of Jesus Christ throughout the world. So all those who have received Jesus Christ as Savior and believe and follow Him are members of the catholic church (universal church) - small 'c' like you said.
Our unity flows from our Founder who reconciled all men through the cross and makes us part of his Mystical Body through his Spirit. It was the Lord who asked us to be one. If Wylie or anyone else has issue with that, I suggest they take it to the Lord :)
all religions have within them those who don't want to "rock the boat" and who do not care to know if what they believe is really true or not
Indeed. Some people go through life like that, as we just learned in the last election.
if one is baptized as a baby into the RCC they remain a Catholic. Do you disagree with that?
If you choose to separate yourself from the Church, no I do not view you as Catholic in the sense that you and I think of being Catholic. That said, I believe the Church still considers you canonically Catholic, meaning that if you went to Reconciliation, you could return to full participation in the Church. But if another member of your nonCAtholic church wanted full participation in a Catholic Church, they'd need to go through RCIA whereas you wouldn't have to. So I guess the answer is no, I don't view you as Catholic except in heritage but I see you as privileged to return one day if you wish. And I'd be the first to welcome you :)
I agree with the Church's position, which is that nonCatholic churches have elements of truth and sanctification. God can and does work through them. That said, I still believe the fullness of grace and truth reside in the Catholic Church. The official position of the Church, as I understand it, is that both sides were responsible for the rupture to unity that took place in the reformation. I also agree with the Church that those born into these separated churches do not sin by belonging to them. As for cradle Catholics who have separated themselves from the Catholic Church, I leave it in God's hands to determine issues of understanding, catechesis, poor Christian witness in the parish, or any of a host of factors involved. I don't judge those who stay or those who leave. I just give thanks for being there :)
We are also reminded on this forum that, unless a Catholic holds to ALL that the church proclaims, they have excommunicated themselves from the church.
That's not quite true. Excommunication comes from disobedience in certain matters only. Otherwise any sin would excommunicate me.
Those who are in excommunication are then to be denied the sacraments (in theory) and that then precludes them from attaining the "beatific vision" (heaven).
Again, not quite right. Yes, the excommunicated are to abstain from sacraments (except reconciliation). But God judges who goes to hell. The Church can only say what the usual means of salvation are. God can and does act outside usual means and the Church acknowledges this.
So, you may deny it, but it sure sounds a lot like compelling to me.
Obedience isn't easy. But that doesn't mean it's compulsory. I am free to leave the Church whenever I wish and entrust myself to the mercy of God. I have no desire for that, however, because I find his mercy overabundant in his Church.
Grace and peace to you too :)
Going to this link http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/index.htm then clicking one "English" does not take on to the Douay-Rheims or any of it's later, close iterations.
For liturgical purposes the Vatican approves NAB, not any other, as far as I can tell. This attachment to the Douay would be puzzling to me, if I didn't see the connection between it's inferior choice of words in some significant places, which help hold up doctrines disputed by Protestants and others. I see it quoted here on these pages particularly at those times, though more usually for force of habit, or some misplaced feeling that it superior.
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.