The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

I don't think anyone really has denied that the annulment process within the Roman Catholic Church is broken - and that has been the point. It's good to see you have finally admitted it after defending the process for the last day or so.

You need to read more carefully. He said no such thing.

Obviously we do. :o)

Your post commented on the “shortness” of my list

Your counter list was irrelevant (except that it illustrated the variance that exists as to which teachings are infallible), as i was not precisely dealing with infallible teachings, but things RCs could disagree on.

The doctrines don’t change, or contradict..

Of course they cannot, as Rome can autocratically decide what is a contradiction, while again it has not always made it clear whether a teaching is infallible (if she did you could provide an infallible list of all such), and often to varying degrees what they as well as non-infallible teachings (presuming you have them rightly separated) mean. Thus the different understandings of how Prots may be saved according to extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium. Etc.

Do you say a creed at your church?

We don't repeat it at every service, but it is known and the essentials are preached and taught. Though I have some issues with how that specific creed is worded - even the Orthodox disagree on the Filioque - I would say I agree with it over all. The term "catholic" isn't even an issue as long as it is understood to mean the universal church - as St. Ignatius meant it when he first penned it. I think it's far more important to BELIEVE it than to quote it for the sake of quoting it. Don't you?

Yes, believing it is more important. I can’t even quote it yet, since the wording was changed. I’ve almost got it, but not quite.

I noticed that our priest, though, from the beginning, sang or said the Gloria without the prompt card. He must have gone around in his spare time singing it!

Furthermore, Protestants are the last ones that should be throwing stones over divorce. Find me one deacon board without a divorced member (let alone Elders, if they even have them) and I'll find you fifty that do....all of which contravenes Scripture.

Perhaps you missed the article that began this thread, it was the "author" who started throwing the stones over divorce and what began the drawn out "discussion" that we still find ourselves in. He said:

Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times. It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts. Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.

That may help you to see that there are going to be responses and disagreements when one group is smeared over issues of which the favored group is also guilty.

"It's good to see you have finally admitted it after defending the process for the last day or so."

I never said the process is broken, it is flawed because we are flawed. In the vast number of cases it functions perfectly.

The Church has never declared the annulment process to be infallible. How or why anyone would try to use that to impugn the integrity of the Papacy or the Magisterium by implying they are equivalent administrative functions shows just how desperate the anti-Catholics are to damage the Church.

The Romans used to have a saying; Qui Bono, for whom the benefit. We know that the Obama administration and the Democrats too are anti-Catholics and are desperately trying to diminish the moral authority of the Church in order to destroy the freedom of religion. The anti-Catholics on this thread are either willing accomplices or merely useful idiots. When I see no fruits of the Holy Spirit in them or their posting histories I can only conclude their motives are the darker of the two. Be careful, when you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas.

Peace be with you

I’m sorry. It was not done to intentionally exclude you.

****as i was not precisely dealing with infallible teachings, but things RCs could disagree on.****

But, that was my point. That Catholics can disagree on many things which are not essential doctrine or dogma. It does not make Catholicism any less true.

So, it is not irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that your list was posted as a sort of counter measure to what I said in the first place. As if the sheer number of points made about the Church somehow discounts the very real points of essential doctrine on which Protestants disagree.

****Thus the different understandings of how Prots may be saved according to extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium. Etc.****

But, that is a prime example of how the Holy Spirit works within the authority of the Church. The deeper understanding of the earlier theology and doctrines is of the mercy of God, the NATURE of God, as I said.

The doctrine of “outside the Church” there is no salvation has not changed because the Church is the Body of Christ, united to Him, therefore the statement, “outside the Church there is no salvation” is the same as saying outside Jesus, there is no salvation.

The Church just understands better, given the sincere Christian belief of so many people, that Jesus’ (God’)providence and judgement is His alone in regards to eternal life.

The Revelation of God, through Jesus the Christ is like a darkened room in which only shadows can be seen until the sun rises and the shapes take on more concrete form.

It is not changeable, just more knowable.

Perhaps you missed the article that began this thread, it was the "author" who started throwing the stones over divorce and what began the drawn out "discussion" that we still find ourselves in.

No, it started when you used Kennedy as a springboard for general condemnation of a Church practice.

Accepted:) and appreciated.

It is supremely shallow thinking that all of God’s revelation is specifically spelled out in the Bible. We see immediately that there is dissension and misunderstandings and false teachings. And in the New Testament we have the foundation of how those things are to be dealt with and how the Truth can be known.

That's a misconception of what the term sola scriptura means. The term - understood and taught by Jesus, the Apostles and the early church fathers - means that the Holy Scriptures are the authority by which truths of the faith must be measured against. Athanasius, for example said:

"the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth" (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3)

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ, announced in divine Scripture" (Athanasius, de Synodis, Part 1, 6)

"Such then, as we have above described, is the madness and daring of those men. But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old. For the Prophets say: 'Send out Thy Word and Thy Truth,' and ' Behold the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us.' But what does that mean, if not that God has come in the Flesh? While the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter... [Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1] (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)

"Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them, who have also become martyrs for the deity of Christ, to your zeal for learning, in turn. (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56)

There are many other church fathers who said comparable words and their contention was the same, we know what is the truth by what is written - divinely-inspired, God-breathed Holy Scripture - it is our guide for truth claims. No doctrine should be devised as necessary to be believed to be saved if it cannot be proved by Holy Scripture. It is obvious that even the Roman Catholic Church holds, or professes to hold, to this standard. They often quote verses as proof-texts - there is a reason for that and I highly doubt it was to satisfy the Protestants. Shouldn't you expect as much if you are going to be held to believing it? I would.

As for the nomenclature for those who ARE Christians but do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church, I'd suggest Christians first, then who attend a Southern Baptist Church, or Presbyterian, or Methodist, or Lutheran, etc. If a person is born again, that is the main thing. Where they attend worship services is secondary. Obviously, someone can claim to be Catholic yet not be a genuine Christian, right? Well, it happens in other faith traditions, too. What a person believes about Jesus Christ is more important than the order of their worship service or how the leadership is set up with the church. I'd like to see Catholics move away from using Protestant as a sort of curse word. That would be a good start. Maybe open a thread and ask for suggestions?

It's getting late and I'm hitting the sack. If you're still up, have a good night.

Furthermore, Protestants are the last ones that should be throwing stones over divorce. Find me one deacon board without a divorced member (let alone Elders, if they even have them) and I'll find you fifty that do....all of which contravenes Scripture.

And the Catholic church does what again about homosexual, child molesting priests?

Yeah I knew you would start with that one, you just make it to easy.

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus: There are two ways of translating "Extra." Many people translate it "Without" This would mean that anyone who has never heard of Jesus is going to Hell, or anyone that is not Catholic is going to Hell.

That Translation is incorrect, the correct one is found in the text you quoted "Outside" This refers to those people that have intentionally separated themselves from the Catholic Church, or intentionally refuse admission to her graces.

In other words the willfully ignorant will be seated in the smoking section.

BTW clarification is not "Changing a position".

Nice try though, thanks for playing,now lets see if our sponsors have some lovely parting gifts for you.

Too bad most Catholics don’t have a clue about church history.

And sadder still is that Prots will believe anything that remotely casts the Catholic Church in a bad light, so that they can feel better about their decision not to be Catholic.

And the Catholic church does what again about homosexual, child molesting priests?

We let them become prots officially since they are already violating several Church laws.

Let me know if your church is listed here: http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm

It is very easy for two to play at that game, are you sure you really want to go down that road?

Now try and stick tot he topic at hand.

Now where was that verse listing petty petulance as one of the gifts of the spirit?

If that’s “saved,” I’m a Buddhist.

And sadder still is that Prots will believe anything that remotely casts the Catholic Church in a bad light, so that they can feel better about their decision not to be Catholic.

This prot investigated what the Scriptures plainly teach and believed in the Saviour by Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Christ Alone.

The saddest thing i have found is the once Gospel proclaiming church at Rome has become apostate and no longer preaches the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ, but a faith AND Works path to heaven, which is no path at all.

You asked.

And sadder still is that Prots will believe anything that remotely casts the Catholic Church in a bad light, so that they can feel better about their decision not to be Catholic.

Likewise, Catholics will deny anything that casts the Catholic church in a bad light so that they can feel better about their decision to be Catholic.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery