Posted on 03/25/2015 10:46:15 PM PDT by Steelfish
If I profess I don't worship the Easter Bunny, but my actions sure look like I do, then what good is it to claim I don't? A sure sign that someone worships someone or something is by how much time they spend doing it. If I pray ten times as many prayers to the Easter Bunny than I do to Almighty God, then no matter how much I protest and deny that I don't worship the EB, my actions make me out to be a liar. This is why God forbid His people from DOING the things the pagans did as well as believing in their false gods. He is a jealous God, His glory He will NOT share with another.
Amen BlueDragon, you very well expressed the understanding and Holy Spirit-ual insight of many posters here.
Steelfish, you’ve been quite effectively “Columboed.”
Just one more thing ma’am...
Indeed, one of my favorites as well.
False
-- they had an altar to the "unknown god."
True
How can you worship God when you're ignorant of Him?
Paul wrote, by your assent under inspiration of the Holy Spirit that they were worshiping God in ignorance; are you now denying the scripture ? :
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Acts, Catholic chapter seventeen, Protestant verse twenty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
BIG difference. Don't you think? True, there is a big difference between worshiping God in ignorance and worshiping God in spirit and truth.
But, hey. I'm just an "Internet Theologian." But all I used the Internet for was to search God's word.
As you say
The Credo- and the Magisterium of the Church.
You don’t explain why calling heresy a heresy is a from of serial abuse after it has been explained at great length including earlier posts where many theological students have explained at length why they converted from one form or another of Protestantism to Catholicism.
Surely, you don’t mean to say that Christ threw a lot of loose cannons on decks to cause a multiplicity of confusing interpretations? And that up until the Protestant Reformation of 1517, the Church that authenticated the canonical texts, interpreted, and preached its dogma was wrong for eleven centuries misleading a host of saints and martyrs on the way?
Or the vast constellation of theologians that support the Petrine Doctrine were all off-course? Or the scores of converts to the Catholicism from other non-Christian faiths?
All your write is an unsupported opinion about “specious” claims of Petrine authority.
The absurdity being presented here by Catholic anti-Protestant bigots would have everyone believe that the Divinely-inspired and sacred word of God only has authority because "their" church decided it did! Assembling the books into a volume and calling it The Holy Bible may have happened in Rome's fourth century synod when they officially declared they did it but the recognition of all the inspired books were held LONG before then. Even a cursory read through the writings of eminent (I know you LIKE that word) early Christian leaders demonstrates they recognized the authority of sacred Scripture and from whom they received them - even completely enough that nearly the entire Bible could be reconstructed solely from these writings alone without the manuscript copies they relied upon. The Apostles ensured that the fledgling church received the divinely-inspired writings as the Holy Spirit revealed them and they did not shirk from delivering to them "whole council of God". Nobody waited centuries to be told they had the word of God because the Holy Spirit illuminated the truth and authority these writings contained. How many times does this truth have to be explained?
We DO have one church, one body of Christ and it is based upon the ONE truth of the gospel of the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins and gifts to us eternal life. However, that ONE church is demonstrably NOT the Roman Catholic church as can be easily discerned from the simple fact that THE church, the bride of Christ, will contain ONLY the redeemed and no tares/lost/unsaved. This Spiritual House of which ALL believers, as living stones, are being built into it (see I Peter 2:5) will be gathered together and clothed with the spotless, washed-in-the-blood of Jesus Christ, wedding garments and will sit down at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. No outsiders will be there. No Christians-in-name-onlys. No pious pretenders. And certainly no one who denies that our salvation is a gift of God that we receive by faith and not by our works.
Do some RCs qualify? I sure hope so! But your church as no valid basis for the boasts of being THE one true church of Jesus Christ. That is truly absurd!
"What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you."
God is not a "what" -- God is "He."
Strike 1.
True, there is a big difference between worshiping God in ignorance and worshiping God in spirit and truth.
Only if you know you're worshiping God. They were worshiping an altar made to the unknown god. Paul took the opportunity to bring the Gospel and explain that God is God and the only God.
Keep trying...
Hoss
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
You just rejected the King James Version, which the Protestants believe(d) was the Word of God and attributed it to a cult.
Again, nice try.
Strike 2
Hoss
Your post self-contradicts itself because you claim we have ONE Church, and ONE truth, but its some amorphous “one body of Christ” each with their own interpretations of the Word of God , all through “the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ,’ but with no singular authoritative teaching mandate as given to Peter and his apostles. Go tell that to the Moonies and Rev. Jeremiah Wrights and Jehovah’s Witnesses of this world because they too believe that “their” interpretation of Scripture is the Word of God following from “the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ.”
But there are more absurdities in this line of thinking quite apart from the avalanche of scriptural citations produced below. But first to get to your logic, you will have to:
1. Discount the infallibility of the Church in authenticating what is the true Word of God when the canonical texts were assembled in AD 382 in the Synod of Rome. This means you must doubt whether the Church wrongly left or included some books as the true written word of God.
2. Ignore a broad swath of writings by the early Church Fathers that have made clear that it is the Catholic Church that is the true depository of God’s Word. Here’s just one of them:
In the year 110 A.D., not even fifteen years after the book of Revelation was written, while on his way to execution St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church”. The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).
3. Ignore the unwritten word of God. John 21:25 telles us that not all what Christ said and did were written down. This is the great oral tradition of the Church that existed BEFORE the written texts were assembled by the Church. You need proof that such a tradition existed. Here’s one:
St. Paul in his letters also warns the faithful to hold fast to the tradition they received: “We command you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to avoid any brother who wanders from the straight path and does not follow the tradition you received from us” (2 Th 3, 6).
4. Dispute the great theologians who have examined Petrine Authority from saints to popes to scholars from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman (a Catholic convert) after whom colleges and universities have been named for the depth of their theological writings.
5. Dispute the vast array of Protestant and Evangelical theologians who have converted to Catholicism and embraced the full teachings of the Church and Petrine authority.
6. Dispute the large groups of brilliant lay-people that have converted to Catholicism that include Nobel Laureates, writers, scientists, essayists (and not just Chesterton) including some familiar American names like Justice Thomas, Robert Bork, Robert Novak (a Jewish convert) and Laura Ingraham. These folks are not your typical ACORN dummies.
7. Dispute that a long line of saints, martyrs, stigmatists for some eleven centuries since the Synod of Rome in AD 382 as being all misled until the Protestant Reformation of 1517 came along and soon broke off into several offshoots each with its own distinct understanding.
8. Have to acknowledge that without the Church, even such mainline Protestant and Episcopalian denominations that quote Scripture to justify the ordination of married gay and lesbian pastors and “bishops” may claim to be part of the” whole council of God” (whatever you imply from these loosely-goosey terms)
9. Affirm that there are many “truths” because each of the multitude of Protestant denominations will all claim that the Word of God has been “illuminated” by the Holy Spirit. (again, whatever, this “illumination” means to you) Who is to tell?
10. Christ established no single teaching authority. But this flies in the face of both specific scriptural passages (referenced below) and more specifically how they were understood by the early followers of Christ.
Although Matthew 16 is a central and key passage attesting to Peter’s unique position, the rest of the New Testament provides ample evidence for it.
For example:
1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2, Mk 3:16, Lk 6:14, Acts 1:13), except Galatians 2. Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2).
2. Peter alone receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42, Mt 16:18).
3. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28, 1 Pt 5:2).
4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).
5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
7. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
8. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
9. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).
In Acts, Peter gave the sermon at Pentecost (Acts 1:14-36), led the replacing of Judas (1:22), worked the first miracle of the Church age (3:6-12), and condemned Ananias and Sapphira (5:2-11). His mere shadow worked miracles (5:15); he was the first person after Christ to raise the dead (9:40), and he took the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Peter’s name appears at least 54 times in Acts; James appears a total of four times.
Peter, his followers, the ONE true Church is the rock for all ages. The gates of hell shall never prevail against it no matter from what corner of the world these heresies lash against it.
**In Acts, Peter gave the sermon at Pentecost (Acts 1:14-36), led the replacing of Judas (1:22), worked the first miracle of the Church age (3:6-12), and condemned Ananias and Sapphira (5:2-11). His mere shadow worked miracles (5:15); he was the first person after Christ to raise the dead (9:40), and he took the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Peter’s name appears at least 54 times in Acts; James appears a total of four times.**
That’s fine. But Peter is not found preaching the Lord’s supper, for salvation, anywhere in Acts, or in his epistles.
Also, he wasted NO time in baptizing souls in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. He KNEW the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is Jesus. That’s why you never see Matt. 28:19 repeated (it says ‘name’, not ‘names’). The apostles knew the name is JESUS. Jesus was giving a command. They knew how to follow it. (The Son inheritted his name from the Father. The Holy Ghost is sent in the name of Jesus. It’s pretty simple).
But actions speak louder than words.
One of the most intriguing aspects of the celebration of the Eucharist is the fact that it has changed so little over twenty centuries. The essential elements are found in the narrative of the institution of the Eucharist as recorded in the Gospels. The liturgical structure of that celebration developed very rapidly in the early life of the Church as we see in Saint Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1Cor.11.26)(“For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.”) and the essential elements have remained unchanged. Even in many of the details, we find in the celebration of the liturgy today an identity with what went before us for so many centuries.
Like the Passover meal, this memorial sacrifice of the new law is both sacrifice and sacred meal. Both aspects remain inseparably a part of the same mystery. In an unbloody re- presentation of the sacrifice of the cross and in application of its saving power, the Lord is offered in the sacrifice of the Mass when through the words of consecration and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Christ is present in a sacramental form under the appearance of bread and wine to become the spiritual food of the faithful.
There is a large reservoir of evidence to show that this was a practice.
See the research on the matter found in this link
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
Once one accepts the infallibility of Petrine authority, the teaching of the Eucharist as explained in the Catholic Catechism is a given.
Of course those who dispute Petrine authority then its open season on what interpretation of scripture one accepts. One is free to pick and chose an interpretation/ritual/practice/ that comports with one’s own notion of what is “true.”
If you don't LIKE the term "Spiritual House" to refer to the ONE, TRUE church of Jesus Christ, take it up with St. Peter - HE said it (under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit). You seem to keep forgetting that heresy has ALWAYS been around - there have always been false prophets/ teachers, wolves that seek to devour the sheep. The authoritative teaching mandate we ALL have is to preach the WORD, that if someone does not speak according to the word of God, it is because they have no light in them (Isa. 8:20). How heresy was defeated in the past is no different than today - the rule of faith is the Word of God. The Roman Catholic church declaring it alone was that singular authority certainly didn't prevent her from making errors, twisting Scripture, causing schisms, teaching an accursed gospel and all kinds of perversions of the truth. You err even as a Roman Catholic if you assert everything the RCC did was infallible or that the early church fathers were infallible - that denies the very definition of how RCs ascribe the charisma of infallibility. Isn't it ONLY in play when the Pope speaks ex cathedra (from the chair)? Your own religion doesn't claim to be infallible in everything. In fact, they have left y'all to fend for yourselves on a great deal of Scripture - failing to have ever produced an "infallible" Bible commentary on every verse. You may not know this, but you don't even have guidelines on how to interpret the few "infallible" pronouncements that HAVE been given over the centuries.
If I were you, I'd cease using the bogus claim that having the "authoritative teaching mandate as given to Peter and his apostles" guarantees every leader that came after them automatically has this authority handed down to them. That God HAD to give it to them simply because they won a popularity contest or bribed their way into the office (as happened more than a few times). The only Apostolic Succession that exists is one of handing down the rule of faith, the gospel, and it is something the Holy Spirit ensures is done throughout the world - He has always had a remnant that has kept the faith pure and undefiled by human traditions. Your repetitive smear against everyone who isn't a Roman Catholic is the true absurdity here as is the constant appeal to all the "smart" people who have poped - as if that should EVER be something that draws the lost to Christ.
Here are my responses to your faulty logic about my logic:
1. Discount the infallibility of the Church in authenticating what is the true Word of God when the canonical texts were assembled in AD 382 in the Synod of Rome. This means you must doubt whether the Church wrongly left or included some books as the true written word of God.
The Roman Catholic church didn't "authenticate" the word of God! God revealed the truth through Holy Spirit inspired prophets. The believers received the writings as from God because they knew the authority of the Apostles - the REAL ones chosen by Jesus Christ, not the pretend ones who imagined they could inherit their mantle. They didn't have to wait for a synod three hundred years later to tell them which of God's word they would obey and which ones they could toss. I'm shocked that you still assert this!
2. Ignore a broad swath of writings by the early Church Fathers that have made clear that it is the Catholic Church that is the true depository of God’s Word. Here’s just one of them:
In the year 110 A.D., not even fifteen years after the book of Revelation was written, while on his way to execution St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church”. The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).
Nope, by 95 A.D. the entire body of sacred Scripture was complete. NO church father ever held the church had authority OVER God's divine word. Besides, Ignatius wasn't talking about the Pope of Rome - there was no Pope of Rome in his day. There were presbyters/bishops that led local churches and they taught the UNIVERSAL Christian faith. He was the first to use the word "catholic", but it was NOT a proper noun, it wasn't capitalized because it was an adjective describing the universal church of Jesus Christ holding to the one gospel of the grace of God, there was no church called the "Catholic Church".
3. Ignore the unwritten word of God. John 21:25 telles us that not all what Christ said and did were written down. This is the great oral tradition of the Church that existed BEFORE the written texts were assembled by the Church. You need proof that such a tradition existed. Here’s one: St. Paul in his letters also warns the faithful to hold fast to the tradition they received: “We command you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to avoid any brother who wanders from the straight path and does not follow the tradition you received from us” (2 Th 3, 6).
NO, John 21:25 does NOT tell us Jesus "said" or taught things that didn't get written down - as if he was giving the church free reign to invent and make up whatever they wanted. John said Jesus DID many things that weren't written - BECAUSE IF THEY HAD BEEN, THE WHOLE WORLD COULD NOT CONTAIN ALL THE BOOKS THAT COULD BE WRITTEN - but that what John DID write down was so that we might believe and have eternal life through Christ:
4. Dispute the great theologians who have examined Petrine Authority from saints to popes to scholars from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman (a Catholic convert) after whom colleges and universities have been named for the depth of their theological writings.
We shouldn't get hung up on thinking people smarter than we are MUST be on to something and we should follow them. That's dangerous. God doesn't want us to be enticed away from the truth no matter how attractive the draw may be of the counterfeit:
5. Dispute the vast array of Protestant and Evangelical theologians who have converted to Catholicism and embraced the full teachings of the Church and Petrine authority.
I don't have to dispute them. So what? There's a vast array of former Roman Catholics who have embraced and converted to the fullness of the Christian faith in non-RC churches. The supposed "Petrine authority" they once though was found only in Rome have come to realize that there was no longer such a thing. That the authority given to Peter was given to all the Apostles to go out into all the world and preach the gospel, making disciples for Christ and establishing places of worship, learning, discipleship and fellowship for believers. A tradition that continues to this day. The rule of faith today is the same as they used - the word of God.
6. Dispute the large groups of brilliant lay-people that have converted to Catholicism that include Nobel Laureates, writers, scientists, essayists (and not just Chesterton) including some familiar American names like Justice Thomas, Robert Bork, Robert Novak (a Jewish convert) and Laura Ingraham. These folks are not your typical ACORN dummies.
Blah, blah, blah...you sure do love that argument! I hope you aren't suggesting that nobody could be brilliant who doesn't "Pope". I can name scores of smart theologians that left Catholicism for Evangelicalism, but, I would hope nobody is foolish enough to follow "smart" people becuase they think they are smarter than they are. Plenty have done that and they followed them into hell! We have a responsibility to ourselves to seek the truth and God is a rewarder of those who DILIGENTLY seek Him. God's not impressed by human wisdom, neither should we be.
7. Dispute that a long line of saints, martyrs, stigmatists for some eleven centuries since the Synod of Rome in AD 382 as being all misled until the Protestant Reformation of 1517 came along and soon broke off into several offshoots each with its own distinct understanding.
Nobody has said that but you. Why the straw man? There IS only one, true Gospel and it is found clearly in Scripture. There have always been true belivers and they can be found in many denominations. There's no use in pretending Roman Catholicism has always been the same as it is today - it's not. The Reformation was a necessary movement to happen - even Pope Benedict admitted it. The state of the RCC during that time was deplorable. There was rampant moral and doctrinal church corruption and God used the reformers to combat that, cause repentance and return to the orthodox Christian faith once delivered unto the saints.
8. Have to acknowledge that without the Church, even such mainline Protestant and Episcopalian denominations that quote Scripture to justify the ordination of married gay and lesbian pastors and “bishops” may claim to be part of the” whole council of God” (whatever you imply from these loosely-goosey terms)
Saying and doing are two different things. Those who claim to interpret the Scriptures to allow blatant sin are obviously misusing Scripture. In fact, most of these churches have long ago rejected the Bible as their authority because there was no way to rationalize their sinfulness. The Roman Catholic church has also been guilty of misusing Scripture - making the literal allegory or figurative and vice versa to suit their own perversions. Was not one of the key issues of the Reformation the corruption of paying indulgences to free loved ones from Purgatory or the consequences of their own sin?
9. Affirm that there are many “truths” because each of the multitude of Protestant denominations will all claim that the Word of God has been “illuminated” by the Holy Spirit. (again, whatever, this “illumination” means to you) Who is to tell?
Another straw man argument! No, there are not "many" truths. There is ONLY one truth of the gospel and Rome screwed that one up fairly quickly. It really doesn't matter what someone "claims" but what the word of God actually says. It's pretty clear for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. The truth of the Christian faith, as spelled out in Scripture, is self-interpreting. Asserting there are as many interpretations as there are denominations is ridiculous on its face. Besides, most "Protestant" denominations differ little from each other on the main tenets of the Christian faith. What separates one from another may only be in areas of church government or methods of leadership and church discipline. I don't think Catholics have much of a leg to stand on in the "unity" department. We all know about liberal Catholic priests and bishops.
10. Christ established no single teaching authority. But this flies in the face of both specific scriptural passages (referenced below) and more specifically how they were understood by the early followers of Christ.
Again, nobody has denied Jesus established leadership within the local churches to ensure unity of the faith and the Scriptures were given as the instruction manual for teaching, correcting, instructing in righteousness. We just deny that it was ONLY found with the Roman catholic church seeing as what calls itself that church today barely resembles the one founded in the first centuries. How we know is how it measures up to the rule of faith.
I've spent more time on this than I wanted. I doubt what I say will make one bit of difference and we'll see the same arguments tossed out again and again as if nobody ever tried to clarify anything. If you want to carry around disgust and hatred for genuine Christian brothers and sister, then that will be your business - its between you and God. I remain confident in my decision to leave Roman Catholicism for the truth of the gospel of the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. I know that I have eternal life and I shall never perish. I truly do pray for that same assurance for all those who come to faith in Christ.
1. Of course, the Church is infallible only when it speaks ex cathedra. This is why the individual sayings of Popes and their personal lives have little to do with doctrine.
2. “The Roman Catholic church didn’t “authenticate” the word of God!”
You appear confused here and miss a crucial distinction.
The Catholic Church does not claim that by identifying the books of the Bible it rendered them canonical. God alone is the author of canonicity. The Catholic Church instead claims that it and it alone has the authority and responsibility of infallibly pointing out which books comprise the Biblical canon already authored by God.
3. Again you misunderstand John 21: 25 by claiming the Church “invents” stuff. No, the Church existed before the Bible, and it alone carries the sacred oral tradition. Indeed, it was this oral tradition that was often used to cross check the accuracy of the books infallibly selected to be part of the Bible.
Once again Bible Christians blithely and breezily ignore the writings of the early Church fathers.
4. “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” (I Cor. 1:26-31)”
This is a prime example of a sophomoric use of scripture. The Church undertakes a sacred obligation to proclaim the true word of God against heresies. This is true whether it confronted the Arian heresy or the cluster of heresies spawned by Protestantism.
5. You write: “That the authority given to Peter was given to all the Apostles to go out into all the world and preach the gospel, making disciples for Christ and establishing places of worship, learning, discipleship and fellowship for believers. A tradition that continues to this day. The rule of faith today is the same as they used - the word of God.”
Perhaps you miss the self contradiction in your statement. The mandate is to preach the word of God. As you admitted in your prior post for this purpose there is ONE truth and Christ established ONE Church. He specifically confines this mandate to Peter and his apostles. Not every Tom, Dick, and Harry and corner street pastor has the authority to “bind” and to “loosen.” The Protestant heresies did not arrive on the scene until 1517.
6. “God’s not impressed by human wisdom, neither should we be.”
It is not about human wisdom but its all about diligently seeking out the Word of God. Not your Jim Jones, Joel Osteen, and every other self appointed half baked corner street Foursquare Church pastor or the likes of Jimmy Swaggart or Benny Hinn or Bill Graham waving their Bibles and offering us their “wisdom” of what is God’s Word in contradiction to what the Church teaches and had taught for 1500 years before the heresy of Protestantism.
7. “There was rampant moral and doctrinal church corruption and God used the reformers to combat that, cause repentance and return to the orthodox Christian faith once delivered unto the saints.”
What rubbish? So God used the heresy of Protestantism with its thousands of variations to reform His Church? This is now getting to be beyond absurd. There wasn’t a single dogma or ex cathedra exposition of Church teaching that was changed. For sure, abuses were corrected but then again the Church itself is like Peter, it is fallible in its conduct.
8. “The truth of the Christian faith, as spelled out in Scripture, is self-interpreting.”
Seriously, try to keep this strictly to yourself. If you go into any theological department of any reputable university and say something like this, even Protestant universities would show you the door and not in a pleasant way.
9. No one can ever have eternal life until they eat and drink of the body and blood of Christ.
John 6:53
“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”
Protestantism and its various thousands of off-shoots have this much in common with the Moonies, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons, the First AME, and the Rev. Jeremiah’s Wrights of this world. They deny this central fact embraced by the illustrious list of the Church’s early Fathers, saints, and martyrs and theologians. Or may be “scripture is self-interpreting” that somehow they all missed this for 2000 years and counting.
We pray for your souls and seek the intercession of Mary, the mediatrix of all graces!
The credo of which you speak was not written by those whom were in any way acting "under" the so-called "Petrine authority" which the Church of Rome claims singularly for it's own.
From Schaff,
In the Nicene Creed we must distinguish three forms—the original Nicene, the enlarged Constantinopolitan, and the still later Latin.1. The original Nicene Creed dates from the first œcumenical Council, which was held at Nicæa, A.D. 325, for the settlement of the Arian controversy, and consisted of 318 bishops, all of them from the East (except Hosius of Spain). This Creed abruptly closes with the words 'and in the Holy Ghost,' but adds an anathema against the Arians. This was the authorized form down to the Council of Chalcedon.
2. The Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed, besides some minor changes in the first two articles, adds all the clauses after 'Holy Ghost,' but omits the anathema. It gives the text as now received in the Eastern Church. It is usually traced to the second œcumenical Council, which was convened by Theodosius in Constantinople, A.D. 381, against the Macedonians or Pneumatomachians (so called for denying the deity of the Holy Spirit), and consisted of 150 bishops, all from the East. There is no authentic evidence of an œcumenical recognition of this enlarged Creed till the Council at Chalcedon, 451, where it was read by Aëtius (a deacon of Constantinople) as the 'Creed of the 150 fathers,' and accepted as orthodox, together with the old Nicene Creed, or the 'Creed of the 318 fathers.' But the additional clauses existed in 374, seven years before the Constantinopolitan Council, in the two creeds of Epiphanius, a native of Palestine,and most of them as early as 350, in the creed of Cyril of Jerusalem.
The Nicene Creed comes nearest to that of Eusebius of Cæsarea, which likewise abruptly closes with πνεῦμα ἅγιον; the Constantinopolitan Creed resembles the creeds of Cyril and Epiphanius, which close with 'the resurrection' and 'life everlasting.' We may therefore trace both forms to Palestine, except the Nicene homoousion. [bolding added]
Notice how the Credo as you referred to it, did not originate, or come into being under this same "Petrine authority" which you so often speak of as belonging to 'Rome' (alone, as it were) when promoting the Church of Rome as the end-all to beat all of Christianity itself?
If you could only open your eyes wide enough to see just how much your own words refute your own thesis ---- once the things which your words touch upon --- such as Church history (and Scripture also), are honestly examined, then you possibly could better understand and appreciate the reasons why one prominent Roman Catholic theologian would venture such (spirit of Vatican II?) things as
"... What action? Generally speaking, certainly, a manner of thinking and acting that respects the other in his search for the true essence of Christianity; an attitude that regards unity as an urgent good that demands sacrifice, whereas separation demand justification in every single instance. But we can define the required action even more clearly in terms of the above diagnosis. It means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality. ..."[underlining added]
You may or may not accept that the man who wrote this, in doing so, provided good advice that Roman Catholics should pay close attention to --- some [Roman] Catholics would dismiss this portion as perhaps, too stealthily "modernistic", yet I will tell you squarely although you otherwise ballyhoo this particular man as one of the greatest theologians whom ever lived, it is not in this alone which you yourself do appear to me to be widely out of step and synchronization with him, and many other decent enough [Roman] Catholics too, without needing go so far as being among those [Roman] Catholics who are spoken of in this thread --->(Catholic) Religious Superiors Call for Rethinking about Gay Couples ... [Catholic Caucus], for around here I do think it should be allowed for a Roman Catholic to distance themselves from such as those, similar to how a vast majority(?) of the more conservative among Protestants (particularly the bible-thumpers which you frequently, rather figuratively spit upon) have nothing at all to do with the likes of the new-agey, wanna-be priestess, fag-hag bishop Shicori, with there being much greater call for recognition of the honest and actual distancing of the many from the likes of her, among so-called "Protestants", due to there being no one much among them whom asserts infallibility for it's own leadership, extending that also to it's own and "teaching magesterium", then it is as for the case within Roman Catholicism itself, whom you were just stressing stood for One Truth, were you not?
So much for the One truth, if we were to evaluate the various ecclesiastical organizations equally, as far as what really goes among any of them -- Rome included!
Turning aside from those sort of difficulties, and back towards this One Truth held by many (not just or only *some* number Roman Catholics as being that very thing);
Perhaps you may also need ask yourself how much agreement you may or may not be with written statements such;
although I dare say that the portion which makes mention of "the very center" may cheer or reassure your own self to an extent, for it does fairly enough appear to me that the man was speaking there most chiefly of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical portion of the larger body of what he otherwise did also define as "The true Church", quote-unquote.
The "credo" --- what is that but a general outline of what the Scriptures indicate are the fundamental truths concerning Christ --- with there at the end, an add-on line suggesting belief "in the Church"?
Do you not understand that such church assemblages as say, the Southern Baptists, consistently enough preach the base, fundamental precepts of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, even though they do not themselves necessarily, or often recite the words verbatim (of Western Version), as do the Methodists, most all Anglicans, and others perhaps, also? I say "perhaps" for I've not much attended Presbyterian church services, though I imagine they occasionally at least recite the creed, as do Lutherans, iirc.
These other ecclesiastical associations which you are so often directing your ire, preach the One Truth (minus "papacy" and RCC, so-called "Magesterium"), so just what is your problem with them --- other than they dare stand in opposition to things which neutrally enough can indeed be identified as "Romish" or Romanism, to borrow those 18th & 19th century terms?
But please, spare me yet another of your broadsides wherein you engage in selective sampling and equivocating, wherein the focus is upon outliers such as David Koresh, or Benny Hinn, or someone not truly central the Evangelical mainstream, as being truly representative of what may otherwise be viewed as Protestant theology, as described not by yourself or some other Romanist with an ax to grind, but in their own words, and deeds also.
Let also those "of Rome" be weighed, judged, or otherwise evaluated by the same exact measures and rules which are employed in any analysis or commentary which may come to mind, or in other words -- spare me the same old usual statements which you make that are broken-record repetition, until those same are equitably applied to one and all, without exception and special pleadings such as "the Church was not in error", "that was only that person..." (or group of persons) who were wrong, or sinning, for it does appear that whenever one can point to whatever possible error, or "sin" there be found in others (not "Catholic") that is held up as proof that they are not part of the true Church, thus meaning that whatever ecclesiastical body they are associated with is hopelessly reprobate, while those of Rome (and more to the point-- Rome, itself) are weighed and evaluated under differing rules & criteria, with seemingly whatever exception of special pleading is necessary in order to cast off all guilt for the Church of Rome itself be indulged in, while simultaneously passing judgement in the way and manner I just described, against all others
Is it not written that God truly HATES unequal scales?
I mean -- what would you say if among the Presbyterians ,there was not only a long history of sexual abuse of minors engaged in by those officially within their ranks serving as pastors-- but also there was a history of denial, cover-up and avoidance/down-playing of the issue, that reached even up to the very top of that ecclesiastical association?
Would the fact that even though there was evidence of some cover-up activity reaching into highest levels be mollified due to there having been also some activity (actions) engaged in on those same highest levels to combat the abuse, and put and end to further incidences of the same occurring?
When it comes to 'Rome', that is what has generally played out within the commentary of a wide swath of FRomans, here on the pages of FR.
I have gone into discussion of the issue at length, with you, before. Others have also. We have had our various presentations either ignored, or else swept away with some form or rhetorical flourish while you yourself declare that such information which is brought before yourself in refutation of your oft repeated claim "doesn't matter" or else all boils down to there needing to be a singular authority, or else all breaks down into chaos.
The Orthodox Christians, by their mere existence alone, refute the claims for singular 'papacy', or even the need for the ill-concieved, not-supported-by earliest Church history, error & rank HERESY that "papacy" as that known and now long promulgated by 'Rome' concerning itself, truly is.
All the bluffing and blustering of those of Rome concerning their own self reverentially entitled "Magesterium", cannot make the truths of history which refute the extents to which the various assembled claims are pushed -- go away.
History refutes you, and again, if you refuse the council of those of your own ecclesiastical organization, as much as any and everything else people here point out to you which refutes (or else just limits) your oft repeated (flawed) premises, and resulting ending error of general thesis, may the Lord Himself rebuke you also, and with gusto, for it is beginning to appear to me that is what it's going to take.
Duplicitous? Arent you being kind!
Indeed. All I wanted to do is look at the sourcing to try to understand the point.
What I post iis from God’s word or their material. I just want to make sure when someone reads what I post, the don’t think I’m making it up as I go.
Isn’t it sad too that simple Yes/No questions cannot be answered?
We know about that too, unfortunately, don’t we?
Hoss
We pray for your souls and seek the intercession of Mary, the mediatrix of all graces!
how do you square that "teaching" with 1 Timothy 2:5:
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"
Who is right? God or the Roman Catholic Church? Which is it? There is no false dilemma here...either the Roman Cult is right, or God Almighty is right. Which is it? Or does your "prayer" to Mary serve as the answer?
Hoss
**But actions speak louder than words.**
Peter’s actions in Acts still don’t help your tradition. He actively baptized both Jews and Gentiles in the name of Jesus. There is no action in Acts of him leading a ‘mass’ ritual.
**The liturgical structure of that celebration developed very rapidly in the early life of the Church as we see in Saint Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1Cor.11.26)(“For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.”)**
Paul also is not shown in Acts teaching and/or leading a ‘mass’ ritual.
Oh, I believe it is Godly action to show remembrance of the Lord’s death. If it was more than that, Acts would have had at least two accounts showing it to be absolutely necessary.
As far as how many centuries a practice has been done, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude all warned, in those days, of people leading others away from the traditions that the original apostles taught.
**Of course those who dispute Petrine authority..**
It’s not Peter’s authority that I question. It the ones that claim to follow his lead, while changing his tradition, that I steer clear of.
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.