It's very unfortunate the the Catholic denomination doesn't teach what the Bible says, but finds it necessary to add so much to the word of God that the truth of what it says is almost entirely lost. Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected; sin has been paid for in its entirety. That is all one really needs to know and believe.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Development of Doctrine
- Thread starter Mungo
- Start date
Communion for the divorced and remarried, papal critics and family life: Pope Francis’ ‘Amoris Laetitia’ at 5 years
What is the legacy of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia,” released five years ago today?
www.americamagazine.org
Haven't you read the following:
I used to remember the page number and paragraph number.
If you start at about page 220 and forward you'll see that the church has changed its position on divorced and remarrieds.
What is the proof that the Catholic denomination was the first church? There are several problems with this assumption...
a) There is no mention of the Catholic denomination (or the word "Catholic") in the Bible. There are a number of churches mentioned in various locations throughout the Mediterranean area but none are the church.
b) The Orthodox denomination has an equally valid claim to being the first denomination. The Ethiopian and Egyptian denominations can probably make the same claim.
c) There is one body of Christ, i.e., all believers. Separating it into different denominations has no validity in my opinion. 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 addresses this perfectly: "Now I mean this, that each of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.” Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul?"
Of course Jesus would never nail an ultimatum to a church door.
He was Jesus.
The Vatican wouldn't listen to Luther, but he happened to be right.
Just like the Pharisees were keeping the Jews in slavery through the Law and apart from the true spirit of God and the relationship He wanted to have with men.... so was the CC keeping persons far from God using fear and even monetary gain for confessions, prayers, etc.
Instead of bearing down with the response to Protestantism at the Council of Trent, the church should have seen a big change coming. I think it failed. This didn't happen till the 60's with Pope John XXIII and the Pope John Paul with the new catechism.
Maybe it was just too little too late.
That's not what I'm saying.
If something has changed so much over time, it does make me question if it's even necessary at all....
It starts with Peter.
Peter was an Apostle of Jesus.
He carried the message of our Lord.
James became the Bishop of Jerusalem.
Peter became the Bishop of Rome.
They taught others and choses elders.
These elders then chose others.
THIS was the only church at that time.
It came to be known as the universal church...the Catholic church. Catholic means universal.
It was called this because there were no other churches at that time.
I'm speaking about the first 2 or 3 hundred years after Christ.
Then it just continued like this.
I keep telling you it's history because, of course, it's not in the bible.
The world continued even after John wrote Revelation....history was still being made.
While John was still alive the gnostics tried to infiltrate the church. I was this church that kept gnosticism out.
Along with many other heresies that were dealt with at the level of the Bishops, and which were then ratified at councils...like the Council of Nicea for instance.
This went on for hundreds of years.
The church became political and history tells us the rest.
You do have a point that when the schism came in 1,000AD and the orthodox left because of the problem with the Pope and the problem with the filoque. We could debate which branch remained more true to the first teachings, but we cannot deny that there was one church until that time.
The churches that are spoken of in Revelation are churches, buildings, where the first Christians me. They're named after the place where they were built - they were not different denominations.
As to the Church of Christ, the Body of Christ, you're right 100% and I have nothing to add, it's a very simple concept.
All believers make up the Body of Christ.
This is Church with a capital C.
The institution, or bldg, has a small c.
I can't really add too much.
I guess a person either accepts history or they don't.
What church/institution/building do YOU believe was the first?
One had to be the first.
You're using "church" in several different ways. As you said, all believers make up the body of Christ, a.k.a., the church. Splitting it up into denominations doesn't negate this fact.
Now, you wrote this: "... the schism came in 1,000AD and the orthodox left because of the problem with the Pope and the problem with the filoque. We could debate which branch remained more true to the first teachings, but we cannot deny that there was one church until that time." So, if you claim that there was one church at the time -- which I question -- and it split, then it is false to claim that one or the other was first. They co-existed! The Orthodox have as much right to say "we were first" or "we are the oldest" as the Catholics. For that matter, Protestants, since they split from the Catholic denomination, also can trace their origins back to "day one". The Catholic denomination's claim to be the first church makes no sense.
I guess a person either accepts history or they don't.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote that "the churches that are spoken of in Revelation are churches, buildings, where the first Christians met. They're named after the place where they were built - they were not different denominations." That is simply false. They were "assemblies" (not buildings) that met in different cities and had different ideologies. Revelation 1:4a, "From John, to the seven churches that are in the province of Asia..." -- he wasn't writing to buildings but people!
To the people of Ephesus, (actually the angel), he wrote (Revelation 2:2-4), " ‘I know your works as well as your labor and steadfast endurance, and that you cannot tolerate[g] evil. You have even put to the test those who refer to themselves as apostles (but are not), and have discovered that they are false. I am also aware that you have persisted steadfastly, endured much for the sake of my name, and have not grown weary. But I have this against you: You have departed from your first love!"
To the people of Smyrna, (actually the angel), he wrote (Revelation 2:8-10), “This is the solemn pronouncement of the one who is the first and the last, the one who was dead, but came to life: ‘I know the distress you are suffering and your poverty (but you are rich). I also know the slander against you by those who call themselves Jews and really are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not be afraid of the things you are about to suffer. The devil is about to have some of you thrown into prison so you may be tested, and you will experience suffering for ten days. Remain faithful even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown that is life itself."
... and so on to the other churches. clearly there was not one church with one doctrine, so the claim of the Catholic denomination in Rome to be the first church (with correct doctrine) is false. All one has to do is read the epistle that Paul wrote to the church at Rome to know that they also had problems, doctrinally, behaviorally, etc.
The Catholic denomination has done a superb job of manufacturing a story about itself being the first church, with Peter as the first Pope, and a handle on the true doctrine, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
I don't agree of course.
I spoke about some of the ideas that were coming up in the church/bldg/institution.
It kept happening for hundreds of years.
It's easy enough to look this up on non-catholic sites.
jaybo
Just found this. But there's a lot and you have to kind of put it all together.
Hope you read it.
en.wikipedia.org
Just found this. But there's a lot and you have to kind of put it all together.
Hope you read it.
Patriarchate - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Jaybo, I'll bet Luther would be horrified to be compared to Moses.
Especially since Luther led a movement of disobedience to the seat of authority Moses helped God establish.
Well if Luther would obey Moses he wouldn't rebel against the seat established by God and entrusted to Moses. Frankly, Luther must have had blind spots because Jesus' example is plain to see. He was very explicit. His instruction was to the crowds and His diciples.
Matt.23
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do.
The respect Jesus gave to Moses' seat of authority, Luther wouldn't give to Jesus'.
How could he possibly be another Moses.
Luther could've, maybe, possibly been what you believe if he wouldn't have forgotten what Jesus taught
Jesus taught what Luther should have done
Then He showed us what it looks like.
Luther nailed his corrections onto a wood door.
Jesus is the correction nailed onto the wood.
I don't believe the traditions or teaching of the Church enslaved anyone They were abused by bad Priests to cheat and manipulate their parishioners. The teaching and tradition abused are falsely blamed. A wound still festering.
Your brother
in Christ
My gosh Benadam
It's still going on with donations for prayers for our dead at Mass. Weekday Mass.
I also find it difficult to believe the Pope was not aware of what was happening in Spain in the 1,200s.
I'm just happy the church has come to its senses.
There's good and bad everywhere man resides.
But the church itself remains pure and holy.
Blessings
It's a tradition of God that Jesus' followers have access to His divine power. Those you forgive are forgiven those you retain are retained.
How it's done in public under the glare or in private in the comfort of a booth.
Those are traditions of men.
Wouldn't reconciliation be brutal if it was public not to mention it would be rare because of it.
As for the Sacrament. Public Private they are meant to help fulfilling obligation to tradition of God.
I hope you see a refutation to that lay heavy burdens on people thing.
C'mon, so big of a chunk of protestantism is accusations of ' traditions of men.
I have yet to meet a protestant who says that who understands what a tradition of men is.
Yours in Christ
Confession was changed to private because it was causing too much trouble within the community to confess out loud in public. But I don't believe there was any confession at all in the very beginning.
As to laying a burden on people...
I don't see the CC doing that. Some do it to themselves because it makes them feel better.
But they get burned out. I find that if God leads me to do something, then I don't feel so much burden. I was going to say No Burden, but at times I have felt it momentarily. That's something people say who want Jesus to do it all. That wasn't His message.
As to traditions of men...
The study of church history is sorely lacking in Protestantism. I think tradition and Tradition get mixed up.
Blessings
Walpole
Member
Repeating an old post...
Throughout salvation history, God has consistently sought to extract a confession from man. For example, in the beginning, we read "Who told you that you were naked?" Or, "Where is your brother Abel?" I could go on and on throughout the pages of Scripture.
History culminates when God actually enters into his creation by becoming Man in the person of Jesus Christ. After His death and resurrection, on the evening of Easter, our Blessed Lord appeared to the Apostles and breathes on them. (This is significant itself given it is only the second time in Scripture where God literally breathes onto man - the first being when He breathed life into Adam.) When Jesus breathes on them, He imparts on them the Holy Ghost, and then gives them the authority to forgive sins. St. John records the event as follows...
"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.'” (John 20:19-23)
This is where the Christian practice of confession became a sacrament. In order for the Apostles (and their successors) to be able to forgive sins, they must first be told the sins. Hence confession, by definition, must be auricular. It has been this way from the beginning of the Church. We see this in practice in Acts when the Ephesians confess their sins to Paul in Acts 19:18. St. Paul tells the faithful at Corinth that he is charged with the "ministry of reconciliation." ( 2 Col 5:18) St. James instructs the faithful to make a confession (5:16) and St. John tells us if we confess our sins, they will be forgiven. (1 John 1:9)
In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the very first thing prodigal son does upon returning to the bosom of the Father is he makes a confession. (cf. Luke 15:21) Jesus is telling us this for a reason. Confession was practiced immediately from the Church's infancy, as testified to in the Scriptures and then in each subsequent century. (i.e. the Didache, St. Irenaeus, Origin, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Augustine, Leo the Great, etc. etc.)
Think incarnationally. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.
I've never read this before Walpole.
The didache doesn't specifically say how to confess. It just states to confess our sins.
Why didn't the writers of the NT make a point of this if it's so important?
Nice to see you again.
Oh. And I've never heard that the church is in extension of ths incarnation.
A good topic for Fra' Lorenzo.
He stopped the bible studies due to covid, but I could still visit.
What does "I think tradition and Tradition get mixed up" mean?
You're probably correct in saying that the study of church history is sorely lacking in Protestantism. Most history, including church history, is propaganda. It is almost always the whitewashing of what actually happened in order to justify the behavior of those who hold power.
Long ago, (1980), there was a ground-breaking book written by Howard Zinn entitled "A People's History of the United States". It is a 1980 nonfiction book in which Zinn presented what he considered to be a different side of history from the more traditional "fundamental nationalist glorification of country". It opened my eyes to just how history most often glorifies the accomplishments of those in power, while denigrating the accomplishments of those who have been suppressed and defeated.
I have no doubt that there could be a similar book written about church history. I have seen the results first hand of the accomplishments of "the church" (meaning the Catholic denomination) in the Western hemisphere: the wholesale slaughter of indigenous people, the destruction of indigenous cultures, and the forced "acceptance" of Catholicism. I doubt that the phrase "kill the Indian, save the child" appears in too many church history books.
"History", including church history, is written by the victors. The Protestants were considered by the Catholics to be traitors and heretics. Does that answer your question about why Protestants aren't interested in "church history"?
Walpole
Member
Indeed, the Church is very much an extension of the Incarnation.
Extension: the act of extending or the condition of being extended something that can be extended or that extends another object
Extended: stretched out; continued or prolonged
"A man’s body is all one, though it has a number of different organs; and all this multitude of organs goes to make up one body; so it is with Christ. We too, all of us, have been baptized into a single body by the power of a single Spirit, Jews and Greeks, slaves and free men alike; we have all been given drink at a single source, the one Spirit. The body, after all, consists not of one organ but of many...And you are Christ’s body, organs of it depending upon each other..." (1 Cor 12:12-30)
Christ had a body while on earth which He used to teach and sanctify. The Church - his body - is now an extension of His body which continues to teach and sanctify. (cf. Mt. 26:26, Mt. 28:20)
The Church can thus be called the body of Christ, continuing in time and thus it is a divine institution. If the Church is not a divine institution, it will turn into nothing more than a religious Elks Club.
Walpole
Member
The writers did make a point. Did you not see the Scripture references in my post?