The Catholic Church.

[Rollo Tamasi]

The pope

Technically, the only requirements to become pope are that you be a male and a practicing Catholic.

Bob, you still have a chance.
Go for it!!!

 

[Serving Zion]

[ACMP=reminder]
Folks, you are in the Theology forum. This is an area for serious theological discussion, not casual chatting as in the Lounge.

Future posts may be removed if they are not contributing value to the thread.

- Moderator
[/ACMP]

 

[PaulChristensen]

We'd have to discuss the traditional beliefs and practices...
Some I cannot agree with.

In its rush to dismiss everything Catholic, the reformers changed everything that was known till that time.
Some practices did need to be abolished --- I do believe others were abolished for the sole purpose of denying agreement with the CC.
Then we got "Calvinism" out of this, and it was so wrong and damaging that most did not agree with its doctrine and more and more different denominations came into existence. I believe Zwingli started this....can't remember very well. I do know that splits began immediately.

So, yes, I'd agree that the bible should be the number 1 authority....
But, apparently, we have a problem with deciding which verse means what.

I also believe that, if there is some debate, we should go to the writings of the Apostolic and ECFs since they knew the Apostles and surely learned what they knew from them.

IOW...maybe not everything is in the N.T.?
Again, I post
John 21:25
25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Paul had the answer when he went to plant the Corinthian church. He determined to know nothing among them save Christ and Him crucified. For the Jews who lived there, he used the O.T. Scriptures to show that they spoke of Christ. For the Gentile Greeks he went with the demonstration of the Spirit and with power.

He tried the intellectual and theological way with the Athenians on Mars Hill, but had very limited success and was not able to plant a church there. This was because his theology was nonsense to the Greek philosophers and intellectuals. He had learned his lesson when he got to Corinth and was successful in planting a church there.

One of the big problems that arose with the Corinthians was that they split into factions, some saying that Apollos was the most sound person to follow, and others saying that Peter was the best, and others rejected Paul, Apollos, and Peter, and followed only Christ. That same history is repeating itself on this forum.

Some are saying that the RCC doctrine is the best, others are saying that Calvinism is the way to go, and others are saying that Arminianism is more reliable, and other are rejecting them all, saying that they are following Christ alone.

Paul's answer was "Who is Paul, Apollos and Peter? Just ordinary servants of God who brought you to faith in Christ." This means that no theologian is an authority in himself. Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Arminius, Martin Lloyd-Jones, or whoever your theologian may be, are just ordinary servants of God whose mission is to enhance your faith in Christ. Every theologian has their strengths and weaknesses, but the central theme, if they are sound, is that they show Christ and Him crucified. Usually, their questionable bits are not central to the central kernel of what they are seeking to show their readers - that faith in Christ makes the difference between heaven and hell.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Arminius, Martin Lloyd-Jones, or whoever your theologian may be, are just ordinary servants of God whose mission is to enhance your faith in Christ.

To this statement,as far as I know, protestants and their leaders are agreed. The Westminster Confession states:
The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
Furthermore
The books usually called the Apocrypha are not divinely inspired and are not part of the canon
of Scripture. They therefore have no authority in the church of God and are not to be valued or
used as anything other than human writings.

The R.C. church does not agree.

Some are saying that the RCC doctrine is the best, others are saying that Calvinism is the way to go, and others are saying that Arminianism is more reliable, and other are rejecting them all, saying that they are following Christ alone.

It is beyond dispute that one denomination follows Christ better than all the rest, though imperfectly. Logically, if one denomination does not use the bible alone as God's instructions, that denomination is at either a great advantage over the others or a great disadvantage...the advantage or disadvantage potentially the difference between heaven or hell. Some theologians on either side believe the difference is that great.

Study to show thyself approved ...but what is your authoritative source?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

You're asking a Dominican about a Franciscan!

But since they're BOTH "Roman Catholics" in "Perfect unity" why is that important???

 

[PaulChristensen]

To this statement,as far as I know, protestants and their leaders are agreed. The Westminster Confession states:
The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
Furthermore
The books usually called the Apocrypha are not divinely inspired and are not part of the canon
of Scripture. They therefore have no authority in the church of God and are not to be valued or
used as anything other than human writings.

The R.C. church does not agree.



It is beyond dispute that one denomination follows Christ better than all the rest, though imperfectly. Logically, if one denomination does not use the bible alone as God's instructions, that denomination is at either a great advantage over the others or a great disadvantage...the advantage or disadvantage potentially the difference between heaven or hell. Some theologians on either side believe the difference is that great.

Study to show thyself approved ...but what is your authoritative source?

It is the factional party spirit that Paul spoke about at the beginning of 1 Corinthians that was bring division into the Corinthian church. It is the same divisive spirit that exists in our various denominations, where one denomination will have no fellowship with another, even though they all profess Christianity and the moving of the Holy Spirit among them. But Paul asks, "Is Christ divided?" If Christ is not divided, and all genuine Christians drink of the one Spirit, believe in the one Saviour who died on the Cross and subscribe to the one baptism, one has to wonder about the genuineness of professing Christians who exclusivize their own denomination. If a professing Christian or group of Christians maintain that their church is more correct than others, are they not dividing themselves from Christ and the Holy Spirit?

For example, the RCC maintains that it is the only true church, and views all other Christians as "cousins" instead of true brothers and sisters in Christ. So, who is dividing themselves from Christ? Are those who see their denomination, such as the RCC, as exclusive with the truth, are they really Christian, seeing that they are dividing themselves from the rest of the body of Christ? One has to wonder.

I think that many professing Christians will get a rude shock at the Judgment, when the secrets of men's hearts are made manifest. It all depends on whether we are loyal to Christ or our denomination. Jesus said that no man can serve two masters. Either we love Christ and put our denomination in second place, or we love our denomination and put Christ in second place. Jesus was more explicit: Either we love the one and hate the other. And if a person loves their denomination and makes it their lord, then in essence they hate Christ; and we all know the eternal consequences of hating Christ.

 

[Walpole]

And St. Francis invented the manger....
For reasons of educating the poor and illiterate.
I don't know any Dominicans,,but I know a Franciscan who accompanied a church tour to Assisi and we had a wonderful time .

While the Franciscans may have Assisi and the Holy Land, the Dominicans have St. Thomas.

 

[Walpole]

But since they're BOTH "Roman Catholics" in "Perfect unity" why is that important???

Non-sequitur.

(It's not important.)

 

[Walpole]

To this statement,as far as I know, protestants and their leaders are agreed. The Westminster Confession states:
The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
Furthermore
The books usually called the Apocrypha are not divinely inspired and are not part of the canon
of Scripture. They therefore have no authority in the church of God and are not to be valued or
used as anything other than human writings.

The R.C. church does not agree.



It is beyond dispute that one denomination follows Christ better than all the rest, though imperfectly. Logically, if one denomination does not use the bible alone as God's instructions, that denomination is at either a great advantage over the others or a great disadvantage...the advantage or disadvantage potentially the difference between heaven or hell. Some theologians on either side believe the difference is that great.

Study to show thyself approved ...but what is your authoritative source?

This is the second time you have posted this and I have to correct you again. The Deuterocanonical books ("Apocrypha") were contained in the Septuagint, which is the Scriptures used by Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church. Greek-speaking Jews used the Septuagint, but so many converted to Christianity that Greek-speaking Judaism ceased to exist not long after the time of the apostles. The canon of the Catholic Old Testament is a Jewish canon; it is the canon of Jews who accepted Christ. It is also the canon continually affirmed at countless councils.

Modern rabbinical Judaism is descended from the practices of the Pharisees, who fixed the Hebrew canon after the development of Christianity and in response to Christianity. Protestants have chosen the Old Testament canon of Jews (Masoretic) who rejected Christ. Ironically, Protestant Bibles like the NIV had to refer to the Septuagint to correct certain portions of their translations from the Tanakh to match the Christological meaning!

Once again, there is NO CHURCH in history which ever used a 66-book canon matching the Protestant one. Never. Ever.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Roman Catholic Bibles have several more books in the Old Testament than Protestant Bibles. These books are referred to as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books. The word apocrypha means “hidden,” while the word deuterocanonical means “second canon.” The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals were written primarily in the time between the Old and New Testaments. The books of the Apocrypha include 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees, as well as additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. Not all of these books are included in Catholic Bibles.

The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books. Further, there are many proven errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals. Here are a few websites that demonstrate these errors:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a109.htm
http://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm
https://carm.org/errors-apocrypha

The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.
Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? | GotQuestions.org

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? Who decided what books belonged in the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[GodsGrace]

Paul had the answer when he went to plant the Corinthian church. He determined to know nothing among them save Christ and Him crucified. For the Jews who lived there, he used the O.T. Scriptures to show that they spoke of Christ. For the Gentile Greeks he went with the demonstration of the Spirit and with power.

He tried the intellectual and theological way with the Athenians on Mars Hill, but had very limited success and was not able to plant a church there. This was because his theology was nonsense to the Greek philosophers and intellectuals. He had learned his lesson when he got to Corinth and was successful in planting a church there.

One of the big problems that arose with the Corinthians was that they split into factions, some saying that Apollos was the most sound person to follow, and others saying that Peter was the best, and others rejected Paul, Apollos, and Peter, and followed only Christ. That same history is repeating itself on this forum.

Some are saying that the RCC doctrine is the best, others are saying that Calvinism is the way to go, and others are saying that Arminianism is more reliable, and other are rejecting them all, saying that they are following Christ alone.

Paul's answer was "Who is Paul, Apollos and Peter? Just ordinary servants of God who brought you to faith in Christ." This means that no theologian is an authority in himself. Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Arminius, Martin Lloyd-Jones, or whoever your theologian may be, are just ordinary servants of God whose mission is to enhance your faith in Christ. Every theologian has their strengths and weaknesses, but the central theme, if they are sound, is that they show Christ and Him crucified. Usually, their questionable bits are not central to the central kernel of what they are seeking to show their readers - that faith in Christ makes the difference between heaven and hell.

I couldn't agree more.

The CC held together for 1,000 years until the big Schism.
There were theologians, and extremely intelligent ones, OF the church,,,but they worked FOR the church and had no interest in starting their own.

This happened only after the reformation when we began to follow men instead of Christ.
Christ is the ONLY being we should be following...
Theologians only help us to understand the Word better.

I don't ever hear names of men being brought up except by the reformed.
They mention Arminius, they mention Calvin, I hear about Luther. And others.

So, yes, I don't have any favorite theologians that I would ever quote...although I do like some.

I DO look to the ECFs at times.
I don't know anyone that could know better what Jesus taught.
You might say the writers of the N.T....
but there is doubt as to who penned Hebrews - perhaps one of the ECFs....
who else?? Someone who knew Paul and what he taught....a student of Paul.

I think we should all keep our eyes on Jesus....
But Paul is also much loved, and HE'S the one that said there are to be no factions...

 

[GodsGrace]

To this statement,as far as I know, protestants and their leaders are agreed. The Westminster Confession states:
The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

Again....
It is the Catholic Church that collected the writings that were available at the time and decided which books would be included in the N.T.
Perfectly accomplished, I must say - having also read other writings, such as Nag Hamadi, that make no sense at all and are most probably gnostic in nature.

So the bible was made with the help of the Holy Spirit...
put together by MEN, by a CHURCH....
and still it is to be received.

Furthermore
The books usually called the Apocrypha are not divinely inspired and are not part of the canon
of Scripture. They therefore have no authority in the church of God and are not to be valued or
used as anything other than human writings.

The R.C. church does not agree.



It is beyond dispute that one denomination follows Christ better than all the rest, though imperfectly. Logically, if one denomination does not use the bible alone as God's instructions, that denomination is at either a great advantage over the others or a great disadvantage...the advantage or disadvantage potentially the difference between heaven or hell. Some theologians on either side believe the difference is that great.

Study to show thyself approved ...but what is your authoritative source?

Which denomination follows Christ better than all the rest?

Are you for your denomination, or are you for following Jesus and the bible?

 

[PaulChristensen]

I couldn't agree more.

The CC held together for 1,000 years until the big Schism.
There were theologians, and extremely intelligent ones, OF the church,,,but they worked FOR the church and had no interest in starting their own.

This happened only after the reformation when we began to follow men instead of Christ.
Christ is the ONLY being we should be following...
Theologians only help us to understand the Word better.

I don't ever hear names of men being brought up except by the reformed.
They mention Arminius, they mention Calvin, I hear about Luther. And others.

So, yes, I don't have any favorite theologians that I would ever quote...although I do like some.

I DO look to the ECFs at times.
I don't know anyone that could know better what Jesus taught.
You might say the writers of the N.T....
but there is doubt as to who penned Hebrews - perhaps one of the ECFs....
who else?? Someone who knew Paul and what he taught....a student of Paul.

I think we should all keep our eyes on Jesus....
But Paul is also much loved, and HE'S the one that said there are to be no factions...

I agree that there were many godly theologians within the RCC through the ages, as there still are many godly believers still in that church, who put Christ in first place over and above the church. This is why Paul did not put a blanket condemnation on the Corinthian church because of its serious faults and failings. He knew that there were many godly people in it who were faithful to Christ.

Although our denominational structures are man-made and will all burn up when the fire of God comes at the second coming of Christ, they still provide a scaffolding for true saints of God, and a visible testimony for Christ in the world.

Although I have been part of the Presbyterian church for the last 23 years, my personal priority is Christ first, my family next, my employment after that, and the church last. I will be loyal to my church only when they are loyal to Christ.

In the same way, I will read the work of a theologian only as he is Christ-centred. There is no such person as a perfect theologian. Theology is the study involving the search for God, not the definition of who God is, and who Jesus is. It may or may not involve the Scriptures. However, the only real view of who Jesus really is, is found in the written four Gospels, and so, if a theologian is faithful to that, then he is worth reading.

One good point: hero-worship, involving a particular theologian, pastor, or big-name preacher is a form of idolatry; because no matter who they think they are, they are nothing outside of Christ.

 

[GodsGrace]

I agree that there were many godly theologians within the RCC through the ages, as there still are many godly believers still in that church, who put Christ in first place over and above the church. This is why Paul did not put a blanket condemnation on the Corinthian church because of its serious faults and failings. He knew that there were many godly people in it who were faithful to Christ.

Although our denominational structures are man-made and will all burn up when the fire of God comes at the second coming of Christ, they still provide a scaffolding for true saints of God, and a visible testimony for Christ in the world.

Although I have been part of the Presbyterian church for the last 23 years, my personal priority is Christ first, my family next, my employment after that, and the church last. I will be loyal to my church only when they are loyal to Christ.

In the same way, I will read the work of a theologian only as he is Christ-centred. There is no such person as a perfect theologian. Theology is the study involving the search for God, not the definition of who God is, and who Jesus is. It may or may not involve the Scriptures. However, the only real view of who Jesus really is, is found in the written four Gospels, and so, if a theologian is faithful to that, then he is worth reading.

One good point: hero-worship, involving a particular theologian, pastor, or big-name preacher is a form of idolatry; because no matter who they think they are, they are nothing outside of Christ.

Amen.

I enjoy listening to John Lennox, Norman Geisler, even RC Sproul.....
but I leave them at the doorstep and reply to Jesus' knock.....

I haven't met too many well-balanced persons such as yourself.
It's a pleasure to have you as a member on this forum.

 

[GodsGrace]

crossnote
Said:

the CC may agree with the necessity of the new birth, but how one becomes born again is a different ball of wax.


********************************************
How do you think a Catholic becomes born again?

 

[Walpole]

crossnote
Said:

the CC may agree with the necessity of the new birth, but how one becomes born again is a different ball of wax.


********************************************
How do you think a Catholic becomes born again?

Most modern day Protestants have redefined what it means to be born again from baptism to simply the moment when they decided to believe in God, kicked a bad habit, or gave up a particular sin or sinful life, like putting down the bottle.

 

[GodsGrace]

Most modern day Protestants have redefined what it means to be born again from baptism to simply the moment when they decided to believe in God, kicked a bad habit, or gave up a particular sin or sinful life, like putting down the bottle.

OK Walpole,,,,
Time for a serious discussion.

1. Does being baptized mean a person is born again, or born from above, as Jesus stated is necessary in John 3,,,,or is there something more that is necessary?

2. When is a person justified?

 

[PaulChristensen]

crossnote
Said:

the CC may agree with the necessity of the new birth, but how one becomes born again is a different ball of wax.


********************************************
How do you think a Catholic becomes born again?

My wife was brought up RC, and when our daughter attended a Baptist playgroup, one lady asked her whether she was born again. My wife came home and asked me what that meant. I thought about it and asked her how a non-Catholic is inducted into the Catholic church. She told me the procedure, and it turned out to be exactly the same as when a person is brought to Christ in a Protestant or Charismatic church, except with different terminology.

This implies that the official position of the RCC is that non-Catholics are not true Christians, and need to go through a formal process of induction to the RCC in order to be put on the path of salvation.

I know that many RCs do accept that Protestants are Christians, but the formal process of induction into the RCC is still the same as receiving Christ as Saviour in a Protestant church.

I thought I'd add this to the mix by way of information and in no way a criticism of the RCC.

 

[Serving Zion]

Most modern day Protestants have redefined what it means to be born again from baptism to simply the moment when they decided to believe in God, kicked a bad habit, or gave up a particular sin or sinful life, like putting down the bottle.

OK Walpole,,,,
Time for a serious discussion.

1. Does being baptized mean a person is born again, or born from above, as Jesus stated is necessary in John 3,,,,or is there something more that is necessary?

2. When is a person justified?

Being "Born Again" refers to the expression found in John 3:3 where Nicodemus comes to Jesus privately and says "we know that God is with you because of the signs you perform". Jesus answers and says "amen, nobody can see the kingdom of heaven unless he is born again". What was He referring to? The fact that the kingdom of heaven is spiritual (John 4:24).

Jesus tells Nicodemus that because he is looking at the carnal and not the spiritual, he is only able to see the signs and wonders. He is telling Nicodemus that nobody can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again, because "spirit give birth to spirit".

In order for a person to be born of the spirit, they must allow the word of the spirit to take root in them (John 6:63, Matthew 13:8-9; 19). Therefore it is the Word of the spirit that gives life.

Baptism is a performance in the physical, but it is evidence of the changed heart and a decision to devote ones self to Christ. That change comes only when someone has heard and received the life-giving words of The Holy Spirit:

also to which an antitype doth now save us -- baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ,

1 Peter 3:21, YLT

 

[GodsGrace]

My wife was brought up RC, and when our daughter attended a Baptist playgroup, one lady asked her whether she was born again. My wife came home and asked me what that meant. I thought about it and asked her how a non-Catholic is inducted into the Catholic church. She told me the procedure, and it turned out to be exactly the same as when a person is brought to Christ in a Protestant or Charismatic church, except with different terminology.

Your wife never heard of being born again because this phrase is not used in the CC...at least not that I know of till now.
A phrase that IS used is: saved, salvation.
The procedure to become Catholic is a study time of about a year and this is to make known to the person all the doctrine of the CC and it's a great time to ask questions. At the end there may still be some teaching that is not fully understood or accepted, but that can be worked on in the future.

The same is true of Protestant churches. If a person wants to become a member of a particular church, they sign a document that they accept what that church teaches. I don't know of any church I could agree with 100%....as if I counted for anything.

The beauty about Catholics is that they trust their church/denomination to be correct. This can relieve a person of much responsibility...OTOH, it can cause doubts if they do not understand or agree with one of the teachings. For instance, the priests I know personally (2 or 3) know that I cannot accept purgatory and we've discussed it somewhat. I made the exact statement that crossnote made to me: Wasn't the sacrifice of Jesus sufficient?

I think that in the end, we will each stand before God with the knowledge and light we have and will be judged on our own relationship with Him.

This implies that the official position of the RCC is that non-Catholics are not true Christians, and need to go through a formal process of induction to the RCC in order to be put on the path of salvation.

I know that many RCs do accept that Protestants are Christians, but the formal process of induction into the RCC is still the same as receiving Christ as Saviour in a Protestant church.

The CC does not teach (anymore) that non-catholics are not true Christians. What it teaches is that other denominations do not have the entire truth.

Here is the current teaching of the CC on non-Catholics:

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

source: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992

Notice that the last word is reborn, which can be translated born again....

I thought I'd add this to the mix by way of information and in no way a criticism of the RCC.

Every church can stand some criticism...I do believe that it is over-abundant for the CC.