What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Universal Church

A-Christian said:
Oh, and if what you offer is 'truth', then please direct me to the use of the word 'Catholic' in The Word.
Click to expand...


And once again, please show me in the Word that the Word is the only source of all that the apostles taught.

Merry Christmas again MEC :D
Click to expand...

So, you would rather evade the question than offer an open and honest answer?

If I show you, If I can offer an answer to your question, are you able to ADMIT IT and accept it?

Beware of what you ask for as has been offered from above: Ask and ye SHALL receive. For I come here NOT to offer mine OWN words. But I am certainly not succeptable to words offered by 'men' either. I am continually accused of just this: but, even though my posts are in words that I use in an attempt to make scripture 'easier' to understand for those that find it difficult, they are directly offered from scripture itself. Not 'opinions', but that which was offered by the prophets, and Christ, and His apostles.

You would offer that there were 'others' whose writtings are MORE important than that contained within The Word. Writtings that alter the truth contained within The Bible and that without this knowledge I can have no 'complete understanding' of God and His Son.

A, to hold this belief is to 'believe' that God is unable to reveal the TRUTH through His Wod. And I seriously have a hard time with this type of 'belief'. Christ didn't come and offer what He had to offer to those of sophisticaton and HIGH intellect. Heck, even the apostles were a group of ignorant, mostly poor, mostly uneducated people. And there is a REASON for this. For those that 'think' that are smarter than everyone else are most likely unable to accept something as simple as what was offered by Christ and His apostles. For those that 'think' they are so much 'smarter' than everyone else, the entire relationship of God to mankind is JUST TOO SIMPLE.

MEC
 
Mec,

We all are aware of the horrific acts committed by some medieval popes, but the Churches teaching on Christ and salvation was not altered during those times. It was the same in the beginning as it is now and has never changed despite the behavior of some within the Church. Don't you find it odd that those evil men did not alter the teaching of Christ and salvation? You would think that had not the Holy Spirit been involved, surely those certain evil Catholics would have altered their teachings. They could not; the Holy Spirit kept that from happening. Men commit evil in all faiths and denominations just as they do outside of religion. Christ did not build his Church on perfect men because such do not exist.

A,

tsk tsk tsk. I can't believe that I just read what you posted above. The Catholic Church has done nothing but evolve into what it is today. Fran states that the CC can be shown to be in existence since, what was it, 107 AD? Let's use this date and say that I 'agree' with it for the purpose of my reply to your offering above.

I can show through the history of the CC as offered by the church itself that it has changed over and over throughout it's history, (since 107 AD and is STILL changing today).

No, Christ did NOT build His Church on perfect men. You are absolutely right. But there is a big difference between 'not being perfect' and altering what Christ offered and then forcing others to accept it.

I guess you have forgotten about indulgences, Mary AS the Mother of God, trinity, Mary the perpetual Virgin, purgatory, 'Christmas'.....................I could go on and on and if I truly thought it would be worth the effort, I would offer, (the aproximate dates of their 'creation and insertion), that these were NOT conceptualized and instituted previous to or BY the year 107 AD. That MOST, if not all that I have mentioned were 'added' to Christianity, by the CC AFTER 107 AD.

MEC
 
You would offer that there were 'others' whose writtings are MORE important than that contained within The Word. Writtings that alter the truth contained within The Bible and that without this knowledge I can have no 'complete understanding' of God and His Son.
Click to expand...

See, your not listening. No one said that there were others whose writings are more important than scripture. Is this more smoke and mirrors on your part? If you understood the Catholic Church, you would know that Scripture is as inportant as tradition (tradition is the word Catholics use when referring to the things that the apostles taught). The two go hand in hand. Each agrees with the other. The writings do not alter the truth, they expand and explain it. The part you mentioned above of not having a complete understanding of God and his Son.......Well all I can say is look at all the denominations. You have already been shown that from a very early time, Christians refered to themselves and the Church as the Catholic Church. Now it's your turn. Please show me where in scripture does it say that scripture is the sole authority of Christianity. Also, please do not forget to provide the evidence of some other co-existing sect of Christians.

I have to go now and finish wrapping a few gifts.
Merry Christmas everyone. :D
 
I can show through the history of the CC as offered by the church itself that it has changed over and over throughout it's history, (since 107 AD and is STILL changing today).
Click to expand...

That's what this thread is for. Let's discuss it, as it definitely pertains to the claim of universal church. Please take things one at a time and don't forget to list your sources. :D
 
At the time of Ignatius of Antioch, dying for the sake of Christianity was kind of the 'norm'. Unlike today, those of that time were much more 'in touch' with death and dying. It was MUCH more 'familar' than today in our culture. And there are those even today that are willing to die for lies. So that proves nothing.

MOST historians do acknowledge Ignatius' existence but believe that MUCH was add for the sake of elaboration as concerning his writtings, (the CC being the ones assumed to have offered the additions for the sake of their 'religion').

fran,

You and I went through this once before; You accusing me of NOT having any evidence or proof of what I offer. Me going through the time that it took to look it up and then offer it for you then to simply refuse to accept it. So I won't play a whole lot of that game again.

I am certainly unable to convince you or perhaps even others that follow the 'religion' that you do. But there are certainly others out there that have not made up their minds yet that deserve to know the 'truth' before making such a monumental decision such as following such a 'religion'. I state what I state for the sake of understanding. Anyone that so chooses is plenty able to prove or disprove what I offer.

But for those that don't know me yet, let me offer this: I offer NOTHING that I offer 'lightly'. I HAVE done the 'homework' regardless of what others may accuse. And what amazes me more than anything else is that I KNOW that there are others that have 'done their homework' as well, yet, through 'political correctness'? would leave me out in the cold to deal with such discussions when they are PERFECTLY aware that what I offer IS The TRUTH.

Look, when we degnerate to point that we aren't even willing to SPEAK of the truth for the sake of others 'feelings', we are NOT worthy of ANYTHING that God has to offer. As Christ was our example, so too are we liable to bear the EXACT SAME CROSS.

MEC
 
I too must leave now. But I'll be back.

Merry Christmas folks (to those that honor this 'time') and a simple God Bless to the rest.

MEC
 
Having had time to contemplate our discrepencies here I have come up with an example that I believe will shed some insight into 'my understanding'. Here goes:

IF the world WAS distroyed by a 'flood'. And the only humans that remained were Noah and his family. That would mean that the ONLY religion on the planet at the time after the flood would have been that of these survivors. Now, with this in mind, look at the state in which we find the world today. So many 'different' religions that we can't even 'truly' count them.

Now, the CC maintains that they simply have carried on the traditions imparted to them through the apostles. It would stand to reason that regardless of the 'attempt' to accomplish this, throughout the timeperiod that elapsed since the visits of the apostles to Rome, that MUCH has been introduced and even altered by the vast numbers of those involved and the time that has lapsed since.

And this is NOT 'pure speculation', this is 'common sense'. So, no matter HOW much one would choose to 'believe' that this is NOT SO, the evidence would indicate that 'wishful thinking' cannot offer resistence to change which is inevitable.

Just as the 'forefathers' of this country attempted to offer a system that would grant 'freedom' and 'justice' for ALL, so too may the original 'church' attempted to 'carry on' what was imparted. But as we can 'clearly SEE', this country has gone through myriad changes that have 'altered' the originality of the concepts that it was 'based on' to the point that it is hardly recognizable now from that which was first 'established'.

Is it 'that hard' to recognize that the 'same THING' has happened to the 'churches'?

MEC
 
Hope you had a fine Christmas MEC.

Just as the 'forefathers' of this country attempted to offer a system that would grant 'freedom' and 'justice' for ALL, so too may the original 'church' attempted to 'carry on' what was imparted. But as we can 'clearly SEE', this country has gone through myriad changes that have 'altered' the originality of the concepts that it was 'based on' to the point that it is hardly recognizable now from that which was first 'established'.

Is it 'that hard' to recognize that the 'same THING' has happened to the 'churches'?
Click to expand...

The Holy Spirit guides the Church so as to make certain her teachings on Christ and salvation do not change. You may not like or understand certain aspects of the Catholic Church (I speak from experience :D ) but the Catholic Church, which we have already shown is the church of early, still remains standing. When we look at how so many protestant denominations have changed their positions on abortion, women in clergy, and homsexuality, just to name a few, the Catholic Church remains firm in her moral teachings. Contrary to what many may believe, the Church does not invent new ideas as it goes along.
 
And this is NOT 'pure speculation', this is 'common sense'. So, no matter HOW much one would choose to 'believe' that this is NOT SO, the evidence would indicate that 'wishful thinking' cannot offer resistence to change which is inevitable.
Click to expand...

What evidence? This is what I have been after from the start. Where is the evidence that the church at Rome’s structure and teaching have contradicted its apostolic tradition?
 
In answer to both:

The CC has NOT maintianed a 'continous' belief system 'without CHANGE. So to offer such is as deceptive as can be. MUCH has changed and been altered in 'this religion' as in all others. For example: I don't even have any idea of exactly HOW MANY divisions there are of the Catholic Church itself. Eastern, Western, etc, etc, etc,..... Yet almost all have 'different views' than each other.

Evidence? Come on. Even the CC admits OPENLY that they have 'changed' over time. Each of their 'councils' concerned introduction of 'something new' or 'an altering of something old'. And, if these were 'truly' inspired by God or Christ 'from the beginning' there would have been NO NEED for 'councils'. For the knowledge of God does NOT change. If Paul were alive today he would STILL maintain the teachings that he offered TWO THOUSAND years ago.

The CC introduced many things that were NOT taught by the apostles. I could write many volumes on this one aspect alone. And MANY of their 'introductions' were in complete contradiction of The Word itself. This is EXACTLY what Martin Luther saw and brought about his protesting against the 'teachings' that were NOT offered through The Word and were actually CONTRARY to it.

What I offer here is NOT some 'secret' source of information that ONLY I have been able to obtain. This knowledge is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that even the Church itself will admit to 'some of', history offers the rest.

MEC
 
MEC

I doubt whether anyone would dispute the “COMMON KNOWLEDGE†you refer to, but how about some common sense here? You are talking about change not contradiction. Look at Acts chapter 15. The counsel at Jerusalem (which you have claimed unnecessary) issued a decree to the church at Antioch, that the gentile converts need not adhere to the law of Moses as pertained to circumcision. The issue was something the Church needed to address. The Church changed insofar as it formalized certain requirements, but it did not contradict itself insofar as it had never formally taught that the faithful must adhere to law of Moses as pertained to circumcision. So, once again, where is the evidence that the church at Rome’s structure and teaching have CONTRADICTED its apostolic tradition?
 
tblaine74 said:
And this is NOT 'pure speculation', this is 'common sense'. So, no matter HOW much one would choose to 'believe' that this is NOT SO, the evidence would indicate that 'wishful thinking' cannot offer resistence to change which is inevitable.
Click to expand...

What evidence? This is what I have been after from the start. Where is the evidence that the church at Rome’s structure and teaching have contradicted its apostolic tradition?
Click to expand...

I can point out one area where the RCC has changed from the teachings of the apostles and the ECFs - the early church and the early church fathers were pacifistic (biblically speaking, not politically)
 
RR,

Could you elaborate on that? I anticipate that you’re inferring the early Church fathers did not stand firm on some grounds. There is an obvious difficulty in reconciling the times of the early Church fathers with terms like “biblicallyâ€Â. I would really appreciate some further elaboration, and it would be helpful if that where to include some source content.

Thanks for the post.
 
tblaine74 said:
RR,

Could you elaborate on that? I anticipate that you’re inferring the early Church fathers did not stand firm on some grounds. There is an obvious difficulty in reconciling the times of the early Church fathers with terms like “biblicallyâ€Â. I would really appreciate some further elaboration, and it would be helpful if that where to include some source content.

Thanks for the post.
Click to expand...

Forgive me tblaine, I am not sure I understand your post. It might be helpful if you try not to anticapte what I am going to say, and just allow me to say whatever it is that I will say - or in this case, type. I am not even sure if I know what I am going to post or say next!

I am currently away from by home library. However, after searching this forum - there was a previous thread that included some writings of the ECFs on pacifism (i like what that "alonevoice had to say:

  • Justin Martyr, around 153a.d wrote: "We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have... changed our warlike weapons, our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage."

  • In an attack on Christians, the philospher Celsus argued that the Empire would be ruined if everyone did as the nonresistance Christians.

  • Tertullian wrote: "Shall it be held lawful to amke an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs?"

  • Origen, around the year 250 wrote: "We have come in accordance with the counsels of Jesus to cut own our warlike and arrogant swords of argument into ploughshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting, For we no longer take 'sword against a nation', not do we learn 'any more to make war,' having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader."

  • Lactantius of Bithynia wrote in the early 4th century: "When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence... but he warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare."

  • Lastly, Maximillian a young Numidian in 295 was brought before the proconsul of Africe for induction - he refused induction and the uniform saying: "I cannot serve as a soldier; I cannot do evil; I am a Christian." "I shall not perish, but when I shall have forsaken this world my sould shall live with Christ my Lord." - He was put to death for refusing induction, at the age of 21.

Hope this helps....

Because of Him!
 
The Church does not like war. The Vatican tries hard to smooth things over between countries before war starts, and it also denounces war that is occuring. Having said that, medieval popes that felt a need to fight had their reasons, but the teachings of Christ and salvation still remained the same, just as the Holy Spirit would want.

Peace
 
A-Christian said:
The Church does not like war. The Vatican tries hard to smooth things over between countries before war starts, and it also denounces war that is occuring. Having said that, medieval popes that felt a need to fight had their reasons, but the teachings of Christ and salvation still remained the same, just as the Holy Spirit would want.

Peace
Click to expand...

Am I to assume that you are a member of the RCC? If so, I would appreciate it if you would refer to it as the RCC. I understand that members of the RCC "do not like" too, however, I find it offensive that you speak of "The Church" as the one and only - when it is the Body of Christ that is "one and only."

Thank you and Shalom.
 
RR,

I assure you I meant no disrespect in my post. “Anticipate†was obviously the wrong choice of words. I only meant to relate that I was attempting to understand what you had said (by anticipating the meaning), not what you were going to say next.

Throughout history the Church has issued formal teaching, such as is observed in Acts 15. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is such a formal teaching.

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2302-2317, authoritatively teaches what constitutes the just defense of a nation against an aggressor. Called the Just War Doctrine, it was first enunciated by St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD)."
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

Where was the formal teaching of the Church which authoritatively taught that a nation could not defend itself against an aggressor?
 
tblaine74 said:
RR,

I assure you I meant no disrespect in my post. “Anticipate†was obviously the wrong choice of words. I only meant to relate that I was attempting to understand what you had said (by anticipating the meaning), not what you were going to say next.

Throughout history the Church has issued formal teaching, such as is observed in Acts 15. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is such a formal teaching.

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2302-2317, authoritatively teaches what constitutes the just defense of a nation against an aggressor. Called the Just War Doctrine, it was first enunciated by St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD)."
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

Where was the formal teaching of the Church which authoritatively taught that a nation could not defend itself against an aggressor?
Click to expand...

I will repeat what I asked of "A-Christian":

Am I to assume that you are a member of the RCC? If so, I would appreciate it if you would refer to it as the RCC. I understand that members of the RCC "do not like" too, however, I find it offensive that you speak of "The Church" as the one and only - when it is the Body of Christ that is "one and only."

Thank you and Shalom.
 
RR,
I am pleased that you find the writings of the early Church fathers as useful. Now try this one:


Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Lot more where that came from if your interested.
 
A-Christian said:
RR,
I am pleased that you find the writings of the early Church fathers as useful. Now try this one:


Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Lot more where that came from if your interested.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, there is a forum here to discuss RCC theology... While what Irenaeus stated at the point in time was true of the church - that does not mean that throughout history that the RCC has remained the same as the church from the time of Irenaeus. God saw fit to bring about a reformation to the local church at the appropiate time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top