Universal Church

[tblaine74]

RR,

When I refer to the Church, I am referring to the undivided Church visible in the NT. I believe the RCC is the continuation of that Church. Thus, I believe “the Church†and “the RCC†refer to the same thing. Obviously, there are those who do not believe this, and expect some distinction between the two. Thus, if I refer to the Church as the RCC, I am, in some people’s estimation, referring to something distinct from the Church. Why would I do that?

I might say that I am offended at your offense. I don’t believe I would have the gall to request someone do something, unless I could convince that person that it was the right thing to do. To my understanding, you have yet to convince anyone here that the RCC is not The Church.

 

[RadicalReformer]

RR,

When I refer to the Church, I am referring to the undivided Church visible in the NT. I believe the RCC is the continuation of that Church. Thus, I believe “the Church†and “the RCC†refer to the same thing. Obviously, there are those who do not believe this, and expect some distinction between the two. Thus, if I refer to the Church as the RCC, I am, in some people’s estimation, referring to something distinct from the Church. Why would I do that?

I might say that I am offended at your offense. I don’t believe I would have the gall to request someone do something, unless I could convince that person that it was the right thing to do. To my understanding, you have yet to convince anyone here that the RCC is not The Church.

Christ created a "Body of Believers" - the called out ones - those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. However, your reference to "The Church" to speak for all of Christianity will lead some astray and cause them to stumble, since the RCC does not speak for all Christians.

 

[A-Christian]

God saw fit to bring about a reformation to the local church at the appropiate time.

This is a opinion, one that fits your personal belif system. Who is leading who astray?

Peace

 

[tblaine74]

RR,

I don’t believe I have ever claimed that the Church speaks for “all of Christianityâ€Â. “all of Christianity†is divided, and is, thus, not The Church. The Church is A Church, and A Church is not A Church if it is divided, it is churches.

 

[Imagican]

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?

I won't argue ONE BIT that the CC was certainly begun by The Spirit's inspiration. And of all the denominations MUCH of Catholocism IS Truth in comparison. I have even had Catholics accuse me being 'one of them' until discussions arise about 'certain' of their 'beliefs'.

I have a hard time focusing on what they 'have gotten right' for all the 'wrong forks' that they have 'chosen' to follow. And I offer what I offer NOT in condemnation of ANYONE. Just simply am compelled to warn ANY against ANY teaching that contradicts that offered through The Word.

Contradictions in Teaching, You asked:

Purgatory, Mary the Mother of God, Mary the Perpetual Virgin, Forbidding to wed, Indulgences, Denying the cup, The priest 'being' Christ in the flesh, The Pope being without question, (you DO know that he is NOTHING other than a 'man'?), Just holler when you've had enough.......... 'trinity', praying to Mary, praying to Saints, etc......

Guys, the list goes on and on. You can state that these have no bearing, but in reality ANYTHING that is added to The Word that was NOT Spiritually imparted is a 'man-made' addition. And please note that I will clarify Spirit from spirit. For we know that there ARE spirits MANY. But there is ONLY ONE Spirit.

And the list that I have offered above doesn't even include ordering or giving permission to torture, murder, rob, assasinate, enslave.........................

We ARE plainly told to judge that which is performed in behavior to judge what it IS that one follows. Here we have example of an 'organization' that has literally FORCED it's beliefs upon ALL under it's control for hundreds and hundreds of years. Now I ask any that would defend such behavior; IS this what one can even believe COULD be inspired by God or His Son. To torture or murder those that refused to accept or spoke out against their 'beliefs'? For you see the message that has been 'given to me' is one of LOVE for ALL of mankind. Not to simply love those that PLEASE me or AGREE with me. For while we were ALL yet enemies of Christ he didn't only LOVE us, but was WILLING to lay His life down so that we would NOT have to suffer such a 'death'. Now, is THIS what the CC exhibited for the PAST, (almost), two thousand years?

Guys, even James Jones and David Koresh followed 'some' truth. Satan offered MOSTLY truth to Eve to entice her to partake of the 'fruit'. It only takes a tiny bit of UNTRUTH to destroy an entire TRUTH. Just as a tiny bit of yeast infects the ENTIRE 'loaf', so too can an altering of even the simplest of doctrine change THE TRUTH into that which does NOT conform to The Truth.

Now, I have offered quite a few examples above of teachings of the CC that are NOT found in The Word. These 'ideas' were created by 'men' that 'claimed' divine inspiration. Funny, once again, we are faced with the simple FACT that Jim Jones and Davy Baby most likely claimed THE SAME THING as they were leading their followers straight to hell. Whether these were divinely inspired or NOT, I have ONLY one means to determine this: do they conform with the teachings of Christ or that offered through His TRUE apostles. Other than this, I may as well follow ANYONE that 'claims' to BE inspired. I choose to follow that which CONFORMS rather than ADDS to what was offered through The Word.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

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.

and these words offered above are actually ACCEPTED 'as TRUTH', to be followed just as the words offered by Christ and His apostles? For there is 'falacy' offered in it's actual purpose of content. That being that it encourages or outright states that one must be wicked, vain, blind, self absorbed, to gather in the name of the Lord EXCEPT as dictated BY the CC. Hmmmmm....... I think I offered reply to this VERY nature of conceit in my LAST POST.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

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?

Opps, almost missed this one, (trust me, I was not intentionally avoiding it). Here goes:

tblaine,

We HAVE that particular meeting offered IN The Word. Almost ANY, (I believe EVERY), question concerning that which is of utmost importance WAS offered in The Word. That there may be those that don't understand it is inevitable. For as man's culture changes, so do his values. And with these changes HAVE come altering of that which IS offered in The Word. We are a 'self centered' and 'hard headed' people, (mankind), mostly choosing what pleases OURSELVES rather than that which brings honor and glory to God.

It was ONLY when questions arose concerning the 'diety' of Christ and such that councils were formed to dispute that which had been accepted from the beginning and then CHOOSING to insert 'something' different in it's stead. For we find that doctrine WAS altered from the 'tradition' taught by the apostles. And those that chose to 'continue' in the tradition were OUTVOTED for the sake of a 'higher understanding' created by "men".

There was a 'time' for Christ to come and offer what was necessary for the forgiveness of mankind. Guys, that time was two thousand years ago. And He not only came to perform, but more importantly, to TEACH. His time was limited so most of what was offered is most certainly in a condensed manner. But ENOUGH was given to 'carry on' to ALL who were willing to accept. And BECAUSE of certain misunderstandings or disagreements of the apostles themselves, Christ BASICALLY sent Paul to 'straighten out'. Why do you reacon that MOST of the NT was penned by Paul who NEVER even actually 'walked' with Christ durring His earthly ministry? Think about it.

The apostolic era was ALL that was NEEDED to 'spread The Word' throughout humanity to the point that it would be UNABLE to be 'undone'. Nothing was NEEDED to 'be added' and we were SPECIFICALLY WARNED that there would come those that WOULD alter that which was given. Turn it into fantasy and fairy tales that would lead people 'astray'. Making them who chose such a path to be 'blind to the truth'. Now, WHY do you believe we were given such warnings and specifically against WHO?

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

Purgatory, Mary the Mother of God, Mary the Perpetual Virgin, Forbidding to wed, Indulgences, Denying the cup, The priest 'being' Christ in the flesh, The Pope being without question, (you DO know that he is NOTHING other than a 'man'?), Just holler when you've had enough.......... 'trinity', praying to Mary, praying to Saints, etc......

Once again MEC, you do not offer anything except your own rhetoric and preconceived views that fit YOUR personal beliefs. It has already been shown through preserved writings dating back to the first century that the Christian church was the Catholic Church. You continually deny history my brother, even when it is shown to you in black and white. Never do you produce any evidence to support your views. I know it is hard to accept what you do not understand, but, don't you think you should study the topic from all views before jumping to conclusions?. I think the writings of Irenaeus are being played out before our very eyes by you possibly. Let me post that quote again for those that missed it:

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]).

Note that Irenaeus is talking about Heretics. The part about blindness, wicked opinion, really jump out here. I don't think your a heritic, but rather a schismatic. The heritics were assembling and purposley preaching things contrary to the teachings of the apostles. Listen friend, just because you do not understand Catholic dogma does not mean that the universal church is not the Cathoic Church. We are still waiting for you to show evidence that is contrary to such. All the things that you listed in your previous post, things you may be misinformed about at that, are not evidence to prove that the church of history is not Catholic. We can discuss each of those things in a dedicated forum if you wish, but, be prepared to prove your views. I understand your protest. As a former protestant evangelical fundamentalist that once soaked up anti-cathoic opinions like a biscuit soaking up gravy, I can only say that once you root yourself in, and quit denying history, you will never see the cathoic side of things.

Now, this little disclaimer just so anyone following this thread isn't forming a false opinion:
Catholics do not claim that the Church is perfect and also do not claim that our protestant brothers are going do hades. We are brothers and sisiters in Christ in the Church's teachings.

Peace

 

[francisdesales]

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...MEC

MEC,

The Bible itself indicates that the beliefs of the Church, God's people, have gradually "changed" to fit the needs of the people and the inspiration received at the time from the Spirit. Anyone who does any sort of study on, for example, AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH, can very easily come to the conclusion that there were different models of authority within the early Church. Who can dispute that Acts 1-6 are different than Acts 15? Who can dispute that Acts 1-6 are different than the Pastorals? There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that some aspects of theology change with time. And yet, the Church still claims to be guided by the Spirit, as per the bible.

Now, what IS important to recognize is WHAT this "change" consists and in what areas. And after viewing Catholic theology, it is clear that dogma does not change. The teachings of the Apostles are clarified and expanded, but are not contradicted or "changed" in the sense that "x" is no longer "x". Purgatory, for example, is based on Jewish teachings preceding the Incarnation, along with the concept of a third place of existence after dying. This concept is found in the NT Scriptures, as well. Now, because this theology was not fully developed in the WRITTEN Scriptures does not mean it was NEVER taught by the first century Apostles... However, Catholic theology that later developed regarding Purgatory does NOT contradict the entire analogy of the faith as given by the Apostles. It clarifies something taught - what happens to people who die in an imperfect state...

Clearly, the model of authority has changed - and this was something that the Holy Spirit and the Apostles saw as something "good". (Acts 15:28). God doesn't expect the Church to EXACTLY model the Church of the original 12 apostles. There are many different issues that our society must address. The Church must remain relevant.

It is important to keep this distinction in mind when you speak about "change" in the Catholic Church.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

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.

Wrong. There have been MORE Christian martyrs in the 20th century than all of the others put together. Furthermore, more Christians died in the fifty years BEFORE Constantine then during the time leading up to Ignatius'. Persecutions of Christians was not constant during the time of the Roman Empire.

That's hogwash that "unlike today, those of that time were more in touch with death and dying". Baloney. Death is an unchanging and inevitable part of life. ALL must face it. Men of EVERY century have willingly gave up their ENTIRE selves for Christ, including their life. It was NOT "norm" to be killed for the faith, not today, and not 100 AD... Many thousands of priests and nuns and lay persons have given up their lives in Germany, Poland, Russia, Asia, and so forth...

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').

"Most historians" acknowledge his existence? Please. WHICH historians do NOT acknowledge his existense, outside of those with a personal agenda to a particular cultic following that feels it is necessary to condemn everything Catholic? Furthermore, even if you go with the "short" versions of his writings to the various communities, you will find incredibly catholic doctrines. I think your dismissal of Ignatius is based more on personal belief than historical study.

MEC, you are merely avoiding the issue.

Where is the "other" Christian orthodox's writings? Where is the rebuttal to Ignatius' "heretical" writings? Simply put, we have ONE set of writings that claim to be orthodox AND trace their lineage to the Apostles.

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.

Um, your so called, "evidence" was bogus and very easily refuted.

As I said before, I'll say it again. I will only remind you of one of our several discussions.

You claimed that "trinity" was an invention of Constantine and the men of his era. I proved that wrong by AT LEAST 200 years. If anyone is playing a game, MEC, it's you. You know darn well you are not being honest now. You are basing your "beliefs" on hearsay and denials (or maybe just ignorance) of what was written before. You have NEVER provided me with actual written evidence of contemporary men of that age. Your "evidence" was biased inventions that never quoted men of the time. Sorry, as a historian, I will not accept that "evidence". That is opinion based on your belief system already constructed under ignorance of reality.

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.

Which is why I feeled compelled to prove you wrong yet again. The number of my posts shoot up when an ignornat person makes such claims that you do, based on absolutely no evidence but their own opinions stated emphatically as being "true". You even use "caps", as if that was supposed to be evidence of the veracity of your truth!

If you want to prove your point of view, give me the "huge" amount of evidence that you claim to have, rather than your opinionated rhetoric.

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.

Baloney. If you have done the homework, it should be relatively EASY to show me this "other" Christianity that co-existed with Christianity and continues the traditions that you claim to uphold. Show me, don't just tell me. I want to know the truth, not your claims.

Anyone who knows me knows that I do not condemn Protestants or anyone who disagree with me. I accept that God's Spirit blows outside of the visible Catholic Church, and I am happy that He does.

However, if you want to post such OUTRAGEOUS and FALSE claims that you have, you better be prepared to back them up with REAL evidence from primary sources. Otherwise, be prepared to recant.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

God saw fit to bring about a reformation to the local church at the appropiate time.

This is a opinion, one that fits your personal belif system. Who is leading who astray?

Peace

Come now, my friends.............. Is it not perfectly clear the 'direction' the CC was heading at the time of Martin Luther? For IF the CC had NOT been completely abusing the power that they had obtained, there would have been NO WAY that Martin Luther would have been able to reveal such 'abuse' and lead others 'away'.

Opinion has NO place in The Truth. It is NOT opinion that the 'things' that Martin Luther 'pointed out' as being 'false' WERE taking place in the CC. And that these 'things' were CONTRARY to The Word is without doubt to ANY that have TRULY read The Word and been led BY The Spirit in understanding. The simple statement that it WAS opinion plainly shows a 'desire' to follow 'men' rather than that offered from above.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

fran,

While I understand the 'concept' to which you refer, I am 'hard pressed' to accept that what you offer is as 'simple' as you would make it appear.

The apostles, so far as example, NEVER created some hirarchy of 'heaven here on earth' with the POPE being, (or themselves), ANYTHING 'greater' than what they 'actually' WERE; 'servants of Christ'. For we were PLAINLY given in example by Christ Himself that to SERVE is greater than to BE SERVED.

Paul offered that we ARE to 'follow HIS example'. He NEVER offered that we were to follow the example of 'others' that may appear 500 years later and teach that which is contrary to that which HE TAUGHT.

All this that you offer concerning the 'expanding upon' appears TO ME to be nothing more than the 'alteration' that I have pointed out over and over. You would call it expansion, I would offer that it is 'addition'. And we were TOLD NOT TO ADD one BIT to that which was PURE and offered from above.

To maintain this idea that The Word NEEDED to be 'expanded upon' is PURE indication that those that chose to 'expand' didn't BELIEVE that what was offered WAS ENOUGH, and that "THEY" were 'able' to offer a 'better understanding'. That is rediculour for ANY that would place their faith in an ALL MIGHTY God, to BELIEVE that they could offer BETTER understanding than God Himself.

So, while the words that you have been 'fed' by the church that you follow SOUND good, the truth is that the 'explanations' offered BY THE CHURCH are nothing more than ANY would do in order to alter the Truth. History offers a pretty clear picture as to the 'truth' of the evolution of the CC. From it's vague beginnings to it's present day 'form', almost it's entire history has offered it's TRUE intention of LEADING others.

Even though we were offered the NEED for 'someone' to be 'head' of the 'different' pieces of The Body, the example given was NOT for the sake of CONTROL, but that of SERVING. As Christ offered in example the washing of the apostles feet, the CC took this and made themselves the 'appearance' of the Father of Christ. For FAR from 'washing the feet of their followers', the clergy took advantage of all that their power allowed them so far as making themselves LEADERS rather than servants.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

RR,

I don’t believe I have ever claimed that the Church speaks for “all of Christianityâ€Â. “all of Christianity†is divided, and is, thus, not The Church. The Church is A Church, and A Church is not A Church if it is divided, it is churches.

Nice point

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Wrong. There have been MORE Christian martyrs in the 20th century than all of the others put together. Furthermore, more Christians died in the fifty years BEFORE Constantine then during the time leading up to Ignatius'. Persecutions of Christians was not constant during the time of the Roman Empire.

That's hogwash that "unlike today, those of that time were more in touch with death and dying". Baloney. Death is an unchanging and inevitable part of life. ALL must face it. Men of EVERY century have willingly gave up their ENTIRE selves for Christ, including their life. It was NOT "norm" to be killed for the faith, not today, and not 100 AD... Many thousands of priests and nuns and lay persons have given up their lives in Germany, Poland, Russia, Asia, and so forth...

fran,

As pertains to your 'first' comment:

A question: Are we 'closer' to God NOW than in times past? To be a little MORE specific; is the 'average Christian' MORE in tune with the teachings of Christ NOW than, let's say, His apostles were, uh, for the sake of this discussion let us say, twenty years after His Death?

It just stands to reason that the MORE deeply one is inspired by The Spirit the more WILLINGLY they would offer sacrifice 'for' their brothers and sisters. And, as was offered by example, the ULTIMATE sacrifice would be for one to 'offer' their own lives for their brothers and sisters sake.

I personally believe that 'given the choice' very few today would go to the grave willingly for the sake of Christ, much less a 'brother or sister' that they don't even KNOW. For when the 'mark' is offered, there WILL be 'few' that will even deny it. Most will take it willingly and the rest reluctantly, but FEW will go to their deaths in denial of it.

And you have confused Martyrdom with the 'giving' of one's life. For many were killed that are considered Martyrs that had ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. The TRUE Martyr is the one that OFFERS, not the one who has life TAKEN from them.

fran,

there is a distinct 'difference' between intellegence and wisdom. For wisdom often escapes even those with the highest of intellect. The Word offers LITTLE that is able to be understood by even the MOST intellectual. And that's how it was MEANT to be.

And then we have wisdom. There is that which pertains to man, and that which pertains to God. And little of each is able to 'mix' in the middle. There is a 'fine line' between the two and one is most likely to 'float on TOP' of the other NO MATTER WHAT. Like oil and water; awful hard to mix em together. And when the 'shaking' is over, and the 'separation' takes place, they are two distinct substances with an obvious dividing line between the two.



Oh contare, my friend. I can PLAINLY show that MOST people on this planet are NOT as 'in touch' with death as those of the past. For as life has become 'easier', there has become MORE of a 'love' for life itself.

Yes, there are still billions of people that are MORE in touch with the realities of death than WE here in America. But as example of my premiss; Do you honestly beieve that we, here in America, are as 'in touch' with death as, let's say, those in Iraq?

For familiarity breeds familiarity. This is a 'fact of life'. What do YOU know of 'hunger'? Or POVERTY? Do you truly KNOW what goes through the hearts and minds of those that actually LIVE with these? I have NEVER been 'hungry enough' or 'thirsty enough to EAT mud, (or bugs, or MANY things that there are people that truly thirst and hunger eat EVERY DAY in other parts of the world).

And I have NEVER had to face coming home to find my wife and children's bodies blown all over the street. Never witnessed my friends or loved ones blown to pieces in a market place. So, even though I KNOW that it happens, I have NOT been forced to face such issues on a personal level and therefore have absolutely NO understanding of their pain or sorrow over such loss.

So, PLEASE, don't even attempt to tell me or others that WE are as IN TOUCH with certain aspects of life that others are FORCED to deal with on a day to day basis. YOU ARE WRONG. And those of the past were MUCH MORE in tuned with death. For desease, famine, wars, etc.....are NOT things that we of this era have had much dealings with. On the news maybe, but few have actually experienced these things to which I refer. And the more one is FORCED to face ANYTHING, the more 'common' it becomes.

MEC

 

[Vic C.]

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.

There are two topics in that forum; Apostolic Succession/Papacy and Apostolic Succession/Early church Fathers.

... but sometimes topics do crossover from time to time. We have no problems with that as long as this (and other topics) don't become RCC dominated.

 

[francisdesales]

Opinion has NO place in The Truth.

You sure type a lot of words, but not one sentence about ANY evidence whatsoever for your point of view. You are merely blowing more smoke when you talk about the "truth", because you used the same "formula" before and have YET to prove one lick of evidence that there was anything other than the Catholic Church that made claims to the Apostles' writings - those writings WE now call "the bible".

Anything about Luther or "atrocities" have absolutely NOTHING to do with what happened from the time of Christ up to Ignatius of Antioch.

Again, MEC, you are just blowing smoke and hammin' and howerling over nothing but OPINIONS.

That is what you "offer". They are nothing without any evidence that refutes the historical setting of the first century of Church history.

I presume that you will now "offer" a recanting of your past position, because you have not offered ANY evidence whatsoever, despite your claims to the contrary.

 

[tblaine74]

Purgatory, Mary the Mother of God, Mary the Perpetual Virgin, Forbidding to wed, Indulgences, Denying the cup, The priest 'being' Christ in the flesh, The Pope being without question, (you DO know that he is NOTHING other than a 'man'?), Just holler when you've had enough.......... 'trinity', praying to Mary, praying to Saints, etc......

MEC,

I think this is a good example of why you have come under such fire with regards to evidence. Although there is some obvious confusion about some of the things you have listed, they are, for the most part, subjects the Church teaches about. Yet, as for the evidence that contrasts these teachings as contradictory, you have left us to speculation. Forget the evidence. You have left even your very premise to speculation. What is the premise? Is it that: All formal teaching by the nature of being formal necessitates that the teaching must not have been taught, or is not consistent with teaching, prior to being formalized? If not, what is the premise?

Thank you for continuing to be a part of this discussion.

 

[francisdesales]

The apostles, so far as example, NEVER created some hirarchy of 'heaven here on earth' with the POPE being, (or themselves), ANYTHING 'greater' than what they 'actually' WERE; 'servants of Christ'. For we were PLAINLY given in example by Christ Himself that to SERVE is greater than to BE SERVED.

As I said before, anyone who looks at the NT's view on authority within the Church community will quickly realize that there was NOT one model of authority within the Church. Did you skip over that in my last post? That is FROM THE BIBLE, MEC. Not the Church Fathers. The Word of God ITSELF tells us how men gradually formed a heirarchial establishment when it became clear that the Christ would not be coming "tommorrow".

The Pope continues to be the "servant of the servants of God". However, just as in the NT when Peter spoke for the other Apostles, the Pope speaks for the other leaders of the Church.

Paul offered that we ARE to 'follow HIS example'. He NEVER offered that we were to follow the example of 'others' that may appear 500 years later and teach that which is contrary to that which HE TAUGHT.

That is absolute nonsense, MEC. Which Protestant would twist the Bible so much, totally ignoring common sense, to say that men of today CANNOT or ARE NOT to be examples for the men of their own ages? Ridiculous.... Following one's pastor in the ways of Christ does not mean we contradict Paul or Peter or John!

To maintain this idea that The Word NEEDED to be 'expanded upon' is PURE indication that those that chose to 'expand' didn't BELIEVE that what was offered WAS ENOUGH, and that "THEY" were 'able' to offer a 'better understanding'. That is rediculour for ANY that would place their faith in an ALL MIGHTY God, to BELIEVE that they could offer BETTER understanding than God Himself.

Point to me where the bible speaks about cloning, stem cell research, abortion, or euthanasia? These are moral, ethical questions that men of THIS age MUST face. God didn't leave man in a quandry when such questions were inevitably bound to occur. He left a living authority, the Church, with the power to bind and loosen and rule on such matters for the rest of the community. We see this in the bible and it continues now. Ignoring it merely is a man-made attempt to place their own opinions above the Word of God.

History offers a pretty clear picture as to the 'truth' of the evolution of the CC. From it's vague beginnings to it's present day 'form', almost it's entire history has offered it's TRUE intention of LEADING others.

Another wild proclamation that you will no doubt provide no evidence for. Another "offering" based on opinion.

Even though we were offered the NEED for 'someone' to be 'head' of the 'different' pieces of The Body, the example given was NOT for the sake of CONTROL, but that of SERVING. As Christ offered in example the washing of the apostles feet, the CC took this and made themselves the 'appearance' of the Father of Christ. For FAR from 'washing the feet of their followers', the clergy took advantage of all that their power allowed them so far as making themselves LEADERS rather than servants.
MEC

That is true in ANY community of men, even among someone as "infallible" as yourself. Clearly, you have not read much of the Old Testament. Bad example abounds in the bible. It doesn't nullify what God has established in the first place, it merely shows that even WITHIN the Church, men fail God when they are left to their own wills.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

fran,

Being able to discern the Truth as offered in The Word does NOT make one infalible. For there is NOT ONE that is perfect, period. And I will openly admit that 'I' am FAR FAR from any semblance of 'perfection'.

The CC has not only 'evolved' into it's present state, but has 'gone back' and altered it's history to ATTEMPT to make it 'seem' as if many 'things' that were added LATER were there from the 'beginning'.

You may CERTAINLY refuse to accept the 'truth' and accuse my statements as 'opinion'. But LITTLE that I offer is, in fact, opinion, but a realatively accurate summation of the CC from it's inception. ALL the details? Certainly not. For it would take years of writting to go into ALL the details that are able to be discerned.

Suffice is to say that there has been MUCH that the CC introduced into Christianity that NEVER existed prior. All ANYONE need do is simply READ The Word and then compare IT'S teachings to those of the CC.

Of course, this would be a difficult thing to accept if one were to 'blindly' follow ANY 'religion'. That what they were being taught was contradictory to the 'truth'. And I too would most likely vehemently defend that which I had been 'taught' to 'believe', if I 'chose' to follow 'a man-made religion'.

Guys, I can and have offered PROOF 'through The Word' over EVERYTHING that I have offered concerning the CC. Fran, you are PERFECTLY aware of it. Now I cannot offer any other proof than the Word itself over issues that DO NOT EXIST within the pages of the Bible. But the simple fact that something DOESN'T exist in The Word is a pretty clear indication that it most likely doesn't exist in truth. Such as 'Mary, the mother of God. Praying to Mary, etc............
But forbidding to wed, worshiping as or calling ANY MAN father, following men rather than God; these things CAN be "PROVEN" incorrect through direct quotes FROM Christ and His apostles.

Opinions? That the CC forbids their priests to wed? That this is in direct contradiction to The Word? Calling a priest Father? Not contradictory to The Word? I know, I know, those that follow such teachings will go so far as to 'attempt' to actually ALTER what is offered on these issues through The Word of God. Choosing to refuse to accept what is offered and through this refusal even alter what has been offered in order to 'believe' something 'different' than that offered.

How many carry their Bibles around with them each week and then refuse to accept what it is that they 'say' they 'believe in'? Choosing to alter understanding in order to 'continue' in that which they 'desire' over what is offered? How many?

There IS NO 'man-made' church that IS able to offer The Truth. Bits and pieces maybe, but no where near THE TRUTH. There is ONLY ONE Church that IS able and that being - The Body of Christ. And while I am NOT able to judge if there be many or any members of The Body contained with the 'man-made' churches, the FACT that their teachings all fall WAY short of the Truth is enough to make one 'wonder'?

Now, many have accused me of offering 'bogus' theology concerning my offerings that I NEED NO MAN to 'teach me'. I close with this:

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of HIM abideth IN YOU, and ye need not that ANY MAN teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of ALL THINGS, and is TRUTH, and is NO LIE, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide IN HIM.

Capitals added by me for emphasis. In order to understand this, (please don't even try to say that this is somehow offered out of context for that would NOT be true and at best a very 'lame' attempt to discredit The Word), the words capitalized NEED be defined. HIM, YOU, ANY MAN, ALL THINGS, TRUTH, IN HIM. Once one is ABLE to decipher these simple words, the statement is VERY SIMPLE to 'understand'.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

Being able to discern the Truth as offered in The Word does NOT make one infalible. For there is NOT ONE that is perfect, period. And I will openly admit that 'I' am FAR FAR from any semblance of 'perfection'.

The CC has not only 'evolved' into it's present state, but has 'gone back' and altered it's history to ATTEMPT to make it 'seem' as if many 'things' that were added LATER were there from the 'beginning'.

MEC,

If you can show me this alternate Christian path from historical evidence that traces itself back to Christ, then please provide the evidence. I have no desire of reading your lectures and thoughts and opinions, unless you provide me with some historical evidence. Otherwise, it means nothing to a person seeking the truth. YOUR truth is not necessarily what actually happened. I prefer to explore the history of the development of the Church, rather than listen to your guessings and musings that have absolutely no basis in fact.

You have this interesting idea of "TRUTH", which you capitalize quite often, yet offer me absolutely no evidence that it is anything more than your own subjective opinons preconceived to make yourself feel good about your rebellion from God's Church. It is entirely unconvincing, and I am trying to be as open to what you offer as I can. However, you offer nothing but opinions.

Until you can provide evidence to me, I would expect you to recant your previous statements regarding the Catholic Church. I have no interest in smoke and mirrors. Please don't take this personally, but you are wasting OUR time unless you can offer me something solid.

show me or retract your libel.