 |
classyT,
I know when Jesus began the establishment of His Church.
It is clearly in the bible..
Jesus said to Simon who He renamed Peter which means rock.
"You are Peter (Rock) and on this Rock I will build MY CHURCH."
Jesus was speaking to Peter and about Peter, nothing or no one else.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
I don’t mean to steal Fred’s thunder, but I’d say the Catholic Church was commissioned when these words were spoken:Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. Matt 28
JoeT
JoeT,
Yes that also in addition to what I posted about Jesus saying to Peter about Peter.
Thanks much,
Fred
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
HUMMMM! You must have a different version of the bible than I do. Mine does not even mention the RCC anywhere. Oh but then again the passage you quoted does not either!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Well, now you know.
I apologise for backtracking to this old post but I haven't been able to follow this thread for a while.
Galveston, you seem to think that speaking with “tongues” is a necessary gift for someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit but your previous quoteQuote:
Originally Posted by galveston
points out that the Spirit gives out different gifts to different people as he wills. Further in the passage we readQuote:
Originally Posted by galveston
1 Cor 12:28-31
28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
This clearly tells us that not all speak with tongues!
In fact in the next chapter St Paul tells us that without Charity it doesn’t matter what gift of the Spirit one has it's worthless.
Charity or Love | Learn The Bible
defines biblical charity as
“Charity specifically refers to the love that we have toward other men.”
“Charity is the love toward others that suffers long with them and is kind (1 Corinthians 13:4), that does not behave unseemly, seek to get its own way, or is easily provoked (1 Corinthians 13:5); that rejoices not in the iniquity of others (1 Corinthians 13:6); that bears, believes, hopes, and endures (1 Corinthians 13:7).”
So to answer your question, how do Catholics know that they are filled with the Holy Spirit? By the charity in themselves, each other and the Catholic Church in her teachings.
AlsoQuote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Galveston, are you prepared to give up any part of your belief in order to move towards unity? If so can you enlighten us on what it is that you would be willing to give up?
The passage of Matt.28 does not certainly mention the RCC. The point our colleague is probably driving at is that all the duties to be accomplished by the apostles implied in this passage are, obviously, those which are supposed to be imparted by the RCC. But then, most Orthodox and Protestant churches also follow the same instructions which makes me repeat what I said yesterday in another thread. i.e.:Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
That I'm almost certain (NOBODY CAN BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN) that those who follow God's Commandments, no matter their denomination, will probably be accepted in the Kingdom of God.
Jesus's message as to what we are supposed to do to reach our Salvation is crystal clear. A different thing is whether we understand it or not. HE died in the Cross for all of us, irrespective of our petty differences.
We should not forget either that these differences arethe work of humans. We were the ones that decided to divide the Church Jesus built into the hundreds of different Churches we have right now in our world.
To speak only of the Catholic Church, there are, at least 27 or 28 Churches that consider themselves as Catholic but do not accept the Pope's authority.
Should we therefore say that all the members of these Churches, just because they place themselves out of the Roman jurisdiction are to be doomed? I do not think so, as long as the abide by the God's Law. On the other hand, there have been throughout History countless diistinguished members of the RCC who will probably be facing a tough doomsday.
So I insist. The safest way, in my opinion, is to abide by GOD's Law, or as you say in English walk the line...
For Galveston,Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
Perhaps you would not mind to enlighten me and point out 3 or 4 of these dogmas of the RCC you say are anti-biblical in your eyes? I would like to be able to double check your answer with the several versions of the Bible I have. Or if you prefer, tell me what are those beliefs you have that the RCC will never accept?
Catholic dogmas that I (and other non-Catholics) will not accept:Quote:
Originally Posted by gromitt82
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
Isa 64:6
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
(KJV)
Rom 3:23
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
(KJV)
Rom 3:9-10
9 What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
(KJV)
Gal 3:22
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(KJV)
Are we to ignore these plain words of Scripture and say that Mary was exempt from them?
PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY
Matt 1:24-25
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(KJV)
(What does that little word “till” say to us? If Joseph never had relations with Mary, then that word would not be in the original texts, but it is.)
Matt 12:47-50
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? And who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
(KJV)
Matt 13:55-56
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
(KJV)
The Greek word used in all these passages is:
80 adephos (ad-el-fos');
From 1 (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote [much like 1]:
KJV-- brother.
If used figuratively, it applies to every believer in Jesus. It is the same word that describes the relationship of Peter and Andrew or James and John.
The word for “sisters” is the feminine of the same Greek word.
I expect you can cite pages from the Catholic encyclopedia explaining why the clear and reasonable understanding of these passages is incorrect.
THE BODILY ASSUMPTION OF MARY
John 3:13
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
(KJV)
Jesus said here that He is the only one. Notice that he speaks as though it had already happened even though His ascention is yet future at that time and He is not in Heaven at that time.
I doubt you can cite even one scripture that hints at a bodily ascention for Mary, and that dogma is a fairly recent one, based only on the word of a Pope.
PETER THE FIRST POPE
Does the Pope exercise dominion over all the other priests? I think he does. What do the Scriptures say?
Matt 20:25-27
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
(KJV)
Jesus told Peter specifically that what John did was none of his business.
John 21:21-22
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me.
(KJV)
Paul publicly rebuked Peter for violating Christian principle. Would Paul have dared to do this if Peter was the Pope?
Gal 2:11
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
(KJV)
Apparently Peter accepted the rebuke and had this to say about Paul:
2 Pet 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(KJV)
Here, Peter says that Paul’s epistles are scripture.
As to the last part of your question, since the RCC accepts charismatic priests, then it is not likely that there are any major beliefs of ours that you could not accept.
It all comes back to the authority of the Pope, doesn't it?
Thank you. Will revert on the matter. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
You put different ministries of the Holy Ghost together.Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
1. The initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost
2. The gifts given to believers (as He wills) by the Holy Ghost
3. The fruit of the Spirit
These are not all the same experience, but are all given by the Holy Ghost.
Phil 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Phil 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of HIS good pleasure.
The scripture referance you offered says it is God that has HIS hand of power to lead us, just as it was in the OT. And working out your own salvation which is done through One Faith. When you finally see that the denomination of religion is what you have chosen to follow (man/Pope is your rock), and instead it should be the same spiritual Rock Jesus Christ. Christ voice says, My sheep hear My Voice and follow Me.
Plus your faith appears to rest in man and the gathering of members in the church, known to you as the Catholic faith.
The first love and glory shown in Christ Jesus is much more obvious in what my rest is yoked through by One Faith Phil 2:10-11 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The answer in working out your own salvation is confirmed in Eph 6:13-14-15-16 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
~One Faith in Christ
Let's reverse this for a moment.
I have told you why I cannot accept Catholic dogma.
Now look at what I believe, and tell me which one of these beliefs you, as a Catholic can NOT accept, and why.
I. The Scriptures inspired, both Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God, and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct. 2 Timothy 3:15-17; I Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1;21
II. The one true God, revealed in principles of relationship as, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; Matthew 28:19; Luke 3:22
a. Deity of Jesus Christ
i. Virgin birth
ii. Sinless life
iii. His miracles
iv. His substitutionary work on the cross
v. His bodily resurrection
vi. His exhaltation to the right hand of God
III. The fall of Man
IV. The salvation of Man through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ
V. The Ordinances of Holy Communion and water baptism
VI. The Baptism in the Holy Ghost for every believer
VII. The INITIAL evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is speaking in unknown tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
VIII. Sanctification of the saved believer from a life of sin to a life of righteousness (a process of time by heeding the Word and being led by the Holy Ghost)
IX. The Church is the corporate Body of Christ, habitation of God through the Spirit.
X. A Divinely called ministry (Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Pastors, Evangelists)
XI. Healing for the human body provided in the Atonement.
XII. The resurrection of the redeemed to everlasting life with God.
XIII. The Millennial reign of Christ
XIV. The final judgment
XV. New Heavens and New Earth
This is all a very tired argument promoted by those who feel they must justify the position of their Church. Scripture is very clear, the "Church" are those who believe in Christ, not a location, not an organisation, more often a small group who meet in a house.
Each christian is exhorted to spead the message of the Gospel, That message did not include the RCC or any other Church organisation. This has not changed from the first day and yet we still have the same tired argument that Paul describes about who we follow. Telling Jesus which branch of the Church you belong to will not get you in the door, he is only interested in whether you believe in him.
If you intended to criticize and if that criticism is pointed at me, I would like to point-out that I’ve always responded in this thread with a reasoned response to the OP, “Why did Jesus Christ establish a Church?” In so doing I've explained WHY and HOW Christ established His Church, often described in Scripture as “the Kingdom of God. “ Furthermore, the connection was made between “The Kingdom of God” and “Church”. I have never felt compelled to ‘defend’ the Church of Jesus Christ. What I have done is respond to questions regarding the Church, what and how I understand the Catholic belief. All of which was discussed in previous posts; I have never ‘condemned’ or quoted ‘damnation’ verses to those who disagree, unlike others. I would invite you to re-read any of my posts; if I have done such a thing please let me know. I’ll make every effort possible to correct the matter – wise cracks excluded. What I don’t make is excuses for irrefutable arguments (well OK, as close to irrefutable as I can make it). You can make the claim that I’m a hardnosed Catholic (I'll wear that as a badge of honor), but you can’t say that I made ad hominem remarks as argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
For the reasons stated in this thread, I do not agree with your understanding of scripture. “Church” is much more than your definition would allow. ‘Church’ is not necessarily a gathering of two or three, ‘Church’ is a Divine organization including those of us on earth, in purgatory, and in heaven, and it contains both the sinner and the holy – the size of the building called Church is immaterial and is as large or as small as need dictate. ‘Church’ is the recipient of the ‘Divine’ commission to baptize and teach, this commission is not given to each individual, but to One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, otherwise known as the Roman Catholic Church.
Implicit in the command to teach the Gospel is to teach God’s Truth, to do otherwise would be heresy. What you know as the RCC is that body called ‘Church’ who’s first members, the Apostles, received knowledge of those things revealed by God as ‘Truth’. They in their turn taught others. While the Church does make every effort to ‘get along,’ the revealed Truth contained in her can never be compromised. I can’t ‘see it your way’, I can’t compromise what doesn’t belong to me, I can’t be open minded about absolute truth; Divine Truth cannot be ‘rationalized’ away.Quote:
Each Christian is exhorted to spread the message of the Gospel, That message did not include the RCC or any other Church organization. This has not changed from the first day and yet we still have the same tired argument that Paul describes about who we follow. Telling Jesus which branch of the Church you belong to will not get you in the door, he is only interested in whether you believe in him.
Thus, Catholics claim that in her we have the ‘fullness of faith’; not that what we receive is to be ‘saved-by-Church-alone', not that we are better, different, or any less (or more) sinners than any other people on the earth. But, we do have something you want – The fullness of faith.
JoeT
Joe I have not aimed my remarks at anyone in particlar but at the notion that the Church is anything more than a collection of all believers doing what Christ told them to do, which is to spend the message of Jesus Christ to all parts of the world. I will say it again, this is a very tired debate, it has been going on for two thousand years and it is time we put it aside and got on with the job we were given and answered the question for ourselves, WHY DID JESUS CHRIST ESTABLISH A CHURCH? It was not so we could feel nice and fuzzy about the fact that we belonged to a church, but so others would come to know about him. The Truth we must embrace is Jesus died so we could be born to eternal life, not so we could spend our time arguing about who has been appointed to lead. I think Jesus rebuke of the appostles on that point makes it clear, it is not about who is the greatest in the kingdom. He gave us his Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. One of the things a Church is not required to do is to preach doctrines not found explicitally in ScriptureQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
The problem with the types of arguments experienced in this post and similar posts is that NO progress is made.
I see the problem in the type of sentences we are using to prove a point.
When we argue a point we can do one of two things. We can use what might be called basic propositions such as," Peter was a disciple of Jesus"
The truth of this proposition can be tested not only by reference to the bible put by examining the proposition itself. Subject, Peter stands in a certain relation to the predicate disciple. This type of proposition depicts a relationship of classes and as such can be tested by logical analysis.
I am quite sure that the majority of people would agree, "Peter was a disciple of Jesus" is true. This is based on the historical record and the nature of the basic proposition.
On the other hand, a complex proposition would be, "Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built his church" This complex proposition can be broken down into two basic propositions:
(a) Peter is the rock
(b) Jesus will build his church.
The two basic propositions are joined by the logical connectives "upon which". Logical connectives do not relate to any facts, in this world or any other. Therefore, it is important not to get bogged down discussing the merits or other wise of connectives.
But this is only part of the problem, believers and non-believers would argue that religious people believe in all sort of things which are inaccurate or non-existent.
Let us look at the proposition,"God necessarily exists" An atheist would say that all we are putting forward is the idea that a non-existent entity exists.
BUT HE DOES EXIST, maybe not in the same way as you or I exist but he exists nonetheless. Therefore it is important to distinguish between types of existence. That is the type of existence we normally experience and a SPECIAL IDEAL EXISTENCE.
"God necessarily exists". God is the subject of the sentence and exists is the predicate. "God necessarily exists" is meaningful but not in a factual way but a special ideal way. In other words, this sentence cannot be broken down into the same basic propositions as we did with our,"Peter the rock" example.
We run into all sorts of confusion and problems when we try to treat all these "special ideal propositions", which we find in the bible ( for the want of a better way of saying this) as being the same as any other proposition. This is why our arguments are not making any progress.
galveston,
Perhaps you did not know that the Pope is considered to be the greatest SERVANT in the Catholic Church.
As has been said, He who serves most leads best.
In Jesus time on earth He was the greatest servant AND the best leader. He still is.
The Pope is Christs vicar on this planet.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
The reason no progress is made is that the inherent proposition is based on a false intrepretation of Scripture attempting to give preeminence to one group. Scripture clearly teaches, (Paul,) that the argument about who's teaching is better is a wrong argumentQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
No one has any problem with the proposition that Peter was a disciple, that he was a leader, and that he carried the burden that all Christians should carry, but preminent and one who's doctrine was faultless, I doubt the events at Antioch indicate that Paul was of that opinion. Paul saw the need to correct Peter because he was straying back into Judaism and would have taken the Church with him.Quote:
When we argue a point we can do one of two things. We can use what might be called basic propositions such as," Peter was a disciple of Jesus"
The truth of this proposition can be tested not only by reference to the bible put by examining the proposition itself.
I am quite sure that the majority of people would agree, "Peter was a disciple of Jesus" is true. This is based on the historical record and the nature of the basic proposition..
Peter is not the Rock, Jesus Christ is the Rock, in fact Jesus used the term pebble at that time to describe Peter and his wrong attitude, a stumbling block, and this particular misintrepretation is still a stumbling block to Christians two thousand years later.Quote:
On the other hand, a complex proposition would be, "Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built his church" This complex proposition can be broken down into two basic propositions:
(a) Peter is the rock
(b) Jesus will build his church..
Christ is building his Church on the Rock that he is the son of God. He has been doing that for two thousand years, he doesn't say to us follow Peter, he says follow me. If you want to follow Peter go get yourself crucified upside down
paraclete,
Sorry, but Yes Jesus is a rock and so IS Peter because Jesus said so.
He said that Peter is the Rock on which Jesus would build His Church.
I believe Jesus.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
And what did Jesus say about the Pharisees and leaders of the day?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
They proclaimed exactly the same thing about themselves. But Jesus had some very harsh words to them about their hypocrisy.
Is no one bold enough to answer my 16 articles of faith as posted earlier?
I think Catholics will find much to agree with there.
450donn,
I believe that is was Jesus who TOLD His disciples that the best leader is the best servant.
At least that is what my bibles say.
Galbveston,
I'll need to find them and take a look see.
Thanks,
Fred
There is no 'argument' from me over who is right and who is wrong. At least I never took that position. What I did show was proof based on Catholic doctrine. In matters regarding faith and morals I take this as objective truth - like in any science you can not argue with what is axiomatic. This, no doubt, sounds arrogant but my position isn't negotiable, nor do I view a faith worth having if it were negotiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
JoeT
I've got 10(?) objections or disagreements. I took out the ones I agreed with at least in a general sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I. I can't agree with this: the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct is scripture. 2 Timothy 3:15-17; I Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1;21
ii. Our sinless life (if I can change this to holy life) no such thing as a sinless life unless you're baptize at the point of death.
iv. His substitutionary work on the cross (don't know what this means)
vi. His exhalation to the right hand of God (Not sure what's meant)
III. I disagree with this: The fall of Man as in 'totally depraved – i.e. per Luther's definition.
V. I can agree with this if ordinances is in reference to sacraments and includes all seven Catholic sacraments: The Ordinances of Holy Communion and water baptism
VI. I don't hold to this: we are baptized in the name of God, Son and Holy Spirit – the Holy Spirit doesn't normally possess body and soul: The Baptism in the Holy Ghost for every believer
VII. This is true in the sense of what is written in scripture, but not necessarily true in every believer in every time: The INITIAL evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is speaking in unknown tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
VIII. I disagree if this is 'once saved always saved' or 'I can't sin after being saved' :Sanctification of the saved believer from a life of sin to a life of righteousness (a process of time by heeding the Word and being led by the Holy Ghost)
IX. The Catholic Church is the corporate body of Christ - not sure what is meant about 'habitation':The Church is the corporate Body of Christ, habitation of God through the Spirit.
XI. Not normal: Healing for the human body provided in the Atonement.
XIII. Wholly disagree: The Millennial reign of Christ
No they didn't!Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Joet,
Yes, I do agree with you. They did not!!
It was Jesus who said to his followers that then one who serves most serves best.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hello paraclete,
I wasn't trying to use any proposition to establish a position. e.g.. "Peter is the rock...." In fact I am not even sure I've got the quote right. It was just an example off the top of my head. I decided upon this example because it can be established historically, i.e.. Peter was a historical character who was/was not regarded as a rock.
I think it is these types of propositions which progress can be made. Not everyone is going to agree, but by turning complex propositions into more basic subject/ predicate propositions, progress is possible, especially if we do this in light of historical facts.
To be honest I haven't given this area much consideration so I have not developed a view one way or the other, but it would be an interesting exercise.
I will try to highlight my argument using a less quarrelsome example.The example I will use should highlight what I am getting at.
If I were to put forward the point of view that, "Richard Nixon was a bad president" I believe that we could reach some type of consensus on the issue. Why is this possible? Firstly, I think that we could establish a definition as to what is entailed by the term," bad president".
Once we have established this we can see if Nixon meets the criteria of a bad president. If we are still unable to agree then we can consult the historical records, e.g.. Tapes, diaries, accounts given by witnesses etc, etc. When we are dealing with physical facts then progress is possible.
But what about about non-physical things? Can we come up with some type of agreement. As stated in my previous post I think the answer is no.Why? Because propositions involving such things as the Trinity cannot be broken down into more basic propositions which can then be analyzed in light of physical facts.
Here is an example of why it is very difficult agree about the nature of non-physical things
If I were to say," Hamlet was a left-wing anti monarchist". Then such a statement can be regarded as meaningless because Hamlet doesn't exist. He is only a character in a play. But there is a problem saying that he doesn't exist. If he doesn't exist then why do people have a idea of who he is? Why is he mentioned in many publications? Why do people borrow famous quotes from a non existent prince of Denmark? For example Hamlet said," There is something rotten in the state of Denmark".
Hamlet does exist but not in the same way as you or I exist. He has a special category of existence. I cannot prove that Hamlet is a left-wing anti monarchist. I can go through the play with a fine tooth combe and not find any evidence. Even if I could find something it would do my case no good because I have nothing historical to compare it with.
I cannot go to the F.B.I. and investigate Hamlet's left- wing associates.
I cannot ask his relations about his political leanings. There is of course no historical record of this type.
In the end these types of special category propositions should not be broken down into basic types because it is a pointless exercise. We cannot prove anything by referring to physical evidence.All we can do is refer to other quotes and this seems to get us little progress.
This was the point I was trying to make in my previous post.
Joe you need to understand Catholic doctrine doesn't have the same authunticity as Scripture. It might be based on Scripture and it might be based on opinion.; Catholic doctrine holds that Tradition is equal with Scripture that is clearly a wrong view, even Jesus told us that, if there is conflicit Scripture is clearly truth and doctrine must stand aside.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
OK. Now, what Scripture(s) do you give for your disagreements?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
(Yes, I can give scriptures for every one of the 16 points if you ask, but it would be better to take one subject at a time to shorten posts.)
For Galveston,
I was expecting this dogma to be on the list. Basically, because it has been discussed since a long time ago and by eminent scholars like St. Bonaventure (Doctor Seraphicus) or St. Thomas Aquinas (Doctor of the Church).
These two scholars believed that Mary was completely free from sin but that she was not given this grace at the instant of her conception. Later on, they said the would accept the determination of the Church, which they did.
I often have the feeling that many of us can’t see the forest for the trees. The important question we should have to answer is whether we believe in One Only God and in Jesus Christ, his Son, who died in the Cross, and in Jesus’ personal message to all of us which is written in the Gospels. All the rest, in my opinion of course, is what the Italians say “Peccata minuta” , i.e. not so important. We surely ALL accept that God is Almighty, and therefore nothing is impossible for His Power. I wonder where will all these speculations go when one day we finally realize that there are other living beings in other Planets in this or other Galaxies. To start with the RCC is already starting to consider this possibility as quite likely to happen one of these days…
But let us revert to the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. I am quoting herewith some of what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say in this respect: Quote:
… John Duns Scotus (1265/66-1308) was one of the most important and influential philosopher-theologians of the High Middle Ages, defended this doctrine. Scotus proposed a solution to the theological problem involved of being able to reconcile the doctrine with that of the universal redemption in Christ, by arguing that Mary's immaculate conception did not remove her from redemption by Christ; rather it was the result of a more perfect redemption that was given to her on account of her special role in history. Furthermore, Scotus said that Mary was redeemed in anticipation of Christ's death on the cross. Duns' arguments remained controversial, however, particularly among the Dominicans, who were willing enough to celebrate Mary's sanctificatio (being made free from sin) but, following the Dominican Thomas Aquinas' arguments, continued to insist that her sanctification could not have occurred at the instant of her conception.
The doctrine itself had been endorsed by the Council of Basel (1431–1449), and by the end of the 15th century was widely professed and taught in many theological faculties. However, the Council of Basel was later held not to have been a true General (or Ecumenical) Council with authority to proclaim dogma; and such was the influence of the Dominicans, and the weight of the arguments of Thomas Aquinas (who had been canonised in 1323 and declared "Doctor Angelicus" of the Church in 1567) that the Council of Trent (1545–63)—which might have been expected to affirm the doctrine—instead declined to take a position; it simply reaffirmed the constitutions of Sixtus IV which had threatened with excommunication anyone on either side of the controversy who accused the others of heresy.
Unquote:
In 1854 Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic Bishops, whom he had consulted between 1851–1853, promulgated the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for "Ineffable God"), which defined ex-cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception:
The papal definition of the dogma declares with absolute certainty and authority that Mary possessed sanctifying grace from the first instant of her existence and was free from the lack of grace caused by the original sin at the beginning of human history.
This dogma is therefore the consequence of a long time mulled over and discussed decision. Not really the result of some divine inspiration (I guess) but rather the corollary resulting from the fact the Virgin Mary being the Mother of Jesus Christ She might have been as well granted by God the Grace of her Immaculate Conception.
But the point is, as far as you are concerned, what difference does it make whether She was or was not granted that Grace. We Catholics cannot prove it, but you cannot prove the contrary either. It is just a matter of believing it or not, which in our case is a must, but not in yours.
For many years the nationality of Christopher Columbus has been under discussion. While some maintain he was born in Genoa, others claim he was Catalan, Portuguese, French and even English.
But what difference does it make? The actual fact is that in 1492 he discovered an island which now is the Dominican Republic and, consequently, one of the first Europeans to discover the American Continent.
For the Roman Catholic Church the dogma of the Immaculate Conception gained additional significance from the reputed apparitions of Our Lady of Lourdes, in 1858. In this little village a 14-year-old girl, Bernardette Soubirous, claimed that a beautiful woman appeared to her and said, "I am the Immaculate Conception ". Many believe the woman to have been the Blessed Virgin Mary.
In any case, the many extraordinary healings that have taken place over there ever since have met with no explanations whatsoever by some eminent doctors who have borne witness of them. My elder son was 5 years old and for 1 year he had been developing what the doctors considered to be a “Bullous Pemphigoid”, a sub epidermal blistering skin disease, very rare in infants, and which in the 50s there was no cure for, in Spain. We took him to Lourdes, and we bathed him in those kinds of bathtubs they have, where water is never changed and yet remains clean, and by the time we got back to Barcelona he was cured. We took him to his dermatoleg, and until he died he was wondering how that was at all possible…!
I would like you to go to this website:
Medjugorje Messages and Apparitions - Our Lady of Medjugorje website - Virgin Mary of <b style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99">Medjugorje</b>
The curious thing is that the town of Medjugorje is located at 25 kms, of Mostar and, during the Bosnia war (1992/95), that area was one of the parts of Bosnia that suffered the most terrible bombings. And yet, not a single shell ever fell in that little town.
This is something – like the Lourdes or the Fatima sites – to be personally seen to start believing in something miraculous. Perhaps, if you can afford it, it would be a nice trip for you and your wife to visit these places…
Then you might understand (without having to give up to your beliefs) why we Catholics have such devotion for the Virgin Mary, though I insist that the relevant matter is that she was Jesus’ Mother, and that you believe, don’t you?
Gromitt82
When Jesus walked on this earth he did not start the church. If you will read in Acts after his resurrection,the disciples thought he was ready to set up his earthy Kingdom. They were clueless about the age of grace, the church, the body of christ, assemblies. COMPLETELY CLUELESS. They were still heading to the temple to worship. It isn't until the Apostle Paul's ministry do we start to understand the "church" or the body of Christ. ( The Lord revealed these things to PAUL)
Why did the Lord start it... THEN? Because he wanted His Word spread to the ends of the earth. It isn't his will that any perish in their sins. He also started it so that we could worship him corporately, he also wanted us to remember him together with the bread and the wine.( symbols of his broken body and shed blood) He wanted us to work together and love one another and show love to others that are not part of the church. He started it so that we might be salt ( for the thirsty) and light ( to those in the dark.) He started the church because he wanted a bride one day... and we are his bride. He started it to teach us of his mercy and grace, love and forgiveness.
The body of Christ or the Church or the Assemblies or whatever you want to call it.. is not a denomination.. ( He didn't start division). It is a people called out for HIS name sake.
The Catholic doctrine? What a shameful thought that you follow a doctrine, and do not even consider the facts as they are written.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
There is only one with authority that stands above all.
Matthew 7:28-29 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at HIS doctrine:For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
John 17:16-17 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.
He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2 John 9:10-11 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Beware! Watch carefully not to fall asleep.
Matthew 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them]not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
I will not accept the Catholic Encyclopedia when the views given are not backed up by a solid Bible base.
It is as I feared, even when you can agree on a point, you still have to disagree with me because I am not a member of your denomination.
That's sad, and shows why the ecumenical movement will never go anywhere.
ClassyT, Respect for all that you have spoken, except it is written that Christ said Himself, He did bring division.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division
The division was between the doctrine of Christ to follow Him, and the false teaching of the Pharisees who would not deny themselves to follow Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
This is why: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2210169
JoeT
Snd!!Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
He wasn't talking to the CHURCH.. . no way,, no HOW! Yes! He said he came to divide.. but Snd, he wasn't talking About the church or TO the church.. not about his BRIDE. He wants US in unity... we aren't OBVIOUSLY but that isn't from him. Rightly dividing the word of Truth... if we could do that.. then we could get somewhere in the Body of Christ... Satan loves our divisions.
Grumpy Joe,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I don't think so. :( I admit I haven't read all of it... I skimmed but you mention the CHRUCH is necessary for redemption? Huh? The church can't redeem squat. Only Jesus... I will take a closer look at it when I don't have kids wanting the computer but as usual my friend.. I think we disagree but I love you for trying... :D
ClassyT it is true, Christ does not want division within His follwers which would be the fellowship of members within HIS church.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
His bride, do you means new Jerusalem?
The idea is that His follower believe in Him and walk in His footsteps. No division in doing it HIS Way because He is the Way.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:13 AM. |