Vatican "clampdown" on liberal opinion

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

So God can't endow grace on an individual? God can't call people who would otherwise be unremarkable for His service? (Moses, David, Jeremiah, and Isaiah would all fall under this category)

None of these are the Mother of Jesus.

Jakkass wrote: »

You are making an assertion, again, that the RCC = the early church. This is questionable. I've provided reasoning that would challenge that notion considering the many different types of churches that existed, including 2 churches (the church of Thomas in India (Mar Thomas), and the Armenian Apostolic Church).

No. What is now called the Roman Catholic Church is the same Church started by Christ. I don't accept your reasoning.

Jakkass wrote: »

If it's extra-Biblical, I would consider it to be treated with scepticism. It seems to involve an infinite loop of being born sinless, if Mary was born sinless, must her parents have been born sinless going back ad-infinitum. After all if we do that, the entire human race is sinless.

I thought you were sola fide and not sola scriptura - if you are sola you cannot be more than one.

Mary was specially chosen to be conceived sinlessly. The Bible consistently describe the ground where God walks or appears as Holy Ground so it stands to reason that Our Lady was consecrated Holy Ground and could only have been so from her first existence in her mothers womb otherwise God could not have existed within her. It would contradict the Bible extant at the time otherwise.
The only infinite loop is within your own thinking. You need to stop at the first humans created sinless , Adam and Eve. Did you read the link I posted?

Jakkass wrote: »

Of could God have intervened, and bore Jesus as sinless, even if his mother had sinned already, or made it so that Jesus was unaffected by the inclination to sin.

That would appear to be questioning God. You are under no obligation to accept it as you do not recognize the authority of the Pope. To me you position is one of denying Christ but that is your business. For Catholics it is a matter of belief.

Jakkass wrote: »

This would seem to be rules around the rules. I don't know about your claim that people shouldn't be more actively involved in their churches. Paul in the New Testament says that we should all play a role in Christ's body. I support equipping and allowing people to do that within the church, and to be a part of church committee, and to be involved in planning events.

That would be your interpretation but I disagree. We have a role in the Church as Christian members witnessing to Christ and doing his work. As with most organisations there is a division of labour from the lay member to the Pope, each with their own role. The decision making as in other organisations goes on at the top where those qualified to make decisions operate. The power to bind on Earth and Heaven was given to Peter by Christ.

Jakkass wrote: »

Most people want to be a part of a church that they can be a genuine part of rather than a church that they just attend.

True, which is why I am and remain a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

One can just attend an Anglican or Presbyterian Church if they so wish or they can take on various works within the Church. The option to just attend or take part or be a genuine part is open to any Christian anywhere in any Church. You may feel that Catholics are denied something but that is misunderstanding on a number of levels.

The whole thrust of believing in God is accepting His word without question. To deny the Pope his right to speak and direct spiritually is to deny Jesus and the powers he gave to the Apostles and St. Peter.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm just asking you not to ignore the point.

I'm not ignoring it I am just not accepting your point of view because I believe it to be in error.

I prefer this explanation , among others, to yours

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

None of these are the Mother of Jesus.

I never said that they were. My point was that God can use people for His favour even if they are not perfect people. This can also be true for Mary. I believe she was a godly woman, who served God's purposes, but I don't see why she of necessity had to be sinless.

StealthRolex wrote: »

No. What is now called the Roman Catholic Church is the same Church started by Christ. I don't accept your reasoning.

We're going to have to simply disagree on this. As far as I am concerned there is nothing to confirm that the early church is the same one as the RCC.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I thought you were sola fide and not sola scriptura - if you are sola you cannot be more than one.

I have no issue with using sources external to the Bible if they are backed up Biblically.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Mary was specially chosen to be conceived sinlessly. The only infinite loop is within your own thinking. Did you read the link I posted?

Why did Mary have to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless?

StealthRolex wrote: »

That would appear to be questioning God. You are under no obligation to accept it as you do not recognize the authority of the Pope. To me you position is one of denying Christ but that is your business. For Catholics it is a matter of belief.

Of course it isn't questioning God. I'm questioning the additional beliefs that are added, and their veracity. I believe God was involved in the Virgin Birth, and that Jesus was indeed sinless. What I find questionable is whether or not Mary was sinless.

By saying that I deny Christ, are you suggesting that one must be Catholic to be Christian? I don't even think the Pope went that far!

StealthRolex wrote: »

That would be your interpretation but I disagree. We have a role in the Church as Christian members witnessing to Christ and doing his work. As with most organisations there is a division of labour from the lay member to the Pope, each with their own role. The decision making as in other organisations goes on at the top where those qualified to make decisions operate. The power to bind on Earth and Heaven was given to Peter by Christ.

I guess, I would suggest that the Christian church is intended to be an inclusive entity, rather than an exclusive entity at least from the the Acts of the Apostles, and from Paul's apostolic writings.

The body of Christ, needs to involve all believers.

As for Peter, and what he was told by Christ, I haven't denied that thus far. I question how you are interpreting it though.

StealthRolex wrote: »

True, which is why I am and remain a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm not questioning whether or not you should be a member of the RCC. Overall, I regard it to be a Christian church, and as I mentioned a few pages ago, I really want to see the RCC get over its current difficulties.

Non-membership doesn't mean absolute opposition. I wouldn't say I am absolutely opposed to the RCC.

StealthRolex wrote: »

One can just attend an Anglican or Presbyterian Church if they so wish or they can take on various works within the Church. The option to just attend or take part or be a genuine part is open to any Christian anywhere in any Church. You may feel that Catholics are denied something but that is misunderstanding on a number of levels.

It's not so much that Catholics are denied anything. Your viewpoint seems rather unique amongst most Irish Catholics I've spoken to actually. Most people I've spoken to don't hold the view that just because the RCC said it, that settles it.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The whole thrust of believing in God is accepting His word without question. To deny the Pope his right to speak and direct spiritually is to deny Jesus and the powers he gave to the Apostles and St. Peter.

I'm not sure if it is. People need to work out and understand their salvation as well. If people are merely believing blindly, I would wonder how much of it they can actually explain or share with others.

Sometimes, the questions we arrive at in Scripture, are what bring us closer to Christ. A lot of us come to a deeper understanding by wrestling with the Scriptures.

I would regard the Pope as a Christian thinker, but I certainly wouldn't say that he is the sole authority in respect to Christian matters. I would also emphasise that people establish a direct relationship with Christ.

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

I'm sure you know a lot more about it than me Fanny but I'd imagine it is a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of thing. They hold to some of the beliefs but not others, so rather than dismissing the whole lot, they focus on the ones they approve of....

Sure! But there is a point where you have ditched enough core beliefs that whatever remains doesn't amount to much and inspires little.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said that they were. My point was that God can use people for His favour even if they are not perfect people. This can also be true for Mary. I believe she was a godly woman, who served God's purposes, but I don't see why she of necessity had to be sinless.

She had to be if God was going to live there for nine months.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why did Mary have to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless?

Show me where I said that.

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course it isn't questioning God. I'm questioning the additional beliefs that are added, and their veracity. I believe God was involved in the Virgin Birth, and that Jesus was indeed sinless. What I find questionable is whether or not Mary was sinless.

Well one day you will get the opportunity to as Him and her yourself. In the meantime the Church instituted by her Son as so decreed that it is true even if it is not part of the Biblical record.

Jakkass wrote: »

By saying that I deny Christ, are you suggesting that one must be Catholic to be Christian? I don't even think the Pope went that far!

You do like putting words in the mouths of other. I am merely suggesting that this is what you are doing. St Peter denied Christ too so you're in good company

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Peter, and what he was told by Christ, I haven't denied that thus far. I question how you are interpreting it though.

It is not my interpretation. It is the Truth from the Gospel itself.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not so much that Catholics are denied anything. Your viewpoint seems rather unique amongst most Irish Catholics I've spoken to actually. Most people I've spoken to don't hold the view that just because the RCC said it, that settles it.

Hmm, not sure what kind of Catholics you're hanging with - those with liberal opinions perhaps? Or maybe those too lazy to verify the veracity of Vatican decisions or proclamations for themselves?

The Pope is the boss and we listen to him and accept his direction. Much like soldiers accept orders, except that unlike a regular military organisation directions from the Pope come with detailed explanations of where the decision has come from and what support there is for it.

What support did Luther present for adding the word "alone" after the word "faith " in Romans? Yet you accept this "sola fide" unquestioningly. Maybe not you personally but many Protestants do.
Luther said it so that settles it, right?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sure if it is. People need to work out and understand their salvation as well. If people are merely believing blindly, I would wonder how much of it they can actually explain or share with others.

We don't have to believe blindly if we don't want to though some do accept it as if it came from Christ Himself and that is understandable.
Everything is explained and supported. Seek and ye shall find - Catholic encyclopedia, papal writings - it's all available.
You make it sound like doctrine is pulled out of thin air and given a papal stamp. methinks you have been fed too much Protestant propaganda and have swallowed it with relish.
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that when one engages with a Protestant on Catholic issues the risk of scornful derogatory responses is quite high, in my experience anyway.

Jakkass wrote: »

Sometimes, the questions we arrive at in Scripture, are what bring us closer to Christ. A lot of us come to a deeper understanding by wrestling with the Scriptures.

And some parts of the Scripture can drive people away if they are not countenanced with reason and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would regard the Pope as a Christian thinker, but I certainly wouldn't say that he is the sole authority in respect to Christian matters. I would also emphasise that people establish a direct relationship with Christ.

So what happened the keys after St. Peter died?

I would say that they were passed on through successive popes and are held today by Pope Benedict. If you find the term Christs Vicar distasteful how about Christs Ambassador.

I would find the concept of Christ leaving us with no sole authority despite what He said a little disturbing.

smurfhousing

Non-Catholics might examine Isaiah chapter 22 closely:

I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

The office referred to here is essentially one of the king's prime minister. An office which was passed on. It has close parallels with what the Lord said to Peter.

St. Cyprian (martyred AD 258) had this to say:

4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (St. Matthew 16:18). And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep” (St. John 21:16). It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” (St. John 20:21, 22) yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?

Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs, speaking in Our Lord’s name, says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her” (6:9). Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God”? (Ephesians 4:5)

[The One Church Is Catholic, Over The Whole World]

For me, as a Catholic, I find this the most convincing argument for the Catholic Church. There is one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, founded on Peter by the Lord.

This is also a good argument for the acceptance of Tradition - what follows is a brief, edited excerpt - which is worth reading for anyone - Catholic or Protestant:

NO MATTER how much you study the Bible, it is still important to understand that there is more to Christianity than the Bible itself. The tradition of the Catholic Church, in fact, has as much value as the Bible. Why? Well, Church tradition determined which books constitute the Bible in the first place.

Two Meanings of Tradition

When speaking about tradition, it will help to understand that the word actually has two meanings relevant to the Church:

1. In its most simple sense, tradition refers to a particular manner of doing something. [...]

2. In its broadest and most profound sense, tradition refers to all the knowledge and practices by which a doctrine is preserved. [...]

Rejecting Tradition

During the Protestant Reformation, beginning with Martin Luther himself, various traditions (in the simple sense) of the Church were not only criticized but, in revising those disputed traditions, an entirely new tradition (in the broad sense) was created.

[...]

These persons may believe that they are merely tinkering with unwanted “traditions,” but they are in danger of rejecting fundamental Christian doctrine itself. Still, I know that arguing with anyone about any of this won’t get us anywhere. So let’s try something different. Let’s look at some issues from the perspective of common sense.

You can read the rest here: http://www.chastitysf.com/tradition.htm

I think a discussion on these points would be interesting.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

She had to be if God was going to live there for nine months.

Why?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Show me where I said that.

The point is that Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless. At least I thought that much?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well one day you will get the opportunity to as Him and her yourself. In the meantime the Church instituted by her Son as so decreed that it is true even if it is not part of the Biblical record.

At this point, you're merely asserting that the RCC is correct and beyond question. I already understand that you believe that, but it doesn't make it the case.

StealthRolex wrote: »

You do like putting words in the mouths of other. I am merely suggesting that this is what you are doing. St Peter denied Christ too so you're in good company

Well, it's a pretty serious suggestion, and one that you should perhaps follow through to it's logical conclusion if you are going to state it. Please also note, that I haven't made any such accusations about you.

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is not my interpretation. It is the Truth from the Gospel itself.

It's very much your interpretation. You're assuming that the early church = the RCC without basis.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Hmm, not sure what kind of Catholics you're hanging with - those with liberal opinions perhaps? Or maybe those too lazy to verify the veracity of Vatican decisions or proclamations for themselves?

Some would be rather conservative. You would be pretty much unique amongst Catholics I have spoken to. Yes they would admit that the church is the one true church, and agree with the Pope on other doctrines, but they certainly wouldn't deny that people outside the RCC can be active Christians, and actively serving God.

I believe, and I think they believe that we should be building up Christ's body on this earth, rather than tearing people down.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Pope is the boss and we listen to him and accept his direction. Much like soldiers accept orders, except that unlike a regular military organisation directions from the Pope come with detailed explanations of where the decision has come from and what support there is for it.

You are free to do this if you wish. I won't be joining you. I believe I will learn from Christ's guidance, the Scriptures, other Christians, and the Holy Spirit.

StealthRolex wrote: »

What support did Luther present for adding the word "alone" after the word "faith " in Romans? Yet you accept this "sola fide" unquestioningly. Maybe not you personally but many Protestants do.
Luther said it so that settles it, right?

No. I recognise that Luther wasn't infallible. For example, Luther had a huge anti-Semitism problem. I don't regard the Reformers as infallible. I would hold a number of people as being hugely important during the Protestant Reformation.

I've explained my reasoning as to why I believe in salvation by faith alone in the relevant thread. I've gone through it in depth in fact, as have others on this forum.

StealthRolex wrote: »

You make it sound like doctrine is pulled out of thin air and given a papal stamp. methinks you have been fed too much Protestant propaganda and have swallowed it with relish.

I wouldn't say thin air. I do believe that if it isn't Biblically substantiated, that I should perhaps stick to the Bible.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that when one engages with a Protestant on Catholic issues the risk of scornful derogatory responses is quite high, in my experience anyway.

Take a look through this thread, and come to your own conclusion. Over the last month in particular, people have claimed that Protestants have a bad relationship with their mother, and that atheists have a bad relationship with their father. There have been accusations that Luther had an issue with constipation and as a result needed to form his new theology. That the Reformation was a blood bath. That people on this thread had denied Christ for disagreeing with them on certain issues. That some posters have been buying into Satan's lies.

^^ That is simply ridiculous!

I've not engaged in this. I've criticised certain RCC teachings that I have disagreed with, but certainly I wouldn't regard what I have said as "derogatory".

StealthRolex wrote: »

And some parts of the Scripture can drive people away if they are not countenanced with reason and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Absolutely. I don't believe the Holy Spirit is a Catholic-only presence.

StealthRolex wrote: »

So what happened the keys after St. Peter died?

I assume it was passed on to the next generation of leaders in the early Christian church.

I would say that they were passed on through successive popes and are held today by Pope Benedict. If you find the term Christs Vicar distasteful how about Christs Ambassador.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I would find the concept of Christ leaving us with no sole authority despite what He said a little disturbing.

Christ has given us the Holy Spirit to follow on after Him, if one is to read the Gospels.

smurfhousing

Jakkass wrote: »

Some would be rather conservative. You would be pretty much unique amongst Catholics I have spoken to. Yes they would admit that the church is the one true church, and agree with the Pope on other doctrines, but they certainly wouldn't deny that people outside the RCC can be active Christians, and actively serving God.

Take a look through this thread, and come to your own conclusion. Over the last month in particular, people have claimed that Protestants have a bad relationship with their mother, and that atheists have a bad relationship with their father. There have been accusations that Luther had an issue with constipation and as a result needed to form his new theology. That the Reformation was a blood bath. That people on this thread had denied Christ for disagreeing with them on certain issues. That some posters have been buying into Satan's lies.

Absolutely. I don't believe the Holy Spirit is a Catholic-only presence.


Christ has given us the Holy Spirit to follow on after Him, if one is to read the Gospels.

Luther was constipated:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041025/luther.html

German archaeologists have discovered the birthplace of the Protestant Reformation — a stone toilet on which the constipated Martin Luther wrote the Ninety-Five Theses that launched the creation of Europe's Protestant churches.

Scholars had always known that the 16th-century religious leader suffered from acute constipation and spent hours in contemplation on the toilet seat.

Many Catholics don't know the faith as they've never been taught. Now though, we have the internet, books, catholic tv, libraries etc... - there is little excuse for not learning on your own initiative.

The Holy Spirit can operate where He wills. Non-Catholic groups have elements of truth in them and all these good things impel towards Catholic unity:

8. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.(73) (11*)

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

- DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM

philologos

smurfhousing wrote: »

The Holy Spirit can operate where He wills. Non-Catholic groups have elements of truth in them and all these good things impel towards Catholic unity:

There seems to be a differing intention in ecumenism as well, so it seems.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

Why?

Examine the Old Testament and see how God likes the areas around Him where He appears treated.

Jakkass wrote: »

The point is that Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless. At least I thought that much?

It's the other way around - because Jesus is without sin His mother likewise had to be without sin, pure from the moment of her conception.

Jakkass wrote: »

At this point, you're merely asserting that the RCC is correct and beyond question. I already understand that you believe that, but it doesn't make it the case.

At this point it is also like discussing the existence of God with an atheist. As a Catholic I accept, as I must, that the Church is correct.

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, it's a pretty serious suggestion, and one that you should perhaps follow through to it's logical conclusion if you are going to state it. Please also note, that I haven't made any such accusations about you.

The evidence is there. Nowhere did I suggest that for Jesus to be sinless Mary had to be sinless yet you presented it as if I had said it turning it into a question. You then went on to ask if my statement was suggesting that only Catholics were Christians, a case I have not suggested at all. TBH I am of the opinion that those who are not Catholics cannot be as Christian as they could be because they ignore certain truths and maintain sins that their own denomination does not describe as sins and contradict the Bible record of Christs teachings. A la cartism is not what we sign up for. It is all or nothing.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's very much your interpretation. You're assuming that the early church = the RCC without basis.

I presented my basis from the words of Christ and smurfhousing has presented further support. The title has changed but the roots of the Church roots were there from the beginning. It is historical fact not interpretation.

Jakkass wrote: »

Some would be rather conservative. You would be pretty much unique amongst Catholics I have spoken to. Yes they would admit that the church is the one true church, and agree with the Pope on other doctrines, but they certainly wouldn't deny that people outside the RCC can be active Christians, and actively serving God.

make up your mind on faith alone or faith with works please.

as I said already I am of the opinion that those who are not Catholics cannot be complete Christian because they maintain and spread errors. I would not deny them but would suggest they seek the truth.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe, and I think they believe that we should be building up Christ's body on this earth, rather than tearing people down.

Something that should have been said during the Reformation. I can understand journalists, atheists and others attack the Catholic Church but when Reformed Christians attack their own mother it is a bit poor.

Jakkass wrote: »

You are free to do this if you wish. I won't be joining you. I believe I will learn from Christ's guidance, the Scriptures, other Christians, and the Holy Spirit.

If you wanted to learn how to fly would you not engage the services of someone who already knew both how to fly and how to teach? The is one of the purposes of the Church, she holds the keys and she is entrusted with the education and spiritual welfare of Christians.
There is no "ourselves alone", the other Christians who can be trusted are those with 2000 years of experience of interpretation, those who were given this power by Christ Himself. To seek interpretation elsewhere is to invite disaster.

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't say thin air. I do believe that if it isn't Biblically substantiated, that I should perhaps stick to the Bible.

And the vast majority of the Catholic Churches teaching is Biblically substantiated and if not is supported by the Church Fathers who were there and recorded for the early Church, by reason and by theology. If there is something the Church presents that you disagree with then present evidence for your case. There is hard Biblical evidence that Mary was not immaculately conceived but there is much to support the case that she was, herself included - She has not denied it in any of her appearances and confirmed it at Lourdes.

Jakkass wrote: »

Take a look through this thread, and come to your own conclusion. Over the last month in particular, people have claimed that Protestants have a bad relationship with their mother, and that atheists have a bad relationship with their father. There have been accusations that Luther had an issue with constipation and as a result needed to form his new theology. That the Reformation was a blood bath. That people on this thread had denied Christ for disagreeing with them on certain issues. That some posters have been buying into Satan's lies.

^^ That is simply ridiculous!

The joy of liberal opinion actually.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've not engaged in this. I've criticised certain RCC teachings that I have disagreed with, but certainly I wouldn't regard what I have said as "derogatory".

I believe I said it was my experience with Protestants that I have met. While "satans puppet" was not your comment it was a comment from a non-Catholic Christian that I have heard elsewhere on numerous occasions and worse.

Jakkass wrote: »

Absolutely. I don't believe the Holy Spirit is a Catholic-only presence.

I agree, He does work in mysterious ways and everywhere. Even in evolution and quantum vacuums

Jakkass wrote: »

I assume it was passed on to the next generation of leaders in the early Christian church.

Assumptions are not an answer. Either they exist today and are held either by the current Pope or someone else. There is no record of them having been removed so they have to be somewhere.

Jakkass wrote: »

Christ has given us the Holy Spirit to follow on after Him, if one is to read the Gospels.

He also gave us the Church, the first Pope and the keys, and the Church gave us the Bible. It is worth remembering that without the Roman Catholic Church you would have no Bible.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Examine the Old Testament and see how God likes the areas around Him where He appears treated.

Didn't God humble Himself to human flesh in the Incarnation? (Philippians 2:1-11)

StealthRolex wrote: »

It's the other way around - because Jesus is without sin His mother likewise had to be without sin, pure from the moment of her conception.

OK, but if we are to extend your logic further, we would have to say that because Mary is without sin, her mother and father had to be without sin, pure from the moment of her conception?

Then, if Mary's mother is without sin, her grandmother and her grandfather had to be without sin.

As I've explained already, such reasoning would effectively mean that all mankind is sinless, and after all this can't be true since man in general is inclined towards sin.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The evidence is there. Nowhere did I suggest that for Jesus to be sinless Mary had to be sinless yet you presented it as if I had said it turning it into a question. You then went on to ask if my statement was suggesting that only Catholics were Christians, a case I have not suggested at all. TBH I am of the opinion that those who are not Catholics cannot be as Christian as they could be because they ignore certain truths and maintain sins that their own denomination does not describe as sins and contradict the Bible record of Christs teachings. A la cartism is not what we sign up for. It is all or nothing.

You've just said it in the last paragraph I quoted. I've emboldened it.

I don't believe I am engaging in a la carte reasoning at all. I'm looking for the full Gospel as I study the Scriptures. The sources for the Immaculate Conception are not Biblically grounded, therefore I find it more prudent to hold to Scripture.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I presented my basis from the words of Christ and smurfhousing has presented further support. The title has changed but the roots of the Church roots were there from the beginning. It is historical fact not interpretation.

I disagree with you, it certainly is interpretative. I've mentioned already though, that I believe that the RCC from the Council of Nicea was valid, but as time went on misunderstandings seeped into it, as misunderstandings can seep into any church which led to the Reformation.

StealthRolex wrote: »

make up your mind on faith alone or faith with works please.

I have, I think it is a question that you misunderstand the actual position I've taken. I've clarified your misunderstanding on the other thread.

StealthRolex wrote: »

as I said already I am of the opinion that those who are not Catholics cannot be complete Christian because they maintain and spread errors. I would not deny them but would suggest they seek the truth.

Interesting. I think a major issue, is between how major we think it is for people to add beliefs on to the revealed Canon that we have already. It is my concern, that if this trend was involved in all Christianity, that we would eventually add so much to the Gospel that it itself would fade in comparison.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Something that should have been said during the Reformation. I can understand journalists, atheists and others attack the Catholic Church but when Reformed Christians attack their own mother it is a bit poor.

I've explained numerous times in this thread, that it was that the RCC heirarchy wasn't much interested in correction that was a major issue.

As for the attacking their own mother comment?

StealthRolex wrote: »

If you wanted to learn how to fly would you not engage the services of someone who already knew both how to fly and how to teach? The is one of the purposes of the Church, she holds the keys and she is entrusted with the education and spiritual welfare of Christians.

Indeed, I would. This is what we can do through our churches, there are people who have studied and learned about the Scriptures, and they pass down their knowledge to younger members of the church through group Bible studies and the like. God's body truly at work.

StealthRolex wrote: »

There is no "ourselves alone", the other Christians who can be trusted are those with 2000 years of experience of interpretation, those who were given this power by Christ Himself. To seek interpretation elsewhere is to invite disaster.

I'm afraid, I just disagree with you that the RCC is the sole authority on Scripture, amongst all the other assertions that you've made about it.

StealthRolex wrote: »

And the vast majority of the Catholic Churches teaching is Biblically substantiated and if not is supported by the Church Fathers who were there and recorded for the early Church, by reason and by theology. If there is something the Church presents that you disagree with then present evidence for your case. There is hard Biblical evidence that Mary was not immaculately conceived but there is much to support the case that she was, herself included - She has not denied it in any of her appearances and confirmed it at Lourdes.

The Immaculate Conception itself is extra-Biblical and isn't supported Biblically, that's the problem I have with it.

Other RCC teaching may well be, and I don't have an issue with that at all. In fact I would regard it as a good thing for people to be holding to the Gospel.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I believe I said it was my experience with Protestants that I have met. While "satans puppet" was not your comment it was a comment from a non-Catholic Christian that I have heard elsewhere on numerous occasions and worse.

Let's not bring up misconceptions, or preconceived notions about what I should be like. You're talking to me, I'm and individual and I'm being as respectful to you as I can be, as you are deserving of respect.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Assumptions are not an answer. Either they exist today and are held either by the current Pope or someone else. There is no record of them having been removed so they have to be somewhere.

Given the amount of assumptions we have seen repeated on this thread so far, I think I am due at least one

StealthRolex wrote: »

He also gave us the Church, the first Pope and the keys, and the Church gave us the Bible. It is worth remembering that without the Roman Catholic Church you would have no Bible.

I believe the Christian church goes beyond the RCC. It houses a number of denominations, and styles of practice and worship.

You do bring up a good point about the Bible. I affirm the Council of Nicea, and I respect that the Spirit was present in the selection of the canonical texts.

Although, bearing in mind, without the Reformation you would never have seen a Bible in your own language. So I think we are pretty much even in that respect

smurfhousing

Jakkass wrote: »

You do bring up a good point about the Bible. I affirm the Council of Nicea, and I respect that the Spirit was present in the selection of the canonical texts.

Although, bearing in mind, without the Reformation you would never have seen a Bible in your own language. So I think we are pretty much even in that respect

How do you decide when to stop listening to Councils? What about Trent and the others?

You made a good point about ecumenism though. The true point of it is to gather all Christians into one flock with one shepherd. That would be Peter, the one whom Christ appointed, and his successors. Some people mistakenly think ecumenism is having tea together, going for walks, and pretending everything is fine, let's all just get along on the issues we agree on and bury the rest etc...

RachPie

Is that not basically, shut up and do what your told? I'm a Catholic on paper, but that's where the buck stops. I have my own beliefs and practise religion in my own way and I'm always going to do that, regardless of what the Pope says.

philologos

smurfhousing wrote: »

How do you decide when to stop listening to Councils? What about Trent and the others?

For me personally, I will listen to advice, and think about which seems to be the most Biblically supported. I will continue to read from the God-inspired example that God has given us in the Scriptures, and learn from others in the church I attend, amongst friends from other denominations, an inter-denominational group I'm involved in, and most importantly through the guidance of God Himself through prayer.

smurfhousing wrote: »

You made a good point about ecumenism though. The true point of it is to gather all Christians into one flock with one shepherd. That would be Peter, the one whom Christ appointed, and his successors. Some people mistakenly think ecumenism is having tea together, going for walks, and pretending everything is fine, let's all just get along on the issues we agree on and bury the rest etc...

I would argue, that through co-operation with other Christians, we can find much better than we ever could have hoped for by attempting to lump everyone into our own church. It is by co-operation, and meeting together that we will actually become more as one as Jesus said to His Father in John 17:11.

We can talk forever about functionally moving to a single denomination, or we can act now to live de-facto as one through inter-denominational initiatives.

smurfhousing

Jakkass wrote: »

We can talk forever about functionally moving to a single denomination, or we can act now to live de-facto as one through inter-denominational initiatives.

If there is no unity in faithfulness and truth, then what is this unity based on?

I've been part of inter-denominational initiatives. The CU. I've had other Christians mock the Catholic Eucharist to my face. How can there be unity if we don't agree on essentials? And the Eucharist IS central. I won't entertain discussion to the contrary.

If the unity is not based on Christ Who is the Truth, then any unity we have built is man-made.

philologos

smurfhousing wrote: »

If there is no unity in faithfulness and truth, then what is this unity based on?

I believe in a lot of cases, there is unity in faithfulness and in truth.

smurfhousing wrote: »

I've been part of inter-denominational initiatives. The CU. I've had other Christians mock the Catholic Eucharist to my face. How can there be unity if we don't agree on essentials? And the Eucharist IS central. I won't entertain discussion to the contrary.

That's hugely unfortunate, since I've mostly had a positive experience in our case (I was also referring to CU).

Yes, the Eucharist is very important. I think it isn't whether or not communion is important that is the area of discussion, but rather how we understand the Eucharist. I suspect, that they were mocking transubstantiation?

smurfhousing wrote: »

If the unity is not based on Christ Who is the Truth, then any unity we have built is man-made.

I agree, it should be based on Christ. The difference is that I believe that this is possible in a number of areas.

smurfhousing

Jakkass wrote: »

I suspect, that they were mocking transubstantiation?

Yep. And mockery of the Body of Christ belongs to the devil.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

Didn't God humble Himself to human flesh in the Incarnation? (Philippians 2:1-11)

Yes. To become human is humbling for God.

Jakkass wrote: »

OK, but if we are to extend your logic further, we would have to say that because Mary is without sin, her mother and father had to be without sin, pure from the moment of her conception?

Not their conception - the conception of their daughter. It was without sin allowing her to be conceived without stain of original sin. The logic does not extend nor does it need to. The Pope decreed it, Mary confirmed it, we accept it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe I am engaging in a la carte reasoning at all. I'm looking for the full Gospel as I study the Scriptures. The sources for the Immaculate Conception are not Biblically grounded, therefore I find it more prudent to hold to Scripture.

As you will - if you wish to refuse to believe what the Holy Spirit has revealed that is your business.

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you, it certainly is interpretative. I've mentioned already though, that I believe that the RCC from the Council of Nicea was valid, but as time went on misunderstandings seeped into it, as misunderstandings can seep into any church which led to the Reformation.

I would disagree and suggest they were not misunderstandings otherwise the Church would have revised her teachings and she has not. There was a bit of a tiff in Germany and Luther blew it all out of proportion and was possibly more influenced by his bowels. I would certainly hold the he was much influenced by Satan or one of his senior minions.

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting. I think a major issue, is between how major we think it is for people to add beliefs on to the revealed Canon that we have already. It is my concern, that if this trend was involved in all Christianity, that we would eventually add so much to the Gospel that it itself would fade in comparison.

It is not people - it is thorough the Holy Spirit.
In point of fact it can be argued that outside of Catholicism much of the Gospel has already been diluted beyond recognition by various sects and denominations. Luther himself was guilty of the same and today there are so may different translations and interpretations that it beggars belief how anyone without access to the original texts can call themselves Christian.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained numerous times in this thread, that it was that the RCC heirarchy wasn't much interested in correction that was a major issue.

Do you know many hierarchies that are interested in correction?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the attacking their own mother comment?

The Protestant Churches spawned from the Catholic Church hence she is their mother. You know what happens children that attack their mothers don't you?

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, I would. This is what we can do through our churches, there are people who have studied and learned about the Scriptures, and they pass down their knowledge to younger members of the church through group Bible studies and the like. God's body truly at work.

But how do they know their interpretation is correct?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm afraid, I just disagree with you that the RCC is the sole authority on Scripture, amongst all the other assertions that you've made about it.

You are not disagreeing with me you are disagreeing with Christ. He gave the power to the Church. The Protestants lost this when they split away.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Immaculate Conception itself is extra-Biblical and isn't supported Biblically, that's the problem I have with it.

Must everything be supported Biblically. Do you not trust the Holy Spirit?

Jakkass wrote: »

Let's not bring up misconceptions, or preconceived notions about what I should be like. You're talking to me, I'm and individual and I'm being as respectful to you as I can be, as you are deserving of respect.

Just stating fact for the record. Nothing personal.

Jakkass wrote: »

Given the amount of assumptions we have seen repeated on this thread so far, I think I am due at least one

Of course. But I see the keys are with the Pope. Where do you assume they are?

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe the Christian church goes beyond the RCC. It houses a number of denominations, and styles of practice and worship.

Is that what Jesus wanted when he created His Church? (note - singular)

Jakkass wrote: »

You do bring up a good point about the Bible. I affirm the Council of Nicea, and I respect that the Spirit was present in the selection of the canonical texts.

Although, bearing in mind, without the Reformation you would never have seen a Bible in your own language. So I think we are pretty much even in that respect

How do you know I haven't studied Latin and Greek sufficiently well to not require one in my own language or that I don't speak or read in French, Spanish, Italian or Dutch to be able to avail of a pre-Reformation Bible?
Granted the presence of erroneous Reformation bibles did accelerate the process but I would suggest never is a bit strong and that even without the Reformation Vatican authorised Bibles in various languages would have become commonplace at some point rather than never.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Not their conception - the conception of their daughter. It was without sin allowing her to be conceived without stain of original sin. The logic does not extend nor does it need to. The Pope decreed it, Mary confirmed it, we accept it.

It doesn't need to be there at all. It is possible for Jesus to be sinless, and for Mary to have sinned. Especially in terms of God.

StealthRolex wrote: »

As you will - if you wish to refuse to believe what the Holy Spirit has revealed that is your business.

I believe I am holding to what has been revealed.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I would disagree and suggest they were not misunderstandings otherwise the Church would have revised her teachings and she has not. There was a bit of a tiff in Germany and Luther blew it all out of proportion and was possibly more influenced by his bowels. I would certainly hold the he was much influenced by Satan or one of his senior minions.

The RCC hasn't? We've been through that it is has on numerous things. The Immaculate Conception is one.

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is not people - it is thorough the Holy Spirit.
In point of fact it can be argued that outside of Catholicism much of the Gospel has already been diluted beyond recognition by various sects and denominations. Luther himself was guilty of the same and today there are so may different translations and interpretations that it beggars belief how anyone without access to the original texts can call themselves Christian.

I don't believe Luther was.

We've access to manuscripts of the original Hebrew and Greek that was used. That's how the Bible is generally translated. In some cases it's also translated from the Latin Vulgate, but most are from the Hebrew and Greek.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Do you know many hierarchies that are interested in correction?

I know organisations that would review strategy and approach if it was beneficial for them to do so.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Protestant Churches spawned from the Catholic Church hence she is their mother. You know what happens children that attack their mothers don't you?

I think this is verging on the absurd!

StealthRolex wrote: »

But how do they know their interpretation is correct?

Pretty much as the Jews in Berea did (Acts 17:10-15), by receiving the word eagerly, praying for God to guide us and thrashing it out with others.

StealthRolex wrote: »

You are not disagreeing with me you are disagreeing with Christ. He gave the power to the Church. The Protestants lost this when they split away.

I'm sorry, I amn't disagreeing with Jesus in the slightest by saying that I will trust His words, and His example. You can conjure it up as you wish, but it is verging on the absurd to do so.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Must everything be supported Biblically. Do you not trust the Holy Spirit?

I do. I just don't trust men quite as easily.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Of course. But I see the keys are with the Pope. Where do you assume they are?

What Scripture are you getting it from that the keys of necessity must be passed on to one individual?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Is that what Jesus wanted when he created His Church? (note - singular)

The Christian church for me is an independent entity (inclusive of the RCC, but not exclusive to the RCC). We've been through this already, and I've explained my reasoning extensively. I believe Jesus is broader than saying that I have to be a Roman Catholic to follow Him.

StealthRolex wrote: »

How do you know I haven't studied Latin and Greek sufficiently well to not require one in my own language or that I don't speak or read in French, Spanish, Italian or Dutch to be able to avail of a pre-Reformation Bible?
Granted the presence of erroneous Reformation bibles did accelerate the process but I would suggest never is a bit strong and that even without the Reformation Vatican authorised Bibles in various languages would have become commonplace at some point rather than never.

Most people during the time of the Reformation, weren't able to understand Latin, many weren't even able to read. Many no doubt didn't understand what Jesus had really done for them. Now things are much clearer, in part this is down to the Reformation.

People were burned to death for producing a Bible in the English language. I believe God was behind them. It's a reason why I believe the Reformation was crucially important in Christian history, and a hugely progressive move.

smurfhousing

Here's my take on the Protestant 'Reformation':

Luther had problems with constipation. He spent long periods of time on the toilet. He did a lot of thinking on the toilet. He also had scruples as well as being troubled with temptations of the flesh. His scruples drove him mad at times. Now round about the same time, there was some corruption among some of the Church leaders. At no time was the Faith and Morals compromised nor infected with error, but corruption among some members of the Church was present. Luther jumped on the opportunity (supported by German princes who resented money going to Rome) to find a solution to his scruples as well as his desire for pleasures of the flesh. He sought out and devised a new theology that assured him of salvation and didn't affect his indulging in pleasures of the flesh. Hence he was able to break away from the Catholic Church, his Mother, with his new theology. He also went off with a nun. All the while, he was constipated, though his constipation was relieved somewhat as his scruples settled down with his new theology.

This could have been prevented if the Church leaders hadn't been corrupt. They were sinful in some of the things they did and permitted, but it was not Church teachings that these things were good, for they were not. Sin begets more sin. Luther could have been saved a lot of trouble if he'd had recourse to laxatives, if the Church leaders hadn't become corrupted, and the German princes hadn't been greedy for more money and resented it going off to Rome. The one common thread of the Protestant 'Reformation' is sin. On all sides.

This has been confirmed by Pope Benedict when he sought to reconcile members of the Society of St. Pius X when he said:

[I couldn't find it - even the internet sometimes does not yield its treasures!]

Anyway, he basically said that, more or less, he couldn't help but feel that at key moments of historic crisis in the Church, more couldn't have been done, by both parties, the Church and those who were... being difficult... that more couldn't have been done to heal the wound and be reconciled before it became a radical and permanent break. It was a good letter, I just can't find it.

And also recently, he said:

Today we see in a truly terrifying way that the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from outside enemies but is born of sin within the Church.

So we see that, basically, both sides messed up during Luther's time. Perhaps the Church leaders didn't respond as they should, which further irked Luther and his accomplices. There was corruption. If there wasn't corruption, Luther wouldn't have had the incentive to do what he did, which led to the Protestant 'Reformation' and the inevitable condoning of sin, especially concerning sexual morality. There would have been no need for the Counter-Reformation, which cleaned up the abuses Luther protested about.

It all leads us to the mysterium iniquitatis - the mystery of iniquity.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

It doesn't need to be there at all. It is possible for Jesus to be sinless, and for Mary to have sinned. Especially in terms of God.

This is true but it has been revealed by the Holy Spirit and Mary herself.

Jakkass wrote: »

The RCC hasn't? We've been through that it is has on numerous things. The Immaculate Conception is one.

The Immaculate Conception is an addition, not a revision. It followed from Divine Revelation and is confirmed by Mary herself and the Holy Spirit via the Popes ex cathedra proclamation.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe Luther was.

He added "alone" after faith in Romans to suit his own doctrine. He took books out, put them back and made his own declaration as to their authority.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think this is verging on the absurd!

Protestantism is absurd!
If there was no Catholic Church would there be Protestant Churches?

Jakkass wrote: »

Pretty much as the Jews in Berea did (Acts 17:10-15), by receiving the word eagerly, praying for God to guide us and thrashing it out with others.

Then they converted.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm sorry, I amn't disagreeing with Jesus in the slightest by saying that I will trust His words, and His example. You can conjure it up as you wish, but it is verging on the absurd to do so.

I am not conjuring anything. The Bible states that Christ gave keys and powers to the Church and made her the sole authority.

Jakkass wrote: »

I do. I just don't trust men quite as easily.

You mean you don't accept Papal Infallibility is the Holy Spirit speaking through the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra as he did on the Immaculate Conception. Logically this means that you do not trust the Holy Spirit or are just not prepared to listen.

Jakkass wrote: »

What Scripture are you getting it from that the keys of necessity must be passed on to one individual?

Read smurfhouses post.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Christian church for me is an independent entity (inclusive of the RCC, but not exclusive to the RCC). We've been through this already, and I've explained my reasoning extensively. I believe Jesus is broader than saying that I have to be a Roman Catholic to follow Him.

You don't have to be a Roman Catholic to follow Him but you are more open to errors and hence sin so what have you to lose by not being a Roman Catholic?

What have you to gain by keeping yourself separate from the Church Christ Himself ordained as keeper of the keys and against whom the gates of Hell could not prevail.

Jakkass wrote: »

Most people during the time of the Reformation, weren't able to understand Latin, many weren't even able to read. Many no doubt didn't understand what Jesus had really done for them. Now things are much clearer, in part this is down to the Reformation.

And at the time many could not read or write English and could not afford to buy a copy either. Did they give away free copies with free reading lessons?

Jakkass wrote: »

People were burned to death for producing a Bible in the English language. I believe God was behind them. It's a reason why I believe the Reformation was crucially important in Christian history, and a hugely progressive move.

Important yes but largely regressive for those that that stray and follow the wider easier path away from the One True Church.

StealthRolex

smurfhousing wrote: »

So we see that, basically, both sides messed up during Luther's time. Perhaps the Church leaders didn't respond as they should, which further irked Luther and his accomplices. There was corruption. If there wasn't corruption, Luther wouldn't have had the incentive to do what he did. There would have been no need for the Counter-Reformation, which cleaned up the abuses Luther protested about.

It all leads us to the mysterium iniquitatis - the mystery of iniquity.

All organisations suffer crises from time to time - St. Peter denying Christ was probably the first through the Reformation to today's crisis. Humans, regardless of faith, are weak and can only be strengthened by the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Each time the Church recovers, recognises the weaknesses and strengthens further, just as we all do when we recognise our sin, seek forgiveness and do penance. If we were to get into all the Church ills we could have great fun what with the Borgias, Medicis and what not, never mind the reformation issues.

The key is the core teachings of the Church are unaffected and the Holy Spirit is continuing to work and speak through her.

However it is clear that Satan is loosed and he will use anyone he can to attack the Church - her own laity, priests and bishops, other Christians, especially those with Reformation experience maybe to force yet another reformation. Battle lines are being drawn.

philologos

I'm not seeing much that I haven't seen in the last few pages. I know that you believe that the RCC is the one true church, I know that you think Luther is wrong, and that Protestantism is absurd, but I haven't heard very much as to why.

I don't think there is much more to be gleaned from discussing as we have done if this is the path the discussion is going to go down.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not seeing much that I haven't seen in the last few pages. I know that you believe that the RCC is the one true church, I know that you think Luther is wrong, and that Protestantism is absurd, but I haven't heard very much as to why.

I don't think there is much more to be gleaned from discussing as we have done if this is the path the discussion is going to go down.

As I said - it is the joy of liberal opinion

I fancied getting liberal with my opinion to see where it would go. I'm also curious as to whether or not the Vatican is keeping tabs on this board though it may be some time before I find out. This might be my last chance to exercise my liberal opinion if the indo was by some strange fluke of journalistic error on their part actually right.

However I did present a few whys - Protestant support for adultery, Protestant dismissing scripture that does not suit, misrepresenting scripture to suit, Protestants don't like rules they didn't invent and as for Luther, I think smurfhousing is doing a great job.

But here's the kicker. No Catholic web-resource I find ever describes the leader of any other Church as the anti-Christ, yet almost every Protestant website I use to explore Protestant positions on Catholicism almost always refers to the Pope as the anti-Christ and the Vatican as the whore of Babylon. Not very Christian to be honest. Absurd is a mild term really thought it fits that a book downgraded by Luther should be held as the highest Biblical support for a grossly errant Protestant opinion.

The more polite Protestant resources present gross errors and misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and belief. Lies in fact, and Satan is the father of lies so it stands to reason that Protestantism is deeply infected. Why? Within the Church and practising, while one is not immune to his ways, there is some protection. The more one practices and keeps the sacraments the less he can do. However if lapsed or if one leaves the Church, as the Reformers did, much of the protection is no longer there and so he can do more damage. Remember, he is a liar and his lies always play to our deepest desires but only for his own benefit.

Looking across the various Protestant Churches, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Anabaptist, Mennonite, Amish, Calvinist, Unitarian, Presbyterian, Free Prebyterian, Congregationalist, Episcopalian, Quakers, Methodist, Evangelical, Mormon, Seven Day Adventist, JVs, Christian Scientists, American Catholic, all that can be seen is reformation, re-reformation, redefinition, all but one founded by a man the other being a woman, and all presenting contradiction, or lies.
If they all read the Bible and interpreted it the same way why do they not all believe the same thing and behave the same way?

Christ started one Church, Christ intended for one Church, Christ knows there are many flocks and seeks the return of the strays to the main flock. The sheep know there is only one shepherd and the safest place is with the flock with the sheperd, not out on their own.

If you don't believe me try this

Slav

smurfhousing wrote: »

St. Cyprian (martyred AD 258) had this to say:

4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (St. Matthew 16:18). And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep” (St. John 21:16). It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” (St. John 20:21, 22) yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?

Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs, speaking in Our Lord’s name, says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her” (6:9). Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God”? (Ephesians 4:5)

[The One Church Is Catholic, Over The Whole World]

For me, as a Catholic, I find this the most convincing argument for the Catholic Church. There is one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, founded on Peter by the Lord.

As far as I know most Protestants have no issue with the idea of One Catholic Church and moreover they consider themselves to be a part of it. Or you are saying that for you St. Cyprian was most convincing argument for the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. the ecclesiological model with papacy, etc.?

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not seeing much that I haven't seen in the last few pages. I know that you believe that the RCC is the one true church, I know that you think Luther is wrong, and that Protestantism is absurd, but I haven't heard very much as to why.

I don't think there is much more to be gleaned from discussing as we have done if this is the path the discussion is going to go down.

TBH, i think the issue is that the RC posters are concentrating on the reformers and their views etc, when it has little to do with the issue. Who cares about Luther, or King Henry or Calvin etc. The legacy of the reformation was allowing people to come to know Christ without the mediation of rome. People are still wrong in many details, myself included no doubt, but that is the point. Once one has the foundation of Christ and his law of Love, you can't be placed in shackles by religious leaders, such as the Roman usurpers. Some folk will continue to see it as 'the dirty protestants' or 'the catholic morons'. Both fail to see past their own noses. It becomes a 'my daddy is bigger than your daddy' arguement, and just descends into juvenility.

'Unity' is great, but China is 'unified'. North Korea is 'unified'. There is no point in simply being 'unified' unless the unity is good and right. Unity of itself, is nothing more than groupthink. Unified in Christ and his Love is the goal, not simply living under any oul banner as long as its unified. True Christians ARE in unity, even if they attend different churches and have heated discussions about differences of theology. Their unity is Love in Christ, and a Chritian will realise this.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

Looking across the various Protestant Churches, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Anabaptist, Mennonite, Amish, Calvinist, Unitarian, Presbyterian, Free Prebyterian, Congregationalist, Episcopalian, Quakers, Methodist, Evangelical, Mormon, Seven Day Adventist, JVs, Christian Scientists, American Catholic, all that can be seen is reformation, re-reformation, redefinition, all but one founded by a man the other being a woman, and all presenting contradiction, or lies.
If they all read the Bible and interpreted it the same way why do they not all believe the same thing and behave the same way?

Add the church in Rome to this list of denominations and you'll see how the objective observer - without circular axe to grind - would rightfully respond.

Some denominations share ideas with Rome, eg: arguably* working for your salvation or believing itself to be the one true church). Others share commonality on salvation by faith alone, and the fact that they are but part of the body.


*thread running on this issue but most RC's so far seem to indicate works required for salvation.

Christ started one Church, Christ intended for one Church, Christ knows there are many flocks and seeks the return of the strays to the main flock. The sheep know there is only one shepherd and the safest place is with the flock with the sheperd, not out on their own.

IIRC, the idea was of one flock and Christ going to seek out sheep to return them to that flock.

It was not the idea of a main flock and Christ going to seek out stray flocks.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

You do bring up a good point about the Bible. I affirm the Council of Nicea, and I respect that the Spirit was present in the selection of the canonical texts.

An interesting historical note is that the Bishop of Rome at the time, Sylvester I, did not attend the Council of Nicea. This may have been a circumspect move politically since the Emperor Constantine favored Arianism rather than the Trinitariian approach adopted by the Council. Most of the delegates at Nicea were from the Eastern wing of the Church which did not recognise the primacy of Rome and saw Alexandria as the seat of ecclesiastical authority.

smurfhousing

PDN wrote: »

An interesting historical note is that the Bishop of Rome at the time, Sylvester I, did not attend the Council of Nicea. This may have been a circumspect move politically since the Emperor Constantine favored Arianism rather than the Trinitariian approach adopted by the Council. Most of the delegates at Nicea were from the Eastern wing of the Church which did not recognise the primacy of Rome and saw Alexandria as the seat of ecclesiastical authority.

He said he wasn't feeling up to it so he sent his representatives instead.

Slav

PDN wrote: »

Most of the delegates at Nicea were from the Eastern wing of the Church which did not recognise the primacy of Rome and saw Alexandria as the seat of ecclesiastical authority.

Ecumenical authority or local Alexandrian?

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

An interesting historical note is that the Bishop of Rome at the time, Sylvester I, did not attend the Council of Nicea. This may have been a circumspect move politically since the Emperor Constantine favored Arianism rather than the Trinitariian approach adopted by the Council. Most of the delegates at Nicea were from the Eastern wing of the Church which did not recognise the primacy of Rome and saw Alexandria as the seat of ecclesiastical authority.

Intersting that this assertion (above) contains no reference or citation.

According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia he was involved:

After the death of Miltiades (Melchiades), Sylvester was made Bishop of Rome and occupied this position twenty-one years. This was the era of Constantine the Great, when the public position of the Church so greatly improved, a change which must certainly have been very noticeable at Rome; it is consequently to be regretted that there is so little authoritative information concerning Sylvester's pontificate. At an early date legend brings him into close relationship wtih the first Christian emperor, but in a way that is contrary to historical fact. These legends were introduced especially into the "Vita beati Sylvestri" (Duchesne, loc. cit., Introd., cix sq.) which appeared in the East and has been preserved in Greek, Syriac, and Latin in the "Constitutum Sylvestri"—an apocryphal account of an alleged Roman council which belongs to the Symmachian forgeries and appeared between 501 and 508, and also in the "Donatio Constantini". The accounts given in all these writings concerning the persecution of Sylvester, the healing and baptism of Constantine, the emperor's gift to the pope, the rights granted to the latter, and the council of 275 bishops at Rome, are entirely legendary. The pope, however, took part in the negotiations concerning Arianism and the Council of Nicæa, and the expression ‘omooúsion was probably agreed upon with him before the council. The pontiff also sent legates to the first æcumenical council. Still it is not certain whether Constantine had arranged beforehand with Sylvester concerning the actual convening of the council, nor whether there was an express papal confirmation of the decrees beyond the signatures of the papal legates (cf. Funk in "Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen", I, 95, 501 sq.).

PDN

Slav wrote: »

Ecumenical authority or local Alexandrian?

To most Christians at that time there was no one centre of ecumenical authority. Christians in Egypt looked to the Patriarch at Alexandria, those in Western Europe tended to look to Rome, those in Asia Minor to Antioch, and those in Palestine to Jerusalem.

Later on, of course, Constantinople was added to the mix when that city was created as the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire and added its own Patriarch. Gradually Rome and Constantinople became more influential.

A few centuries later, as we all know, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem fell into the sphere of the Islamic world - leaving Rome and Constantinople as the competing centres of ecclesiastical authority.

Slav

That's right, and that's why I found it strange that you referred to Alexandria as to the ecclesiastical authority recognised by East. Misunderstanding I guess - perhaps you were talking about the role of Pope Alexander at the council?..

PDN

This thread remains open for discussion on the OP - namely the merits or otherwise of a Vatican clampdown on liberalism etc.

Anyone wanting to post on the merits of Catholicism or Protestantism as a whole - please take it to the new Protestant / Catholic Megathread.
Thanks

smurfhousing

I just did a quick fisk of the original article, because I was bored, and had time... This article is written in such a way as to mock and ridicule the Church and especially pope Benedict.

New Vatican campaign to clamp down on 'liberal opinion'
By John Cooney
Monday June 07 2010

VATICAN investigators to Ireland appointed by Pope Benedict XVI are to clamp down on liberal secular opinion in an intensive drive to re-impose traditional respect for clergy, according to informed sources in the Catholic Church. (This is ridiculous. He implies that the main purpose of the Visitation is to claw back that 'respect' (I read 'status') for clergy which has been lost.)

The nine-member team led by two cardinals will be instructed by the Vatican to restore a traditional sense of reverence among ordinary Catholics for their priests, the Irish Independent has learned. (There it is again. Let's get our status back, because that is what matters.)

Priests will be told not to question in public official church teaching on controversial issues such as the papal ban on birth control or the admission of divorced Catholics living with new partners to the sacraments -- especially Holy Communion. (Does silence cover that? If so, that would be more of the same. Most priests don't question these things publicly. They are silent about them. You can draw your own conclusions.)

Theologians will be expected to teach traditional doctrine by constantly preaching to lay Catholics of attendance at Mass and to return to the practice of regular confession, which has been largely abandoned by adults since the 1960s. (Is this some kind of new idea? Do most lay-Catholics attend workshops with theologians?)

An emphasis will be placed on an evangelisation campaign to overcome the alienation of young people scandalised by the spate of sexual abuse of children and by later cover-ups of paedophile clerics by leaders of the institutional church. (That is needed.)

A major thrust of the Vatican investigation will be to counteract materialistic and secularist attitudes, which Pope Benedict believes have led many Irish Catholics to ignore church disciplines and become lax in following devotional practices such as going on pilgrimages and doing penance. (B.S. The author, imo, is again being ridiculous and seeking to mock Pope Benedict. As if going to Knock or Lough Derg would have prevented abuse. Get a grip.)

Bishops and priests will be instructed to preach to their congregations the unchanging central message of Jesus Christ about love, healing and repentance. (Good idea.)

While the restoration of church discipline and pious practices such as praying to Our Lady and the saints will be welcomed by regular church-goers, the Vatican investigation is likely to face a backlash from liberal Catholics who want more accountability and democracy in church decision-making.

[...]

Thousands of priests from across the world, including from Ireland, are expected to attend the showcase event which is planned as a major spectacle trumpeting the special status of the priesthood. (Yes, because status is all that matters. Note that the priesthood is the gift of God to mankind, but that any hint of clericalism is not Catholic. Archbishop Dolan, at Maynooth recently: We’re not priests for what we can get, but for what we can give, and anyone who’s in it for power, authority, privilege, or entitlement should not be. That’s clericalism, and it is a vice, a sin.)

- John Cooney