Tradition and the Early Church Fathers...

wolfsbane · 09-07-2008 08:16PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Hmm. My answer to this isn't like to go down very smoothly but it is my belief that the Catholic Church is the same Church founded by Christ and for this reason it is the primary target for Satan's attacks. Hence the reason why the Church is the most persecuted Christian church in existence, IMO. These attacks will continue to the end of the world but the Church will never be destroyed. Sure many have left and will leave but the Church will survive. The Church has certainly scored plenty of own-goals but Christ never promised impeccability of all members, only that He would be "with the Church to the end of ages". Jesus and the Church are inseparable and this spiritual marriage will culminate in the marriage of the Lamb foretold in Revelation.

Lead balloon?

What you say of Jesus and His Church is true. It is just that you are confusing the Church of Christ with the RCC. I've already showed you what Christ does with churches that err from the truth and refuse to repent, Revelation 2 & 3. He does not bear with them for centuries, tolerating their evil doctrines and behaviour. He cuts them off, and continues the Church with the holy remnant, gathered in many places. Where those assemblies become corrupt and refuse to repent, He does the same to them, and so on.

His Church is His people in every location - not a corrupt organisation.

kelly1 · 09-07-2008 08:42PM

robindch wrote: »

Wow -- I'm (almost) speechless.

Why don't you name a Christian church which is more vilified than the CC?

kelly1 · 09-07-2008 08:53PM

JimiTime wrote: »

How can you think the RCC is the most persecuted church Blomin' eck, thats just mental! Like PDN said, try 'most PERSECUTING' and you'd be right. Also, this thing about satan attacks. That is one of the best brainwashing techniques religions deploy. I remember having such feelings, to the extent that when I would have little niggles of concience, I'd start thinking, 'Its the devil trying to turn me away from God'. Luckily, it wasn't, it was just my God given concience telling me something wasn't quite right.

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

John 15:18 If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. 19 If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

kelly1 · 09-07-2008 09:20PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some things they taught were true, others false. Some were very serious errors, others less so.

You agree with these men when they teach Roman Catholic doctrine; I agree with them when they teach Bible doctrine. I feel free to reject their teaching when it contradicts Scripture. How do you deal with them when they contradict Roman doctrine? What about Tertullian's Montanism? Or Augustine's propogation of the doctrine we now call Calvinism?

In short, they were not infallible apostles, they were only men and cannot be appealed to as proof of doctrine.

I think you may be missing the point. I'm talking about ECF evidence for traditions such as the papacy, apostolic succession, the Eucharist, Purgatory etc. Do you really believe these early bishops and popes were all wrong? Why were these practices so commonly written about by central Church leaders if they were false? I think you're too dismissive.

JimiTime · 09-07-2008 09:45PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Why don't you name a Christian church which is more vilified than the CC?

Sometimes the crimes a group commits tend to catch up with them. Any organisation which hides Child rapists, murders folk in the name of religion etc is going to be vilified.

The Nazi's are vilified too. Vilification can sometimes be warranted. The RCC used to have a hell of alot of power. a power which they abused. They oppressed, murdered etc for years. So they can hardly whinge about people vilifying them now that they are free of their power, and their attrocities come more to light.

BTW, by all accounts, the chinese christians are far more persecuted than the RCC. Actually, how exactly is the RCC the most persecuted?

philologos · 09-07-2008 09:52PM

I think it would be in the Christian interest to not vilify a fellow Church though, I don't think that agrees with what the Bible says about treatment of fellow Christians.

JimiTime · 09-07-2008 10:01PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it would be in the Christian interest to not vilify a fellow Church though, I don't think that agrees with what the Bible says about treatment of fellow Christians.

I disagree completely. Should we condone the western baptist church? If there is a group draging Christs name through the mud, they should be condemned.

As a Christian i have to put up with accusations about the crusades, inquisition, child abuse etc etc. What should we do? They have stumbled many, yet claim to be the 'one and only true church'. What do you suggest we do to make it clear that their behaviour does not represent Christianity?

Slav · 09-07-2008 10:06PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, I think so.

With all the respect to the Roman Church martyrs do you really think the Roman Catholics were all the way under attack while the rest of Christian world enjoyed peaceful and relaxed life? Any historical evidence that Catholics suffered near as that of, for instance, Eastern Christians (as long as we started comparing them)? What would be the equivalent of the Crusades, Islamic attacks on Eastern Christians or persecutions in Communist Russia?

If by attacks you mean the mass media attitude or fellow Protestants from boards.ie

than I'd probably agree with you: the RCC attracts more attention then the rest of Christianity altogether. However I think that Christians of Kosovo and Metohija or China would swap with you without a moment's hesitation.

kelly1 wrote: »

and for this reason it is the primary target for Satan's attacks.

That's certainly a sound argument (just in case: I'm not sarcastic) but I think it can only be used as a last resort when we give up to logically explain something based on our knowledge. Are we really at that point where History, Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology, etc. are helpless?

kelly1 · 09-07-2008 10:07PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Sometimes the crimes a group commits tend to catch up with them. Any organisation which hides Child rapists, murders folk in the name of religion etc is going to be vilified.

The Nazi's are vilified too. Vilification can sometimes be warranted. The RCC used to have a hell of alot of power. a power which they abused. They oppressed, murdered etc for years. So they can hardly whinge about people vilifying them now that they are free of their power, and their attrocities come more to light.

BTW, by all accounts, the chinese christians are far more persecuted than the RCC. Actually, how exactly is the RCC the most persecuted?

Apart from the crimes commited by Church members, the Church comes in for a lot of stick for daring to teach the truth on morality e.g. contraception.

Also I know for a fact that countless myths are constantly being propagated about the Church e.g that Constantine paganized the Church or that Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin or that the Pope is the anti-Christ. Why do you think people are only too happy to keep these myths going?

JimiTime · 09-07-2008 10:13PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Apart from the crimes commited by Church members, the Church comes in for a lot of stick for daring to teach the truth on morality e.g. contraception.

So do all groups that take a moral stand on things. The RCC are certainly not alone in that.

Also I know for a fact that countless myths are constantly being propagated about the Church e.g that Constantine paganized the Church or that Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin or that the Pope is the anti-Christ. Why do you think people are only too happy to keep these myths going?

Are you saying Satan is doing this?

robindch · 09-07-2008 10:25PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Why don't you name a Christian church which is more vilified than the CC?

hmmm... depending on your definition of "vilify" and who's doing the vilifying, off the top of my head, I could name the outfits that belong (or belonged to) Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Jim Bakker, Peter Popoff, Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts (I just love that name!), Edir Macedo, João Teixeira de Faria, the Palmarian Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Uniate church, the Maronites, Jim Jones, Fred Phelps, and no doubt, our very own Ian Paisley. Not to mention PDN's friends in China and India

I'm sure there are plenty more I've not heard of.

PDN · 09-07-2008 10:59PM

Slav wrote: »

If by attacks you mean the mass media attitude or fellow Protestants from boards.ie than I'd probably agree with you: the RCC attracts more attention then the rest of Christianity altogether. However I think that Christians of Kosovo and Metohija or China would swap with you without a moment's hesitation.

To be fair, most of the attention given to the RCC on boards.ie is at Noel's own invitation. He does have a habit of starting threads that demand to know why we all don't admit that the RCC is the only true Church and that the rest of us are deluded heretics. Then, when we don't give him the answers he would like to hear, it is persecution against the RCC.

philologos · 09-07-2008 11:18PM

JimiTime wrote: »

As a Christian i have to put up with accusations about the crusades, inquisition, child abuse etc etc. What should we do? They have stumbled many, yet claim to be the 'one and only true church'. What do you suggest we do to make it clear that their behaviour does not represent Christianity?

In approach there is a different way to do it. Yes we should recognise that the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the child abuse scandals are vile and horrific crimes that are repugnant to Scripture, but at the same time we should be there as Christian brothers and sisters to influence the Catholic Church positively rather than negatively. Yes we should state that their behaviour when it is indeed wrong does not represent Christianity, offering an alternative view to Catholic believers, and to push them in the right direction, as I hope other Christians would correct me and push me in the right direction when I fail.

PDN · 09-07-2008 11:28PM

Jakkass wrote: »

In approach there is a different way to do it. Yes we should recognise that the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the child abuse scandals are vile and horrific crimes that are repugnant to Scripture, but at the same time we should be there as Christian brothers and sisters to influence the Catholic Church positively rather than negatively. Yes we should state that their behaviour when it is indeed wrong does not represent Christianity, offering an alternative view to Catholic believers, and to push them in the right direction, as I hope other Christians would correct me and push me in the right direction when I fail.

Jakkass, that is true, and I think we should be able to recognise that the Catholic Church has changed enormously. However, that is difficult when Catholics want to wear their past as a badge of honour.

I think it would be wrong to be bitter against Catholicism for its past persecution of dissidents. However, it is a bit galling when we read posters insisting that the persecutors were part of the apostolic succession who preserved the truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit while those who were persecuted were 'heretics'.

santing · 10-07-2008 12:38AM

kelly1 wrote: »

Really, have you read their writings extensively? And what if they did disagree? What would that prove? Opinion is always fallible.

In our opinion, it doesn't matter. However, the Romanist Church is build on the perception that the so-called Fathers always declared the same doctrine - which they didn't

kelly1 wrote: »

The point I'm making is that there is a consistency in the writings about confession, ordination the Eucharist etc. And I'm asking why do people reject this evidence that tradition was a fundamental part of the early Church.

Nonsense. There is no consistency. There are selected quotes in the New Catechism, but that is equal to a diliberate deception.

Again look at the Celtic Church. After romanism was introduced - in official history a "reformation" of the Church in Ireland - there were new rules for ordinations, new rules for confessions, and all churches needed some work so they could host the host - you can actually see that the tabernacles are later additions to churches predating 1100.

Why was this? because the CEltic Church had no notion of these things - they are later (post 500 AD) additions to Romanism.

kelly1 · 10-07-2008 10:36AM

PDN wrote: »

To be fair, most of the attention given to the RCC on boards.ie is at Noel's own invitation. He does have a habit of starting threads that demand to know why we all don't admit that the RCC is the only true Church and that the rest of us are deluded heretics. Then, when we don't give him the answers he would like to hear, it is persecution against the RCC.

I'm not demanding anything. I'm trying to have a rational and respectful debate. In all these debates, time and time again I see insults launched at the CC. My only reason for starting these threads is to attempt to show that the Catholic Church is the same Church founded by Christ. I'm also trying to combat the numerous myths being propagated about the Church. There are so many mis-understandings and lies being told and they tend to become generally accepted with repetition e.g. Constantines paganization of the Church. I believe the Church is constantly being portrayed, often unfairly, in a negative light. I think many people are only too happy to propagate negativity towards the Church and will repeat the lies and misunderstandings without having made any effort to find out what the Church actually teaches or whether historians might have had a bias against the Church. The Church has no shortage of enemies.

kelly1 · 10-07-2008 10:50AM

PDN wrote: »

Jakkass, that is true, and I think we should be able to recognise that the Catholic Church has changed enormously. However, that is difficult when Catholics want to wear their past as a badge of honour.

I don't think any Catholics wear the Church's past crimes as a badge of honour!

PDN wrote: »

However, it is a bit galling when we read posters insisting that the persecutors were part of the apostolic succession who preserved the truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit while those who were persecuted were 'heretics'.

Are you really comfortable with the idea that the truth is somehow scattered among the various disunited churches? Are you not concerned that there is no authority on earth with the competence to settle disputes over doctrine? I certainly wouldn't be!

kelly1 · 10-07-2008 10:54AM

Am I the only one here who cringes at clearly derogatory terms like "Romanism" and "Romanist Church"?

PDN · 10-07-2008 10:55AM

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't think any Catholics wear the Church's past crimes as a badge of honour!

Are you really comfortable with the idea that the truth is somehow scattered among the various disunited churches? Are you not concerned that there is no authority on earth with the competence to settle disputes over doctrine? I certainly wouldn't be!

Very comfortable indeed. I think it provides a wonderful protection against tyrants.

robindch · 10-07-2008 10:55AM

kelly1 wrote: »

The Church has no shortage of enemies.

Indeed, it doesn't -- but have you considered that there may be good reasons for disliking the organization?

philologos · 10-07-2008 11:01AM

kelly1 wrote: »

Are you really comfortable with the idea that the truth is somehow scattered among the various disunited churches? Are you not concerned that there is no authority on earth with the competence to settle disputes over doctrine? I certainly wouldn't be!

I'm comfortable with the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is not the sole bearer of Christian truth, yes.

kelly1 · 10-07-2008 11:25AM

robindch wrote: »

Indeed, it doesn't -- but have you considered that there may be good reasons for disliking the organization?

Even if the Church hadn't committed the various crimes over the years, it would still be hated (but not as much).

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm comfortable with the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is not the sole bearer of Christian truth, yes.

Other churches of course teach truth but also error. e.g. any church which teaches that baptism has no sacramental value is teaching error.

Run_to_da_hills · 10-07-2008 11:38AM

kelly1 wrote: »

Even if the Church hadn't committed the various crimes over the years, it would still be hated (but not as much).

Other churches of course teach truth but also error. e.g. any church which teaches that baptism has no sacramental value is teaching error.

Infant sprinkling baptism is not a Scriptural doctrine. It is not found in the Bible. There is not one example in the Bible of one single baby being baptized. Baby baptism is of pagan origin and only gets the babys head wet!!. As it was said before Infant Baptism is responsible for sending more people to hell than ANY other religious error. It is a dreadful thing to baptize a baby and let him grow up believing that by that baptism he has been saved and is on his way to heaven.

All babies and children do not understand what baptism is about, they are forced into this ritual without concent of course below the age of accountability. The only reason the RC has infant baptism is because it looks good on their books. Ie 1.2 Billion members.

philologos · 10-07-2008 11:43AM

kelly1 wrote: »

Other churches of course teach truth but also error. e.g. any church which teaches that baptism has no sacramental value is teaching error.

Hm, I also believe in sacramental worship in that baptism is an outward physical sign (water) of an inward physical motion (new life in the Christian faith). It makes sense. I wonder if any others would hold that view?

robindch · 10-07-2008 11:50AM

kelly1 wrote: »

Even if the Church hadn't committed the various crimes over the years, it would still be hated (but not as much).

If the church didn't have the baleful influence it has in society, was less secretive, homophobic, misogynistic and arrogant and unambiguously placed improving society and the lives of its members above improving itself, then people wouldn't dislike it as much as they do. Its attitude to itself and everybody else really does not do it many favors.

kelly1 · 10-07-2008 11:52AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Infant sprinkling baptism is not a Scriptural doctrine. It is not found in the Bible. There is not one example in the Bible of one single baby being baptized. Baby baptism is of pagan origin and only gets the babys head wet!!. As it was said before Infant Baptism is responsible for sending more people to hell than ANY other religious error. It is a dreadful thing to baptize a baby and let him grow up believing that by that baptism he has been saved and is on his way to heaven.

All babies and children do not understand what baptism is about, they are forced into this ritual without concent of course below the age of accountability. The only reason the RC has infant baptism is because it looks good on their books. Ie 1.2 Billion members.

Acts 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In light of this verse, can you honestly deny that baptism remits sin? The Early Church Fathers also taught that baptims remits sin. What more evidence do you need?

philologos · 10-07-2008 11:54AM

In Acts 16, didn't the jailer and all of his family get baptized when Paul and Silas were in prison? Surely some children would have got baptized in that instance?

JimiTime · 10-07-2008 12:03PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Other churches of course teach truth but also error. e.g. any church which teaches that baptism has no sacramental value is teaching error.

So the Catholic church has NEVER taught anything erroneous?

Run_to_da_hills · 10-07-2008 12:28PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Acts 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In light of this verse, can you honestly deny that baptism remits sin? The Early Church Fathers also taught that baptims remits sin. What more evidence do you need?

According to the Authorised and New International versions the Buzz word is "Repent" and not "penance", ie "works" two entirely different words that will completly throw this verse out of context. Maybe some Greek / Hebrew scholors can get to the root of it.

Repent is mentioned in several other verses as the necessity for salvation. Babies cannot repent because they have not reached the age of reason. Baptism comes after repentance never before.

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luke 13:5

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,
when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Acts 3:19

Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the
thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. Acts 8:22

kelly1 · 10-07-2008 12:55PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to the Authorised and New International versions the Buzz word is "Repent" and not "penance", ie "works" two entirely different words that will completly throw this verse out of context. Maybe some Greek / Hebrew scholors can get to the root of it.

Repent is mentioned in several other verses as the necessity for salvation. Babies cannot repent because they have not reached the age of reason. Baptism comes after repentance never before.

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luke 13:5

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,
when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Acts 3:19

Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the
thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. Acts 8:22

I never said penance is what remits sin. I agree penance is necessary before baptism but only for those above the age of reason!

Acts 2:38 clearly says that baptims remits sin! That's the logical interpretation. Penance is secondary.

Tradition and the Early Church Fathers...

Comments