GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Re: CHURCHES  (Read 19749 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Beta

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Manna: 126
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 05:57:15 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

I'm afraid that the early church fathers you refer to were not endowed with the Hs since they had quite a different agenda from the original Apostles who were persecuted and killed.
One only receives the Holy Spirit if one is prepared to obey God and the RCC have never been obedient to the Word of God as was evident in their change of God's Sabbath to sunday only a short time after setting themselves in the place of God.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: CHURCHES
« on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 05:57:15 »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #1 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 10:35:15 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

I'm afraid that the early church fathers you refer to were not endowed with the Hs since they had quite a different agenda from the original Apostles who were persecuted and killed.
One only receives the Holy Spirit if one is prepared to obey God and the RCC have never been obedient to the Word of God as was evident in their change of God's Sabbath to sunday only a short time after setting themselves in the place of God.

You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #1 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 10:35:15 »

Online Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
  • Manna: 72
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #2 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 10:57:48 »

   Lighthammer, you wrote: "You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus. "
______

   And the RCC, once it became a seat of power, persecuted hundreds of thousands who refused to bow their knees to the Pope. The RCC sought to capture and kill one of our greatest reformers, Martin Luther. This is history, not hear-say.

Buff

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #3 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 11:19:10 »

   Lighthammer, you wrote: "You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus. "
______

   And the RCC, once it became a seat of power, persecuted hundreds of thousands who refused to bow their knees to the Pope. The RCC sought to capture and kill one of our greatest reformers, Martin Luther. This is history, not hear-say.

Buff


You do realize that Martin Luther also persecuted Jews and Anabpatist without mercy right? The same with Calvin.

That is also history and not hear-say.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #3 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 11:19:10 »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #4 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 11:23:31 »

   Lighthammer, you wrote: "You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus. "
______

   And the RCC, once it became a seat of power, persecuted hundreds of thousands who refused to bow their knees to the Pope. The RCC sought to capture and kill one of our greatest reformers, Martin Luther. This is history, not hear-say.

Buff

You do also realize that your Reformation Fathers disagreed on major tenets of Christian faith? The only thing they had in common was their hatred for my Church which they didn't really condemn until after we kicked them out.

More history and not here-say.


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #4 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 11:23:31 »



Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #5 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 11:39:31 »

   Lighthammer, you wrote: "You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus. "
______

   And the RCC, once it became a seat of power, persecuted hundreds of thousands who refused to bow their knees to the Pope. The RCC sought to capture and kill one of our greatest reformers, Martin Luther. This is history, not hear-say.

Buff

You do also realize that your Reformation Fathers disagreed on major tenets of Christian faith? The only thing they had in common was their hatred for my Church which they didn't really condemn until after we kicked them out.

More history and not here-say.



Nevertheless the history you cite and the history we cite has one distinct difference...

Most denominations do not claim to be THE ONE SINGLE human institution started by Christ as if there is literally one Visible Church

As you have been informed on numerous occasions to no avail

The One True Church is The Invisible Church

The Body of Believers, whom The Lord Himself considers His Body, whom He alone only knows

As Buff alluded to

That would include believers from every sect and denomination

And also includes those who belong to no denomination as Paul  pointed out in
Romans 2:14-16

For indeed some will die not having the opportunity to accept or reject Jesus and they will only be judged on the basis of their hearts

Bottom line, RCC, One Church bit is getting a little stale more importantly its a blatant untruth


Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #6 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 11:58:21 »

   Lighthammer, you wrote: "You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus. "
______

   And the RCC, once it became a seat of power, persecuted hundreds of thousands who refused to bow their knees to the Pope. The RCC sought to capture and kill one of our greatest reformers, Martin Luther. This is history, not hear-say.

Buff

You do also realize that your Reformation Fathers disagreed on major tenets of Christian faith? The only thing they had in common was their hatred for my Church which they didn't really condemn until after we kicked them out.

More history and not here-say.



Nevertheless the history you cite and the history we cite has one distinct difference...

Most denominations do not claim to be THE ONE SINGLE human institution started by Christ as if there is literally one Visible Church

As you have been informed on numerous occasions to no avail

The One True Church is The Invisible Church

The Body of Believers, whom The Lord Himself considers His Body, whom He alone only knows

As Buff alluded to

That would include believers from every sect and denomination

And also includes those who belong to no denomination as Paul  pointed out in
Romans 2:14-16

For indeed some will die not having the opportunity to accept or reject Jesus and they will only be judged on the basis of their hearts

Bottom line, RCC, One Church bit is getting a little stale more importantly its a blatant untruth



I know of no Christian community today that claims that the One True Church is an exclusively visible community. That's certainly not what my Church teaches now or ever.

So you're really loosing me here.

LH you lose many of us when you start claiming the Catholic Church is the True Church and the rest of us are part of a rebellion against the succession of leaders God set in place.

That is the genesis of your retort against Luther early in the thread is it not?

Now if I'm making that up, I'll gladly stand corrected but I am pretty sure you have stated one version of what I just stated at various points of your tenure in this forum....have you not?

Please correct me if I am wrong


Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #7 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 12:15:56 »

   Lighthammer, you wrote: "You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus. "
______

   And the RCC, once it became a seat of power, persecuted hundreds of thousands who refused to bow their knees to the Pope. The RCC sought to capture and kill one of our greatest reformers, Martin Luther. This is history, not hear-say.

Buff

You do also realize that your Reformation Fathers disagreed on major tenets of Christian faith? The only thing they had in common was their hatred for my Church which they didn't really condemn until after we kicked them out.

More history and not here-say.



Nevertheless the history you cite and the history we cite has one distinct difference...

Most denominations do not claim to be THE ONE SINGLE human institution started by Christ as if there is literally one Visible Church

As you have been informed on numerous occasions to no avail

The One True Church is The Invisible Church

The Body of Believers, whom The Lord Himself considers His Body, whom He alone only knows

As Buff alluded to

That would include believers from every sect and denomination

And also includes those who belong to no denomination as Paul  pointed out in
Romans 2:14-16

For indeed some will die not having the opportunity to accept or reject Jesus and they will only be judged on the basis of their hearts

Bottom line, RCC, One Church bit is getting a little stale more importantly its a blatant untruth



I know of no Christian community today that claims that the One True Church is an exclusively visible community. That's certainly not what my Church teaches now or ever.

So you're really loosing me here.

LH you lose many of us when you start claiming the Catholic Church is the True Church and the rest of us are part of a rebellion against the succession of leaders God set in place.

That is the genesis of your retort against Luther early in the thread is it not?

Now if I'm making that up, I'll gladly stand corrected but I am pretty sure you have stated one version of what I just stated at various points of your tenure in this forum....have you not?

Please correct me if I am wrong



Yea no idea what you're talking about.

My opposition towards Martin Luther is based on the simple fact that he's a heretic. He had a completely false definition of "Faith" and altered the Book of St. James to support such and that was only after he didn't have the means to effectively remove the Book of St. James from Sacred Scripture altogether.

He tried to stunt like he was Sola Scriptura but created his own canon of "disputed" books of the Bible.

People try to act like he was a champion against corruption when he literally had a slaughter fest against the Anabaptist and led state-ran campaigns against Jews.

I have no issues with reforming the Church. One of my favorite Christians is St. Francis of Assisi. He was believed to be given a holy vocation by God Himself to reform the Catholic Church. When he presented his ministry the Pope fell in line behind it. Now there are millions of Franciscan priests staying away from worldly issues who are basically acting as our Internal Affairs.

So reformation is not something I fear or resist. I'm just not some slave to influence. Martin Luther was no more someone to be idolized that the corrupt clergy of my past.

I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the One True Church.  Of course there's only one Church. It has its ranks on Earth and in Heaven. Water baptism (whatever you may believe about) is how people were initiated into that Body of Christ. The divisions we gather under are matters of orthodoxy not necessarily membership in the Body of Christ.

I believe wholeheartedly that you are a member of the Church/ Body of Christ and any other Protestant who is baptized properly and faithful to Christ as He directs. I do wish you receive the sacraments because I believe Christ gave them to us as a way for us to take Him in for nourishment more fully. That doesn't mean you're not apart of the Church only that you're missing out on something really helpful to our Christian lives.

Like I said I have no idea what you think we believe but I imagine its totally different from what we really believe.

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #8 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 12:37:44 »

   Lighthammer, you wrote: "You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus. "
______

   And the RCC, once it became a seat of power, persecuted hundreds of thousands who refused to bow their knees to the Pope. The RCC sought to capture and kill one of our greatest reformers, Martin Luther. This is history, not hear-say.

Buff

You do also realize that your Reformation Fathers disagreed on major tenets of Christian faith? The only thing they had in common was their hatred for my Church which they didn't really condemn until after we kicked them out.

More history and not here-say.



Nevertheless the history you cite and the history we cite has one distinct difference...

Most denominations do not claim to be THE ONE SINGLE human institution started by Christ as if there is literally one Visible Church

As you have been informed on numerous occasions to no avail

The One True Church is The Invisible Church

The Body of Believers, whom The Lord Himself considers His Body, whom He alone only knows

As Buff alluded to

That would include believers from every sect and denomination

And also includes those who belong to no denomination as Paul  pointed out in
Romans 2:14-16

For indeed some will die not having the opportunity to accept or reject Jesus and they will only be judged on the basis of their hearts

Bottom line, RCC, One Church bit is getting a little stale more importantly its a blatant untruth



I know of no Christian community today that claims that the One True Church is an exclusively visible community. That's certainly not what my Church teaches now or ever.

So you're really loosing me here.

LH you lose many of us when you start claiming the Catholic Church is the True Church and the rest of us are part of a rebellion against the succession of leaders God set in place.

That is the genesis of your retort against Luther early in the thread is it not?

Now if I'm making that up, I'll gladly stand corrected but I am pretty sure you have stated one version of what I just stated at various points of your tenure in this forum....have you not?

Please correct me if I am wrong



Yea no idea what you're talking about.

My opposition towards Martin Luther is based on the simple fact that he's a heretic. He had a completely false definition of "Faith" and altered the Book of St. James to support such and that was only after he didn't have the means to effectively remove the Book of St. James from Sacred Scripture altogether.

He tried to stunt like he was Sola Scriptura but created his own canon of "disputed" books of the Bible.

People try to act like he was a champion against corruption when he literally had a slaughter fest against the Anabaptist and led state-ran campaigns against Jews.

I have no issues with reforming the Church. One of my favorite Christians is St. Francis of Assisi. He was believed to be given a holy vocation by God Himself to reform the Catholic Church. When he presented his ministry the Pope fell in line behind it. Now there are millions of Franciscan priests staying away from worldly issues who are basically acting as our Internal Affairs.

So reformation is not something I fear or resist. I'm just not some slave to influence. Martin Luther was no more someone to be idolized that the corrupt clergy of my past.

I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the One True Church.  Of course there's only one Church. It has its ranks on Earth and in Heaven. Water baptism (whatever you may believe about) is how people were initiated into that Body of Christ. The divisions we gather under are matters of orthodoxy not necessarily membership in the Body of Christ.

I believe wholeheartedly that you are a member of the Church/ Body of Christ and any other Protestant who is baptized properly and faithful to Christ as He directs. I do wish you receive the sacraments because I believe Christ gave them to us as a way for us to take Him in for nourishment more fully. That doesn't mean you're not apart of the Church only that you're missing out on something really helpful to our Christian lives.

Like I said I have no idea what you think we believe but I imagine its totally different from what we really believe.

You've made some good points and provided some clarity

However

Thank God for Martin Luther because despite his inadequacies and weaknesses God used him to correct the wrongs of the past leaders of your church which had the Body of Christ on a totally corrupt course in terms of corrupt religious practices, erroneous interpretation of scripture and the stronghold of oppression and abuse they wielded over the common man through various and sundry insidious tactics that are well documented

So was Luther perfect saint...of course not

But neither was Moses, Samson, David or Solomon

And they are literally patriarchs

Though Luther is not, the pattern holds that God does not use perfect people to achieve His purposes

When God wanted perfection in a man

He Himself came in the form of a man


Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #9 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 12:48:49 »

   Lighthammer, you wrote: "You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus. "
______

   And the RCC, once it became a seat of power, persecuted hundreds of thousands who refused to bow their knees to the Pope. The RCC sought to capture and kill one of our greatest reformers, Martin Luther. This is history, not hear-say.

Buff

You do also realize that your Reformation Fathers disagreed on major tenets of Christian faith? The only thing they had in common was their hatred for my Church which they didn't really condemn until after we kicked them out.

More history and not here-say.



Nevertheless the history you cite and the history we cite has one distinct difference...

Most denominations do not claim to be THE ONE SINGLE human institution started by Christ as if there is literally one Visible Church

As you have been informed on numerous occasions to no avail

The One True Church is The Invisible Church

The Body of Believers, whom The Lord Himself considers His Body, whom He alone only knows

As Buff alluded to

That would include believers from every sect and denomination

And also includes those who belong to no denomination as Paul  pointed out in
Romans 2:14-16

For indeed some will die not having the opportunity to accept or reject Jesus and they will only be judged on the basis of their hearts

Bottom line, RCC, One Church bit is getting a little stale more importantly its a blatant untruth



I know of no Christian community today that claims that the One True Church is an exclusively visible community. That's certainly not what my Church teaches now or ever.

So you're really loosing me here.

LH you lose many of us when you start claiming the Catholic Church is the True Church and the rest of us are part of a rebellion against the succession of leaders God set in place.

That is the genesis of your retort against Luther early in the thread is it not?

Now if I'm making that up, I'll gladly stand corrected but I am pretty sure you have stated one version of what I just stated at various points of your tenure in this forum....have you not?

Please correct me if I am wrong



Yea no idea what you're talking about.

My opposition towards Martin Luther is based on the simple fact that he's a heretic. He had a completely false definition of "Faith" and altered the Book of St. James to support such and that was only after he didn't have the means to effectively remove the Book of St. James from Sacred Scripture altogether.

He tried to stunt like he was Sola Scriptura but created his own canon of "disputed" books of the Bible.

People try to act like he was a champion against corruption when he literally had a slaughter fest against the Anabaptist and led state-ran campaigns against Jews.

I have no issues with reforming the Church. One of my favorite Christians is St. Francis of Assisi. He was believed to be given a holy vocation by God Himself to reform the Catholic Church. When he presented his ministry the Pope fell in line behind it. Now there are millions of Franciscan priests staying away from worldly issues who are basically acting as our Internal Affairs.

So reformation is not something I fear or resist. I'm just not some slave to influence. Martin Luther was no more someone to be idolized that the corrupt clergy of my past.

I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the One True Church.  Of course there's only one Church. It has its ranks on Earth and in Heaven. Water baptism (whatever you may believe about) is how people were initiated into that Body of Christ. The divisions we gather under are matters of orthodoxy not necessarily membership in the Body of Christ.

I believe wholeheartedly that you are a member of the Church/ Body of Christ and any other Protestant who is baptized properly and faithful to Christ as He directs. I do wish you receive the sacraments because I believe Christ gave them to us as a way for us to take Him in for nourishment more fully. That doesn't mean you're not apart of the Church only that you're missing out on something really helpful to our Christian lives.

Like I said I have no idea what you think we believe but I imagine its totally different from what we really believe.

You've made some good points and provided some clarity

However

Thank God for Martin Luther because despite his inadequacies and weaknesses God used him to correct the wrongs of the past leaders of your church which had the Body of Christ on a totally corrupt course in terms of corrupt religious practices, erroneous interpretation of scripture and the stronghold of oppression and abuse they wielded over the common man through various and sundry insidious tactics that are well documented

So was Luther perfect saint...of course not

But neither was Moses, Samson, David or Solomon

And they are literally patriarchs

Though Luther is not, the pattern holds that God does not use perfect people to achieve His purposes

When God wanted perfection in a man

He Himself came in the form of a man



Martin Luther honestly provided nothing altering to Christianity. His entire impact on history is rooted not on theology but on really politics. Martin Luther helped put an end to the papal state and he wasn't the first or the most influence. King Henry, Queen Elizabeth and of course Napoleon are way way more responsible for the fall of temporal Christianity.

While people like to act like there were no Bibles in western vernaculars, the truth is there were over a 1000 Bibles in the German language alone and they all predate Martin Luther's birth. There were Bibles in English going back to St. Bede. So we can all stunt like Martin Luther was some sort of great champion over corruption but try and tell that the Jews and the Anabaptist who's bodies lie barren and destitute by the hands of the armies he commanded.

Yea fall for that stuff if you want. I'll pass.   

Offline Swiss_Guard

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Male
  • Global Immoderator
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #10 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 13:31:52 »

   Lighthammer, you wrote: "You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus. "
______

   And the RCC, once it became a seat of power, persecuted hundreds of thousands who refused to bow their knees to the Pope. The RCC sought to capture and kill one of our greatest reformers, Martin Luther. This is history, not hear-say.

Buff
As I started reading this thread, I was thinking "I wonder how the Protestants are going to turn this topic into an attack on the Catholic Church?" I knew you'd manage it somehow; after all, constantly ranting about the RCC is basically all there is to Protestantism in a nutshell.

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #11 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 13:38:20 »

   Lighthammer, you wrote: "You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus. "
______

   And the RCC, once it became a seat of power, persecuted hundreds of thousands who refused to bow their knees to the Pope. The RCC sought to capture and kill one of our greatest reformers, Martin Luther. This is history, not hear-say.

Buff
As I started reading this thread, I was thinking "I wonder how the Protestants are going to turn this topic into an attack on the Catholic Church?" I knew you'd manage it somehow; after all, constantly ranting about the RCC is basically all there is to Protestantism in a nutshell.

You should probably go back and reread the thread to see how Catholicism was introduced into the conversation

After doing so .....

re-read your own last sentence


Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #12 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 13:49:23 »

   Lighthammer, you wrote: "You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus. "
______

   And the RCC, once it became a seat of power, persecuted hundreds of thousands who refused to bow their knees to the Pope. The RCC sought to capture and kill one of our greatest reformers, Martin Luther. This is history, not hear-say.

Buff
As I started reading this thread, I was thinking "I wonder how the Protestants are going to turn this topic into an attack on the Catholic Church?" I knew you'd manage it somehow; after all, constantly ranting about the RCC is basically all there is to Protestantism in a nutshell.

You should probably go back and reread the thread to see how Catholicism was introduced into the conversation

After doing so .....

re-read your own last sentence



You should try it too. Just a thought.

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #13 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 13:56:09 »

   Lighthammer, you wrote: "You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus. "
______

   And the RCC, once it became a seat of power, persecuted hundreds of thousands who refused to bow their knees to the Pope. The RCC sought to capture and kill one of our greatest reformers, Martin Luther. This is history, not hear-say.

Buff
As I started reading this thread, I was thinking "I wonder how the Protestants are going to turn this topic into an attack on the Catholic Church?" I knew you'd manage it somehow; after all, constantly ranting about the RCC is basically all there is to Protestantism in a nutshell.

You should probably go back and reread the thread to see how Catholicism was introduced into the conversation

After doing so .....

re-read your own last sentence



You should try it too. Just a thought.

Just a suggestion LH but while you were having that thought did you think to re-read your initial posts in this thread?

 

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #14 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 14:12:41 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column:  

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




It is my understanding the the word "Roman" in Roman Catholic was used as a slur, starting around the mid 1500's by the Anglican Church in England. Before that, we were known as the Western Rite of Christianity as opposed to the Eastern or Orthodox Rite, the result of the "Great Schism" in 1054 that broke apart the one universal (Catholic) Christian Church.

It was not just a spiritual entity, but a physical one as well with Church buildings and centers of learning called monasteries etc. Do you mean there were others that existed before the "Greast Schism" that had as much of an impact on the formulation of basic Christian doctrine as the heretofore mentioned one universal  (Catholic) Christian Church?
« Last Edit: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 14:19:17 by Ladonia »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #15 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 14:20:46 »

   Lighthammer, you wrote: "You do realize that every ECF for 400 years were persecuted and killed in the same manner as the Apostles. Some of them even knew the Apostles, like my personal favorite St. Ignatius of Antioch. Then there's some ECF's who are even mentioned in Sacred Scripture like the second Pope, St. Linus. "
______

   And the RCC, once it became a seat of power, persecuted hundreds of thousands who refused to bow their knees to the Pope. The RCC sought to capture and kill one of our greatest reformers, Martin Luther. This is history, not hear-say.

Buff
As I started reading this thread, I was thinking "I wonder how the Protestants are going to turn this topic into an attack on the Catholic Church?" I knew you'd manage it somehow; after all, constantly ranting about the RCC is basically all there is to Protestantism in a nutshell.

You should probably go back and reread the thread to see how Catholicism was introduced into the conversation

After doing so .....

re-read your own last sentence



You should try it too. Just a thought.

Just a suggestion LH but while you were having that thought did you think to re-read your initial posts in this thread?

 

Of course.

Did you happen to read where I was not the first to mention anything about the Catholic Church? No Catholic was actually.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #16 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 14:40:55 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column: 

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.

"Roman" Catholic was initially meant to distinguish between race and/or region. For example Maronite Catholics. Alexandrian Catholics etc.

If we were to use the title in its Early Church, I would be an African American Catholic. Nowadays the name has developed to mean those who are in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #17 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 14:56:42 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column: 

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.

"Roman" Catholic was initially meant to distinguish between race and/or region. For example Maronite Catholics. Alexandrian Catholics etc.

If we were to use the title in its Early Church, I would be an African American Catholic. Nowadays the name has developed to mean those who are in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome.

Isn't that splitting hairs somewhat?

None of that changes the fact that the affairs of the church were directed from Rome as they are to this day

Right or wrong?

Not exactly. Until the Great Schism each region of Christianity was pretty much autonomous in the way it was governed. While the See of Rome was regarded as the senior among the other churches, practices and even canons of the Bible varied on different regions.

Rome didn't sit as like the overlord holding absolute power throughout Christianity. The Greek Patriarch ran oversaw the Greek Churches. The Syrian Patriarch oversaw Syria. Rome ran all of the western churches which was basically Europe. Alexandria ran all Africa which was only like northeast and the Horn.

Even today the Pope of Rome doesn't direct everything in the Church. The Archbishop really runs the show in his region. The Pope heads the college of Bishops.

So no its not that cut n' dry.

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #18 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 15:02:43 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column: 

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.

"Roman" Catholic was initially meant to distinguish between race and/or region. For example Maronite Catholics. Alexandrian Catholics etc.

If we were to use the title in its Early Church, I would be an African American Catholic. Nowadays the name has developed to mean those who are in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome.

Isn't that splitting hairs somewhat?

None of that changes the fact that the affairs of the church were directed from Rome as they are to this day

Right or wrong?

Not exactly. Until the Great Schism each region of Christianity was pretty much autonomous in the way it was governed. While the See of Rome was regarded as the senior among the other churches, practices and even canons of the Bible varied on different regions.

Rome didn't sit as like the overlord holding absolute power throughout Christianity. The Greek Patriarch ran oversaw the Greek Churches. The Syrian Patriarch oversaw Syria. Rome ran all of the western churches which was basically Europe. Alexandria ran all Africa which was only like northeast and the Horn.

Even today the Pope of Rome doesn't direct everything in the Church. The Archbishop really runs the show in his region. The Pope heads the college of Bishops.

So no its not that cut n' dry.

But the Pope in Rome does set overall theological policy within the worldwide Church, correct? And in the years past, wasn't Rome the arbiter of the many councils and synods that had occured within the Church?

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #19 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 15:14:47 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column:  

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.

"Roman" Catholic was initially meant to distinguish between race and/or region. For example Maronite Catholics. Alexandrian Catholics etc.

If we were to use the title in its Early Church, I would be an African American Catholic. Nowadays the name has developed to mean those who are in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome.

Isn't that splitting hairs somewhat?

None of that changes the fact that the affairs of the church were directed from Rome as they are to this day

Right or wrong?

Not exactly. Until the Great Schism each region of Christianity was pretty much autonomous in the way it was governed. While the See of Rome was regarded as the senior among the other churches, practices and even canons of the Bible varied on different regions.

Rome didn't sit as like the overlord holding absolute power throughout Christianity. The Greek Patriarch ran oversaw the Greek Churches. The Syrian Patriarch oversaw Syria. Rome ran all of the western churches which was basically Europe. Alexandria ran all Africa which was only like northeast and the Horn.

Even today the Pope of Rome doesn't direct everything in the Church. The Archbishop really runs the show in his region. The Pope heads the college of Bishops.

So no its not that cut n' dry.

But the Pope in Rome does set overall theological policy within the worldwide Church, correct? And in the years past, wasn't Rome the arbiter of the many councils and synods that had occured within the Church?

Not usually unilaterally. It's actually kind of rare for a Pope to speak ex cathedra in that way. Most of our dogmatic definitions come from ecumenical councils. Synods are usually regional and handle regional matters.

Wait are you talking about policy as in like the prohibition of masonry and artificial contraception policy or something else?

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #20 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 17:08:37 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column:  

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.

"Roman" Catholic was initially meant to distinguish between race and/or region. For example Maronite Catholics. Alexandrian Catholics etc.

If we were to use the title in its Early Church, I would be an African American Catholic. Nowadays the name has developed to mean those who are in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome.

Isn't that splitting hairs somewhat?

None of that changes the fact that the affairs of the church were directed from Rome as they are to this day

Right or wrong?

Not exactly. Until the Great Schism each region of Christianity was pretty much autonomous in the way it was governed. While the See of Rome was regarded as the senior among the other churches, practices and even canons of the Bible varied on different regions.

Rome didn't sit as like the overlord holding absolute power throughout Christianity. The Greek Patriarch ran oversaw the Greek Churches. The Syrian Patriarch oversaw Syria. Rome ran all of the western churches which was basically Europe. Alexandria ran all Africa which was only like northeast and the Horn.

Even today the Pope of Rome doesn't direct everything in the Church. The Archbishop really runs the show in his region. The Pope heads the college of Bishops.

So no its not that cut n' dry.

But the Pope in Rome does set overall theological policy within the worldwide Church, correct? And in the years past, wasn't Rome the arbiter of the many councils and synods that had occured within the Church?

Not usually unilaterally. It's actually kind of rare for a Pope to speak ex cathedra in that way. Most of our dogmatic definitions come from ecumenical councils. Synods are usually regional and handle regional matters.

Wait are you talking about policy as in like the prohibition of masonry and artificial contraception policy or something else?


How about simply .....the Vatican is the head of the Catholic Church like everyone on planet earth already knows!

Why do you play around with the facts like that?


Geesh  ::doh::

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #21 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 17:27:20 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column:  

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.

"Roman" Catholic was initially meant to distinguish between race and/or region. For example Maronite Catholics. Alexandrian Catholics etc.

If we were to use the title in its Early Church, I would be an African American Catholic. Nowadays the name has developed to mean those who are in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome.

Isn't that splitting hairs somewhat?

None of that changes the fact that the affairs of the church were directed from Rome as they are to this day

Right or wrong?

Not exactly. Until the Great Schism each region of Christianity was pretty much autonomous in the way it was governed. While the See of Rome was regarded as the senior among the other churches, practices and even canons of the Bible varied on different regions.

Rome didn't sit as like the overlord holding absolute power throughout Christianity. The Greek Patriarch ran oversaw the Greek Churches. The Syrian Patriarch oversaw Syria. Rome ran all of the western churches which was basically Europe. Alexandria ran all Africa which was only like northeast and the Horn.

Even today the Pope of Rome doesn't direct everything in the Church. The Archbishop really runs the show in his region. The Pope heads the college of Bishops.

So no its not that cut n' dry.

But the Pope in Rome does set overall theological policy within the worldwide Church, correct? And in the years past, wasn't Rome the arbiter of the many councils and synods that had occured within the Church?

Not usually unilaterally. It's actually kind of rare for a Pope to speak ex cathedra in that way. Most of our dogmatic definitions come from ecumenical councils. Synods are usually regional and handle regional matters.

Wait are you talking about policy as in like the prohibition of masonry and artificial contraception policy or something else?


 LH, I know you talked about the synods being regional, but I found this information from New Advent encyclepedia that might tend to show that Rome did have a role in dealing with, in this case, the African Church.

....These records show how the close relations between Africa and Rome were several times troubled during the course of five centuries. The baptismal controversy put the Church into a state of passive resistance to Rome. In the Synod of September, 256, St. Cyprian was placed in a painful dilemma. While maintaining the right of bishops to think for themselves, he still clung to the necessity of unity in the Church, and would not break the revered bond with Rome. Again, early in the fifth century, the appeal to Rome of Apiarius, a deposed priest, stirred up strong feeling among the African bishops, and appeals of priests and laics "over sea" (to Rome) were forbidden in the Synod of 418. Legates came from Rome to adjust the difference......

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #22 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 17:46:30 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column:  

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.

"Roman" Catholic was initially meant to distinguish between race and/or region. For example Maronite Catholics. Alexandrian Catholics etc.

If we were to use the title in its Early Church, I would be an African American Catholic. Nowadays the name has developed to mean those who are in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome.

Isn't that splitting hairs somewhat?

None of that changes the fact that the affairs of the church were directed from Rome as they are to this day

Right or wrong?

Not exactly. Until the Great Schism each region of Christianity was pretty much autonomous in the way it was governed. While the See of Rome was regarded as the senior among the other churches, practices and even canons of the Bible varied on different regions.

Rome didn't sit as like the overlord holding absolute power throughout Christianity. The Greek Patriarch ran oversaw the Greek Churches. The Syrian Patriarch oversaw Syria. Rome ran all of the western churches which was basically Europe. Alexandria ran all Africa which was only like northeast and the Horn.

Even today the Pope of Rome doesn't direct everything in the Church. The Archbishop really runs the show in his region. The Pope heads the college of Bishops.

So no its not that cut n' dry.

But the Pope in Rome does set overall theological policy within the worldwide Church, correct? And in the years past, wasn't Rome the arbiter of the many councils and synods that had occured within the Church?

Not usually unilaterally. It's actually kind of rare for a Pope to speak ex cathedra in that way. Most of our dogmatic definitions come from ecumenical councils. Synods are usually regional and handle regional matters.

Wait are you talking about policy as in like the prohibition of masonry and artificial contraception policy or something else?


 LH, I know you talked about the synods being regional, but I found this information from New Advent encyclepedia that might tend to show that Rome did have a role in dealing with, in this case, the African Church.

....These records show how the close relations between Africa and Rome were several times troubled during the course of five centuries. The baptismal controversy put the Church into a state of passive resistance to Rome. In the Synod of September, 256, St. Cyprian was placed in a painful dilemma. While maintaining the right of bishops to think for themselves, he still clung to the necessity of unity in the Church, and would not break the revered bond with Rome. Again, early in the fifth century, the appeal to Rome of Apiarius, a deposed priest, stirred up strong feeling among the African bishops, and appeals of priests and laics "over sea" (to Rome) were forbidden in the Synod of 418. Legates came from Rome to adjust the difference......

Wow!

Seems like an awful lot of politics to me.....ahm jus sayin  ::shrug::

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #23 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 17:51:44 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

I'm afraid that the early church fathers you refer to were not endowed with the Hs since they had quite a different agenda from the original Apostles who were persecuted and killed.
One only receives the Holy Spirit if one is prepared to obey God and the RCC have never been obedient to the Word of God as was evident in their change of God's Sabbath to sunday only a short time after setting themselves in the place of God.


The receiving of the Holy Spirit is an unconditional act. As was stated in John 20:20 "And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost". They didn't have to do anything, the Holy Spirit just came upon them. I believe that that is the way it happens to all believers.  

It is amazing that you are able to see into the hearts of those who lived in the past and are able to determine whether or not the Holy Spirit is residing in them, or whether or not the Holy Spirit resides in any particular church that espouses Christianity.. Amazing, simply amazing!

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #24 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 18:00:35 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column:  

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.

"Roman" Catholic was initially meant to distinguish between race and/or region. For example Maronite Catholics. Alexandrian Catholics etc.

If we were to use the title in its Early Church, I would be an African American Catholic. Nowadays the name has developed to mean those who are in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome.

Isn't that splitting hairs somewhat?

None of that changes the fact that the affairs of the church were directed from Rome as they are to this day

Right or wrong?

Not exactly. Until the Great Schism each region of Christianity was pretty much autonomous in the way it was governed. While the See of Rome was regarded as the senior among the other churches, practices and even canons of the Bible varied on different regions.

Rome didn't sit as like the overlord holding absolute power throughout Christianity. The Greek Patriarch ran oversaw the Greek Churches. The Syrian Patriarch oversaw Syria. Rome ran all of the western churches which was basically Europe. Alexandria ran all Africa which was only like northeast and the Horn.

Even today the Pope of Rome doesn't direct everything in the Church. The Archbishop really runs the show in his region. The Pope heads the college of Bishops.

So no its not that cut n' dry.

But the Pope in Rome does set overall theological policy within the worldwide Church, correct? And in the years past, wasn't Rome the arbiter of the many councils and synods that had occured within the Church?

Not usually unilaterally. It's actually kind of rare for a Pope to speak ex cathedra in that way. Most of our dogmatic definitions come from ecumenical councils. Synods are usually regional and handle regional matters.

Wait are you talking about policy as in like the prohibition of masonry and artificial contraception policy or something else?


 LH, I know you talked about the synods being regional, but I found this information from New Advent encyclepedia that might tend to show that Rome did have a role in dealing with, in this case, the African Church.

....These records show how the close relations between Africa and Rome were several times troubled during the course of five centuries. The baptismal controversy put the Church into a state of passive resistance to Rome. In the Synod of September, 256, St. Cyprian was placed in a painful dilemma. While maintaining the right of bishops to think for themselves, he still clung to the necessity of unity in the Church, and would not break the revered bond with Rome. Again, early in the fifth century, the appeal to Rome of Apiarius, a deposed priest, stirred up strong feeling among the African bishops, and appeals of priests and laics "over sea" (to Rome) were forbidden in the Synod of 418. Legates came from Rome to adjust the difference......

Wow!

Seems like an awful lot of politics to me.....ahm jus sayin  ::shrug::

Isn't that the way with just about all the church's on this earth? We are after all only human and no matter how much spirituality exists within us, the humaness always seems to comes out. I know I try to take the high spiritual road as I go through life, but my stubburn humanity always seems to seep through that goodness which God has placed inside me. It makes me mad, but I then redouble my efforts to do better.

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #25 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 18:22:42 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column:  

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.

"Roman" Catholic was initially meant to distinguish between race and/or region. For example Maronite Catholics. Alexandrian Catholics etc.

If we were to use the title in its Early Church, I would be an African American Catholic. Nowadays the name has developed to mean those who are in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome.

Isn't that splitting hairs somewhat?

None of that changes the fact that the affairs of the church were directed from Rome as they are to this day

Right or wrong?

Not exactly. Until the Great Schism each region of Christianity was pretty much autonomous in the way it was governed. While the See of Rome was regarded as the senior among the other churches, practices and even canons of the Bible varied on different regions.

Rome didn't sit as like the overlord holding absolute power throughout Christianity. The Greek Patriarch ran oversaw the Greek Churches. The Syrian Patriarch oversaw Syria. Rome ran all of the western churches which was basically Europe. Alexandria ran all Africa which was only like northeast and the Horn.

Even today the Pope of Rome doesn't direct everything in the Church. The Archbishop really runs the show in his region. The Pope heads the college of Bishops.

So no its not that cut n' dry.

But the Pope in Rome does set overall theological policy within the worldwide Church, correct? And in the years past, wasn't Rome the arbiter of the many councils and synods that had occured within the Church?

Not usually unilaterally. It's actually kind of rare for a Pope to speak ex cathedra in that way. Most of our dogmatic definitions come from ecumenical councils. Synods are usually regional and handle regional matters.

Wait are you talking about policy as in like the prohibition of masonry and artificial contraception policy or something else?


 LH, I know you talked about the synods being regional, but I found this information from New Advent encyclepedia that might tend to show that Rome did have a role in dealing with, in this case, the African Church.

....These records show how the close relations between Africa and Rome were several times troubled during the course of five centuries. The baptismal controversy put the Church into a state of passive resistance to Rome. In the Synod of September, 256, St. Cyprian was placed in a painful dilemma. While maintaining the right of bishops to think for themselves, he still clung to the necessity of unity in the Church, and would not break the revered bond with Rome. Again, early in the fifth century, the appeal to Rome of Apiarius, a deposed priest, stirred up strong feeling among the African bishops, and appeals of priests and laics "over sea" (to Rome) were forbidden in the Synod of 418. Legates came from Rome to adjust the difference......

Wow!

Seems like an awful lot of politics to me.....ahm jus sayin  ::shrug::

Isn't that the way with just about all the church's on this earth? We are after all only human and no matter how much spirituality exists within us, the humaness always seems to comes out. I know I try to take the high spiritual road as I go through life, but my stubburn humanity always seems to seep through that goodness which God has placed inside me. It makes me mad, but I then redouble my efforts to do better.

Very little can compare to the amount of politics that exists within the Catholic Church, not only other denominations but some small nations are not as politically driven as the Church in Rome
Seriously  ::shrug::
 

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #26 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 19:23:43 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column:  

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.

"Roman" Catholic was initially meant to distinguish between race and/or region. For example Maronite Catholics. Alexandrian Catholics etc.

If we were to use the title in its Early Church, I would be an African American Catholic. Nowadays the name has developed to mean those who are in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome.

Isn't that splitting hairs somewhat?

None of that changes the fact that the affairs of the church were directed from Rome as they are to this day

Right or wrong?

Not exactly. Until the Great Schism each region of Christianity was pretty much autonomous in the way it was governed. While the See of Rome was regarded as the senior among the other churches, practices and even canons of the Bible varied on different regions.

Rome didn't sit as like the overlord holding absolute power throughout Christianity. The Greek Patriarch ran oversaw the Greek Churches. The Syrian Patriarch oversaw Syria. Rome ran all of the western churches which was basically Europe. Alexandria ran all Africa which was only like northeast and the Horn.

Even today the Pope of Rome doesn't direct everything in the Church. The Archbishop really runs the show in his region. The Pope heads the college of Bishops.

So no its not that cut n' dry.

But the Pope in Rome does set overall theological policy within the worldwide Church, correct? And in the years past, wasn't Rome the arbiter of the many councils and synods that had occured within the Church?

Not usually unilaterally. It's actually kind of rare for a Pope to speak ex cathedra in that way. Most of our dogmatic definitions come from ecumenical councils. Synods are usually regional and handle regional matters.

Wait are you talking about policy as in like the prohibition of masonry and artificial contraception policy or something else?


 LH, I know you talked about the synods being regional, but I found this information from New Advent encyclepedia that might tend to show that Rome did have a role in dealing with, in this case, the African Church.

....These records show how the close relations between Africa and Rome were several times troubled during the course of five centuries. The baptismal controversy put the Church into a state of passive resistance to Rome. In the Synod of September, 256, St. Cyprian was placed in a painful dilemma. While maintaining the right of bishops to think for themselves, he still clung to the necessity of unity in the Church, and would not break the revered bond with Rome. Again, early in the fifth century, the appeal to Rome of Apiarius, a deposed priest, stirred up strong feeling among the African bishops, and appeals of priests and laics "over sea" (to Rome) were forbidden in the Synod of 418. Legates came from Rome to adjust the difference......

Wow!

Seems like an awful lot of politics to me.....ahm jus sayin  ::shrug::

Isn't that the way with just about all the church's on this earth? We are after all only human and no matter how much spirituality exists within us, the humaness always seems to comes out. I know I try to take the high spiritual road as I go through life, but my stubburn humanity always seems to seep through that goodness which God has placed inside me. It makes me mad, but I then redouble my efforts to do better.

Very little can compare to the amount of politics that exists within the Catholic Church, not only other denominations but some small nations are not as politically driven as the Church in Rome
Seriously  ::shrug::
 

Seriously? I think that church politics exists everywhere. The Anglican communion has had a bad time these past several years coming to grips with their conservative and liberal wing. There is always some group of Baptists that are always having a row over one thing or another. Jeepers, just go into any church committee and you will find it.  No, I respectfully beg to differ here, the RCC is not alone with this curse. We all have the same common denominator - humans interacting with other humans and in organizations, politics always seems to rear it's ugly head.
« Last Edit: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 19:42:52 by Ladonia »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #27 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 19:30:35 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column:  

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.

"Roman" Catholic was initially meant to distinguish between race and/or region. For example Maronite Catholics. Alexandrian Catholics etc.

If we were to use the title in its Early Church, I would be an African American Catholic. Nowadays the name has developed to mean those who are in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome.

Isn't that splitting hairs somewhat?

None of that changes the fact that the affairs of the church were directed from Rome as they are to this day

Right or wrong?

Not exactly. Until the Great Schism each region of Christianity was pretty much autonomous in the way it was governed. While the See of Rome was regarded as the senior among the other churches, practices and even canons of the Bible varied on different regions.

Rome didn't sit as like the overlord holding absolute power throughout Christianity. The Greek Patriarch ran oversaw the Greek Churches. The Syrian Patriarch oversaw Syria. Rome ran all of the western churches which was basically Europe. Alexandria ran all Africa which was only like northeast and the Horn.

Even today the Pope of Rome doesn't direct everything in the Church. The Archbishop really runs the show in his region. The Pope heads the college of Bishops.

So no its not that cut n' dry.

But the Pope in Rome does set overall theological policy within the worldwide Church, correct? And in the years past, wasn't Rome the arbiter of the many councils and synods that had occured within the Church?

Not usually unilaterally. It's actually kind of rare for a Pope to speak ex cathedra in that way. Most of our dogmatic definitions come from ecumenical councils. Synods are usually regional and handle regional matters.

Wait are you talking about policy as in like the prohibition of masonry and artificial contraception policy or something else?


 LH, I know you talked about the synods being regional, but I found this information from New Advent encyclepedia that might tend to show that Rome did have a role in dealing with, in this case, the African Church.

....These records show how the close relations between Africa and Rome were several times troubled during the course of five centuries. The baptismal controversy put the Church into a state of passive resistance to Rome. In the Synod of September, 256, St. Cyprian was placed in a painful dilemma. While maintaining the right of bishops to think for themselves, he still clung to the necessity of unity in the Church, and would not break the revered bond with Rome. Again, early in the fifth century, the appeal to Rome of Apiarius, a deposed priest, stirred up strong feeling among the African bishops, and appeals of priests and laics "over sea" (to Rome) were forbidden in the Synod of 418. Legates came from Rome to adjust the difference......

Wow!

Seems like an awful lot of politics to me.....ahm jus sayin  ::shrug::

Isn't that the way with just about all the church's on this earth? We are after all only human and no matter how much spirituality exists within us, the humaness always seems to comes out. I know I try to take the high spiritual road as I go through life, but my stubburn humanity always seems to seep through that goodness which God has placed inside me. It makes me mad, but I then redouble my efforts to do better.

Very little can compare to the amount of politics that exists within the Catholic Church, not only other denominations but some small nations are not as politically driven as the Church in Rome
Seriously  ::shrug::
 

Its in man's nature. What can I say. Comparing us to other denominations is like comparing a 60 year old to an 6 year old. Of course our sins are going to stack higher; we're ten times the age of a lot of these sects. Our merits also outweigh theirs as well. It comes with the years.

Offline gospel

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11884
  • Manna: 638
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #28 on: Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 23:25:36 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column:  

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.

"Roman" Catholic was initially meant to distinguish between race and/or region. For example Maronite Catholics. Alexandrian Catholics etc.

If we were to use the title in its Early Church, I would be an African American Catholic. Nowadays the name has developed to mean those who are in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome.

Isn't that splitting hairs somewhat?

None of that changes the fact that the affairs of the church were directed from Rome as they are to this day

Right or wrong?

Not exactly. Until the Great Schism each region of Christianity was pretty much autonomous in the way it was governed. While the See of Rome was regarded as the senior among the other churches, practices and even canons of the Bible varied on different regions.

Rome didn't sit as like the overlord holding absolute power throughout Christianity. The Greek Patriarch ran oversaw the Greek Churches. The Syrian Patriarch oversaw Syria. Rome ran all of the western churches which was basically Europe. Alexandria ran all Africa which was only like northeast and the Horn.

Even today the Pope of Rome doesn't direct everything in the Church. The Archbishop really runs the show in his region. The Pope heads the college of Bishops.

So no its not that cut n' dry.

But the Pope in Rome does set overall theological policy within the worldwide Church, correct? And in the years past, wasn't Rome the arbiter of the many councils and synods that had occured within the Church?

Not usually unilaterally. It's actually kind of rare for a Pope to speak ex cathedra in that way. Most of our dogmatic definitions come from ecumenical councils. Synods are usually regional and handle regional matters.

Wait are you talking about policy as in like the prohibition of masonry and artificial contraception policy or something else?


 LH, I know you talked about the synods being regional, but I found this information from New Advent encyclepedia that might tend to show that Rome did have a role in dealing with, in this case, the African Church.

....These records show how the close relations between Africa and Rome were several times troubled during the course of five centuries. The baptismal controversy put the Church into a state of passive resistance to Rome. In the Synod of September, 256, St. Cyprian was placed in a painful dilemma. While maintaining the right of bishops to think for themselves, he still clung to the necessity of unity in the Church, and would not break the revered bond with Rome. Again, early in the fifth century, the appeal to Rome of Apiarius, a deposed priest, stirred up strong feeling among the African bishops, and appeals of priests and laics "over sea" (to Rome) were forbidden in the Synod of 418. Legates came from Rome to adjust the difference......

Wow!

Seems like an awful lot of politics to me.....ahm jus sayin  ::shrug::

Isn't that the way with just about all the church's on this earth? We are after all only human and no matter how much spirituality exists within us, the humaness always seems to comes out. I know I try to take the high spiritual road as I go through life, but my stubburn humanity always seems to seep through that goodness which God has placed inside me. It makes me mad, but I then redouble my efforts to do better.

Very little can compare to the amount of politics that exists within the Catholic Church, not only other denominations but some small nations are not as politically driven as the Church in Rome
Seriously  ::shrug::
 

Its in man's nature. What can I say. Comparing us to other denominations is like comparing a 60 year old to an 6 year old. Of course our sins are going to stack higher; we're ten times the age of a lot of these sects. Our merits also outweigh theirs as well. It comes with the years.

The cliche' Can't teach an old dog... comes to mind, centuries of bad habits and centuries of man made tradition coupled with faithful adherents adamantly clinging, adhering, embracing religious tradition, in too many cases all too often elevating it above the Word, making doctrine more of a priority than Scripture.

IMHO

As a non denominational charismatic I must say there is nothing anywhere near comparable as the control and central government of the Catholic Church.
Basically
We believe that Liberty is the direction the entire Body of Christ is heading and must head for the Unity of the Church to ever be achieved wherein all believers are solely relying on the Holy Spirit who alone is the leader of the church and the only Person who can unite the Body of Christ

But I will say I admire the steadfast stance on Pro Life, no question about it hands down the Catholic Church is staunch unwavering advocate in that respect
 

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #29 on: Sat Nov 12, 2011 - 08:56:33 »

One Holy Universal Church! I agree. So then you must also believe in the Early Church Fathers, those men of God who led the One Universal Church right after the Apostles,  who formulated much of the Christian doctrine that we believe in today?

Please note the following quote from my column:  

   "The early believers were called Christians, saints, believers, brothers, disciples, servants, and fellow workers. It is interesting that none of them were called Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christers, Mormons, Pentecostals, or any of the other partisan names in the rainbow of partisan colors."

   As you are apparently a member of one of the above churches, please be advised. Thanks

Buff




Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.

"Roman" Catholic was initially meant to distinguish between race and/or region. For example Maronite Catholics. Alexandrian Catholics etc.

If we were to use the title in its Early Church, I would be an African American Catholic. Nowadays the name has developed to mean those who are in communion with the Patriarchate of Rome.

Isn't that splitting hairs somewhat?

None of that changes the fact that the affairs of the church were directed from Rome as they are to this day

Right or wrong?

Not exactly. Until the Great Schism each region of Christianity was pretty much autonomous in the way it was governed. While the See of Rome was regarded as the senior among the other churches, practices and even canons of the Bible varied on different regions.

Rome didn't sit as like the overlord holding absolute power throughout Christianity. The Greek Patriarch ran oversaw the Greek Churches. The Syrian Patriarch oversaw Syria. Rome ran all of the western churches which was basically Europe. Alexandria ran all Africa which was only like northeast and the Horn.

Even today the Pope of Rome doesn't direct everything in the Church. The Archbishop really runs the show in his region. The Pope heads the college of Bishops.

So no its not that cut n' dry.

But the Pope in Rome does set overall theological policy within the worldwide Church, correct? And in the years past, wasn't Rome the arbiter of the many councils and synods that had occured within the Church?

Not usually unilaterally. It's actually kind of rare for a Pope to speak ex cathedra in that way. Most of our dogmatic definitions come from ecumenical councils. Synods are usually regional and handle regional matters.

Wait are you talking about policy as in like the prohibition of masonry and artificial contraception policy or something else?


 LH, I know you talked about the synods being regional, but I found this information from New Advent encyclepedia that might tend to show that Rome did have a role in dealing with, in this case, the African Church.

....These records show how the close relations between Africa and Rome were several times troubled during the course of five centuries. The baptismal controversy put the Church into a state of passive resistance to Rome. In the Synod of September, 256, St. Cyprian was placed in a painful dilemma. While maintaining the right of bishops to think for themselves, he still clung to the necessity of unity in the Church, and would not break the revered bond with Rome. Again, early in the fifth century, the appeal to Rome of Apiarius, a deposed priest, stirred up strong feeling among the African bishops, and appeals of priests and laics "over sea" (to Rome) were forbidden in the Synod of 418. Legates came from Rome to adjust the difference......

Wow!

Seems like an awful lot of politics to me.....ahm jus sayin  ::shrug::

Isn't that the way with just about all the church's on this earth? We are after all only human and no matter how much spirituality exists within us, the humaness always seems to comes out. I know I try to take the high spiritual road as I go through life, but my stubburn humanity always seems to seep through that goodness which God has placed inside me. It makes me mad, but I then redouble my efforts to do better.

Very little can compare to the amount of politics that exists within the Catholic Church, not only other denominations but some small nations are not as politically driven as the Church in Rome
Seriously  ::shrug::
 

Its in man's nature. What can I say. Comparing us to other denominations is like comparing a 60 year old to an 6 year old. Of course our sins are going to stack higher; we're ten times the age of a lot of these sects. Our merits also outweigh theirs as well. It comes with the years.

The cliche' Can't teach an old dog... comes to mind, centuries of bad habits and centuries of man made tradition coupled with faithful adherents adamantly clinging, adhering, embracing religious tradition, in too many cases all too often elevating it above the Word, making doctrine more of a priority than Scripture.

IMHO

As a non denominational charismatic I must say there is nothing anywhere near comparable as the control and central government of the Catholic Church.
Basically
We believe that Liberty is the direction the entire Body of Christ is heading and must head for the Unity of the Church to ever be achieved wherein all believers are solely relying on the Holy Spirit who alone is the leader of the church and the only Person who can unite the Body of Christ

But I will say I admire the steadfast stance on Pro Life, no question about it hands down the Catholic Church is staunch unwavering advocate in that respect
 

I respect your viewpoint entirely and the way you worship as a charismatic Christian. I myself have already found this liberty and the essence of the Holy Spirit within the Catholic Church. For me , it's the stucture of worship that I really like, the graces which we receive through the sacramental life, especially our communion with the Lord as we receive Him in the Holy Eucharist.

As I read these boards it's quite clear that as Christians we really do have the same basic beliefs. In many instances we Catholics just have a special word for whatever it may be. For example, we use the word "Catechesis", but it just means "the teaching of" the Word. Yes, we need the Holy Spirit to bring us together, as Satan has done his job throughout the centuries to divide us.

I believe that at the end of our days when we pass on to Gods presence, we do not see a Catholic, a Protestant, an Evangelical or a Charismatic, but only a fellow soul who has tried his or her best to live up to that perfection that was manifested in Christ. As we stand before the Creator, we all have Him as our advocate, with our sins washed clean through the Cross.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #30 on: Sat Nov 12, 2011 - 09:51:35 »


You do also realize that your Reformation Fathers disagreed on major tenets of Christian faith? The only thing they had in common was their hatred for my Church which they didn't really condemn until after we kicked them out.




I disagree....


While I've not extensively read all the works of Luther or Calvin (neither have any relevance to anything except 16th century history), what I have read does not convince me that they disagreed on EVERYTHING, and that they ONLY thing they mutually believed what that the RCC Denomination is to be "hated" (in fact, I don't recall EITHER of them ever using that word AT ALL).


Yes, the various men that the RC Denomination now calls "Our Denomination's Fathers" didn't all agree with each other on every point.   Just as Lutheran Church Fathers did not, Reformed Church Fathers did not, etc.  Do you have as point?


In my Catholic days, I was told that the RC Denomination's "Fathers" were just humans and in no sense infallible or inerrant - and that they could (and at times did) teach wrong and horrible things.   The RC Denomination designates itself exclusively as the one that is exempt from accountability and the possibility of error (in doctrine anyway), thus, the RC Denomination holds that these men are right WHEN they agree with the RC Denomination.  My experience says that the RC Denomination chooses men that in the opinion  of itself can be interpreted as at times agreeing with itself (thus, being correct).  Then it itself alone appoints it itself alone to not only appoint who are the "Fathers" of itself, but then which snippets from their writings can be seen as agreeing with itself.   But to leave nothing open to discussion on that, the RC Denomination appoints  itself alone not only as the exclusive one to decided who is and is not a "Father" of itself, and what snippets it thinks agree with itself, but also designates itself as the sole interpreter of those snippets that it itself chose from the writers it itself chose (CCC 85, etc).

It's a very closed, circular, self-authenticating system  - perfect since self exempts self from any accountability in it (all required by it to just docilicly embrace whatever it itself alone says, CCC 87, etc.). 





.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #31 on: Sat Nov 12, 2011 - 10:14:49 »


Yea no idea what you're talking about.

My opposition towards Martin Luther is based on the simple fact that he's a heretic.


Of course, the RC Denomination simply proclaims that whatever SELF says is the definition of Truth - ergo, if any view is different that what self believes, that one is automatically, by definition, wrong.   

Embracing that rubric, as you do and MUST to be a Catholic, yes - Luther was wrong.   Of course, if others were egotistical enough to do the same, if they also needed to replace the issue of truth with that of the power of self, then we'd all just be locked into positions with no idea (or concern) if any one was correct, locked into division, and potentially locked into error.   He who declares SELF can't be wrong cannot be corrected. 




Quote
He had a completely false definition of "Faith" and altered the Book of St. James to support such and that was only after he didn't have the means to effectively remove the Book of St. James from Sacred Scripture altogether.


1.  See the above.


2.  He had the biblical definition of faith.  MY experience is that Catholics who declare it wrong simply don't know what it was, but again, if truth is declared irrelevant, replaced by the unmitigated, unaccountable, authoritarian POWER that self alone declares that self alone has, if self declares that self alone can't be wrong and thus can't be taught, then the issue of what Luther ACTUALLY taught is irrelevant, isn't it?   


3.  You are showing your ignorance of  history.  In Luther's day, the canon was not regarded as dogmatically "set."  In any case, you don't seem to know that Luther INCLUDED James in his translation, INCLUDED it in the lectionary, and taught that it IS Scripture.  You probably also don't know that he included the RCC's own unique set of DEUTERO books - before your Denomination officially embraced them.  The reality is:  Lutherans have NEVER officially declared what books are NOT Scripture - we embrace 66 books since they are ECUMENICALLY and historically embraced, and while our Confessions purposely say NOTHING about this topic at all (this is a topic for an Ecumenical Council - and there hasn't been one since the 8th Century), some Lutheran denominations say they embrace those 66 Books as Scripture (as a denomination!) BUT none...NONE.... to my knowledge says "These books are NOT Scripture."  The same is true in all the Protestant denominations known to me. 

Your statements here are not only incorrect but misleading.




Quote
He created his own canon of "disputed" books of the Bible.

No.

The ONLY ones known to me that have done what you rebuke are the RCC and LDS.  Both  have a canon that NONE but SELF agrees with.

Luther NEVER "created" or even embraced a canon - unique or otherwise.  The Lutheran Confessions PURPOSELY don't declare what is and is not Scripture AT ALL. 

As you often do, you are attempting to point one figure at others (entirely falsely in most cases) while pointing 3 back at yourself (powerfully correct). 





Quote
I'm just not some slave to influence.

Me neither.  It's why I left your denomination.

Read your Catechism # 87.   To be a Catholic, you MUST be a slave to influence, exclusively of the Denomination that so demands it of you.


 


Quote
Martin Luther was no more someone to be idolized that the corrupt clergy of my past.

Bingo.

Compare that to CCC #85 and 87.   Compare it to "The Handbook of The Catholic Faith" page 151,  "When someone asks for the substantiation for the Catholic believe, the correct answer is: 'The authoritative teachings of The Catholic Church.'  This consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in communion with the Catholic Pope.  The Catholic is thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet certainty that what The Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus since Christ himself said, 'Whoever hears you hears me'." 

As for idolizing, when self essentially equates self with God, when self alone declares that self alone is essentially the Body of Christ, when self alone declares that self alone is the vicar of God, is that "idolizing?" 





Quote
The divisions we gather under are matters of orthodoxy not necessarily membership in the Body of Christ.

.... the Protestant position.

Sure, there are a lot of CHRISTIANS (parts of the church) that associate in congregations that are affiliated with a denomination - The Catholic Church.  Nothin' wrong with that.   But those congregations and that denomination have NOTHING to do with the church, the church that is one, holy, catholic, communion of saints (as Protestants refer to it). 

 




.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #32 on: Sat Nov 12, 2011 - 10:22:52 »


Food for thought. There Early Church was called Catholic since the 2nd century and that's just what is documented.


No.

Beginning in the second century, a couple of Christians were applying two common ADJECTIVES to the corpus of BELIEVERS:  "catholic" and "orthodox."

Using an adjective is not the same as using the proper, legal name of an institutional entity.   Let's say I tell you that my OLD, 4 cyl. Toyota Camry is "awesome."  Then, 300 years from now, Toyota comes with with a 1000 horsepower sports car named "Awesome."   Wouldn't it be.... purposely misleading anyway.... for someone to insist, "Hey, Josiah owned an Awesome back in 2011!"  It's good to know the difference between adjectives and proper nouns, good to employ proper grammar (it's a grammatical mistake to capitalize adjectives).  If you desire to insist that those FEW men that used the words "catholic" and "orthodox" in the second century were not referring to believers but to two denominations - The Catholic Church and The Orthodox Church - then I think the burden of proof is on you.  We know those words were very popular adjectives at the time (and what they meant), if you are going to dogmatically insist actually by 100 they referred to the proper names of two denominations, you need to prove that.  No Catholic has, to my knowledge.  Instead, the just employ a grammatical mistake, wrongly capitalize the adjective, and HOPE the reader will be mislead.  Does this ploy work?  Yes.  Yes, it does.   Sad, isn't it?

There are at least two denominations with the legal moniker of "The Christian Church."  Using your logic, we should go back and find the earliest appearance of the word "Christian"and THAT would indicate that said denomination existed then.  I find your rubric..... silly.






.
« Last Edit: Sat Nov 12, 2011 - 10:38:13 by Josiah »

Online yogi bear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11603
  • Manna: 736
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #33 on: Sat Nov 12, 2011 - 11:12:35 »
Lighthammer,

I can not help but notice that you refer to  your church. Over and over I see this. That is quite strange to me cause I thought that Jesus  Church is the one that matters. I am a member of Christ Church which he died for. That begs the question did you die for your church? Also just how does one become a member of your church, and are you the head of your church?

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Re: CHURCHES
« Reply #34 on: Sat Nov 12, 2011 - 12:12:57 »
Lighthammer,

I can not help but notice that you refer to  your church. Over and over I see this. That is quite strange to me cause I thought that Jesus  Church is the one that matters. I am a member of Christ Church which he died for. That begs the question did you die for your church? Also just how does one become a member of your church, and are you the head of your church?

One can use the words "Catholic Church" or "Universal Church" or "Universal Jesus Christ". When we say church in the spiritual sense it is the same as saying Jesus Christ. Christ is in and of the Church, the two cannot be seperated. Now of course there is also the physical church with buildings and places to worship. That is where we go to gather to worship, as I'm sure you go to a building somewhere to worship.

How does one become a member of the spiritual Church? Are you bapized with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Then you are in. Who is the head of the Church? Probably the same one as yours, Jesus Christ.

Who is the head of our physical Church here on earth? That would be our Bishop, also known as Pope Bennedict XVI. Just as the Eastern Orthodox have their "Metropolitans"  or even their own Popes. You I guess also have your own Bishops or Pastors to run the temporal things on earth. Bills have to be paid and checks have to be signed, right?